During their first meeting of 2023, at least three members complained that citizens are trying to get them to re-write the charter as a new form of government.
To revise something is to re-examine and make alterations to (written or printed matter). THE WORD IS IN THE TITLE OF THE BOARD!
The example they use, which I believe was a past proposal by Joe Kirby, was when Joe suggested we remove the mayor from the city council.
That is called a revision not an entire new form of government. In fact it is probably a couple sentence change in the charter under the mayor’s duties. IT IS NOT A TOTAL REWRITE and a gross mischaracterization of the process.
• Members take proposals
• They discuss and debate the proposal
• They vote to place the proposal on the ballot for the next city election
• Voters decide on election day and if it gets over 50% approval it becomes city law
Member Anne Hajek, who was appointed chair for the next four years, said she didn’t want the CRC members to become ‘dictators’.
As I have pointed out to the CRC several times you are NOT rewriting or even revising anything. They take proposals from the public, the council and the administration and vote to place those proposals on the ballot for the CITIZENS to decide. Ironically Hajek said during her rant that the citizens should make the decision to remove the mayor from the council.
THEY WOULD if you would only allow us.
The CRC does NOT have the authority to re-write or re-vise anything, all they do is consent to a ballot question, and as long as the revision is legal and reasonable and most importantly needed to improve the lives of Sioux Falls citizens it is left up to the voters to make that decision on election day.
There seems to be this mentality lately, especially from prominent Sioux Falls and South Dakota Republicans, that revisions to the law by citizens is somehow some kind of dangerous act and we should be more diligent about what we allow on the ballot.
Hogwash!
Removing the mayor as a councilor is NOT a groundbreaking change and would actually give more power to the city council to take action.
This is really about the conflicts of interest many of the members have with deep connections to the rich and powerful in Sioux Falls. This concerns me more then removing mayor ‘grunty‘ from the Council dais.
YOU DON’T RE-WRITE ANYTHING, you are only there to provide advice and consent.
I would have to disagree with Hajek, you are acting exactly like a DICTATOR when you don’t allow reasonable proposals to be voted on by the public.
You really have two concepts floating around, one is the one being proposed by Joe Kirby, and the other is the one being proposed by, well, myself, Mike Zitterich.
The way I am interpreting Mr. Kirby’s plan, it would be a substantial change to the Charter since he is in fact proposing removing the Mayor from the Council, while also stripping the Mayor’s Office from administrative duties, while putting into the Charter a “City Manager” of whom now will administrate and manage the City Government itself.
I believe, what the “Commission” is saying, and I do agree with them, is they do not want to act as a body that proposes, or chooses to subtantially change the style of government. They wish to maintain a neutral position.
By Mr Kriby placing a City Manager into City Hall/Administration Building, you are effectively removing the mayor from that role, he therefore becomes nothing more than a figure head. You would be effectively placing a ‘safety barrier” in between the Government and the Mayor/City Council, a “New Form of Government”.
The other proposal floating out there is a simple minor “composition change” giving more authority to the Redistrsicting Commission to add, or remove districts, while allowing the people to every 10 years make adjustments to the council make up where necessary, related to population.
Under my concept, under an Odd NUmbered Body, you effectively accomplish the same thing WITHOUT removing the Mayor from the Council, while the Mayor maintains his administrative duties.
I believe, in a positive manner, ‘we’ can create a dialogue on the make up of the city council over the next 4-6 years
– Mike Zitterich
It’s not Strong Mayor Charter without a strong mayor dictator. The present charter is an unconstitutional system for giving a few authoritarian barons control of a half billion annual budget. It makes mayors millionaires if they sing with the choir. It keeps a prosperous city indebted from disoriented ridiculous developer insanity. The CRC is confusion to preserve the skim for the white collar crime syndicate.
‘The way I am interpreting Mr. Kirby’s plan, it would be a substantial change to the Charter since he is in fact proposing removing the Mayor from the Council, while also stripping the Mayor’s Office from administrative duties’
No it wouldn’t. They are taking away his ability to grunt at people at the meeting and breaking ties. It would affect about 1-2 agenda items a year. It’s not a heavy lift.
You realize charters have been a part of our governing process since, well 1500. The colonies were founded at the mercy of the Monarchy granting to colonists Crown Charters, while in 5 of the Colonies, they were propriety charters held by the colonists themselves controlling their own territories. You realize, that much of the land held inside S.D were all granted to Americans thanks to the 1841 and 1862 Homestead Acts, of which when we created the State of South Dakota, the constitution we adoped allowed these “Landowners” to adopt a Charter, thus giving them dominion over their “territory”.
Under the current form of government, the MAYOR has Administration Power, the City Council has Invetigative Power. By changing the charter, removing the Mayor’s Office from the council, let alone, creating a City Manager, you are by definitions held in the Constitution, your “Changing” the form of local govt installing a City Manager (an appointed) position in charge of Administration…
I do not believe ‘we’ need to drastically change our local govt that much, nor is it necessary.
With casual research it’s evident Home Charter is foolishness the state and courts don’t want to deal with. It’s rules from a few voters accepted without clarification. Enforcement doesn’t happen. It’s an undefined concept called judicial review that lacks due process. Some matters might get into court but only when state or federal law applies. Home Rule has become nationally popular ghost government. The only real qualification is it must be incorporated with a population of 3,000 or more.
Some of us (me included) know we must live in a neighboring rural area or small town with a real mayor but without a clown council.
Cleveland OH is Home Rule. Plastic bags are outlawed. When you walk your dog you must carry the poop home in your hand. Nobody complies. Judicial review there is like the Cloud. It’s there but where?
Taking a position that you do not want to be a part of a “substantial” change means in and of itself that you are no longer neutral.
Mike, you are starting to sound like Hajek. Hiring a city manager and eliminating the mayor from the council are two separate things. I would agree that changing to a city manager form of government would take a petition drive and not in the purview of the CRC. Telling the mayor he can’t grunt at the meetings anymore is just a tweak that this body can handle, but as VSG points out, they struggle with being neutral.
I will say though that Zylstra has been a wonderful member of the body. I don’t know him and have only interacted with him at the meetings but you can tell he is striving for transparency and openness and I commend him for that.
Scott,
May I suggest, and I mean this sincerely, I do like the charter form of government, cause it gives “WE” the people authority over our Homestead, and Sioux Falls is a collection of many homesteads that came together. The Landowners and property holders have authority.
I suggest, when you propose your changes to the Commission, you phrase it in such manner, that they simply suggest to the City Council to place on the 2024 Ballot the following question:
“Vote Yes or No if you wish to direct the City Council to adopt rules to create a Delegation of Delegates and Committee Persons to meet in a Convention, adopting a Time, Place, and Manner of which to discuss amending the form of government.
The revision commission has no authority to change our form of government.
Mike, now you are coming around. That’s what I have been saying, but they do have the AUTHORITY to move a proposal to the ballot so voters can approve or deny. The CRC has NEVER changed anything on the charter, they have simply gave advice and consent to proposals that are suitable for the ballot. I think they over thinking their duties.
The CRC is nothing more than a place to vent ideas to correct or modify the charter. It’s used as a way citizens are able to bring ideas for initiatives to the state government for the people to vote. The CRC then can take the ideas and form the language for the ballot for the people to vote on.
The CRC is not supposed to be the place to kill ideas, it is intended to be a place for a healthy debate of ideas. If the CRC continues the idea their job is to destroy ideas, when the people rise up to completely change the charter or as some towns have done, get rid of it all together.
By shutting down ideas for healthy change and working to kill the spirit of the people, the CRC is proving there is no need for them in the process.
The CRC is not a group of wise elders whose job is to control the young and make all the decisions. Their job is to be the place of healthy discussion and assist in writing the language for the ballot. Under Huether and 1.5Haken the CRC has become a tool to fulfill the exact terms of the charter without doing what the spirit of the charter requires.
i’d like to report a Odd NUmbered Body
They do not shut down your ideas, it is their interperation, that they are relaying back to the proposer to discuss specific changes in a different forum. They report to the City Council what was discussed, and that allows the City Council to take the lead on the topic(s), let alone recommend to the citizens which way to move forward.
It is one thing to discuss “changes” to our government structure in the C.R.C – but you simply do NOT throw those changes in front of the voters in a heart beat.
You want that discussion to move forward in a entirely separate forum – this is why we hold further committees, commissions, and conventions in a “Republic:.
So, the true proposed question to the C.R.C if the people really wish to change their ‘government” remove the mayor from the council, then implant a City Manager in charge of the City Government, the real requestion before the “voters” should be:
Should the City Council Promulgate Rules for Holding a Public Discussion to host a Convention of Delegates and Precinct Committeemen and Women, by establishing Time, Place, and Manner of discussing future substantial Changes to City Government, Yes or No?
You would want this ‘public discourse to go on for at least 1 year, to gather all the facts, evidence, and reasons for changing the ‘form of government’ before any such concept goes before the “voters” directly..
Keep in mind, I do not support removing the Mayor from the City Council, and I am not interested in creating a City Manager type, appointed position.
“Our” form of Strong Mayor, Strong City Council form of govenrment works just fine, sure it can be slightly tweaked to maintain a well, balanced, free government, however, the MAYOR needs to be on the City Council, giving to the people the ability to speak before the Mayor, and we “Elect” the Mayor at-large to Administrate, and watch over the City Beaucracy of Departments, Offices, Agencies, Corporate Partners, Landowners, Residents, while the City Council has Investigative Powers over the same “Beaucracy”.
Under my concept of an “Odd Numbered City Council” the peope would have the tie breaking votes at all times, while the Mayor maintains his seat on the council, he has VETO power to form his own opinions, assessments, recommendations, over such policies..
IF we remove the “Cap” on the # of Disricts, by removing the 5 District Mandate, the Districting Commission every ten years, it opens the door to holding public discussion on adding or removing “districts” and changing the composition of the council as population changes.
THank You,
Mike Zitterich
I still say Sioux Falls should be run by some sort of five member board that is run like the U.N. Security Council, with Pettigrew Heights and Taupeville having permanent seats. The other three could be up for grabs via elections.
It would be fun to watch Sierra pound the table with a shoe, but would it be a luggage tan leather shoe with white soles, however? Probably not.