February 2024

Sioux Falls School Board candidate Amends campaign finance form without saying it was amended

As you can see, Tibbetts turned in her conflict of interest form without filling out where she receives her income. You don’t have to list the AMOUNT just where it comes from, and if it is anything over $2,000 a year. I would guess being a commercial realtor, sitting on the Sanford Foundation board and her husband being employed by a large bank here in town the list is probably long, but you can add an attachment.

The school district was made aware of the mistake by a reporter and allowed Bobbie to fix the document.

Did you see what I saw? Bobbie was handed the original document to fill out, I know, because the date, the signature and all the handwriting from the original document are the same in the other fields. (I also saved the original PDF document, so I have evidence it was changed).

This actually may be perjury because if you amend a document you must submit a whole new document, you can’t just add to document you already turned in, and you certainly can’t keep the original date. Also, the printed form itself is incorrect because it lists Bev Chase as the contact with the school district, she has been retired for awhile now.

So is this on the School District officials or the Candidate? I think both. Both should know better.

I find it interesting that she didn’t initially fill this out, I also find it interesting that she is the only school board candidate to skip that part of the form. So why didn’t the election rep from the school district inform her that it must be filled out when she turned it in?

When you run for public office, you officially become a public figure and must disclose your livelihood with possible voters. It’s that whole openness in government thingy.

You could chalk it up to a beginner’s mistake, and I am sure that will be the excuse hurled, but what worries me more is that a government election official is not catching these errors and correcting them immediately, or not correcting them the right way.

And then there is the Auditor’s office . . . as a reporter said to me this morning, April 9th is going to be an interesting day.

*Also if you look at her chair of her campaign it is obvious she is a PTH recruit, I guess apparently now he must noodle around in school district politics.

Is Harrisburg & sioux falls in the middle of a nasty land dispute?

I guess the City of Harrisburg believes they have growth area rights to the Hwy 106 boundary and have appealed it at UDC meetings, getting denied. The City of Sioux Falls believes that the disputed area was agreed upon 10-20 years ago and that city taxpayers have invested millions to hook up to that growth area with public utilities.

Harrisburg may be seeing this as a tax valuation growth area.

But what makes this story so bizarre is that this fight has been going on for months with little to no knowledge by the public or the media, and the relationship between the two cities is ‘strained’ according to my source with the City of Sioux Falls.

Well, you know my feelings on open government, solutions to issues are NOT solved behind closed doors, and if this was out in the open, it could be resolved by now, instead we have to play petty games behind closed doors so the public doesn’t realize how much we really despise each other 🙂

I wouldn’t know who’s side to take on the issue, but I think if they had public meetings on it, they may come to an amicable solution, or better yet, just split the difference.

I will be getting more information this weekend and will update.

Osborn Assessing Fairness of Democratic Party’s Appeal Process

February 26, 2024
For Immediate Release

Sheldon Osborn, Region 3 Representative to the Executive Board of the South Dakota Democratic Party (SDDP), recently recalled, appealed his recall on February 3rd to Shane Merrill, new Chair of the SDDP following Chair Jennifer Slaight-Hansen’s September recall and unsuccessful appeal. Osborn’s appeal was originally set for a closed Hearing on February 22nd but his Appeal Committee changed its rules slightly, allowing Osborn to be represented by counsel at its still closed Hearing, reset to
February 29th.


In an email to Shane Merrill this morning, Mr.Osborn stated , “I am still mulling the proposed Appeal Hearing and assessing its fairness. I will make a decision as to my participation by Wednesday, 4:30 PM and let you know then.”


Osborn continued, “I write to you as I am proscribed from communicating directly with the Appeals Committee, although, as I understand it, others can, including those who pushed my recall. Could you please ask the Committee if they would be willing to provide me with any information they will use at the hearing that I haven’t provided them and a list of whom they have talked to outside of myself to gain perspective. I would appreciate having the opportunity to respond to whatever input they have or will acquire, for, without knowing, I will not have sufficient time within the 15 minutes they allotted me
to properly defend myself. I would also like the opportunity to rebut any information they may collect after the hearing which they will use in making their decision.”

“I wish the Committee and you could spend time in more productive pursuits given theamount of work the SDDP has to right its ship and make itself more relevant in SouthDakota, namely, recruit competitive candidates, rejuvenate local Democratic Parties especially in rural South Dakota, and construct an overriding message that stops the continuing decline in voters willing to register as Democrats.”

“Tolerance and informal communication provide a much better way to grow the Democratic Party than formal hearings such as this. Recalls and Appeal Hearings quickly become counterproductive and make Enemies out of Friends.”

“As for myself, I stand ready to help you as you work to rebuild the SDDP.”

“Sincerely, Sheldon Osborn