UPDATE IV: Will the State of the City have to be postponed?

UPDATE IV: So I asked Councilor Starr who attended the meeting. He told me it was him, Barranco and Soehl. He also said Selberg had to leave because of it as the city attorney was monitoring the attendance of the councilors at the front door (oh, they know they f’d up royally on this one.)

So the illegally serving councilor Selberg had to leave the illegally posted meeting. Oh the irony. Selberg is not out of the woods yet. If he had one ounce of sense left he would have resigned already and fessed up and taken his punishment.

UPDATE III: I find it funny the mayor livestreamed this on Facebook, but not on YouTube (posted later) or on the City’s Platform. Even the grainy YT video makes you wonder if Poops had some friend film it on a Handycam? I think they know this was a big bad NO, NO.

UPDATE II: The mayor is blaming a ‘clerical error’. Uh, WTF?!

According to multiple city councilors who spoke with The Dakota Scout Thursday evening, the Sioux Falls City Clerk’s Office met the statutorily required 24-hour notice for what was considered a public meeting of the City Council — officially publishing the meeting in the municipal calendar and posting it on the doors of Carnegie Town Hall. 

TenHaken’s sixth State of the City, however, isn’t being held there, and instead, for the second consecutive year, will take place at the Sioux Falls Convention Center, a location that was not listed on the meeting’s agenda. 

As a result, the State of the City won’t be an official public meeting, a technical detail that means a majority of the City Council cannot legally attend.

It may be a ‘clerical error’ but since this is a public policy meeting required by charter to be presented to council each year, that makes it an official meeting, and whether that meeting is on the Moon and NO councilors attend, it is still a public meeting that must be noticed properly. This isn’t about the council’s availability it is about the public’s and the public was misled, this is another reason it is an open meetings violation.

The Charter Lays it out quite plainly;

Section 3.03 Mayor’s duties and responsibility.

The mayor shall, at the beginning of each calendar year, and may at other times give the council information as to the affairs of the city and recommend measures considered necessary and desirable. The mayor shall preside at meetings of the council, represent the city in intergovernmental relationships, appoint with the advice and consent of the council the members of the citizen advisory boards and commissions, present an annual state of the city message, and perform other duties specified by the council and by article III. The mayor shall be recognized as head of the city government for all ceremonial purposes and by the governor for purposes of military law.

So who wants to join me in running the gauntlet of where we file a complaint. State’s Attorney? He runs away. AG Jackboots? He’ll tell you to talk to the state auditor who will ultimately send you back to the State’s Attorney who will put you in the circle of BS once again.

I have maintained for a long time the city needs a public information officer (the SFPD have one, but he doesn’t say much) who handles this stuff, and I would put them under the direct management of the city council. This is becoming ridiculous. It really comes down to an elected official who snubs his nose at frivolous rules and all his buddies in county and state government gladly oblige. South Dakota is slowly becoming a criminal enterprise, ironically called the Dutch Mafia.

———————————–

UPDATE: I guess only 3 councilors will be attending the event tomorrow because they didn’t want quorum with a possible open meetings violation.

WHY CAN’T THE CITY FIGURE OUT HOW TO PROPERLY POST A MEETING? Maybe they will have a group meeting to discuss it, but will probably post the meeting wrong also. Like I said below, I don’t believe this was done intentionally by our City Clerk, but there is certainly a communication issue.

I have been working on some stuff with the City Clerk that I hope to tell you about in May, but during that process the City Clerk was able to get some stuff back under his control after I informed him it was his DUTY to keep these records. I think he is doing a good job, and it is unfortunate that they seem to be pressing forward with an illegal meeting.

Looks like the state of the city may be off right after the mayor announces that we’re buying a $9 million dollar fitness center (more to come later on that). He fails to understand that they did not properly notice the meeting for tomorrow’s state of the city as you can see on the main site they did say it’s at the convention center but if you look at the agenda it has been corrected to say CC, but that was changed sometime between now and 11:42.

I took this screenshot, as you can see it still said Carnegie. They have since changed it, but it was not properly noticed, and not amended or revised;

The official agenda page is what counts and since it wasn’t 24 hours properly noticed the state of the city cannot legally go forward tomorrow and on top of it, it looks like they tried to fix it on the fly. Not good.

I don’t think this was intentional, but it is still illegal. I blame the communication between the clerks office, the council and the administration. They aren’t talking. How can you have one thing on the main page and something different on the OFFICIAL agenda page?

We will see how this gets spun.