Before I get into how I think the vote will go, there was a major announcement today on Ellis’ blog;
Bob Barclay teaches social sciences at USF. He says he will detail five concerns that he has with the $115 million proposal, which goes to a vote on Nov. 8. Barclay’s group will be called The Citizens’ Network Against the Events Center.
Barclay plans to file paperwork with the city tomorrow, registering as a formal campaign committee.
Barclay is holding a press conference on Wednesday at 10 a.m. in Room A of the Main Library in downtown.
It’s about time an opposition group has reared their head, and I am glad to see it is someone who knows what they are talking about. Listen closely. I plan to attend the press conference, I have some questions of my own.
One that has recently came up is the legality of the mayor promoting the Events Center;
Mayor Mike Huether’s presentation Monday advocating for an events center to a group of business leaders might have violated state law, some people who attended the event said.
I will defend the mayor on one aspect of this issue, it is totally legal for an elected official to advocate a ballot issue, HOWEVER, I don’t think it is legal to use public funds to distribute materials ADVOCATING the EC. Someone needs to look into this and give a legal opinion before the vote.
Now to prediction time. Ellis wrote an informative article on Sunday about past elections;
Consider the past three general elections: In 2004, there were almost 60,000 votes, and in 2008 there were more than 70,000. The 2006 general election saw nearly 55,000 votes in Sioux Falls.
Now consider the turnouts of two special elections. The 2005 rec center vote drew fewer than 18,000 voters. The 2007 indoor pool vote generated about 12,500 votes. Both the rec center and pool lost by two-to-one margins.
I think this special election is different. The EC is a topic that has been talked about too death, people are aware. This is also a gigantic expenditure for the city. I predict that there will be at least a 20% turnout. But I also think it will be a tight vote. Polls are weird, and we can talk about the usefulness of them forever, but if you take the two recent polls, and factor in margin of error, you will find that it puts the EC vote in a dead heat, 50/50.
I couldn’t predict this one today either way if my life depended on it. Maybe I will rear my unscientific head on November 7 and let you know what I think then. Right now, I have vodka martinis on my mind.
The three unions are in negotiations with the city. A little birdie told me the Huether doesn’t want to go with a three year contract with any of the bargaining units because of his fears of what the economic conditions will be in the future. Then he comes out and advocates for the events center with no concern at all about the future. Seems like another example of him saying one thing if it is in his benifit and another if it is in his benifit. Moral of the the story, He will tell you what you want as long as it fits in his agenda. And if you haven’t noticed, he has tons of agendas. Legal or not, he is the teflon man, nothing will stick to him. So he thinks………….
I think the online KSFY poll is going to be fairly accurate indicator. Last time I looked, it was 56% no, 44% yes.
Just learned from a good friend of mine who is deaf that Huether is having a gathering at old Communication Service for the Deaf building just off West 41st Street sometime in 2 weeks for deaf people.
Here’s the kicker… The same friend said “Why bother?”. I asked him why, he said the turnout at the gathering probably will be just 20, 30 tops and most of them don’t vote, let alone even registered.
It did got me sitting back and think for a good minute or two (which does not happen very often). I do dislike Huether but nice of him to include diversity of people, yet I cannot shake the fishy feelings about him, especially his agendas.
A penny for your thoughts?
From day one, Huether’s community “talks” have been more for the press coverage than any actual meet and greets. Look at the footage from those weekly restaurant gatherings last year – always held on a slow news day to guarantee coverage, and a large percentage of the “crowd” were always the same city employees and seat fillers. It’s the same with the EC information meetings – every one is guaranteed to get a couple of minutes of TV coverage and an Argus story. It doesn’t matter who shows up – it’s just a free 2 minute later that night or next morning.
Dork – There is some stickage currently going on (Owen Fiasco is one recent example). Many insiders have seen it at work, but now the public is getting to see some of Mikes tactics first hand.
As for Barclay and the opposition group – YAY! Although I dont think the vote will come down to the wire. I think sentiment currently is NO. The daily decline of the markets alone is enough to scare most folks. We just cant afford this beast right now
I’m starting to lean, NO, more and more each day. Like I said, I will do my final prediction the day before the vote. There are some factors to take into consideration.
1) Will Huether present private donors and sponsors before the vote?
2) Will Huether debate Barclay in an open forum? Will Barclay’s opposition group be a strong one?
Barclay is on record saying that he thinks most voters already have their minds made up about the event center. So why bother with an opposition group?
The infraction in question is defined in SDCL 12-27-20, which prohibits “the expenditure of public funds for the purpose of influencing the… the adoption or defeat of any ballot question.”
Advocacy is further defined in SDCL 12-27-1 (9b){ii}:
“Reasonable minds could not differ as to whether it encourages actions to elect or defeat one or more clearly identified candidates, public office holders, or the placement of a ballot question on the ballot or the adoption or defeat of any ballot question or encourages some other kind of action”
I’m not so sure that Huether has ever come out and said the words “vote for the Events Center”, so it might be hard to get him on this. He just seems to talk about it like it’s GOING to happen.
JR – Do you have the link to that story? I tried to find it yesterday, because I recalled that to. Was it on KELO or AL?
“Barclay doesn’t think this week’s city council controversy will affect results of this November’s events center vote. Barclay thinks most voters already have their minds made up. ”
http://www.keloland.com/communities/siouxfalls/localdetail12032.cfm?Id=120919
I’m interested to see what this group has to say. I’m not 100% sure how I’m voting on this. So there might be more undecideds out there then he originally thought.
I think reasonable minds could not differ that Mike’s actions taken as a whole are designed to encourage the adoption of the ballot question under SDCL 12-27-1 (9). Mikey will try and have Fief and Drumly sidle him through this one by claiming Mikes actions are excepted under 12-27-20 because he is “presenting factual information” for the purpose of educating voters.
So, the question really is whether what he presented is “factual”, or is it puffed up opinion. I don’t know how mike can claim as fact that the EC will generate X number of jobs, or that the EC will stimulate the economy to the number of X amount of dollars. Are those facts? Off course not. Mike already stuck his toe in this gooey mess by claiming he is here to “advocate” for the EC. If he could have anticipated Hajek’s question he would have said he is merely presenting factual info. Instead his blinders on this issue caused him to step in it.
If Mike wants to shout every day from the steps of city hall that the EC will make all our dreams come true, be my guest. Just don’t employ city staff and money to illustrate that “opinion”.
So the next question will be if someone has the nuegets to complain about it. Mike, some free advice from someone who was not hired to kiss your ass, don’t involve city resources in advocating the EC and don’t piss down my back by claiming you are merely presenting facts. If you do, you should probably get racked up under SDCL 3-17-6 for gross impartiality*. When you cancel the propaganda tour, be sure to admit your planned actions were contrary to state law.
* – Gross impartiality for removal from office has never been defined by the SDSC.
whoops – should read gross partiality.
I think filing a complaint would be okay, the only problem with that is that we are so close to the vote that ethics committee may drag their feet until after the vote. It reminds me of the Staggers complaint harming him in the election. Does it matter after the fact?
If you are a “no” person, even a pending complaint would draw a cloud over the yes position and hopefully knock Mike down a peg or two. Should serve the purpose of stopping his blather tour where his opinion is presented as fact. Any type of special relief pending the complaint would probably be pretty extreme and unlikely to be granted – such as a TRO or a continuance of the ballot measure. Although depending on how bold mikey is with his campaign in the next 30 days, one might be able to take the position that Mike’s gross partiality has compromised the ballot process and thus the outcome. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Mike. He created this mess.
At first I felt the downtown people should referred to a public vote the decision to locate at the arena. Still not sure exactly why they didn’t. And before someone says they couldn’t refer that, yes they could. That decision was legislative in nature, discretionary, and referable. Unlike an administrative decision which is not referable. the downtown people must half felt fairly comfortable the “no” would win the financing ballot question and the site debate could then be revived. It is a calculated risk. I suppose referring the site issue could have resulted in a public backlash and the arena site may have won, and then they are stuck with it. Not referring the site vote seems now to have been a good strategy.
Don’t suppose there is a transcript or recording of what Mikey said during rotary.
From this morning’s Argus:
“Attorney General Marty Jackley said Tuesday he will allow Sioux Falls officials to decide for now whether Mayor Mike Huether and city employees are following the law when presenting information about building an events center.”
I’m not sure that I can even express how ridiculous this statement is. The ATTORNEY GENERAL, whose job it is to prosecute those who break the law, is letting the CITY decide if the CITY is breaking the law. This is a gross violation of the system of checks and balances that is supposed to make our form of government work. Does anyone know what the political motivations for this are? Is Jackley buddy-buddy with Huether, or is he scared of him? I just can’t believe how egregiously the AG is ignoring his duties.
This may be the state’s way of supporting and continuing to stay out of this EC. It all started with absolutely no financial support – which is ridiculous since the state makes a mint off of SF. I know Marty J and have always known him to be smarter and more fair than this. His answer is so bonehead that I can’t believe he came up with it on his own. The state has “chosen” to stay out of this and is choosing to stay out of it now which is truly unfortunate. MMM stretching the law just as he always has.
What would Ralph Nader do??
Alice may be right. I brought this up when interviewed by KDLT today, about lack of state support. They didn’t put it in the video. The state won’t touch the EC with a 10-Foot pole, and for good reason.
BTW, all Marty Jackboots cares about is his trophy wife, perfect hair and running . . . forever for GOP higher office.
If Huether’s been doing these little outings during his lunch break, or after he clocks out at City Hall, then this would maybe be less of an issue since you’re allowed to advocate on your own personal time. But since he’s douing this on the clock… with other city employees… and using public money to spread his propaganda… this has to be some kind of violation.
Also, maybe Jackly’s giving the city an opportunity to check itself and make sure it still wants to continue as they have been with these informationals. If they keep breeching the line, he can always come back after the vote and have it thrown out.
Perhaps you could get an interview with “Oath to the British Bar” Jackley next time he’s in town. I know you can often find him at the Carousel Skate. He’s a regular there.
SS – I totally get what you are saying, but I think most people will just say, “Oh well, that’s politics.” and not really give two shits. I say let him continue on his media blitz, I find nothing at all appealing about it.
l3wis… If he was using public money to print materials and “borrowing” city employees to campaign for his re-election, would you feel any differently? It’s pretty much the same thing/
If I were Barclay – I would show up at city hall with all of my hand-outs, flyers, power points etc and ask the city staff to make copies. What’s the difference? If the Mayor has these rights – why shouldn’t everybody?
Don’t forget this is the same guy who gave councilors a copy of his favorite book then sent the bill to the city.
Oh I missed that one L3wis, what book was that? Peanuts gang?
http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206