It’s okay to lie about being ethical, because I own goats.
Last night I handed out the below verbage during public testimony. It was concerning Dean Karsky and his dual membership to the city council and Chamber board of directors. Dean did not recuse himself from voting on any of the items, he just sat there. He didn’t even ask a city attorney (the main one was absent) if he should recuse himself. Apparently Dean just lied to the Ethics Commission about recusing himself from voting on Chamber related items.
Tuesday November 4, 2014
Recently Council Chair Dean Karsky attended an Ethics Commission meeting to ask them if it was okay for him to serve on the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. They said it would be okay because Dean proposed he would ‘recuse’ himself from voting on any agenda items that are directly related with the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce. The Ethics Commission agreed with Dean’s proposal.
Tonight I submit to you several agenda items that Council Chair & Chamber Board of Directors Member Dean Karsky should recuse himself from due to conflicts of interest with Members of the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce. By voting to allow Chamber members to do business with the city you could assume a conflict of interest because Councilor Karsky could give an unfair advantage to Chamber members versus non-members.
The concerning items are as follows;
Item 1) Approval of contracts, several Chamber Members are getting contract approvals with the city. They include; Infrastructure Design Group, Inc., Sayre Associates, Inc., Vision Video Interactive, LLC, Stockwell Engineers, Inc., Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., Soukup Construction, Inc., Thompson Electric Company, Friessen Construction Co., Inc., and several other snowplow contractors.
Item 2) Change Orders. Chamber Members include; First Rate Excavate, Inc., Beck & Hofer Construction, Inc., Krier & Blain, Inc.
Items 3-8) Fuel contracts, Chamber Member, Howes Oil
Item 10) Liquor Retail License renewal, several businesses are Chamber Members
Items 11-13) Malt Beverage transfers, Chamber Member, Staybridge Suites
Item 17) One day wine license, Chamber Member, Active Generations
Item 18) One day liquor license, Chamber Member, Avera
Item 28) Water tank lease agreement, Chamber members, Soukup Construction, Sioux Falls Two-Way Radio
All other items concern internal city business, change in ordinances or re-zone housekeeping, and don’t present a conflict for Council Chair and Chamber Board of Directors member Dean Karsky.
Good grief… Try educating yourself for a change.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Conflict+of+Interest
I’ve got very little love for rubber stamp Karsky but you crying wolf about everything gets really old.
Thanks for helping me prove my point. Maybe you need to re-read the definition. There are plenty of opportunities for Dean to get personal benefit from voting for Chamber members.
But it really comes back to his PROMISE to the ethics commission. He said he would recuse himself. He did not.
It seems apparent Karsky conflicts of interest negates either position. It’s positions, title, and compensation without service and responsibility. It’s brilliant but city ordinances provide lack of attendance (he’s absent if he can’t vote) grounds for dismissal. Ethics is also an issue but the fact that he’s occupying a council seat without giving the northwest district representation is a bigger offense.
Huether is most affected. Now there’s only 6 on the council. Three are not corrupt. One waves back and forth. The mayor will always have to break a tie and sometimes (4 to 2 plus mayor) he’ll lose. He needs Karsky.
LJL,
Believe me; I’m no fan of narcissistic negative naysayer Waiter Scott & Co., however, why don’t YOU educate yourself before you so casualy dismiss conflict of interest concerns as defined by SF’s actual city ordinances, below. Plus whoever the mayors lackey attorney is who probably should be helping to look at these things might also want to educate himself or herself too. Once you have the chance to educate yourself or even have someone read and explain to you, try taking a little looksee behind the ending power structure and who runs and argues for the establishment hospitals, credit card co., banks, etc. in SF. Take a look & do some learnin!!
Section 35.053 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
City officials SHALL NOT:
(a) Participate or vote in matters in which they have a direct or indirect financial interest in any contract with the city;
(b) Participate or vote in matters in which they may be directly or indirectly financially interested in the sale of land to the city, or in which they may have rights or interests in the sale of any materials, supplies or services to the city;
(c) Participate or vote in any other matters in which they may have a direct or indirect financial interest, or in which an immediate family member has a direct or indirect financial interest;
(d) Except when acting in an official capacity, appear on behalf of any private person before any city agency. An official may appear at any place on behalf of constituents in the course of their duties as representatives of the electorate or in the performance of public or civic obligations. Officials shall not receive compensation for those appearances, unless specifically authorized by action of the city council. However, this section shall not apply to any official who has fully informed the city agency of his or her private interest in a matter and he or she does not participate in any decision related thereto;
(e) Directly or indirectly solicit any gift, or accept any gift whether in the form of money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing or promise, or any other form, under circumstances in which it could reasonably be inferred that the gift was intended to influence, or could reasonably be expected to influence the officer, in the performance of their official duties, or was intended as a reward for any official action:
(1) Legitimate political contributions are not gifts under the provisions of this subchapter; and
(2) It is not a conflict of interest for any official to receive a gift or gratuity that is an unsolicited item of nominal intrinsic value.
(f) Participate or vote in matters having a financial interest in any property within 300 feet of property involved in a zoning matter before the city council; and
(g) Participate or vote in matters that come before the city council directly or indirectly involving the interest of a present business client or customer of any official or the interest of a person or entity who has been a business client or customer of any official within the prior 12 months. A business client or customer is any person or entity for which the official is employed or if in the past 12 months payment has been received by the official from the person or entity in the amount of $5,000 or greater and that fact is or should be known by the official. ———–
FINANCIAL INTEREST. An expectation of receiving a pecuniary benefit.
A FINANCIAL INTEREST of an official includes any FINANCIAL INTEREST of a member of that person’s immediate family. A person has a FINANCIAL INTEREST in an organization in which that person has an ownership interest, or is a director, officer or employee. An official has a FINANCIAL INTEREST in a decision if a FINANCIAL INTEREST of that person will vary with the outcome of the decision. A FINANCIAL INTEREST does not include the following:
(1) A personal or FINANCIAL INTEREST which is not of the magnitude that would exert an influence on an average, reasonable person;
(2) A personal or FINANCIAL INTEREST of a type which is generally possessed by the public or a large class of persons to which that official belongs; and
(3) An action or influence which would have an insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter in question.
I guess the free, row 4 Keith Urban tickets that all of the city councilors received from Sanford Health don’t qualify???
“SHALL NOT … accept any gift whether in the form of money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing or promise, or any other form, under circumstances in which it could reasonably be inferred that the gift was intended to influence, or could reasonably be expected to influence the officer, in the performance of their official duties, or was intended as a reward for any official action.”
Can free tickets to a Keith Urban concert really qualify as a gift? Reminds of the time my mom got me a ticket to see Tom T Hall at the Corn Palace, and I asked her if the ticket was some mean joke.
I’m sure Mr. Karsky is pretty concerned about what the blogosphere thinks.