I believe the Sioux Falls City Council is set to vote on recording parks board meetings this next Tuesday. If the measure passes (must get 5 votes because it is an ordinance) it will open the door to more transparency when other boards will be asked to be recorded, like REMSA.
Folks, this is a GOOD thing, open and transparent government will always benefit the public and protect us from corruption. Just look at the oral arguments today at the SD Supreme Court, our local paper had to sue the city over something as simple as a settlement contract, it shouldn’t be that way.
The opposing side has their excuses, and I will debunk them;
• It will cost to much to record and to store videos. First off, if it is so expensive to record these meetings, why do we have such an enormous budget following the mayor around to do a press conference every time he gets a haircut or wipes his butt? Secondly, you wouldn’t need a production crew, a city employee in attendance could simply set up the camera, hit record. As for storage, digital storage these days is minimal cost, and even if it wasn’t, the city could do like the county and use YouTube to store the meetings.
• It will discourage people from volunteering on boards. Really? The Planning Commission, one of the most powerful boards in the city has been recording their meetings for 12 years, they are all volunteers and it seems like they never struggle finding people to serve. Secondly, I wouldn’t want anyone serving on a board that wasn’t pro transparency and open government. Just because you volunteer on a government board doesn’t give you a license to keep secrets, quite the opposite.
• The public/media will twist what is said in the meetings or interrupt them. If they are recorded, the public really won’t have a reason to show up in person, and secondly, if the entire meeting is recorded and put online, not sure how that is ‘twisting’ it’s content. The only time the truth is twisted is when decisions are made behind closed doors.
Let’s face it, these boards make important decisions that impact thousands of lives and millions of dollars of taxpayer money, they need to be transparent and readily available to the public. Any councilor who would vote against this are basically saying they are happy with the status quo and are anti-transparent government, any other arguments are weak kneed and ‘twisted’.
Recording of public information and meetings is constitutional law. The city attorney didn’t learn this from Trump University. It costs citizens millions when he uses a hired gun REAL lawyer. The present case in state Supreme Court is an example of how he doesn’t look so bad because of the years and volumes of redundant legal language. Nobody reads the small print that’s 99 percent of drug and car advertising. If you put us to sleep, we can’t see through our eyelids and there’s no transparency.
The new anchor (Ahtra) at KDLT is refreshing. Perhaps she’ll be the investigative reporter that’s missing in local media. She has an interest in politics. Yes, she’s attractive. I’m old. My only Trump-like trait is every woman is art. Her looks are required to get the subject matter attention of the millenium working class.
There is a 1974 State Attorney General’s opinion on the books that says the electronic recording of ANY PUBLIC MEETING is legal. That is a long-standing, state-wide practice. Find your lawyer, have them look it up, and present it to the council.
City councilors weigh in;
http://www.argusleader.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/01/14/letter-re-parks-board-transparency/96553770/