I felt a little bad, just before turning in last night, I saw this story;
Both recommendations were brought to a vote and rejected. Zokaites’ was shot down in a 4-0 vote and Zylstra’s was rejected in a split vote.
I totally forgot about the CRC meeting yesterday and to my surprise they threw out the proposal. The interesting part was the vote was a gender split. The two women on the CRC, Chair Anne Hajek and Catherine Dekkenga both voted against the proposal siting the freaking obvious, voters just rejected this and we should essentially listen to the vote.
Members Carl Zylstra and Larry Long voted for the proposal. Since it needs all 4 votes to move an item to the ballot, it failed on a 2-2 vote.
I will agree with Carl on one aspect, the council pay does need to be looked at, and I encourage the new council to put together a commission to study it. As I have said, the inflation/deflation works well and I would keep that part in check, because it keeps the council away from giving themselves or future councilors a raise. What I think needs to be adjusted is compensation for doing actual work. I think the SF School board gets paid for meetings. In other words they are paid for how much they show up. And they have to submit their time to get paid. If I had to guess, a school board member probably makes around $400 a month. (it’s been years since I have looked at this, so I am not sure how it works now, and I can’t find anything on the District’s horrible, horrible, website) If that pay was a deterrent someone needs to tell Kate Serebetz who has sat on the board for 14 years.
Once the council commission puts together a proposal, they should immediately move it to the 2026 municipal election ballot and let the voters approve the changes.
I think voters would approve a base pay with supplementals.
One thing that was NOT pointed out during the discussion is that this is a terrible time to be talking about giving elected officials raises. We may not be in a recession, and we are coming out pretty fast but the last 3 years have been Hell on folks personal finances and they are NOT in the mood to hand out raises.
This didn’t stop the lead city attorney to suggest that the language for Mr. Zylstra’s proposal came from a national municipal governing organization.
While I would agree that is a good place to start to put together model legislation the irony is staggering.
The council and mostly administration has ignored national recommendations on building codes, climate change and sustainability, public transit, and so many I could barely count. But when it comes to raises, we should really follow the advice of a national organization? Why start now?
I will give you a recent example. Several national organizations have offered to help evaluate the Delbridge Museum mounts. The city ignored these folks and hired the janitor from Cabelas to review the collection. (he really wasn’t the janitor, but you get the picture).
They also took a wrecking ball to the internal audit department essentially jobbing out our INTERNAL audit. WTF?!
I recently ran into a prominent citizen advocate who is working with several different advocacy groups in Sioux Falls. At a recent meeting that some councilors attended I asked this person what their involvement or input was, they said, ‘The council has had plenty of time to do something. To heck with them.’
And they are right. The council has had their hands tied during this administration. What people don’t understand is that council must work with city staff and directors to create policy, and if the mayor’s office rejects such assistance, there is little the council can do except pout. And if we paid them for pouting they would be millionaires. This is why I have suggested that when they hire an executive assistant, that person should also be a paralegal. They also need their own attorney. The back and forth with the mayor’s office is ridiculous and the council can put a stop to it. I have even suggested they put in ordinance that city directors MUST correspond with councilors DIRECTLY to form policy. While councilors would be limited as to what they can make this person do, it would hold their feet to the fire.
We have a power vacuum in city government and the only solution is more cow bell . . . I mean we need to put the charter in the paper shredder and start over (maybe ring a cow bell to over power the noise of the shredder). The system while designed well has led to massive corruption because of this power vacuum. I expect a little noise in 2024 when it comes to this topic. And when they have the presser to announce the petition drive to overturn the charter, I would surround the podium with paper shredders and have several volunteers shredding the charter.
More pay with far more members. It should be a council of between 30 to 40 members.
I take that back. With more members, the pay wouldn’t have to go up because the responsibilities could be spread around to many.
Developers should be required to wear cowbells, so we always know where they are at and what they are up to.
“Things have definitely not been the same since Walter Cronkite and Ron Burgundy left the air”…. “Now days, it’s just a bunch of pretty faces on the air, that either have to leave for #MeToo allegations, or spend all of their time in court fending off liable claims”….
It’s important to keep the current charter for a smooth transition into Trump fascism. Rather than increase pay, turn off their mics and pay public comment individuals not to appear. Minute meetings. Absolute mayoral dictatorship.
Make America Irate Again!
The City council other than the Mayor, cannot interfere with the Departments, Offices, Agencies, Corporate Partners of City Government. The Charter restricts this, The MAYOR has the Administration Powers over the ‘government’ while the 9 Member Council has the Investigative Powers over the ‘government’. IF the Council wishes to discuss policy or planning with the city government, they have to A) go through the Mayors Office directly, or B) Utilize their Investigative Powers by holding a Public Hearing, thus placing Departments, Offices, Agencies, Partners on the ‘public trial’.
However, there is one thing we both may agree on, that it may be time to pull the City Attorney from the “appointed role” and move the City Attorney to be a “Elected Official” to which he would then not only work for the Mayor, but also the City Council, as well as the People of SIoux Falls directly.
As for Mayor and Council Pay, these are part time positions, and I believe they should remain as part time positions. The MAYOR’s pay was adjusted to be the higher amount, plus benefits due to the fact ‘we’ expect the Mayor to be in the OFFICE full time, during the week, meeting with City Leaders, Business Leaders, Land Owners, the City Council, as well as the Citizens of the City as well…
The 8 Member City Council is merely Part Time, and there is NO requirement that they have to do anything but show up for Public Meetings of the Council, or where the Mayor Calls them into session…they can effectively work 2 hours a week. Their pay is most likely higher than it should be., but that is why we set the Salary Structure For the Mayor @ $75,000 while the other 8 Members of the Governing Board are set at 15% of the Mayor’s Pay.
You have to remember, the Governing Board is made up of the Mayor, 3 Additional At-Large Representatives, and 5 District Representatives. They are a team.
YOU do not want to pay them high salaries, you do NOT need the best and the brightest, they are suppose to be “COMMON FOLK” like any other Business Owner, Land Owner, and Resident of Sioux Falls. Simple. The last thing you want to do is give people the incentive to work within the Wheels of Government, taking away from the Private Sector.
Just My Opinions…
Actually Mike, Paul did an executive order in his first term that prohibits the council from contacting them directly. The ironic part is the council doesn’t have to follow his orders because they are an elected governing body.
Scott, I remember that executive order. But you have to remember, the Mayor is also a part of the Governing Board as well. He does not get to vote except for ties, but he has the veto power that requires his opinion on each ordinance or resolution whether passed or not passed. I question whether or not he needed to write that E.O, cause the Charter technically restricts the 8 Councilors from “interfering” with the Departments, Offices, Agencies, Corporate Partners. THEY had to come to him directly with or without the executive order if they wanted to meet with, and discuss policy with the “government”. Which strikes me as odd, that the “Council” never questions any Public Department, Office, Agency, or Non-Profit Partner by means of placing them on a “Witness Stand”
Have the Council ever used their Subpeona Powers other than the Trial of Neitzert?
Makes me really wonder who was behind the whole Neitzert thing, cause the COUNCIL never holds the “Government Accountable” for nothing…
The mayor’s order ONLY applies to city employees, and the council knows this. They are NOT allowed to manage city employees, but they CAN talk to them without the mayor’s blessing. Asking a department head a question is not a directive and as an independent elected body they have the authority to do it, but they all seem to chickensh!t to challenge him. Now the mayor can tell them to NOT answer councilor questions, which puts them in a crappy position. Let’s face it Mike, Paul wouldn’t know transparency if it knocked him upside the head. I think it is completely bizarro that a Mayor would tell city employees to not work with councilors.
As for the Neitzert deal, John Cunningham is the only person who filed the complaint. Now he did get some (legal) assistance, but he asked for it. This conspiracy that John was trying to throw the election for Greg is hogwash. Greg was a popular incumbent and most people didn’t care he took the trip and I doubt he lost many votes over it. John worked his whole professional life in local government, he has a degree in it, he was concerned about the ethics of the trip, so he filed a complaint. That’s it. The only place John screwed up was not filing the complaint against the Mayor and TJ Nelson also, since they were also in violation. I still think Greg was guilty of an ethics violation, I just think it was unfortunate he had to face the music by himself.
I mean really? Rummaging thru a private citizen’s mail? It seemed John was on trial and not Greg.
Scott, another part of that deal with transparency does not always begin with the Mayors Office, but the ball should stop in that office if we are to change directions. I think if you look more into it, as you research, I believe these restriction policies begin with the Human Resource DIrector himself, and in a old argus leader quote Bill O’ Toole mentions he was on behalf of that office was the reason for the policy. It began under Huether by restricting Public workers of talking to the Media and to the People, and was extended under TenHaken’s Administration, despite the new mayor wanting to reverse it, O’ Toole changed the Mayors mind to keep the policy, then I believe as you mentioned earliuer, the Current Mayor added to the policy of restricting all questions and dialogue between City Council and Public Workers go directly through the Mayors Office, I believe this came between 2019-2021 in the fights between Mayor v Stehly drama at the time…I dont know if I blame the current mayor for these policies, although he has really done nothing to change them. But…if the Council really wanted answers, they have failed at their job. Cause if they really wanted to play hard ball with the Mayors Office and against the Government itself, they utilize their Investigative Powers and hold many Public Hearings which they could hold Special Meetings to hold public hearings, placing City Government on Trial, and there is nothing the Mayor can do about it. But, as we have saw, over the past 10 years dating back to 2018, this council has become weak in their actions.
Cunningham was on trial for some strange reason. It was like watching a defense attorney obsess on the mini-skit that the victim was wearing…. ( Cunningham in a mini-shirt? 🙁 )
“This didn’t stop the lead city attorney to suggest that the language for Mr. Zylstra’s proposal came from a national municipal governing organization.”
Was there question on the legality of the language?
‘Cuz if not, someone on the commission needed to ask the lead city attorney should just STFU.
In all liklihood, the matter upon which the lead city attorney provided comment was NOT a matter of legal interpretation.
How do we know?
Because someone from the City Attorney office actually provided comment (superfluous as it may have been) …
… and didn’t spend $10,000 in external legal fees in order to vet any legal aspects of the issue.