As you know, I oppose Ranked Choice Voting. I wouldn’t say I am strongly against it, I just don’t think it is a good way to pick HUMANS to serve us as elected officials. As I told someone recently, “It isn’t a chili cook-off.” I also have to disagree with this assumption below from the group pushing this silliness;
Here’s what can go wrong under the current election system for South Dakota municipalities. In the 2010 Sioux Falls mayoral election there were six candidates vying for this very important job. The first round votes were as follows:
Staggers (very conservative outsider) 24.9%
Huether (the only Democrat)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 24.7%
Vernon Brown (moderate mainstream) 20.0%
Pat Costello (moderate mainstream) 16.3%
Bill Peterson (moderate mainstream) 13.6%
Other                        .5%
49.9% of voters voted for a moderate mainstream candidate. But in the runoff two weeks later voters had to choose between a Democrat and a very conservative outsider. Many were unhappy with that choice and wished any of the mainstream candidates had made the runoff.Â
Ranked choice voting would have allowed voters to rank their preferences. There would have been no runoff and one of the moderates would likely have prevailed. Most Sioux Falls voters would have been satisfied with that result.Â
These people won’t even let my good friend Staggers rest in peace. Kermit was certainly a fiscal conservative, but he was very socially conscience and NOT an outsider, and why he got the most votes in the 1st round of voting. Saying Bill Peterson or Costello were moderates made me laugh (they were very Republican) While I do agree Vernon was a moderate at the time, I would say he leans more right than left. Either way, I think if Rank Choice would have been used, Huether still would have won with Kermit or Vernon coming in 2nd. I have crunched the numbers a few times and Huether wins each and every time.
We don’t need ranked choice. It confuses voters. What we need is GOOD candidates to run so they can attain 51% of the vote the first time around. We don’t need to fix how we vote, we need to fix who we are allowing to run. I think we could level that playing field by making city election campaigns publicly funded.
UPDATE II: As I suspected one of Poops campaign rats called in the agenda posting. Supposedly this required the city clerk to ask all the councilors if they were going to attend and since quorum said they might, it was put on the docket. As I have already said before, I encourage all candidates to invite the entire council to their events and call the clerk’s office to have it put on the agenda calendar. Just make sure it is one of your greasy campaign rats, you wouldn’t want to demean yourself with such menial tasks.
UPDATE:Â I found out the tax inquiry has to do with a proposal by councilors Starr and Soehl about (city) property tax relief to the elderly, and if it is possible to give them a rebate if a program was formed.
As for the posting of a campaign fundraising event, I was sent this;
1-25-1. Official meetings open to public–Exceptions–Public comment–Violation as misdemeanor.
The official meetings of the state and its political subdivisions are open to the public unless a specific law is cited by the state or the political subdivision to close the official meeting to the public.
It is not an official meeting of one public body if its members provide information or attend the official meeting of another public body for which the notice requirements of § 1-25-1.1 or 1-25-1.3 have been met. It is not an official meeting of a public body if its members attend a press conference called by a representative of the public body.
For any event hosted by a nongovernmental entity to which a quorum of the public body is invited and public policy may be discussed, but the public body does not control the agenda, the political subdivision may post a public notice of a quorum, in lieu of an agenda. The notice of a quorum shall meet the posting requirements of § 1-25-1.1 or 1-25-1.3 and shall contain, at a minimum, the date, time, and location of the event.
The public body shall reserve at every regularly scheduled official meeting a period for public comment, limited at the public body’s discretion, but not so limited as to provide for no public comment. At a minimum, public comment shall be allowed at regularly scheduled official meetings which are designated as regular meetings by statute, rule, or ordinance.
Public comment is not required at official meetings held solely for the purpose of an inauguration, swearing in of newly elected officials, or presentation of an annual report to the governing body regardless of whether or not such activity takes place at the time and place usually reserved for a regularly scheduled meeting.
If a quorum of township supervisors, road district trustees, or trustees for a municipality of the third class meet solely for purposes of implementing previously publicly-adopted policy, carrying out ministerial functions of that township, district, or municipality, or undertaking a factual investigation of conditions related to public safety, the meeting is not subject to the provisions of this chapter.
A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
While I will admit they may be squeaking by on the legality of this, I do ask some followups. Notice the word ‘may’. In other words, there was NO requirement that this should be posted. On the basis of this argument, that means anyone running for city office moving forward should or could post their fundraising events on this calendar because there could be a quorum coming to the event. I challenge anyone running for the city ballot to post all of their public events whether they are fundraisers or not to ask the city clerk’s office to have that event placed on the city council’s agenda calendar.
I also question if this was truly a public event. Yes, the public was invited, BUT, there was a fee to enter the event. Does this still make it public? Sure. But you could argue that if a quorum of city councilors are attending a Stampede Game that, that should be posted on the council’s agenda. Or maybe a quorum was attending a Levitt concert? Maybe that should be on the agenda.
Let’s face it folks, their was NO legal requirement for Paul’s campaign to post this. While it doesn’t violate any laws, it certainly is questionably ethical.
I will have to admit, when I normally peruse the agendas I can usually figure out WTF is going on, or at least have a teeny-tiny idea. I will admit though, Item #6, Approval of Contracts, Sub-Item #38, has me baffled;
City Attorneys, Engagement Agreement for City’s Authority to Provide Property Tax Relief, Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, LLP, $5,000.00
So there are a few things I do know. Our City Attorney’s office has been incompetent, ill prepared and ignorant of municipal law for years and depending on outside counsel for a whole host of things they know nothing about. I have often joked we should just have a purchase agent and paralegal in the office to save taxpayers money.
What I don’t know is why they have to have outside counsel give them advice on how to ‘legally’ give property tax relief. If you think this is about you and me, you are sadly mistaken.
Like I said, I have no idea what they are up to, but if I was a guessing man, this has to do with making the property tax breaks to the ones that mostly don’t deserve it, more accessible and more secretive. But that is just a guess.
Also notice in the calendar below, from the City of Sioux Falls website that candidate TenHaken has violated campaign rules and probably several city ethical rules by listing a fundraising event for his campaign on the official calendar of the city. How did this even get on there?!?!
Cory posted this fabulous cartoon today and I just had to share. Comparing Noem’s policies to the words/warnings of a French Cleric from over 800 years ago was a comic masterpiece.
This is a wonderful documentary from a month ago that really explains the known and unknown science behind an incredible plant. It seems to me what we are lacking most is a true understanding of it.
l3wis 
