Alternative Dismissal

Tonight at the Findings of Fact special meeting of the Sioux Falls city council, Councilor Brekke offered an alternative resolution (above) of NOT dismissing Neitzert, but also not punishing him. After Councilor Starr seconded the motion, himself, Brekke and Selberg voted for it, which was a reversal of what Selberg voted for at the end of the original hearing.

Not sure why?

I thought at first maybe he misunderstood the vote (he was attending the meeting via phone), but I am not sure that was the case, because he paused and sighed before voting for it (which tells me he supported it) after it failed in a 3-4 vote, Selberg did vote for the dismissal, Brekke and Starr did not.

If Selberg needed clarity on the amendment he could have asked for it before the vote, he did not, he also could have rescinded it immediately after the vote or even at the end of the meeting, he did not. I’m curious what his change of heart was?

Maybe it was my testimony? LOL. In which I pointed out that throughout the findings it is clear he violated the ordinance. So why the dismissal? Never did get any discussion from the entire council on why they felt a dismissal was appropriate and we likely never will.

But there was also a strange moment in which Councilor Neitzert’s wife testified. I won’t disparage her, I’m sure it’s not easy being in her position, and I sympathize with her, I also wonder how many times she has asked Greg to just accept what he did and move on.

But she made a reference to people on Facebook questioning their family life, finances and even marriage. Whoaaa! I had never heard this.

Listen folks, while Greg did violate the ordinance, this wasn’t a capital offense, I even said in my testimony that he doesn’t deserve punishment, just accept what you did and apologize.

Sometimes politics can get personal, but this action by Greg wasn’t personal, it was just an ethics violation of city law. Pretty black and white.

Either the majority of the council who voted to dismiss this is really corrupt or really freaking stupid.

I’m guessing both.

Here is what we know as of 5 PM.

• Cynthia Mickelson seems to have a challenger, Sarah Stokke is a nursing instructor at the University of South Dakota. I am not familiar with Sarah, but I have heard her name before in certain circles. This will make two races for the citywide ballot, but the interesting twist is that NOT everyone voting for this race can vote in the city election because the boundaries are different. In other words there will be people who can ONLY vote for school board or ONLY vote for At-Large council. I know, complicated.

• Marshall Selberg (SW District) and Pat Starr (NE District) do not have challengers, so they will get 4 more years.

• Greg Neitzert has a challenger, Julian Beaudion (NW District). This is a district seat only and not city wide.

• Theresa Stehly and Alex Jensen will challenge each other for the At-Large position. Since there are only two, their will be no run-off election (The ‘Stehly Rule’ won’t be used again). This will be the ONLY city-wide position on the ballot besides the Charter Amendments (and those living in the SFSD who can vote for school board).

I suspect a very low voter turnout of about 5%. The interesting part is this will be one of the most expensive elections in city history for only having two horse race. All precincts will be used, and the money Jensen plans on spending will probably be a record for a council race (the rumors going around are $200-250K). I’m not even sure how you can spend all that?

But this will be fun to watch, because all the attention will be on the At-Large race. This will give Stehly the advantage, besides her incumbency.

Let the Games Begin!

Next week’s City Council meeting agenda item concerning the Canterbury – Paddington development is bringing up ethical concerns. (Watch the fiery exchange at the last planning meeting, items 5B-C). The adjacent property owners wondered why the planning department and planning commission ignores it’s own ordinances. The short answer; MONEY & GREED. The only reason the SFPC gave (and their typical answer when big money development rolls up to the podium at these meetings) is they own the land they can do what they want to. Sounds great, I think I will get started on my nuclear reactor in my backyard this summer – neighbors be damned. But make sure you put up a sign warning about bees in your yard! You know, those naturally occurring insects that provide life giving pollination.

It appears there will at least two conflict of interest issues which might be raised and at least two recusals may likely be needed.

Mayor TenHaken’s Next Generation Leadership PAC has Joel Dykstra involved in the management of the campaign / PAC organization. Joel will be asking for a RE-ZONE and PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN approval from the city council after the Planning Commission already approved it.

Councilor Selberg works for Van Buskirk Companies. The company was involved turning this development into a cluster to begin with by not finishing a promised road in the beginning of this development.

As we research more business connections, we see potential conflicts and believe full disclosures with recusals are required. Hopefully Marsh and Pauly will be recusing themselves next Tuesday on this item. If they don’t there could be legal and ethical ramifications from the adjacent property owners. We will see if they do the right thing.

Some may think serving 4 years on the city council may be difficult, not if you don’t really do anything;

“Serving this City has been an honor and the learning experience of a lifetime.  I look to build on this experience, put it to use, and continue to give Sioux Falls my very best.”

Yes, Marshall’s ‘Best’ is showing up to the Tuesday meeting, trying not to fall asleep, repeating what Erickson and Kiley said, grabbing his gigantic rubber stamp, then going home.

He has been completely ineffective and needs to go. Please someone run against him!