Besides the potential Open Meetings violations at last Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, it seems Kiley was participating in some very strange behavior.
If a City Councilor has a conflict of interest with an item, they must recuse themselves and go in the back room. They must do this AT THE ANNOUNCEMENT of the item and not return until after the final vote. They can’t sit there and listen and then leave before the vote. They must ALSO tell us why they are leaving. Kiley didn’t do that.
My assumption was it was done to save the mayor from having to have a tie vote on Neitzert’s Amendment that Kiley saw in advance*.
Watch how this plays out on Item #40, resolution on development.
(FF 21:20) Kiley doesn’t leave at the beginning, and Erickson whispers something into his ear.
(FF 1:06) Kiley is still sitting on the dais and leans into Erickson and says something as Neitzert discusses his amendment. Between 1:06 and 1:10 he leaves the dais and goes into backroom before the Amendment vote of 4-3 saving the Mayor from breaking a tie. Kiley doesn’t return until after final motion vote and the announcement of the next item.
So Ricky Lee, seems like an interesting time to take a potty break? Talk about blatant corruption and scammery.
But that wasn’t the only time Ricky was up to his little bag of tricks with the help of his magician assistant Heels. *(FF: 2:38) While Neitzert gave an advance notice (several days) of his Garbage Hauler amendment, Ricky did not. It has been ruled in the past by the city attorney that councilors should give a 24 hour advance notice, they have called councilor Starr out on it. So Pat asked Ricky Lee about it and said he could do it because Pat did it in the past to which Pat responded sarcastically, “Yeah, I’d be happy to take credit for it.”
I had heard a couple of months ago a ‘young attorney’ was running for Ricky Lee’s open seat;
David Barranco is getting ready to move forward with his candidacy and this past Friday announced to friends privately that he’s running, and is noting his interest,
In 2022, when Councilman Kiley’s term ends, his seat will be open. I am excited to run for that position. My hope is to serve working families, keeping a pragmatic, problem-solving focus. I’m dedicated to building a bright future for Sioux Falls, with a strong economy and reliable infrastructure.
I’m passionate about expanding the local workforce and creating more affordable housing. As a husband, father, and FCA coach, I’m dedicated to keeping kids safe by supporting law enforcement and defending public health. I’ll endeavor to grow pet-friendly spaces, reduce automobile traffic, and plant thousands of trees. Most importantly, I’ll strive to be a cooperative consensus builder — one who embraces good policy but eschews divisive rhetoric.
Of course it should not surprise anyone that David has close ties to the SD GOP. His wife Catherine is involved with the National Federation of Republican Women (I think she serves on the board) and used to work for the SD GOP as staff in communications and is still a region director.
It will be interesting to see what kind of support Dave gets from SD GOP . . .
The City Council had its Operations Committee meeting in the dark of the morning Thursday at 10 AM. I wonder why there was NO public input? Trust, me, this was done on purpose so the public could not attend, especially with some of the crap they were proposing. Once again, like the mayor, the majority of the council, the RS6 now, HATE transparency and openness, it is at the core of their very dark agenda for the city.
The meeting started out with a proposal for more per diem money to the council for logo wear city council apparel. I think right now they receive around $50 a year and they want to increase it to $150 per year. What confuses me is that they could just buy each councilor a simple magnetic name badge (for around $15 bucks) that they could wear on any piece of clothing, heck, buy them two. Just another example of how they waste taxpayer money on something they don’t really need.
I found it interesting that CountCilor Alex Jensen wasn’t wearing city logo wear but a First Premier pull over, nice touch. Reminds me of when Jim Entenman was wearing his Harley Davidson shirts to council meetings. Got to get in that shameless promotion yah know. Also, we can’t forget the thousands of dollars that were funneled to Alex’s campaign thru his employer’s upper leadership and various mischevious PACs. You better wear the damn shirt Alex!
Another change is for the consent agenda. They want councilors to give a 24 hour notice to city hall if they are going to pull something from the consent agenda so the city director/manager responsible for that item can come to the meeting to answer questions, because their time is valuable or something. Nutzert rambled about wedding anniversaries and kid’s birthday parties. Because, when you make a 6-Figure a year salary from the taxpayers of this city you shouldn’t be bothered for 5 minutes to answer a question about city spending when you should be a Chucky Cheese with your kids. Puhhhleese. There has always been this consistent argument, that I knew would gear up after the RS6 was installed, that city employees personal lives on a Tuesday night are somehow more important than the public’s business. They know they have an expectation to come to these meetings, and like I said, they get paid a hefty chunk of change to do so. If you can’t make it because of an important family event, ask someone from your department to fill in. This seems like a responsibility of the director in charge of that department instead of the city council.
They said city councilors don’t have to give the notice, but if they don’t there is no requirement for the director to show up. So basically it is a ‘Pass’ for the very people who are supposed to be serving us (because you know, they get a paycheck to do so).
I have often argued that the consent agenda should be read at the meeting, and after it is completely read by the clerk, items can be pulled. That’s true transparency.
During the meeting, non-committee member, councilor Brekke chimed in from the podium and suggested that the mayor’s office started giving informational meeting updates like they used to, but ended suddenly. We all know why, because of his simmering hatred towards transparency. Just look at the Covid press conferences, vanished, while our numbers are spiking.
The meeting got more interesting with a move to eliminate open discussion at the beginning of the informational meetings and renaming it council comment or report. Basically they can comment about something they are working on, but NO policy discussion, they once again blamed time constraints even though there is NOTHING in the city charter about time constraints or time limits at meetings. If a meeting runs to long, they can recess and come back at another time. Heck the Board of Ethics recessed twice over Greg Nutzert’s ethics hearing. This is a way of keeping more policy decisions from citizens. Disgusting.
The best was at the end of the meeting when, ironically, during open discussion CountCilor Jensen suggested moving public input to the end of the council meetings and eliminating public input on 1st readings. Oh, he was very soft and careful how he presented it, but it was clear when he said something about doing ‘business’ first, what he meant. Councilor Nutzert quickly chimed in and said he would assist him on it, but they may have to take an all expenses paid trip by a right wing partisan hack group to come up with a plan (I jest). I have often argued you put public input first because the public’s opinion is much more important than the business of the council, you know, the people who fund this government and come on their own time to do so. A business coming for a rezone or license is part of an expense of doing business and has little to do with the issues and policies of this city. Citizens should always be at the forefront of local government. I knew this was going to happen when Theresa left, and they have the votes to get it done, so it will probably happen. While I will do my best to fight it, unfortunately this is what happens when a majority of the council has this fascist view of transparency. Total Darkness.
She asked for several things from the podium during the 2020 Audit Plan presentation;
• An external audit of the Parking System (Theresa mentioned that she found it odd that the city wants to keep building or subsidizing parking ramps downtown yet wants to sell off flat parking lots).
• An audit of the CMAR (Construction Manager at Risk) process.
• Travel expenses of city staff (I guess that during the current administration, city directors and staff, and mostly the mayor, have been taking a lot of ‘junket trips’ but not really giving a report to the public as what they are doing on the trips. Recently TenHaken put up a short column about his trip to China, but never really told us what was really discussed. We also get a lot of updates on FB from the Innovation Manger and all the different cities he has been drinking in.
• A study of City Director salaries in comparison to other cities. Something I pointed out the last time the HR department did a wage study, but did NOT include city directors. How convenient.
The committee argued the merits of all the items. Councilor Brekke mentioned that maybe the city council budget analyst could look into the last two items and do a presentation on those findings – which I agree.
Audit Manager Nelson suggested that the CMAR audit would have to be done externally due to it’s speciality of the audit.
But they got into a long discussion about the external parking ramp audit. Councilor Kiley said he didn’t want to put it on the audit plan because they are in the middle of litigation, but other members argued that there was nothing wrong with putting it on the agenda, and if they have to pull it in the future, they can. The amendment to add it passed with Kiley and Chair Neitzert voting against it. Councilor Stehly doesn’t sit on the committee so she couldn’t vote on it.
T.J. Nelson, deputy chief of staff in the mayor’s office, said City Hall isn’t opposed to a review of the parking system or the ramp, but not until the ramp project is complete and the dust settles on any lawsuits surrounding it.
“The administration will complete a comprehensive review of the process that led to the prior approval of this project by the Huether administration. This will take place following the ramp’s completion and resolution of any outstanding legal matters,” he said. “At this time, the administration supports a financial or construction audit consistent with the time frame outlined above.”
Yeah, after we have f’d up in every possible way we can, then we will tell the public how that f’k up occurred. WHAT!? Wouldn’t it be wise to figure that out BEFORE we move ahead with another developer or even litigation? Wouldn’t this help our case? Sometimes I wonder if putting money in a burn barrel would be a better way to spend money then paying city communication staff.
There was also a presentation on the Landfill Audit. There was a lot of problems going on out there where basically employees were not following procedures and not doing proper inspections. You can listen for yourself. My view is the city is missing out on a lot of landfill revenue due to the laziness of the employees. I think they were warned about these things in past audits. I think it is time to start handing our pink slips, then maybe they will get the picture.
Chair Neitzert mentions at the end they are going to start the process of hiring another staff auditor (which they do need). I wonder if this time they will actually put an employment ad in something besides Tidbits and the City Hall’s lunchroom?
PUBLIC TRANSIT MEETING
I still haven’t heard all the details of what happened, but I guess a committee member got a little irate about how the public is being left out of the decisions they are making. More to come.
At Tuesday’s Sioux Falls City Council meeting, councilor Kiley argued that they shouldn’t put the IT expansion project out for bid because the delay would end up costing taxpayers more money. Pulling a crystal ball from his rear aside, that is not always the case.
Back in 2008, the city faced a similar dilemma, a bid was handed over to a contractor to replace the windows on the Pavilion, the problem was that when the Pavilion’s Operations Director turned the bid into the city, he realized later that he forgot to include labor and would have to resubmit the bid.
The controversy caused by this error got the attention of the media, so a lot more contractors bid on the project the second time around.
The city saved over $300K by resubmitting the project, in fact they had to amend the 2009 CIP budget to reflect the cost savings;
Improvements, by deleting $300,000 in year 2009 for windows (CIP p. 2-145).
We have NO IDEA if we are getting a ‘deal’ on the IT expansion because we never put it out for bid. And I can guarantee if it is put out for bid ‘after the fact’ there would be someone who would come in under $1.5 Million.
Open bids save tax dollars, and for councilor Kiley to say otherwise is just ludicrous and ignorant.
l3wis