I can’t count the number of times I fell over laughing while listening to this conversation between councilor Erickson and Belfrage on his show this morning. They have a very jaded viewed of what is right and what is wrong. One of the better moments is when Erickson continues to talk about the ‘Freedom of the Press’. She knows that SF Biz is a for profit website that charges businesses and organizations to post articles. Hardly the ‘Free Press’. It’s no different than a paid advertisement from a political candidate. Which brings us to the number two problem, tax money was being used to promote a candidate. Sure, his name was only mentioned once, but it was mentioned, and it doesn’t matter if the article had 1,023 words (Erickson admits in the interview she counted them) or if it is a novel. A taxpayer funded entity PAID for an article that promotes a political candidate. All the fluff and puff in between is laughable.
I may load this interview on my I-Pod so when I am having a bad day I can have a good laugh about how ignorant these two are about freedom of speech.
Mayor Paul TenHaken next week will introduce a resolution to the city council condemning hate, a move endorsed by the city’s Human Relations Commission.
“Hate has no place in Sioux Falls,†TenHaken said in a news release Thursday afternoon. “I’m proud to stand with the Human Relations Commission and condemn bias, discrimination and hate in Sioux Falls.
“With this resolution we reaffirm our belief that hate has no place in Sioux Falls and remind the public of ways to report discrimination to the City,†he added.
We should all disavow hate. I am actually embarrassed that in 2020 we have to pass resolutions to tell people to stop being racist jerks.
But this resolution has many procedural and intent problems. It’s nothing but some feel good reach around more than anything else. I also find it ironic that this resolution is being proposed right after the human relations attorney with the city announced he is running for State’s Attorney.
Kawinky-Dink? I think not.
So what are the issues;
1) It has no teeth. It just basically says that the city doesn’t like people being racist. Well Lah-De-Dah. I guess I am unaware of ANY city official, whether elected or employed who thinks it is a good idea to be racist. And in my personal life I ‘try’ to stay away from these people. So basically this is just a ‘memo’ or ‘sticky note’ from the mayor’s office.
2) The mayor should not be legislating. As I have told you fine folks in the past, according to charter, the city council is responsible for legislating and the mayor should run the city. As I mentioned above, this is just a campaign hat trick for the city’s human relations attorney, Daniel Haggar.
3) The mayor avoids gay pride events. I can’t tell you if PTH thinks gay peeps are ‘Icky’. Many have suspected that he does, but I have never seen him say anything publicly about it except at Dem Forum when he was running for office in which he stated that he was not ‘homophobic’. But what I find interesting about this resolution is that it did not include the LGBTQ community, or many other minority groups, like people of Muslim or Jewish faith that are discriminated against consistently. If we are going to pass a resolution disavowing hate, shouldn’t it cover all the bases?
This isn’t a Paul TenHaken issue, it is a bigger issue with politics in general starting with the top down, it’s all about ‘image’ instead of ‘substance’. If we really want to take a stand we need to pass ordinances that has teeth, otherwise this isn’t worth the paper it is written on. On top of that, hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment, so is this a violation of our constitution?
We make change through education, and teaching people how not to hate. A more fitting resolution would be for the city to set up a grant program that funds seminars on teaching people about different cultures, creeds and sexual preferences. I have often told people that moving to a suburb of Seattle from a farm in South Dakota when I was 16 to live with my dad was the best cultural education of my life. I will sum it up really quickly, everybody has the same hopes and dreams as you do, no matter their color or creed. The city needs to educate people about cultures instead of handing out back rubs, sticky notes, lapel pins and pens.
First, the obvious – The First Amendment DOES not protect free speech when comes to using tax dollars to promote a political candidate. This doesn’t even take a Constitutional scholar to figure it out. This is why Trump was impeached in Congress. He was withholding tax dollars to help his presidential candidacy.
While I understand a local entrepreneur casually mentioning a city council candidate he is helping out in an article funded by two institutions that receive some tax funding (state and city) may seem not as grand as what our president did, it is still worth talking about and correcting.
I was extremely irritated that some elected officials on the council chose to defend this obvious violation of free speech rights and state law.
Just because you violate campaign rules ‘a little bit’ doesn’t make it alright. That essentially was their argument.
While what councilors Brekke, Stehly and citizen Bruce Danielson said may have been uncomfortable, it was very appropriate to say and the right time to say it, in a public meeting. No one was advocating to arrest anyone, no one was going to throw some one in jail or fine them. This was simply an effort to ‘nip it in the butt’ before it became common place. People make mistakes, we get it.
Over the past day, I have told several people that Matt Paulson (Alex Jensen’s quasi-campaign manager, treasurer and fundraiser) did nothing wrong, neither did Siouxfalls.business. Stehly wasn’t attacking them, she was simply telling the Sioux Falls Development Foundation (and I guess DSU) that moving forward they should not promote certain candidates because they receive public money.
This isn’t an attack, it’s a fact, and many journalists and citizens agree.
We know what’s going on here, and we have been seeing this across the state for several years. The Republican establishment (a very small elitist group) has controlled our State House for almost 50 years, and they are trying to take control of our County Commissions, State’s Attorney offices and other non-partisan government entities like city councils and school boards. I want to clarify, I have voted for ‘good’ Republicans (like Stehly, Brekke, Staggers and Jamison) on these non-partisan bodies, because they have integrity and want to keep party affiliation out of politics. The group I am referring to is a very small group of ‘know it all’ elitist, establishment Republicans that want to control their business interests, and they see an opportunity here, though their actions look more like ‘amateur hour’.
I have said it already, they are using candidates like Jensen for city council, Cynthia Mickelson for school board and State’s Attorney candidates like Haggar and Bengford to stack the deck and implement their pro-corporate welfare of government, these are NOT Republicans in the sense of tradition, these are elitist greed mongers that only pray to one God; money. Don’t believe me? Why else would the South Dakota GOP Chair, a Jewish Iowa businessman lobby for an Islamic theocratic government? Because party doesn’t matter, only money and greed.
So yes, Stehly was on the attack yesterday. She was attacking greed, corruption, partisanship, lack of integrity and lack of open government. And not just ‘a little bit’ but a lot.
Councilor Janet Brekke as well as civic watchdog Bruce Danielson countered, though, saying because the Sioux Falls Development Foundation receives public funds, it is held to a higher standard when it comes to political speech.
State Law on this is also very clear;
Universal Citation: SD Codified L § 12-27-20
12-27-20. Expenditure of public funds to influence election outcome prohibited. The state, an agency of the state, and the governing body of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state may not expend or permit the expenditure of public funds for the purpose of influencing the nomination or election of any candidate, or for the petitioning of a ballot question on the ballot or the adoption or defeat of any ballot question. This section may not be construed to limit the freedom of speech of any officer or employee of the state or such political subdivisions in his or her personal capacity. This section does not prohibit the state, its agencies, or the governing body of any political subdivision of the state from presenting factual information solely for the purpose of educating the voters on a ballot question.
Source: SL 2007, ch 80, § 20.
I was happy to hear the head of the Development Foundation say that the board will look into this.
The taxpayers of Sioux Falls have donated millions of tax dollars to the SFDF for supposed workforce development. So how do they spend their money? They buy an article on Siouxfalls.business about the treasurer of Alex Jensen’s council campaign, Matt Paulson. Can you say possible conflict of interest?
This paid piece is sponsored by the Sioux Falls Development Foundation.
While I don’t take issue with them paying for an article about Paulson, he has many achievements, I take issue with an organization who receives tax dollars from us (even if it is coming out of a different ‘pool’) on a person who is currently engaged with at least one city council race (maybe two).
The SFDF should have steered clear of this possible conflict. I do think they are a decent organization that does some good in our community, but when you are receiving tax dollars and other special incentives from the city and citizens, this just looks bad.
Okay, I jest. I’m not comparing Greg to Donnie boy, but there are some strange similarities between who cut Greg checks and certain votes he has cast over the past 4 years.
You may not recognize some of these names, but if you look at the ones highlighted, they have all benefited from some of the stances and votes Neitzert has taken. Kirby Muilenberg especially stands out, with all his convoluted VL Casino ordinances.
At least with Alex Jensen, he hasn’t cast any votes yet on the council, but Neitzert’s donor list screams ‘follow the money.’
While I don’t support his candidacy this time around, because he turned his back on his promise of open and transparent government, I think Neitzert could easily be re-elected simply based on his incumbency, and he really didn’t need to raise this kind of money. Like Jensen, I think the establishment Republicans are using Greg as a strange experiment of trying to control non-partisan local governments in our state, and it makes me a little sick to my stomach.
TenHaken’s goofy PAC also gave $250 towards Neitzert’s campaign. I guess the Man-Children need to stick together.
Keep your eye on Greg though, his re-election may not be such a ‘sure thing’. There are also some powerful forces behind his opponent that are working hard behind the scenes, and I’m not talking about the small donation from Randy Seilor.
For the record, I am NOT involved with any city council races as of today. That may change, but I may be sitting this one out.
UPDATE: Ironically Greg posted this on FB two days ago. I guess he knows me well. He also knows I know him very well . . . Nothing like killing the messenger before I even show up to the forum 🙂
Hey Greg, it’s kind of hard to respond to an online attack that didn’t happen for another two days. And really, it’s not an attack, it’s the truth.
l3wis 
