It has been over 2 months since the city election, and the city has yet to put up the BIOs of the 3 new councilors;
What is surprising to me is when these 3 folks ran for office, they had to put their BIO out there for voters. ALL of them had websites outlining who they were (Sarah Cole just wasn’t sharing her voting record 🙁 ) so this is NOT on them, I am sure they supplied this info to the city’s IT department to put on the website.
This is just another example of how ineffective and worthless our city website is.
I have argued for a long time that the Sioux Falls should model their website after Omaha’s with ALL the public and board meetings streaming on Youtube.
The city council meetings are ran by the chair. Normally that is the mayor who only passes the gavel if he has a conflict, wants to speak on an item or has to cast a tie-breaker vote.
The chair has the ability to stop a speaker or interrupt a speaker. In normal circumstances that would be if someone goes over time limit, is cussing or makes physical threats towards the chair, council, city staff or anybody really.
What the chair SHOULD NOT be doing is stopping or interrupting speakers because of the content of their input, this is prior restraint;
In First Amendment law, prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before the speech happens. .
When a speaker is making a point during public input, they have a certain amount of time to do so. (3-5 minutes) during that time it may be the case that a speaker builds a narrative that may have nothing to do with the item they are addressing but telling a story to make the case about the item on the agenda. But that doesn’t even matter. As long as public input is addressing the body about government it doesn’t matter if that narrative is about sewer pipes, teddy bears or hurdy gurdies.
In other words it is extremely inappropriate (and unconstitutional) for the chair to cut off or redirect speakers unless they are in violation of decorum that I wrote about earlier.
Lately the Chair (Mayor) of the meeting has been in that habit of trying to redirect speakers if he doesn’t understand or doesn’t like the narrative they are using to build their case. He did it a couple of times Tuesday night and has done it in the past, this is prior restraint and he has been made aware of it.
When former councilor Brekke was on the council she had a long conversation with the city attorney about it, and he seemed to conclude it was just a difference of legal opinion. It is NOT a difference of opinion, it is a violation of Free Speech and the 1st Amendment.
A couple of years ago when I was scolded by the mayor while giving public input (I think it was when I called him a hypocrite . . . several times) a former security officer told me later about the incident that he had NO intention of arresting me or making me leave because I was well within my constitutional rights. I think he said, laughingly, “Calling someone a hypocrite is NOT a physical threat, It’s not even a curse word.”
The scary part about this is that if someone wanted to file a legal complaint against the city because of the chair’s action, they could, and it could be a very easy prosecutable offense. I would never do that, because I am very capable of sticking up for myself and swatting the chair’s interruptions away like flies but it can be very intimidating to someone who has never addressed the council or understands what prior restraint is. In simple terms, it’s bullying.
Somebody asked me after the meeting why does he do that? I guess I could give a hundred answers, but I think this will suffice;
Authoritarian; favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
Some citizens have expressed to me they are disappointed in how supposed non-partisan city government has become so partisan. I don’t see partisanship at all, all I see is Authoritarianism, and it is like a rabid dog.
At another bizarre city council meeting last night 3 councilors (Neitzert, Cole and Merkouris) decided to vote against a Pride month resolution because they felt it was setting some kind of precedent. Let’s pretend for a moment that was true (it is not) wouldn’t you still support it without supporting the process? They could have easily voted for it while stating they didn’t like the process. It is NOT precedent. During the Huether administration there was a proclamation almost weekly. The only difference between proclamations and resolutions is that proclamations come from the mayor’s office and resolutions come from council (according to the city attorney last night). Here are the proclamations from 2016 that were presented at the regular council meetings;
Sex Trafficking Awareness and Action Month (January 2016)
Sioux Empire Water Festival Days – March 9 and 10, 2016
World Kidney Day – March 10, 2016
Social Work Month — March 2016
National Service Recognition Day – April 5, 2016
National Walking Day – April 6, 2016
Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Action Day – April 19, 2016
American Legion Poppy Days – May 13 and 14, 2016
Historic Preservation Month – May, 2016
Bike Month – May, 2016
Alzheimer’s & Brain Awareness Month – June 2016
National Health Center Week
Suicide Prevention Week – September 5-11, 2016
Childhood Cancer Awareness Month – September, 2016
National Mental Illness Awareness Week, October 2-8, 2016
Native American Day – October 10, 2016
Domestic Violence Awareness Month – October, 2016
Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month – November, 2016
American Diabetes Month, November, 2016
Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Month, November 2016
The practice of presenting proclamations at the council meetings seemed to end in 2018 after Mayor TenHaken was installed. Not sure why, but that was a decision made by his administration (he still releases proclamations discreetly). But for Neitzert, Cole and Merkouris to argue this is out of the ordinary is just flat out false. In fact, TenHaken replaced it with the Siouxper Hero awards at council meetings. Why weren’t there any objections to that? Weren’t we setting a precedent?
As I told councilors last night, they are entitled to their personal opinions about the gay lifestyle, but as a non-partisan governing body they should all be in support of inclusiveness in our city which doesn’t infringe on their personal beliefs as individuals or their crazy beliefs as councilors about a broken process.
“. . . I am PROUD to stand with friends and colleagues who oppose bigotry, violence, segregation, and hatred. This is not the moment to argue. Rather, let us link arms, unified in our support for tolerance, acceptance, inclusion, and love.”
They can make whatever excuses they want to as to why they voted against the resolution, but at the end of the day they just looked petty and I applaud the councilors that voted for the resolution and especially councilors Starr and Soehl for challenging their fellow councilors to do the right thing, even if 3 of them can’t figure out what the right thing is.
Sub-Item #15, Financial Agreement; Levee Outfall Structure at Sanford Sports Complex, Sanford, $483K (it is no secret that the sports complex is a swamp, so it is no surprise they have to build this. I’m just curious why the (local) taxpayers are paying for something that benefits a private health system and is in the right away of the CORPS of Engineers (Federal property).
Item #17, Resolution, Public Works department is asking for permission to apply for SRF loans for well replacement for $12 Million +
Item #18, Resolution, supplemental funding for the Parks Department;
Amend Capital Improvement Program Project No. 14009, Aquatic Facilities Improvements, by adding funding in 2022. The estimated cost for conducting the community engagement process associated with gathering feedback for future aquatic facilities renovation/replacement projects is $100,000 and will require an increase in appropriations that will be funded by a donation from the Sioux Falls Area Community Foundation.
The presentation on this is during the informational. I find it curious that the Community Foundation is funding an aquatics study, which will ultimately find we need to build new pools, spray parks or even another indoor facility. Talk about stacking the deck. I think the city has plenty of data to show where these facilities need to be or replaced, this is just an attempt to push poll the city into building certain facilities in certain neighborhoods. The city should just give the Sanford Sports Complex the green light to build another indoor aquatics facility (where it belongs) since ours runs at about a $500K deficit every year. NO more indoor pools or wasted concrete on the River Greenway. We need to improve the bike trail and commit money to something that is used and is FREE to the public. BTW, I rode the ‘extended’ version of the trail today (starting and ending at Falls Park). It is 31 miles. If you get off by the country clubs and circle back at Family Park you will get 31 miles at the end. Oh, and they need to fix the mud pit at Family Park when you get off the trail. Engineering fail.
Item #19. Resolution, recognizing June as Pride Month, sponsors Starr and Soehl. Either this resolution will pass 8-0 with NO discussion or we will see if some of the Trumplicans newly elected will protest. I think it would be fun to have a tie vote letting the mayor break the tie.
On Wednesday June 22nd, the city council has decided to have a couple of committee meetings in the dead of the afternoon they have not had in a very, very, very long time;
City Council Operations Committee Meeting, 1 PM and a city council working session at 2 PM.
Last night at the city council meeting a citizen noticed the normal security guards were NOT at the meeting and replaced with some off duty SFPD detectives. She asked Chief Thum about it and he said that they all quit the same day (Aprox 10). She also did some asking around today and it seems to be a disagreement about salaries. I guess this also includes the mayor’s security at City Hall. Who is going to protect his mini-fridge now?!
l3wis 
