Sioux Falls

Stehly brings up costs of other ‘Quality of Life’ Projects in comparison to Project TRIM

During the Informational meeting yesterday, Stehly thanked the Parks Department for doing the Project TRIM experiment. She also brought up other things we subsidize each year. She said that the money could easily be budgeted for the city to trim their own trees in the boulevard.

There was also a discussion about the golf contract with Landscapes Unlimited and how they want to amend the contract so they can possibly provide management for Brandon’s Municipal Course (which I think is a conflict). They cleverly claim that people who will work at the Sioux Falls city courses won’t work at the Brandon course, yet what they fail to mention is that LU is a corporation with multiple management locations all over the United States. Corporate headquarters knows exactly what is going on at both locations simultaneously. They also talked about ‘opportunities’ between the two locations. I’m not sure how people paying to golf at Brandon’s course is an ‘opportunity’ for the taxpayers of Sioux Falls. I have often said we should just have a flat lease for the courses and let the contractor do as they please, and maintain them at their expense. This would be more beneficial to taxpayers, and would eliminate any contract conflicts.

There has also NOT been any determination on how the golf cart shed fire started. During the contract discussion, LU admitted they received $100K from insurance for lost carts, etc. When the Director of Parks, Ding-Dong Don was asked how much the city got from insurance for the destruction of the facility, he responded that they have received nothing yet. When asked why, he said it is because they haven’t figured out yet how they are going to replace the facility (stand alone or along with a new clubhouse). Sorry, but a damaged building value has NOTHING to do with what the new facility will cost. I find this very odd, and wonder if a determination on the cause of the fire will ever be revealed. Of course, this is coming from the same guy who lied about no-mow zones (and various other crap). Can we impeach him?

The Stehly Report

Sioux Falls city councilor Stehly’s yearly mailed newsletter hit the mailboxes today in Sioux Falls. I know that it was mailed to a ‘significant’ amount of Sioux Falls registered voters. This is NOT a campaign piece. Theresa has NOT announced if she is running for a second term and paid for the printing and postage out of her personal funds and NOT from city tax dollars or campaign donations (I don’t think she has any campaign money). It’s a fantastic read! I did NOT contribute and didn’t know about it until today when I saw it posted on Facebook on the SF Politics page (they actually deleted the post after I pointed out they were promoting it, while bitching about it). Theresa sent me the PDF version below;

READ THE CLEAR PDF VERSION HERE.

Former Sioux Falls Mayor Knobe writes another FB post on money in local politics

Rick gets into the thick of it again;

A word on Sioux Falls City Election Campaign funds.

You learn a lot about a person by the way they handle other people’s money. Both tax dollars and those monies raised to run an election.

When a person runs for office obviously they need money to run a campaign so they can get their ideas out to the public.

When the campaign is over and the bills are paid, what should be done with leftover cash?

To me it’s simple.

It’s not your money.

Whether you win or lose, you don’t keep it. You don’t save it for your next election. You don’t give it to others running for office.

I agree, as I said a few days ago, the responsible thing to do to your contributors is spend every last penny up until the day of the election. Your campaign chest should really be empty or in debt on election day. That is called running a responsible and fiscally wise campaign which reflects on how you will run government when elected.

If you can figure out how to return it on a per donor or pro rata (an equal percentage goes back to each donor) that would make sense. Remember, It’s not your money. It belongs to your donors.

If that is too cumbersome, then donate it. Maybe the Community Foundation, the United Way, or the local government you love.

I think it would be difficult to give it back, but I do agree with the charitable idea.

Also I think it is dishonest to raise money to run for a city election and use the leftovers to run for another office later on. “I gave you money to run for mayor. I didn’t give you money to use it to run for Governor, Senator, Congress, or any other position.” I’m not targeting the current mayor. Just using that position as an example.

You kind of are, especially a politician who has money left over by skirting campaign finance rules and receiving donations from toddlers. Yes, toddlers.

I like level playing fields. People who have accumulated big war chests while holding office have both the name identification advantage AND the money advantage.

That makes it nearly impossible for smart motivated unknowns to make a dent.

If you run for office to be a true public servant that’s where your energy and time should go. Not to endless fund raising.

This is local government. It’s supposed to be non partisan and with few exceptions be part time.

Let’s not allow lucre (money) to interfere with good local government.

There have been several local races that have won spending a lot less than their opponents. Staggers (versus Knudson), Stehly, Brekke and Starr all spent less than their opponents and even though DeBoer lost to Soehl (by a handful of votes) he spent a lot less. It is possible to beat big money, you just have to find creative ways to get your message out there.

State Legislature looks to strengthen stalking laws in reference to politicians

Could have seen this coming a mile away;

Stalking penalties could be getting stiffer for newcomers to South Dakota who have similar convictions in other states.

This winter, state lawmakers will consider whether or not South Dakota courts should be able to enhance the severity of stalking charges if the person accused has previously been convicted of stalking in a different state. 

In other areas of South Dakota criminal law, like driving while intoxicated or assault charges, state law provides language that allows out-of-state convictions to be used to justify enhanced charges.

“Like in these other areas of the law, if people are breaking that same law multiple times, then it shows that you’ve got a career criminal on our hands and society needs to be protected from those individuals,” Rep. Jon Hansen (R-Dell Rapids) told the Argus Leader. “This bill provides harsher punishment so hopefully it’ll keep that person from doing that again.”

More: Felony stalking charge reduced against Sioux Falls man accused of harassing mayor

Hansen said the measure stems from a recent case involving Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken and his convicted stalker, Christopher Bruce, who was found guilty on misdemeanor stalking charges after a three-day trial in 2019.

While I disagreed with The Living Man’s use of hyperbole in his written threats against the mayor, the council and his family, I still think it was just a bunch of bark with little bite, and protected by his free speech rights. I don’t think that elected officials, especially elected officials, should get special laws written for them so they can restrict free speech if they ‘think’ they are being threatened. Notice that The Living Man was not arrested until after he took on 5G in a Federal suit. I felt the arrest had to do more with repercussions for that suit. The Living Man was not able to prove that in court. But he did have this great quote;

Bruce told the Argus Leader Monday that he isn’t surprised to see his case earning attention from the State Legislature because “every time someone beats the state,” the state changes the rules. 

“This is how they get these kind of laws into place,” he said. “It’s not about our safety anymore, it’s all about protecting government officials and public servants.”

In 2014 when rabble rousers in Illinois felt their free speech rights were being violated, they got the Sheriff to arrest the politicians;

In what was one of their most epic displays of political crime-fighting, which was captured on video, Allen and Kraft held the entire Clark County Park District Board under citizen’s arrest on May 13, 2014, for violating the Illinois Open Meetings Act, a Class C misdemeanor.

When asked if there would be public comment, one of the board members said, “I vote no.” Followed by five other board members.

Deputies were dispatched to the scene, but instead, Clark County Sheriff, Jerry Parsley, personally responded that night. Parsley said he knew it was a heated situation and felt it would be best if he handled it. He said that Kraft handled the citizen’s arrest responsibly, and the board was definitely in violation of the Open Meetings Act by not allowing the public to speak.

“It’s not that they should have. They’re mandated to,” Parsley said. “The people need to have their voice. It’s not a dictatorship. It’s a democracy.”

The sheriff arrested six of the board members. The seventh board member was not arrested because he voted against the other members. As they were escorted out of the building, the crowd cheered.

This is what should happen when politicians limit our free speech rights. They seem to assert their power of arrest when they feel they are being threatened, shouldn’t we as citizens have that same right when our rights are being violated?