I received this document today. It is a full transcript of a conference call between the SOS’s office and the city of SF (City attorney and city clerk) (full document here): petition-trans

I cropped the full document to Question #6 and made a graphic, I found this one interesting. Still do not know what to think? As I understand it, the city could take NO action, but since a special election opportunity presents itself, they would look pretty self-serving and foolish not to join the school board election. But hey, who knows what the current elected officials will do, afterall, they fired the best damn city employee they have ever had recently.

Stehly got former city clerk Debra Owen and former mayor Dave Munson to sign the petition today (Dave was a bit camera shy).

There has been some talk that certain city council members are claiming that the snowgates initiative cannot be on the ballot with the school board election because they did not appropriate funds for it. Baloney. A South DaCola foot soldier sent me this fine piece of info;

I thought I would shoot these state statutes to you. BTW, the council called the Drake Springs Pool election. State law requires the city to formally ask the school district to join their election. This is usually done by November of the preceding year by the city clerk. The school district votes on the matter–in the past the school district and the city split duties and the bill but it appears that those days are over–given your blog. Relations with the County/City/School are always in flux but throwing Bev Chase under the bus for the City’s incompetence was shameful.

 

SDCL 9-20-2. Petition proposing ordinance or resolution–Contents. A petition to propose an ordinance or resolution shall be filed with the finance officer, containing in proper form the proposed ordinance or resolution. It shall be signed by the required number of the resident registered voters of the municipality. The signer or circulator shall add the signer’s residence address, county of voter registration, and date of signing. The signer’s post office box number may be given in lieu of a street address if the signer lives within a municipality of the second or third class. No signature on a petition is valid if signed more than six months prior to the filing of the petitions.

SDCL 9-20-4. Presentation of initiative petition to governing body–Submission to voters. When a petition to initiate is filed with the finance officer, the finance officer shall present the petition to the governing body at its first ensuing regular or special meeting. The governing body shall submit the petition to a vote of the voters in the manner prescribed for a referendum.

SDCL 9-20-11. Date of election on referendum petition–No action taken pending election. The governing body shall, upon the presentation of a petition pursuant to § 9-20-6, submit the question to the electors at the next annual municipal election or the next general election, whichever is earlier. Pending the election, the governing body may take no action with respect to the subject matter of the petition that would alter or preempt the effect of the proposed petition. However, the governing body may expedite the date of the election by ordering, within ten days of receiving the petition, a special election to be held on a Tuesday not less than thirty days from the date of the order of the governing body.

BTW, I was searching for the Drake Springs pool documents that were voted on by the council to call that election and discovered that there are MANY meetings that have disappeared, most of 2008 and 2009. And all swearing-in ceremonies prior to Huether taking office. So much for the most open and transparent mayor/council . . .

What is the solution? Stehly has told me today that if the city has a problem with funding the election due to appropriations she would loan the city $21,000, interest free in the form of a promissory note and they could pay her back next year. This is NOT a bluff. Stehly told me that she could pull the money out of a retirement fund.

 

Since the city decided to throw the school district’s Bev Chase under the bus (mini-van) in the last joint election. The school district drew up a contract with the city that asks them to handle entire joint elections in the future and the school district will reimburse them for 100% of their costs.

SOUNDS FAIR.

READ THE ENTIRE contract HERE: electioncontract

Problem is the city (mayor) have yet to sign the contract and the deadline is December 31, 2012. The bigger concern is how this may affect the joint school board election with the possible snowgates petition question.

As I understand the contract, if the city decides not to sign they would have to hold a ‘special election’ for snowgates. The other concern would be having ‘super precincts’ for a special election.

I think something as important as snowgates, ALL of the precincts need to be used.

I guess we will wait for the mayor’s John Hancock.

 

I got word this week that the city is anticipating snowgates will be on the Spring ballot with the school board election.

The drive is well past the 4,800 signatures needed. Hopefully next week they will be turned in – I have a number, but I am going to let the public be WOWED!.

BTW, I was told today that a prominent state politician signed the petition, and when asked why they signed it, they said, “Because my neighbor died of a heart attack scooping that berm of snow out of the end of their driveway.”

One more reason these need to be approved.

While that might not be a very good selling point (or heck, maybe it is) I think we should come up with a slogan for snowgates.

Here’s mine;

‘DEATH TO THE SHOVEL!’

Give me your best shot!

I got word today that the petition drive hit 5,300 signatures this week. This is well over the 4,800 valid signatures that need to be turned in. Stehly says she would like to turn in 7,000 signatures to show how many people truly support these devices.

Councilor Jamison will appear on Knobe’s show tomorrow. I’m sure snowgates will come up. 4 PM, KSOO 1140 AM.