Why mess around with a wrist slapping?

by

A lot of people lately have been asking if Stehly or I are going to file an ethics complaint against council chair Erpenbach for limiting public input. Stehly went as far as going to the Charter Revision Commission meeting to ask them about it (one more reason why these meetings need to be recorded);

Theresa Stehly wants to know what happens if a city councilor violates city ordinance.

For example, she says, what happens if a councilor got a letter from Project T.R.I.M., failed to trim his or her trees, so the city comes out and does it, charges $150, and said councilor never pays?

Stehly proposed this scenario during Thursday’s Charter Revision Commission meeting, and asked whether it would be grounds for an ethics violation.

City Attorney Dave Pfeifle told her city councilors are held to the same standards as other citizens, and failing to trim trees and not paying a fine would be similar to getting a speeding ticket or parking ticket.

“So there’s no recourse there?” Stehly asked.

“They’re treated the same as everyone else,” Pfeifle said.

“Shouldn’t they be held to a higher standard being they’re an elected official?” Stehly asked. “Could I file an ethics violation against someone for breaking city ordinance?”

Pfeifle said she could, but it’s doubtful that would be grounds for an ethics violation.

First, let me clear the air. While several people who were involved in the December 18 council meeting censorship debacle have thrown around the idea of an ethics complaint, we are mostly in agreement; even if Erpenbach was found guilty of an ethics violation, what would be the recourse? There wouldn’t be any, and the council could continue to limit public input. This is bigger then that. The council and council chair need to be STOPPED from ever doing this again. In other words, take the rule book out of their hands and make them follow the existing rules;

30.015 ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL; TIME LIMIT.

(c) Each person addressing the city council shall step up to the microphone in front of the rail, shall give his or her name in an audible tone of voice for the record, and unless further time is granted by the city council, shall be limited to five minutes.

Citizens must decide what will be done to accomplish this. There are MANY avenues we could follow, but one thing is clear, Erpenbach possibly violated city ordinance by limiting public input.

Not sure where it is going from here, but I will assure you, an ethics complaint is definately off the table. Stay tuned.

Did SF City Council Chair Michelle Erpenbach violate city ordinance?

by

Since the December 18 council meeting, in which Erpenbach limited public testimony to 20 minutes for the snowgate advocates, I have been researching Roberts Rules, city ordinances, statutes, 1st Amendment rights and censorship. While some of my findings are not definitive, especially when it comes to public input,  some things do stand out. From all accounts city ordinance is very clear about the 5 minute testimonial rule, but is the council required to follow it?

You be the judge.

*Your feedback on this post will be essential in what I decide will be the next steps in preventing the council and mayor from limiting public testimony.

ADOPTION OF RULES

It is important to note that the current city council has never had an adoption of rules of order. In other words the parliamentary procedures they follow are standing rules of the past. Chapter 30.012 of city charter outlines this;

30.012 RULES OF ORDER.

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (latest edition) shall govern the proceedings of the council in all cases, unless they are in conflict with this subchapter.

LIMITING DEBATE of PEERS

There has been much talk about whether the council chair can limit the number of questions other councilors can ask during a public meeting. According to Roberts Rules she cannot unless by a two-thirds vote of the entire body;

The chairman cannot close debate unless by order of the assembly, which requires a two-thirds vote; nor can he prevent the making of legitimate motions by hurrying through the proceedings. If members are reasonably prompt in exercising their right to speak or make motions, the chair cannot prevent their doing so. If he has hurriedly taken and announced a vote while a member is rising to address the chair, the vote is null and void, and the member must be recognized. On the other hand the chairman should not permit the object of a meeting to be defeated by a few factious persons using parliamentary forms with the evident object of obstructing business. In such a case he should refuse to entertain the dilatory or frivolous motion, and, if an appeal is taken, he should entertain it, and, if sustained by a large majority he may afterwards refuse to entertain even an appeal made by the faction when evidently made merely to obstruct business. But the chair should never adopt such a course merely to expedite business, when the opposition is not factious. It is only justifiable when it is perfectly clear that the opposition is trying to obstruct business. [See Dilatory Motions, 40].

STATUTES

There are no real statutes in Roberts Rules for public testimony;

Some issues, such as budget approval or ordinance changes, require public hearings, according to statutes. But for regular, open meetings, municipalities are left to their own devices to make the meeting rules.

Rules can be good, Dreps said. They can keep meetings moving so everyone can get home before midnight. They can prevent municipal employees from getting dragged through the mud when they’re not there to defend themselves.

But public officials shouldn’t hide behind rules for convenience’s sake, he said.

“What can you say?” Dreps said. “Democracy is messy.”

Basically each governing body can determine their own set of rules, which the city council has done in their ordinances. According to Chapter 30.015 of city charter;

30.015 ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL; TIME LIMIT.

(a) During the public input portion at the start of a city council meeting, no person shall be permitted to speak on a topic that appears later in that meeting’s agenda if public input will be received when that agenda item is up for discussion.

(b) No person shall address the city council without first securing the permission of the mayor, or acting mayor, to do so.

(c) Each person addressing the city council shall step up to the microphone in front of the rail, shall give his or her name in an audible tone of voice for the record, and unless further time is granted by the city council, shall be limited to five minutes.

(d) All remarks shall be addressed to the city council as a body and not to any member thereof.

(e) No person, other than the city council and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the city council without the permission of the mayor or acting mayor.

(f) No question shall be asked of a city council member except through the mayor or acting mayor.

(g) No person, except city council members, shall address the council after a motion is made and seconded unless requested by a city council member.

(1992 Code, § 2-16) (Ord. 50-95, passed 3-20-1995; Ord. 52-11, passed 7-11-2011; Ord. 24-12, passed 4-2-2012)

So, since the current city council has never had their own adoption of rules, wouldn’t this mean they should be following current city charter?

And according to the current city charter each person can only be limited to a 5 minute time period, unless they are being disruptive. So when Council Chair Erpenbach ‘concocted’ a new set of time restraints for public input before that input started, did she violate city ordinance?

Love to hear the city attorney weigh in on this one, and he just might get an opportunity to do so.

City Council gets schooled by Stehly concerning the snowgate election public input

by

Interview with KSFY (lead story)

Informational meeting where councilor Jamison questions the public input procedures (Entenmen and Aguilar decide to bury the issue in an working session meeting).

City Council meeting where Stehly addresses the council on public input and their responsiveness to constituents.

My research is almost complete on whether I found any charter/ordinance violations by council chair Erpenbach concerning limiting public testimony on an agenda item. I hope to post about it later tonight.

Snowgates: Quote of the day

by

From the Argus Leader;

“I’d rather do it myself,” said Destigter, who has lived in his home for 22 years. “I just don’t like the idea of one lady demanding all of this. The city should decide for themselves.”

I guess I don’t like the idea of living in a community with other residents that don’t understand how a petition drive and election works. Theresa Stehly gathered over 8,000 signatures to put snowgates on the ballot so YOU can decide with other voting constituents whether you want snowgates or not.

So now snowgate advocates are lazy?

by

You never can predict what will come out of the ugly yellow building on 10th & Minnesota;

The Loafer Brigade of Sioux Falls suffered a defeat last week, but loafers never are defeated for long. They rise again to advocate for loafing.

In refusing to call a special election next spring on snowgates, the City Council deflected the issue until spring 2014. About 8,500 people had signed petitions hoping an election would be called sooner.

I guess asking the city to save taxpayers thousands of hours cleaning the iceberms from the end of our driveways classifies us as ‘lazy’. I have never looked at snowgates in that way. As I have said in the past it is about being held hostage to the city when it comes to snow removal. Who cares if the streets are plowed in 24 hours if I cannot get out of my driveway? I look at snowgates in simpler form; I am already paying for the service of snow removal, if it cost an extra 25% to do it properly, I say let’s do it. The plows are already out plowing my street, what’s the harm in taking a little longer and pushing a little button? Lazy? This coming from the rag that created ‘Loafer Journalism’

But the council was within its rights. When it comes to initiated measures, state law allows city governments to call a special election or hold the vote at the next regular election. Our next regular election is spring 2014.

I disagree. The initiative was specifically written so that snowgates would go into affect Nov 1, 2013. The next available election slot (without calling a stand alone special election) is this Spring, 2013 with the school district. I don’t think it gets less complicated then that. A majority of the council doesn’t want snowgates. Period. This had nothing to do with whether they work or their cost. And they know it.

And they suspect that some treacherous lawyers will devise a scheme in which a vote never will take place.

Most definately. Remember what I said about the predictability of our city government? Why wait over a year to have an election? Are we going to have more information? Probably not. The council voted against the 2013 election to give them time to crush the petition drive. I stand by those words.

I’m ambivalent on the subject. Sure, I suppose they would be nice if they work as advertised, but do we really need another government service so able-bodied adults don’t have to shovel out the ends of their driveway?

That’s just it, we are not creating a NEW government service, we are just asking to make one we currently have better. Geeesh.

First, the proponents continually reference this $500,000 water feature being built downtown along the river greenway, a glorified bird bath that certainly will win the appreciation of our resident pigeon population. If the city can spend money on that, it should be fully capable of outfitting plows with snowgates, the Snowgatenistas say.

Regardless of what you think about the bird bath, the money to pay for it comes from a completely different budget and tax source than the budget that pays for snow removal. The budget that pays for snow removal also is the same budget that pays for police officers and firefighters. Thus, we would have less money for public safety.

You can look at this 20 different ways, but whether it is snowgates or birdbaths it is still taxpayer money they are spending. And how are we taking money from public safety? Kind of sounds like we are adding to it. Snowgates are a public safety issue.

The Snowgatenistas also argue that snowgates are a service that would benefit everybody. Really? Because a lot of people in central Sioux Falls don’t even have driveways. And even more live in apartments. How do snowgates benefit them?

Snowgates also have another effective use, clearing intersections. Something the Public Works department never likes to bring up, because they know they are very effective when it comes to this use. So snowgates DO benefit everyone.

If snowgates do hinder progress in clearing roads, you can bet that voters won’t blame themselves for approving the devices. They’ll blame their elected officials.

Well they are the ones responsible for making sure government services work properly, that’s why they get a paycheck compliments of us, the taxpayer.