I was actually surprised it got a 7-1 vote with Rolfing dissenting (Item #48) after three different Parks Board Members berated Stehly during public input (which is against the Mayor’s rules of public input engagement, which Stehly pointed out at the time of the first reading). Hopefully she can maintain these 7 votes going into the 2nd reading (she only needs 6 to be veto proof).
I was also amused by some of the things said by the Parks Board members,
One stated that diversity in terms of districting would actually ‘hurt’ the board. Not sure what that even means. And another member said that serving on a ‘public’ board as a citizen volunteer doesn’t make them a ‘public’ official.
I still am not sure how the 1st reading will go tonight on the Parks Districting ordinance, but this letter of support from Minneapolis certainly doesn’t hurt Stehly’s cause;
                                                                                               July 31, 2017
Dear Theresa,
Thank you for reaching out to inquire about the representative structure of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB). We have nine (9) elected officials who represent the city with three (3) of those elected at large and six (6) elected to represent districts within the city.
As President of the MPRB, I believe that this representative make-up of our board allows us to advocate equally and fully for all areas of our diverse city. When covering a specific geographic area, the ability to focus on that area provides the elected official an opportunity to know in depth the issues that are unique to that region of the city. When you live in a community and have a vested interest in the outcome of the overall results, you tend to advocate more strongly for it. That increased advocacy is not a matter of excluding others, but the fact is that it is just easier to advocate for something when it is more familiar.
Parks are a very democratic and equalizing part of our public commonwealth. Remembering back to the Commons in Boston, parks should be places for everyone. They can provide a place for children to play or residents to recreate without regard to socioeconomic status, race, color, creed or any other factor. And to ensure that parks are for everyone, it is essential to hear the voices of all areas. This is the essential reason to have a representative government for our park needs.
As a board, we keep our eye on the “big picture†by including the voices of our threes (3) at-large commissioners whose focus is on the city as a whole. Rather than concentrating on projects that would affect a neighborhood only, such as a local playground, they would tend to be involved in projects that affect the entire city, such as the park projects along the Mississippi River that are enjoyed by the entire city or a city-wide, fully accessible playground.
As an aside, our School Board recently moved from a fully elected at-large board to a board with a mix of district and at-large representation to ensure that the varied city interests are equally represented.
Let me know if you need further information and thank you for your interest.
Anita Tabb
As Ms. Tabb points out,
“Parks are a very democratic and equalizing part of our public commonwealth.”
So why wouldn’t we want EQUAL representation on this board?
The mayor says that the current board is NOT broken, but his resistance proves that it most certainly is.
Besides Stehly, many of the public in attendance gave several reasons why this legislation is a good idea. Stehly even repeated herself several times to the board that this is NOT ABOUT THE CURRENT BOARD or their performance this is about the future growth of the city.
They didn’t get it. At all. Straight over their heads.
When it was time for them to testify as to why they were opposed to the legislation, I waited in anticipation to hear something NEW as to why they may be against it besides the fact that they think it would hurt diversity. So what was the resounding argument from board members?
Why you picking on me?
They repeatly made it sound like this was attack on them, their volunteer service and their stellar qualifications. Just like the video recording ordinance, the board was quick to say they are personally being challenged.
• None of them are mentioned in the ordinance change.
• None of them would lose their seats.
• Professional or Personal qualifications are not mentioned in ordinance change.
There is only one change in the ordinance; FUTURE members going forward through 2024 will have to represent a geographical area.
Does that seem like a personal attack on current members? Not at all. No one today testifying said the board wasn’t doing their job. It just seems like their lilly-white positions are being threatened and they don’t like it. Like the group-thinkers they are, they all pulled out their rubber stamps and voted against Stehly’s proposal. Doesn’t matter though, she will still bring it forward in August, and if it fails she will bring it again next Spring when the new mayor and council are in office. It’s not going away.
TheArgus ED board gave Stehly the opportunity to respond to their ridiculous ‘sky is falling’ editorial about the Parks Board;
Just as we have district representatives on the council, this would allow a seat at the table for all areas of Sioux Falls on this board. I have been very impressed with the level of concern that our district council members have demonstrated for the whole community, while being available in a special way to hear the concerns of their own area of town. This is the desired benefit of the Park Board ordinance.
As we grow in diversity, population and geography, more representation is a good thing for our citizens. We need to make conscious efforts to stay connected to all the people in our wonderful community. I am grateful that we are able to have a discussion about it and I encourage the citizens of Sioux Falls to weigh in on it. Please feel free to call me at 605-929-8783.
Seems like common sense government to me. Maybe they could use some of that common sense at their ED board meetings in the future instead of kneeling to the desires of city hall.
