District policy requires that name be selected by a committee, and to help the committee decide, the district conducted a survey on its website.
But the public won’t see those survey results. Maher on Monday denied an Argus Leader open records request for all responses submitted to the survey.
â€The raw survey data does not stand alone and is not required of the policy in the naming process,†Maher’s response stated. “Instead, it is a means for the committee to solicit input from the community as one factor for consideration.â€
But that doesn’t mean the tradition should continue. Why not solicit input from the community in a public meeting? I suggest the committee meet in public with the top names and discuss in an open forum and take public input before they vote on the final decision. Silly me, that would require the SFSD to change all of their policies on transparency.
And who is sitting on this secret committee?
While I suppose I should be angry, I am certainly not surprised. This process has been secretive from the beginning. It’s one of the biggest shams ever pulled on the citizens of Sioux Falls. Does it really matter what these schools are called? In my mind they will always stand for corruption whether you name it Jefferson or Attila the Hun High School.
We are finally getting an update on the Village on the River Project (maybe they will tell us where they are hiding the liquor license?)
We are also getting a presentation on the council’s trip the National League of Cities conference in LA. It will be followed by a slideshow by Councilor Selberg of pictures he took in LA in front of exotic cars.
Item #28, 2nd Reading, Ordinance to eliminate city drone regulations (FAA has it’s own regs). Like 5G, it seems the Feds have a say in this matter. While I understand the FAA controlling airspace, who protects our privacy on the ground? Also, if there no longer is city drone regs, who will enforce the FAA regs? Who do you call if you see a violation? Good question. Will our local police be mandated to enforce FEDERAL regs?
Item #36, 1st Reading, Ordinance to restructure the Audit Committee. Here’s a concept, why don’t we hire some permanent people and get the department functioning again at full capacity.
Item #43, Resolution, Authorize using a Construction Manager at Risk for new Water Reclamation Expansion. Interesting the city is authorizing the use of CMAR, and lining up Bond Counsel, yet we have hired NO ONE to actually build the place.
Item #44, Resolution, Revisiting the street vacation for Lifescape in the VA neighborhood. I found this line interesting;
Testimony in support of said petition has been heard, and no opposition hereto was voiced.
Is the neighborhood aware they are trying to sneak this back in?
Ann Tornberg is running for Re-Election as SDDP Chair. I know. Almost more baffling than Constitutional Carry. You can read her BIO and Plea below, but I did get a good barrel laugh out of this;
“There is still much to do and no one understands that more than the person who has the experience, work ethic, and perseverance to take the job despite the challenge and the critics.”
You have ‘CRITICS’ because your tenure has been a total failure! We have had enough of your ‘Experience’. It’s time to Elect a NEW chair that wants to move the party forward instead of incredibly backwards.
Ann Tornberg, Running for Re-Election as SDDP Chair
Background: Ann is a retired high school English teacher, speech and debate coach, having spent 32 years at Beresford and Sioux Falls Lincoln HS. Prior to retiring in 2010, she was elected President of the Sioux Falls Education Association, the largest public union in the state of SD, at that time. She first ran for the State Legislature in 2010 and did so in three more cycles. While she lost these races in a highly GOP District (District 16 has 4,000 more Republicans than Democratic voters) she knew there were other ways to serve and became a volunteer legislative aide serving every day in Pierre at four Sessions (2013-2016). She was elected Chair of the South Dakota Democratic Party in Dec. of 2014, starting her four-year term in Jan. of 2015.
Ann and her husband of 43 years, Mike, own and operate their four-generation family farm south of Beresford. Their two daughters (one a family physician, the other a teacher) are both married to farmers. Their six grandkids are just as smart and talented as your own (if you are lucky enough to have them).
As with all other Democratic state and county officers, Ann is entirely a volunteer.
Prior to becoming Chair, Ann served on the SDDP Executive Board (2010-2014) and is Chair of the Union County Democrats. Why run again for an unpaid full-time job? Ann explains:
“I have learned, adjusted, and grown through this position. We expanded with a Rapid City office, have five full-time year-round employees, and just approved the 2019 budget to add a full time Tribal Organizer. We’ve grown Founder’s Club from 160 to 430 members in four year. I believe I am best equipped to continue to expand relationships with county leaders, legislators, potential candidates, other progressive groups, and Democratic leaders from other states. I have regular personal communications with DNC Chair Tom Perez. My experience authoring the Delegate Selection Plan for SD will be essential for the 2020 National Presidential Convention. There is only one direction to move…forward. I believe I am the person best equipped to keep moving in that direction.
There is still much to do and no one understands that more than the person who has the experience, work ethic, and perseverance to take the job despite the challenge and the critics.
The current Vice Chair, Joe Lowe has decided not to run. I want to thank him for his service. If I am re-elected as Chair on March 23, Larry Lucus will run as Vice Chair. As a former educator, Vice Chair of the SD Education Association, and State Legislator, Larry brings a wealth of experience and connections to this team. Thank-you Larry for your willingness to serve.
Larry and I would sincerely appreciate your support on March 23 as we elect the officers who will lead us for the next four years.â€
UPDATE: Here is a fantastic interview with an ACLU attorney in California fighting the legal issues with 5G. (FF: 17:00). The attorney brings up that there should be community wide meetings on how the technology is being used, it’s safety and how data will be collected. As the radio host says, in his town of Houston, NONE of that took place. In fact when he describes how 5G got rolled out in Houston it was Deja Vu in Sioux Falls. No public meetings. No hearings with the FCC and with the private telecomm.
This week I was contacted by an advocate in Florida who is trying to bring awareness to the dangers of 5G, to mostly children and the unborn. I also have been contacted by citizens and even city councilors that a lot of intimidation is being used by City Hall when people have contacted them about concerns. The Mayor, Deputy COS and city attorneys are trying to put out the fire. While their actions are questionable, we all know this is coming down from DC and John Thune’s pressure. While the health concerns are troubling, as an open government advocate, I am very alarmed how this was ramrodded through our local elected officials. We should be concerned about;
• Health
• Transparency in Government
• Overreach of the Federal Government
• Money in politics and influence
• Conflicts of Interest
• Manipulation of local government officials through veiled threats of lawsuits
• Partisan politics (GOP) in a non-partisan government.
There are many more reasons why we should be concerned about how this contract was approved.
The Florida advocate sent this email to assistant city attorney, Paul Bengford this week and CC’d me on it. I have not heard an answer back;
Mr. Bengford:
It was rough talking to you just now on the phone. You have an unfriendly demeanor and I highly doubt that you are going to provide me with the information I need. That being said, I hope you take your position in Sioux Falls as an attorney seriously enough to respond to the following questions:
1) When a public utility is asked by a private corporation for access to light poles, can the citizens of Sioux Falls legally ask for a delay until they approve the request?
2) What is the physical address of the company that entered into the 5G contract with the city? (No, Verizon is not the local entity mentioned in the contract.)
3) Who at city hall negotiated the contract with the 5G wireless internet company? What is their contact information?
4) Is the mayor personal friends with the owner of the 5G wireless internet company?
Thank you,
Let’s talk about Bengford’s demeanor, wait, we don’t have time.
He also sent me this information, that I found interesting;
This is how you win this easily:
1) The public utility overseeing the light poles has already declared that the city’s light poles are not strong enough to hold up the 5G equipment and that Verizon will have to replace them and put in cement.
2) If the people of Sioux Falls have the legal right to say how the public utilities are going to be used, then the contract was formed without adequate notification of the change. I am assuming that the citizens of Sioux Falls are the legal owners of the light poles.
3) The city council might claim that it represents the citizens, but no public hearing happened regarding the safety of 5G and the reconstruction of city property.
As far as I can tell, the citizens must themselves be included in the contract. If city council excludes the public from the contract (since the poles belong to the public), the contract cannot move forward and is already voided.
While I’m still on the fence about health affects (since I really haven’t done enough research), here are some interesting links and videos.
As I have joked in the past, some in legislature need to be evaluated for mental illness, and while I was being ‘sarcastic’ when I see crap like this, I sometimes wonder;
State lawmakers are proposing legislation that would allow people to carry concealed handguns without a permit in South Dakota.
The so-called constitutional carry legislation was introduced Friday. The proposal languished under former Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard, but new GOP Gov. Kristi Noem offered support for such a law during her campaign.
Republican Rep. Drew Dennert is sponsoring a constitutional carry bill in the House. He says backers have the promise of the governor and support from the public and both legislative chambers.
Support from the Public? Bull . . . . sh*t!
How do you think this will make us safer? Allowing anyone to have a gun without a permit, or a permitting process is complete insanity. Also, how do you think this will help with tourism? If I was a major player in the Tourism industry, the Education system, or heck any business person in this state I would find a way to put a halt to his frightening legislation. We are not living in the Wild West anymore, and if my memory serves me, it wasn’t a very pleasant time. More guns, and especially guns in the hands of people who are not properly vetted is a horrible idea. How do these clowns get elected? Baffling.
l3wis 
