(Image: KELO-TV) This is a picture of a sinkhole that erupted overnight in SF.

It seems our city council gathered another prestigious award (SD Newspaper Association);

And the “Black Hole” Award goes to…

Since this is Sunshine Week, a national observance about the importance of openness and transparency in government, I think it is a good time to give what I call the “Black Hole” Award. Webster’s in part defines a black hole as a space that light cannot escape. Certainly true in the case of the Sioux Falls City Council, which last week was reprimanded by the Open Meetings Commission for violating state law. The complaint that went to the open meetings panel was initiated by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

Last year in a special meeting executive session the Sioux Falls City Council decided to fire the city clerk. The problem: the official action related to the decision to fire the clerk was never conveyed to the public in the official minutes of the Sept. 14 special meeting.

Rather, Sioux Falls councilors decided, apparently based on advice from their attorney, to approve this motion following the executive session: “to authorize Councilors Erpenbach, Anderson Jr., and Entenman to take the personnel action that was discussed in Executive Session.”

Huh?

The city attorney said the council needed to be non-specific in its motion in order to “protect” city clerk Debra Owen and afford her the same rights as if she was a private employee.

Yea, right. Benevolent-sounding, but it appears to be more about city councilors wanting to protect themselves rather than Debra Owen.

At any rate, the open meetings commission was right to reprimand the council, and the subsequent media attention has helped put some bite in the reprimand.

The Sioux Falls mayor has since said the open meetings laws are “confusing.” The Sioux Falls city attorney has said the reprimand is no big deal and he would welcome the opportunity to work with legislators to “clarify” the open meetings law.

Really? Confusing? Clarification needed?

South Dakota’s open meetings laws are pretty clear cut when it comes to taking any official action related to executive session discussions. Public boards in South Dakota generally have operated well under those provisions of the law for 25 years. The law allows public boards to keep discussions and rationales regarding personnel actions in secret. The law is clear that any official action regarding those discussions must be made in public. It also must be clear exactly what those official actions are.

Why Sioux Falls city officials suddenly find it confusing is rather amusing. And sad.

Nevertheless, the 2012 Sunshine Week “Black Hole” Award is no laughing matter. It’s a serious reminder that open government in South Dakota is always a work in progress.

The Mitchell Daily Republic decided to chime in;

It seems that many boards do not take great offense when they are reprimanded by the Open Meetings Commission, a panel that hears public complaints about possible violations of procedure by elected boards.

That Brown is so offended shows he cares, and it shows that he truly wants to conduct the people’s business appropriately.

We don’t care that his scolding of the city attorney caused offense. If the attorney’s advice was bad and caused embarrassment to the board, so be it. The attorney works for the people; so does the City Council, for that matter.

And further, Brown maintains that his role on the board does not trump his First Amendment rights to state his true feelings about this issue.

Hear, hear.

Good job, Vernon.

7 Thoughts on “And the Black Hole award goes to . . .

  1. I attended both the South Dakota Open Meetings Commission meeting and this week’s Council Informational meeting.

    As everyone now knows, the Commission voted 4 to 1 to reprimand the City of Sioux Falls.

    South Dakota’s open government laws may be ambiguous, but for anyone who listened to the seven attorneys debate this specific situation, the decision was clear-cut. The seven attorneys were:

    Five attorneys on the Commission

    Jon Arneson representing the AL

    SF City Attorney David Pfeifle.

    What I found most astounding about the Council’s Informational meeting was David Pfeifle’s insistence on continuing with the same argument based on a 1990 Attorney General’s opinion that he had presented to the Commission.

    City Attorney Pfeifle, did you not understand that Jon Arneson and the AL prevailed!!!??

    WHY did Pfeifle continue to insist that he was right, when he knows that the Commission will be rendering findings of fact and conclusions of law disproving his argument!??

    This is about arrogance not accountability!!

    I hope that Councilor Vernon Brown will follow through with his statement that he is going to ask for a vote of “No Confidence” at the April 2nd Council meeting.

    How each of the eight councilors vote that day will tell the citizens of Sioux Falls whether or not they accept accountability for the reprimand from the South Dakota Open Meetings Commission and will make perfectly clear what their stand is on open government and transparency.

  2. Andy Traub on March 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm said:

    Cr. that was a great point. Well said as usual.

  3. l3wis on March 15, 2012 at 8:39 pm said:

    CR – That is what amazed me when I sat thru that meeting, David knew they were going to rule against him, and he kept arguing over an AG opinion. For Christ’s sake, sometimes you just have to admit defeat.

  4. John2 on March 16, 2012 at 6:58 am said:

    Open Meetings.
    1. One has to wonder whether the city attorney took the First Amendment class in law school. His behavior gives no indication he did. Apparently he took the mythical “argue more, louder” class.

    Black Hole.
    1. After years of Sioux Falls sewergate and now the eruption of water main gate – is anyone getting the idea that Sioux Falls infrastructure just might be 2d or 3rd nation, in need upgrading, and that basic infrastructure upgrades should have a higher priority than an occasionally used stadium?

  5. John, my freaking head spins when I think about all the good public projects we could do in this town besides an EC. On top of that, the freaking opening line cook today was playing Bieber while we were setting up. I told him, “This music really sucks.” and he said, “Stop being negative Scott.” and I said, I am not being negative, I’m actually being nice, the music really sucks.”

  6. Welcome to my world, Scott. I supposedly hate everything, yet I have to have an entire room devoted to my music collection.

  7. No kidding, huh? I get the same BS when I am critical of local artists, funny thing though is people still ask my opinion.

Post Navigation