Actually it was thrown out because the ethics board and the city attorney that advises them are appointed by the mayor, but why get into semantics?
Since I was the closest thing to a journalist covering this meeting (maybe some AL person was in a closet), here is my rendition of events (hopefully Mr. Danielson will chime in).
It all occurred today at the old city council chambers at city hall at 4 PM. Basically, Mr. Danielson filed an ethics complaint a few days ago that the mayor was in violation for using the State of the City address as a campaign stump speech.
The meeting started with a decision whether or not to have the meeting in open or in executive session. I will commend the Ethics Board for their ONLY good decision today, they decided to leave it in the open (probably since there was no media there).
Reasons they considered throwing out the complaint;
• Danielson filed the complaint one minute after the address started.
• Other mayors have had the address before an election (Munson) which inferred precedent.
• It is against ordinance to submit a press release to the media about an ethics complaint you have filed.
While the ethics commission mulled over all of the reasons, they ultimately threw out the complaint because of #1. Which is bogus, because part of the reason the complaint was issued was because of the timing of the address (which we will get into) not just the content (which we predicted would be a stump political speech, and it was).
Bruce made his case as to why this was a political speech, and not an address. The commission tried to defend the timing of the address, and said past mayors have done the same thing before an election (Munson) but this was not about Munson. While this discussion was going on, I pulled those minutes that were provided to the public before the meeting started. I noticed that in the first 3 years of Huether’s reign that he did his addresses in mid April and May, not in March, I quickly walked up to Bruce and handed him the evidence.
The commission didn’t have much to say about this except that the Mayor has full discretion as to when he wants to make the address.
Then we went into the Power Point presentation that the mayor used during his address. A city employee witness testified that it was common to use a PP during one of these addresses, and he was correct. Then the commission argued that nothing in the address was anymore then typical ‘happenings’ in the city. One of the members (Gregory LaFollette) even said that anything elected officials do is political (I guess he doesn’t understand the difference between ‘political’ and ‘campaigning’).
At this point, a motion had already been made, and Bruce’s testimony was over, so I asked Bruce to request public testimony. They approved his request.
I approached the bench and informed the commission that an address by either a mayor, governor or president not only talks about achievements but states where we can improve. I said besides road construction nothing in the PP presentation talked about improvements in our community (I referenced crime, hungry school kids and low wages). I told them it was a blatant ‘Stump Speech’ specifically timed before an election because of the lack of mentioning ‘improvements’ to our community and the several slides that included the mayor’s rosy opinions about this town.
They had no choice but to throw out the complaint based on the timing of Bruce’s complaint (which as I said above, really doesn’t matter, because the timing of the Mayor’s address is the real reason for the complaint, not just the content).
It ended as I suspected. And I laughed. Another predictable day in SF city politics.
Maybe you’re just being too picky.
You guys conditioning yourselves for the upcoming losses at the polls – or what?
“Inferred precedent” = we’ve always broken the rules/laws/ordinance regarding this kind of thing.
Ruf, I support 5 different candidates and have a distinct opinion on all 7 of the ballot measures. I don’t expect to win them all, but if I get 6 for 6 I will be happy.
I think you were right the first time… it was thrown out due to frivolousness.
Listen I know you and Bruce strongly dislike – some might even say hate or despise – the mayor and all he stands for. You have displayed your feelings for the man prior to him even being sworn in and the amount of anger and perhaps even vitriol being tossed his way has only increased over time.
I can’t say as I’ve ever been one of his fans, and I freely admit I didn’t vote for him last time and don’t plan to vote for him this time either… but I actually find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to defend the man on a regular basis. That isn’t because I like him or everything he does – it is just that I don’t see the world the same way you two do. I’m just not capable of being that cynical, and although you brag about being a cynic, I’ve never felt it was a quality worth admiration.
You might say you are only treating the mayor as he treats you or how you feel he is treating the citizens, but when you fail to take the high road it just leaves everyone in the gutter. I know you also might think you are doing some sort of community service, but aside from making yourselves feel better (and frankly it doesn’t sound like you’re even accomplishing that at this point), I’ve yet to see anything productive come from any of this. It stinks of a personal argument, and the tactics simply haven’t worked. The terms childish and obsessed seem to describe much of this – and I’m not only talking about Huether.
The fact is, the state of the city address is an annual event even when it isn’t an election year. It is also well know that it incorporates a lot of cheerleading. Neither of these facts would be evidence for an ethics violation, nor is the timing of the address an issue since it varies from year to year but is generally between late March to early May.
Dan might be a little whacky at times, but at least his issues had the law on his side. I don’t think you can say the same for Bruce’s complaints, and out in the real world I honestly don’t think he is being taken seriously. Maybe I’m way off base, and I will acknowledge that Bruce has a lot of passion and a desire to improve the climate, but I just think the tactics and methodology need a lot of work before he will actually influence positive change.
Every State of the ____________ (union, state, city, dog pound, etc.) speech ever given is a political statement. We live in a political system. The Citizens for Incaseyou missedit,wereallyhateHuethertegrity have completely blown any policy legitimacy their effort had, and is now just a bitch and moan group. Too bad, they started with some good intentions.
It was an interesting experience. To see firsthand, a board of any kind working as hard as they did to justify their decision.
As a private citizen trying to do right, I admitted early on, the error of the press release. We watched nodding heads and heard the “what if’ discussions before they were put back on the basic course of this complaint. Those present appeared to understand the basis of the complaint was justified. It was their job to get rid of this thing and the city attorney was there to make sure.
We have a salesman mayor who insists on working every loophole to get what he wants. It was the first time filing one of these, but not likely the last. Our group is growing in strength, adding experience, making connections and developing a legal strategy.
I love the design and architecture of the Old Commission Chamber. It is an amazing room, I look forward to a few more trips there.
Craig, while I agree with some of your points, lets touch on this one;
“and I freely admit I didn’t vote for him last time and don’t plan to vote for him this time either… ”
Well why is this? Probably for the same reasons I didn’t or won’t vote for him. I have freely stated to Mike and others that I don’t hate any politician, that is counterproductive and actually ignorant. Do I know people who ‘hate’ Huether. Yes I do, and they have bigger axes to grind then I do. Most of that group used to be former employees and co-workers of the man (and even some of his current employees) I feel bad for them, because you don’t have to hate the guy to understand he just isn’t good for city government.
• He comes from an industry that has raked in billions preying on the poor and the ignorant
• He has repeatedly thrown ethics out the window (TIF and other development investments)
• He has lacked transparency in everything he does with his fellow councilors, former city employees and most of the citizenry
• He has used taxpayers cookie jar to line the pockets of business associates, friends and special interests
• His crying fits have shown he is disengenous
• He is vindictive to those cross him. Not only as the mayor but as a former manager
• He lies and believes those lies
• He believes his ideas are the only good ideas
• He pushes projects through hap hazardly without worrying about the consequences
• He takes credit for everything that is good going on in this community
• He feels indebting taxpayers for the benefit of the specials is a good thing and encourages more reckless borrowing and spending
Do I ‘hate’ some of the things MH has done. Definately. Do I ‘hate’ the man? Nope. That would be just a waste of time, because he could care less what people think of him.
What do I think of Bruce’s complaint. Well I think he screwed up with the filing, but other then that, it was legitimate. As I pointed out to the commission, this was a blatant stump speech and not an address. In an address we talk about what has been accomplished (which he did) and we talk about where we can improve (which he did not). There should be a sense of optimism that comes from an address like this, a sense as a community that our mayor is paying attention, not just to the good things, but to the issues we need to work on. According to Mike’s address, we have no problems in SF.
Dan might be a little whacky at times, but at least his issues had the law on his side. I don’t think you can say the same for Bruce’s complaints, and out in the real world I honestly don’t think he is being taken seriously. Maybe I’m way off base, and I will acknowledge that Bruce has a lot of passion and a desire to improve the climate, but I just think the tactics and methodology need a lot of work before he will actually influence positive change.
It’s interesting to watch the process there and here unfold. There will be more tilting at windmills in a journey like this. We see many things wrong and we are testing the system, inside the system. Try to rest the course of any vessel as it is falling and see how successful you are each time.
There must be some basis for the unrest of our population in Sioux
Falls and we are just an extension. Craig made an interesting point talking about the ‘law’. Laws and rules are often written to protect the writers and not to protect the people. We see it everyday in this administration.
Watching the board members grasp the technical – theoretical message being laid out during this session was refreshing. I know they wanted to do the right thing. I admitted the primary error when I publicized our complaint. Next time there will not be publicity. I am am told it always leaks out anyway, so I needn’t issue anything.
Just so it is understood upfront, you may not like the message. You may not like the messenger. People will likely disagree with the tone of the message. The message is multi-level based on facts. We are attempting to finding ways into the system in order to fix problems.
What are you doing but sitting at your computers criticizing those of us trying to fix it.
Theodore Roosevelt said it well “In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.”
The 3 reasons can all be argued constitutionally. I respect Bruce for his attempts. Fact of the matter is that Home Rule is not democracy and there’s no way to overcome strong mayor. His commands are final whether or not they are rule of law. There’s no checks & balances. Bruce, you’ve shown us another example. I thank you for being persistent.
I’ve learned that change can only be forced legally per class action or civil rights lawsuits addressed in state or federal court. The city uses an ancient writ to dismiss individuals cases. I nearly brought my case into federal court but a famous Jackson Hole law firm declined at the last moment. There are few law firms who will take this sort of case.
I’m hoping homeowners near 85th & Minnesota (Walmart) will organize into a class. The city annexed the land and immediately rezoned it. City planners had restricted development in the area such that residents were promised there’d be a quality of life and potential for property appreciation. Property law is a bundle of rights protected by state law. Hence, this class must be heard in State Supreme Court. The city doesn’t have a good record with the state. As prescribed by law, perhaps this time the state will supervise city government restructuring.
The only other method to get control of city government is vote in a mayor who will install a new charter more like the constitutional charter of Hanson & Knoby years. The council has no power. They’re merely another buffer for the mayor to hide behind yet overrule.
There’s the beginning of a federal investigation happening. I’d like to see that progress with this mayor subject to federal charges. The mayor’s of Charlotte & New Orleans were caught this year. Once Huether’s caught, they’ll pale comparatively.
I’m crazy from PTSD. The VA has me under control psychologically & mentally. It’s very hard for a combat veteran to have to endure a government worse than the communists he fought. It’s pathetic how this city treats veterans. I’ve networked with vet groups and we’re active now. The rest of you deserve this. You voted it and he into this cleptocracy.
I consider myself smart enough to not run for public office. I can’t be another yes man and could never accept violating the constitutional rights & liberty of citizens.
• He comes from an industry that has raked in billions preying on the poor and the ignorant
• He has repeatedly thrown ethics out the window (TIF and other development investments)
• He has lacked transparency in everything he does with his fellow councilors, former city employees and most of the citizenry
• He has used taxpayers cookie jar to line the pockets of business associates, friends and special interests
• His crying fits have shown he is disengenous
• He is vindictive to those cross him. Not only as the mayor but as a former manager
• He lies and believes those lies
• He believes his ideas are the only good ideas
• He pushes projects through hap hazardly without worrying about the consequences
• He takes credit for everything that is good going on in this community
• He feels indebting taxpayers for the benefit of the specials is a good thing and encourages more reckless borrowing and spending
ALL bullet points well worth repeating. Craig won’t vote for the guy for the same damn reasons, but none the less comes on here daily and apologizes for the guy. WTF!!!!
I guess when it comes to questionable banking practices the nut never falls far from the tree.
A good lawyer can build a solid case against Huether based on comments here. Polys bullets are bullseye.
They are not my bullets. That goes to l3wis. All very true, that’s why I thought it beared repeating.
DL as interesting as your list is, I don’t actually agree with you on many of those points, and on others I merely have to say I’ve yet to meet a politician who hasn’t done some of those things or at the very least been accused of it.
The reason I didn’t vote for him last time was there was another candidate I preferred. It is really as simple as that. This time around it is basically the same reason, and although I don’t agree with Jamison on everything and I do think at times he disagrees with Huether simply to differentiate himself rather than basing it upon an actual policy disagreement, I do think overall he is a stand-up guy and he has a sense of honor.
It isn’t that Huether is a bad guy or that he lacks passion – and I seriously do believe in most cases he does what he does because he loves his job and he wants to make Sioux Falls a better place. His vision might differ from yours in what constitutes ‘better’, but I don’t think he is the crook that some of you feel he is. If I had anything to complain about, it would be that his persona comes off as manufacturered. Perhaps he is trying too hard, or perhaps he is just a well polished politician – doesn’t really matter to me. Either way when I place my vote it isn’t against someone, but rather for the person I feel would do the best job. In this case I don’t think it is MMM, but others obviously disagree and I still think he will end up winning this one.
As to the other comments, I’ve given up on responding to such trolls.
Sioux Falls is no Chicago. You’ll never change the greedy people who will use anything at their disposal. America loves winners. Yes, it’s disheartening to see self interest and lack of voter concern, but welcome to human nature. All we can really strive for is a simple process least likely to be corrupted. Huethers, Janklow, Christie, Clinton, etc are a product of our system.