What!? You haven’t heard the news?!
Today, Monday, October 17, 2016, the Human Rights Campaign released its Municipal Equality Index, and Sioux Falls has improved its score by 12 points over last year’s score.
The Municipal Equality Index examines how inclusive municipal laws, policies, and services are of the LGBTQ people who live and work there. Cities are rated based on nondiscrimination laws, the municipality as an employer, municipal services, law enforcement, and the city leadership’s public position on equality.
Last year, Sioux Falls scored a 28 out of a possible 100 points. This year, Sioux Falls’ score is 40. Sioux Falls improved its score over last year, in part, because of its leadership’s public position on LGBTQ equality and its pro-equality legislative or policy efforts. The Municipal Equality Index also found that the City is a welcoming place to work.
“Sioux Falls still has some work to do, but I’m thrilled that our city is becoming more inclusive to all people, including the LGBTQ community,” says Colleen Moran, Assistant City Attorney. “We are working hard to engage the community and provide residents with opportunities to promote and embrace a more inclusive Sioux Falls.”
Sioux Falls is one of nine cities in South Dakota scored by the Human Rights Campaign. Of those nine cities, Brookings received the highest score at 50. More information, including Sioux Falls’ full scorecard, is available at www.hrc.org/mei.
So who is throwing the party? Maybe we could have it at the Avera cafeteria when SF finest are at the feeding trough there? I’m sure with all of their new diversity training they would be welcome to the idea. We could also play the party game ‘He said, she said.’
The following Argus Leader article from today’s paper highlights the problem all the citizen efforts will face. What’s to stop City Hall employees from discussing openly who/what the people should vote for? With our lack of ethics law, what’s to stop decisions being made affecting who can vote.
Is the city wrong in this attempt to sway a citizen effort’s defeat? What do the city ‘leaders’ have to gain? Why do the efforts of city bureaucrats mean more, than the citizen efforts? We will see the same thing happening on the other three issues. The pool issue is but a small part of the larger picture of what is happening in Sioux Falls and South Dakota.
We will be seeing city hall led efforts to take charge of the non-ballot discussion to sway the pool vote. Our salesman mayor only knows how to sell something. The only way a salesman gets gratification by closing another sale, damn the costs that’s someone else’s job to worry about.
Maybe it is time for a city ordinance banning the use of taxdollars being spent on ‘educating’ the public on citizen initiated ballot issues.
Should elected officials be able to speak freely to the public about their opinions on certain ballot issues? Most definitely, in fact the First Amendment protects that right. But should an elected official or a city director/employee be able to use taxpayer resources to educate the public about a ballot issue they want defeated or even approved? State Law says it cannot, but the city seems to be using a ‘loophole’ claiming they are ‘educating’ the public. Baloney.
When you present the public (leak it to all the major news media) 75% more drawings of an indoor pool, then an outdoor pool, and clearly make the indoor pool look more favorable, while spending $46,000 on these drawings, you are clearly trying to sway the public to vote against an outdoor pool.
I have no issue with Walmart, SON, Community Swim, Veterans for the VA or even the snowgaters organizing and paying for an education campaign. As private enities, they have that right. But they should not be expending tax dollars to sway a vote.
Since the city seems to want to ignore state law, or use loop holes to continue to ignore it, what can we do as citizens to stop the taxpayer funded ‘education’ program?
Ironically is probably another ballot issue to close the state law loophole. Who is willing to come forward? Soon?
Good luck getting a job in Rapid City in that get-up
How week kneed is the Rapid City council if they can’t even approve a resolution that has no effect on official policy?
The Rapid City Council rejected on Monday a watered-down version of a resolution opposing workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The council voted 8-2 against the resolution by Alderwoman Karen Gunderson Olson, which would have stated the city’s support for adding sexual orientation and gender identity — or transgender — to protected classes under federal law.
I can’t image if this resolution was presented by a Sioux Falls city councilor. Quen Be De would go into such a fit she would faint. While councilor Jamison would put on a one actor version of RENT.
It was a statement without effect in policy, but it was too much for the overwhelming majority of council members to accept.
I suggest you spend a night on the dancefloor of the Saloon in Minneapolis – you’ll leart to ‘accept’ a lot of things.
Dale Bartscher, pastoral ministries director for the South Dakota Family Policy Council, said the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already protects people with different sexual orientations from discrimination. Adding additional protections to gays, lesbians, and bisexual and transgender people isn’t needed and could be harmful, he said.
“I believe it’s a slippery slope once you allow one group special privileges based on behavior. It’s a Pandora’s box,” Bartscher said.
Special privileges?! You mean like equality, something all the rest of us share? Sorry, Dale, but any representative from the SD Family Policy Council isn’t qualified to give advice on gay and lesbian rights. Now go back to protesting abortion.
Martinson said sexual orientation and gender identity aren’t simple behavior, but rather are inherent characteristics that people are born with.
Just like Republicans missing the chromosome that helps the rest of us recognize common sense?