Entries Tagged 'Ethics' ↓

Image: KELO-TV screenshot

Is Vernon defending Kermit over the bogus ethics investigation because he feels Kermit was wronged? Or is afraid it may be his hide next? Makes you wonder if the ethics committee was trying to dig up dirt on Vernon to?

Staggers is concerned that the investigation went beyond the scope of the original complaint. Something that also concerns city councilman Vernon Brown.

“Probably, the most disturbing part for us is the complaint was filed but the investigation went beyond what the complaint was,” Brown said.

And let’s hear the bullshit response . . .

Mike McKnight, the chair of the Board of Ethics, says local laws give them the ability to go where the evidence takes them, and if any changes were made to that part of the law, it would limit their work.

LMAO! You mean the same ‘unconstitutional’ laws that tell people when they are in violation of city code? A city can’t just make up laws that are in violation of the US Constitution and the State Constitution and then use those bogus laws to assert power. Kermit nails it with this comment;

“In making it public then they’re going to be held accountable. When you have a situation where things are done in secret, accountability goes by the wayside,” Staggers said.

The ethics board chief advisors

I am amazed that in such a small town that we have such huge egos and arrogance by the few in power;

The Sioux Falls City Council wants to make the ethics complaint process more public and give the Board of Ethics less authority to impose penalties as it works to amend city law.

Right now, the board has the authority to impose several penalties on city officials or employees if they are found to be in the wrong.

The penalties include a reprimand, suspension or removal from office or a fine.

“They serve as the prosecutor and the judge at the same time,” Councilor Kenny Anderson Jr. said Monday at the council’s Public Service Committee meeting.

Oh, but wait, even though Kenny is right, and it is LEGAL, the boo-hoo ethics board doesn’t want you to think it is all their fault.

Chairman Michael McKnight said the board simply was following the city ordinance.

“We are the favorite whipping boy. What can we say? There’s not much we can say about the specific incident because the process is confidential,” McKnight said.

That is just it. Instead of just responding to the one complaint about the city employee addresses they went on a ‘fishing expedition’ and tried to find other ethics violations against Dr. Staggers. This WAS political, and it so f’ing obvious that heads should role. I mean, C’mon, these people are volunteers, boot their asses. The job of a GOOD and FAIR ethics board is to look into complaints and make recommendations. That’s it. Seems pretty simple to me. Instead, they have the city attorney’s office and their TOADS digging up empty graves like no tomorrow.

Huether and the council need to remove everyone from the ethics board and city attorney’s office and start fresh.

Looks like city attorney Tornow ate too much of the US Constitution. I never knew the fifth amendment could be so filling (screenshot from KELO-TV video).

Here’s an update on the ethics complaint against Staggers.

Tornow also says he thinks the city’s ordinance is in conflict with state law, which is why Staggers says he wants changes to the way the board of ethics operates.

“I wish your best in the consideration of the proposed ordinance which would make it clearer or more explicit in allowing an accused person of an ethics complaint to allow the complaint to be made public. This ordinance that needs to be passed,” Staggers said.

Well isn’t it your freaking job to follow state law? If you know it is in violation, as a lawyer wouldn’t you follow state law instead of protecting the city? You should put a gigantic sticker on the City Attorney’s door at city hall, “The Fifth Amendment is not allowed here.”

Ethicsboardminutes. This is a PDF.

ethicscomplaint. This is a PDF.

response-staggers This is a PDF.

Tornow needs to get a fire estinguisher for his pants;

Owen asked Tornow whether he felt Staggers had adequate notice of what the board was investigating. Tornow replied: “It isn’t how I feel like, it’s how I read the ordinance.” And he said it was “absolutely untrue” that Staggers didn’t receive proper notice, to which Staggers replied, “What are you talking about, Shawn?”

This guy tells so many lies, he begins to believe them. It infuriates me that he still is collecting a paycheck from my taxes. He should be fired, disbarred and ran out of town for his violations against the US Constitution.

s

As expected, the credit card reform bill passed the senate. In fact, the vote was 90-5.

Our senators showed us all who really owns them by voting ‘no’ on needed consumer protections, and in fovor of the credit card industry.  Johnson was the only democrat to vote against the bill, and Thune was one of four republicans – all from states that play a major part in the banking industry – to vote no.

The CC industry has now threatened that  consumers will have a harder time obtaining credit as a result of this bill:

The goal in the legislation should be to obtain the right balance: providing protections, while maintaining the important role of credit cards in providing loans to consumers and small businesses. Unfortunately, we believe the bill does not achieve that balance and will therefore cause an unnecessary decrease in credit availability.

But really, they have to be bluffing here. If you ran a business that had both customers who paid on time and customers who were total deadbeats, which group would you rather alienate; the ones who bring in steady revenue, or the ones who pay sporadically if at all?

If you are unable to responsibly use a credit card, having access to one will only make your financial problems worse. Maybe going back to the days when only responsible people had credit cards will be a good thing.

I have to roll my eyes at the local CC companies crapping their pants about jobs being effected. If you can’t find a way to turn a profit in the CC business without screwing your customers over, you shouldn’t be in business.

But candidates and possible candidates will be able to ask for legal opinions about possible conflicts they may personally have. (Click on Council meeting, Item #29)

I’m still on the fence about this whole thing. I think that the councilors are shooting themselves in the foot by approving this change. If I were a councilor I would much rather have someone ask an ‘opinion’ about me before I voted on an issue then file a ‘complaint’ after the vote happened. I would think that would be much more embarrassing to have a complaint filed and have major ramifications if the vote was close.

I do agree the advisory opinions should be confidential and not released to the public, just the party’s involved so that it does not become a political football. I think that is a very fair revision.

I guess now councilors can vote on whatever they want without the public questioning their conflicts or motives, they are only allowed to question themselves, that’s convenient, huh?

An Argus reporter wrote about the vote, but it is as clear as mud.

The council wants to play hardball, fine, I’m all for it;

Advisory opinions allow the board to review a situation and determine if it violates the city’s ethics policy. Currently, anyone can ask the board for an opinion about the behavior of a city official.

But some councilors feel the process has burned them. They say it has been misused as a political weapon because a person who files one can then make it public. They argue advisory opinions should be available only to city officials who want guidance about their own conduct.

Myself and residents will just wait for you to do something unethical then file a complaint, if you want it that way. You think asking for opinion is ‘politically damaging’? Wait until you actually screw up and a complaint is filed. All you are doing is shooting yourself in the foot.

Board members have proposed keeping advisory opinions available to all residents. They would make them confidential as well, which would prohibit someone from asking for an opinion and then using it to damage someone politically.

I am all for confidentiality. Like I have said before, this isn’t about making things ‘political’ (even though everything you do is political, because, you are a politician) it is about nipping conflict of interest in the butt before it turns into a complaint. It’s all about prevention. Duh!

But that idea doesn’t appear to have much traction with councilors.

 

“The best way to stop an advisory opinion from becoming political is not to have it,” Councilor Kermit Staggers said.

So basically what councilor Staggers is saying is that residents don’t have the ‘knowledge’ to know whether or not a councilor is acting inappropriately or unethically, only other councilors and city staff? Give me a break – don’t insult my intelligence. Who was dead on center about not getting stimulus money or not needing to borrow for the levees? Not any of you.

Maybe I’m not getting something here, but why is almost the entire council and our joke of a Fourth Estate trying to stifle public dissent? It is no surprise that the AL took the side of the council on this one, they have been anti-citizen rights for a very long (and they will continue that next week when they raise the Sunday paper to $2 an issue. So will we get an extra 25% news? Doubtful.)

City councilors have said that advisory opinions aren’t always confidential and at times have been used for political purposes.

 

And they’re right to some extent.

The advisory process does need to be protected so that residents can’t make reckless allegations against any official under the cloak of openness.

What freaking part of OPINION do they not understand? No one is making ALLEGATIONS. They are asking questions.

According to Wiki:

An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court that does not have the effect of resolving a specific legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law.

Asking if a councilor has a conflict of interest is something citizens should be able to have the right to do (since we elect you and pay their wages). When you become a public official your actions SHOULD be under a microscope so you are always acting in the best interest of the people.

Residents already have a process that’s sufficient for addressing any possible ethics violations they perceive. They can file an official complaint, which then is investigated. If the investigation uncovers any merit to the complaint, the complaint eventually becomes public.

This is assbackwards because essentially you are allowing a councilor or city worker to break the law first before anything can be done about it. And if it is found that the person has a conflict will their decisions be overturned? Probably not. That’s why an advisory opinion FIRST is the way to go, it prevents a conflict. If they prefer the opinion remain confidential, fine, I can live with that, but don’t get rid of the process.

Not just a pretty face, but also a rabble rouser

I compared representative Noem to Palin, way back in the day; just read her BIO, funny stuff.

But Madville adds a little more to my original findings.

I find it extremely funny that a ‘retired farmer’ would take on Heidepriem. I agree with Kristi, he has a conflict of interest, but you may be barking up the wrong tree. West River vs. East River. This is just starting to heat up.

The Sioux Falls city council is still hung up on this crap. “How dare a citizen question my intentions!” The pure ARROGANCE of this rule change stinks to Holy Hell.

He (McKnight) noted the ordinance indicates that anyone can request an advisory opinion from the board, but at the end, a clause says only a city official may request an advisory opinion about his or her conduct.

 

“It creates a conflict,” McKnight said.

Councilors say advisory opinions are not always confidential and the process has been used for political purposes.

What!? When I asked for an advisory opinion I was trying to make sure councilors who had conflicts of interest would not vote, in turn PREVENTING anyone from filing a complaint. It was no different then the recent Sanford zoning vote when Bob Litz asked the city attorney if he should vote on it. IT IS WHAT IT IS – AN OPINION! Would they prefer they voted and citizens started filing complaints? I see that as a much worse scenario.

As for claiming it is ‘Political’ – WTF is that supposed to mean? That statement is so ridiculous, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. You are a politician, everything you do when representing city government is ‘political’ DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?! As a private citizen anything I do is not political, considering at the time I asked for my opinion I did not belong to ANY Political action group and have been a registered independent for over 7 years, I represent myself as a private citizen. Period.

This is just another attempt by our local government to try to silence public dissent.