UPDATE: City Clerk responds, nothing to see here, move along.
Dear Bruce — In response to your letter dated 3/31/14, I apologize for not meeting your two-hour deadline after your unannounced visit on 3/31/14. I was out of the office all afternoon on election business. Thank you for voicing your concerns.
In reviewing your concerns regarding Initiated Measure 2, with the stated completion date of “December 15, 2015†rather than “December 31, 2015,†I have determined that this transcription error in the exact day of the month of December is not material to this ballot issue. The month and year are correct and reflect the intent to have this project completed by the close of the 2015 budget year. As you are aware, construction season in South Dakota closes about the first week of November. If the voters approved an outdoor pool, it would realistically need to be completed by early November 2015, in advance of any day in December, 2015. The material specifics of the proposal, including “ . . . shall be constructed for not more than $7,500,000 . . . “ and the size limitations stating, “shall not exceed the size of the new swimming pool complex, including parking, by more than 20 percent†are correct.
We apologize for this error, but again, it will not affect the expression of the will of the voters on the merits of this issue.
Sincerely,
Lorie Hogstad, CMC
City Clerk
Mr. Danielson asked for a formal explanation today in a letter to the City Clerk’s office, to which they have not responded.
It would seem to be a violation of state election laws since a date is wrong (not just a simple misspelling).
How did this happen?
It certainly probably wasn’t the print shop that printed the ballots that messed this up, since the ballot measure brochures also display the wrong date, and they were printed BEFORE the ballots.
Some would say the 15 days doesn’t really matter, but you also have to realize that the petition language is prepared by an attorney, people sign the petition based on this language, and the language states December 31.
What’s the fix?
They could postpone the entire election and print new ballots. They could also move forward with an election next week, and tell voters that the pool issue is null and void and will be postponed to the next election.
Not sure. I am not an attorney for election law. Not sure what the options are or who is even at fault, but many fingers are pointing towards the city attorney and city clerk. Some that knew about this are asking if ‘it was intential’ to have an excuse to invalidate the ballot issue after the election. Seems far-fetched. I’m on the side of incompetence. Just look at what happened in the auditors office last week (BTW, Central District Council Candidate Rebecca Dunn will be addressing the county commission tomorrow morning at 9AM at the regular meeting about the absentee flub).
Some would say the ‘typo’ mistake should have been caught in the public review period. HA! HA! Unlike the state elections, the city had NO public review of the ballot language before printing. In fact the city clerk FLAT OUT refused to allow representatives from the different petitions review the ballot language.
Nice move.
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
But the date isn’t the only error on the ballot. The snow gate language is also misleading, and the city attorney was made aware last week about it, and refuses to remedy it.
ACTUAL PETITION LANGUAGE;
Snow gates are discretionary upon the declaration of a snow emergency on routes that have been declared snow emergency routes.
CITY ATTORNEY’S EXPLANATION (CONVENIENTLY NEXT TO THE VOTING SPACES);
Snow gates would not be used on streets designated as emergency snow routes.
So which is it? You would follow the petition language and use them on emergency snow routes when you can (the intent of the language) or you just do what you want?
So incompetent.