Cell Phone Ban Public Input, Oct 19, 2015
l3wis [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPOHUD2Yafw[/youtube]
October 2015
What difference does it make? (10/19/2015)
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVKQ0rIC7E0[/youtube]
What difference does a name make? Well at the Sioux Falls City Council meeting on October 19, 2015 we got to see a do over. As in do over another city hall screw-up, again.
We got to the see the city Council being used by the administration as the stain removal department again.
Our intrepid mayor rushes through so many things without any proofing Council meetings get longer because of the fixes needing votes. Well again, most of the time. Cameraman Bruce decided to remind the Council of the sloppiness of the mayor’s work.
In a July meeting the Powder House Road was renamed by resolution to something else. OK, why care about it? It was rushed through the process so fast no one could check the facts for any cracks. We just want to have an administration able to have the time to care about facts.
This reminded Cameraman Bruce of the March 2015 North Phillips Ave vote illegally corrected with White Out correction fluid after the mistake was brought up in the railroad yard contact vote a few months ago.
Once again we have a city attorney’s office only caring about details when it is convenient for them and loopholes when they can destroy us. Guess it’s nice work if you can get it.
Sioux Falls City Council Kills the 2nd reading of the cell phone ban
For those of you not following along at home or may not understand 1st and 2nd readings at council meetings, what this means is that the cell phone ban ordinance will NOT got to a second reading for public input and council vote. Essentially the council KILLED the ordinance before they had to vote on it at all (5-3).
Pretty crazy, because just two hours ago I testified at the meeting in public testimony telling them to KILL it tonight, and force the group supporting this to do a petition drive. Michelle felt this WASN’T a ballot issue because it is public safety. Not sure what that means, I guess she doesn’t feel like people in this community should be able to vote on public safety issues (even though we voted on snowgates).
Well, they might just get their chance, that is if the Hoity-Toity businessmen and women that supported this get out their clipboards and pens.
Is it legal to have Advocational Education, 2011-09-12
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad4Uy1eyyu4[/youtube]
While searching for information on Events Center contracts this jewel from the past arose. We have the Mayor and city attorney David Fiddle Faddle stretching until it hurt the logic of what was legal for the administration could do during the Events Center election process.
The Council has another Construction Manager at Risk 105 page contract to be voted on October 19, 2015 without having time to read it. You know what in it? Complete control of all information by mayor.
Remember the Events Center election was a special election with no legal basis. It was a popularity poll. The city attorney dug deep and found a way to let the administration hold advocational education programs.
A 1988 South Dakota Attorney General’s opinion was cut and pasted to make it look like it was a Supreme Court opinion. This Attorney General’s opinion was meant to be advisory, not law. (DOC: Official Opinion No. 88-28 Expenditure of Public Funds on Election Issues )
So in 2014 city election cycle the city of Sioux Falls decided to hold advocational education programs to prevent the League of Women Voters and other busy body organizations from messing up their plans. We were forced to follow the city’s schedule and formats. No discussions were allowed. It was a stacked deck against the citizens and the right to a fair election.
Wasn’t it bad enough the city overpaid project participants so they could make financial contributions to the city’s campaigns? They also had to use our tax dollars to campaign against us.
SF Police Chief Doug Barthel’s retirement
With Doug’s retirement this last Friday, I suppose I should make some comment about his tenure. First off, I wish him luck. From talking to other city retirees, I can guarantee, you will be a lot happier 🙂
As for the job Doug did, I guess I couldn’t really say anything bad or good. He has kept our city relatively safe.
I can say though that while the mayor was running for his second term it was disengenious of Doug to back the mayor in saying that the violent crime rate increase wasn’t concerning.
I also think some improvements that Doug could have worked on are;
• An internal affairs department that processes and resolves all citizen complaints about officers
• More transparency with evidence to the public
• Getting our officers in the same physical shape as our firefighters
• Require officers to go through criminal justice training/schooling (and pay for it).
Other then that, I don’t have a bone to pick with Barthel’s job performance. Could he have done more? Yes he could have. But he certainly didn’t do anything detrimental to the force.
Now if he can just hand over the Tuthill Ghost!