Did the Sioux Falls City Attorney’s office improperly use an Executive session?

Last week after the conclusion of the Sioux Falls City Council informational meeting, they held an executive session. Per state law those meetings are VERY specific because of the secrecy and privacy involved;

Consult with legal counsel about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters pursuant to SDCL 1-25-2(3)

But that may not have what happened in the meeting. According to a South DaCola foot soldier, a conversation was overheard that the meeting was a strategic planning session on how the rental car tax was going to be presented by the council. Hardly a contract agreement. This should have been brought before the Charter Revision Commission, in public.

Still no verification if this is what was discussed, but if so, it seems to be a stretch of the law;

     1-25-2.   Executive or closed meetings–Purposes–Authorization–Violation as misdemeanor. Executive or closed meetings may be held for the sole purposes of:
             (1)      Discussing the qualifications, competence, performance, character or fitness of any public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee. The term “employee” does not include any independent contractor;
             (2)      Discussing the expulsion, suspension, discipline, assignment of or the educational program of a student or the eligibility of a student to participate in interscholastic activities provided by the South Dakota High School Activities Association;
             (3)      Consulting with legal counsel or reviewing communications from legal counsel about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters;
             (4)      Preparing for contract negotiations or negotiating with employees or employee representatives;

             (5)      Discussing marketing or pricing strategies by a board or commission of a business owned by the state or any of its political subdivisions, when public discussion may be harmful to the competitive position of the business.However, any official action concerning such matters shall be made at an open official meeting. An executive or closed meeting shall be held only upon a majority vote of the members of such body present and voting, and discussion during the closed meeting is restricted to the purpose specified in the closure motion. Nothing in § 1-25-1 or this section may be construed to prevent an executive or closed meeting if the federal or state Constitution or the federal or state statutes require or permit it. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.Source: SL 1965, ch 269; SL 1980, ch 24, § 10; SL 1987, ch 22, § 1; SL 2014, ch 90, § 2.



#1 The Guy from Guernsey on 01.18.16 at 2:25 pm

After observing 14-15 years of nepotism and self-dealing at the state level with the administrations of Rounds and Daugaard*, as well as watching the increasingly blatant money grabs by Huether, the cronyists in this town are more bold than ever to place their hand in someone else’s pocket to fund their ‘bold vision’. They are even comfortable to offer the same excuse my kids would offer “… but, but, but, just about everybody else is doing this”.

* Got to admit that Janklow was just better at concealing this stuff.

#2 The D@ily Spin on 01.19.16 at 6:33 am

The rental car tax is just more reason for business to fly in at Omaha with cheaper airfares and (now) cheaper rental car. Obviously, the rental car franchisees forgot to pad the mayor’s pocket.

#3 The D@ily Spin on 01.19.16 at 6:43 am

The city is becoming a dead creature with pirhana feeding from around the outside. Hotels in Brandon and Hartford find it easy to compete when taxes and add-ons make Sioux Falls $150 plus. I talked with one who stays and drives in from Grand Falls for $59. Time for rental car counters in Iowa with free Casino bus to from FSD airport?

#4 The D@ily Spin on 01.19.16 at 6:49 am

They can’t tax FREE or PayPal!!!

#5 THC on 01.19.16 at 10:03 am

All the rental car places would just move to Brandon, Baltic, Tea, etc.