UPDATE: Parks Board Meeting, Nov 5, 2016

UPDATE: If you forward to 51:00 in the meeting you will hear a bash session until almost the end of the meeting of Argus Leader, the media, and Joe Sneve. They also finish up bashing recording the meetings. This is apparently why they DON’T want these meetings recorded, because they do talk ‘freely’. Notice that it is mostly staff, Kearney, the Parks Director, doing the bashing. This proves why transparent and open government is important because of this kind of nastiness behind the scenes.

All hail the secrecy of Sioux Falls City Government! Over the last few months we have been pushing for more board and commission openness by doing videos or at least audio recordings.

The mayor’s veto of the video or audio recording of Park and Recreation Board meetings gave us a morsel of information. The board already recorded the meetings and they were available for the asking. So here is the November 15, 2016 meeting audio. We’ve added some photos of Sioux Falls park features for you to watch as you listen to the meeting.

Take not near the beginning of the meeting when the board members make comments about the lack of Public Inputers. For those of us who attend these meetings, there is a collegiality amongst the members and staff. We feel the wink, wink, nod, nod as we public outsiders watch the actions. It is very interesting to see and it does not come across the same when we video, but it is there.


#1 The D@ily Spin on 02.22.17 at 4:51 pm

The Argus reported parks is but an 18 million budget. The mayor is looking at cutting many parks programs because there’s an anticipated 4% sales tax shortfall. Programs to be cut are senior tennis and similar. Seniors are the ones who use parks programs the most. When the mayor used public money to build his private indoor tennis club he promised public access. Seems there’s senior discrimination both public and private worthy of federal class action. Can’t cuts be made other than parks? Savings would be maybe a million but the city has a 400 million budget? If the city doubled in size, how could there possibly be 4% less sales tax revenue?

We’re tired of Huether hiding and twisting the truth. A new mayor can’t happen soon enough. Veto that!

#2 The D@ily Spin on 02.22.17 at 4:55 pm

If this is how Huether manages a city of 170k, why should he be even considered for higher office? Veto that!

#3 l3wis on 02.22.17 at 8:36 pm

If you FF to about 45:00, the Argus Leader bash session starts. You wonder if they would have been so open about bashing the media if the cameras would have been rolling at the meeting. Last night at the Council meeting Erpenbach ripped into a citizen during public input for chastizing Jeff Schmidt, but apparently city staff can go on 10 minute rants about the media during a public meeting.

#4 Bruce on 02.22.17 at 10:27 pm

At 59 minutes note how they stress the loss of the comfortable nature is lost. In other words they will have to watch what they say from now on. We are so big and bad when we invade the meetings and interfere in their deliberations.

#5 Bruce on 02.22.17 at 10:29 pm

at 1:03 Don and the members blame our cameras for causing this to be an issue.

#6 The D@ily Spin on 02.24.17 at 6:09 pm

It’s a given, there’s a lot to hide when public meetings can’t be recorded. It’s bad enough the city doesn’t keep a record but when they don’t allow citizen access it’s an assault on freedom of speech. An important action for the next mayor is these grounds to replace the Parks Director with one who replaces the Parks Board.

#7 Blasphemo on 02.25.17 at 11:20 am

I FF’d to approx. 51 mins & listened to the end. Primarily what I hear about the video recording of Parks Board Meetings is “Not my idea, so it can’t be a good one”. Mostly naysayers offering up all kinds of UNSBUSTANTIATED reasons NOT to make a change . . . and a pronounced lack of any dissenting opinion. And, board members pontificating who likely have NO idea of the minimal gear necessary to video the meetings catastrophizing about an onerous burden for the City Hall video dept . to record the meetings – or voicing concerns about “video quality”. Good grief! This recording is prima facie evidence of the value in readily available recordings like this – they can reveal just what kind of airheads are taking up space on City Department boards! Hey, here’s a thought: maybe if video of these meetings WERE put online, board members would be more aware of being perceived to be pollyanna yes-men/women & wall flowers, and would voice more sides to a given issue!! AND, qualify their remarks as being their opinions rather than statements of fact. Also, how interesting to hear Kearny chime in that “this issue about recording has been reoccurring for years”. OH! So this is NOT a new outlandish idea that just one or two new trouble makers has come up with, huh?!! Plus, how about the male Board member chiming in about the unpleasantness of being required to meet in “some stuffy old City Council Chamber.” Oh, horror of horrors! Yeah, that’s a real dungeon. Your meeting commitment would not then include field trips to far more informal settings for your deliberations. How very un-Mayberry Garden Club-like that would be. Poor you.