July 2017

We crafted this ordinance in a very respectful manner to allow the current Park board members the opportunity to serve out their full ten year terms. This ordinance is implementing guidelines for future representation for all citizens in our growing community. Just as we have district representatives on the council, this would allow a seat at the table for all areas of Sioux Falls on this board.

Our mayor stated at a recent council meeting that this is a very popular board. We can do some intense advertising when a position becomes available in each district to ensure a good pool of candidates.

As we grow in diversity, population and geography, more representation is a good thing for out citizens. It makes sense to me, and I am grateful that we will be able to have a discussion about it. I encourage people living in Sioux Falls to weigh in on it.

As Stehly points out, she has been very careful not to boot anyone off the current board or to even say that the current members are unqualified, this proposed legislation is actually very, very simple, it is just asking that future board members have district representation. Of course the ED board looks at this as some conspiracy to get unqualified people on the board;

Though geographical diversity is crucial to the makeup of the city council, which handles a wide range of governance, such stipulations are impractical and potentially detrimental when it comes to filling volunteer boards.

Such a system would limit the pool of qualified candidates. There’s no guarantee that someone from a designated area possesses the time, interest and ability to serve as an effective board member.

LIMIT candidates? I can’t believe the ED board of the city’s only daily paper would make such a ridiculous and uneducated statement. First off, the current system allows the mayor to LIMIT the candidates by picking most of them from the same part of town. On top of that, what qualifies a wife of the biggest developer in town or the wife of a well-known attorney to be on this board? If anything I wouldn’t look at these as qualifications but potential conflicts of interest. What’s stopping the developer’s wife from gunning for more parks and upgrades to properties surrounding her husbands projects?

As I have said, this is a no-brainer and makes sense. It is also a fair system that guarantees more equality in our parks system. On top of that, NO current parks board members are losing their volunteer positions unless they want to resign on their own fruition.

Come on Argus! Get a grip. Next time, just say it, “We are opposed to this legislation because it was Stehly’s idea.”