April 2018

Government & Confidentiality Agreements; Oil & Water

A local elected official sent me this article that talks about the pit falls of government employees and confidentiality agreements;

It was recently revealed that many of Donald Trump’s top advisers were asked to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), forcing them to keep quiet about what happens in the White House — even after his presidency ends. Ruth Marcus, deputy editorial editor of The Washington Post labeled these agreements a presidential first and “not just oppressive, but constitutionally repugnant.” Government ethics experts say they are legally questionable.

But don’t think this just goes on in the WH;

This behind-closed-doors approach to resolving conflict in government troubles many.

“If public money is spent, it should be public information,” says Montana state Sen. Fred Thomas, one of the legislators who asked the auditor to look into confidential settlements.

And not just confidential settlements in local government;

In 2016, the issue shook the Alabama governor’s mansion, where Robert Bentley — who resigned in 2017 after news of his alleged affair with a campaign aide — had 87 members of his staff sign nondisclosure agreements two years prior.

How about municipal government?

Some states and cities already limit secret agreements.

San Francisco, for instance, prohibits the city from entering into confidential settlements. And in Iowa, a 2014 executive order, signed by then-Gov. Terry Branstad, bans agencies from adding confidentiality requirements to employee settlements and requires personnel settlements to be reviewed by the attorney general’s office. Branstad’s order followed news that six employees, who had filed grievances about their dismissals, had been paid more than a quarter of a million dollars in confidential settlements.

And what to the legal scholars think?

Legal scholars express doubt about whether confidential settlements and broad nondisclosure agreements in the public sector are enforceable.

“Legally, it’s very problematic to do these in the public sector. It runs afoul of public-sector employment law or sunshine laws,” says Alexander Colvin, a professor of conflict resolution at Cornell University and an expert in labor law.

The issue is particularly problematic for potential whistleblowers.

At the federal level, a whistleblower’s ability to report wrongdoing is strongly protected, but state laws tend to be weaker, vary dramatically and may not be known to employees, says Tom Devine, legal director of the Government Accountability Project, an organization dedicated to protecting whistleblowers.

He worries that any kind of agreement that curtails public employees’ free speech could deter them from flagging problems.

“There are administrative and legal remedies that would allow employees to break nondisclosure agreements or speak out or blow the whistle despite a confidential settlement,” he says. “But the mere existence of the agreement is highly chilling.”

And our local media said really nothing when Council Candidate Janet Brekke came out on Monday about the confidentiality agreement with city employees. Go figure. They have more important things to do like chase down white trash skanks who steal pizza place buffet cards.

Is the School Board moving towards NOT ALLOWING the public to vote on a new school(s) bond opt-out?

I have heard Superintendent Maher say several times that he would like the community to vote on a new school bond opt-out, but it seems the school board has a different perspective, at least two of them do.

When asked in a candidate forum tonight, the two incumbents and the 3rd candidate didn’t see it necessary to vote on it. This is troublesome. I have a feeling the bond is going to be well over $100 million, and if they won’t allow the public to vote on it, it will set a very bad precedent. We already allowed a $117 million dollar bond pass on the Denty in a non-legally binding advisory vote, essentially allowing the city council approve the bond.

What they said;

Todd Thoelke said he thinks the school board passing opt outs on their own creates opportunities. He feels the school board members are responsible enough to pass them without a vote.

Kate Parker also doesn’t think a public vote is necessary because the school district holds open houses and has public input at school board meetings.

Peter Pischke agreed with Todd Thoelke

Sorry folks, an opinion by a handful of people at an open house isn’t enough reason to raise taxes over $100 million dollars on thousands of hardworking and retired Sioux Falls residents. We must have a public vote on the new school opt-out.

Councilors Starr & Stehly receive a tongue lashing, for NO good reason

FF: 2:19

Let’s say you are a city councilor and a deadly accident occurred in one of our city parks. Similar accidents have occurred over the years. Let’s also say that the public would like the issue looked into. As a representative of the citizens, wouldn’t you look into it? I would hope so. That is exactly what councilors Starr and Stehly have been trying to do. Than you find out that a safety audit never happened, it was actually a ‘training exercise’. Wouldn’t you be concerned about the information you were receiving? So Starr and Stehly asked for the information through a resolution. IMO, a last resort. When cooperation from staff was NOT helpful, they went to the media and my blog, sharing an OPINION of the city attorney. This IS NOT confidential information. It is simply an opinion of a city staffer who wages are paid for by the public, which makes it ‘public information’.

Some think that councilors Stehly and Starr do these kind of things to boost their egos. Maybe they do, I could care less. I really see their main objective is to get information to the public which should be one of their top duties as a city councilor. I really think Starr and Stehly understand that concept, that duty, and do whatever they need to, to attain that objective. They should be applauded for it. And that really is the irony of the ass chewing they received from the 6 other councilors. I think the public does appreciate Starr and Stehly, and when other councilors choose to publicly chastise her and Pat for doing their jobs, it only emboldens them and makes them even more popular with the citizens.

I recently spoke with 3 different council candidates on 3 separate occasions. Of the hundreds of doors they have knocked on collectively all 3 of them told me the #1 issue citizens bring up is transparency and secrecy in local government. Citizens are not naïve, they get it, this secrecy is corroding our local government. The secret siding settlement, the Copper Lounge Collapse and the approval of the DT Parking ramp has infuriated the public. They see the corruption and it is VERY real.

The other thing that was sad about the incident (Item#77, last agenda item Tuesday Night) was this seemed like an orchestrated effort by the 6 other councilors either thru a series of phone calls or emails to attack a fellow peer. One other thing that makes this hypocritical of them is while they cry about respect and decorum from the citizens who pay their wages who speak at public input, they throw any ounce of decorum out the window with this very public attack. I guess you could say ‘leading by example’.

I applaud Stehly for what she said in response to the attack, “I will not collaborate with corruption.” She also said she was elected to represent the citizens, not the administration or different department heads.

And the hits keep coming.