Board of Ethics, Friday, August 16, 2019

The plot thickens today. Hopefully we will have an update about the petition drive and the city’s current continuing efforts to be less then accommodating. Stay tuned.

I also find it interesting, as pointed out below, that the councilors have a constitutional right to gather signatures, but the city is ruling on this based on ‘ethics’. I ask the question, What is unethical about circulating petitions?

If we want to have a discussion about ethics, why not ask if it is ethical to vote to hire one of your long time family friends to a city council job?

What is citizenship is a question we must all face. If we allow government officials to redefine it at will or tell us what it is, we will all lose. Entrenched officeholders do not want to lose the perceived power they have and will do everything in their power to stop their opponents. Theresa Stehly asked the Sioux Falls Board of Ethics on August 16, 2019 to give her clear guidelines for using her birthright citizenship and voter ID to join the Triple Check the Charter petition drive. The Board of Ethics decided she did not have a clear cut ability to exercise her 1st Amendment rights. Yes you can lead or work with a petition drive but by golly don’t you dare carry a petition because our City Clerk might be a weakling and be intimidated by you. It’s ethical for a mayor to allow his tennis center to receive city money if he “leaves” the room during the vote but don’t you dare have a clear-cut desire to help citizens. Our town has a bit of a warped sense of itself.


#1 Blasphemo on 08.19.19 at 9:39 am

Those 3 BOE members superheroes who have such a hard-on for “avoiding the appearance of impropriety”, would find a more appropriate opportunity to wear their civic-minded capes at weekly city council meetings to remind THE RS5 & THE MAYOR to adhere to that mantra day-in/day-out.

#2 l3wis on 08.19.19 at 10:41 am

In reference to the discussion about getting the CRC to make the changes. I find that laughable considering the chair of the group works for a law firm that does a lot of work for the city (conflict of interest) and another member is married to an attorney who does legal work for our bonding company (another conflict). If we want to have a discussion about ethics, maybe it should center around the members of the CRC and why they are not putting these common sense changes on the ballot.