UPDATE: Majority of Sioux Falls City Council votes against transparency

The Sioux Falls City Council votes down the cell phone ban, 5-3. The only one who spoke against it was councilor Soehl who said he needs his phone during the meetings so he doesn’t seem old, but progressive. Yeah, I laughed to*. This was about transparency in out meetings. Something councilors want from citizens during public input but don’t expect to follow those rules themselves. I have often said a majority of the council is anti-open government and their vote tonight proved it once again. The ban that Brekke and Stehly proposed was actually very liberal. It did not ban cell phone use, it only asked if they had to take a text or call, to do it out of the chambers. It is a very sad day that the city council can’t act like big kids, and refrain from playing with their phones during meetings.

*Soehl also said that he should be able to have a cell phone at the meeting because the mayor doesn’t wear a tie (Curt was wearing a Santa Clause tie). But what I found even more humorous was when Curt held up his cell phone during his testimony, the screen looked like he just used it for a dinner plate, and by the looks of it, he must of had hot turkey at the diner.

UPDATE: Sioux Falls City Councilor Neitzert responds on FB about the measure below. I would like to comment on this line;

We do not, and are not required, to disclose all of the various calls, emails, texts, meetings, and correspondence we have with any source we use to do our due diligence on legislative items.

It is true that they are probably not ‘required’. But if there is a contentious issue and someone from the media or public think one of the councilors was swayed thru a private meeting, text or phone call, they can ask for an open records request. Will they provide the records? We saw this done several times by the media in the last administration, and little was provided. So while Neitzert feels he doesn’t have to hand over records, there is NOTHING illegal about the media and citizens from asking. Nothing. And if those records are not provided guess which one will look corrupt? Not the media or public.

Neitzert on FB;

I want to be really clear. This was primarily about the merits of the issue. The inflammatory rhetoric certainly didn’t help. The proposal is a solution looking for a problem. We have debated this repeatedly over the last several months. We have big issues to tackle in this city, and this is not one of them. It’s time to get to the real issues we face and stop expending our time and energy on issues that don’t move the needle for citizens.

Next, there are no “special deals”. Accusing colleagues of corruption is reckless, irresponsible and damages faith in city government. No one can point to a shred of evidence or a specific instance, because it doesn’t exist.

The vast majority of items we address are legislative. We are elected to take input from any and all sources we see fit, and to make a judgement and vote based on what we believe is the best for our constituents. We do not, and are not required, to disclose all of the various calls, emails, texts, meetings, and correspondence we have with any source we use to do our due diligence on legislative items. We make the best decision we can based on all of the information we have gathered.

As it relates to quasi-judicial items, which are few and far between, we have a legal duty to disclose anything we learn that would affect our decision making. Failure to do so could cause our decision to be overturned by the courts. We are very well aware of this and handle it appropriately.

Public input and testimony is a limited public forum, and we set time limits as we are allowed to (time/manner restrictions) for the purpose of keeping the meeting moving along and for the order of the meeting. Time limits and structure are about order and keeping meetings moving. Extensive court rulings have made clear the principal purpose of a meeting of a governing body is to get the business of the jurisdiction done. Time limits and order are necessary. That’s why we can prohibit people yelling from the crowd, or testifying at the podium for 30 minutes and stopping the meeting from progressing. But there is nothing that forecloses other input. Even if someone emailed or texted one of us during a meeting, which is pretty rare frankly, there is no prohibition or legal issue with it. We all lean over to discuss various issues with colleagues, we may write a note to a colleague, we may read an email. All of this is part of our due diligence. More often than not, I’m thinking and working on the fly, as I hear information during staff presentations or citizen input. As an example, I might look up state law to verify something, or pull up our zoning ordinance. That’s the benefit of technology, it allows us to be dynamic and more effective. That’s usually what I’m up to. I tend to use my phone instead of having my tablet open, which gets in the way of the video screen we have to see what is on the big screen behind us.

Finally, our City Charter and the people who created our city government felt it was important that we were part time citizen members, not full time career politicians. We have personal/family lives, full time jobs, and our Council roles. We have to multi-task at times, and be able to address family and full time job issues so that we can serve. To the extent any of that comes up we all have a responsibility to make sure it is not unduly disruptive or distracting at our Council meetings. If one of us gets a message that is urgent and requires more than a quick response, we may step out. We may ignore it until the meeting is over. We all have to manage and balance this. We are all adults, we are all aware of our ethical duties, and all work diligently to serve our constituents.

A solution looking for a problem, and an issue that doesn’t move the needle to solve the real issues our citizens face. That’s why we declined to move it forward.