Sioux Falls City Council violates meeting procedures than tries to claim Brekke is violating ordinance

As I have mentioned before, the procedures this city council goes by in the meetings because of it’s poor leadership of the chair (TenHaken) the clerk (Greco) and the city attorney (Koistra) gets sloppier by the day. I’m starting to think they should just have these meetings in Paul’s backyard by the fire pit, what’s the difference?

Brekke and Starr made several attempts to separate out Fiddle-Faddle’s appointment to the REMSA board from the other appointees so they could vote on it separately, they actually pleaded to do so, but the mayor thought he knew what he was doing, which he didn’t, as usual. So they forced them to vote NO on all appointees. Brekke actually told them that she would be absent from voting because of it, and Nutzert, of all people and Eratticson chimed in that Janet would be violating ordinance even though they just violated many procedures. Kettle meet Black, especially Greg. Janet walked out on the vote anyway, Starr voted NO.

Before the fiasco, Brekke pointed out the conflicts Fiddle could have sitting on the both the REMSA board and the Public Assurance Alliance, and they were all fair hypotheticals. Of course the entire council (including Starr and Brekke) talked about David’s high ideals. That is where I disagree with all of them, that guy doesn’t have a lick of integrity, he proved that by trying to cover up the supposed EC siding settlement.



3 comments ↓

#1 "Very Stable Genius" on 10.13.20 at 11:18 pm

You can always tell when they are breaking the open meeting law, because the formal meeting becomes a confusing bother. It’s like a child who raids their candy stash, then later plays with their dinner.

#2 D@ily Spin on 10.14.20 at 8:41 am

Brekke is getting ganged upon like Stehly. She’s a good leader who should move (like Starr) into higher government. Comes a time when the preschool Council should be left with their tantrums and pull-ups.

#3 Mike Lee Zitterich on 10.17.20 at 11:48 am

Was the ordinance broken or not broken?

30.017 VOTING PROCEDURE. City council members may not abstain from voting, but may absent themselves from the meeting by physically leaving the meeting at the time an item is called by the clerk. Members with a financial interest in a matter shall disclose that interest and shall absent themselves from the meeting by physically leaving the meeting while the matter is considered.

Needless to say regardless of the fact you like or do not like a particular council chair; the ordinance is plainly written; and if you wish to hold all council chairs to the same rules, decorum, and ethics; then you must hold ALL 8 Council Chairs to the same.

Regardless – if you wish NOT vote on an agenda, you must remove yourself before the ordinance is read.

1) The Council discussed amending to seperate the agenda item into two items; they voted NO.

2) At that point; could any of the Council Chairs left the table? And if so, did they?

3) Once the Council began litigating/discussing the full agenda item, they had to all vote on the agenda.

IF you want to hold ‘one’ council chair to any of our ordinances, you must hold ALL OF THEM equally to the same list of ordinances regardless of how you may or may not like a specific council chair.

The only question that needs asked – was S#: 30.017 broken – yes or no?