In Theresa Stehly’s fight to keep Public Input ‘as is’ the Argus Falsely claims her residency

Former Sioux Falls City Councilor Stehly sent out a postcard last week asking residents to speak up this coming Tuesday about keeping Public Input where it currently is, at the beginning of the meeting. She wrote a similar Letter to the Editor of the Argus;

Don’t let the business elite push out the average citizens. We need to protect and continue this opportunity to accommodate the citizen’s input at the beginning of the meeting, which is a user friendly time.

It is an important communication tool for the taxpayers and promotes accountability and transparency.

The Vote will be on Tuesday, November 10th during the 7 p.m.meeting. Please contact the mayor and the council members and tell them to leave public input where it is.

Tell them not to bow to the “Business Elite” who think they can pay their way to the front of the line. Contact all the Sioux Falls City Council and let them know you do not want your voice to be shut down:

Theresa Stehly, Mobridge

While I have seen the Argus editorial staff ‘edit’ my letters in the past, I have NEVER seen them blatantly change someone’s residency. When Stehly sent the letter over to the Argus, she put Sioux Falls as her residency. Why? Because that is what it is. Stehly has lived here I believe for over 20 years, she owns a home in Sioux Falls, pays taxes here and votes here. She did take a temporary job over the last couple of months in the Mobridge area, but that doesn’t make her a residency Mobridge, her home is Sioux Falls. It would be like saying a traveling construction worker who owns a home in Sioux Falls is suddenly a resident of Texas because he spent a couple months down there in the winter fixing roofs. It’s ludicrous. In fact there are several wealthy business families in Sioux Falls who donate to community projects and try to influence local government that winter in places like Arizona and California. So are they suddenly ‘residents’ of these states because they spend a couple of months away from Sioux Falls? I am guessing they would disagree.

The only reason I can think of why the Argus did this is to delegitimize Stehly’s voice who has been a strong advocate of open government in Sioux Falls and has fought for many things in this community on and off the council, and she continues to do so.

I think not only the Argus but other media in Sioux Falls have been strong supporters (behind the scenes) of moving public input to the end, so they can get their quick clips at council meetings and run off and write their half-baked stories. It’s their tradition of laziness and ignorance that shouldn’t surprise anyone.

As for Public Input, and decisions made on Tuesday night at the 2nd reading, including moving the meeting time to 6 PM, may be null and void. Bruce Danielson has done this;

Today, Friday, November 6th, 2020I had served on the city of Sioux Falls and the City Council a SDCL 3-21 Notice of Claim concerning the city violating SDCL 1-27-1.16. Material relating to open meeting agenda item to be available–Exceptions–Violation as misdemeanor.

The SDCL 3-21 notice is necessary to inform the city of harm they have caused. in this case, the harm to me as a citizen who wanted the information displayed and the law requires them to follow. I will be preparing a complaint for the South Dakota Open Meetings Committee for the flagrant violations the City has continued.

The actions taken last Tuesday are illegal because they violated SDCL 1-27-1.16. If the City Council continues with the 2nd reading this coming Tuesday and casts any votes on the illegally passed items, the votes cast will likely be null and void.

The body cannot pass into law an item brought before the body illegally.

In fact a past City Attorney Diane Best said this in her recommendations about this section of the law (page 17);

MEETING MATERIALS
• Printed materials relating to agenda item and is given
to public body, generally must be available to general
public.
• Posted on website
• Available at business office
• Available in meeting room
• Excludes confidential materials
• Source: SDCL 1‐27‐1.16

As I look at it, you can’t just do one or two of these things and call it good, you have to do it all.

It will be interesting to see how this goes Tuesday night. You know how I feel about this. I agree with Stehly, this is an effort to put the banksters and welfare developer queens at the beginning of the line, and it is disgusting and pathetic.

BTW, whether you support or oppose, make your voice heard ahead of time. As of right now, councilors Brekke, Starr and Soehl are opposed to the move;

Janet Brekke <jbrekke@siouxfalls.org>,

Christine Erickson <cerickson@siouxfalls.org>,

Alex Jensen <ajensen@siouxfalls.org>,

Rick Kiley <rkiley@siouxfalls.org>, 

Greg Neitzert <gneitzert@siouxfalls.org>,

Marshall Selberg <mselberg@siouxfalls.org>,

Curt Soehl <csoehl@siouxfalls.org>,

Pat Starr <pstarr@siouxfalls.org>,

Mayor TenHaken <PTenHaken@siouxfalls.org>



8 comments ↓

#1 "Very Stable Genius" on 11.07.20 at 10:48 am

BYEDON!!!!!!!

#2 D@ily Spin on 11.07.20 at 12:34 pm

I received the card. It outlines how TenHaken has misinterpreted Roberts Rules and the Constitution. Theresa is a resident. She was home this weekend. She’s had a good temporary situation in Mobridge. Honestly, I don’t believe city government will return to democracy until SD Supreme Court supervises a new charter.
TenHaken knows many want to be heard but may not appear Tuesday to avoid Covid exposure. Sioux Falls is a hot spot because the mayor has refused to mandate masks.
How many city attorneys has the city had since Huether and TenHaken? It’s something to put on their resume but they want out once they realize that city government is both unconstitutional and criminally corrupt.

#3 D@ily Spin on 11.07.20 at 12:38 pm

I’m the guy that wore a Jester Hat to a council meeting. I’m coming to this one with a surplus Military gas mask.

#4 The Guy From Guernsey on 11.07.20 at 9:47 pm

Much like that which is speculated about a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it, if a Letter to the Editor is placed to the Opinion page or website of any Gannett property and nobody is there to read it, does it make a sound?

#5 The Guy From Guernsey on 11.07.20 at 9:56 pm

Perhaps one of those new newsroom employees, unaware of the geography of the state, thought Mobridge is a suburb of Sioux Falls?
nah, just another disrespectful dig at Stehly by the elitists at the local fishwrap factory.

#6 Editorial on Opinion Writer on 11.08.20 at 6:55 am

A closer look at the Letters page shows the hypocrisy of the Argus in another way. A pseudo religious group was allowed to post without a name or town mentioned:

Religious leaders for masks

We serve on the Board of South Dakota Faith in Public Life, a diverse group of religious leaders committed to dialogue about controversial social and political issues. We look for common ground solutions based on moral values, not partisan politics.

The hit on Stehly in any way is a small minded hit on the integrity of the Argus Leader.

The hypocrisy of the Argus under its current leadership shows even stronger under it diminished standing and self caused weakened subscriber list.

#7 Mike Lee Zitterich on 11.08.20 at 12:43 pm

Some of you need to read my letter to the Argus Leader A(editor) – one of the main reasons this discussion keeps coming up is so many disrespect the rules in the first place, it goes on both sides of that fence.

Directed to Council Chair, Mayor, and the Residents of the City;

In recent weeks there has been a ton of discussion regarding ethics, responsibility, and actions of this council. You all know I have taken the time to attend, comment, and witness actions of this council frequently either in person, viewing online, or thru the media. I may not speak up during public input as much as a few others do, but I attempt to address the council and mayor respectively by email.

Mayor Paul TenHaken said it right the other day; we cannot fall victim to personal insults, slanderish public comments towards one another; we shall not publically attack our businesses, our citizens for personal choices we make in our best interest, take the mask issue – while the Mayor would like all of us to wear the dang mask, he knows he cannot enforce such policy, but he also knows and understands the topic has become polorarized to the extent we are seeing people hate on each other, slander each other, and attack each other. And that to me – violates our city ordinances by itself. And I agree with the Mayor on this, he is in fact trying to calm the waters, direct strong leadership from the very people who govern this city – the “residents” all of whom have elected not only himself, but each one of those council chairs, If we have not voted to mandate wearing masks, ‘we’ shall then respect and support both sides of the public discussion. To me – that is the purpose of our Mayor, Governor, the President – to maintain order, promote good government, and balance out both sides of all arguments. For that – I commend Mayor Paul TenHaken.

To the Council, the Residents; we tend to attack each other based on opinions, let alone accuse city councilors of breaking ordinances such as 35.003; 30.017; or 30.018 – but you cant have it both ways, you cannot also violate the rules, then pass blame onto others. As we go about our daily lives, remember the words of our state constitution as per Article 6 sections 1, 26, and 27; as well as Article 22 section 1.

Whether at a council meeting or on social media – remember our Decorum rules as part of City Ordinance Section 30.018.

Best Regards, and May God Help lead the way as we best govern ourselves in the future; I look forward to your discussions.

Sincerely,
Mike Zitterich
Sioux Falls

#8 "Very Stable Genius" on 11.10.20 at 3:29 pm

It’s not usual for Republicans to have two convenient residences in this state. But when they are a part of the anti-establishment crowd, then phony Republicans scream foul.