So the Sioux Falls city council has decided to bury this on the consent contracts/agreements, Item #6, last sub item #38;

City Attorney’s office, Engagement Agreement for Human Relations Commission Review, Cadwell Sanford Deibert & Garry, LLP, Not to exceed $5,000

A concerned citizen asked a city councilor to pull this from the agenda for discussion and he not only refused to pull it, he refused to tell the citizen what it was about. Mind you, this is on a publicly posted agenda.

So why is an outside law firm reviewing the Human Relations Commission. I don’t know, but let’s make some guesses;

• The attorney running the department mysteriously disappeared and the replacement left to work for the county. Why?

• There has been several accusations that the commission (city) has been dismissing complaints for no reason.

• Was there a Federal complaint filed? The commission probably is funded by some Federal grants and has to follow certain Federal rules when it comes to the appeals.

As I understand it another city councilor has agreed to pull it from the consent agenda and have some one from the administration explain what this review is about.

At this point I won’t speculate, because I am just as curious as you.

By l3wis

3 thoughts on “Why is the City of Sioux Falls paying for an outside Counsel Review of the Human Relations Commission?”
  1. It means they are doing an internal investigation to assign fault and probably fire someone. It’s how the City rolls.

  2. Suspicious and unsubstantiated. Perhaps this is how to establish a human relations commission without there being a human relations function. Stop in at city personnel sometime, ghost town. If you’re an employee, state your grievance at the family picnic. If you have a citizen complaint, it’ll not be accepted. I’ve tried. If you complain to the city attorney you’ll get compound hearings with no result and no appeal into circuit court. It’s a matrix worm hole with no destination.

  3. Okay, so let’s talk about those anti-choice people who were demonstrating along the north side of 41st Street this afternoon (I guess that’s what you do when Chick-fil-A is closed on Sundays, huh?).

    But any how, I saw no emotion in their eyes. They looked like a bunch of depressed people standing in line for soup due to an economic downturn, which was perpetrated by their political masters, who invoke worthless trickle-down economic policies upon them by citing an emotion in these anti-choice people to vote for them due to their claimed support for wedge issues like the anti-choice one.

    I especially got a kick out of the young man with the Blue Lives Matter flag. I am not sure what that has to do with the abortion issue. Because all lives can’t matter until Black Lives Matter, and if you don’t care about the future of black fetuses, then how can you claim to be pro-life?

    Then, there was also the young man with the SDSU flag, who was looking south, while on the I-29/41st Street bridge like a confederate with his distant eyes upon Vermillion and D-Days as if it was his Gettysburg. But I am really not surprised by the SDSU flag at an anti-choice demonstration, however, because you can get into Brookings with a lower ACT score than you can at USD.

    But I am saving the best for last. I especially loved the young people across the street from the anti-choice demonstrators, who were hanging out by the Speedway gas station (Next to Karl’s once Pink Pig Bar-b-Q.). They had signs that said: “Honk If You Are Horny” and “Everyone loves someone who has had an abortion”. One of them was dressed as a nun in a mini-skirt, too, (I’ve always wondered about nuns, well, not that way.), while another was even dressed as Jesus. I guess Jesus was tight with Mary Magdalene, wasn’t he? Well, I guess if you believe the whole The Da Vinci Code thing, but why wouldn’t you? Who doesn’t believe Tom Hanks? He’s related to Lincoln. AND, Lincoln was a Republican. So there you go.

    But let me close with these thoughts. If people are against reproductive rights, then when are these same people going to start demanding that miscarriage funerals always take place? If a fetus is person, then don’t they deserve the same rights as a still born or dead person, who was born? Or, is it that such a situation, miscarriage that is, is a very private matter and a privacy which was best articulated by the decision of Roe v. Wade?


    ( and Woodstock adds: “‘…tight with Mary Magdalene’?”… “You need to be careful, VSG, some of us around here are very devout Roman Catholics”… “Although, I often agree with what you have to say”…. “AND, I could also go for a Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich right now, especially when I feel horny”…. )

Comments are closed.