October 2023

Sioux Falls City Councilor Merkouris wants you to know he loves you and the CRC keeps beating a dead, dead, dead, horse

While I rant and rave about transparency and city government, sometimes a councilor lifts a finger. Merkouris sponsored and got passed this city ordinance last night (FF: 44:00, Item #10);

The proposal requires council approval of contract that are in excess of $100,000 per vendor, for each calendar year. Those contracts involving the expenditure of funds less than $100,000 will be noticed on the agenda. The proposal requires that all contract subject to council approval be delivered to the City Clerk and placed on the consent agenda. Contracts/agreements that are subject to the state’s executive session laws will no require council approval. Existing ordinances that duplicate SDCL are removed.

While I have stated before this a good ‘first step’ in opening up the contracts to the public, they need to make more bold changes moving forward.

But it was Rich’s testimony before the approval vote that stuck with me. Rich told a story about how his wife tells him he needs to tell his daughters he loves them, and he replies, that he provides for them, so they should know he loves them, and his wife tells him that you still have to say it. Rich uses this example to point out that the public doesn’t always know what is going on unless you articulate it (TELL THEM). He nails it! We can assume our government is open because ‘good people’ sit on the dais, but unless you actually tell us what is going on, we can assume anything.

Short-timer and world class vitamin salesman who decided not to run for a 2nd term suggested that the $100K was too low and it should be $500k because the council is too busy to be signing all these checks. Heck, Alex, why not make it $20 million so we can build more overpriced bridges for whiney babies who check their ‘decorum’ at the mayor’s office front door.

The CounTcilor’s term on the council has been truly befuddling. He truly proved a dead person could beat Stehly, because his actions and policy legislation has been truly DEAD.

CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION MEMBER ZYLSTRA WON’T CONCEDE UNTIL THE MAYOR GETS A RAISE

CRC member, Carl Zylstra proposed today at the CRC meeting that a wage commission be formed to study wage increases for councilors and the mayor and gives them the power to increase their salary (but not during their term). While I would say a study would be nice, not in this case. The inflationary increases have worked well and keep politics out of the pay increase, in fact, I think the mayor got over a $10K raise last year just from inflationary increases. It works and the voters agreed almost 2 years ago, they are fine with what the council is getting paid and the current setup. Leave it alone.

While I might agree that the councilors do deserve more pay, they should have to punch into a clock instead and get paid hourly, because some of these folks would make $100K a year while some of them would be lucky to collect a paycheck (they should be handing out oxygen tanks instead).

“SELBERG! You are late again! And Paul, tuck in your shirt! And where are your slip free shoes?! All Stars?! This isn’t a 1976 meet and greet with the Globetrotters!”

The argument is that in order to attract good candidates the pay has to be higher. Really? All the insider deals isn’t enough for them? Also, if the pay is so bad, maybe we should have a cap on how much a council candidate can spend on a campaign?* Maybe it should be 50% of their annual pay? I don’t think anyone spending $100K for a job that pays $20K a year is to concerned about the pay, after all, this is public service 🙁

*I have often thought the city council should implement some campaign finance rules. I’m sorry, but spending 5X the amount on a campaign this job pays in a year tells me you are more concerned about winning and less about what it pays.

Mayor is threatening arrest and banishment from Carnegie if comments are ‘irrelevant’

I knew after the short-timer councilor last week kept interrupting a public inputer while he was sitting in his jammies on the couch phoning it in, and my corresponding public input, the mayor decided to send the council the below letter reminding them he doesn’t understand prior restraint.

As you can see, he is saying he can remove or arrest people based on them being noisy, irrelevant or making personal attacks.

He is correct, do NOT make personal attacks on elected officials. Stick to the business at hand, and if they did something wrong within their council duties, you DO have the right to dissent them at a meeting, if they did something wrong in their personal lives, that is NOT within the business and decorum of the chambers.

Don’t make personal or violent threats. If you do, you will probably be arrested for making personal threats towards those on the dais or any city employee or member of the public present. The 1st Amendment doesn’t cover violent threats, and it shouldn’t.

As for slander, this one is a slippery. If what an individual is saying is blatantly false and obviously false, yes, you can ask someone to stop saying it. But I go back to prior restraint. How do you know what the individual was saying was slander?

How do you know if someone is irrelevant?

What is considered noisy and rude? Could grunting and groaning into a hot mic be considered noisy, disruptive and rude? Sure. So does that mean the city council can call to have the mayor arrested for not following decorum? Well according to his own letter, you could, since he is consistently rude and dismissive of most public inputers.

It is a 1st Amendment violation to cut people off simply because their voice is too loud or they are saying something uncomfortable about a city employee or elected official. State law and city ordinance does NOT supercede the 1st Amendment and as long as you are talking about city business or politics in general you cannot be stopped or arrested (a frequent inputer who constantly praises the mayor comes at least twice a month to tell us about another right-winger book he is reading. How is this relevant?)

You can be as rude and loud as you want to be.

If you have noticed, the mayor hasn’t arrested or banned anyone yet, I will tell you why, because he knows if that person decides to sue based on constitutional rights he would lose, big time. He reminds me of those Shih Tzu dogs, all bark and no bite, and at the end of the day all you have is a lot of dog hair to clean up.