UPDATE: The City Council giveth and the City Council taketh away
l3wis UPDATE: So the informational went different then I thot, but more of the same BS. Vernon Brown who decided to come out of his coffin, told the public, ‘We get public input every day.’ He was referring to the tired old councilor argument that they have constituent convos at the grocery store. Yeah, and I have a ten inch . . .
It made me laugh, because Vernon was using the 1990’s argument for open government. The only thing that would have made the argument funnier is if he was wearing a Cosby sweater.
They also talked about how citizens would show up to board meetings in a random city hall room and the door was locked. It happened to me recently.
How can you claim you are open government when you have closed door meetings?! And this has been going on for YEARS!!! Why? Because someone stole a coke from the mayor’s frig. NO LIE!!!!
But it got better, the council wants a $150K supplemental appropriation to fund video equipment for off site meetings (in the field). So this is what the media department does when they are asked to do extra duties within their scope of work, they say they need extra equipment and staff hopes it will shut it down. It’s such horsesh!t. To livestream on YouTube is free, and considering the city already has an account, not an issue. Also, I went on Amazon and found this complete package for remote recording and streaming for $28, so the equipment argument is total BS. I think any city employee who doesn’t embrace open government should be fired on the spot, and in doing so I would tell them to their face why.
Yes, that is councilor Spellerberg and his hot wings show
So in between eating hot wings and hiding from ethical disclosures the Sioux Falls city council decided they were going to fix our transparency problem at committee and board meetings by making more rules instead of less;
(g) Public input shall be received at each City Council budget hearing and at all informational,
committee, task force, joint, and working session meetings that are open to the public. Each
meeting agenda shall include an item labeled “Public Input.” Each speaker shall be permitted to
speak for up to three (3) minutes. A minimum of fifteen (15) minutes shall be allotted for public
input at each meeting. If additional speakers are present and time permits, the public input period
may be extended at the discretion of the City Council Chair or the City Council. All provisions of
this section shall apply to City Council budget hearings and to all informational, committee, task
force, joint, and working session meetings, except to the extent such provisions conflict with this
subsection
So in other words, a violation of FREE speech rights. While a body CAN limit the time a speaker has, it really can’t put a time limit on the amount of speakers. If 20 constituents show up to talk about the same agenda item, you have to listen to them and afford them their free speech rights.
Each agenda will include a time for public input at the start of the meeting. Prior to the start of public input, the presiding officer will announce that public input can be provided on any agenda items and any other topics of interest to the person addressing the city agency, authority, board, committee, or commission. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, if public input is permitted on each agenda item, the city agency, authority, board, committee, or commission is not required to receive public input during an initial public input period and may instead receive general public comment at the conclusion of the meeting.
This is also a violation of the 1st Amendment. If public input time is afforded in the meeting, a constituent can talk about anything that occurred in that meeting, even previous agenda items. This is a ridiculous rule they continue to push, but it is unconstitutional and you don’t have to follow it if they threaten you in a meeting. I just simply say, ‘You are violating my 1st Amendment rights.’ and that usually gets them to shut up.
As you can see, they are making all these changes without consulting with the public. I have said the smartest thing they could do was create a committee by resolution to make transparency recommendations to the council after having several public meetings on the topic. When you make supposed ‘civic engagement’ recommendations, you should engage the public.
Speaking of transparency, look at how many FOIA requests the city has rejected. Also, you must make your requests thru the SFPD. This is incorrect, all FOIA requests should be emailed to the mayor, since he is the top city administrator. I also suggest you CC the city attorney and city clerk.
If we want transparency in city government we are going to have to get it done ourselves. Once we get closer to the city election and I have a better understanding of who will serve on the next council, I will be urging them to put together an open government task force compiled of residents, city employees and city councilors and kick this closed government in the fanny once and for all.
I will also urge the next mayor to hire a director level public information officer to manage open government.
