1st Amendment

City Council gets schooled by Stehly concerning the snowgate election public input

Interview with KSFY (lead story)

Informational meeting where councilor Jamison questions the public input procedures (Entenmen and Aguilar decide to bury the issue in an working session meeting).

City Council meeting where Stehly addresses the council on public input and their responsiveness to constituents.

My research is almost complete on whether I found any charter/ordinance violations by council chair Erpenbach concerning limiting public testimony on an agenda item. I hope to post about it later tonight.

Just another reminder of how civilized small town SD is.

This Lake Andes Motel sounds like a good place to stay . . . that is, if you are white and Republican.

I’m all for freedom of speech, and think it is fantastic that these people wear their racism on their sleeves (probably in the form of an armband) even though they seem to be in denial;

Mary Snyder swears to the Mitchell Daily Republic that she and her husband are just misspellers, not racists.

Yeah . . . right. If you don’t like black people, pull off your white hood and just say it. That is the beauty of our country, you don’t have to like people, and you don’t even have to be informed about why you don’t like them.

The SF School District threatens a sub-teacher with legal action

This is so ridiculous, I don’t even want to comment, but I will say Stehly is consulting an attorney with expertise in these matters.

The gist of the letter is about a flyer Stehly wants to hand out at Thursday’s sub-teacher inservice;

Basically, Stehly is asking subs get a raise. That’s it. But the school district responded with a letter from their legal advisor, which quotes a bunch of Supreme Court cases about public property. The letter was truly a scare tactic. (click on image to enlarge)


Since when is it illegal for an independent contractor, like a substitute teacher, organize other substitutes in asking for a raise?

Apparently the administration of the SF school district either hasn’t read George Orwell’s ‘1984’ or if they have, they implemented it as school policy. Either way, their claims are a stretch.

This is what happened. Someone (Stehly) finally questioned Dr. Homan’s misleading statements to the public (about sub teacher pay) and she didn’t like being called out.

Quote all the court cases in the world, the First Amendment is pretty clear;

“The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.”

Other policies the school district quotes; KDDR, and KF.

Are we slowly chipping away at 1st Amendment rights and transparency since city clerk Owens was terminated?

I spoke at the city council meeting Monday night about public input and the lack of transparency in our city (I do want to apologize and correct my comment about city contracts, they are posted on the city website now.)

It seems to me that since Debra was fired they are slowly chipping away at all of the things she worked hard on. This is disappointing. Heck, even her termination proceedings were questionable (discussing her termination in executive session but voting on it publicly – WTF?).

Not sure if you read this interview I did with Erpenbach, but I found this line interesting;

It’s interesting to me that you claim so many people know the contents of conversations that were held in legal executive sessions related to private person- nel issues. It is a violation of state law to reveal information disclosed in executive session.

Well, Michelle, let’s talk about violating state law, shall we? From a SouthDaCola foot soldier;

The only way to get government to clean up its act is to make it more transparent – whether contracts, salaries and bonuses, public meetings, and abiding by open meetings laws.

I found it ironic that council leadership walked in the two resolutions to split the former clerk position into two different jobs and did so by breaking the open meetings laws.

If you recall this ordinance along with many others in Chapter II came through Public Services Committee on June 13 and went on to be adopted by council on July 11.

In less than a year the council themselves took action on agenda items w/o giving notice of the vote (so the public could not comment on the action until AFTER the vote was over.) However, their wrong doing is all the more grievous because they purposely revised the ordinance last year so that 24 hour notice would have to be followed. This is why there is a reference to State law in the ordinance. That is why it states the council CAN take immediate action AS LONG AS public notice was provided — which is 24 hour notice in state law.  (See the last sentence in the ordinance below.)  They willfully/purposely violated state law and their newly revised ordinance.

The ordinances;

Sec. 2-15.  Agenda.
(a)     All reports, communications, ordinances, resolutions, or other matters to be submitted to the council for consideration shall be delivered to the city clerk’s office no later than 10:00 a.m. on the Monday one week prior to the council meeting. If the Monday one week prior to the city council meeting is a holiday, the deadline is 10:00 a.m. on the preceding Friday. All documentation requiring council action will be delivered to the city clerk’s office in its complete and final format. The city clerk’s office shall prepare the agenda in both paper and electronic format and will furnish each member of the council, the mayor, and the city attorney with access to the information after 1:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the city council meeting.

(b)     During consideration of new business, the mayor or any two city council members may bring before the city council any business that person feels should be deliberated upon by the city council. These matters can be added to the agenda by a vote of six city council members and will be considered under new business. Formal action on such matters shall be deferred until a subsequent city council meeting, unless consideration is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety of the municipal government. If the city council chooses to take immediate action on the newly calendared agenda item, and notice to the public is provided as set forth in SDCL 1-25-1.1, an affirmative vote of six members of the council is required for approval.

(Ord. No. 50-95, § 2, 3-20-95; Ord. No. 52-11, § 10, 7-11-11)