In the city council informational meeting today there was a presentation on leasing space for a Southwest Police Report to Work Station. During the meeting Erickson said that this is NOT a police precinct. Here is the best definition I could find on what a police precinct is;
In the United States, a police precinct is a geographical area patrolled by a police force. The term “precinct” may also refer to the main police station for such a geographical area. Practices and cultures of policing often vary considerably from one precinct to another.
She can claim whatever she wants to, to defend the mayor’s hypocrisy during the mayoral campaign, but, if it walks like a duck, it’s duck.
I was a little disappointed, I thought Kris was going to show us how to make her favorite cocktails. Why this person wasn’t thrown out of the legislature on her behind is beyond me. I would also note that someone running for re-election should not be using a taxpayer funded platform like this. But once again the ethics rules don’t apply to Republicans in this state, because they didn’t do anything ‘illegal’. Freaking Clowns.
(screenshot of Erickson’s FB page. Look, Alex has a name tag already!
So now that the ethics debacle has taken place, will this now give Paul and Christine the green light to publicly endorse (not just give money) Neitzert and Jensen, essentially saying that Julian and Stehly are not fit for office? And if so will Brekke and Starr follow suit and publicly endorse Stehly?
Neitzert said this on FB about the decision;
Yesterday the board of ethics ruled it was not only legal but ethical for Councilors to donate, endorse, and host fundraisers for other Council candidates. Same goes for the Mayor. And thus common sense and free speech won. And those using the board of ethics as a weapon during the campaign season to try to malign good people and attack their political opponents failed miserably.
I know, it reads like a line from a Shakespearean tragedy.
The issue with this kind of endorsement is the reason Brekke asked the question. Why? They are not really endorsing anyone, they are just saying that Theresa and Julian are not fit for office, so she needs to be replaced and Julian shouldn’t be able to serve.
It’s a different situation with Julian because he isn’t the incumbent, but with Stehly, she has a record. All we have from Jensen is a short rubberstamp legislative career chocked full of discrimination and higher tax votes. They are certainly not going to endorse Jensen based on his record, all they are saying is we need a rubber stamping seat warmer to replace Stehly.
This has been my biggest frustration with the race so far. We know Stehly and Neitzert’s record, we also know that Julian has had several public events saying what he stands for, he even helped with Jolene’s campaign. But with Jensen we have heard virtually nothing. NOTHING.
How can you say he would be better than Stehly when we don’t even know what that ‘better’ means? It is pretty clear to me that an endorsement of Jensen isn’t an endorsement at all, it’s just a dig on Stehly, and it’s extremely unethical, and any logical adult can see right thru the charade.
I’m hearing the ethics meeting today lasted 3 hours, and they ruled that there was nothing wrong with the mayor endorsing council candidates or giving them money.
VIDEO COMING
One board member dissented, I believe it was Greg LaFollette.
I guess board member Jack Marsh was being a real stinker.
The essential argument was 1st Amendment rights and the SCOTUS ruling of Citizens United. But the constitutionality of this has nothing to do with if something is ethical. One city councilor (I think Erickson) went as far to accuse Brekke of trying to make the mayor ‘look bad’ and unethical.
The board members felt that we have a very ‘ethical’ city government and were concerned someone would question their ethics.
LOL. Isn’t that why we have this board?
Of course none of this surprises me. The establishment special interest crowd is often saying if it is legal it is ethical.
I had to chuckle a little during the Operations Committee meeting yesterday of the Sioux Falls city council when councilor Erickson argued against longer informational meetings. She kept referring to the councilors having other jobs and commitments and not being able to make certain meetings.
First off, Erickson runs a rental, real estate and Air BNB business with her husband and is essentially self-employed. But really, does that matter? You signed up for running for city council, you knew your responsibilities and duties (served two terms) before you ran, and you are paid to be there. So please, your excuses ring hollow, BTW, let’s look at the council’s ‘jobs’?
Erickson – Self-employed
Neitzert – works from home
Stehly – self-employed
Brekke – retired
Soehl – retired
Kiley – semi-retired(?)
Starr – self-employed
Selberg – Real estate agent (semi-self employed, but does work for a company)
So out of the eight city councilors, only two of them are not either retired or self-employed, and those two have pretty open schedules.
Christine, stop whining, you know what you signed up for, and you know most if not ALL of councilors schedules are flexible due to their ‘jobs’.
l3wis 
