Ethics

Witch Hunt

l3wis June 28, 2010 7Comments

Looks like city attorney Tornow ate too much of the US Constitution. I never knew the fifth amendment could be so filling (screenshot from KELO-TV video).

Here’s an update on the ethics complaint against Staggers.

Tornow also says he thinks the city’s ordinance is in conflict with state law, which is why Staggers says he wants changes to the way the board of ethics operates.

“I wish your best in the consideration of the proposed ordinance which would make it clearer or more explicit in allowing an accused person of an ethics complaint to allow the complaint to be made public. This ordinance that needs to be passed,” Staggers said.

Well isn’t it your freaking job to follow state law? If you know it is in violation, as a lawyer wouldn’t you follow state law instead of protecting the city? You should put a gigantic sticker on the City Attorney’s door at city hall, “The Fifth Amendment is not allowed here.”

Ethicsboardminutes. This is a PDF.

ethicscomplaint.Â This is a PDF.

response-staggers This is a PDF.

Tornow needs to get a fire estinguisher for his pants;

Owen asked Tornow whether he felt Staggers had adequate notice of what the board was investigating. Tornow replied: “It isn’t how I feel like, it’s how I read the ordinance.” And he said it was “absolutely untrue” that Staggers didn’t receive proper notice, to which Staggers replied, “What are you talking about, Shawn?”

This guy tells so many lies, he begins to believe them. It infuriates me that he still is collecting a paycheck from my taxes. He should be fired, disbarred and ran out of town for his violations against the US Constitution.

s

Ethics Staggers Unions

Gee, I wonder what mayoral campaign these two ‘Union Leaders’ were helping out?

l3wis June 25, 2010 8Comments

Five senators voted against the Credit Card Reform Act. Can you guess two of them?

Ghost of Dude May 19, 2009 19Comments

As expected, the credit card reform bill passed the senate. In fact, the vote was 90-5.

Our senators showed us all who really owns them by voting ‘no’ on needed consumer protections, and in fovor of the credit card industry.Â Johnson was the only democrat to vote against the bill, and Thune was one of four republicans – all from states that play a major part in the banking industry – to vote no.

The CC industry has now threatened thatÂ consumers willÂ have a harder time obtaining creditÂ as a result of this bill:

The goal in the legislation should be to obtain the right balance: providing protections, while maintaining the important role of credit cards in providing loans to consumers and small businesses. Unfortunately, we believe the bill does not achieve that balance and will therefore cause an unnecessary decrease in credit availability.

But really, they have to be bluffing here. If you ran a business that had both customers who paid on time and customers who were total deadbeats, which group would you rather alienate; the ones who bring in steady revenue, or the ones who pay sporadically if at all?

If you are unable to responsibly use a credit card, having access to one will only make your financial problems worse. Maybe going back to the days when only responsible people had credit cards will be a good thing.

I have to roll my eyes at the local CC companies crapping their pants about jobs being effected. If you can’t find a way to turn a profit in the CC business without screwing your customers over, you shouldn’t be in business.

Ethics SF City Council Sioux Falls

SF Citizens can no longer ask for advisory opinions

l3wis March 17, 2009 0Comments

But candidates and possible candidates will be able to ask for legal opinions about possible conflicts they may personally have. (Click on Council meeting, Item #29)

I’m still on the fence about this whole thing. I think that the councilors are shooting themselves in the foot by approving this change. If I were a councilor I would much rather have someone ask an ‘opinion’ about me before I voted on an issue then file a ‘complaint’ after the vote happened. I would think that would be much more embarrassing to have a complaint filed and have major ramifications if the vote was close.

I do agree the advisory opinions should be confidential and not released to the public, just the party’s involved so that it does not become a political football. I think that is a very fair revision.

I guess now councilors can vote on whatever they want without the public questioning their conflicts or motives, they are only allowed to question themselves, that’s convenient, huh?

An Argus reporter wrote about the vote, but it is as clear as mud.

Ethics SF City Council

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I’m gonna anyway

l3wis March 11, 2009 0Comments

The council wants to play hardball, fine, I’m all for it;

Advisory opinions allow the board to review a situation and determine if it violates the city’s ethics policy. Currently, anyone can ask the board for an opinion about the behavior of a city official.

But some councilors feel the process has burned them. They say it has been misused as a political weapon because a person who files one can then make it public. They argue advisory opinions should be available only to city officials who want guidance about their own conduct.

Myself and residents will just wait for you to do something unethical then file a complaint, if you want it that way. You think asking for opinion is ‘politically damaging’? Wait until you actually screw up and a complaint is filed. All you are doing is shooting yourself in the foot.

Board members have proposed keeping advisory opinions available to all residents. They would make them confidential as well, which would prohibit someone from asking for an opinion and then using it to damage someone politically.

I am all for confidentiality. Like I have said before, this isn’t about making things ‘political’ (even though everything you do is political, because, you are a politician) it is about nipping conflict of interest in the butt before it turns into a complaint. It’s all about prevention. Duh!

But that idea doesn’t appear to have much traction with councilors.

Â

“The best way to stop an advisory opinion from becoming political is not to have it,” Councilor Kermit Staggers said.

So basically what councilor Staggers is saying is that residents don’t have the ‘knowledge’ to know whether or not a councilor is acting inappropriately or unethically, only other councilors and city staff? Give me a break – don’t insult my intelligence. Who was dead onÂ center about not getting stimulus money or not needing to borrow for the levees? Not any of you.

Witch Hunt

Gee, I wonder what mayoral campaign these two ‘Union Leaders’ were helping out?

Five senators voted against the Credit Card Reform Act. Can you guess two of them?

SF Citizens can no longer ask for advisory opinions

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I’m gonna anyway

You Missed

UPDATE II: Sioux Falls City Councilor could be facing ethics violations after tonight’s vote on Tre Ministries project

UPDATE: City Council Agenda (Dec 2-3)

Seems we are a we bit behind on snow plowing

Libertyland TIF should go to a vote of the entire state!