SF School District

SF District advises their employees to follow state law

On Monday, March 23, I spoke to the SF School Board about following state law when it comes to the school start date campaigns and debates;

12-27-20. Expenditure of public funds to influence election outcome prohibited. The state, an agency of the state, and the governing body of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state may not expend or permit the expenditure of public funds for the purpose of influencing the nomination or election of any candidate, or for the petitioning of a ballot question on the ballot or the adoption or defeat of any ballot question. This section may not be construed to limit the freedom of speech of any officer or employee of the state or such political subdivisions in his or her personal capacity. This section does not prohibit the state, its agencies, or the governing body of any political subdivision of the state from presenting factual information solely for the purpose of educating the voters on a ballot question.

Source: SL 2007, ch 80, § 20.

After reading the law to the school board, member, Kate Parker told me that staff follows an internal policy on their activities, I asked her if that policy follows state law and she said they follow policy.

After the meeting, the District’s attorney and VP Super, Sue Simons approached me in the IPC parking lot. She told me that Kate Parker had misspoken and that the policy does follow state law. Sue also advised me to present evidence, if I had it, of teachers campaigning on school time. I told her I would look into it.

Two days later I received a priority mail letter from Sue asking me for that evidence. I emailed her and told her I was ‘watching’ the process and would probably NOT share any of the evidence that I would ascertain, nor would I sue the school district. She did not respond.

I found out yesterday that Sue sent out a memo to District staff stating the above law and that employees should follow it and should discontinue any campaigning activity on school time and property.

I want to applaud the District for listening to constituents and reinforcing to employees that they must follow state law.

 

Is the group opposed to after Labor Day Start blatantly breaking campaign laws?

The State Law is pretty clear;

Universal Citation: SD Codified L § 12-27-20 (through 2012)

12-27-20. Expenditure of public funds to influence election outcome prohibited. The state, an agency of the state, and the governing body of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state may not expend or permit the expenditure of public funds for the purpose of influencing the nomination or election of any candidate, or for the petitioning of a ballot question on the ballot or the adoption or defeat of any ballot question. This section may not be construed to limit the freedom of speech of any officer or employee of the state or such political subdivisions in his or her personal capacity. This section does not prohibit the state, its agencies, or the governing body of any political subdivision of the state from presenting factual information solely for the purpose of educating the voters on a ballot question.

Source: SL 2007, ch 80, § 20.

You can’t use district property maintained by taxpayers to promote your cause. If your parents want to hold a party at their house after school hours, that is perfectly legal. Does Roosevelt HS have any civics teachers that have a clue, or for that matter administrators? Geezsch!

breaking-the-law2

Maybe this is what they are teaching in government class at Roosevelt HS.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHnnsFeJBL8[/youtube]

The Sun may shine a lot in Sioux Falls, but dark clouds loom over our government offices

dark-sky-wallpaper

It’s Sunshine Week, or at least that’s what our local newspaper is telling us. They have been having fun setting up ‘scenarios’ when it comes to closed government in our state and city, but scenarios are not necessary, our closed government is all around us and not something to pretend about;

City of Sioux Falls

– The city council and public still have not received a contractor list of who built the Events Center. The council has been asking directors and the mayor for this list for almost two years.

– The Event Center siding consultant report has still not been released to the public or the council. In fact we have been told very little with the year deadline for a resolution looming in August. Officials with SMG and the city building department have said that the building is ‘water tight’ and the bent up siding makes the building look ‘interesting’. What will be ‘interesting’ is to see who will pay to fix the mess.

– Nobody is quite sure how many developers have been denied TIF applications (by the mayor’s office) over the past 27 months. Speaking of TIF’s one wonders if the mayor is picking winners and losers based on his personal investments with developers? Good luck finding out, the mayor doesn’t have to disclose his development investments with the public.

-The city council was asked to vote on the ambulance contract without seeing the scoring procedures or criteria and essentially created a monopoly in the city limits with little transparency in the process.

-We have NO idea what is going on with the RR relocation project, a project that will potentially cost Federal taxpayers $30 million dollars.

-While a proposed indoor aquatic center gets smaller and gets more expensive there has been no word as to why and where all the amentities promised before the election disappeared to AND we still don’t have and MOU on the Quit Claim deed from the VA, but the city attorney says he is ‘working on it’.

Minnehaha County Commission

-Besides the fact the appointment process for John Pekas’ replacement was behind closed doors, the appointee comes into question, Jean Bender, wife of major Sioux Falls developer, Michael Bender, and conflicts of interest. Especially after the joint city council and commission recently denied a CUP for a solar development farm that Mr. Bender and his group were appealing. Jean was not in attendance to the meeting, but one wonders about future zoning issues concerning her husband’s business? This isn’t like a county sheriff’s wife is running a city owned café, there is a heckuva a lot more at stake here then ice cream cones and turkey wraps.

Sioux Falls School Board

-Now that they have the future Superintendent list down to six finalists, the public still is not able to vet the finalists in a public forum. This coming from a school board that only listens to the public when a referendum is threatening them or if they are getting death threats. And even with the looming election they are skating on thin ice with state election law by promoting opposition to the late start date using teachers and administrative staff during business and school hours which is against state campaign laws.

As you can see from these ‘few’ examples, there is no reason to setup scenarios of the lack of transparency. It’s very dark in Sioux Falls, and the sun isn’t coming out anytime soon and neither is the truth.

‘Save our Summer’ yard signs stolen last night

About 100 of their signs on the west side of Sioux Falls were stolen last night. They have filed a police report and are pursuing the thieves.

This actually surprises me, I have heard of a few political signs be stolen before in races, but 100 is quite a bit, (valued at around $400) it would be very hard to hide that many. I suggest people keep their eyes peeled.

This ‘issue’ is getting more interesting by the day and I want to remind people, no matter what side you are on, let’s play and campaign fairly.