South DaCola

Editorial Cartoonist from South Dakota

snow removal

1st Amendment Censorship Michelle Erpenbach SF City Council Sioux Falls snow removal Snowgates

Did SF City Council Chair Michelle Erpenbach violate city ordinance?

l3wis 14Comments

Since the December 18 council meeting, in which Erpenbach limited public testimony to 20 minutes for the snowgate advocates, I have been researching Roberts Rules, city ordinances, statutes, 1st Amendment rights and censorship. While some of my findings are not definitive, especially when it comes to public input,  some things do stand out. From all accounts city ordinance is very clear about the 5 minute testimonial rule, but is the council required to follow it?

You be the judge.

*Your feedback on this post will be essential in what I decide will be the next steps in preventing the council and mayor from limiting public testimony.

ADOPTION OF RULES

It is important to note that the current city council has never had an adoption of rules of order. In other words the parliamentary procedures they follow are standing rules of the past. Chapter 30.012 of city charter outlines this;

30.012 RULES OF ORDER.

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (latest edition) shall govern the proceedings of the council in all cases, unless they are in conflict with this subchapter.

LIMITING DEBATE of PEERS

There has been much talk about whether the council chair can limit the number of questions other councilors can ask during a public meeting. According to Roberts Rules she cannot unless by a two-thirds vote of the entire body;

The chairman cannot close debate unless by order of the assembly, which requires a two-thirds vote; nor can he prevent the making of legitimate motions by hurrying through the proceedings. If members are reasonably prompt in exercising their right to speak or make motions, the chair cannot prevent their doing so. If he has hurriedly taken and announced a vote while a member is rising to address the chair, the vote is null and void, and the member must be recognized. On the other hand the chairman should not permit the object of a meeting to be defeated by a few factious persons using parliamentary forms with the evident object of obstructing business. In such a case he should refuse to entertain the dilatory or frivolous motion, and, if an appeal is taken, he should entertain it, and, if sustained by a large majority he may afterwards refuse to entertain even an appeal made by the faction when evidently made merely to obstruct business. But the chair should never adopt such a course merely to expedite business, when the opposition is not factious. It is only justifiable when it is perfectly clear that the opposition is trying to obstruct business. [See Dilatory Motions, 40].

STATUTES

There are no real statutes in Roberts Rules for public testimony;

Some issues, such as budget approval or ordinance changes, require public hearings, according to statutes. But for regular, open meetings, municipalities are left to their own devices to make the meeting rules.

Rules can be good, Dreps said. They can keep meetings moving so everyone can get home before midnight. They can prevent municipal employees from getting dragged through the mud when they’re not there to defend themselves.

But public officials shouldn’t hide behind rules for convenience’s sake, he said.

“What can you say?” Dreps said. “Democracy is messy.”

Basically each governing body can determine their own set of rules, which the city council has done in their ordinances. According to Chapter 30.015 of city charter;

30.015 ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL; TIME LIMIT.

(a) During the public input portion at the start of a city council meeting, no person shall be permitted to speak on a topic that appears later in that meeting’s agenda if public input will be received when that agenda item is up for discussion.

(b) No person shall address the city council without first securing the permission of the mayor, or acting mayor, to do so.

(c) Each person addressing the city council shall step up to the microphone in front of the rail, shall give his or her name in an audible tone of voice for the record, and unless further time is granted by the city council, shall be limited to five minutes.

(d) All remarks shall be addressed to the city council as a body and not to any member thereof.

(e) No person, other than the city council and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the city council without the permission of the mayor or acting mayor.

(f) No question shall be asked of a city council member except through the mayor or acting mayor.

(g) No person, except city council members, shall address the council after a motion is made and seconded unless requested by a city council member.

(1992 Code, § 2-16) (Ord. 50-95, passed 3-20-1995; Ord. 52-11, passed 7-11-2011; Ord. 24-12, passed 4-2-2012)

So, since the current city council has never had their own adoption of rules, wouldn’t this mean they should be following current city charter?

And according to the current city charter each person can only be limited to a 5 minute time period, unless they are being disruptive. So when Council Chair Erpenbach ‘concocted’ a new set of time restraints for public input before that input started, did she violate city ordinance?

Love to hear the city attorney weigh in on this one, and he just might get an opportunity to do so.

1st Amendment SF City Council Sioux Falls snow removal Snowgates Theresa Stehly

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

l3wis 4Comments

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.

Sioux Falls snow removal Snowgates

Snowgates: Quote of the day

l3wis 0Comments

From the Argus Leader;

“I’d rather do it myself,” said Destigter, who has lived in his home for 22 years. “I just don’t like the idea of one lady demanding all of this. The city should decide for themselves.”

I guess I don’t like the idea of living in a community with other residents that don’t understand how a petition drive and election works. Theresa Stehly gathered over 8,000 signatures to put snowgates on the ballot so YOU can decide with other voting constituents whether you want snowgates or not.

Sioux Falls snow removal Snowgates

So now snowgate advocates are lazy?

l3wis 27Comments

You never can predict what will come out of the ugly yellow building on 10th & Minnesota;

The Loafer Brigade of Sioux Falls suffered a defeat last week, but loafers never are defeated for long. They rise again to advocate for loafing.

In refusing to call a special election next spring on snowgates, the City Council deflected the issue until spring 2014. About 8,500 people had signed petitions hoping an election would be called sooner.

I guess asking the city to save taxpayers thousands of hours cleaning the iceberms from the end of our driveways classifies us as ‘lazy’. I have never looked at snowgates in that way. As I have said in the past it is about being held hostage to the city when it comes to snow removal. Who cares if the streets are plowed in 24 hours if I cannot get out of my driveway? I look at snowgates in simpler form; I am already paying for the service of snow removal, if it cost an extra 25% to do it properly, I say let’s do it. The plows are already out plowing my street, what’s the harm in taking a little longer and pushing a little button? Lazy? This coming from the rag that created ‘Loafer Journalism’

But the council was within its rights. When it comes to initiated measures, state law allows city governments to call a special election or hold the vote at the next regular election. Our next regular election is spring 2014.

I disagree. The initiative was specifically written so that snowgates would go into affect Nov 1, 2013. The next available election slot (without calling a stand alone special election) is this Spring, 2013 with the school district. I don’t think it gets less complicated then that. A majority of the council doesn’t want snowgates. Period. This had nothing to do with whether they work or their cost. And they know it.

And they suspect that some treacherous lawyers will devise a scheme in which a vote never will take place.

Most definately. Remember what I said about the predictability of our city government? Why wait over a year to have an election? Are we going to have more information? Probably not. The council voted against the 2013 election to give them time to crush the petition drive. I stand by those words.

I’m ambivalent on the subject. Sure, I suppose they would be nice if they work as advertised, but do we really need another government service so able-bodied adults don’t have to shovel out the ends of their driveway?

That’s just it, we are not creating a NEW government service, we are just asking to make one we currently have better. Geeesh.

First, the proponents continually reference this $500,000 water feature being built downtown along the river greenway, a glorified bird bath that certainly will win the appreciation of our resident pigeon population. If the city can spend money on that, it should be fully capable of outfitting plows with snowgates, the Snowgatenistas say.

Regardless of what you think about the bird bath, the money to pay for it comes from a completely different budget and tax source than the budget that pays for snow removal. The budget that pays for snow removal also is the same budget that pays for police officers and firefighters. Thus, we would have less money for public safety.

You can look at this 20 different ways, but whether it is snowgates or birdbaths it is still taxpayer money they are spending. And how are we taking money from public safety? Kind of sounds like we are adding to it. Snowgates are a public safety issue.

The Snowgatenistas also argue that snowgates are a service that would benefit everybody. Really? Because a lot of people in central Sioux Falls don’t even have driveways. And even more live in apartments. How do snowgates benefit them?

Snowgates also have another effective use, clearing intersections. Something the Public Works department never likes to bring up, because they know they are very effective when it comes to this use. So snowgates DO benefit everyone.

If snowgates do hinder progress in clearing roads, you can bet that voters won’t blame themselves for approving the devices. They’ll blame their elected officials.

Well they are the ones responsible for making sure government services work properly, that’s why they get a paycheck compliments of us, the taxpayer.

SF City Council Sioux Falls snow removal Snowgates

Last I checked, I live in a Democracy

l3wis 27Comments

I just sent off this email to the council and mayor;

Dear Mayor and City Councilors,
Trust me, it pains me to write this email. I would rather be sending off a quick note to all of you thanking you for approving the Spring 2013 election.

I do however want to thank councilors Jamison, Staggers and Anderson Jr. for realizing Tuesday night’s decision to vote YES was an easy decision when you stand up for democratic values and take an oath to uphold the US Constitution. The rest of you failed to recognize your constitutional duties, and just how easy they are. The Spring snowgate election SHOULD have been a slam dunk.

As for those of you who ignored the wishes of over 8,000 petition signers, I have no idea where to begin.

Why don’t we start with your ginned up false arguments and scripted questions to city directors (Karsky). One of your main arguments was hiring contractors in January for the following snow season. You say if we approve snowgates in the Spring of 2013 it would be after the hiring of contractors in January. So how is the timing of a Spring election in 2014 any different?

The difference is, that I don’t expect to see snowgates on the 2014 Spring ballot. Why? I don’t think your NO vote on Tuesday was an attempt to gather more information before the 2014 election, I believe you voted NO so you would have an opportunity to either
1) squash the petition of over 8,000 signers using legal recourse OR
2) writing a snowgate ordinance yourself and implementing them to your limited specifications and uses before the 2014 election. Either way, it was a political trick, but I wouldn’t expect anything less out of the five of you. As I tell friends, Sioux Falls city government is very predictable, they always vote in favor of special interests, and you did not disappoint Tuesday night. You denied 8,000 constituents AN election they asked for then turned around and handed over a $3.8 million dollar TIF (money taken away from public education) so a PRIVATE developer could build luxury lofts.

Your other fine argument against the election was that there was no way that 60 well-informed snowgate volunteers could educate the public on snowgates in 5 months. I was flabbergasted by this statement. The public only got 3 months to decide on the Events Center, one of the largest projects voters have ever approved. Do you think an army of 60 IGNORANT MORONS could collect 8,000 signatures in 10 short weeks? Do you think they did this blindly with no knowledge of how snowgates work? Councilor Erpenbach’s statement was condescending and quite frankly insulting. I have heard councilors and mayors say a lot of things over the past 10 years to constituents in public meetings, but that statement took the cake Michelle, it was over the top and downright mean spirited. You owe us a public apology.

I will direct this last part at council chair Erpenbach and mayor Huether. You can laud transparency all you want but I’m sorry Mike, just saying something doesn’t make it so. Limiting public testimony to 20 minutes and making up the rule before the meeting started without informing your fellow councilors was blatant CENSORSHIP! There is NOTHING transparent about CENSORSHIP. While there is plenty I could say about Michelle’s role in this censorship, Mike had the power to override Michelle’s concocted rule. That is why, since Tuesday I have been doing research on Robert’s Rules, censorship, the 1st Amendment and limiting FREE speech. Stifling public testimony on such an important topic was a disservice to the 8,000 petition signers, and will not be tolerated in the future. I will be using my research and resources to make sure of this.

Your lust for greed, power, control and self interest is what forced you all to vote NO on Tuesday. I feel sorry for all of you. You have only made this city and country weaker by your decisions. A democracy is only successful when it is ran by the people and for the people.

Regretfully,

Scott L. Ehrisman

« Previous Page — Next Page »

You Missed

1st Amendment Open Government Open Meetings SF City Council Sioux Falls

The City of Sioux Falls does as little as possible when it comes to open meetings

1st Amendment Downtown Sioux Falls Elections SF City Council Sioux Falls Vernon Brown

UPDATE: The more things change, the more they stay the same

1st Amendment Developers Development SF City Council Sioux Falls

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

1st Amendment Developers Development Planning Commission religion SF City Council SFPD Sioux Falls

UPDATE: City Council Agenda (Dec 2-3)