Women Running for Office

There are plenty of articles on why women don't run for political office. A study by the Brookings Institute says women don't like the rigors of a campaign. Women don't get recruited to run like men do. Women have less freedom to balance work and family obligations with a political career. Women are less likely to feel qualified to run for office. Women don't perceive a fair political environment. Who knows why more women don't run for political office. There are plenty of men running for political office that aren't qualified to run. Whether the political environment is fair or not is debatable.

Running for office requires money and if you don't have some political connections or help, financing a campaign is going to be tough. I would think that is a problem for both men and women. There are 4 women in the local election this year, two are running against one another in the central district and the other two are running for the at large B seat and the southeast district seat. I hope we see 3 women on the council at the end of election night next week.

I think it is harder to run for an at large seat than it is running for a district seat. Running city wide is a big challenge, especially if you are running for the first time. Christine Erickson is running against Denny Pierson for the At Large B seat. Christine doesn't fit the reasons cited in the Brookings Institute study on why women don't run for political office. She's figured out how to balance work and family obligations with a political career when she served in the State Legislature.

I have spent some time with Christine and have come away with the opinion that she will be a good asset on the City Council. She comes to the opportunity with little baggage and preconceived notions. She knows what issues are important, to both her and the citizens she wants to serve. I must admit that I have a special bond for the Ericksons and their extended family. I have known her husband, his siblings and his mother for decades. That alone is a huge endorsement for me. But I know that people need to know more than that to vote for Christine Erickson.

She is a confident, well spoken woman. She has a clear vision and she is committed to serving this community.

Christine is committed to Sioux Falls:
• Small business owner
• Involved mother of three boys
• Thrives on collaborating with others to find workable
solutions

Christine will fight to:
• Improve and maintain roads
• Eliminate irresponsible government borrowing
• Make government smarter and more sensible
• Promote economic development and good paying jobs

 Check out her website to find out more about her. I encourage you to vote for Christine Erickson on April 8th. She will serve this community well and will bring a new and fresh perspective to the City Council.

A Dim Light on Ethics

The City Council has decided to postpone any discussions on investors involved in city supported development driven projects. Let's be clear. They are postponing the discussion because it is connected to the mayor's wife and the mayor is running for re-election. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that, no matter how hard some of the councilors protest that it just ain't so. It's all about appearances and once again councilors fall short of the public trust.

The ARGUS LEADER, in yesterday's edition, published an article on the city council's latest action on this subject: "Councilor Greg Jamison wants to shine a light on who is investing in projects that receive a boost from tax increment financing, or TIF. He is running for mayor against incumbent Mike Huether and raised the issue after learning Huether's wife had invested in the Bancroft Place Apartments. That project was approved for $475,000 worth of TIF funding (from the city coffers) in May 2011.

This latest action to postpone any action, lead by Councilor Karsky, until after the election is disappointing. The Ethics Board reviewed Cindy Huether's involvement in the City financed TIF and decided she did nothing wrong. That is technically true, because the conflict of ordinance language only speaks to elected officials and city employees. It does not address an elected official's spouse or family member.

However, let's be clear about our expectations of elected officials. We expect them to be above reproach. We expect them to be able to demonstrate that they are ethical people, capable of knowing when something violates the letter of law and yes, even when it might give the appearance of unethical behavior. When you serve the public, splitting hairs on the letter of the law indicates a lack of understanding and real commitment to the public trust. Why is it so hard to say I will not only act within the literal meaning of ethics and conflict of interest ordinances but also will not act in a manner that gives the appearance of impropriety?

The city council could have taken the Ethics Board ruling and stood tall by acknowledging that the mayor's wife did not violate the letter of the law in this case but that they stand firmly behind the city's code of conduct by adopting a common sense approach and commitment that an appearance of impropriety is just as bad as actual ethical behavioral misconduct.

When you look for any way to justify your position, it shows a lack of trustworthiness, transparency and an understanding of the public trust. Elected official should bend over backwards and go above and beyond the norm to prove their behavior is above reproach. It should always pass the smell test.

The ethics board was asked to rule on whether Cindy Huether violated city conflict of interest/ethics ordinances. They said no and they were right. City Councilors used that ruling to hide behind in their public proselytising that it's not political and has nothing to do with the mayor's race for reelection. I think they doth protest too much. Doing the right thing acting above reproach means you never have twist the facts or meanings to support your position. Here again, it's the appearance factor.

Elected officials need to be and act squeaky clean, not just give it lip service. The mayor knew his wife was investing in a development driven project that received TIF support funds from a city department that he directly supervises. If he didn't know it, then he is not as on top of city business as he says he is.

The appearance of impropriety is just as important to recognize as the literal letter of law. When elected officials can't or don't recognize that, you have to wonder just where their moral compass actually lies. In this case, I'd say their moral compass is off kilter.

Dim the light on ethics at Carnegie Town Hall and the Mayor's office. Acting above reproach without a hint of impropriety is the right thing to do when you are elected official. It's the true meaning of public trust. City Councilors have failed the test and so has the mayor.

City Council Public Testimony

I can remember sitting in the Commission and/or Council chambers until the wee hours of the morning because some hot button issue brought out a myriad of citizens, and sometimes employees, who wanted a chance to speak on the issue before the elected body passed an ordinance or resolution.

The City Council is grappling with that very issue as they try to craft an ordinance to stop the irritating public. Councilor Entenman states, “Things are emotional for people, and when they’re upset, they want to say it. And a lot of times, it becomes a lot of redundancy; they’re saying the same thing, but it’s coming from a different mouth, which is OK,” Entenman said. “However, you do need to have some controls, because you could go on, filibuster-type, for days.” Hmmm, being referred to as a "mouth" instead of a "person" is an interesting way to describe citizens testifying before the council. Referring to past examples of public testimony as filibuster-type exaggerates the issue.

The quality of life in our city is governed by ordinances and resolutions. When these laws are created, amended or deleted, the impact can affect citizens for better or worse. How does the city council judge the merits or importance of public policy changes unless they hear public testimony? If you are Councilor Karsky you might just have your mind already made up before you ever get to the council meeting as I heard he stated at a Council working session this week. So, no wonder they are interested in minimizing public testimony - such a waste of their time.

By the very city ordinances, public hearings are a requirement. It can be mind numbing listening to the same rhetoric over and over again, no doubt about it. But isn't that the job of the elected officials and isn't it the citizen's right to speak out? After all, it is a public hearing.

The purpose of public hearings is to give equal opportunity for everyone to speak for or against the proposed changes. When you start restricting the voice of the people, you start messing with the public's right to be heard, no matter how painful that may be to the city council.

There is already a five minute rule on individual public testimony although there is no limit on how long the public testimony, either for or against, can go on. Maybe the five minute rule is too long. Shorten it to 3 minutes per person. After an hour of testimony per pro and con group, the mayor could then say unless someone has something new to add to the public discussion, the public hearing will come to an end and the matter rests with the City Council. There is discretion today to manage those meetings, it just takes sound leadership and good judgment.

It would be nice if every citizen was a public speaker and came to the podium prepared to present their testimony in a succinct and professional manner. It would be nice if there was an organized effort on a single issue and people were chosen to be spokespersons in order to minimize repeating testimony. But that is a perfect world and public policy decisions are not always made in a perfect world.

To put a strict limit in ordinance stifles public input. All that does is make city council meetings more palatable to the elected officials while disallowing the public from providing input in order to influence council decisions or make their views known before a vote is taken.

It is a slippery slope and in the end, it just looks like the city council is trying to stifle the public's equal opportunity to speak on an issue that affects their quality of life. The council needs to remember that this is not about them, but about the public's ability to communicate with them at a public hearing required by city ordinance every time an official action is taken.

They are going to discuss it again at their April 10th Working Session. Let's hope cooler heads prevail and the Council gets back to more substantive issues that affect the community and quality of life issues instead of what affects them personally.

When is Talk Cheap?

Theresa Stehly, chairwoman of Citizens for Snow Gates, and her army of supporters were upset last month when the City Council limited public input on the snow gate election agenda item to 20 minutes. There were a lot of people attending the meeting who wanted to publicly state their support of establishing an election date on the issue.

Public input is important but you have to ask the question, when does it become redundant and no longer provides meaningful information? After 20 minutes? After one hour? After two hours? How many people does it take to hear the same thing? It seems to me the key to public input at a council meeting is meaningful input. Two hours of listening to the same talking points over and over is not meaningful input just because it's a different person each time. All it does, most of the time, is feed the egos of those who want the limelight and take delight in calling elected officials on the carpet on TV.

There are others way for the public to provide input and give their voice on an issue. Write the mayor and your council representative a letter. Send them an e-mail. Write a letter to the editor of the local paper. Submit a statement with signatures of support at the council meeting the night the item is on the council agenda, but select key people to speak on the issue.

Twenty minutes was not enough time for a controversial issue like the snow gate election. An hour of public input would surely have been plenty of time. The city council has many items on their weekly council agenda. The council meeting is a business meeting and it is certainly appropriate to establish guidelines and rules regarding the conduct of business. The sticky question is how long must this elected body sit through repetitive public input that offers no new information on a controversial issue, just different bodies.

The pro side and the con side of every issue can say that they deserve to be heard and should not have their public testimony limited in any way. But really, is that how to run an official meeting? If Stehly had known beforehand that there was going to be a time limit, she could have organized her army of supporters and very strategically picked her strongest voices to speak that night. That's the way it should be done. She didn't get the opportunity, because the rule isn't a defined rule and is currently used at the discretion of the council leadership.

I think it's a good idea to establish rules regarding public input and publish the rules. That way, no one can cry foul and the council won't look so arbitrary in their action. When is talk cheap? When it provides no new facts or information and is just repetitive rhetoric in a different set of clothes. That's why a rule such as what will be studied by the council is in the right direction.

City Pension Reform

There is a big pension reform decision that will come before the City Council and active city employees who are members of the city pension system. This is a complicated issue and one that is not easily understood unless you are administering the pension plans or are a duly elected or appointed member of one of two pension boards of trustees. At issue is how to effect pension reform with the goal of reducing and stabilizing future employer contribution rates.

The two pension boards of trustees have studied the issue of pension reform for the past two years. They have conferred with their actuary and hired an independent consultant to study benefit changes and made recommendations for pension reform for active employees and new hires.

At the February 12, 2012 Board of Trustees meeting for the Employee’s Retirement System and the Firefighter’s Pension Fund, boards recommended tiered benefit changes for current employees and new hires and recommended these proposals be forwarded to the mayor and the city council with the belief “that the resulting plan provisions will continue to provide the City and its career employees with a sound pension plan while meeting our compensation and benefit objectives.”

The mayor didn’t agree with the boards’ recommendation on the tiered benefit level changes for new hires and subsequently made his own recommendation to close the pension plans to new hires and send them to the South Dakota Retirement System.

As a result, multiple presentations were made at the Information Meeting and the Fiscal Committee to present both sides. Presentations by the boards’ consultant, Cavanaugh Macdonald, were made at an Information Meeting.  The board asked to meet with the City Council Fiscal Committee to fully discuss their rationale and analysis for their recommendations. Representatives from the South Dakota Retirement System were invited to the City Council Fiscal Committee to make a presentation on the state retirement system’s provisions and operations.

The conflicting positions of the mayor and the two pension board of trustees have thrown the city council into a difficult position which has now created a division among city councilors.

It is not too difficult to see where councilors fall on the issue of pension reform. On the City Council Fiscal Committee, it is split 2-2. Two councilors, Jamison and Aquilar support the recommendations of the two pension boards of trustees. Two councilors, Entenmen and Karsky, support the mayor’s separate and conflicting recommendation. It has been decided that two competing recommendations from the City Council Fiscal Committee will be sent to the full council for discussion on June 19^th.

The question to ask is……Why is the mayor inserting his own recommendation contrary to the Pension Boards’ recommendations?

Two years of study by the Firefighter’s Pension Board of Trustees and the Employees Retirement System Board of Trustees does not seem good of enough for the Mayor. Has the mayor attended two years of pension board meetings, read the pension board minutes, studied the actuary’s report or the report of the independent consultant before making his own independent recommendation?

City ordinance is clear regarding the administration of the city’s two pension systems and the fiduciary responsibilities of each pension board trustee:

Sec. 35-63. Administration of system. (Employee’s Retirement System)

The authority and responsibility for the administration, management and proper operation of the retirement system and for construing and making effective the provisions of this article shall be vested in the board of trustees.

Sec. 35-125. Administration. (Firefighter’s Pension Fund)

There is hereby created a retirement board whose duties shall be to administer, manage and operate the firefighter's pension fund and to construe and carry into effect the provisions of this article, subject to such powers as are retained by the council.

Sec. 35-77. Responsibility of fiduciary. (Employee’s Retirement System)

Every fiduciary shall discharge his duties solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of this retirement system, for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries and with the skill, care, prudence and diligence, under the circumstances then prevailing, of a prudent person familiar with such matters and acting in a similar capacity. For purposes of this section, the word "fiduciary" means any person or entity who exercises any discretionary authority control over the management of this system or its assets, any person or entity who renders investment advice to this system for a fee or other compensation, or any person or entity who has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of this system.

Sec. 35-137. Responsibilities of fiduciary. (Firefighter’s Pension Fund)

Every fiduciary shall discharge his duties solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the system, for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries and with the skill, care, prudence and diligence, under the circumstances then prevailing, of a prudent person familiar with such matters and acting in a similar capacity. For purposes of this section, the word "fiduciary" means any person or entity who exercises any discretionary authority control over the management of this system or its assets, any person or entity who renders investment advice to this system for a fee or other compensation, or any person or entity who has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of this system.

The mayor contradicts the recommendations of the Board of Trustees for the Firefighter Pension Fund and the Employees Retirement System and comes up with his own recommendation.  He ignores city ordinance language that clearly states the administration, management and proper operation of the retirement systems and making effective provisions of the systems is VESTED in the board of trustees.

The board members have completed their fiduciary responsibility in extensively studying the issue of pension reform and have made recommendations with skill, care, prudence and diligence. Can the same be said of the mayor?

There is a compelling argument, on the surface, that the mayor’s alternative position sounds like a good idea. The SDRS has fixed rates and lower pension benefits. In the long run, it will get the city out of the pension business, albeit 30 years or more down the road. That is fine and dandy, except that is not the complete picture. What appears to be an immediate attraction to fixed costs is just one piece of the pension reform puzzle. One must also consider the fiscal viability and cost of the unfunded liability with the remaining active employees in the current pension plans.

There is a cost impact of closing the city’s two pension plans. The city must still continue to pay for the unfunded liabilities of current plans until such time as there are no remaining current employees – for next 15-30 plus years. As the consultant stated in its report, any cost savings from reducing benefits for new hires takes many years to manifest itself and the full impact is only realized after all of the current active members leave city employment and are replaced by employees covered by the new benefit structure.

The City Council cannot take any formal action on pension reform at the council meeting on June 19^th. Any change to benefit levels must be approved by a vote of the employee membership. That is state law. That means the employees must approve the benefit changes first, then followed by the City Council.  If the employees vote down the pension reform recommendations, the issue is dead.

A split position among the City Council sends a conflicting message to active city employees who will be voting on the recommendations. Anything short of a unanimous recommendation from the City Council sends a bad message to city employee members of the two pension systems. 

The mayor should have resolved his differences with the pension board of trustees before it ever came to the city council. This is no way to conduct such serious business as pension reform and sends a terrible message. Is the mayor going to bully the city council to conform to his position, ignoring two years of comprehensive study by two pension board of trustees vested with the fiduciary responsibility to manage and recommend change to the city’s pension funds?

The mayor needs to support the recommendation of the pension boards and assist the boards and the city council in effecting important pension reform that will subsequently save the city and the taxpayers money in the future.

If the city council can’t come to a unanimous position on pension reform, why should the employees vote yes to pension reform.

Why Do It Just Because We Can

I am on the fence on this latest push to ban texting at the local level. It is not that I am opposed to the idea. In fact quite a long time ago I made the personal decision that I would not text while I was driving my car. I made that personal decision because I believed it was a safety issue and I knew that texting while driving was a clear, inherent danger not only to myself but to innocent people around me.  Remember the Oprah Challenge?

Our cell phones have become an obsession. Why is it that we think just because we hear a ringtone that it must be answered at that very instant?

37 states have passed texting ban legislation. Are we surprised that South Dakota isn't one of them? South Dakota is the personal freedom state, except when it comes to women's issues and bedroom issues, but that is a blog for another time.

It is impressive that 16 corporations and institutions have endorsed the effort of the Citizens for Cell Phone Safety While Driving. I wonder if they were just as passionate about their endorsement at the state level in communicating their positions to state legislators.

Do we really want to have the city council establish a local ordinance on something that should be dealt with at the state level just because we can?  Just because our home rule charter allows us to pass this legislation doesn't mean we should do it.

 I find Councilor Erpenbach's position curious:
Sioux Falls City Councilor Michelle Erpenbach said it’s time for Sioux Falls to look at addressing the distracted-driving issue. Although the issue has failed in the Legislature, Erpenbach thinks it would be easier to pass at the city level because fewer votes are needed, and the council is open-minded and willing to take a risk.“There’s a risk that we’re maybe legislating too far, but at what point do we decide we’re going to do it anyway because we need to make a difference,” she said. “At least we’re having the conversation, we’re at a point where this is craziness, this stuff we’re doing when we drive.”

I commend the Citizens for Cell Phone Safety While Driving for continuing to push this agenda. I just think this agenda needs to be pushed at the state level, not at the local level. To pass an ordinance in Sioux Falls because our home rule charter makes it easier doesn't make it right. Ok, it has failed twice, but go back and try again. Don't take the seemingly easy way out and target home rule cities to get this done. That is a patchwork way of getting this done.

This is a state-wide issue, not a local issue. To me there is a clear delineation on what should be legislated at the state level and what should be legislated at the local level.  It isn't just texting in a car that causes accidents. How far are you willing to go? Eating in your car, talking on a cell phone, reading a map, changing radio stations, talking to your children and other passengers, reading something in your car, listening to an audio book are all examples of distracted driving. 

To pass a local ordinance makes Sioux Falls an island and puts law enforcement in a very difficult position to enforce it. Distracted driving falls under the reckless driving statute already. So, Councilor Erpenbach is excited about taking a risk and wanting to make a difference on this issue. Good for her. I just think she and the rest of the council can high five each other and then calm down and think about whether this is the right issue to legislate locally. I suggest they listen to their Police Chief on this matter and channel their energy into getting this issue legislated state wide.

If the City Council wants to take a stand, pass a resolution that states your position on distracted driving. Put together an education campaign through Channel 16, press releases and press conferences to educate the public on the dangers of texting while driving and OTHER distracted driving activities. There are others ways to make a difference locally to stop the "craziness, this stuff we're doing when we drive" than to pass a local ordinance. All it takes is little thinking outside the box instead of passing local legislation just because it's easier.

Council Working Session In the Works

I am hearing the city council will be holding a city council working session next Wednesday, April 25th at either 3 p.m. or 3:30 p.m. There is no posting of this work session on the city's website to date.

Although the requirement to post a public meeting is 24 hours in advance, it would be nice to get a notice of this working session earlier than 24 hours before the actual meeting. One of the agenda items is supposedly a discussion on the railroad relocation project.

It seems a BNSF spokesperson might be at this working session. If you live in the southeastern or central district of Sioux Falls, you might want to go to this working session. You will have to physically attend the session since working sessions are not televised nor are official minutes recorded by the city clerk.

It is also my understanding that the city council does not take any public testimony at this working sessions.

Below is specific city ordinance language pertaining to working sessions of the city council and when minutes are taken. It would appear that the city clerk's office prepares minutes of every meeting except the working sessions of the city council. Why is that? If there is a quorum present, it would seem this would dictate an official meeting, irrespective of the fact that no votes are taken. But clearly, the ordinance does not include city council working sessions as a meeting where minutes are required to be prepared by the city clerk.

So, if you want to know what the city council is discussing, especially as it pertains to the railroad relocation project, you might just want to attend the next scheduled working session of the city council - maybe next week.

Why would the council hold a working session to discuss such a controversial project where no public input will be allowed and no minutes will be published.  Shouldn't discussions regarding the railroad relocation project be an agenda item on an Information Meeting where the discussion is televised and minutes are taken so the public has an opportunity to see and/or review the discussion?

Any discussion regarding the railroad relocation project would seem to go far beyond "discussing matters pertaining to the affairs of the city council." This project affects the general public, specifically the southeast and central districts of the city,  not the affairs of the city council. Is this transparency in city government?





Sec. 2-5. Informational meetings and working sessions of the city council.
(a) The city council may meet in informational meetings and working sessions which shall be open to the general public to review and discuss matters pertaining to the affairs of the city council provided that all discussions and conclusions thereon shall be informal. All agendas for informational meetings and working sessions of the city council shall be posted with at least 24 hours notice.

(b) Informational meetings may be held the first three Mondays of the month and on the last Monday of the month. When the day fixed for an informational meeting falls on a date designated by law as a legal or national holiday, such meeting shall be held at the same hour on the next succeeding day not a holiday. Cancellations must be posted with at least 24 hours notice to the public.

(c) Working sessions of the council may be held as needed.

(d) The city council chair and vice chair shall determine the agenda, with city council input, for all informational meetings and working sessions.

Sec. 2-7. Minutes.
(a) The city clerk, or the city clerk's designee, shall prepare minutes of all regular and special meetings, informational meetings, committee meetings, and executive sessions. The minutes shall be maintained in the office of the city clerk. The minutes shall reflect:

(1) The date, time, and place of the meeting or session;

(2) The members recorded as either present or absent;

(3) A general description of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided; and

(4) Record of any votes taken.

(b) Approval of minutes of all city council meetings and informational meetings shall be considered at the next regular council meeting. Such minutes may be reviewed by the city clerk, or the city clerk's designee, to correct spelling, numbering, or other such technical defects.

(c) Minutes of executive sessions shall be sealed in the office of the city clerk. They may be reviewed periodically by the city council in executive session

A New Yet Old Council

Once again, the city council elections tell us that incumbency is a valuable experience and surely a guarantee to re-election. We not only see it in local elections but we see it time and again in state legislative sessions where candidates recycle themselves back and forth between the State Senate and the House seats.


Personally, I am glad Jamison won his re-election bid. He has stepped forward and asked the hard questions while being belittled and demeaned by the mayor and it never deterred him from taking a contrary position knowing he was going to take a beating from a bully. Karsky's first election win is no surprise because he has the aura of "incumbency" surrounding him and he faced an opponent that never seems to catch on, no matter how many times he runs. Anderson's win is no surprise either. A nice guy who usually has not made a significant mark one way or another. However, it was nice to see a little feistiness in him during the Owens debacle. I hope he has finally found his independent voice and we see more of this behavior in his second term.


The at-large race, in my opinion, is what got what little turnout to actually turn out. The general consensus was if it was a low turnout, Staggers would be victorious and if it was a large turnout, Knudson would be the victor. I would venture to guess the 11% voter turnout for Buttemeier was related to a protest vote and not necessarily showing support for his candidacy.


To say Kermit Staggers is a conservative is an understatement. He is like the energizer bunny - he never quits nor does he ever go away. Some people like him because they say he scrutinizes city spending priorities and always says no. Well that is all well and good, but if he can't gain consensus among his fellow councilors, he will be as ineffective as he was during his previous 8 years on the city council. He accomplished nothing with his contrarian ways during his previous stint as a city councilor.


His return to the city council is more reflective of a mood these days regarding the mayor, in my opinion. Staggers stated he thinks the event center played a role in his victory but I think it goes beyond just the event center. I heard many times from people in the community that they were going to vote for Staggers because it would be good folly to see him be a cantankerous sore in the mayor's side.


Regardless of how you feel about the outcome of the council race, one thing is certain. It will be interesting fodder for commentary. City Council meetings on the city's Channel 16 might get some new viewers.

Getting Re-Elected When You Were Never Elected

Dean Karsky was appointed to fill a city council seat vacated by City Councilor Bob Litz who was duly elected as County Auditor. Although Dean Karsky has run for a city council position prior to his appointment to fill the vacated seat, he has never won a city council election in his own right. He has never been "elected" in a city council race.

He is running again for a seat on the city council. This campaign sign is troubling. Websters Dictionary defines re-elect as "to elect for another term." Karsky was never elected to the term of office he is currently holding. He was appointed by the other city councilors to fill a vacant seat.

So, what do you think? Isn't this a misleading way to run a campaign?

Does Sunshine Week Shine Bright in Sioux Falls?

 Below are editorials and some memorable comments by city councilors regarding the open meeting reprimand handed down by the South Dakota Open Meetings Commission last week. You be the judge on whether openness in government shines bright in Sioux Falls. Did Sioux Falls' city government light shine a little dimmer in the state last week?


THE DAILY REPUBLIC, Mitchell SD
Published March 15, 2012, 08:04 AM

OUR VIEW: Good for Sioux Falls' Brown at keeping true to his work

Vernon Brown deserves a medal and here’s why: Brown is upset that the Sioux Falls City Council — of which he is a longtime member — has been given a reprimand by the South Dakota Open Meetings Commission.

Vernon Brown deserves a medal and here’s why: Brown is upset that the Sioux Falls City Council — of which he is a longtime member — has been given a reprimand by the South Dakota Open Meetings Commission.

The commission recently ruled that the council was too vague in its motion to fire former city clerk Debra Owen, who was let go by the panel in a controversial move last year.

Brown, in the council’s most recent meeting, said he is pained to have this censure fall upon the board and blamed David Pfeifle, the Sioux Falls city attorney, for providing bad legal advice.

Brown did this in open session, and Pfeifle took offense, sparking a feud between the attorney, Brown and at least one other member of the panel.

It’s a dramatic issue, no doubt, but we can’t help but appreciate Brown’s stance.

First, we remind readers that it’s Sunshine Week, a five-day span set aside by many newspapers in America to promote government openness. Brown’s timing certainly is fitting.

It seems that many boards do not take great offense when they are reprimanded by the Open Meetings Commission, a panel that hears public complaints about possible violations of procedure by elected boards.

That Brown is so offended shows he cares, and it shows that he truly wants to conduct the people’s business appropriately.

We don’t care that his scolding of the city attorney caused offense. If the attorney’s advice was bad and caused embarrassment to the board, so be it. The attorney works for the people; so does the City Council, for that matter.

And further, Brown maintains that his role on the board does not trump his First Amendment rights to state his true feelings about this issue.

Hear, hear.

Good job, Vernon

SDNA eBULLETIN
Number 11
SOUTH DAKOTA NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION
March 14, 2012

And the "Black Hole" Award goes to...   

Since this is Sunshine Week, a national observance about the importance of openness and transparency in government, I think it is a good time to give what I call the "Black Hole" Award. Webster's in part defines a black hole as a space that light cannot escape. Certainly true          in the case of the Sioux Falls City Council, which last week was reprimanded by the Open Meetings Commission for violating state law. The complaint that went to the open meetings panel was initiated by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

Last year in a special meeting executive session the Sioux Falls City Council decided to fire the city clerk. The problem: the official action related to the decision to fire the clerk was never conveyed to the public in the official minutes of the Sept. 14 special meeting.

Rather, Sioux Falls councilors decided, apparently based on advice from their attorney, to approve this motion following the executive session: "to authorize Councilors Erpenbach, Anderson Jr., and Entenman to take the personnel action that was discussed in Executive Session."

Huh?

The city attorney said the council needed to be non-specific in its motion in order to "protect" city clerk Debra Owen and afford her the same rights as if she was a private employee.

Yea, right. Benevolent-sounding, but it appears to be more about city councilors wanting to protect themselves rather than Debra Owen.

At any rate, the open meetings commission was right to reprimand the council, and the subsequent media attention has helped put some bite in the reprimand.

The Sioux Falls mayor has since said the open meetings laws are "confusing." The Sioux Falls city attorney has said the reprimand is no big deal and he would welcome the opportunity to work with legislators to "clarify" the open meetings law.

Really? Confusing? Clarification needed?

South Dakota's open meetings laws are pretty clear cut when it comes to taking any official action related to executive session discussions. Public boards in South Dakota generally have operated well under those provisions of the law for 25 years. The law allows public boards to keep discussions and rationales regarding personnel actions in secret. The law is clear that any official action regarding those discussions must be made in public. It also must be clear exactly what those official actions are.                                

Why Sioux Falls city officials suddenly find it confusing is rather amusing. And                                 sad.

Nevertheless, the 2012 Sunshine Week "Black Hole" Award is no laughing matter. It's a serious reminder that open government in South Dakota is always a work in progress.


MARCH 12 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION MEETING

COUNCILOR VERNON BROWN
"We were wrong. We ought to be contrite."

COUNCILOR MICHELLE ERPENBACH
"...yes, I am embarrassed and yes, I apologize to the citizens of Sioux Falls but we did what we thought was right and I will stand on that vote because we did what was right even though the way that it turned out in terms of the open meeting didn't work out the way we thought it should. We did the right thing."

COUNCILOR JIM ENTENMEN
"Here again, I am not taking this lightly. Any decision we make affects people. It affects staff, it affects the citizens of Sioux Falls and we don't take it lightly, but we do the best , the very best that we can and I believe we did well here."


COUNCILOR GREG JAMISON
"I had the privilege of attending that meeting and I guess when they said we violated the law, I am not going to second guess them and you watch the meeting September 14th and read the minutes of the meeting it's about as vague as you can get. I know we were dancing, we were dancing to keep Debra out of the limelight on this whole issue but we practiced some bad form in removing one of our appointed people......It's bad form on our part first but I'd like to know in fact if we have officially ever removed her."

COUNCILOR ERPENBACH
"I will answer that. She stood on the Carnegie steps and announced to the media she had been fired and she's been collecting unemployment for 6 months so I think that's pretty official."

CITY ATTORNEY DAVID PFEIFLE
"The ripple effect of this change is enormous."

COUNCILOR REX ROLFING
"We've crossed that center line of the public's right to know and from the person's privacy and that disturbs me quite a bit because we try to be nice a little bit around here and hold that person's ability to and our ability to do some things the right way to do and they forced our hand on this and I don't know if that's the right way to do it or not."

COUNCILOR KENNY ANDERSON, JR.
"This is the first time we ever removed an appointed personnel from the city council staff and I think we definitely need to make sure that in the future if this ever happens or has to to occur again that we don't end up with the same result."

COUNCILOR KARSKY
"I guess I'll echo those sentiments."

City Council Election-Is That All There Is?

I looked at the candidates who have submitted a petition to run for open city council seats. It is no surprise that incumbent elected councilors Jamison and Anderson, Jr. are running for re-election. It is also no big surprise that "anointed" councilor Karsky is running to keep his gifted seat on the council. They all have challengers.

Two retreads are running for the at-large seat vacated by Vernon Brown - Knudsen and Staggers.  Both these candidates have had 8 years on the council. Frankly, I think it is time to let some new blood get a chance at policy decision making on the city council. Unfortunately, no civic and business leaders have stepped up to the plate. Knudsen says she is running because no one else will and Staggers just wants another chance to irritate and annoy with his personal agenda - again. The rest of the candidates are unknowns except for Ysbrand who is a repetitious wannabee.

I have actually heard people who normally wouldn't give Staggers a nod say they will vote for him just because he will be an an irritant and stick in the eye to the mayor and it will be worth watching. It is a poor excuse to vote for someone. However, it is indicative of the state of city politics these days and a sad commentary on what is going on down at City Hall.

I have a theory. Maybe it is all wet but here it is. I think no one of business caliber, thoughtful thinking and demonstrated civic responsibility and involvement has thrown their hat into the race because the current climate at City Hall and Carnegie Town Hall is just too out of control and unattractive. Who wants to be in office when that event center debacle shows it's true fiscal colors? I wouldn't want my name on those documents either. Who really wants to work with this mayor or current councilors?

Who wants to be in office right now with a city council and mayor who don't seem to understand that this is not about them. Who wants to be on the city council when the city council fires people in secret, seem to defy open meeting laws, breaks their own administrative rules and does't show real vision for this city.  The self indulgent behavior down on 9th and 10th Streets makes one have to seriously consider whether now is the right time to want to join such a group. Obviously not.

I feel sorry for the dedicated, hardworking appointive and civil service employees who go to work everyday and keep city government running in spite of these elected officials. They are the unsung heros and they are the ones who make sure we have water when we turn on the faucet, when our toilets flush, who plow our streets, protect us and are first responders in time of need. They are the ones left standing long after elected officials leave office. They are the ones who provide continuity, stability and sound professional advice and counsel regarding city government operations. And they are the ones faced with these elected officials who think they are the only ones who seem to know what is right and what should be done. The elected officials seem to just like the sound of their own voices and are intent on who is going to win which debate.  They must look at the pool of candidates and wonder what next.

Is that all there is out there? It seems so.

Seeking Community Standard for Public Input

At the Monday, January 30th Information Meeting, Sue Roust, Interim City Clerk, presented public input research she collected through contacting various jurisdictions used by the HR Department for salary benefit comparisons. Roust stated that Sioux Falls' community standards are towards much more openness and public input than most other places.

Public input standards usually relate to the following:

• Requirement to sign up in advance.
• Allowing public input on non-agenda items.
• Allowing a response to a citizen comment/input.
• When should public input be allowed on a public council meeting agenda?

As Roust said, Sioux Falls city government and the SF School District lean towards more openness and public input than most other jurisdictions she looked at in her research. Some jurisdictions require sign up before the meeting starts; one jurisdiction requires a citizen to fill out a request by Wednesday Noon before a Monday council meeting. Omaha, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Bismark don't allow public input on non-agenda items. Sioux City allows public input at the end of their meeting. Cedar Rapids allows public input after a public hearing.

Councilor Jamison asked for information regarding Aberdeen and Rapid City which was left off the research because it was not on the HR comparability list. I went out and looked at these two websites.

• The City of Aberdeen provides an open forum from 5:30 p.m. to 5:40 p.m. which occurs after the Proclamations and before the Consent Agenda approval. The rules for the Open Forum are printed right on the agenda. It says that the Open Forum provides an opportunity for the public to address the city council with concerns, questions or comments on items which are not on the agenda. They have sign up prior to the start of the meeting. A majority of the council can agree to extend the time period. Presentations cannot exceed two minutes in duration. The forum cannot be used to make personal attacks, air personality grievances or make political endorsements. It cannot be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to comments made.
• The City of Rapid City allows for General Public Comment after the adoption of the agenda and presentation of awards and recognition and before the consent agenda. The official agenda states it is a time for members of the public to address or express concern to the council on any issue not on the agenda.

Conclusion?  It depends on the community and the standards that jurisdiction wishes to impose on its citizenry. You can research jurisdictions all over the country and come up with variations on how local government handles public input.  What is important is what level of open government do you want in this community? Elected officials, in my opinion, set standards on public input based on a tolerance scale. That is, their own tolerance scale. They can tolerate public input as long as it does not address a concern or criticism about their own actions.


Councilor Karsky stated he advocates looking at adjusting the public input standard and wants to put public input at the end of a council meeting because he is concerned about all those city employees and those who come to speak to a specific agenda item.  Councilor Jamison stated it should be looked at to make it better. Councilor Rolfing asked the topic be sent to the next working sessions so they all could discuss it more fully.

When you start making rules to censure public input, you start down a path that is going to create controversy and dissent. It is a slippery slope fraught with charges of tampering with free speech and openness and transparency in government. The public input provision may make some elected officials uncomfortable. So what? When you become comfortable and no one is allowed to speak up and challenge an elected official is when democracy takes a back seat to good government.

What should be the community standard for public input? I think we have one already and as Interim City Clerk stated, our community standards are towards much more openness and public input than most other places. What is wrong with that?

The Balance of Power

The constant fight over the role of the mayor and the role of the city council is an old fight started back in 1995. Each mayor has chafed against a city council who has wanted to be more involved in the administration of city government than the city charter allows.

When the new form of government was effective in 1995, the city attorney held many training/educational sessions on the city charter and the roles of government. When a new councilor took office, orientation sessions were held giving newly elected officials background and history regarding this new form of government.

As years progressed, people left and orientation sessions regarding the city charter and the mayor and council roles went by the wayside. Pretty soon, the "old" experts on the city charter were gone and everyone was pretty much left to their own ideas on who should be doing what and what the roles of the mayor and the city council should be.

Over the years, the city council has crept into the executive and administrative role of the mayor. It is easy for people to bicker about the roles government by engaging in the personalities of mayors and city councilors when those personalities lend to the debate. But when we allow personalities into the debate, it clouds what the city charter says each branch of government should be responsible for. When the mayor and councilors cannot get along, that dislike or irritation flows over into the roles of each branch of government and pushes one branch to create ordinances to encroach on the powers of the other branch.

That's what has been happening since this form of government took effect in 1995 and it will probably continue to be an ongoing source of discontentment and encroachment of power.

The city charter is clear.

Section 2.01. General powers and duties.

All powers of the city shall be vested in the city council, except as otherwise provided by law or this charter, and the council shall provide for the exercise thereof and for the performance of all duties and obligations imposed on the city by law. The council shall act as a part-time, policy making and legislative body, avoiding management and administrative issues.

Section 3.01. Executive power.

The executive and administrative power of the city shall be vested in a mayor.

The mayor oversees the employees. The council establishes a personnel system by ordinance. The mayor prepares the budget. The council holds public hearings on the budget and approves the budget by ordinance. The mayor prepares the 5 year capital program and the council approves the capital program. The council approves the appropriations for the budget. The council has the authority to amend the budget and the appropriations. In other words, the council has the purse strings. The council has the final say on taxpayer money and how it should be spent. It says so in the city charter.

But the council wants to get involved in the day to day business - the management and administrative side of the city government. So says, the mayors.  And so the arguments and the grabs for power continue.

The city council has certainly expanded it's branch of government far beyond the "part-time, policy making and legislative body, avoiding management and administrative issues" by creating an administrative department of their own. They have added staff beyond the "city clerk" operation of managing the official records of the city. The council has created an Audit division of 3 employees, a budget analyst and now a legislative and operations manager. They now have executive and administrative power of various appointive and civil service employees of their own. The question is, does the city charter allow for this expansion of power?

The city attorney, as the legal officer of the city is the true gatekeeper. If the city attorney sides with the mayor, the council says the city attorney is in the pocket of the mayor. If the city attorney were to side with the council, the mayor would view it as betrayal. Yet, it is the city attorney who carries the ultimate authority regarding the power roles of each branch of local government. And if the city attorney cannot be neutral or unbiased and preserve and interpret the general powers and duties of the city council and the executive power of mayor, then you will have the continued bickering about the power roles of the mayor and the city council.

Both branches of government are guilty of mudding up the city charter and wanting the language to change to better empower their positions. The power to govern is already there. Instead of trying to grab more power, both branches need to just do their job as the citizens elected them to do and quite coveting the other's power.

It's a balance of power. The City Charter recognizes the balance of power. I wish the elected officials would do the same and the city attorney would do his job.

City Council's New Organization Structure

The City Council has been working on their organization structure since they fired Debra Owen back in September 2011. The council formed an ad hoc committee in November 2011 to decide what they wanted their city clerk position to be. I wrote two blogs on the subject in September and November 2011 suggesting that maybe it was time to finally create two very distinct positions.

Vice Chair Erpenbach presented the new organization structure under the emergency clause of ordinance 2-15  at the Tuesday, January 17, 2012 council meeting. The current organization reflected Owen's old position of City Clerk/Chief of Council Operations and 3 Assistant City Clerks. The new organization will have a new position titled Legislative and Operations Manager, a City Clerk position, and 2 Assistant City Clerks.

The rationale for creating two positions from Owen's position at the time of her firing was that the City Clerk serves the entire city and they wanted it to be a neutral position, an apolitical position. The new position titled Legislative and Operations Manager would specifically serve the 8 councilors. Councilors need someone to bounce ideas off of, someone to do their research, set up meetings and run the day to day operations of the council office.

Having two separate and distinct positions is not a brand new idea. It was being discussed as an option back when I was still working for the city. If you talk to Owen, she was also working on the concept. It is not a new idea but it is a good idea, in my opinion, and it is finally being adopted. How it was adopted is another story (see January 19th blog). Maybe now, the council can keep the mayor out of their day-to-day council business and the City Clerk position will truly be a neutral administrative position serving both the council and the mayor's administration. Too bad it wasn't done when Owen was still there. She might not have lost her job to political circumstances.

Councilor Erpenbach's committee also created another council committee called Operations Committee made up of the Council Chair, Vice Chair, immediate past Chair and another councilor approved by the city council. This committee will oversee these positions and incumbents and the day to day operations of the council office. As a part-time council, this will continue to be a challenge especially since by charter the council is only supposed to be a part-time, policy making and legislative body.

Erpenbach said the two positions would be posted and applications would be taken from both inside and outside city government. The mayor congratulated Erpenbach on not adding to their headcount. An interesting comment considering there are currently 3 Assistant City Clerk incumbents. Either one of those 3 is predisposed to getting promoted to the appointive City Clerk position or one of them is going to be fired or laid off since the new organization only allows for 2 Assistant City Clerks.

Rumor has it that the mayor is working on changing ordinance language in Chapter 30 pertaining to personnel rules and regulations related to appointive officials and employees. Current ordinance language specifically allows appointed officials who have previous civil service to "bump back" if they become unappointed by a mayor and/or city council. Of course, this language amendment would require a majority vote of the city council.

Why any of these civil service assistant clerks would take the city clerk position with the prospect of losing the ability to bump back when they lose favor with the mayor or the council is beyond me. All they have to do is look at the "special" way the mayor and city council chose to treat Debra Owen. Then ask yourself why you would leave civil service to work for this group. Every day is a wing and a prayer regarding job security.

New Council Organization an Emergency?

At the Tuesday, January 17th City Council meeting, three agenda items were walked in by the City Council leadership. The three agenda items walked into the meeting were:

• Agenda Item 21 which was 1st reading of an ordinance to amend the campaign finance laws.
• Agenda Item 22 which was a resolution to create a new position titled Legislative Operations Manager and establishing a salary range of $2,292.80 to $3,300.00 bi-weekly.
• Agenda Item 23 which was a resolution revising the position of City Clerk with a salary range of $1,936 to $2,727.20 bi-weekly.

It is interesting to note that Agenda Item 21 was actually listed on the regular agenda along with the  ordinance language document for public view. However, the Regular Agenda did not list Agenda Items 22 and 23, nor were the resolutions on the city's website for view by the public. Council Vice Chair Erpenbach made a motion to add these three agenda items to the regular agenda and Council Chair Aquilar seconded the motion. In order to act on the immediate action by Councilors Erpenbach and Aquilar, the action required an affirmative vote of at least 6 councilors. Everyone present voted yes.

Agenda Item 21 addressing changes to the campaign finance laws was vetted by Interim City Clerk, Sue Roust, at the January 9th Public Services Committee meeting . She publicly requested that the ordinance amendment be carried in after the deadline and gave her rationale for requesting the immediate consideration of the ordinance amendment. The Public Services Committee approved the action to carry it in at the January 17th meeting. There was no discussion of the Council Reorganization or carrying in agenda items creating a new council position or revising the current city clerk position at that meeting. There was no motion by the Public Services Committee to walk in Agenda Items 22 and 23.

Below is city ordinance language that speaks to agenda submissions and deadlines. The submission requirements are necessary to meet open meeting laws and public notice requirements.


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)

Why did the Council Vice Chair and Council Chair carry in Agenda Items 22 and 23 relating to the Council Organization? Certainly the consideration of these two items do not rise to the level necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety of the municipal government. Yet, the council chose to take immediate action on these two council positions at the meeting on January 17th in spite of this ordinance requirement and no public notice.

The city council had just revised ordinance 2-15 back in July, 2011 to stop this kind of thing from happening. It went through the Public Services Committee which sent the revision to the City Council for adoption. Now, it seems, the council is breaking their own rules of law.

It is preposterous to think creating a new council position and revising a current job description was an emergency. This action was not vetted properly through their own committee structure and it violated their agenda ordinance language. It seems they can't even follow their own rules and begs the question what else don't they follow?

Open meeting laws and public disclosure and notice requirements are not supposed to become cavalier or a sometime rule. The Council leadership and the rest of the council just proved that anything goes when you want to get something done. Pretend it is an emergency and hope no one notices.

Is this good government?

An Interesting Way to Run the People's Business

The mayor and his administration and the Charter Revision Commission have been busy proposing sweeping changes to various policies and ordinances of the city. Numerous important proposed changes are before the Public Services Committee regarding the ethics ordinances in City Ordinance Chapter 12 1/2, city council organization and procedures in City Ordinance Chapter 2, fraud policies coming out of the Audit Committee, recodification of ordinances, etc.

There is a another ordinance revision up for consideration at the City Council meeting on Monday, January 17th. The first reading pertains to revisions of Chapter 14 relating to campaign finance for municipal elections. This ordinance amendment was first on the January 9th Public Services Committee agenda. Interim City Clerk Roust stated some of the pieces of this ordinance were just given to the committee at this meeting (relating to the proposed ethics and fraud ordinance and policy) so the councilors on this committee never had to chance to review those fraud/ethics provisions added to this new ordinance revision in advance.

Roust stated that these changes would hit during an election cycle "which is a bit troubling" but went on to talk about the rush to get this on the Council Agenda the following week as a walk in. When concern was expressed by Councilors Anderson and Brown regarding the rush to pass, City Attorney Pfeifle informed them the current ordinances were unconstitutional due to a recent Supreme Court Decision. The concerns folded like a house of cards.

Why would you bring sweeping changing to campaign finance laws months before a city election? From what I am told, the last time changes were made to the campaign finance ordinances, it took the Public Services Committee months to review the changes and to hear public input. Those changes were considered six months or more before any election took place. Interim City Clerk Roust said unfortunately its the 1st time she has been able to look at it. City Attorney Pfeifle said the committee needed to take advantage of Roust's extensive expertise in election matters at the county while they can.

The campaign financing ordinance amendments will have 2nd reading on February 6th and after publication and 20 days will become effective on March 1st. However, candidates can begin to take out petitions for the city council race beginning January 27th. The deadline to submit those petitions is February 24th.

Councilor Brown is term limited, but Councilors Anderson, Karsky and Jamison will probably be running for a seat in the April election. They will be now asked to vote on sweeping changes to the campaign finance ordinance when they will actually be part of the petition process. When asked if it was conflict of interest, City Attorney Pfeifle said no.  Does that really pass the smell test?  The City Attorney may not have a problem with it but from a perception standard, it should certainly raise eyebrows.

I guess all one has to do is throw out the scare of unconstitutionality to get something on the city council agenda that has had no public input in committee and has had no real study by the Public Services Committee.

It is an interesting way to run the people's business.

When Shall The City Council Meet - and Other Things?

The City Council's Public Services Committee was scheduled on Monday, December 12th, to discuss a draft ordinance which details changes to Chapter 2 of the city code of ordinances titled "Administration."

The main reason to revise this ordinance chapter appears to be to change the day the city council meetings are held. That's what the title of the ordinance and agenda says anyway. There is more than just the Monday-Tuesday revision being considered in this ordinance revision, however. There are a number of changes being proposed and some of the changes are rather interesting.

Change highlights:

• Although the draft language only proposes changing the day of the meeting, the city attorney asked the committee to also consider changing the time of the meeting. Back in the commission form of government, meetings used to be held in the morning. I remember why it was changed - to provide better access of meetings to the public. Pfeifle stated that people work all kinds of schedules these days and have opportunities to view the meetings on TV and on the Internet. He implored the council to consider changing the meeting time as well. He said he was sure employers would grant time off to employees who would want to address the council. Are you kidding me? Most people have enough trouble just getting time off to attend their children's events much less get time off to go to a city council meeting. Ridiculous. Changing the meeting time of the council to a day meeting is a step backwards in public accessibility. Councilors Erpenbach and Aguilar stated they are opposed to changing the time of meetings.

• Current ordinance states that there will be minutes of the City Council's Executive Sessions and that the minutes will be sealed in the City Clerk's office. The new proposed language deletes the requirement that there will be minutes recorded of executive sessions. The city attorney stated this change was being proposed with input from the clerks who are uncomfortable being responsible for minutes of these meetings that they do not attend. The city attorney said minutes of executive sessions are not required by state law. The City Clerk, by charter, is the official record keeper of city records. The appointive City Clerk should be in city council executive sessions and be the record keeper of the proceedings. Assistant city clerks are administrative civil service employees and shouldn't be involved in council executive sessions.  The city has the tendency to treat the Assistant Clerks as if they are the same as the appointive City Clerk and that is a mistake. As an appointive official, the City Clerk retains a higher level position in the organization than the assistant clerks. To not have a record of an executive session because the clerical administrative civil service employees are uncomfortable only further cements the loss of a bonafide appointive city clerk official running the city council office. (Section 2-7)

• The City Clerk currently serves as the parliamentarian for meetings of the city council. This language is being proposed to be deleted.   Pfeifle stated Roberts Rules of Order state the presiding officer serves as parliamentarian.  He said it is a collaborative effort between the mayor and the council so that's why the language designating the City Clerk is being deleted.  It seems this deletion came from Acting City Clerk Roust.  As Roust said the parliamentarian advises and the presiding officer (mayor) and the council rules on an issue. So why not keep the appointive City Clerk the parliamentarian who advises on questions of Roberts Rules of Order that come up at council meetings? Between the City Clerk and the City Attorney, the two of them should be proficient in Roberts Rules of Order. The city council has too much on their plate as is. The assistant clerk is busy taking minutes and shouldn't be the parliamentarian. The City Clerk is always at the meetings in addition to the clerical acting assistant clerk who is taking the minutes. Sounds like the neutering of the City Clerk position. (Section 2-8)

• Language is being added regarding contracts. The new language says that one councilor can remove a contract issue from the consent agenda to the regular agenda for discussion but then it goes on to say that moving a contract issue from the consent agenda to the regular agenda merely to ask questions or gather background information is not necessary and should be discouraged.  Isn't asking questions and/or gathering background information considered additional discussion? A consent agenda item means there are no questions or discussion. The proposed last sentence is administrative editorial stuff. Council Erpenbach didn't like that last sentence either and said she felt like she had her hand slapped.    (Section 2-15)

• New language is being proposed regarding the public input portion on a council agenda. According to the change, a person can not address an issue during the public input portion of the meeting agenda if the issue is on the council agenda. So, a person who may have a time conflict when an agenda item actually is discussed later in the meeting can't address the issue early? This revision is codifying what is being done in practice. That may be but not it's making it black and white with no ability to deal with special circumstances.  In addition, new language states no council member will be permitted to engage in a dialogue or discussion with the presenter. Doesn't that restrict the concept of free speech? Why restrict dialogue or discussion at public input? It sure seems like this language is putting restraints on public input.  (Section 2-16)

• The other issue in Section 2-15 deals with walking in items and still meeting the open meeting laws. The City Attorney is worried about the 24 hour notice. The proposed changes will put stronger timelines in place to meet the open meeting laws. It is always good to meet the requirements of the open meeting laws.

• The mayor uses executive orders to deal with internal administration matters. These are internal procedures, not policies requiring ordinance codification. In the past, copies of executive orders were filed with the City Clerk. That requirement is being deleted and language is being proposed that the executive orders will placed on InSite which is the city's intranet. To my knowledge this is already being done for internal administrative purposes. Why does it need to be codified in city ordinance? The significant thing here is that no longer will the City Clerk get copies of Executive Orders. This was a request of the city clerk's office. They don't want to maintain copies any longer. Where executive orders are kept is an administrative issue. Why should this even be in ordinance language. It is an administrative procedure not a policy. (Section 2-35)

• Language is being proposed that there no longer needs to be a roll call to adjourn a meeting just a motion to adjourn. (Section 2-25)

Any change to an ordinance should always be made with one specific thing in mind - the public. How does this city ordinance affect transparency in government and the public's right to know? Granted, the executive session minutes language is confidential but not to keep a record of what goes on behind closed doors should still be recorded otherwise, anything can be done behind closed doors with no oversight or record.

Changes to the Administration ordinance will certainly generate further discussion. Some of the language change deals specifically with administrative issues and other changes deal with impact to the public. It is insight into how the council conducts their business. The Public Services Committee voted to move the ordinance out of committee and present as 1st reading to the City Council. We shall see what the City Council does regarding these proposed changes.

City Council's Internal Audit Function

The Argus Leader article regarding the City Clerk function also addressed the City Council's internal audit function. "Rich Oksol, the city’s lead internal auditor, suggested that it might be time to make some changes in the charter that guides the city’s internal audit unit. That unit was formed five years ago following revelations that the administration had spent money not appropriated by the council."


City Charter, Section 2.10 Independent audit states:

The city council shall provide for an independent annual audit of all city accounts and may provide for more frequent audits as it deems necessary. Such audits shall be made by a certified public accountant or firm of such accountants who have no personal interest, direct or indirect, in the fiscal affairs of the city government or any of its officers. The council may, without requiring competitive bids, designate such accountant or firm annually or for a period not exceeding three years, but the designation for any particular fiscal year shall be made no later than 120 days before the expiration of such fiscal year. If the state makes such an audit, the council may accept it as satisfying the requirements of this section.

There is no reference to the "city's internal audit unit" in City Charter. Actually, this section specifically addresses an annual audit or any other other audits deemed necessary performed by an outside independent audit firm.

City Ordinance, Chapter 2, Article II, Sec. 2-54. Department of finance states:

(a) There is hereby created for the city a department of finance.

(b) The department of finance shall be managed and directed by the city finance officer, who shall be appointed as provided by the charter, and who shall file a bond in the amount of $250,000.00.

(c) The city finance officer shall perform all the duties of the city auditor and city treasurer, as provided by law in the South Dakota Codified Laws and in the ordinances of the city.

(d) All references made in the South Dakota Codified Laws and the City Code to the city auditor and city treasurer shall be construed to mean the city finance officer.

City Ordinance, Chapter 2, Article XIII Audit Committee, Section 2-133 states:

The committee shall annually develop an audit program for the ensuing year. The audit program will be submitted to the city council for approval. The committee shall be authorized to hire an independent lead auditor as necessary. The lead auditor will report to the chair of the audit committee with a secondary reporting responsibility to the city clerk. Audit reports will be reviewed by the committee and subsequently shall be submitted to the mayor and the city council. The audit committee shall approve annual audit protocols for the auditors. The committee shall also receive reports from the auditors and shall make recommendations to the mayor and city council of changes in the city's financial practices.

The fact is City Charter does not guide the city's internal audit unit. City Ordinance, specifically Chapter 2 Administration guides the Council's Audit Committee who oversees the lead auditor. There is no reference to an "internal audit unit." Actually, City Charter states the city finance officer shall perform all the duties of the city auditor, not the Council's Audit Committee or the Lead Auditor position under the city council organization.

Here again, similar to the evolution of the "city clerk position" the internal audit unit has evolved and grown in duties and functions. It certainly seems that the City Charter is in conflict with city ordinance regarding the city's audit function and the council's internal audit unit.

Maybe that's area for the new Charter Revision Commission to research and address as a matter of business when they convene in the future. There appears to be a conflict between the City Charter and City ordinance.

City Council's City Clerk

The City Council is trying to decide what they want their City Clerk position to be by forming ad hoc committee. The article in the Argus Leader failed to identify who was on this ad hoc committee. I suppose one could assume the working committee is made up of city staff and councilors but the point is, no one knows.

The council staff positions have always been a kind of contentious issue since the change of government. City Charter sets out a clear delineation between the mayor and the administration and the city council. Where the city clerk was clearly the official record keeper for all city government functions, the change to a City Charter set apart the mayor/administration and city council functions and placed the city clerk function clearly with the city council.

City Charter and City Ordinance still identify the City Clerk as the record keeper of all meeting and other documents and reports of the city.

City Charter, Section 2.08 City Clerk, states:

The city council shall appoint an officer of the city who shall have the title of city clerk. The city clerk shall give notice of council meetings to its members and the public, keep the minutes of its proceedings and perform such other duties as are assigned by this charter or by the council or by state law.

City Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 2-34:

All personnel, functions, and financial responsibility for operations of the office of the city clerk are assigned to the city council.

City Ordinance, Chapter 2, Sec. 2-24. Reports and resolutions to be filed with city clerk.

All reports and resolutions of departments, authorities, boards, committees, commissions, districts, and similar organizations shall be filed with the city clerk and referenced in the minutes.

The City Clerk position has evolved over time. Although the previous city clerk incumbent, Debra Owen had a law degree, the minimum qualifications for the position does not require a law degree. In addition, the position is currently titled City Clerk/Chief of Council Operations. Out of 14 task descriptions, only a couple tasks specifically address the official recording keeping function as outlined in Charter and City Ordinance.

The City Council changes membership through the election cycle and each election cycle brought elected officials with differing views on what the city clerk function should be. The position has become much more than just a recorder keeper of city official documents. With the expanded chief of operations role, there has come controversay and contention.

The City Clerk function serves a function that affects all city government functions, not just the City Council. The administration needs to work with the City Clerks regarding the scheduling of official documents on city council agendas. All records, reports and documents produced by the adminstration must be filed with the City Clerk. City Charter and City Ordinance is clear as to the role of the City Clerk.

The "Chief of Council Operations" duties are entirely different. These functions specifically serve the inner working of the city council and is separate and distinct from the mayor's administration.

Maybe it's time to separate the two functions and create two very distinct positions. If that had been addressed before, maybe the controversay over Debra Owen could have been averted and all the drama associated with this position can finally be put to rest.