Last Sunday, Bruce Danielson alerted his Sioux Falls neighbors to two items on their city council’s agenda: a new three-dollar rental car tax and a proposal to let the city post its agendas later. Had the latter proposal been in effect, Danielson wouldn’t have been able to give his neighbors that heads-up: retiring city clerk Lorie Hogstad wants to change the agenda-posting deadline from the Friday before the council meeting to 24 hours prior.
24 hours is the minimum public-meeting notice required by state law. Right now, Sioux Falls gives activists like Danielson at least full weekend, plus a workday or two, depending on whether the meeting takes place on the usual Tuesday or the occasional Monday, to research items on the agenda, prepare informed remarks for the public meeting, and mobilize their neighbors to support or oppose important issues. The proposed truncation of notice reduces that prep time to an evening at home and a workday.
Danielson expressed his opposition to less public notice at last Tuesday’s meeting, where the council gave the public-notice change a favorable first reading. Councilman Dean Karsky responded that the city just wants to be efficient:
The Council is also proposing swapping the agenda posting days from Friday to Monday to make it easier for contracts to make the deadline by Monday.
Danielson, however, said he believes it is an effort by the council to put the public in the dark.
“They are doing everything possible to circumvent the group of activists out here that are trying to preserve our rights,” said Danielson.
Karsky said they are meeting the state’s 24-hour agenda requirement and that the public shouldn’t be worried about under the table proposals.
“We’re just trying to make our government run more efficiently. What are we slipping in? It’s posted. We’re doing what the state says we have to do and we’re just trying to make government run more efficiently,” Karsky said [Jake Eble, “City Council Proposals Cause Stir from Activists,” KDLT-TV, 2016.01.20].
If the council is worried about efficiency, perhaps the council could simply process contracts efficiently enough to ensure that they are ready for council review by Friday afternoon. The council could also encourage efficiency from its private-sector bidders by setting their bid deadlines early enough to ensure all the paperwork hits the clerk’s desk before 5 p.m. Friday.
That Sioux Falls paper notes that the earlier deadline may also encourage more efficient decision-making:
We all know that deadlines force decisions. Moving the deadline to get on the agenda to Monday will just delay the decisions and actions required to bring the issue to the council in the first place.
As if to illustrate that point, Hogstad told Argus Leader Media that even if the deadline where changed to the 24-hour system that in most cases the agendas will be available on Friday in most cases.
Which begs the question: Where’s the problem? [editorial board, “Change to City Council Agenda Deadline Would Crimp Public Input,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2016.01.23]
As we say in policy debate, if the status quo is working, leave it alone. Rather than racing to the bottom on openness, Sioux Falls should be proud of offering citizens more time than the law requires to study the issues coming before their city council.
Bonus Video: South Dacola posts the public input portion of Tuesday’s meeting, with citizens addressing both the public-notice change and the rental-car tax proposal (Greg at the 18-minute mark makes exactly the comment with which I conclude… and stay tuned for Bruce Danielson’s own stirring words on democracy and dictators’ affinity for efficiency at 34:40!):
Efficient government does it right the first time. If the council puts things on the agenda at the last minute they may not have thought it out thoroughly themselves. If we are going to give quality input we need time to digest it as well.
Mike Huether and his rubberstampers on the City Council have demonstrated again and again that they can’t be trusted. Huether runs the show with an iron fist and transparency is the first lamb sacrificed on the altar of expediency. Cutting public notice period by two thirds can only have one motive from this bunch. They’re sick and tired of pretending that thoughtful public input matters.
This is the kind of stunt they pull in the S.D. Legislature. Sioux Falls residents should never let their city government sink to the same level.
The agenda change is a slap in the face to the contemporary history of Sioux Falls city government. Thirty years ago, Sioux Falls was run with the help of only three people, a mayor and two commissioners. Then it was changed to a mayor/commission system consisting of a mayor and four commissioners. Eight years later, we went from the commissioner system to a hopefully more representative mayor/city council form of government involving nine elected officials from different parts of the city. It is obvious that the progression in Sioux Falls government activities has been towards a wish for more involvement and transparency. To change the agenda requirements for Council meetings would be backwards and at odds with what the people of Sioux Falls and local city history have been asking for and continue to demand….
HB 1066 will be before House Local Government committee on Tues. 1066 will change that 24 hours notice to 2 continuous days if it passes.
How rude of the Mayor to be having a sidebar conversation while someone is at the podium speaking. If you cannot listen to someone for even 5 minutes, then you should not be an elected leader.
Holy cow, Ken! Good point: if Sioux Falls approves this measure, they’ll have to come back by July 1 to change it again to comply with state law. Even if there were good reason to change the agenda deadline, HB 1066 is good reason to table the SF proposal at least until the Legislature has decided the issue.
And Scott, yes, Mayor Huether’s clear inattention to the public input demonstrates his real attitude toward that portion of the council meeting and toward the voters.
Anyone in Sioux Falls interested in subjecting Mayor Huether to a recall vote?
Just one other thought. Having early deadlines for agendas can place citizens at a disadvantage for getting an item heard. They may need to submit the item many days in advance to the meeting to make the agenda, or be forced to wait several weeks until the next council meeting (depending on the city). So, the flip side to public notice is flexibility to respond to the needs of staff/citizens; obviously, a balance is needed.
That is a reasonable disadvantage, Roberta. It behooves all of us, city officials and citizens, to have our ducks in a row and not wait until the last minute. We deserve a heads up about action items citizens may be bringing before the board just as we deserve a heads up about what the Mayor and other officials may be trying to pass.
Note the same notice doesn’t apply to the public input period, since citizens taking the mic, like those in the video above, aren’t actually bringing an item to a vote that night.
In Sioux Falls, the citizens have little control in how items are brought to the agenda. There is little harm found in this process for perceived delays. The Council and administration have the ability to drag things out until we slip up and don’t show up. Then it can pass in other ways. We believe in uncle Ronny’s words “trust but verify” with the admonishment to “Double Check”.
Our issues are when the administration or members of the Council look for ways to slip things in without a briefing or clarity. Take for instance the problem we have with the Consent Agenda items. We have to reread many of these items and ask Council members to help us research them to verify what is being accomplished. Our research brings so many things out. We have been told by several members they have had briefings, emails and calls from the “staff” so they think they know all. They then want the item gone and down with. Well, we ask an embarrassing question about it causing it to get defeated or rewritten.
We have found documents improperly drawn up and the City Attorney’s office decides to use White-out to fix a serious date issue on a sale of city property without sending back to the Council for the legal process to approve the White-out (this really happened on a land sale in 2015). This should be enough for sanctions against the City Attorney letting this happen. It would have so easy to just put it into the Consent agenda and approve the repair. Lazy? Incompetent? What are your words for this behavior?
As our administration likes to brag, if Sioux Falls does it every other town in the area and state will do it. This includes hiding the people’s business from the people.