Speaking of twisted logic from our “leaders,” Sioux Falls City Attorney Stacy Kooistra comments on why the city’s refusal to comment on the downtown parking garage snafu doesn’t show a lack of transparency but sterling commitment to the public trust:
When litigation is pending, or even contemplated, there are important rules, policies [sic] and procedures, both legal and contractual, that are triggered in order to protect the City’s best interests. These rules, policies [sic] and procedures require treating information differently than [sic] when litigation is not pending or contemplated. Protecting those interests may at times require a delay or limit in releasing information. It may also mandate refraining from, and even declining, the opportunity to make public statements.
The public should in no way confuse the protection of information under such circumstances with apathy, a lack of diligence [sic] or a lack of transparency. To the contrary, a lack of response can be the hallmark of subordinating individual interests to those of the City [Sioux Falls City Attorney Stacy Kooistra, press release, posted on KELO-TV, 2019.05.16].
Note that the City is trying to defend itself without actually defending itself with any specifics. Note also that the city refuses to use the proper Oxford comma, which should lower its authority among all sensible speakers.
In addition, the city attorney extends this no-comment comment into a non-rebuttal rebuttal against the private developers who are signaling that we’re all going to court over this snafu:
Conversely, parties whose whose interests are opposed to those of the City may at times choose to publicly release carefully selected, yet partial or simply inaccurate, information. Publicly responding to, or even correcting, this information is not in the City’s best interests. Such information is, however, maintained by the City and preserved for future use consistent with the City’s best interests [Kooistra, 2019.05.16].
Only in Trumpistan can one claim that leaving partial or inaccurate information uncorrected to mislead the public is in the public interest.
The TenHaken Administration is trying to have it both ways here. Team TenHaken is trying to justify making no comment while making just enough vague comment to cast doubt on the jilted private partners who may be about to put the city through the wringer in court. They’re trying to publicly blanket-discredit anything their opponents say without offering any substantive response to the specific issues raised. And they’re trying to position themselves as the tough guy with their scantily clad threat to take notes and use anything the potential litigants say against them.
If you adopt the “no comment” route, you have to adopt it 100%. If you adopt the rebuttal route, you have to adopt it 100%. Either you have a court case that would be jeopardized by any public comment and you thus maintain total radio silence and eat the bad PR, or you decide that laying out the facts won’t have any negative impact on your litigation strategy and you let your opponents have it for lying about you and your good stewardship of the resources of the good people who elected you. (For an example of the latter, see my detailed blogging about my lawsuit against the state over IM 24, which public commentary had no apparent deleterious impact on my ability to beat the state in court.) Pick a lane, Mayor TenHaken!
The Argus Leader has done a lot to expose the inept and brain dead management and administration of this debacal. Everything connected with this projct involves public officials and was mostly paid for by the public tax money.
For members of the political class to then Fail to respond to legitimate questions by a ‘watch dog’ media and others is unacceptable.
The politicians are hiding the truth because what was done is either embarrassing, poor management, or criminal. Let’s hope the AL continue its to push for answers.
This is hilarious. Sioux Falls city leaders/administrators must be studying the Sturgis City Council and city administrator’s playbook, especially as it pertains to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. The only difference I can see is that the folks in Sioux Falls have truly mastered the language of how to tell the public to ****off.
Yes, Francie, it takes a special kind of government to turn to the people and say, “We’re not going to tell you what’s happening, and we’re not going to dispel misinformation, because keeping you in the dark about how we are losing your money is for your own good.”
“And they’re trying to position themselves as the tough guy with their scantily clad threat … ”
Sounds like Ten Haken in a speedo.
Sounds like Stacy is trying to bait the other guys into running their mouths more. Pretty decent answer – for a lawyer, that is.
It’s like when you get an email and want to respond so you aren’t ignoring a person, but you don’t have much for an answer yet. Something like “Hey, I got your message – I don’t have details yet, but we’re working on it.”
As for the oxford comma critique – I agree completely. I wish more people would get on board with appropriate commification.