A new events center funding plan
I reported today on a new funding idea for the events center (I say "the" events center, but I mean some future events center plan that hasn't been proposed yet). Read the story here.
The gist is that the City Council can't impose a $2 hotel-room tax for an events center without an events center plan in the works, but the council can impose the tax and use the roughly $400,000 in projected revenue to fund the Corn Palace.
Meanwhile, the council can take the roughly $400,000 in city funds that would otherwise go to the Corn Palace and divert it into an event center savings fund. That fund already has $750,000 in it that was budgeted prior to September's unsuccessful events center election.
Sounds like an innovative idea that, like Councilman Jeff Smith said, should have been thought of years ago. It seems to make total sense that the hotel owners, whose rooms are filled summer and winter with Corn Palace tourists and sports fans, should contribute something back to the building. Whether a new events center ever gets built or not, it would sure be nice for the city to have some hotel-subsidized Corn Palace cash.
You can state your opinion about this plan by posting a comment here, or by attending a public meeting on the topic at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday at City Hall.
Posted by: sethtupper on 8/07/2008 at 10:31 AM | Comments (11) | Permalink
John McCain a lock in South Dakota?
CQ Politics predicts that "John McCain can count
reliably on South Dakota." Here's an excerpt:
Read it all here.The state has gone Republican in the last 10 presidential elections. Even in 1972, when favorite-son George McGovern was the Democratic nominee, Richard Nixon still prevailed by almost 27,000 votes. George W. Bush won the state in both 2000 and 2004 by 22 percentage points.
As a result, few expect the Barack Obama campaign to put up much of a fight.
Posted by: sethtupper on 8/06/2008 at 1:41 PM | Comments (4) | Permalink
The executive session controversy ... it ain't over yet
We in the South Dakota media are often viewed as whiners when it comes to open meetings. We're always complaining about how other states' open meetings and records laws are so much better than ours.
I've found evidence that, at least in comparison to Minnesota, we have a real beef. The Daily Republic's open meetings complaint against the Mitchell City Council was recently rejected on the grounds that it's acceptable to conduct an executive session for the purpose of discussing possible future litigation that could arise from the enactment of an ordinance; that everything discussed in the executive session is covered by attorney-client privilege; and that merely saying "legal matters" as the reason for entering the executive session is enough.
In Minnesota, none of those things would fly. Check out the following blurb, from a 2006 Minnesota House of Representatives information brief on that state's open-meetings law (read the entire brief here). It reads like it was written about The Daily Republic's complaint.
The attorney-client privilege exception does not apply to a mere request for general legal advice. Nor does it apply when a governing body seeks to discuss with its attorney the strengths and weaknesses of a proposed legislative enactment (like a city ordinance) that may lead to future lawsuits because that can be viewed as general legal advice. Furthermore, discussion of proposed legislation is just the sort of discussion that should be public.There's one sentence I want to repeat for emphasis: Furthermore, discussion of proposed legislation is just the sort of discussion that should be public. That's exactly the point we were trying to make with our complaint against the Mitchell City Council. None of the City Council members, the city attorney, or the five lawyers on the Open Meetings Commission agreed with us. Maybe we should move to Minnesota.
In order to close a meeting under the attorney-client privilege exception, the governing body must give a particularized statement describing the subject to be discussed. A general statement that the meeting is being closed to discuss pending or threatened litigation is not sufficient.
When I see how great the open-meetings laws are in other states, it only strengthens my convictions about the weakness of South Dakota's law. Every self-respecting journalist should keep "whining" until our law gets changed for the better.
Posted by: sethtupper on 8/06/2008 at 9:53 AM | Comments (3) | Permalink
Mike Rounds, rock star
I'm at a loss for words regarding these pictures of Gov. Mike Rounds with KISS this week in Sturgis. Just thought you'd want to see them, courtesy of South Dakota Tourism.
Posted by: sethtupper on 8/06/2008 at 9:30 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
Another scuffle over the landfill bids
Tempers flared again Monday evening over the bids for dirt work at the old Mitchell landfill. After a mix-up that led the city to re-bid the work, the previous low bidder was undercut on the re-bid and lost the project. That's about $350,000 out of the original low bidder's pocket.
I can understand why the previous low bidder, VanderPol Construction, is upset. I can also understand why the city felt it had to re-bid the project. It'll be interesting now to see if a thinly veiled threat from the VanderPols, which you can read in my news story here, comes to fruition in the form of a lawsuit.
What's your opinion? Should the city have handled this situation differently?
Posted by: sethtupper on 8/04/2008 at 10:58 PM | Comments (10) | Permalink
