Last night, Theresa Stehly managed to strike again, this time as she talked the rest of the Sioux Falls city council out of a measure she wanted by continuing the abrasive/toxic behavior on council that she’s become infamous for:
But the Brekke-Stehy proposal failed 5-3. And not just because the majority didn’t see a need for an electronic device policy. Rather, the accusatory nature in which Stehly presented it to the public derailed the effort, Councilor Greg Neitzert said.
Not only did Stehly fail to build consensus about the electronic media proposal, Neitzert said she also disenfranchised her colleagues in the days leading up to the vote.
“It absolutely poisoned the well,” he said. “It makes the proposal dead on arrival when you accuse your colleagues of corruption.”
So, Theresa brings some cockamamie claim that cell phones during the meeting are the devil... or at least they’re how about her fellow councilpeople give special privileges.
Ugh. It would be nice to think this is an aberration. But unfortunately its standard operating procedure for Stehly.
Propose something.. Accuse people who might disagree of corruption… Lose the proposal because you’re abrasive and acting like a crazy person.
It’s long past time the Sioux Falls City Council be done with Theresa’s type of self-aggrandizing and childish behavior.
—
Update – it sounds as if Theresa’s behavior was even worse than the story reflected. As per Joe Sneve, who wrote the article in the Argus Leader:
Not to mention that while Stehly was likening the use of cell phones during a meeting to corruption, I’m told that she and Councilor Starr passed notes back and forth several times. So under her standard, would passing notes on paper that also be corruption, in a primitive, Fred Flinstone-style?
Stehly’s double standard is an example of why this issue is just tremendously stupid.
If a student speaks (whispers to another student) while the teacher is talking they can be written up for insubordination, sent to the office, given detention and/or an email sent home to parents. Erickson must have forgotten how to be respectful when someone else is speaking.
And in a government meeting where there are a number of moving parts, side conversations are pretty standard. It’s not a classroom, and she certainly wasn’t teaching anybody anything.
At times the city council, all members, behave like children. They should all be embarrassed. Teachers/administrators are constantly telling us they’re preparing students for the real-world. My point is, we are taught at a young age to be respectful when others are speaking.
Students are also not allowed to use cell phones, same rule set by many employers. Why do they need to be on their phones, sliding notes or whispering? Seems to me a lack of self-control, which can be an influence coming from the devil. It is a spiritual battle.
You obviously do not support Stehly, but many SF residents do, and If I’m correct you do not get a vote?
Everyone should be made to share in real time. A projector screen of all electronic communication in real time. These are meetings of official business. If you can’t make your case in person, what gives you the right to bump the line in a direct message. If you need to do further homework during the official meeting, that’s your prerogative, but your confusion or lack of preparedness goes up on the screen. If it’s benign and genuine, no harm no foul. Personal phone calls during session are the only communication allowed from your spouse or parent and fall under an emergency distinction giving you permission to temporarily excuse yourself. The public deserves to know and elected officials need to go beyond reproach to extend respect to the electorate and colleagues.
“insubordination”
Yes, that’s the problem in a nutshell. Stehly is furious because neither the council nor the mayor subordinate to her. These uppity “students” blatantly disobey their “teacher.” Perhaps Stehly should run for Emperor. Barring that, perhaps SF voters should do what’s necessary to create a more collegial & less acrimonious council.
She ran, she won. She’ll probably run again and win. People like her. She goes out of her way to listen to residents and keep them up-to-date with what’s going on. You know she has information printed in the Shopper’s News? I don’t know any other councilor who does that.
You too do not get a vote, so your opinion really doesn’t mean much. I do and I’ll vote for her again if she runs.
Actually, Noem voter is a SF resident.
Shopper’s News? Does anybody get that anymore? We used to, but for some reason it quit being delivered. Printing information in the Shopper’s News today is like advertising on SD Public Television. Nobody sees it unless there is a state tournament.
Our entire neighborhood gets it, every week. My parents, who live across town, get it too. A young mother and her children deliver it here, and I often take the time to read it.
It’s probably read by more residents than the Argus!!
Bad comparison; a city council meeting isn’t a classroom, it is a group of people elected by the citizens getting together to make decisions. Grow up.
My point was not a comparison with the classroom, but what we are taught at a young age. Show some decency to others. Whispering while people are speaking at a formal meeting is childish and probably not what Erickson was taught by her elders. Isn’t that another one, respect your elders?
I can see how some people may not get it.
She’s doing what all con artists do once exposed as the frauds they are. Bluster, deny, attack, etc. Sadly we had to endure a decade or more of her before the inevitable flame out.
“She’s doing what all con artists do once exposed as the frauds they are. Bluster, deny, attack, etc.”
You have the roles reversed. It is the establishment types that deny and attack when their agenda is exposed. With all due respect to Pat, sometimes this web site (such as this thread) becomes one of their tools.
I agree completely there are fraudsters on all “sides” of public policy, Steve. In Stehly’s case, she’s made a career of picking issues that she can exploit for her own aggrandizement that, uniformly, directly affect almost no one in the community. They city will spend almost $550 million this year and she screams over peanuts like the parking ramp screw up? Her more trailer parks agenda? How is that an affordable housing program? It goes on and on.
If she’d ever chosen to show up, dig deep to understand issues and offer real policy solutions, I’d have happily countenanced her abrasiveness: nothing’s better in government than an informed skeptic. She’s taken the easy, “look at me” approach to public service instead and we constituents are the worse for it.
Done and done.
I appreciate hearing the policy positions you disagree on. Over the years I have witnessed, and experienced first hand, attacks on those who bypass what I call the “Legalized System of Corruption” and seek to bring our various governmental bodies back in line with doing good for most, instead of catering to special interests. We can debate whether or not Stehly is a continuation of that process. At this point in time I will not be a judge of her motivations.
Its so obvious, Stehly intended to sabotage her own ordinance. She made sure to offend her colleagues both in the meeting and on social media. A no vote allows her the opportunity to continue railing against the city council and mayor, grab headlines, change the topic from “blockgate” AND have an election year issue. Case in point: Watch her delivery of the bee ordinance, and compare to how she ushered in the cell phone ordinance.
The 5 of the 5-3 vote are “blocking” the public. This forum is no different from a public social page. Come one come all. All comments and communication belong to the public, gavel to gavel.
Here is my statement that made my colleagues feel accused of corruption :
“Councillor Janet Brekke and I are bringing an ordinance Tuesday, returning integrity and transparency to public input and Council discussion. This reassures the public that their voices are being equally heard. Let’s eliminate special deals for special people.”
On a side note, thanks for giving yiur input. Next round we can also discuss note passing and whispering.
Councilor: If you were serious about transparency of public input, your measure would include reporting of ALL constituent contacts, whether in person, via phone, email, text or otherwise received at ANY time and not just those received during meetings.
As written, it’s just grandstanding and headline grabbing. As always.
Aren’t they already when a constituent contacts the City Council via email or letter?
Electronics are not allowed on the US House floor, though some Members get by with it. I’m not sure about the US Senate or the State house or State senate.
I like the idea of banning electronic devices in city council chambers during meetings.
And look how well the House does with their business.
My buddy was texting with Dusty during long impeachment debate. Pretty sure they can use electronics on House floor. You can see them doing it on CSpan
I am hearing that some of you think allowing unfettered “secret” access to Council members via email/texting during the meeting is a good practice. Ask those who sat patiently last night for their one opportunity to address the Council with feedback and concerns. They don’t get the opportunity to text more information later to Council members before we vote.
They don’t get another opportunity to respond.
In my opinion, all communication we do during the meeting should be open to disclosure to the public. (Whispering and note taking included.)
It’s the public’s meeting and the public’s business.
I also think Council members should step outside the meeting room during our official meeting, to attend to their family matters and personal business.
I used to serve on my hometown city council in another state before moving to Sioux Falls.
1. None of the council members had side conversations during meetings or outside of regular or special meetings because state law stated that if a quorum of the members were together in one place, it was considered a meeting and subject to public record. I’m wondering if South Dakota has a similar law on the books.
2. We did not use our phones during the meeting–if we had a phone call or needed to contact someone it was done with the office phone on speaker phone.
3. It’s just plain rude to be on your devices when you’re at a council meeting when constituents are speaking or another councilor or the mayor is addressing the council/audience.
In my opinion, this is a good step in the right direction to keep our local elected officials open and honest, especially during city council meetings.
Not really off-topic: did anyone here see the Dem Congressman at his seat in the House Judiciary Commitee watching the Presidents Cup golf matches on his notebook while his committee was voting on impeaching the President?
There is no social media platform–including this one–safe from Theresa Stehly’s trolling.
So you provide us with another bully tactic designed to silence those you hate…call them trolls.
Mr. Sibby, why oh why are all the really pretty ones insaner than most?
I dont know if the Brekke proposal has merit or not. I think fair minded people can disagree. That isn’t the point.
As Stehly said above: “ “Councillor Janet Brekke and I are bringing an ordinance Tuesday, returning integrity and transparency to public input and Council discussion.“
The inferences one would make from the above are:
1). There is no integrity and transparency.
2). This will return it to the council
3j. Opposition to the measure is corruption.
This is what this person does all the time to get attention. Claim to be the vanguard of integrity, impugn others, and make a mountain out of a molehill. Further, she is grossly lazy (does no work to understand the issue and the other side), lies with impunity (especially when she is called out for her behavior), and on the surface it appears she may be extremely stupid.
There is an important place for the skeptic like Kermit was. I at once supported her in the hope she’d be that person. Unfortunately her deep character flaws make her actually a voice which hurts the cause of Kermit provided. She is wholly unfit to contribute to making our city better.
Well Troy, you state “she is grossly lazy (does no work to understand the issue and the other side), lies with impunity (especially when she is called out for her behavior), and on the surface it appears she may be extremely stupid.
There is an important place for the skeptic like Kermit was. I at once supported her in the hope she’d be that person. Unfortunately her deep character flaws make her actually a voice which hurts the cause of Kermit provided. She is wholly unfit to contribute to making our city better”……..Well Troy, you are believing your own lies. I will side with the late Mr. Staggers who mentored and encouraged Theresa to run for council. They were great friends who respected each other immensely. Kermit was very proud of Theresa and if showed at his funeral because he had family and 3 friends give a tribute. that friend who spoke so kindly and sang so sweetly was Theresa.
Reply ↓