If you read the Argus Leader’s recent article on the attempt to submit changes in the Sioux Falls City Charter to voters, there were some issues that came up that the people promoting the ballot measure claimed they were blindsided, and that the rules are being changed on the fly:
Danielson told the Argus Leader he’s working with legal counsel to determine the legality of the city attorney’s opinions, which he called a “game-changer,” and sets a precedent that all provisions of charter that deviate from state law could be invalid.
“We have received an opinion from the city officials, who are duty bound to defend the charter, deciding they have the ability to reject sections of the charter they do not agree with,” he said. “City support staff have opined new rules for our petitioning as if they have the power to rewrite state law, home rule charter and South Dakota Constitution.”
T.J. Nelson, deputy chief of staff in the mayor’s office, issued a statement Monday afternoon saying Danielson’s comments are predictable and “grossly misconstrued and inaccurate.”
Well, but… Bruce Danielson might not be entirely correct as tries to portray himself the victim of “the man,” and it sounds like a lot was left out of the article. Because controversy sells newspapers far more than people being told what the rules were, and not listening.
According to Sioux Falls City Councilman Greg Neitzert, the Sioux Falls City Clerk informed the group of 15 petitioners ahead of time that only the people who signed the petition to change the charter could circulate petitions.
But they did it anyway:
So, who are the 15 authorized under the rules to collect signatures?
And actually, in looking at this screenshot, I do question whether the city clerk may have missed something.
Because unless I’m mistaken, I don’t know that someone can notarize their own document/witness their own signature on a petition, since one of the people (Debra Elofson) signed the affidavit. Which might take Debra Elofson off of the list, and reduce the number of circulators down to 14. But, that’s a question for an attorney or the Secretary of State.
As Councilor Neitzert noted, there are some of the same people involved who screwed up a previous petition drive.
Maybe it’s not so much of a stretch of the imagination to believe they could screw it up again.
What’s funny is that Neitzert would not be on the council if it had not been for Danielson and company. Makes me wonder about the validity of his election…
I guess not seeing the whole petition I couldn’t say whether the notary was Elofson or someone else. However, you cannot notarize your own signature, and you can’t notarize the signature of someone else if you are a party to the transaction (such as a deed conveying property to you, the notary).