Sioux Falls City Councilor Theresa Stehly throws gasoline on question over newsletter & paid advertisment expenditures.

Pat Powers

Remember when the “Theresa Stehly blocks people on Facebook” story broke a few months back? And just when it had moved through the news cycle, she couldn’t resist throwing some gasoline on the issue, so it would hang around another couple of days.

Of course, Sioux Falls City Councilor Stehly is back throwing gasoline on an issue again.

After I wrote a post questioning why multiple paid advertisements she did were not part of her campaign finance disclosure statement, the Argus Leader did a story on it.

As part of that story, Stehly had to begrudgingly concede there were some website expenses she didn’t disclose, and indicated she would be amending her erroneous report to add the omission.  But not for any of the paid advertisements or mailers she sent (or the attack robocall), because she claimed they “were intended to keep her constituents apprised of city happenings, not to better position herself for reelection.”

Ok… So that’s her position, and she was going to stick to it, despite Sioux Falls City ordinance noting (emphasis added):

§ 38.005 PERSONS AND ENTITIES REQUIRED TO SUBMIT CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURES; TIME FOR SUBMISSION.
(a) A campaign finance disclosure whose contents are specified by state law shall be signed and submitted to the city clerk’s office by the treasurer of every municipal candidate or candidate campaign committee, municipal or nonmunicipal political action committee, municipal ballot question committee, and municipal public office holder pertaining to city elections. Any statement pursuant to this section shall be consecutive and shall cover contributions and expenditures since the last statement submitted.

And nevermind the statement in her most recent newsletter talking about the election…

Nope. Nevermind… Her newsletters have nothing to do with running for office at all. nothing at all....

So, Theresa took the position she certainly doesn’t have to report anything to the public on all that folderol. And that was that…

But then a funny thing just happened today..  Theresa figuratively went out to her shed and got the old gas can, so once again, she could fire that flame that had died down back up into a roaring blaze:

However, City Clerk Tom Greco and City Attorney Stacy Kooistra have declined to clear up the matter by offering their interpretations of campaign finance rules as it relates to political communications for office holders and candidates. Instead, it’s the Sioux Falls Board of Ethics that would need to provide a ruling under city charter, Kooistra said.

and…

That’s the same answer Stehly got. But rather than wait for someone to file a formal complaint, Stehly is asking for an advisory opinion instead.

Read it all here.

So, not only has Councilwoman Stehly thrown gasoline on the story to extend it an extra few days, she’s putting it to the Sioux Falls City ethics board to ask the question as to whether she should have disclosed the hundreds if not thousands of dollars she’s spent on “the Stehly Report” showing up in shopping news paid advertisements, and 4-page tabloids distributed to the public.

And she’ll manage once again be able to inject a few more days into that story’s life.

BTW, with Stehly’s request for an opinion on all that spending do I dare mention another Sioux Falls Ordinance?

35.057  ADVISORY OPINIONS; ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CANDIDATES.

…The “self-reporting” on past incidents shall not act as a bar against possible sanctions for that conduct, but may be considered in mitigation of any possible penalties otherwise imposed.

Probably not.

24 thoughts on “Sioux Falls City Councilor Theresa Stehly throws gasoline on question over newsletter & paid advertisment expenditures.”

  1. When you have to report yourself to the ethics board, that’s a serious issue.

  2. Alex! appeared in First Premier commercials, while a declared candidate, this past late summer and into the fall. Do these in-kind contributions to the Alex! campaign from the FP appear in Alex!’s campaign financial reports?

    1. Aside from it being off topic, I believe people are allowed to be candidates and have jobs.

      1. How is it not germane? This piece is about campaign finance reports and reporting, isn’t it? And Alex! is her only opponent, right?

        Plus, no one said that Alex! couldn’t have a job. I am just claiming that those FP commercials are an in-kind contribution to his campaign….. Have they been reported?

        1. The TV commercial doesn’t say or show his name, doesn’t make any reference to the city council, the campaign or the election. It’s a quick picture on a banking commercial. I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it.

    2. Theresa Stehly currently appears in Benson Flea Market commercials, while a declared candidate. Do these in-kind contributions to the Theresa campaign from the Flea Market appear in Theresa’s campaign financial reports?

  3. Pat, is there a way for me to block anything by “VSG”? Would be easier than having to scroll post anything he (or she) posts.

    1. VSG is just a less-articulate and more-full-of-it version of Scott Ehrisman, if such a thing is possible.

      1. If you ever go to Scott’s blog, is NON STOP comments from VSG. Read through them and they are full of things like Social Contracts, White Privilege, Big Government is great, and so on. His comments almost always have references to folks who live South of 57th Street in Sioux Falls as “Taupesters” or some sh!t like that. I guess he doesn’t care for those folks. I understand your pain as I feel the same way at times when I read them but, what do you expect from a Leftist

        1. Did you know that they have their own magazine now? The “Taupesters,” that is.

        2. Thanks for the tip; now I for sure won’t check out Scott Ehrisman’s blog. Much appreciated!

          1. No. The “Taupesters” have one, not Scott. It’s called ‘Southside Living.’ But that is a good idea. It could be a parody magazine like Mad magazine.

        3. Not that the site has ever been phenomenal, but since VSG and the 4 or 5 other names have shown up, it is unreadable. I used to frequent it to see what the other side was up to, but I can’t stomach this self important tool.

          1. A “tool?” I, I, I better get a tool bag like our mayor has…. #ButMaybeIAlreadyHaveOne 😉

          2. Scott’s blog is not too bad and is at a minimum a good source for local Sioux Falls news. I disagree with many of his points but, still good coverage. VSG is insufferable and argues every point anyone has that is counter. Fancies himself as a Genius but, we all know he is deluded. I appreciate a good Liberal and you can usually reason with them. Folks like VSG just spew crap and can never see the other side of the coin.

  5. “I believe people are allowed to be candidates and have jobs.”

    Thanks for clearing that up. One of Theresa’s jobs is being a city councilor and informing the public, and that is exactly what she did with her own money, not from donors or from taxpayer money. FP commercials highlighting Jensen’s banker skills is no different than Stehly informing the public of what is going on in their city government. Looks like a draw to me. (except that Jensen was already declared when these ads aired, and Stehly was not declared when putting out the mailings).

    1. “Not Theresa” is clearly Scott Ehrisman.

      Of course, the difference here is that Alex being in an ad for First Premier Bank was promoting the business he worked for, not providing commentary about local politics and trying to influence an election.

      As a “municipal elected official” Stehly is required to provide a disclosure for any activities for any campaign spending activities relating to city elections. Since she spent money on the January Stehly report, which touted her track record and provided commentary on the election, she should have disclosed that. Period.

  6. She wasn’t campaigning because she wasn’t a declared candidate. You are certainly welcome to your opinion about the matter, but opinion is not statute.

  7. i think we are getting distracted from the bigger issue while parsing what is the technical letter of the law (which I happen to think is contrary to Stehley’s position).

    The main issue is Theresa is quick to claim others are non-transparent and accuse them of corruption. Yet, she claims a technicality (not yet a candidate) to hide sources of funds and expenditures which a common person reading of the ordnance would interpret should be disclosed.

    I guess she isn’t the common person she claims to be. I

Comments are closed.