tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2123919364122433432.post137516519693984846..comments2023-09-25T03:57:22.736-06:00Comments on The Decorum Forum: It is a sad dayBob Newlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05388226473052858297noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2123919364122433432.post-20897603154827964472010-02-24T19:56:23.649-07:002010-02-24T19:56:23.649-07:00This is a really good post. It is very troublesom...This is a really good post. It is very troublesome that the resolution to censure was in violation of state and federal law. For example, let's take a look at state law:<br /><br />SDCL 9-8-5. Power of council to judge members and govern proceedings--Bribery vacating office. The council shall be the judge of the election and qualification of its own members. It shall determine its own rules of procedure, punish its members for disorderly conduct, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the aldermen elected thereto, may expel a member.<br /> Any alderman who shall have been convicted of bribery shall thereby vacate his office.<br /><br />This statute stands for the proposition that a council may only punish a member if that member has committed bribery (n/a in the Kooiker matter) or committed disorderly conduct.<br /><br />Did Kooiker commit disorderly conduct? SDCL <br /><br /> 22-18-35. Disorderly conduct--Misdemeanor. Any person who intentionally causes serious public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to any other person, or creates a risk thereof by:<br />1) Engaging in fighting or in violent or threatening behavior;<br />2) Making unreasonable noise;<br />3) Disturbing any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority; or<br />4) Obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic; is guilty of disorderly conduct<br /><br />Clearly, by any stretch of the imagination, Sam Kooiker did not engage in disorderly conduct. <br /><br />It is sickening that a majority of the council and the mayor blatantly disregarded the law written by our elected repressentatives. This smacks of elitism. Vote these people out - nobody, even Malcolm, Lloyd or Hanks - is above the law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2123919364122433432.post-56306143393145996172010-02-24T17:04:30.671-07:002010-02-24T17:04:30.671-07:00Would that be on the video of the Council meeting ...Would that be on the video of the Council meeting where the censure happened, Mike?Bill Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08319507693205848772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2123919364122433432.post-18125433103225557862010-02-24T12:57:38.078-07:002010-02-24T12:57:38.078-07:00Yes, Bill, I did read it. And all the others. And,...Yes, Bill, I did read it. And all the others. And, if you had been at the hearing you would have seen that Mr. Morris "cut and pasted" his own response and took Mr. Kooiker's comments out of context and out of sequence, as was shown by Kooiker's attorney and the record contained in the actual minutes.Michael Sanbornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06523147171085428754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2123919364122433432.post-6013846993262071702010-02-24T12:19:42.698-07:002010-02-24T12:19:42.698-07:00Well that's not what his (Morris's) letter...Well that's not what his (Morris's) letter to Mr. Green says, Michael. Did you read it?Bill Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08319507693205848772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2123919364122433432.post-76979186959177987192010-02-24T11:44:15.811-07:002010-02-24T11:44:15.811-07:00The council only took out part of the offending an...The council only took out part of the offending and false language.<br /><br />Mr. Morris packed the record with 110 pages of emails, claiming Kooiker overused email, when in fact he sent Mr. Sagen fewer than 3 emails per year for seven years, and none of them were harassing in any way.<br /><br />I have a problem with everything Mr. Morris did, the way he did it, and the manner in which he was obviously directed to conduct his investigation.<br /><br />I do not believe Mr. Morris was directed to find out IF probable cause existed. He was hired to find probable cause whether it existed or not.Michael Sanbornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06523147171085428754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2123919364122433432.post-15973884566422324622010-02-24T11:18:33.003-07:002010-02-24T11:18:33.003-07:00Even so, the Council struck the emails from the la...Even so, the Council struck the emails from the language of the censure before they voted, correct?<br /><br />Is there anything else in the Day/Morris letter you care to challenge?Bill Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08319507693205848772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2123919364122433432.post-53583400171141606952010-02-24T11:04:00.364-07:002010-02-24T11:04:00.364-07:00Bill,
Mr. Green was acting on what he called his &...Bill,<br />Mr. Green was acting on what he called his "general feeling" rather than on facts presented by Mr. Morris. He said as much in the hearing.<br /><br />It was also demonstrated in the hearing that the reference to 1,000 pages of emails came from Robert Ellis and Mr. Green included the remark as a finding of fact in the censure resolution without having the facts, from either Mr. Ellis or Mr. Morris.<br /><br />When pressured to produce the 1,000 pages of emails, Mr. Ellis packed the record with multiple copies of multiple emails in order to reach the 1,000 mark, a deliberate attempt to falsify the record.Michael Sanbornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06523147171085428754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2123919364122433432.post-88041489186433076562010-02-24T09:04:16.771-07:002010-02-24T09:04:16.771-07:00Mr. Green was no doubt acting on the advice of cou...Mr. Green was no doubt acting on the advice of counsel as per this letter to him from DayMorris the law firm retained by the City.<br /><br />http://archive.rcgov.org/ca20100216/CC021610-04/Letter2009.pdfBill Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08319507693205848772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2123919364122433432.post-6938321313958676842010-02-24T08:45:32.904-07:002010-02-24T08:45:32.904-07:00Mike, I think the Council deleted the parts in the...Mike, I think the Council deleted the parts in the censure related to emails before they voted on it didn't they?Bill Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08319507693205848772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2123919364122433432.post-42415285184543532442010-02-22T10:19:47.975-07:002010-02-22T10:19:47.975-07:00A terrible tangled web has been woven.A terrible tangled web has been woven.Bob Newlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05388226473052858297noreply@blogger.com