Bad Candidate. Bad, Bad Candidate. I think.

(Click to enlarge the article)

You've got me on this one.

Ron Jenkins, who is running as Maggie Gillespie's running mate in the legislative races this fall has apparently been reprimanded by his fellow city councilmen in North Sioux City.

Except, they aren't saying why. They're just publicly reprimanding him. Without disclosing it, it's about as stupid an action as it gets. I mean, if it rises to the level of a public spanking, shouldn't the public be informed what he's being spanked for?

It is for looking crosseyed at a puppy? Or is it for leering at a stripper? Who knows?

The only thing cited is SDCL 9-8-5 which states:
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.

Any alderman who shall have been convicted of bribery shall thereby vacate his office.
An elected official is being unanimously - UNANIMOUSLY spanked by his fellow city commissioners in the midst of climbing to a higher office. And no one is saying why. And more so a problem - why is no one asking about it?

Why am I grousing about it? Well, as you can read for yourself, the article in the newspaper tells us nothing. So, what about the other crusaders in the fight to tell the public everything?

Doesn't the Argus Leader cover this area in their investigative reporting? Or does their outrage over non-disclosure eerily stop when the letter behind the candidate's name changes from "R" to "D?" I don't see the South Dakota Newspaper Association jumping in that one either with their campaign for the public's right to know.

A semi-secret reprimand for a public official over his misconduct in a public office. Glad to see the mainstream media is raising the roof over it.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The public has a right to know what the issue is here. Sometimes more harm can be done by not releasing all of the information and instead letting people's imaginations run wild.

I expect the publisher of the North Sioux City newspaper to push this as far as possible, not because he's concerned with ethics, but because he is a diehard Republican. It is unlikely that you would have read anything about this incident in the Two River Times if Mr. Jenkins was running on the Republican ticket.
Haggs said…
Wow. I'm glad I'm not in the district he's running in. Oh crap, I am.

He was my hope for getting that jerk, Dykstra, out of office. I wonder how this will effect it?
Anonymous said…
I think it's wrong to allow fellow members of a board to throw out or reprimand someone without stating the reasons. Where are the checks and balances?
Anonymous said…
South Dakota's open meeting law allows governmental bodies to go into executive session to discuss issues that could damage a person's reputation.
Any action that is taken, however, must be done in open session. Since the council officially reprimanded Jenkins, it had to be done in front of anyone else present - including any media - and it becomes part of the city's legal record which is published in the official newspaper, which in this case is the North Sioux City Times.
Anonymous said…
Was there a point in mentioning Maggie Gillespie's name when discussing this situation, other than an attempt to try and associate her with the problem?
PP said…
Did I say she did anything wrong? I'm mentioning her because most people would otherwise have no idea who this gentleman is.
Haggs said…
Well, PP, is he Gillespie's running mate? He's going after one of District 16's Representative seats while Gillespie is the incumbant in the other. Their both Democrats, but does that make them running mates?

I'm still slowly leaning about politics, so "running mates" could be the normal term for this situation and I wouldn't know.

And to be fair, if you hadn't mentioned Gillespie in this article I probably wouldn't have known who you were talking about. Heck, I didn't even realize that Distict 16 went as far south as North Sioux City.
Anonymous said…
Maybe the open meeting law commission should investigate why the North Sioux City Council is not revealing this guy's transgression. If he is a candidate for a legislative seat, the voter's should know what he did. If this type of information can be kept private under executive session anything can be held from the public.
Anonymous said…
Who else is running for district 16?
Haggs said…
District 16:

In the Senate, Kenneth Albers (R) is running against Kethy Lessek (D). Mike Broderick is the current senator, but he's not seeking another term. I'm not sure how this election will go. District 16, like most of South Dakota, usually goes Republican. But lately I've seen a lot of people wanting women to be in government positions. That's what happened with Canton's last city commissioner election (not to say that the lady who won isn't a good commissioner). So, in my opinion, this one is up in the air.

For the representatives, there are currently Joel Dykstra (R) and Maggie Gillespie (D). They are being challenged by Ron Jenkins (D) and Dan Lederman (R) respectively. Right now I think the incumbants will retail their seats. Dykstra is an incumbant and a Republican, so he'll be hard to beat... though I dislike him. And since both Gillespie and Lederman support the abortion ban I'd say Gillespie, as incumbant, will stay.

My opinions may change when I do some more research on these candidates. All of them filled out Project Vote Smart surveys, so that's helpful.

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over