Supporters of the Yankton school district's $4.2-million opt-out are rousing some healthy political debate online with their Facebook page. Folks in Huron are throwing some stiffer political punches online over the mayoral recall drive. HuronCorruption.com is chronicling the petition drive, the seemingly forced resignation of former police chief Doug Schmitt, concerns about local illegal immigrant labor, and other beefs with the Huron City Commission.
The latest post indicates that petition circulators were told to leave the Lions pancake feed at the National Guard armory on Wednesday. The conversation in the comment section includes a comment about private property (um, National Guards, private?), a declaration of respect for the Guards, criticism of the petitioneers for bringing negative publicity to Huron, and even an accusation that Ron Volesky is using this petition drive to boost his own political career.
Unfortunately, too much of the conversation is happening anonymously. There are lots of comments (77 on a reposting of KELO's story on Schmitt's resignation), which is always encouraging, but most of the commenters hide behind pseudonyms or first name only. That doesn't happen on the Yankton opt-out supporters' page; since they're on Facebook, folks put their name to their words.
The entire HuronCorruption.com website is anonymous. The WHOIS record shows it was created March 17, 2011, but no Huron name appears there. The website includes no About page, no author names, nothing to tell you who is responsible for this crusade against Huron city government and illegal immigration.
Now I understand there's power and money involved. The recall drivers and other commenters can argue that Doug Schmitt has already lost his job for speaking up and they may fear ending up in the same boat. But Ron Volesky isn't afraid to put his name to the recall drive. A few others are leaving full names in the comment section (and maybe some of those first-namers are known well enough to locals that they don't need last names). But the anonymous comments seem to be less about protecting oneself from real danger and more about excusing snarkiness.
Attentive readers will understand that I wholly support any group of citizens who work to expose corruption in their community. And the "resignation" of Doug Schmitt over speaking the truth publicly certainly makes my corruption radar ping. I encourage whoever is running HuronCorruption.com to keep digging, keep posting, and keep hosting civic conversation.
But I also encourage them, for credibility's sake, to keep it real... and that includes real names.
We need to find out who keeps taking down the Huron corruption web sites and bring charges! Apparently some in high positions have a problem with that little thing called FREEDOM of SPEECH! Again I've been attacked and called racist for wanting illegals deported and wages at meat packing plants to be such that the workers don't have to be subsidized by the taxpayers in the way of food stamps and the like! The plants can open their books anytime and justify why they can't pay a living wage to workers for labor intensive work! They won't though because they are making plenty!
Another little "tid-bit" for you! I have it from GOOD sources that the Mayor's brother in- law works for Huron solid waste dept. and he lives in Arlington! I thought one had to live with-in 5 miles of town to hold a position of employment with the city! Does the Mayor pick and choose which laws,rules and regulations to uphold! Sounds like Presidential material to me!!
I didn't know an employer, even a public entity, could impose rules on where an employee lives. An employer's authority over me extends no further than the work day, does it?
When one works as a public employee for a city, yes there can be stipulations as to the individual living with-in the city limits for instance. An example would be the school superintendent of Sioux Falls not living with-in the city and they gave her an exemption till she could find a home inside city limits where she could keep her horses. Not sure if she ever did or they just let her have permanent exemption.
...and I'm still uneasy with that. What is the justification for such a policy? As long as I get to work on time, should the boss have any say on where I live?
Sorry you are uneasy with that but that's the way it is in the public sector. If one doesn't agree with that then one stays in the private sector-that's called choice.
It's not jsut uneasiness. I'm asking what justification any employer, public or private, can offer for imposing rules on where employees spend their off-duty hours.
Not private employers- just public employers can stipulate that you live with-in the city limits! That's what this is about! I never said the employer could dictate where one spends their off-duty hours! Just that one lives in the immediate area if a public employee-that's just the way it is! Start a petition drive and get it changed!
I understand you're saying Huron has such a rule for publci employees, and whether the mayor is applying that rule consistently is a fair question. But I'm asking by what authority the city would have such a rule in the first place. This is a question about off-duty hours. I live in my house during off-duty hours. What authority does a public employer have over where and how I spend that time, including where I choose to buy or rent a domicile to spend most of that time?
Like a lot of things -they just do! How can they approve a variance for a pet food plant when the lagoons can't handle the water from the turkey plant now and people that live nearby testified against the plant?? THEY JUST DO !!