January 2012

An interview with SF City Councilor Erpenbach

Michelle was scheduled to be our guest on Rant-A-Bit today, and we had good intentions to record the show, but there are troubles on the internets and uploading new material. Meh. I’ll let my co-host go into more detail about that . . .

Anyhoo, I asked Michelle if she would do the interview via email, and she agreed. You can read her answers and entire interview here, THIS IS NOT AN AUDIO INTERVIEW: erpenbach1

My questions;

Give me your thoughts on what kind of changes you would like to see to urban agriculture ordinances, if any?

Do you think the Charter Revision Commission did the right thing by tabling controversial amendments in relation to the mayor’s executive powers?

Do you think some members of the CRC have clear and blatant conflicts of interest?

Do you think snowgates have a chance of being implemented and approved by the city council and mayor or will voters have to tough this one out and have a petition drive to put it on the ballot?

Municipal elections actually excite me, and I am looking forward to April. Fortunately you are not up for re-election this cycle. What are the benefits of getting to watch this? Are you supporting any particular candidates?

Public input at council meetings has been a hot topic lately. Personally, I think they should be left as is. What are your thoughts on the topic?

Recently their has been some questions about whether the city council broke state open meetings laws by walking in and voting on resolutions to hire a new city clerk. Will you defend your actions?

Most people in political circles in Sioux Falls know the details surrounding the termination of former city clerk, Debra Owen, including myself. I’m not asking for a confession, but I am wondering, if this information becomes public, don’t you think it will be embarrassing for the city councilors who voted to terminate her?

Would you like to finish with telling us about a neighborhood summit you are hosting?

SF City Council still looking at moving public input until end of meetings

Dean ‘No Goats’ Karsky is at it again, suggesting that the public waits until the very end of a council meeting before airing their concerns. (FF: 19:00) His reasoning? He doesn’t think city directors (who we pay with our taxdollars) should have to wait thru public input, because it would make things ‘smoother’. He also thinks people should have to sign their name if they are giving public testimony. Why? If they state their name before their rant, good enough for me. Why do some city councilors think the public’s opinion is unimportant and bothersome? Who elected you? Oh that’s right, Dean just had to kiss a few councilor’s asses to get elected.

Most people who come to give public testimony are doing it on their own time. City directors and other contractors doing business with the city are compensated very well by us to attend these meetings. The (volunteer) public should be able to air their concerns at the beginning of the meetings. Any attempt by the city council to change this will come with great resistance. GREAT RESISTANCE!

Use your brains for once and leave it as is. It is not broken and does not need to be fixed.

UPDATE: This is the document outlining the different public input variances. As you can see, all of the SD towns listed have them at the beginning of the meeting. And heck, the county doesn’t even have a time limit; public input spreadsheet

Funny thing happened on the way home tonight . . .

I went to see my favorite Rock & Roll band tonight, The Supersuckers and there was an opening band called Spittin’ Cobras, and as my distant Czech cousin would say, “If it has an apostrophe, it’s cool.”  (sarc) They reminded me of Judas Priest (British Steel days). After their set, someone told me that the drummer and geetar player were in a German industrial band called KMFDM (no pity for the majority). I had a great convo with them about those days (I was kinda a fan). I’ll let you do the research.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4-bUYU3BH8[/youtube]