During the debate over the election threshold to 51% (FF 1:00), Rolfing called public input ‘Garbage’ than went on to say that he felt ‘sick’ as well as councilor Erpenbach because SEVEN years ago they didn’t get 50% of the vote.
Stehly pointed out that if they felt so ‘sick’ about it, why did it take them SEVEN years to propose this. She also pointed out she has heard NOTHING over the past SEVEN years that this was a problem, from either Rolfing, Erpenbach or the public.
It of course passed, 4-5. Selberg, Rolfing, Erpenbach, Kiley and Mayor Huether voted to make our elections more expensive for candidates and taxpayers because Rolfing’s tummy hurt over the past SEVEN years.
I have seen councils pass some pretty crazy sh*t over the past decade but this takes the cake. It is a gigantic slap in the face of past councilors who have served since 1996 who didn’t get over 50% of the vote and a slap in the face of the taxpayers who have to fund additional unneeded elections that they most likely WILL NOT attend.
In fact, councilor Neitzert put up a graphic showing voter turnout over the past decade(?). Guess which municipal election had the highest turnout (41%) the Event Center. Which was only an advisory vote that didn’t have any legal precedent.
I said during public input that maybe instead of spending $80K on a runoff election, we should spend it on promoting municipal elections. But what do I know, I’m just a pile of garbage.
Let’s just stop pretending citizens can be involved in the process called city government.
A RexCam exclusive for you. Sioux Falls City Council members Rex Rolfing, Michelle Erpenbach and Rick Kiley making fools of themselves on September 12, 2017.
Why would we place such authoritarians in office? Why should we respect people who want to take away the rights of average citizens because they could not get their own way in an election?
We are seeing voters being purged from the rolls.
We are seeing intimidation being used to keep people from voting.
We see areas with no voting location.
We see voting locations moved from one location this election to a different location in the next.
These things are not happening in far off lands, these are thing happening right here in Sioux Falls.
The vote taken to change the way elections are settled in Sioux Falls is a way to restrict our access to the process. Listen to the buffoons talk about how illegitimate they felt when they won their first elections. Feel the pain two of them felt on their 2010 election nights. Why did they wait 7 years until their friend lost an election to decide to change the rules? Those of us who pay attention to these things know when to poor the barnyard out of our boots. We need to make sure one of these buffoons knows what it’s like to lose in 2018.
The mayor of Sioux Falls believes he is right as right can be, to limit the average citizens participation in the process. This is another reason why the mayor should NOT be sitting in Council meetings and breaking ties. If a tie vote happens, the proposal should just die until a majority compromise happens along. What do you think? Let’s band together to fix this Huetheristic mess called strong mayor government.
These people are pathetic, never let them return to elective or appointed office. They do not deserve the honor of pretending to represent us. I did this video to let all know how those leaving office want to put a lasting stamp on the process so we can’t be part of it.
The reason we have Council members who are at-large, as well as Council members who represent regions of the City, is because we understand that at-large Council members may not always have the understanding or appreciation for other or certain areas of the City. Thus, these regional Council members exist to empower potentially a minority viewpoint in the City within a credible forum. That same logic also applies as to why we allow all Council members, at-large or not, to be elected without a 50+% threshold in order to potentially empower a minority thought or at least a chair at the table of a credible forum like the City Council itself.
But given the power of the Mayors office, it becomes a different story as to how a candidate for that office should be elected. It becomes necessary for the Mayor’s office to be won by a candidate with 50+ % approval, because this office encompasses not only the entire City, but also the amount of power invested in that office requires majority support of all of the citizens of the city and not just a empowerment of a minority or parochial interest, in order for that office to be credible and politically sustaining given its enormous potential power.
So to justify the new threshold of 50+%, in order to be elected to the City Council, by using a mayor’s election as justification, works to destroy the logic of our City Charter to the degree that it was designed not only for majority rule, but more importantly to assure that all voices are heard on the Council.
I think it is quite obvious to me and others, that this move by the City Council is merely an other example of mission creep, but its a mission creep that does not change the character of a given governmental program. Rather, it changes the character and intent of our democratic values, where the powers that be are set to gain and the people are set to lose…. Because remember, we have a great democracy in our country, our state, and our town, a very sophisticated one actually, but this democracy will never most likely be lost to guns and tanks, but it can be lost over time to manipulation, or in this case, a mission creep away from our underlying democratic values of empowerment… And if you disagree with me on this, then how can you justify the fact that South Dakota has two US Senators…. and so does California?
What’s disturbing is terms will be election process without serving. In this election, it’s a way for Rolfing and Erpenbach to hold their seats beyond their terms until a new councilor can be elected.
Scott, do you believe, that vote would have been any different, even if every person who stood up and spoke about right on red, instead spoke about plurality vs majority? I have been following city politics long enough to know, or at least think, that vote was cast long before the meeting, irregardless of the publics wishes.
I thought the vote would be 5-3 without input from the mayor. Joe and Jane Sixpack were the real losers on this one. Never again will see true citizen representation again like we are currently getting from Stehly, Neitzert, and Starr. When their terms are done, all we will have is a council doing the bidding of the dark money that runs this town.
The Argus said it best in Monday’s editorial rejection of this fiasco.
The likelier prospect of facing a runoff, along with the additional time and money required for longer campaigns, puts grass-roots candidates at a disadvantage to deeper-pocketed establishment candidates, a potentially greater cost to democracy.
Another shining example of why the mayor should not be running the meetings or voting to break a tie. If the vote is a tie, the issue should die.
WP – OH, this isn’t over yet. Besides, we figure we are going to have to fight that SOB on a whole host of crazy amendments, ordinances, resolutions and proposals until we send him to his big pasture in Florida.
By this isn’t over yet, do you mean pluarity vs majority, or something else?
Mathematically speaking, the registered voters who did not vote also voted against him/them. What % does that make? By the skin of their teeth they are allowed to sit in those seats.
Bruce, that is a very good point. But in the defense of the other side, they will claim our current charter is what is called a “Strong Mayor Charter,” so there you go.
What you are advocating is a “Weak Mayor Charter” or a weaker mayor charter. And certainly a case can be made for your idea given recent history. Perhaps it should be a Council of nine with one of them, as chairperson, only voting because of a tie – while the mayor stays busy running his or her administration and not the Council meetings….
Maybe we should consider the mayor a city administrator with a fancy title. Like many corporate boards, the CEO (mayor) steps out of the room when decisions on policy (city council) are made.
Even the mayor’s main cheerleader, Belfrage, said on his program this morning that he thinks this should go to a public vote.
Yeah, just as long as we get 51% of the 35% that show up to vote to approve this, Rex’s tummy won’t hurt anymore. LOL.
I wonder if Trump’s tummy ever hurts because of his electoral college victory?…. Now that is an example of minority empowerment run amok to the highest level or for the highest office in the land…. At least in Sioux Falls, we understand that the chief executive should be required to get 50+% of the popular vote to win, but not so much for “legislators”….
Hmmm. In the meeting video, the only person I heard who mentioned City Council candidate John Paulson’s name was Rolfing. After the 2016 election, did the mayor make an “election loss consolation board/commission appointment” to any OTHER unsuccessful Council candidate… besides Paulson (appointed to the Planning Commission) ? It sure looks like Paulson’s got most favored son status with the Heuther/Rolfing machine to perpetuate the MMM agendas beyond the end of their terms in 2018.
Blas, I noticed that last night and Rex mentioning they were friends for 40 years.
Ironically, Paulson is one of the few commission members who votes NO on development projects. Makes you scratch your head sometimes.
As the voter decides who is on the council, the voter should also decide the rules for the elections. Rex is a disgusting human being and this was an obvious sham before it began.
I wonder why certain councilors and the mayor are not disturbed that they regularly deny citizens their constitutional rights.
Rex is the J Edgar Hoover or Jimmy Hoffa that doesn’t work with modern culture and should have not existed even in their time of unsophisticated bigots.
General question. Is it safe to assume that with 5 districts in the city, and about 100,000 registered voters, there are about 20,000 registered voters per district?
WP, nice seeing you yesterday!
You are probably right, because I know during the latest redistricting they tried to keep each district at around 33-35K citizens (they are NOT allowed to break up districts by registered voters).
There is a reason we call him T-Rex. He is always breaking things that don’t need fixing (just ask the folks along Powderhouse Road). Time to make him extinct!
Good seeing you too Scott. So, I can assume someone like erpenback is in a district with about 20,000 registered voters. She got less than 3,000 votes in 2014, and now shehas a mandate?
You are right. That 80k should be spent to encourage voting and learning about the issues.
Another man with roid rage gets a part time side hustle in city government.
Rolfing and Erpenbach are the type Trump hires and fires in the same week. How can they represent the public if they prevent Public Comment? There’s a wall between the council and citizens. Am I an illegal immigrant tax payer combat veteran?
anominous, you mean Rex is all cranking because he’s packing too many hemorrhoids? He must have a lifetime supply…