I want to remind people that Mr. Huether is NOW a private citizen, so please refrain from making comments about his presentation in a political nature. If you want to comment on his past political service, have at it, that is free game.
I sometimes wonder when I am watching the CRC meetings if it is an actual citizen board meeting or a Shakesperean Tragedy.
They first started by killing the majority of the council approving bonds. They actually amended it so that it would be 5 votes (of the council) instead of 6 (which I could go along with since it takes the mayor out of breaking a tie). It failed in a 3-1 vote. Yes ONE vote killed it, the chair voted against it, and they needed 4 votes to pass. Hajek recused herself due to a conflict with her husband being a bond attorney. I think she would have voted against it to, so it was dead whether she was recused or not.
Then they wanted to change this in charter to make it harder to do petition drives that change the charter;
The petitions shall contain or have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the proposed charter amendment and must be signed by registered voters of the city in the number of at least 5 percent of the total number of registered voters at the last regular city election, or the number of signatures required by state law, whichever is greater.
They basically think we need to follow state law when it comes to our city business in handling petition drives proposing charter changes. Bogus. The governor’s election has NOTHING to do with city charter. That number is over 1,200 more signatures as of the last election. They say they are clarifying the language to follow state law. So I wonder why they think they can try to change the ordinance in the middle of a petition drive? That has always been my beef. They are applying these proposed changes to Triple Check the Charter before the rule has been changed by the voters. Now they are trying to change the rules that they are already applying. Huh? I know, confusing as all get out. The rule should be changed before it can be applied.
All 5 members approved this being on the ballot. We will be informing citizens that this is bad and encourage them to vote against it. Charter change petition drives should be based on city elections. That is really what they should have proposed for a change and let the do-nothing AG and SOS try to change it (my guess is they would not lift a finger). Maybe I am talking out of my ass (I am told that a lot) so please correct me if I am missing something here.
They reject Councilor Brekke’s proposal to put in charter that the council sets forth a strategic plan (Member Zylstra voted to put on the ballot, all other members rejected it);
Adoption of a long range strategic master plan created by the City Council
CRC members basically say the council already has the power to do this (which is true) and it shouldn’t be in the charter as a stringent requirement. This is exactly why it NEEDS to be in the charter, it would force the council to do their jobs instead of letting the mayor be the legislative body and proposing plans. According to charter already, the council is the one that proposes ordinance changes and legislation and the mayor’s job is really pretty simple, run the day to day operations and manage city employees.
Another meeting where the CRC is the Judge, the Jury and the Executioner. I will clarify again, their only job is to place legal changes on the ballot, it is NOT their job to determine whether or not these are good or bad if they pass. That decision is up to the voters. They seem to be making the determination that voters will pass something bad unknowingly if they allow it on the ballot. It is up to voters to determine whether or not something is ‘bad’ for them, not a volunteer group of folks appointed by the mayor. They are chosen for their legal and management expertise (I assume) that is what they are supposed to be determining, if these proposals are LEGAL and NOT HARMFUL to citizens. I haven’t seen a proposal yet this year that is not within the constraints of the law, or harmful to citizens. They are killing these proposals based on what is harmful to the 1% in our community, and not what is good for our whole community. I have been thoroughly disgusted with the actions of the CRC this year.
They also make some action to change language on the city website about their duties. This was an extremely confusing discussion, because I guess they already made the change, but no one said what it said before or what it was changed to. City Attorney Kooistra mumbled something, but I was still confused.
Towards the end, the most interesting part was before public input. Instead of the chair inviting people up for 5 minutes of public input, he first asks the dais if there was an ‘OBJECTION’ to opening the floor to public input before allowing it. No one on the dais responds (why would they?!)
What the F*CK!? It’s on the agenda Chief Kills an Amendment. By state law that recently changed, you have to have it, whether you object or not. I would think a chair who specializes as a government affairs attorney would know state law? The problem is he ‘thinks’ he knows, and why he has choked the life out of all the proposals that have come forth, except one that actually hurts the petitioning process.
Councilor Brekke ends the S-Show by telling the CRC she will continue to work on her proposal for strategic planning. The CRC, or at least one member, Hajek, seems to think the mayor has a right to a strategic plan also. Once again, certain people on the CRC don’t understand that is NOT his job, it is the job of the Council. I am often amazed that people who have been involved with local government for a very long time, really don’t grasp how it is supposed to work. As Archie Bunker would say, “Jeesh!”
The meeting ends humorously by the chair telling us the CRC and himself have been ‘open and transparent’ from the beginning about how they would conduct their business (laying the groundwork of how things would be killed). He also gives a nod to my commentary (online). So now that the chair has brought up this ‘open and transparent’ process I would assume all emails and phone calls between CRC members over the last several months will be released to the public?
LOL.
The scripted meetings by the Director (the chair) made it blatantly obvious that many ‘behind the scenes’ conversations were had.
I would like to congratulate the CRC this year for their continued obsession with killing progressive and constructive ideas.
The story Stormland-TV did about Kristi giving her daughter a $20K a year raise in less then two years shouldn’t surprise anyone. Noem’s family has gotten millions in farm subsidies for years, and who can forget the tax payers of Sioux Falls providing $20K in security as an in kind gift to her campaign’s private fundraiser with our ‘Hoax’ of a president. Maybe Kennedy Noem is going to donate her raise to the city of Sioux Falls 🙂
I did chuckle a little at this graphic though. (BTW-when you are pointing out nefarious activities by elected officials, probably best not to use their Glamor Shots photo) The first thing I thought was, ‘Kennedy may be making half of what Paul makes, but probably shows up to work twice as much as he does.’ I still find it a little strange that a guy pushing for 5G technology doesn’t know how to use a phone to communicate instead of flying everywhere – oh – unless he is trying to chastise female political opponents, then he is Chatty Cathy.
Next week’s City Council meeting agenda item concerning the Canterbury – Paddington development is bringing up ethical concerns. (Watch the fiery exchange at the last planning meeting, items 5B-C). The adjacent property owners wondered why the planning department and planning commission ignores it’s own ordinances. The short answer; MONEY & GREED. The only reason the SFPC gave (and their typical answer when big money development rolls up to the podium at these meetings) is they own the land they can do what they want to. Sounds great, I think I will get started on my nuclear reactor in my backyard this summer – neighbors be damned. But make sure you put up a sign warning about bees in your yard! You know, those naturally occurring insects that provide life giving pollination.
It appears there will at least two conflict of interest issues which might be raised and at least two recusals may likely be needed.
Mayor TenHaken’s Next Generation Leadership PAC has Joel Dykstra involved in the management of the campaign / PAC organization. Joel will be asking for a RE-ZONE and PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN approval from the city council after the Planning Commission already approved it.
Councilor Selberg works for Van Buskirk Companies. The company was involved turning this development into a cluster to begin with by not finishing a promised road in the beginning of this development.
As we research more business connections, we see potential conflicts and believe full disclosures with recusals are required. Hopefully Marsh and Pauly will be recusing themselves next Tuesday on this item. If they don’t there could be legal and ethical ramifications from the adjacent property owners. We will see if they do the right thing.
So PTH hypes up this position as something that is important and needed (because I guess our HR department isn’t doing it) and thinks it is so necessary he hires from WITHIN;
Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken has appointed the first-ever Chief Culture Officer.
Rena DeBoer has served the city for the past 12 years.
DeBoer most recently worked as the city’s Work Well Manager, focusing on employee health, safety, and well-being, as well as, employee engagement.
If you were just going to hire from within (and apparently someone who is already doing the job) what is the point? Oh, that’s right, Pauly likes to move checkers around on the board to make it look like he is doing something.
Unlike the last mayor who was easy to get mad at because he was a lying snake in the grass who was vindictive and greedy, Paul is just plain bizarre. It’s hard to get mad at someone you are laughing at constantly.
Maybe he will make a YouTube video in front of a black screen and say,
“Yeah, like, I hired Rena because she was already doing the job, and this was an easier way to give her a raise.”
What a ding dong (Paul, not Rena).
l3wis