Ironically, either one could be . . .
You had Ted the amateur gyno
Lynn, who felt it was okay to run over Liberals with cars
Mike the bigot
Matt who thought session was about drinking and having sex with legislative college staff
Gene who wants to watch female lobbyists pee
Saving babies while allowing more guns and cutting education funding . . .
I have questioned for a long time why we have so many attorneys working for the city if we are consistently hiring outside counsel.
Last night at the city council meeting, Bond Counsel representative Doug Hajek explained to the city council that the city had to hire an outside firm because they specialize in bonding. While I understand this, what I don’t understand is why do we even have city attorneys?
Maybe we should just have a couple of paralegals and a purchasing agent (who will hire the outside counsel).
I do however think, the city council needs their own attorney to advise them on legislation. I have suggested in past, as we had with City Clerk, Debra Owen, we have a city clerk with a law license so we could kill two birds with one stone?
Another reason I take issue with outside counsel, is because the city has a habit of putting most major law firms in town on retainer, which makes it extremely difficult for an average citizen to hire an attorney when they have problems concerning the city. A lot of the attorneys that are willing to take your case are retiring, and it will be virtually impossible for you to find a local attorney.
I think the city attorney’s office should have attorneys that are qualified to handle bonds, complicated development contracts, RFPs etc. Like I said above, if our attorney’s office can’t handle, which seems to me, as normal ‘city legal stuff’, maybe we should just eliminate the positions. Anybody can hire an attorney, that doesn’t take a law degree.
They should serve more crow at public meetings.
Believe it or not, I actually find my reader’s comments and opinions endearing, sometimes. I may not always agree, but I have learned some things.
So I’m going to ask your opinion about a ‘scenario’ situation.
First, I will preference that some of the incidents I will be referring to did not happen to me, and it is a combination of comments I have heard from citizens attending public events where food is served.
I will say personally though I have attended several public events like neighborhood meetings, ribbon cuttings, etc, where free food is served to the public. Normally it is cookies and coffee. But at the ribbon cutting for the Administration building there were catered sandwiches and chips. Also, when I used to attend the early events center meetings, the public was welcome to pizza or sandwiches after the committee ate.
That being said, here is my question;
If you attended a public meeting, to observe elected officials, and you were sitting at the same table as them and a server put a meal in front of you (that you did not order) would you 1) eat it? and if so 2) would you ask if you need to pay?
Let’s switch it up a bit, what if you ate it, and no one gave you a check. Would you just assume it was paid for? As I mentioned above, the city gives out free food all the time at other public events. Would this seem any different since it was a sit down meal?
Also, what if NO ONE asked you if you wanted the meal and gave it to you anyway?
Here are my initial thoughts, as a person who worked as a server for over 15 years, if this would have happened to me, the first thing I would have said was, “I didn’t order this, and who is paying for it?”
But people who I asked about this who don’t work in the industry told me they would kind of make the assumption it was on the house.
I know how these things work with a large party, the servers try to drop as many meals on that table as possible, the more meals they ‘sell’ the bigger the gratuity (usually added into the overall price). No surprise a server would put a meal in front of everyone at the table. Also, in the restaurant’s defense, their servers have no idea who is an elected official, a regular citizen or a public employee, especially in an informal setting. And lastly, if you were having a public meeting where food is being served, why would you pick one of the most expensive restaurants in town?
That being said, I’m kind of on the fence. While I wouldn’t expect the city to pick up the tab (even though I have probably paid for it 100x over in taxes) Why should the public pick up the tab for the elected officials or the public employees? If this is a public meeting, and free food has been served at these meetings in the past, wouldn’t it be safe to assume if you didn’t order something and no one asked you to pay at the end, it was free?
Of course, Benny Hill said it best, “Don’t Assume, because you only make an . . . .
And what if a public official attending the meeting ASKED you to pay for it later? Would you?
Food for thought . . .
Don’t you love all this ‘officialness’ and ‘secrecy’ surrounding the new school names? Shocker? Right?
More than 2,000 people weighed in on names for a new Sioux Falls high school and middle school after a survey went out last month.
But the public won’t know what their name suggestions were.
Sioux Falls School District spokeswoman Carly Uthe told the Argus Leader on Wednesday that suggestions will be given to a naming committee assembled by Superintendent Brian Maher. That committee will meet privately to review the suggestions, choose a name for each school and bring those names before the school board for a final vote as early as Jan. 28.
“We aren’t releasing any specific names we’ve received,” Uthe said via email.
So Why the F’ck did you ask for them to begin with? What would be the harm in 1) Showing the TOP 20 suggestions to the public (that fit the criteria)Â and 2) having the naming committee’s meeting open to the public with public comment? How is a secret meeting, with secret people selected by the Super have anything to do with involving the public?
You might as well skip all this hoopla, slap Jefferson’s name on the new HS and get it over with.
l3wis 