I have taken a few pot shots at the mayor’s office for sponsoring policy on the council agenda (because the council should sponsor it).
Normally if a councilor sponsors something they present the item and staff assists them after that.
There has been on occasion that Paul will present the item (give details and answer questions). A few months ago he did that when they presented the contract for the Link. He knew very little (or he just wasn’t willing to tell councilors).
It happened again tonight at the City Council meeting (website is down due to transition). So I can’t remember the item number but it had to deal with a grant to the landfill. After the item was read into the record, Paul looks around and says something to the effect the landfill staffer wasn’t there, so they had to defer.
So you sponsor policy and have no clue what it is?
There was absolutely no reason the mayor could not have answered the questions since ultimately he has to sign off on the grants.
Fast forward to the end of the meeting after public input with old and new business. The mayor proceeds to tell the council that item needs to pass tonight because it is time sensitive so he asked for a reconsideration and got the landfill staffer on the phone.
The staffer literally answered two basic questions in a matter of minutes.
Here’s the deal. If the mayor’s office wants to be all King Sh!t sponsoring policy, he should probably read it first, especially since he has to sign off on it.
I mean, it is one thing to take these duties away from the council, but then to sponsor them without having a clue makes it even worse.
Lazy Authoritarianism.
The sad part is we almost lost a grant over it.
Instead of doing jumping jacks with kids, maybe Paul needs to spend a little time in his office reading up on his job.
Cruise Control Government at it’s finest.
The modern conservative hates government, so don’t expect them to know how to run it. Look at the US House right now, it takes Democratic votes to save a Republican Speaker’s agenda on spending limits. AND, just recently, the Democrats with the help of eight Republicans in the House prevented an unnecessary impeachment inquiry into our current Homeland Security Secretary. Conservatives, or Republicans, whatever you want to call them, hate government, but they do want the titles so they can control it. They are not about leading, rather they are merely about controlling, and if they show any hint of competence about governing they do it with the capricious whims and audacity of a corporate spokesman and not as a true and honest political leader.
To best answer the question on whether or not the Mayor failed in his abilities to operate the government by deferring the resolution until the next week, allowing a public officer to present the agenda item is a bit harsh. Yes, the Mayor could have dropped the gavel, and presented the resolution, but at the same time, in the definition of honest, and transparent government, he chose to slow down the process, and allow the subject to be deferred, which would have allowed the City Council to discuss further with the city government on reasons to accept the grant or not. You cannot have it both ways, if you speak out against a government that ramrods agendas through the legislative branch, then you must support the Mayor in this situation, for wanting to defer an action to a later date allowing for additional public discussion. In this situation, I would give credit to Mayor Paul TenHaken for actually allowing the process to be slowed down, asking the city council whethr or not they really want to accept the federal grant or not. “WE” shoudl not want to take federal funds, we dont need to accept federal funds, and we should question the use of accepting federal funds. I suspect the City Attorney simply urged the Mayor to reconsider the resolution the same night, reminding the mayor and council that if we wait 1 week, the federal grant would expire in between the two meetings, which again, is NOT a huge concern to me. Even by adopting the resolution, the Mayor can still refuse to sign the contract, explaining why he choose to NOT accept the grant. Why would you want the Mayor to not slow down the process, cause Scott – you have many times stated that you wanted this governing process slowed down, to create longer periods of discussion.
As for Very Stable Genious – he has made some wild claims that the Republicans hate government, mainly cause they want to slow down the process of passing revenue bills by using the strategy of shutting down the government, I applaud them for taking this approach, for the same reasons Mayor Paul TenHaken chose to slow the process down here in Sioux Falls. It encourages further debate. IT is not a bad thing to shutdown many parts of the Federal Government, especially one where out of control spending is occurring, and unconstitutional acts are being adopted. IF the Republicans, like the Democrats wish to place on public trial a President, Vice President or any of the Executive Secretaries for actions they deem a threat to the States, or misconduct, it does NOT mean they hate government. It means they wish to hold the government officials accountable for their actions. I would love to shutdown 75% of the Federal Government, as I see it currently today, acting outside the constitutional powers today.
Artificial intelligence in government. Sounds like Santos.
I’m not sure there was a lot of debate about taking a grant.
When Huether and Munson were mayors, staff was required to show up to a council meeting if they had to present an agenda item, even if it was for buying a new stapler. In fact, one time a staffer didn’t show up to a Huether council meeting and he got quite the ass chewing over it.
Staff should be there, BUT, it comes down to leadership. Under this mayor, it seems city staff does what they want unchecked.
The whole argument for putting public input at the back of the meetings was so staff could present items and go home, now that it moved, they don’t even show up. We were hoodwinked.
We can point gobs of fingers at all kinds of folks, but at the end of the day, it is Paul’s lack of managing employees that caused this.
I do agree, that Public Officers, Agents, and Employees working for the City should be in attendance during City Council Meetings. I dont know if blaming the Mayor this time repesents the matter. I dont know. How many times does Staff not show up, versus how many times has the current mayor dropped the gavel, and spoke on the matter. It could have been, that the Staff Member had a prior engagement that could not be changed, and they either A, asked the Mayor to defer it, or B, the Mayor elected to himself to defer it to allow city staff to be present. Perhaps the Mayor did not realize the time stamp on the application when he made his decision. Does he spell his name G-O-D? Meaning, we are human, imperfect beings, and we make mistakes, and that is not a bad thing.
I would question, why did the Department, Staff Member wait so long to make the sales pitch for the grant, he could have brought this forward the 3rd Meeting of October for example.
You also have to remember, it is much easier to get ‘agenda’ on the city council meeting than it is to get something through 2 City Council Members. Especially one that is evenly divided.
I also question why the Council never places hardly anthing on the agenda, over the past 8 years, its heavily the Mayor’s Office that places everything on the agenda. I often wonder if the City COuncil even want the job anymore….
It goes back to the balance of power between the two offices that we have been discussing during C.R.C meetings. We have a Governing Board of 9 Members – the Mayor, 3 At Large Chairs, and 5 District Chairs.
So why do the PEOPLE, mostly the landowner/property holders all seemingly feel its much easier to push their initiatives and resolutions through the Mayors Office? Is it cause the 8 Council Members are making it to difficult to get things on the agenda, this can be percieved as the 8 Members “thinking” to much, rather than just doing what the people want.
Mike, he is the city manager, it is his ultimate responsibility to manage ALL city employees, it’s in the CHARTER! I doubt the landfill guy even knew he was supposed to show up.
It’s obvious to me that this mayor lacks the leadership skills to manage city employees.
But I just have to ask, why do you defend his actions? I have no personal feelings either way about Paul, don’t know him personally, don’t know his family, don’t know his associates and don’t care. I feel elected officials have certain privacy rights, and to be honest with you, how he conducts himself in his personal life is none of my business. But when he sits on that dais or at his desk in city hall and makes poor decisions that effect my life and others, then I take issue.
Mike, voters decide, not just landowners. I know you wish this was 1840 but it’s not.
Scott,
Am I defending the Mayor, or simply explaining my opinion on what happened. I just see it from a different point of view, knowing that “We” are all human, and by nature, we often make judgement decisions based on the time, place, day, and beliefs. The Mayor by the charter is the Administrator, yes, part of that is to mange the Public Departments, Offices Agencies, Corporate Partners, but each of those “offices” have managers who effectively are tasked with carrying out the Mayor’s Office and City Council’s Office delegations. End of day, one can argue, this request for a “Federal Grant” was the idea of the “Office” and not the Mayor, and the Mayor acted in the best interest of the City, allowing the office to present the resolution. The Manager of the Landfill should most definately have known he has to present his idea to the city council…that is niether defending nor attacking the mayor, just my opinion.
As for Otto – you may want to take note, that Landowners, even today carry heavy weight under the State, let alone the City itself as how this city is to be governed.
I think you like to misconstrue my words for one – why do you not go out and try to gain support to build a street, annex subdivisions, rename a street, or develop property without the consent of the Landowner. I will guarantee, if the Landowner does NOT want to submit his land to your agenda, that landowner has more power than you do as a voter. Even if the voters voted to adopt the initiative, that landowner has enough power under the Constitution to reject your idea, and challenge your initiative in the circuit court, and guess what, He will win as well.
LAWS do not just go into effect without the WHOLE PEOPLE’S CONSENT, that is why there are rules in place, laws in place, that NO LAW can go into Effect without the Full Consent of the People. So – whether the Voters or Representatives adopt a law, that landowner, property holder, or even the citizens have so many days to petition the voters or the court to redress their grievances. It is how we govern. And that has Never changed since day one.
“1840?”….. “Your way to nice, 1840 was the time of Tippecanoe & Tyler Too”…. “Try more like 1776″…. (…. “Or better yet, 1692 and the Salem Witch Trials”…. )
Mike, do you own a plantation?
Hi Mike! How’s the DeLorean running as you run back and forth from the past cherry picking things to your liking?
But more importantly let’s evaluate your critique of my concerns involving Republicans and government in general:
“…he(VSG) has made some wild claims that the Republicans hate government…”
Well, let’s look at what I’ll call the tip the card table over approach to life when you no longer like something. I think this reality is most evident in what happened in
Congress yesterday when former Speaker McCarthy apparently elbowed in the kidneys a colleague over that colleague’s willingness to support current Speaker Johnson’s debt limit bill strategy which was very similar to McCarthy’s that the colleague would not support last month. Or, how about the immaturity of a US Senator who challenged a witness during committee yesterday?…..:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRdPl3UgSa8
Or, at 01:07, what about a Republican Congressman calling a Democrat a “Smurf” during a committee hearing?…:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPLmoG9fOj8
You see, if you like something or tolerate something, then you respect it by showing some decorum, but when the gloves are literally off then you don’t like something, you hate it most likely.
Then you go on to write:
“… IT is not a bad thing to shutdown many parts of the Federal Government, especially one where out of control spending is occurring, and unconstitutional acts are being adopted….”
Now, first keep in mind this is being written by you who constantly ignores the existence of the 14th Amendment, and given that, what do you really know about the Constitution and its history? Plus, shutting down Congress with inaction is not how a democracy (or democratic republic) is suppose to work. If you don’t like something as a political leader, then you need to work with colleagues to change it and not drag your feet in a manner that makes government no longer work and thus our democracy no longer work, which then makes your beloved Constitution quite frankly moot.
“…..IF the Republicans, like the Democrats wish to place on public trial a President, Vice President or any of the Executive Secretaries for actions they deem a threat to the States, or misconduct, it does NOT mean they hate government. It means they wish to hold the government officials accountable for their actions”…..
Yah, that sounds pretty good, but when Republicans went after the Homeland Security Secretary they had no evidence of “high crimes or misdemeanors” nor proof of bribes or treason. That’s why one Republican, who voted against the Trump impeachment articles, also voted against impeaching the HSS.
“I would love to shutdown 75% of the Federal Government, as I see it currently today, acting outside the constitutional powers today”….
Well, first of all, that would pretty much send our economy into a deep depression with then less federal revenues to run the other 25%.
But how is our current Federal Government “acting outside the constitutional powers today”?…. Let me guess, you don’t like the elastic clause or the commerce clause of the Constitution, I bet, huh? Well, it has been around for sometime and it’s how we do business as a country. In fact, if you got rid of that clause then you would have to get rid of federal farm aid, which is a major subsidy to the number industry in our beloved South Dakota, which is agriculture….. I guess there goes our economy and especially for many conservative Republican ag producers.
But you keep trying Mike and maybe eventually, as you travel back into time, you’ll eventually crash into the passage of the 14th Amendment and begin to see things a little different for once:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW98p3Rq0cg
(and Woodstock adds: “Say, wasn’t it Ronny Reagan who once said: ‘The problem of government is government’….?”…. )
This Mayor has no conviction.
For anything.
Except biding time until a spot opens on the Bench of Higher Office.
And doxxing / digital spook activity.
A plantation is too modern for Mike. I believe he owns a feudalistic manor, however….. AND, from now on, Mike should be addressed as: “My Lord”…..
Three mini-essays by Mike on this post. Boy, how did we all get so lucky?
Yes, this Mayor is just wishing his last two years would move along at a faster pace. If he could, he’d probably get the Council meetings to be done by Zoom so he would have to interact less with people. But then, we’d miss the full effect of his grunts, sighs or evil stares.
Some very interesting dialogue here to say the least, and for starters, Article 1, Section 8 Clauses 1-18 spells out ALL the delegations giving to the federal government by the States themselves, and there is where you can find how much of the federal government has over-extended itself outside the constitution today.
Amendment 12, 14, 16, and 17 should ALL be repealed, while the current 13th Amendment be repealed, and replaced with better language.
The Electoral College should not be “Winner Take All” of a States popular vote it should be a true representatation of the Districts where they, the people in each DIstrict get 1 Vote Each, whereas the Candidate who gets 50% +1 is the winner. Democrats do not like this, cause there is seemingly more rural districts, and that means a more conservative electorate.
The 1878 Electoral Commission Act must be repealed, Congress has no business deciding for itself any such controversies between Electors. IF no candidate gets 270 Electors, then the constitution specifically states, Congress shall take the top three candidates receiving electors, and seal them in a Ballot, allowing the State Legislators to meet in their respective states, to nominate, and choose 1 Delegate. This means, the States then get 1 Vote Each in Congress in Choosing the President.
The Voters choose the Electors, and the Electors Vote for President, and if no one gets 50%+1, then the Legislative Delegates get to Vote that third and final time.
We are NOT a Democracy, we are a Republic in which utilizes a democratic process of Qualified Voters and their Representatives in Choosing their President.
Democrats are way to busy trying to remove Trump from the Ballot, something they have no business doing, since Government shall NOT be allowed to keep from a ballot, the nominations made by the people, they so wish to go on a ballot. The same is true with Initiatives and Resolutions – Government shall NOT come between the people and their means of placing anything on a Public Ballot.
After the Election, IF, they so choose, Congress can take up in the Halls of Capitol Building, a Public Trial which Allows Both sides to have an Equal Voice, asking whether or not such “Candidate” may be seated in that Office or Not, prior to them taking the Oath, Affirmation, and the Process Finalized.
IF, we have more than 1 candidate getting Electoral Votes, then it would be much harder, tougher to obtain that 50% +1 requirement. IF Democrats and Republicans simply play by the rules, they could in fact stack the ballot, to keep Biden or Trump, or Kamala Harris, or whoever from getting 270, the legal way ….
But they are trying to manipulate it by holding all these investigations and trials prior to the election, which is seen by the people as Election Interference.
Glad to see that Mike finally acknowledges the 14th Amendment. But Mike, would you repeal and replace the 13th Amendment simultaneously? I would sure hope so. I wouldn’t want you to do what Trump tried to do with Obamacare, where he tried to repeal it with only the promise of a replacement. Because I would hate to see slavery get a foothold in our country again during that “interregnum” period between the old and new 13th Amendment.
AND, I think Mike is right about Trump and the ballot, because I believe Trump first needs to be convicted of insurrection before the 14th Amendment comes into play. It’s like that whole thing with #MeToo and due process, that nobody ever wants to talk about.
But as far as Mike’s concerns about that 1878 EC Act and the Constitution, well, what Mike doesn’t understand is that the Act deals with someone who appears to have the 270+ electoral votes, while the Constitution itself only addresses the potential reality with multiple candidates and no one meeting the 270 vote threshold. Because the EC Act allows a certification to play-out, while the Constitution itself only explains what to do when certification is not attainable due to the fact that the most popular candidate only has a plurality of the Electoral College votes.
And as far as the indictments of Trump interfering with an election, well, frankly, I don’t think these indictments and any potential convictions before Election Day will really sway any voters. People either love or hate Trump. Plus, doesn’t your beloved, or I should say, our beloved Constitution call for a “speedy trial”?
( and Woodstock adds: “What?” “Slavery might make a comeback?”…. ( …. “Well, I know one person who definitely could enslave me and her initials are D.L. ….. 🙂 ))