Search Results: Staggers

You are browsing the search results for staggers

Is the city overusing consultants when we already have overpaid professionals?

by

I know I have brought this up several times over the years, in fact, I believe in Councilor Staggers 2nd term (he is in his 3rd now) there was some numbers presented to the city of what they were spending on consultants, and it was staggering (excuse the pun).

You have to realize that the departments that use consultants, outside counsel and professional advice are the engineering, the legal and finance department.

According to the January 2015 salary report (DOC: 2015-Wages-January) Read this a few times and your stomach will churn) there are these many people on the payroll in each department;

Engineering; 73

Finance; 29

City Attorney’s office; 13

You would think that with this many ‘professionals’ working for the city in each of these departments they wouldn’t need ‘consultants’ to tell them what to do?

So why is that?

Well the obvious, they need an outside consultant to give them the answers they want, and if they get their tits in a wringer, with a decision they make, they can always blame the consultant.

But get this. If a consultant sends a plan to the city, let’s say an architect’s plan, and a city engineer signs off on it, if something goes wrong due to the plans, the city engineer is liable due to their sign off. Which of course doesn’t mean a hill of beans for the consultant or the engineer, but costs the taxpayer in the end (EX: Events Center siding fiasco).

Let’s look at some examples. On Tuesday the city council watched a presentation on the parks. The consultant charged around $59K. In his presentation he pretty much said the city was doing everything right, which is fantastic. So councilor Staggers asked, “So if we are doing everything correctly, why should we pay you to tell us that?”

Another example is the water rate increases, which the city was WAAAAYYY off on. Why is it that our water department can’t get with the finance department and figure out how much money needs to be raised for the enterprise funds to maintain water and sewer? This is simple accounting, projecting and algebra, but we had to hire a consultant (who was wrong) to justify the increase.

Lastly, it’s story time on DaCola, and Ol’ Man Detroit is going to tell you a story about a hole in the wall. Recently a former city employee told me about how their department needed a hole in the wall at one of their department branches and it had to be done to a load bearing wall. When they approached the engineering department about plans, they referred them to an outside architect who came in and essentially chuckled and said, “This is a hole that needs to be made, you need to contact an engineer.”

So I ask again. Do we need all of these consultants? Or better yet, do we need all of these ‘do nothing’ city employees?

Posted in: SF City Council, Sioux Falls

Events Center receives permanent occupancy permit last week, and more pointless ordinances

by

The man in charge of building permits for Sioux Falls announced yesterday at the Public Services meeting that the EC got its permit (starts in the middle of the meeting). Councilor Staggers questioned the siding issue. Bell told him that even though it may not be asthetically correct he said it is structurally sound. Kermit questioned the gaps and holes in the siding, and Bell said the insulation was also sound and would prevent any issues.

What does this mean? My guess is it will probably never be fixed, and if it is, it will just be a quick patch job. My assumption all along is that someone signed off on the cheaper method to apply the siding and that person/entity (I have no clue who it is) is covering their tracks. Once again, it seems the public will be left in the dark.

At the beginning of the meeting, councilor Erpenbach seemed to want to have more control over what food vendor trucks are doing in our city (they are mostly monitored by the state). I found her statements ironic and hypocritical after she just recently scolded the rest of the council about micro-managing the Events Center when it comes to ticket sales. She doesn’t seem to be concerned about citizens getting ripped off at a building that they are paying the mortgage on, but seems to be concerned about people dropping napkins around food trucks and being able to eat at 3 AM. Go figure.

I find her arguments about limiting the food trucks hours of operation completely ignorant. The whole point of being open at 3 AM is so they can serve food to people leaving the bar. If you limit their hours of operation, they just won’t be operating at all.

Posted in: Michelle Erpenbach, SF City Council, Sioux Falls

Councilor Rolfing makes ignorant offhand comment, but I’m not surprised

by

I left after the public testimony last night for a reason, I knew a majority of the council would get out their rubber stamps and approve the pool and ambulance service. Fortunately Med-Star will have their day in court.

But what get me every time is the continued sour grapes over Drake Springs pool, it’s one thing for the public to be misinformed about the situation at that park, but when the mayor and councilors say stupid crap they know isn’t true, (or maybe they don’t) it really chaps my hide.

Councilor Rolfing jokingly insisted that we budget extra money last night so we could fix the mistake we made at Nelson Park and build an indoor pool there. The crowd laughed and applauded. I laughed to, but not with you, but at you for your ignorance.

As our outside aquatics consultant said in their report to the city, there is groundwater issues at Nelson Park that would prevent us from building an indoor pool there, because of maintenance issues. Councilor Staggers even pointed out they are having maintenance issues already with the outdoor pool there.

So please, enough with Drake Springs already, your own consultant even said it was a bad idea. Thank God Stehly stopped the indoor pool at Nelson Park, just think of the millions we would be on the hook for now fixing it.

nelsonpark

Posted in: Rex Rolfing, SF City Council, Sioux Falls, Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

Robert’s Rules and Debate Decorum

by
I don’t think I am the only one who has noticed that the Senior member of the Sioux Falls City council, Dr. Staggers, has been taking a drumming from several of his peers at meetings, one in particular is always telling citizens about ‘decorum’ at the meetings and chastising them about wearing hats and the way they talk about public officials at public input. Well this is a little excerpt I think they should all read before the next meeting about the way they are treating Kermit during a public meeting.
You have to remember, Kermit has been doing this longer then any of them, including the mayor, and before that in the State Legislature, Kermit has developed a method of questioning public officials that sometimes can be effective. Let him ask his questions, you may learn something.
By C. Alan Jennings, PRP from Robert’s Rules For Dummies, 2nd Edition

Nothing stands to ruin an organization’s spirit and sense of group pride quicker than an acrimonious debate. When debate gets heated and personal, good members quit, and the antagonists generally don’t have what it takes to keep the organization going.

Nobody likes acrimony, and nothing need keep you from having a spirited debate while still keeping discussion focused on the issues. The following list contains some points to keep in mind when the soup gets thick at meetings where you talk about a dues increase or what to do with a budget surplus:

  • Listen to the other side. You expect the presiding officer to protect your right to speak even if it turns out that you’re a minority of one. You also expect the other members to hear you out and to allow you the same time as everybody else to get in your two cents’ worth. Give your fellow members their rightful turn. Listen to them — you may hear something that affects the way you think.

  • Focus on issues, not personalities. It’s best to just stick to the issues. You may disagree with the point, but you won’t feel personally attacked if everyone sticks to the issues.

  • Avoid questioning motives. It’s not a good idea to say, “Mr. Chairman, the dweeb who just spoke is obviously trying to raise the salary of the executive director because he wants to get the director fired and hire his own brother-in-law.”

    The dweeb may, in fact, be glad to see the director go, and he may indeed be working to set up a raise for the next employee, hoping it’s his brother-in-law. But when you’re in the meeting, express your opinion based on the proposal’s merits. Try saying, “Raising the salary of the executive director is unwise at this time because we haven’t yet completed the assessment of a performance review.”

  • Address remarks through the chair. One of the ways things can deteriorate quickly is by forgetting the rule that requires you to address the chair, not a member directly, during debate.

  • Use titles, not names. Things are more likely to stay impersonal if you avoid using names during debate. Refer to “the secretary” instead of “George.” Refer to “The member who offered the motion” rather than “Myrtle.” It feels a bit formal, but the idea is to keep the focus on issues, not individuals.

  • Be polite. Don’t get the floor and start reading some paper, don’t argue with the presiding officer except by legitimate appeal, and don’t do anything that otherwise disturbs the assembly.

Posted in: Kermit Staggers, SF City Council, Sioux Falls

UPDATE: The ‘Secret’ Ambulance Service negotiations

by

UPDATE: Here is the SD Supreme Court case City Attorney Loop-Hole Dave is referencing in the meeting: (DOC:Hanson v MINNEHAHA COUNTY 2014 26859 ).

As far as I am concerned, it doesn’t apply. Commissioner Dick Kelly actually went and toured a facility on his own (whether it was in official capacity or not), the distinction here is that Kelly didn’t tour the facility in a public forum, in other words, the public wasn’t invited on this tour, he acted alone. The packet that Med-Star was trying to give to the city councilors was originally presented during their appeal, which was a very public meeting at Carnegie (even though Dave told the councilors NOT to attend).

Not sure when the city attorney came to his senses, but as I understand it, the packet information was emailed to councilors yesterday.

To say last night’s City Council meeting was a little strange is an understatement. It all gets started with the attorney of Med-Star Ambulance and the owner of the company leaving a ‘packet’ for the councilors to read.

The attorney of Med-Star accuses the city of breaking state law by allowing a monopoly within it’s boundaries. Basically the city’s health director is recommending another ambulance provider for the city, but they have a stipulation in the contract that a competing ambulance service cannot do ‘non-emergency’ transfers within the city. Med-Star’s attorney says that is the sticking point. They also have complaints about the process in which a competitor was chosen, but what is more interesting is what the city attorney is telling councilors about their involvement with the process. Basically the Health Director of the city chose the winner of the contract and will recommend to the city council.

As for the packet, the city attorney is advising councilors they should not read it because according to an October 2014 Supreme Court ruling if the council is making a ‘judicial’ decision on a contract, like ambulance service, they can only be addressed by the competitors in a public meeting or forum.

Councilor Anderson brings up the fact that when councilors wanted to attend the public forum when the selection process was happening the city attorney told them not to. So which is loop-hole Dave? They can only gather information at a public forum that you tell them not to attend?

Councilor Staggers shared his frustration about how they are getting NO information before they have to vote on the resolution, and anytime they ask about it, they are told not to participate. Heck after the meeting, councilor Rolfing reprimanded Staggers for trying to talk to Med-Star’s owner.

I guess the city attorney’s mission is to make sure the city council is as less informed as possible before they vote on the resolution, and he is getting assistance from fellow councilors.

The city clerk though is ‘storing’ the packets until loop-hole Dave figures out what they can do with them.

There was also entertaining public testimony about taking your family Christmas pictures in front of the red dumpsters at Arrowhead Park. I’ll have video on that eventually.

Posted in: SF City Council, Sioux Falls