Why the rich get richer; campaign contributions

by

I’ve known about this story for awhile, (I did the above toon in July) actually I was told about it this summer, and to tell you the truth, no surprise.

South Dakota’s tourism department awarded about $25 million in no-bid contracts to Sioux Falls advertising agency Lawrence and Schiller in recent years, while members of the firm were contributing to state politicians and a former state Office of Tourism director became employed there. But officials with the state and Lawrence and Schiller scoffed at the idea that the firm’s political contributions are related to the awarding of contracts.

They scoffed! At who? The taxpayer’s making their wallets fat?

“We’ve had great success with them,” he said, noting that visitor sales have been going up each year and are expected to top $1 billion.

Benda said the no-bid contracts ensure a consistent branding and marketing strategy to promote South Dakota to potential tourists. Allowing other agencies to bid each year could cause upheaval in that strategy, he said. 

And how do you know you wouldn’t have the same amount of success with another agency that was cheaper if you don’t put it out for bid. L & S is one of the most expensive agencies in the state, but they don’t win all the advertising awards.

Officials with Lawrence and Schiller donated more than $16,500 to political candidates from 2002 to 2006, records show. Most of that money went to Gov. Mike Rounds, and Breard notes that many donations weren’t made until after Lawrence and Schiller started working for tourism in 2003.

Mike Rounds is involved with this somehow?! GET OUT! He is one of our cleanest and most honest governor’s in state history . . . ahem.

You may or may not know I’ve locked horns with one of Lawrence & Schiller’s founders, Paul Schiller in the past. He has been up to this kind of crap for a very long time. While sitting on the board of the Washington Pavilion, L & S did work for the Pavilion (some donated, some not). Yes, a pretty obvious conflict of interest. In fact, Paul used to participate in art exhibits at the Pavilion while sitting on the board. Finally this year (with little fanfare) the Pavilion changed their policies when it comes to conflict of interest. Though I haven’t read the full language, it is pretty simple, you can’t participate in exhibits or provided services to the Pavilion while sitting on the board. Seems logical.

And as for Billie Jo, she has gotten everything in life by being politically connected. How do go from being out of college, to being Minnehaha Treasurer, to being head of SD Tourism to having the state’s leading ad agency create a position for you? Think about it.

Maybe the chickens are finally coming home to roost.

Posted in: Lawrence and Schiller, Measure 10, Media ⋅ Tagged:

The Survey Says! The EC Campus Book Club releases survey

by

Whoa . . . Detroit Lewis was almost 2 for 2 today in his predictions, but I still need a little more information.

First, lets go over what the survey said and how it was conducted;

There were more than 2,000 responses submitted over the two-week period of the survey, which surpassed the goal of the project. Lawrence & Schiller analyzed 640 responses to generate its statistically significant data.

First off, I find it interesting that Jodi had the lead on this story. Did the city or L & S pay her to put up this data? Not sure, but interesting move. The irony is I recently told a city official the only two people who have the historical knowledge of city government over the past decade is Jodi and me.

The above numbers are important. As a person who has looked at voter data in Sioux Falls and who votes in city elections, I’m guessing the magic number of ‘640’ wasn’t pulled from the survey taker’s butts. I can safely assume these are almost 100% registered voters. But the data might have also been whittled down into other categories like who most likely always votes in Sioux Falls elections, or special elections like the Events Center election (which of course wasn’t a legal bond election, but an advisory vote). I can guarantee these 640 special people were carefully selected.

So let’s move onto the data;

• Only 17% wanted to save the Arena. I actually thought that number was kind of high 🙂

• 54% wanted to see SF Stadium demolished, but only 12% wanted to NOT rebuild. I find this interesting because I still don’t find the value of keeping the stadium or rebuilding. I guess I don’t have a problem with rebuilding, but it has to be done with private money. But it needs to be demolished.

And then there is the ‘DUH’ factor;

Respondents also recognize the need to integrate more retail and dining to the campus to make it a more well-rounded experience.

This is the main reason why several city leaders and business persons did NOT want to build the EC in that area, and now we are paying for it and will continue to pay for it for decades.

Statema said the survey backed up many of the ideas the committee had discussed on campus development.

“It put into context some of our assumptions and highlights some things we weren’t thinking about,” Statema said. “It helped affirm the directions that we are going in.”

Of course it did. When you use a private marketing company who whittled away two-thirds of the respondents you can manipulate the results very easily. I really don’t believe the voting public as a whole support rebuilding a new stadium, especially using tax dollars to do it (but private money, sure).

So now for my prediction. As I mentioned recently I think the reason the survey wants registered voters is because the EC Campus Book Club is going to present one heck of a BHAG. I think they are going to recommend tearing down the stadium (with plans to build elsewhere in the future). I think they will use the space for a major retail center/hotel which will be a private/public partnership with tons of tax incentives.

They will either reformat the Arena or level it for more convention space. Either way, this has been a long time coming and no surprise.

My guess is that these ‘changes’ will have an initial cost of around $50 million. That means there will probably be a bond vote of the public (Mayor TenHaken has mentioned that he would probably bring it to a vote of the people).

This is why the survey respondents were probably selected based on if they are voters and what elections they have voted in. I would love to see the blender L & S used to come up with the magical 640, but I’m guessing I would never be invited to that smoothie party.

*It is also interesting to point out that when L & S presented these results they showed pictures of the debacle parking ramp DT and mentioned that the Arena and SF Stadium both lose $614K a year. When asked about these stats, the L & S rep said, “Oh, that’ a typo.” Didn’t someone from the administration proof read this report?! 

Posted in: Event Center, Sioux Falls

Events Center Campus Survey is government overreach, but that’s just one example

by

There is nothing wrong with online surveys. If you are willing to give up some form of security to help marketing companies make a little extra money, that is your bizzo. But when government hires a private company to do a survey that requires a name, address and phone number, then we have issues;

Today, Mayor Paul TenHaken’s Events Campus Study Group launched a public survey to gather input from the community on the Denny Sanford PREMIER Center Campus.

Available at siouxfalls.org/ec-survey, the short survey asks for input on the current status of the campus and looks for feedback on potential improvements. Survey respondents will be entered into a drawing to win one of many $25 gift cards.

One of the other key questions is if you are a registered voter. None of this information is pertinent unless the city and the marketing company (Lawrence & Schiller) needs to collect data on you as a registered voter. Remember, Mayor TenHaken is serving his first term in elected office of any position, he has a long political life ahead of him (I hope not). L & S also does political consulting for a wide range of candidates across the state. This kind of voter data would be very valuable to both PTH and L & S. It is also not needed. Simply marking a box saying your are a SF resident should be good enough for this survey.

But this isn’t the only place the city is gathering data on you. They are also doing it with the phone app for reporting potholes and other issues. They are also doing it HERE on the city website and HERE on the GIS website.

They have also gotten away from posting really any video on the city’s main website and very few in YouTube. They have been basically using FB as their main source to getting out information. Besides the fact that some people don’t use FB, it goes back to not having to have a ‘login’ to access public information. They can also track you via FB.

The Brexit campaign to leave the EU used FB to manipulate the vote. It is under a massive investigation because of complicated UK laws that deal with voter protections. Using FB to collect voter and citizen data isn’t some fairytale.

There is absolutely NO reason a citizen should have to have a login to get public information. Public information should be available for FREE and without sharing your identity.

While I could go into several constitutional reasons why what they are doing is wrong, the bigger question I have is ‘WHY’ collect the data? Why does the administration and certain people within city government, and now apparently private companies, think they need our home addresses, names, phone numbers, age, email, voter registration? What does that have to do with a dying ball field?

This is a ploy to collect as much data as possible on us to manipulate future elections. It’s very Karl Rovian and certainly in PTH’s ‘wheelhouse’.

DON’T sign up to receive data. Don’t fill out these surveys. And if the government comes knocking on your door, tell them they need a warrant.

Posted in: 1st Amendment, Mayor TenHaken, Open Government, Open Meetings, SF City Council, Sioux Falls

Is the Bid Review Board a stacked deck?

by

Not sure that Rolfing and Kiley should both be on this board.  Probably should only have one on it. To have former council member Jim Entenman (from “one of the 5 who stood together” fame) on this board is a safe play for the mayor. He may as well trade his Harley logos on his truck in for stickers that say “Rubber Stamper.”

Members

Rick Kiley, Sioux Falls City Councilor (Chamber Board Member)

Mark Wahlstrom, First Dakota Title

Jean Hoesing, Ramada Hotel

Nan Baker, Former Sioux Falls Arts Council Director (First National Bank family)

Steve Sanford, Attorney

Paul Schiller, Lawrence & Schiller (Heading up the ‘Arc of Dreams’ fundraising with Sculpture Walk’s Jim Clark)

Jim Entenman, J & L Harley

Rick Knobe, Radio Host (former mayor)

Randell Beck, Retired Publisher from the Argus Leader (Not sure if he is still employed by Avera?)

Tom Bosch, Avera McKennan

Mark Lee, Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce

Rex Rolfing, Sioux Falls City Councilor

Knobe is an interesting choice after the mayor’s past comments in the Argus (forgot the quote but someone just posted the link recently on another SD Cola story) about Hanson, Munson, Knobe, etc.. being investors in projects around the city while they were mayor as an explanation for the mayor’s shady business dealings.

I was especially drawn to this part of the story:

 “Huether also wants the committee to look at the potential for using this money to go toward big events, like Jazz Fest and for building projects.”

  “There are these new investments that are being considered. These dreams, like an Arc of Dreams, or some that are already here,” Huether said.   “Those bricks and mortar type projects are very important to the community and they’re important for our growth. But somebody still has to sell the community,” Schmidt said.   Huether says the city will hire a third party to moderate the review committee, which will meet a few times and make its recommendations within a couple of months.

Funny thing is the ‘Arc of Dreams’ head fundraisers Schiller and Clark have said this will be built with all private money, I see their list of donors may be drying up a bit, ask the State Theater how it is going for them. I knew when they announced that project it would only be a matter of time before they came looking to dig their hands in the taxpayer’s cookie jar. Also, does SF really need an ugly shrine that reminds people of a monument in Iraq or of a half-baked version of the St. Louis Arch, the Gate-way to the West?  What will ours be a Gateway to, TIF-ville?

Curious to hear who the city will hire as the third party to moderate the review committee, which will only be meeting a few times before making its recommendations.  Will their recommendations be made to the mayor or to the council?  If made to the council, there doesn’t need to be two current council members sitting on the committee then.

I look for this fund to either be pilfered to cover expenses around the city and for more self promotion of the mayor at the expense of its true intent, promotion of Sioux Falls.

Posted in: Sioux Falls

No Mike, you are bogus

by

You are gonna need a bigger shovel

Mikey the Great denies Pay-to-play;

“I don’t worry about the political accusations like that,” Rounds said. “They’re bogus as far as I’m concerned.”

There’s stretching the truth, but that statement is just plain ridiculous.

Lawrence & Schiller has received million of dollars in no-bid state contracts during Gov. Mike Round’s time in office, while also donating thousands to the governor’s campaign.

But the Sioux Falls advertising agency isn’t alone in a system that the governor calls simply good business and critics label as a hazy pay-to-play process likely to benefit the politically connected.

Hazy?! The only thing that is hazy is our vision after all the Bullshit that has been dumped in our faces by this governor.

Posted in: Governor Rounds, Lawrence and Schiller