UPDATE: Chickensh*t vote of the night; Sioux Falls City Council Chair Christine Erickson

There are two kinds of animals on the city council, Reindeers and Chickens.

With zero explanation or discussion, councilors Selberg, Kiley, Soehl, Erickson and Mayor TenHaken voted to leave the 50+1 idiotic election practice former councilors Rolfing and Erpenbach pulled from their butts. While I understand 4 of the votes (elitists who want to keep regular folk off of the council) Erickson changed her vote from two years ago WITH NO EXPLANATION TO THE PUBLIC! I also found it funny that Rolfing Jr. (Kiley) was Chatty Cathy all night about the Philosophy of Rick but said nothing about why we need to keep this silly ordinance in place. Sorry Rick, while some reindeer can fly, chickens cannot.

She receives the Chickensh*t Vote of the Night award. She can CHANGE her vote if she wants to, but when you do it without explanation you move quickly from ruling the roost to just another peckerwood in the farmyard.

Congratulations on your ignorance and obvious vengeance on fellow councilors, because really without an explanation, that is exactly what you were doing tonight. Maybe you can get a job with the Noem administration? Not sure though if she would let you yell out “Oh My God” during a public meeting in your hot microphone. Funny how you had to call out God’s name when your personal business was questioned by a fellow councilor but you had ZERO to say about switching your vote tonight.

BaWch! BaWch! BaWch! but NO Cockadoodle-Doo!

UPDATE: Here’s her grand excuse;

Following the vote, Councilor Christine Erickson, who opposed raising the election threshold in 2017, told the Argus Leader she voted against reverting back to the old standard because changing election rules so frequently would be a disservice to voters and office seekers.

“It’s confusing for voters and candidates to continue to change this year to year,” she said.

Christine, I think I would have said nothing instead. There has been only ONE election since the rule changed, and in case you didn’t notice, the rule change wasn’t even used (Soehl and DeBoer would have to still have a runoff under the old rules). Most voters would not even have noticed it changed back. But nice try. Let’s call a spade a spade, it was a vengeance vote.



16 comments ↓

#1 Scott on 02.19.19 at 9:50 pm

Spot on! What a true crap show this meeting was.

#2 "Very Stable Genius" on 02.19.19 at 10:39 pm

Decent kickers change teams, but not decent Councilors.

Say by the way, when are going to get the subpoena results from Verizon, too?

#3 Jannelle Cain on 02.20.19 at 6:10 am

I called them out on it in my public testimony on this subject and that was exactly what it was a retaliatory vote against the councilors who voted to not vacate the street for Lifescape last week. Make no mistake there has been consequences and threats from that vote last week amongst the tension on the council and with the mayor, and that’s exactly why I liken this situation to the bridge to nowhere and Alaska funded by the federal government in 2005 which is considered Pork in a bill . . . so I called Bull on this Council on this issue!!!

#4 l3wis on 02.20.19 at 8:12 am

VSG, she needs to listen to little bro for advice once in awhile. HA! I have a hunch that even though Neitzert voted to change it back (TY for not changing your vote and explaining why) I do have a feeling he knew how Paul and Christine were going to vote. It was unfortunate he didn’t use a little of his sway to get at least one of them to vote yes.

I think the 3 ‘Outcasts’ need to write up a new city ordinance/resolution that requires Air BNB in Sioux Falls city limits to pay the bid tax. Let’s face it, there is ZERO difference between an Air BNB and a long-time stay hotel.

#5 disgusted on 02.20.19 at 9:29 am

Watching the sh*tshow makes me sick to my stomach the way the 5 members are so upset by the 3 they are willing to screw over the public in order extract their retribution. Is the mayor the spinless idiot for not understanding how politics works and only falling in line with his political masters as ordered ?

#6 Blasphemo on 02.20.19 at 10:36 am

Email city councilors with your sentiments, concerns, and/or support. Their email addresses are on the city website.

#7 l3wis on 02.20.19 at 10:50 am

I would agree that most of the time that is a good idea, but for some reason on this issue, the NO voters dug in their heels, even though they know it makes NO sense. Notice NONE of the 5 had a reason to vote against this with ZERO testimony or explanation. Because they know it’s stupid, but they just couldn’t let down Rolf and the Erp. Sometimes I wish they would just state the obvious, “I know this is anti-citizen, but I really don’t care.”

#8 Train Wreck on 02.20.19 at 11:31 am

Viewing this vote was like watching a train wreck.

All four councilors who voted ‘Yes’ (Brekke, Neitzert, Starr, Stehly) gave their reasons for why they were casting a yes vote.

Not one of the councilors voting ‘No’ (Erickson, Kiley, Selberg, Soehl) gave their reasons for voting no. These are individuals (particularly Erickson and Kiley) who generally have plenty to say before decisions are made by the Council.

It was so obvious they had reached a decision amongst themselves BEFORE the public meeting that not one of them would speak. As a taxpayer and a regular voter I was outraged. Councilors Erickson, Kiley, Selberg and Soehl you were elected to represent thousands of taxpayers, if you cannot defend your vote on a controversial issue such as this, then you do not deserve a seat on the City Council.

In addition, the way in which the Mayor handled Councilor Brekke’s request to reconsider the vote spoke volumes about how little experience and knowledge he has about Sioux Falls history, issues and politics.

Seriously, Mayor, telling a former City Attorney and current Councilor to “whip the vote”. Sounds like you are being mentored by —— and —– to aspire to a higher-level government job.

Voters have now had an opportunity to observe our new mayor for nine months. Mayor, the Honeymoon is over.

#9 Disgusted on 02.20.19 at 2:17 pm

I say it is time for a new form of city government. Bring it on. The mayor should not be able to even break a tie. He represents the executive department. The council is the legislative department.

Furthermore, there is an elitist attitude that smells and fills the room and is sourced from those no voters. Their intention is to eradicate their opposition through extremely well funded runoffs.

Lastly, regarding the four no voters, do not ever again vote for them in any elected capacity in government. They are arrogant, self impressed, and thus easily manipulated because of current inclusion and flattery by the money controllers in our morally declining city. MAKES ME WANT TO PUKE!!!

#10 Warren Phear on 02.20.19 at 2:31 pm

OH…MY…GOD…If you could not see this type of leadership coming, then YOU were not paying attention during the mayors race. I suspect Jolene might have a smile on her face today. I take that back. I suspect she is sad. Sad for this city. Her city. My city. Once again again, the one percenters win another another one. Be proud. Very proud.

#11 "Very Stable Genius" on 02.20.19 at 3:32 pm

Isn’t it also interesting that three of the four Councilors who voted “No” came from only parts, or districts, from within our town, thus naturally a minority interest in some ways, yet, they advocate a majority dominance.

To favor the 50% rule over the 34% rule is to actually indict the legitimacy of given districts having a seat on the Council. If a person should not sit on the Council with 34% of the vote, then why should a person only elected from a District have a say in what impacts the entire City?

#12 l3wis on 02.20.19 at 3:41 pm

I have argued for awhile that we should have 5 district councilors and 2 AT-Large (so mayor doesn’t have to break the tie. Or just 5 district councilors or 5 or 7 all at large. The council has such limited power and don’t seem to flex their muscles much on policy, why do we need 8? Might as well just have 5 like the county commission.

#13 Bruce on 02.20.19 at 5:32 pm

I have looked at many towns which the mayor does NOT lead the meetings. The mayor must attend the meetings but sit with audience. When council asks a question the mayor coordinates who from staff answers questions. Mayor is the city administer hired by vote of people.

Our recent history of mayors leads me to think a change. should be considered.

BTW, if there is a tie in any form of government the issues goes down to defeat.

#14 Matthew Paulson on 02.20.19 at 8:13 pm

Scott – It’s really hard to take you seriously when you’re using curse words to describe elected officials. It’s unprofessional and unhelpful.

You are seemingly unable to call anyone or anything by their/its actual name. Everyone and everything has to have a diminutive “joke” nickname on this blog.

If you truly want to be the watchdog of local government and want to be respected as a journalist, maybe you should start writing using journalistic standards.

Calling elected officials derogatory names because they didn’t vote the way you wanted them to just makes you look like an angry old man that yells at clouds.

#15 l3wis on 02.20.19 at 8:30 pm

I called the action of the vote ‘Chickensh*t’. I never said Erickson was a Chickensh*t. But maybe a reindeer. I recommend that you start from the beginning on DaCola, MP, my style is much different, and BTW, respect is EARNED, not granted on a whim. I do however like clouds, but I rarely yell at them angrily.

#16 Cloudy Daze Ahead on 02.20.19 at 10:06 pm

Anyone who watched the tuesday meeting and did not see a problem with the actions and attitude of the mayor and his councilors has their head either up in the clouds or up their butts

Leave a Comment