As expected, the credit card reform bill passed the senate. In fact, the vote was 90-5.

Our senators showed us all who really owns them by voting ‘no’ on needed consumer protections, and in fovor of the credit card industry.  Johnson was the only democrat to vote against the bill, and Thune was one of four republicans – all from states that play a major part in the banking industry – to vote no.

The CC industry has now threatened that  consumers will have a harder time obtaining credit as a result of this bill:

The goal in the legislation should be to obtain the right balance: providing protections, while maintaining the important role of credit cards in providing loans to consumers and small businesses. Unfortunately, we believe the bill does not achieve that balance and will therefore cause an unnecessary decrease in credit availability.

But really, they have to be bluffing here. If you ran a business that had both customers who paid on time and customers who were total deadbeats, which group would you rather alienate; the ones who bring in steady revenue, or the ones who pay sporadically if at all?

If you are unable to responsibly use a credit card, having access to one will only make your financial problems worse. Maybe going back to the days when only responsible people had credit cards will be a good thing.

I have to roll my eyes at the local CC companies crapping their pants about jobs being effected. If you can’t find a way to turn a profit in the CC business without screwing your customers over, you shouldn’t be in business.

But candidates and possible candidates will be able to ask for legal opinions about possible conflicts they may personally have. (Click on Council meeting, Item #29)

I’m still on the fence about this whole thing. I think that the councilors are shooting themselves in the foot by approving this change. If I were a councilor I would much rather have someone ask an ‘opinion’ about me before I voted on an issue then file a ‘complaint’ after the vote happened. I would think that would be much more embarrassing to have a complaint filed and have major ramifications if the vote was close.

I do agree the advisory opinions should be confidential and not released to the public, just the party’s involved so that it does not become a political football. I think that is a very fair revision.

I guess now councilors can vote on whatever they want without the public questioning their conflicts or motives, they are only allowed to question themselves, that’s convenient, huh?

An Argus reporter wrote about the vote, but it is as clear as mud.

The council wants to play hardball, fine, I’m all for it;

Advisory opinions allow the board to review a situation and determine if it violates the city’s ethics policy. Currently, anyone can ask the board for an opinion about the behavior of a city official.

But some councilors feel the process has burned them. They say it has been misused as a political weapon because a person who files one can then make it public. They argue advisory opinions should be available only to city officials who want guidance about their own conduct.

Myself and residents will just wait for you to do something unethical then file a complaint, if you want it that way. You think asking for opinion is ‘politically damaging’? Wait until you actually screw up and a complaint is filed. All you are doing is shooting yourself in the foot.

Board members have proposed keeping advisory opinions available to all residents. They would make them confidential as well, which would prohibit someone from asking for an opinion and then using it to damage someone politically.

I am all for confidentiality. Like I have said before, this isn’t about making things ‘political’ (even though everything you do is political, because, you are a politician) it is about nipping conflict of interest in the butt before it turns into a complaint. It’s all about prevention. Duh!

But that idea doesn’t appear to have much traction with councilors.

 

“The best way to stop an advisory opinion from becoming political is not to have it,” Councilor Kermit Staggers said.

So basically what councilor Staggers is saying is that residents don’t have the ‘knowledge’ to know whether or not a councilor is acting inappropriately or unethically, only other councilors and city staff? Give me a break – don’t insult my intelligence. Who was dead on center about not getting stimulus money or not needing to borrow for the levees? Not any of you.

Maybe I’m not getting something here, but why is almost the entire council and our joke of a Fourth Estate trying to stifle public dissent? It is no surprise that the AL took the side of the council on this one, they have been anti-citizen rights for a very long (and they will continue that next week when they raise the Sunday paper to $2 an issue. So will we get an extra 25% news? Doubtful.)

City councilors have said that advisory opinions aren’t always confidential and at times have been used for political purposes.

 

And they’re right to some extent.

The advisory process does need to be protected so that residents can’t make reckless allegations against any official under the cloak of openness.

What freaking part of OPINION do they not understand? No one is making ALLEGATIONS. They are asking questions.

According to Wiki:

An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court that does not have the effect of resolving a specific legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law.

Asking if a councilor has a conflict of interest is something citizens should be able to have the right to do (since we elect you and pay their wages). When you become a public official your actions SHOULD be under a microscope so you are always acting in the best interest of the people.

Residents already have a process that’s sufficient for addressing any possible ethics violations they perceive. They can file an official complaint, which then is investigated. If the investigation uncovers any merit to the complaint, the complaint eventually becomes public.

This is assbackwards because essentially you are allowing a councilor or city worker to break the law first before anything can be done about it. And if it is found that the person has a conflict will their decisions be overturned? Probably not. That’s why an advisory opinion FIRST is the way to go, it prevents a conflict. If they prefer the opinion remain confidential, fine, I can live with that, but don’t get rid of the process.

Not just a pretty face, but also a rabble rouser

I compared representative Noem to Palin, way back in the day; just read her BIO, funny stuff.

But Madville adds a little more to my original findings.

I find it extremely funny that a ‘retired farmer’ would take on Heidepriem. I agree with Kristi, he has a conflict of interest, but you may be barking up the wrong tree. West River vs. East River. This is just starting to heat up.

The Sioux Falls city council is still hung up on this crap. “How dare a citizen question my intentions!” The pure ARROGANCE of this rule change stinks to Holy Hell.

He (McKnight) noted the ordinance indicates that anyone can request an advisory opinion from the board, but at the end, a clause says only a city official may request an advisory opinion about his or her conduct.

 

“It creates a conflict,” McKnight said.

Councilors say advisory opinions are not always confidential and the process has been used for political purposes.

What!? When I asked for an advisory opinion I was trying to make sure councilors who had conflicts of interest would not vote, in turn PREVENTING anyone from filing a complaint. It was no different then the recent Sanford zoning vote when Bob Litz asked the city attorney if he should vote on it. IT IS WHAT IT IS – AN OPINION! Would they prefer they voted and citizens started filing complaints? I see that as a much worse scenario.

As for claiming it is ‘Political’ – WTF is that supposed to mean? That statement is so ridiculous, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. You are a politician, everything you do when representing city government is ‘political’ DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?! As a private citizen anything I do is not political, considering at the time I asked for my opinion I did not belong to ANY Political action group and have been a registered independent for over 7 years, I represent myself as a private citizen. Period.

This is just another attempt by our local government to try to silence public dissent.

I know I have talked about this previously, but I still am against it;

The group also issues opinions known as “advisory opinions.” Currently, members of the general public can ask the board to issue an advisory opinion.

 

But city councilors say advisory opinions should be limited to a city official asking for guidance from the board about whether a situation might constitute a conflict of interest.

Why?! Seriously! We pay your friggin’ wages and elect you, if ANYBODY should be able to ask for an ADVISORY opinion, it should be citizens! And since when is it ETHICAL to vote on your own Code of Ethics?

(Ethics) Board members worry the general public will be cut out of the process if they are no longer to ask for advisory opinions.

Seems pretty obvious to me. Pretty sad that the VOLUNTEER Board of Ethics has to stand up for the citizens against the council.

But councilors counter that members can still file a complaint with the board if they feel an official has acted unethically.

And this is the biggest problem I have with the code change. If we ask for an opinion FIRST it could prevent a council member from having a conflict - in other words avoiding misconduct and a complaint all together, hindsight is 50/50. I just don’t believe that the council is very good at policing themselves, shit, half of them watch TV during the council meetings, and we are suppose to trust they know better when it comes to ‘conflicts of interest’.

Give me a break!

Half of them sit on the council because it benefits there personal business and agenda.

Frank gets Frank with the American people

I guess we can all point fingers and crunch numbers when it comes to the economic recession that has been rocking us for at least 12 months and counting. But something Senator (D) Barney Frank said not long ago really struck a chord. For the record, I think Frank is also part of the problem but sometimes he says things that make sense. While being asked by an interviewer if the Senate and Congress are to blame about the crisis, Frank had this to say (paraphrasing) “Well, sure we are, but so are the American people for not paying attention.” At first, when I heard that, a multitude of things went through my head, like ‘once again a politician is blaming everyone but themselves for the problems our country has’. Whether Frank realized it or not, he makes a good point. We elect these them, and if we don’t have enough sense to inform ourselves before voting for them, that’s our fault.

I remember the ridicule I received for not supporting the invasion of Iraq, I think it was the first time I realized just how apathetic this country was. Sure, politicians lie to us (and themselves) and the MSM hardly gives us the whole story, unless it is about Anna Nicole eating fried chicken naked in bed. But as a registered voter who intends to vote, we have a duty and responsibility to seek out as much information as possible about an issue before drawing a conclusion. I summed up my opposition to the Iraq War based on just a few important facts. Bush had a horrible track record as a leader before he was even president and he stole the election in 2000, I already had trouble trusting him. Secondly, multiple UN weapons inspectors said that they were almost 99.9% sure if we do find any weapons they would only be in experimental or disjointed stages and most certainly would not be nuclear. I also believe that preemptively attacking someone when we are not 100% sure about the reason we are attacking is a failure in diplomacy. The list could go on and on. There was very little support for the war in the international media, which I have come to trust more than the American media ever since the run up to the Iraq War. As a nation we have a responsibility to inform ourselves when we may be suspicious of our lawmakers and leaders.

But how did this economic crisis sneak up on us? Well, it really didn’t.

When I bought my home six years ago, interest rates were very low and dropping at an incredible rate. I noticed ‘loan originators’ popping up faster than car lots in this town. I was fortunate enough to have a friend originate my loan, but I couldn’t help thinking at the time, loan origination seemed kind of like a shady business. Usually if something is too good to be true, it is. What accountability would a loan originator have after selling a bad loan to a bank? None really, and here lies the problem, excessive greed. The mortgage industry didn’t kill our economy by itself though. For instance, Wells Fargo barely got hit by the mortgage crisis, because they were wise about who they gave mortgages to and did not let greed change their business practices, I’m not saying Wells Fargo is perfect, but they are a good example of what and what not to do in this kind of situation. Other factors have been inflation, gas prices and the industrial military complex Bush and Cheney helped to create, which I could never figure out. You can train a soldier how to shoot a M-16 in a combat situation, but you can’t train them how to peel a potato? The sad part is the contracted kitchen help is probably making more money per hour washing soldiers undies and cooking tators than the soldiers that are getting shot at.

So why did politicians and the MSM shut us out for so long about the recession? I have speculated several reasons.  I started to make cuts in spending about a year ago because of trends I saw in my personal finances. I was wondering when the politicians were going to fess up about the worsening economy. Not until it became an important campaign issue I guess. One reason may be the old standby excuse, ‘We didn’t want to sound negative.’ Since when is misleading and lying to people positive? I have often been accused of being negative and an angry little man for telling people the truth, but when I am right I never get a ‘Thanks for being honest with me.’ I’m still waiting for my friends who taunted me about not supporting the Iraq War to tell me how right I was. I guess people like being lied to, especially with a smile, why do you think Mike Rounds still enjoys such high approval ratings?

Another glaring reason was that it was an election year. Do you think politicians are going to tell us the economy is going in the toilet if they are trying to get elected? Who would contribute to their campaigns if a recession was approaching (or was already here)? You could say the same about the Fourth Estate. During an election year many media and advertising outlets make 30-50% of their profits from political advertising alone, do you think they would jeopardize that revenue source by telling people button down the hatches?

But as Frank says, the citizens are still responsible for what happens in this country. There are plenty of dependable alternative independent media sources to get information from. You can also call, write, text, Twitter or email your representatives. You can attend your local county and city meetings and most importantly you can ask questions and demand answers. Your first amendment rights guarantee it. I may sound like a negative angry little man, but at least I am informed before I walk into the voting booth and in the end, that’s what will make our country better.

Don’t let greed and apathy destroy this country further, get informed and get involved. Knowledge is one of the most positive things you could ever give yourself and it’s FREE.

I compared apples to apples and all I can say is, damn right it is!

I first want to say that Sioux Falls has an amazing park system. But is it all useful? We continue to build new parks when we are not using the current parks we have to capacity. Take Yankton Trail for instance. Rumor has it the city only allows the park for competition, not to be used as a practice facility. Why is that? I have even heard stories of police intimidation if you are using certain parks just for recreation instead of competition. What Up?!

This summer I rode my bike to work almost every day on the bike trail. I found the trail to be well maintained and frequently used, I also found our parks are over manicured, watered, mowed, and maintained (what’s the point of mowing ½” of grass!?).

Why does the parks department and budget continue to grow at such a rapid rate, and what is the solution to slow it down a bit to an acceptable inflationary level? I suggest we stop building new parks for at least two years and do an extensive study on how much our parks are used by monitoring their usages throughout the week and seasons. If certain parks have little usage – we sell off the land. I also suggest we build smaller parks that are easier and less expensive to maintain. I also think we should reduce the size of some of our larger parks. One thing I observed this summer is that smaller parks are more populated. Not sure why? Maybe people feel safer?

I decided to look at another city similar to ours in climate, size and growth. Billings, Montana is two-thirds the size in population to Sioux Falls.

Billings spends $5,714 a year per developed acre of parkland.

Sioux Falls spends $11,546 a year per developed acre of parkland.

Can you imagine if it cost you that much to maintain your lawn every year! Even if you feritlized, watered and paid a lawn service for an acre of land you are still looking at about $2,200

You must also remember, the $33 Million is the 2009 operating budget ONLY! This does not include building and developing new park land, that is in a separate budget called the CIP.

Sioux Falls maintains 4.8 times more parkland than Billings and even if you adjust for the population difference Sioux Falls still maintains 3.22 times more parkland than Billings. Sioux Falls budget is 9.78 times larger than Billings and 6.52 times larger when you adjust for population – Holy Crap! This is pretty amazing considering the similarities between Sioux Falls and Billings. If you go to Billings Parks and Recreation page you will see that they also offer as many activities as Sioux Falls. In Sioux Falls defense we charge visitors a tax to buy stuff here to help fund our parks. In Billings they are not so lucky, they only have a state income tax to work with. Not only does Billings maintain developed acres on such a small budget they also maintain over 2,000 acres of undeveloped parks but they also irrigate their parks like we do, from the river. When I spoke to one of the park’s directors about his operating budget, he said they were underfunded (well duh) but when I told him our budget, he was dumbfounded, as was I when I heard his budget.

What is the problem? My guess is Sioux Falls is paying too much for outside services and over-maintaining. It’s not like Billings is a couple bucks short of us on funding, they are millions and millions of dollars shorter than us. It tells me that Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation is in a constant state of overspending. We can have all the same things we have now, we just need to start shopping at the dollar store.

How has the Parks budget grown to such a massive level without some oversight? That’s just it, there is no oversight or accountability. The Parks board meetings are not televised or broadcast on the city website. The other problem is that the Parks board is all volunteer. I think they need to be elected officials. With a $33 million dollar operating budget a year, they operate almost as a separate entity from the city. In fact, up until a few years ago, the Parks and Rec department made their own decisions on public art, not consulting the Mayor, Council or Visual Arts Commission before placing public art. Kinda takes the word ‘Public’ out of ‘Public Art’.

Once we ask for accountability from our Parks and Rec department not only will you see incredible savings to taxpayers, you will see more CITIZEN friendly parks.

eth⋅ics

–plural noun

1.	(used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

 

2.	the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.

 

3.	moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

 

 

Did the Rounds administration do anything illegal in reference to the pay-to-play no-bid contract controversy? I don’t see that, and neither did anyone in the RCJ columns. But just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical.

Do some of us do unethical things, whether it’s in our personal or professional lives? Sure we do. But I also think there are different levels of it.

Besides government other organizations provide a code ethics. Though subject to interpretation (as I found out when I asked for an ethics opinion about a couple Sioux Falls city councilors) for the most part they keep members on the up and up.

Last year the Washington Pavilion of Arts and Sciences (finally) changed their code of ethics barring board members from participating in exhibits or providing professional services to the Pavilion for payment. This didn’t happen overnight. It was a long drawn out process after years of complaints about a certain board member by not just me but several other artists and advocates in our community. In my opinion it took to damn long and I think the only reason it happened was this board member no longer serves (but I could be mistaken).

The irony of all this was that this person was one of the founders of the ad agency that got the lucrative no-bid tourism contracts from the state. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

In one attack on me in a letter to the editor he vehemently opposed openness at taxpayer funded institutions like the Pavilion. No surprise looking back now, huh?

Bill Clinton cheated on his wife in the White House. Over $40 million was spent trying to impeach him for lying about it. It was unethical (the cheating part) and probably cost Al Gore a lot of votes (even though he still won).

Last year we had to endure the Sutton hearings because the legislature thought it was unethical for an adult male to climb into bed with another adult male. Maybe it was, even though the DCI could not find proof a crime was committed. Sutton was censured.

Mike Rounds gives not just a handful of no-bid contracts to campaign contributors, but hundreds and hundreds of them and there isn’t an ethics investigation?

There should be.

Maybe Rounds will be cleared of any unethical practices, maybe an investigation will find something illegal was done. Who knows, but it’s worth the effort.

No one should defend cronyism, whether you are a Rep, Dem or Indy, even if it is being practiced legally.

Even if you don’t have a problem with the ethics of what Mike did, I would think fiscal conservatives would take issue with the irresponsibility of no-bid contracts. And if the State Legislature is truly made up of mostly conservatives the law would have been changed years ago.

I don’t think it is. We have become a Big Government state, and that is why most politicians just turn away from this issue.

So is Rounds a criminal? No way. Is he a sneak? I think so, but an ethics investigation would be the only true measure.

I hope some legislators have the guts to pursue one. It’s way past due.