Mayor Huether responds to councilor Jamison’s comments about ‘bearing some responsibility for creating a party atmosphere’ at Van Eps. You can hear Huether say under his breath while his microphone is on ‘Oh My God’
Entries Tagged 'Mayor Hubris' ↓
The mayor has a new picture of himself on the city website, and I just happened to read his BIO;
On May 17, 2010, he was sworn in as Mayor and captured a dream he had since the sixth grade.
So while he was growing up in Yankton, he dreamed of being the Sioux Falls mayor. Interesting. He also has some strange social events he likes to attend;
In his “spare” time, Mayor Mike enjoys running, tennis, working on his yard, is an avid hunter, and attends as many potlucks as he can.
I wonder what he brings to the potlucks? Rabbit Stew?
The Sioux Falls city council is scheduled to vote on banning alcohol at Van Eps and Tower parks at Tuesday night’s meeting (Item #5).
I couldn’t really tell you how the vote will go. I know some are for it, some are against it. Lately I’ve been swaying to be against the ban. If it is okay for me to drink at Terrace Park during a fundraiser like ‘Jam Against Hunger’ why isn’t okay for people to drink at Van Eps? I guess I started to look at it as discrimination in a way. Besides, the cold weather will take care of the issue here shortly. A ban at this point is already too little, too late.
No matter if you agree with the ban or not, I find it ironic that the mayor has been on the soap box lately supporting the ban. I have said along he had the power to implement this band two months ago, instead he installs more picnic tables and porta-potties, and did nothing but let the county, the PD, the parks board and the city council deal with the situation, very slowly.
Thanks Mike for doing your job, avoiding making the ‘tough’ decisions.
Where’s Waldo Huether? (he’s hiding in the back row-click to enlarge)
I find it interesting that the Ethics Commission would find it Unethical for councilors Erickson and Staggers to be committee members for the Minnehaha County Republican Party, but say nothing about Huether being a delegate for Obama.
Like I have said, I find NO conflicts with either. Huether serving as a delegate for the Democratic party for Obama has NOTHING to do with him acting as our mayor, just like the committee positions for the Republican party have nothing to do with the city council.
If Huether wants to assist his party, as do Erickson and Staggers, that is fine, and I find no conflicts. But there is a conflict. Why are councilors being treated differently when reviewing ethical behavior? I think someone needs to ask an opinion about Huether being a delegate, just as the councilors were. All is fair in Love and War.
As for Karsky, he really needs to resign from either the Chamber Board or the City Council. The Chamber works too closely with the council, it is way to close for comfort and an obvious conflict of interest.
The mayor said in last night’s meeting (FF: 10:45);
“We have never turned anyone away at these meetings . . . everyone has had an opportunity to engage the council . . . we have only asked they limit their comments to 5 minutes.”
After a citizen pointed out someone the city has filed charges against had to spend 6.5 hours in jail and could not attend the council meeting the night of their arrest to make a presentation because of being incarcerated.*
Mike’s above statement is the biggest load of crap I have heard out of his mouth. At the December 18, 2012 Council Meeting citizens who supported a joint election with the school district for snowgates were censored (20 minute time limit imposed on a group of about 40 people by then council chair Erpenbach, and approved by the mayor). If you do the math, that is about 30 seconds a piece.
As I have told Mayor Huether in an email after that meeting;
“You can laud transparency all you want but I’m sorry Mike, just saying something doesn’t make it so. Limiting public testimony to 20 minutes and making up the rule before the meeting started without informing your fellow councilors was blatant CENSORSHIP! ”
“However, in fairness to Councilor Erpenbach and the process, ALL OF THE COUNCILORS were notified about the managing the debate time or “20 minute conversation” at 1:47pm on Monday. Your comment about “making up the rule before the meeting started without informing your fellow councilors” is not accurate. Whether or not the Councilors made the time to review it or whether or not they wanted to be open and transparent or not to you and to the public, I can’t verify.”
I found out later they were notified in an EMAIL, not a phone call, and several of the councilors did not see the email before the Tuesday meeting.
Mike seems to think some of us have short memories, but his lack of transparency has been following him since day one. He has been trying to stifle citizen advocates all along.
*As for the citizen that was incarcerated for 6.5 hours. They were told a few weeks ago (over the phone) that there was a warrant for their arrest (charges filed by the city) and that they should come to the jail the following week to be processed. The charge only required a recognizance bond (you don’t have to pay any bail). Normally it means you show up, you get processed and fingerprinted and are told what you are being officially charged with. Instead, they were jailed for 6.5 hours for processing.
Who wants to see the Big Cat anyway?
Substance abuse? Homeless peeps? Rape? Theft? Assault? Drug dealing? That’s the least of MMM’s concerns when it comes to Van Eps Park;
Huether is also concerned about the image people get of Sioux Falls right off Minnesota Avenue in what he calls “The Grand Gateway” to our town.
“Fly into our airport, come down Minnesota Avenue, go down 6th and 8th Streets to our beautiful Falls Park and as you’re driving by, you drive Van Eps Park and you go, ‘What was that?’ Reality is it’s a highly visible location and we’re going to make sure it shows well,” Huether said.
As I have said before, this isn’t a hard fix, but when you have a city administration more concerned about IMAGE over REALITY what do you expect?
Since Huether has been mayor, there have been many instances of the city not being transparent with the public and the council and I see this lack of transparency getting worse.
Here are just a few ‘examples’ of the city’s (mostly the mayor’s office and council leadership) very non transparent moments;
- Holding a press conference to announce the building of two new Walmarts without Planning or Council approval.
- The mayor’s wife and him investing in TIF’s and other developments that are recommended by the Planning Department, a department he manages.
- Allowing Community Development to give an affordable housing grant to a developer who was chair of the Planning Commission, a clear conflict of interest
- Allowing Council Chair Erpenbach to CENSOR snowgate election testimony, which put off snowgate implementation for a full year.
- Mayor Huether was not required to list all of his investments on his campaign finance report, but other NON-incumbent candidates were asked to do so
- Two hearings on municipal election ballot language because petitioners were NOT allowed to proof the language before ballots were printed
- Asked the city to provide $500K towards a new indoor tennis facility without mentioning eventually his name would be on the side of the building.
- Sanford bought events center domain name before they were announced the title sponsor
- Spellerberg Park picked as location of new indoor pool before a supposed resolution on the quit claim deed
The EC siding secrecy is just another notch in the bed post for a mayor and administration that sleeps with a lot of secrets. And just think, these are the ones we KNOW about . . .