Entries Tagged 'Mayor Hubris' ↓

Argus Poll doesn’t bode well for Mayor Huether’s VETO

While not scientific, it still is telling.


Mayor Huether will own the Administration Building, and we will be paying for it (and so will he)


Another leader that did whatever he wanted to. Gaius Caligula, son of Germanicus, nephew of Claudius, AD 37-41.

I think this quote from Steve Hildebrand says it the best when it comes to the mayor’s leadership style (also, vote in the poll);

“This is typical Mike being pigheaded and doing what he wants to do,” said downtown business owner and political consultant Steve Hildebrand, an outspoken critic of the bond ordinance. “It’s another deal where he wants his name on the building to say he got things done, but they haven’t looked closely at what city government expansion will look like.”

Before I lay out what I think of the situation, I encourage you to watch the full press conference first (CLICK HERE). I say this, because too often people start commenting here before they watch a press conference or educate themselves on an issue. I’m not saying you are ignorant, but please, before you argue for or against the project, watch and listen to the mayor’s own words.

Okay, now put the popcorn away. There are so many holes in his pro argument I don’t know where to begin, so if I seem like I am rambling, I may well be.

To answer the overwhelming question about whether or not there will be a petition drive and initiative to stop this. Not sure yet. We are weighing our options and what legal assistance we can get. So far, city attorney Fiddle-Faddle has told councilors that it is not an option, due to some rule or law he pulled from the netherlands. The mayor also has said in his interview with Stu Whitney that he got the three NO vote councilors (Kiley, Rolfing, Erpenbach) on board with him before he vetoed the repeal. Ironically playing games behind closed doors, the same thing he accused the five YES vote councilors of doing before the vote.

As for those three who voted NO to the repeal, I find it ironic that they are the same councilors who never return phone calls to constituents, yet somehow have a pulse on our community enough to go ahead with this project. It is hilarious to watch these clowns tripping over their rubber stamps while shutting off their phones.

But besides these fly by night councilors, who really owns this project? Mayor Huether does. If I were consulting him for higher office, I would have told him to not touch this VETO with a ten foot pole, instead he took it on and hung it around his neck like a yolk, and further more laughed about writing VETO on the ordinance in Fiddle-Faddle’s office. Like “Ha! Ha! City council and citizens, here’s my middle finger, suck it!” How can a guy go from almost choking up and crying about the sacrifice of city employees (they have’t sacrificed anything, just followed your orders) to laughing about screwing over his legislative branch and growing government to the detriment of citizens? Not sure if Huether is seeing a therapist, but if he is, I hope he is paying them enough to see a therapist after your sessions with him.

But enough of my editorializing. There were many missteps by the mayor, his administration, directors and precious employees (those are actually OUR employees, not his, we pay their wages, and his job is to ‘manage’ them, not force them into positions.)

The mayor’s stretches on this issue;

• We have a low debt load. Not really. But even if we could afford to borrow the money for the building, why would we? Besides what the mayor says, we don’t need a NEW building. We could buy existing buildings, we could refurbish existing city buildings, like we did with city hall. We have other options that the mayor claims we explored, we did not. Why not have city employees that don’t interact with the public work from home? Why not increase technology to lower our number of city employees we need?

• Leasing hurts us. Not really. When you look at a $1 million a year mortgage for an unfinished building (it will cost us more in the future) leasing is actually a great idea, that saves us money and is good for the economy. There is NOTHING in charter that says we need to have a certain amount of employees and certain amount of work space for them. NOTHING. High ceilings and air quality is poppycock made up by the mayor and his minions. People are trampling over each other to have a government job that pays decent, has great benefits and retirement, and you can shirk all of your work off on consultants. Councilor Neitzert pointed this out the best during the discussion. We don’t have a recruiting problem, that is a fantasy.

• Officials are elected to get things done. Partially true. We elect them to serve us. That could mean building admin buildings, pools and entertainment complexes, it also could mean we ask them to hold the brakes on such projects. Huether’s delusional notion of ‘getting things done’ doesn’t always mean building structures and increasing debt, it could also mean restraint which takes vision. Salesmen don’t have vision, they live for the day, don’t care about history or the future. Huether has proven this with his statements about how long this project has been discussed.

• We have been discussing space needs since Munson. Probably true. I’m sure every mayor has talked about it. But let’s present a real time line. The admin building discussion was collecting dust in the mayor’s drawer while he hammered home spending reserves and borrowed levee money on an indoor pool. The perfect capital to spend on an admin building, but he squandered it on a building that will never break even or run in the black. It would have been the perfect opportunity to bring up this ‘NEED’ but instead his selfishness and love of special interest club sports prevailed. So now he wants us to BOND for a need. Typical of a subprime credit card salesman (not a banker). He also claims this building was talked about more then the Events Center and Indoor Pool. That statement alone is so laughable that he should have been wearing a clown hat and squirting the crowd with seltzer water while saying it.

• The administration building will spur economic development. No building in government has done such a thing unless you are a courthouse in a county seat the size of the wart on my finger.

• The previous council supported the building. Flat out lie. Which has been pointed out several times by the media, but Mr. Pants on Fire can’t help himself from repeating it several times. It was a tie vote TWICE by the previous council to stop this train wreck and the mayor broke the tie.

• We have had professionals work on this project. You mean the professional who designed the bouncing balcony at the Pavilion and the bent up siding at the Events Center which resulted in a settlement? Why would we continue to hire someone that is detrimental to the taxpayers? Time to cut the apron strings.

Huether proved today just how out of touch he is with voters and his city council. He is living in la-la land, and if he thinks this kind of behavior will bode well in a statewide race*, he has a rude awakening coming. So laugh about signing vetoes in the city attorney’s office while eating carmel corn and peanuts, because at the end of 2018, you will be ‘truly’ crying something other then crocodile tears while sitting on the dock of your ‘lake’ home.

*I have already heard of two prominent Democrats that would run against him in a gubernatorial primary.

UPDATE: Huether VETOs Repeal of Admin Building

He gives the middle finger to a majority of the council and citizens. His ego and arrogance takes the day once again. He claims that the city employees have done their due diligence (taking orders from him). Expect a petition drive and initiative to be announced today.

Admin Presser


Where was the importance of the Admin building when Mayor Mike was cheerleading for the indoor pool?

I asked this same question at public input (FF: 16:00);

Caller John asked (and re-asked a couple of times) why the mayor supported the indoor pool before the proposed city services building.

A good question. A really good question, it just didn’t need to be asked four or five times.

Which reminded me how the RR relocation project got buried when the ‘Build it Downtown’ peeps wanted that area for parking of a Downtown Events Center.

He did say he wasn’t going to reveal whether he would veto the Council’s decision to resend the previous vote by the previous council to approve the building. I hope that makes sense (he also said he made his decision, but wouldn’t reveal it yet).

Always when it is convenient for Mike and not convenient for the citizens. Way to lead with the time God gave you Mike.

Mayor Huether at Democratic Forum, July 22, 2016

YouTube Preview Image

Hizonor da mayor of Sioux Falls dropped by Democratic Forum on July 22,2016 to let us know all the stuff going on in town and how he is the center of it.

The group sucked all the PowerPoint program up and asked some good questions. As usual with Cameraman Bruce in the room we hear about how there is always one bad neighbor out of 100.

Mayor Huether set to give 2017 budget address on Tuesday

I wonder if he will make a decision on his veto by the time he makes his address?

Mayor Huether will probably veto admin building repeal

During Dem Forum today, he brought up the administration building and the importance of the proposed structure, he also ‘claimed’ the last council approved the bonding of the facility. That is not true, it was a 4-4 tie with him being the tie-breaker.

After his words today, I suspect he will veto the repeal.

He also told councilors Neitzert and Stehly that were in attendance today that they need to learn how to work together as a team . . .

I wonder if he will accuse me of being an atheist again?


Come with your questions, that he won’t answer, but it’s fun to watch him sweat;

• Are you running for governor?

• Will you veto the admin building repeal?

• Why do you want to limit public testimony?

Councilor Rolfing & Mayor Huether are planning changes to public input


The key word here is ‘planning’. I warned councilor Rolfing last night in public input that he should be cautious about moving forward on changes because he would have a big fight on his hands.

He supposedly cooked up his proposal in the top secret operations committee meeting in the basement of Carnegie on Tuesday. I am unclear what is all in the proposal, but I heard it involves ‘comment cards’.

The plan is to have each commenter sign in with a comment card and write down the topic they choose to speak about. Then the mayor or Rolfing would sort through the cards and pick the commenters they wish to speak by calling them forward.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

While I am not opposed to signing a sheet to say I will comment (it’s good for the clerk to have the correct spelling of the commenter’s name for the minutes and the record) I am not in favor of being called up like I am in 3rd grade speech class.

Picking and choosing the commenters is a blatant disregard for the spirit of free speech and the 1st Amendment. Elected officials are in place to serve us, not the other way around. I often say if they have a problem with that arrangement, do us all a favor and resign.

As I have reminded the mayor and council in the past, if public input is disruptive or offensive, the commenter can be gaveled at that time and asked to stop or even leave. The chair has that power and I agree with that procedure. Some people do get out of control and can be frivolous.

But picking and choosing who can comment and about what is favoritism and goes against transparency and open government as a whole. Something the mayor absolutely hates with a passion.

I know that some other folks in the media are aware of the proposal and won’t stand for it either.

Like I told Rolfing last night, I welcome the debate about changing public input, bring it on, because you are going to lose, and lose big time, and in the process you are going to look very foolish, if you don’t already.

In the dark of the night?

Will Huether veto the admin repeal in the dark of the night, or is he really taking his time to decide whether or not he wants to waste his political capital on a veto? He could also be just dragging his feet to as close to the October due date so the council couldn’t try to stop it again;

On Wednesday, Huether issued a statement saying he will hold off on responding to that vote, though he did not give a specific timeline.

Huether said he “recognizes the interest and importance of the project and also celebrates the due diligence and sacrifice put forth by the city’s project team and the city council.”

Don’t expect a press conference either way.