When I heard about this just a few days ago, I just had to chuckle. Surprises me that the man who ran for a second term and recently got the council chair position would be trying to find a way to slip out of his current job.
See, Rex Rolfing asked some nice GOP committee peeps in District 13 to put him on the ballot this Fall for the legislature (replacing Westra). And according to city charter, you cannot serve on the city council and state legislature at the same time, so if he were elected, he would have to resign the city council seat.
Seems the heat is getting to Rex. So much, that a guy who owns property in Florida wants to spend a whole month in Pierre in the winter. That will cool you off.
Well it didn’t turn out as expected. Sue Peterson got picked for the slot, with Alex Jensen and Rex being the two other candidates.
I guess we will have to endure old Tex Golfing for a couple more years, unless he just wants to resign on his own accord? I would be fine with that.
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.
Cameraman Bruce and the peeps say “Thank you Michelle!” Rex just doesn’t understand what Open Meetings are and why. Get over it Rex.
Cameraman Bruce showed up to the publicly noticed informal get acquainted council dinner at the District on May 24, 2016. Rex Rolfing was not happy and quickly showed it. Greeting Bruce with “No Bruce, not tonight!”
Well Rex, it is a legal open meeting he showed up, deal with it.
“Sorry, Jesuz, I can’t wear this hat to long, it’s disrespectful.”
You’d think Councilor Rex Rolfing was wearing a hat with it lingering that long. Oh that’s right, that is against his ‘ethics’. But changing a clear and concise vote 10 minutes later isn’t. And Mrs. Ethical herself, Erpenbach backs up his foolishness.
Not sure what he was thinking, but with an important vote like this, not sure how you can just flip on a dime? We will get to his ‘reasoning’ in a moment.
It wasn’t like he was asked if he wanted vanilla or chocolate ice cream, he was voting on a dangerous pipeline (that we don’t benefit from as tax payers) running under our property, I could care less if it is 700 feet 700,000 feet. Leaks and breaks can occur at any point in the line.
Either you are for or against, for whatever your reasons or justifications. There really isn’t a grey area.
After Mayor Huether chastised the Dakota Access representative for talking about something more then the 700 feet of easement (even though he needed to talk about the entire area and Huether was being a jerk about the discussion).
They vote 4-3 and go into the next item. But wait, somebody wasn’t thinking (mainly Rolfing) and towards the end of the meeting they bring it to a re-vote.
Wait a minute, already failed. If Rolfing felt he mis-voted at the time, he could have said that right away AFTER the vote, not 15 minutes later. Probably the longest recorded brain fart in the history of the council.
Then Rolfing says he didn’t understand it needed 5 votes to pass, so he meant to vote yes but was voting NO to prove a point about supporting neighbors.
Voting on dangerous oil pipeline easements is NOT a f’ing game, you can’t have your cake and eat it to. Buck up, think about what you are doing and make a decision, otherwise, resign and let some responsible legislators lead our city.
Rex Rolfing can be entertaining and aggravating. You choose. Our Council Chair in waiting often complains about men wearing hats and weird jokes but he is Rex after all. At the end of one of best, most engaging Council meetings we have ever witnessed, Rex had some new business to discuss with the room and city.
We never know what is going to spill out of Rex and he didn’t disappoint. Good thing we had our big kid clothes on or we would all have been paddled. Ah, we won’t go there…. Anyway…
After a night of some Council missteps, disappointments and respectful public input, our councilman Rex decided he had had enough and began to chew the audience out for calling the dais members to task on this chilly in in the chamber, January 19, 2016.
Rex Rolfing all of a sudden wanted to change the city of Sioux Falls employment succession rule known as Bumpback a few weeks back. With a simple question by Dean Karsky & some chuckling from City Attorney Fiddle Faddle, the plan all fell apart.
The only time I wear a hat is when I’m chasing gophers on a golf course by my wife’s house in Florida.
Rex Rolfing last night asked a Vietnam Marine Corp Veteran, William Mourer, to remove his MIA/POW memorial baseball cap before addressing the council during public input. The vet refused at first explaining the purpose of the hat was to memorialize veterans. Rex of course (who I believe IS NOT a veteran) brought up the death of his son while serving in Iraq (which I felt was in poor taste) in a way saying his son’s sacrifice was greater than this veterans.
After a tit for tat, the veteran obliged, but he was NOT happy about it. When he was finished with his comments (another story about how the SFPD isn’t really doing their job when it comes to detective work and investigating crime-BTW, where is the Tuthill Ghost?) he quickly put his hat back on and gave one of the dirtiest looks I have ever seen to Rex.
I was actually surprised the veteran didn’t go up and, well, you know. Good thing the doggy fence is there for Rex’s protection. I guess I would have responded to Rex, “Mr. Rolfing, if you want me to remove my hat, you are sure welcome to come down here and remove it yourself, otherwise, it is staying on my head.”
Rex has asked me in the past to remove my hat, and I also obliged, he claims ‘Decorum’. Well guess what – no such rule in Roberts Rules of Order exists, the closest thing is that the CHAIR (which in this case would be the mayor) can ‘ask’ someone to remove their hat if the hat is causing disorder and if they don’t he can either tell them they cannot speak or not, which would be very bizarre considering NO rules are being broken and wearing a hat is hardly disorderly, especially one that memorializes veterans WORN by a veteran. If Rolfing would like someone to remove their hat, he has to get that permission from the chair. And like I said, there is still nothing stopping anyone from wearing a hat while addressing the council.
I have read Robert Rules of order and the Board of Supervisors by-laws and I cannot find anywhere were it says you must remove your headgear in order to make a comment at the Board of Supervisors meeting.
So instead of just researching Roberts Rules, I also decided to delve into other aspects of when and where it is appropriate to wear a hat. Obviously, we are all not living in 1952 like Rex Rolfing, and etiquette has changed over the years.
In Public Places: You may wear a hat indoors (yeh… even a baseball cap if you absolutely must) in public buildings, such as airports, public lobbies, and crowded public elevators.
As I view this, Carnegie Hall is a ‘very’ public place, and Roberts Rules aside, there is really nothing in etiquette saying you should remove your hat in a public place (except for invocation and pledge of alliegance).
People in Uniform: People in the military, Boy Scouts, police and people in other uniformed organizations keep their hats on during “full dress.” Many other interesting regulations about hat wearing in the military exist, so hat etiquette is a required course in the military.
I haven’t looked into this totally, but I can tell you that it is very common practice for veterans to wear hats during public events. Just have lunch at the VFW some day, you would be hard pressed to find someone NOT wearing either a uniform vet hat or memorial baseball cap.
So was councilor Rolfing wrong in asking this veteran to remove his hat? I think so. First, because nothing prohibits hat wearing in Roberts Rules, it is okay to wear hats in public places and last but not least this man was a veteran wearing a memorial hat, oh and then there is that pesky 1st Amendment.
Is an apology in order? I guess that is up to Rex, because I also couldn’t find anything in Roberts Rules about elected officials apologizing to constituents after acting like a jackass.
The Sioux Falls city council has their leadership election on Tuesday (Items 25-27) at the regular council meeting. Outgoing council chair Dean Karsky will most likely be replaced by current vice-chair Kenny Anderson Jr., but the new vice-chair is up for grabs. The word is Rolfing is pursuing the position, since he has been on the council longer then Erickson. But for a multitude of reasons, I would prefer to see Erickson as vice-chair. I think she would bring more to the plate in the weekly leadership meetings with the mayor then rubber stamper Rolfing would.
I encourage all the councilors to nominate and vote for Erickson as vice-chair. We don’t need a wanna-be comedian as vice-chair who spends half his time in Florida, we need a lawmaker.
I left after the public testimony last night for a reason, I knew a majority of the council would get out their rubber stamps and approve the pool and ambulance service. Fortunately Med-Star will have their day in court.
But what get me every time is the continued sour grapes over Drake Springs pool, it’s one thing for the public to be misinformed about the situation at that park, but when the mayor and councilors say stupid crap they know isn’t true, (or maybe they don’t) it really chaps my hide.
Councilor Rolfing jokingly insisted that we budget extra money last night so we could fix the mistake we made at Nelson Park and build an indoor pool there. The crowd laughed and applauded. I laughed to, but not with you, but at you for your ignorance.
As our outside aquatics consultant said in their report to the city, there is groundwater issues at Nelson Park that would prevent us from building an indoor pool there, because of maintenance issues. Councilor Staggers even pointed out they are having maintenance issues already with the outdoor pool there.
So please, enough with Drake Springs already, your own consultant even said it was a bad idea. Thank God Stehly stopped the indoor pool at Nelson Park, just think of the millions we would be on the hook for now fixing it.