Entries Tagged 'Rex Rolfing' ↓
October 7th, 2015 — Rex Rolfing, SF City Council, Sioux Falls
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.
Here is a discussion about ‘hat wearing’ in a Roberts Rules of Order Forum;
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.
Here are some ‘standards’ when it comes to wearing hats in public and military (or vets) wearing hats;
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.
May 18th, 2015 — Christine Erickson, Rex Rolfing
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.
February 11th, 2015 — Rex Rolfing, SF City Council, Sioux Falls, Sioux Falls Parks and Rec
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.
December 20th, 2014 — Rex Rolfing, SF City Council, Sioux Falls
WOW. The Rhetoric couldn’t be more ridiculous. Better put a hat on it, or take it off, or make people sit down . . . I forget.
December 17th, 2014 — Ethics, Michelle Erpenbach, Rex Rolfing, SF City Council, Sioux Falls, Staggers
Councilors Erpenbach and Rolfing missed the whole point of ‘conflicts of interest’ when it comes to the ethics of councilors last night (FF: 7:40).
In their disdain for Councilor Staggers (at one point, Rolfing told councilor Staggers to go sit down who was presenting his resolution from the podium, let’s talk about decorum Rex, that was a real classy move) in reference to Kermit’s resolution to allow councilors to be committee members in their respective parties.
Rex seemed angry when reading his statement, which he should be, but it was entirely misdirected towards Kermit’s resolution. I joked not to long ago, Erpenbach and Rolfing would vote against a promoting World Peace resolution if it was Kermit’s resolution.
Rolfing was angry about conflicts, but not once mentioned the obvious and blatant conflict Dean Karsky has with the Chamber of Commerce, which does do business with the city, unlike the party committees. He also didn’t even bring up the mayor representing Obama as a Democratic Party delegate. That apparently wasn’t on the radar. Nope, because Karsky and Huether are not Staggers, and let’s admit it, that’s all their NO votes against the resolution by Erpenbach and Rolfing were about (they were the only two to vote against it, because you know, the rest of the councilors used common sense instead of angst while voting).
To be honest with you, they looked like fools singling out Staggers and Erickson last night, when every single one of the councilors and mayor have numerous conflicts of interest that are more detrimental to governance in this city then going to a convention for your party every couple of years.
Some people on the council need to grow up, or at least grow a brain.
June 13th, 2014 — Christine Erickson, Elections, Mayor Hubris, Mayor Subprime Mike Huether, Michelle Erpenbach, Mike Huether, Rex Rolfing, Rick Kiley, SF City Council, Sioux Falls, Walfart
No big surprises. It looks like Walmart threw in only an additional $33,000 in the last week before the election. Some interesting notes to point out in the candidate races were that Kiley received only ONE individual contributions right before the election, $250 from Cindy Huether. Cindy also gave $250 to Tex Golfing & Michelle Erpenbach. How convenient that she gave this late in the game, knowing her name wouldn’t appear on a financial report until after the election. I guess she learned well from her sneaky husband.
Mayor Huether also had some interesting contributors. From PAC’s he got $1500 from two separate Unions, Citigroup gave $500, John Morrell’s (Smithfield) gave $1000, and one of the more interesting of his PAC contributors was HDR Engineering, which gave $500. HDR does a boatload of consulting for the city planning office. A very strange donation to Christine Erickson was from Kyle Schoenfish (used to be a Democrat, and is the son of Mayor Huether’s first cousin) who gave $125. Still trying to figure that one out.
March 23rd, 2014 — Elections, Rex Rolfing, SF City Council
When a politician has to tell you they are honest, ah, well . . .
March 12th, 2014 — Rex Rolfing, SF City Council
Wow. Sometimes it’s the little things at the council meetings that makes you laugh, cry or just scratch your head. After listening to Rex Rolfing’s stab at last night’s invocation you would probably be left doing all three. And to think, I am afraid of some of the extreme things Manny Steele says. Rolfing’s version of a council ‘blessing’;
“The US Election of 2012 brought discord and division. The results left half the nation feeling disaster that could have been avoided and the other half felt ruin was near.” Then he quotes Martin Luther, “Christians should pray for bad leaders.”
Not sure ‘WHO’ Rolfing was talking about, but I will say this, even if I am not a Christian, I will still pray for him, the mayor and the rest of the council, even if I don’t think it will do much good.
January 7th, 2014 — Mayor Hubris, Mayor Subprime Mike Huether, Michelle Erpenbach, Mike Huether, Rex Rolfing, Sue Aguliar
And the big winners are Erpenbach (over $9K and Huether (over $50K). Documents:
What I find even more interesting is the in common donors. And these are not just dead beat rich folk in town. Who says the mayor’s office doesn’t work with the city council. Besides Michelle & Huether double-teaming the termination of Owen, looks like they send their contribution letters to the same peeps;
Doug Hajek (handles a lot of legal work with bonds for the city, including the EC. Doug is married to state legislator, Anne Hajek.
Craig Lloyd (the owner of the largest development company in Sioux Falls and also the recipient of the most TIF’s in Sioux Falls)
Jeffrey Scherschligt (awarded a TIF and a taxpayer funded bulk head along the river greenway)
Dana Dykhouse (Head dude at First Premier Bank)
Michael Crane (developer and partner with Huether and his wife on projects)
Michael Bender (commercial realtor)
And the developers, attorneys & bankers don’t get what they want, yeah right.
I also viewed Rolfing & Aguliar’s financials, but did not post them. Neither raised any money in December. My guess that neither will seek re-election.
December 4th, 2013 — Rex Rolfing, SF City Council, Sioux Falls
Councilor Staggers has recently been pulling items from the consent agenda. During yesterday’s informational, he asked to pull the minutes from the last meeting (for a correction) and the Phillips Avenue Holiday Lights expenditure. Well that did not sit well with councilor Rolfing. He went into a tirade about inconveniencing city employees who might have to come to a council meeting and answer a question.
First off, the consent agenda is at the beginning of the meeting, if a department head had to come to a meeting to answer a question, they would be there 20 minutes tops. Secondly, most department heads are at the meeting anyway for other agenda items, and lastly, THEY ARE GETTING PAID like the councilors to do the public’s work, which may include attending the council meeting. If there are certain department heads and city employees that feel like they are being inconvenienced, I haven’t heard that. In fact for the over ten years I have watched the city council meetings I have only seen one person complain about how long the meetings are, a councilor, De Knudson. Rolfing seems to be crying wolf about a problem that does not exist.
Fortunately, councilors Karsky, Anderson and even Erpenbach defended the practice of pulling items from the consent agenda and the city attorney agreed to help with a better process.
Personally, I have not been a fan of the consent agenda, I think every item should be pulled and voted on separately, but since that is not the case, as Karsky pointed out, it is well within the power of the council to pull items from the consent agenda.