Entries Tagged 'Rex Rolfing' ↓

VIDEO: SF City Council’s longest brain fart

rex-hat

“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.

YouTube Preview Image

Councilor Rolfing has the longest brain fart in the history of the Sioux Falls City Council

tex-golfing-papa-john

This cake tastes kind of oily

Just when you think the Sioux Falls city council is going to do the right thing (they needed 5 votes to pass the Dakota Access Pipeline at the council meeting tonight) Rex Rolfing gets confused and the City Attorney allows him to revote (with his FIRST vote they denied the pipeline, then he switches it.) Item #8

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.

What?!

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.

Moment of Zen; Councilor Rolfing gives first closing innvocation

YouTube Preview Image

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.

Sioux Falls City Councilor Hat-Hater Rex Rolfing gets ‘bumped back’

YouTube Preview Image

12/01/2015

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.

Hat Hater Sioux Falls City Councilor Rolfing insults a Veteran at council meeting

tex1-golfing

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.

Very strange.

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.

Should councilor Erickson be appointed the next council vice-chair?

Erickson_Christine_14-200

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.

Councilor Rolfing makes ignorant offhand comment, but I’m not surprised

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.

nelsonpark

Does councilor Rolfing foresee legal action against a fellow councilor

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.

YouTube Preview Image

Councilors Erpenbach & Rolfing riding the pine today

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.

The final financial reports are in from the city election

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.