Argus Leader File Photo

The meeting tonight was fantastic, everyone was recognized, etc, etc, but there was two great moments. The first is when Kermit made his last ‘NO’ vote on making adjacent property owners pay for city owned property, sidewalks. Even though this was Kermit’s last question to a city official, they still couldn’t resist to mislead. Kermit asked if the city owned the sidewalks and the official’s response was, “It is public right away.” Some things never change, do they?

The other moment was the final vote, which had to do with the appointment of council boards. Quen Be De Knudson was the lone ‘NO’ vote on it. And it was her last vote. Oh, the irony.

Here is Kermit’s advice to incoming councilors that was published in the Gargoyle Leader today;

Automatically voting yes is one of the easiest tasks of a City Council member, especially when other council members are always voting yes. The real challenge for a council member is to think through the issues at hand and to ask probing questions of department heads in order to understand the topic at hand. When a vote is taken, always have a good reason as to why you voted the way you did; be principled and represent the people with your vote.

Please keep in mind that the purpose of our city government is to protect and serve the citizens of Sioux Falls. The city government must focus primarily on the needs of citizens rather than the desires and wants of a few.

Always remember that increasing taxes, fees or assessments might be a simple way of raising money for the city, but at the same time, these increases impose an undue financial burden on the unemployed, low-income families and those people living on a fixed income.

Finally, care, listen and use common sense in dealing with your constituents. Visit Sioux Falls neighborhoods and remember that you are working for the citizens of Sioux Falls; the citizens of Sioux Falls are not working for you.

And these two comments by Quen Be De, says it all . . . .

6. Remember that you are just a part-time city councilor and not more than that.

11. Get to know the new legislators and try once again to convince them to allow cities to vote on an optional one penny sales tax for badly needed projects across the state.

NO. You are a full-time elected official, whether you think so or not. There are some people that don’t make yearly working full-time that make what part-time councilors make. If you were volunteer, I would agree. But you are not. Get ready to work your tail off. And I had to laugh at her second comment. While her husband Mr. Quen Be Dav is bragging about balancing the budget you have De advocating tax increases. Funny stuff.

15 Thoughts on “Dr. Staggers last council meeting

  1. Dr Johnson on May 10, 2010 at 7:01 pm said:

    He’s not a DOCTOR!!!!

  2. l3wis on May 11, 2010 at 4:42 am said:

    Yeah, because his PHD is a fake.

    Go hang out some place else, jackass.

    Here is a great story;
    http://www.kdlt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=1&Itemid=57#video

  3. Poly43 on May 11, 2010 at 6:23 am said:

    This city will soon learn that people like Kermit come along not nearly often enough. I suspect we will now have a council, like our new mayor, who will spend our tax dollars like they just hold of a shiny new piece of plastic from First Premier Bankcard.

    And De? I will say this. She does return e-mails promptly…more than I can say for most of the others.

    l3wis, you’re on the ground floor of what happens at council meetings, both up front, and in the background. How much time do you think these “part-time” city counciler employees are putting in for their meager pay.

  4. l3wis on May 11, 2010 at 10:11 am said:

    Kermit has said about 20 hours a week. But that was Kermit. I think you could get by with 10.

  5. l3wis on May 11, 2010 at 10:13 am said:

    And would like to add that they get paid pretty good for what they do. I would gladly take $17K a year to show up to a few meetings each week.

  6. skybluesky on May 11, 2010 at 11:25 am said:

    Sidewalks are the responsibility of the proper owner…just like curb and gutter and a percentage of the actual street surface and subgrade. It is that way in nearly every city in the U.S. The city has the legal right to assess the replacement or installation of these objects within the right of way. Same goes with the maintenance of trimming trees or shoveling sidewalks. If you think that cities should cover those costs within their current budgets/taxbase…that is not realistic.

  7. l3wis on May 11, 2010 at 11:34 am said:

    “Same goes with the maintenance of trimming trees”

    In Kansas City and Brookings, SD it is ILLEGAL to trim the trees in the Blvd because it is city owned property, you can be fined. Not EVERY city expects the property owners to maintain there sidewalks either. Heck in Sioux Falls the city pays to have city owned sidewalks built all the time when there isn’t an adjacent property owner.

  8. Costner on May 11, 2010 at 12:39 pm said:

    I’m sad to see Kermit go as he was the lone voice of the people on the city council… I just hope one of the newer council members fills the void.

    On the other hand, I am extremely thankful De is gone once and for all. I’m half tempted to vote for her husband as Governor if he promises to take her to Pierre and keeps her away from Sioux Falls.

  9. Poly43 on May 11, 2010 at 12:42 pm said:

    “Kermit has said about 20 hours a week. But that was Kermit. I think you could get by with 10.”

    I tend to agree with the 10 hour “work” week. Show up for a Monday nite 3 hour commission meeting and MAYBE, and thats a big MAYBE, another seven hours of “research”. Of course I find that “research” to be just a little over the top since we have a rubberstamp council. Rubberstampin’ don’t take a lot of research.

    So MAYBE 500 hours a year comes out to $30.85 an hour. Not bad for a part time gig. Chances are they also take advantage of many of the perks fulltime city employees enjoy. Perks like say…dental care. For instance, the city has two dentists that pull down $264,000 a year between them. Not to mention another $155,000 a year for their assistants. Raise your hand if you work for a company that has “on-board” dentists.

    And this city council makes fiscal “sacrifices” by closing the city pools at 8 PM instead of 9 PM, eliminating a few hours a week of $8.75 an hour lifeguards?

    LMFAO

  10. Kermit’s face looks like the judge is presenting him with a bill for his internet usage or fixing his teeth.

    De’s dreaming if she actually thinks the Sales Tax plan will make it any farther next year than it did this. It doesn’t matter who’s Governor if the proposal can’t get out of comittee and moreover we can’t even get the SF area delegation on board to support it.

    You’d be better off gearing up for the B&B tax fight you’ll have with the West River bunch. I think a Governor Knudsen could actually form the coalition to get that done, but the Sales Tax?..no effin’ way.

  11. l3wis on May 11, 2010 at 1:38 pm said:

    They do get reimbursed for cellphone use and city business travel to.

  12. Costner on May 11, 2010 at 2:17 pm said:

    Poly: Raise your hand if you work for a company that has “on-board” dentists.

    Raise your hand if your work for a company that has “on-board” doctors, police officers, or fireman.

    I believe those city employed dentists are not for city employee use, but rather they are part of the public health offerings the city offers. Therefore, they are likely providing dental care to the poor and those who are in need of public health services.

    I knew a dentist who was a county employee for that same reason. His only patients were those who couldn’t afford dental care, so you can imagine the things he had to deal with.

    Surely you don’t have a problem with offering dental care to those in need do you? I might seem like a lot of money to offer a couple of dentists $130k a year each, but I’d bet that is well under what a dentist in private practice makes.

  13. l3wis on May 11, 2010 at 3:09 pm said:

    Costner is right, they only provide care to the unfortunate. But what I can’t understand is why isn’t dental care covered in medical insurance? It is a fact that heart disease has been traced to bad dental health and the last I checked, my mouth is connected to the rest of my body (and my bowels, as I am told on a repeat basis) so why do we need separate insurance for dental work?

  14. Costner on May 12, 2010 at 7:00 am said:

    Because two policies cost more than one. You also need a separate policy for vision care, short term disability, long term disability, life, long-term care, etc etc.

    That is just the way the industry operates because there is a large sector of our populace that won’t visit a dentist until something hurts. No use having insurance coverage if it won’t be utilized.

  15. Plaintiff Guy on May 12, 2010 at 8:26 am said:

    Thankyou Mr. Staggers. You tried to stand up for citizens and democracy. City tyranny cannot be defeated unless/until Home Rule Charter is revoked. The day the Munson plaque is heaved over the falls will be a V-Day like when the swastika was blown off the government building in Nazi Germany.

Post Navigation