360_bullied_kid_1008

Let’s just say for now, I am done talking about the indoor pool. To tell you the truth, I was never to concerned about the pool itself as I was about the process. I think the process was handled horribly, before the election and right up until the council vote to approve the facility, and that’s what I want to talk about.

This wasn’t the first time that certain councilors and the mayor have bullied other councilors at meetings. It doesn’t matter what the agenda item or topic is, I feel that there should be a thorough discussion on EVERY agenda item. Let’s face it, the council makes some pretty important decisions about our money, they should do their jobs as our city’s legislature and study each expenditure very carefully.

What does this mean? It means that sometimes a lot of questions need to be asked, and that means there are NO time limits on this questioning. I have never found anywhere in the city charter that says the council has to finish their meetings at a certain time. They are certainly entitled to a recess if they are running long, or they can also defer agenda items to a later meeting, but this current trend of limiting public testimony and even limiting questions a councilor can ask has to end (I think the longest council meeting I watched was over 4 hours long).

Let’s take Tuesday night’s meeting as an example. It wasn’t the first time the Mayor cut off councilor Staggers and called a vote, it was even worse because councilor Rolfing leaned over to Kermit’s direction and said, “You have talked enough.” And as Staggers was trying to talk and being bullied by the mayor, the city clerk, DeniseTucker continued the roll call vote before anything was resolved between the mayor and Staggers.

First off, Denise fails to know who she works for, she is council staff, not the mayor’s. She should have suspended the roll call until Huether and Staggers resolved the testimony issue. Secondly, the meetings are called ‘City Council meetings’, not ‘The Mayor’s city meeting’. These meetings are legislative sessions for the council. The mayor is a part of that body, but he is only there to break ties. Besides being obviously rude and disrespectful to his fellow elected officials, the mayor is negligent in allowing the council to perform their respective duties when he bullies and censors them.

The irony of all this is that the council will spend hours each year scolding and publicly embarrassing business owners over failing alcohol compliance stings (something that doesn’t affect the city budget that much, and is mandated by the State) but when they are spending almost $20 million of our tax dollars, suddenly there must be a limit on the time it can be discussed.

Does councilor Staggers carry on sometime? Sure. Is he repetitive in his questioning? Sometimes. But I didn’t feel he had did either of these things Tuesday night. This was an important vote, it needed to be vetted fully. If I were in his shoes Tuesday night, I would have walked out on the vote, and not came back to the meeting until the mayor gave him a public apology. I was also disappointed in the council for allowing the mayor do this to him. Not one single councilor defended him.

I think there is no hope for the mayor. He is used to being the school yard bully at his previous job so he continues to do it as mayor. The NEW council needs to seriously look at changing the city charter/ordinance so that the mayor is not running these meetings anymore. He can sit in the audience in case he needs to break a tie or testify to a specific item, but he shouldn’t be running these meetings like a dictator.

Am I happy we are building an indoor public pool. Not really, but the community wants it, so it was inevitable that it would get approved. But the process that was used by the mayor and some city directors and councilors was abhorrent and possibly against state election laws.

If I was an indoor pool supporter, I would be embarrassed of how this pool got approved. Very embarrassed.

16 Thoughts on “The mayor’s bullying at SF City Council meetings

  1. hornguy on May 15, 2014 at 5:38 pm said:

    I understand where you’re coming from. A refresher in parliamentary procedure.

    1. You can hate that the mayor runs the meetings, but he’s not a figurehead for the council. He’s guy who runs the meeting, the equivalent of the speaker in a larger legislative body. It’s not his job to do what Kermit wants, or let councilors run roughshod over procedure. Don’t like this arrangement? Like you said, change the city charter.

    2. Staggers had already spoken to the question TWICE, as I recall. The mayor held Staggers up when he tried to speak the second time to make sure that other councilors did not wish to speak for the FIRST time, which is ordinary and customary procedure. Staggers then moved an amendment, a topic on which he would have been entitled to speak again had the motion not died for lack of a second. Which brings us back to the discussion of the original item, on which Staggers had already spoken twice. Staggers can move all the amendments he wants, but if they fail, it doesn’t entitle him to speak again to the original question. He doesn’t have a giant reset button at his desk. Staggers had plenty of time to hold forth.

    3. Had other members spoken, Staggers would have had a whole bag of tricks at his disposal to speak more. He can ask speakers to yield to questions, he can make points of order. Lots of things in the goodie basket. But it requires the floor be yielded to another member, and nobody else wanted to speak. That’s their prerogative.

    4. There was nothing to be resolved. Kermit had already spoken to the question, nobody else wanted to speak, no other amendments were pending, and there was a motion on the floor for passage. At that point, the person with the gavel is free to have the roll called. Just because Kermit wants to keep talking doesn’t oblige democracy to grant him his wish.

    Sorry man – I know you hate your mayor but the only person doing the bullying and throwing the tantrums was Kermit.

  2. Dan Daily on May 15, 2014 at 6:37 pm said:

    Home Rule Charter is the problem. The mayor has all the power and the council is just to make the city look like democracy. One man has our high limit credit card. He’s set on spending into debt until there’s no answer but insolvency. By 2018, city debt will be near a billion dollars. The indoor pool is small compared to what’s coming. The mayor and a majority of councilors want to keep control. For insiders, I suspect there’s major consideration coming from a few favored non competitive bid contractors.

  3. duggersd on May 15, 2014 at 7:41 pm said:

    I don’t know that the public wants an indoor pool. It was just a few years ago that an indoor pool was overwhelmingly defeated. The recent vote was as to whether there would be an outdoor pool at Spellerberg. A very well organized party defeated that proposal. I would not be surprised if there was another referendum on the indoor proposal. This mayor has a way of getting what he wants. He has the bully pulpit.

  4. R.B. on May 15, 2014 at 8:03 pm said:

    It is despicable how Mayor Huether treated Mr. Staggers at the city council. As I sat at that meeting, he was the only one who asked the kind of clarification questions re: expenditures that a councilor should be asking. It appeared that all the rest are” yes ” councilors for the mayor.
    I can’t begin to describe how short sighted this council appears to be. I am all for progress in our city, but not even being open to discussion of public-partnerships is terribly regressive. The taxpayers will be paying 19.4 million for an indoor aquatic facility at Spellerberg when it could potentially share one with Sanford? Do taxpayers not get this?
    It appears this mayor does not care one iota about safeguarding the hard earned money of the Sioux Falls taxpayer!

  5. Titleist on May 15, 2014 at 8:11 pm said:

    First, Mayor Heuther was polite to all citizens that night. So was the City Council. (Including Mr. Staggers.)

    Second, there is no City Council vote that I’m aware of that has been more fully vetted than the indoor pool issue (for years.) It has been the subject of studies, debate and popular votes.

    Third, did you think that Bruce was trying to intimidate those that disagree with him in his last speech to the council waiving his Petitions? When he follows through, which I’m sure he will, I predict that he will get enough signatures for another public vote. When the public votes on that (again) his position will lose by a large margin. Be careful what you ask for.

    Finally, the City follows Robert’s Rules of Order. Kermit Staggers’s Motion died for LACK OF A SECOND. Without a second it is not properly on the floor for debate. The final vote was 7-1.

    I know you disagree. Fine. The indoor pool supporters simply won the popular vote and the City Council vote. That hurts because you have so much emotional investment against the indoor pool. I understand that. However, I note that this is the way democracy works. Majority rules.

    Public schools. And now, INDOOR PUBLIC pools!

    Progress.

  6. anominous on May 15, 2014 at 8:23 pm said:

    Fascinating workings of a new political machine.

  7. 85th stuckee on May 15, 2014 at 8:54 pm said:

    Too bad a forensic audit isn’t done. It might show just how bad Litz’s
    goofy vote system is and why ballots were so orchestrated. So many times we
    have heard mmm say “trust the system it can be trying but engage your
    council”. Is he the classic bully? He either was one when young or is a
    pissed off victim. He enjoys control. How did he get the council to get
    those deer lost in the headlights looks on their faces. One might think
    there is more corruption on the council than anyone realized. Like when they
    rubber stamped Shape Places. They are following the obamacare example — You
    have to pass it so you can find out what’s in the law. Sad day.
    Mmm supporters enjoy the high taxes to come. Oh yeah, thanks

  8. l3wis on May 15, 2014 at 10:20 pm said:

    Horndog, like I said above, this is the city council’s meeting, not the mayor’s, also, Denise works for the council, not the mayor. You are wrong in your assessment, just go and watch the meeting. All Kermit asked to do is have one final statement. He’s allowed. There are NO rules except the ones that MMM and Erp pull out of their asses about time limits, question limits, etc. Kermit could have talked for another hour if he wanted to. There was no reason why this had to be ramrodded through, everyone was in agreement, we are building an indoor public pool, we know that, Kermit knows that, he simply wanted to discuss it further. To tell you the truth, if I was sitting there, and the mayor pulled that on me, I would have said in the microphone, “GFY!”

  9. I agree the mayor is a bully, BUT Staggers needs to stop having tantrums and know when he is going to be the minority vote. He knew he was not going to change the minds of any fellow councilors so why the hell ramble on and make an ass of himself.

    There is a difference between debating and lecturing to be sanctimonious.

    As said before: there was a vote, the votes were tallied. Now get the F*&K over it. It’s a pool not a chemical factory.

  10. Yes when I talked to him one time he seemed like a bully to me, he doesn’t like people disagreeing with him,I held my nose when I voted for Jamison.

  11. powerless on May 16, 2014 at 10:19 am said:

    mayor mike huether = bully = a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who are weaker

    city council = rubber stamps = a mostly powerless yet officially recognized body or person that approves or endorses programs and policies initiated usually by a single specified source

    sf special interest groups = groups that try to influence the people who run a government in order to help a particular business, cause, industry, etc.

    disenfranchised citizen voters = powerless

  12. rufusx on May 16, 2014 at 9:04 pm said:

    Dan – City charter is NOT “the problem”. Even if changed – a revered to following State rules – The Mayor is still in charge of the meeting.

    Lewis – The meeting does NOT “belong” to the council. It belongs to the people (by law). Every one there serves the rule of law. The council has adapted Robert’s RULES as their meeting rules – under the law. As horndog pointed out – the proper procedural rules were followed.

  13. l3wis on May 17, 2014 at 10:51 am said:

    “Lewis – The meeting does NOT “belong” to the council. It belongs to the people (by law).”

    EXACTLY! I am glad you finally see it my way.

  14. rufusx on May 17, 2014 at 11:28 pm said:

    BUT DL – we DON’T agree. YOUR claim is that the meeting belongs to the council. You and I also disagree @ the issue of direct democracy – which I am pretty sure, based on reading years worth of your statements, is what you mean by “belongs to the people”.

    Your “mind” on these issues falls in line with the classic conservative (NOT libertarian) POV. Everything becomes interpreted on a personal – or personality – level. Individual-level perspectives are pretty much irrelevant in this form of government. Individual level governing is the old noble/serf form of government. The American Revolution was ALL ABOUT nullifying that whole perspective on government

    The concepts of the representative form of government stand alone regardless of the personalities involved.

    DE-personalize dude – it’s the modern (18th century) way.

  15. Dan Daily on May 18, 2014 at 4:42 pm said:

    Rufusx: City does not comply with state civil procedures. Much of the problem is strong mayor. Due to the charter and city attorney revised ordinances, there’s no longer checks and balances. Perhaps Home Rule is possible but a better form of government for a city this size is democracy and rule of law. Another mayor can make reforms but revision is harder than renovation. Strong mayor is wrong when there’s a greedy power hungry person in power.

  16. rufusx on May 18, 2014 at 10:26 pm said:

    Dan – rule of law is NOT direct democracy – not in this state -not in this country. State mandated municipal government structures don’t have any stronger system of “checks and balances” to the current SF city structure.

Post Navigation