VOTE ‘NO’ on School Bond Robo-Call

I guess this Robo-Call went out this afternoon. I guess better late than never.

A task force member also posted a video on FB today telling people to vote NO because of the bait and switch by the SFSD. I know exactly what she is talking about. In meeting #3 they told the Task Force they would have options to present in meeting #4 and when they got there those options were OFF the table and only one remained for $190 million.

Please remember the Sioux Falls School District already has two property tax opt outs.

Posted by Mary Scheel-Buysse on Monday, September 17, 2018


#1 Matthew Paulson on 09.17.18 at 7:52 pm

“Citizens for Integrity”?

Is that the same “Citizens for Integrity” as the Facebook group run under the same name by Robert Mehling?

#2 Matthew Paulson on 09.17.18 at 8:01 pm

I’m told Citizens for Integrity is Bruce Danielson’s Group. Can you confirm that, Scott?

#3 Mosquito Man on 09.17.18 at 8:12 pm

I kept why is there no opposition.

#4 l3wis on 09.17.18 at 8:44 pm

I also find it ironic that Councilor Erickson and Mayor TenHaken support the school bond. Paul’s kids go to a private Christian school and Erickson’s kid goes to All City, a mostly white school that is run like a private school.

#5 D@ily Spin on 09.17.18 at 8:45 pm

Likely, the 190mil will pass. I recognize the deception as do a few others. We’re a minority. If the turnout is seniors as usual, they’ll vote no. In this case there will be an unusual amount of parents and teachers who vote. It’s good they finally come to the polls. A slower schools buildout is needed but this is a fundamentally unrecognized force fed capital corruption. Oh well, my future will be as a minimal registration RV dweller who doesn’t pay property/school taxes. Maybe Sioux Falls will become homes with wheels once the rest of the middle class gets priced out of town.

#6 l3wis on 09.17.18 at 8:46 pm

I still think it will pass with about 62% of the vote. Most people have been hoodwinked by the media and the BS about $2 a month tax increases. A lot of people just put on their rose colored glasses and think everything is hunky dory. You know who wins the most when this passes? Not the kids . . . the bond investors. They are laughing all the way to the bank.

#7 D@ily Spin on 09.17.18 at 8:50 pm

Gypsys, tramps, and thieves but in the night the School Board comes around.

#8 Lemming on 09.17.18 at 9:05 pm

Break out the checkbooks folks, you will be paying this bill for a long time

#9 Matthew Paulson on 09.17.18 at 9:50 pm

Scott – You previously claimed you didn’t know who was behind robocalls. Were you somehow not aware that your BFF Bruce is behind them? I think you have some explaining to do.

#10 Greg Neitzert on 09.17.18 at 9:51 pm

One correction – my daughter goes to Sioux Falls public schools, always has, and the school that she is assigned to. She does not attend a private school. I don’t have anything against private schools by the way, but for the record she attends the public.

#11 l3wis on 09.17.18 at 9:56 pm

Thanks Greg, I thought you had told me once she went to the Lutheran School. My apologies.

#12 l3wis on 09.17.18 at 10:02 pm

MP- Give it up already. You will have to wait for the finance reports. I can almost F’ing guarantee the amount of money CFI spent is about 1% of what Vote Yes Spent. I can’t wait to expose the monied elite who pushed this cash cow for bond investors and contractors.

#13 Matthew Paulson on 09.17.18 at 10:19 pm

At least the people in favor of the bond issue are being transparent about their support. We recorded videos and publicly advocated for our cause transparently and using our own identities.

Apparently no one, outside of Kermit Staggers, is willing to own up behind being behind the “vote against” robocalls.

You posted on September 1st that “I have no idea” who is behind the robocalls and “if anyone could put me in touch with them that would be great.” Can you tell us with a straight face you didn’t know your buddy Bruce was behind these calls? What are you trying to hide here?

Maybe the robocalls weren’t done in accordance with the law and you want to make yourself look uninvolved in the matter?

#14 l3wis on 09.17.18 at 10:48 pm

MP – please share the online link to who is funding the VOTE YES campaign.

#15 JKC on 09.17.18 at 11:32 pm

“Operation Dr. ‘No'”

#16 The Public on 09.18.18 at 9:03 am

I attended Task Force meetings 2, 3, and 4.

What TF member, Mary Scheel-Buysee, is saying about the process that took place is true.

Thank you for having the courage to say so.

Dr. Maher, Superintentdent

Doug Morrison, Director of Research Innovation & Accountability

Todd Vik, Business Manager, and

Jeff Kreiter, Director of Operational Services

orchestrated the meetings.

As Ms. Scheel-Buysee stated, they started out with the figure of 278m.

They told the TF they would be PUBLICLY discussing options regarding the total amount of the bond they would present to the taxpayers. That never happened!

The District presented the 190m figure to the TF and there was NEVER any discussion about options.

This is about a community that needs to deal with increasing enrollment. We need a vote that is about NEEDS not WANTS.

The vote today includes 40m dollars worth of ‘Extras”. The District presented these proposals as ‘equity’ projects.

At a Board work session (after the TF meetings were completed), Jeff Kreiter made the statement that when one school gets something, it becomes the ‘norm’ and then other schools want the same. This is their idea of what equity is and involves the 40m Slush Fund they have included in today’s bond vote.

After seeing the process first-hand, I am voting NO today.

#17 Renters on 09.18.18 at 10:43 am

For those registered voters who do not own property but are renting, don’t make the mistake of thinking this vote will not impact you.

Your landlord will not absorb the cost of the property tax increases they will incur at tonite’s City Council meeting (2.1%) or the increase incurred if the SFSD’s 190m bond issue passes today.

The cost will be passed on to you in the form of increased rent.

#18 T on 09.18.18 at 11:04 am

What an uneducated old hag who doesn’t support our children. Apparently she wants more uneducated people running around. We need resources for our schools and teachers. Vote YES!

#19 T on 09.18.18 at 11:26 am

Again, you like to pick and choose which comments to post. Nice of you to censor your blog.

#20 l3wis on 09.18.18 at 11:54 am

If you are ANON and making stupid comments, yes, you get deleted. Anytime you want to use your real name to back your name calling, I am all for it, chickenshit.

#21 Matthew Paulson on 09.18.18 at 12:52 pm

To be fair to Scott, he has approved every comment I’ve ever posted on this site. Case in point, he promptly approved my comments on this thread without any edits.

Granted, I use my real name because I think comments are worth the weight of who’s willing to stand behind them. If nobody is willing to put their name to a comment, it’s hard to take it that seriously.

#22 T on 09.18.18 at 1:09 pm

Who’s Detroit Lewis? Doesn’t sound like a real name.

#23 l3wis on 09.18.18 at 1:25 pm

Click on ‘about’ at the top of the page and you can learn all about me;

#24 JKC on 09.18.18 at 2:09 pm

TenHaken says “Yes,” while Staggers says “No.” So what is a good Republican to do?

#25 DAN on 09.18.18 at 2:43 pm

I appreciate your posts on the vote. I had no idea regarding much of what you posted. While I voted yes on the bond issue, there were several things that did concern me in addition to what you have written.

The first was that to find the polling places you had to go online. That is assuming everyone has access to and knows how to use a computer. Many elderly voters do not have this access.

The second was that when I drove to my polling place this morning there were no “vote here” signs on the street or anywhere clearly visible. The signs were near the entrance and unless you drove into the parking lot you could not see them.

Minor points, but….thank you for your blog.

#26 Stiles Bitchley on 09.18.18 at 3:11 pm

I voted NO but only because HELL NO was not an option on the ballot. The SFSD has always done a piss-poor job fiscally and everything about this bond issue was done right up to that standard. My own unscientific exit polling indicated a high number of gummers voting. Hope that leads to an overwhelming defeat of the bond issue and a victory for SFSD taxpayers.

#27 l3wis on 09.18.18 at 3:16 pm

Stiles, I hope you are right, but Vernon Brown said last night on the news that only the ‘progressive’ elderly are voting and they support it. I know, I laughed to.

#28 Stiles Bitchley on 09.18.18 at 4:45 pm

“Progressive Elderly”? Isn’t that the same as “Aging Hippie”?

#29 JKC on 09.18.18 at 7:50 pm

“Progressive Elderly” is “PC” for growing old quickly.

#30 Blasphemo on 09.18.18 at 8:34 pm

Dear “T”: nice selective perception you’re practicing, ignoring the clear evidence that this a wasteful measure foisted on the public using school age children as shields to cover hidden agendas. The objection is not against adding schools as necessary, it’s against the inclusion of an alarming slush fund. The message is a demand for a do-over by the school board for a more fiscally prudent proposal, brought forth in a transparent and ethical manner.

#31 TS on 09.19.18 at 3:09 pm

Why do people do these self-videos in their cars? Don’t they have a home or an office?

#32 JKC on 09.19.18 at 4:38 pm

TS, they want people to know that they “are on the go.” Else, they must be taken during a break from their stalking….

Leave a Comment