Entries Tagged 'Marshall Selberg' ↓

Sioux Falls Municipal Election Roundup

Here is what we know as of 5 PM.

• Cynthia Mickelson seems to have a challenger, Sarah Stokke is a nursing instructor at the University of South Dakota. I am not familiar with Sarah, but I have heard her name before in certain circles. This will make two races for the citywide ballot, but the interesting twist is that NOT everyone voting for this race can vote in the city election because the boundaries are different. In other words there will be people who can ONLY vote for school board or ONLY vote for At-Large council. I know, complicated.

• Marshall Selberg (SW District) and Pat Starr (NE District) do not have challengers, so they will get 4 more years.

• Greg Neitzert has a challenger, Julian Beaudion (NW District). This is a district seat only and not city wide.

• Theresa Stehly and Alex Jensen will challenge each other for the At-Large position. Since there are only two, their will be no run-off election (The ‘Stehly Rule’ won’t be used again). This will be the ONLY city-wide position on the ballot besides the Charter Amendments (and those living in the SFSD who can vote for school board).

I suspect a very low voter turnout of about 5%. The interesting part is this will be one of the most expensive elections in city history for only having two horse race. All precincts will be used, and the money Jensen plans on spending will probably be a record for a council race (the rumors going around are $200-250K). I’m not even sure how you can spend all that?

But this will be fun to watch, because all the attention will be on the At-Large race. This will give Stehly the advantage, besides her incumbency.

Let the Games Begin!

Will Sioux Falls Mayor TenHaken and Council Chair Selberg recuse themselves next Tuesday?

Next week’s City Council meeting agenda item concerning the Canterbury – Paddington development is bringing up ethical concerns. (Watch the fiery exchange at the last planning meeting, items 5B-C). The adjacent property owners wondered why the planning department and planning commission ignores it’s own ordinances. The short answer; MONEY & GREED. The only reason the SFPC gave (and their typical answer when big money development rolls up to the podium at these meetings) is they own the land they can do what they want to. Sounds great, I think I will get started on my nuclear reactor in my backyard this summer – neighbors be damned. But make sure you put up a sign warning about bees in your yard! You know, those naturally occurring insects that provide life giving pollination.

It appears there will at least two conflict of interest issues which might be raised and at least two recusals may likely be needed.

Mayor TenHaken’s Next Generation Leadership PAC has Joel Dykstra involved in the management of the campaign / PAC organization. Joel will be asking for a RE-ZONE and PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN approval from the city council after the Planning Commission already approved it.

Councilor Selberg works for Van Buskirk Companies. The company was involved turning this development into a cluster to begin with by not finishing a promised road in the beginning of this development.

As we research more business connections, we see potential conflicts and believe full disclosures with recusals are required. Hopefully Marsh and Pauly will be recusing themselves next Tuesday on this item. If they don’t there could be legal and ethical ramifications from the adjacent property owners. We will see if they do the right thing.

Marshall Selberg seeks re-election on the Sioux Falls City Council

Some may think serving 4 years on the city council may be difficult, not if you don’t really do anything;

“Serving this City has been an honor and the learning experience of a lifetime.  I look to build on this experience, put it to use, and continue to give Sioux Falls my very best.”

Yes, Marshall’s ‘Best’ is showing up to the Tuesday meeting, trying not to fall asleep, repeating what Erickson and Kiley said, grabbing his gigantic rubber stamp, then going home.

He has been completely ineffective and needs to go. Please someone run against him!

Sioux Falls City Council Chair teaches us how to eat at Thanksgiving

As I have said in the past, I have never seen Marshall Selberg say or do much, then there is this;

Tree Branches. We’re On It.

Jon Michael’s Forum with SF City Councilors Neitzert & Selberg

   

They are separate interviews;

Dec 10, 2018 – NEITZERT

Dec 10, 2018 – SELBERG

Did the National League of Cities conference have a seminar on European Sportcars?

Looks like Sioux Falls City Councilor Marshall Selberg is learning a lot in LA at the conference.

Lesson #1; Driving a Lamborghini in a pair of Dockers is against California law.

Sioux Falls City Councilor Selberg moving forward with ‘Huether/Rolfing’ memorial ordinance

That’s what I am calling the proposed ordinance Tuesday Night (Item#9 – 1st Reading) to change the order of the meeting agenda so public input is at the end of the meeting. The irony of it is that Public Input became a ruckus because of the lack of respect and decorum Huether and Rolfing showed to the commenters. Often laughing at, heckling, or making cry baby speeches at the people who would come up and speak truth to power. They were incredibly disrespectful and arrogant, than they wondered why someone would call them an SOB? Go figure.

They are trying to change the rules because of ONE person’s actions. But in reality, that is just an excuse they are using. The city has been embarrassed time and time again because of the input from citizens at the council meetings;

• Walmart on 85th

• Copper Lounge Collapse

• Oak View neighborhood

• Events Center Siding

• Administration building

• Downtown noise ordinance

• Poorly negotiated RR redevelopment deal

. . . and the list goes on.

This isn’t about one person’s potty mouth or a disenfranchised veteran, this is about stopping public commenters from pointing out important issues in our city. Some of the best solutions to problems and awareness comes from the people who come and bring public input. That is why the former mayor and certain councilors hated it so much.

I asked Councilor Neitzert in a text today how he would vote on the first reading (he seems to be the deciding vote) he gave me a line about coming up with a ‘pros and cons’ list. I told him it would be hypocritical of him to support this, especially since he used public input many times as a citizen and ran on transparency in government. Pushing citizens to the back of the line is certainly NOT a PRO to open and transparent government. I’m just hoping Greg sees the light by the time Tuesday rolls around. Besides, transparency was the #1 issue in this last election. Moving public input to the end of the meeting wreaks of closed government.

Either way, I will remind the ENTIRE council once again why this would be a very BAD idea to change.

• It has worked well for 16 years. I remember when Munson was mayor there were several nights when public input got a little heated. Dave wasn’t shy, he dropped the gavel and told you to sit down. That is what a GOOD leader/chair does, they take control of the meeting and situation. You don’t change the rules for the majority because a tiny minority has a potty mouth. TenHaken needs to be a leader and instead of supporting this (I hear he does) he needs to take control of the meetings. Maybe before Tuesday he can get some tips from Munson on that.

• The family friendly argument is a joke. I didn’t know a government meeting was like an episode of the Brady Bunch. Besides, let’s talk family friendly. Was it family friendly to approve going into partnership with a developer who’s contractor caused the death of a worker? Is that what you mean by family friendly? I am way more offended by that than if a person says SOB at a meeting.

• What the heck has Councilor Marshall Selberg done in 2 years? Besides voting on developments that benefit his employer without recusing himself (conflict of interest) he has contributed NO legislation. So his first order of business is to push through anti-dissent legislation? Wow! He really has NO CLUE about public service.

• As I mentioned above, half the problem with public input solved itself when Mike and Rex left.

• I have also argued that this will actually make the meetings longer, because people will show up for public input and start to comment on all the agenda items. If you have 4-5 people from the public speaking for 4-5 minutes on every agenda item, the meetings could get very long. And once you get to public input, they could let you have it again about the decisions that were made that night. Do you really want to end your meetings that way?

Finally I will say what I have said to the council a thousand times already – the citizens own this government, not the banksters and developers and mega-plex hospitals. The public should have the first opportunity to speak at meetings and the rest of them, who are essentially benefitting from the city either financially or otherwise can wait. Besides, like standing in a long line at the courthouse to get your license plates, waiting until the end of the meeting for public input is another form of taxation. Everyone else in the room (councilors, mayor, directors, city employees, bar owners, developers, etc) are getting paid to be there, we are not, but we are funding the operation that’s why we get to go first.

Public input is NOT broken, it just needs to be handled better by the chair, someone who is willing to gavel and put people in their place when they use potty mouth or ramble about what happened to them in 1973.

Leave it as is!

CONTACT the council and mayor’s office and tell them how you feel.

I know that Selberg, Kiley and TenHaken support this. I think that Erickson and Soehl MAY support this. Brekke, Starr and Stehly DO NOT. So far Neitzert is undecided.

Get out of the weeds for the golf contract

Councilor Selberg had this to say about the golf RFP;

“I think we need to get back to the facts. I think we are about three miles off in the weeds in some of this stuff, right now, ” says Selberg.

I hope there isn’t any weeds growing at the golf course. Tom Walsh had this to say about the RFP and contract;

“They’re looking at spending $375,000 a year in leasing of equipment, besides what they do up front,” Walsh said. “It’s not right for our taxpayers. If I were a taxpayer that didn’t play golf, I’d really be upset.”

Tom, this is S.O.P. from the Huether administration. Just look at the Huether tennis center. What did taxpayers get from our $500K investment in that building? Not a F’ing thing! Heck, we can’t even use the parking lot for overflow.

I have been hearing the council will probably approve the contract with Landscapes Unlimited, but not because it is the right thing to do, but that certain people in leadership and with the administration have been threatening the council with false threats of being sued by LU if they don’t approve. If that is the case, 1) Who told LU that this was a done deal before it got council approval, and 2) if that is the case, why even have the council approve these contracts?

*Walsh also talks about a meeting he had with the mayor a few weeks ago, and the mayor admitted he pretty much gets what he wants, and the only fight he has lost in 7-1/2 years is the Archives Building (he opposed that because he hates history). Well he better start getting used to losing, because I think the strikes are going to start adding up here real soon.

The Secrecy Cult