During their first meeting of 2023, at least three members complained that citizens are trying to get them to re-write the charter as a new form of government.

To revise something is to re-examine and make alterations to (written or printed matter). THE WORD IS IN THE TITLE OF THE BOARD!

The example they use, which I believe was a past proposal by Joe Kirby, was when Joe suggested we remove the mayor from the city council.

That is called a revision not an entire new form of government. In fact it is probably a couple sentence change in the charter under the mayor’s duties. IT IS NOT A TOTAL REWRITE and a gross mischaracterization of the process.

• Members take proposals

• They discuss and debate the proposal

• They vote to place the proposal on the ballot for the next city election

• Voters decide on election day and if it gets over 50% approval it becomes city law

Member Anne Hajek, who was appointed chair for the next four years, said she didn’t want the CRC members to become ‘dictators’.

As I have pointed out to the CRC several times you are NOT rewriting or even revising anything. They take proposals from the public, the council and the administration and vote to place those proposals on the ballot for the CITIZENS to decide. Ironically Hajek said during her rant that the citizens should make the decision to remove the mayor from the council.

THEY WOULD if you would only allow us.

The CRC does NOT have the authority to re-write or re-vise anything, all they do is consent to a ballot question, and as long as the revision is legal and reasonable and most importantly needed to improve the lives of Sioux Falls citizens it is left up to the voters to make that decision on election day.

There seems to be this mentality lately, especially from prominent Sioux Falls and South Dakota Republicans, that revisions to the law by citizens is somehow some kind of dangerous act and we should be more diligent about what we allow on the ballot.

Hogwash!

Removing the mayor as a councilor is NOT a groundbreaking change and would actually give more power to the city council to take action.

This is really about the conflicts of interest many of the members have with deep connections to the rich and powerful in Sioux Falls. This concerns me more then removing mayor ‘grunty‘ from the Council dais.

YOU DON’T RE-WRITE ANYTHING, you are only there to provide advice and consent.

I would have to disagree with Hajek, you are acting exactly like a DICTATOR when you don’t allow reasonable proposals to be voted on by the public.

UPDATE II: The mayor put out a brief statement about his trip. He didn’t mention that he took Shawn and Mark;

“Local government is the catalyst for community progress, and I know our City’s participation in the City Data Alliance will help us double down on our data efforts to ultimately benefit residents.”

So you have been participating in this program for several years now, wondering when you are going to start sharing those benefits with the citizens?

I also found it interesting that out of the 11 American mayors participating only one was Republican, TenHaken, and one Indy (who leans Democrat). All the other mayors were Democrat.

UPDATE: A South DaCola foot soldier pointed out to me after posting this earlier today that there is another issue with this trip.

The city pays a consultant for the software that helps with sharing data thru the Bloomberg initiative. As I understand it, that money DOES NOT go towards trips city employees or elected officials may take in coordination with Bloomberg.

‘IF’ and only ‘IF’ Bloomberg Philanthropies paid for the trip and NOT the taxpayers of Sioux Falls that is an ethics violation because of quid pro quo. By Bloomberg providing an all expense paid trip to the mayor of Sioux Falls, or ANY mayor or municipal employee for that matter, there is an appearance that Bloomberg provides these conferences and in return gets to use the data from the city, probably even sell it.

I am NOT sure who paid for the trip, but if it was Bloomberg, Paul and his cohorts have some explaining to do.

I’m wondering when they are going to start sharing information and data with the citizens?

I see that the city was not only represented by Mayor ONE, but the Public Works Director and the Finance/Tech Director at the conference. I wonder who was running the city . . .

I understand the concept behind the data sharing, but what I am curious about is how this is helping us in Sioux Falls? There have been NO major initiatives by this administration to use the data sharing with Bloomberg to improve our city. On Demand is a joke and will be repealed, so that doesn’t really count. But when it comes to crime, neighborhood cleanup, infrastructure, transparency, climate change, housing and better wages we sit at a standstill. Heck, we can’t even approve a mural!

So what do we get when the 3 most important people in city government spend a week yucking it up with Bloomberg?

We will never know.

As I have said in the past, I will defend any elected officials’ pet projects. Whether that is mentorship, physical education, youth drug prevention or adoption. I say use the bully pulpit for your causes. But you do know you don’t have to actually participate? Just take your own example, a year after announcing Sioux 52 mentorship program you turned it over to the HelpLine center with taxpayer money.

The other day a friend said to me, “Yeah, Mayor TenHaken was working out with my kid today at school during PE class.” Sure enough, he was bragging about it on social media. (you know the Personal account, not associated w/ City of SF except when he posts things he does as the capacity of the mayor).

I know you run a closed door, authoritarian, cruise control government but between 8-5, Monday-Friday, can the adults of this city have your attention in-between your kick ball games and fitness challenges?

I bring this up because I know of several groups who have requested meetings with the mayor and been denied. I’m sure he could squeeze in a couple of more meetings with constituents if he gave up playing tiddlywinks and marbles with the kids.

It certainly has become polarizing, but NOT by those who are trying to make change, but those who are trying to prevent it. It’s no longer a debate about when or how;

Sustainability. Climate change. Climate Crisis. The Green New Deal. However you phrase it, protecting and conserving our environment has unfortunately become a polarizing and political topic, no matter which side of the conversation you’re on. There’s a broad set of opinions and variables that need to be considered and as with most government decisions, “the devil is in the details.”

I am not in denial that our climate is changing.

I heard Bill Clinton once make a similar proclamation.

If there is one thing the voters of this community can expect based on my five-year mayoral track record, it’s that I am a consensus-building leader that brings pragmatic solutions to challenges, not giving undue attention to loud special interest groups.

In order to build consensus you must first meet with the affected groups IN PUBLIC and have a discussion. Consensus building doesn’t mean just meeting with your ‘team’ and making your managers deliver the bad news of your decision (this is what he did with the 6th street bridge project, bunker ramp mural rejection and sustainability study). When it comes to climate change there is only one special interest group; MANKIND!

While some special interest groups have mischaracterized listening to dissenting opinions as discounting their voices, it’s quite the opposite.

Instead of penning a letter and emailing it to a couple of local papers, maybe you should hold a Climate Change Town Hall so the community can come and talk about it. Tell us your side, and let them tell there side. By trashing their report and effectively ignoring them on the public stage sends a clear message of discounting their voices.