If you look at Item #50, it seems harmless enough. They are changing some language pertaining to elections;

Notice there is NO change to the 34% threshold. So why not? With all the talk about councilors Rolfing and Erpenbach changing this, why wasn’t it changed in this 1st Reading?

Because the plan that is rumored they are going to use is a procedural trick. Basically they will wait for the 1st reading to pass, and when it comes up for a second reading they will offer and amendment to the 34% threshold to 51%.

Why would they do that? Because public testimony would be closed before amendments would be offered.

I am still hoping that with the media coverage of this proposed change will get them to back off on the amendment. I guess we will all have to wait and see just how brazen they want to get with our election rules.

Yeah, worked for me, but I still want to ruin it for everyone else.

The rumors I am hearing from my Carnegie Hall moles is that this set of councilors want to change the 34% threshold to be elected to a council seat in a general election to a 51% threshold like the mayor. Not sure where this is even coming from, considering myself, or even other councilors, or the media have never thought there was a problem with the current threshold. In fact, maybe the better thing to change is to have the mayoral percentage match the council’s.

Before I get into the multiple arguments against this, let’s face it, this was cooked up by the mayor to make it harder for grassroots candidates like Stehly, Starr and Nietzert to run for office. Let’s say you win in the general but only get 40% of the vote and 2nd place has deeper pockets than you, guess who will probably win? This is clearly an elitist move, the public is certainly not that naive to think otherwise.

But let’s throw a little common sense behind this;

• A runoff election in NON-mayoral election years could cost taxpayers an extra $80K.

• It is already difficult enough to get people out to vote during a general muni election, think about getting them to come back 2-3 weeks later for a run-off.

• The state legislature, school board and the county commission all go by top vote getters.

• Ironically the two that are proposing this change are out the door this Spring and benefitted from the current set of rules. Rolfing won his first term in 2010 with 45.34% of the vote and Erpenbach won her first term in 2010 with 48.96% of the vote. If you look at other races since the 2000 municipal election, you will see that 7 other councilors won by receiving less than 51% of the vote. (DOC: runoffs)

Like I said, this is a ploy to keep the working class grass roots candidates down and the elitists with deep pockets or donors with deep pockets on the rubberstamp council.

Hopefully Rolfing and Erpenbach will have a change of heart and pull this ridiculous measure from future agendas, or they can face the music.

I only use campaign donations to line my kitty litter box

I agree with Sioux Falls city attorney, Fiddle-Faddle that there is nothing illegal or any conflicts voting on items that affect campaign donors (Protected free speech). But, for elected officials to say ‘Oh Shucks’ about it, that is another thing;

“If somebody was walking into the election year and handing you $50,000, it’d be hard to argue that doesn’t influence you,” Selberg said. “But there’s no issues here.”

Yeah, it’s just pretty much the company I use to broker homes, I can’t see a conflict? Wonder if Mashall also got a handy blindfold with his donation?

Councilor Michelle Erpenbach, who received a total of $700 from the Lloyds for her 2010 and 2014 races, said when she receives campaign contributions, she offers nothing in return but to be the best leader she can for the city.

“I have never had Craig or Pat call me and say, ‘Hey, I gave you that check,'” Erpenbach said. “I would be in their face about it, and I’d write them a check back if they did.”

Sure you would. And I’m a fairy princess.

Why do you think he gave you a donation? Oh, let Mr. Potter, uh I mean, Mr. Lloyd explain;

“You can’t buy anybody for $500 or $1,000,” Lloyd said. “If anybody wants to take the time and effort to run for the position — because I don’t want to take the time and effort — and has a positive attitude to move Sioux Falls forward, I’ll give them money any day.”

Hmm? Positive attitude? That’s nice. What about ethics? Morals? Integrity? Are those worthy attributes to contribute to? Apparently not, because councilors Stehly, Starr and Neitzert never got a check from the Lloyd family tree. C’mon guys, start working on your positive attitude, like voting to give massive tax discounts to multi-millionaire developers. They need your ‘Positive’ help.

Grumpy Councilor blames it on the ‘Fake’ City Charter

Seems councilor Erpenbach had a change of heart, and decided that searching un-registered rental properties and charging them for it, probably doesn’t pass the smell test, OR the Constitution test. Seems the DRAFT ordinance has a couple of changes (DOC: rental-register). It seems the ‘Search and Destroy’ portion of the DRAFT ordinance has disappeared.

John Hult did a story about how to fight city hall. He called me about the story (I didn’t make it in) but I did say a good way would be to ‘Start a Blog’. I think I have gotten a lot of things changed in our community by blogging about them. It also would be nice to have someone else in town doing it.

Some of the other things are obvious, like lawyering up, which is expensive and you may not win. Would have liked to see more advice about how to fight them economically.

I got a good laugh out of what Erpenbach said when she was developing community gardens;

It’s also a useful strategy for starting something new. Councilor Michelle Erpenbach wasn’t a politician when she began asking the city to build community gardens.

She worked behind the scenes, talked to council members and drew supporters together before making the pitch. A strategy of “more flies with honey than vinegar” is a good way to start, Erpenbach said.

“I didn’t come in and start yelling at people and saying ‘we don’t have community gardens and by God we’d better have them right now!’” she said. “It helps, in anything, to use professionalism and build a relationship.”

I never remember much opposition, if any, to community gardens. And it certainly wasn’t controversial, it just made sense. But when it comes to crime, drugs, human trafficking and human, civil and property rights, a little shouting does help, just hope Michelle has removed her ear plugs, because she certainly doesn’t respond to emails or phone calls.