Councilor Tex Golfing’s attendance record by the numbers

by

“Showing up to meetings is all about decorum.”

I will have to give a Hat Tip to Ellis for doing the research on this (since I am too lazy);

City Councilor Rex Rolfing was on hand for Monday’s 7 p.m. council meeting for the first time since Sept. 12. Rolfing missed three of the 7 p.m. meetings. Those are the meetings where the council votes and takes official action. Typically there are three of them a month.

Rolfing missed three in a row – including one in which the council approved next year’s budget. That third absence led to a little legal research here, at City Hall, and elsewhere. The city’s charter lays out several reasons for how councilors can forfeit their offices. One states that a councilor forfeits office for missing three consecutive “regular meetings,” unless excused by the council. The council as a body had not excused Rolfing.

It appeared, on first reading, that Rolfing had missed three regular meetings. And if that were true, then he was off the council.

But upon further research, the council has an ordinance that defines a “regular meeting.” For the record, the council has one “regular meeting” a month — the first Monday. So Rolfing was in the clear.

Council Chairwoman Sue Aguilar said Rolfing informed her he would be gone. His absences were business related.

Rolfing has missed six 7 p.m. meetings so far this year. That’s the most of the eight councilors and one mayor. Jim Entenman is in second with four.

Ellis forgot to mention that Tex also showed up to the 7:30 meeting Tuesday night at the Caille Branch library that councilor Jamison was hosting.

 

The Absence of SF City Councilor Rex Rolfing

by

Now you see me. Now you don’t.

I’m not the only one who has noticed that Mr. Rolfing has been absent from the past two city council meetings, and has seemed to miss quite a few meetings since he has become a councilor. I understand that the city councilors serve as part-time public servants and that Rolfing has to make a living and has other business to attend to privately. But one is starting to wonder if he is really into this job or not, missing some very important votes recently. I have always been under the impression that people serve as public servants because they want to SERVE the public. If Mr. Rolfing’s personal life is too hectic to serve on the council properly, maybe he should resign and have someone take his seat who wants to do the job.

Decorum? Tell Abe Lincoln.

by

I was asked to remove my hat tonight while addressing the city council by city councilor Rolfing because of ‘decorum’

– politeness, manners, dignity –

Didn’t know wearing a hat offended anyone? But apparently Mr. Rolfing thought so. I removed my hat and quoted my favorite founding father in reference to independence day:

“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”

Well, I kinda said that. I wonder if the French asked Franklin to remove his coon skin cap while negoitating, or if Abe Lincoln was asked to remove his hat, because of ‘Decorum’. I think Mr. Rolfing has a bullshit view of what political ‘decorum’ entails. I suggest he does his research. He forgets that ‘I’ elected him, and ‘I’ pay his wages, not the other way around. Now if he was wearing a hat, maybe it would be ‘decorum’ for me to ask him to remove ‘his’ hat, but not the other way around. But to tell you the truth, I don’t give a shit, let’s move on with things that are important to city government, prudence and honesty, not hats. I also ranted about indoor pools, parking ramps and employee listings. I must warn you, I had a beer and a wine at Parkers and a fantastic piece of fish (that tasted like a porkchop) before my onslaught. But hey, I’m not getting paid to toot my horn, so lubrication is good. Right?

Build it Downtown ignored at SF city meeting

by

Rex ‘My way or the highway’ Rolfing

From my email box;

If you haven’t seen this yet, Councilor Rolfing is running interference now that Litz is moving on. BID was invited to the Land Use Committee meeting Monday, we were on the agenda last item to give a presentation of the Cherapa plan. Darrin Smith spent 45 minutes before us talking about the river greenway, pettigrew, gigglebees, redevelopment etc. We get ready to present (Jeff S. was there-Cherapa Place) and Councilor Rolfing chimes in about a “highly charged” presentation and we shouldn’t present without the other side and some other gibberish. Rex moved to change the agenda. Litz seconds the motion. So they vote and Rex votes yes to change the agenda and councilor Erpenbach votes no. Councilors Anderson and Litz don’t vote so they are counted as yays. Meeting over. Erpenbach was upset. Every other councilor but Brown was in the audience.

This email was sent to Rolfing after the meeting by BID;

Rex,

I won’t address your comments from earlier tonight, but I did think I should point out that your insistence that you had enough votes to pass the amendment was wrong. You made a motion to amend the agenda. You had one person (you) vote yes to amend the agenda. One person voted no. Two others didn’t vote. You need a majority of the members of the committee to vote in the affirmative to pass your motion. Those who didn’t vote should be counted as no votes. You did not have a majority vote to amend the agenda.

But according to the Argue Endorser;

Rolfing made a motion that the presentation be removed. He voted in favor; Erpenbach opposed. Councilors Bob Litz and Kenny Anderson Jr. did not vote, which under the council’s rules counted as yes votes.

Seems a little odd to me? I would think if they didn’t vote, they didn’t count, which would have made it a tie. But hey, I don’t make up the rules here.

While I’ll stay out of this pissing match, I will say two things;

1) BID is correct, Rolfing didn’t have the authority on his own to amend the agenda.

2) This is a perfect example of why the committee meetings need to be video recorded.

Rex Rolfing; possibly the ‘kinder gentler’ Kermit Staggers?

by

I have been very impressed by councilor Rolfing. While I don’t agree with him 50% of the time, I do admire him. He asks great questions and does it in a layman way, so citizens understand. You can tell he enjoys serving the citizens. That was one of the things I admired about Kermit, whether you agreed or disagreed with him, you could tell he had your best interest at heart, and I think Rex does to. Rex is a regular at the restaurant I work at, and from all accounts, he is the same kind of guy in person, this isn’t an act.

If there ever was a surprise on the new council, it is Rex. Trust me, I’m not the only one who has chattered about it, many other politicos in our community have taken notice.

Keep up the good work.