Entries Tagged 'Rex Rolfing' ↓

Authoritarians on the March, September 20, 2016

The sign of a despot losing control is when the gavel flies. The Sioux Falls City Council Informational meeting on September 20, 2016 showed a city leadership spiraling out of control. When City Council members are told what to do, who they can talk to and what they are to believe something is rotting down deep.

Before you start watching the video, click on it so you can view it full screen. This is our first use of a five camera blend to show you the action of the room. Notice when the city attorneys join the video and how even Fiddle Faddle gets into the act and appears to yell out something with the crowd.

Those of us who have followed city government for years have known this day was coming. City Council leadership takes their marching orders from the mayor’s office and his directors. You can see it when Rex Rolfing looks to the mayor’s attorney for guidance as Theresa Stehly uses her open discussion time to bring up the illegal use of the Executive session process. We have been documenting the abuse of the secretive executive sessions to hide the public’s business from the public.

The secret executive session was called to discuss ethics but in fact was a scheme to go after Stehly to set her up as an example. YOU MUST OBEY OR ELSE!

Why shouldn’t we hear this? What is so secret about ethics? Is it actually kind of oxymoronic (get your dictionary out Rex) for our town to teach one version to the council but not explain it to us?

The abuse of council members, the public and the process must stop. A past council member once told Cameraman Bruce explained the rule passed down by the mayor, “Councilors are not to intervene on behalf of constituents.” If this is the case, why do we even have a city council?

Sioux Falls City Councilor Rolfing goes on junket to support the F-35 lemon

I don’t support the F-35 project, not because I don’t want our air base to do well, it’s because the old F-16’s we currently have already fly circles around the Lemon the US military has been ‘developing’ called the F-35. Many military experts have contended that they pretty much tried to pack 2 pounds of sh*t into a 1 pound bag while developing the F-35. They want it to dogfight, be a harrier and drop big bombs. It can’t do all three. Don’t believe me, google the project and read all the pros and cons, not to mention it is a gigantic waste of money.

Either way, speaking of wasting taxpayer money, Rolfing recently told the press that spending $72K on a special election for an administration building is a waste, I agree. Where we don’t agree is that he thinks flying to DC to hand deliver a letter (from our prestigious mayor) to our Washington delegation (who already support the F-35 coming to Sioux Falls) is a great expenditure of tax payer money. Apparently Rex and Mike have never heard of the US Postal service, a FAX machine or an email;

Mayor Huether sent a letter to Senators John Thune and Mike Rounds and Congresswoman Kristi Noem, that highlighted the history of 114th Fighter Wing and pledges Sioux Falls’ unwavering support to ensure the city is a selected basing site for the F-35.

Sioux Falls City Council chair Rex Rolfing and Community Development Director Daren Ketchum hand-delivered the letters to Thune, Rounds and Noem.

When you refer to a government trip as a ‘junket’ it usually means it is an unneeded trip. I wonder if he also attended any music award shows while in DC?

Whether you support the F-35 (you shouldn’t) or not, there is absolutely NO reason we needed to send our Council Chair and Community Development Director to hand deliver letters. The next time Huether or Rolfing want to spout off about being prudent and saving tax dollars, I will gladly point to this ludicrous trip (and that worthless Tennis Center).

Was Rex Rolfing trying to make a mad dash from the Sioux Falls city council?


When I heard about this just a few days ago, I just had to chuckle. Surprises me that the man who ran for a second term and recently got the council chair position would be trying to find a way to slip out of his current job.

See, Rex Rolfing asked some nice GOP committee peeps in District 13 to put him on the ballot this Fall for the legislature (replacing Westra). And according to city charter, you cannot serve on the city council and state legislature at the same time, so if he were elected, he would have to resign the city council seat.

Seems the heat is getting to Rex. So much, that a guy who owns property in Florida wants to spend a whole month in Pierre in the winter. That will cool you off.

Well it didn’t turn out as expected. Sue Peterson got picked for the slot, with Alex Jensen and Rex being the two other candidates.

I guess we will have to endure old Tex Golfing for a couple more years, unless he just wants to resign on his own accord? I would be fine with that.

Councilor Rolfing & Mayor Huether are planning changes to public input


The key word here is ‘planning’. I warned councilor Rolfing last night in public input that he should be cautious about moving forward on changes because he would have a big fight on his hands.

He supposedly cooked up his proposal in the top secret operations committee meeting in the basement of Carnegie on Tuesday. I am unclear what is all in the proposal, but I heard it involves ‘comment cards’.

The plan is to have each commenter sign in with a comment card and write down the topic they choose to speak about. Then the mayor or Rolfing would sort through the cards and pick the commenters they wish to speak by calling them forward.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

While I am not opposed to signing a sheet to say I will comment (it’s good for the clerk to have the correct spelling of the commenter’s name for the minutes and the record) I am not in favor of being called up like I am in 3rd grade speech class.

Picking and choosing the commenters is a blatant disregard for the spirit of free speech and the 1st Amendment. Elected officials are in place to serve us, not the other way around. I often say if they have a problem with that arrangement, do us all a favor and resign.

As I have reminded the mayor and council in the past, if public input is disruptive or offensive, the commenter can be gaveled at that time and asked to stop or even leave. The chair has that power and I agree with that procedure. Some people do get out of control and can be frivolous.

But picking and choosing who can comment and about what is favoritism and goes against transparency and open government as a whole. Something the mayor absolutely hates with a passion.

I know that some other folks in the media are aware of the proposal and won’t stand for it either.

Like I told Rolfing last night, I welcome the debate about changing public input, bring it on, because you are going to lose, and lose big time, and in the process you are going to look very foolish, if you don’t already.

A public meeting is just that, public

Cameraman Bruce and the peeps say “Thank you Michelle!” Rex just doesn’t understand what Open Meetings are and why. Get over it Rex.

Cameraman Bruce showed up to the publicly noticed informal get acquainted council dinner at the District on May 24, 2016. Rex Rolfing was not happy and quickly showed it. Greeting Bruce with “No Bruce, not tonight!”

Well Rex, it is a legal open meeting he showed up, deal with it.

VIDEO: SF City Council’s longest brain fart


“Sorry, Jesuz, I can’t wear this hat to long, it’s disrespectful.”

You’d think Councilor Rex Rolfing was wearing a hat with it lingering that long. Oh that’s right, that is against his ‘ethics’. But changing a clear and concise vote 10 minutes later isn’t. And Mrs. Ethical herself, Erpenbach backs up his foolishness.

Councilor Rolfing has the longest brain fart in the history of the Sioux Falls City Council


This cake tastes kind of oily

Just when you think the Sioux Falls city council is going to do the right thing (they needed 5 votes to pass the Dakota Access Pipeline at the council meeting tonight) Rex Rolfing gets confused and the City Attorney allows him to revote (with his FIRST vote they denied the pipeline, then he switches it.) Item #8

Not sure what he was thinking, but with an important vote like this, not sure how you can just flip on a dime? We will get to his ‘reasoning’ in a moment.

It wasn’t like he was asked if he wanted vanilla or chocolate ice cream, he was voting on a dangerous pipeline (that we don’t benefit from as tax payers) running under our property, I could care less if it is 700 feet 700,000 feet. Leaks and breaks can occur at any point in the line.

Either you are for or against, for whatever your reasons or justifications. There really isn’t a grey area.

After Mayor Huether chastised the Dakota Access representative for talking about something more then the 700 feet of easement (even though he needed to talk about the entire area and Huether was being a jerk about the discussion).

They vote 4-3 and go into the next item. But wait, somebody wasn’t thinking (mainly Rolfing) and towards the end of the meeting they bring it to a re-vote.

Wait a minute, already failed. If Rolfing felt he mis-voted at the time, he could have said that right away AFTER the vote, not 15 minutes later. Probably the longest recorded brain fart in the history of the council.

Then Rolfing says he didn’t understand it needed 5 votes to pass, so he meant to vote yes but was voting NO to prove a point about supporting neighbors.


Voting on dangerous oil pipeline easements is NOT a f’ing game, you can’t have your cake and eat it to. Buck up, think about what you are doing and make a decision, otherwise, resign and let some responsible legislators lead our city.

Moment of Zen; Councilor Rolfing gives first closing innvocation

Rex Rolfing can be entertaining and aggravating. You choose. Our Council Chair in waiting often complains about men wearing hats and weird jokes but he is Rex after all. At the end of one of best, most engaging Council meetings we have ever witnessed, Rex had some new business to discuss with the room and city.

We never know what is going to spill out of Rex and he didn’t disappoint. Good thing we had our big kid clothes on or we would all have been paddled. Ah, we won’t go there…. Anyway…

After a night of some Council missteps, disappointments and respectful public input, our councilman Rex decided he had had enough and began to chew the audience out for calling the dais members to task on this chilly in in the chamber, January 19, 2016.

Sioux Falls City Councilor Hat-Hater Rex Rolfing gets ‘bumped back’


Rex Rolfing all of a sudden wanted to change the city of Sioux Falls employment succession rule known as Bumpback a few weeks back. With a simple question by Dean Karsky & some chuckling from City Attorney Fiddle Faddle, the plan all fell apart.

Hat Hater Sioux Falls City Councilor Rolfing insults a Veteran at council meeting


The only time I wear a hat is when I’m chasing gophers on a golf course by my wife’s house in Florida.

Rex Rolfing last night asked a Vietnam Marine Corp Veteran, William Mourer, to remove his MIA/POW memorial baseball cap before addressing the council during public input. The vet refused at first explaining the purpose of the hat was to memorialize veterans. Rex of course (who I believe IS NOT a veteran) brought up the death of his son while serving in Iraq (which I felt was in poor taste) in a way saying his son’s sacrifice was greater than this veterans.

Very strange.

After a tit for tat, the veteran obliged, but he was NOT happy about it. When he was finished with his comments (another story about how the SFPD isn’t really doing their job when it comes to detective work and investigating crime-BTW, where is the Tuthill Ghost?) he quickly put his hat back on and gave one of the dirtiest looks I have ever seen to Rex.

I was actually surprised the veteran didn’t go up and, well, you know. Good thing the doggy fence is there for Rex’s protection. I guess I would have responded to Rex, “Mr. Rolfing, if you want me to remove my hat, you are sure welcome to come down here and remove it yourself, otherwise, it is staying on my head.”

Rex has asked me in the past to remove my hat, and I also obliged, he claims ‘Decorum’. Well guess what – no such rule in Roberts Rules of Order exists, the closest thing is that the CHAIR (which in this case would be the mayor) can ‘ask’ someone to remove their hat if the hat is causing disorder and if they don’t he can either tell them they cannot speak or not, which would be very bizarre considering NO rules are being broken and wearing a hat is hardly disorderly, especially one that memorializes veterans WORN by a veteran. If Rolfing would like someone to remove their hat, he has to get that permission from the chair. And like I said, there is still nothing stopping anyone from wearing a hat while addressing the council.

Here is a discussion about ‘hat wearing’ in a Roberts Rules of Order Forum;

I have read Robert Rules of order and the Board of Supervisors by-laws and I cannot find anywhere were it says you must remove your headgear in order to make a comment at the Board of Supervisors meeting.

So instead of just researching Roberts Rules, I also decided to delve into other aspects of when and where it is appropriate to wear a hat. Obviously, we are all not living in 1952 like Rex Rolfing, and etiquette has changed over the years.

Here are some ‘standards’ when it comes to wearing hats in public and military (or vets) wearing hats;

In Public Places: You may wear a hat indoors (yeh… even a baseball cap if you absolutely must) in public buildings, such as airports, public lobbies, and crowded public elevators.

As I view this, Carnegie Hall is a ‘very’ public place, and Roberts Rules aside, there is really nothing in etiquette saying you should remove your hat in a public place (except for invocation and pledge of alliegance).

People in Uniform: People in the military, Boy Scouts, police and people in other uniformed organizations keep their hats on during “full dress.” Many other interesting regulations about hat wearing in the military exist, so hat etiquette is a required course in the military.

I haven’t looked into this totally, but I can tell you that it is very common practice for veterans to wear hats during public events. Just have lunch at the VFW some day, you would be hard pressed to find someone NOT wearing either a uniform vet hat or memorial baseball cap.

So was councilor Rolfing wrong in asking this veteran to remove his hat? I think so. First, because nothing prohibits hat wearing in Roberts Rules, it is okay to wear hats in public places and last but not least this man was a veteran wearing a memorial hat, oh and then there is that pesky 1st Amendment.

Is an apology in order? I guess that is up to Rex, because I also couldn’t find anything in Roberts Rules about elected officials apologizing to constituents after acting like a jackass.