Entries Tagged 'State Funding' ↓

UPDATE: Sioux Falls City Councilor Starr comments on the Municipal League suit

UPDATE: I guess the hearing has been called off, and Taylor is NO LONGER banned. Still waiting to hear more details. I wonder if our AG stopped eating cookies for a couple of minutes and read the constitution instead.

Pat called into the B-N-B show this morning (towards end) and expresses his feelings on the issue;

“I’m concerned as a taxpayer,” Starr told The Greg Belfrage Show this morning. “It’s a great group for the municipalities to come together across the state. This just distracts from the organization that does this for us.”

Starr said it, unfortunately, the parties have had to go to federal court to determine for what he calls “a personality conflict.”

“I think you expect professional decorum on both sides,” Starr said. “I’m disappointed.”

But he said he needed to back Taylor, as she has free speech rights and works for “his” organization.

“To ban someone indefinitely is overreaching and probably one of the reasons she used to for the terminology,” Starr said.

I think both Taylor and Haugaard were out of line, they should just make up and move on. But instead, it’s going to cost taxpayers coming and going;

So, win, lose, or draw, South Dakota taxpayers will be paying indirectly for the two sides’ attorneys.

If we had an AG’s office with at least a half a brain that actually understood the Constitution, they would have sent a polite letter to Haugaard telling him his actions were unconstitutional and that he had no right to ban Taylor. Then send a letter to Taylor telling her she was no longer banned. Pretty simple. The postage may have cost the taxpayers a couple of bucks, but problem solved. So now we have two publicly funded institutions fighting it out in Federal court over a clear violation of 1st Amendment rights. Not only is it ‘Whacky’ it’s down right stupid. I think our state house is not only full of ‘Whackies’ but it also is full of the mentally challenged, mentally ill and just down right ignorant. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Steve.

SD State Legislature won’t fund education properly but want schools to buy plaques that violate church and state

God, Guns, and Abortion, that is all the legislature seems to be concerned about. Now they want schools to violate separation of church and state, yet provide NO funding mechanism;

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to require 1 the national motto of the United States to be

2 displayed in public schools.

3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

4 Section 1. That chapter 13-24 be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

5 Beginning in the 2019-2020 school year, the national motto of the United States, “In God

6 We Trust,” shall be displayed in each public school. The display shall be located in a prominent

7 location within each public school. The display may take the form of a mounted plaque, student

8 artwork, or any other appropriate form as determined by the school principal.

9 For the purposes of this section, a prominent location is a school entryway, cafeteria, or

10 other common area where students are most likely to see the national motto display.

While some may argue that the term ‘GOD’ doesn’t talk about a specific religion, I still think it borders on violation of the separation clause. What’s even worse is that the legislature wants schools to apparently fund this on their own without providing a funding mechanism. A sign or plaque that is prominently displayed could cost anywhere from $75 to $750 dollars. This is a waste of educational dollars. If I was one of these schools I would take a highlighter to a dollar bill and put it in a frame and hang that up. In America, we only have one true God, and it is green.

Cory does 30 policies in 60 seconds!

And believe it or not, I agree with every single one!

Rex Rolfing, still delusional

I have been waiting for Rex to return from the Orange Juice state to actually campaign in person (still haven’t seen him). He is is relying on the ‘R’ behind his name, a few yard signs and this recent mailer to put him over the top.

Got a really good chuckle out of his ‘VISION’

Just go to sfmeetings.org and type in Rex Rolfing, and see his voting record for yourself.

Fiscally responsible. WOW! In the 8 years (2008-16) Rex served on the city council he voted for EVERY single fee and tax increase. He also voted for millions in TIFs and bonding, including the Indoor Pool, Huether Tennis Center ($500K), Administration building that we did not need and the The Denty that has never paid it’s mortgage EVER through revenue.

Rex wouldn’t know what fiscal responsibility was if it hit him like a Jesus snow plow.

He also did ZERO to improve workforce while he served on the council, except voting for an expenditure to put billboards of the former mayor’s face all over Minneapolis.

He also followed the marching orders of his former boss and police chief by ignoring our drug and crime issues for 8 years.

Besides the glaring hypocrisy of Rex’s vision, we also forget that;

• He trumped up false ethics violations towards councilor Stehly, in which he had a freak out session where the puck under the gavel went flying thru the air. He even made light of it later by pretending the bone above he is chewing on in the picture was a gavel and started rapping it on the table like a gavel after covering the end in tin foil.

• Rex said publicly he doesn’t want his contact information on mailings even though his city owned council email address and phone number are public information.

• Lastly, his only (non)accomplishment on the council was passing a silly ordinance about having a majority instead of a plurality in council races, which only makes elections more expensive for both taxpayers and candidates (hopefully the city council will overturn this soon, but I see they are waiting until after the election so they won’t make him look bad-chickensh*ts).

Let’s face it. Rex is NOT fiscally responsible, he is NOT ethical, he does NOT believe in government transparency and he is willing to throw anyone under the bus he doesn’t agree with.

There is whole host of other things I could say about this VOID of leadership, but I won’t. I will leave you with a paragraph from a postcard I also got today from his competitor, Kelly Sullivan;

She pretty much sums up Rex Rolfing and his ilk in one sentence. Living in a bouncy house.

Do as I did as a D13 voter, fill only one box out for the House Race. Kelly Sullivan.

Food Tax Information

Click on below image to Enlarge

South Dakota State Rep, Majority Whip, Larry Rhoden’s son thinks the Left Wing is smarter than small town ‘plebs’

(H/T – SE Podcast)

Apparently the closest ‘Lefties’ live 5,000 miles away. These small town ‘plebs’ must really be naive if they get hoodwinked by a handful of people who live on another continent.

How a Bad Bill Dies in Pierre – HB 1204 – UPOA (G/P- Bruce)

Ah the glories of Public Input. Public Input does make a difference. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s not possible to stop a fast moving locomotive. It took four months to stop this one, but thanks to the South Dakota State Senate Judiciary Committee, it can’t move anymore this year.

This locomotive started with some hope for victims of elder abuse and their families. What it became was a bill appearing to make it easier to defraud them and the unsuspecting. As advocates, we strive to do what is right for those we wish to protect and make it harder for those who might try fraud and deceit. This is why those of us who use Public input fight, not only for today but for the future.

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to defeat HB 1204, “An Act to revise certain provisions regarding power of attorney“.

For a little background, as we age or have special needs, there are legal forms and processes available to allow others to help us with medical or financial decisions. We often will pick a trusted family member to legally act on our behalf under certain types of circumstances without the need for court proceedings. This is the Power of Attorney (POA) process. I firmly believe everyone must have a POA document signed, sealed and put away for the time it is necessary to use. Your family and especially the person you trust the most has to know these documents. If you currently have them, do they know where they are,  or how to use them in the case of emergency?

Put into the wrong hands through fraud, deception or self-interest, the POA can be the gateway to stripping you of all your rights and property. Having activated a POA, it can set in motion a process of forcing you into a guardianship where you are left with no rights at all. At this point you are left with nothing to say about your life. All your dreams of a happy or peaceful retirement are gone. In the wrong hands, you can become a legal ward or prisoner wishing you were dead, because death is the only freedom left.

This is not something I have made up; I have been a guardian, conservator and POA for several people in multiple states for over 30 years, seeing the best and worst.

HB 1204 was a 52 page bill created by special interests to create, protect or implement business plans. HB 1204 was based on the Uniform Power of Attorney (UPOA) concept of model legislation. There are many good ideas in the UPOA but this version had so many issues, it had to die and allow the public to be part of a process to fix what is wrong with our current weak processes.

I have recorded and placed on the Internet, over 3300 public meeting videos to teach others how government and Robert’s Rules processes work. There are rules we outsiders may not fully understand but we must become familiar with them in order to effect and affect change. The Senate Judiciary Committee took about 90 minutes to decide HB 1204 was not a good fit for South Dakota. Here is my video of the meeting: https://youtu.be/-0mk_m6wN84 How a Bad Bill Dies in Pierre – HB 1204 – UPOA.

If you want to part of the process to fix these laws in South Dakota, please email me at upoa@citizens4integrity.org. If you have a story to share, please feel free to also contact me.

Why not make alcohol flavored cupcakes without alcohol?

All this hub-bub about fixing the laws so people can make cupcake frosting or other tasty desserts is worth the conversation. If for no other reason, for the fact that South Dakota’s laws on alcohol are way behind the times, including taxation. But the one thing I can’t figure out is why did this cupcake shop close?

Intoxibakes closed immediately, stopping online orders as they waited to work things out with city liquor licensors.

While I can understand the inconvenience of not being able to use alcohol temporarily, NOT sure why a cupcake business shut it’s doors until a fix is found. YOU MAKE CUPCAKES! CUPCAKES! Why not make regular non alcohol infused cupcakes until the law gets changed? Really!? There are several cupcake shops all over Sioux Falls that do it, and make it just fine.

I can understand though it would probably go against your business plan, but guess what, you can make all kinds of FAUX alcohol flavored baked goods using substitutes that have the same flavor qualities. There are substitutes for beer, champagne, brandy, Frangelico, coffee liqueur, etc, etc.

While I understand their frustration with Pierre, I think shutting down the business until it is fixed isn’t a real good business plan. Go make your cupcakes, and once our city officials and state legislators remove their heads from their butts, than you can go back to using the real deal.

Billy and Sally will never know the difference at their 6 year old birthday party.

GEEEZ!

SD State Legislative Forum, Feb 10, 2018

Legislative Update from the Advocacy Project

Advocates,
These are among the bills that are very important, if we hope to continue to be able to exercise our citizen rights to initiate and refer laws.
================= 
ALL Rep’s will vote on these in a floor session. I expect it will be tomorrow(Tue), starting at 2:00(1:00Mt), because amended bills usually go to the floor 2 days after they pass out of committee.   
Email format: firstname.lastname@sdlegislature.gov
Phone message to rep’s: 605-773-3851
================= 
 
OPPOSE
HB1177 would make it incredibly difficult for grassroots groups to utilize the initiative process. Every petition circulator would be required to have his/her name and phone and email on a small handout to give to every signer, not just info about the measure itself and its sponsors and whether you are a volunteer or paid, but your personal contact info.  In other words, every petition circulator would need a PERSONALIZED handout, each verified by the Sec of State. Imagine working with 100 volunteers. Suddenly, you need 100 different handouts prepared, different for each one. Clearly, a logistical mess. 
      Plus, requiring volunteers to disclose their personal contact information to numerous strangers would have a chilling effect on volunteer participation.  (Maybe we could ask legislators to imagine if one of their daughters wanted to circulate a petition for some good cause. Is this a requirement they would want placed on her?)
     If necessary, HB1177 could apply only to paid circulators. Leave the volunteers alone. Requiring you to disclose your volunteer status should suffice.
[You can thank these who opposed it in committee: Bartling, Hawley, Rhoden]
 
OPPOSE
HB1196 is similar to HB1177 In that the amount of information it requires people to disclose is excessive. It might sway people away from participating in the process. 
    Also similar to HB1177, this proposal could possibly be acceptable by amending it to apply only the paid petition circulators AND to paid circulators of candidate nominating petitions as well.
      1196 would require you to disclose more info to the state to gather a signature than is currently required for you to but a shotgun. The depth and breadth of personal information required from circulators, whether paid or volunteers, is absurd. Ballot question committees should be expected to verify residency of their paid circulators, of course. But the personal questions for volunteers in HB1196 cross a line and, intended or not, would chill political participation.
[You can thank these who opposed it in committee: Bartling, Hawley, Lust, Rhoden]
 
You can comment on two together for House floor. There are more coming up in some committees.