I’m sure she is a lovely lady, but I can buy an airplane, as long as I have the money. You can get drones now for $50, but not sure you can take the fam to Disneyland on that 🙂
Matt Paulson who pretty much recruited most of the leading council candidates and helping to fund their campaigns has a tendency to brag about his ability to buy fancy cars and apparently airplanes, but most working stiffs in this town could care less, some have never even been on puddle jumper from here to Minneapolis.
I could care less what Matt spends his money on, even that lime green Lambo.
Where it disturbs me is that this guy, who apparently has more money then he knows what to do with, has been playing king maker in the halls of city hall. I have no problem with wealthy donors funding campaigns, kind of over it in Sioux Falls, it happens, OH WELL. Where it gets frustrating is when these same wealthy donors are also handpicking councilors, school board candidates, and the list goes on. He is also running the campaigns for the candidates ‘hands off’. Most of the candidates that he is helping have told others that they have no idea what the campaign strategy is, Paulson is handling it.
WOW!
It’s time to kick these Prosperity Gospel weirdos to the curb. VOTE STARR & DEFFENBAUGH and send a message to these jettsetters. Get on your award winning airplane purchase and fly away, far away. May I suggest Florida or Texas, you would fit right in.
The movement of Regional processing centers from Sioux Falls to Omaha Neb and Huron to Fargo ND Will not be good for South Dakota!
Please contact The USPS at this monkey Survey to give your input on the transfer of the Regional processing center from Sioux Falls to Omaha Nebraska and from Huron to Fargo North Dakota. It will definitely impact the service by their own admission. If what the USPS says is true we must let them know how we feel. Sioux Falls is the fastest growing city in the nation and it will lose its regional distribution center? This does not make any sense. Please fill out this survey asap.
We are also asking you contact Mark Inglett directly
Usually, when people come up with a campaign slogan, they stole it from somewhere. So I was curious about Bayse’s campaign promise;
Leading with purpose.
Serving with passion.
If you are in upper management or an executive with a company, this is a great philosophy to get your employees to work harder;
Those who lead with a purpose are passionate about what they do, and they inspire others to follow them by communicating their vision effectively and by creating a positive and supportive work environment. They are also able to motivate and empower their team members to work towards achieving their shared purpose.
Leading with a purpose is not just about achieving material success; it is also about making a positive impact on the world and contributing to the greater good. It requires a commitment to values such as integrity, honesty, and social responsibility. By leading with a purpose, leaders can create a sense of meaning for their team members, which can lead to increased engagement, motivation, and productivity.
But let’s remove ourselves from the corporate world of making money, and look at the office Bayse is trying to get elected to.
The city council’s job is writing policy in coordination with constituents needs. Their ONLY partner should be us. You work for the constituents, you are NOT our manager or boss. On top of that, according to city charter, it is the Mayor’s duty to unite and lead city employees, council, not so much.
It often baffles me that people run for office knowing little about what their eventual duties are and create cutesy word combinations from the corporate world to sound all techy and modern. We need a councilor that will work WITH constituents, not against us, you are NOT our boss, you are our servant.
*As for the NE, I live in Central so I cannot vote for anyone. While I did do some paid advertising and graphics for two of the candidates in the district, I am NOT endorsing anyone. I have said, vote for anybody but Bayse, and if you don’t like any of the candidates, abstain.
I will though, endorse Jordan Deffenbaugh for At Large and believe he has a good chance of winning in a runoff (send him money!)
I would also encourage a vote for Pat Starr for school board (I only voted for Pat today and left my second choice blank).
I want people to know I have been a graphic designer for over 30 years and have ran this blog for 17 making little to no money from my blogging endeavors. I will work with anybody even if I disagree with their political stance. My BFF is a card carrying Trumper, and we get along just fine. If they are paying me for my services I can’t deny them access to those services because I disagree with their political stance. So if you take issue with that, stop reading and commenting on my blog, or better yet, send me money to operate the blog so I don’t have to do paid advertisingand I can ban all political asshats from advertising here.
Seems Mayor TenHaken may have to change his FB page;
The US Supreme Court ruled on Friday public officials with ability to make policy cannot claim a Facebook page is private. Public officials can be sued for blocking or deleting critical commentary, the opinion said, if a public employee has the “actual authority to speak on the state’s behalf” and “purported to exercise that authority” in the social media post at issue. A personal page status cannot be claimed if the public official is not personally moderating the content.
And Paul is paying someone to monitor the page. You know, the guy who moderated the council candidate forum. Basically the RULING says that as an elected official, you cannot have a personal page, and cannot censor commentary or users. Facebook is a public forum and when posting on there as an elected official, that would make it official.
James Freed, like countless other Americans, created a private Facebook profile sometime before 2008. He eventually converted his profile to a public “page,” meaning that anyone could see and comment on his posts. In 2014, Freed updated his Facebook page to reflect that he was appointed city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, describing himself as “Daddy to Lucy, Husband to Jessie and City Manager, Chief Administrative Officer for the citizens of Port Huron, MI.” Freed continued to operate his Facebook page himself and continued to post prolifically (and primarily) about his personal life. Freed also posted information related to his job, such as highlighting communications from other city officials and soliciting feedback from the public on issues of concern. Freed often responded to comments on his posts, including those left by city residents with inquiries about community matters. He occasionally deleted comments that he considered “derogatory” or “stupid.”
After the COVID–19 pandemic began, Freed posted about it. Some posts were personal, and some contained information related to his job. Facebook user Kevin Lindke commented on some of Freed’s posts, unequivocally expressing his displeasure with the city’s approach to the pandemic. Initially, Freed deleted Lindke’s comments; ultimately, he blocked him from commenting at all. Lindke sued Freed under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that Freed had violated his First Amendment rights. As Lindke saw it, he had the right to comment on Freed’s Facebook page because it was a public forum. The District Court determined that because Freed managed his Facebook page in his private capacity, and because only state action can give rise to liability under §1983, Lindke’s claim failed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Held: A public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under §1983 only if he official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts. Pp. 5–15.
One last point: The nature of the technology matters to the state-action analysis. Freed performed two actions to which Lindke objected: He deleted Lindke’s comments and blocked him from commenting again. So far as deletion goes, the only relevant posts are those from which Lindke’s comments were removed. Blocking, however, is a different story. Because blocking operated on a page-wide basis, a Court would have to consider whether Freed had engaged in state action with respect to any post on which Lindke wished to comment. The bluntness of Facebook’s blocking tool highlights the cost of a “mixed use” social-media account: If page-wide blocking is the only option, a public official might be unable to prevent someone from commenting on his personal posts without risking liability for also preventing comments on his official posts.3 A public official who fails to keep personal posts in a clearly designated personal account therefore exposes himself to greater potential liability.
* * *
The state-action doctrine requires Lindke to show that Freed (1) had actual authority to speak on behalf of the State on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts. To the extent that this test differs from the one applied by the Sixth Circuit, we vacate its judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
——————
3 On some platforms, a blocked user might be unable even to see the blocker’s posts. See, e.g., Garnier v. O’Connor-Ratcliff, 41 F. 4th, 1158, 1164 (CA9 2022) (noting that “on Twitter, once a user has been ‘blocked,’ the individual can neither interact with nor view the blocker’s Twitter feed”); Knight First Amdt. Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 928 F. 3d 226, 231 (CA2 2019) (noting that a blocked user is unable to see, reply to, retweet, or like the blocker’s tweets).
We have officially known for weeks the city intends to withdraw a $70 million dollar bond, we have known this amount since October unofficially. So if you know what you are going to spend for months and months, that tells me you know exactly what is being purchased with that amount. There of course is talk of an indoor facility and an outdoor facility. There is also some rumors floating around about some ‘ideas’ thrown into the mix.
So what is the city hiding?
The current city council, in which 4 of them are leaving in May, have requested to vote on the bonds before the May 21st meeting where the new councilors are installed.
• The city has known since last Fall the price tag of the bonds (a number that was likely concocted by the bonding company, and not the city or engineers.)
• They haven’t released details of what we are getting for the money yet.
• Parks Board plans to review the bonds and approve them around April 15 or later. The council won’t get a PUBLIC presentation of the details of the bonds until April 30 (even though they already know what’s in them) and then will have to do a first and second reading before the last meeting of this council on May 14th. Essentially giving citizens only a few weeks to digest $70 million in bonds that there will be NO public vote on (we really should have voted on the bonds since there is already an election, such a missed opportunity . . . but when you are a closed government militant, this is how things are done.)
As for the rumors, I won’t comment because some of the things being said are so ludicrous, I doubt the administration is exploring them, but you never know.
So like the Delbridge Animals secret, the administration is sitting on the details of the bonds. Why? Because the are likely trying to hide something, and even if a couple of the rumors are true, something is going to hit the fan, and it won’t be dead monkey crap.
*I was also told last night that the city subsidizes the Midco to the tune of $1.2 million a year (it costs $2.2 to operate and they collect $1 million in fees.) And that is just an indoor pool. Can you imagine what it will cost to operate one or two more of these facilities that also include a fitness area and pools? The mayor also intends to purchase the Riverline District property from Lloyd in the 2025 budget ($8 or $9 million) and plans to push for a $300 million dollar bond in 2029 for a new Convention Center. Not sure where the city is going to get the tax revenue to pay off all this stuff, but it is starting to become ridiculous. There is ZERO economic benefit to the bottom line of the average taxpayer. A better way to spend that money is to build a modern public transit system that hooks into the Airport and Passenger rail service. The impact of people from rural towns in the midwest coming to Sioux Falls for shopping and recreation would be a much greater impact then 4-5 conventions a year.
l3wis 
