Another Petition Drive in the Works?

Theresa Stehly has decided to exert her public muscle once again. This time she wants to change how the Park Board is organized. The Charter Revision Commission is continuing its work reviewing and considering changes to the city's constitution called the City Charter. Stehly appeared before them last week to present her proposal along with the little threat of another petition drive if they don't heed her advice.

Stehly thinks the Park Board should be established by districts, similar to how the city council is made up and she thinks it should be so stated in the City Charter. She said she is exploring which option would be best to make this change: a charter revision, a petition drive or working with the council to draft an ordinance.

Boards and commissions serve as a public voice and advisor to the administration. They have no power, nor can they adopt ordinances. The park board is not an elected body. It is an appointed advisory body. Stehly's proposal to the charter revision commission is not vision driven but an agenda driven by Theresa Stehly's agenda.

It makes no sense to single out one board in the city charter. The charter is a big tent with broad constitutional oversight. It provides an executive, legislative and administrative structure for a home rule local government. The charter speaks in broad terms about the mayor's role regarding boards and commissions.

City Attorney Pfeifle said the city charter is not the place to address this issue. Director Kearney said the process for appointing Park Board members is working so why change it. Pfeifle is right on - the charter revision commission is not the right place for this discussion. Director Kearney is also right in that the Park Board members look out for the needs of the entire community, not just one area of town.

The tendency is to pooh pooh anything that comes from Theresa Stehly. What we do know from past behavior, Stehly doesn't like to be told no. When asked by charter board member Knudson if her proposal was also directed at the planning commission, Stehly said no, she was only interested in the Park Board. Her agendas are specific driven. Normally, I'd say run for office but, she did that and she didn't win, even though it was in her own district. She has become involved in the Spellerberg Park discussion and it is not even in her own district. Has she been asked to lead another charge or has she appointed herself as the crusade leader for the Spellerberg area?

Stehly believes she has a mandate from the public because of her successful snow gate petition drive. People will sign most any petition if asked on the street. I have been known to sign a petition just to drive a discussion even though I know I will not support the measure if it came to a vote. Just because you can gather signatures doesn't mean you have a mandate on an issue.

My first thought when I heard about Stehly's latest crusade was to roll my eyes. Because ---- it came from her, again. Then I stepped back and thought, maybe it has some merit, at least for further discussion at a council committee meeting. I don't agree with her narrow viewpoint that it should only be discussed in the context of the Park Board, however. If the concept has merit, it has merit for the Planning Commission as well since both boards are recommending and advising on matters that affect the make up of the community.

It could be as simple as the mayor's office looking at applications in a different light with some consideration to broad representation in the community. You can do that without changing any ordinances. Making it ironclad and specific in ordinance might create problems filling board seats, especially if no one from a specific district is interested in volunteering to serve on a board.

 

Minnehaha County Republican Leadership

One wonders where all the reasonable Republicans are in Minnehaha County. They must have been out of the county when Lora Hubbel was elected Chair of the Minnehaha County Republican Party. I just finished watching the Morning Conversation with Lora Hubbel on 1/10/13.

Lora says she is not a Tea Party Republican. She says she is a conservative, christian Republican with Libertarian leanings. I just don't get it. I know a lot of local Republicans and she does not seem to fit in with the Republicans I know. How then, did she get elected as the leader for Republicans in this county?  I am beginning to think because there is a majority anyway, most of the Republicans really don't care who their leader and spokesperson is, hence Lora. Someone has to do the grunt work, I guess.

The County Republicans were awfully quiet when Lora and Manny cooked up their little scheme to take down the Chamber Legislative Coffee. After all, that organization wanted to talk about green things when she wanted to talk about red things. She used that analogy with Patrick Lalley but I think you get the picture. It's all about her agenda, not the party's agenda. Here's what Lora says about it on the county republican party website:

The Chamber of Commerce nationwide is a conservative organization but individual cities have their own personality. Ours has said that there is nothing we can do about OBamaCare and that there is no fighting it....not a typical conservative ideology. Republicans have had problems with the Chamber of Commerce Coffees since "the early 1990's when I was in the legislature." says a current PUC member.

The League of Women Voters are the sole group in charge of the event (during the coffee)...even though we pay as much to sponsor it as they do. In fact, even after meetings with the Chamber and asking why it is that we cannot pick out any questions to be asked of the legislators (we can't even look at the questions asked by the audience at the event) and why we cannot ever moderate... we have gotten no headway with them in regards to equal representation. So we voted to not sponsor this event until things change. Instead we will host equal but opposite forums at the same time and same day. When the Chamber hosts a group of legislators, we will host the opposite group...when all conservative questions are lampooned or ignored, we will welcome them.

All legislators, Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc., will be invited and all questions will have an equal opportunity to be asked....all constituents will feel a part of the process instead of being ignored and having their ideas booed.

Please donate a bit so we can get this event off the ground (put in the memo of your check "forums" please).....Many Thanks, Lora Hubbel

KELOTV on January 3, 2013 reported: For the last several years, Republican Representative Manny Steele says he's noticed the League of Women Voters legislative coffee is too liberal. He says it's biased against the GOP.

If you go on the League of Woman Voters website it will tell you that it is a long standing non-partisan organization that doesn't support or oppose any candidates for public office. The league is well known for hosting debates and forums. Their website states: we believe deeply that the public should hear different views on the issues facing our communities and our nation. An honest and respectful sharing of ideas is vital to the functioning of American democracy.

Hubbel and Steele want to create their own forum so they can discuss their views as they see it. It's not about a sharing of ideas and hearing all sides and opinion on issues. I ask you, which forum would you like to attend if you are a person with an open mind and an interest in learning all sides of an issue in which to make an informed decision?

What has happened to the leadership of the Minnehaha County Republican Party? Where are all the reasonable and objective Republicans I know and respect in this county? The Minnehaha County Republican leadership is interesting to say the least.

Lora Hubbel's role as Chairperson of the Minnehaha County Republicans is coming to an end. The Central Committee and legislators will be voting on a new chairperson at the their headquarters on 69th Street on January 19th. This group has had strange leadership in the past. It will be interesting to see who takes over as Chairperson for the future. Someone who has respect for honest and respectful sharing of ideas would be a change of pace for this group.

Tree Branches

Everybody likes trees in their yards. Trees provide good shade and they green up one's property. If a property owner decides to plant trees on their property, shouldn't they be expected to keep the trees trimmed? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know when a tree needs to be trimmed. If you mow your lawn and you have to duck in order to not get bonked on the head and whiplashed in the face, you need to trim the dang tree. If it impedes the sidewalk or the street, it needs to be trimmed.

When did we become such a lazy society? Councilor Anderson got a complaint from some constituent and now is asking for a review of the city's Parks and Recreation  Project T.R.I.M. program. City ordinance requires trees to have a 10 foot clearance over sidewalks and a minimum 12 foot clearance over the street. For arterial and collector streets, there must be a 16 foot clearance over the street.

The Parks Department has an inspection program whereby they inspect the city in quadrants. If they find trees that are not in compliance with the ordinance, they send a notice to the property owner. If the property owner does not comply, they get a second notice with more detailed information on which tree needs trimming. If the property owner still doesn't comply, they go out and trim the tree(s) and charge the property owner $150 per hour for the service. 3% of property owners don't comply. 97% do comply.

Councilor Anderson doesn't think the Parks Department is giving the homeowner enough information on which trees need trimming. He also threw out the idea that maybe the city should take over trimming trees. Director Kearney says that is is just too expensive. Darn right it is too expensive and I, for one, am not interested in having my taxes increased because someone can't trim their own trees on their property. First we can't shovel our own driveways, and now we can't seem to trim our own trees.

The City Council Public Services Committee asked Parks and Recreation officials to come before them to justify their program. Clearly, this is a program that is working. Maybe Councilor Anderson should have responded to the complaining constiuent with detailed information about the sucess of the program and remind the property owner of their duty as a property owner.

This is much ado about nothing but then making mountains out of mole hills is what politicians seem to do. Just because somebody complains doesn't mean whole programs need changing.  It would be different if Parks and Recreation didn't have a plan and weren't be responsible in managing it, but they are. They should be commended for running a program with a 97% compliance rate.

Move on, Public Services Committee.

When Saying No with No Plan Costs Us Money

It is unsettling to learn that over 14% of this state's population is covered under South Dakota's Medicaid program. That's 116,000 children, adults and disabled people. There are another estimated 48,000 people who would be added under the expanded eligibility as part of the federal health care law, slanged as ObamaCare.  South Dakota's estimated 2011 population is 824,082.

Republican State Legislators can wring their hands over their hopes being dashed by the Supreme Court when it upheld President Obama's health care initiative. What the legislature needs to do is come up with solutions on how to deal with the poor and lower middle class workers in this state who have no means to access affordable health care or insurance in this state.

Uninsured Americans cost the American health care system an additional $49 billion. Governor Daugaard believes health care decisions should be left up to each state and he doesn't want to expand Medicaid because he doesn't believe the federal government has the ability to pay for it. He has also decided that SD should opt out of the expansion of Medicaid which was one of the biggest milestones of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  

The law previously required states to cover their poorest or lose federal funding to Medicaid (federal funding covers 90-100% of the costs) until the supreme court ruling on Obama Care. Now each state can decide whether or not they want to opt out of expanding coverage to their poorest with no penalty.  The thing is, we all are impacted by this recalcitrant position of the governor.

Who does the Governor think pays for these expenses? These expenses are not free. All he is doing is cost shifting. That 14% plus population who needs coverage but can't because of the Governor's position will eventually end up in hospital emergency rooms. We all know that going to an emergency room is no way to treat illnesses that are not an emergency. It drives up costs and guess what, you and I are going to pay for it through increased premiums in our own health insurance coverages.

When you are in charge of finding solutions, as an elected official, you cannot say you are not going to do something. Because when you say that, you impact somebody else you represent. It shows you don't see the big picture and don't have a clue how to solve the problem.

When is Talk Cheap?

Theresa Stehly, chairwoman of Citizens for Snow Gates, and her army of supporters were upset last month when the City Council limited public input on the snow gate election agenda item to 20 minutes. There were a lot of people attending the meeting who wanted to publicly state their support of establishing an election date on the issue.

Public input is important but you have to ask the question, when does it become redundant and no longer provides meaningful information? After 20 minutes? After one hour? After two hours? How many people does it take to hear the same thing? It seems to me the key to public input at a council meeting is meaningful input. Two hours of listening to the same talking points over and over is not meaningful input just because it's a different person each time. All it does, most of the time, is feed the egos of those who want the limelight and take delight in calling elected officials on the carpet on TV.

There are others way for the public to provide input and give their voice on an issue. Write the mayor and your council representative a letter. Send them an e-mail. Write a letter to the editor of the local paper. Submit a statement with signatures of support at the council meeting the night the item is on the council agenda, but select key people to speak on the issue.

Twenty minutes was not enough time for a controversial issue like the snow gate election. An hour of public input would surely have been plenty of time. The city council has many items on their weekly council agenda. The council meeting is a business meeting and it is certainly appropriate to establish guidelines and rules regarding the conduct of business. The sticky question is how long must this elected body sit through repetitive public input that offers no new information on a controversial issue, just different bodies.

The pro side and the con side of every issue can say that they deserve to be heard and should not have their public testimony limited in any way. But really, is that how to run an official meeting? If Stehly had known beforehand that there was going to be a time limit, she could have organized her army of supporters and very strategically picked her strongest voices to speak that night. That's the way it should be done. She didn't get the opportunity, because the rule isn't a defined rule and is currently used at the discretion of the council leadership.

I think it's a good idea to establish rules regarding public input and publish the rules. That way, no one can cry foul and the council won't look so arbitrary in their action. When is talk cheap? When it provides no new facts or information and is just repetitive rhetoric in a different set of clothes. That's why a rule such as what will be studied by the council is in the right direction.

Guns

I wasn't going to write a musing about guns because it can become such an incendiary topic but I just can't sit on the sidelines regarding this issue. The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting was horrific. I cannot get the image of those six and seven year old children being mowed down by a semi automatic assault rifle, some being hit up to eleven times. How do you get that kind of image out of your head?

Finally, after a self imposed silence following the massacre at Sandy Hook, the National Rifle Association's top leader, Wayne LaPierre, said at a Washington news conference yesterday that, quote, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

That may be, but does it have to be with an assault rifle and hundreds of magazine clips of ammunition? I drove past a gun shop in Sioux Falls a couple days ago and the parking lot was packed. I suppose every gun enthusiast in the area was in that shop buying up as many guns as they can, panicked because they think they are going to lose their right to bear arms.

LaPierre wants schools to have armed guards, volunteers if you can imagine. Did you know that over one third of the schools in this country already have uniformed police officers serving as resource officers in schools? Did you know that Columbine had an armed deputy sheriff at the school the day of the shooting there and it still did not deter the massacre?

It amazes me that people cannot stay rational and instead of going "ballistic" and losing their collective rational minds regarding this issue. Now we have a state legislature who wants to introduce a bill allowing school teachers and other personnel to bring guns to schools. I don't think school superintendents and school boards across this country need the NRA or state legislatures to dictate how to deal with gun violence in their schools.

Why did everyone wait with baited breath to hear what the NRA had to say on the massacre at Sandy Hook?

Why do they seem to have such power in this country to even be credible and relevant when speaking about the horror in Newtown, Connecticut?

Why should we have to listen to what LaPierre has to say about what this country should do about school safety while he arrogantly proclaims guns not to be the problem?

Guns are his bread and butter. Guns are his money. LaPierre and his NRA are the least credible spokesman to speak on this issue and La Pierre was entirely self serving.

That press conference yesterday was disgusting and insulting to the American public and the grieving families in Newtown, Connecticut.

There is no rational reason for any person to own a semi-automatic assault rifle and magazine clips that spit out 30 to 100 hundred rounds of ammunition in a split second ripping bodies apart as people are mowed down. It's excessive, it's overkill and both must be banned. Why can't it be as simple as that?

A Postponed Election

The snow gate issue has been interesting to follow over the past two years. The city has been testing snow gates for a couple of years. If you read the report, it is clear that it will cost taxpayers more money for snow removal, it will slow down operations and it will narrow streets.

However, if you listen to the snow gate petition organizers and the people who signed the petitions to get it on the ballot, they don't care what it costs, how long it takes or that it will narrow their streets. They just do not want to have to shovel that mound of snow dumped at the end of their driveway and they want the city to do it for them.

Plenty of past political officials signed the petition and they were identified at the council meeting last night as if to prove that the present city council was not in tune with everyone. I personally do not lay much stock in these past officials signage on the petitions. I think some of them probably signed the petitions as a political statement to the present administration, but that is just speculation on my part.

It was interesting to watch the public testimony last night and the council responses. I can see both sides. People do not not want to shovel the snow dumped at the end of their driveways by those motor graders. I don't like to do it either. The petitioners want someone else to take care of their snow problem. The city council is concerned about money, logistics and operational issues. That's their job and they were doing it last night.

If you assume the general public is well informed when they signed the snow gate petition, then you can assume that those 8,000 plus people know it will cost more money, it will take more time to plow streets clean and it will narrow their streets. I am sure the people who organized the petition drive let people know those facts when they encouraged them to sign their petitions. Right?

I understand the city councilors concerns about logistics regarding all those leased vehicles and sub-contractors hired to assist the city in plowing streets. But the fact is they have been researching this issue for a couple years now and those subcontractors should have been voicing their opinions/concerns about meeting the requirements by now and figuring out whether they can do it or not. Right?

My disclaimer - I don't support snow gates. I have read the report and I don't want to spend taxpayer dollars on something that can only be used when snow levels are low. I don't want snow removal to take longer than the 3 days it now takes to plow out the entire city. I don't want narrower streets in the winter. When it goes to a public vote, I will vote no.

However, I am of the opinion that the vote should have been held in April. It is the city's job to research the issue and get the logistics studied and identified and communicated to the public. It's called educating the public. The snow gate petitioners organized and got enough signatures to call for a vote.

Whether you agree with this referral action or not, is no longer relevant. Maybe the city should have been more engaged and vocal about communicating and educating the public about it's reservations while the petition action was going on. Between now and April, the city could have been communicating it's reservations about this issue and laying out all the facts.

I know, I know, they said they don't have all the facts. The problem is the petitioners don't believe them and think they are stalling because they don't support snow gates. It seems to be a trust issue with Stehly and her army of supporters.

There is a bigger issue here, in my opinion. When people start organizing referrals and petitions affecting operational issues that are the responsibility of the administration and the city council, then there is going to be a problem. Citizens can't be in charge of day to day administration and operational matters. There will be a breakdown in government services. That is why we elect people to oversee such matters.

And that is why you saw what you saw last night. This is not good government, people. If you don't like what the city council and the mayor are doing then vote them out of office. Referring day to day operational matters to a public vote is wrong and Stehly and her army, no matter what their good intentions, are wrong in this petition drive. And yes, the council was wrong last night in postponing the election.

And now everyone can see the breakdown in good government.