I posted a blog about snowgates back on November 27, 2011. I went back and read it to see if my opinion back then still made sense to me or whether I should re-consider my position on the snowgate issue. Nope, my opinion has not changed. It seems to be me, snowgates are still a want, not a necessity.
You can argue all you want about the fact that we are spending millions on the event center, hockey rinks, tennis courts, outdoor pools and on and on, so it somehow justifies spending only hundreds of thousands of dollars on snowgates. That kind of thinking grows a deficit. Until the mayor and the city council address the budget and the CIP in terms of wants versus needs, we will continue to grow the city's debt exposure which will surely be on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren to repay, just like the federal deficit.
Are Snowgates Worth It? For the convenience of the homeowner, probably yes. But is it really a prudent use of taxpayer dollars when it is a want and not a necessity? It isn't just the snowgate issue. Everything that comes before the city council should be discussed in terms of a want versus a necessity. I guess the public will get a chance to decide this issue if the petition drive is successful, which I think it will be.
Read my blog of November 27, 2011 titled: Snowgates - Are They Worth It? There are over 20 comments on it. I would venture to guess those opinions have not changed one iota since 2011. People either want them or they don't think it's necessary. I predict a yes verdict from the public on this issue. People hate those piles at the end of their driveway and if they can get someone else to shovel it then yippee! What they don't understand is that someone else is the city using their money to do it. If that's how the majority wants to spend their money, then so be it.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Thursday, October 4, 2012
County Detox Center Problems Troubling
Most people probably don't give a hoot about the Minnehaha County Detox Center because they or a family member has never had an occasion to use such a facility. However, the management of a county facility such as this should be of interest to taxpayers because it is taxpayers dollars that seem to have been mismanaged as it relates to the operation and oversight of the facility. The county paid a lot of money to this contractor to manage the operations of this facility and this facility has serious problems for what seems to be a long time.
The detox center is located on the second floor of the public safety building. It's not like the facility was at some remote location. The Sheriff's department has employees in this building. Metro Communications is located in this building. The Jail is attached to this building. There is a lot going on in the Public Safety Building. And yet, no one seemed to know that there were serious problems with that center's operations until employee whistle blowers went to the media to get the county's attention as a last resort. That is never good and proves to be very embarrassing for government and elected officials.
There are a lot of third party contractors managing operations and functions in local government. However, that does not mean government officials can turn a blind eye to what is happening with these operations. In the case of the Minnehaha County Detoxification Center, it would appear that no one was minding the store. Out of sight, out of mind because someone else was hired to manage it. Due diligence and oversight is still necessary. Now the State of South Dakota has put the facility on probation and is not allowing any patient admissions because of serious safety concerns until a corrective plan of action is reviewed and approved. County officials said they already sent in their correction action. Fast action is good especially when you get caught with your pants down.
You have to feel a little sorry for the county in spite of what is going on with the Detox Center. The county is at the mercy of the state when it comes to a lot of issues relating to the indigent population. They don't always have control over expenses dictated by the state. However, it still obligates them to management and oversight of these programs and services.
In today's ARGUS LEADER, Minnehaha County Commission Chair Dick Kelly said that "the commission plans to keep a close eye on the detox center, and the state will, as well." Is it really the county commissioners' job to keep a close eye on the detox center? Why isn't this oversight the responsibility of a county department? Maybe then it would not have gotten so out of control.
And it took a former employee going to the media to get their attention. Troubling.
The detox center is located on the second floor of the public safety building. It's not like the facility was at some remote location. The Sheriff's department has employees in this building. Metro Communications is located in this building. The Jail is attached to this building. There is a lot going on in the Public Safety Building. And yet, no one seemed to know that there were serious problems with that center's operations until employee whistle blowers went to the media to get the county's attention as a last resort. That is never good and proves to be very embarrassing for government and elected officials.
There are a lot of third party contractors managing operations and functions in local government. However, that does not mean government officials can turn a blind eye to what is happening with these operations. In the case of the Minnehaha County Detoxification Center, it would appear that no one was minding the store. Out of sight, out of mind because someone else was hired to manage it. Due diligence and oversight is still necessary. Now the State of South Dakota has put the facility on probation and is not allowing any patient admissions because of serious safety concerns until a corrective plan of action is reviewed and approved. County officials said they already sent in their correction action. Fast action is good especially when you get caught with your pants down.
You have to feel a little sorry for the county in spite of what is going on with the Detox Center. The county is at the mercy of the state when it comes to a lot of issues relating to the indigent population. They don't always have control over expenses dictated by the state. However, it still obligates them to management and oversight of these programs and services.
In today's ARGUS LEADER, Minnehaha County Commission Chair Dick Kelly said that "the commission plans to keep a close eye on the detox center, and the state will, as well." Is it really the county commissioners' job to keep a close eye on the detox center? Why isn't this oversight the responsibility of a county department? Maybe then it would not have gotten so out of control.
And it took a former employee going to the media to get their attention. Troubling.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
My Sign is Bigger Than Your Sign and It's Not Fair
The city is taking a look at the sign ordinance and will be recommending changes to the City Council. Right now, officials are holding public meetings to get the public takes on what the changes might entail.
We first heard about signs when someone filed a complaint about those "offensive" Catholic school yard signs. Neighbors reporting neighbors always seems to ignite a fire and this one seems to have fueled a bonfire. Not only will the city address yard signs of all kinds, but they will be revising language that affects businesses and their windows.
Ordinances need review periodically and the sign ordinance is no different. What gets scary is when the review swings left or right of the middle common sense approach. Local business owner Kevin Nyberg is right on the money and city official Jeff Schmitt seems out of touch on an issue affecting local businesses.
Window signs are currently exempt from the ordinance and businesses can fill up their entire windows if they want to in order to market their business. The city is proposing changing all that to make it "fair" for all business owners.
Schmitt has called window signage a fairness issue that makes things equal for businesses with and without windows, but Nyberg said entrepreneurs are competitive by nature and “fair just doesn’t fit our mode.”“I just don’t understand what you’re saying about it’s not fair,” Nyberg said. “If it’s not fair, go find another location and get windows. It’s marketing. It’s sales tax revenue. It’s being in business.”
Since when should the city be concerned about establishing fairness when it comes to individual businesses' ability to market their brand on their own windows? Businesses are competing for business. It is utterly ridiculous to think there should be a uniform ordinance that establishes all business marketing efforts the same in size for window signs and banners and how much space window signs can fill. Sometimes, people cannot see the forest for the trees.
If this ordinance review is like the ordinance review that took place regarding the parking of recreational vehicles on residential streets, then hang on to your hats. I have never seen so many RV campers, big house trailers masquerading as RV campers, trailers and boats on city streets until that ordinance was changed. There is one residential street close to my home where an RV camper, the size of a small house trailer, is parked in front of a residential home for weeks on end. The extender is out into the street and the thing is plugged into the house. The RV is so big it blocks the majority of the 3 car driveway and extends all the way to beginning of the neighbor's property. But I digress, back to signage.
Government is here to help make everything "fair" for the business owners and they have been working on it for two years. But in those two years of reviewing the ordinance language, they haven't talked to those corporate business owners whose marketing banners and signs are dictated by corporate offices. Plenty of time to muck up free enterprise and local businesses' ability to compete in the marketplace and doing it in the privacy of one's own office without talking to the people they are affecting with the changes. Now that's the kind of help business does not need.
Where is the pro-business mayor on this issue?
We first heard about signs when someone filed a complaint about those "offensive" Catholic school yard signs. Neighbors reporting neighbors always seems to ignite a fire and this one seems to have fueled a bonfire. Not only will the city address yard signs of all kinds, but they will be revising language that affects businesses and their windows.
Ordinances need review periodically and the sign ordinance is no different. What gets scary is when the review swings left or right of the middle common sense approach. Local business owner Kevin Nyberg is right on the money and city official Jeff Schmitt seems out of touch on an issue affecting local businesses.
Window signs are currently exempt from the ordinance and businesses can fill up their entire windows if they want to in order to market their business. The city is proposing changing all that to make it "fair" for all business owners.
Schmitt has called window signage a fairness issue that makes things equal for businesses with and without windows, but Nyberg said entrepreneurs are competitive by nature and “fair just doesn’t fit our mode.”“I just don’t understand what you’re saying about it’s not fair,” Nyberg said. “If it’s not fair, go find another location and get windows. It’s marketing. It’s sales tax revenue. It’s being in business.”
Since when should the city be concerned about establishing fairness when it comes to individual businesses' ability to market their brand on their own windows? Businesses are competing for business. It is utterly ridiculous to think there should be a uniform ordinance that establishes all business marketing efforts the same in size for window signs and banners and how much space window signs can fill. Sometimes, people cannot see the forest for the trees.
If this ordinance review is like the ordinance review that took place regarding the parking of recreational vehicles on residential streets, then hang on to your hats. I have never seen so many RV campers, big house trailers masquerading as RV campers, trailers and boats on city streets until that ordinance was changed. There is one residential street close to my home where an RV camper, the size of a small house trailer, is parked in front of a residential home for weeks on end. The extender is out into the street and the thing is plugged into the house. The RV is so big it blocks the majority of the 3 car driveway and extends all the way to beginning of the neighbor's property. But I digress, back to signage.
Government is here to help make everything "fair" for the business owners and they have been working on it for two years. But in those two years of reviewing the ordinance language, they haven't talked to those corporate business owners whose marketing banners and signs are dictated by corporate offices. Plenty of time to muck up free enterprise and local businesses' ability to compete in the marketplace and doing it in the privacy of one's own office without talking to the people they are affecting with the changes. Now that's the kind of help business does not need.
Where is the pro-business mayor on this issue?
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Charter Revision Commission says Good Bye to Televised Broadcasts
The Charter Revision Commission reconvened on September 20, 2012. Commissioner Thimjon made a motion the commission move to working sessions over the next 3 months in order for commission members to review and familiarize themselves with the charter language.
Up until this time, all Charter Revision Commission meetings have been televised on Cable Channel 16. There was discussion about whether these sessions had to be open to the public and the answer given by the City Attorney was that, yes, working sessions were still subject to opening meeting laws which would require public notice and the ability of the public to attend the sessions but didn't require they be televised.
The justification for working sessions was to allow them to be better prepared to respond to changes/revisions coming before them. In addition, these working sessions would allow them to go through the language to see if they had any recommendations for language changes.
I personally don't have a problem with them having working sessions as long as those working sessions are to help them become familiar with the meaning of the language of the charter. However, the discussion at the end of the meeting started to sound like they were going to entertain changes from the City Council at these working sessions.
Working sessions for the purpose of educating the commission members on how the charter language works and/or is applied is good idea. If you allow these meetings to drift towards discussing proposals for language changes, then those meetings should be televised. If these working sessions drift away from self education, then it will be clear that their motives to move to untelevised sessions is to make it more difficult for the public to gain information on what they are doing.
The BIG question is why do this? Why are they uncomfortable having their discussions televised and available for public consumption?
One commissioner stated that they haven't received a phone call or an e-mail about the charter commission's work as if that somehow justified moving to an untelevised working session. Who cares if you don't get an email or phone call? Who cares if it seems the public isn't paying any attention to what you are doing. That is not the point nor a justifiable reason to stop televising the meetings.
After listening to the Charter Revision Commission meeting on September 20th, I am not sure what they are going to be doing at these working sessions. What started out as education sessions to help them be better prepared to respond to submitted charter revisions turned into sounding like they were going to be listening and discussing submitted revisions by the City Council. They now made it more difficult to watch them work and listen to what they had to say because now one has to physically go down to Carnegie Town Hall on their scheduled meeting day to find out what is happening.
Open government and transparency is a good governance. Government officials and/or their appointed boards should televise meetings because it is the right thing to do. Who cares if no one contacts city/elected officials or even pays attention to what they are doing? Inconveniencing the public and those irritating naysayers who question and comment on what you say or do is not a credible reason to stop televising meetings.
Oh, and why no mention of this meeting in the ARGUS LEADER and the change to untelevised meetings over the next 4 months?
If you want to know what this group is doing, you are going to have to physically go downtown to find out what is going on with this public commission who, by the way, is working for the people, not just the administration and the city council.
Their meetings are scheduled as follows:
October 11th
3:30 p.m.
Agenda Discussion is Sections 1, 2 and 3
November 8th
3:30 p.m.
Agenda Discussion is Sections 4, 5 and 6
January 10, 2013
3:30 p.m.
Agenda Discussion is Sections 7, 8 and 9
Up until this time, all Charter Revision Commission meetings have been televised on Cable Channel 16. There was discussion about whether these sessions had to be open to the public and the answer given by the City Attorney was that, yes, working sessions were still subject to opening meeting laws which would require public notice and the ability of the public to attend the sessions but didn't require they be televised.
The justification for working sessions was to allow them to be better prepared to respond to changes/revisions coming before them. In addition, these working sessions would allow them to go through the language to see if they had any recommendations for language changes.
I personally don't have a problem with them having working sessions as long as those working sessions are to help them become familiar with the meaning of the language of the charter. However, the discussion at the end of the meeting started to sound like they were going to entertain changes from the City Council at these working sessions.
Working sessions for the purpose of educating the commission members on how the charter language works and/or is applied is good idea. If you allow these meetings to drift towards discussing proposals for language changes, then those meetings should be televised. If these working sessions drift away from self education, then it will be clear that their motives to move to untelevised sessions is to make it more difficult for the public to gain information on what they are doing.
The BIG question is why do this? Why are they uncomfortable having their discussions televised and available for public consumption?
One commissioner stated that they haven't received a phone call or an e-mail about the charter commission's work as if that somehow justified moving to an untelevised working session. Who cares if you don't get an email or phone call? Who cares if it seems the public isn't paying any attention to what you are doing. That is not the point nor a justifiable reason to stop televising the meetings.
After listening to the Charter Revision Commission meeting on September 20th, I am not sure what they are going to be doing at these working sessions. What started out as education sessions to help them be better prepared to respond to submitted charter revisions turned into sounding like they were going to be listening and discussing submitted revisions by the City Council. They now made it more difficult to watch them work and listen to what they had to say because now one has to physically go down to Carnegie Town Hall on their scheduled meeting day to find out what is happening.
Open government and transparency is a good governance. Government officials and/or their appointed boards should televise meetings because it is the right thing to do. Who cares if no one contacts city/elected officials or even pays attention to what they are doing? Inconveniencing the public and those irritating naysayers who question and comment on what you say or do is not a credible reason to stop televising meetings.
Oh, and why no mention of this meeting in the ARGUS LEADER and the change to untelevised meetings over the next 4 months?
If you want to know what this group is doing, you are going to have to physically go downtown to find out what is going on with this public commission who, by the way, is working for the people, not just the administration and the city council.
Their meetings are scheduled as follows:
October 11th
3:30 p.m.
Agenda Discussion is Sections 1, 2 and 3
November 8th
3:30 p.m.
Agenda Discussion is Sections 4, 5 and 6
January 10, 2013
3:30 p.m.
Agenda Discussion is Sections 7, 8 and 9
Thursday, September 27, 2012
"Let the Feds Do it" But I Will Keep the Money Thank You
It is no surprise that Governor Daugaard decided to opt out of creating a state run health care exchange for SD citizens. We are a small state and he says its going to create budget problems. Ok, so be it.
But it is troubling that he is not going to give back that second $5.8 million grant received in May. That grant was given to the state to continue it's research on establishing a state run health care exchange.
But it is troubling that he is not going to give back that second $5.8 million grant received in May. That grant was given to the state to continue it's research on establishing a state run health care exchange.
|
“We have not spent any of that yet, but we do not have to pay it back. We can
still use it for planning purposes,” Venhuizen
said. Although opting out of the responsibility of running an exchange, the state still will have oversight of the exchange as the federal government administers it, Venhuizen said. The state Division of Insurance would retain its role in regulating the industry.
This just signifies the problems with government at all levels in this country. Those supposedly freebie monies from the feds to the states and local government contribute to the national debt. Venhuizen is clever in his justification for keeping the money by saying the state still will have oversight. Let's be clear - the grant was given to the state to continue it's research on establishing a state run health care exchange. The governor decided to opt out. The state won't be establishing an exchange.
Do the right thing and give the money back. Otherwise, you look like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You hate Obamacare but you still take the money associated with complying with Obamacare. Two faced and irresponsible, especially if you profess to be the party of solutions and common sense and one of your objective is to reduce the national debt.
|
|
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Blog Going Dark
Jennifer's Musings is going silent so I can devote my time to my sick and dying Father. I am sincerely grateful to those readers who expressed concern and offered words of comfort and prayers. This is a very difficult time for my family and me. My focus is on what is truly important - love of family and commitment and support to a father who has shaped my life and provided me with guidance, love and support my entire life. Good-bye.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Transparency Only When I Feel Like It
Transparency in City Hall has a new meaning under this city hall administration. I suppose one could say the mayor is clever to hide behind the construction manager at risk designation for the Event Center.
The administration is not following the normal bid process because they are using the construction manager at risk process. The normal process is for the city to publicize the bids for projects. There is a deadline for submission of sealed bids. There is a bid opening and the bids are opened and publicized at the deadline.
The city can deflect the transparency issue and even state bidding laws with a straight face by stating that Mortenson Construction is awarding the bids, not the city. Deflecting who is in charge is pure doublespeak and does a disservice to the voting public. It's all about controlling the message and the information.
“The city is involved, in the room, throughout the process, but clearly they’re Mortenson’s subcontractors,” said Mark Cotter, the city’s director of public works.
It is pure rubish to say that the city is the subcontractor in the construction of the Event Center. That is like saying Morstenson Construction is the final decision maker which is as far from the truth as you can get. Can the public be that naive to swallow this line of bull?
It begs the question why this administration is so against publicizing detail information about the Event Center construction project. Oh yes, there are massive press releases coming out of the mayor's office all the time, but it is clear that it is only the information that this mayor wants to release. It is only information that makes this mayor look good. There is never any information that could be viewed as negative. It's all about controlling the news. Have you ever noticed that if a question is asked that might require the mayor to state something other than the "good news" he deflects to Cotter or Turbak?
I am not a star gazed follower of Councilor Staggers, but in this case, I have to agree with him. Why does City Hall use stonewalling tactics when asked for information? I can live with not releasing the information while the process is going on, but once it is complete, it should be public.
If the administration can't support and justify the result of their process, then the process and selection looks stinky even when it may not be stinky. The point is, who knows? The people who are paying for the Event Center have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. That's why transparency in government is paramount.
Transparency only when you feel like it is a dictatorship. It is controlling the message. It is not open government. And it is not what the mayor promised when he was elected. When one controls the message, it usually means there is something to hide. Is there?
The administration is not following the normal bid process because they are using the construction manager at risk process. The normal process is for the city to publicize the bids for projects. There is a deadline for submission of sealed bids. There is a bid opening and the bids are opened and publicized at the deadline.
The city can deflect the transparency issue and even state bidding laws with a straight face by stating that Mortenson Construction is awarding the bids, not the city. Deflecting who is in charge is pure doublespeak and does a disservice to the voting public. It's all about controlling the message and the information.
“The city is involved, in the room, throughout the process, but clearly they’re Mortenson’s subcontractors,” said Mark Cotter, the city’s director of public works.
It is pure rubish to say that the city is the subcontractor in the construction of the Event Center. That is like saying Morstenson Construction is the final decision maker which is as far from the truth as you can get. Can the public be that naive to swallow this line of bull?
It begs the question why this administration is so against publicizing detail information about the Event Center construction project. Oh yes, there are massive press releases coming out of the mayor's office all the time, but it is clear that it is only the information that this mayor wants to release. It is only information that makes this mayor look good. There is never any information that could be viewed as negative. It's all about controlling the news. Have you ever noticed that if a question is asked that might require the mayor to state something other than the "good news" he deflects to Cotter or Turbak?
I am not a star gazed follower of Councilor Staggers, but in this case, I have to agree with him. Why does City Hall use stonewalling tactics when asked for information? I can live with not releasing the information while the process is going on, but once it is complete, it should be public.
If the administration can't support and justify the result of their process, then the process and selection looks stinky even when it may not be stinky. The point is, who knows? The people who are paying for the Event Center have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. That's why transparency in government is paramount.
Transparency only when you feel like it is a dictatorship. It is controlling the message. It is not open government. And it is not what the mayor promised when he was elected. When one controls the message, it usually means there is something to hide. Is there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)