The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Friday, February 26, 2010

The irony goes on forever and the sarcasm never ends.

From today's Rapid City Journal:

"It would not be appropriate to interject the Mayor's Office into an issue which by South Dakota Law clearly states that only the city council can judge and discipline one of its members," the mayor's statement said.

Hanks distributed the written statement to the media at the public meeting to discuss the location of the minimum security prison.


Anonymous said...

To me, the bottom line is Hanks had the statutory right to veto this farce and he failed to do so.

In the next year or so, Rapid City will be faced with some serious budgetary issues and we'll need a strong leader who is willing to make tough decisions. Hanks is not a leader. Sam Kooiker is.

Kooiker for Mayor!

Anonymous said...

Hanks didn't have to veto anything. Kooiker got himself into all these messes and he darn well has that right. Hanks is into campgrounds. Kooiker is into micromanaging. The two have a great future together. Vote Hadcock.

Anonymous said...

After watching the hearings and reading the articles, it appears that Sam Kooiker really advocates on behalf of the taxpayers (see the landfill).

Deb Hadcock? I don't mean to be rude, but Deb is dumb, I mean really dumb.

Bill Fleming said...

Doesn't make any sense for Hanks to veto the resolution. He would essentially be negating an Council action to set its own code of conduct and dictating his own opinion instead. Not his role in the process.

In abstaining from the veto Hanks endorses ALL the Council members' votes on the censure both for and against. i.e. he endorses the action of the Council as a whole.

If he vetoed, he would be at odds with 2/3's of the Council. What good would that do for him, the council or for us?

Bob Newland said...

By that logic, Bill, a chief executive should never veto a majority vote by a legislative body.

Sometimes a chief exec can look at the debate and the arguments presented and say plausibly, "The evidence does not support the verdict. The evidence does not even support the accusation of a violation of the rules you folks made for yourselves. I overturn."

Bill Fleming said...

My observation is limited to the matter at hand wherein the Council is disciplining one of their members. It was not intended as an overarching inditement of the veto process.

One interesting sidenote on this though. The council can override the mayor's veto on ordinances, but not on resolutions. That would make Hank's vote the final say on the matter, leaving the Council no recourse.

It would be a pretty significant power grab on his part.

Bill Fleming said...

Note: I meant to say "Hanks's VETO not VOTE."
Strange, but this is the first I've noticed that the two words are anagrams of each other.

Anonymous said...

You are nothing if not loyal, Mr. Fleming.

Wayne Gilbert said...

Fleming is right. Moreover, if all you Samatics are correct, then Hanks cannot survive his next election. That makes his decision in this case somewhat courageous. Although not on point because we're talking about authority and power to even veto, I have to say that most of you are forgetting that six council members believe that Sam seriously overstepped his role. You can rant and rave all you want about that, but that vote should tell you something and I submit that it's probably not because they are all in a cabal to keep Sam from uncovering the truth about what you all seem to believe to be a combination of incompetence and outright dishonest. OJ jury redux maybe.

Anonymous said...

You Rapid City fools need to stop this childishness NOW. You are turning into the laughing stock of the northern plains.

The nation's real unemployment is around 20%.

State tax collections continue to fall off a cliff, despite the federal pseudo- good news:

Commercial real estate is crashing in 2010-2013, unless there is another federal bailout with more "magic money" from government printing presses:

Realize for a moment that you once pretended you were immune from the housing crisis. That didn't work out so well for you. And many of you pretended Rapid City was immune from the recession/depression in 2008. How did that work out for you?

You need to start working together or no one will try to invest in Rapid City or assist you.

Wayne Gilbert said...

You know, It would be nice if you anonymous people would pick a nickname and go with it so you don't all run together--it's probably my age but I am just uncomfortable trying to converse with and learn from a bunch of presumably different people who all use the same name.

Anonymous said...

I agree this childish censure cast Rapid City in a bad light. We need council members and a Mayor who is less interested in playing politics and more interested in paying attention to the details of our government.

We can right this ship. We can send a message by voting out those who choose to spend taxpayer dollars to investigate someone who was trying to look out for taxpayer dollars.

In these times, we need fiscally responsible candidates! If you're fiscally responsible, and you have time, please run for city council - LaCroix and Chapman need to go.

Taunia said...

It's better to be anon when you have something to hide, you know, like already being a contributor.

This topic has really been tough on this blog. Lots of things have come to light, been buried, or even dismissed.

And not one ounce of any of this has changed any of the players in this situation, or the outcome of anything city council.

And it was such a nice place before the asylum doors were left unlocked.

Bob Newland said...

Taunia says, "not one ounce of any of this has changed any of the players in this situation, or the outcome of anything city council."

To answer in part: I think that a more-than-seven-year tradition of a waste-disposal contractor conspiring with his drivers and city employees to defraud the city of hundreds of $k may have slowed down, at least.