Answering to the people
August 15th, 2008 by 
Alica
Government should answer to the people. American’s founding fathers put many checks into place so that the government would be accountable. Leaders since then have defined the government’s role even more specifically. For example, the law requires that elected bodies print their minutes in the newspaper so that all Americans have a chance to read them. Meetings are open to the public by law.
The public isn’t a big blob, though. The public is made up of individuals, and they can ask questions and give their opinions.
Are elected officials accountable to specific individuals? They are accountable to the public, definitely. And the public is made up of individuals.
I once was president of a group and wanted to do what was best for the group and its members. I always was willing to listen to individual members’ recommendations. I found, though, that one member would lobby me to do “black,” while another member would lobby me to do “white.” I couldn’t do both.
What can elected officials do when some constituents want them to do one thing and other constituents want them to do another? How can they make a decision without disappointing someone?
Let’s have some general discussion on an elected body’s responsibility to the public as a whole vs. its responsibility to individual people.
Posted in Uncategorized | 
August 16th, 2008 at 5:56 am
Seems that the checks that are put into place that you mention would be laws or ordinances. So that should be pretty black and white. They must follow the ordinances/laws.
As far as disappointing someone…as long as the rules are being followed, the ordinances being upheld, the government bodies are keeping their word and enforcing the laws they enacted, then there shouldn’t be any problems. Oh, and they should also remain impartial. Purely for example, it would be inappropriate to hang out constantly and let potential contractees buy them lunch.
They are also probably responsible to individual people because they represent the “people” of their ward. And I recall during election times, they go door to door promising to do just that.
August 16th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Also….the council should not be a place you dread going to, thinking you will be verbally attacked by the council. I don’t think one person on the council should be allowed to brow beat the citizens that are bringing issues forward. Mayor, please step up and control this council person.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
As one of the “people” of Brandon, I see Rural Metro was sent to answer another call in Brandon (Saturday 8/16/08 1:15PM or so). Sirens on the way into Brandon, no sirens on the way into Sioux Falls.
I believe the “people” of Brandon deserve an explanation from the city leaders on why Rural Metro has answered 2 calls in Brandon recently. Also, the city leaders need to explain why we are continuing to fund an ambulance service that is not fulfilling their contractual obligations.
For the record, I was a strong proponent of MedStar. Faster response times being the major factor. I now question whether this was a wise decision.
August 16th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
It is possible that they were going on a call outside of the city limits, such as Valley Springs.
But, do the people of Brandon know that MedStar has picked up additional transport contracts since getting the go ahead in Brandon? Meaning that he doesn’t always have a spare ambulance for us like he promised at city council meetings?
Do they know that he didn’t bother to turn in the required paperwork such as updated licenses and employee lists? And didn’t respond to a request by the city a couple of months ago.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I thought about them going elsewhere except for the fact that I saw them on Rice/Holly Blvd. Rural Metro would be using other routes to go to Corson, Valley Springs, etc.
I didn’t know about the other issues you stated above. Addn’ contracts are not necessarily a bad thing provided they are fulfilling their City of Brandon Contract - which I am wondering about.
I would hope the City is acting swiftly on the paperwork issue if that is a fact. They should not be sitting patiently waiting for MedStar to give them required info - they should be actively gathering the required paperwork OR imposing penalities (or whatever).
The city should be providing info to Brandon citizens to clear up any rumors or confusion. The newspaper would be a great place to start.
August 16th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Thanks #2. It is about time someone told Mostek to shut the hell up.
August 16th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
The city didn’t do anything about it until some people forced the issue. I wonder why?
The only penalty written in the ordinance is suspension of license.
The city meetings are recorded, all you have to do is ask for a copy. You might be surprised at what you learn.
August 16th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
#6…you must be kidding right? Pretty funny.
August 16th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I think it’s hilarious that a certain councilman knew it ALL before (actually 2 of them) and now claims not to know anything when it comes to medical stuff. OMG, does he know how ridiculous he sounds? Quite frankly
August 17th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Yeah #9, and you and the rest of the “sheep” in that Ward voted for him! You had a better alternative when he first ran. We both know exactly what and who we are talking about.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:12 am
People…please stop with slinging about the council. It is unproductive and rather childish. No wonder people think the town of Brandon has problems.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:56 am
#10-I agree and man do I feel stupid that I voted for him now. Not sure who you mean, sorry.
#11- Education about office holders isn’t unproductive. Maybe people think Brandon has problems because THEY DO. Let’s take off the rose colored glasses people.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:12 am
No rose colored glasses here. I just choose to not bash people when it will not really do any good. Yes, education about office holders is vital, not sure the above posts are “educational” vs. personal vendettas (?spelling).
August 17th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I think the council is doing a pretty good job and we need someone on the council that will take control of the meetings, the Mayors never does. Just kidding I think they are all doing a great job.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Number 6, I didn’t read Dan Mostek’s name in the response from number 2. How do you know that’s who he/she was talking about? There are six people elected to the council. Are there specific instances in which Mostek has verbally harassed people who attend meetings or are you just looking to create a rumor?
August 18th, 2008 at 5:04 am
No Dan Mostek is not the person referred to. Dan does a great job.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Rural metro responded to a call in Brandon because Med Star was busy and requested them to do so.This is the agreement that is in place.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Thanks Jeff for the information. I am wondering though, was MedStar busy with another “911 emergency” call in Brandon or with their transport business (unrelated to 911 -Brandon).
I am also curious about the “agreement” between Rural Metro and MedStar. Exactly what is that agreement? According to individuals on this blog, there is not an agreement. I am confused. Anyone with factual information?
August 18th, 2008 at 11:31 am
People have to know there are areas in Brandon that are actually county. The call on Saturday was on N. Chestnut which you may think is in Brandon but actually Minnehaha County. On E. Redwood Blvd once you hit gravel, it county, the N. side W. Holly Blvd is actually county and there are some others educated yourself. That’s why Rural Metro was here and who cares as long as they get me to the hospital I don’t care what it says on the side of the bus!
August 18th, 2008 at 11:46 am
No need to get uptight #19. There is so much misinformation out there regarding this ambulance issue and it is difficult to gather the “correct information”. Each and every time someone tries to educate themselves, the “know it all”, “I know more than you” people” start to blog their info. Some of it accurate, some not.
Thank you for educating me with your above post. I actually did learn something. Maybe next time you could try being less hostile in your post.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:56 am
#19 is correct for Saturday but Med Star is to ask for help if they can not handle the calls. Rural Metro was on a call in the city limits a couple weeks ago and it was because Med Star asked them to respond. Med Star and Rural Metro do not have an agreement between them it is what was agreed to with the city.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Thanks again Jeff for the information! Nice to get some accurate info. on the topic - it helps all of us understand much better.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
At least you admit voting for a complete moron “Yeah Right.” I’m proud of you. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, now you need to consider who you DIDN’T vote for and why! The power to vote out, is just as great as the power to vote in. Incumbents don’t always learn that lesson until it’s too late. I think a few people will learn that lesson soon.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
#23 - Heath is that you hiding behind that Ward 111 Alderman name? Move on, you lost, get over it.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
#21
Jeff your information in not accurate. You say Medstar is to ask for help if they can’t handle the calls…..they can’t handle TWO calls???? Wow.
What happened to the spare 2-3 rigs he promised before getting the Brandon contract?
And they didn’t ASK Rural Metro to come. They radioed they were unavailable and Metro Communications then pages Rural Metro to cover. Now remember….if Rural Metro is busy in Sioux Falls and all the other rural areas they cover….WE DON’T GET AN AMBULANCE until one becomes available.
There is no agreement with the city of Brandon regarding Rural Metro and Medstar coverage. Look at the ordinance, it’s online. There is no signed agreement between the two services. Call Rural Metro and ask to verify.
And PS. Mostek is the the councilman in question. (he’s about the nicest man alive) I believe they’re talking about a ward 1 alderman.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
#23….a couple already did learn that lesson. Rubin and Saarloos.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:31 am
This segment is for answering to the people, here’s one. Top story on this site, why is the city council considering buying land in the Bluffs for a park??????
When a developer submits plans to the city they should show land which they are going to donate to the city for parks. Land donated for parks increases the value of the individual lots and makes these issues non existance. One of the issues that our council and city administration needs to change and MAKE developers plan for before the first house goes in in any housing development.
We are spending our tax dollar for parks which fevelopers should be eating, tell the council to check around to see how it’s handled else where.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Actually, developers used to “donate” an appropriate amount of land based on #lots within thier development. The city was then to put in a park. It didn’t happen as developers usually gave unusable land and that many parks are spendy. For example, Mike Schultz donated the area behind Blaine’s (ALL drainage field) for his park land.
Things changed and now developers are required to pay the city a certain dollar amount based on the # of lots instead of giving land. This is because not all developments are large enough for parks. Therefore, a “pot of park” money is in place to purchase land for park development.
I would think with the location of the Bluffs and the number of homes (future lots) a park should be in place out there.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am
As the new story is out the council voted not to buy the land.
#28 The amount of money developers are chareged for parks does not come anywhere close to paying for the amount of land.
The irony of the whole thing is that I as a devloper will pay the city say $10,000 in park fees and then turn around and want the city to buy, say three acres at $8000 an acre, the developer comes out ahead.
I’m just saying developers want to build in Brandon, the council should make the best deal for the people.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
You need to look at the entire picture. If you only see VanBuskirk paying $10,000 (”park fee”) but then wanting the city to pay $8,000 an an acre it doesn’t seem right. But, that is not the correct way to look at it.
In reality, you have other developers also contributing to the “park pot of money”. For example, there is the “Tallgrass” park which covers the developments of Doug Metcalf(Tallgrass, Tallgrass Village), Gene Johnson (North of RR tracks, north of Mike Schultz’s, north of middle school), and Mike Schultz (NW of Blaine’s).
If these developments were set up under the current Brandon park/developer rules of today, they each would be contributing to the “park money pot” based on the # of lots they planned on developing. Of course, they were under the old system and basically only Doug Metcalf provided the land. M. Schultz provided a drainage field and I have no clue what Gene Johnson provided.
If the current system works it will benefit all “area” neighborhoods. For example, there are ZERO city parks on the west side of Sioux Blvd, which is unfortunate as this is a highly populated area. This probably wouldn’t happen with the current system.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:39 am
So Always listening what you are saying it that what was promised by the developers of the bluffs and eagle creek is false, and that the city is not going to go by the original site plan. My understanding was that the city had money in the coffers for this park. It’s nice to know that where ever I’ve lived in this great country of ours the city governments can renig on anything promised to the citizens. Ward 1 alderman take notice I may only have 1 vote in the next elections, but I will not vote for either of you based on this decision. Mr. VanBuskirk and Regal Homes will be hearing from me as well on the subject of the now defunct park by the bluffs as well. The new park was the only reason I purchased a home out here versus a home next to an established park in Brandon. Atleast I still have the lovely apartment complex and barn to look at when I enter eagle creek, and soon a strip mall. And I though getting in and out of the subdivision sucked before. Gotta love traffic studies and the impact on the adjoining neighborhoods. Oh yeah I do not think I ever saw one.