796. Welcome to Blog 90, the election edition. I just want to start by saying that like the Nov. 5, 2024 election, I believe that this is also a consequential election for Superior. I’ll explain as we go along today but I think that it’s fair to say that this current administration under Jim Paine and this City Council has been nothing short of an abysmal failure and poses an imminent threat to this city. Getting rid of Jenny Van Sickle and Tylor Elm would not only be good for Superior but would send a loud message to Mayor Paine that the taxpayers are fed up with this kind of pathetic leadership that we have experienced since 2017 and maybe it’s time for him to start thinking about a new career.

So let’s start with our friends at Soupnutz.com for their excellent take on both incumbents starting with Jenny Van Sickle.

District 2 Showdown: Who Will Win, Jenny Van Sickle or Sarah Anderson?

 https://www.fox21online.com/2025/02/18/hear-from-candidates-in-the-race-for-superiors-2nd-district/

797. Who do you think has the most annoying marriage? Jim and Jenny Paine or Alec and Hilaria Baldwin? You decide, but I’m going with Jim and Jenny. Why? Because Alec and Hilaria can be rather annoying at times but they do make me laugh. The other two just annoy me and aren’t funny.

Superior Council considers overriding mayor's veto

Mayor's veto of Councilor Jenny Van Sickle's censure comes up for a vote Tuesday, July 2.

Superior’s City Council is slated to consider overriding Mayor Jim Paine’s first veto since taking office in 2017. Seven councilors would have to vote in favor of the override to censure Councilor Jenny Van Sickle. Councilors split 6-4 in favor of the censure Councilor Craig Sutherland presented to members June 18. The censure was in response to a tweet Van Sickle posted June 13 concerning a legal opinion rendered by City Attorney Frog Prell.

Councilors Brent Fennessey, Craig Sutherland, Keith Kern, Esther Dalbec Dan Olson and Jack Sweeney voted in favor of the censure and would have to convince Councilors Tylor Elm, Ruth Ludwig, Warren Bender or Van Sickle to change their minds about the censure to override the mayor’s veto.

Censure is a means of discipline for members of a legislative body to express disapproval of someone or something in a formal statement. Immediately following the June 18 vote, Paine announced he would veto the measure because it punished political speech and would not foster an environment of free debate necessary to represent the residents of the city.

Paine said he is in a relationship with Van Sickle, and he checked carefully in advance of the censure vote to ensure there would be no conflict of interest in vetoing the measure because of that relationship. Under Wisconsin law, a conflict of interest is defined as using a public office to for economic benefit such as financial gains or something of substantial value.

“Obviously, I understand there’s a perception there,” Paine said. “But the other thing that comes into it is ‘can people in relationships even serve on the same body or should they?’” However, he said nothing prohibits people involved in a relationship from serving on the same body. In fact, Fennessey joined the Council when his father, former Councilor Tom Fennessey, was still serving, and Kern and Sutherland have been friends since childhood.

“Now, if they had censured her for some other behavior — other than political speech — say if she had broken the law or behaved very inappropriately toward a private citizen, for example, that would have been perfectly within order for censure, I believe,” Paine said. “I didn’t approve of her censure of Sutherland either, and if that would have passed, I would have vetoed that too.”



Van Sickle submitted a resolution to censure Sutherland at the June 18 meeting, but she withdrew it that night before it was considered by the Council. The Council meets at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 2, in Room 201 of the Government Center, 1316 N. 14th St.

Thanks for asking, this is what happened. Here in article from July 2, 2019:

By Danielle Kaeding 

July 3, 2019

The Superior City Council overturned the mayor’s veto of a vote to censure one of its members on Tuesday night following questions about a potential conflict of interest.

Councilors had voted to censure Councilor Jenny Van Sickle at its last meeting for critical comments she made on social media about the quality of the city attorney’s work. Superior Mayor Jim Paine vetoed that censure. But, councilors overturned the veto in an 8 to 2 vote on Tuesday.

The mayor’s veto led to questions over a potential conflict of interest since Paine is in a relationship with Van Sickle.

After the meeting, Van Sickle said she hasn’t done anything illegal or unethical and she’s not concerned about any appearance of impropriety.



“In these chambers, I’m a councilor. I’m qualified. I was elected and re-elected on merit, and I’m proud that I have the guts to stand up to city attorneys that are making well over $100,000 to prosecute our citizens on their parking tickets,” she said.

During the meeting, Van Sickle said she was “not particularly proud” of the hurt she had caused through her remarks about the city’s attorney, stating previously that he has a “reputation of repugnant incompetence.” The city’s attorney, Frog Prell, filed a notice of claim last week alleging that Van Sickle’s remarks rise to the level of libel and slander.

Following the meeting, Paine said people will make up their own minds about his relationship with Van Sickle.

“The fact is all kinds of relationships occur in government, especially local government all the time,” he said. “It really is just up to the voters to decide if that’s inappropriate.”

The city council’s president, Brent Fennessey, said after the meeting the only thing that bothers him about it is the imbalance of power that it could potentially create.

“The whole system is set up so no one city councilor has too much power and the mayor doesn’t have too much power,” said Fennessey. “But, when the mayor and a city councilor are involved in a relationship together, that skews the whole balance of power.”

He said relationships between friends or family members who have served on the council don’t hold the same significance. Philip Freeburg, local government law educator with the University of Wisconsin-Extension’s Local Government Center, said the state code of ethics for local government officials talks about conflicts that create financial gain. He said it also addresses conflicts that create a benefit for officials, their immediate family or an organization they’re associated with. “It doesn’t say anything regarding friends or other relationships, romantic or otherwise,” said Freeburg.

Freeburg said local ordinances may be more broad. Superior’s code of ethics says no officer or employee may use a public position to influence or gain unlawful benefits, advantages or privileges for the official or others.

Councilors Override Veto

Councilor Tylor Elm was one of two council members that changed his vote to override the veto on Tuesday. Elm said it appeared the veto didn’t follow proper procedure, according to the Wisconsin League of Muncipalities handbook for municipal officials. The city council’s president shared similar views prior to the vote.

“The veto is to be used for legislative purposes or acts. Because of that, that was my reason because my votes that I’ve done have always been in the purpose of following the law,” said Elm, noting the veto didn’t appear to be a legislative act. The city’s mayor disputed that argument, noting the censure was brought forward as a resolution.

“All resolutions are legislative. It’s a statement of what the council believes and that’s perfectly within the scope of a veto,” he said.

Regardless, the mayor called the override one more symbol of, “just a bunch of nonsense” in recent weeks. He said the council hasn’t been able to focus on the real challenges facing the community, such as housing and infrastructure.

The public and councilors expressed disappointment in the actions of the council and its members during the meeting. Yet, Councilor Craig Sutherland said during discussion that city employees have been impacted by negative remarks, adding they also pose a challenge for attracting new staff.

“Let’s get back to where we were. Let’s treat each other with respect and move on,” said Sutherland. Van Sickle said people in Superior are disappointed in the council leadership’s inability to move the city forward. “And continue to belabor something that people were absolutely tired of talking about,” she said. “I regret nothing.”

She called the censure and veto override a stunning example of hypocrisy, noting the actions of other councilors have not been called into question. She said there’s a, “good old boy” mentality that persists in local government.



Despite a contentious few weeks, the council’s president said the body often works together to address a broad variety of issues.

“We have to move forward collectively as a body,” said Fennessey.

799. They aren’t done yet. Another article on Jan,. 13. 2021. Month 19 into this mess:

Superior Councilor Raises Ethical Concerns Over Marriage of Mayor Paine, Councilor Van Sickle

In a letter to City Attorney Frog Prell, Sutherland worried votes by Van Sickle could inappropriately benefit Mayor Paine. 

January 13, 2021

SUPERIOR, Wis.- Superior City Councilor Craig Sutherland is raising conflict-of-interest concerns with the City Attorney’s office over the recent marriage between Mayor Jim Paine and Councilor Jenny Van Sickle. 



“I strongly believe we need some guidance on what to do moving forward,” Councilor Sutherland said. In a letter to City Attorney Frog Prell, Sutherland worried votes by Van Sickle could inappropriately benefit Mayor Paine.

“There are conflicts of interest with immediate family members I’m concerned of where one can financially gain not only within their salary but within their health insurance package that the city offers,” said Sutherland. “I feel these lines are very blurred.”

While he wants guidance from Attorney Prell, in this situation Sutherland believes Van Sickle, “she should be recusing herself from discussions and votes moving forward.”

a) the first sentence reads “No local public official may use his or her public position or office to obtain financial gain or anything of substantial value for the private benefit of himself or his or her immediate family.”

But Paine and Van Sickle say, that’s untrue.



“The state statute is very clear that there is no conflict of interest here,” said Mayor Jim Paine. “In fact, relationships in Government are very common throughout the state.”

According to Paine, the Mayor’s salary and benefits will never be effected by Van Sickle. “Councilor Sutherland did not tell the truth in his complaint.”

800. If anybody knows about not telling the truth it’s Jim Paine.

“My salary is not approved through the general fund budget. The council does not have the power to change my salary at all so a conflict can’t exist — that’s state law,” he said. “Furthermore even my benefits are a completely separate process.”

Still, Paine feels Van Sickle can and will recuse herself whenever an issue warrants.



“We are both gonna have conflicts from time to time and she in fact has recused herself from conflicting votes in the past. She’s demonstrated a very high degree of ethics when it comes to making sure she represents her constituents,” said the Mayor.

801. Jimmy seems to understand all the laws and procedures about his pay. Can’t say the same about his knowledge concerning property taxes. Just sayin’.

Constituents, according to Councilor Sutherland, are at the heart of the issue.

He said he has heard questions from some of his own, hence his letter to Prell. “I feel like when we lose the trust in our constituents, we completely degrade the integrity of our organization.”



Paine on the other hand, said he has yet to hear of any. “Many of my friends, family and constituents have reached out to issue congratulations. None have issued concerns about a conflict of interest. Councilor Sutherland said that to me but I don’t believe he’s telling the truth.” 

802. It’s really rich when the habitual liar Jim Paine accuses Craig Sutherland of lying twice in one article. 

Meanwhile, Councilor Van Sickle released a statement to FOX 21 which reads in part:

My number one focus is now what it always has been: providing the highest level of service and representation to East End, Allouez and Itasca. The results speak for themselves. It is no Councilors job to subjugate, undermine, or regulate any other member of the body. I am a professional and take my job seriously. This baseless complaint lacks a fundamental understanding of municipal operations. More of the same from this guy, he has entirely too much time on his hands.

“It’s pretty low to attack a person’s family and personal life even for Councilor Sutherland but quite frankly we’ve gotten used to this kind of behavior from him,” Paine said.

But Sutherland said it’s not an attack on either of their characters.

“I don’t want this to be personal at all I would like to add that,” he said. “If there is a ruling that says they can do this I’m completely fine with that.”

FOX 21 reached out to all the other Superior City Councilors to get their take on this. Of the ones that responded:

Councilor Jack Sweeney said he doesn’t give comment to the media

803. Then why the f*ck are you a councilor?

Councilor Ruth Ludwig sees no conflict of interest

Ruth “Cymbals and Drums” Ludwig is a rubber stamp for Paine and a useless councilor.

Councilor Warren Bender said while a conflict of interest could happen, he fully expects Van Sickle to recuse herself when it does

Hey Warren. What happens when you ASSUME?

Councilor Brent Fennessey said he has heard some of his constituents raise questions about the issue, but is holding back on an opinion to see what the City Attorney has to say.

Shuck and Jive, Shuck and Jive, Shuck and Jive.

Meanwhile, City Attorney Frog Prell said he needs more time to fully review the letter of concern from Councilor Sutherland before providing any comment.

Ignore, Stall and Delay, Ignore, Stall and Delay, Ignore, Stall and Delay, It’s the Prell way!

Superior mayor, councilor marry despite politics

January 19, 2021 

A local government attorney said family members serving together is not unusual, but could pose challenges.

Politics weren't even a consideration when Mayor Jim Paine and Councilor Jenny Van Sickle decided to get married Oct. 17, 2020.

For two political wonks with an interest in serving the community, they were a match, and it was the natural progression of their relationship.

“I am a councilor some of the time, but I have a whole life,” Van Sickle said. “We would never let politics be the reason we chose not to or put it off,” Paine said. “When you’re ready to be in a family, you’re ready to be in a family.”

Before they got married, however, Paine said they looked into what possible implications there might be, and they didn’t have to look very far to see that it’s not uncommon for families to serve together.

'Not that unusual' for family members to serve together"

Philip Freeburg, an attorney who teaches local government law at the University of Wisconsin-Extension Local Government Center, said the issue comes up frequently with school boards. In fact, as an attorney, Freeburg represented a city where the mayor was the father of one of the alderpersons.

“So this issue, not that unusual,” he said.

The nature of the family relationship, particularly where spouses are concerned, can pose challenges under Wisconsin’s ethics law and Robert’s Rules of Order, Freeburg said. Paine said he doesn't believe the marriage could be considered a conflict of interest.

“It really doesn’t even come close to meeting a conflict of interest,” Paine said. “The fact is that you need two interests to have a conflict, so a conflict of interest between your public duties and a private interest. So if her or I had a conflict say with a private contract or awarding money to her employer or something like that, or a family member of mine, if one of us had to recuse yourself, we would both have to recuse ourselves.”

Van Sickle has recused herself when matters involving Northwest Community Services Agency have come up on the agenda because she works for the organization, and the mayor has recused himself a couple of times when businessman Fred Paine, his uncle, had matters before the plan commission and city council.

“It’s fairly rare,” Paine said.



Freeburg confirmed that a conflict for one is now a conflict for both under Wisconsin’s ethics code, but he said there are degrees of conflict when it comes to issues like dealing with the city budget.

Councilor Craig Sutherland has asked the city attorney, Frog Prell, to look into whether Van Sickle should recuse herself when it comes to voting on the city budget because they contain her husband's salary and benefits, things that could directly impact her.

"I just want to make sure we're not setting ourselves up for something down the road, because there are state statutes and it's very gray to me," Sutherland said.

Prell said he hadn't had a chance to begin researching the issue after receiving the request from Sutherland last week; he declined to comment further because of the complexity of the issue.

In circumstances where compensation is being considered, Freeburg said a family member would be disqualified from taking action, but an ethics opinion concerning a school board determined that it is permissible to act on a budget when compensation is just one small part of the budget. The opinion was originally rendered by the Wisconsin Ethics Board and reaffirmed by the Wisconsin Ethics Commission in 1997.

“You’re just clerically filling in what the ordinance provides,” Freeburg said. “Normally, the council wouldn’t be voting on the mayor’s salary because they can’t raise or lower it during his term.”

In Superior, the mayor’s salary is established by city ordinance and state law prohibits local elected leaders from changing salaries during an existing term.

Robert's Rules, residency could pose challenges

The issue that could be a challenge isn’t a legal matter, but a matter that relates to how meetings are conducted, Freeburg said. Under Robert’s Rules of Order, the guide the city uses to conduct orderly meetings, it's required that all members of the body are treated equally.

“If I was that mayor, and I had three alderpersons that were seeking recognition at the same time, I would probably call on my spouse last,” Freeburg said.

Paine said he believes he called Van Sickle "out of order" two meetings ago after she interrupted another councilor who had the floor.

Van Sickle noticed a lack of favoritism after the rebuke during a recent debate on a special-use permit for Superior Water, Light & Power.

“I don’t get any special treatment, and I have to work really hard for the people I represent,” Van Sickle said.

Another issue the couple will have to face at some time is residency. Van Sickle, who represents the city's 2nd District, said she still lives in Allouez, despite the mayor owning a home near Hammond Park and the university.

When they do combine their homes, Paine said it would likely involve each of them moving from the places where they live now.

Until then, they're making it work, Van Sickle said.



“We have separate houses; we have separate finances; we have separate jobs — just a lot of shared goals," she said. "I don’t know that we’ll be able to combine our houses anytime soon, but for now, this works for us.”

804. I think this might be the worst article of them all. If there was a prize for world’s largest word salad, Jim and Jenny Paine might have just won it. They sound like the most annoying couple on earth as well.

So that’s it right? Wrong. Another article Feb 2, 2021. We are now 19 months into this. Here it is:

Superior Council Wants State’s Ethical Opinion Involving Mayor Paine’s Marriage To Councilor

SUPERIOR, Wis. – Superior City Councilor Craig Sutherland proposed a formal request through the council Tuesday night to have City Attorney Frog Prell seek an advisory opinion from the Wisconsin Ethics Commission involving possible ethical concerns around Mayor Jim Paine’s recent marriage to 2nd District Councilor Jenny Van Sickle.



Mayor Paine did not want a discussion on the topic at the council meeting while saying Attorney Prell is already doing his job on the issue to form his own legal opinion in the near future.

“Councilor Van Sickle and I have been completely public and transparent about the fact that we are married, that we have a relationship, and we acknowledge that there are conflicts. Both of us have recused ourselves numerous times when conflicts come up,” Paine said.



Councilor Van Sickle was offended by Sutherland’s formal request saying she’s doing everything ethically possible with city business and votes.

Now who’s not telling the truth Jimmy and Jenny?

“Nobody needs to try to micromanage the Second District council seat. There is no sinister mystery to solve here. I’ve worked closely with the Ethics Commission for months and I take my responsibilities seriously,” Van Sickle said.

Councilors Sutherland and Brent Fennessey were vocal in the council meeting to say they wanted a formal vote to make sure the city attorney does finish his legal opinion on the relationship by requesting legal opinion from the Ethics Commission.



In the end, the council approved the formal request on the agenda.

805. This is why I hate government. We are 19 months into this mess. In my world, the business world, it would have taken me 30 minutes, one hour tops and the problem would have been solved. But here we are. The next article is Feb 4, 2021:

Superior council seeks ethics opinion concerning mayor and councilor's marriage

The city ethics code allows any official who has doubts about any of the provisions in the code to apply to the common council for an advisory opinion.

February 04, 2021 



An obscure paragraph in the Superior’s 1971 ethics code prompted a sometimes heated, 50-minute debate Tuesday, Feb. 2, by the Superior City Council.

At issue was whether the council would support obtaining an opinion from the Wisconsin Ethics Commission after Councilor Jenny Van Sickle married Mayor Jim Paine in October 2020. The council unanimously approved the request.

Councilor Craig Sutherland asked City Attorney Frog Prell if Van Sickle could vote on city budgets going forward because they would contain her husband’s salary and benefits. By state law, public officials can’t act in an official capacity on measures that would benefit the private interest of officials or their families.

The city ethics code allows any official who has doubts about any of the provisions in the code to apply to the common council for an advisory opinion. Sutherland said he requested the opinion based on that guidance.

“I want to make one thing clear here,” Sutherland said. “I am not bringing this up to drag anyone’s name down. I was advised to go on the council agenda because of the ordinance … I’m abiding by our own ordinance.”

Paine said he hoped to end the debate before it began by asking councilors to allow Prell to finish work on the opinion. Prell doesn't need the council's permission to confer with the WEC on it.

“It isn’t in anybody’s interest to stop him from working on that opinion, so this should be dispensed with fairly easily,” Paine said. “Does anyone object to the attorney continuing his work on the opinion related to Councilor Sutherland’s letter?”

Councilor Brent Fennessey objected. He accused the mayor of leading the discussion astray, because Sutherland’s request was for an opinion from the Wisconsin Ethics Commission, not the city attorney.

After a motion was made by Councilor Jack Sweeney and seconded by Fennessey to approve the request to the WEC, Paine relinquished his role as meeting chair and asked council president Ruth Ludwig to step in so he could participate in the debate.

Typically, if a councilor believes they might have a conflict of interest, they would privately seek advice on the matter, Paine said. Van Sickle agreed.

“I have to say that I am so touched by Councilor Sutherland’s repeated concern on my behalf,” Van Sickle said. “But to insinuate that I do not have the authority or integrity to request my own opinion of the ethics and talk about me like I’m a second-class elected representative is offensive.”

Councilor Esther Dalbec asked why Paine was fighting the council on the measure. “If we want to have an opinion one way or the other, get it out in the open — whether they say it’s right or it’s wrong — let us get that opinion. Why are you fighting us on this?" she asked.

“Councilor Dalbec, I don’t have to fight you,” Paine said. “I recommended the council approve this unanimously at the beginning.”

Prell and Paine both said they were skeptical the commission would issue a new opinion because the matter has been addressed before.

Van Sickle provided the council with WEC opinions issued in 1997 and 2005. In both instances, the commission determined public board members could not act during discussion, negotiations or votes to set salaries or benefits, but could act on broader policy issues and vote on budgets when a board member’s family member is an employee of the entity they serve.

The mayor’s salary is set by an ordinance that hasn’t changed since 2006. Prell doesn't have experience working with the WEC, but he said he was certain the process would require him to do the legal research and analysis if the commission rendered an opinion.



“I’ve written a lot so far, and I’ve got to be honest with you,” Prell said. “It’s not a lightning rod. It’s not all that interesting. It’s grounded primarily in common sense with a smattering of ethics code, Robert’s Rules and case law.” Still, councilors wanted the matter resolved. They voted unanimously to approve the request, first by voice vote, then by roll call.

806. Can you believe this? We have passed the Theater of the Absurd into another galaxy but fear not, we have another article March 17,2021. Now 20 months and counting:

Ethics Commission: Mayor Paine’s Marriage to Councilor Could Cause Conflicts

March 17, 2021 

SUPERIOR, Wis.– The Wisconsin Ethics Commission has completed its opinion about conflict of interest concerns involving the marriage between Superior Mayor Jim Paine and City Councilor Jenny Van Sickle.

The commission believes there are conflicts of interest that could pop up particularly when Councilor Van Sickle might act on matters of substantial value or financial gain for Mayor Paine, including his salary or benefits like health insurance.

The request for the ethics commission’s review was launched by Councilor Craig Sutherland, who wrote a letter to the city attorney’s office, raising transparency concerns about the relationship.

It was followed up by a unanimous vote by councilors on a resolution seeking an opinion from the Wisconsin Ethics Commission.

“We have a nice template or road map to understand what we have to be on the lookout for. And I expect Councilor Van Sickle and the mayor and everyone involved to engage and anticipate these issues,” said Superior City Attorney Frog Prell.

The commission believes councilor Van Sickle should avoid participating in decision making when conflicts arise, like a salary increase for the mayor.

Mayor Paine and Councilor Van Sickle have said this topic is a non-issue and that they hold high ethical standards on themselves when it comes to city business and voting.

807. Listening to those two, the nauseating Paines is truly sickening. Running around talking about high ethical standards and the like is a form of torture that should be a crime. Could you imagine hanging out with these two at dinner, a club or a concert? You would be asking yourself what you did wrong in a previous life to deserve that. Seriously. Have you mt two more unlikable people in your life? God Almighty. They are unbearable aren’t they?

CONCLUSIONS AND CONFUSION

First off, how come the city doesn’t have a nice simple rule that states that spouses cannot serve together as Mayor and/or City Councilors? Does that sound complicated? Why would we need the state involved in something so simple and straightforward? Instead we went on a two year roller coaster ride with the sickening political bloodthirsty Paines.

But something is really bugging me. I’ll explain. A city councilor makes $7,500.00 a year. A nice little chunk of change but not life changing. It’s about the same amount that a Las Vegas crossing guard working two hours a day during the school year or a kid makes during the summer with a lemonade stand. 

This is crazy. I have known thousands of people over my lifetime and I have never met any that live in separate homes in the same city. Have you? This is just to weird. Let’s put politics aside for a minute.

810. The cost to run a second home, mortgage/rent, utilities, property taxes, cable etc. would likely exceed $7,500.00 a year. That means that her keeping this council job is actually costing the Paines money. So she’s actually paying money to keep that job. Who does that and why? And most importantly it’s a marriage. Don’t you want to spend your time with your spouse? Isn’t that why you got married in the first place? And how do you explain this to your family and friends? I can’t figure this out. What am I missing? Again, It’s just too weird.

810. Part of being a good politician is being able to “read the room”. She is not a good politician nor can she “read the room”. It’s been a few years and people on social media still post stuff like “people in her district haven’t seen her in months” or “she doesn’t even live there”. My questions are:

1. Does this rule still exist?
2. If so how is it monitored? 
3. Who thought this a good idea in the first place?
4. Is she Jenny from the District 2 block or Jenny from the District 7 block? 

811. The biggest loser in all of this though is Jim Paine with the residents of Superior placing a close second. Paine has been criticized, mocked, ridiculed and has many residents angry and shamed with this whole situation and how he handled it. Do you think that any CEO from any large company looking to build something in Superior during the time all this stuff was going on would want to sit down with this Mayor?

812. The minute you, Jenny, decided to get married you should have done the noble thing, the right thing and resigned. Optics mean everything and the optics of this whole thing sucks. It sucked then and it sucks now. After all your husband is the Mayor. Why drag him and yourself through all the bad publicity, ridicule and shame? Was it all worth it? What did you get out of it? You could have quit your council job and got on with your life in a much more peaceful way. And for what, $7,500.00 a year? 

Paine didn’t need your vote. He still has 7 reasonably safe votes and chances are the person who would have replaced you at the time would have been another solid vote. And that’s why I call you selfish. You brought a lot of hurt to a lot of people for your own selfish reasons and left a big stain on the reputation of the city. I still don’t understand. What am I missing?

Here is post from Craig Sutherland’s Facebook March 14th:

Craig Sutherland 

March 14

You have to watch this news clip regarding the race for the 2nd District. My favorite part is they highlight Jenny Van Sickle’s signature project, “the installation of water safety signs at Loons Foot.” After eight years in office, putting up a sign is her most significant achievement? 

My second favorite part is “she is currently working on a proposal to turn the old Lake Superior Elementary in the Itasca neighborhood, into housing.” P&R Properties acquired the building in October 2024, and the council finalized everything two months ago! So if she is re-elected, she plans to advance a proposal for a project that is already a done deal?

This is laughable and gross at the same time 

Vote Sarah Anderson, it’s clear that she is capable of achieving more than just getting a water safety sign installed over an eight-year span.

812. Here are a few readers comments from his post.

1. And, she doesn’t like accountability when it comes to expenses, especially for Superior Days. Talked about me when I questioned her on a $15 dollar coffee item! Hate to see what goes on at City Hall now! 
   
2. Even if Sarah Anderson For 2nd District isn't constructive on the board, at least she won't hinder Superior's progress with a sledgehammer of baseless "no" votes. I say we give her a shot. It's time to fire Weed Van Sickle Kiks.ádi Paine
   
3. She's a piece of work for sure. Time for her and her old man to say bye-bye. 

4. Some things I've witnessed she's accomplished so far:

• City Employee mental health and moral at an all time low (at least for the ones I know).
• Has extended approving MUCH needed projects or purchases at the committee level for months, if moving it forward even at all.
• Has promoted AND pushed cutting employee positions that have come up to rehire, without actually publicly voting on it. (Tabeling indefinitely and removing from budget).
• Has *with her husbands help, forced at least 5 department heads into early retirement or resignation.
• Created huge divides in City/resident communications and collaborations

I guess you can make that 6 department heads because Paine fired Terry Johnson, the assessor since that was posted.

Here is a link to the story Craig is talking about:

https://www.northernnewsnow.com/2025/03/12/incumbent-councilor-jenny-van-sickle-sarah-anderson-run-superiors-second-district-seat/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJQC5hleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHUDFjqnoD_NvCcJkVjF6-lU0ZET-4HVTaJMZA_jJRL0LcN2iZu8721Bgtg_aem_jAZd1uUcMNDdcmrqV7Kf-g

TOOL TIME WITH TOOLER ELMO

813. On Blog 88 I wrote a long story on Tylor “Tech Tool’’ Elm you might want to revisit and today we will add some updates. Again I’d like to show you another great article from our friends at Soupnutz.net. Here it is:

March 18,2025

District 6 Showdown : Tylor Elm Faces First Real Election. 

Will Superior’s Biggest Bobblehead Finally Get Shaken?

For years, Tylor Elm has coasted through city politics like a wind-up toy in Mayor Jim Paine’s office—nodding on command, rubber-stamping every pet project, and earning the prestigious title of “Work Wife of the Year.” But now, in a shocking twist, the 6th District finally has a challenger.

Enter: Randal Wuorinen, The Guy Who’s Not Afraid to Think for Himself

Randal Wuorinen isn’t part of Jim’s entourage, doesn’t exist to prop up bad ideas, and—get this—actually has a plan for fiscal responsibility, mental health support, and city accountability. In other words, he’s everything Elm isn’t.

Wuorinen is a longtime Superior resident, a father, a coach, and someone who actually cares about what the city is doing with your money. His platform focuses on real issues like:

• Mental health and addiction resources (something the city loves to talk about but never actually funds properly).
• Transparency in the budget (because throwing money at “projects” with no oversight isn’t leadership).
• Holding City Hall accountable (meaning Paine & Elm would actually have to answer for their spending habits).

Elm’s Track Record: A Yes-Man for Jim Paine’s Spending Spree

Let’s take a look at what Elm has actually done on the council:



• Helped Jim Paine spend millions on a city-run broadband scheme that wasn’t even properly voted on.
• Let city streets crumble while bragging about bike trails and walking paths that got a fresh coat of paint.
• Waited for tax hikes after being given a 2019 report warning the city needed to adjust it’s assesments before it happened.

Elm isn’t a leader—he’s an enabler. If Jim Paine wants something done, Tylor is there to make it happen, no questions asked. When the mayor wanted to hide the real cost of the broadband project? Elm was right there, backing him up. When taxes mysteriously increased despite “no planned hikes”? Elm had no real answers—just the usual excuses.

For Once, Elm Has to Work for Your Vote

The real difference in this election? Voters in District 6 finally have an actual choice.

For years, Elm has never had to defend his record—because he’s never had an opponent. Now, for the first time, he’s running against someone who won’t just play along with Jim Paine’s reckless spending.

Wuorinen brings fresh ideas, a clear vision, and a refusal to be anyone’s political sidekick. Elm, on the other hand, has a long history of saying “Yes, Mayor” and helping Paine push through whatever plan he comes up with next—regardless of the cost.



So, District 6, the choice is yours:

• A candidate who will work for you—or one whose just Mayor Jim’s work wife.

813. If I served on council and the Mayor wanted to shut down one of my constituents businesses the first thing I would do is thoroughly investigate the story and then I would set up a meeting with him to get his side of it. Tooler did not do any of this. Instead he was aligned with the Mayor, and the backstabbing, totally unhinged baker Melissa Hyatt on those infamous texts. And I never knew about any of this until I started the Blog in 2023. Tooler Elmo should have no place on city council. Like the show says, “Sorry Tylor ,You’re just a tool.”

814. I want to wrap up today’s Blog with two more topical and excellent articles from Soupnutz.net. At this rate we are going to have to change the name of the Blog. Here is article # 1:

Elm and Van Sickle Helped Blow $43 Million—Fiscal Responsibility or Just Thelma & Louise with a City Budget?

Hey Superior! Tired of budget bologna and council drama thicker than clam chowder? Then belly up to Soupnutz — where our bowls are full, but our budgets are balanced.

While Van Sickle and Elm are out here starring in their own Errol Morris documentary in the Telegram, softly whispering sweet nonsense about “financial stability” while lighting $43 million in ARPA and Enbridge Oil Money on fire like it’s a candlelit dinner for bureaucrats…

We at Soupnutz believe in keeping it simple, steamy, and hot! — just like a good cup of tomato bisque.

If these two get reelected this April, they’ll have outlasted George Washington’s presidency—without planting a single cherry tree or cutting taxes. But hey, at least George didn’t leave us with a $2 million deficit after blowing through $43 Million in bonus cash.

Van Sickle strutted onto the scene in 2017, Elm joined shortly after, and together they’ve been on a seven-year spending spree that would make a Kardashian blush. They’ve been holding office since Obama left the White House, and instead of change we can believe in, we got budget holes and survey monkey democracy.

They talk about “progress,” but let’s talk about the receipts.

Let’s break down their greatest hits:

• $18 million in ARPA funds: Meant to help recover from the pandemic. Used for ribbon-cutting ceremonies and projects that look good in election mailers.
• $25 million in Enbridge oil money: A fossil fuel cash so massive it could’ve paved the streets in gold. Instead, it was burned through like kindling.

Total: $43 million.

Gone. Vaporized. The fiscal equivalent of disappearing a pizza in a college dorm room.

And what do residents get?



• No lead pipe replacement.
• Tax Hikes.
• But hey, we got a trail,dock, and some life jackets. Yay nature.

Now, with another $50 million on the table, you’d think the people would get a vote, right? A good old-fashioned referendum?



Nope.

Van Sickle and Elm want to run your city by online poll. That’s right. The future of Superior’s infrastructure could be decided with the same level of legitimacy as “Which Saved by the Bell character are you?”

Because apparently, democracy is too much trouble—especially when it might get in the way of rubber-stamping the mayor’s next pet project.

In District 2, Sarah Anderson dares to ask, “What if we fixed the damn pipes before funding more fantasy fiber?”

And in District 6, Randal Wuorinen wants to know where the money went before handing out another blank check. Radical stuff, we know.

They’re not tied, or married to the mayor.


They’re not playing patty-cake with budgets.


They just think maybe, just maybe, people should know how their money’s being spent.

If reelected, these two will have outlasted George Washington himself. But instead of building a republic, they’ve helped drain the treasury and paved the way for budget deficits.



They call it “responsible governance.“ 
We call it municipal malpractice.

This isn’t just about potholes and fiber optics.

It’s about accountability.
It’s about leadership.
It’s about whether you’re willing to be gaslit with your own tax dollars.

So, on April 1st—don’t be the fool.

Don’t reward fiscal fantasy and click-poll governance.
Vote for people who believe in budgets, ballots, and basic honesty.

Because Superior can’t afford another season of The Van Sickle & Elm Show.

Not unless you like sequels that end in higher taxes and lower expectations.

ARTICLE #2

March 25, 2025

Years of Neglect — Now They Want Your Vote

Superior residents saw property tax hikes up to 90% in 2024. Why?

Because city leaders delayed revaluations for over two decades — and by the time they acted, the damage was done.

Now, two of those same officials — Jenny Van Sickle and Tylor Elm — are running for reelection on April 1st, campaigning on… fiscal responsibility.

You can’t make this up.

The Timeline They Don’t Talk About

• 2000s–2010s: No property revaluation — assessments grow wildly outdated
• 2017: Jenny Van Sickle joins the City Council
• 2018: Tylor Elm joins the City Council
• RW Management warns the city a revaluation is urgently needed
• 2024: Revaluation finally completed after two decades
• Result: Tax increases of 30% to 90%+ for many residents

Let’s be clear:

No one is accusing these officials of personally benefiting from the revaluation.

But they did nothing for years. They were warned. They were in power. They had time to act — and they didn’t.

And when the bill finally came due, you paid the price.

Van Sickle and Elm are asking for two more years, presenting themselves as fiscally responsible leaders.

But where was that responsibility when:

• The city ignored expert warnings?
• The revaluation was delayed for 20 years?
• Residents were blindsided by massive tax bills in 2024?

Leadership means making hard decisions before a crisis — not after it explodes.

What You Can Do

• Share this post
• Talk to your neighbors
• Vote on April 1st with full awareness of this record

This isn’t about party lines. It’s about accountability.

If you’re going to run on “fiscal responsibility,” you should be ready to own your record.

815. Thanks to Soupnutz.net for these two articles. I will do an election Blog part 2 on Monday, the day before the election. Thanks again for reading.

Brian