Citing a lack of authority in the matter, the city of Sioux Falls’ board of ethics Thursday threw out a complaint about the mayor’s involvement in pushing for voter approval of the events center.
So let me get this straight? The City attorney claims that the AG’s opinion in 1988 allows the mayor’s directors to make presentations. Some people complained to the current AG’s office. He says he has no authority, so he throws it back at the city attorney. An ethics complaint is filed, the board’s legal adviser, the city attorney excuses himself (I am assuming because he is a political appointee of the mayor) Then the board gets a private attorney to look into it. And after all that they say they have no authority to respond to the complaint so they throw it out!? Isn’t that your job? Unbelievable and spineless.
I’ll bring that up when I talk Monday at city council. They can’t fire me.
I think by not making a decision they have washed their hands of the mess. Pretty slick. “Out, damn’d spot! out, I say!”
While you are asking questions, you should ask David Fiddle-Faddle if Shawn Tornow has received a civil service hearing yet, and if not, if he is still collecting a paycheck?
So who exactly is the City Attorney responsible to (besides Huether, of course)? It seems like he only has to answer to himself. The AG is just letting him write his own rules as he goes along.
I think it was smart of the city attorney to dismiss himself from these proceedings, BUT why hire a private attorney to advise board members if they refuse to make a decision?
I also think that the AG, City Attorney and Board of Ethics look like a bunch of jackasses in the matter. None of them have an answer? Weird.
The next opportunity for public input at a 7:00 Council meeting is November 7th. Monday is an informational meeting only–no public input allowed.
Thanks!
I had a long conversation today with someone in the know. While I was not let in on what happened behind closed doors, I was assured that eventually the proceedings will become public.
Hey Scott- I will be upfront…I am an events center supporter but I appreciate your honest assessment of the proposal and respect your opinion. I think you might be the only one in the city with the nuts to talk about this but have you heard about a quid pro quot deal being hatched with a former mayor. ……His public opposition to the events center in exchange for getting his name on a westside library? I smell a rat.
I was assured that eventually the proceedings will become public.
Eventually? As in AFTER the EC vote?
HarKan – That is interesting. The only thing they should name after Munson is a new sewer pipe.
I found Ellis’ column interesting today. I also told IL that he can say whatever he wants to, he’s a private citizen, the First Amendment and the US Constitution trumps anything the city charter has to say. David Fiddle-Faddle doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20111030/COLUMNISTS0116/110300308
HarKan – I just talked to someone about this, did you mean if Munson would have SUPPORTED the EC publicly he would have gotten the library named after him? That’s the version I heard. And he refused to play the game, and is opposed to it.
The thought of a Dave Munson Public Library is the scariest thing I’ve heard this Halloween season.
Like I said, he should be happy to be named after a sewer pipe. I still think it is funny they tried to buy him with a naming rights to a library. Have you ever heard him read out loud? He was giving out some merit award at a city council meeting one night and instead of saying Herbs (ERRbs) he said (Herrrbs) it was hilarious.
It would be like naming an athletic complex after me or you.
So let me get this straight…………..
Mike Huether’s directive to his appointee, City Attorney David Pfeifle, to keep I. L. Wiedermann QUIET trumps the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
There is something very WRONG with this picture………..