City attorney David Fiddle-Faddle proposing some interesting changes to the ethics board procedures

1. He wants to toot his horn again; http://docs.siouxfalls.org/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1642&doctype=AGENDA

2. is it just me or is alot of the text hidden behind advertisement

3. Huh? Meh.

4. the ads on the right cover the article on my screen. Just the top where it is hi-lited in yellow. Maybe just my issue but even in the past words are hidden behind the ads on the right.

5. Nothing was hidden on my computer.

6. Dork. Is Internet Explorer your browser?

7. Poly – are you a MS hater? I have no problems with my display. I’m thinking it’s a user interface issue – as are 90% + of computer problems.

8. You must be viewing it on a very small computer screen?

   BTW, let’s get back to the topic.

9. Lewis, I don’t like many this “confidentiality” thing for the same reasons you don’t, and I agree that without some standard, “frivilous” could mean different things to different people.

   If they get the confidentiality language changed, here is their problem aside from 1st amend issues. Let’s assume a complaint doesn’t become a “complaint” for attachment of confidentiality until the complaint is filed with the board. Until then, the complaint is just something somebody doesn’t like. So an aggrieved party, could ID an issue on Monday, grow their outrage on Tuesday, hold a press conference on Wednesday, file a complaint on Thursday, then shut up on Friday. Then you have no breach of confidentiality following the filing of a complaint.

10. ‘The Court of public opinion’ argument. I’ll play along. Let’s say it is a city employee and they are found NOT guilty, would agree, nobody’s business. But let’s say they are guilty of bilking taxpayers, we have a right to know.

    As for ELECTED officials, all complaints against they should be open record, guilty or not. If I get arrested for a DUI, that is public record before I even walk in a courtroom to plead my case, if anything, elected officials should be held to a higher standard. If someone is accusing them of wrong doing, innocent or guilty, we have a right to know. If they don’t like those rules, they can resign.

11. BTW, I wasn’t arguing against you, I’m just pointing out a scenario. The city needs to leave costitutional issues alone.

12. I believe Mr. Pfeifle was gainfully employed prior to taking the job with the city. He worked for May & Johnson.

    Also, I can’t take issue with adding language dealing with frivolous complaints. The current process has opened it up to a lot of abuses such as filing a complaint about someone who invites three city employees to a holiday party, and then someone files a complaint because they don’t think those employees should meet outside of official meetings. Seriously, it has happened.

    People have also used the ethics complaints for political purposes to harm the reputation of someone prior to an election. These two items are in reaction to that exact issue in order to prevent people from dragging someone’s name through the mud based off of a baseless ethics complaint. This way their name is protected until a decision is rendered, just like the name of a rape or sexual assualt victim is protected.

    Believe it or not, there are limits to the First Ammendment and this is not a Constitutional issue. This is very similar to when a jury is required to keep details of the case as well as their discussions confidential. It is classic gag order, and they have been held up as Constitutional in numerous cases.

    See John DOE, et al. v. Boad of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of TN for one such example. It is generally constitutionally permissible to restrict speech to those involved in a matter or case (at least temporarily), but the same cannot be said for restricting speech of the media. Therefore if the Argus leader wishes to report about an ethics complaint they can do so without fear of reprisal, but if they obtained the information from the complaintant, the complaintant would therefore no longer have the right to file the ethics complaint and it would be withdrawn.

    Keep in mind this restriction would only apply to the complaint. If the complaint is thrown out due to the conduct of the complaintant, there is nothing stating the complaintant couldn’t tell their story to the Argus, KELO, or to you so you could put the information out there for the public to review.

13. @ Craig. If a complaint is baseless, the ethics board can dismiss it. The Ethics Board is not a jury. It is a lay board of citizens. Complaint abuses are in the eye of the complainant. The Ethics Board is supposed to be unbiased. This is a place for citizens to go when they think their public officials have done something wrong. Censureship and hammering down on citizens is what this is all about.

14. I disagree. It is more about protecting people from the debacle that occurred with Mr. Staggers during our mayoral election. His name should not have been dragged through the mud before people even had a chance to hear about what the complaint actually was.

    Besides, if a citizen’s complaint is tossed for being baseless (frivolous) there is always the court of public opinion via blogs (such as this one), forums, and city council meetings where they can make their voice heard. If we hear of citizen complaints being tossed that appear valid then there will be mass uproar, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

    Those on the ethics board aren’t unintelligent people. They may not always do what we would feel is proper, but they aren’t going out of their way to silence people either. I’ve seen more abuses from people filing such complaints than I have from the board who hears them. This language seems to try to create more of a balance.

15. “there is nothing stating the complaintant couldn’t tell their story to the Argus, KELO, or to you so you could put the information out there for the public to review.”

    I agree with you about confidentiality until after a decision is rendered, but I fear this is about silencing a complaintant no matter the decision. What I think David is getting at is keeping the decision confidential, forever, whether they are found guilty, not guilty or thrown out. He told I.L he couldn’t talk to anyone about his ethics complaint after it was thrown out. Not true. I.L. has yet to tell the whole story and since I only know bits and pieces I think it is up to I.L. to tell it.

16. If complainant must keep confidential, there’s no way to get an answer. It’ll just disappear like my 4 complaints against the city code enforcer. Sounds like Barney Fifel is trying to explain away unconstitutional process with jargon in ordinances.

17. Maybe the city should just keep it simple and write an ordinance that says the city charter is above the US Constitution and State Constitution. They really are complicating things by writing these multiple ordinances. I say, keep it simple.

18. Craig, I don’t believe Pfiefle was at May Johnson at time he took city job.

19. Anon – I don’t think he was either. I kinda remember during his confirmation hearing he said he was unemployed.

Comments are closed.