“Not sure I did anything wrong or not. I’m too busy building sandcastles in Mexico for a month.”
I highly suggest you watch the discussion at the Informational meeting, which takes some very strange twists and turns, to say the least. My favorite part is when councilor Anderson chews Fiddle-Faddle’s ass, and tells him he is ‘out of order’ himself, after threatening Brown with a defamation suit;
The City Attorney stood by the advice given to the council and said the council was right to fire Owen.
“We certainly have more than sufficient grounds to not only justify the termination, but also it has been bolstered since she was gone,” Pfeifle said.
Pfeifle fired back at Brown, saying the councilman opened himself up for a defamation lawsuit by calling out Pfeifle, Human Resources Director Bill O’Toole and Assistant City Attorney Gail Eiesland by recommending they be fired. Another council member came to Brown’s defense.
“Why are you stating that when that should be part of executive session?” Kenny Anderson, Jr. asked.
Pfeifle argued he did not release details about why Owen was fired; he just stated there was sufficient evidence to support that action.
“But you’re close to doing the same thing. I think you’re very out of order with that comment!” Anderson, Jr. said.
Other parts of the informational that stand out is the apparent state of denial that councilors Erpenbach and Entenman showed during their comments. In fact, Entenman went so far to say that he didn’t think they did anything wrong. Uh, Okay. I suppose I could rant for awhile about how 4 out of 5 highly revered state’s attorneys think you were very wrong. But I won’t.
The worst part about this matter is that one of the city’s most valuable employees, Debra Owen, is still terminated (and according to Fiddle-Faddle is collecting unemployment – which I found interesting because I thought it was hard to collect unemployment when you are fired). Some may ask why Debra Owen was fired, as explained in the informational, it had to do with an employee dispute. I have always felt, that was the ‘excuse’.
Shortly after Huether took office, Owen and I had a discussion one night, the topic was about how she was researching contract approval by home rule councils. She knew at the time that the mayor was not to keen about her doing this research, and I still believe, wild speculation and all, that her termination was punishment for side stepping the mayor and giving the council that power. And how does the council show their gratitude (especially leadership, Erpenbach and Aguliar)? By participating in the mayor’s witch hunt.
What do I think the just punishment should be for the councilors? I think they should all be fined one year’s pay. If they are truly doing the ‘citizens work’ let them do it for FREE for a year.
With little exception those were some amazing ‘apologies’. Those you called out were the most arrogant in their ‘apologies’. I’m sorry but…I’m sorry but…, I apologize, but…That was what I heard. Even if they simply followed bad advice on the issue of how the motion was worded, they conveniently leave out the fact they decided to fire her at all, the ejection of the press, the fact they apparently didn’t even let her speak, etc etc. I’ve always been of the opinion this had more to do with certain people not wanting to stand up and defend their actions than protecting the dignity of Owen. What was confirmed yesterday was they could reveal the content of the executive session by a majority vote. They aren’t legally required to keep this secret. They just choose to, so they can hide behind it. The levels of arrogance really was astounding and disturbing. Do I think its very possible the city attorney in good faith gave them an opinion on how to handle this, and in turn they in good faith trusted it? Sure, but that doesn’t absolve all the other things I mentioned. Not to mention the fact that you are the elected official and it was your vote at the end of the day and your motion. Oh yes, one of my favorites – Entenman: “We didn’t violate any law. Until you go to court, its just an opinion….I believe we did nothing wrong….I believe we did well here.” (Pick jaw up off the floor now).
The mayor alone decides city contracts. In Huether’s dictatorship he needs the kickbacks to build his palace out of town. If Owen questioned this illegal scheme it was part of her job.
When Jim said that, I said to myself, “Yeah, we should drag all of your asses to court over the matter.”
There are 3 people that followed this advice and repeatedly admitted they screwed up and were sorry. When someone (Brown, Jamison, Anderson Jr) has the integrity to admit a mistake, I can pretty easily forgive. When people have the arrogance that I observed yesterday (Entenman, Erpenbach) or spoke just to make sure they said something (Karsky, Rolfing), I find them extremely incompotent. They may be fine or successful in their professional and daily lives, but this issue was WAY over many of their heads and they still think they did nothing wrong. Aguilar looked like she had no idea how to run or control this meeting. She spent most of the time looking at Erpenbach for guidance.
As a side note, since when is it legal for someone in city government (Pfeifle) to speak about a past employees unemployment pay and benefits? That room was so uncomfortable with that information – everyone wanted to crawl under their chairs.
At the end of the day, there are so many that lose on this deal and if our elected officials feel no responsibility in this debacle – then they probably should not only not be paid – but probably shouldn’t be in public service altogether.
This is the very essence of amateur governance. It’s what this country was founded on. Seriously – no sarcasm involved. This IS what you get.
This is why most elected positions SHOULD be seen as pretty much “figurehead” jobs, without much real authority. Trained professionals ought to be the ones doing the day-to-day operational stuff, as well as coming up with appropriate ordinance and code language. And by trained professionals I don’t mean outside political groups (like ALEC or whatever) with ideological agendae.
We had that trained professional with Debra and they fired her. As I said – noone wins in this deal.
If Pfeifle was consulting with these various people (AG staffer, other attorneys etc,) it begs the question: How long was this termination in the works? It would have been nice if he would have consulted with someone on the open meetings commission. Also, usually public entities like our fair city have detailed disciplinary procedures as policy, and immediate termination is reserved for the most serious offenses. Since we don’t know what Owens supposedly did wrong, don’t know if the proper disciplinary channels were followed. Pfeif also sought cover by claiming he learned afterwards of other things that could have exposed city to liability. He didn’t seem to want to get into much about the potential liability created by his crappy advice, other than to say she might have a back wage claim, but she’d have to pay back her unemployment benefits. If she brings a claim, back wages will be only a portion of it and will exceed what she has received in unemployment. Then factor in the cost of litigation and you are probably looking at a good chunk of change. So at best the City exchanged one type of liability (maybe) for another. Erpenbach also made the comment that they have gone against Pfeifle’s advice on two other issues (contracts and something else). What she is saying is that twice the council thought he was wrong and went away from his position, then a third time (owens) didn’t know if he was right, went with him and got burned. If we could pinpoint the source of the smell on this thing, my guess is it would lead to 1st floor city hall. We shouldn’t expect Pfeifle to be involved in shaping policy. He is not elected and that’s not his role, but on a question of legal procedure, we should expect more.
I like it that Brown is willing to take a stand against Huether, his cabinet and fellow commissioners. He may be correct in that Owen shouldn’t have been fired, but he’s being a pussy by calling for Pfeifle, Eiesland and O’Toole to be fired. If Pfeifle’s advice was provided by the Attorney General’s office as he claims, he’s in the clear with Huether. Even if it wasn’t, it sounds like the open meeting rules are ambiguous and thereby subject to interpretation. I’m no fan of Entenman but he’s right about the open meetings violation, it’s just an opinion until it goes to court and we all know that won’t happen. Let’s let Owen take her case to court if she so desires and perhaps the whole truth will come out.
You need to look at these independently. Owens’ firing and the open meeting violations are separate issues. So yes, there was an open meeting violation, but it doesn’t make her dismissal illegal. I say dismissal because she is appointed and was not fired. She served at the pleasure of the council; obviously, it was no longer their pleasure to have her serve. She has no rights here; she can be dismissed for any reason. In addition, SD is a right to work state. You can fire without cause or reason. You can’t discriminate, but you can terminate fairly. It happens every day.
The issue sounds like personal matters. I would not want my dirty laundry aired. Obviously, Owens is not airing hers either. It is the right thing to do to not reveal this information. If Owens wants it released, let her make a plea and the council can vote on it.
I didn’t have strong feelings for Owens either way. She knew the risks when she took her job, I wish her the best, but I don’t see much difference between this and the dismissal of several directors. It is part of the job, should be expected, and planned for. It‘s time to drop the bitterness and move on.
They had better hope she doesn’t take this to court. If the interpretation of the law and the handful of other things they handled poorly is correct, the city will be at fault and the taxpayers will be paying this bill. From what I observed yesterday, we never had a clue how to handle this situation and we fired an employee within those perameters. I am sure glad Pfeifle had an opportunity to defend himself yesterday and read his “prepared” statement without ever answering Jamison’s question, although about 1 minute into it – he probably should have zipped the lip and sat down. Too bad Debra wasn’t extended the same consideration.
In all reality – if I were on the city council – I would be wanting to seek my own legal advice on this deal.
“Debra Owen, is still terminated (and according to Fiddle-Faddle is collecting unemployment – which I found interesting because I thought it was hard to collect unemployment when you are fired).”
Update on this, if someone is fired and they file for unemployment and their previous employer does not ‘CONTEST’ the unemployment, they can receive the assistance. The City of SF did not contest Owen’s filing. Why? 1) She was fired and 2) she was fired, according to Erpenbach for doing ‘something’ wrong. So why would you not contest her benefits? Very strange.
“This is the very essence of amateur governance.”
You ain’t kidding there. As one of my redneck friend’s say when he sees politicians screwup, “What a bunch of dumbF***s.”
“How long was this termination in the works?” I heard it was cooking for about a week.
“I didn’t have strong feelings for Owens either way. She knew the risks when she took her job, I wish her the best, but I don’t see much difference between this and the dismissal of several directors. It is part of the job, should be expected, and planned for. It‘s time to drop the bitterness and move on.”
You are right, but that is not the crux of the issue. All other appointees, as Brown pointed out, were publicly dismissed with press releases (Schwan for example). So why wasn’t Owen’s termination public? Plain and simple, they knew it would be very unpopular with the public. It wasn’t like we were firing a low-life assistant city attorney who put a citizen thru Hell for seven years, they were firing a very popular, hard-working, pro-transparency advocate for citizens, Debra Owen. They look like complete ass-hats (for lack of a better word) for not just terminating her, but in the way they tried to cover it up, and continue to try to cover it up. Their arrogance and egos hopefully will get the best of them in the end.
One of the tragic things, instead of carrying on the city’s business (whatever that may be), they’ll now spend countless hours (on the dime of their employer, us) talking about who did what, who said what, what policies to change, blah blah blah… None of it will cause an iota of benefit to the citizens of SF.
Wis,
It’s not worth contesting unemployment benefits.
As far as filing for unemployment, most businesses (especially larger business) don’t bother to contest ever. The total unemployment payment is pretty small in SD anyways. It is not worth their time or effort to contest regardless of the reason for separation. I’ve seen people caught stealing and admitting to it in writing awarded unemployment. Usually, the state will side with the employee no matter what. The only open and shut case is a letter of resignation, but even then there is a possibility they could still receive unemployment by claiming intimidating work environment which caused it. So really, no open and shut case. Being fired or un-appointed fall under the same category, so why would you contest this. She deserves unemployment, which is what it is there for.
I’m not seeing the cover up. I think it is very obvious she was let go. I am also pretty sure it was known the Public would find out. The reason and circumstances really aren’t any of our business. If she wants to speak, I’m sure the news channels will listen. Maybe the Argus can run a story? I do believe the vote should have been public, but not necessarily the reason. Really, they don’t even need a reason. I think it is pretty obvious at this point; she was doing something questionable resulting in her immediate removal. Maybe she wasn’t, but it doesn’t matter, she was voted out. That’s the system. Was she given the same treatment as directors? No, but I am guessing there are also some unique circumstances. I know one person who can clear all of this up if they would speak up.
Lawsuit, good luck in this state. The termination looks pretty legal. Did it lack dignity and respect? Maybe, she was removed from office and escorted out of the building, but that is pretty normal for most businesses. The building was cleared to give her privacy, that actually seems appropriate to me. If it were me, I would not appreciate cameras and reporters in my face during a trying time.
The news knew about this in advance, that’s why they were there in the first place with the cameras. That is why the whole ‘privacy’ argument is such a farce. The only thing they were trying to cover was their own asses, and the other employees that were (are) still working in the clerk’s office.
I think the truth is being covered up. City Hall politics is the worse. If the person being fired had done something illegal or unethical it would have come out. Yes it was politics. So lets fire more folks and rehire new ones cheaper. Call it cost savings.
ME – government is NOT a business.
What a huge waste of effort. You NEVER fire anyone in a political position as, I think even Deb would agree, her position had become, regardless of the original job description.
When such a person has lost the faith of a majority of the votes it takes to remove them, they should simply be so told and asked to resign with dignity. That’s political employment, all of those who do it for a living know it. I’ve no doubt that would have been Ms. Owen’s preference if she had been given the option.
i think government run as a business is called a dictatorship.
Pretty sure it wasn’t a dictatorship. In a very un-businesslike or dictator-like manner, it took a majority vote of elected City Councilors to make this happen. That sounds like a democracy to me. Like it or not and regardless of the manner in which it occurred. Your blame should lay with your democratic/representative body called a City Council. If she did not garner the proper respect of the City Council to be given the opportunity to resign, it is unfortunate. My guess, there was a reason why, smells fishy to me on both sides. I guess we may never know unless someone makes an appeal to release the details.
The reference to business is describing the reason for not contesting unemployment benefits. Just like a business, they should not waste time and effort pursuing minimal amounts of money; especially, when she is entitled to it. They would be morons to contest her unemployment.
Musollini described what we commonly call facism as really being more appropriately called corporatism – I.E., government – as a business. Every reference that compares governmental behiavior to business behavior in a light of similarity fosters the leaning toward a perspective that accepts government as a business.
Huether is a dictator. No doubt. He already has control of the media, and he was seen hugging Randell Beck at a recent ribbon cutting.
I watched the meeting for a second time last night (not sure why I put myself thru the agony) but this current council looks very, uneducated.
I told my mom tonight, “Debra was the brains of the operation, when they let her go the IQ of the council dropped by 50%.”