Isn’t it funny after a city councilor and the media point out the absence of an ordinance in our bylaws, they have a moment of pause;

City Attorney Dave Pfeifle said in an email Friday no formal action is required by the Council to meet Stehly’s request and the City Clerk would be submitting it for publication in in the coming weeks.

“The city has the option to codify it and it will be placed in the code book in the near future,” he wrote. “Again, the code book is for the court’s convenience for those ordinances that are most likely to be enforced against the public at large through the court system.”

They also should be put on the books for the courts to protect the public from it’s government when they are NOT doing their job. I will say that Councilor Stehly told me after this last snowfall she has gotten dozens of compliments about how the city used snow gates in the past couple of days. BRAVO. See, it’s really not that hard to push a button.

By l3wis

3 thoughts on “Seems our City Attorney Fiddle had to change his Faddle on Snow gates ordinance”
  1. Prior to the public vote on snow gates, the discussion that occurred which included both Galen Huber and Mark Cotter from Public Works clarified that EVERY driveway in Sioux Falls would be included. The only exemption were those driveways along emergency snow routes.

    I believe that wording to this effect was actually placed in the ballot language.

    The Council needs to insure that the wording which was on the ballot is what is codified!

  2. Amazing how the city attorney refers to circuit court when city ordinance disallows lawsuits. It’s a double negative. Circuit Court cases can be dismissed. City charter leaves final action with the city without appeals. The city can’t enforce ordinances without court order. They have unenforceable rules you should ignore.

  3. One of the things we learned taking the city to court in April 2014 was how Fiddle Faddle could change the ballot explanation to be anything he he wanted it to be. So Voter, he changed what our petition meant.

    At each of the Advocational Education sessions the four different videos given by “non-biased” presenters only told the version of the story the city wanted. We citizens who circualted the petitions had no voice in any of the ballot issues. So when the Snowgate issues passed, the only way they were to be used was dicatated by the city attorney, mayor and street department. We in a sense were told to sit on screws.

Comments are closed.