So let’s add another layer of rules that the city attorney can find a way to wiggle out of;
In the future, the City Council will have to name an employee and the action being taken against the employee. Pfeifle says going forward, city leaders intend to be as open as possible.
Wasn’t that what you were supposed to do to begin with?
If Glenn Brenner’s name doesn’t sound familiar, it should. He is a member of the SD Open Meetings Commission;
Douglas Rumpca of Rapid City sued Pennington County State’s Attorney Glenn Brenner, saying Brenner stole the affections of his former wife, Kellie Rumpca.
Not only is he for open meetings, apparently he is for open marriages 🙂 To be honest with you, I think this law is silly. If your wife leaves you, that is her decision.
As for Brenner, it is important to note that he is the only member of the OMC to vote against the rest of the commission on the recent decision about the SF City Council in reference to the Debra Owen issue.
(Image: KELO-TV) This is a picture of a sinkhole that erupted overnight in SF.
It seems our city council gathered another prestigious award (SD Newspaper Association);
And the “Black Hole” Award goes to…
Since this is Sunshine Week, a national observance about the importance of openness and transparency in government, I think it is a good time to give what I call the “Black Hole” Award. Webster’s in part defines a black hole as a space that light cannot escape. Certainly true in the case of the Sioux Falls City Council, which last week was reprimanded by the Open Meetings Commission for violating state law. The complaint that went to the open meetings panel was initiated by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.
Last year in a special meeting executive session the Sioux Falls City Council decided to fire the city clerk. The problem: the official action related to the decision to fire the clerk was never conveyed to the public in the official minutes of the Sept. 14 special meeting.
Rather, Sioux Falls councilors decided, apparently based on advice from their attorney, to approve this motion following the executive session: “to authorize Councilors Erpenbach, Anderson Jr., and Entenman to take the personnel action that was discussed in Executive Session.”
Huh?
The city attorney said the council needed to be non-specific in its motion in order to “protect” city clerk Debra Owen and afford her the same rights as if she was a private employee.
Yea, right. Benevolent-sounding, but it appears to be more about city councilors wanting to protect themselves rather than Debra Owen.
At any rate, the open meetings commission was right to reprimand the council, and the subsequent media attention has helped put some bite in the reprimand.
The Sioux Falls mayor has since said the open meetings laws are “confusing.” The Sioux Falls city attorney has said the reprimand is no big deal and he would welcome the opportunity to work with legislators to “clarify” the open meetings law.
Really? Confusing? Clarification needed?
South Dakota’s open meetings laws are pretty clear cut when it comes to taking any official action related to executive session discussions. Public boards in South Dakota generally have operated well under those provisions of the law for 25 years. The law allows public boards to keep discussions and rationales regarding personnel actions in secret. The law is clear that any official action regarding those discussions must be made in public. It also must be clear exactly what those official actions are.
Why Sioux Falls city officials suddenly find it confusing is rather amusing. And sad.
Nevertheless, the 2012 Sunshine Week “Black Hole” Award is no laughing matter. It’s a serious reminder that open government in South Dakota is always a work in progress.
The Mitchell Daily Republic decided to chime in;
It seems that many boards do not take great offense when they are reprimanded by the Open Meetings Commission, a panel that hears public complaints about possible violations of procedure by elected boards.
That Brown is so offended shows he cares, and it shows that he truly wants to conduct the people’s business appropriately.
We don’t care that his scolding of the city attorney caused offense. If the attorney’s advice was bad and caused embarrassment to the board, so be it. The attorney works for the people; so does the City Council, for that matter.
And further, Brown maintains that his role on the board does not trump his First Amendment rights to state his true feelings about this issue.
Hear, hear.
Good job, Vernon.
During the working session today, the city attorney backed off in changing public input to the end of the meeting. The only change will be a more complex timer.
“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.
l3wis