UPDATE: Open Letter to the Sioux Falls City Council about the (re)appointment of David Pfeifle for Lead City Attorney
l3wis UPDATE: Last night at the council meeting where David was approved 6-1 (Selberg absent, Starr dissent) there were no questions for the appointee. I guess now the administration is even skipping the job interview process in appointing directors.
I also like when the mayor yells ‘Oh my Gosh!’ during public input (FF: 1:21:40) he then says, “See this Boy Scouts you are learning about decorum and professionalism.” What PTH doesn’t understand is that decorum and especially professionalism applies to the body on the dais as well and saying ‘Oh my Gosh!’ to a public inputer who you are personally irritated by is certainly not decorum ‘like’. I get it that you have to shut down people after their 3 minutes are up, but at least let them finish their sentence or point before yelling ‘Thank you’ at them 4 times in a row. The Boy Scouts were probably wondering why the mayor was acting like a Cub Scout.
Cameraman Bruce Danielson sent this email to the council today about David’s record. The proposed appointment with city council approval will be tonight at the 6 PM meeting (Item #44);
I ask the City Council to consider the following thoughts and let these weigh in on the decision to rehire a flawed nominee for Sioux Falls City Attorney.
How will the nominee deal with issues arising between the City Council and the Mayor’s office and the City Employees?
• Will the nominee once again switch sides, giving up his City responsibilities and use City information to personally represent the mayor such as in an ethics complaint without a conflict release from the City Council?
• Will the nominee give up his City Charter duties and use City information and position to personally represent the mayor, such as in an ethics complaint in violation of the City Home Rule Charter and attorney-client relationship with the City Council?
• Will the nominee, in issues before the Board of Ethics, recuse when confronted with conflict or once again risk disbarment similar to his part in two 2014 Board of Ethics hearings involving the mayor?
• Will the nominee once again step aside from his Charter responsibilities to become the personal attorney for the mayor as he did in one of the 2014 Board of Ethics hearings?
What does South Dakota Public Assurance Alliance have to say about their Executive Director taking inside information back to their largest customer?
• Will the nominee force the city to obtain outside counsel every time there is an issue involving his former employer, SDPAA?
• How can SDPAA Board be comfortable with their former employee, who possesses confidential information about its operations, now being able to use it against them?
• Has the SDPAA Board given a formal conflict release for all future cases involving this appointment?
• In most situations when an employee of one organization (SDPAA) decides to take a position with a customer of the first organization (City of Sioux Falls), there is a customary time gap between the resignation and the accession to the other.
Why do think there will be better choices by the candidate then there was last time in city employ? A sampling of some of the candidates prior issues is not a great recommendation.
• Events Center hidden cost overruns resulting in the loss of building warranty.
• First time in history a vendor placed a mechanic’s lien on a major asset of the city resulting in a hidden settlement – the Events Center.
• Downtown parking ramp issues, including a building collapse, causing death and the illegal asbestos removal.
• Backdated paperwork on city property sales and projects handled by the city attorney office.
• Interference with public driven activities such as the Administration Building petition drive and others?
• Created the template for advocational education programs to sway public voting illegally using City resources in violation of the 1st Amendment and plain language in SDCL.
• Approved the unconstitutional property zoning changes without legal service to the city’s 66,000 properties.
• Allowed destruction of evidence once a notice of claim under SDCL 3-21 has been filed?
These are just a few of the issues the nominee has been involved in to strip the people of their voices and the people’s representatives, City Council of their oversight. The city attorney is not the personal attorney of the mayor, the city attorney must be someone who understands their loyalties are to the public and act that way every time.
