Since the Open Meetings Commission meeting on Thursday, things have been heating up. Between what councilors may or may not present and what the city attorney may or may not do or say, the only thing I can speculate right now, is get ready for some fireworks, debate and surprises on Monday.

You can access the meetings online HERE. I would make sure to tune into the informational meeting at 4 PM.

16 Thoughts on “A must see; The SF city council meetings on Monday

  1. We need to be careful blaming bad legaladvice.
    No matter the advice the client is the one going to jail.

    Also it was the leadership of the council that went on a witch hunt for send head.

  2. rufusx on March 10, 2012 at 3:43 pm said:

    john,

    Leadership?
    Or merely a majority.
    There IS a difference.

  3. Ruf – At this point, who freaking knows?

    BTW – A shoutout to ‘Big Guy’ who introduced himself to me tonight, as a fan of the site. Love meeting my readers (especially if they like me and have a tasty piece of steak in their mouths).

  4. I think this biblical quote I just read, says it all;

    Philippians 4:8

    ‘Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.’

  5. Big Guy on March 11, 2012 at 12:11 am said:

    First of all, thank you for the shout-out. When you walked by the first time, my gut instinct was so bugging me and I had to make sure. It is an honor to meet you, Scott. Also, the steaks were very tasty and thank you again. 🙂

    2nd, I do hope there will be fireworks… Any ideas/predictions on how the outcome will be? Would be nice those guilty parties will be called out.

  6. I will never forget that September day in 2011……..

    Waiting for almost two hours in the room outside the Council Chambers………….

    along with several other citizens, the Argus Leader and KELO to hear the fate of a well-respected, high profile city employee.

    Finally, when the Council went back into public session to announce their decision, I was shocked at not only what had just happened, but the way in which the entire process was cloaked in COMPLETE SECRECY!!!!

    Then to hear later that evening that the media had been removed from Carnegie.

    Sioux Falls….. All of this took place in the people’s town hall………….your town hall!!!!

    And, this is why what happened at the South Dakota Open Meetings Commission meeting last Friday is so important to every citizen!

    Now, today, to read in Sunday’s Argus Leader quotes from our city’s leader, Mayor Mike Huether………..

    “The Council cares about transparency as much as I do. They’re not trying to hide anything.”

    He also said the Commission’s action does not cast doubt on his own commitment or the Council’s to open government.

    He went on to suggest the personnel ethics followed in the corporate world with regard to the sensitive matter of firings should trump open government laws.

    So, what exactly is our Mayor saying……

    that his personal opinion should trump that of the members of the South Dakota Open Meeting Commission, who BTW, voted 4 to 1 to reprimand the City of Sioux Falls.

    “It doesn’t happen in private business, and it sure as heck shouldn’t happen in city government either,” he said of bringing public scrutiny to employee terminations.

    He went on to urge Council members “who want to spend all their time being negative and find crap in our city to stay away from me.” Although, he did not name Councilor Brown, this is who he is referring to. It is Brown who has suggested that City Attorney David Pfeifle be fired for his legal recommendation that led to the open meeting complaint.

    As a citizen of the United States and a resident of Sioux Falls, I say that all of you………

    Mayor Mike Huether

    City Attorney David Pfeifle

    Councilor Sue Aguilar

    Councilor Kenny Anderson Jr.

    Councilor Vernon Brown

    Councilor Jim Entenman

    Councilor Michelle Erpenbach

    Councilor Greg Jamison

    Councilor Dean Karsky

    Councilor Rex Rolfing

    are responsible for what happened on that dark day in the people’s town hall!!!!!!

  7. Reading Your Man Mike’s quotes are like reading a tween novel. They’re all cliches and phony outrage.

  8. scott on March 11, 2012 at 3:52 pm said:

    of course mmm is defending the city attorney, he’s the one who appointed him isn’t he?

  9. Scott – Even with the Tween Novel tears.

  10. Alice15 on March 12, 2012 at 12:56 pm said:

    Rumor has it the council has been advised by “leadership” what they can and cannot say at the meeting this afternoon. Seriously – will this BS ever end?

  11. Where did you hear this? I hope Vernon doesn’t chicken out.

  12. Alice15 on March 12, 2012 at 3:18 pm said:

    If anyone ignores this recommendation – it will be Vernon. He is on his way out and he wants to show the good people of SF he is still on their side.

  13. You mean he wants to put on a front that he’s still on our side.

  14. Watch the BS fest during the informational;

    http://docs.siouxfalls.org/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1670&doctype=AGENDA

    Entenman is in a state of denial and arrogance, he feels ‘Nothing was done wrong.’

  15. Anooner on March 12, 2012 at 10:28 pm said:

    Not sure what I’m supposed to take from that. Pfeifle still trying to pass the buck. If he and Enteman and whoever are so sure they didn’t do anything wrong, they should appeal. Then we will have a judge’s decision and won’t have to rely on a staffer in the AG’s office to advise our city attorney’s office. What some don’t get is that nobody is saying they should have divulged personnel info, or executive discussions. Whether Owens is employed or not is a matter of public record. Everybody knew moments after they did it anyway, so why not own it if that is going to be their vote. Identifying her as an employee that is to be fired doesn’t violate any confidentiality. If they wanted to give her a “soft landing” they would have tabled the thing and had someone talk to her (not about what was discussed in executive), or brought her into executive like Jamison suggested. The whole thing was bizarre when it when down, and seems like it can only get stranger. Seems like the three that voted against firing her are the only ones who have kept their heads level to this point. If Pfiefle thinks Brown violated ethics by talking about the situation (don’t know exactly what he said) Pfeifle probably did today as well. Don’t think it serves Pfeif well to be throwing stones at Brown, Jamison and Anderson. Never did figure out if she was actually fired or not. Pfeif seems to think she was, but then again, he’s apparently been wrong before. For me, that meeting raised more questions than it answered. One thing we do know: a person’s unemployment benefit apparently is public record. (that was the weirdest part of the whole deal). I’m kinda hoping she just shows up for work again pretending like nothing happened – like George did in that one episode of Seinfeld.

  16. l3wis on March 13, 2012 at 7:03 am said:

    “Majorie, if the boss is looking for me, let him know, I AM IN MY OFFICE!”

Post Navigation