While watching the Charter Revision Meeting tonight, I started pondering ideas. It all started when councilor Mrs. Outdahdoorliar suggested that the council have a say in who is hired/fired for the city attorney position. While I like her idea, and understand her concerns (the city attorney having a ‘boss’ to report to) I question if there is a ‘better process’ because who does the city attorney really work for? The council? The mayor? or the citizens?
When Stehly and I were trying to get an opinion from the past city attorney Admundson, he refused, telling us to hire our own. While I partially agree with that statement, the question we are asking could only be answered by him, and the reason he wouldn’t answer it? Because he knew the answer was in our favor (as we found out later). The point is that the city attorney should be looking out for the general best interest of the citizenry, that means, ultimately not having a city council OR a mayor as their manager, but the citizens.
My suggestion would be to elect the city attorney every 4 years, just like attorney generals, judges and sheriffs. If the public wants an honest city attorney working for THEM, they need to be elected by them.
Is John Yoo available?
The problem with electing attorneys is that you end up with very good politicians rather than very good attorneys. The way it is now the city attorney should be hired based upon qualifications. I realize in the past we have had a few questionable attorneys, but more times than not you end up with someone who is very qualified and who does their job well. For instance look at our current city attorney – there have been no major complaints as there was with the prior attorney, and he is respected by his peers. He is approachable, articulate, and professional…. three qualities you probably wouldn’t get if you relied upon people campaigning for the job.
The city attorney position should be non-partisan. The attorney can serve under multiple administrations, and provided they are doing their job well they should be able to continue. If we start electing them, then it becomes a popularity contest, and the end result is they will spend a third of their time in campaign mode – putting the possibility of re-election ahead of what is in the best interests of the city.
We can look no further than some Sherrifs and some Attorneys General to recognize that when you elect people to these positions, you tend to get someone who can talk a good game or someone who is more concerned with their own image than pursuing justice.
No thank-you.
That is part of the problem, since the mayor is appointing the city attorney, they don’t always work in the best interest of the council, if they are appointed by the council, they may not work in the best interest for the mayor (this was why Huether had such a problem with Debra Owen and recruited HR director Bill O’toole to find a way to terminate her, because she was the council’s employee, and he didn’t have any control over her.
This is why electing the city attorney makes more sense, and you could still include the council and mayor in the process;
“The problem with electing attorneys is that you end up with very good politicians rather than very good attorneys.”
This did cross my mind. You would obviously have to have ballot qualifications and an application that could be reviewed and approved by the council. They could be very simple, applicant must;
1) Be licensed in SD and have good standing in the bar, with no violations or
2) Has practiced law for at least the past 5 years in SD continuously
3) Has extensive knowledge in municipal law or similar field
4) Supply client references
Obviously, the city council and mayor’s office could weed out anyone who is clearly not qualified to be running for the position, like 30 year old DUI attorney who has been practicing for 2 years.
3)
Awful, awful, awful, idea. Why in the world would you expect subjecting the idea of legal competency to PUBLIC OPINION would make it more professional?
In addition – there cannot be restrictions on who can run for or win an elected office beyond “citizenship”. What is it you are trying to create here – a Soviet-style political apparatchik controlled “election” process – where you can only vote for the “officially approved” candidate?
Dude – cut back on the booze.
So what you are saying Ruf is that it is an awful idea to elect our AG? See, cause I’m confused. It’s okay for the public to vote on and pick the State’s TOP attorney, but electing a city attorney is beyond reason? You need to lay off the booze, seriously.
Why shouldn’t we, we voters make the decision like we do for state AG… What about the qualifications for judges? Why is city position so important we voters can choose?
DL – Look at our current AG. I’m thinking that we could have done better going to the state bar and picking a name out of a hat…
AR – Trust me, that did cross my mind. And remember, he was appointed before he was elected.
Testor – Because Ruf will tell you that city beaucrats do a better job of picking these type of folks.
Yes, I do think it is an awful idea to elect a statt AG – Or a county SA, or a judge at any level for that matter. ALL of them should be “lifetime” (as long as they desire to serve) appointment. Take the politics COMPLETELY out of the legal system – IMO.
Voters shouldn’t be picking attorney’s AGs judges etc. because half of them are of below average intelligence (voters that is).
The problem you all are making here is that you are assuming that the average voter is as engaged in the governmental process as you all are.
News flash – 95% of the voters pay ZERO attention to the government unless they have a direct personal interaction with it in which they somehow perceive themselves to have LOST some advantage or benefit they felt they should have.
“The problem with the assumption you all are making…..” – I meant to say.
Hey I gave a bunch of money to your campaign so you best not charge with with a DUI.
Bad idea
How about attorneys are appointed by judges? Not sure about that idea either. Maybe if the attorney could not argue a case before the judge that appointed them.
No politics in appointments? What a laugh. From the highest court in the land (think Supreme Court, Florida, 2000) to city attorney’s, politics plays a big role. On the other hand til private outside money is kept out of campaign coffers, then those private special interest groups will continue to get what they want from “elected” officials. We have the perfect example right in front of us. This spring erpenbach will fund nearly her entire campaign with special interest money from outside the central district. Works the same from here to judicial elections nationwide from state to state getting campaign money from crooks like the Koch brothers.
It sure seems the city attorney represents the mayor almost exclusively. There’s good argument here he should not be elected. God, Tornow could be elected city attorney. I think legal matters should be addressed with citizens in mind. Clearly, that’s not true now because of unconstitutional civil procedures.
The city attorney will tell you his client is the city and not the citizens. That can’t be true because we pay him. The mayor will need his own attorneys once corruption comes to light. They’ll be private and it’s gonna get expensive.
At times, I feel we should go back to commissioners instead of councilors. Then you could point a finger at one someone. Commissioners could pick a city attorney. They’d have their function in mind relative to city and citizen impact.
I’m old so I recall Commissioner Wingler. He was a scoundrel but he got potholes filled and had valuable persuasion with other commissioners and the mayor. The present council are but puppets. It’s not worth listening to them because the Home Rule strong mayor will dictate without them.
Another requirement for city attorney is one who tried cases. One with varied case history. Not true for this city attorney. He’s modified city ordinances so he’ll never have to try a case. No appeal into court is how the city has become unconstitutional. It should not be possible to come out of law school and go straight into a city attorney position.
Poly – what you are talking about – your examples – is NOT “politics”. It’s corruption. By applying bthe lifetime appointment concept – you remove the threat to a judge or attorney of EVER being removed by anyone but themselves for any reason. They owe NOBODY allegiance. Their allegiance becomes to the law.
Ruf, you are right, it is corruption, and that’s why appointments are stupid, at least by ONE political entity, like a mayor.
Appointments that are subject to removal are worse to appointments that are for life.
If the appointee knows that if they displease someone they will be removed – they become a “people pleaser” (same thing as corrupt) under threat of loosing their job.
If the appointee knows they are 100% free to do their job – without repercussion – no level of “corruption” should influence them. It doesn’t matter who they piss off, or why – or WHEN, they still have the job.
The elected official that appoints them, meanwhile, knows that even after they (the elected official) are out of office – their appointees will still be there – reminding EVERYONE as to the level of their competence/performance as a governor (adjectival – not a title). THAT motivates them to appoint people who are steady and competent professionals – not simply their personal lackies.
Elected officials are ALL about “people pleasing” – I.E., all about corruption – 100%. You want to elect judges and attorneys? Wide open invitation to the most easily corrupted people around – people who’s basic nature is to “please” people above all – to sit in judgment of YOU. Bad idea.
I really don’t know how to handle this whole AG, States’ Attorney, and City Attorney election and/or appointment process.
South Dakota is too small. It has only one law school and a dominant political party, but once some is elected or appointed to one of the aforementioned legal positions they never seem to have any opposition again, regardless of Party, unless there are serious legal allegations alleged against one of them, like what happen to the two sitting Minnehaha County SAs in 1984 and 1988 respectively. But once Nelson was first elected SA in Minnehaha in 1988, he never had any opposition after that and with Grogan the same pattern seems to be playing-out as well. With the State AG position, the Democrats often do not even nominate a candidate for that position. So I question if electing government attorneys is the answer either.
It could be argued that the lack of opposition on the ballot speaks to the competence and satisfaction that the electorate have with their current SA and AG officers, but given how cliquey our South Dakota legal system is, thanks mainly to the fact that we are small and have only one law school, makes me question at times the competence and satisfaction claim, however.
Maybe we need more citizens and thus more law schools, or better yet, maybe Shakespeare was right when he wrote in Henry the VI ….”The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyer”……….. jk ………
Smart cooky Winston Smith.
Heads on pikes.
Lawyer saved my ass recently though disbursing me of my pre-concieved long held notions.
Place for them in Gov’t,…hellz to the NO.
Farmers,city gadflies or community leaders,thorns in side all for that.Serve a term or 2 and GTFO
OBG
Poly43 on 01.10.14 at 9:39 pm
til private outside money is kept out of campaign coffers, then those private special interest groups will continue to get what they want from “elected†officials. We have the perfect example right in front of us. This spring erpenbach will fund nearly her entire campaign with special interest money from outside the central district.
Poly43, this is because those special interest groups understand Michelle Erpenbach is going to continue to do what she has done for the past four years and that is to use her Council seat as a stepping stone to running for mayor in 2018!!
And, so far, she is running UNOPPOSED for April’s election. VERY UNFORTUNATE.
anon, trust me, she will have a challenger.
trust me, she will have a challenger.
I hope so. Erp needs to go. She does not in any way represent the typical citizen in the central district. Her campaign war chest reflects exactly that. I wonder if we’ll have to wait til Feb. 28th to find out who might challenge the TIF handout gang?
Can anybody provide me a link (or info) that will give me the “low down” on the Deb Owen’s firing? I must have been under a rock then.
Well, good luck finding any public information about the termination. I know what it is was about, and trust me, not worth terminating over, in fact, it wasn’t what Debra ‘did’ in the first place, it was what a couple of her employees ‘did’. But hey, the head librarian was fired over a carpet cleaning dispute with the mayor.
Here is some threads; http://www.southdacola.com/blog/2012/03/the-city-of-sf-found-in-violation-of-the-open-meetings-laws/
http://www.southdacola.com/blog/2011/11/seems-the-sf-city-council-felt-former-city-clerk-debra-owen-had-too-much-power/