Sioux Falls Councilor Erpenbach has ‘Freak Out’ over campaign mailer

Michelle sent this email to people on the letter, the media and some city managers. Michelle seems to think it was pointed at her, yet I find no mention of her in the letter. Guilty conscience perhaps?

There were also rumors going around that Brekke’s competitor’s supporters were planning on filing charges against Brekke for sign compliance issues, until of course we showed almost all the candidates were out of compliance.

Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 7:09 PM
To: Pat Gustaf; Bill Peterson; Steve Kirby; Jim Wiederrich; Tom Dempster
Cc: Karen Leonard; Joe Sneve; Don Jorgensen
Subject: Campaign letter allegations

Good evening.

As I near the end of my eight years of service as the elected representative from the Central District on the Sioux Falls City Council, I’m incredibly proud of the positive changes I have been part of. I’m even proud of our new event center, which I fought hard to have built in a different location than where it is performing so successfully for our community. I think Sioux Falls is a better place now than it was eight years ago.

I’m also happy to be stepping aside to allow for new leadership to help continue the momentum of growth and prosperity in our community. But I’m terribly disappointed by the rhetoric I’m seeing in this year’s municipal campaign.

Several personal friends received the letter attached to this message. They noted it appears to have been sent by the same direct mail firm that candidate Janet Brekke has used for her other mailings, making it a mass mailing that went to a significant number of people.

As a signer of this letter and a person I hold in high esteem, I have one major question. Does this letter represent allegations you are willing to stand by and support publicly?

I’m doing this by email so that you can respond to me in writing with the reasons you have allowed your name to be associated with unfounded rumors. In particular, this letter charges city government — and by extension me — with doctoring/tampering of public documents. This letter is full of allegations, but the tampering with public documents charge should be easy to prove and is most hurtful to me as an individual whom I thought you trusted.

Please respond back to me by email with the proof you have that convinced you to drag me through the political mud at the end of eight years of public service. I am copying a couple of friends in the local media as well as the city attorney, just as a precaution. Your allegations are harsh and personally embarrassing for me.

Thank you for your time.

Michelle Erpenbach


#1 scott on 04.10.18 at 9:41 pm

suck it michelle.

#2 Outsider on 04.10.18 at 9:54 pm

What she should be embarrassed about was the way she conducted herself during her 2nd term. Welcome to the land of irrelevance because no one cares about your hurt feelings. Especially the majority of SF voters who she ignored when she supported the Admin building and supported the Mayors veto versus the council and the people.

#3 MK on 04.10.18 at 10:15 pm

waaaah! you hurt my feelings by raising questions.

If Michelle thinks any of those comments were directed toward her, she must have a guilty conscience.

Go away Huether minion.

#4 D@ily Spin on 04.18.18 at 7:11 pm

I don’t see how Erpenbach is upset. There’s no mention of her in the campaign letter. Maybe she’s offended about being honest with the public and city government transparency.

#5 scott on 04.18.18 at 7:23 pm

since she sent this to kelo and the argus, she must really be fuming that they didn’t do a story on this yet.

#6 LJL on 04.18.18 at 9:42 pm

Guilt is a powerful thing. Fortunately for Michele, you cant have guilt unless you have some goodness within.

Go ahead and confess Michele.

#7 Michael Wyland on 04.19.18 at 10:26 am

The letter was signed by 39 people. She sent her e-mail to five recipients (plus three copies to press contacts). She says: “As a signer of this letter and a person I hold in high esteem…” Does this mean that she doesn’t hold the other 34 signers in high esteem? Either intentional slight or unfortunate phrasing by Michelle.

#8 anominous on 04.19.18 at 1:06 pm

Well, what specifically did Janet mean by “allegations of doctoring/tampering with public documents”? Was it just that council meeting video where there were missing seconds of folks rolling their eyes?

#9 anonymous on 04.19.18 at 5:41 pm

I rec’d this letter.

What an over-reaction on Erpenbach’s part!

Rather consistent with the way she handled herself while on the Council.