Sioux Falls City Council is being sued over how they handled Neitzert’s Ethics Hearing

It looks like the paperwork was filed on October 15th.


Basically Mr. Cunningham is filing a writ of certiorari because he was NOT allowed to present evidence during the hearing is asking for a new one. If you read the linked PDF above you will see that John cites city ordinance that says he should have been allowed to present evidence with his legal counsel, he was not. He is saying the council performed an illegal hearing, and in my humble opinion, I agree;

It gets better though, because in the city’s consent agenda on Tuesday night they are hiring private counsel for this;


#1 Pundit on 10.30.20 at 11:45 pm

Good for John Cunningham. He’s an informed patriot who called out malfeasance, and he was treated with indifference and disrespect. Imagine what public need this $15k+ taxpayer cost of legal defense for the Council could have instead served. . . had this Council majority not been so egotistical and obstructionist. The public will be the financial losers for this expensive lesson in civility and ethics for the RS6. It’s a regrettable necessary taxpayer expense for poor choices at the polls.

#2 Rich on 10.31.20 at 10:12 am

Thank you, Mr. Cunningham, for holding the city accountable.

#3 D@ily Spin on 10.31.20 at 11:03 am

Per the judicial ordinance, the city doesn’t allow itself to be sued. An action must be constitutional which this borders upon. I suspect there’ll be an undisclosed settlement. An interesting way to get paid. Might work in the future for others.

#4 D@ily Spin on 10.31.20 at 11:10 am

It’s good that the city must defend the unconstitutional charter. More expense such as this might prevent another 6-story parking ramp blunder. More like this could reveal how unethical the mayor appointed Ethics Board is. It’s not good for re-election either.

#5 Jeff Barth on 10.31.20 at 11:51 am

I appreciate John Cunningham. He is trying to make a difference and in exposing the “ethics” process in the City has made a difference.

#6 "Very Stable Genius" on 10.31.20 at 1:42 pm

Perhaps, the enemy of the enemy is your friend. But I once witnessed Cunningham call for a Christian nation at a Democratic meeting, and he also once publicly lambasted a fellow Democrat who was critical of Sutton and Bjorkman’s anti-choice positions…. So be careful. Often the enemy is within.

#7 Mike Lee Zitterich on 11.02.20 at 10:41 am

The city can be sued anytime; it was last sued in 2010 over the legality of the traffic cameras; and I would sue the city over the looming mask mandate if it passes.

#8 The Guy From Guernsey on 11.02.20 at 2:48 pm

Fifteen large to the outside legal firm is just the opener. A retainer to gain “engagement”.
Any wagers on the Over/Under for the total compensation which attorneys employed by the City will provide to outside legal counsel on this case?’

#9 The Guy From Guernsey on 11.02.20 at 3:24 pm

So you are suspicious and non-supportive of Mr Cunningham’s efforts to bring accountability to the bunch of pretend Republicans which run our city government and Ethics Board (oh, and Jack Marsh, too)?
Because Mr Cunningham disagreed with “a fellow Democrat” during spirited partisan political discourse?
JFC VSG, you are one grudge-holding sumbeach.