Appeal of Neitzert’s Ethics Hearing in Circuit Court gets thrown out

Remember this Delightful Hearing?

And the obvious and awful bias the chair of the meeting, Mayor TenHaken, had towards Greg and Greg’s detractors. Paul routinely cut off John, Janet and Pat while letting Greg’s 5 best friends make statements and cut off answers from John before he could finish. His performance that night should be a clear ethics violation.

Basically the judge threw out the petitioner’s complaint with a summary judgement saying he had plenty of opportunity to present evidence throughout the hearing (I wonder if she even watched the hearing?)

While the city council member against whom a complaint has been filed may be represented by their own attorney, may call witnesses and may present evidence, there is no requirement that the complainant has the same rights. Instead, the Ordinance requires the city council to “receive evidence” from the person making the ethics complaint. The record is clear that the council “received evidence” from the Petitioner. Petitioner had a right to participate in the process as set forth in the Ordinance. He did not have a right to dictate the procedure contrary to the Ordinance.

In other words the judge is saying that the city council has the right to act as a Kangaroo Kourt, as they do every Tuesday evening 🙂

Read the judgement HERE.

I also liked this under the profile of the (private) attorney representing the city on the issue;

Melissa successfully defended her clients in the following reported matters: 

McDowell v. Sapienza and the City of Sioux Falls, 2018 SD 1, — N.W.2d —

If you fight city hall, good luck getting any legal or judicial deference in this town.



3 comments ↓

#1 Very Stable Genius on 11.23.21 at 9:41 pm

That whole ethics hearing was very hostile to Cunningham. They tried to put Cunningham on trial instead. It’s like a defense attorney who obsesses on the victim’s mini-skirt.

( and Woodstock adds: “Oh gee, thanks, now I have an engrained visual of JFC in a mini-skirt”…. )

#2 D@ily Spin on 11.24.21 at 8:23 am

No doubt this matter is final and permissive. It’s sad that the precedent is that the council and mayor can now accept inappropriate gifts.

#3 Mike Lee Zitterich on 11.24.21 at 10:25 pm

If you do not like the wording of the Charter, then you got to revise the charter to close or shutdown the loop hole. The Charter allows them to raise money outside means of travel. Dont like it, change it. Be Respectful, be up front, and be nice.