After a tense — and at times hostile — four-hour hearing on Thursday night, the Sioux Falls City Council dismissed an ethics complaint against Councilor Greg Neitzert by a 5-2 vote, declaring there "is not clear and convincing evidence" that he violated city ordinance when he made an expense-free trip to a conference of Republican municipal and county officials last year.
The hearing brought to an end at least one leg of the saga, which has spanned two separate complaints, numerous public hearings and, finally, the transformation of Carnegie Town Hall into a sort of jury-rigged courtroom.
It started in October of 2019, when Neitzert (along with Mayor Paul TenHaken) attended a conference held by Community Leaders of America, who paid for his airfare and accommodations.
Former candidate for Minnehaha County Commission John Cunningham filed ethics complaint 20-A against Neitzert in regards to the trip, stating that the group paying for travel was "specifically designed to impose its political agenda on the city of Sioux Falls using Councilor Neitzert in his capacity as city councilor to do so."
The complaint was dismissed in April when the Sioux Falls Board of Ethics said they didn't have jurisdiction based on the ordinance cited by Cunningham.
A nearly-identical complaint 20-B was filed in May, and shortly after it was addressed by City Council in August, Neitzert waived the confidentiality he'd previously requested in the manner.
The Board of Ethics, asked by City Council to clarify their report, did nothing but append a note stating it was already clear that they had recommended no individual sanctions against Neitzert while encouraging a review of the travel policies.
And so came Sept. 10, where the divisions on the council were crystal clear.
Neitzert's lawyer Matt McCaulley didn't name the two councilors he said had aided the "political attack" in his opening statement, but it was obvious from their reaction — and Neitzert's informal request that they recuse themselves — that councilors Janet Brekke and Pat Starr were in the spotlight.
Those accusations largely stemmed from two issues. Several conversations Brekke and Cunningham had regarding the complaint, including informing him after the dismissal of 20-A that he'd addressed the wrong ordinance, were represented by other members of the council as well as McCaulley as Brekke more or less acting as his attorney.
In response, Brekke said she'd simply explained several procedural questions to a citizen who needed help, something she was frustrated that neither the Board of Ethics nor the city attorney would do. She also noted that once it became clear that the council would be acting as a "quasi-judicial body" in the hearing, she ceased all contact with Cunningham.
In Starr's case, it was brought up several times that Cunningham had learned of the trip after Starr discussed it on a radio show in February, at which point Cunningham — who described himself several times as "obsessed with ethics" — said he emailed Starr asking for proof, which Starr provided in the form of an email.
Hearing gets heated
Other councilors as well as TenHaken were clearly frustrated with how the hearing was going, with multiple points of order being raised as Starr and Brekke spoke, asking them to get to the point or ask their questions faster.
Those questions largely focused on the Republican-focused nature of the conference, arguing that there was a clear effort to influence attendees to vote in a specific way.
Neitzert, for his part, maintained that he had done nothing wrong and was still proud of what he'd learned at the conference, which he said was widely attended and focused on education and policy discussions.
His confidentiality, he said, stemmed from the proximity of the complaint to his election, which he perceived as a political effort to unseat him.
Cunningham was particularly offended by this accusation, at one point standing up from his seat and glaring at Councilor Rick Kiley for several minutes after he called the "whole process disgusting" and said that "D.C. beltway politics" had entered the city.
At one point, when Kiley said "Politically motivated? You're darn right," Cunningham took a step toward the dais, causing his lawyer to stand up as well and attempt to calm him down.
Neitzert said several times that the ordinance in question — which prohibits city councilors and mayors from accepting gifts, including "travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing or promise, or any other form, under circumstances in which it could be reasonably be inferred that the gift was intended to influence" the recipient — was "unworkable" and that "everybody is in danger because of it."
On that, there was little disagreement. Alan Peterson, the lawyer for the Board of Ethics, in his closing statement referred to the ordinance as "a trap," and said the real need is to alter the ordinance and increase transparency around travel.
Several councilors agreed, although it's not clear when such a change might be made.
After some confusion on the proper end to such a hearing, a 5-2 vote cleared Neitzert of the charge, with Brekke and Starr voting against.
"I've done nothing wrong," Neitzert said in a statement. "The Council agreed, and the decision speaks for itself. My hope is the attacks against me will end and the Council can focus on solving problems and improving the quality of life for our citizens."
"Hour" - Google News
September 11, 2020 at 11:48PM
https://ift.tt/32lDpFJ
Councilor cleared of ethics violation after heated four-hour hearing - Argus Leader
"Hour" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2WcHWWo
https://ift.tt/2Stbv5k
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Councilor cleared of ethics violation after heated four-hour hearing - Argus Leader"
Post a Comment