[
Coeur d’Alene’s urban renewal agency, the Lake City Development Corporation (LCDC), will convene a special call meeting today (Tuesday, February 26) at 4 p.m. at the Coeur d’Alene Chamber of Commerce, 105 N. 1st Street, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, in the Coeur d’Alene Mines Conference Room.
The agenda posted at City Hall is shown left.
Why the urgency for a Special Call board meeting? And why not at the Library Community Room where it could be televised?
Bill, do you know when the notice of the Special Meeting was posted at City Hall? Special Meetings require a 2 hour meeting and agenda notice.
Comment by Gary Ingram — February 26, 2013 @ 10:32 am
Gary,
No, the item on the bulletin board was not date-time stamped, at least not on the front. Even if it had been stamped, it’s pretty easy to manually set a date-time stamp to reflect whatever date and time the user wants.
Comment by Bill — February 26, 2013 @ 12:38 pm
Bill, Y=you posted at 10:04 and the meeting was scheduled for 1600 hrs. Gary,That’s more than 2 hours. Did I miss something?
Comment by Ancientemplar — February 26, 2013 @ 5:01 pm
Ancientemplar,
I believe it may have been a typo and Gary may have intended to say “…require a 24 hour meeting and agenda notice.”
But under the Legislature-revised open meeting law gutted at the request of the AG’s office and a judicial committee that would prefer open meetings be a thing of the past, a meeting’s agenda can be amended during the meeting to include any item that the deliberating body says “in good faith” was unknown to them in time to make proper notice. In other words, a dishonest organization can circumvent the intent of the open meeting law with the blessing of the Idaho Attorney General and the Idaho Legislature.
Comment by Bill — February 26, 2013 @ 5:25 pm
What I find most interesting is the vague disclosure of the intent of the meeting. The topic: “Amendment to Financing Agreement” could mean just about anything. There is a substantial body of case law that has generally concluded that there needs to be enough information in a legal notice for public meetings so that any affected party can determine IF attendance is needed.
The notice obviously does little to inform anyone outside “the loop” of what the meeting is about so it begs the question, why is it a Special Call meeting? Will there be motions, decisions, etc.? But then why the rush (24-hour notice) when according to the proponents of the Park, the sole reason for forming LCDC some ten years ago was development of McKuen? More Poor planning.
Comment by old dog — February 27, 2013 @ 10:28 am
old dog,
I’ve learned from one of the people who attended yesterday’s meeting that there was a motion, a second, a vote (at least two commissioners voted telephonically by conference call), no substantive discussion about the motion, and adjournment. Also, there was no one there to cover the meeting for the local or regional skewsmedia. Since the LCDC had met just one week earlier in its regularly scheduled meeting, I wonder why this particular matter wasn’t raised and voted upon then. I also wonder what might have transpired at yesterday’s meeting if members of the public had not been present.
It’s also interesting that when the LCDC attorney responded yesterday morning to my inquiry, the agenda for yesterday’s special call meeting had not been put up on the LCDC’s website. Today, it’s there.
Comment by Bill — February 27, 2013 @ 12:02 pm
Yeah, it was a typo. I intended to say a 24 hour notice of meeting and agenda is required. Also to a question about amending the agenda, this cannot happen in a special call meeting as the business conducted must be as specified in the call. Also there is a requirement that the secretary of the agency must maintain a list of news media that have requested notification and that they be receive advance notice. 67-2342(2)
Comment by Gary Ingram — February 27, 2013 @ 6:13 pm
Everything concerning the LCDC is intended to keep citizens out of the loop. We aren’t invited or needed in their scheme of things.
Did you notice the mention in the CDA Mess that the LCDC may be used to fund a new sports arena for NIC…Judy thinks it’s a wonderful opportunity! I thought they were already up to their eyeballs in debt from McEuen. How much debt can they continue to pile on?
Comment by chouli — February 28, 2013 @ 10:31 am
For all we pebbles know, and considering the timing, the purpose of the LCDC “Special Meeting” could have been to at least broach the topic of funding land acquisition and/or possible future funding of NIC’s next monolith to a degree in welding with a minor in wrestling and/or volleyball.
That is how vague the LCDC public notice was; the notice stated, “Amendment to Park Funding”. In the future I hope that our taxing body gives enough information from which to, at minimum, tell the taxpayers what Park they are considering and amendment to funding. Or in dog terms, the notice was crap.
But since NIC has now come forward and openly cited LCDC as a potential source of funding for land and sports arena, would like to re-direct.
I for one will never understand why we have so many class rooms and parking lots filled with the next generation of groomed minimum-wage workers and those same who need a view with dock/beach frontage, exclusive access to billion-dollar realestate, paddle boards, and sailing lessons at a reduced student rate.
Sorry, (to my CDA friends who know me as anti-Strip Mall Post Falls) but I agree with some of what most state elected politicians from Post Falls have argued for years – move some NIC classes to more affordable land that better serves the entire County. At the same time, if NIC is posturing itself to somehow convert into a real 4-year college – they’re not off to a very good start – moneyed politics over academic investments always fail (F).
The timing of the NIC announcement (to seek LCDC funding) is just too close to LCDC being out of cash, out of credit,and too close to completing their supposed first and primary Mission – to build a pretty park over an already pretty park. Alot of us were hoping for a “sunset” to this life of the LCDC rein of tax-sucksation,now up jumps another mole.
Lastly, got to wonder who the seller of the vacant Riverstone property is – and will it be appraised (and purchased) as vacant, C-12, R-17, or whatever appraisal fits best on the books for those in the loop? I feel a bankrupt set of ideals and see another round of City/LCDC default by ignorance and malfeasance.
Comment by old dog — February 28, 2013 @ 10:40 pm
old dog,
Unfortunately, when the Idaho Attorney General and the Spokesman-Review’s reporter/lobbyist participated in the committee to revise/emasculate the Idaho Open Meeting Law a few short years ago, they didn’t see any need for the meeting announcement to include sufficient information for the public to form an opinion about whether to attend the meeting or not. Even if a conscientious citizen were to attend, if the public hearing on the agenda is a legislative hearing for which public testimony is solicited, how would the citizen have enough information to prepare succinct and cogent testimony?
Comment by Bill — March 1, 2013 @ 8:52 am
Sounds to me like overt Denial of Due Process – and that seems to be the trend across the U.S. Although,the City and LCDC (and the County as well) can adopt more specific standards for public notice, I don’t see this administration working towards anything above the minimum.
I hope the next batch of elected officials see through the short-comings of the open meeting laws and move towards full disclosure of issues that require hearings/meetings. They all say they want transparency and participation, but don’t seem to writing any rules to require transparency that would lead in that direction.
Comment by old dog — March 2, 2013 @ 9:47 am