Mary Souza’s Newsletter 
“Disrespectful, unprofessional, confrontational and just flat out rude.” That’s how CdA City councilman Steve Adams described the behavior of City Attorney Mike Gridley last night, because Mr. Gridley called Steve an “ignorant shit”. And the Mayor just sat there and said nothing.
By law, the Mayor is charged with running the council meetings and, as such, she is responsible for the decorum and professionalism of the proceedings. She should have told Mr. Gridley to keep his comments respectful, but instead she sat silent. And she was also silent when Councilman Kennedy taunted Steve Adams by asking him if he’s an attorney.
We do not have a respectful city government in Coeur d’Alene.
The big controversy at last night’s meeting began when Steve Adams calmly explained that he voted in favor of Judicial Confirmation for the new Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade several weeks ago, but now his view has changed. Steve said he has done extensive research and has found that the $33 million dollar Wastewater upgrade should go to a vote of the people in a Revenue Bond election, according to Article 8, section 3 of the Idaho Constitution, rather than have a judge make the decision.
Mike Gridley was livid. He was upset because Steve attended last week’s court hearing where the City petitioned Judge Luster to approve the new Wastewater expansion. At that hearing, Steve Adams gave a comment saying he was no longer in support of this approval method and he presented the judge with documentation from a Boise District Court ruling where judicial confirmation was denied. Judge Luster took the documents and said he would take it under advisement and make his ruling within 30 days.
Mr. Gridley has subsequently refused to discuss the matter at all with Councilman Adams. And Gridley told the rest of the council last night, that he would not discuss the Judicial Confirmation with the council at any time if Mr. Adams was present.
That was the rub. Steve says he’s a duly elected official representing the people and has a right to any and all information on the subject. Gridley says that Steve is now an “adversarial litigant”, so Gridley feels ethically bound to withhold information.
First of all, this is not a lawsuit. No one is suing anyone. It is a judicial hearing. The city is petitioning the judge for a legal decision on whether this expenditure qualifies under the “ordinary and necessary” wording of Article 8, Section 3. And Steve Adams did not file any lawsuit. He simply made a comment and offered information, so how can he be a litigant?
But the fun proceeded last night, as Mike Kennedy made a motion, quickly seconded by Deanna Goodlander to “exclude” Steve Adams from any information about this matter. The Mayor was on board with it too. The discussion went on for quite some time. At one point Mike Kennedy suggested the wording be changed to “forced recusal” for Steve, but they ended up trying to generalize the motion by saying the legal department will only give information to the council on this matter if no adversarial people are present. The motion passed 4-2, with Dan Gookin and Steve voting against it. Is it legal to withhold information from a duly elected official? Can the council vote to overrule the will of the people who elected this person to represent them?
So let’s look, briefly, at Article 8, Section 3. This is the part of the Idaho Constitution that limits counties and municipalities (cities, school boards, etc.) from going into debt unless they get a vote of the people or have a judge declare the expenditure as “ordinary and necessary”. But there’s a whole section of this law that refers specifically to sewage treatment plants! (Bet most of the council doesn’t know this.) It says that “This section shall not be construed to apply to the ordinary and necessary expenses authorized by the general laws of the state” and goes on to say that sewage treatment plants must be approved “with the assent of a majority of the qualified electors”.
If sewage treatment plants were supposed to be considered as an “ordinary and necessary” expense, then why would the Constitution have a specific section requiring them to have revenue bond elections? Perhaps Mr. Adams is not the one who is ignorant.
If you would like to watch the proceedings last night, you will not be bored. It’s Must-See-TV! There are not words to describe how ridiculous our city council looked last night. If it were a sit com or a novel, no one would believe it. So get some popcorn and a glass of something strong (you’ll need it), and click this link to watch the circus. Near the start of the meeting, Frank Orzell makes a wonderful public comment, noting the city’s recent embezzlement fiasco and asking why there are no fiscal safety measures in place for Phil Boyd, the engineer from Welch-Comer, who is in charge of much of the McEuen work and approves the checks to himself. Have we learned nothing? But the big fun starts at the 1:05 mark (one hour, five minutes in). Buckle up, you’ll want to jump out of your chairs at some of it! Truth sometimes really is stranger than fiction.
Have a great rest of the week,
Mary
PS– I know you all remember that City Attorney Gridley, when he was on the witness stand testifying in the Election Challege of ’09, told the opposing counsel to take the papers and “shove them up your ass”.
He’s the most highly paid person in City Hall. Aren’t you proud?
************************
Mary Souza is a 25 year resident of CdA, local small business owner and former P&Z Commissioner. Her opinions are her own. To sign up for the free weekly newsletter, or access a free archive of past columns, visit www.marysouzacda.com Comments can be sent to marysouzacda@gmail.com. Please visit the local issues web site www.OpenCdA.com for more discussion.
My opinion is that Councilman Kennedy and City Attorney Gridley, and possibly Councilman Goodlander, had discussed Kennedy’s motion for exclusion before the meeting. If it was their hope to aggravate Councilman Adams enough to cause him to say something foolish or in anger, they failed.
On the other hand, if City Attorney Gridley was caught flatfooted by Kennedy’s motion, the most professional thing Gridley could have done would be to immediately recommend that the Council suspend any discussion or action on Kennedy’s motion until he (Gridley) had time to properly and thoroughly research the legality of the motion.
I’m a layman with hardly any knowledge of the law, but my lay opinion is that when the Mayor, the City Attorney, other members of the Council, and other officials (e.g., City Administrator) decide to deprive an elected Councilman (Adams) of the information he needs to perform his duties (deliberate and vote), their actions may amount to a violation of the state and/or federal civil rights of the municipality’s voters who were deprived of Councilman Adams’ effective elected representation.
I believe that City Attorney Gridley’s comments to Councilman Adams were insubordinate and deserving of harsh punishment. Though the remarks were made during the recess, they were still in the public area. Moreover, when Councilman Adams entered Gridley’s remarks into the record when the Council reconvened after the recess, Gridley had every opportunity to acknowledge or refute the remarks and then apologize if that was called for (it was). Instead, Gridley acknowledged the remarks without recanting or apologizing. I believe that is insubordination.
Comment by Bill — March 6, 2013 @ 5:32 pm
Yes, Bill, thanks for the clarification. It’s hard to put all the detail into the newsletter. Steve Adams explained from his council seat, at the meeting, that during a 5 minute break, Mike Gridley approached him and, while they were discussing the wastewater/legal topic, Gridley called Steve an “ignorant shit”. Steve noted it publicly during the meeting,to put it on the record and, in response, standing at the podium, Mike Gridley said, “Right. And I stand by my comments.”
Insubordination? Yes. But, because I’ve never been military like you have, I would describe it as arrogant and unprofessional. The man should be fired!
Comment by mary — March 6, 2013 @ 5:57 pm
Bill:
I also believe there were earlier discussions regarding the motion prior to the Council meeting. If Councilman Adams has not filed a lawsuit, the Mayor and other Council members can not legally keep Councilman Adams out of their discussions.
City Attorney Gridley is out of line with his bullying remarks. The council adopted personnel rules for every city employee are legal guidelines and a city employee can be fired if they break a rule. Gridley may be in violation of those rules. And Kennedy may be in violation of the guidelines for council members that Gookin and Adams refused to sign.
“Mutiny is a conspiracy among members of a group of similarly situated individuals (typically members of the military; or the crew of any ship, even if they are civilians) to openly oppose, change or overthrow an authority to which they are subject.” Do you think this could apply to the council’s motion to not talk with Adams?
Comment by LTR — March 6, 2013 @ 6:29 pm
LTR,
I don’t know if it’s mutiny, but I do believe the City’s voters are deprived of duly elected representation when political opponents intentionally withhold time-sensitive, critical information from some elected members and interfere with those members diligently and effectively performing their duties in the best interests of the citizens. We, the citizens, are thus deprived of our right to effective representation.
Comment by Bill — March 6, 2013 @ 6:37 pm
What a painful soap-opera to watch.
The crux of Adams’ point in front of Luster will be in defining “ordinary and necessary.” If the upgrades to the plant and/or wastewater facilities are, in total, deemed ordinary and necessary then funding can bypass a vote. In this case there isn’t enough publicly disclosed information to make that decision.
What is known is that the proposed plant upgrade is intended to treat more effluent than the current plant, or in other words make current residents pay for future residents wastewater treatment without the opinion (vote) of current residents.
Secondly, the City is not in violation to EPA standards at this time–the whole million dollar a month fine spewed by the Mayor and uninformed council members is a scare tactic. If the City needs to go to a vote to approve the expansion of the plant to treat more than it currently discharges, EPA will await that vote.
The level of treatment EPA and the State of Washington are hoping for did not happen over night; they have been in the mill since at least 1989. Just because the City kept it’s head in the sand does not make the upgrades (which are over and above both in level of treatment and volume of treatment)an “ordinary and necessary” cost. I forsee that the Judge will limit the amount that the City can fund at a cost to only meet the current level of required treatment and only the current volume being treated; the rest, above and beyond that will need to go to a vote.
Or in other words, what the City is attempting to do is make the current residents pay for upgrades so the City can continue to subsidize new development. I think Luster understands the difference between current required level of treatment and current treatment volumes as distinct from what the City is pitching as a way to by-pass a public vote.
Comment by old dog — March 6, 2013 @ 11:24 pm
SIUYA should be fired immediately for his ONCE AGAIN unprofessional manner. BUT I guess that will never happen as long as we have a corrupt local government that allows such unprofessional and demeaning actions by our own mayor, select council members and employees of our city. This city is using the obama playbook and will bypass the voter at every turn to fulfill their own agenda no matter the cost to the current residents. They are typical bullies. Comically sad, the very thing we are trying to eradicate in our schools.
old dog
You are correct. This city places the needs for all new growth on the backs of the existing residents. The school system does the same. Developers are the ones building their “FOR PROFIT” ventures and are the ones getting the tax breaks and/or incentives. Enough is enough. Let new growth pay for itself. I sincerely hope you have emailed Councilman Adams with your information to ensure he has all the ammunition he needs to present to a/the judge. I hope Adams pursues action to overturn council decision that keeps him out of discussion of matters that concern his constituents.
Comment by concerned citizen — March 7, 2013 @ 6:37 am
old dog,
You’ve raised some great questions: What lawful order of a court or regulation from the EPA exists now, today, that absolutely and precisely defines what upgrades the City must make to be compliant? When was that lawful order or regulation issued, and when was the City officially made aware of the City’s being noncompliant (if it is)? By what date must the City be fully compliant? The answers to those questions will surely be considered by Judge Luster in deciding the “necessary” half of “ordinary and necessary.”
I believe the Judge ought to also consider if the order or regulation is sufficiently clear and precise to enable the City to make progress toward timely compliance. If the feds have been moving the goal posts whimsically, if the regulations are unattainable, then they are arbitrary. At that point the City ought to consider fighting the issue in federal court. It makes no sense at all to try and “comply” where compliance has been undefined and may be or is impossible.
On the other hand, if the City has been willingly avoiding spending the money to try and comply with reasonable and attainable regulations (I don’t believe the City is under any court order to comply), choosing instead to spend the money on feel-good, cosmetic projects that personally enrich political cronies, I would expect Judge Luster to look at that as well. I believe the language of Idaho Code §7-1308 gives him the authority to do that.
In other words, Judge Luster can take whatever measures and whatever amount of time are reasonable to make the right decision consistent with the Idaho Constitution and laws.
Comment by Bill — March 7, 2013 @ 7:02 am
Very astute comments this morning. On the issue of ordinary and necessary — the “necessary” part was overly dramatized at the council meeting. As has already been said, the Mayor and Kennedy used scary, big fines from the EPA as reasons this wastewater upgrade must be done quickly. I’m told that the EPA requirements are 5 – 8 years out. That’s certainly enough time for a public vote on the expenditure!
Comment by mary — March 7, 2013 @ 7:48 am
I don’t understand why the cities, and Idaho, are not fighting the EPA standards as excessive. The WA DOE conspires with the EPA to set the highest standards in the country for ID to meet. WA doesn’t meet the same standard as what is being forced on ID. The standard is nearly impossible and yet, ID goes along with it?!
When does ID fight the EPA on why this standard is the most sringent in the nation?! Why isn’t WA forced to abide by the same standard? I’d sure like to know.
Comment by chouli — March 7, 2013 @ 8:27 am
old dog is correct, “the proposed plant upgrade is intended to treat more effluent than the current plant”. Wastewater upgrades are ALWAYS in MOTION as the City stays ahead of future scary EPA requirements. EPA standards will forever increase as new commercial and residential development occurs that burdens the water quality of the Spokane River. I understand the fish are always bigger just north of the treatment plant if anyone is hungry. 🙂
Comment by LTR — March 7, 2013 @ 8:31 am
Quite frankly, I would want wastewater treated with the very latest of formulas. I mean ewwww! ltr the above is a riot 🙂 in a gruesome sort of way.
The conversation between the two was done in private, however if it was read into the record, one would hope (in vain) for a comment from Her Majesty the Mayor. Did she comment on Woodys now famous “bitchin” comment? This is truly cloud cukoo land…but not in a good way.
Comment by rochereau — March 7, 2013 @ 9:58 am
rochereau: The employees will not swim below the treatment plant even when the water is within safe affluent limits.
chouli: All the cities that discharge into a water supply do argue against tough regulations.
Comment by LTR — March 7, 2013 @ 10:09 am
I can appreciate Steve Adam’s change of mind and I really believe he is representing the people and he wants to be sure he not “rubber stamping.”
I am wondering – if there is an issue that the city is supposed to comply with – like this deal or get fined – could there be additional action that freezes the city coffers and holds up other projects? Like some sort of judicial injunction? Is that what might possibly happen if this is not resolved?
Comment by Stebbijo — March 7, 2013 @ 11:04 am
Stebbijo: The city is looking ahead to stay ahead of future EPA requirements. There could be possible fines if one day the discharge did not meet clean water requirements.
I wonder if Harbor Center was originally purchased with revenue bonds,that the City later found unnecessary to keep and forcing Wastewater Admin. to be homeless for several years prior to new revenue bonds paying for a new building.
Comment by LTR — March 7, 2013 @ 12:42 pm
Thanks. So, there is no immediate threat of EPA fines like the Mayor and Kennedy stated? He said 30 thousand a day and she said 1 million a month and it sounded like it was going to happen tomorrow. It’s not glamorous and most folks do not want to think about wastewater, so working the system through it to get what they want would not surprise me. They sure do not want to pay for a vote, you can count on that.
Comment by Stebbijo — March 7, 2013 @ 2:36 pm
stebbijo: You are correct that there is no immediate threat. The Mayor and Kennedy was using the scare tactic. However, if the city did nothing, then maybe another 5-years down the line they could face some problems. Wastewater will already have new plans in the works before the older plans have been built out and funding spent. It’s the hired consultants that provide the studies to meet requirements and provide a constant revenue stream for their business. And in those studies are alway rate increases. The system is a lot like urban renewal. 🙂
Comment by LTR — March 7, 2013 @ 3:04 pm
Stebbijo and LTR,
Good comments!
I would expect Judge Luster to look at exactly what you’ve both alluded to: Any and all documents the City has which show either the urgency or the lack of urgency of the expenditure of this public money. I think the City might make a case for the expansion of the existing facility (“ordinary”) to comply with some known requirement which must be in place on a date certain, however if that date is not certain and the standard “known” now may not be feasibly attainable or not the standard that will be in place when the project is completed, the “necessary” part of the statute should fail.
Comment by Bill — March 7, 2013 @ 3:46 pm
So if the EPA’s deadlines are 5-8 years from now, how can Kennedy and the Mayor be whining that we’re going to face terrible fines if we don’t do this right away? And how could Judge Luster rule that this is “necessary” at this time? I’m told there is a real possibility of legislation that will reduce some of the EPA’s draconian regulations and also some technology coming in the near future that might be more cost effective. Either or both of those possibilities would make it worth waiting for a bit. But at least let the people VOTE!
Comment by mary — March 7, 2013 @ 5:09 pm
How much of the proposed improvements are for FUTURE use or new development? Shouldn’t the future new development pay for it’s part of the treatment plant instead of saddling it on the backs of the existing residents? I do not see it “ordinary and necessary” for the citizens to pay for the future developers portion.
Comment by concerned citizen — March 7, 2013 @ 5:22 pm
concerned citizen: It does not seem fair that everyone should have to pay for future development but that is exactly what we do. Just think about all those urban renewal dollars that should be helping to pay for sewer upgrades for the entire community rather than pay for services to a few developers.
Comment by LTR — March 7, 2013 @ 8:15 pm
Mary and Bill, I am unsure if I can still post on this blog due to my toxicity. If you let this through, I will state that in my opinion, if Mike Gridley continues to represent our city as our high paid city attorney he will continue to embarrass this great city and demean the legal profession.
Comment by Jim Brannon — March 8, 2013 @ 12:08 am
Jim, your comments are always welcome here. I appreciate the hard work you have done and the personal attacks you have weathered, all to bring more honesty and integrity to our voting system. Thank you!
Comment by mary — March 8, 2013 @ 12:35 pm
Jim Brannon: You are a man of great integrity!
Comment by LTR — March 8, 2013 @ 2:13 pm