(Note: Turn on your computer sound. There is an .mp3 file link in this post.)

This next audio excerpt is from the same Council meeting and begins when the Mayor had  just closed public comments.  The first voice is the Mayor’s, followed by Reid’s offering the motion to accept the Consent Calendar.  Listeners will then hear a second to the motion, followed again by the Mayor calling for any discussion on the motion.  She called on Kennedy, then Hassell, who commented in their own words in this .mp3 audio file.

Careful listeners will clearly hear Kennedy say, “Just a question on Bill’s point there.  What would be the effect of taking that [the Consent Calendar item] out to look at it further?  I-I-I-I was called and I approved – I supported – the fireworks display but I just want to make sure I understand what the effect of that would be.  If any.  So if anybody has any thoughts…”   With this comment Kennedy corroborates Reid’s earlier admission:  Council members were contacted by telephone and asked to deliberate and decide on the city’s issuing a permit.  Kennedy confirms he was called, he deliberated during his conversation with the caller, and he  approved a Council action in a meeting conducted over the telephone in violation of the Idaho Open Meeting Law.

Immediately after Kennedy’s comment, Hassell was recognized by the Mayor and said, “Just, um, since this is something that’s already happened, the ratification I think is important to continue, but the points are well taken.  Uh, I was pyrotechnic licensed for fifteen years, so I know the…, I understand the, uh, power of those, uh, fireworks,  and some areas may not be appropriate.  We need to look at before we have any more requests.  And I think that would be appropriate to do, but to stop this I don’t think is – has any effect.”

Apparently Hassell, like Kennedy, like the Mayor, like the City Attorney, like the other Council members just could not be bothered to read,  understand, and comply with the Idaho Open Meeting Law.  Look again at the documented timeline of events leading to their violation of the law.

• October 13, 2006 – The date of submission on the  Fire Department application and the  City Clerk  application .   So approximately twenty days before the event, the City had received applications.  That hardly puts a decision in the category of  one of “…those things come up at the last minute” as Dixie Reid characterized it. 
• Date uncertain, presumably between October 13 and November 3 – City Council members were contacted by telephone, apprised of permit applications, and asked to approve actions.
• October 17, 2006 – Scheduled City Council meeting where the  applications could have been placed on the Council agenda pursuant to Idaho Code 67-2343(1) and could have lawfully been considered in the open public meeting.   The minutes of that Council meeting do not indicate this was done.  
• November 3, 2006 – Federally regulated explosives were used at a Lake City High School football game and in proximity to private residences without permit required by City Ordinance at 15.06.060.
• November 7, 2006 – City Council voted to approve Consent Calendar which included ratification of the Council’s illegal telephonic meeting  to approve November 3, 2006, pyrotechnic display.  This meeting four days after the event was the first opportunity for the public to voice an opinion to the Council on the use of federally regulated explosives at a high school football game and in proximity to private residences.

I believe Councilman Hassell knew exactly the effect pulling the item from the Consent Calendar at the November 7, 2006, meeting would have.  I believe he knew  pulling it for later discussion would draw unwanted public attention to the Council’s flagrant violation of the Idaho Open Meeting Law as well as to its failure to enforce its own ordinances.   It was important to the Council to ratify its illegal action and get it out of the public view as quickly and quietly as possible.

The Council cannot defend its failure to require the proper permit by saying it didn’t know about the ordinance regulating the possession, manufacture, storage, handling, sale, and use of explosives within the City of Coeur d’Alene.  The ordinance had first been proposed to the entire City Council at its March 7, 2006, meeting.  The minutes of that meeting include this:

GRADING AND BLASTING ORDINANCES:  Councilman Kennedy reported that citizens have discussed a need for a grading ordinance and a need for a blasting ordinance.

MOTION:  Motion be [sic] Kennedy seconded by Edinger to direct staff to research the grading and blasting ordinances and report back to the Public Works Committee what options are available regarding regulating gradting [sic] and blasting within the city limits.  Motion carried.

Yet we see that a mere eight months later at the November 7 Council meeting,  Kennedy didn’t even have the courage or strength of character to stand behind a blasting ordinance he had proposed and voted for.  Instead, he admitted his participation in an illegal telephonic meeting which circumvented that city ordinance.

Recall, too, that Hassell commented he had  held a pyrotechnic license for fifteen years.   Perhaps better than any of the other Council members, his licensure should have prepared him to be more aware of the potential problems the pyrotechnic display would and did cause in the neighborhood around Lake City High School.  

Then the minutes of the May 2, 2006, Council meeting reflect that this ordinance was passed unanimously after a motion by Goodlander, second by Kennedy:

ORDINANCE NO. 3253

COUNCIL BILL NO. 06-1010

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF COEUR D”ALENE, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO,  BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 15.06.060, ENTITLED USE OF EXPLOSIVES; REQUIRING THAT A BLASTING PERMIT BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY PRIOR TO USING ANY EXPLOSIVES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS; ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR ISSUING A PERMIT INCLUDING INSURANCE, PRE-BLAISTING [sic] INSPECTIONS AND NOTIFICATION, MONITORING AND ESTABLISHING THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS OR IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS OR BOTH; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDE FOR THE PUBLICATION OF A SUMMARY OF THIS ORDINANCE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.

Even more detailed information was available in the Council members’ packets for the May 2, 2006, Council meeting.

So on November 7, 2006, the Mayor, Councilman Kennedy, Councilman Hassell, and the other Council members knew there was an ordinance in place they should have  enforced before approving  the extensive use of federally-regulated explosives (49 CFR 173.50) at Lake City High School on November 3, 2006.  They weren’t alone.  The Fire Department knew about the ordinance.  The City Clerk knew about the ordinance.  The City Attorney knew about it and was obligated to prosecute misdemeanor violations of it.   Apparently, they all ignored both the ordinance and their duty to enforce it.

There’s more.

A few days after my appearance at the November 7 Council meeting,  Kennedy invited me for coffee.  At Kootenai Coffee  across from the jail, he asked if I would be willing to help rewrite that ordinance.  I refused.   There was nothing wrong with the way Ordinance No. 3253 was written.  Followed and enforced as written, it was a good ordinance.  But it concerned me that Kennedy was coming to me and bypassing the Coeur d’Alene Fire and Police Departments .  As I explained to him,  any expert advice in rewriting that ordinance should come from the Fire and Police Departments,  the people in city government who are supposed to be most knowledgeable about the subject and who are charged with its enforcement.  Advising the Council on matters of public safety is an important part of their job.  If the fire and police command staffs are professionally unprepared or politically afraid to offer that advice, they deserve to be fired.

This case is a good example of why Idaho needs its Open Meeting Law to be diligently and consistently enforced.  With its flagrant use of an illegal telephonic meeting, the Coeur d’Alene City Council denied the public our right to timely object to the  illegal use of federally regulated explosives at a high school activity on school property in violation of a City ordinance.   The public was denied its right and deprived of our ability  to lawfully try and stop an illegal City Council action before it occurred.  

I’m sure some people will try as Dixie Reid did to minimize the City government’s collective wrongdoing by saying  it was “…for the high school.”   If so, that didn’t work out well.  I learned the school received over one hundred voicemail messages complaining about the effects of the unlawful use of explosives at a school event.   If you are one inclined to dismiss this violation of law by numerous City officials, ask yourself this:  If the Mayor, the City Council, the Fire Department, the City Clerk, and the City Attorney are willing to ignore the City’s own ordinance and state law for a high school football game, why would you believe they would not also ignore city ordinances and state law for their own pecuniary or political benefit?  

Or maybe you’re one who believes that “fireworks” are harmless, that this is much ado over nothing.  If so, examine the permit applications linked above.  If the explosives used were so harmless, why did the display need to be set up and controlled by  licensed pyrotechnicians from a Seattle-based company?  Why didn’t the school district buy the explosives and  just have a few students out there lighting them off with cigarettes?  The answer is that what some people dismissively refer to as “fireworks” are federally regulated explosives capable of killing and maiming people.   Apparently in their reckless zeal to do anything for the schools, quite a few City officials forgot they have a duty to enforce their ordinances to protect the students, faculty, staff, and citizens. 

The lesson for all Coeur d’Alene citizens?  Pay attention to what our City officials, both elected and appointed, are doing and not doing.  Never underestimate their willingness and ability to try to deceive us if they believe it is in their own best interest.