Saturday morning’s Coeur d’Alene Press skewspaper reported that District Court Judge John Stegner has denied Kootenai County’s petition for judicial confirmation to fund the lease of a privately-owned jail. The article is headlined Judge: Jail Plan Unconstitutional.
OpenCdA’s post dated June 15, 2014 entitled Judicial Confirmation – Bypassing Voters discussed Idaho’s judicial confirmation statute and some of its application in this particular issue, the expansion of the Kootenai County Jail.
We can not comment specifically on Judge Stegner’s decision, because we have not yet obtained and studied his written decision and order. His written and filed decision and order will necessarily be a detailed explanation of the legal basis for his decision. It would help guide both the petitioner and the respondents on any future legal actions.
However, we will offer our opinion on some of the information included in this morning’s Press article.
Idaho’s district court judges are elected on a nonpartisan ballot by voters who live within the judicial district in which the judges serve. Kootenai County is in the First Judicial District along with Boundary, Bonner, Shoshone, and Benewah counties. Judge John Stegner is a District Court Judge in the Second Judicial District which includes Clearwater, Idaho, Latah, Lewis and Nez Perce counties. There are valid reasons why a judge from one judicial district might hear cases in another district.
But exactly what in the proposed lease agreement did Judge Stegner find ran afoul of Idaho’s Constitution?
Article VIII, Section 3 of Idaho’s Constitution provides
No county, city, board of education, or school district, or other subdivision of the state, shall incur any indebtedness, or liability, in any manner, or for any purpose, exceeding in that year, the income and revenue provided for it for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified electors thereof voting at an election to be held for that purpose.
According to the skewspaper article, Judge Stegner determined that the “lease agreement” favored by Rocky Mountain Corrections and two of the three Kootenai County Commissioners could require Kootenai County to continue to pay even if the County terminated the annual lease contract because the County had failed to appropriate funds for the next year’s rent. That is a liability, an obligation.
Rocky Mountain Corrections’ bond attorney Stephanie Bonney reportedly said that the language used in the non-appropriation clause of the lease agreement was commonly used in agreements made throughout the state. We believe that’s known as the “But Judge, we’ve always done it that way in Idaho” argument. While it might have flown with some and maybe all of the District Court Judges in the First Judicial District, it clearly never made it to the runway with Second Judicial District Judge John Stegner.
We observe, too, that at least two Fourth Judicial District Court judges in Ada County have used some colorful terms to characterize attempts by subdivisions of the State of Idaho to circumvent the voters by using lease agreements. In 2002, Judge Cheri Copsey used the word “schemes” in her decision to deny the City of Boise’s petition for judicial confirmation to fund a new police station. More recently on August 28, 2014, Judge Melissa Moody used the term “subterfuge for sales contract” in her decision to deny the Greater Boise Auditorium District’s petition for judicial confirmation to fund the expansion of a downtown Boise convention center.
We do urge OpenCdA readers to look at both decisions from Ada County to get a better understanding of just how thorough and complex any judge’s analysis must be in a judicial confirmation hearing.
In the article, Commissioner Dan Green implied that Commissioner Jai Nelson’s written response filed with the Court in opposition to the petition may not have influenced Judge Stegner. Whether it did or not may be revealed by the Judge’s written decision and order, but it really doesn’t matter one way or the other. As we noted in our post on June 15
While the judicial confirmation law has not been tested in higher courts, the law clearly requires the Court to independently examine the petition and the petitioner’s claims even in the absence of property owner, taxpayer, or elector objections. The Court is not allowed to simply rubber stamp approve a petitioner’s request in the absence of public objection. The Court is supposed to decide a judicial confirmation petition on the basis of constitutionality and legality, not on political expedience or project popularity.
Thus, it appears to OpenCdA that Second District Judge John Stegner followed Idaho law in arriving at his decision.
If petitioner Kootenai County believes Judge Stegner erred, the County can appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court.
While I have been opposed to a “leased jail” for many other reasons, a person, corporation, or any business or governmental entity should not rent an asset that appreciates in value; it’s stupid–contrary to the most basic market-economic theories since…ever?
Commissioner Green is smart enough to know the return on investment equation for this increasingly in-demand facility, how many will get rich, and probably knows a few investors by name and number conveniently stored on speed-dial. Yet he is the pusher of this asinine public/private enterprise and his tenure as another me and my investments first exit plan is coming to a head.
Comment by Old Dog — September 1, 2014 @ 6:29 pm
I suspect that long, long ago when Idaho’s Constitution was written, one of the reasons the authors didn’t like allowing officials to incur long-term debt and liabilities was the authors knew the officials could likely never be held meaningfully accountable for bad decisions. If they mess up next year’s budget, they can be recalled or elected out. But the likelihood is that elected officials will at least be out of office if not deceased by the time the bad consequences of their bad decisions on long-term debt or liabilities come to light. Sadly, that applies to judges that rubber-stamp approvals of judicial confirmation petitions rather than following the law.
Comment by Bill — September 1, 2014 @ 7:30 pm
It appears to me that perhaps the judges in the first judicial district are either beholden to the local business/political honchos for their appointment to ‘the bench’ or that they are afraid that they will not be ‘re-electable’ if they enforce the law when to do so is contrary to the interests of the local business/political honchos. Thus it appears that the means for ‘commoners’ to require that their elected officials comply with state law and the Idaho Constitution is just a short distance away; in a neighboring judicial district.
Comment by up river — September 2, 2014 @ 11:40 am
An outstanding court decision and locally finally another elected official said no to the Sheriff imposing his will!
Comment by Appalled — September 2, 2014 @ 3:19 pm
I completely agree with the essence of Appalled’s post. I am troubled, however, by the fact that apparently in today’s world an Idaho judge’s decision upholding the clear wording and intent of Idaho’s constitution has to be described as an “outstanding” decision.
Comment by up river — September 2, 2014 @ 5:51 pm
up river,
Your comments in 3. and 5. may have been an example of what Idaho Supreme Court Justice Eismann was getting at with his dissent in the Nield decision when he said, “Courts decide cases in one of two ways: (a) they apply the law to the facts and thereby arrive at the result or (b) they determine the desired result and then twist the law and/or the facts to justify it.”
When judges arrive at decisions to achieve their own political ends, perhaps to ingratiate themselves with a board of trustees and foundation or a fire protection district that wants a new fire station, it isn’t too far a stretch to think they might ‘determine the desired result and then twist the law and/or the facts to justify it’.”
Like you, I agree with Appalled. If the County disagrees strongly enough and believes it can show the decision was wrong, the County can appeal the decision. But if a reasonable decision is characterized as “outstanding,” how low must the bar of judicial excellence be in First Judicial District of Idaho?
Comment by Bill — September 2, 2014 @ 7:38 pm
Bill in his candid way in this case touched on something I doubt anyone else would mention in any written forum on the record “While it might have flown with some and maybe all of the District Court Judges in the First Judicial District, it clearly never made it to the runway with Second Judicial District Judge John Stegner.” and is as valid a point as it gets.
I believe this highly charged and politically motivated measure if left in the hands of the 1st judicial district judges would have had a much different outcome at the very least allowing Bonney and company to take leave to amend the rental agreement as many times as needed until the local judiciary could stand behind it.
I agree that the decision on its surface shouldn’t amount to outstanding but in my mind it absolutely does given the political landscape in Kootenai County. Attorney Magnuson briefly pointed out the lunacy of the process and others in the public sector were prepared to speak about that lunacy that was not needed since at the onset wisdom prevailed.
Comment by Appalled — September 3, 2014 @ 9:31 am