OpenCDA

October 8, 2014

On Direction From … Whom?

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 9:53 am

brannonCLERKAt about 6:30 AM today, OpenCdA spoke via telephone with Kootenai County Clerk Jim Brannon.  Our question was this:  Given the actions taken in the last few days by both the US Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, what guidance have Idaho’s county clerks received from the Idaho Attorney General and the Idaho Secretary of State regarding the implementation of the two courts’ directives on same-sex marriage?

The answer was shocking but given that this is Idaho, totally unsurprising.

Brannon stated that he had received no direct guidance from the Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney, the Idaho Secretary of State, or the Idaho Attorney General.  What he had received, however, were email messages from the Idaho Association of Counties, Inc., a lobbying organization.  Those messages represented that the Idaho Association of Counties was speaking for and on the authority of the Idaho Attorney General.

We then asked Brannon to cite the statutory authority of Idaho’s county clerks to take official direction to formulate administrative action from the Idaho Association of Counties, Inc.  Absent that, we asked him to cite any written directive from the Idaho Attorney General or the Idaho Secretary of State delegating that authority to the Idaho Association of Counties, Inc., a lobbying organization.  He was unaware of any such authority.

And that raises this issue:   Where have the respective officers of Idaho’s Executive Department specifically and formally directed Idaho’s county clerks to formulate policies and procedures based on  emails or other directives from the Idaho Association of Counties, Inc., a lobbying organization?   Put another way, on what legal authority would Idaho’s county clerks act solely at the direction of a lobbying organization?

It seems to OpenCdA that to the extent Idaho’s county clerks are charged with executing certain laws and court decisions, the guidance on exactly how to perform those duties should come directly to the county clerks only from either the Idaho Attorney General or the Idaho Secretary of State, possibly after consultation with the respective county prosecuting attorneys.   We believe that it would be the height of irresponsibility for Idaho’s Executive Department to rely on a lobbying organization to accurately communicate such important matters to Idaho’s county clerks.

Then again, this is Idaho …

8 Comments

  1. Simply amazing Bill. Could it be that those responsible for “direction” just don’t care to implement the laws but would rather just use them as vote fodder?

    I also had no idea that the Idaho Association of Counties was a corporation (Inc.) That really changes my opinion of their work. I also thought that if incorporated, it was law that they include “Inc.” in the title of their business, but you are correct–this is Idaho. Do you know if the Association of Idaho Cities is also a corporation? It seems every County and most cities freely do business with these firms so it begs the question how the contracts are written.

    Comment by Old Dog — October 8, 2014 @ 10:10 am

  2. The Secretary of State and State Attorney General should be the voice and direction of this decision. A group of citizens and or government employees should not be the messenger. No question, this is a “hot potato” and they are running as fast as they can from the newest judicial decision.

    Comment by Sharon Culbreth — October 8, 2014 @ 11:12 am

  3. Old Dog,

    Here is the Idaho Association of Counties listing from the Secretary of State’s lobbyist registration:

    You might notice one of the registered lobbyists is Daniel Chadwick. I mentioned him in my OpenCdA post entitled We Shouldn’t Be Surprised“. Here was what I said in the post:

    Second, two of the statutorily-prescribed members [of the Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training Council] are lobbyists representing the Idaho Association of Counties and the Association of Idaho Cities. By statute, they are nonvoting ex officio members. They do not represent the private citizens of the state; they represent their respective employers. Yet the Chairman of the POST Standards Committee is Dan Chadwick, the lobbyist for the Idaho Association of Counties. He also sits on the POST Executive Committee.

    I just noticed something else: I wonder if IAC lobbyist Caitlin Rusche is any relation to House Minority Leader John Rusche? His legislature bio lists a daughter named Caitlin, but I’m sure it’s just a remarkable coincidence that a lobbyist has the same name as the daughter of the Idaho House Minority Leader.

    Comment by Bill — October 8, 2014 @ 11:49 am

  4. Well YAHOO! Idaho is #1 in something–height of irresponsibility!!! YAHOO!

    Comment by up river — October 10, 2014 @ 2:15 pm

  5. I guess the buck doesn’t stop with the “top men” after all.

    Comment by JSmetal — October 10, 2014 @ 2:38 pm

  6. up river,

    I wonder what other duties and responsibilities our state elected officials have delegated to the Idaho Association of Counties and the Association of Idaho Cities. It’s astonishing that state elected officials think it’s proper to use a private corporate entity, a lobbying group no less, to communicate their wishes to county and city elected officials. If I were Wasden and Ysursa, I’d be very concerned that the communications just might get distorted.

    Comment by Bill — October 10, 2014 @ 3:02 pm

  7. JSmetal,

    Kind of makes you wonder who’s making the decisions, doesn’t it? Is it the elected officials or is it their crony lobbyists?

    Comment by Bill — October 10, 2014 @ 3:03 pm

  8. Bill,

    I have had several dealings with an attorney for Idaho Association of Cities who often referred to the Association and their policies and interpretations as if they were “law” which is why it threw me that they are nothing more than a lobbying group. Since several area cities pay “fees” to the Association it begs the question of how the cost of lobbyist is accounted for, and do they have a contract with specifics? But ultimately-really what do cities get from their long-standing and annual payments? Sounds like another research project – I’ll put it in the pile.

    Comment by Old Dog — October 11, 2014 @ 9:58 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2024 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved