In her press release issued on October 31, 2014, reprinted as an op-ed piece entitled Nelson: Firing Delavan Was Wrong in today’s local skewspaper, Kootenai County Commissioner Jai Nelson expressed her opinion on the firing of Greg Delavan from his position as manager of the Coeur d’Alene Airport (COE).
What particularly interested OpenCdA about the firing is that according to the Coeur d’Alene Press skewspaper, Delavan was fired by the Board of County Commissioners on Friday, October 24. Commissioner Nelson’s press release and subsequent op-ed piece both included this statement from her: “I was not in attendance in the meeting when he [Delavan] was dismissed.”
With its usual sloppy and incomplete reporting, the Coeur d’Alene Press and its reporter Jeff Selle leave readers with the impression that the decision to fire Delavan was made by the Board of County Commissioners during a meeting on Friday, October 24. It may have been, but according to Kootenai County’s online agendas of public meetings, there was no public meeting scheduled by the County Commissioners on Friday, October 24.
So when did the Board of County Commissioners meet in a properly announced open public meeting and make the decision to fire COE airport manager Greg Delavan?
We have put those questions to Commissioner Nelson in an email on October 31. Our email asked:
In your press release issued October 31, 2014, you stated, “I was not in attendance in the meeting when he [Airport Director Delavan] was dismissed.
When and where was that meeting held? Was it an open public meeting properly announced as required by the Idaho Open Meeting Law? Who kept the minutes of the meeting?
If the meeting in which the decision to dismiss Delavan was not a public meeting, what justification was given and by whom for taking the action in apparent violation of the Idaho Open Meeting Law?
We note that as this post is being composed, the online version of the minutes of the County Commissioners’ meetings are not yet posted after October 10, 2014.
We also note that the minutes of the October 6 BOCC meeting at 10:30 A.M. reflect that the BOCC did go into executive session with Delavan present. However, the published reason for that executive session involved labor negotiations or acquisition of real property (per I.C. 67-2345(1)(c)). Thus, it would have been a clear violation of Idaho’s Open Meeting Law (see I.C. 67-2345(3)) for the BOCC to have discussed firing Delavan in that meeting. That executive session would have to have been noticed under I.C. 67-2345(1)(b), which provides for “the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student.”
But…
It is also interesting that on the same day, October 6, but at 2:00 P.M the BOCC held a public meeting captioned Commissioners Debriefing. Here is a link to the minutes of that meeting. Note that the three BOCC Commissioners did go into executive session in that meeting under I.C. 67-2345(1)(b), which provides for “the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student.” The minutes reflect no decision was made after the BOCC came out of executive session and returned to the open meeting.
The issue for us is not when Delavan was notified he was fired. The issue is when the decision was made to fire him and by whom it was made. The Idaho Open Meeting Law makes it quite clear that the County Commissioners could properly discuss Delavan’s firing in executive session, but “No executive session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision,” (see I.C. 67-2345(4)). Thus, the decision to fire Delavan had to be made in a properly announced public meeting in an action reflected in the minutes of that meeting. If the law was not followed, we would very much like to know who gave legal counsel to the BOCC and told them they could make the decision behind closed doors to fire COE airport manager Greg Delavan.
But then, this is Idaho, where laws are sometimes selectively and preferentially enforced or ignored.
Greg Delevan has a direct interest on this issue as the decision to fire him, if done in violation of the Open Meeting Law could result in the action being declared null and void. I.C 67-2347(1)
Comment by Gary Ingram — November 1, 2014 @ 12:03 pm
Precisely who had the authority to make the decision to fire Delavan? The issue for me is not whether he should or should not have been fired; it’s whether the Board of County Commissioners followed the law in firing him.
But as I said at the end of the post: This is Idaho, and some of our public officials seem to be perfectly willing to selectively and preferentially enforce or ignore the law when its suits their political purposes. Unfortunately, we have some prosecutors and judges who are of the same mindset.
Comment by Bill — November 1, 2014 @ 5:27 pm
Not following Idaho’s Open Public Meeting laws is business as usual for Kootenai County officials including Barry McHugh who has taken part in such disregard.
Comment by Appalled — November 2, 2014 @ 10:01 am
The attorney general and some of his cronies did everything they could in 2009-2010 to eviscerate the Idaho Open Meeting Law. With the cooperation of an extremely compliant legislature, they succeeded. I deleted the adjective “ignorant” in referring to the legislature, because my suspicion based on years of experience with political hacks is that they tend to not like laws which could come back and bite them. Public records and public meeting laws are in that category because they help citizens hold political hacks accountable. I believe our legislators knew exactly what they were doing and acted intentionally when they voted to gut the Idaho Open Meeting Law.
Comment by Bill — November 2, 2014 @ 10:55 am
Bill, any idea what takes precedent I.C. 67-2347(1) or I.C. 31-1506 Judicial Confirmation of board decisions and subsequently I.C. 67-5273 that allows 28 days or the action may become a final one?
By design the current BOCC doesn’t approve and make its minutes available for weeks prejudicing the public from the ability to bring a timely challenge. I’ve not seen a case voiding a meeting brought under I.C. 67-2347(1) but I’ve not looked real hard either.
It seems to me that there is a conflict where I.C. 31-1506 comes into play especially when executive sessions are held absent agenda’s and decisions are made unlawfully in executive sessions amounting to a backroom deal that sometimes is unknown to the public for months at a time.
The firing in this case at least brings the issue to a front burner but just try to get the records when all concerned will circle the wagons and drag their feet and play every game in the book.
Comment by Appalled — November 2, 2014 @ 1:26 pm
Appalled,
No idea at all, but it certainly appears that an aggrieved party may have to act more quickly than one might think. The point you’re really raising is that by the time the public (aggrieved parties) realizes we’ve been had by particular action, the time limits of the law may have worked to protect the action from review.
If I were Delavan, I’d find a labor law attorney to evaluate my case and if the facts and law warrant it, initiate an action to assert my interest. It would be extremely unwise for him to presume that the outcome of the November 4th election might result in his reinstatement as airport manager. Maybe if more aggrieved parties with righteous grievances took the appropriate legal action, our elected officials might start paying close attention to their official actions. Then again, this is Idaho, where the height of the bar of excellence more closely approximates a limbo bar rather than a pole vault bar.
Comment by Bill — November 2, 2014 @ 2:10 pm