Saturday’s Idaho Statesman newspaper reported that the Genesee, Idaho, city council got caught voting illegally by email not once, not twice, not three times, but four times during the past year.
The article reported that the city council had received training in the Idaho Open Meeting Law, so that would sure seem to make Genesee mayor Steve Odenborg a candidate for the Liar of the Year Award for his statement, “We had no intention of having any wrongdoing.” Hey, Steve-O, violating the law is wrongdoing! Or did those emails accidentally compose and send themselves?
Then again, this is Idaho, where no statutory violation of the public trust committed by a public official will ever be prosecuted, let alone punished. It’s the Idaho way, don’t ya know.
Welcome to Idaho: Esto perpetua corruptam
I’m not surprised that some governing bodies don’t take the Open Meeting Law very seriously. After all, the legislature just a few years ago enacted amendments which set a ridiculous fine of $50.00, but forgave it, if they did a do over and admitted to a violation. Seriously. The Attorney General sponsored this wrong headed twist in the Open Meeting Law being persuaded that most violations at the local level occur by mistake, because of the perception that unsophisticated locals councils and commissioners are not trained to understand the law. I opposed this vigorously at the time. I submit that locals are not WILLING to understand the law.
In any event, all is not lost. Representative Linden Bateman has introduced HB-155 which increases fines substantially. It has passed the House and will be voted on in the Senate, Monday March 30.
Perhaps our unwilling locals will now take the law seriously, and the prosecutors will do their job to enforce by taking seriously citizens complaints of violations.
Comment by Gary Ingram — March 29, 2015 @ 1:07 pm
I’ll be voting for it Gary!
Comment by mary — March 29, 2015 @ 4:15 pm
Gary,
You’ve correctly summarized the problem in the second clause of the last sentence. Our legislators can proudly proclaim they want tougher enforcement while at the same time ensuring that tougher enforcement against fellow elected officials will not happen. Larger penalties will not translate into aggressive enforcement. I would like to see some of our legislators pursue concurrent prosecutorial authority for the Attorney General’s Office rather than letting charging decisions and prosecutorial discretion rest exclusively with county prosecutors. Our legislators can bloviate until the cows come home about how they support tougher penalties, but penalties only attach after successful prosecutions and guilty verdicts. When it’s politically expedient for county prosecutors to decline to prosecute crooked public officials, higher penalties mean nothing.
Comment by Bill — March 29, 2015 @ 7:06 pm
“civil penalty not to exceed” $250. Looks like a toothless tiger. I also do not see that it states ‘personally’ subject to a civil penalty. Perhaps the taxpayers will pay the civil penalty? If not, or that is not the intent, why did not the person drafting the bill make that clear? Perhaps the Idaho legislature should go back to addressing its pressing issues of adopting a state salamander and or what to do about diapers.
Comment by Tributary — March 30, 2015 @ 2:59 pm
Tributary,
Or maybe a violator (if our whiz-bang prosecutor bothers to pursue one) would be hired as a consultant by the county for a disproportionately large fee, then he could use a portion of his fee to pay off the fine…?
Comment by Bill — March 30, 2015 @ 3:08 pm
If an open meeting, law gets in your way just hire someone to form a committee and say it is not your meeting. Just ask our city attorney, he says it’s OK.
Which part of, if it needs to be hidden its wrong can’t they get?
Comment by Mike Teague — March 31, 2015 @ 10:33 am
If you’re an elected official in this State the law is a mere inconvenience! At the County level our Prosecutor will defend all that they do and has done just that with the open meeting laws. I got a deputy attorney general to step in once and he informed the Commissioners that they were doing it wrong but that is all that came of it, soon after they were back to doing it wrong. Ignorance is no excuse obviously only applies to the citizenry.
Comment by Appalled — March 31, 2015 @ 3:49 pm
So tell me, all of you–how would you write, or re-write, this law?
Comment by mary — March 31, 2015 @ 8:26 pm
Mary,
Rewriting the Open Meeting Law is a futile exercise when its violation will still go unprosecuted and unpunished. House Bill 0155 proposed by Representative Bateman and as amended is a sleight of hand apparently intended to deceive the public into believing that higher penalties for violations will somehow cause our county prosecutors to actually prosecute violations. The application of the admissible evidence to the applicable law, not the magnitude of the possible penalty upon conviction, is what drives, or should drive, charging decisions and case prosecution by prosecutors. If anything, prosecutions by prosecutors who already don’t want to prosecute their cronies and political benefactors for violations are going to be even less likely if penalties upon conviction are increased.
The law that needs to be written or rewritten is one that expands on I.C. 31-2002 and gives the Idaho Attorney General complete and unfettered concurrent authority for investigation and prosecution of all violations of law. Give the citizens the option of removing “political expedience” from the county prosecutors’ charging and case management factors.
Comment by Bill — April 1, 2015 @ 7:10 am
1. Each member of the governing body shall be personally punished by a civil penalty of $250;
2. Each member who has previously admitted or been determined by a court to have violated the provisions of this law shall be punished by a civil penalty of $2,500.
3. The board of county commissioners shall an independent special prosecutor to a two year term to prosecute violations of this act. The special prosecutor’s appointment shall run for a term of two years. The board of county commissions shall pay the special prosecutor’s fees out of its civil attorney budget.
4. Should a private action be brought by a person affected by a violation of the provisions of this act that the special prosecutor has declined to prosecute, and the court determines that a violation of this act has occurred, the civil penalties set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall applicable.
Comment by Tributary — April 1, 2015 @ 7:10 am
The open meeting law currently states to null and void a meeting that was not compliant with the act any suit must occur within thirty (30) days of the time of the decision or action. However decisions made in executive session may not be known for months. For other suits shall be commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days.
In some case it is a month or more just to get a watered down copy of the written minutes. Enforcement must start with the fundamental parts of the law such as timely providing a written record that specifically incorporates what the meeting was about and what really happened. Only a person affected by a violation of the provisions of this act may commence a civil action and the prosecutors certainly will not do anything given their authority to act. Aside from the violations section of the open meeting laws is Idaho Code 18-315 “Omission of public duty” that should be at the top of the list for actionable recourse and just isn’t.
I agree no matter what version of the law for open meetings will exist without proper enforcement why bother. The current open meeting laws recognized the conflict of the prosecutor enforcing the act upon County officials then much later came Idaho Code 31-2002 so where is the enforcement aside from a party affected by a violation and a civil penalty?
Comment by Appalled — April 1, 2015 @ 8:04 am
Appalled,
Rumor has it that our illustrious Kootenai County Prosecutor was distressed to learn that several citizens are well aware of I.C. 18-315. But again, all he has to say in his role as prosecuting defense attorney in chief is, “Inadvertent. No criminal intent. A mere oversight.” One might wonder how a person elected or appointed to public office to perform specific duties could be inadvertently unaware of those duties, but…
Comment by Bill — April 1, 2015 @ 11:31 am
Since we are discussing county politics, I just wanted to point out that I saw a ‘blurb’ on the new treasurer and commentary highlighting a meeting at IHOP, from HBO. “New Kootenai County Treasurer Steve Matheson speaks to the North Idaho Pachyderm Club breakfast this morning at IHOP. He explained how he is initiating changes in the treasurers office. Some of the changes involve the choice of banks and various controls. Matheson is also working on background checks for employees.”
But, that was it. Nothing else.
Interesting.
Comment by Stebbijo — April 3, 2015 @ 9:22 pm
Stebbijo,
What do you feel he should have included that was not? Is it important that the changes mentioned are foundational for future changes?
For example, it is my understanding that the former Treasurer liked to spread the county’s banking business among several different banks. Although that may sound good to the “support your local business” crowd, it does not necessarily represent the most financially wise stewardship of the public’s money.
And as the county, Corrupt d’Alene City, and Athol have learned, ignoring not only the requirement for internal controls but placing too much trust in single individuals is a prescription for theft. Likewise, failing to diligently conduct background investigations (not just background checks — there is a difference) is a fundamental preventative measure. I still don’t understand why Coeur d’Alene City Finance Director Troy Tymesen and former Human Resources Director Pam MacDonald were allowed to keep their jobs after Sheryl Carroll got 40 months federal time for wire fraud.
Comment by Bill — April 4, 2015 @ 6:50 am
I have never bought the story that Sheryl Carroll and additional embezzlement experts “acted alone.” That supposition is best reserved for folks like the Unibomber and Timothy McVeigh, and then, I kind of doubt that theory with them as well. I can only surmise that an article or discussion that makes reference to changes, internal controls, and banks and then offers nothing on those changes, internal controls, and banks is most likely getting recommendations from our AG’s office to help cover it all up, I mean dilute county incompetence with empty impressive rhetoric. We will probably never know, when the counties’ own audit/investigation has been completed, after all we were not supposed to know the state actually intervened. Wasn’t that subpoena served almost 4 months ago?
Comment by Stebbijo — April 4, 2015 @ 10:01 am
Stebbijo,
Unfortunately, one of the strong enablers of “lone wolf” actors, whether thieves or terrorists or corrupt public officials, is willful ignorance by people who choose to look the other way rather than diligently performing their duties. While I haven’t seen evidence that Carroll or Martinson had witting accomplices, there was substantial evidence that their supervisors could accurately be called unwitting accomplices. Supervisors have a duty to diligently supervise.
The Attorney General’s subpoena duces tecum was signed November 13, 2014, and was to have been satisfied within 30 days of receipt by the Kootenai County Clerk. One of the factors which will very likely slow the special prosecutor’s investigation is that some of the statutorily required records had not been kept. Even complete information in the hands of the most competent financial crimes investigators who have been provided with complete information responsive to the SDT takes quite a while to collate and analyze. That time is extended when the investigators must first determine what they didn’t receive but should have.
Comment by Bill — April 4, 2015 @ 11:09 am
Just like in Chicago, NYNY, DC, and elsewhere, in Idaho, the ruling class can do no wrong!
Comment by JSmetal — April 9, 2015 @ 7:26 am