Reading a Spokesman-Review post this morning captioned Idaho lawmakers to undergo ‘civil discourse’ training this year, OpenCdA did a double-take on this line:
“Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, asked that the Legislature contact the Idaho State Bar and pre-qualify the session as ethics training for continuing legal education credit, for lawmakers who are attorneys.”
So ol’ Bart, an attorney from Idaho Falls who will just happen to be in Boise on the public’s dime serving as a legislator when the course will be given free to legislators, wants the public to pay for his continuing legal education training credit course in ethics.
So ol’ Bart thinks its ethical for legislators to accept a freebie that would cost a pretty penny for non-legislator attorneys. We think Bart Davis definitely needs to take an ethics course or several — at his own expense, not the public’s.
An Afterthought on 11-08-15 at 3:45 p.m.: The more I think about this proposed training for our legislators, the less relevant it sounds. Certainly courtesy and civility are desirable, but our legislators are generally of an age that if they haven’t picked up those traits by now after decades of living and interacting, should we really expect a half-day charm school to develop them at this stage of their lives? Are there not possibly more pressing ethical issues to be addressed?
Hi Bill, I am quizical about your concerns on this one. All the legislators will have an inservice on Civil Discourse. That is an area directly related to our jobs. Those legislators who happen to be attorneys will be able to apply for continuing education credits. Maybe they should check to see if educators who are legislators can apply for continuting education credits in their field. But the state will not be paying more for the experience, will it?
Comment by mary — November 6, 2015 @ 5:30 pm
I read this as killing two birds with one stone. In other words, since Senator Bart has to take the in-service, he just wants it applied to his continuing credits as an attorney. Since it does not cost the state any more money, does that make it right?
Essentially, the state will not be paying more for the additional credits that may be applied to their/his day job, however, is it really fair to the public? How about the counseling or medical professions, do they get half off, too? Those who are not serving in the Legislature still need to pay full price.
He/they can pay like everyone, else. The Legislature need not contact anyone, it’s up to Senator Bart to see if the State Bar will accept his Legislative in-service as educational continuing credit, then see if his fellow attorney cohorts are all happy about that one.
I don’t think it is ethical, either. Geesh …
Comment by Stebbijo — November 6, 2015 @ 5:57 pm
… or is the public going to be allowed to participate at the in-service … so they get free continuing education credits? Kind of an oxymoron – considering this thing is supposed to build trust.
Comment by Stebbijo — November 6, 2015 @ 6:02 pm
Mary, I am wondering if the program can be video-taped, or perhaps televised, so that the public can see what the legislators are being taught, and how it is being taught? Also, when the session is over, all legislators should be required to fill out and sign ‘grading’ forms by which they can grade each other. In short every legislator should be required to state how well they perceive that their peers retained what they were taught in the course. I suggest/predict that unless the course is video-taped/televised, and an evaluation at the end of the session, I suggest that what is going to be taught will go in one ear and out the other for the usual suspects. I volunteer to anonymously provide the paper and to prepare the ‘grading’ form.
For example: Senator Bart Davis–(circle one) A B C D F
Senator Mary Souza–(circle one) A B C D F
_____________________(Name)
Comment by Tributary — November 6, 2015 @ 6:06 pm
Mary and Stebbijo,
My concern is not that every legislator will be required to take the course. That’s a good thing. How much soaks in is beyond anyone’s control.
Neither is it my concern that the State taxpayers will be picking up the tab for all the legislators, because goodness knows that any improvement in the ethical behavior of our legislators will be a cost-effective improvement.
My concern is that Davis is asking for preferential treatment, an additional pecuniary benefit, for legislators who also happen to be attorneys.
Pursuant to the Idaho Bar Commission Rules, Section IV, Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, every Idaho licensed attorney is required to meet specific continuing education standards within a specified time. Quite often the attorneys are required to pay their own way to obtain that training. Those costs will usually include a tuition or fee to attend plus travel and lodging expenses.
So while Davis may appear to be trying to do the right thing, the effect of his proposal is for attorney-legislators to receive the CLE credit but completely at taxpayer expense. The attorney-legislators will already be in Boise to attend the legislative session, so they will receive whatever lodging and subsistence allowances are provided to them by law as legislators, and the State will pick up whatever costs the training supplier may bill the State for. Again, this translates into attorney-legislators effectively having the taxpayer pick up the tab for training that will benefit the attorney-legislator not just in the Legislature but in private practice as well. Providing the CLE credits to attorney-legislators at no cost to them while not making exactly the same CLE credit training available at no cost to the other attorneys in the state effectively provides the attorney-legislators with a preferential pecuniary benefit at taxpayer expense.
Do you believe the taxpayers would be willing to pick up the tab if you legislators would be willing to use the taxpayers’ dollars to send these trainers around the state to various locations where non-legislator attorneys practice to provide them with the same training at absolutely no cost to the non-legislator attorneys. That is what would be required to ensure that the attorney-legislators with collusion from the Idaho State Bar were not hosing the taxpayers by requiring us to pay for some of their CLE credits.
Comment by Bill — November 6, 2015 @ 7:08 pm
Tributary,
Great idea!
Let the public see the training for free.
In fact, take it a step further and let non-legislator attorneys register online at no cost to the attorney, attend the course online, and let them get the same CLE credit as the attorney-legislators. Let the course be archived so non-legislator attorneys can complete it at their convenience.
That would resolve my concern.
Comment by Bill — November 6, 2015 @ 7:13 pm
Bill,
It is my concern that the taxpayers are picking up the tab for this training … how much does it cost, anyway?
I agree, tho … I think Trib’s idea in allowing the public to view this training would be of great benefit to all of us.
It is not even an ethics course.
This is the educational entity – National Institute for Civil Discourse
I feel very apologetic to any legislator who has to be subjected to this garbage, which appears to be another non-profit brainwashing group that works on the taxpayer dime. They have to drink the kool-aide, tho … it’s part of their mandatory training. I would not fault any legislator tho, if they happened to catch the flu bug on the day this garbage was taught.
I suggest their mission statement might include, “Imagine a government that does not continually tap the taxpayers for more money to support their “vision.”
Here is one of their items as in “plans” — “Create rewards and incentives for candidates, public officials and media spokespersons who engage in civil discourse”
I am speechless … kind of.
Comment by Stebbijo — November 6, 2015 @ 8:05 pm
Clarification: This workshop is of no cost to us as far as presentation. The issue is some legislature as Bill states,”My concern is that Davis is asking for preferential treatment, an additional pecuniary benefit, for legislators who also happen to be attorneys.”
Comment by Stebbijo — November 6, 2015 @ 8:23 pm
Mary, if you are reading this … hopefully, you will and maybe when you have time, you can look into this. In the past I have taken the time to study Judicial Committees, usually I would refer to their roster to keep track of the committees. However, it is not always updated, thus the public can lose track of these committees. This one is not listed. However, while reviewing the Supreme Court Website, I noticed this order of which I am not aware, it is not listed on the roster to my knowledge. Maybe you are aware of it and have more knowledge concerning this judicial committee.
It is someone appropriate to this discussion because it involves Legislative Compensation.
Here is the order … http://www.isc.idaho.gov/orders/MISC_Order_Legcomp_4.15.pdf
What do they do?
Comment by Stebbijo — November 6, 2015 @ 9:23 pm
Sorry, to post again … but then, I am done.
I found it, I just do not want to waste your time. Evidently this committee has been around for awhile, just not really published or made known on the Judicial website or to people like myself. Anyway, here is an old report and it lists the members who decide or determine legislative compensation … I had no idea about this.
http://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2014/interim/140506_comp_1030AM-Minutes.pdf
Comment by Stebbijo — November 6, 2015 @ 9:41 pm
Stebbijo,
Regarding your comment in 7., “It is not even an ethics course,” you’re correct. The National Institute for Civil Discourse is an organization that works to reduce political dysfunction and incivility in our political system.
However, Idaho State Bar Resolution 2001-03 adopted Standards for Civility in Professional Conduct. Receiving CLE credits to help attorneys adhere to that standard would certainly be relevant and beneficial to an attorney in his law practice. However, an attorney-legislator serving in his role as legislator does not need CLE credits associated with this course to properly represent his constituents. To whatever extent an attorney-legislator might benefit from this training, that benefit needs to be equally available but at no greater cost to all the state’s attorneys.
It is unwise for the Legislature to seek special benefits (in this case, ISB CLE credit certification) for some legislators based on the full-time occupation of those part-time citizen legislators.
I’d also note that as a result of delivering this training to the Idaho Legislature, it is likely that the National Institute for Civil Discourse will receive some benefit: It will be able to add Idaho to its Next Generation list of participating states. Thus, providing “free” training still has value to the provider.
Comment by Bill — November 7, 2015 @ 6:37 am
At this point, I wonder if the judicial committee for legislative compensation would need to recommend it in the first place, anyway. I don’t think the Legislature can just call up the Idaho Bar and get their wish?
Comment by Stebbijo — November 7, 2015 @ 8:11 am
Stebbijo,
See Rule 403 – Accreditation. It appears that an application form must be completed.
Comment by Bill — November 7, 2015 @ 8:26 am
To land the job of a County prosecutor or deputy prosecutor obviously a license to practice law is a prerequisite. Taxpayers in Kootenai County for years pay for the continuing education for our prosecutors including golf – no questions asked by anyone at the County. You would think considering the rate of pay and benefits they receive that they would be able to shell out a few bucks to maintain their licensure but simply no.
Comment by Appalled — November 7, 2015 @ 8:37 am
Appalled,
I don’t object at all to using public money to pay for legitimate CLE credit courses for city, county, state, and federal prosecutors and deputy prosecutors. That is their full-time law practice and at least in theory, the public is the client, the beneficiary of their practice.
Legislators are part-timers whose election was not dependent on their choice of full-time occupation. To allow attorney-legislators to gain some pecuniary benefit (i.e., accruing required CLE credits at public expense) over their non-legislator attorney counterparts seems at best unethical.
To keep the ethical slate clean from even the appearance of disparate benefit, I’d suggest that ol’ Bart and his fellow attorney-legislators simply pay for their own CLE credit courses and deduct the allowable expenses from their federal and state income taxes.
But I still think Tributary’s suggestion was a good one. Since any expenses associated with the NICD training will be paid with public money, live stream that training and make it available to the public free of charge. Then we can decide for ourselves how valuable the training was or was not. It also lets us evaluate our legislators in action or inaction.
Comment by Bill — November 7, 2015 @ 9:09 am
So, this is how I understand it, if compensation aka credits for continuing educational credits for civil discourse were to be granted for Senator Bart Davis:
1. The Legislator/Attorney would need to apply with the Idaho State Bar (I do not know how they could fairly allow this request, but this is Idaho)
or
2. The Judicial Committee for Legislative Compensation would need to recommend the allowance of Legislative education in the form of continuing educations credits as Legislative Compensation/permission to be applied to the private sector,that will not necessarily apply only to attorney/legislators. (I cannot see that, either.)
Comment by Stebbijo — November 7, 2015 @ 9:44 am
Stebbijo,
I believe that Davis was asking the Legislature to seek CLE credits for all attorney-legislators who attend the training, not just for himself. As far as the content provided by NICD qualifying as “ethics” training, I imagine the ISB interprets qualifying content rather broadly.
Comment by Bill — November 7, 2015 @ 12:04 pm
Unfortunately, this doesn’t make Bart any different than a Mayor who owns a retail jewelry store in a city that caters to level of contribution as measured in diamonds, gold, and silver. Follow the money? No, the jewels–and the practice extends to every other elected official who can legally “sell” you something in exchange for face-time. From cars, to incensed candles, to beer and wine. Sure am glad CDA doesn’t have a bunch of long-term developer/land investors or those pesky “entrepreneurs” working for them–those are really expensive wheels to grease.
Too much Sarcasm?
Comment by Old Dog — November 7, 2015 @ 12:19 pm
Old Dog,
You’ve helped make my point.
It isn’t the size of the benefit that matters as much as the mindset of the persons who believe it’s all right to request it.
Comment by Bill — November 7, 2015 @ 12:27 pm