[
Ever since Jim Brannon filed a lawsuit contesting the November 3, 2009, Coeur d’Alene city election, I’ve wondered why the Coeur d’Alene Press and The Spokesman-Review haven’t recognized this story for what it is: Coeur d’Alene’s Watergate. The inescapable conclusion is that neither the local Coeur d’Alene Press nor its supposed regional rival The Spokesman-Review wants Idaho residents and legislators to understand just how easily Idaho’s elections can be manipulated. Neither do they want that story spreading across the nation. Bad for business, don’t ya’ know.[
Neither the Press nor The Spokesman-Review want the rest of the state and certainly not the nation to see just how incompetently Kootenai County Clerk Dan English has been conducting elections in Kootenai County. Neither do they want the state and nation to see that Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden and Secretary of State Ben Ysursa have been turning their heads from what would be obvious if the news media were covering this story: Idaho’s sloppy election administration laws encourage manipulation. That indictment includes the new election laws scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2011. I hope that Wasden’s and Ysursa’s inactions indicate only their cluelessness and not collusion.
After reading Coeur d’Alene Press staff writer Tom Hasslinger’s article headlined, “County files for protective order,” on page C1 and continued on C10 of the February 25, 2010, newspaper, I contacted Brannon’s attorney, Starr Kelso, for his comment. He informed me that he had been asked to comment for the story and had sent written comments to the Press before the story appeared. Kelso gave me permission to publish his comments in their entirety. Here they are:
Regarding the Motion for Protective Order filed by Kootenai County, the Memorandum in Support of the Motion, and Mr. Cafferty’s comments:
Kootenai County, through its attorney Mr. Cafferty, has been on formal notice, since January 25, 2010, that all of these records were requested.
Mr. Cafferty calls this a Witch Hunt. Mr. Brannon calls this obstructionism. I say, “If this legitimate review of election documents is to be called a Witch Hunt, then I am Mr. Brannon’s guide and I intend to do everything that I can to see to it that Mr. Brannon, and each City voter, fills their tag.”
When this election contest was first filed I told the Coeur d’Alene Press that I was not aware of any act that was “malicious.” Taking into consideration the City of Coeur d’Alene’s claim that it does not have any “control” of its own General Election records, and taking into consideration this motion by Kootenai County seeking to prevent Mr. Brannon from having the absentee ballot documents counted, I am rethinking that statement. It is beginning to appear that there may be fraud and corruption involved on the part of the City of Coeur d’Alene, and Kootenai County, in the 2009 City of Coeur d’Alene General Election.
If Kootenai County ran a fair, honest, and accurate election for the City of Coeur d’Alene, it should be loudly shouting, “Here are all the records. Look at them. The records will confirm that the election results were true and accurate.” The opposite has occurred.
The City of Coeur d’Alene, whose election it was, should be demanding that Kootenai County immediately produce all its documents and prove that the election was done correctly. The opposite has occurred.
Likewise, Mr. Kennedy, who claims to have won by 5 votes should be demanding that both the City and Kootenai County immediately produce all documents and prove that he in fact did win. If the records reveal that he did not win the election, he should be demanding a new election immediately. He should be standing up for Coeur d’Alene voters, the same as Mr. Brannon is doing, and demanding that the election results be true and accurate. The opposite has occurred.
In my opinion the City, Kootenai County, and Mr. Kennedy are doing everything that they can to stonewall and obstruct legitimate, and lawful, efforts to show that the election was not run properly and illegal votes were counted.
1. Kootenai County is well aware that what is requested is a “count” of the absentee ballots, absentee ballot envelopes, and absentee ballot return envelopes. A “recount” of the votes would have merely confirmed what the computer already tabulated. Kootenai County, and in particular Mr. Cafferty, are well aware that a “recount” is not what is requested. Mr. Cafferty was in Court and had a discussion with Judge Simpson when this issue was addressed on January 28, 2010. As Judge Simpson correctly recognized, there is a difference between a “recount” and a “count.”
2. By “counting” the absentee ballot records there will not be any invasion of the privacy of any voters. There is no way to tell how any voter actually voted because there is no way to tell which voter cast any particular ballot. Mr. Cafferty knows that. As Judge Simpson explained at the January 28, 2010 hearing, at which Mr. Cafferty participated, none of the ballots will even be touched by any representative of Mr. Brannon. The ballot documents will be “counted” in the presence of Mr. Brannon and his representative.
3. The absentee ballots are not going to be “examined” by Mr. Brannon or any representative. The absentee ballot records will be “counted” in Mr. Brannon’s presence.
4. Kootenai County is very much aware that the number of absentee ballots that they counted in the City’s election does not match the number of absentee ballot envelopes and absentee ballot return envelopes.
5. Kootenai County is also very much aware that the existence of more counted absentee ballots than absentee return envelopes can only be explained two ways. (1) The absentee ballot “box” was stuffed; or (2) Two (or more) absentee ballots were returned in one absentee ballot return envelope. Idaho law clearly provides that when an absentee ballot return envelope contains more than one ballot, then all absentee ballots in that return envelope shall be voided and not counted. In other words, should there be 3 more absentee ballots counted than absentee ballot return envelopes that means that at least 6 absentee ballots must be voided. If 6 absentee ballots are voided, since it can not be determined who voted the voided absentee ballots and since it can not be determined who the voided absentee ballots reflect a vote for, the election race between Mr. Brannon and Mr. Kennedy will need to be set aside and a new election held because there is only a 5 vote difference in the count.
6. Mr. Brannon is not asking Kootenai County to copy any documents. He is asking to look at the documents. Once the documents are looked at it will be decided what needs to be copied.
Starr Kelso
Attorney at Law
February 23, 2010
Not surprisingly, the Press did not put Hasslinger’s article online. For those readers with access to the Coeur d’Alene Press print article, compare what Kelso provided with what was published. There is little doubt that the Press is covering for County Clerk Dan English’s and City Clerk Susan Weathers’ dereliction of their official duties in administering the November 3, 2009, city election.
I compared our local election scandal with the Watergate. In June 1972 I was working in the Washington, DC, area when the Washington Post reported a break-in at the Democrat Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington. The Post story was first reported by two comparatively junior reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Then-President Nixon first referred to the break-in as “a third-rate burglary.” To its everlasting credit, the Washington Post wasn’t influenced by Nixon’s denial, nor was it intimidated by his and his staff’s threats and criminal actions to obstruct the Post‘s publishing the news stories. The Washington Post’s coverage of Watergate eventually became a legendary story itself. I was fortunate to have been able to read every day’s story in the Post. The Post was diligent, dedicated, persistent, and courageous. It reported the story, the news, so the public would know.
The story behind Jim Brannon’s election contest of the November 3, 2009, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, city election could and should be Coeur d’Alene’s Watergate. But Jim Thompson and Stacy Cowles are not Katharine Graham. Mike Patrick and Gary Graham are not Ben Bradlee. Tom Hasslinger and the stenographers at The Spokesman Review are not Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein. Consequently, Brannon’s lawsuit may be little noticed and soon forgotten. Idaho elections will become even more corrupted. And too few people will know or care because the Coeur d’Alene Press and The Spokesman-Review have intentionally not written the story.
In reference to today’s article on the proposed law to provide I.D. before voting, Dan English announced there are no cases of fraudulent voting in Kootenai County. Can you refer back to my request of English a few weeks ago about what happens to people who vote fraudulently. I thought he referred to a case that was settled in court.
Also how can Mr. English claim there is no fraud in our elections? With such sloppy elections how can he claim this?
Comment by citizen — February 28, 2010 @ 10:10 am
It really rests in the hands of the judge. Hopefully he will not allow the protective order. Based on what I have read here – I don’t see how he can issue one.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 28, 2010 @ 10:28 am
Citizen,
The case English referred to was not in Kootenai County, and it involved a man who I believe had voted twice in the same election.
English can not authoritatively claim there is no voter fraud in our elections. He can deceptively claim there is no voter fraud in our elections. He fervently hopes people believe the former and ignore the latter.
Comment by Bill — February 28, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
Stebbijo,
We’ll know by about 3 p.m. Tuesday. There is also a motion to dismiss by the City on the calendar as well. Haman is arguing that motion for the City, and Cafferty is arguing the protective order on behalf of the Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney’s office. People need to remember that Cafferty works for McHugh.
Comment by Bill — February 28, 2010 @ 1:29 pm
Who is McHugh?
Comment by citizen — February 28, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
Citizen,
Barry McHugh is the Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney. John Cafferty is a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney who works for McHugh. Cafferty’s actions come with McHugh’s blessing.
Comment by Bill — February 28, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
I wonder who blesses the actions of McHugh. Does anyone know?
It would be interesting to know if our commissioners sanctioned this. It would seem that there has been coordination between the city and county attorneys.
Comment by citizen — February 28, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
Citizen,
The underlying factor controlling all of this is money. Advertisers (e.g., car dealers and real estate agents who like to have a very controllable and buyable public officials) have told the newspapers not to print any information that will reveal to the people of Coeur d’Alene just how badly the November 3, 2009, election was mismanaged by City Clerk Susan Weathers with approval of the Mayor and Council and by County Clerk Dan English. The big money likes the status quo corruptus. You would think that if the general public had an inkling of just how badly their right to vote and the integrity of their vote was being corrupted, they would revolt. If election turnout is any indication, however, most of the people in Kootenai County really don’t care that their votes are being stolen.
The same is true of the County Commissioners and Barry McHugh. They are elected officials, and elected officials need money to run campaigns. They are being told to obstruct Jim Brannon’s court action no matter what the cost. And it won’t be a difficult decision. Who can do more to help or hurt a candidate’s political future: People with a lot of money and political influence or Jim Brannon and his attorney? Sadly, judges are also elected officials. Who can do more to help or hurt a judicial candidate: People with a lot of money and political influence or Jim Brannon and his attorney?
Comment by Bill — February 28, 2010 @ 4:29 pm
Can this case be tried in federal court if the locals don’t get it right the first time?
Comment by Stebbijo — February 28, 2010 @ 5:03 pm
How much control do you think the county commissioners have over this obstruction policy?
Comment by citizen — February 28, 2010 @ 5:57 pm
citizen, I thought the same thing. Why aren’t our commissioners and elected local representatives SCREAMING! Yet, they do exactly what is pictured on this post – they bury their hands in the sand. Disgusting and spineless.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 28, 2010 @ 6:03 pm
Well – they bury their HEADS and their hands in the sand.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 28, 2010 @ 6:35 pm
Stebbijo,
There is not an automatic path from state court to federal court. To get into federal court, Jim Brannon’s case would need to raise a federal issue. There is definitely a federal issue in the way the City is conducting itself not only toward Brannon but toward his supporters. Whether the FBI and US Attorney’s Office are paying attention is entirely a different issue. If we had a newspaper that was covering this story with any degree of journalistic integrity, the picture would be clearer. Sad but true that even the US Attorney’s response to public corruption is measured in part by the amount of public recognition and indignation. No news coverage, no indignation, no federal political interest, no US Attorney interest.
Comment by Bill — February 28, 2010 @ 6:36 pm
Citizen,
About the same amount of control as they had over then-Prosecutor Bill Douglas when they (Currie, Brodie, Johnson) agreed to settle with Sheriff’s Captain Sam Grubbs rather than risk having the public learn just how the Sheriff’s Department’s negligence contributed to the circumstances leading to the death of Michael Madonna and the disabling of Coeur d’Alene Police Officer Michael Kralicek.
In this case, they (Currie, Piazza, and Tondee) are covering for Kootenai County Clerk (Chief Elections Officer) Dan English. A coverup is a coverup is a coverup. The County is not a defendant in Jim Brannon’s lawsuit, but the County is once again quaking in its loafers that it will be sued, this time by the City of Corrupt d’Alene, if the District Court brings in a verdict for Jim Brannon and orders a new city election. The County and the City don’t care about who would win the new election. The City and County now realize just how badly they have messed up election administration in Kootenai County. Their palpable fear is that the Legislature will also wake up and realize that the laws scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2011, may need to be rewritten to correct the vulnerabilities and defects in state election administration laws revealed by Jim Brannon’s lawsuit. When the legislators finally comprehend that this is not just a north Idaho problem but a statewide statutory problem that should have been resolved by AG Wasden, SecState Ysursa, and the various county clerks before those laws ever reached the legislature, the legislators should not be happy.
Comment by Bill — February 28, 2010 @ 6:51 pm
Excellent information, Bill. It is most interesting to me to hear the markedly different treatment Starr Kelso received from Ada County when he was the attorney in a similar case about 10 years ago. Ada County opened up all their election information, right away. They offered access to everything and were confident their system would stand the scrutiny. I wonder why Kootenai County and the City of CdA are acting like they have something to hide?
Comment by mary — February 28, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
Mary,
Thank you. Kootenai County and the City of CdA are acting like they have something to hide because they do have something to hide. It should come out in court, but it will most certainly not be anywhere near fully reported in the Press or The Spokesman-Review.
Comment by Bill — February 28, 2010 @ 7:50 pm
Here is another angle. IF Simpson does the right thing and his decision is just – the press will not vilify him – but will support this new judge and his abilities to protect the people and their votes. Then the story will have a positive spin – faith in our justice system – thus – the mainstream rags will jump on it and they should.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 28, 2010 @ 8:08 pm
Stebbijo,
Yes, that is what should happen. Don’t hold your breath.
Comment by Bill — February 28, 2010 @ 8:25 pm
Bill, I want to be optimistic on all of this – but it’s not worth holding my breath or my tears – for sure.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 28, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
If Simpson is vilified by the CdA Press, the newspaper will look like part of a cover up. They need to get in front of the story and show that they are worth the paper they print on.
The Spokesman is usually a lost cause, but might surprise us if they want to sell papers in Kootenai County.
One way to get the news out is to take out space in the Nickels Worth.
Comment by citizen — February 28, 2010 @ 8:36 pm
Hey citizen,
Take space out on my site. I will do it for free. Just kick back a donation to my favorite charity. Tom Addis and others, (but I do favor ‘two moons over China Addis’) can have a full page ad on my site if he wants to – for an entire year – and his money won’t go to any mainstream rag – it will go to a charity of my choice.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 28, 2010 @ 8:47 pm
Citizen,
In this particular instance it’s not about selling newspapers; it is making sure the public does not get a clear and complete picture of just how badly the Kootenai County Clerk and the Coeur d’Alene City Clerk messed up the administration of the November 3, 2009, Coeur d’Alene city election. You should understand that both Hagadone and Cowles know the value of being able to control what information the public sees and does not see. The value goes far beyond the revenue from a few newspapers.
Comment by Bill — March 1, 2010 @ 1:34 am
The SR gossip blog, that our city leaders associate with, has been so silent on the Brannon case the last 4-6 weeks. The word is out to be silent and not draw any attention to the case. This happened after one of thier bloggers admitted he only lived in the city for two weeks when he voted and a discussion followed that a person had to be a 30-resident. This blogger was advised to seek an attorney.
I agree 100% with Bill and others that the city’s and county’s actions show that they are both trying to cover up something rather than try to clear their names.
Comment by LTR — March 1, 2010 @ 7:25 am
LTR,
The Spokesman-Review was deservedly spanked professionally for its obvious under-coverage of the River Park Square scandal. Like so many other newspapers, it is failing financially and journalistically. The same is true of the Coeur d’Alene Press, though it never has been more than a local advertising flyer trying to don the cloak of a legitimate newspaper. The Press exists to stroke locals’ egos and to ensure that no accurate information that could harm local business interests is published. Perish the thought that either lose-paper would investigate and report public corruption in Coeur d’Alene. It won’t happen. The vast majority of the voting public will remain blissfully ignorant, because none of our regional news media can afford to lose any major advertising accounts. They will ignore news to save advertising revenue. You can take that to the bank.
Comment by Bill — March 1, 2010 @ 7:44 am
Well! I met with Mr. Patrick this morning. There is no coordinated effort to ignore any of this. What would help the situation greatly would be for people such as yourselves to write letters to the editor. If the Press isn’t covering something you’d like to see covered, a letter to the editor will not only help urge them on, but alert other citizens.
Fire up your word processors!
Comment by Dan — March 1, 2010 @ 11:24 am
Well, of course there is not, Dan! They should of wrote about the minutes being corrupted days ago, but that was not a big enough story for them. Yesterday they were so desparate their main story was about DUCK POOP! And, today the S-R can’t stop at libeling private citizen’s names.
I pretty much say it the way I want to on my site. Neither the S-R or the Press would touch the stuff I have already exposed.
Comment by Stebbijo — March 1, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
Dan,
Thanks for injecting some humor into this subject in comment #25. That was hilarious.
Comment by Bill — March 1, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
I have never been so disgusted with The CdA Press as I am at this time.
How can we in this county complain about ACORN if we don’t speak out on fair honest elections in our own Kootenai County.
Comment by citizen — March 1, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
Mr. Patrick can be emailed at mpatrick@cdapress.com
Mr. Patrick was too busy to take my call, but told the assistant to tell me that I could send a letter to the editor or email him on my concerns.
I suggest that both be done by those interested.
Comment by citizen — March 1, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
Citizen,
You have very precisely hit the nail on the head. People rightly get all up in arms about presidential election irregularities, but they are seemingly indifferent to the manipulations of their own local elections, often dismissing illegal conduct as “just politics.” Thanks to Jim and Christine Brannon’s and Starr Kelso’s courage in contesting the November 3, 2009, City election, more and more people are beginning to get a glimpse of just how badly Kootenai County and Coeur d’Alene City elections have been administered. When the evidence is revealed in court, the public is going to be absolutely shocked. That is not an exaggeration. Then people will ask the obvious next question: Why didn’t our local and regional news media tell us about this?
Comment by Bill — March 1, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
stebbijo – about your comment number 26, thats heavy. who’s being libeled by the S-R. who at the S-R is saying that stuff?
Comment by Pidji Datez — March 1, 2010 @ 8:13 pm
It sounds like CdA is ripe for an alternate form of print media. I’ve seen this done successfully in other areas and it was financial success.
Comment by citizen — March 2, 2010 @ 7:40 am
Get and copy of KC BOCC Resolution 2009-10 Kootenai’s best kept secret and see who really is Cafferty’s boss!
Comment by Appalled — September 3, 2010 @ 3:24 pm
Appalled,
I obtained a copy of the resolution today. As I recall, McHugh promised to bring all the deputy prosecutors back under his umbrella when he took office. Resolution 2009-10 suggests that he reneged on that promise.
Comment by Bill — September 3, 2010 @ 4:59 pm
Wait a minute…several months ago, I was told by Commissioner Piazza, in an attempt to deflect responsibility, that Barry McHugh HAD taken all the prosecutors over to his side and that the Commissioners “had no say” in the Election Challenge. I argued, as I’m know to do sometimes, that a phone call, letter or email from the Commissioners could at least let the Prosecutor and County Clerk know how they feel…and was assured that it would be done. Are you saying now that “Witch Hunt” Cafferty is really working under the direct supervision of the Commissioners??!
Comment by mary — September 3, 2010 @ 9:14 pm
Mary,
Here is the link to Resolution No. 2009-10, Transferring Authority and Control over the Risk Management Department to the Human Resources Department.
I’m sure McHugh has an explanation. However, if it is correct that Cafferty is part of the County’s Risk Management program, then authority and control over him appears to have been transferred from the Prosecutor to Human Resources. If that is so, then Cafferty is subordinate to the Administrative Services position which is subordinate to the Board of County Commissioners on this (outdated, what a surprise) County organization chart. That raises some really interesting questions, then, about who has been directing the county’s obstruction of Jim Brannon’s election contest. Cafferty’s actions may have been directed not by Prosecutor Barry McHugh but by Commissioners Currie, Tondee, and Piazza. Indeed, if this is correct, McHugh may have been powerless to stop Cafferty from doing anything. That does not let McHugh off the hook. He could have revealed all of this, assuming it is accurate, to the public.
To understand why the Commissioners would want to obstruct the election contest does not take a law degree. The county contracted with the city to administer the city’s municipal election according to Title 50, Chapter 20, which governs municipal elections. English and Company messed it up. The city could have and should have enforced its contract with the county for a do-over on the election at county expense, probably insured. Instead, the county and city colluded to try and scuttle the election contest lawsuit. They knew that it would be costly if Brannon through his attorney Starr Kelso prosecuted the lawsuit as persistently, aggressively, and courageously as he has. But they also figured they had more money to spend (it is, of course, taxpayer’s money, but that never stopped a Kootenai County Commissioner from making expensively bad decisions), so they would simply pile the obstructive actions on which would require costly legal responses from Brannon and Kelso. It will probably prove to be less expensive for county and city taxpayers if the city had forced the county to do the election right. The city and county will try to blame Brannon for the expense, but it was the city’s failure to enforce its contract against the county that led to the costs. As Nixon and his cronies learned from Watergate, the inevitably unsuccessful cover-up attempt always has more serious consequences than if they had just acknowledged openly the original error and then corrected it.
By the way, the legality of the transfer in this resolution is questionable at best. McHugh’s explanation ought to be very interesting.
It might also be appropriate to get Commissioners-elect Jai Nelson and Dan Green to comment publicly and on the record about this resolution, something other than the usual, “I’ll have to get back to you on that.”
Comment by Bill — September 4, 2010 @ 6:52 am
Bill, I wouldn’t say he reneged at all because the civil division does everything in the name of the prosecutor. The problem is when are they risk management working for the BOCC and when are they legal services that was transferred to the prosecutor. Bigger problem yet the County is way overloaded with the BOCC’s local Risk Management that is a joke by any comparison and what the prosecutor is aware of and controls is nil if exists; my opinion more of a fraud if you will.
Mary, obviously Piazza deflected the truth. The Counties website has a link for resolutions and 2009-10 is not found there. It exists with no minutes and two different agendas the one available on the County’s website does not mention it. There is no record for who drafted it or took part in drafting it and so far no legal opinion. The resolution itself does not cite a single Statute or any authority just that the BOCC decided to do this. The resolution lists a copy was given to the prosecutor.
The Idaho Attorney General already concluded that the Kootenai County BOCC cannot have in-house attorneys and they just won’t stop. Piazza was excused when the measurer came before the Board however a lot of combined effort went into the measure and much more into keeping it a secret. The whole process is defaulting to them as prosecutors and deflection is right on that gets far worse with the County attorneys obviously. What this was about is what the document is titled at the bottom of the signature page.
With that said the Idaho State Bar comments “A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate”. Unbiased justice does not exist at any level of the prosecutors office only a full time advocate in so far as the County’s officials and managers all while ignoring the policy of the State and the prosecutors primary duty of enforcing all the penal provisions of any and all statutes of this state, in any court. Those who are in the club of officials and managers get a FREE PASS while the malfeasance runs rampant with several elected officials.
Claimed training is a ruse and the County already has Risk Management attorney’s though ICRIMP. In this County the malfeasance is so bad an elected official is appointed an attorney to run interference protecting them and the public record. They cannot do the job without an attorney? You would think a higher standard for following the law but instead it couldn’t possibly be worse including serious disclosure problems that already exist at several County levels.
In my opinion thus far the situation is our prosecutor is paid by the people and is the prosecutor of the people acting on behalf of the people but will not hold accountable for following the law those who serve the people.
Comment by Appalled — September 4, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
Appalled,
Good comment. Thank you!
Comment by Bill — September 4, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
This is Coeur d’Alene’s Watergate, minus the Woodward and Bernstein.
Comment by Dan — September 4, 2010 @ 3:41 pm
Dan,
Also minus Ben Bradlee and Katharine Graham.
Comment by Bill — September 4, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
Appalled,
I was scanning the D-1 court schedule and saw this on a particular action:
Plaintiff Attorney: Kelso, Starr
Defense Attorney: Reed, Scott W.
Defense Attorney: Haman, Michael L.
Defense Attorney: Cafferty, Legal Services, John A.
Defense Attorney: Macomber, Arthur B
Other Party Attorney: Kelso, Starr
Other Party Attorney: Macomber, Arthur B
Note Cafferty’s affiliation.
Comment by Bill — September 6, 2010 @ 9:45 am
Bill, the conflicts are just enormous. Just got Resolution 2009-09 yah it’s no typo; the BOCC names the former legal services the Civil Division of the Prosecutor. So much for separation of powers apparently the BOCC was needed to do that for this elected official. The problem is it again references the BOCC maintaining control of Risk Management that they predominately do but address most everything as the Civil Division of the Prosecutor. Some sort of companion resolution I guess.
Comment by Appalled — September 7, 2010 @ 12:15 pm