OpenCDA

December 21, 2010

Holding Coeur d’Alene Officials Accountable

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 6:49 am

Sunday’s Coeur d’Alene Press ran an article intended to explain why the City Attorney handles some legal issues in-house and contracts others out.  The article was headlined The rising cost of litigation.

The article clearly stated the City’s in-house legal team’s “daily responsibilities” included, “…  ordinances, meetings, contracts, personnel and other issues.”

Finally!  City Attorney Mike Gridley acknowledges it was his responsibility to properly oversee the City’s election contract with the County which resulted in the very costly election contest lawsuit and the City taxpayers having to pay for the personal attorneys for Gridley’s good buddy, Councilman Mike Kennedy.

This photo was taken from the video of the December 7, 2010, Coeur d’Alene City Council meeting in which Gridley was explaining the tort claim for legal costs filed against the City by City Councilman Mike Kennedy.  Incumbent Kennedy believed the City’s taxpayers, certainly not he,  should pay for his two private attorneys in addition to private attorney Mike Haman with whom the City had contracted to represent the City in the election contest lawsuit.

The entire election contest lawsuit could and probably would have been avoided if the City Attorney and the City Clerk had performed one of their “daily responsibilities” in preparing and administering the contract between the City and County Clerk to administer the November 3, 2009, city election.   That $17,000 contract explicitly required the City’s contractor, the Kootenai County Clerk, to “Comply with and require compliance by all election judges of the provisions of Titles 34 and 50, Idaho Code.”

It was the official duty of City Attorney Gridley and City Clerk Susan Weathers to ensure the County fulfilled the terms that contract.  After all, Coeur d’Alene taxpayers were paying the County about $17,000 to comply.  But as the taxpayers learned during the election contest lawsuit and as Gridley and Weathers would have known if they had diligently performed their duties to administer the election contract, Kootenai County Clerk Dan English was not going to comply with Idaho Code 34-1011 or with Idaho Code 50-451.  Had Gridley and Weathers performed their contract administration duties (assuring compliance with the contract by the contractor is one of those “daily responsibilities” Gridley explained in the article), they would have known and hopefully required English to comply with the laws.  Compliance with those statutes could easily have avoided the controversy leading to the very costly election contest lawsuit.

Even after the election, City Attorney Gridley had another chance.   By December 1,  2009, there was sufficient evidence for him to be legitimately concerned that the County Clerk had not fulfilled the terms of the contract.  At that time, Gridley should have demanded the County re-run the election at County expense.  As the agreement clearly states, both the City and County were required to have insurance to cover that eventuality.

The City Clerk was the City’s chief elections officer.   She was responsible for ensuring the City Attorney had a clear statement of work, the “deliverables”, to include in the election administration contract with the County.  The City Attorney was responsible for writing and enforcing the contract to protect the City’s voters and taxpayers.  When they realized Kootenai County Clerk Dan English had violated the contract and had not complied with it, they had a duty to the City’s taxpayers and voters to enforce the contract.

So why didn’t the City simply enforce the contract and require the County to run a new election?  Because the Mayor and City Council got the results they wanted in the election.  The incumbents were re-elected.  The Mayor and City Council didn’t want to risk the possibility that a new election might have a different outcome. Neither did the Mayor and City Council believe that a group of private citizens would have the temerity and tenacity to contest the election.  They were wrong.  Instead of fulfilling their obligation to deliver an honest election to the City’s voters and taxpayers, the Mayor and City Council did everything they could to protect the incumbency of one of their own, Councilman Mike Kennedy.

Pay up, Coeur d’Alene taxpayers.

6 Comments

  1. So, the agreement between the City and the County requires that the County reimburse the City for all costs? Has the City asked the County for reimbursement? If not, why not?

    Comment by Happy Trails — December 21, 2010 @ 8:19 am

  2. Happy Trails,

    As I read it, the agreement provides a mechanism to rectify failures of duty by the contractor. If the contractor, the County, didn’t deliver according to the terms of the agreement, the City had every right to enforce the contract to force the County to do it right. In my opinion, the City had a duty to its taxpayers and voters to enforce the contract. What’s the point of spending $17,000 in a contract if the City isn’t going to enforce it?

    I don’t know if the City has asked the County for reimbursement. Since it didn’t come up in the election contest lawsuit, I’m guessing not. The City and County were sitting at the defendants’ table together more than once in opposition to Jim Brannon’s election contest lawsuit. That seems odd to me since the election administration contract signed in August 2009 ought to have made them adversaries, not best buddies, in the action.

    If the City Attorney’s office had done its job and enforced the contract, it seems pretty reasonable to think the entire very costly and time-consuming election contest could have been avoided.

    Comment by Bill — December 21, 2010 @ 9:38 am

  3. Great point, Gridley should have been looking after the city’s interest and been all over the County for screwing the whole election up. Instead he is running interference for his pal Kennedy and lurking behind the scenes attempting to make a legitimate lawsuit go away. Mike Gridley, what an embarrassment to the community and to his profession, shame on you Mike.

    Comment by WannaBe JD — December 21, 2010 @ 9:58 am

  4. So, is Gridley personally liable for his breech of job duties? Can the public sue him for gross legal malpractice? Can we solicit his removal from the Idaho BAR? Is there no recourse for such incompetency or outright corruption?

    Comment by Wallypog — December 21, 2010 @ 10:17 am

  5. I guess one shouldn’t blame Gridley too much when the Council members, that he is paid to “advise” ask questions such as (1) “Why wasn’t there just a recount?”; (2) “Why was Kennedy even named as a defendant?”; (3) “Shouldn’t Brannon have to pay Kennedy’s fees?”; and (4) “Couldn’t this happen to us?” I guess it was just easier for Gridley to not even try to explain basic principles of elections and voting, or anything, to the Council. Why try? Life is much easier for Gridley, and he doesn’t have to answer silly legal questions, if he just makes sure that Kennedy, the person that Gridley personally contributed campaign money to, keeps his job on the City Council. The added benefit from the seemingly “don’t tell, don’t ask” legal advice position adopted by Gridley is that (1)Gridley gets to keep his job; and (2)see number 1. We should all “be happy” that Gridley retains his job because the firing of Gridley would just increase the jobless rate in Kootenai County. We all know that one of the goals of…correct me if I am wrong…Kennedy’s campaign was to seek out jobs for the unemployed in the community. Hmmm. Just think how many slices of ham the $69,000 paid to Kennedy’s private attorneys by the City would put on the tables of the “Cda needy” that Kennedy professes, in his recent “special to the Press”, to be so worried about.

    Comment by Happy Trails — December 21, 2010 @ 10:21 am

  6. In a contract,(and I’m not a contract attorney)I would think that the responsibilities of the contractor would flow to the contractee not with standing a hold harmless clause. It seems to me that Gridley was at best incompetent, worst is up for the legal profession to determine, in reviewing the assignment of the election responsibilities in the contract. If he doesn’t pursue reimbursement from the county for the cost of the “over the top ,milk the citizens” personal attorney fees, I would hope the legal community would censure him,or maybe the city should ask for his resignation.

    Comment by Ancientemplar — December 21, 2010 @ 7:52 pm

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