First District Court Judge Fred Gibler this morning sentenced Sandra Kay Martinson to 90 days in the Kootenai County Jail and ordered her to make restitution for her embezzling of over $100,000 from Kootenai County during her employment as Deputy Kootenai County Clerk. She will be required to pay $1,000 per month until she has made restitution of $49,075 to Kootenai County and the Idaho Counties Risk Management Program (ICRMP).   In addition, she will serve 5 years supervised probation.

Bonner County prosecuting attorney Louis Marshall had asked the judge to sentence Martinson to 120 days in the county jail.  Martinson could have been sentenced to 4 years fixed state prison time and up to an additional 6 years indeterminate state prison time.

In sentencing Martinson, Judge Gibler noted that while she had no criminal record, her embezzlement covering a period of 10 years had been a systematic scheme and not a single impulsive act. He also observed it was a “significant betrayal of public trust.” Judge Gibler declined to withhold judgement, saying that because Martinson had been a public employee, he intended the sentence to send a message to others.

Martinson, who will begin serving her jail sentence this Thursday, is afflicted with multiple sclerosis and will be allowed to leave jail to receive necessary treatments.

In the ongoing Coeur d’Alene soap opera titled “Who Dimed Out Ron?,” today’s episode opens with the Coeur d’Alene Press story headlined Edinger spoke about job rule reporting that both Councilman Ron Edinger and his opponent in the November election, Adam Graves, have both said they were unaware of the state’s nepotism laws.  As noted in yesterday’s OpenCdA post titled Oh, Please!, that puts both of them treading water in the same stagnant lake of ignorance as the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney, the Coeur d’Alene City Administrator (also an attorney), and the Coeur d’Alene City Human Resources Director.

Among the crowd of ignorants, Graves is the only one who gets a short-term, revocable pass.  There are some publications that have been readily available online for years and are updated regularly by the Idaho Attorney General’s Office.  Graves and the other first-time candidates would be well-served to review them.  They include the Idaho Ethics in Government Manual, the Idaho Public Records Law Manual, the Idaho Open Meeting Law Manual, and the Service on an Idaho Non-Profit Board of Directors manual.  The latter manual will help them understand how non-profit organizations (e.g., foundations) sometimes team up with political subdivisions of the state to hide certain financial transactions that would otherwise be subject to public scrutiny.

Teaser for tomorrow’s episode:  The intrepid reporter has learned that the real culprit “Who Dimed Out Ron?” is a manipulative member of the Mullan Avenue Gang.   Will our reporter assemble the MAG in a room, sweat them, deductively eliminate all but the culprit, and then get a tearful confession?  Or will reporter and the duty photographer be swiftly dispatched to cover yet another ego-stroking check-passing ceremony, thus leaving the citizens of Coeur d’Alene to forever wonder, “Who Dimed Out Ron?”

Thursday’s Coeur d’Alene Press online carried an online article headlined Nepotism rule enforced.  The story stated that three part-time City workers had been fired from their City jobs because they are related to incumbent Council member Ron Edinger.  Edinger is running for re-election against challenger Adam Graves.  The article included this statement, “[City Attorney Mike] Gridley said he began researching the statues [sic] after Adam Graves, Edinger’s lone challenger for Seat 1, asked about the familial rules.”  Comments to the online Press article indicate that statement led some people to believe that Graves had made his inquiry to gain some political advantage over Edinger.  (Note to Press editor and publisher:  It’s not a rule, it’s a state law.  There’s a difference.)

A subsequent online Press article headlined Graves fires back at Edinger offers challenger Adam Graves’ explanation for his inquiry to the City.

The one fact that seems indisputable from both Press articles is that City Administrator Wendy Gabriel (shown above left), City Attorney Mike Gridley (shown above right), and City Human Resources Director Pam MacDonald have for many years been unaware of the state statutes regarding nepotism.  Or so they claim.  City Administrator Gabriel is an attorney.  City Attorney Gridley is an attorney.

Oh, please!  The state’s nepotism law isn’t some arcane, incidental law that has only occasional application in public employment.  It is impossible to believe that these three highly-paid and well-educated City employees were unaware of this law until Adam Graves asked about it.  Their specific jobs required them to be aware of this law.  If they were not aware of this law, then the public must also be concerned that they were unaware of other relevant laws governing municipal business.  Those laws would include contracting laws, land use (e.g. zoning) laws, equal employment opportunity laws, and the various laws of public corruption.

These three City employees (Gabriel, Gridley, and MacDonald) deserve to join Edinger’s three grandchildren in the unemployment line.

The Idaho Statesman is reporting that an attorney with the Idaho State Appellate Public Defender’s Office is alleging that the Idaho Legislature violated the Idaho Constitution when the Legislature authorized counties to create adult misdemeanor probation offices.  In her memorandum, attorney Sara Thomas alleges that the Legislature usurped the exclusive authority of the Idaho Department of Correction conferred by the Idaho Constitution, Article X, § 5.

For the sake of discussion, assume she is correct.  Who is responsible for checking for constitutional conflicts in proposed legislation before it is passed?  Would it surprise you to learn that Idaho’s judges, prosecuting attorneys, and some other attorneys involved in misdemeanor probation cases were apparently ignorant of the Idaho Constitution?  If you agree that the existing legislation allowing county administration of misdemeanor probation, would you then be in favor of simply continuing to ignore the Idaho Constitution?  If not, how would you correct the problem?