My February 25, 2012, post titled Coeur d’Alene’s Ministry of Disinformation discussed the judicial confirmation process the City may use to force City taxpayers to pay the Dixon judgement ordered by the federal district court. Omitted from the Coeur d’Alene Press news/views/skews article was an important piece of information: There must be a public hearing before the Council decides to file a petition for judicial confirmation with the district court. The judicial confirmation law provides that citizens may submit a letter requesting 14 days notification by certified mail of such a hearing. My letter requesting the statutorily-required notification was sent to the Mayor on February 27, 2012.
Today I received this letter in reply from the Mayor. The letter speaks for itself.
Wow. Could she have been more curt? (rudely brief)
Comment by mary — March 10, 2012 @ 9:25 pm
Mary,
I was glad she acknowledged receiving my letter.
She did not say the City would comply with the law and send a certified letter notifying all those who requested it about the hearing 14 days in advance of it. She said the public would be kept informed. To the extent the public can rely on the truthfulness of anything Bloem says, that assurance is met simply by the normal posting of the agenda for the Council meeting.
Comment by Bill — March 11, 2012 @ 6:43 am
Bill, I’m glad you received a response. It’s important to take the following from the response (no matter how brief, Mary):
1- The city is not assuming they will lose on appeal, thereby making the whole discussion moot at this time.
2- The city will inform the public when they have a plan in place, if such a plan is necessary.
In other words they don’t want to put the cart ahead of the horse.
I think that’s a good thing at this point.
Comment by John Austin — March 11, 2012 @ 8:19 am
John Austin,
The City erroneously assumed it would not lose the original case at trial. Now it faces a lien filed against both the cart and the horse.
You are wrong: The discussion is not moot at this time, because the discussion has to do with the public’s right to be notified of a statutorily required public hearing preceding its petition for judicial confirmation. That can occur at any time, not just after the appeal commences.
It appears the City’s crackerjack risk management team obviously didn’t have a plan in place in the event it lost at trial, so to suggest any planning now might be unnecessary is absurd.
Comment by Bill — March 11, 2012 @ 8:41 am
Bill, it would be absurd for the city to show their hand on how they might fund a judgment that hadn’t finished its appeal process. What message does it sent the appellate court if they’re already funding its failure.
As I’ve noted before we had an internal plan to fund the city’s $3 million judgment against us in the mid-90s, as the judgment was being appealed. While the appeal reduced the judgment we still were left with several million to fund, which we did via cash reserves and therefore no need for a judgment bond. Similarly, the city has multiple ways to fund this judgment, if they lose on appeal, so suggesting that they reveal their plan now is premature, in my opinion as one who has been there, done that.
Comment by John Austin — March 11, 2012 @ 10:45 am
John Austin,
Your question implies that if the City appeals the federal district court’s decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Justices in 9-CA would consider the City’s plan to pay if it loses an appeal. Obviously I’m not as learned as you in federal appellate rules of procedure, but I don’t believe the record on appeal includes any material about how the defendant/appellant would fund the judgment being appealed unless that material was already in the material submitted with the trial court record. Even if it were there, its relevancy to the issue on appeal would be questionable.
Comment by Bill — March 11, 2012 @ 11:36 am
Money was an issue, Bill, with the plaintiff’s attorney when the city said it did not have the funds for 10% of the award prior to appeal. Whether that fact is pertinent to the court or not is beyond me as I’m not an attorney. I still think it is premature to talk about funding at this point, in any event.
Comment by John Austin — March 11, 2012 @ 1:26 pm
Bill,
With all due respect, you did not read what Johnny wrote. The matter is far more simple that you state, simply this; only an experienced and qualified insider (with vision) can understand complex issues. You have no standing, no vision and no need to know. Simply accept this point of view and everything Johnny writes makes sense. Try it!
But, think of the possibilities.
But, think of the possibilities.
But, think of the possibilities.
(Credit John Austion)
One man one goal one mission,
One heart one soul just one solution,
One flash of light yeah one god one vision
No wrong no right,
I’m gonna tell you there’s no black and no white,
No blood no stain,
All we need is one world wide vision
(Credit Queen… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUsOR5rWH8I)
Comment by Pariah — March 11, 2012 @ 1:42 pm
Another comment from P that adds nothing to the discussion, just another personal shot at me. Typical, and tiring.
Comment by John Austin — March 11, 2012 @ 2:07 pm
Poor Johnny, unable to see himself in the mirror.
FACT: You know nothing about this case that hasn’t been in the news.
FACT: You keep blathering opinions as if you had inside knowledge.
FACT: The City clearly mislead the courts, based on published reports.
FACT: You have YET to admit ANY error of ANY kind by the City.
But, think of the possibilities.
But, think of the possibilities.
But, think of the possibilities.
(Credit John Austion)
Comment by Pariah — March 11, 2012 @ 2:32 pm
John Austin,
According to the occasionally accurate but rarely complete Coeur d’Alene Press, the City submitted affidavits stating it could fund the judgment. Presumably based on those representations, the Court did not require the City to post an appeal bond before proceeding to appeal. Those affidavits would become part of the record on appeal if, in fact, there is an appeal.
Comment by Bill — March 11, 2012 @ 2:41 pm
Appeals are not usually complicated and they rarely find in favor of the appellant. They consider the record, the law and arguments based on those. No new “facts” are allowed. The City needs to be ready to write a check, a big one. More, they ought to be reviewing their risk management structure and system. It appears to be neither effective nor efficient. With new blood on the Silly Council one can hope that cahnge is in the air.
Comment by Pariah — March 11, 2012 @ 3:09 pm
John, you miss the point. The letter from Bloem deliberately ignored the “statutory notificatiion requirement”. Has nothing to do with the appeal process or anything else. Bill asked if the legal requirement would be invoked if the verdict is upheld on appeal. No cart, no horse, no accusations. And the need for keeping the possible “payment plan” secret is nonsensical, even laughable.
Pariah, your “possibilities” everytime you post is juvenile. Are we in middle school? Get over it!
Comment by rochereau — March 11, 2012 @ 3:19 pm
Nope. High School, Class of ’67. The “Pretty People” are frozen there. And I mock them. Sorry that it bothers you.
Comment by Pariah — March 11, 2012 @ 4:02 pm
rochereau…. Exactly my thoughts. What difference does it make to the process where the settlement funds may come from if they are ultimately required to be paid? Once again we see officials either uninformed or ill informed on procedure and we have Austin weaving in some absurd unrelated excuse for their actions.
Comment by Wallypog — March 11, 2012 @ 4:05 pm
Thank you Wally. It makes no difference whatsoever. The point of Bills subject was purely the mayors no response, response. I think officials are indeed uninformed and whomever has the job of keeping them informed, isn’t doing their job. Also, they have always gotten away with (either) their ignorance or arrogant hubris. Actually, pretty much both.
Pariah, maybe funny once, repeatedly day after day, post after post, not so much!
Comment by rochereau — March 11, 2012 @ 4:34 pm
This is how I feel regards Johnny and his spin. Hence my responses.
Comment by Pariah — March 11, 2012 @ 5:33 pm
rochereau, do you think possibly the uninformed or ill informed opinions could just possibly be coming for the city’s legal department run by Mike Gridley, city attorney? Wasn’t it under his leadership that the city lost the case in the first place?
Huh, what do you think?
Comment by Ancientemplar — March 11, 2012 @ 6:12 pm
Ancientemplar,
That’s a good question. The City’s trial attorney was Mike Haman, I believe. Fulfilling its duty to the citizens, the Mayor and Council need to make an objective evaluation of his trial preparation and performance. But the City also needs to look at its HR Director as well. It’s entirely possible that the HR department FUBAR’d this and handed over a bad case for the city attorney and trial attorney to try and salvage. Not to let the attorneys off the hook, they may have overstated the quality of their defense against the lawsuit, too. And finally, the Mayor and Council may have unquestioningly accepted the advice and evaluations of both HR and attorney. If that’s what happened, the Mayor and Council share the blame.
For me the bottom line is we as taxpayers simply don’t have enough reliable information to make a judgment. That’s why if there is a public hearing on a judicial confirmation petition to bond for appeal costs, the Council needs to waive its attorney-client privilege and tell the people everything about what happened. If the Mayor and Council try to cover for City employees and make the taxpayers foot the bill for professional incompetence or neglect, the taxpayers should not stand for it.
Comment by Bill — March 11, 2012 @ 6:46 pm
I don’t claim to know who is responsibhle for what. I can only surmise. I do know that Bloem & Co. along with other city employees appear to make their own rules, seemingly with impunity. One hand certainly washes the other.
Bill, should the verdict be upheld (and it certainly should be) the damages awarded must be paid. Is it your opinion that a public hearing should be held to determine the causal steps that lead to this suit? Who, other than the tax payer, is there to pay the damages? Whether bond or rainy day fund or whatever, does it not come from taxes?
Comment by rochereau — March 11, 2012 @ 7:11 pm
rochereau,
If the City is going to petition for judicial confirmation, an order of the District Court authorizing the City to incur a debt or liability in any manner or any form extending beyond one annual appropriation, then the City must first hold a public hearing at which it votes publicly to proceed with or reject the petition. In my opinion, that hearing would be the most appropriate venue for the City to explain exactly what happened that led to the lawsuit and to the judgment the taxpayers will be forced to pay if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the decision. If that hearing happens before the appeal is briefed and argued, then the City will probably decline to reveal the details until after the Court of Appeals has delivered its decision. I believe it’s fair to say that the worse the City messed up, the harder it will fight to keep the details buried. Of course, if the City really does have valid grounds for an appeal, then it should appeal the decision and judgment.
The City could avoid any public hearing by simply scraping together the money and paying it out of one annual appropriation. It’s not where the money comes from (taxpayers), it’s whether the debt or liability can be discharged in one annual appropriation. One way or the other, Coeur d’Alene’s taxpayers are going to pay the Dixon judgment unless the Court of Appeals overturns the decision or remands it for a new trial. The Court of Appeals could reduce the amount of the judgment, but the money would still come from CdA’s taxpayers.
Comment by Bill — March 11, 2012 @ 7:34 pm
Bill,
You are correct. That they are filing an appeal indicates either they believe they have grounds that are compelling or they believe that the appeal will help in the negotiations for settlement. If the latter, they would have been far better advised – far better – to settle before trial, but that is water under the bridge. If, a big if, the court feels that the City mislead them in getting the appeals bond waived that will not auger well for them. Courts dislike being mislead, especially by supposedly “sophisticated” parties.
Comment by justinian — March 12, 2012 @ 9:34 am
Thanks Bill, that is what I thought. IMO, this was a just verdict and I would like to see the (city) truth of this situation exposed.
justinian, an appeal is automatic. The city would really have be remiss not to file an appeal. I agree, a pre-trial settlement should have been reached. I wonder if it was even discussed. Clearly Mr. Dixon had a very strong case and once again we are treated to the arrogance of city officials. I would bet that should the judgement be upheld, the city will indeed “scrape together” the payment and keep details hidden. It is how this place works.
Comment by rochereau — March 12, 2012 @ 10:12 am
rochereau,
Like you, I believe that since the taxpayers are going to have to pay any final judgment awarded, we are entitled to know the details.
An appeal, however, is not necessarily automatic. An appeal with absolutely no basis or foundation could be found to be frivolous. “If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee. (Fed Rules of App Procedure – Rule 38)” A frivolous appeal filed by the City could end up costing us much more on top of the final judgment.
Comment by Bill — March 12, 2012 @ 11:07 am
Bill, I understand, however the city has it’s arm in the proverbial vise, if you will. They are running on perception and had to continue the front to the public of (the city) being right and the judgement wrong. Hence my use of “automatic” and “remiss”. I certainly was not clear in my post in that I wasn’t alluding to rule of law. We always come back to arrogance and hubris. They have sunk so deep into the quicksand in this case, and so many officials are involved that I suspect they don’t care about frivolous and certainly don’t care about cost. It is all about how they are perceived.
Comment by rochereau — March 12, 2012 @ 11:28 am
One thing is for sure. The city owes Dixon 3.7 Million. After appeal, it may be less. The taxpayers will be responsible for the bill. Regardless of how we decide or if we get to vote on it the money will come out of the normal operating budget or from a tax of some sort. The idea that you are going to make some city employee or council person personally liable is absurd. Of course, you can fire them.
I really like this web page. I appreciate John, Bill, Mary and numerous other contributors. I beg to moderator to please real in or delete some of the junk posts. John, don’t swallow the hook. People choose to personally attack when they have nothing to contribute.
Comment by pu — March 13, 2012 @ 11:10 am
Well said pu…and a warm welcome!
Comment by rochereau — March 13, 2012 @ 3:16 pm
PU,
I don’t recall anyone saying that a city employee or council person should or even could be held personally liable. However, the City’s trial attorney was, I believe, working under contract to the City. If that attorney committed significant errors or omissions which resulted in the court’s verdict, then the City would be remiss in not trying to hold that contractor liable and recover some or all of the award from that attorney’s insurance carrier. That should be examined before automatically picking the taxpayers’ pockets (again).
Comment by Bill — March 13, 2012 @ 7:29 pm
As with most cases like this, usually there is more beneath the surface which should require a closer look. I believe there should be a “top down” review of the CDAPD followed by an audit of City Hall. The taxpayers are not receiving the quality of services which they are being billed, especially in regards to the salaries of the public officials in the City and Police. There seems to be a small town system in effect where some are protected while others are ostracized. Lets demand an impartial audit to determine the depth of problems facing the City. Pretending that the Dixon affair is an anomaly could be an expensive mistake.
Comment by jayhump — March 15, 2012 @ 8:47 pm