This morning’s local skewspaper, the Coeur d’Alene Press, finally got it right with its headline Clerk seeks clarification. The key word is “clarification.”
As reported in the skewspaper, Kootenai County Clerk Cliff Hayes has petitioned the District Court for a judgement of declaratory relief. The last two paragraphs of my April 25, 2012, post titled Kootenai County Petition for Declaratory Judgment explains why the present action is appropriate. In essence, the law governing the authority of two different elected officials is not clear.
The Idaho Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the same question earlier does not answer the question, so County Clerk Hayes is asking the District Court to issue a declaratory judgment to clarify the law.
Bill, can you clarify a bit more please? You provide a link to the petition for clarification of the Recall laws, but can you explain why Cliff is asking for this clarification of the Clerk’s duties vs the Judge’s authority?
Comment by mary — October 30, 2012 @ 10:32 am
Mary, supervisory, managment responsibility should rest with the individual that has budget authority and corresponding compensation determination. The state code doesn’t describe this clearly if at all.
Comment by Ancientemplar — October 30, 2012 @ 11:16 am
Mary,
As I understand the petition, the District Court Judges and the Trial Court Administrator are state employees, not county employees. However, many of the people who work in the court are employees of Kootenai County (see Petition, pages 1-2, paragraph 5). Kootenai County, not the state, pays those employees out of the county budget. However according to the petition, the Trial Court Administrator, a state employee, “… has been responsible for determining increases in compensation for the [enumerated county employees].”
The issue County Clerk Hayes is asking the District Court to resolve with a declaratory judgment is whether the state (Trial Court Administrator, Administrative Judge) or the County Clerk has the authority and responsibility for determining increases in compensation for those county employees. Is that determination a “supervisory” responsibility, and if so, does a state employee (Trial Court Administrator or Administrative Judge) have the authority to make it as it pertains to a county employee?
A declaratory judgment is sought to establish who has legal responsibility and authority for doing what. What County Clerk Hayes is seeking is clearly spelled out in the Petition’s Prayer for Relief.
Comment by Bill — October 30, 2012 @ 11:30 am
I seem to recall an earlier ‘turf war’. Former district court judge Gary Haman apparently told the county to ‘shove’ its no smoking in public buildings ordinance/rule/regulation when it came to his having to stop smoking in his office at the courthouse. That judge had considerable ‘weight’ and apparently the county backed off.
I wonder why the county clerk would (have to?) hire a private counsel to file the action instead of using the county prosecutor? I don’t see how the county prosecutor would have a conflict. Isn’t he supposed to represent the county and the county officers. How would there be a conflict if he doesn’t represent the judge/state. Just wondering.
Comment by up river — October 30, 2012 @ 12:33 pm
up river,
That’s a good question. Since the nature of the action is to get a definitive answer to a question of law and since it seems likely the petition will be heard by an out-of-district judge, there’s really no reason for McHugh to dive for political cover on this one.
Comment by Bill — October 30, 2012 @ 1:27 pm
It’s because Mr. McHugh is close friends with the judges, just like he is close friends with city officials. Barry McHugh did represent County Clerk Hayes when Cliff tried to get legal clarification of the Recall law. But then after a mushy letter from the Sec. of State saying he, the SOS, interprets the law, Barry lost his courage and convinced Cliff to back away. I’m not surprised Cliff wanted different counsel this time.
Comment by mary — October 30, 2012 @ 1:42 pm
If prosecutor McHugh was in Congress he would probably vote present each time a vote was called for.
Comment by Ancientemplar — October 30, 2012 @ 2:06 pm
I thought maybe Hayes consulted with a private attorney because after Judge Mitchell wrote the order, it put the clerk’s position in a nasty spot – and possibly getting sued by the judge if he does not abide by the order – which includes no “monitoring of budget items.” Since Idaho really doesn’t know exactly what is going on – Hughes might be in that position to prosecute Hayes if it got to that point. Hayes was smart to ask for the judgement and get this clarified.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 30, 2012 @ 4:43 pm
… getting sued by judge = Judge Mitchell would just write and order to McHugh to send out the attack dogs.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 30, 2012 @ 4:45 pm
That pretty much sums it up.
Comment by Dan — October 30, 2012 @ 5:52 pm
Ancientemplar–Post #7 is hysterical! Thanks, I needed that!
Comment by up river — October 30, 2012 @ 6:30 pm