Yesterday’s OpenCdA post titled “Under Color of Law” explained how an action taken by Coeur d’Alene Mayor Sandi Bloem, City Attorney Mike Gridley, and Councilmen Mike Kennedy, Deanna Goodlander, Woody McEvers, and Loren Edinger would deprive Coeur d’Alene’s citizens of effective representation by Councilman Steve Adams.
It wasn’t the first time one of the Mayor’s cohorts had exceeded the authority of his or her position to withhold (or try to withhold) time-sensitive information members of Council needed to make a major financial decision.
In October 2012, Coeur d’Alene City Administrator Wendy Gabriel failed to timely inform the City Council that School District 271 had given the City 30 days to advise whether the City will buy Northshire Park and the School District’s portion of Person Field. Whether to purchase or not was the Council’s decision, not Gabriel’s, to make.
When caught and confronted, Gabriel was forced to send a written apology to the City Council members.
Gabriel’s written apology included this admission: “It was not my decision to make, and I should have brought this forward to the City Council within the 30 days we were given.”
There is little doubt that Gabriel knew or should have known she lacked the authority to make the decision. She is not only the City Administrator. She is an attorney, an active member of the Idaho State Bar.
It is possible but highly unlikely that Gabriel would have taken that action without assurances from the Mayor that Gabriel could take the action without fear of punishment.
So here’s a hypothetical problem for discussion:
Hypothetical
1. Assumption #1: That an elected mayor or hired city administrator or both acting in concert intentionally withheld essential and time-sensitive information from some or all of the duly elected city council.
2. Assumption #2: That the information withheld was essential for the council members to have in arriving at a time-sensitive decision to spend/obligate or not spend/obligate several hundred thousand dollars of public money.
3. Assumption #3: That the time-sensitive decision to spend/obligate or not spend/obligate several hundred thousand dollars of public money was within the authority of the council and was not within the discretionary authority of either the elected mayor or hired city administrator.
4. Question #1: What provisions of Idaho Code or the Idaho Constitution would have been violated by the actions in Assumptions 1, 2, and 3?
5. Question #2: Would not the combined actions described in Assumptions 1, 2, and 3 amount to a violation of the state and/or federal civil rights of the municipality’s voters who would have been, by the actions described in the Assumptions, deprived of their effective elected representation of the council members elected to represent the citizens?
What do you think?
Council doesn’t like surprises and it’s always the duty of the City Administrator to keep the Mayor and Council updated with discussions and planning events that may affect the community. It appears that the council was informed with the exception of the newest members and maybe Ron. Wendy took full responsibility because she has nothing to lose where the Mayor and her cohorts are up for election this year.
Comment by LTR — March 22, 2013 @ 3:43 pm
LTR,
That makes sense insofar as keeping the Mayor and Council informed. However, when it is done selectively to ensure that only the “right” council members have been informed, and when it is done to withhold critical, time-sensitive information from the other councilmembers for any reason, then the citizens have been wrongly deprived of their effective representation by those intentionally left uninformed.
Comment by Bill — March 22, 2013 @ 3:50 pm
This type of behavior is routine but is usually aimed at the community. They discuss in great length in selecting only certain information to be released.
Comment by LTR — March 22, 2013 @ 4:51 pm
LTR,
Withholding time-sensitive critical information from the community is one thing, but withholding it from selected city councilmen in an effort to undermine those councilmen’s efforts to effectively represent the citizens is another. But this is Idaho, and as the article on page A6 (“AG declares inter-fund loans illegal”) of today’s Press skewspaper notes in the last paragraph, quoting Bonner County Commissioner Mike Nielsen, “It’s the way they’ve been doing business, but that doesn’t make it right.”
And so it is in Kootenai County and Coeur d’Alene. “It’s the way they’ve been doing business, but that doesn’t make it right.”
Comment by Bill — March 23, 2013 @ 11:26 am
I agree with you Bill.
Withholding information from the public when discussing projects to avoid roadblocks is just like plotting against the community. In my book, it a false presentation by our those who are suppose to be accountable and keep their promises to the community.
Comment by LTR — March 23, 2013 @ 2:04 pm
Years ago when I was a Bonner County resident, I was floored when I uncovered certain things that had made it’s way into our laws that were either ignored or kept secret so the little people would not know. The authorities will ‘skew’ things to such a point, it is almost impossible to educate and convince folks what is actually true. Then, if you objected after the fact, you were out.the.door. You have to play to get along. One lawyer told me, “Bonner County has it’s own rules” and another favorite saying, “It’s what you can get away with!” Travel to Kootenai County and it really is not any different, just different faces and maybe more money but it is all connected. “But, this is Idaho,” and that is exactly the way they do business and they do not care if it is “right” or not. Nielson is not what I would call as clean as a whistle, he is not any better than the rest of the crew, he just likes to push his own power as long as it fits his own agenda. It’s a flip flop game when it suits a particular purpose.
Comment by Stebbijo — March 23, 2013 @ 3:00 pm