Yet again we see our tax dollars at work. NIC has now hired it’s own Boise lobbyist–not surprisingly the same lobbyist who’s been working for LCDC. John Martin, new spokesperson for NIC said, “We just felt that we needed to do a better job of making sure all the legislators, and not just our 15 from North Idaho, know our story.” The cost of $12,000 for 6 months may not seem like much, but it would pay a kid’s college tuition.
You can read more about it on Betsy Russell’s blog, Eye on Boise, here: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise
John Martin, newly appointed
public apologistPR FlakCommunications Director for NIC spoke to the JFAC committee in Boise this morning. He said that NIC was just bursting at the seams, at or beyond capacity. I do not believe that’s entirely true. In fact, in their push for expanding the campus into the old mill site, NIC has rarely spoken of an urgent need for space now. Instead they talk about the future.Interestingly enough, Mr. Ed (Jay Baldwin) mentioned something in his CDA Press Column this past weekend. He said, “The city has an evolving vision for [the Education Corridor].” I believe by definition a “vision” is not evolving nor can it evolve. To be effective, a vision must be clearly stated, otherwise it’s nebulous, which is kind of the antithesis of “vision.”
Baldwin also mentions “commercial development” in the same sentence as the Education Corridor when he speaks of its plans:
Martin also spoke of “Development opportunities” when he talked about campus expansion before JFAC this morning.
So when you frame all that out, it makes sense that NIC would hire the LCDC’s same lobbyist to promote their commercial development and expansion.
Comment by Dan — January 28, 2009 @ 11:13 am
Sometimes it seems so overwhelming to non paid or non-reimbursed citizens and community activist volunteers who perform a watchdog duty against government abuse, to buck up against these folks who take tax money to pay for lobbyists to work against criticism, and who take tax money to travel to Boise, ie. three board members at this meeting, in addition to Mr. Martin. How would you feel if you were on the same airplane, stayed at the same hotel and ate at the same restaurant knowing that your expense is out of your pocket and their expense is out of yours, too? Has there ever been an example in the news of a school principle paying money to a bully to beat up on weaker kids on the playground. Wouldn’t that be a scandal?
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 28, 2009 @ 11:37 am
Good analogy, Gary. On this issue of capacity at NIC, I asked Trustee Mic Armon that very question a couple months ago at their forum in Post Falls. (You know the one where the audience said why are we here if this is a “done deal” already?) I asked Mic directly if NIC is near capacity on its Fort Grounds campus and, if not, how far out would it be until they reach near capacity? He said “WE DON’T KNOW”. He went on to say they have not evaluated that issue. Are you kidding me?
They voted to take foregone taxes for an overpriced piece of toxic land with a questionable appraisal, which increased everyone’s NIC portion of their property taxes by 35% this year and will continue each year forever, but they don’t know when they’ll be at or near capacity?!
Their growth rates, in their proposed “plan”, if you can call the vague, commercial brochure a plan, estimates their annual growth rate of students at 3%, I believe. But the actual statistics based on their own numbers shows their growth rate for the past many years at 1.8% Almost half.
Comment by mary — January 28, 2009 @ 11:50 am
I don’t understand why NIC needs to pay $12,000 to hire any lobbyist. Between Priscilla Bell, John Martin, Jay Baldwin, Christie Wood, Mic Armon, Judy Meyer, Ron Vieselmeyer, and Rolly Williams, is there not enough collective talent to make NIC’s case to the legislature?
If I were a legislator from outside north Idaho, I would wonder why north Idaho’s legislators are apparently not championing NIC’s causes for which it sees the need to spend public money to hire a lobbyist. I would wonder if the legislators closest to NIC see problems the lobbyist might be disinclined to point out.
Comment by Bill — January 28, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
Bill, you make good sense. John Martin’s job title is Communications Director. Jay Baldwin’s job title is Director of Joint Communication. We pay for these people already, why do we need to pay for a lobbyist? Aren’t they able to do their jobs?
Comment by mary — January 28, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
It didn’t feel good, Gary. I was on the same flight with the LCDC’s Tony Berns and Paul Anderson when I went down to try and get URA board members elected. I paid my own way, I know that property tax dollars went to ferry Berns and Anderson down there.
Comment by Dan — January 28, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
I’m sure that those that read this story are not surprised that John Martin is nothing but an apologist hack for NIC. Afterall, that’s all he was for Larry Craig. Trying to convince us all that Craig was a right on amnesty for illegals. He seems to be nothing more than an over paid bobble-head doll
Comment by Will Penny — January 29, 2009 @ 4:17 am
What! Another disgusting development. It’s getting so I’m not even surprised any more. When are these people, both elected and hired, going to get the message that bigger and more expensive is not necessarily better. I agree that if our own legislators aren’t supporting additional money for NIC there must be some reason – like a humongous budget crisis in the State.
I like WillPenny’s comment about John Martin. I don’t know Mr. Martin so I can’t comment on his abilities. But what is his job as Communications Director? One would think he would be the lobbyist for NIC since he is already paid to do that.
Comment by CdACanuck — January 29, 2009 @ 9:09 am
Teresa Molitor again! It must be great to be a stakeholder when you don’t even live here. What’s next Stephany Bales from PacWest being hired to advise Martin, Molitor and the LCDC on what went wrong in the Legislature this session. Regular people have already figured out the problem. It is arrogance from the elected college trustees and the lack of a plan and accountability from the appointed LCDC board members. NIC and LCDC, I won’t send you a bill for my solution because it will just cost me more in taxes. I hope that JFAC gives them what they deserve.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — January 29, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
Well said, Doublesee.
Comment by mary — January 30, 2009 @ 7:00 am
love the way the anonymous posters attack “arrogance from the elected college trustees and the lack of a plan and accountability from the appointed LCDC board members. NIC and LCDC”
Comment by reagan — January 30, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
Me too, “reagan”.
Comment by mary — January 30, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
Me three, Mary.
Comment by Will Penny — February 1, 2009 @ 3:32 am
Where is “reagan’? We’ll never know. He’s anonymous, too. But he needs a new handle. How about dblstandard?
Comment by yabetcha — February 2, 2009 @ 9:36 am