Our October 8 post entitled On Direction From … Whom? revealed that Idaho’s elected county clerks do not always receive direction and guidance on implementing significant and time-sensitive legal decisions directly from Idaho’s Attorney General or Secretary of State. It may come from a lobbying corporation, the Idaho Association of Counties, Inc.
The information prompting that post concerned us so much that we did an Idaho Public Records Law request to Kootenai County for “copies of all writings … between the Kootenai County Clerk and the Idaho Association of Counties … on the dates of October 6, 7, and 8, 2014, relating to guidance for implementing recent federal court decisions relating to same-sex marriage.”
This October 8 email from IAC Executive Director (and registered lobbyist) Dan Chadwick to Kootenai County Clerk Jim Brannon was among the many we received in response to our request. This paragraph from the email is very revealing:
“The Attorney General uses IAC as a conduit for this information. Your point about a formal document is well taken. Therefore, we have asked the Attorney General to create a formal document advising the counties of the status of the issue once the stay is resolved. Once that is done, we will share the document with the counties including the clerks and prosecuting attorneys It will then be up to the count elected officials how to best address the issue.”
1. Why does the Idaho Attorney General need a lobbying corporation as a “conduit” to pass legal guidance to counties? Why isn’t the AG simply doing it himself? Is the AG’s office using the Idaho Association of Counties, Inc. lobbyists to act as gatekeepers between the AG and local government officials?
2. The well-taken point Kootenai County Clerk Jim Brannon made to Chadwick had been succinctly put in this October 8 email from Brannon to Chadwick. Brannon believed the guidance his office received should come from state government officials, not a corporate lobbyist.
3. Brannon’s October 8 email had been prompted by this one a few minutes earlier from Chadwick to one particular county clerk with cc’s to others. Carefully note the wording, particularly about who’s going to tell the AG to document his guidance and from whom the counties will receive that guidance.
So Brannon and other county clerks had been waiting for official guidance from the Idaho Attorney General and instead got an email from a registered lobbyist (Chadwick) who told them he spoke with the Attorney General on the telephone, and based on the lobbyist’s interpretation of that conversation the lobbyist sent an email to county clerks directing them to not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Kootenai County Clerk Jim Brannon then was reasonably reluctant to take directions from a registered lobbyist and points out that county clerks should be taking direction from the Executive Branch of Idaho Government. The lobbyist told Brannon his point was well taken, and so, “… we have asked the Attorney General to create a formal document advising the counties of the status of the issue once the stay is resolved.” And then “Once that is done, we will share the document with the counties including the clerks and the prosecuting attorneys.”
Again we ask, why doesn’t the Idaho Attorney General communicate matters of official legal business directly with Idaho’s county clerks and prosecutors? Are AG Wasden and his deputies so inept or lazy that they need to use a lobbyist for that? Or is Wasden using a corporate lobbyist to act as a gatekeeper to keep local elected officials at arms length?
Why does AG Wasden need to be asked by the lobbyist to create a formal document providing county elected officials with the guidance they need to do their jobs? Shouldn’t the AG create that document on his own initiative and then communicate it directly with the county officials?
We also ask, why are nearly all Idaho’s county clerks even willing to accept this kind of hearsay guidance from a registered lobbyist rather than demanding they get it directly from the Attorney General or Secretary of State possibly after consultation with their respective county attorneys? Why are those local elected officials so compliant about taking instructions from lobbyists?
Then again, we are not particularly surprised. Even our own Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney is willing to tell the Kootenai County Clerk to rely on legal advice from a registered lobbyist in Boise. See this email from Kootenai County Prosecutor Barry McHugh to his deputies with a cc to County Clerk Brannon. But McHugh’s email misstates the authority. The representations McHugh is comfortable with came from the registered lobbyist, Chadwick. Chadwick was representing to his email’s recipients his (Chadwick’s) interpretation of his own conversation with the Attorney General. McHugh was willing to rely on the representations of the lobbyist, which we hope were an accurate and faithful communication of the lobbyist’s phone call from the Attorney General.
Why is Kootenai County’s Prosecuting Attorney not joining with Kootenai County Clerk Jim Brannon and demanding the Idaho Attorney General communicate matters of legal significance directly to county prosecutors and clerks rather than relying on the interpretation of a lobbyist in Boise? As we asked in our own October 8 post on OpenCdA:
Where have the respective officers of Idaho’s Executive Department specifically and formally directed Idaho’s county clerks to formulate policies and procedures based on emails or other directives from the Idaho Association of Counties, Inc., a lobbying organization? Put another way, on what legal authority would Idaho’s county clerks act solely at the direction of a lobbying organization?
OpenCdA objects very strongly to state executive department officials using extra-governmental organizations (such as lobbying corporations) as the primary “conduit” for communicating official directives to county and city elected officials. We have no particular problem with the Idaho Association of Counties, Inc., and similarly situated lobbying corporations such as the Association of Idaho Cities working with state officials to prepare informational material to distribute to their respective members. That’s part of their corporate charters. But the communication of time-sensitive critical information such as the legal interpretation of court decisions needs to be directly between those with the statutory obligation to rely and act on the information.
To insert any unnecessary organization such as the Idaho Association of Counties, Inc. as an essential link in that communication chain is to run the risk of the communication being distorted. And if the local government official has questions, must he also use the lobbyist to direct those questions to the state official? If so, why? And if not, then what’s the point of inserting the lobbyist in the communication chain in the first place?
The simple solution is for the Idaho Attorney General and other state administrative officials to do their jobs and communicate directly with local government officials, particularly on matters of translating law into policy and practices.
I hate it when I read something that causes me to involuntarily snort which in turn results in the hot coffee I am sipping being forced up into, through, and out of my nose. It happened again when I read your, I hope rhetorical, question; “Why is Kootenai County’s Prosecuting Attorney not joining with Kootenai County Clerk Jim Brannon…rather than relying on the interpretation of a lobbyist in Boise?”
Comment by up river — October 20, 2014 @ 5:45 pm
up river,
Sorry about that, Chief.
But it seems to me that the County Clerks ought to not want their hired lobbyist injecting itself in the communications link on matters as serious as the timely compliance with court orders. Too much chance of incomplete or incorrect information being passed in both directions. And if Lawrence the Lawyer has to sit in front of his computer in his jammies at zero-dark-thirty to communicate via email with each and every county clerk or county attorney … well, that’s what he gets the big bucks for.
Comment by Bill — October 20, 2014 @ 6:59 pm
Bill,
Once again your research and reporting has led me to more questions, albeit somewhat half-loaded.
Every inch of the State is within a County. Every County has elected representatives at the County and State level and presumably each county and state elected official would represent residents of the County from which they were elected.
So why do Counties pay a corporate lobbyist organization? My bit of research does not specify how many counties are paying members so, assume for a minute that not all of the state’s 44 counties pay this state-wide lobbying corp (AIC even breaks the State into their 6 Districts, whereas the State has 35 legislative districts). This would mean that the non-member counties have to rely on whom for their interest to be represented – their already elected officials and state employees? I thought that is why they were elected and hired.
Now assume that all 44 counties are “dues-paying” participating members of the Association. That begs the question: if every County is a member, why the need for lobbyist, whether paid or not? Each Board Member of the Association is an elected County official, so it seems to me that each County is in essence “paying” a lobbyist corporation access to the State to which they already have. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems an absurd “twice-paid” tax-payer burden. Even each and every Objective of IAC appears to be already covered (in much more detail) under Idaho Statute as requisite responsibilities of county elected officials, so why the redundancy?
I will admit, I didn’t do much critical research towards answering my own questions. But I find it noteworthy that within the IAC webpage that you too (John Q. Public) can, with a fee, become an “Associate Member”. The first benefit of membership noted by IAC is, “An associate membership with IAC gets your foot in the door with county decision makers. There are numerous opportunities to position your company, services and products with the 396 county elected officials in Idaho.” As a citizen of a County within the State don’t I already have my “foot in the door”? Not according to IAC’s $350 annual cover charge paid at the door.
Then of course Associate Members get “discounted” IAC advertising, “discounted” admission to IAC functions, preferential booth space selection at those already taxpayer funded functions–and that much sought after–free use of the IAC Associate Member logo, ye-ha, sign me up. As a non-profit, all of the operating cost required by IAC to function are already being paid by the taxpayers of each member county so why is there another payment included, exclusive tier? I will opine that the IAC promise of a “foot in the door” only leads to a room that is already open for all to enjoy–not just those who pay for the nifty red, white, and blue IAC bumper-sticker.
Comment by Old Dog — October 25, 2014 @ 12:02 pm
Old Dog,
My understanding is that in addition to the counties paying for county employee memberships, the counties also pay additional fees to IAC for other services. I will submit a public records request to Kootenai County to ask for an annual itemized list of monies paid by Kootenai County to IAC for the past three years to either confirm or refute that.
Yes, as voters we (should) already have our foot in the door with our county decision makers, but to paraphrase Orwell, some feet are more equal than others.
What I’ve found a bit alarming is that apparently a significant number of county employees in some Idaho counties actually accept the word of the IAC and its lobbyists without questioning source or accuracy. It would not be at all surprising to learn that some city officials similarly and blindly trust the Association of Idaho Cities as well.
Comment by Bill — October 25, 2014 @ 1:27 pm
Wondering if that was/is Wasden’s father/grandfather who apparently was one of the persons to form this entity?
Wonder why the yearly filing has gone from listing numerous people, apparently county commissioners, to now just the executive director.
Comment by up river — October 27, 2014 @ 2:02 pm
up river,
Could be, but I couldn’t find any quickly available and free information to answer the question. As for the annual filing, there’s no requirement to list every officer or director. As the public starts questioning the cozy relationships between private and public organizations and things like violations of federal tax laws regarding solicitation of tax-exempt donations when the organization is no longer tax-exempt, you’ll probably see fewer and fewer people listed on public filings unless the law requires listing. I suspect you’ll also see our ever-compliant state government impose more and more impediments to the public getting access to public records.
Comment by Bill — October 28, 2014 @ 6:21 am