The Wednesday, April 22, 2009, Coeur d’Alene Press has an article written by Tom Hasslinger and headlined LCDC considers hiring attorney. Hasslinger reports “…the local attorney would ensure LCDC was following appropriate procedures during its meetings.” How many attorneys does the LCDC need?
I thought ensuring proper procedures were followed during the LCDC’s meetings was the Chairman’s job. The current LCDC Chairman is Dennis M. Davis, an attorney with Witherspoon, Kelley, Davenport and Toole, PS, of Spokane and Coeur d’Alene.
In any case, the LCDC already has an attorney, Ryan P. Armbruster, with the Boise law firm of Elam and Burke, Attorneys at Law. Hasslinger’s article did not clearly state whether Armbruster would be fired or would continue to represent the LCDC in Boise. Does the LCDC really need two attorneys paid by taxpayer dollars?
Hasslinger’s article quoted Coeur d’Alene Mayor Bloem saying, “It’s a comfort to the commission itself or the public just knowing — whether you have a potential conflict or whatever — to be able to turn to legal representatives and ask.”
Bloem’s comment was a smokescreen.
As noted earlier, the LCDC already has counsel — Ryan Armbruster. The LCDC commissioners know the agenda long before it is made public. If there is some concern about a “potential conflict or whatever,” it can and should be resolved before the meeting. That’s a telephone call to Boise.
Legal issues requiring an attorney’s presence do not come up at every meeting. Again, if there is some perception of a legal question based on the agenda, then it can either be resolved before the meeting or the attorney can show up for that particular meeting. If an issue comes up during the meeting and it can’t be resolved, postpone action on the item until the next scheduled meeting. That provides time to consult with counsel.
Having a local attorney attend every meeting gives the LCDC one more allowable exception for going into executive session and conducting business behind closed doors. Currently about the only exception LCDC can claim to invoke executive session is Idaho Code 67-2345(1)(c): To … acquire an interest in real property which is not owned by a public agency. By having an attorney present at each meeting, it will make it easier for LCDC to cite Idaho Code 67-2345(1)(f): To communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated.
The cynical and suspicious side of me says that having an attorney present at every meeting makes it much easier for LCDC Commissioners to lay the foundation for a “good faith” defense to support a questionable action. Receiving advice from an attorney and then following it in “good faith,” even if the advice received was wrong, makes it much more difficult to hold the violator accountable.
The LCDC can probably justify one attorney, but not two.
Oversight is the responsibility of the Mayor and City Council, not some apologetic, pro-LCDC insider hired as an attorney.
The Mayor, City Council, and pro-LCDC developers out there (if any are left) should do their best to ensure that the LCDC doesn’t become a festering, ugly wart on the face of this city. So far they are failing.
Comment by Dan — April 22, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
So this is a foundational ruse in order to be able to conduct more business in secret behind closed doors?
Comment by Wallypog — April 22, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Wallypog,
Not necessarily, but certainly a possibility. The present legislature did everything it could to weaken the enforcement of the Open Meeting Law short of repealing it. One of the things it failed to do was provide for memorializing executive sessions where, at least in theory, nothing is deliberated or decided and nothing impermissible is ever discussed. Making it easier for the LCDC or any organization to go into executive session is not a good idea.
Comment by Bill — April 22, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
I understand that while the specific attorney has yet to be named, he will come from the prestigious or is that notorius law firm, Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. They narrowly won the contract form Hookem, Screwem and Gougem.
Comment by Will Penny — April 22, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
What, pray tell, does the comfort have to do with determining conflict of interest?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 22, 2009 @ 11:28 pm
Susie,
That was the mayor’s contribution to the growing list of Fraudian Slips.
Comment by Bill — April 23, 2009 @ 6:30 am
And the list is ever increasing.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 23, 2009 @ 7:48 am
I commented on this yesterday under the open session post. “comfort” equates to exactly what has been pointed out here. A good faith defence should the question arise. I asked yesterday why the members of LCDC were unable to read for comprehension. The rules have been laid out and, additionally, there is good judgement. Attorneys do not donate their time and an attorney present at every meeting would be a huge expense. The St. Charlie the Nipp affair shook them rather a lot I believe. Hence the “appreciation” gathering with a “standing ovation” ( give me strength) and the continued commentary that he was “accused” of a crime and the AG “cleared” him of any wrong doing. Both statements false. Call me a cynic, but I believe the council and LCDC, rather than becoming more open to public input and putting expenditure of monies to a public vote, have come up with an end run to cover their bases. And the beat goes on…..
Comment by Faringdon — April 23, 2009 @ 9:49 am