Gary Ingram of Coeur d’Alene has been named the recipient of the 2009 Max Dalton Open Government Award sponsored by the Idaho Newspaper Foundation. Ingram earned the award and an accompanying cash prize of $2,000 for his decades of work advancing the cause of open government in Idaho, beginning from his time in the Idaho House of Representatives where he authored the first Idaho Open Meeting Law .
In 1974, Ingram, then a member of the House, convinced the Idaho Legislature to pass a comprehensive and uniform open meetings proposal that applied to all local units of government and state agencies where previously none existed. In 1977, he proposed, and the legislature approved amendments that said any action taken that violated the law would be held null and void. Another amendment in 1978 that he sponsored clarified conditions under which public agencies could confer with their legal representatives in executive session.
Since his retirement from the House in 1980, Ingram has closely monitored open government trends and intervened where needed. In 2003, he opposed through letters and court affidavits new House and Senate Rules giving those bodies the right to close committee meetings. He later successfully lobbied for language to allow closed meetings only for “extraordinary circumstances.”
Ingram’s name has frequently been associated with efforts to turn back proposals to weaken the state’s open meeting law and proposals to strengthen the law. He also has been at the forefront of exposing attempts to skirt the existing law by governing bodies. He was a strong opponent of amendments to the open meeting law passed this year by the legislature which, among other changes, allows agendas to be changed by governing bodies at any time during a meeting.
“Gary Ingram has spent the last 35 years working to defend the basic principle that citizens should have open access to their government,” INF Executive Director Tom Grote of McCall said.
“He is constantly on watch for the seemingly-endless assault on those rights, and this award recognizes his selfless diligence,” said Grote, who is also publisher of The Star-News in McCall.
Other nominees for the 2009 award were:
* Citizens for An Open Greenbelt, which used public records to show that the State of Idaho intended for bicycles to be allowed along a stretch of Boise River greenbelt in Garden City, despite claims to the contrary by city officials.
* Confidential Investigations of Hayden Lake, which pursued and substantiated, at its own expense, reports of abuse of state property by employees of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
* Scott McIntosh, editor of the Kuna-Melba News, for his work to obtain e-mails to substantiate a report that Canyon County Commissioner Steve Rule had sent out a joke e-mail about First Lady Michelle Obama, comparing her to a black widow spider.
* Paul Alldredge of Caldwell, a long-time open government advocate who operates the Caldwell Guardian blog.
The award is well justified, but it only begins to describe just how much Gary Ingram has fought for open, honest government. Some newspaper columnists in the state have attacked Gary for his opposition to the current legislature’s successful effort to remove the teeth from the Idaho Open Meeting Law. Gary understands the Open Meeting Law better than any of them ever can or will, and long after his detractors are gone, his image will stand tall for having fought to ensure the public’s business is done in public. As Gary has often said, “The Open Meeting Law is all about public access to formation of public policy, not convenience for the governing body.”
Comment by Bill — May 3, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
Yeah, I’m pretty miffed at some “reporters” and “newspaper people” who have stupidly attacked Gary for opposing this. It’s awful legislation that guts the open meeting law, making it easier for dishonest elected officials to skirt the public’s best interest and hide the people’s business. It makes me wonder who those so-called journalists really support in our community. Shame on them, but hat’s off to Gary for sticking up for what he believes.
Comment by Dan — May 3, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Congratulations! This is SO AWESOME!
I have a question for Gary concerning open government.
What is your take on the judicial committee appointment process?
Recently, I have been researching this process. There isn’t any. Interestingly,Idaho has no written protocol in the formation of judicial committees. The Supreme Court Justices pick and choose their own members, including the wives of some of the other judges and form their own committees. I was told by the state legal cousel that the judges also seek out specifc people for their “expertise” in given areas, however there are certain appointments of individuals where I question this.
For instance, one of the the committees make recommendations to the Supreme Court Justices regarding public records and judicial records. They change the court process by changing the rules at this level without any legislative input. It’s just done. For instance the Rule 32 Committee changed the timeline of gathering public records through a public record request and from what I understand also addressed public cost issues. They also added a statute to this judicial rule.
I have recently requested the minutes from some of these committee meetings and mind you, none of them are recorded, however, they are very enlightening. They propose to spend our money in ways you may never know. I have also talked with some of the members and at this point and plan to pursue more phone interviews. The State Consitution recognizes rule making authority by the Supreme Justices, but there is nothing that is really concrete and thus we risk the infection of nepotism in our Judicary with no written protocol. However, it is clear enough in that it does not recognize the appointment of folks that do not belong to the organized state bar. We also have wives on some of these committees who are married to federal judges. But, you know I am not an attorney on this, but so far no one at the state legal cousel level is disagreeing with me.
Another twist on this is our representation of the media in these judicial committees and their influence with our courts. Recently, I talked with a local reporter/editor who had NO idea that these judicial committees exist and thought they might pose as a conflict of interest regarding any reporting.
My concern is these members are making recommendations to our Justices and we do not have a say and it’s coming out of our pockets without a vote. I have been told that Idaho is one of the only/few states that does this, thus I am researching other states.
I also feel that the meetings need to be recorded and the public should be allowed to sit in. The bottom line is if the Supreme Court Justices are appointing lay people with “expertise” to these committees and they are strongly aligned to judges in the Idaho Supreme Court and the Federal Courts, it’s next to impossible to gain representation or intiate a lawsuit against any of these people because of the nepotism and influence they have with the courts. I feel it interferes with due process.
Please clue me in if I am missing something here.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 3, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
Congratulations, again, Gary! I’ve been so glad that you won this award. It is very telling to see the supposed journalists who are pointing out that you didn’t support this year’s amendments to the Idaho Open Meeting Law, the very law that you authored many years ago. Your opposition to the amendments should have gotten their close attention; your reasons for taking a stand against the changes were clear: You believed the amendments weakened the law, in terms of its public accountability. Way to stand your ground, Gary, and stand up for the citizens of Idaho. That’s what this award is all about!
Comment by mary — May 3, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
Gary,
I would like to say congratulations on a well deserved award and I would like to extend a sincere thank you for all the work you have done on our/my behalf.
concerned citizen
Comment by concerned citizen — May 3, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
Stebbijo,
Gary went to southern Idaho to accept the award, and he may not yet have returned. He may even stop on the way back to do a little fly fishing. I’m sure when he gets back, he’ll try his best to answer your questions.
Dan,
Unfortunately, too many supposed journalists have become too interested in their own personal celebrity. They have confused “lapdog” with “watchdog.” Don Bolles they ain’t, never have been, never will be.
Comment by Bill — May 3, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Mary,
You hit it right on the head. Gary has been standing up for the citizens of Idaho. Not northern Idaho, not eastern Idaho, not southern Idaho, all Idaho. Gary is not a paid lobbyist; he’s a committed citizen. He has gone to Boise at his own expense several times to provide documentary and testimonial input on legislative matters. He pays attention to what our elected officials are doing. If students and teachers are looking for an example of good citizenship, they need look no further than Gary Ingram.
Gary usually puts his car on display in Car d’Lane. I really hope that a lot of people will go by and thank Gary for standing up for them.
Comment by Bill — May 3, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
Bill.
Car? We have gotten up to 1500 cars of dif types. lol
I would like to thank him personally.
Comment by concerned citizen — May 3, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
Thanks Bill, for letting me know.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 3, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
concerned citizen,
Yes, I know. Gary’s car was on Lakeside last year. I don’t know if the display parking spots are assigned or not. Last year his car was back on Lakeside about 4th as I recall. Thanks in advance for going to thank him personally.
Comment by Bill — May 4, 2009 @ 6:27 am
Congratulations to Gary. This is well deserved recognition for his years of dedication to the issue of open government – an issue of utmost importance to all of us.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 4, 2009 @ 8:20 am
Susie,
More than just “years” — three and one-half decades of demonstrated, continuous service and commitment to the people of the State of Idaho.
Comment by Bill — May 4, 2009 @ 8:25 am
Thanks, Bill, for the additions to my comments.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 4, 2009 @ 9:20 am
Kudos. No doubt DFO expected to get this prestigious award for some reason or another. The tides are shifting and come November hopefully a few incumbent miscreants will be carried out to sea.
Comment by Wallypog — May 4, 2009 @ 9:50 am
Congratulations Gary and, more importantly, a huge thank you!
Comment by Faringdon — May 4, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Wallypog,
There was an element of sour grapes at the Spokesman-Review when Gary won the award. In part, it’s because the S-R supported one of the nominees that didn’t win. But it’s also because it’s Boise reporter, Betsy Russell, was one of the people involved in rewriting the Idaho Open Meeting Law to make it remarkably ineffective. As a newspaper reporter, she could not ethically write stories when she was a voluntary, integral part of the story. But was it appropriate for the S-R’s editor and publisher to even allow her to participate in the rewriting of the law? Not if you read the Spokesman-Review values statement. The second value is, “We tell people what we know when we know it, without fear or favor.” Evidently not, because Russell and her editor knew the law was being rewritten long before they ever thought to tell readers. The eighth Spokesman-Review value is, “We empower citizens so that they can exercise their citizenship.” Exactly when did the S-R plan to tell readers (citizens) about the law being rewritten so citizens could exercise their citizenship? No, no one at the S-R was ever in line for this year’s Dalton Award.
Kevin Reichert of the Idaho Statesman opined in one of his columns that Gary was not an appropriate choice because Gary had opposed the AG’s efforts (at the behest of the Association of Idaho Cities) to effectively render the Idaho Open Meeting Law unenforceable. I wonder if it seems odd to anyone else that yet another newspaper reporter is intent on making it more difficult for citizens and his colleagues to gain acccess to the inner sanctum of closed door meetings.
I’m sure officials at the Spokesman-Review would say Russell was acting in her capacity as President of the Idaho Press Club when she was allowed or encouraged to put herself in a position that disqualified her from reporting on the mauling of the Idaho Open Meeting Law. That doesn’t wash. The Idaho Press Club’s lobbyist, Allen R. Derr, could easily have represented the Press Club’s interests. No, Russell didn’t need to be there. She could have done timely reports that might have empowered citizens to exercise their citizenship. She didn’t, and it was a voluntary choice on her part with the concurrence of her editor.
Comment by Bill — May 4, 2009 @ 11:50 am
The S-Rs posturing on this is simply a local echo of the national polarization that’s going on. Bush framed it best, ” You’re either for us, or your with the terrists.” Locally it’s the same thing, “You either support local government or you’re a CAVEr.” Name calling, divisiveness, it’s not necessary at the local level and it destroys the community. But that’s apparently what they — the S-R and apologists for bad local government — want.
And the idiots wonder why their subscriptions are falling through the floor!
Comment by Dan — May 4, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
It’s a false choice. It was invalid when Bush used it, and it is invalid used here in Coeur d’Alene. It assumes that only one of the two choices is correct, and it ignores the other choices also available. A false choice dilemma is created to distract people from identifying and considering the other choices.
Comment by Bill — May 4, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Bill, you mean to tell me that the Spokesman-Review HAS a values statement?
Last week I went out to fetch my emptied trash cans. There lying on my driveway was a yellow plastic bag containing what I figured was a small flyer of some sort. Later in the day I opened it and to my astonishment it was a complimentary copy of whatever the S-R calls its Idaho paper now. DFO’s picture from when he was young and healthy was up in one corner and the whole thing was pathetically small. After my son and I finished laughing he suggested that it was probably a shortened version, just for the promotion. I dunno. I thought to myself, how sad, now there isn’t even enough of the SR to use for lining bird cages or cleaning windows. Now the publication is thoroughly useless.
Insofar as them meddling in this award deal that is no surprise at all. They sold their journalistic soul to the Devil long ago and methinx he’s about to take possession.
Comment by Wallypog — May 4, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
Yeah, this Betsy Russell thing is an eye opener. She is also on The Courts in the Media and the Rule 32 Jucicial Committees where she represents the S-R. Our Idaho Supreme Court Justices appointed here. Betzy has direct influence over rule making in the courts and she can make reccomendations to our Supreme Court Justices. At this rate the Court probably tells her what she can report on – since they are all so cozy. As I said before, no written protocol on this appointment process, it’s just goes down the pipeline from one good judge buddy to another. As one attorney recently told me, “It’s one of Idaho’s dirty little secrets.” And I told him, “Well, it’s not a secret anymore, because I have a big mouth.” 🙂
Betsy does a better job covering politics -only- rather than getting involved on the inside where she moves forward slyly, unbeknowest to the people, who think she is fighting for our rights to open government. She needs to give one or the other up – it’s her integrity on the line now. Boy, have we been smoozed.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 4, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
Just heard back from Jodi – she is a legal assistant for the State of Idaho.
I have requested the minutes from the a few judicial committees. The Wellness Committee was recently formed. This committee was specifically formed to address health issues of the judges and their relationships to their spouses and families. No, it’s not psychotherapy but they are thinking about making a special handbook for them. Evidently, their own private doctors are just not cutting the mustard. The wellness committee addresses substance abuse issues, stress issues, and the life of being a judge. Kind of an insider group where you have specific access to confidential health information regarding our judges?
It’s not really easy to find their meeting schedules. They have removed much of that from the state site. However Jodi told me, their last meeting was in April but the minutes would not be available to the public for two more months because the committee has to be sure that what they release to the public is okay. TWO MONTHS! The only minutes available are from LAST DECEMBER 12/12 – where they address “wellness” issues and of course get those ideas out for that spousal handbook! They need to keep wellness in the forefront. This is one of many parts of the December minutes that really break loose with wellness:
A HOTLINE? For what? The next sure bet?
These meetings are not recorded and we have no access to these cozy little get togethers. Some open governemt.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 4, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
Wallypog,
I assume the S-R Values Statement is still applicable even though Steve Smith is long gone. It’s still on the website, though you have to dig to find it.
The important thing about all this is that Gary was selected to receive valid recognition and acclaim for his years of commitment and service trying to bring honest, open government to the people of Idaho. In the many times I’ve talked with him, I’ve never once heard his make a derogatory comment about any region of Idaho. His focus has been on what is best for the people throughout Idaho.
Comment by Bill — May 4, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
Had to throw this in as a side note:
Car d’Alene is NOT on fathers day weekend as usual. I talked to the DTA and told them that they should have something in print ASAP a month ago but STILL NOTHING! GRRRRR!
I believe it all got messed up with the 4th of July celebration which went over onto Ironman then Car d’Alene. There are so many people that plan vacation to coincide with (both to be in and out of town) these events. You think they would be on top of this.
AGAIN GRRRRRR!
Comment by concerned citizen — May 4, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
Here are some more “wellness” excerpts from the judicial wellness committee. They are doing so well, it’s happening right here in our own neck of the woods – appointed by our own Supreme Court Justices. I am publishing this in the name of open government because we all deserve due process, but unfortunately they may be some good reasons we don’t get it.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 4, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
Well, I’m back from Boise and somewhat overwhelmed with all of your supportive comments. Thank you, friends. Stebbijo, it seems you have superior knowledge about these judicial committees and before I can attempt to respond to your questions, I’ll need to get familiar with it all.
It was quite an honor to have the founders of the Idaho Newspaper Foundation and former award recipients vote to give me this recognition and award. Almost all of the previous winners were present for the luncheon ceremony, along with a few of the other nominees such as Phil Thompson who was nominated for his work on using the Public Records Act to expose abuses by Fish and Game on misuse of F&G (read sportsman owned) property. Good to be home; now off to the bank to deposit my neat check!
Comment by Gary Ingram — May 5, 2009 @ 11:16 am
Gary,
Congrats again and thanks for the plug on my “superior knowledge.” Finally, someone recognizes that! 😉 Your first step might be to contact Michael Henderson with the state legal cousel. There are also links on the gov’s website that gives us a little bit of a clue. I learned about this process when I was forced to seal libelous court records – pro se. That is how I learned about Rule 32, Idaho Public Records Law, and started to look into the process of rule making through appointed committee members through these judicial committees. That’s when I found out – we have none.
Here are your judicial committees
Here are some of the Supreme Court Orders regarding the formation of the committees ect.
Here is the Judicial Administrative Calendar
If you want the minutes – you have to request them. They are public record but not available on the site.
One of the other committees that kind of sticks out is the Drug Court and Mental Health Court Coordinating Committee/Drug Court Executive Committee – that one has Patti Lodge on it and she is married to a federal judge. She also sits as the chair on the Senate State Health and Welfare Legislative Committee. Not to mention that Robert Hamlin is the executive director of the judicial council who is also appointed by our supreme court justices is also on the Wellness Committee – not a wonder a judicial complaint never gets through. I think I have just hit the tip of the iceberg. I haven’t even started to request the amount of money/funds of ours that may been used to support this good buddy club of a network.
They did address the budget in the last public records of the Wellness Committee. They have had other meetings but we are not allowed to know about what they are doing untill June – 6 months later. Other committees may have addressed it as well, but this is what I have now.
Congrats again, and I hope that you can be instrumental in addressing this area of government that is far from open – however, profoundly makes a difference in our lives.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 5, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
The Wednesday, May 6, Coeur d’Alene Press has a front-page article about Gary’s achievement. The article was written by Alecia Warren. It is headlined Advocate earns INF honor.
Comment by Bill — May 6, 2009 @ 6:27 am
That is a good article about Gary and I really liked his quote about some of our government processes:
Comment by Stebbijo — May 6, 2009 @ 7:59 am
Stebbijo,
Yes, the Attorney General succumbed to political pressure from the Association of Idaho Cities and allowed its representatives to help rewrite the law. Gary’s characterization you cited was right on the money.
The assertion by Wasden, Von Tagen, and others that this rewrite was an improvement in the law is acceptable only to someone who wanted the law weakened.
Comment by Bill — May 6, 2009 @ 8:11 am
To the AG’s credit, Bill, some of the changes do improve the legislation by removing the “knowingly” clause, which the AG told me made the old bill impossible to defend in court. He said that the old version’s phrase that any offenders must “knowingly” break the law, made it a big problem. (The original version that Gary authored in the 80’s did not have the “knowingly” part. That was added some time later).
That being said, however, there were many more changes in the new amendments that weaken the law, such as the ability to add to or change the Agenda even during the meeting which gives the public no notice at all.
Comment by mary — May 6, 2009 @ 8:42 am
Mary,
“Knowingly” is still there. It was just moved down in the law. The lesser penalty can be imposed without showing the violation was “knowing”, except a later provision in the law (the “cure” provision) makes that first violation unpunishable if corrected. To impose the $500 penalty, the “knowing” state of mind must still be proven. But again, the AG also emphasizes that “good faith” is a defense against allegations of violations. “Good faith,” like “knowing,” is a state of mind. To get a conviction, the prosecutor will have to overcome the good faith defense.
Go to page 4, lines 6 and 7 where it reads “(3) Any member of a governing body who knowingly violates the provisions of this act shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500).”
All the AG and his accomplices did was shuffle the words to make it appear as if the law was being improved. The revisions weaken the law, because they put more procedural obstacles in the public’s path to prosecute violations. The revisions favor those who would deny public access to meetings.
Comment by Bill — May 6, 2009 @ 9:05 am
Idaho is on the F list with disclosure laws and it’s a big F when it comes to nepotism in government and our judicial branch is TOXIC!
I just found this order that they don’t follow.
If order to effectively do this, we appoint the wives of judges to committees! Before long, it will be all of them with a few cousins and nephews attached.
There is no public access to these judicial meetings. They are not recorded and we have to wait months for the minutes. This is okay with the AG’s office – they have better things to do like ruin the OML because something was actually written!
There is not one court in this state that could guarantee me that it is not biased. That is a fact and the AG’s office has always been in business to whitewash and help cover up messes for their good buddies.
It all just stinks.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 6, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Since I have taken on researching court rule processes, I would like to share with you what I found about the State of Washington here.
Imagine that! Any person can propose a rule change to the Supreme Court in that state! They can even hold a public hearing!
Comment by Stebbijo — May 10, 2009 @ 12:43 pm