2007 Campaign Ad for change*
An alert reader sent me info from another blog which mistakenly reported that Kathy Sims would be appearing before the CdA city council tonight to offer a letter of apology. She will not. Her attorney will be there to read a letter he sent to the city more than a month ago. The city refused to accept the letter, until now.
Here’s the back story:
Near the end of the last city council campaign, in November of 2007, Kathy Sims and her associates in the Concerned Taxpayers of Kootenai County group, sent out a mailing piece to support a change in the council. This group had originally been created for a movement against the 1/2 cent sales tax years earlier, which they took all the way to the State Supreme Court with their attorney, Scott Reed, and won the case. At that time, Kathy registered the group as a Political Action Committee (PAC) with the Idaho State Attorney General, as was required by law. When the CdA city council race was underway in ’07, she again checked her registration with the AG’s office and went ahead with the campaign mailing. Kathy did not realize that for a local election, the local City Clerk must be notified of a PAC.
Please remember there was a group called “Citizens for Postitive Change” that had campaign ads at the time too—did they register with the City Clerk as a PAC?
The city attorney, Mike Gridley has been dogging Kathy Sims ever since that election. He’s threatened her with massive fines (over $24,000) and demanded a list of all donors of less than $49.99, which has always been the threshold below which no one’s name need be reported. Mike Gridley demanded the names. (city of vengeance?)
Kathy and her attorney held firm. No way they were giving out names. Finally, in early April her attorney sent a cursory letter of “apology” to the city. The city rejected it. Only now are they finally willing to accept it. So Kathy’s attorney will go to the city council tonight, to read the letter and put this SILLY issue to bed.
But who’s paying the legal fees for all this? You and I are paying for Gridley’s shenanigans. Kathy Sims is too, as a taxpayer, but she also has to pay for her own defense. City of Intimidation.
Thanks, Kathy, for standing strong!
*Note the address on this scanned mailing. This was taken from the “other” website, so it implies that former city councilwoman Dixie Reid, whose name and address are on the scan, probably gave it to the web author.
As taxpayers, how much have we paid Mike Gridley in salary to work on this frivolous lawsuit? Dixie Reid was one of the members of this political action committee and paid for a full page ad endorsing the incumbents and John Bruning, her self-appointed successor. I also wonder if they filed the required paperwork. Mrs. Reid was certainly not known for timely proper disclosures during her time on the LCDC board. What became of the conflict of interest allegations against Mrs. Reid brought forward by a citizen at a city council meeting late in 2007? Judging by the current attitude in City Hall, I am certain that decent people who request accountability of the elected officials and choose to stand for election in Coeur d’Alene will face an even nastier campaign than in 2007.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — May 5, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
Great question, Doublesee. These are our tax dollars at work. What a sham. Speaking of Mrs. Reid, she actually endorsed John Bruning from her seat on city council, which I have on video, an action that broke all kinds of rules for elected officials. What did Mr. Gridley or the city do in that regard?…notta.
Comment by mary — May 5, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
Was this a civil or criminal action? Other than the letter, was any penalty such as a fine imposed?
Comment by Bill — May 5, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
It was civil, Bill (though by that I don’t mean it was polite) The city had some sort of daily (?) fine, which was a joke because Gridley’s office seemed intentionally slow in responding to some of the back and forth correspondence, I’m told, so that’s how the fines hit upwards of $24,000 dollars, but not for long. I believe the final resolution was a very, very small fine and the letter. Intimidation tactics were attempted by the city attorney but did not work.
Comment by mary — May 5, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
City of Intimidation. Speak up and you’ll be attacked! Ask for responsible government, you’ll be attacked!
And these people keep getting re-elected?
By the way, in an interview on another blog, Mayor Bloem confirmed that everything said on the flyer was correct. Sure, they were $18 million over budget, not $12M. And they did spend money on the “homeless” by flying Mike Kennedy to a conference in Denver. But otherwise, the information in the flyer was correct, which explains the retribution. This City doesn’t like the truth to be told.
Comment by Dan — May 5, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
Kathy did not realize that for a local election, the local City Clerk must be notified of a PAC.-mary
really, you would think that after all her years involved with politics as chairwoman of the kootenai county republicans and a state senator and someone who had been investigated in the past for campaign law violations, she would know a little bit about campaign finance laws.
funny, when charlie nipp is found to have ‘technically’ violated the law, you scream for his head, but when kathy sims violates the law you rush to her defense. what’s the word i’m looking for?
Comment by raygun — May 5, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
I also wonder if they filed the required paperwork.
don’t wonder in an attempt to deflect with doubt, ask someone who knows and then publish the truth. that pac did register. do you really think that if they did not this group would have gone 4 years without looking in to the matter? or are you one of those still waiting for obama’s birth certificate?
Comment by raygun — May 5, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
the fine was $2500. facts aren’t hard to find if you look for them.
Comment by raygun — May 5, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
The word you’re looking for, Ray, is official. Kathy Sims is not a public official spending taxpayer dollars. Nipp is.
I realize that you don’t like Kathy and that you’re an unapologetic supporter of City Hall, but Sims’ actions do not excuse what Nipp failed to do.
Comment by Dan — May 5, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
official. no that’s not it, it begins with an h and ends with a y. (if y’all criticized semi-fairly, or even opened both your eyes when you looked at an issue it might go a long way toward credibility, but when kathy sims knowingly and unapologeticly violates sunshine laws and then y’all hold her up as a martyr, well you lose most thinking people.)
Comment by raygun — May 5, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
I would also argue that hypocrisy would also apply to the City in this case. There was no move against the People for Positive Whatever, who also did a flyer and failed to file sunshine reports with the City Clerk. You cannot argue that Mary is holding two standards when the City does so transparently and obnoxiously. Again, you apologize for their extremely abusive behavior because you are somehow their friend. Bullies prefer the company of bullies, Ray?
Comment by Dan — May 5, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
There was no move against the People for Positive Whatever, who also did a flyer and failed to file sunshine reports with the City Clerk-dan
are you sure of that? i think that might be an erroneous statement.
Comment by raygun — May 5, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
Ooo! Do tell!
Comment by Dan — May 5, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
Kathy Sims’ unknowing and unintentional violation was a good faith oversight. It is disgusting that the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney will bend over backwards to ignore city officials’ misconduct (e.g., open meeting law violations) by encouraging them to invoke the Idaho Intentional Ignorance of the Law Defense: “Gee, I didn’t know I was breaking the law. Sorry. Do over.” Yet let an honest public citizen who believed she was complying with the law speak out publicly against one of the “protected few,” and the wrath of Gridley is invoked. How is it that Gridley sets a very low standard for elected officials to know and obey the laws of the state, yet he holds private citizens to a higher standard of knowledge and obedience? Answer: Double standard and selective enforcement.
The Coeur d’Alene City Attorney’s Office engages in very selective enforcement of city ordinances. It chooses to bend city ordinances that would otherwise help protect neighborhoods from the destructive effects of illegal rooming house operations. Why? Ask John Bruning. Ask Mike Kennedy.
The Coeur d’Alene City Attorney’s Office chose to overlook Idaho Open Meeting Law violations admitted by Dixie Reid and acknowledged by Council members Mike Kennedy and Al Hassell during a council meeting with a representative of the City Attorney’s office present at the meeting. Why?
Comment by Bill — May 6, 2009 @ 6:40 am
Kathy Sims’ unknowing and unintentional violation was a good faith oversight.-bill
that’s is absolutely hysterical!! the woman has years and t=years of experience in local politics and your trying to sell that load? if you find any people willing to buy that line let me know, i have a bridge in brooklyn i can sell them. lol!
i often question the whys of some people around here and bill has answered the question : “Answer: Doubtle standard and selective enforcement.” yep, the pot and kettle is alive and well!
Comment by raygun — May 6, 2009 @ 7:39 am
Please remember that Kathy Sims was involved in state politics as a State Senator and she was the Chair of the Kootenai County Republicans. Local elections are considered non-partisan and, obviously, have some different rules.
When the ad came out, why didn’t the city just ask Kathy to register with the city clerk and let the whole thing go? No, they drew it out, seemingly on purpose, to try to hammer Kathy.
The ad did not say anything improper or, as Dan pointed out above, inaccurate. It was not vicious and full of lies like the whole page ad by then Councilwoman Dixie Reid that ran in the Press on about the same day.
Double standard? It’s far beyond that.
Comment by mary — May 6, 2009 @ 8:06 am
mary, it’s not about the ad,it’s about illegally collecting money and spending it on an election and failure, or refusal, to document the source of that money. does anyone really believe that 50 unknown people gave kathy sims exactly $50–the exact limit of a mandatory sunshine disclosure? what would you say if one of your favorite targets made that exact claim? yeah, i thought so.
When the ad came out, why didn’t the city just ask Kathy to register with the city clerk and let the whole thing go? .–mary
do you know for a fact that the city didn’t ask her?
Comment by raygun — May 6, 2009 @ 8:50 am
As sure as night turns to day, as sure as the sun rises and sets, as sure as death and taxes, we can depend on ray-gun to mis-state the actual facts. Apparently there are the actual facts and then we have the ray-gun version facts. Ms. Sims actually filed the paperwork with the Sec’y. of State (CDA Press) instead of the local whomever. An honest mistake, not a cover up. On reading this story this morning, St. Charlie the Nipp jumped immediately to mind. The abuses in local govt. is so blatant that the proverbial blind man can see it. Sadly, IMO, this will never change until the electorate is seriously impacted financially. And apparently that translates to taxed almost out of existance. Then, perhaps, the apathy will disappear and change will come about.
A disclaimer: I do not know Kathy Sims, I have never met her and I wouldn’t know her if she came nose to nose with me on the street. I am not connected to her group and my only knowledge of said group has come through the fliers rec’d.
Comment by Faringdon — May 6, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
An honest mistake, not a cover up–
wrong.
but if one is to believe that despite her years of experience in politics –and a prior investigation for violating campaign finance laws for a similar last minute attack ad– she is actually ignorant of campaign finance laws, then it doesn’t say much about her intellectual capacity. and even with paperwork filed with the sos, it doesn’t excuse the fact that she had collected thousands of dollars in donations without having a treasurer named–illegal–and without filing a sunshine report–also, illegal– and without any documentation as to who gave how much–also, illegal. no i do not believe these were no (multiple) honest mistakes, i believe these were intentional acts of deception and avoidance.
Comment by raygun — May 6, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
I have over 50 un-itemized contributions of $50 or less during my city council campaign. With all the threats and intimidation squirting out of City Hall, it’s a good thing that people can anonymously contribute to a cause they believe in.
Comment by Dan — May 6, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
according to kathy sims’ own words, she had a ‘bag o’ cash’ in her office.
Comment by raygun — May 6, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html
Comment by Pariah — May 6, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
Comment by Pariah — May 6, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
As you know, I read frequently and post occasionally. I had 41 contributions of less than $50 during the last local election. As an aside, eight people asked me how much they could contribute to my campaign without it being reported. I am thankful for these contributors and I am certain they are content with their anonymity.
Comment by Jim Brannon — May 6, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
and those candidates that are accepting contributions of under $50 are not required to report the contributor on their sunshine report, however you must still record their name and the amount contributed. sunshine laws require that an individuals name be recorded when their cumulative total exceed $50. so john doe gives you $30 and then another $30, he must be reported on your sunshine report. how did kathy sims know that all those $50 “contributions” were from different individuals and not someone giving more than once? her story smells like last weeks fish.
Comment by raygun — May 6, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
What amazes me about this situation is that Kathy Sims admitted she made a mistake by registering her PAC only with the Secretary of State and not the city clerk, and she apologized for it. After more than a year of silly vengeance game-playing by the city legal dept., she was fined $2500.
Dixie Reid broke all kinds of campaign rules by endorsing canidatate John Bruning from her seat on the city council during a meeting, but the mayor sat by and said nothing and the city attorney took no action at all. No apologies, no fines.
Charlie Nipp failed to disclose his potential conflicts of interest, as Chairman of the LCDC, when he signed 6 different loans between LCDC and the bank where he’s a member of the Board. Charlie directs MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars but did not follow the law, as determined by the State Attorney General. There were no apologies from Charlie. There were no fines.
How absurd.
Comment by mary — May 6, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
I might add that the neither the mayor nor the city attorney bothered to interrupt Dixie’s diatribe and both knew the rule prohibiting electioneering in city hall. I understand that Ron Edinger cautioned Dixie as she began to speak. Could it be that the council and city attorney knew of Dixie’s intentions beforehand?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 7, 2009 @ 6:23 am
raygun,
Your comment #25 about the potential for people to structure cash donations in a way that would circumvent the law raises some good questions: Which other candidates for City offices have received notices from the City demanding they produce names of donors who gave $49.99 or less? What prevents the City Attorney from abusing the authority of his office to identify opponents’ donors, then provide those donors’ identities to dishonest public officials who would try to apply social or economic intimidation to discourage those donors?
Comment by Bill — May 7, 2009 @ 8:15 am
Dixie Reid broke all kinds of campaign rules–mary
what rules did she break? can you point me to a site where i can review the laws that she broke?
Comment by raygun — May 7, 2009 @ 9:20 am
Could it be that the council and city attorney knew of Dixie’s intentions beforehand?- susie
susie, i see your point about ‘electioneering in city hall’ but doesn’t that only apply to polling places on election day? [remainder of answer deleted as nonresponsive to question]
Comment by raygun — May 7, 2009 @ 9:24 am
Which other candidates for City offices have received notices from the City demanding they produce names of donors who gave $49.99 or less?-bill
i don’t know, [remainder of answer deleted as nonresponsive to question]
Comment by raygun — May 7, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Tell me this, does Kathy Sims have a case of prejudice against the city since they feel it right to challenge her for violations of the law but not sir charlie or dixie?
Comment by concerned citizen — May 7, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
concerned citizen,
I may not understand your question correctly, and if my answer doesn’t make sense, please correct me.
The appearance is that when the City of Coeur d’Alene prosecuted Sims, it was engaging in selective enforcement of the law. Selective enforcement, as I use it here, means the City singled her out for prosecution while choosing to overlook similar violations committed by others.
The City’s action against Kathy Sims relatively minor infraction probably qualified as a SLAPP suit. SLAPP is not a word of law; it’s an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. It’s often used to discourage people from participating in opposition to public projects. If you’re interested in learning more about SLAPP suits, follow this link and then the links in it.
Idaho does not have anti-SLAPP legislation.
Comment by Bill — May 7, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Bill,
It was more of a rhetorical question to point out the hypocrisy of our officials ellected as well as appointed. However, I did not know about the SLAPP suit. Thank you for the interesting read.
Comment by concerned citizen — May 7, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
Bill, if you or someone else could document one or more suits that would qualify as a SLAPP, I think I could get some legislation going for the 61st session of the legislature in 2010.
Comment by Gary Ingram — May 7, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
Gary,
Thank you.
The difficulty is that the legal actions are never clearly labeled “SLAPP suit.” The acknowledged authorities on SLAPP suits, Professor of Law George Pring and Associate Professor of Sociology Penelope Canan, both at the University of Denver, have catalogued citizens being SLAPP’d for:
– writing a letter to the president of the United States opposing a political appointment
– testifying against a real estate development at a zoning hearing
– reporting violations of environmental laws to federal agencies
– complaining to a school board about unfit teachers
– filing a complaint with agovernment safety, consumer, civil rights, or equal employement office
– reporting official misconduct
– demonstrating peacefuly for or against governmental action
– testifying before a state legislature
– reporting a violation of law to health authorities
– lobbying for local, state, or federal legislation
– campaigning for or against a ballot issue
– collecting signatures on a petition
One of our local legislators seemed interested, but when he talked to other legislators in Boise, it fell flat. Idaho’s legislators have declined to consider anti-SLAPP legislation the way twenty-some other states have. Their reasoning: It hasn’t happened here yet, so it’s not a problem. And that is exactly the problem: We don’t know if it has happened here yet or not, because the suits often take the form of defamation or interference with contract lawsuits.
It would be an interesting project, maybe the U of I Law School could take it on, to do the research to determine just how many SLAPP suits have been filed in Idaho. If the results of that project showed that SLAPP suits are happening here, then the legislators might be more inclined to acknowledge what other states have already recognized.
Comment by Bill — May 7, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
We cannot get anti-SLAPP legislation in Idaho. The reason is that we have pro-SLAPP legislation on the books. It is ILLEGAL in Idaho to say disparaging comments about the agriculture industry. That’s state law, and it will have to be repealed before we can have any anti-SLAPP legislation passed. Good luck getting that repealed by the big ag interests in this state!
Comment by Dan — May 7, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Raygun, the city was a polling place during regular business hours for absentee voters. Regarding recording contributions under $50, I see nothing on the forms from the packet issued by the city clerk that indicates that. Perhaps you were aware of financial requirements for a candidate for a state or county office where that might be a requirement.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 7, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
The Idaho law Dan referred to in comment #37 is the Disparagement of Agricultural Food Products law. It can be found in the Idaho Code, Title 6, Chapter 20.
Comment by Bill — May 8, 2009 @ 7:45 am
Bill,
You mentioned that maybe the U of I Law School could take on some SLAPP suit research.
I kind of chuckled but, it’s worth a try and it might even make him look good.
Maybe you could contact this guy.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 8, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Stebbijo,
The project would be more likely to get off the ground if the Legislative Services Office or a legislator personally requested it.
Elsaesser is one of the people who Minnick picked to be on his committee to recommend nominees for the US Attorney for the District of Idaho.
Comment by Bill — May 8, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
Bill,
I know they have the pro bono program at Moscow U of I, but that is very limited. You can only get them if you need an agency that they volunteer for that is generally restricted. There is also some bill out there that funds money to student attorneys and covers housing costs – I will look for it. If Elsasser is appointing our US Attorneys – we are done, but then we have been done for a long time. His firm attorneys end up becoming judges as well. Still would be interesting to get some input on this from some “students.”
Comment by Stebbijo — May 9, 2009 @ 6:25 am