Mayor Sandi Bloem
]
]
Yesterday’s post titled Ignorance of the Law – SOP in CdA showed some images and played some audio excerpts from the August 4, 2009, Coeur d’Alene City Council meeting. Some of the best lines delivered in that entire meeting came from none other than our very own master of the perfectly timed retort, Mayor Sandi Bloem.Here is our mayor in her own words.
“We are following what our City Attorney has said is his interpretation of the law.” And Judge Hosack said our City Attorney’s interpretation of the law was wrong. An attorney is a consultant, nothing more. Ultimately the decision to accept or reject the City Attorney’s advice rested with the Mayor and City Council. Our Mayor and City Council chose to accept the City Attorney’s advice. They could and should have rejected it. Maybe they would have if they had bothered to read the Idaho Public Records Law manual available to everyone.
“…so we can say we might not agree with that law and so just release it [the information Hoffman requested]” No, Sandi, you’ve got it wrong. If you had released the information requested by Hoffman, you would have been complying with the law, not saying you don’t agree with the law. It wouldn’t have been the law you were disagreeing with — you would have been disagreeing with the incorrect interpretation of the law by the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney. The City Attorney is a highly paid consultant, not an elected official, Sandi. It isn’t your job to rubber-stamp every recommendation made by consultants. It’s your job and the Council’s job to evaluate the quality of those recommendations and then act in the best interests of the city.
“Well, we don’t sit up here very often that I know of and say, ‘It’s the law – break it.’ ” Very often? How many intentional violations of the law constitute “very often?” What she probably meant to say is, “Since we got caught doing it, we’re a lot more careful now.” Remember this post and this one?
In considering the City Attorney’s interpretation of law and his recommendations for action, Coeur d’Alene Mayor Sandi Bloem and the City Council need to remember this: Federal prisons are filled with people who were represented by an attorney. Usually they are in prison because they are guilty as charged, but sometimes they are there because they blindly followed their attorney’s advice.
In the series of emails that I have, you will see where it all started with McDonald and Weathers and where it should have stopped. Throughout the email exchange they then start to CC Gridely. Gridley must not have been strong enough to stand up to the hens. Here, Here and Here.
The one thing I have noticed about all of this is the highest paid employees in CDA are Weathers, Gabriel, Gridley, and McDonald. Also, the Fire Chief K. Gabriel makes 51.76 an hour. Are those Gabriels related?
In fact some of their wages are higher than those of similar jobs in Boise, Idaho.
Maybe Gridely, just doesn’t care and he threw them all under the bus, so to speak. It’s not like he is making private practice wages.
Gabriel makes 1.13 less than Gridley at 56.85 an hour while Weathers and McDonald make close to 50 bucks an hour at 46.22 – pushing almost 500 dollars a day. It pretty easy to figure out who is really running CDA and it’s too bad our council is asleep at the wheel. Of course it would be nice if the city clerk and the human resource director would not collaborate with each other and deny citizens their right to know and then Gridley gets stuck trying to bail them out – making fools out of everyone, including himself. Great example of our tax dollars at work. Our city council needs to start watching the henhouse.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 21, 2009 @ 11:48 am
Stebbijo,
City Administrator Wendy Gabriel and City Fire Chief Kenny Gabriel are married to each other, I believe.
Salary or wages are only part of the story. The figures in Hoffman’s website are useful, but they do not reflect the employee’s total compensation package.
It is appropriate for the city attorney to review public records requests. He does need to make sure that legitimately exempted information is not released. However, that authority to review ought not to be interpreted as a license to obstruct legitimate requests, either. Hoffman’s hands-down victory in court demonstrates that.
Comment by Bill — October 21, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
Where does the city’s refusal to enforce its adopted zoning ordinances fit in this picture?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — October 22, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Susie, Did I ever tell you that city councilman Mike Kennedy openly admitted, in a speech to Rotary on April 24, 2009, that “the City breaks its own zoning rules to allow group homes of parolees in regular neighborhood homes.” And he said 25% of the homeless in CdA are parolees.
This makes me very concerned because most folks don’t think prison parolees could be living in their neighborhoods. They think the ordinances protect them, but they are wrong. For whatever reason, this current city administration has decided it does not need to follow the laws on this.
Comment by mary — October 22, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Mary,
Susie and I have known about the City’s willful violation of its own zoning ordinances relating to group homes for several years. The City chooses to jeopardize neighborhoods by allowing the Idaho Department of Correction to place released offenders in R-zoned homes which become de facto group homes without notifying surrounding neighbors of the occupant’s IDoC status. The City also chooses to ignore the health and safety issues that go along with residential overcrowding.
When Kennedy said 25% of the homeless in CdA are parolees, he was demonstrating carelessness or ignorance. By definition, a parolee cannot be homeless. A parolee is someone who has been released from state prison prior to completion of his (or her) sentence. Before being released, the parolee is required by law to have a workable and approved parole plan. That parole plan must include certain elements including a residence. Before the parolee is released, Idaho law requires IDoC send the plan to the Sheriff of the county receiving the parolee when he is released. The law also requires the Sheriff to notify the police in the community where the parolee will be residing. If a parolee is supposed to be at that residence and is not, his parole can be violated and he will be returned to prison. There is no way Kennedy can say with confidence that any percentage of the homeless in CdA are parolees. If they don’t have a residence or if they aren’t living where their parole agent can find them, they aren’t homeless — they’re parole violators.
Comment by Bill — October 22, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
The city never bothered to tell the neighbors about the parolees living in a non-compliant single family residence. Nor did they tell them about the sex offenders living in that house despite the fact that the house was on a walking path to Bryan and Lakes schools. In fact, the city never bothered to address the issue of sex offender residency in neighborhoods until they were faced with the neighborhood issue. How many neighborhoods have non-compliant group homes? How many are known by the city and are permitted to continue as non-compliant residences?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — October 22, 2009 @ 8:20 pm