[
If you read Tom Hasslinger’s article headlined “Despite Brannon’s challenge, election winners to be installed” in the Tuesday, January (corrected) 5, 2010, Coeur d’Alene Press, you might have incorrectly concluded that outcome of the November 3, 2009, city election has been decided. It has not.
As noted in our OpenCdA.com post dated November 30, 2009, titled “City Election Results Challenged!“, Jim Brannon filed a lawsuit to officially contest the election. The amended complaint specifying Brannon’s allegations is here.
In today’s Press article, Hasslinger refers to a letter from Brannon’s attorney, Starr Kelso, to the City Attorney of Coeur d’Alene. Here is a scan of Kelso’s January 4, 2010, letter in its entirety. To understand the content of the letter, it would be a good idea to once again read the amended complaint linked in the preceding paragraph.
Brannon’s and Kelso’s recommendation is that until the District Court determines the outcome of the election contest, the incumbent council members should be appointed by the Mayor and City Council. They should not be formally “installed” until the Court resolves the election contest. If Brannon’s and Kelso’s recommendation is followed, “The business of the City would continue without interruption until the election contest is determined either by stipulation or Court Order.”
If the City installs the incumbents who have been prematurely certified as the “winners” of the election, and if the Court and subsequent election results in one or more of the incumbents being unseated, then the official actions taken by the unseated incumbents after they were prematurely installed may themselves be contested. It would not be pretty.
Attorney Kelso’s letter reveals more uncertainties. For example, Kelso was told by the Secretary of State’s office that even they don’t know for sure when a candidate has been officially “elected.” There are conflicting statutes in the Idaho Code. Furthermore, the Secretary of State’s office told Kelso that the Secretary of State’s office does not oversee municipal elections (like Coeur d’Alene’s) under Idaho Code Title 50 but only county and state elections under Title 34. I found this last statement interesting in part because County Clerk Dan English repeatedly assures us that he has sought and received guidance from the Secretary of State’s office regarding election administration.
Yet another disturbing assertion is that the City of Coeur d’Alene’s “…legal department has ‘chosen sides’ regarding the election by taking up the banner of the ‘incumbent’ candidates over the challenger candidates.”
Why is that such a big deal? Wouldn’t City Attorney Mike Gridley properly favor the incumbents over the challengers? Absolutely not! As Kelso’s letter states, “The City’s sole concern should be focused on being neutral, holding a squeaky clean election, and doing what is in the best interest of all of the citizens of Coeur d’Alene.” Kelso correctly reminds the City Attorney that, “…the rights and interests of Council Member Kennedy are significantly different from Candidate Kennedy’s and that the City should not be continuing to ‘compare’ notes and jointly ‘prepare strategy’ [with Candidate Kennedy’s legal team].”
Readers should understand that Candidate Kennedy is represented by private counsel, not (supposedly) by the City Attorney’s Office. As Attorney Kelso reminds Gridley and Wilson, “For the City to continue to act in direct concert with Candidate Kennedy in proceeding forward in the election contest is reminiscent of ‘Boss Tweed’ and ‘Tammany Hall’ politics, at its worst.”
So, regardless of what the Coeur d’Alene Mayor and City Council do and say at tonight’s Council meeting, it should be very clear that the November 3 City election is not over. Yet.
Bill, Great review of this complex situation! Thanks for the links to all the documents so we can read them for ourselves.
There were many sections of Starr’s letter to the city that were surprisingly bold, for a lawyer. One that especially impressed me is this one about the City “taking sides” and not remaining neutral as they should:
Comment by mary — January 5, 2010 @ 9:42 am
…..and the surprises are exactly what? Seriously, when you consider the scope of brazen misconduct shown by these people there is no bounds to their self-serving arrogance. Of course the cities legal eagles are in collusion with Kennedy’s legal team. I suspect you can make the same statement for every city employee who has any intention of retaining their employment. It is all easily summed up in a single word: Slimy.
Honestly, at this point, if I were Brannon, I don’t know that I would want to be the solo honest politician amongst that group. The man has more grist than I do.
Comment by Wallypog — January 5, 2010 @ 10:19 am
The city’s legal dept. is very good at taking sides. Witness Sanders Beach.
Comment by Dan — January 5, 2010 @ 10:29 am
Mary,
Thanks. The documents speak for themselves, but I am trying to take your advice and not write so monochromatically.
Wallypog,
Remember the foundational principle of Idaho law: If you can get away with it, it’s legal. The corollary is, “We’ve done it this way for XX years, so it must be legal or someone would have challenged it by now.”
Comment by Bill — January 5, 2010 @ 11:00 am
The city was brazen enough to tell me they did not have a copy of Kennedy’s ‘Answer’ that was provided by Kennedy’s private attorneys, so therefore it is not a city document and then in the same breath, they are consulting with Kennedy’s private attorneys?
On an uglier note, I read the letter, and I see that Simpson is replacing Hosack because of his initital retirement. When you cannot even get a return call to schedule a hearing for a restraining order, that kind of speaks for itself. You don’t want to know the rest.
Comment by Stebbijo — January 5, 2010 @ 11:20 am
The city’s legal dept. is very good at taking sides. It’s their job. Witness my Open Meeting Complaint
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 5, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
If the Secretary of State can’t even define when a local candidate has been “elected”, we have some serious problems to fix! The silver lining of this whole mess, no matter the outcome, should be to clear up and clean up local election laws, and I hope the Secretary of State is paying close attention to this CdA legal process.
Comment by mary — January 5, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
Spencer,
Thanks for the call. Yep, I said December 5 and it should have been January 5.
Comment by Bill — January 6, 2010 @ 9:19 am
“It ain’t over till it’s over”- Yogus Maximus Berrus.
The ramifications of “seated” winners making decisions that very possibly could be overturned is mind-boggling.
So, for a less mind-bogging topic…congratulations Open Cda-ers!
It now is “open” that this humble little blog is a major renter in the heads of our buddies over at ‘Chat Room Liquidators.’
Their question was: “What’s the difference[between the two]?”
My answer is: about $75000. TEAM Bill spends about $500 per year on this modest site and the Cowles family spends about $75000 (I’m probably LOW) on the “other” site.
Let me be the first to thank the Cowles for putting such a fine amount of largess into the local economy…even though it’s a complete write off.
Good on all the Opies.
Comment by Zapatista — January 7, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
Zapatista,
I guess it’s a compliment for us to be the topic of conversation there, but jeepers, don’t they have anything better to talk about than us? Aren’t there more important topics relevant to our community?
On another note, I think the Coeur d’Alene Press is stepping up to the plate and reporting about the firing of Robert Ketchum by NIC’s administration and trustees. Don’t think for one minute that at least three of the Trustees didn’t concur with what Wood said was Bell’s decision to fire him. Bell will take the heat, but the Trustees bear the responsibility. I sincerely hope that Christie Wood does not go down in the annals of NIC as being the Chairman of the Board of Trustees who oversaw the destruction and demise of NIC. I doubt it will happen, because I think Mr. Ketchum’s firing has stirred up enough genuine concern for the College’s preservation that the people will take back the college and if necessary, throw out Wood, Armon, Meyer, Vieselmeyer, and Williams to do it. In the bigger scheme of things, North Idaho College is more important to the people of north Idaho than those who don’t care about anything but exploiting it for commercial purposes.
Comment by Bill — January 7, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
“I guess it’s a compliment for us to be the topic of conversation there..”.
I’ll bet your pocket protector it is! And the money thing has got to be hurting Betsy Joggingshorts.
As for Bob Ketchum. I have had private and NIC business with Mr. Ketchum, and have found him to be exceptional.
The tawdry manner of his ‘firing’ is stupifying. When the college is in desperate need of ‘positive’ PR, they dump an honorable man who has almost single-handedly created the only sustainable ‘local’ jobs.
I wouldn’t mind dumping the Ft.Grounds location for a State Medical/Nursing College and turn the prairie location into the “college for C-students that now want to go to REAL university” and expand the Workforce Training Center to create real jobs.
and BTW…Where is Ron Vieselmeyer on all these issues?
Such a REEAAALLL disappointment.
Comment by Zapatista — January 7, 2010 @ 11:18 pm