It is illegal for elected officials in Idaho to make decisions out of the public eye.
Illegal!
Yet how come it seems like they do it anyway?
The non-compliance is seen any public meeting where the officials don’t discuss and don’t debate. It’s especially evident where important or controversial decisions seem to fly through. If such a thing frustrates you, then what you’re witnessing is most likely the open meeting laws being ignored.
Idaho Code, 67-2340 is titled “Formation of Public Policy at Open Meetings.” It states, and say so quite elegantly:
The people of the state of Idaho in creating the instruments of government that serve them, do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies so created. Therefore, the legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret.
It’s plain and simple to understand: public business shall not be conducted in secret. But I ask you, given the lack of debate in public minutes, how can decisions take place anywhere but the public meeting and be in compliance with this law?
Especially keep an eye on the NIC Trustees. Have they debated any aspect of the Education Corridor purchase at their meetings? Do you feel that they have come to a consensus on the topic beforehand?
Apologists for bad government will argue that the discussions most likely have taken place in the private, executive sessions. While it’s true that an elected body can have executive sessions, and those sessions cover a broad range of topics (including real estate acquisitions), consider Idaho Code 67-2345:
No executive session may be held for the purpose of taking any final
action or making any final decision.
Again, the executive session is not a private forum for consensus building. Yet it’s my sense that during those executive sessions decisions are being made and public officials influenced out of the public eye.
I hope that I’m wrong on this, but too much evidence points the other way. The key problem is enforcement. Presently, there are no harsh or substantial penalties for any public body violating the Open Meeting Act. When the LCDC was caught doing this, our County Prosecutor merely sent them an angry note — which I feel reinforces the feeble lack of compliance.
Hopefully our legislators will address this issue next session, before too many of our local agencies continue to decide things away from the public eye.
dan wrote, “Hopefully our legislators will address this issue next session”, but i fear that our own legislators may be guilty of the same thing when they hold closed caucuses and then return to committee and vote strictly along party lines.
Comment by reagan — June 2, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
You’re correct, reagan. But assuming that the GOP could coordinate anything is taking a great leap of faith.
I’ve heard from legislators that nothing goes on in the caucus meetings. But who really knows?
Comment by Dan — June 2, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
Well Dan, you hit my hot button on this post. As you know I wrote the Open Meeting Law some 30 years ago including the preamble that you declare as ‘elegant’. Thank you. What has happened to the OML since is quite easily explained. And you are correct. It is not working as well as it should. A little history is helpful at this point.
There was absolutely no procedure for the conduct of public meetings back in 1974, except for a few references here and there in the Idaho Code for various governing bodies, each different. The original law was passed with no provision for violations as it was intended to provide a procedure for the conduct of public business that would be uniform throughout the state. Penalties were discussed but passage would have been even more difficult than it was. Two years later I introduced the language that made actions taken in violation of the act, null and void. But still no penalties. The law was first weakened after I left the legislature in 1980, when a time limit to declare actions null and void was passed that was too narrow, effectively neutralizing that remedy. It was amended again in the ’90s to provide monetary penalties for violations provided the offenders did so ‘knowingly’. A recent major case brought against the Ada County Commissioners by the Idaho Attorney General, ended up in the Supreme Court in favor of the Commissioners because of the ‘knowingly’ test. Also, along the way more exemptions have been added for the use of executive sessions, providing for more secrecy. These are just a few of the bruises that the OML has suffered over the years.
The Attorney General has indicated the need for an OML overhaul to correct some of these injuries which opens an opportunity for repair in the next session of the legislature. I intend to be part of the dialog by submitting, top to bottom, recommendations for legislative consideration.
Some examples. The fist change needed is to remove ‘knowlingly’. Others are to increase the fines, open the time frame for complaints, require some kind of procedure for sealed electronic minutes of executive session to be opened upon a court order as part of a trial. Define more closely what subjects are not to be considered in executive sessions, to name just a few. It’s a delicate balance between the need for government to function while at the same time protecting the public’s right to know. The preamble sets the tone. Stay tuned.
Comment by Gary Ingram — June 2, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Thnk you Gary. It’s a graphic display of [public] corruption and i’m pretty sure Coeur d’Alene is the poster child. Although if WE THE PEOPLE held a meeting of that nature it would be called conspiracy and would be punishable by jail.
Comment by casper — June 3, 2008 @ 7:00 am
The lack of discussion between elected officials at public hearings leads me to wonder if these topics have been discussed prior to the meeting. I find it curious when officials read motions that appear to be previously prepared or are prompted to ask questions.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — June 3, 2008 @ 7:27 am
Serial Meeting. An illegal decision-making process where government officials in small groups make decisions or discuss issues in private. The meetings often take place in person, on a cell phone, or via e-mail.
Comment by Dan — June 3, 2008 @ 8:36 am
I found it very telling that at a May 2008 CDA council meeting, Goodlander started making a motion and was interrupted by Bloem as they had not yet entertained any public testimony. It was not a contentious issue, but very telling, nonetheless! I just shook my head in disgust. Time to retire, Deanna.
On that note, is it too soon to post-up all the upcoming elections and council/mayor seats for the next election? NIC Board members, too – especially since Mic Armon specifically instructed us to vote him out if we don’t like his Ed. Corr./foregone taxes decisions. You got it, buddy!
I think the tide is turning in Coeur d’Alene. The more these local issues begin to hurt the regular citizens with taxes and affordability issues, the more they will hit the ballet box – finally. I can see Goodlander and Edinger hanging it up. They’re old and it’s obvious they are getting worn out as our city grows and issues become more complex.
Anybody else notice that Woody is getting cranky at the council meetings lately? Maybe his time is up, too.
Opportunity awaits, people!!!
Comment by Damn Yankee — June 3, 2008 @ 9:14 am
While you folks are all over the OML – I am into the Public Records Laws which opens up a whole other can of beans which is ICAR 32 – Idaho Court Administrative Rules. This law oversees judicial records which are also public records. The public record allows you to make a correction to the public record but the word correction is vague. I understand a correction as to seal, redact, or expunge. 9-342 a) Make any correction of any portion of the record which the person establishes is not accurate, relevant, or complete
I recently used this in a personal case of my own that is public and have actually got it into court for a hearing, however, the attorney for the county wants it dismissed because he says that the ICAR presides over these records and it comes with the motion for the judge to order me to pay all court costs which is really scary. They must want my broken down car which I hope gets fixed today. Then to boot – the Clerk of the Court, Marie Scott filed an affidavit which is not true. FOR REAL. But WTH, she has her own personal attorney who represents the county.
Because there is this thing called procedure and standing (from a free consultation), I have been advised to hold a hearing before the presiding judge of the case who in my opinion is the one who made a real mess of things so I don’t expect much, however if she denies me it allows me to make the appeal before the District Court and this will give me “standing” – that is if she does not lose it and throws me in jail for nothing. (I have seen this happen) The only way I can do this is to reopen an old divorce case and serve my ex husband which is near to impossible which is frivolous and will cost more money. This lawyer cannot take the case of course because I HAVE NO MONEY – but he was nice.
For instance here in Kootenai County, Dan English is the “custodian” of judicial records and any judge is the “custodian judge” over that case. The clerk is also the office which handles public records requests.
Here is the kicker and I am working on this today. ICAR also determines who actually really is the custodian. For instance if there is a record NOT in a court file it moves the custodian and that would be the Trial Court Administrator and the Judge to the Administrative District Judge. That is Luster and Behringer. This is what I am going to prove -that a public record exists that is public with no actual record to prove it – I want it expunged, so I don’t have to reopen an old divorce case which would probably be pointless BUT it would give me “standing”. LOL.
Nobody seems to think anyone can expunge or remove anything from a case. In this instance you can just make up what you want and throw it into public record. So what if the professionals crossed the line – and you want to hold them accountable because they are CORRUPT. You, as a pro se ligigant will then risk getting thrown out of court because you have no standing? This is just too bizarre.
The judicial community works together – they protect each other and one tries to work it out for the other when they get into trouble. I have been told that I can ask for a continuance on the District Case based on the outcome of reopening the other case, but I don’t like the idea of tying the two together because I believe this is a RECORDS issue not an old divorce case. But, when a person does not have “standing” or money the liklihood of a Judge recognizing a pro se litigant in this area is slim to none, so the end result even if I am correct could be – I pay and it’s frivolous or remanded back to the original judge who would throw me in jail. There are no pro bono lawyers for records cases. That is the legal system in a nutshell. But, then I can appeal it the Supreme Court and could get more of the same.
Then there is this thing called immuninity and of course the statute of limitations which is why I thought the Idaho Public Records Law was a good one. It’s alway public – everyday. Immunity is rarely argued in Idaho if ever. You can pretty much screw up and get away with it and they know it – what is scary is they do it on purpose – KNOWINGLY that the immunity protects them.
But, WTH I am going to do it anyway. Falsifying and introducing medical records into public record without due process (no record) is a legitimate concern especially when your local hospital’s (KMC) name is all over it – can hardly be considerd frivolous. You would think that KMC’s Ethics’ folks and or their public liasons would be concerned but NOPE – they don’t care either.
I am trying to notify Marie Scott who does not answer her email and instructs her staff not to hand out her PUBLIC email and who does not respond to public records requests, so she is not part of the charade and so that she will have the OPPORTUNITY to voluntarilty hand over the case to the appropriate custodian.
I have done everything short of putting an ad in the paper to make folks aware of this and I might do that.
Here is my question. What would Dan English do if he KNOWINGLY knew that a case had no court record in it to back up the public record? Would he voluntarilty hand it over or would he confer with the attorneys and just let it go because they are paid to cover up mistakes and just let stebbijo fry?
I am going to court August 27th,2008 at 3:30 – Kootenai County before Judge Hosack.
DISCLAIMER This is not legal advise. I am not an attorney. This disclosure is to allow others to understand the process and help with any future issues they might have that might be similar. I am also trying to get some press and an attorney.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 3, 2008 @ 10:38 am
P.S.
The case is being heard in Kootenai County because the Districk Judge in Bonner disqualified himself. That was Verby. It is still a Bonner County Case so everything has to be filed there. Also, the affidavit of Marie Scott did not come with the attorney’s motion so I had to call. They sent it to me by email.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 3, 2008 @ 10:45 am
Distrik = District.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 3, 2008 @ 11:20 am
Never forget the mayor and council’s handling of the Person Field Memorandum of Understanding. According to the minutes, not one word was mentioned relative to this issue during a public meeting. The mayor and council have never explained how they managed to handle this one out of the public eye.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — June 3, 2008 @ 9:29 pm