The door to open government is firmly closed and has no windows. The people’s business is apparently none of the people’s business when it comes to the Education Corridor in Coeur d’Alene.
This past Tuesday, Ron Edinger set up the Mayor with a question. He pondered over Post Falls Mayor Clay Larken’s comments in the February 16 edition of the Coeur d’Alene Press. The following is from the Council Meeting Minutes draft on the CDA City website:
COUNCILMAN EDINGER: Councilman Edinger asked Mayor Bloem to comment on the recent article in the local newspaper regarding the Higher Education Corridor. The Mayor explained in reference to the comments made by Mayor Larkin regarding the $1.0 million earmarked for the NIC Education Corridor, those funds have been earmarked for years. Another item that came out in the article was that Mayor Larkin came out in opposition to the North Idaho Education Corridor funding commenting that it was being funded through the sale of the workforce training property in Post Falls. Mayor Bloem noted that this cannot happen since North Idaho College does not own the land.
I wrote the Mayor a letter regarding this topic last Wednesday (2/20). In the letter I explained that education is important to me, as is obtaining information about the Education Corridor. I said that I’ve reviewed many public documents and haven’t found any information in any minutes where federal funds for the Education Corridor were mentioned.
Yesterday (2/21), Mayor Bloem phoned me. She said that there have been many meetings regarding obtaining federal funding for the Education Corridor. There were, however, no meeting minutes available as none of the meetings were public. (Or, apparently, open to the public.)
And they wonder about open government? They’re about to spend $10,000,000 without asking us, and Mayor Bloem is saying that discussions on using the public’s money are taking place without any input or even observation from the public? What about the Idaho Open Meeting law? How can public officials be discussing this purchase in private? Yes, they can go into “executive session” to discuss real estate transactions. But this deal is not secret by any means. It’s well-known. And according to City Hall insiders, it’s widely supported. Almost hysterically supported!
Mayor Bloem told me that she’s had meetings with Sandy Patano of Senator Craig’s office; Mic Armon, an NIC Trustee; talks with the NIC Foundation; discussions with the University of Idaho; as well as discussions on this topic with then-Governor Dirk Kempthorne. All those public officials and not any hint of a public record on it? HELLO?
Responsible government officials are responsible to the people first, not to each other. I do admire Mayor Bloem for returning my call and providing me with the information I asked. Yes, they have been discussing acquiring federal funds for the Education for some time. Were they being sneaky, as some have suggested? I’d like to think not. But perception is part of the picture. I prefer open and honest dialog. I prefer inclusion of the public.
The taxpayers of Coeur d’Alene and possibly all of Kootenai County are facing a $10,000,000 obligation. Plus the cost of remediation. Plus build-out. We need more information.
Does the public now have to file a complaint with the AG’s office like Betsy Russel did
Comment by Stebbijo — February 23, 2008 @ 10:12 am
Good question, Stebbijo. The public does not have access to the Attorney General in Idaho. The AG exists to answer questions for and provide opinions to the Legislature. You could contact a legislator and they may submit a question on your behalf. That’s the way it works.
I know of several citizens who have asked their legislators to get opinions from the AG’s office on many topics. The answers can be interesting, but don’t expect enforcement. Basically, the AG points out where the law applies or if it applies. So if the AG points out that something is wrong, the intent is for the Legislature to fix it, not for the AG to address the issue other than offering an opinion.
Now the AG has the authority to launch an investigation. But in Idaho, crimes or criminal activity must be reported to the local jurisdiction: the police, sheriff, Idaho State Police, and so on. They will investigate, then provide information to the City Attorney or County Prosecutor. You can read some details on this here.
If there is a local issue that concerns you, contact your state legislator.
It’s been my experience that there is little respect for the Open Meeting Law by some of our local government bodies. They either don’t understand the law or are being mislead by their legal advisors (who may not understand the rules themselves). The public’s business belongs in public. Decisions must be made in public and cannot be made in executive session. There is an abundance of circumstantial evidence that indicates otherwise.
And from I.C. 67-2345 on “Executive Session”:
Comment by Dan — February 23, 2008 @ 11:23 am
Dan,
I understand what you mean by the public not having access to the AG’s office.
However, how did it work for Betsy Russell – isn’t she the public? Also, another group newspaper) filed one. I would like a copy of that complaint. Would be interesting to read.
According to the AG’s website:
Comment by Stebbijo — February 23, 2008 @ 11:47 am
Stebbijo,
The complaint Russell lodged was against a public agency of the state government. By law [Idaho Code 67-2347(3)]that complaint had to be filed with the AG.
Bill
Comment by Bill — February 23, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
Thanks, Bill!
Comment by Dan — February 23, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Gad – this makes my head hurt. Okay – so is the LCDC a public “agency” or a municipality?
The city is a municipality. So if a person wanted to file a complaint concerning the cities’ lack of understanding of open meeting laws – then a person or group like a newspaper could file the complaint with the county commissioners who need to ask the prosecuter’s office to investigate or not? The AG’s office would not intervene unless the county prosecuter referred the case? The law is not the same in relation to agencies/municipalities concerning open meeting laws?
Comment by Stebbijo — February 23, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
According to the LCDC, they are a “creation of the state.” A legal decision passed decades ago declares that Idaho Urban Renewal Agencies are their own subdivision. (499 P.2d 575, Boise Redevelopment Agency v. Yick Kong Corporation, No. 11010, June 2, 1972.) But they still make reports to the City and, according to the Legislature, the City Council has oversight control.
Both Gary Ingram and the CDA Press have filed complaints with Kootenai County Prosecutor Bill Douglas on the LCDC’s Open Meeting Violations. Alas, the law is weak and even if they received the full fine for violations it’s not going to change the way anyone does business.
No, the key issue here is the lack of transparency. The LCDC has no plan. To be specific, they have a plan that is deliberately vague. The Mayor argues that this gives them flexibility. But with a potential $250,000,000 of the taxpayer’s money on the line, I think we deserve something more than vague and flexible. That’s the key issue that the LCDC doesn’t understand — and one of the main differences between the LCDC and the way Post Falls practices Urban Renewal.
Comment by Dan — February 23, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
That’s great. Thank you. I totally understand now – they are a legalized mafia.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 23, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
Stebbijo,
Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden periodically publishes the Idaho Open Meeting Law Manual. The most current version is dated July 2007. It’s in a Q & A format, it’s only 20 pages long, and it’s easily understood (that may be why so many of our local officials don’t want to read it – even they could understand it and would be held accountable). It is available online at the link or if you want, he will be happy to send a hard copy to you. You can request a hard copy on the AG’s website at this webpage.
However, the AG’s office will do whatever it properly can to respond to succinct questions. For example, here’s a reply I received in November 2007:
Comment by Bill — February 23, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
The AG’s office always has some line of BS to send a person.
“Intent” in the Idaho Supreme Court Opinion in State of Idaho vs. Rick Yzaguirre is kind of like this:
You can’t smoke pot and not “knowingly” understand that it is against the law in Idaho – you will be prosecuted, BUT if government professionals ‘unknowingly’ hold a meeting behind closed doors – it is a good faith mistake because they are intentionally ignorant.
Okay, I am done and P.S. – I don’t smoke pot. Thanks for all of the information. 🙂
Comment by Stebbijo — February 23, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
Stebbijo,
I understand your frustration, but we’re stuck with the law as it is legislated and interpreted. The level and definition of “knowing” is not the same for various offenses. The good news with Yzaguirre is that it lets the legislature fix the law if the legislature wants to. Given that some of our legislators (bless their hearts) like closed meetings when it suits their purposes, I doubt they’ll be stampeding to fix what they may not see as broken.
Comment by Bill — February 23, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
Having read the above, without my eyes crossing too badly, I’m left with only one question. When the law is clearly ignored, what does a citizen do? There seems to be no redress in this state. While I respect the activity on this site, (I wouldn’t be here if I did not) I still feel that we are preaching to the choir. Nothing seems to change and it is more that a bit discouraging. What is wrong with the citizenry here? These conversations have been ongoing for some time and still there is no improvement. This latest PR stunt, if you will, simply demonstrates either the hubris or stupidity of the LCDC and the city council. The citizenry of this town brings to mind that old saying, “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up”.
And the Idaho AG office is, without doubt, the strangest I have ever encountered.
Comment by Diogenes — February 25, 2008 @ 9:06 am
The best tool we have is elections. But to make that work, we have to inform everyone about the situation. According to polling I took after the last election, a majority of people stayed home because they were confused. They didn’t like what’s going on in Coeur d’Alene, but because of misinformation and a lack of information, they decided not to vote. The best thing you can do to help the situation is to inform your friends and associates. Let them know what’s going on.
Most people are afraid to ask questions. Indeed, appearing before the Coeur d’Alene City Council can be intimidating and frightening:
But don’t let them trick you into despair. The only real weapon they have is to make us believe that the situation is futile. It’s not. You must help us by being active and telling the world. They want you to give up. Don’t. You have far more power than you can imagine.
Comment by Dan — February 25, 2008 @ 9:51 am
Dan… When are the next elections to take place and what offices will be running? You’re correct that the time to inform starts now but help us out by giving us some targets. You can be certain that the other side will work extremely hard to support their causes and candidates. Like this last election only certain candidates will have laws enforced against them that will limit their exposure. Like this last election only certain candidates will be allowed to use televised gov’t forums to express their opinions and to denounce their detractors. The grass roots nearly won this last election despite the unfairness. Let’s get it right the next time by informing the voters starting today.
Comment by Wallypog — February 25, 2008 @ 3:39 pm