In a Guest Editorial today in the Press, Scott Reed tries to defend the NIC Board. Scott, a long-time local attorney and close political peer of NIC Trustee Judy Meyer, writes that the board did nothing wrong. The controversy is over the appraisal for the DeArmond Mill site, which I wrote about in my last week’s column/newsletter that you can read here: https://opencda.com/?p=784
I show, in my column, that Judy Meyer, her husband Steve, and the appraiser chosen to set the value of the mill site, Ed Morse, all signed a legal deed together in 2006, transferring property to “Meyer-Morse Ironwood Partners, a general partnership”. I actually show a copy of the recorded document with the signatures, official stamps from the county, etc.
There is a very big difference between doing business with someone in a community and being in business with them. Trustee Judy Meyer should have come forward and publicly acknowledged this relationship. The Board should have followed its own policy on selecting continuing professional services and opened the appraiser selection up to all qualified appraisers.
These simple procedures would have protected the integrity of the NIC Board from any perception of conflict.
Instead, the board used a convoluted method, described well but defended poorly by Scott Reed: They had their attorney and an administrator choose the appraiser. No policy or procedure needed because the board delegated their responsibility away. Scott Reed goes into great detail showing how the board’s attorney paid for the appraisal and then the board paid him back. They really thought this thing through! It took a lot more energy to circumvent their established policy than if they would have just followed it.
The big question in my mind is this: Why?…why go to all that trouble?
Transparency is simple.
**************
(I would have also linked to Scott’s guest editorial, but it’s not online)
Mary, “Transparency is simple.” What a basic truism. LCDC, for example, continues to avoid transparency, in spite of their much ballyhooled PR announcements about connecting with the puplic, by conducting all of their real estate discussions under the closed door executive sessions exemptions allowed in the Open Meeting Law. Their use of that provision goes far beyond its intended purpose. It does not allow all discussions about realestate, only actual acquision of real property. It is so simple to be transparent, so troublesome to be secret.
Comment by Gary Ingram — September 21, 2008 @ 10:45 am
Exactly right, Gary. Scott Reed’s headline was “No Conflict: Souza wrong again”. Yet he never showed one point where I was wrong. And then he attacked me personally.
Yes, transparency would have been so much easier for them, and for us all.
Comment by mary — September 21, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
two coeur dalenes, one where facts matter and mary is right, another where money matters and mary is wrong. they ought to make a tv show about the two coeurs and call it the art of the deal, or how friends do business with friends.
Comment by TheWiz — September 21, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
It’s beyond me why Meyer and her political apologists continue to drag this topic into the spotlight. The politically smart thing would have been for them to say nothing, to react as if it were a non-issue. Yet turn after turn, we see people coming out and screaming about it, which brings it into focus even more.
Mary they can try to discredit you, but the facts are plain. Despite all logic, they keep on doing stupid, arrogant things that continue to prove why your column and our efforts here at OpenCdA are necessary. Consider Deanna Goodlander’s weak letter to the editor, QED.
Comment by Dan — September 21, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
Thanks, Dan. What’s QED?
Comment by mary — September 21, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
Q.E.D. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase “quod erat demonstrandum” (literally, “that which was to be demonstrated”). The phrase is written in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument, to signify that the last statement deduced was the one to be demonstrated, so the proof is complete.
Comment by Pariah — September 21, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
Last week’s Press reproduction of the deed signed by Ed Morse, Stephen Meyer, and Judith Meyer stunningly demonstrated with graphic clarity the nature of the association between Morse, Meyer, and Meyer. There is nothing Reed said or could say that will erase the mental picture the public formed of Morse, Meyer, and Meyer as business partners.
Reed tried to dismiss the public’s perception of what many of us have concluded was an obvious conflict of interest. He took the position that nothing illegal occurred. He missed the point. The public makes judgements based on right versus wrong, not necessarily and certainly not exclusively on legal versus illegal. We know that NIC’s engaging Morse to do the appraisal was wrong. That it may have been done legally does not change its being done wrongly.
The NIC Board’s actions made little sense from a public relations perspective. Surely even the most vacuous trustee knows the Commercial/Education Corridor project is being scrutinized closely and questioned by many. Given the magnitude of the project and its forever changing the character of that portion of the city, wouldn’t you think the trustees would take the wise and prudent step available though not required and issue an RFP to get appraisals from three totally disinterested and qualified appraisers? Wouldn’t you think they would try and get the best deal possible?
Reed defended the choice of appraiser but did nothing to justify or defend the validity and propriety of appraisal. The business partnership between Morse, Meyer, and Meyer becomes less meaningful if the appraisal was valid and appropriate.
What was with NIC using a straw man to pay for the appraisal? Ultimately, the NIC paid for the appraisal, it just used an intermediary (its attorney) to do it. Why?
Reed’s bullet points looked impressive, but there was no relevance to most of them. His commentary was a smokescreen.
Comment by Bill — September 21, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
Nicely put, Bill! And thanks, Paraiah, I learned a bit more latin today.
Comment by mary — September 21, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
“That it may have been done legally does not change its being done wrongly. “–wouldn’t that be the same logic that should be applied to secretly recording another party? mary? bill?
Comment by reagan — September 21, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
No, Reagan, it is not the same. IF a person in Idaho chooses to legally record a conversation they have with another person, it is how they use the information that makes the distinction, in my opinion. If they use it to unfairly characterize the other person’s comments, often described as a “gottcha” moment, then that’s not good. If they use their recording to document what they have said, keep for their own notes or to accurately quote another person, then it is a good use.
Kind of like owning a gun. It can be used well or used improperly.
The big issue here is that NIC’s Board is a publicly elected group of people using taxpayer dollars and making historic decisions that will forever change the character of our community. The citizens expect the maximum possible transparency and responsibility during the decision making process.
Comment by mary — September 21, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
No, reagan, if the recording is legal, it can still be wrong if the information is used in a distorted or deceptive way. It is legal for federal agents to make a one-party consensual recording during criminal investigations, but if the information is exculpatory and withheld from the defendant, it is wrong and becomes illegal with the wrongful withholding. Or if the information is lawfully the subject of discovery but withheld, the withholding is both wrong and procedurally unlawful.
I do not consider it wrong for a private citizen to lawfully record conversations with another person. It is the eventual use that is made of the information that can make it wrong. What someone said, they said. Your words spoken are a bell that can not be unrung. Their being recorded does not change what was said, but the recording does help prevent the unwitting party from misstating the conversation. The entire recording is an accurate account of the conversation, an account that is usually considerably better than the memories of the participants.
I suppose some people are offended when they learn they were recorded because they infer the recording means the person making it didn’t trust the person unwittingly recorded. The fact is, recording memorializes but doesn’t change what was said.
Other people, those who are themselves dishonest and deceptive, fly the false flag of indignation if they believe they have been recorded. Simply put, those people fear an irrefutable record of a conversation. It often is those who protest the loudest who have the most to hide.
Comment by Bill — September 21, 2008 @ 7:37 pm