[Today’s Coeur d’Alene Press article headlined City will not fine Brannon was a diversion, erroneously implying former City Council candidate Jim [Brannon had evaded complying with Idaho campaign finance law. If the City of Coeur d’Alene had decided donations to help pay Brannon’s election [contest lawsuit expenses were a campaign contribution, readers would have immediately realized that the $69,660 of our tax dollars the City Council [gave to fellow Councilman Mike Kennedy on December 7, 2010, was a campaign contribution. The City’s decision reported today was to protect [Kennedy from that scrutiny, [not relieve Brannon of a non-existent obligation.
[Here is the story behind today’s Press story.
My earlier post titled Coeur d’Alene Election Lawsuit 2009-2011, recounted that on November 30, 2009, elector Jim Brannon filed an election contest lawsuit to challenge the November 3, 2009, Coeur d’Alene City election.
Recognizing there would be significant costs involved in the lawsuit, a group of concerned citizens calling itself Citizens for Honest and Responsible Government (CHRG) decided in early January 2010 to hold a fundraiser to help pay expenses associated with Brannon’s lawsuit. The event was scheduled for February 8, 2010.
The proposed fundraiser alarmed the City government. Successful fund raising to help cover Brannon’s legal expenses would put a crimp in the City’s plan to defend its election.
Even in December 2009 City officials were aware or at least suspected the election had been poorly administered, but they were happy with the election outcome. Their candidate, incumbent Mike Kennedy, had won. The City Clerk, the City Attorney, the Mayor, the City Council, and the Kootenai County Clerk most certainly did not want anyone closely examining either the City-County election administration contract or the actual administration of the City election by the Kootenai County Clerk, Dan English. Consequently, the City decided to discourage CHRG and anyone else from supporting Brannon’s election contest.
Here is how the Coeur d’Alene City government worked to impede Brannon’s fund raising efforts. As you read this, pay close attention to the timeline, the dates of correspondence as well as the contents.
On February 5, 2010, City Clerk Susan Weathers sent a letter to CHRG informing it that the Idaho Secretary of State and the Attorney General had determined CHRG was a political action committee (PAC) and had to register accordingly. As the reader now knows from the Press article and will clearly see, the premise for Weathers’ assertion was completely false, but the intent of the letter was as much to discourage financial support for Brannon as to secure compliance with any law.
Then on February 8, 2010, City Attorney Mike Gridley sent a letter to Idaho’s Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Tim Hurst with a cc to the Idaho Attorney General. Read Gridley’s letter carefully. Note that each of Gridley’s three questions is based on the unsupported premise that on February 8, 2010, Jim Brannon was a candidate for any public office. This is a good example of how a question can be worded to obtain the desired answer. Now look back at City Clerk Weathers’ letter dated February 5. In it, she asserts that both the Idaho Attorney General and the Secretary of State had already ruled on the questions Gridley was posing three days later to Hurst and Kane!
On February 17, 2010, City Clerk Susan Weathers sent a letter to CHRG once again demanding that CHRG register as a PAC. In that letter she threatened to impose fines if CHRG did not complete certain documents.
On February 24, 2010, I sent a letter to the Idaho Attorney General and a separate but similar letter to the Idaho Secretary of State. I wanted them to explain to me the factual and statutory basis for Weathers’ demand on February 5, and I wanted to see what information they had provided in response to Gridley’s letter of Feburary 8.
On February 25, 2010, City Attorney Mike Gridley sent a letter to CHRG threatening legal action if we did not comply with the City’s earlier demands. The letter offered to waive all accrued civil penalties if we complied immediately, and it threatened “enforcement to obtain compliance” if we didn’t.
On March 1, 2010, Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane sent a letter responding to my request of February 24, 2010. It caught my attention that in her letter of February 5, 2010, City Clerk Susan Weathers had clearly stated, “Today I have received information from both the Secretary of State’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office [emphasis added] that due to your organization actively fund raising for candidate Jim Brannon this constitutes a PAC since Mr. Brannon is continuing to seek office through a civil lawsuit for the November 3, 2009 City General Election.” Yet in his letter to me on March 1, 2010, ACDAG Kane says his office has no documents responsive to my [public records] request. Wouldn’t you think that the information Weathers purportedly received on February 5, 2010, from the Idaho Attorney General’s office would have been in writing since it contemplates legal action by a municipality?
On March 11, 2010, City Attorney Mike Gridley sent a letter to me with a copy of an undated opinion from Chief Deputy Secretary of State Timothy Hurst attached. I believe the Hurst letter is the one which the Press article erroneously attributes to Ysursa. This was the last piece of correspondence we received. Notably, Secretary of State Ben Ysursa never responded to my public records request of February 24, 2010.
Considered together, all the preceding correspondence paints a fairly clear picture that in February 2010, Coeur d’Alene City Clerk Susan Weathers, Coeur d’Alene City Attorney Mike Gridley, Idaho Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane, and Chief Deputy Secretary of State Timothy Hurst intended that CHRG and other prospective Brannon financial supporters believe that by filing the election contest lawsuit, Jim Brannon was still a candidate. Consequently, they wanted prospective Brannon supporters to believe the money raised by CHRG to support Brannon’s lawsuit amounted to a campaign contribution. It is my belief that had CHRG falsely stated it was a PAC, the City of Coeur d’Alene would have then demanded to know the names of Brannon’s financial supporters.
Today’s Press article would like its readers to believe that the City’s only intention in its actions was to ensure the State’s campaign finance laws were followed. The linked correspondence indicates the City was more interested in discouraging financial support for Brannon’s election contest. The City’s decision announced in today’s Press article was cover for the Coeur d’Alene City Council’s vote on December 7, 2010, to give $69,660 to its fellow City Councilman Mike Kennedy to help pay his legal bills resulting from Jim Brannon’s election contest lawsuit.
I read that this and saw the skew in it – what a bunch of gridley b.s. – even the AG’s office saw no merit in the complaint. Stinks.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 11, 2011 @ 12:34 pm
Stebbijo,
There never was any merit in the City’s assertion that funds raised to support Brannon’s election contest were campaign contributions.
This incident covering February and March 2010 is why our legislators must clearly articulate in statute when an election begins and ends for campaign finance reporting purposes.
Comment by Bill — February 11, 2011 @ 12:37 pm
Any bets on how soon that is going to happen? I have not seen or heard of any bills yet addressing the subject?
Comment by Stebbijo — February 11, 2011 @ 12:38 pm
If the present Idaho AG and Secretary of State are involved, look for it about half-past the turn of the next millennium if they’re still in office then.
Comment by Bill — February 11, 2011 @ 12:41 pm
The people who donated to support Jim Brannon wanted to support the legal challenge. He didn’t threaten the city with a tort claim like Mike Kennedy. Most of these claims against the city are dismissed. I want to know who was the mediator, he or she certainly didn’t have the interest of anyone but Kennedy in mind. Who hired this mediator? How much did these services(and I use this term loosely) cost? What account was this paid from? I supported Jim Brannon both with my legal vote and with funds for this legal challenge. I’m ticked that I had no say as a Coeur d’Alene taxpayer in the arrogant choice to pay Mike Kennedy’s two lawyers’ fees.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — February 11, 2011 @ 7:33 pm
2C3I,
Great questions and comment. Let me add other questions:
(1) Why did the City of Coeur d’Alene not deny Councilman Kennedy’s tort claim and require him to file a lawsuit against the City to recover money he paid to hire private counsel to defend him in the election contest lawsuit? The City’s lame excuse that it would have cost more to defend against the lawsuit than to settle it presumes the City would not have prevailed. That doesn’t say much for the professional competence of the City Attorney’s office and its privately contracted attorneys.
(2) Who were the participants in the “mediation?”
(3) In the purported “mediation,” who represented and advocated for the interests of Coeur d’Alene’s taxpayers who ultimately paid $69,660? Surely not the City Attorney’s office nor Kennedy’s private attorneys.
(4) What were the issues submitted for “mediation?” My suspicion is that only the amount to be awarded to Kennedy was actually discussed. Kennedy had no intention of suing the City — he would have been recalled for sure if he had. So if only the amount of taxpayer money to be awarded to him was discussed, then my first two questions are more relevant. I don’t know the answers, but if the only persons present were the mediator, a representative or two from the City Attorney’s office, and Kennedy’s attorney(s), then the public (taxpayer) interest was being represented by the City Attorney’s Office. But given the association between Councilman Kennedy and the City Attorney’s office, just how diligently would someone from the City Attorney’s office really represent the public’s interests?
Any way you slice it, Coeur d’Alene’s taxpayers got hosed by the City Council’s payment of $69,660 to Councilman Mike Kennedy.
Comment by Bill — February 12, 2011 @ 8:10 am
Funding Kennedy’s legal fees was a massive misuse of government power and the public’s money. Of course the city wants to sweep that under the rug! That’s why they stashed it in the back section of the paper the day after the huge McEuen Park confrontation. They know full well that to give Mike Kennedy $70,000 of the taxpayer’s money was shameful.
Comment by mary — February 12, 2011 @ 9:18 am
Mary,
It was stashed in the back section of the paper because that’s where both the news/views/skewspaper and the City wanted it stashed. There may be some behind the scenes collusion going on between Hagadone Corp. and the City. That certainly explains the newspaper’s non-coverage or under-coverage of some other stories regarding misuse of taxpayer money. The aroma of the Hagadone Corporation is beginning to resemble the aroma of the Cowles Corporation more and more.
Comment by Bill — February 12, 2011 @ 9:35 am
Isn’t Mike Kennedy subject to different campaign reporting requirements as an incumbent? I thought that he would have had to report the $69,660 on his latest Sunshine Report.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — February 12, 2011 @ 12:36 pm
Bill, I’ve heard boaters say that if Hagadone wanted to move the boat ramp, that Hagadone himself should pay for the new location. What’s your opinion if the Hagadone corporation is currently working with the city on funding for a replacement boat ramp, say, on Sander’s Beach?
Comment by Dan — February 12, 2011 @ 1:52 pm
Doublesee, you are right. Mike Kennedy IS IN the elected office. He has to file a yearly Sunshine Report and he should have listed the $70,000 GIFT from the City as a campaign contribution. Of course, that size of contribution is illegal, plus the City would have to register as a PAC. (Political Action Committee)
Comment by mary — February 12, 2011 @ 2:16 pm
Dan, I would guess that Mr. Hagadone would probably be willing to pay for a new boat ramp somewhere, just to get the 3rd Street Launch closed. I’d be surprised if he’s not trying to work with the City on such a move.
No matter what the source of the funding, the decision to remove the current boat launch and replace it elsewhere should go to a VOTE of the citizens. It should not be decided behind closed doors.
Also, Sanders Beach would pose a huge problem with trailer parking…there’s no space!
Comment by mary — February 12, 2011 @ 2:21 pm
Somewhat of a ‘history buff’ it seemed to me that it might be interesting to put this latest story development, (e.g. determination by the City Attorney) into context. The story (and I use that term because that is what is; it is not an ‘article’) declares “CITY WILL NOT FINE BRANNON”. The story represents that the City Attorney declared that “Idaho law does not contradict it.” (Brannon’s filing). Wouldn’t it be more accurate for the City Attorney to say something like, “It is consistent with Idaho law,?” or perhaps “It is in full compliance with Idaho law?”
Obviously the headline is misleading. I am unclear how the City could “fine” anyone, or “decide not to fine” anyone, who is acting in compliance with Idaho law. I would suggest that the headline, in order to be an example of responsible journalism, might have said something like, ‘Secretary of State doesn’t know Idaho Law’, or ‘Brannon Was Right’.
The story further states that Gridley explained that the prior opinion from the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office (Ysursa or Hurst), (under which the City apparently harassed various persons) was based on federal opinions, NOT IDAHO LAW. That might explain a lot. e.g. Idaho law for Idaho elections, and federal opinions for federal elections. That might also explain the basis of a lot of other opinions of the Secretary of State’s Office, such as UOCAVA (federal law regarding federal elections) permits U.S. citizens who have not lived in Cda, let alone Idaho, for over 20 years, to v vote in Cda elections.
Being curious I decided to waste more time and delve further. I thought it might be interesting to compare the Huckleberries story and comments, posted at the time the City Attorney and the Secretary of State took the position that ‘federal opinions’ governed Idaho elections with what we are now told is proper under IDAHO LAW. Here is what I found.
Upon reviewing these eloquent, and no doubt well thought out and grounded in Idaho law, comments I wondered if ‘the rest of the story’ had been posted by Huck and commented on.(Remember Tom Sawyer–not Huck Finn–was the smart one) Here is what I found Note: Rather than post a repeat of the press story I decided to just post the “0 comment” portion–I think that tells the “real” story.
Soooo, I guess Huck, like his namesake, is just ‘mentally challenged’ and the ‘mob mentality’ of his followers is fickle. In all fairness, perhaps they all just have poor memories when it comes to recalling the trash they strew about the internet.
[Bill’s comment: This included a lengthy cut-and-paste. To avoid copyright infringement and also to conform to OpenCdA Policy #9, I found the sources and hyperlinked to them. I also had to slightly edit the portion that begins “Note: Rather than post …”, because it was a colon followed by a parenthesis. That combination automatically generates the sad-face emoticon :(.]
Comment by Happy Trails — February 12, 2011 @ 2:43 pm
2C3I,
When Kennedy was certified as the election winner on November 9, 2009, by the board of canvassers (the Mayor and his fellow City Councilmen), he became the incumbent. According to Idaho’s campaign finance law (I.C. 67-6602):
The money he spent to preserve his incumbency would be a campaign expenditure, and the money he was awarded by the Coeur d’Alene City Council on December 7, 2010, the mediated settlement to refund his legal fees he spent to preserve his incumbency, would have been a campaign contribution. Thus, public money was obligated by the Coeur d’Alene City Council for a campaign contribution to its fellow councilmember, Mike Kennedy.
In contrast, Brannon’s candidacy ended at the same time Kennedy’s incumbency began, November 9, 2009. Brannon had no obligation to report any contributions for legal expenses in the election contest lawsuit, because he was no longer a candidate after November 9, 2009.
Comment by Bill — February 12, 2011 @ 3:29 pm
Dan,
Assuming the new boat ramp, parking area, and public street approaches did not create more problems for both users and the neighborhood where it ends up and assuming it is in every respect equal or better than the present ramp, it could be a worthwhile solution. I’m not familiar enough with Sanders Beach to comment on it as a prospective site. Wherever it might end up, he still needs to consider its effect on the people already in the area and others who would be affected by it. If that was being considered, I’d suggest Hagadone ask for and seriously consider public comment. Finally, the new boat ramp should be up and operating well before the old boat ramp is closed and removed. An overlap period would give people a chance to get used to the new one and for any kinks to be worked out.
Ever suspicious, though, I’d want there to be no secret strings attached from Hagadone or his Corp. No backroom deals promising him or his company something in return unless it’s revealed publicly and completely. Obviously any deal would have to be consistent with all applicable federal regulations, existing state statutes and regulations, and city ordinances and comply with any public hearing requirements.
Comment by Bill — February 12, 2011 @ 3:43 pm
Happy Trails: The elitist, self-obsessed, lefties at HBO enjoy thumping their chests, not solving any issue. That they’re ever right on any issue would surprise me.
Case in point: Phaedrus out-right lied about Kathy Sims accepting LCDC money, then challenged me to prove him wrong. A few minutes later, DFO posted a message from Sims where she flat-out denied ever accepting any money. Of course, Phaedrus didn’t apologize for being a liar, and instead moved on to lie about something else.
Comment by Dan — February 12, 2011 @ 3:51 pm
If Mike Kennedy had to report the $69,660 as an incumbent candidate and did not report the amount over $1,000, to whom can a citizen make a complaint?
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — February 13, 2011 @ 8:48 am
2C3I,
The general procedure is described in Idaho Code 67-6625.
I don’t see how the offices of the City Attorney, the County Prosecutor, or the state Attorney General can help but have a conflict. All of them have already taken actions or expressed opinions that demonstrably support Kennedy and are adversarial toward Brannon.
Comment by Bill — February 13, 2011 @ 9:01 am
Regarding the conversations above about a SANDERS Beach launch – I believe the most recent alternative site, other than the river, is at SILVER Beach. Reset.
Comment by Gary Ingram — February 13, 2011 @ 12:05 pm
You know, this ( CDA/KC) is really a terrible place to live. Nice visuals are a very small component of overall quality of life. A govt. that is representative and answerable to the public is a much larger ingredient to QOL. And how is this for a concept, a govt. that is credible. Elected officials who tell the truth. You won’t find it here…sad.
Comment by rochereau — February 13, 2011 @ 1:06 pm
I know what it feels like to lose beach access. Being from Bonner County, I saw the people just role over when they closed up access to Samowen Park and now people have to PAY for day use. It was all anyone had besides river access. I loved and grew up with that water – had so much fun there as a kid smoking the driftwood and fueling up our own firepits. We were truely free. I suspect that is how many CDA residents feel about the McEuen area.
In this area, my husband and I have dicovered that Deception Forest has some nice areas – it’s going to be awhile before they nail that area. I just can’t take all the touristy stuff that comes with this development. I want calmness and a sense of peace when I decide to go to the water. River spots are pretty much all we have unless we pay for federal beach areas or survive mass body public chaos. Downtown CDA has bit the dust – along time ago. Farragut State Park is just ruined. The high drive above Clark Fork, Idaho also has that kind of ‘get away feeling.’ But then, I am a real camper and not a fancy city camper. Silver Lake Plunge in Southern Idaho also has some great areas … and there are still parts of Montana. 😉
Comment by Stebbijo — February 13, 2011 @ 1:20 pm
Well, I wouldn’t go that far. This place has its issues, and the problems must be laid square on the shoulders of the community leaders. I would say that this place holds tremendous potential. To change for the better, a concentrated effort must be placed on these issues:
* A pro-business environment, which brings in the jobs.
* Community leaders who welcome everyone, so get rid of the cliques.
* Fiscal responsibility at all levels of government
* Added oversight for accountability and ethics in government, which includes reforming the state’s judicial system and the county prosecutor/AG’s offices.
I would argue that all of these items are good things, but I’ve ran for office twice on these issues and not only didn’t win but was viciously attacked at every turn. Even with those items in place, it’s difficult to change the character of this place because a majority is apathetic and a small minority is savagely partisan.
My fiance is from Massachusetts, and has lived all of her life on the east coast. She tells me that she’s never seen such an outrageous degree of political animosity anywhere else as she’s seen here in Coeur d’Alene. This is a place where the word “Democrat” might as well be the N-word. Likewise, many of the Democrats use “Republican” as the new N-word. It’s vicious, and I don’t know where it started, but I know that it’s maintained by extremists on both sides. How to end it, I have no clue.
Comment by Dan — February 13, 2011 @ 2:05 pm
Dan,
I suspect and hope that what you’re talking about when you say “bring in the jobs” is really wanting a diverse economy.
In the late 1960’s – early 1970’s, Seattle put nearly all its economic eggs in the Boeing basket. When the SST fell through, it was catastrophic for Seattle. Billboards appeared only half in jest reading, “Will the last person leaving Seattle please turn out the lights?”
I grew up down in Palouse but spent a good deal of time in northern Idaho. The generations-old northern Idaho conventional “wisdom” imparted to many kids was, “You don’t need education, and you don’t need to leave here. You’ll always have a job in logging, lumber mills, and mining.” We know that those industries have dwindled and can no longer sustain the local economy.
So in the 1980’s Coeur d’Alene hitched its wagon behind the hospitality industry horse. It alone is not enough, but Coeur d’Alene’s supposed “visionary leaders” are neither visionary nor leaders. They’re still wearing the generations-old north Idaho blinders, only now, their unifocus is on the hospitality industry. Tourism was a short-term answer in the 1980’s, one that should have but didn’t spark the realization that a sustained economy requires diversity that can adapt if one local industry (e.g., tourism) takes a serious hit.
Comment by Bill — February 13, 2011 @ 2:51 pm
That is why the natural resources industry was shut down – we needed a diverse economy – condos on the river, education corridor dreams – visions of world class parks – no more ugly logs or men in suspenders to look at ect.ect.ect. Those industries did not bale – they were run out and could not support so many of the enviromental causes/lawsuits that were facing their livlihood. Good think I did not own Canfield Mountain – I would have clear cut the whole damn thing – then I would have sold it off to some world class citizen from Japan.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 13, 2011 @ 3:40 pm
There’s potential in this area, but the biggest problem I believe is local government. I told Mayor Bloem I thought her city hall was business unfriendly, and she denied it. But the proof is out there all over. New businesses relocate to Post Falls. Mayor Bloem has re-zoned most of the city to residential and commercial development away from industrial. Look at the poor guy who wanted to open the Italian market on 4th and finally had to give up because the city buried him in permits. She may talk the talk, but the walk is business un-friendly.
Comment by Dan — February 13, 2011 @ 5:51 pm
Dan, what’s sad is that some folks say you and I are the cause of the vitriol in town, which is entirely false. We are asking questions and challenging our elected officials about their job performance. Those officials who don’t want public scrutiny of their behavior use personal attacks against us to try to change the subject and deflect attention away from their inept or improper actions.
I am hopeful that a change of course is coming in our town; that people are waking up and that the McEuen fiasco is getting their attention. Everywhere I go people are talking about a public VOTE on the McEuen issue, and whether they are for or against the proposed plan, they are mad that our city officials seem to be playing games with our voting rights.
Comment by mary — February 13, 2011 @ 6:46 pm
It is amazing how many people blame Hagadone for McEuen and think that he is behind the whole thing. They do not realize that it is the mayor, city council, the LCDC the players that bought up front street and commercial corridor through insider info.
Hagadone is no dummy, he’ll ride the wave if it benefits him. The difference is, Hagadone is a true businessman that does things on his OWN dime unlike the self serving opportunists in this town.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 13, 2011 @ 6:56 pm
Mary,
RE comment #26: The people’s demand for a vote on the McEuen project reflects the public’s lack of trust and confidence in our public officials, not just those elected but appointed as well. If the people truly felt that our Mayor, our City Council, our Parks Director, and the LCDC Commissioners were truly and faithfully representing and protecting the interests of all the people, we would not be calling for a vote. Our Mayor, City Council, Parks Director, and LCDC Commissioners are perceived as putting their own personal financial interests and the interests of some of their cronies before the interests of all the citizens of Coeur d’Alene and Kootenai County.
Comment by Bill — February 13, 2011 @ 7:19 pm
I am very hopeful that our public vote will prevail re: Brannon vs City. I demand that the Idaho Supreme Court get it right — because if they don’t, well then you know …
Comment by Stebbijo — February 13, 2011 @ 9:58 pm
The public vote has already been compromised. Look at the specific voters from Canada and thelr connections to Mike Kennedy, the judiciary and to the county officials. I hope the Idaho Supreme Court rules before Mike Kennedy is required to report any more $1,000 contributions from Unions outside of Kootenai County or contributions which exceed the $1,000 limit.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — February 14, 2011 @ 12:30 am
It has all come together as to why they NEEDED the Canadian votes to insure Kennedys win. The elite know that the public is on to them. If Kennedy had lost then what they have been working on for McEuen for the past decade would have been jeopardized with Brannon in a position to ask questions. We cannot have that now can we.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 14, 2011 @ 7:30 am
concerned citizen,
You are correct that the Mayor and City Council knew it was imperative to keep the 2010 City Council intact at all costs. One dedicated councilman generating public interest and scrutiny by demanding answers to pertinent questions, one honest councilman refusing to participate in closed-door meetings that violate the now-defunct Idaho Open Meeting Law, and it all begins to become unraveled. And the possibility of two or even three honest council members was absolutely unthinkable. This self-protection goes back further than the November 2009 city election, though.
This Mayor and Council’s objective is not to do what is best for all the City. Their objective is to put as many self-serving, irreversible obligations in place as possible so that regardless of the outcome of any votes in any elections, their harmful effects cannot be undone except at great cost.
Comment by Bill — February 14, 2011 @ 7:45 am
Bill and CC, you are so right about the impact of even one independent voice on the Council. Just look at the kerfuffle caused by ONE councilman, Ron Edinger, saying that he’s in favor of putting the McEuen project to a public VOTE. OMG! City Hall was in a twist!
Comment by mary — February 14, 2011 @ 8:28 am