One of Idaho’s Assistant Deputy Attorney Generals, Brian Kane, responded to Rep. Kathy Sims’ letter asking for a review of possible conflicts of interest in the McEuen decision. Kane’s letter said that, based on Kathy’s letter and the minutes of the May 24th city council meeting, there did not seem to be any conflicts of interest of a civil nature. The AG’s office cannot evaluate possible criminal conflicts.
The very good thing in the letter was the part about the public’s right to a referendum or initiative on this issue. The AG himself, Lawerence Wasden, told Kathy Sims, in a phone conversation, that he does NOT agree with Scott Reed’s assessment of the public having no right to a vote; the Attorney General said the citizens do have a voice. Here’s the quote from the official letter:
In short, although the City Council may have rejected an approach to place the McEuen Master Plan before the electorate, your constituents may have the option of placing the McEuen Master Plan on the ballot themselves through either the Referendum or Initiative processes… The Idaho Supreme Court has recognized the power of the initiative specifically noting: “Sometimes it compels authorities to listen when nothing else will.”…In sum, the Court recognized the ability of constituents to circulate petitions for initiatives with regard to virtually any issue that may come before a city council.
You can read the whole letter from the AG’s office here.
For more about initiative and referendum rights – see http://www.iandrinstitute.org/
Comment by Pariah — June 9, 2011 @ 9:09 am
Very interesting link, Pariah, thank you. The history of initiatives in the State of Idaho is colorful, to say the least! Here’s just a sampling of what has happened in the recent past, according to the web site:
Comment by mary — June 9, 2011 @ 9:22 am
I recall that fight.
Comment by Pariah — June 9, 2011 @ 9:47 am
So the state motto, at least for elected officials, should be esto perpetua superbiens.
Comment by Dan — June 9, 2011 @ 11:06 am
Orchids are forever?
Comment by Pariah — June 9, 2011 @ 11:45 am
How about:
Government of the (pretty) People,
By the (pretty)People, and
For the (pretty)People…..
Comment by Pariah — June 9, 2011 @ 11:46 am
or –
If you got the money, honey,
You won’t do the time.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 9, 2011 @ 11:59 am
“… based on Kathy’s letter and the minutes of the May 24th city council meeting …”
So Kane did not obtain and review the audio/video recording of the May 24 City Council meeting? He accepted as accurate and complete the written minutes?
Comment by Bill — June 9, 2011 @ 8:17 pm
I thought the request was for an investigation. How one can do an investigation by obtaining letters from the attorneys for the City and LCDC and not actually speaking to real people and looking at the facts, is well…the Idaho Attorney General.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — June 9, 2011 @ 8:30 pm
It doesn’t seem as though they used any other sources, Bill. And yes, Joe six-pack, the letter from the city attorney was silly and the letter from the LCDC’s attorney said absolutely nothing–all it did was recite state law, not apply it to the appropriate members of the board. This is such an obfuscation!
Comment by mary — June 9, 2011 @ 8:49 pm
I am very upset at the cdapress article trying to pass this off as being investigated. It is truly sad that todays “reporters” are ALL bought and paid for and will only write what they are TOLD to write.
Comment by concerned citizen — June 10, 2011 @ 6:45 am
I suggest that if the Prosecutor, or the AG, would investigate something, sometime, and make some legitimate determination, about something, people would give them some respect.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — June 10, 2011 @ 9:10 am
CC: When has it not been that way?
Comment by Dan — June 10, 2011 @ 9:12 am