In the ongoing Coeur d’Alene soap opera titled “Who Dimed Out Ron?,” today’s episode opens with the Coeur d’Alene Press story headlined Edinger spoke about job rule reporting that both Councilman Ron Edinger and his opponent in the November election, Adam Graves, have both said they were unaware of the state’s nepotism laws. As noted in yesterday’s OpenCdA post titled Oh, Please!, that puts both of them treading water in the same stagnant lake of ignorance as the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney, the Coeur d’Alene City Administrator (also an attorney), and the Coeur d’Alene City Human Resources Director.
Among the crowd of ignorants, Graves is the only one who gets a short-term, revocable pass. There are some publications that have been readily available online for years and are updated regularly by the Idaho Attorney General’s Office. Graves and the other first-time candidates would be well-served to review them. They include the Idaho Ethics in Government Manual, the Idaho Public Records Law Manual, the Idaho Open Meeting Law Manual, and the Service on an Idaho Non-Profit Board of Directors manual. The latter manual will help them understand how non-profit organizations (e.g., foundations) sometimes team up with political subdivisions of the state to hide certain financial transactions that would otherwise be subject to public scrutiny.
Teaser for tomorrow’s episode: The intrepid reporter has learned that the real culprit “Who Dimed Out Ron?” is a manipulative member of the Mullan Avenue Gang. Will our reporter assemble the MAG in a room, sweat them, deductively eliminate all but the culprit, and then get a tearful confession? Or will reporter and the duty photographer be swiftly dispatched to cover yet another ego-stroking check-passing ceremony, thus leaving the citizens of Coeur d’Alene to forever wonder, “Who Dimed Out Ron?”
Bill do you know if it is true that graves is related to McHugh somehow and if so, is this any different?
Comment by concerned citizen — October 14, 2011 @ 8:04 am
concerned citizen,
I don’t know if Graves is related to McHugh (I assume you mean Barry McHugh.) The Ethics in Government Manual (and the laws from which its content is derived) does a pretty good job of explaining the limits.
Comment by Bill — October 14, 2011 @ 8:11 am
I heard Graves speak at Pachyderms this morning. He said he merely inquired about Paula Austin (Ron’s daughter) and whether Ron voted on her salary. I believe Adam on that point. I think that’s all he did. The rest of the stuff came from City Hall.
Nancy Edinger was also at the Pachyderms. (I phoned Ron yesterday and he is not feeling well.) I remember her saying that she believes this attack is motivated because of Ron’s stance on McEuen Field.
Comment by Dan — October 14, 2011 @ 8:36 am
Dan,
People might also remember that in addition to Edinger’s public support for a public vote on the McEuen plan, he also abstained from voting on Goodlander’s December 7, 2010, motion, seconded by Bruning, to approve giving City (public) money to their fellow Councilman Mike Kennedy to help pay his personal legal fees.
Comment by Bill — October 14, 2011 @ 9:11 am
Very interesting, Bill. Hmmm. Do you think Kennedy’s playing pay back?
Comment by mary — October 14, 2011 @ 9:49 am
Yes!
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — October 14, 2011 @ 10:19 am
I am sure that they all keep dossiers on each other for such purposes. But to back stab Edinger is quite pathetic like beating up a 60 year old basset hound. Proof positive that there are no boundaries in ugly politics. They’ll eat your children if given half a chance.
Comment by Wallypog — October 14, 2011 @ 11:19 am
Wallypog,
Agreed. Many of the Mullan Avenue Gang are opportunists looking out primarily for themselves and perfectly willing to sacrifice the well-being of the citizens if it brings in another buck or millions to them and/or their employer. However, misconduct still needs to be exposed. Circumstances may mitigate the punishment to the offender, but exposure is essential so that the misconduct can be recognized and stopped. That’s why I absolutely support Adam Graves asking his question. Even if his motives might have been other than he stated (and I don’t have any proof they were), he still was right in asking about Edinger’s daughter.
Comment by Bill — October 14, 2011 @ 11:28 am
Bill,
The difficulty arises when the info is doled out purposefully, to achieve a particular goal. Toward that goal the ‘dirt’ becomes successfully deployed and however well intentioned recognizing the whistle blower rather abets their designs. In this instance the clumsy, oafish machinations are easy to see. Then again they were when Kennedy last ran for reelection yet still they worked (perhaps in large part thanks to the X-city clerk). Smarmy stuff, all-N-all.
Comment by Wallypog — October 14, 2011 @ 12:13 pm
I have to agree with Wallypog. If graves found this on his own it would be a different story. I would like to know how three paid attorneys have not found this until now yet, an advertiser “just happens” across it.
Comment by concerned citizen — October 14, 2011 @ 12:51 pm
Wallypog and concerned citizen,
I think you both recognize that the problem is a larger institutional problem with the way the Coeur d’Alene City government is administered and in some cases manipulated by officials both elected and appointed.
The example I’ve used before is the November 2009 election canvass that was supposed to be done by the Mayor and City Council. They didn’t canvass the election because they didn’t know what a canvass entailed. Who would have explained it to them? The City Attorney — the same City Attorney who represented he was unfamiliar with the state’s nepotism laws! As their own trial attorney, Haman, admitted at the lawsuit trial, they (the Mayor and Council acting as the statutorily required board of canvassers) simply “rubber-stamped” the results that were put in front of them by their contractor, the Kootenai County Clerk’s Elections Office. They weren’t leaders; they were tools, literally rubber stamps.
That “never question the staff (or hired help), never ask questions” abandonment of duty and responsibility is what needs to change if the public’s confidence and trust in the Coeur d’Alene city government is to be restored.
Comment by Bill — October 14, 2011 @ 4:39 pm
The systemic problem is the City attorney and the fact that the city council doesn’t do their jobs and it is continually over looked or excused by the city attorney. That symbiotic relationship will never change with this council.
Comment by Ancientemplar — October 14, 2011 @ 5:13 pm
Ancientemplar,
With some justification public officials often avoid incurring liability when “in good faith” they follow the advice of their (city) attorney. But invoking the “We have to take our (city) attorney’s advice” escape clause sometimes goes too far. We now have a City Attorney who has publicly admitted that he was unfamiliar with the state’s laws of nepotism. Given that admission, how can the City’s officials continue to have a “good faith reliance” on his advice?
Remember, this is the same City Attorney who recommended to the Mayor and Council at the Council meeting on December 7, 2010, that the City pay $69,660 of Councilman Mike Kennedy’s personal legal fees (see December 7, 2010, Council Minutes beginning on page 4 with the heading “MIKE KENNEDY TORT CLAIM”.) “In conclusion Mr. Gridley, as the City’s legal counsel, recommends the Council accept the proposed settlement of $69,660.”
And accept it they did — all except for Councilman Edinger who abstained from the vote.
Comment by Bill — October 15, 2011 @ 7:33 am
Just to be fair, everyone that collects a paycheck from the city needs a background checks to see if they are related to anyone else. It’s what happens when you open that can of worms ya know.
Comment by Jullee — October 18, 2011 @ 12:55 pm
Jullee,
Most public agency employment application forms ether ask that question or require the applicant to divulge the information and identify relatives. Failure to answer questions truthfully and completely is always (well, maybe except in Corrupt d’Alene) grounds for immediate rejection of the application, and in the case of someone already hired, immediate dismissal for cause. Then again, given the cumulative ignorance of our city administrator, city attorney, and city HR director, one wonders if the applicant’s information is even verified.
Comment by Bill — October 18, 2011 @ 1:04 pm