Today’s Idaho Statesman is reporting that the Chairman of the Idaho House State Affairs Committee, Representative Thomas F.  Loertscher, ordered a private citizen to stop filming the public meeting of the State Affairs Committee.  At the same time Loertscher allowed a member of “the media” to continue filming.

So was it a public meeting or not?  If it was, and assuming the citizen was not being any more disruptive than the skews media representative allowed to continue, then was Loertscher right or wrong?

Here is what Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden says in the Idaho Open Meeting Law Manual (see pages 14-15) about this type of circumstance:

Question No. 18:  May qualifications or restrictions be placed on the public’s attendance at an open meeting?

Answer:   A public agency may adopt reasonable rules and regulations to ensure the orderly conduct of a public meeting and to ensure the orderly behavior on the part of those persons attending the meeting.  In Nevens v. City of Chino, a California appellate court nullified a city council measure, which prohibited the use of any tape recorders at city council proceedings.  While acknowledging that the city council had an absolute right to adopt and enforce rules and regulations necessary to protect its public meetings, the court held that the rule prohibiting tape recorders was too arbitrary, capricious, restrictive and unreasonable.  A similar holding might be reach if a governing body prohibits the use of cameras if their presence is not in fact disruptive of the conduct of the meeting. […]

If the AG has adopted that the sole criterion for the use of cameras is the level of disruption and not the occupation or employer of the camera operator, it seems to OpenCdA that the Idaho Open Meeting Law was violated and the private citizen was wrongly deprived of his ability to non-disruptively use his camera and record for inclusion in his blog.

What are Loertscher’s criteria for differentiating between “media public” and “public public?”  It seems to us that if only the “public public” is required to get prior permission from the Chairman, the implication is that the Chairman may deny that permission to the “public public” while still allowing the “media public” to record.  That would, we think, be arbitrary, capricious, restrictive, and unreasonable and amount to differential and preferential enforcement of the Idaho Open Meeting Act.

What do you think?

Yesterday’s local skewspaper article headlined Athol audit results revealed included this statement:  “[Assistant US Attorney Traci] Whelan said the federal government got involved in the case because Hansen was a public employee in a position of public trust.”

Fine.  That was certainly an acceptable reason.

But from 1985 until she retired in 2010, Sandra Kay Martinson was a public employee in a position of public trust as Kootenai County Chief Deputy Clerk and Auditing Supervisor embezzling public money in the office of former Kootenai County Clerk Dan English.  Yet when English’s replacement Cliff Hayes requested assistance from the FBI, his request was first approved and then just as quickly withdrawn.  According to the FBI’s response to our inquiry through Congressman Raul Labrador, Hayes’ request (not ours as AD Perkins incorrectly stated in his letter) was turned down by AUSA Whelan’s boss, the office of the US Attorney for the District of Idaho Wendy J. Olson.  Martinson was convicted in state court and sentenced to 90 days in the county jail, however she was released from jail before she completed that sentence.

So if the reason for the feds getting involved in Hansen’s investigation was because she was a public employee in a position of public trust, then why did the US Attorney for the District of Idaho tell the FBI to back off on Martinson?

According to a press release from the United States Attorney for the District of Idaho, former Athol City Clerk Sally R. Hansen  pleaded guilty today to 15 counts of wire fraud.

“According to court documents, during the time of her employment, Hansen used the wires and fraudulently took $417,879 from the City of Athol.  She did this by writing fraudulent checks to herself and her husband and using the wires to transfer money between different city accounts.

The maximum penalty for each count is up to 20 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, three years of supervised release and $100 special assessment.”

Our January 10, 2015, post entitled “They Just Didn’t Do It” provided some details about how Hansen committed her crimes.  With city officials paying little attention to what she was doing, it wasn’t difficult.

Officials of local governments as well as school and community college districts have a  duty to act in the best interests of their constituents.  Too many officials are either unintentionally unaware or intentionally disregarding that duty and the penalties that can be imposed if they fail to diligently and honestly perform them.    When those officials fail to diligently and impartially perform their oversight duties, dishonest insiders (usually trusted and long-time employees) exploit those failures for personal gain.

We have seen that in Kootenai County with the convictions of former Kootenai County Chief Deputy Clerk and Auditing Supervisor Sandra Martinson and former Coeur d’Alene City Finance Department Payroll Coordinator Sheryl Carroll.  Recently former Athol City Clerk Sally Hansen has been charged in federal court with wire fraud and stealing approximately $400,000 from the city during her five years of employment.

But Idaho isn’t the only place where lax oversight by supervisors can lead to embezzlement and grand theft.  In Pasadena, California,  the Los Angeles Times is reporting that Pastor Danny Wooten has been accused of embezzling over $5 million during the ten years he was working as a management analyst for the city of Pasadena.  The January 15, 2015, Times article is headlined Pasadena embarrassed by charges that employee embezzled $5 million.

If you carefully read the Times article, you are going to see some of the same things we heard in the Martinson and Carroll cases. (more…)

According to this vacancy announcement posted on the Idaho Judicial Council website, First District Court Judge Benjamin Simpson will retire on April 30, 2015.  A replacement will be appointed to fill out his unexpired term of office.

The deadline for receiving applications was January 5, 2015.  Here is a list of the applicants.

Members of the Idaho Judicial Council will meet in Coeur d’Alene in March 2015 to interview candidates and select nominees.   We don’t know if the interviews will be public.

The public may provide input to the Idaho Judicial Council about who from the list of applicants should be the next First District Court Judge.  Here is the public questionnaire which the public must use to submit comments (positive or negative) about applicants.

What is the key to innovation?  Advanced technology?  Nope!

As this story in the Coeur d’Alene Press shows, advanced technology (in this case SMS – short message service, more commonly called text messaging) would have been ineffective had it not been for the innovative application of the technology by Post Falls Police Department dispatchers.

The key to innovation is people equipped first and foremost with nimble minds, people who are creative and innovative and unafraid to try something differently.  In this case, a life was probably saved by dispatchers who creatively applied a tool provided to be used for a somewhat different purpose.  Good for them, and good for the people who hired, trained, and supervise them!