Archives for February 2011

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

It isn’t every day that state Reps. Phil Hart and John Rusche agree on anything — particularly ethics in government.

But it happened Tuesday. Hart, a Hayden Republican and Ethics Committee frequent flier, voiced his support for a rewrite of House rules. So did Rusche, the Lewiston Democrat who filed an ethics complaint against Hart.

No surprise, then, that the full House voted 70-0 for the rules changes, crafted by House Speaker Lawerence Denney. But does good consensus-building yield good policy?

In this case, yes and no.

Because, ultimately, you’re going to have to take the House’s word for it. The new rules will bring a new level of secrecy to the process.

The new rules aren’t completely bad. They take one step in the right direction by creating a catch-all offense: “conduct unbecoming a member of the House.”

That umbrella language would have come in handy in a case filed against Hart late last year. Hart was accused of logging trees from endowment lands without paying the state. Since the incident occurred before Hart was elected, it didn’t neatly fit into ethics rules limited to legislative duties.

The House also tightened up the rules about who can — and can’t — file an ethics complaint, restricting the process to House members only. Based on recent events, this is also a reasonable move.

Howard Griffiths filed an ethics complaint, months after mounting an unsuccessful write-in campaign against Hart. Political activist Larry Spencer filed an ethics complaint against state Rep. Eric Anderson, a Priest Lake Republican who had filed an ethics complaint against Hart.

Dizzy yet? The upshot is that this is not the way an ethics process should function. An anything-goes process allows any unsuccessful candidate or naysayer to file a nuisance complaint.

Voters still have several good ways to air grievances. They can run for Legislature or support an opposing candidate. They can organize a recall effort. They can take their case to another lawmaker and request an ethics investigation. This new rule does not lock the public out of the process.

Unfortunately, another change does.

An ethics complaint is now considered confidential, at least at first. A committee will consider sealed complaints in a closed session. If the committee finds probable cause, the complaint becomes public record.

The justification, predictably enough, is to protect lawmakers from baseless smears. But this comes at an unacceptable price.

– Can you say “whitewash”? A closed process makes it easy — too easy — for leadership to keep a complaint hush-hush.

– Secrecy also makes it too easy for leadership to intimidate or punish a lawmaker who pursues an ethics case. (Keep in mind, Anderson lost a coveted committee vice chairmanship after filing a complaint against Hart, although Denney insists this was an oversight.)

– Conversely, secrecy allows a rogue lawmaker to try to slow down the process, or retaliate against colleagues, with a torrent of ethics complaints. If a lawmaker files an ethics complaint, shouldn’t his or her constituents know?

Secrecy invites more problems than it solves.

And it sends an unmistakable message.

On Tuesday, 70 House members agreed that their self-policing process had problems. One problem, apparently, was an abundance of transparency.

A sad message indeed.

“Our View” is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman’s editorial board.

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

Editorial from The Spokesman-Review

Idaho lawmaker Joe Palmer said the most puzzling thing in explaining why a bill codifying the House’s ethics rules should take a shortcut to a floor vote rather than follow the normal course back to the State Affairs Committee.

“There is no reason to come back here for a public hearing. This does not involve the public,” the Meridian Republican said.

On the contrary, everything the Legislature does involves the public. And since the measure in question would remove the public from certain proceedings related to House members’ conduct, the public is unquestionably involved.

The measure under consideration was offered by House Speaker Lawerence Denney in the aftermath of a flurry of ethics concerns over state Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol. Denney’s bill would largely reaffirm rules and practices that are already in place and backed up by an attorney general’s opinion saying only House members may file ethics complaints against House members.

That part’s reasonable. Private citizens have many other ways to kick up a loud fuss over elected officials’ misbehavior. They can make their complaints heard, and voters hold the ultimate power of the ballot to turn scoundrels out.

But Denney’s bill includes a troublesome if not downright alarming provision. It would require that member-against-member complaints be kept confidential until the Ethics Committee has found probable cause to look into them. If no such determination were ever reached, the public might never find out.

That might almost make sense if just any old rabble could drown the House in specious and ungrounded accusations. But, remember, the bill would say that complaints may be filed only by fellow honorables, from whom more reflection and restraint could be expected.

But when it does happen – when elected officials are so strongly offended by a colleague’s unethical conduct that they need to protest formally – the public has an unmistakable interest. The quality and integrity of their government is at stake.

Moreover, there are dual levels of accountability. The public – the ultimate source of political authority in a democratic system – is entitled not only to judge the accusation but also the manner in which the accused’s associates deal with it.

These are fundamentals of representative democracy. Speaker Denney and Rep. Palmer should be better acquainted with them.

Editorial from The Spokesman-Review

From the Idaho Statesman

Nampa insurance salesman Bob Henry filed a 74-page brief with the Idaho Supreme Court Thursday, contending that if his public-records suit hadn’t been rejected in district court last summer, Canyon County’s financial woes with ex-Prosecutor John Bujak might have been averted.

Henry is appealing Judge Kathryn Sticklen’s July ruling that upheld Bujak’s refusal to release bank records documenting his handling of a nearly $600,000 contract for his office to handle misdemeanor prosecutions for the city of Nampa. She agreed with Bujak that the records were private, but Henry still contends they were public.

“Canyon County’s refusal to disclose the public documents has been especially costly,” Henry’s appeal states. “Not only has Mr. Henry incurred legal fees and costs, but the Canyon County taxpayers have lost several hundreds of thousands of dollars, funds which Canyon County now asserts were wrongfully taken by former Prosecuting Attorney Bujak.

“It now seems clear that had Canyon County properly responded to Mr. Henry’s first records request in March of 2010, the mishandling of funds would have been exposed to the public in time to prevent much of the loss Canyon County now seeks to recover through its litigation with Bujak.”

Bujak had the Nampa money sent to a private trust account, telling county leaders that money would cover all of his office’s non-personnel expenses and in effect profit the county around $300,000.

When Bujak abruptly resigned Sept. 30, county leaders said he owed them nearly $293,000.

Bujak filed for bankruptcy about a month later and disputes that he owes the county. Last week Canyon County commissioners filed a complaint trying to keep bankruptcy proceedings from eliminating the ex-prosecutor’s debt to the county.

From the Idaho Statesman