Archives for 2011

From the University of Idaho

Media Contact: Tania Thompson, University Communications-Moscow, (208) 310-9736, taniat@uidaho.edu; Ysabel Bilbao, University Communications-Boise (208) 989-8855, ybilbao@uidaho.edu

U-Idaho Files Action With Court Seeking Records Release Ruling

MOSCOW, Idaho — The University of Idaho filed an Action for Declaratory Relief with the Latah County District Court late this afternoon — as directed by President M. Duane Nellis last Friday — to seek a ruling on whether the personnel records for Ernesto Bustamante, who police believe shot Kathryn Benoit last week, can be released.

Today’s filing asks the court to interpret the meaning of the Idaho Public Records Law §9-340C(1), which bars public agencies from releasing most personnel records for current and former employees without the employee’s consent. The question to be resolved by the court is whether this law applies after the death of the former employee.

“This is an unusual request, because it asks the court to resolve an issue before a complaint is ever filed,” said Kent Nelson, university general counsel. “It’s fitting in that we want to provide a timely accounting for the public within the bounds of the law.”

The university has been in touch with several media agencies. Those that agreed to participate as defendants in this action include the Lewiston Publishing Company, which publishes both the Lewiston Morning Tribune and the Moscow-Pullman Daily News. The Idaho Statesman also has agreed to join. Others may join as well.

“We’re working with the media outlets to gain a timely answer to this question,” said Nelson.

# # #

About the University of Idaho

The University of Idaho helps students to succeed and become leaders. Its land-grant mission furthers innovative scholarly and creative research to grow Idaho’s economy and serve a statewide community. From its main campus in Moscow, Idaho, to 70 research and academic locations statewide, U-Idaho emphasizes real-world application as part of its student experience. U-Idaho combines the strength of a large university with the intimacy of small learning communities. It is home to the Vandals, and competes in the Western Athletic Conference. Learn more: www.uidaho.edu.

From the University of Idaho

From the University of Idaho

MOSCOW, Idaho – University of Idaho President M. Duane Nellis today directed the university legal counsel to seek a ruling from the courts to allow the release of personnel information related to former professor Ernesto Bustamante. At the same time, Nellis has ordered an independent review of the institution’s policies and procedures in the aftermath of this week’s homicide-suicide in Moscow to ensure that the university maintains the highest safety and security standards. The university also today released a detailed chronology of its interaction with graduate student Katy Benoit.

“This tragic situation has brought a profound sadness to our entire community,” said Nellis. “And while incidents of violence like this are very rare in Moscow, even one tragedy is too many. We must continue to do everything we can to protect our students and our campus community; for that reason, I am asking for an independent review of the university’s policies and procedures to ensure that we are doing the very best job we possibly can.”

Nellis also has reaffirmed that the university is committed to full public disclosure of all related documents, as it gains authority to release them.

A review of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act has found that the confidentiality of student records does not extend beyond the life of a student.

However, Idaho’s public records law concerning employee records do seem to extend after death. To clarify how the public records statutes should be applied to this situation, the university will ask for a legal determination from the courts regarding what records it could release related to Bustamante.

Nellis and Bruce Pitman, dean of students, have spoken directly with the family of Katy Benoit, who was killed off campus Monday evening, to share their personal condolences and those of the university community. They have made university resources available to the family. Details of a Moscow campus memorial are still pending. A memorial service and funeral for Benoit will take place in Boise on Tuesday, Aug. 30, at 4 p.m., at Boise High School, 1010 W. Washington.

“Our hearts and prayers go out to the family of Katy Benoit,” said Nellis. “We understand their desire to have a full accounting of the circumstances that led to Katy’s death. I intend to do everything I can to answer their questions. A tragedy has occurred and we all want answers.”

The university will outline the independent review process in the coming days.

The university maintains its crime statistics online and last year, it ranked as the 36th safest campus in the nation.

The University of Idaho continues to cooperate fully with the Moscow Police Department. It is providing documents with possible relevance to the case to the police as part of MPD’s ongoing investigation of the case.

Here is a timeline for the university’s interactions with Katy Benoit. This does not include any information from the perspective of Bustamante’s personnel record.

• June 10, 2011: University’s first contact with Benoit to discuss a complaint. Based on allegations, the university urged Benoit take safety precautions and that she contact Moscow Police Department (MPD). University provided Benoit with personal contact information for MPD and Alternatives to Violence of the Palouse (ATVP) for assistance beyond those the university could provide. University also contacted Moscow Police Department directly.
• June 12, 2011: University received details of Benoit’s complaint in writing.
• June 13, 2011: Benoit sends e-mail indicating she had contacted MPD.
• June 13, 2011: University replied to Benoit again urging her to also contact ATVP.
• June 14, 2011: Benoit sends e-mail to university saying she does not want Bustamante served with her complaint at this time before discussing it further. She indicates she will come in the next day.
• June 16, 2011: When Benoit did not come in on June 15, the university sent an e-mail to her to encourage the follow-up meeting.
• June 30, 2011: University receives e-mail from Benoit apologizing for being out of touch. Benoit writes she had been out of town and would be gone again the next week.
• July 6, 2011: University informed Benoit by e-mail that her complaint had been sent to Bustamante along with a letter detailing the possible university policy violations. It had been held until this date at her request. The university reiterated the importance of seeking more help, including calling police if Benoit ever felt the need. She was also told that Bustamante had been directed by the university to have no contact with her. Benoit was told to inform the university immediately if Bustamante did attempt to contact her.
• July 9, 2011: Benoit e-mails university to say she is out of town until July 13.
• July 14, 2011: University Threat Assessment Team, including Moscow Police Department representative, meets to assess the level of the safety risk for Benoit and others involved in the investigation.
• July 14, 2011: University investigators met with Benoit to review Bustamante’s response and notify her that university investigators would interview Bustamante on July 19. This was considered a high-risk point so recommendation was made she stay somewhere other than her apartment to avoid contact.
• July 22, 2011: University called Benoit to ask where she would be until the start of school. She said she would be in Moscow. University encouraged her to continue to take safety precautions, including contacting MPD.
• August 22, 2011: University met with Benoit to inform her that Bustamante’s last day of employment was August 19. She was cautioned to remain vigilant and get assistance from the police and others if she had any safety concerns. University also encouraged Benoit to remain in contact with university representatives and to take advantage of university support services.

From the University of Idaho

From the Idaho Statesman

After the city of Boise canceled Clearview Cleaning Services’ $368,000 contract to clean city facilities, its owner filed a public records request to try to learn what happened.

The city refused to turn over some of the records, saying they pertained to a “law enforcement investigation.” So Clearview Cleaning Services owner Sylvia Hampel took the city to court to gain access to the records.

Judge Thomas Neville didn’t accept the city’s claim that the documents were exempt from public disclosure. On Aug. 19, he ordered city to pay most of the legal fees Hampel incurred taking to the city to court.

Neville said seven of 10 withheld documents “could not under any plausible reading be described as investigatory records of a law enforcement agency as claimed by the city.” The judge also found that “the city’s refusal to provide those seven documents was frivolously pursued.”

Since seven of the 10 documents were frivolously withheld, the court ordered the city to pay 70 percent of Hampel’s legal costs, or $4,137.22.

The legal victory did not give Hampel the answers she was seeking. She still does not know why the city canceled her contract just before it was to begin.

The released documents did reveal some details about the city’s decision to end Hampel’s contact.

According to one email, recently retired Boise Deputy Police Chief Jim Kerns called a Feb. 28 meeting with Boise Mayor Dave Bieter’s chief of staff, Jade Riley, and representatives from the city’s purchasing and legal departments to discuss the Police Department cleaning contract and “a security sensitive issue that must resolved before the close of business.”

Clearview Cleaning was to begin the next day cleaning City Hall, the libraries, the police station and other city facilities. After that meeting, the city sent Hampel an email canceling the contract for “purchasing irregularities.”

The city then piggybacked onto the state’s cleaning contract with ABM to also provide cleaning services to the city.

Hampel said she does not plan to pursue further legal action against the city. A city spokesman said the city does not plan an appeal.

Hampel’s company this week was awarded the contract to clean the Ada County Courthouse.

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Idaho Statesman

BY CYNTHIA SEWELL

Board member Judy Peavey-Derr has filed a complaint with the Ada County prosecutor’s office, alleging open meeting and ethics violations by fellow Greater Boise Auditorium District board members Mike Fitzgerald, Hy Kloc and Gail May.

Kloc, the board chairman, said the allegations are unfounded.

Two new members were elected in May to the board, which oversees the Boise Centre convention facilities, collects a 5 percent Boise-area hotel room tax and is looking at building a new Downtown convention center. The complaint is only the latest in a series of district standoffs, rumors and disagreements that have escalated since the election.

In her complaint, Peavey-Derr alleges that the three members — constituting a quorum of the five-member board — discussed proposals coming before the board. She said she based that complaint, in part, on the three having information about agenda items that she and member Stephanie Astorquia were not privy to.

In addition, she said the three members intentionally skirted state procurement laws that guide contracts of $25,000 or more in awarding a $24,500 contract to the Boise Convention and Visitors Bureau. She also said the board let the visitors bureau help draft GBAD’s request for marketing services in such a manner that the bureau would be the only entity qualified to provide these services, another violation of procurement law.

Kloc said he met with Fitzgerald and May outside formal meetings before he took office, but not since. Members do communicate one on one, which does not violate the open meetings law. And, he said, the board’s legal counsel vetted the BCVB contract before the board approved it, and the majority accepted that advice.

Other GBAD issues that have emerged in recent weeks:

Fitzgerald has an eastern Idaho job.

For the past two months, GBAD board member Mike Fitzgerald has been working in eastern Idaho as the general manager of Carino’s Italian Restaurant in Ammon. Of the past seven board meetings, Fitzgerald has attended two in person and the other five via telephone.

Kloc said he consulted with GBAD’s lawyer, who said that since Fitzgerald still has his residence in Boise, is registered to vote in Ada County and intends to return to Boise, he is considered a resident of the auditorium district. Kloc said he’s received a number of queries, but Fitzgerald will not be asked to step down.

The check to the BCVB is still not signed.

For more than a month, GBAD treasurer Astorquia has refused to sign a $24,500 check payable to the BCVB. She said she is not sure the transaction is legal because, in part, the amount intentionally skirts the state’s $25,000 procurement law. She has repeatedly asked Kloc and the board to have independent legal counsel review the contract; she said if it passes muster, she would sign the check.

The board has refused to support the request for additional legal review. On Aug. 17, the board voted 3-2 to give check-signing authority to the board chairman as well as the treasurer.

Chairman Kloc said once the bank paperwork is complete and BCVB documents it has completed the contract’s work, he’ll sign the check.

According to BCVB Director Bobbie Patterson, rumors that the money would be used to repay personal loans she has made to the visitors bureau are not true. Patterson — who once made more than $150,000 a year as BCVB director — and her staff have been working without pay since GBAD cut them off last year over legal and oversight concerns.

A new contract with the BCVB is still up in the air.

On Aug. 11, the GBAD board voted 4-1 to offer the visitors bureau a one-year, $288,128 marketing services contract. The contract includes a $208,728 commission on events and business the visitors bureau brought to the Boise Centre in 2010 and $79,400 in-kind office space and equipment the district would provide the bureau.

As of Friday, the auditorium district had not received a response from the bureau as to whether it would accept the contract.

The visitor’s bureau had requested an “annual fee not to exceed $650,000.” Patterson said BCVB and GBAD lawyers are still meeting to iron out details on determining an accurate commission formula and contract amount.

Cynthia Sewell: 377-6428

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Twin Falls Times-News

Investigating a situation as complicated as last month’s Hampton Inn shooting and hostage crisis takes time, and the details aren’t always open for immediate public inspection.

In the case of Clark Cleveland, the suspect charged with taking the life of Utah man Tracy Ivie, Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs used the grand jury — a secret investigative body comprised of ordinary citizens but charged with great legal power — to levy 12 felony charges that could send Cleveland to jail for the rest of his life.

The grand jury also offers little transparency. An individual suspected of committing a crime isn’t informed that he or she is a target of investigation, nor is the suspect required to appear in court until indicted and either summonses or arrested. And often, since the defendant isn’t made aware of the hearing, only the prosecution presents evidence and witnesses to the grand jury. But jurors must consider all evidence provided, whether it helps or harms the prosecution’s case for charges.

The public isn’t included in the process either, sometimes giving the false appearance that the wheels of justice aren’t moving. Even after an indictment is filed, a transcript of the secret hearing is available to a defendant, but not the public.

Loebs defends the secrecy, saying it is needed for the protection of all parties.

“The police don’t telegraph to the public what cases they’re working on,” he said. If a suspect knows the grand jury is investigating, he or she may flee, threaten witnesses or destroy evidence. Secrecy also offers protection to the jurors of high-profile cases like the 2008 murder of Dale Miller in Twin Falls and the 2006 strangulation of Rosemarie Murphy. In both cases, suspects who eventually pleaded guilty to the murders were indicted by a grand jury.

On the flip side, the secret nature of the grand jury preserves an individual’s character if he or she is not accused of a crime at the end of the hearing.

“It protects people on both sides and the integrity of the case,” Loebs said.

Custody of the tightly held information of a grand jury hearing is also entrusted in the jurors, who face criminal penalties for sharing information from a hearing, even after its completion.

Steeped in secrecy, the process isn’t without criticism and controversy. Defense attorneys are generally not fans of the grand jury, particularly here, where the body was once disbanded.

The Times-News reported in 1992 that approximately 30 criminal indictments were struck down by a district judge after the county’s public defender, Mike Wood, and other defense attorneys challenged the cases and alleged misconduct in the office of former Prosecutor Ellen Baxter. The grand jury, which must be renewed by a district judge every six months, was discontinued for a few years. According to court records, Twin Falls County didn’t see a single case stem from a grand jury indictment in 1993 and 1994.

Soon after, newly-elected Prosecutor G. Richard Bevan petitioned the court for a new grand jury. Since then, the grand jury has handed down 214 indictments, as Loebs has continued its use since taking the top job in 1997.

Twin Falls County’s current public defender, Marilyn Paul, declined to share an opinion about the grand jury process on Friday.

Every case is different, so Loebs doesn’t have a set of prerequisites as to which cases should go before a grand jury and which cases should be filed as a complaint. Of the hundreds of felony cases filed in the county each year — 470 adult felony cases were filed in 2010 — Loebs said the bulk goes through the preliminary process.

“I can’t take every little grand theft or burglary to (the grand jury),” he said. “It would be too time consuming.”

So don’t be surprised if someday you get a summons for jury duty and wind up on the grand jury. Just keep your lips zipped.

Bradley Guire may be reached at 735-3380

From the Twin Falls Times-News

From the Idaho Statesman

Most of the emails Boise wanted to withhold have nothing to do with a criminal investigation, a judge says

BY CYNTHIA SEWELL – cmsewell@idahostatesman.com

Copyright: © 2011 Idaho Statesman

After the city of Boise canceled without explanation Clearview Cleaning Services’ $368,000 contract to clean city facilties, its owner filed a public records request to try to learn what happened.

The city refused to turn over some of the records, saying they pertained to a “law enforcement investigation.”

Judge Thomas Neville didn’t buy the city’s claim the documents were exempt from public disclosure.

“The city has held out all 10 of these documents as investigatory records of an active criminal investigation, and a review of the plain language of seven of the documents reveals that this is simply not the case,” Neville wrote in his July 15 ruling.

While the city won’t tell her what’s going on, Clearview owner Sylvia Hampel said she’s learned a little more.

“We have heard that apparently the law enforcement investigation had absolutely nothing to do with me or any of my staff,” Hampel said. “Apparently it may have had something to do with a relative of one of my employees. This relative has never been employed with us.”

A city spokesman has declined to respond to questions about the case, saying the city didn’t want to comment on pending litigation.

Hampel said she does background checks on her employees but not their friends, family or associates.

She has asked for a meeting with the mayor. “I want him to explain why we were let go for no reason just hours before our contract was to begin,” Hampel said.

“We haven’t yet made a determination as to whether or not the meeting request will be granted,” city spokesman Adam Park said Tuesday.

10 DISPUTED EMAILS

In his order, Judge Neville told the city to turn over all 10 emails. Only one email, forwarded twice, actually contained a reference to a criminal investigation, Neville noted. He ordered the city to redact about three lines from the email and its forwarded copies before giving them to Hampel.

The email from the Police Department regarding “the newly contracted cleaning crew,” reads: “We have an open investigation into” followed by a redacted section.

Two of seven emails that Neville said were not “investigatory records” are an exchange between two city employees about documents the cleaning company ABM provided the city for its cleaning services proposal.

ABM has had the city cleaning contract since 2006. Hampel beat out ABM in a competitive bidding process for the contract that was to start March 1. But after the city canceled Hampel’s contract, it awarded it to ABM.

Hampel said she doesn’t understand why the city tried to keep the two ABM-related emails from her, since they contain no reference to Clearview Cleaning, to law enforcement or to an investigation.

A FEW NEW DETAILS

The released documents do reveal new details about the city’s decision to end Hampel’s contact.

According to one email, recently retired Boise Deputy Police Chief Jim Kerns called a Feb. 28 meeting with Boise Mayor Dave Bieter’s chief of staff, Jade Riley, and representatives from the city’s purchasing and legal departments to discuss the Police Department cleaning contract and “a security sensitive issue that must resolved before the close of business.”

Clearview Cleaning was to begin the next day cleaning City Hall, the libraries, the police station and other city facilities.

Less than an hour after that meeting, the city sent Hampel an email canceling the contract for “purchasing irregularities.”

The city then piggybacked onto the state’s cleaning contract with ABM to also provide cleaning services to the city.

Hampel said she is talking to her attorney about her next legal move.

Cynthia Sewell: 377-6428

From the Idaho Statesman

From Eye on Boise/The Spokesman-Review

When Joseph Duncan received three death sentences and nine life terms in federal court in Idaho for his murderous 2005 attack on the Groene family in North Idaho, U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge ordered two extensive mental evaluations that delayed Duncan’s death penalty sentencing trial for months. But he never held a hearing on the issue in open court; as a result, all of Duncan’s mental evaluations remained secret.

James Cohen, a law professor at Fordham University and an expert on the death penalty and mental competency, said, “There’s no reason for the judge in Idaho to keep all this stuff secret – there’s just no reason at all.” Said Cohen, “The only justification would be to protect the privacy of the defendant.” But, he said, “He lost that when he was indicted for this particular crime.”

Secrecy was extensive in the sentencing trial, with numerous documents sealed from public view, leading to several legal challenges by the media. Much of the secrecy came because the case involved a surviving child victim, but it also covered all issues of Duncan’s mental competency. Cohen said there are “at least two benefits” to a public competency hearing. The first, he said, is that psychologists, psychiatrists or other experts “might be able to learn something from his mental illness that could head off others. And two, it’s very important that our system work right – and we don’t punish people that are mentally ill to that extreme.” You can read my full story here at spokesman.com.

From Eye on Boise/The Spokesman-Review

Editorial from the Idaho Falls Post Register

By Corey Taule

One doesn’t raise the possibility of elected officials misusing their public offices lightly or frivolously. But there can be no question that events depicted in Friday’s Post Register by reporter Emma Breysse demand investigations into the actions of two high-ranking members of the Idaho House of Representatives: House State Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Loertscher, R-Iona, and House Speaker Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale.

Here’s what we know:

In December, Loertscher’s longtime political ally, former State Sen. Stan Hawkins of Ucon, asked Bonneville County’s commissioners to delay the mapping of public roads in the Bone area, where Loertscher and Hawkins own land. Hawkins told commissioners Loertscher would be too busy with the legislative session to participate in the process. Hawkins’ request was granted.

In March, Stuart Davis, lobbyist for the Idaho Association of Highway Districts, introduced a bill that would have guaranteed disputes over county roads first go through a public hearing process and be fought in the courts only as a last resort.

The bill, House Bill 246, was printed in the House Ways and Means Committee. Rep. JoAn Wood, R- Rigby, who chairs that committee, has long been involved in legislative attempts to protect public access to county roads.

Wood told the Post Register she asked the clerk of the Idaho House of Representatives where HB 246 had been assigned. The clerk, Wood said, told her the bill was in the House Transportation Committee. That was confirmed by Davis and then-House Transportation Committee Chairman Leon Smith, R- Twin Falls.

Wood said she next checked with the Transportation Committee secretary to find out when a public hearing would be scheduled. Wood said the secretary told her HB 246 had been moved to State Affairs, the committee chaired by Loertscher. Knowing that only the speaker of the House can order such a move, Wood said she asked Denney why he had taken the bill from Smith and given it to Loertscher.

Wood said Denney told her Loertscher came to him and requested the bill be moved to State Affairs.

Loertscher told Davis he needed to work on the bill and bring it back next year. The bill died without a public hearing.

In April, Loertscher, Hawkins and three other local landowners filed suit against Bonneville County. The lawsuit claims three roads on the county map are actually private and asks a judge to confirm that claim. Had HB 246 become law, Hawkins and Loertscher would have been forced to go through a public process before filing suit. Hawkins and Loertscher’s neighbors have requested public hearings on all three roads named in the lawsuit.

At a minimum, Loertscher should have recused himself from any involvement with a bill that could have impacted his personal dealings with his neighbors and the county. Clearly, Denney must convene an ethics panel to investigate what appears at best to be a conflict of interest and at worst a misuse of Loertscher’s public office. There is precedence for such a move. In 2005, Senate Republican leadership convened a panel to look into the actions of Sen. Jack Noble, R-Kuna. Noble introduced a bill that would have allowed liquor sales closer to schools and churches. Noble, it turned out, owned a store in proximity to a public school and was attempting to attain a liquor license. The Senate panel voted to censure Noble, who resigned his Senate seat.

Last year, a bipartisan House panel, led by Loertscher, looked into ethics complaints filed against Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol.

But Loertscher isn’t the only one whose actions need looking into. He could not have seized control of HB 246 without Denney’s assistance.

Why did Denney move a bill dealing with a transportation issue from the germane committee into State Affairs?

Did he know about Loertscher’s road disputes when he made that call?

What was the nature of the conversation between Loertscher and Denney when HB 246 was discussed?

The public has a right to know.

Again, there is a precedent for Denney to convene a panel to examine his own decision. In 2003, House Speaker Bruce Newcomb convened an ethics panel to examine charges that he illegally closed a meeting of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee to the public.

These are serious matters that demand immediate, thorough, fair and bipartisan investigations. Nothing is more important than ensuring that the taxpaying public knows the legislative process is fairly and transparently conducted.

Loertscher and Denney have an obligation to explain their actions to those who trusted them with their influential positions.

Editorial from the Idaho Falls Post Register

From the Twin Falls Times-News

Secret corporate spending on political campaigns may face the sharp rays of sunshine.

A draft executive order awaiting President Barack Obama’s signature would require all companies bidding for federal contracts to show the public how much money they spend on political campaigns, and where it goes. The proposal also covers corporate donations to nonprofit fronts that, in turn, pump the money into independent political spending to either help or harm certain candidates.

In Idaho, the change would mean that the public could check a government website to find the political spending of companies bidding for jobs in the Gem State or elsewhere. Federal contracts play a strong role in Idaho’s economy, particularly at installations like Mountain Home Air Force Base and the Idaho National Laboratory. In fiscal year 2010, $2.6 billion was spent on federal contracts in Idaho, according to government data.

The proposed order follows a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to make direct political donations to candidates. But since such donations would show up on a candidate’s disclosures, many trade and industry groups have kept their donations secret by creating nonprofits that aren’t required to name their fiscal supporters.

Those organizations don’t donate directly to candidates. Instead, the third-party groups put money into efforts like their own political ads, literature and phone calls during election season.

Those groups spent nearly $133 million from secret donors in the 2010 elections, with $119 million — or 90 percent — going toward Republican causes, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Government openness advocates say that showing who donates to political spending groups would be a welcome step toward transparency and away from back-door deals. On the other side are business advocates who contend that the change would bring undue political scrutiny to companies’ bids for federal work.

Corporate and business interests are lobbying fiercely against the proposal, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the biggest political spenders.

“If you have to disclose to the awarding officials what political spending you’ve done, the natural result would be for the awarding officials to consider that during the award process,” Chamber spokeswoman Blair Latoff said, adding that contracts should be awarded based on the best value for taxpayers. “… They should not be based on those contractors’ political views and they should not enlist the agencies in a witch hunt for which contractors are naughty and which are nice.”

Public Citizen, a national organization that promotes government accountability, backs the proposed order, saying the Supreme Court decision opened the door further to abuse and corruption.

“The only reason to oppose this is if you’re a massive corporation that wants to buy sweetheart government contracts without the public finding out,” Craig Holman, the government affairs lobbyist of Public Citizen, said in a statement.

The House Oversight Committee and House Small Business Committee will have a joint hearing today prior to Obama’s decision.

U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho and a member of the oversight committee, told the Times-News that contracts should be awarded competitively based on a company’s performance history and cost-effectiveness — not political activity.

“A company’s history of political activity has absolutely no place in the bidding process,” Labrador said in a statement. “I am not sure of the intent of this executive order, but in my opinion the net result of this action could be to intimidate companies into making donations it otherwise would not make in order to secure contracts or even be ‘eligible’ to win contracts.”

U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, also has concerns.

“While I have not seen any proposed language regarding a potential executive order, I am worried that any attempt by the Obama Administration to link campaign contributions to the award of federal contracts would inject politics into a process where it does not belong,” Simpson said. “There are significant constitutional and ethical considerations at play here which lead me to believe that this is a matter that should be dealt with by Congress rather than through the use of an executive order.”

From the Twin Falls Times-News

From the Twin Falls Times-News

BURLEY — A collection of city of Burley and Cassia County officials dodged potential violations of Idaho open-meeting laws Tuesday morning by asking one Burley Public Safety Committee member to leave negotiations for shared police services.

Both sides met Tuesday in Burley to discuss the expired contract for Burley’s $1.5 million annual share of Cassia County Sheriff’s Office costs, but there was a problem before the meeting started. With Burley city councilmen Casey Andersen and Jay Lenkersdorfer in attendance, Tuesday’s gathering was, in effect, an improperly scheduled meeting of Burley’s three-member safety committee.

Idaho open meeting law dictates that any gathering of the majority of a governing body must be announced and posted in a public location at least 24 hours prior to the meeting’s start. Tuesday’s meeting was not, which presented a problem when Burley Mayor Terry Greenman asked for it to be conducted behind closed doors.

“We don’t want this to be in the papers,” Greenman said after requesting to close the gathering to the public. “We don’t negotiate in the papers. And Sheriff, you have taken the liberty of going to the papers now with several comments. We see that as spin, and you’re spinning your side of this already for the public benefit, and frankly that’s uncalled for.”

But before the gathering could proceed, Burley City Attorney Kelly Anthon, Cassia County Prosecutor Al Barrus and County Administrator Kerry McMurray left to confer on its legality with both Andersen and Lenkersdorfer present. Both men volunteered to excuse themselves, and ultimately, Andersen lost a coin flip and was asked to leave.

“We have two of them here,” Anthon said of the committee after meeting with Barrus and McMurray, “so if we conduct a meeting and discuss business, we’ll have a violation of law because we did not provide notice.”

With Andersen out of the picture, the gathering was closed to the public and private negotiations moved forward. Greenman, Lenkersdorfer and Anthon were joined by City Administrator Mark Mitton. County representation included Barrus, McMurray, Commissioner Paul Christensen, Sheriff Randy Kidd and Undersheriff George Warrell.

While city and county officials’ actions helped them avoid any violation of Idaho law, their decision didn’t exactly meet muster with Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden’s guidelines for holding public meetings.

According to Wasden’s Idaho Open Meeting Law Manual: “The requirement that the Open Meeting Law be complied with whenever a quorum of a governing body meets to deliberate or make a decision should not be evaded by holding smaller meetings with less than a quorum present or by having a go-between contact each of the governing body members to ascertain his/her sentiment.”

Cassia County officials will hold a properly scheduled and announced meeting to discuss road matters and law-enforcement issues at 8:30 a.m. today at the Cassia County Courthouse in Burley.

From the Twin Falls Times-News