Op-Ed from State Controller Brandon Woolf

By Idaho State Controller Brandon Woolf

Every year, during Sunshine Week, we are reminded of a simple but powerful truth, as former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant”. Transparency is not a partisan value or a political slogan. It is a foundational principle of our republic. Public information should be made public and accessible to all. When citizens can see how decisions are made and how public funds are spent, trust grows, accountability strengthens, and democracy thrives.

Idaho was a pioneering state in transparency and openness in government long before transparency became the buzzword it is today. The money state government, managed at all levels, does not belong to agencies or elected officials. It belongs to the people of Idaho. It is your hard-earned tax dollars, your investment in schools, roads, public safety, and the future of our communities. You deserve the right to see exactly how those dollars are used.

That commitment to openness is why our office has prioritized practical, user-friendly tools that put financial information directly into the hands of citizens.

One of those tools is Transparent Idaho. This online portal provides detailed, searchable information about the state, city, county, local districts, and education revenues and expenditures. Whether you want to see how much a city, county, or state agency spends, review vendor payments, or understand budget allocations, Transparent Idaho makes that information accessible without requiring a public records request. It turns complex financial data into clear, understandable reports.

Transparency also means connecting people directly with their governments. Through Townhall Idaho, we provide an easy way for citizens to access meeting information and contact details for state entities. By offering Idahoans better visibility into those decisions made within public meetings, we strengthen civic engagement and ensure that citizens are empowered with information.

Education is one of the largest and most important investments Idaho makes. Families, educators, and taxpayers all share an interest in knowing how education dollars are allocated and how schools are performing. That is why our office supports robust, accessible education data tools, in partnership with our education stakeholders, that provide meaningful insight into school spending. Clear education data empowers parents, informs policymakers, and ensures citizens can see where the dollars are going in education investments. 

Transparency is more than building websites or publishing spreadsheets. It is about prioritizing openness in every process and decision. It means asking ourselves not just “Can we share this information?” but “How can we share it in a way that is timely, accurate, and easy to understand?” It means modernizing systems, improving data quality, and continuously looking for ways to make government more accessible.

Sunshine Week is a celebration of open government, but it is also a challenge. It challenges all of us in public service to do better by removing barriers, simplifying access, and to embracing scrutiny as a sign of a healthy government. Openness should not be reserved for one week a year. It should define how we operate every day.

Transparency builds confidence. When citizens can follow the dollars, see the numbers, and evaluate the data for themselves, they are empowered to engage thoughtfully in the public process. They can ask informed questions and offer constructive solutions. Most importantly, Idahoans can hold leaders accountable

The State Controller’s Office will continue to champion transparency because it is the right thing to do. Idahoans work hard for their money, and you entrust a portion of it to state government with the expectation that it will be managed responsibly and openly.

This Sunshine Week, I encourage every citizen to explore the tools available, ask questions, and stay engaged. It’s your government. It’s your money. And you deserve to see how it’s being spent.

Op-Ed from State Controller Brandon Woolf

From the Idaho Statesman

by Sarah Cutler

An Idaho lawmaker wants to revamp a state process for investigating legislators’ possible ethics violations — with a proposal that would pull much of the process out of the public eye.

In his approximately 15 years on the House Ethics Committee, Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, said he has seen lawmakers accused of violations forced to face the court of public opinion before the severity of their offense is clear.

“Everything is so damaging to a reputation before you even have the facts,” Barbieri told the Idaho Statesman. Under the current system, after the committee determines there is probably cause that a complaint against a lawmaker is true, the committee holds a public hearing with attorneys, experts and witnesses that the public can attend.

Those public trials, Barbieri said Thursday, are unnecessary: By that point, the committee has already held its “private trial” to determine probable cause, and if the committee has decided the complaint is warranted, it could go straight to the House floor.

That House debate should suffice for sharing the facts of the case with the public, he argued.

There, “it’s all public. Now the press can go wild,” Barbieri said. “That way, we’re not duplicating our efforts, and we’re not dragging somebody through the mud in something that wasn’t necessary.”

Opponents: ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’

Opponents of Barbieri’s proposal, House Resolution 27, said that’s not quite right. Rep. John Gannon, a Boise Democrat who’s served on the Ethics Committee for 10 years, said that when the House ratifies the committee’s report, there are no witnesses or experts called. It’s not a “full hearing,” he said.

During Barbieri’s introduction of the resolution during a Thursday House Ways and Means Committee meeting, House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, said the process works fine as-is. She cited the last time the body held high-profile ethics hearings: in 2021, when then-Rep. Aaron von Ehlinger was accused of raping a legislative intern.

Holding a public ethics committee hearing in that case provided the visibility that ultimately led to criminal charges and von Ehlinger’s conviction, Rubel told the Statesman.

“Frankly, I think that’s the reason that criminal charges were ultimately brought,” she said. “Before that, there was no interest on the part of prosecutors or the criminal (justice) establishment.”

Under Barbieri’s proposal, those hearings “would have been done in darkness,” she said.

The current process, Rubel said, already balances the rights of the accused with the public’s right to know about ethics concerns. In von Ehlinger’s case, “I thought there was secrecy in the early stages when we needed it, and then transparency once it had ripened to a point where transparency was appropriate,” she said in committee. “And I think if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

To Barbieri, ethical concerns should be handled internally by lawmakers, who have the power to remove or discipline someone if needed.

“If the House doesn’t keep its house clean, then shame on us,” he said. “Remember, the committee is elected by the body, by each caucus. So if the caucus doesn’t trust them to make an ethical, reasonable, appropriate decision, we shouldn’t have elected them.”

His rewrite of the ethics rules would also eliminate much of the detailed process of the current system, which he argued is “micromanaging” the committee.

Gannon said the committee’s process allowed it to operate “in a nonpartisan way and in good faith.”

“You have to have a process that is fair, because we’re in a highly charged political group,” he told the Statesman. It’s important, he said, that “everybody knows what the rules are.”

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Idaho Statesman

By Kevin Fixler

On the heels of a recent release of thousands of crime scene photos from the Moscow college student murders, images of deceased people created as part of police or coroner investigations would become exempt from disclosure in response to Idaho public records requests under a newly proposed law.

Senate Bill 1250 still would allow family members to obtain such photographs once an investigation is finished and all potential criminal cases associated with the person’s death are resolved.

The bill sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, was two years in the making after she introduced but later pulled a bill with similar intentduring last year’s legislative session. Several states already have such a law on the books.

“Family members make a lot of decisions about decedents,” Wintrow said in a phone interview. “It’s just important to allow family members to do what they want to do with those photos.”

Wintrow worked closely on the legislation with Alivea Goncalves, a sister of Kaylee Goncalves, who was one of the four University of Idaho students fatally stabbed at an off-campus house in November 2022.

“She and her family have been through so much,” Wintrow said. “So it’s so important to really work with folks and understand the trauma they’re experiencing, so families feel they have a sense of control.”

Alivea Goncalves credited Wintrow with taking the time to hear her out in hopes of enacting the change to Idaho law “not just for us, but for the next family facing their worst nightmare.”

“Out of many, she was the only to actually articulate my voice and value my perspective,” Alivea Goncalves said in an email to the Idaho Statesman. “More than just offering condolences — as many in positions of power have — she offered actual help, support and change. Even just the possibility of making a difference has been a beacon of hope in an impossibly never-ending storm.”

The other three U of I student victims were Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin. The families of Mogen and Chapin successfully sued the city of Moscow last year over a related matter. On behalf of its police department, the city initially released a handful of redacted crime scene photos from inside the rooms of the victims in response to a request made under the Idaho Public Records Act.

‘We’re trying to change laws’

Last month, Idaho State Police posted to its website — and then quickly removed — thousands of redacted images from the crime scene under the belief it was adhering to the state’s public records law. One of the images inadvertently failed to redact a portion of the body of one of the four victims killed by Bryan Kohberger.

The agency recognizes frustrations from the victims’ families, ISP spokesperson Aaron Snell said in a prior statement.

“This was a tragic case, and we do not take the impact of the crime or the release of records lightly,” he said. “The Idaho State Police remains committed to handling sensitive records professionally, lawfully, and with respect for all affected parties.”

But ISP’s release of the photos again drew condemnation from the victims’ families, including the parents of Kaylee Goncalves.

“The crime scene photos were bad,” her mother, Kristi Goncalves, said through tears this week on the Brian Entin Investigates podcast. “They were bad.”

“We’re trying to change laws,” added Steve Goncalves, Kaylee and Alivea’s father. “You’re not going to murder someone and then their records get blasted out for the rest of the world to see … .”

Wintrow’s bill also came about as the result of efforts by another father, who sought to prevent the disclosure of autopsy photos of his daughter possessed by a county coroner. Allen Hodges, whose 16-year-old daughter died from an epileptic seizure in 2020, has pushed to clarify the state’s public records law to ensure that such images can’t be released to a requester, the Idaho Capital Sun reported.

Wintrow told the Statesman that her reworked bill aims to reach a proper compromise over what members of the public, including the press, can receive in records requests while upholding the dignity of the person who died and honoring their family’s wishes. On Monday, the bill advanced in a Senate committee for a future public hearing.

The Idaho Press Club worked with Wintrow, reviewed various legislative proposals for the past year and does not oppose the bill that would add the new public records exemptions, said Melissa Davlin, the group’s president.

“We believe it strikes the balance between protecting the privacy and dignity of the decedents while preserving transparency on other aspects of investigations, including factors that may have public health and safety implications,” Davlin told the Statesman by email.

Editor’s note: Idaho Statesman journalists are members of the Idaho Press Club, and Editor Chadd Cripe serves on the board of directors.

From the Idaho Statesman

From BoiseDev.com

By Margaret Carmel

A new piece of legislation would give the public a cost-effective way to settle disagreements over access to government documents.

On Wednesday, Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, introduced a bill, authored with the Idaho Press Club, that would provide those who have been entirely or partially denied access to public records under the Idaho Public Records Act with a new way to settle disputes. 

The bill would create a process in Idaho’s magistrate courts for filing a complaint regarding a denial of public records or charges for accessing them. This would also allow both the requester and the agency to submit affidavits outlining their arguments for a magistrate judge to review, similar to small claims court.

The bill proposes a $100 charge for members of the public to get the dispute in front of a magistrate, providing journalists and other public records requesters a way to settle public records disputes. Right now, the only remedy to a records dispute in Idaho law is to sue a public agency, which can be costly both for a member of the public and the public agency. A judge would issue a ruling in ten days, and either party could appeal, which would proceed to a lawsuit. 

Ehardt said this will help save both requesters’ money, as well as taxpayers, because of the cost of defending these lawsuits. She pointed to a 2019 case in which the Idaho Press Club successfully sued Ada County for wrongfully denying access to public records, which cost the county $40,000 to defend.

“It seems that government agencies don’t always understand what should be available for the media and for other people requesting them,” she said. 

This proposal would not add any full-time employees to the state or cost any funds because it would use judicial resources that already exist.

From BoiseDev.com

From the Idaho Statesman

In a small basement room, under a low ceiling lined with white Christmas lights, four members of a library board huddled around a table. The board, like many others in the wake of a 2024 Idaho law governing library materials deemed “harmful to minors,” was grappling with a patron’s request to pull a book from library shelves.

The book in question: “The Bare Naked Book” by Kathy Stinson. Published in 1986 and updated in 2021, the book is a “joyous” anatomy book for children, according to Canadian publishers Annick Press. But in a written notice to the Ada Community Library in September, a patron took issue with its depictions of tattoos, nipple piercings and “transgenderism.”

Under Idaho law, public library boards have 60 days to move “harmful” books to adults-only access if challenged — or risk being sued.

In this case, the library was dealing with what Board Chair Steven Ricks called a “borderline book” — one he believed “could fall on one side or the other” of the law. In a statement at the Nov. 18 meeting, Ricks said he didn’t want the book taken out of the library altogether, but he agreed with a library staff recommendation that it should be moved from the children’s section to a “Parent-Teacher” shelf in the adult section.

Then, citing his 21 years of experience on the board, he laid out a protocol for how he planned to handle similar requests going forward.

“I have absolutely zero desire or intent to spend time to explore and expound upon the graphic, descriptive material in the book under discussion — any book under discussion,” he said. “… A decision will be announced by the chair. A vote will not be taken.”

The “Parent-Teacher” shelf houses non-fiction parenting books in the adult section of the Ada Community Library’s Victory Branch. Sarah A. Miller  smiller@idahostatesman.comFor the second time in three months, a challenged book was relocated to the library’s adult section. In neither instance did the board hold a vote.

At the meeting, Ricks was adamant that a vote was not required by law. He emphasized that “unity of purpose and action” is a “valuable leadership model.”

But in interviews with the Idaho Statesman, a fellow trustee and professionals with expertise in both the harmful-materials legislation and Idaho’s open-meeting law raised concerns about the process.

Library board chair said no vote required; trustee found it ‘concerning’

After announcing the decision to relocate the book, Ricks asked his fellow trustees at the meeting if any objected. One did.

Mary-Anne Saunders, who was elected to the board in 2023, stated her objection with one word: “Yes.” It was noted in the minutes. But in Saunders’ opinion, that process was not sufficiently transparent.

“It’s no secret that I believe the board needs to vote on action items,” she told the Statesman by phone. “That is where I have a difference of opinion with the board chair.”

“I believe it’s important to tell the public what our opinions are … to record our positions, our vote,” she said.

Saunders said that Ricks’ stated protocol for handling requests felt to her like a “close-off” of discussion. Acting without a vote or full deliberation, she said, felt “concerning.”

In August, the board responded to another patron request by relocating the book “It’s Perfectly Normal” by Robie Harris without holding a vote, according to Saunders and meeting minutes available on the library’s website.

“Item was moved to adult collection,” the minutes read. “No formal action (was) taken.”
Saunders’ opposition was noted in those minutes as well.

Books line the “Parent-Teacher” shelf. This shelf was moved out of the library’s children section, according to minutes from an August board meeting. Sarah A. Miller  smiller@idahostatesman.com
Ricks, a retired lawyer, leads a nonprofit that puts on the annual Hymns of Thanksgiving in Boise. He made unsuccessful runs for the Legislature, drawing accusations of violating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ neutrality policy in 2010 and a censure from the Ada County Republican Party after he sued it.

Ricks sat on the library board in 2023 when it voted to remove six books from the library’s collection — an action that was not on the agenda and was later rescinded for violating open-meeting law.

In an email to the Statesman, Ricks contended that it “it would be incorrect to assert or conclude that (The Bare Naked Book) was relocated without a vote.” He went onto say that no “formal vote” occurred, but that “there was, nevertheless, an accounting for the decision that was made.”

He noted that the library’s policy is for library staff to conduct an assessment of books challenged under the harmful-materials law, then submit a recommendation to the board. Trustees review the book and staff assessment, and the request is placed on a board meeting agenda as an “action item” within 60 days of the request, in compliance with the law. Then, he said, “a decision is made.”

He cited Idaho code stating that “Identifying an item as an action item on the agenda does not require a vote to be taken on that item.”

“Knowing that each trustee had reviewed the book and the staff’s recommendation,” he said, “… it was a simple question to ask if anyone had an objection to following the staff’s recommendation.The library district’s attorney, Stephanie Bonney of Boise’s MSBT Law, declined to speak with the Statesman, noting by email that she “(hasn’t) discussed this issue yet with the district.” She said she planned to reach out to the district to discuss meeting procedures.

In a section titled “Voting,” the district’s bylaws state: “An affirmative vote by the majority of board members present shall be necessary to approve any action of the Board.”
Ricks did not respond to follow-up questions from the Statesman.

Idaho transparency leader weighs in

Not everyone agrees with Ricks’ interpretation. According to Betsy Russell, the president of Idahoans for Openness in Government, a nonprofit working with the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office and others to put on a series of training sessions on government transparency, the board chair is “misreading” the law.
Russell, a retired news reporter, said she believes the code Ricks cited is intended to allow governing bodies to refrain from acting on an action item, for example, to table a decision to a later date.

“For the board to take action, they need to vote, and that vote needs to occur in public at an open meeting where the public can observe how its representatives conduct their business,” Russell said. That’s especially true because the board did not have unanimous consent, she said.

“The open-meeting law does not have an exemption for uncomfortable or unpleasant discussions, deliberations or decisions,” she said. “As uncomfortable as the business of governance can be, it still must be done in public.”

The Statesman contacted the Idaho Attorney General’s Office by email but did not receive a response. The Ada County Prosecutor’s Office, whose civil divisionoversees matters related to public records and open meetings, responded to an email inquiry by directing the Statesman to the Attorney General’s Idaho Open Meeting Law Manual.

Libraries work to comply with law critics call ‘unclear’

According to a recent survey from the Idaho Commission for Libraries, an agency created by the Legislature, nearly all public libraries in the state comply with the 2024 harmful-materials law, State Librarian Stephanie Bailey-White told the Statesman. That includes the Ada Community Library.
Just one library, the Donnelly Public Library, has not yet completed the survey, Bailey-White said by phone.

Bailey-White said many libraries have updated their collection development policies since the law was passed, and how libraries comply can vary based on their own policies. In terms of responding to a request for reconsideration or relocation of a book, Bailey-White said she didn’t believe that was a “staff decision” but a board decision.

“If it says a board of trustees, then it’s a board of trustees,” she said, “and those are decisions the board should make together.”

But according to Rep. Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, a lawyer, the law is “unclear” and gives a variety of actors broader discretion to have books relocated.

“It’s set up so that (there’s) one accusation and guilt is presumed,” said Rubel, “or at least, it was never clear what the mechanism would be to actually have a reasonable way to salvage a book … if it was, in fact, wrongly charged,” said Rubel by phone.

“Anybody who wants to complain can just get the book removed,” she said.

This story was originally published November 24, 2025 at 4:00 AM.

From the Idaho Statesman

by Kevin Richert

From Idaho EdNews

On Feb. 7, mathematics education professor Michele Carney filed a public records request with Boise State University — seeking emails, meeting notes and a variety of investigative documents.

By April 30, she had lost patience with her employer. She said Boise State was blowing past legal deadlines and blowing off her emails. She asserted a right to records directly pertaining to her — and said Boise State wrongfully withheld them, citing a legal exemption covering personnel records.

So Carney took Boise State to court.

Boise State denied wrongdoing. The university’s lawyer accused Carney of fishing for fodder for “a potential lawsuit against BSU.” The university ultimately turned over 1,289 pages of documents — months after a deadline that is spelled out in state law.

On Sept. 10, Ada County District Judge Jason Scott tossed out the remaining remnants of Carney’s complaint. By this time, the state’s largest taxpayer-funded university had run up $44,833.69 in legal bills.

The dispute between Carney and Boise State offers a glimpse into the intricacies of Idaho’s public records law — a sunshine statute used often by journalists, but not exclusively by journalists. And it illustrates what happens, occasionally, when a public records disagreement lands in a courtroom.

How we got the story — and what it cost

This story is based largely on court documents.

Mathematics education professor Michele Carney filed a petition in Ada County District Court on April 30, seeking to compel Boise State University to complete a public records request dating back to February. The court documents outline Carney’s case and Boise State’s counterarguments — and provide limited details about a Title IX investigation involving Carney.

Carney declined an interview request. Boise State provided a brief written statement.

Idaho Education News filed its own public records request for this story, seeking invoices from Hawley Troxell, the private law firm that represented Boise State.

On Oct. 23, Boise State billed EdNews $11.97 “to identify, gather, review, and, if required, redact” the invoices. (State law allows — but does not require — agencies to bill for public records, if it takes more than two hours of staff time to fulfill a request.)

EdNews paid the $11.97.

On Nov. 3, Boise State provided eight pages of unredacted invoices, outlining $44,833.69 in legal costs.

This isn’t the first time Boise State has demanded money for public records. In 2022, Boise State told EdNews to pay nearly $700 for emails pertaining to political science professor Scott Yenor, before walking back the request.

A short course in Idaho’s public records law

Passed in 1990, Idaho’s public records law was written with the premise of putting the power in the hands of the people, and putting the onus on the government.

“Every person has a right to examine and take a copy of any public record of this state, and there is a presumption that all public records in Idaho are open at all reasonable times for inspection except as otherwise expressly provided by statute,” the law reads.

The dispute between Carney and Boise State centers on exceptions to the law.

The public records law itself doesn’t protect attorney-client communications — but that privilege is established elsewhere in Idaho Code. A sweeping exemption in public records law covers “personnel records of a current or former public official.”

The law contains an exemption to this exemption. “A person may inspect and copy the records of a public agency pertaining to that person, even if the record is otherwise exempt from public disclosure.” This isn’t an absolute right, according to a public records handbook from Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s office. For example, investigatory records remain exempt from release.

The public records law also puts public agencies on the clock. Agencies must grant or reject a request within three working days. The law allows a brief time extension, but agencies still must release records within 10 working days (or 35 days, if a request comes from out of state).

How a records request evolved into a court case

The clock started ticking, and the back-and-forth began, when Carney filed her initial request on Feb. 7. She was focused on “TIXIE” — the university’s Office of Title IX and Institutional Equity. She sought records on disciplinary actions under Title IX, the federal law that prohibits campus discrimination based on sex.

Much of Carney’s request focused on Carney herself — materials, notes and emails, searchable by her name and variations of it.

From the start, and by all accounts, the process was laborious and contentious.

Boise State responded to Carney’s request on Feb. 24 or Feb. 25 — the parties disagree slightly on timing. Either way, the response came after the initial 10-day deadline. Boise State provided Carney 83 pages of documents, and said additional documents were exempt personnel records.

Carney filed a second request on March 4. Boise State denied this request on March 18, again citing the personnel exemption.

Carney pushed back, saying the personnel exemptions should not apply to “records about herself.”

The disagreement deepened through the month of April. Carney said she emailed Boise State repeatedly, asking for updates, and received no response. An attorney for Boise State would later say Carney was “requesting the status of records that were already denied.”

On April 30, Carney filed her petition in Ada County district court, demanding the records under dispute.

“(Carney) has made repeated good faith efforts to narrow the scope, prioritize review, and clarify the nature of the requested records,” the petition read, in part. “(She) has exhausted all reasonable administrative options and communications to resolve this matter informally.”

Going to court was Carney’s sole option. It is the only recourse state law allows. Here, the onus falls on the requester of a record — be it a private citizen or a news organization.

And that, say some, is a shortcoming in the law.

The Mountain States Policy Center — a free-market think tank — has advocated for creating a public records ombudsman’s office in Idaho and other Northwest states.

“This type of citizen-focused open government expert would help reduce the possibility of litigation when a public records dispute occurs,” Jason Mercier, the center’s vice president and research director, wrote in March 2024.

An ombudsman could have settled this dispute quickly and inexpensively, either in Carney’s favor or in Boise State’s favor, said Melissa Davlin, host of Idaho Public Television’s “Idaho Reports,” and president of the Idaho Press Club.

“This could have been resolved months ago,” she said.

The Idaho Legislature hasn’t formally considered creating an ombudsman’s office, but Davlin said the Press Club is working on a bill for the 2026 session.

Both sides lawyer up — and Boise State does so at public expense

Carney and Boise State spent the summer embroiled in a lengthy legal skirmish.

By June, Boise State had hired Hawley Troxell — a prominent Boise-based firm with extensive experience in education law.

By mid-August, both parties had lawyered up. In dueling documents, attorneys appealed to Scott, seeking summary judgment on their client’s behalf.

At this point, Carney had received an additional 1,289 pages of records, the document dump from Aug. 4.  But Jeffrey Hepworth, Carney’s newly hired attorney, argued that his client requested these records on March 7, meaning Boise State missed its legal deadline by “approximately 136 days.” Hepworth also argued that Boise State had misread the law.

“It appears Boise State University relies upon the exemption provided for ‘personnel records’ … without regard to the fact that the materials requested by Michele Carney all pertain ‘Michele Carney’ herself,” he wrote.

In an Aug. 19 motion, Hawley Troxell attorney Carsten Peterson addressed Boise State’s delays, noting that, under the law, any records request that is not completed within 10 days is deemed to be denied. He said Boise State created a document for Carney, outlining TIXIE’s investigative and enforcement actions against Boise State faculty. And Boise State public records custodian Texie Montoya spent at least 60 hours working with Carney, reviewing more than 3,000 pages of documents.

In the end, he said, Boise State provided records at no cost to Carney.

“There is no dispute that BSU acted in good faith responding to (Carney’s) ever-changing or modified requests,” he wrote. “It complied with the requirements of the statute.”

It’s unclear how much Carney spent to pursue her case. She declined an interview request, and Hepworth did not respond to an interview request from EdNews.

Between July 3 and Oct. 2, Hawley Troxell billed Boise State $44,833.69.

A university spokeswoman defended the cost.

“When a complaint is filed in court, we are obligated to defend it,” Stephany Galbreaith told EdNews in an email. “It is our standard process to retain outside legal counsel for litigated matters. Although public records litigation is rare, the costs incurred to defend this case are typical.”

How the dispute started …

The two sides agree on the genesis of the dispute.

In 2024, an employee came to university officials and raised Title IX-related “concerns” about Carney and other employees, Danielle Berish Charters, Boise State’s assistant vice president for Title IX Institutional Equity and Compliance, said in a statement to the court. In April 2024, Boise State hired legal counsel, Akerman LLP, to investigate the matter.

Akerman prepared a 27-page report in September 2024, and sent it to Charters. In November 2024, Charters met with Carney.

The outcome isn’t clear. However, Carney is still listed as a faculty member on Boise State’s website.

“Because the records request is connected to an ongoing investigation, I need to decline (to comment) at this time,” Carney said in an email to EdNews last week. “I am choosing to trust the investigation process and believe that our almost entirely new (and interim) administrative leadership will act appropriately when it concludes. …

“In the meantime, I will continue focusing on my work supporting Idaho’s teachers and students in improving mathematics education.”

… and how the dispute ended

By late August, the complaint had narrowed down to a small set of documents — including the Akerman report, and the contents of the three-ring binder Charters brought to her November 2024 meeting with Carney.

Carney sought access to both — and one of her attorneys argued that Charters put together the binder specifically for her meeting with Carney. “(They) ‘concern’ or ‘pertain’ to Dr. Carney and her ongoing employment with Boise State University — and therefore should be produced to her,” J. Grady Hepworth wrote in a Sept. 5 filing.

Peterson, Boise State’s attorney, described the binder as a “receptacle” that also contained confidential documents concerning another faculty member. The Akerman report is an exempt personnel record from legal counsel, Boise State argued, and Carney received an “outcome notice” and investigative summary that provided her with the information that pertained to her.

On Sept. 10, the issue went before Scott, the judge assigned to the case. After hearing the dueling motions for summary judgment, Scott sided with Boise State. He said Carney was not entitled to attorney’s fees. According to minutes from the 45-minute hearing, Scott also set aside the question of whether Boise State was entitled to collect attorney’s fees.

With the case now closed, it appears taxpayers will shoulder Boise State’s legal costs. However, it was important that to have the case addressed “in the best interest of the public we serve,” said Galbreaith, the university’s spokeswoman.

“Boise State University takes its responsibility to uphold the integrity and reputation of the institution seriously.”

From Idaho EdNews