From the Idaho Education News

by Kevin Richert

Idaho Education News on Thursday requested four records on Hahn and the presidential search. The State Board rejected all four requests Friday. And one records denial could set a precedent for future presidential hires.

On Tuesday, when the State Board introduced Hahn as the sole Boise State presidential finalist, the board also announced a comment portal. Public input on Hahn, the dean of the University of Arizona’s engineering college, can be submitted at comments@edu.idaho.gov.

EdNews requested these public comments. The State Board denied this request.

“Those communications were solicited by the board as part of the presidential search process and are being received for consideration by the board in connection with its review and evaluation of the candidate,” State Board Executive Director Jennifer White said in an email Friday. “As such, they constitute records relating to the screening, evaluation, and selection of an applicant for employment.”

White cited a far-reaching exemption in public records law. The exemption covers many personnel records, and “information relating to a public employee or applicant.” The section on applicants includes a one-word exemption covering “correspondence.”

Boise State faculty, employees and students questioned Hahn Wednesday during an hour-long public forum. But White said the written input, sealed from public view, “serves a different purpose” in the hiring process.

“The public forum was a public discussion with the candidate,” White said in a followup email to EdNews Monday. “Feedback received about the candidate for the Board’s screening and evaluation of him as an applicant is different. That evaluative correspondence continues to be received and will be considered by the board in making its final decision.”

The email comments regarding Hahn represent something of a new public record. That’s consistent with a new search process, which is being used for the first time for the Boise State hiring.

Under a new law, passed this year, the State Board and presidential search committees can conduct almost all of their work behind closed doors. The State Board now needs to announce only a sole presidential finalist — but it must wait 10 business days before making a hire. The State Board on Tuesday named Hahn the Boise State finalist, beginning the review period.

The new law on presidential searches creates the 10-day waiting period. It does not discuss public comments submitted during this time.

According to state law, “There is a presumption that all public records in Idaho are open.”

The State Board rejected three other records requests:

• EdNews requested written comments and recommendations from Boise State student leaders and other groups. During Wednesday’s meeting, State Board member and search committee chair David Turnbull referenced the student leaders’ written remarks, thanking them for their “thoughtful response.” White said those written comments were exempt from release, since the search committee used them in its “confidential review” of applicants.
• EdNews requested Hahn’s application, resume and supporting materials. These are confidential personnel records, White said.
• EdNews requested background checks regarding Hahn. These too are confidential personnel records, White said.

The State Board could vote to hire Hahn as early as July 1.

From the Idaho Education News

From InvestigateWest

By Whitney Bryen and Sam Stecklow / Invisible Institute

State agencies will no longer release information about whether an officer retired, resigned or was fired.

Idaho’s prison system and the state agency that certifies law enforcement will now conceal information about officers’ employment histories, making it more difficult to scrutinize job candidates and ensure accountability for officers accused of misconduct.

The increased secrecy by the Idaho Department of Correction and the Peace Officer Standards and Training Council comes less than four months after InvestigateWest used the information to expose alleged sexual misconduct by dozens of Idaho prison guards — many of whom were allowed to resign and faced no other consequences. 

Responding to journalists’ findings in October, Gov. Brad Little called for a review of the prison system’s handling of public records requests, saying in a statement that “transparency and the public’s confidence in state government are top priorities.” 

Yet behind the scenes, Little’s office advised state police to withhold information from InvestigateWest reporters about officer misconduct investigations, internal Department of Correction and Idaho State Police emails show. And state officials say the reporting caused them to reconsider the public’s access to officer employment information. Now, the Department of Correction and Peace Officer Standards and Training say they will no longer release information about whether an officer retired, resigned or was fired to the public. 

The governor’s office supports the change, citing a new interpretation of an unchanged state law.

Emily Callihan, the governor’s communications director, defended his position in a message stating that the Department of Correction “was correct in not providing the requested info/records moving forward … to be compliant with the law.”

Attorneys from Idaho and elsewhere, criminal justice researchers and public records experts are condemning the changes, saying they could endanger the public. Law enforcement employment data has been used in Idaho and other states to ensure agencies that certify officers are properly investigating misconduct and to track “wandering cops” — officers who commit misconduct at one police or correction agency, but are able to obtain employment with another that may be unaware of the indiscretion. Department of Corrections spokespeople in two neighboring states said they rely on public information to vet candidates for hire.

The Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said in a statement it is “deeply concerned” about the changes, noting prosecutors have an obligation to disclose information calling into question an officer’s credibility if they’re involved in a criminal case. The group says the rollbacks “weaken accountability, not only to the public at large but to people accused of crimes, for whom an officer’s employment history may be directly relevant to credibility, bias, or misconduct. A justice system that shields such information risks undermining fairness and the rule of law itself.”

Under Idaho’s Public Records Act, the classification, salary, status, workplace and employment history of government workers are public information. “The Legislature acknowledges that there is some loss of privacy when one accepts a position supported by public money,” the Idaho attorney general’s 2025 public records manual states. Personal information including an employee’s race, birthdate, home address, telephone number, grievances and performance evaluations are exempt from disclosure under the law. 

Statements from the governor’s office, Idaho Department of Correction and the Idaho Division of Human Resources assert that the reason a public worker is no longer employed is exempt from public disclosure, and the release of this information, which informed the work of journalists and researchers for years prior, was a mistake. 

The state law, however, does not explicitly declare that information as exempt. Nor does it require its release, making it unclear whether the policy changes comply with the letter of the law. 

Idaho civil rights attorney Deborah Ferguson said it’s clear that the changes violate the spirit of the law. 

“The whole point of transparency is so that there is some accountability, and this is the government that’s supposed to be acting on our behalf,” Ferguson said. “And if they’re under the cover of darkness and no one can review what these actions are from our public agencies, it really convolutes the purpose of the Public Records Act and the transparency in government.”

Few states have rolled back access to officer employment data

Idaho’s reduction in public access mirrors recent shifts made by officials in states like Alaska, Colorado, Louisiana, Montana and Virginia — states that previously released police employment history data and now refuse to. But it deviates from the majority of states, which have made officer employment information more accessible, including Idaho’s neighbors Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

In Idaho, this data is held by Peace Officer Standards and Training, or POST, a division of the state police responsible for certifying law enforcement and correctional officers. It’s overseen by a 14-member board of law enforcement and other government officials appointed by the governor.

Now, with Idaho agencies refusing to disclose whether an Idaho officer was terminated, potential employers are left relying on the honor system. 

Prisons in neighboring Oregon and Washington gather data on job candidates through criminal background checks that aren’t publicly accessible. But they also rely on public information to verify whether certified officers are in good standing and why they left their previous job, according to department of corrections spokespeople in both states. 

Chris Wright, communications director at Washington State Department of Corrections, said in an email that “there is no way for us to know exactly why a candidate left a previous position besides checking with references or getting that info from the candidate.”

Access to this kind of data elsewhere has allowed researchers in Texas to advocate for stronger state oversight of wandering cops; law professors studying Florida’s data to demonstrate just how much more likely it is for a cop who’s been fired to be disciplined again; and reporters in states from Georgia to California to expose the systems that allow these officers to continually find new employment in law enforcement.

In Idaho, the issue was highlighted by the 2015 fatal shooting of rancher Jack Yantis by Adams County sheriff’s deputies Brian Wood and Cody Roland. Coverage of the incident by the Idaho Statesman noted gaps in the state’s police hiring system, which did not require thorough background checks — leading to Wood and Roland being hired despite both having disciplinary histories, including one being fired. Other Idaho officers had been allowed to resign while under investigation to avoid being fired and maintain clean employment records, the newspaper noted. There is still no provision that requires police chiefs or sheriffs to notify POST of behavior that could warrant decertification. POST is the only agency that tracks officers statewide. 

Eight years later, Invisible Institute, a nonprofit public accountability journalism organization in Chicago, sought data from Idaho POST for its National Police Index: a searchable database of certified police and correctional officers by state and where they’ve worked. Idaho’s data was first published on the National Police Index in January 2025.

Invisible Institute shared its database with InvestigateWest reporters, who in 2025 requested an updated list of correctional officers’ employment histories, then combined it with Idaho Department of Correction data showing officers who left the department, and their terms of departure, since 2015. 

Journalists used that data, along with witness and victim interviews, investigative files and other public documents, to identify 37 prison workers who were accused of sexually abusing incarcerated women. At least 18 of those workers resigned after the alleged misconduct or after it was reported, leaving victims without justice. In October, InvestigateWest published a series of reports outlining those findings. 

The reporting, however, caused Gov. Little’s office to take a closer look at what information about officer misconduct is being released to reporters. Weeks before those reports were published, the governor’s office convened a meeting on Sept. 26 with Idaho State Police Director Bill Gardiner and Department of Correction Director Bree Derrick to “discuss InvestigateWest inquiries.” Afterward, both the agencies ran their planned responses to journalists’ through the governor’s communications director, Callihan. All state agencies are required to get approval from the governor’s office before responding to questions from legislators or the media — a policy that Callihan said pre-dates Little’s administration, according to a recent Idaho Capital Sun report. 

Idaho State Police planned to clarify details of its investigations of prison guards, emails show. But on Oct. 2, InvestigateWest’s deadline, Callihan told both agencies their prepared responses were “not to be provided to (InvestigateWest).”

In recent months, POST has withheld data related to officer employment history that it previously had released. Invisible Institute and InvestigateWest both requested updated data from POST but were told the record they wanted doesn’t exist. 

When Invisible Institute filed its request in October 2025, the agency’s responses included less information than previous reports. POST provided three different files, one after the next, but when reporters searched the records using the names of officers found in news reports, they discovered data was still missing. Wood and Roland, both of whom still maintain their officer certifications and appear on POST’s online lookup tool, were not in the records. Reporters notified the agency again, expecting to receive another batch of data. 

That’s when POST says it turned off the platform that allowed them to retrieve the data. 

“We have discovered that the platform previously used to capture the … information you requested was flawed,” Kelsey Woodward, an administrative assistant for POST, told Invisible Institute. “For this reason, the platform has now been dismantled and will no longer be used moving forward.”

POST now says that all the information it will make public about officers is contained within its certification lookup tool, which does not include any information about employing agencies of officers, or the reason why officers left their agencies — two crucial pieces of information previously released by the agency.

“POST data is incredibly valuable to study police misconduct and the law enforcement labor market, two critical policy areas with major national data gaps,” Ben Grunwald, a Duke University law and criminology professor who has conducted multiple in-depth studies using POST employment data from state agencies across the country, wrote in an email. “I’ve engaged closely with roughly twenty-five POSTs to obtain data. Most have worked dutifully to comply with my requests and some have even expended significant resources to correct errors I’ve identified. But there are also a substantial minority of POSTS — most often those that have devoted few resources to data collection and management — who aren’t interested in public transparency and data sharing, or are openly hostile to it.”

The Department of Correction also now won’t share information that was previously shared with journalists. When InvestigateWest requested information in January 2026 about whether two Idaho prison guards accused of sexually abusing multiple women were fired, resigned or retired, the Department of Correction refused to disclose the answer. 

“It’s concerning that in response to investigative reporting that exposed abuse and problematic practices at (the Idaho Department of Correction), the department locked down records that had previously been public — the very records that helped expose the problems in the first place,” said Melissa Davlin, president of the Idaho Press Club. “We encourage all involved agencies to reconsider this approach and commit to transparency, for the sake of Idahoans who demand accountability from their government.”

A new interpretation of the Public Records Act 

Department of Correction Public Information Officer Ryan Mortensen wrote in an email that its new interpretation of the Public Records Act resulted from “the Governor’s request for recommendations to improve our public records request processes.” The reason an employee no longer works for the agency is a personnel record that is exempt from disclosure under the state law, Mortensen said. The previous release of information was a result of “internal issues,” he said, and that the department is “addressing those issues through additional training and updated procedures to ensure compliance” with state law.

Ferguson, who represented the Idaho Press Club in a 2019 case that forced Ada County to release previously withheld public documents, disagrees. 

“Whether they were terminated or resigned is very much a part of the employment history,” Ferguson said. “What else would employment history be?”

The law says that agencies do not have to produce a document that doesn’t exist. Woodward, the administrative assistant for POST, said that since POST no longer has a document capturing the data, it “has no further responsive documents to provide.” 

David Cuillier, co-director of the University of Florida’s Brechner Center for the Advancement of the First Amendment, called that argument “bogus.” Just because the agency says it has dismantled the tool that lets it search the database doesn’t mean it doesn’t have the data, he said. POST is “not following the law because you asked for a copy of a record that they have in their possession … and they’re not giving you a copy of it.”

Josh Parker, deputy policy director for New York University’s Policing Project, called POST’s decision “borderline outrageous. I can’t think of any reason for not making that information publicly available other than a desire to hide that information from lawmakers and the public.” 

He added that it also “really hampers lawmakers and community members from ensuring that Idaho POST is satisfying its responsibility to conduct investigations of officers who engage in misconduct and decertify officers who engage in serious misconduct.”

Jorge Camacho, a former prosecutor in Manhattan who now studies regulation of police at Yale Law School’s Justice Collaboratory, called for law enforcement officials in Idaho to consider individuals most impacted by officer misconduct. 

“Sunshine really is the best medicine when it comes to these types of issues,” he said. “Especially within policing, where you have so many vulnerable people who are bearing the brunt of the harms that result from the lack of transparency.”

From InvestigateWest

From the Idaho Education News

Ryan Suppe

Custodians of public records at state and local agencies are giving themselves extra time to respond to records requests — and undermining the intent of a law that requires a prompt reply when citizens ask to see government documents. 

The Idaho Public Records Act, which was codified in 1990, guides the release of records and mandates deadlines for records custodians, government agency employees who process requests. The first sentence of the law says there’s “a presumption that all public records in Idaho are open at all reasonable times for inspection,” aside from documents protected by specific exemptions.

One of the best things about the law — and what makes it better than many similar laws in other states — is that it requires a “prompt response,” said Betsy Russell, a retired Idaho journalist and president of Idahoans for Openness in Government. Records custodians must grant or deny requests from Idaho residents within three working days, excluding weekends and holidays. (Out-of-state requests have more lenient deadlines.)

Timely responses help citizens find out what their government is doing in real time — not weeks, months or years later — and contribute to public policy decisions that affect their schools, communities and state.

“Idaho has determined, as a state, that the public records of our government and what it does with our taxpayer funds need to be open to citizens, not hidden away or delayed or kept secret,” Russell said by phone. 

The Public Records Act only allows custodians to take more than three days to fulfill a records request “if it is determined … that a longer period of time is needed to locate or retrieve the records.” In these cases, custodians must complete the requests in up to 10 working days, and must notify the requester of the extension. 

But some custodians are treating the 10-day allowance as customary, granting themselves an extension shortly after they receive a records request. Others are taking the better part of 10 days to fulfill straightforward requests, like a copy of a single document.

Over a five-day period last month, public records custodians at three different government agencies triggered the 10-day extension within hours of receiving records requests from Idaho Education News: 

• On April 17, EdNews requested data related to the Parental Choice Tax Credit from the Idaho State Tax Commission. The Tax Commission’s records custodian responded, less than two hours later, notifying EdNews that the agency would “respond to it by May 1,” 10 working days later. The commission responded to the request at 4:53 p.m. on May 1.
• On April 21, EdNews requested email correspondence between leaders of the Lakeland Joint School District. Less than two hours later, the district’s records custodian notified EdNews that processing the request would take up to 10 working days. 
• Also on April 21, EdNews requested contracts for two land purchases from the West Ada School District. Less than four hours later, the district’s records custodian responded that EdNews “should receive (its) records on or before May 5.” West Ada fulfilled the request on April 24. 

In each case, the custodians didn’t offer justification for needing additional time. They only cited the 10-day extension provision in the records law. In the West Ada example, EdNews received a 10-day estimate even though the district ultimately fulfilled the request within three days.

The law doesn’t say agencies have to provide a reason for needing more time. But there needs to be one. Russell pointed to where the law clearly states the conditions for an extension: Additional time is allowed only when an agency or custodian has “determined” that the records can’t be “located or retrieved” within three days.

“There’s no automatic, 10-day extension,” Russell said. 

Other records officials last month claimed 10-day extensions to produce one record or none at all. In response to two other requests filed by EdNews:

• The clerk at Brabeion Academy, a public charter school, said 10 working days could be necessary to “locate or retrieve” an employment contract. The one-page contract was produced eight working days later. 
• Gov. Brad Little’s office took nine business days to tell EdNews that “no documents” existed in response to a request for emails to Little’s staff about a bill that he signed earlier this month. After EdNews clarified that the request was for emails to the governor’s office as well as his staff, Little’s records custodian sent a 10-day extension notice, along with a notice that the governor’s office will need to prepare a cost estimate for the records. 

EdNews last week sent Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s office questions about whether treating the 10-day extension as automatic complies with the Public Records Act. Damon Sidur, director of external affairs for the attorney general’s office, did not respond.

But a public records law manual that Labrador’s office published last year says, “the intent of the law is that documents be provided upon request whenever possible.” While an agency has three working days to grant or deny a request, “public agencies should not delay three … days to provide information that is readily available.” 

The manual also notes that agencies are allowed to “determine” that more time is needed. The Idaho Legislature, when it established the three- and 10-day timelines, believed that they “would be adequate in the vast majority of cases,” the manual says, and individuals seeking records “would understand that agencies might occasionally need additional time to respond.”

EdNews reporters Sean Dolan, Emma Epperly and Kevin Richert contributed to this article. 

From the Idaho Education News

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