From Idaho State Controller Brandon Woolf

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 18, 2024

(Boise, ID) – Transparent Idaho continues to add to its data offerings by launching an updated city page, giving citizens unprecedented access to financial and salary data from Idaho’s 198 cities. This update underscores the State Controller’s Office’s dedication to increasing transparency and making citizen’s access to public data even easier.

Transparent Idaho is revolutionizing how citizens access information, allowing them to quickly explore data from all cities in one convenient location; eliminating the cumbersome process of visiting 198 different websites and submitting lengthy public records requests to each individual city.  This also allows citizens to easily view data across multiple cities on a single website.

“A government’s foundation is the trust of its citizens. This new city page is a game-changer, making city data more accessible than ever. In the past, citizens had to navigate a complex public records request process to gain insights. Now, this user-friendly interface empowers everyone to easily compare data across cities and see exactly how their tax dollars are spent,” said Brandon Woolf, State Controller.

The updated page offers key insights into city expenditures, departmental budgets, fund balances, audits, and salaries. This level of transparency allows citizens to better understand how local governments function and allows our citizens to engage with their local government like never before.

The State Controller’s Office partnered with In Time Tech, headquartered in Idaho, to develop the new interface, ensuring that city data is displayed in a clear, easy-to-use and navigate manner on Transparent Idaho.

“Transparency isn’t just about providing data; it’s about partnering with every level of government in building trust with our citizens,” said John Iasonides, Deputy Controller. “We’re grateful to the Association of Idaho Cities and the city leaders who contributed their efforts toward bringing this vision to life.”

For more information, visit the newly launched city page on our Transparent Idaho website.

# # #

CONTACTS:

Mackenzie Reathaford, Communications Manager | 208-334-3100 | mreathaford@sco.idaho.gov

From Idaho State Controller Brandon Woolf

From Idaho Education News

By Ryan Suppe and Kevin Richert

Boise State University has ignored or neglected legal deadlines for public records requests in recent weeks, as Idaho Education News seeks to report on two of the public institution’s high-profile decisions. 

Boise State announced last month that its sports teams will move to the Pac-12 Conference amid a nationwide reshuffling of conferences driven by lucrative television deals. At least tens of millions of dollars is at stake for Boise State, and EdNews wants to shed light on what’s motivating the decision — and whether there are risks to taxpayers who fund the university — before the State Board of Education votes to to approve or deny the Pac-12 move.

In late September, Boise State announced another decision that grabbed headlines: The Broncos’ women’s volleyball team forfeited a scheduled game against San José State, which reportedly has a transgender player on its roster. Administrators gave no explanation for the decision, so EdNews asked for public records that could reveal who made it and why. 

To date, EdNews has received a fraction of these records — a document already made public by a separate news organization — and Boise State missed three deadlines required under Idaho law. 

Boise State stood behind its process for responding to EdNews’ public records requests, in a Wednesday statement from general counsel Matt Wilde. Two of the three assertions by EdNews that Boise State missed legal deadlines are “patently false,” Wilde said. To read Wilde’s statement in its entirety, click here. 

The law at a glance

Idaho’s Public Records Act reads as follows: “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 carries potential civil penalties. If a public official has refused a records request “deliberately and in bad faith,” a court can impose a fine of up to $1,000.  A public official or agency that acts in good faith is exempt from civil liability.

The Pac-12 move, and what EdNews requested

On Sep. 12, Boise State announced it has accepted an invitation to join the Pac-12, effective July 1, 2026. 

A Mountain West Conference member since 2011, Boise State would join Oregon State, Washington State, Colorado State, Fresno State and San Diego State in a “reimagined” Pac-12. Utah State and Gonzaga later accepted Pac-12 invitations. 

Boise State’s move isn’t final, the university said in a news release. The State Board must first approve it. This means taxpayers still have a chance to weigh in on the move before it’s official. And the clock is ticking on the State Board’s decision. 

State Board spokesman Mike Keckler told EdNews Tuesday that the conference agreement hasn’t been finalized for the board’s consideration so it’s not on a meeting agenda yet. 

On Sept. 18, EdNews filed a records request seeking copies of agreements between Boise State and the Pac-12 and Boise State’s current agreement with the Mountain West.

BoiseDev reported on the terms of the Pac-12 deal here. Between $30 million and $40 million is at stake if Boise State reneges. 

EdNews also requested emails and scheduling records involving Boise State President Marlene Tromp, Athletic Director Jeramiah Dickey and Pac-12 officials. And we requested emails from Dickey that mention certain TV networks — financial agreements with broadcasters are an integral part of conference alignments. 

Boise State fails to meet Pac-12 public records deadline

EdNews did not receive a response granting or denying the Pac-12 request within three working days, as required by Idaho code 74-103(2). The same code also requires that records be provided within 10 working days of a request. 

It’s “patently false” that Boise State missed the three-day deadline in violation of the law, Wilde said, pointing to an automated response that EdNews received on Sept. 18, shortly after filing the records request.

The university “will grant or deny your requested within three (3) working days, unless we determine that a longer period of time is needed to locate, retrieve, and review responsive records, in which case we will provide the records no later than ten (10) working days…” the email said.

The law at a glance

Idaho’s Public Records Act reads as follows:

A public agency or custodian shall either grant or deny a person’s request to examine or copy public records within three (3) working days of the date of the receipt of the request for examination or copying. If it is determined by employees of the public agency that a longer period of time is needed to locate or retrieve the public records, the public agency shall so notify in writing the person requesting to examine or copy the records and shall provide the public records no later than ten (10) working days following the person’s request, if such person is an Idaho resident, and no later than twenty-one (21) working days following a request from a nonresident. Provided however, if it is determined the existing electronic record requested will first have to be converted to another electronic format by the agency or by a third party and that such conversion cannot be completed within ten (10) working days, the agency shall so notify in writing the person requesting to examine or copy the records. The agency shall provide the converted public record at a time mutually agreed upon between the agency and the requester, with due consideration given to any limitations that may exist due to the process of conversion or due to the use of a third party to make the conversion.

If the public agency or custodian fails to respond, the request shall be deemed to be denied within ten (10) working days following the request.

If the public agency denies the person’s request for examination or copying the public records or denies in part and grants in part the person’s request for examination and copying of the public records, the person legally responsible for administering the public agency or that person’s designee shall notify the person in writing of the denial or partial denial of the request for the public record. 

The notice of denial or partial denial shall state that the attorney for the public agency has reviewed the request or shall state that the public agency has had an opportunity to consult with an attorney regarding the request for examination or copying of a record and has chosen not to do so. The notice of denial or partial denial also shall indicate the statutory authority for the denial and indicate clearly the person’s right to appeal the denial or partial denial and the time periods for doing so.

On Oct. 1, nine working days after the request, EdNews sent an email to “publicrecords@boisestate.edu” asking for an update. On Oct. 2, after receiving no response to the prior day’s message, EdNews forwarded the previous email directly to Rob Adelson, Boise State’s public records coordinator. Adelson responded that he would check with the athletics department on the status of the request. 

Later on Oct. 2, Adelson provided EdNews with one-fifth of the requested records — a document setting the terms of the agreement between the Pac-12 Conference and its new members, which has already been reported by BoiseDev — and said the emails requested were still under review. EdNews agreed to narrow the request for emails to exclude listserv messages. 

As of Oct. 9, the 15th working day since the Sept. 18 request, EdNews has yet to receive the following records: 

• Current membership agreements between Boise State and the Mountain West.
• Email correspondence from Tromp and Dickey that includes a receiver or sender with an @pac-12.org email address.
• Email correspondence from Dickey that mentions a list of TV networks.
• Scheduling/calendar/meeting records for Tromp and Dickey that include the names of top Pac-12 officials.

Volleyball and transgender athletics emails

On Oct. 2, EdNews filed a second records request.

EdNews requested “emails and written correspondence” pertaining to Gov. Brad Little’s Aug. 28 executive order, the “Defending Women’s Sports Act.” EdNews also requested emails and written correspondence pertaining to Boise State’s forfeiture of the Sept. 28 volleyball matchwith San José State.

The requests were limited to Tromp’s office, Dickey’s office and the office of government relations, for a timespan from July 28 through Oct. 2.

Within minutes, EdNews received an automated response from Boise State. The university said it would grant or deny the request within three working days and provide the records within 10 working days, Idaho’s legal deadlines.

The university did not grant or deny the request by Oct. 7, the three-day deadline.

“This, too, is patently false,” Wilde told EdNews, again pointing to the automated email language that noted the three- and 10-day requirements and said the university “will grant or deny the request” within three days.

On Oct. 8, EdNews emailed Boise State to inquire about the request. Adelson sent the following response:

“I appreciate the email,” he wrote. “Due to the large volume of public records requests that Boise State receives and the size of the University, we have determined that a longer period of time is needed to locate, retrieve, and review responsive records, if they exist. We will provide the records no later than ten (10) working days from Wednesday, October 10.”

Oct. 10 falls on a Thursday, not a Wednesday. Either way, Boise State is attempting to push back the timetable on the records request, by a week or more, in violation of state law.

The three- and 10-day clock begins ticking when the records request is filed — not at an arbitrary date of an agency’s choosing.

Wilde said the Wednesday, Oct. 10 date was written in error, and denied that Boise State was trying to change the timetable. “You assumed that the University was consciously choosing an ‘arbitrary’ and new date to respond.”

From Idaho Education News

From the Lewiston Tribune

By Ivar Nelson

The recent briefing of public information about the large and ongoing fires in Nez Perce County is a prime example of how immediate, known information about an event benefits our community. The Idaho Department of Lands, in charge of the containment of the fires, did an amazing job of communicating to those impacted by the fire and the public at large all they knew about fire dangers and fire damages. Their immediate information about the Gwen and Texas fires used all media, digital and print, and was understandable and useful. We received multiple presentations from officials during the week, with the latest information contained in understandable graphics and maps.

Providing knowledge about an event such as a horrific fire helps individuals know whether their homes are threatened and what are their choices, helps responders know the overall picture and assures the public that their government is taking responsible action in face of the danger. Unfounded fears are allayed, rumors are confirmed or proven false and public panic is soothed or averted.

This is public officials being, well, public.

Contrast that with what happens when public officials forget that they work for the public.

That happens not because the officials are corrupt or dishonest, but usually for reasons of expediency or the difficulty in dealing with a skeptical public. It is so much easier to ask for forgiveness than to get approval. But this adds to challenges when the lack of information leads to a public backlash.

This happened to the University of Idaho’s proposal to take the University of Phoenix under its wing. Because the proposal was kept under wraps until it was finalized, the very act of secrecy of the acquisition caused a negative public and political response. There also were aspects of the deal that were debatable, including the history of malfeasance at Phoenix, lack of UI experience with a Phoenix’s student body, the involvement of private equity firms and the financial exposure of UI. The important point is that a more public involvement of stakeholders, including the taxpaying people of Idaho, would have either developed support for the proposal or clarified the problems.

The given reason for the secrecy was that the private businesses involved, including the private equity firm that was selling Phoenix, demanded it; that private business transactions such as this need to be done in, well, in private.

Is agreeing to nondisclosure on the private business side inimical to public decision making? What is the line between the disclosure of information for the good of the public as in firefighting and a lack of disclosure of information for the good of private business as in the Phoenix proposal?

We entrust the public business to people we elect, with their assurance that they will act in the public good. We elect the Idaho governor who appoints the Idaho Board of Education who appoints the president of the University of Idaho who makes the deal with Apollo Management, the owner of Phoenix University. When deals are made behind closed doors, speculation swells. When public money is involved, there is intense interest in what is happening. When it is the flagship university of the state, that interest is magnified.

And who knows the truth? Which is exactly the point when public business is conducted in private. Does the aggravation of having everyone involved at the table, especially the taxpayers, outweigh the possibility of having the arrangement blow up later when it becomes public?

Public involvement is messy. Making decisions in secrecy or in “smoke-filled” rooms is faster and more manageable, but is it as effective in the long run? Or does that just stimulate the public to react, as in the Open Primary Initiative, to protect its sovereignty?

The tendency toward secrecy is also seen in the increased use of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs). Once used by private business to protect trade secrets, negotiations and client information, they have increasingly been used in official public business, as in the Phoenix agreement. This is not about the use of NDAs for classified state information that is protected from disclosure by government statue or the Privacy Act protection of personal information.

Succinctly, “NDAs cannot be used to prevent the disclosure of information that is in the public interest,” according to the contract management platform Ironcladapp.com.

Private business and governmental entities do a lot of business together. But the burden should be on private business if they want to work with the government and with taxpayer money. The state of Washington’s Silenced No More Act from 2022 makes it illegal to require, or even request, that workers sign NDAs.

Idaho should think about doing the same.

Is the necessity of openness in public information as important in public institutional decision making as it is in public calamities such as wildfires? The principle is the same: the public’s right to know. I would maintain that the potential negative impact of secret decisions about public institutions or funds is much greater than that of natural crises. The benefit of open decisions, openly arrived at, is that they bring the largest input from all the stakeholders into the mix and the final decisions provide the greater good for the greater number.

Many people decide, enabling one person to act. It’s slower, it’s messier and it’s more effective.

Nelson lives in Moscow where he volunteers for the Kenworthy Performing Arts Centre and supports libraries. He is the former director of the University of Idaho Press and founded the Moscow book store BookPeople.

From the Lewiston Tribune

From the Idaho Capital Sun

GOP Chairwoman Dorothy Moon said first priorities are preserving access for Republicans, protecting privacy

BY: CLARK CORBIN

News reporters were not allowed to observe any committee meetings or events during the first day of the Idaho Republican State Convention on Thursday at Coeur d’Alene Resort.

The state convention takes place every two years. Republican delegates from counties across Idaho will spend three days voting on proposed rules, resolutions, platform changes and, finally, electing the party’s chairperson.

News reporters may not be allowed to observe or attend any of it — a departure from allowing reporters to observe the general sessions in the past. 

Reporters who checked in at the convention’s registration desk Thursday morning – including two reporters from the Idaho Capital Sun – were directed by volunteers and staff to a designated media area located in a windowless corner of a hallway at Coeur d’Alene Resort. 

Idaho Republican Party officials announced last week and reiterated to news reporters Thursday that reporters would not be allowed to attend any convention meetings, but would be allowed to interview delegates and Republican officials before and after meetings.

The Idaho Republican Party also blocked reporters who are not registered Republicans from attending the Idaho Republican Presidential Caucus on March 2.

Idaho GOP chairwoman defends decision, saying Republican party is a private association

During an interview Thursday outside Coeur d’Alene Resort, a reporter with the Sun asked Idaho Republican Party Chairwoman Dorothy Moon, “When we talk about transparency, is that part of the equation at all?”

“Yeah, not really,” Moon said, laughing. “Not in my mind. In my mind, this is a private group. It’s a private association. And, no, I don’t want to sit here and give you all of our platform changes or any rules or resolutions, such as our strategy on fighting ranked-choice voting, because then the Democrats have that information and then they are going to try to counter us.”

The Sun pointed out that the Idaho Republican Party has already publicly posted its proposed resolutions, platform changes and rules on the Idaho Republican Party’s website.

“Not all of it will (be published online),” Moon responded. “I mean but not the nuances that occur in these meetings.”

At least one elected Republican legislator who attended the convention was surprised by and opposed the decision to exclude news reporters.

“Who in their right mind thinks it is a good idea to lock the press out?” Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen, R-Idaho Falls, said in an interview in the convention hallway.  

“I think (keeping the press out) is reflective of a lot of things going on in the state,” Mickelsen added. “Anytime you don’t want the press to shine light on what you are doing, I think there is a problem. I think the people get a better process when we have press involved.”

“You can say they are right or left or whatever,” Mickelsen said. “But at the end of the day, an informed electorate — which is what we need the press for — helps us and constituents and the people in this state get good information to make good decisions. I think one of the things that people have lost is their constitution of truth. By journalists not being allowed to be a part of and view and report that back, it’s kind of scary honestly.”

Ultimately, Moon said access will be her decision. Moon told the Sun on Thursday she has not decided whether reporters will be allowed to attend or observe the convention’s general session on Friday or Saturday, when delegates vote on rules, resolutions, the party platform and elect the chairperson and leadership team for the Idaho Republican Party. 

Moon told the Sun one of the reasons she didn’t allow reporters into the convention Thursday is because at the last convention two years ago in Twin Falls she didn’t like the way some reporters covered the event.

“In Twin Falls when I ran for this position, I remember the press was back there, and there were some screen shots – and I don’t know if you remember it, you should, it wasn’t involving you but somebody else – and they were texting information to somebody in the Democrat Party and it wasn’t good,” Moon said Thursday. 

Moon declined to identify the reporter. It also wasn’t clear why Moon would have screenshots of a reporter’s phone or text messages. However, it is common practice in journalism for a reporter working on any story to reach out to the other side of a story for comment, including reaching out to a different political party.

“That concerns me, the breach of confidence with the press that they would actually put information out to defame or demean or put a bad light on the event that we just had in Twin Falls,” Moon said.

“There’s no room,” Moon said of Thursday’s meetings. “I’m not gonna let you in. We can’t even get our own people in.”

“We’ve got to see how many people are there. I mean, we’re at capacity right now,” Moon said of Friday’s and Saturday’s meetings. “And, no, the press will not come in when I’ve got people who have driven all the way from southeast Idaho to attend. And I know you drove far, but these are people who have a right to be in there and vote and listen.”

“I don’t want a distraction. I don’t want people to be playing for the cameras or playing for the media,” Moon added. “I want them to get their work done.”

If Moon bans reporters from the convention’s general session, it would represent a departure from the norm of recent Republican conventions. In 2022, former Idaho Capital Sun reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris was allowed to attend and cover the general session of the convention, although she was not allowed to attend committee meetings. 

“The platform discussions were closed, but the general session was open,” Moseley-Morris said in a text message to the Sun.

In the 2014 Idaho Republican State Convention in Twin Falls, reporter Clark Corbin and other journalists were also allowed to attend the general session and some committee meetings.

This year’s Idaho Republican State Convention continues Friday with more committee meetings at Coeur d’Alene Resort and a general session at North Idaho College. 

The Idaho Democratic Party State Convention runs June 22 and June 23 in Moscow.

From the Idaho Capital Sun

From Idaho Education News

by Kevin Richert

An Idaho Supreme Court justice Thursday floated a new and confounding question about the proposed University of Phoenix acquisition: Did the State Board of Education pay $1.5 million for consulting before greenlighting the deal?

State Board officials were quick to say they never paid for due diligence work, which would have been covered through tax dollars.

The due diligence question came up during oral arguments, as the Supreme Court took up an open meetings lawsuit against the State Board. Attorney General Raúl Labrador has argued that the board broke state law when it held three closed-door meetings to discuss the University of Idaho’s $685 million plan to purchase Phoenix. The State Board gave the purchase the go-ahead in an open meeting on May 18, 2023.

Labrador’s lawsuit — rejected in an Ada County district court — has nonetheless thrown a monkey wrench into the bid for Phoenix, a giant for-profit online university serving some 85,000 students nationally. And if the Supreme Court sides with Labrador and against the State Board such a decision would further imperil the deal.

The Supreme Court took the case under advisement after a 70-minute hearing. It’s unclear when the court will rule.

Did the State Board pay for due diligence?

It sounded that way, at least in Thursday’s hearing.

During a line of questions, Supreme Court Justice Gregory Moeller clearly suggested that the State Board had spent $1.5 million on due diligence. And he said the spending indicated that the Phoenix talks had progressed beyond the “preliminary negotiations” that can be held in a closed meeting.

Moeller’s questions also seemed to draw a distinction between the State Board’s due diligence and the U of I’s consulting contracts, which have been a matter of public record for months. The U of I has spent roughly $11 million on Phoenix-related consulting — and as Idaho Education News reported in February, $7.3 million of this work went to U of I President C. Scott Green’s former employer, Hogan Lovells, an international law firm.

So did the State Board spend $1.5 million?

During Thursday’s hearing, the State Board’s outside attorney did not dispute Moeller’s claim, and said the magnitude of the Phoenix deal justified due diligence.

“(It’s) not an unreasonable action,” Stephen Adams said.

When State Board spokesman Mike Keckler was reached for comment Thursday morning, he questioned Moeller’s version of the facts.

“Neither the board nor the board office spent funding on due diligence,” Keckler said in an email. “Given that we are in a board meeting today we weren’t able to listen to this morning’s oral arguments, so we can’t comment any further on Justice Moeller’s line of questions.”

The board has been meeting in Pocatello since Tuesday for a previously scheduled meeting running through today. No board member or State Board staff member attended Thursday’s Supreme Court hearing.

The lead attorney representing the State Board, which operates as the U of I’s governing board of regents, corroborated Keckler’s account. In an email Thursday afternoon, Trudy Fouser said the board never paid for consulting or due diligence.

Familiar — and less familiar — legal arguments

Thursday’s legal arguments revolved around two snippets in the open meetings law, pertaining to the negotiations process and competition.

The State Board justified its closed meetings under a little-used piece of the law, covering “preliminary negotiations … in which the governing body is in competition with governing bodies in other states or nations.”

Negotiations. Chief Justice Richard Bevan seemed to set the tone for Thursday’s hearing with the court’s first question to Joshua Turner, Labrador’s constitutional litigation and policy chief: “When do preliminary negotiations cease and final negotiations begin?”

For much of the hearing, the justices grilled Turner and Adams about this question. Not surprisingly, the two attorneys saw the issue differently.

Turner argued that the preliminary talks end — and the public debate must begin — when there is an offer on the table. And Turner suggested that this must have happened sometime during the board closed meetings, in March, April and May 2023.

Adams said preliminary negotiations don’t end with an offer; they end when the parties begin work on a contract. And he said the preliminary phase ended with the State Board’s open meeting on May 18, 2023; that’s when the board agreed to pursue a contract, setting a $685 million purchase price.

Competition. This was the centerpiece in the Ada County trial in January, when District Judge Jason Scott ruled in the State Board’s favor. Scott said board members had reason to believe the U of I was vying against other public suitors, such as the University of Arkansas. (However, Arkansas’ board of trustees voted down a Phoenix purchase in April 2023, almost a month before the State Board endorsed a U of I-Phoenix affiliation.)

But this turned out to be a secondary issue Thursday, as the court and the competing attorneys spent relatively little time discussing competition.

Adams defended State Board members, saying they worked diligently to make sure their closed meetings were legal. And he said everything the board heard in private confirmed the U of I was in the middle of a competitive bidding process.

Meanwhile, Turner took a jab at Scott. By focusing on whether board members had reason to believe the U of I faced competition — rather than proof of actual competition — Scott used a subjective measure. As a result, Turner said, Labrador’s team had no choice but to spend hours deposing individual board members for their read on the market for Phoenix.

Transparency vs. competitive advantage

The State Board’s May 2023 vote blindsided Idahoans who knew nothing about a potential Phoenix purchase, Turner said. And that preempted the process the open meetings law is designed to protect. “The public wants to be able to enter the conversation and have a seat at the table.”

In response, Adams said the board was not trying to shut out the public. Instead, he said, the board was working “to get the best deal possible for the people of the state of Idaho.”

On Thursday, the court publicly wrestled with this question of balance.

Justice Colleen Zahn said the Legislature made its objectives known, with a law designed to allow the government to negotiate behind closed doors. “It’s clearly got to be to provide the state a competitive advantage.”

Moeller acknowledged that closed-door negotiations are a great way to run a private business. “The debate I’m having internally is, is this a good way to run a state?”

The case, in broader context

The case before the Supreme Court is legally narrow: an open meetings dispute.

Its implications run deeper.

Labrador’s lawsuit, filed nearly a year ago, has prevented the U of I from financing a Phoenix purchase. The Supreme Court appeal has also kept bonding on hold.

As long as the lawsuit is active — and on Thursday, justices floated the possibility of kicking the case back to district court for another hearing — the Phoenix purchase remains in limbo.

And as EdNews first reported in May, Phoenix’s owner, Apollo Global Management, has said it now wants to talk with other prospective buyers. The U of I could receive “breakup fees” from Apollo if its Phoenix purchase falls through.

From Idaho Education News

From KTVB

by Aspen Shumpert

The nonprofits said their goal is to help journalists and the public fight for public record requests when they’ve been improperly denied.

In the United States citizens have the right to request public records and documents from the government. But at times those requests may be improperly denied leaving, in Idaho, the only way to fight denials in court, which can be expensive.

A group of journalists in Idaho has established a nonprofit organization to assist with expenses, combat denials, and educate the public about public record laws.

“We don’t have the money to pay a lawyer every single time this happens,” Melissa Davlin, President of the Idaho First Amendment Alliance, said about fighting a denial for a public records request. 

In Idaho, public records for all government agencies are supposed to be open to the public unless specifically noted in Idaho’s public records law. 

“We’re dealing with hundreds of public employees, some of whom get dozens or hundreds of public records requests a year,” Davlin said. “And they don’t always understand the public records law.”

When a public records request you filed as a journalist or even as a member of the public is improperly denied, there are a few options to consider. 

“The vast majority of the time when somebody improperly denies a public record for citizens and journalists – or over redacts or over charges… usually we can clear that up with a phone call,” Davlin said. 

Davlin said that works most of the time, and she prefers to handle it this way when she feels a public records request has been denied improperly. 

But if a phone call to who’s in charge of getting the records to requestees doesn’t work your only choice of legal action in the state of Idaho is to sue. 

Going through the litigation process takes time and resources. But now, a group of journalists – including Davlin – are coming together to help out when this happens. 

They created the nonprofit the Idaho First Amendment Alliance. It’s set to not only educate journalists and the public through training and workshops on how to fight for records but also support financially in the fight in court. 

Davlin is also president of the Idaho Press Club, a now partner of the Idaho First Amendment Alliance – who’s taken government agencies to court before. 

“In 2019, we successfully sued Ada County to get records about the Western Idaho Fairgrounds,” Davlin said. “And then a few years ago we sued… then Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin over records on a taskforce that she was running. And in both cases, we won.”

But sometimes record denials go unchallenged – and fighting a denial isn’t realistic for some. 

“20 years ago, when your newsroom or my newsroom ran into an issue, a lot of times we had in-house counsel with the company, and we would be able to sue (government agencies) ourselves,” Davlin said. “Also, we would be able to pursue that independently. That’s not the case anymore. The stark reality of journalism right now is that newsrooms are shrinking, budgets are shrinking, weekly, local papers are closing down.”

Government transparency is necessary for journalists to do their jobs and for citizens to know what their government is doing, she said. 

“When we are freed up to report on what the government is doing, as opposed to spending our time fighting for records that we’re entitled to…it’s so much better for everybody,” she said. 

The nonprofit officially launched in April and the following months have been a “foundation building phase,” according to Davlin. 

“I would love to be in a place where we don’t feel like we have to fight for public records, either in the courtroom or over the phone, where everybody understands that transparency benefits everybody, both government officials and the citizens of Idaho,” she said. 

The Idaho First Amendment Alliance is actively seeking grants and fundraising opportunities. You can make a donation on their website.

From KTVB

From Idaho Reports

By Ruth Brown, Idaho Reports 

Idaho U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill issued an order Thursday that will require the Idaho Department of Correction to disclose some additional information regarding the chemicals it planned to use in the execution of Gerald Pizzuto Jr.  

The order comes following the failed execution of Thomas Creech in February. The source of the chemicals that were set to be used in that execution is still unknown.  

Pizzuto filed a lawsuit against IDOC in 2021, asking the state not to execute him with pentobarbital, due to his multiple medical conditions. He claimed it would cause severe pain and constitute cruel and unusual punishment.  

His execution has been stayed since March 9, 2023, while litigation continues.  

Pizzuto has been on Idaho’s death row since being convicted in the 1985 deaths of Berta Herndon and her nephew Delbert Herndon outside of McCall. His two co-defendants, William Odom and James Rice, were given lesser sentences for their roles in the crime.  

The Idaho Legislature in 2022 passed a law to grant anonymity to the manufacturers of chemicals the state procured for lethal injection executions. At the time, IDOC told legislators they were having trouble obtaining the chemicals. 

While IDOC will not be required to name the supplier, some additional information requested by Pizzuto’s attorneys will be supplied. 

Winmill agreed to grant Pizzuto’s request that IDOC disclose the date on which the execution drugs were obtained and supply a purchase order with a date to Pizzuto. The judge also agreed to grant Pizzuto’s request asking about the geographic origin of the execution chemicals and whether they were obtained in the United States or a foreign country and if the chemicals were imported. 

“Ultimately, the Court is left with very little information about the likelihood that answering these RFAs would result in the identification of the drug supplier,” Winmill wrote.  

Pizzuto also requested information on if the chemicals came from a “veterinary source” or a hospital, and whether the drugs were sold by a “wholesaler/distributer” or a pharmacy, and the judge granted that request. IDOC must also “to admit or deny that the execution drugs were manufactured by Akorn, a now-bankrupt pharmaceutical company,” per Pizzuto’s request.  

IDOC will also be required to provide Pizzuto with an unredacted copy of the certificate of analysis done on the chemicals. The copy given to Pizzuto in January had a redacted date.  

“They have not explained how their supplier could be identified if the Report Date is disclosed,” Winmill wrote. “Nor can the Court intuit how that date, which merely reflects when the chemical analysis was performed, is linked to the drug’s manufacture.”  

The court gives IDOC 14 days to comply with the order.  

From Idaho Reports

By LAURA GUIDO

From the Idaho Press

A judge is ordering Attorney General Raúl Labrador to pay more than $242,700 in costs and attorney fees over his unsuccessful lawsuit against the State Board of Education.

Labrador had filed the case against the State Board, which also acts as the University of Idaho’s board of regents, alleging an Open Meetings Law violation in regards to the board’s closed-door meetings held ahead of the public vote to start the process of purchasing the University of Phoenix.

Ada County District Court Judge Jason Scott ordered Labrador’s office to pay $233,362.87 in attorney fees and $9,363.15 in costs in his order filed Tuesday.

“This unnecessary and unsuccessful lawsuit by the Attorney General against his own client took an enormous amount of time and resulted in a large cost to taxpayers,” the State Board wrote in an emailed statement. “The State Board is grateful to be vindicated by the Court once again. Although the Attorney General must pay those costs from his budget, it is profoundly unfortunate that taxpayers ultimately must bear the cost of this frivolous litigation.”

Labrador’s office did not agree with the decision and said in a written statement, “We disagree with the decision and expect to prevail on appeal. At the end of the day, this attorneys’ fees decision will not matter.”

Labrador has appealed the case, and the Idaho Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments June 13.

Scott determined the fees requested were reasonable and that the State Board was legally entitled to them; however, he reduced the award by $39,907.50 from what was requested because of heavily redacted billing entries from the State Board’s attorneys at Gjording Fouser. He wrote that the redactions prevented the court from being able to fully determine what work was done if it was reasonable.

“By heavily redacting its billing entries, Gjording Fouser has effectively prevented an award of attorney fees in full measure,” the judge wrote.

He rejected Labrador’s argument that hiring multiple lawyers to work on the case was duplicative or unnecessary given the nature of the case.

“This case presented novel questions of law, was fiercely litigated (by both sides), and was, based on its unique circumstances, expedited, justifying involving more than one lawyer in depositions and hearings,” Scott said.

He partially agreed with an argument made by Labrador that some of the paralegal fees were for clerical work that aren’t compensable under the law, so Scott reduced $913 from some of the requested paralegal billings.

The case revolved around whether the early negotiations conducted in closed-door executive sessions were in compliance with Idaho’s Open Meetings Law.

There are narrow exceptions to rules requiring government business being conducted in public, and the State Board used the exemption for “preliminary negotiations involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is in competition with governing bodies in other states or nations.”

Labrador’s office contended that the last executive session, held on May 15, 2023, and just three days before the final decision, wouldn’t be considered “preliminary” and also argued that there wasn’t competition “with governing bodies in other states or nations,” because by then, the University of Arkansas had publicly withdrawn its bid to purchase the online school.

There was a three-day trial, after which the judge dismissed the case with prejudice in late January.

The State Board’s decision to create a nonprofit entity to go out for a bond in order to pay around $685 million for the online university is still facing hurdles. This session, legal opinions sought by lawmakers found that the State Board and university may have lacked authority to create the nonprofit entity, which contradicted the University of Idaho’s attorneys’ opinions.

A bill meant to ease some of the concerns was introduced this week and would instead create an independent politic and corporate body to go for the bond and oversee the University of Phoenix and add more input by the Legislature.

A Senate committee approved the bill, but it still awaits votes from the full Senate and House.

From the Idaho Press

From the Associated Press

BY REBECCA BOONE AND GENE JOHNSON

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — In 2012, two Idaho prison officials chartered a private plane and flew to Washington state with thousands of dollars in cash.

They met with a pharmacist behind closed doors and bought the drug for a convicted murderer’s lethal injection.

Only a years-long public records lawsuit revealed the pharmacist’s name, the pharmacy and other details of the exchange. After prison officials said the pharmacist’s exposure had scared away other lethal drug suppliers, Idaho lawmakers barred such information from getting out again.

Idaho tried and failed Wednesday to execute Thomas Eugene Creech, a 73-year-old serial killer who had been in prison for 50 years. Neither his attorneys nor the public knew where the state obtained the drug or the exact qualifications of his executioners.

Opponents say secrecy laws are are a significant hurdle to accountability and make it hard to ensure that the procedures aren’t unconstitutionally painful, whether the deaths are carried out successfully — as Texas did Wednesday in the case of Ivan Cantu — or botched like Creech’s.

Idaho long kept the identities of execution team members and drug suppliers secret but judges were still able to force disclosure of the information if it was relevant to lawsuits or appeals. The new law prohibits state officials from disclosing the information, even if under court order.

The law also prevents professional licensing boards from taking disciplinary action against people for participating in executions.

Such secrecy is typical among states that impose capital punishment, including Texas, where lawmakers passed a similar measure in 2015 to ensure drug suppliers did not face retaliation or harassment for cooperating with executions.

“States are saying, ‘We don’t need to show you the information about … how we find or drugs or the training of the prison staff,’” said Robin Maher, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that tracks executions. “And then, when things go wrong, they can’t be held accountable.”

Creech was convicted of five murders in three states and suspected of several more. He has been in custody since 1974 and was already serving a life term when he beat a fellow inmate, 22-year-old David Dale Jensen, to death in 1981 — the crime for which he was to be executed.

When his appointed hour came at 10 a.m. Wednesday, Creech was wheeled into the execution chamber and strapped to a table. Medical personnel poked and prodded at his arms, legs, hands and feet for nearly an hour, making eight attempts, but they couldn’t find a vein they thought would hold up long enough to deliver the fatal dose. He was returned to his cell.

It is unclear whether or when the state might try again, or how. Like other states concerned about the availability of lethal injection, Idaho recently passed a law allowing for firing squads as a backup, but the state has yet to write protocols for using that method or build a facility where it could shoot people to death. It has not approved the use of nitrogen gas, a method used for the first time early this year in Alabama.

Creech’s execution team comprised volunteers who, according to Idaho execution protocols, were required to have at least three years of medical experience, such as having been a paramedic, and to have “current venous access proficiency.” They were not necessarily doctors, who famously take an oath to “do no harm” — though Idaho Department of Correction Director Josh Tewalt later told lawmakers that the executioners regularly use their IV skills to save lives in their day jobs. They wore white balaclava-style coverings to conceal their faces.

Tewalt defended the state’s approach, saying the department ensures execution drugs are acquired lawfully, provides test results showing their authenticity, and ensures medical members of the execution team meet or exceed required qualifications.

“I would argue we are very transparent about any information that speaks to the integrity of the process,” said Tewalt. “What we won’t do is tell you their names.”

Tewalt also disagreed with characterizing the attempt as “botched” — stopping the execution after the failed IVs prevented the process from truly going awry, he said.

Creech, according to his attorneys, suffers from several conditions that could have made vein accessibility challenging: Type 2 diabetes, hypertension and edema. It can also be more difficult for older people to have IVs inserted, as their veins can be less stable.

“This is precisely the kind of mishap we warned the State and the Courts could happen when attempting to execute one of the country’s oldest death-row inmates in circumstances completely shielded in secrecy,” Creech’s attorneys, with the nonprofit Federal Defender Services of Idaho, said in a written statement.

Among the arguments they made in their unsuccessful last-minute petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court was that the secrecy violated Creech’s due-process rights and could constitute cruel and unusual punishment if the lethal drug, the sedative pentobarbital, was of poor quality and caused unnecessary pain or complications.

Idaho did confirm the drug would not expire until February 2025. A purchase order obtained by the Idaho Statesman showed the state spent $50,000 for 15 grams of pentobarbital — 10 grams of which were prepared for use in Creech’s execution. The name of the supplier and purchase date were blacked out.

Idaho also provided what defense attorneys described as a heavily redacted certificate of analysis purporting to show the drug’s validity, but they said the document lacked so much information that it was impossible to verify.

Creech’s failed execution marked the sixth time since September 2009 that an inmate has survived an attempted lethal injection because the executioners couldn’t place an IV. In the 2018 case of Doyle Lee Hamm in Alabama, executioners tried and failed for 2.5 hours; in the process they punctured his bladder and penetrated his femoral artery. Hamm died in prison three years later of cancer.

Still, failure to administer lethal injection is the exception. Over that same period, states successfully executed just over 400 people.

In Texas, condemned inmates sued in 2014 over the state’s refusal to provide information about execution drug suppliers that they said they needed to verify quality. In response, lawmakers banned the disclosure of such information, saying suppliers could face harm, and the Texas Supreme Court upheld the law in 2019.

The secrecy prevents the public from fully understanding how the death penalty is administered and unnecessarily complicates legal cases, said Deborah W. Denno, founding director of the Neuroscience and Law Center at Fordham Law School.

“If you’re confident in your product, you’re going to be very open and transparent,” she said. “Usually when people are secretive, that does not mean good things.”

From the Associated Press

From the Idaho Capital Sun

BY CLARK CORBIN 

News reporters will not be allowed inside the Idaho Republican presidential caucus on March 2 or allowed to observe party officials tabulating results at party headquarters, raising concerns among some transparency advocates. 

Idaho Republican Party Chairwoman Dorothy Moon and Executive Director Kiira Turnbow told the Idaho Capital Sun that Idaho Republican Party’s rules for the caucus only allow registered Republicans and their minor children to attend. The Idaho Republican Party is using 210 different caucus sites during the March 2 presidential nominating caucus. 

Some caucus sites will be held on private property, such as churches. 

But dozens of caucus sites are in public buildings, including public schools paid for by Idaho taxpayers. 

Additionally, Idaho Republican Party officials plan to close the state party’s headquarters in downtown Boise while they tabulate results that are called in from each of the 210 caucus sites. News reporters will not be allowed inside during that time but can wait outside the party headquarters, Turnbow and Moon said. Once the results have been tabulated, Idaho Republican officials plan to open the doors to their Boise headquarters, announce the caucus results publicly and post the results to the Idaho Republican Party’s website, Turnbow said. 

“As for the caucus sites, per the Idaho GOP rules of the caucus, only registered Republican voters and their minor children will be admitted into the caucus sites,” Turnbow said.  

Turnbow said that means reporters will not be allowed inside the caucus sites. When asked by the Sun, Turnbow said the rule applies equally to all news reporters, and that national outlets such as Fox News or the Wall Street Journal would also be barred from entering caucus sites and barred from observing the vote tabulation inside GOP headquarters. 

Blocking reporters from presidential caucus raises transparency concerns 

David Adler, a political scientist who has taught the U.S. Constitution and government at Idaho’s public universities and now serves as president of the nonprofit Alturas Institute, said the Idaho Republican Party’s decision to bar news reporters from access to the presidential caucus is a disturbing, anti-democratic policy “that exalts secrecy over transparency.”

“As the U.S. Supreme Court has held, the Free Press Clause acknowledges the critical role that the press plays in American society, politics and elections,” Adler said in a written message to the Sun. “Press coverage of both the caucus and the official tabulation of votes informs the public, reassures citizens about the legality and fairness of the caucus process, and confirms party representations and voting results.”

“Chairman Moon’s decision to block press access to the presidential caucus and the official tabulation of votes betrays the presumption of openness that inheres in our democracy and, certainly, in the electoral contests for public office,” Adler added. “ I don’t understand Moon’s penchant for secrecy, and question the GOP’s alleged advocacy for free, fair and transparent elections.”

Betsy Russell, president of Idahoans for Openness in Government, urged Idaho GOP leaders to reverse their decision before the presidential caucus. 

“To exclude our free press from the process by which our state’s largest party selects candidates for the highest office in our nation would be absurd and extremely inappropriate,” Russell said in a written statement. “We all know that transparency builds trust, and secrecy generates suspicion. Selecting our leaders is a public matter in this country, not something that should be conducted in secrecy in back rooms. This announcement by the Idaho Republican Party prompts the question: What are they trying to hide? I sincerely hope they rethink this decision and allow the free press to observe the process and report on it to the public, so that citizens can know the process is being carried out as promised. At a time when suspicion of public institutions is running high and conspiracy theories abound, it’s mind-boggling that a major party would want to undermine public trust by conducting such an important process in secret.”

Idaho Press Club President Melissa Davlin also raised concerns about excluding reporters from the caucus.

“For years, Republican candidates have raised questions about integrity surrounding candidate nominations and elections. Now, the Idaho Republican Party has chosen to shut out journalists for this high-interest event,” Davlin said in a statement to the Sun. “Transparency benefits everyone, from the citizens of Idaho to the party officials charged with running the local caucuses. Voters across the nation will be looking to Idaho on March 2, and it’s disappointing the Idaho GOP is making it more difficult to get information to the public.”

Jaclyn Kettler, a Boise State University political scientist, said news reporters have generally been allowed to cover caucuses – pointing to public coverage of the Iowa caucuses, for example. But Kettler said the issue of media coverage fits in with broader discussions political parties are having about how they organize themselves, make decisions behind closed doors and exclude people who are not members.

“These (political parties) are quasi private organizations, yet they are engaging in public functions,” Kettler said in a telephone interview. “But when you’re in the public realm, who gets to make that call?” 

The issue of media coverage came up recently in the Nevada caucuses, Kettler said. The Reno Gazette Journal reported Feb. 7 that Washoe County School District policy prevents the local Republican Party from banning the general public or news media from attending the Republican caucus at 16 public schools that were serving as Nevada caucus sites. 

Members of the Idaho Republican Party are running, paying for and organizing the Idaho caucus themselves – not the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office or county clerks. 

Republicans also set their own rules for the caucus, including banning anyone but registered Republican voters, candidates or their surrogates from entering the caucus sites. Moon told the Sun she is simply enforcing party rules. 

During state-run elections and primary elections, on the other hand, news reporters are allowed into polling places. Many Idaho news reporters maintain direct contact with state and county elections officials across the state on the day of elections. And news reporters are also allowed to observe the Idaho State Board of Canvassers certify the official election results.

During a breakfast meeting with reporters on Tuesday in Boise, Gov. Brad Little said he is planning to participate in the Idaho Republican presidential caucus near his home in Emmett. When asked, Little said he did not know news reporters are banned from entering and observing the caucus. 

“I did not know that; so that’s news to me,” Little said. “I’m kind of a transparent guy.”

Why is Idaho switching to presidential nominating caucuses this year? 

The caucus is new this year. Idaho Republicans have not participated in a caucus since 2012, and Idaho Democrats have not participated in a caucus since 2016. 

Idaho voters are voting in presidential caucuses instead of primaries because the Idaho Legislatureseemingly unintentionally eliminated the presidential primary election last year. The Idaho Legislature passed House Bill 138, which was intended to move the presidential primary election back from March to May, when the rest of the state’s primary electrons take place. However, House Bill 138 just eliminated the presidential primary election altogether, and legislators adjourned for the year without passing the trailer bill that was designed to fix the problem and actually move the primary election to May. 

Without a state run presidential primary election available in law, the Idaho Republican Party voted last summer to conduct a presidential nominating caucus on March 2. 

Idaho Democrats will also conduct a presidential caucus this year, but their caucus is not until May 23.

More information about the Idaho Republican Presidential Caucus is available online.

From the Idaho Capital Sun