From the AP/Idaho State Journal

AMERICAN FALLS, Idaho (AP) — A special prosecutor appointed to handle pending litigation against Power County commissioners has filed a lawsuit against the commissioners contending they held unauthorized executive sessions or closed meetings in violation of Idaho’s open meeting laws.

The Idaho State Journal reports (https://bit.ly/N3T9AM) that Teton County Prosecutor Kathy Spitzer filed the lawsuit last week against Power County Commissioners Delane Anderson, Ron Funk and Vicki Meadows.

Spitzer was appointed special prosecutor after Power County Prosecutor Randy Kline in June won a judicial review of a complaint that commissioners exceeded their authority when they hired outside counsel to assist them with tribal jurisdictional and zoning issues.

Also in June, 6th District Judge David Nye ruled Power County commissioners failed to follow the law when approving the 2012 county budget.
___
Information from: Idaho State Journal, https://www.journalnet.com

From the AP/Idaho State Journal

From the Associated Press

State officials have spent more than a half-million dollars in court defending the firing of the first and only woman to lead the Idaho Transportation Department, public records show.

Idaho’s legal bill so far totals $540,479 in the discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit filed by Pam Lowe, according to public records requested by the Spokesman-Review ( ). Both sides confirmed Monday that they had reached a settlement in the three-year legal fight, but neither would divulge the terms.

Idaho’s tab could increase, as final papers still need to be filed in court, the newspaper reported.

State officials made their most recent payment to the private Boise law firm, Holland & Hart, on March 8. The Idaho Attorney General’s Office said it lacked the resources to handle the case when hiring Holland & Hart to defend the state against Lowe’s claims.

In a federal lawsuit, Lowe alleged her 2009 firing was a power play to help the governor and his big campaign donors. She also claimed gender discrimination.
Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter wouldn’t comment Tuesday on the state’s mounting legal tab in the Lowe lawsuit.

“I’m not sure I’m allowed to say anything about anything,” Otter said.

Neither state officials nor Lowe have publicly shared financial and other terms of the settlement agreement.

“I’m very pleased to have it resolved,” Lowe said earlier this week.

Lowe is now working as financial director for the state Department of Transportation in Delaware.

In Idaho, her termination was preceded by criticism from lawmakers during the legislative session as Otter and some lawmakers were considering an increase in the gas tax and other revenue sources to bolster the agency’s budget for road and bridge maintenance.

Some Republican lawmakers worked to get support for a bill that would give Otter power to replace Lowe, claiming she didn’t do enough to lobby for the initiative.

But Lowe argued that’s not why she was let go.

Idaho code gives the transportation board the authority to remove a director for inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance and nonfeasance in office. But Lowe made a case that none of those reasons justified her dismissal, and she provided the court with positive job reviews.

Lowe claimed she refused to bow to threats by governor’s aides not to interfere with and scale back a contract originally worth $50 million. The contract benefited URS Corp. and CH2M Hill, two engineering companies that at the time of Lowe’s firing, had given the governor at least $22,000 combined since 2005.

She said the transportation board succumbed to political pressure when they asked her to resign on May 11, 2009.

Lawyers for the state denied those allegations, and argued that the agency director serves at will and can be hired and fired at any time. The case turned in Lowe’s favor in April when U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald Bush rejected the state’s argument that Lowe was an at-will employee who could be fired at any time.
___
Information from: The Spokesman-Review, https://www.spokesman.com

From the Associated Press

From The Spokesman-Review

S-R columnist Shawn Vestal has a provocative column today entitled, “Why defend an anonymous troll’s right to insult?” in which he takes on the free-speech arguments in the current case involving an anonymous Huckleberries Online commenter whom the Spokesman-Review is being ordered by a court to identify.“A judge has ordered this newspaper to turn over information about a person who made a potentially libelous comment under an assumed name on the website,” writes Vestal. “This, of course, will have a chilling effect on free speech. A chilling effect is what we in the free-speech business always warn about. We do not want to chill speech; we want it hot and loose. This speech, though? This anonymous lobbing of insults? Chill it. Give it frostbite, even.” You can read his full column here.

From The Spokesman-Review

From the Los Angeles Times

The L.A. Times analyzes the Idaho court ruling ordering The Spokesman-Review to disclose the identity of an anonymous online commenter in an article today; you can read it here.

“When entering the comment forum of your typical news website or blog these days, it sometimes seems like a good idea to wear a helmet,” writes reporter Kim Murphy. “Well-crafted insult? Barbed bombast? Bring it on. Often cloaked in the anonymous protection of screen names, readers feel free to unload on one another, and at the world in general, with impunity. But that protection may be an illusion.”

From the Los Angeles Times

See the Judge’s ruling here.

From The Spokesman-Review

The Spokesman-Review must provide information that could identify an anonymous reader who typed a disparaging online comment about the chairwoman of the Kootenai County Republican Party in February, an Idaho judge ruled Tuesday.

The attorney for the chairwoman, Tina Jacobson, subpoenaed information about the identities of three Huckleberries Online readers who commented under assumed names below a photograph featuring Jacobson.

Under the name “almostinnocentbystander,” the commenter questioned whether $10,000 reportedly missing from the Kootenai County Central Committee might be “stuffed inside Tina’s blouse.”

Two other commenters, “Phaedrus” and “outofstatetater,” also typed comments responding to the original post about Jacobson’s blouse.

The comments were deleted from Huckleberries Online after S-R blogger Dave Oliveria discovered them, but the first post was visible for about 2 ½ hours.

In late April, Jacobson filed a lawsuit against “John and/or Jane Doe.” Her attorney, C. Matthew Andersen, subpoenaed the names of the commenters so the suit could proceed, and the newspaper responded with a motion to quash that request.

In a hearing last month, Jacobson’s attorney argued that his client’s reputation was hurt by the posts and sought to have the judge order the newspaper to provide identifying information about the people who made the comments.

The newspaper’s attorney, Duane Swinton, argued at the June hearing that the blouse comment “wasn’t nice” but that it was made on a blog site “where people express opinions, sometimes airing outrageous views.”

In his written decision, Luster pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled since 1942 that the First Amendment does not protect defamatory speech. “… while the individuals are entitled to the right of anonymous free speech, this right is clearly limited when abused,” Luster wrote.

He ordered the newspaper to give to the plaintiff “any document establishing the identity, e-mail address, and IP (Internet Protocol) addresses of ‘almostinnocentbystander.’”

However, Luster also ruled that the paper would not have to provide similar information for the two readers who commented on the original post, saying they did not abuse their rights to free speech “by making defamatory comments.”

Andersen, Jacobson’s attorney, said he was pleased by Luster’s ruling.

“The ruling is a reaffirmation of the historically long-standing legal rule that there is no constitutional protection for a defaming statement,” Andersen said. “The interesting twist in this is the application of that legal rule to an anonymous Internet commenter. That is the part that is refreshing.”

Gary Graham, editor of The Spokesman-Review, said he was disappointed with Luster’s decision but he has not yet decided whether the newspaper will pursue an appeal.

“However, we are glad the judge ruled that we don’t have to provide information about the two people who simply commented on the original posting,” he said.

In his ruling, Luster noted that Idaho, unlike many states, has no “shield law” protecting reporters. However, that doesn’t matter because the longtime journalist who oversees the Huckleberries Online blog, Oliveria, wasn’t acting as a reporter, but rather as a “facilitator of commentary and administrator of the blog.”

Under a clipping of a New Yorker cartoon, Luster said the court recognizes that the job description of a reporter has changed.

But “it is clear that Mr. Oliveria acted as an administrator of the blog when he removed the subject postings” and there is no indication that the information was intended to be used in a news story or editorial opinion piece, the judge wrote.

From The Spokesman-Review

From the Twin Falls Times-News

From the Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — The public will get the chance to weigh in on the fate of Idaho’s long-empty governor’s mansion.

A five-member panel that oversees finances for the water-guzzling property met Tuesday to approve a $177,400 spending plan that will cover the mansion’s upkeep during the next fiscal year. The electricity bill alone is expected to cost around $40,000, while another $80,000 is budgeted for maintenance of the expansive grounds.

The 3-2 vote, however, came with a caveat: The panel agreed to hold a public hearing in September to garner input on whether Idaho should keep, or dispose of, the hilltop mansion that has attracted controversy since it was donated to the state in 2004 by the late french fry billionaire, J.R. Simplot.

The Governor’s Housing Committee met in Boise to consider the 2013 fiscal year budget for the property after a previous vote held over email in late June was found in violation of Idaho’s open meeting law.

Sen. Les Bock, a Democrat on the panel, complained the email vote didn’t give the public adequate notice to consider the budget. On Tuesday, the committee voted to nullify the previous vote, which was also 3-2, before taking up the budget a second time.

“I recognize the error in this was inadvertent, I’m not suggesting that any of this was intentional,” said Bock, who joined Democratic Rep. Phylis King in voting against the spending plan.

Bock worried the unpublicized vote would take the spotlight off the home he wants the state to ditch because it’s quickly draining its maintenance fund.

The cost of caring for the mansion and watering its expansive lawn has taken its toll on the fund that held more than $1.5 million in 2005. The account has been drained to less than $900,000, which will only cover the bills for the next five years unless something is done.

Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter, Simplot’s former son-in-law, has declined to live in the mansion, preferring instead his ranch west of Boise. The state does charge agencies that use the home as an event venue, but that doesn’t bring in much cash.

The housing panel has long discussed options for the property.

If Idaho decides to sell the mansion, it must first give Simplot’s surviving family the right of first refusal, at market prices. And if the offer is too low, Simplot’s family could take back the place, even though Idaho has paid for six years of upkeep and used $310,000 in private donations to pay for renovations.

The housing panel’s chairman, Republican Sen. Chuck Winder, proposed the public hearing to discuss the future of the home after a handful of people showed up at the hearing on the mansion budget.

“That’s not really the issue. The issue is whether you keep it or you don’t keep it,” Winder said.

From the Associated Press

From Eye on Boise/The Spokesman-Review

The Governor’s Housing Committee has set a public meeting for this afternoon, after a senator on the panel objected that an earlier vote by email on the committee’s budget for the upcoming year for upkeep of the hilltop former Simplot mansion violated the Idaho Open Meeting Law. After Sen. Les Bock, D-Boise, objected, the panel’s chairman, Sen. Chuck Winder, R-Meridian, scheduled today’s meeting. “It is a good learning experience for all of us, including myself,” Winder wrote in an email to the committee members.

Winder sought advice from Deputy Idaho Attorney General Brian Kane, who responded, “It appears that the committee will need to take corrective action in order to comply with the Open Meeting Law.” That, he wrote, means acknowledging the violation, convening in a properly noticed and open meeting, voiding any previous action, and taking the business up again. In addition, Kane said all email traffic should be incorporated into the committee’s record.

The public meeting is now set for 3 p.m. in the Len B. Jordan state office building, Room 155. The agenda includes the panel’s $177,400 budget for the coming year, much of which would go to grounds maintenance. The Simplot family donated the hilltop home to the state as a governor’s mansion, but no Idaho governor has yet lived there.

From Eye on Boise/The Spokesman-Review

From the Associated Press

A Democratic senator contends Idaho officials violated public meetings laws with a hasty email vote this week on the $177,400 budget to cover landscaping, mowing and watering the expansive lawn below the vacant Idaho governor’s mansion, the AP reports. Sen. Les Bock of Garden City sits on the Governor’s Housing Committee, which oversees the hilltop mansion in Boise. He said Thursday the committee’s budget vote didn’t give the public adequate notice to consider whether the spending plan was appropriate.

The five-member panel voted 3-2 via email on Tuesday to spend the money for fiscal year 2013, with Bock and Democratic Rep. Phylis King of Boise opposing it. Voting in favor were Teresa Luna, director of the Department of Administration, and Boise Republicans Sen. Chuck Winder and Rep. Max Black. Now, an in-person meeting of the panel is being planned, after Bock, an attorney, wrote to the committee saying, “I have concluded that the recent vote on the Governor’s Housing Committee’s FY2013 budget was conducted in violation of Idaho’s open meeting law. The vote on the budget is, therefore, null and void.” Click below for a full report from AP reporter John Miller.

Senator: Governor’s mansion budget vote illegal
By JOHN MILLER, Associated Press

From the Associated Press

Editorial from the Moscow-Pullman Daily News

Tuesday morning, the public got an unprecedented look at an execution in Idaho – not just the injection of a lethal chemical and the moments before death.

Eyewitnesses to the procedure were also allowed to see the condemned, Richard Leavitt, enter the room where he was scheduled to die. They watched as he was placed on a gurney and secured with leather straps. And the handful of witnesses, including four members of the media, saw the catheters that would deliver a lethal dose of pentobarbitol inserted in his arms.

The start-to-finish aspect of the execution was a direct result of a successful lawsuit filed by a group of news organizations, including the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, that claimed the Idaho Department of Correction policy barring witnesses from viewing a lethal injection in its entirety violated the First Amendment and the public’s right to know.

The public process also brings to light any difficulty in conducting the execution. Death penalty foes claim the catheters can be inserted incorrectly, causing undue pain for the inmate.

That was not the case this time, according to witnesses.

“I am grateful that we have four media witnesses here to tell you what they saw,” said Brent Reinke, Idaho’s prisons chief, after the execution. “Our goal was to make this as professional as possible with dignity and respect, and I believe we met that mark.”

Who knows what will happen the next time?

The media didn’t file the lawsuit because of a perverse need to see a death sentence carried out. We would prefer to not have to be the public’s eyes and ears in such matters, but that’s what we’ve done for years.
As long as the state is conducting business in the name of you, the public, our job will be to report – good or bad – on how that is carried out.

Watching someone die as an end result of the judicial process is not easy.

As long as society insists on meting out the death penalty, we will insist the act of killing remains public in its entirety.

Without such oversight, the state-sanctioned deaths would take on a sinister aura we would find intolerable.

Editorial from the Moscow-Pullman Daily News