From the Twin Falls Times-News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Twin Falls Times-News

From the Twin Falls Times-News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Twin Falls Times-News

From the Idaho Statesman

A couple from Kooskia, Karen “Borg” Hendrickson and Linwood Laughy, won the Max Dalton Open Government award and $1,000 prize.

Hendrickson and Laughy pressed for the disclosure of transportation plans for shipments of massive industrial equipment bound for Canada over Idaho’s scenic U.S. 12. The also unveiled correspondence between oil companies and the Idaho Transportation Department and posted the material on their website, a blog and a Facebook page.

The award has been presented by the Idaho Newspaper Foundation since 1999 and is named for Meridian dairy tester Max Dalton, who won the Idaho Supreme Court case that established the right of citizens to government records.

“Their efforts, from realization of the problem to the present ongoing fight, resemble a spider web reaching every aspect of government and beyond,” said Lee Halper of Jerome, who nominated the couple. “From two, there are now many who fight this fight but the main battle is still theirs.”

The award was presented April 30. A news release announcing the award and other nominees was issued Sunday.

The news release follows:

KOOSKIA COUPLE AWARDED 2011 MAX DALTON OPEN GOVERNMENT AWARD

A Kooskia couple who battled for information about megaload shipments
on U.S. 12 in northern Idaho has been named the recipient of the 2011
Max Dalton Open Government Award sponsored by the Idaho Newspaper
Foundation.

Karen “Borg” Hendrickson and Linwood Laughy received the award and
accompanying cash prize of $1,000 at an awards luncheon in Boise on
Saturday, April 30.

The Max Dalton Open Government Award has been given each year since
1999 to a citizen or group judged to be an outspoken advocate of
openness in either public records or public meetings on the state or
local level.

The couple was honored for their efforts that resulted in the
disclosure of a large amount of information previously unreleased
about the shipments of giant oil-processing assemblies over U.S. 12
and into Montana. This information included transport plans and
correspondence between the oil companies and the Idaho Transportation
Department. Hendrickson and Laughy then started a Web site,
www.FightingGoliath.org, on which information they discovered was
posted, as well as a blog and Facebook page.

“Their efforts, from realization of the problem to the present
ongoing fight, resemble a spider web reaching every aspect of
government and beyond,” said Lee Halper of Jerome, who nominated the
couple. “From two, there are now many who fight this fight but the
main battle is still theirs.”

ABOUT MAX DALTON

Max D. Dalton was killed, at age 78, in November 1997 by squatters on
his ranch in Costa Rica. Dalton had spent most of his life in Idaho
where he operated a Meridian milk-testing business. In 1981, Dalton
filed a public records lawsuit that resulted in a 1984 landmark Idaho
Supreme Court ruling, “Dalton vs. Idaho Dairy Products Commission,”
which reinforced the right of every Idaho citizen to have swift,
convenient access to state records.

In the years since the Dalton decision, the state’s public records
law has become undermined with scores of loopholes requested by
special interests, state agencies and city and county governments. By
honoring those who emulate Max Dalton’s example, the foundation hopes
more citizens will take personal action against needless government
secrecy in Idaho.

OTHER NOMINEES

Other nominees for the 2011 award were:

* The Idaho Freedom Foundation, whose Web sites OurIdaho.com,
www.IdahoReporter.com and www.IdahoVotes.org, offer nonbiased
informational portals for the public.

* The Boise Guardian, an activist Web site operated by David Frazier
of Boise that uses open government laws in its role as an independent
observer of local politics.

* Rebecca Boone of the Associated Press for her work exposing abuses
at the privately operated prison south of Boise.

* Matthew Roetter of Hayden for his consistent use of the Idaho
public records law to obtain information about government agencies,
including the Lake City
Development Corp.

* Stan Howland, Shirley Ringo & Robert C. Huntley for their work to
open to public scrutiny the Idaho State Tax Commission’s alleged
practices with respect to granting favorable tax settlements.

ABOUT THE IDAHO NEWSPAPER FOUNDATION

The Idaho Newspaper Foundation is a non-profit organization founded
in 1983. The foundation’s mission statement is “To advance the public
understanding of newspaper journalism and a free press in Idaho; to
advocate the rights of citizens and the press in Idaho to have full
access to government, particularly in the areas of open meetings and
public records; to endorse and support efforts to increase that
access; and to oppose efforts to limit public access to government.”

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Idaho Press-Tribune

CANYON COUNTY — The county released records Thursday related to former Prosecutor John Bujak’s contract with Nampa,  including a transaction history of a trust account Bujak used to manage the funds.

Nampan Bob Henry, who sued the county last year for release of financial documents related to the contract, said the documents provided further vindication for his position that the contract should have been handled openly.

“It just proves what we’ve been saying all along — that money was going into his personal account from the first day,” Henry said.

Erik Stidham, an attorney representing Henry, said the release of the records will not stop the appeal to the state Supreme Court of a district judge’s decision to dismiss Henry’s lawsuit. The lawsuit requests additional documents, and Henry feels commissioners still have many questions to answer, Stidham said.

Most importantly, Stidham said, Henry wants to ensure officials don’t allow such a situation to arise in the future.

Bujak submitted his letter of resignation Sept. 30, 2010, after he could not pay the county for resources used to provide misdemeanor prosecution to Nampa. He has since filed for bankruptcy.

County officials released the financial records Thursday after obtaining them through subpoenas in Bujak’s bankruptcy proceedings. Bujak and the county fought to keep the records private while he was in office, but the county is now entangled in a bankruptcy court battle to protect $171,000 Bujak paid and reclaim more than $300,000 officials say he owes.

“The only reason we have these records now is because of subpoenas in the bankruptcy case,” David Ferdinand, chairman of the Board of Canyon County Commissioners, said in a press release. “It’s in the best interest of the public to know what happened here and we feel that this letter summarizes what we now know.”

The records show Bujak transferred about $420,000 from the trust account to his Bujak Law operating account between September 2009 and October 2010.

Bujak paid the county $71,000 from the checking account the day he resigned. Commissioners contend Bujak and his wife, Pepper Bujak, wrongfully used other funds placed in the account to pay creditors and for personal expenses.

Bujak has not publicly commented since his resignation, but has maintained in bankruptcy court proceedings and filings that he does not owe the county the money.

Records provided by the county show that the Bujak Law account, into which he also deposited his county paychecks, was used to make debt payments, pay bills and for other day-to-day expenses.

Bujak wrote the first $10,000 check to his Bujak Law account Sept. 4, 2009, the day he received the first payment of $145,000 from the city of Nampa. By June 2010, when Bujak issued a letter defending the contract and stating that he could profit by as much as $50,000, the bank records show he had already transferred about four times that to his personal account.

At least some of the other checks issued from the trust account appear to have been used to cover office expenses. They include:

• Numerous checks, many for about $9,800 each, written to “Bank of the Cascades” or “BOTC.” Some are labeled “payroll.”

• Checks to several restaurants ranging from about $90 to nearly $1,000. At least one is labeled “training dinner.”

From the Idaho Press-Tribune

From the Associated Press

By REBECCA BOONE, Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday agreed with The Associated Press and rejected Correction Corporation of America’s request for a sweeping gag order in a lawsuit between Idaho inmates and the private prison company.

In the lawsuit, the Idaho Correctional Center inmates ask for class-action status and say the Boise-area prison is so violent that it’s called “Gladiator School.” They say the guards use brutal inmate-on-inmate violence as a management tool and then deny injured prisoners adequate medical care. The Nashville, Tenn.-based CCA says prisoner safety is its top priority and that it works closely with state leaders to meet the standards set by the Idaho Department of Correction.

The case has garnered widespread media attention, and in January CCA attorneys asked the judge for a gag order barring attorneys, witnesses and others involved in the case from speaking to the news media. The company said one of the ACLU attorneys representing the inmates, Stephen Pevar, made inflammatory and prejudicial statements in press releases and interviews, and CCA maintained that continued news coverage of such statements would make it impossible to find an impartial jury.

Pevar and the ACLU contended that his statements were neither inflammatory nor prejudicial, and they filed a motion opposing the gag order. The Associated Press, which has extensively covered the Idaho Correctional Center and the lawsuit, also asked the court for permission to intervene in the case for the sole reason of opposing the proposed gag order.

In a written ruling handed down Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge agreed to let the AP intervene and then rejected the gag order.

Such a sweeping gag order would be a prior restraint on free speech, Lodge wrote, and infringe on the free speech rights of those involved with the case, the attorneys, the media and the public.

Lodge went on to say that CCA’s rights to an impartial jury will be adequately protected through voir dire, the process in which potential jurors are questioned about their knowledge of the case. He said an impartial jury could be found without the court resorting to gag orders.

Lodge also said that while he was concerned about the tone of some of Pevar’s statements, they were made on isolated occasions months apart. He noted that in response to a separate motion, he was splitting the lawsuit into two cases, one of which could go before a jury and another that will be decided by a judge. Pevar will only be the attorney of record for the case that goes before a judge, Lodge said, further reducing any risk that a jury would be influenced by any statements made to the press.

Lodge ended his ruling on the matter with an admonishment for the attorneys: “From this point forward, the Court trusts that all counsel will exercise discretion and refrain from making statements that might violate their ethical duties or jeopardize the fair administration of justice in this or any other case,” he said.

CCA spokesman Steven Owen said that because the ruling was just released, he wasn’t in a position to speculate on what impact it might have on the case.

“We respect the judicial process and it’s through that process that we continue to address the merits of the case,” Owen said.

Lewiston, Idaho-based attorney Charles Brown, who represented the AP, said the ruling was an example for the entire court system.

“A ruling such as this from Judge Lodge is very significant because it sends out the message that the workings of our court system are — and should be — transparent. That’s not only important for the press, but important for the public as a whole,” Brown said.

Officials with the ACLU did not immediately return calls from The Associated Press.

The judge also dealt with several other pending motions in the case, including the one to split the lawsuit. He agreed to make the claims brought by inmate Marlin Riggs separate. Riggs is asking for $155 million in damages — CCA’s entire net profit for 2009 — and if the case goes to trial, a jury will decide if he is entitled to damages. The rest of the inmates will continue to seek class-action status and their claims will be decided by the judge.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press.

From the Associated Press

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

Public money, private documents. Do you think maybe there’s something wrong with this picture? Bob Henry does. The Nampa insurance company owner has spent months fighting for records that could explain what happened to the $600,000 Nampa paid John Bujak to handle the city’s misdemeanor cases. Rebuffed in district court, Henry is taking his case to the Idaho Supreme Court.

Based on what we do know, the public clearly has a right to know more.

Bujak, Canyon County’s prosecutor, entered an outside contract to handle Nampa cases through the county’s office, with the money funneled through a private trust account. Bujak was supposed to reimburse the county for the use of office equipment, utilities and supplies. Bujak resigned Oct. 1, owing the county some $300,000.

Now, the county is trying to collect its debts through bankruptcy court. Oh, and Bujak has filed a $25 million tort claim against the county.

It is less than reassuring that the county wrote, in a recent court brief, that it wants to make the documents public “if, and when, they are obtained through the bankruptcy court proceedings.”

These documents should have seen the light of day long ago. If the state Supreme Court has to force the matter, then so be it.

“Our View” is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman’s editorial board. To comment on an editorial or suggest a topic, email editorial@idahostatesman.com.

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

Editorial from the Twin Falls Times-News

From the Idaho Statesman

WASHINGTON — The Government Accountability Project, which has been trying for more than a decade to pass stronger whistleblower protections for federal workers, wants to know who put an end to their bill, and they’ve zeroed in on former Idaho Lt. Gov. Jim Risch.

Through some sleuthing and the help of NPR listeners, the group has determined Risch and three other senators are the only four who could have put an anonymous hold on the whistleblower bill.

The Government Accountability Project, in collaboration with the NPR show On the Media, asked its listeners to call their senators to ask if they had placed the hold. Whoever placed the secret hold kept the whistleblower bill from coming up for a final vote in the U.S. Senate in the waning days of 2010, effectively killing it.

“Together, we can forcefully remind our elected officials how much transparency matters to the people they represent,” a statement on the Blow the Whistle project website said.

By Friday, the project ruled out all but Risch, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

So far, though, Risch isn’t saying whether he did it. The practice of secret holds came to an end this year, when the Senate voted to require public disclosure in the Congressional Record within 48 hours of a senator raising objections to legislation or nominations.

“Sen. Risch’s policy has been to not comment on secret holds,” spokesman Brad Hoaglun said in an e-mail. “Although the rules have changed for this Congress he is still holding firm to his policy as it pertains to the last Congress.”

This week, the Blow the Whistle project asked for people to put heat on Risch, whose office said it received a “handful” of inquiries about the hold.

The group doesn’t actually think Risch did it, said Government Accountability Project’s legal director Tom Devine. Sessions and Kyl have more of a history of placing holds. But Devine said it’s shocking when elected officials “insist on secrecy as a matter of principle.”

“What’s disturbing is he says it’s none of the voters’ business how he votes for the laws of the land. How can anyone trust a politician who insists on the right for secret votes? Secrecy is the breeding ground for political and bureaucratic corruption,” Devine said of Risch.

What’s also puzzling to the Government Accountability Project about the hold is that the legislation had widespread support, and whistleblowers are supported in general by the public. The legislation, which was backed by the White House, too, would have made it easier for federal workers to report wrongdoing by their superiors without fear of reprisal.

An earlier version of the bill had passed by a voice vote in the Senate last year, and the House unanimously passed a compromise version. But with the hold in place, that compromise version of the bill never got taken up in the mad crush of legislation considered by the Senate just before Christmas.

From the Idaho Statesman

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

It isn’t every day that state Reps. Phil Hart and John Rusche agree on anything — particularly ethics in government.

But it happened Tuesday. Hart, a Hayden Republican and Ethics Committee frequent flier, voiced his support for a rewrite of House rules. So did Rusche, the Lewiston Democrat who filed an ethics complaint against Hart.

No surprise, then, that the full House voted 70-0 for the rules changes, crafted by House Speaker Lawerence Denney. But does good consensus-building yield good policy?

In this case, yes and no.

Because, ultimately, you’re going to have to take the House’s word for it. The new rules will bring a new level of secrecy to the process.

The new rules aren’t completely bad. They take one step in the right direction by creating a catch-all offense: “conduct unbecoming a member of the House.”

That umbrella language would have come in handy in a case filed against Hart late last year. Hart was accused of logging trees from endowment lands without paying the state. Since the incident occurred before Hart was elected, it didn’t neatly fit into ethics rules limited to legislative duties.

The House also tightened up the rules about who can — and can’t — file an ethics complaint, restricting the process to House members only. Based on recent events, this is also a reasonable move.

Howard Griffiths filed an ethics complaint, months after mounting an unsuccessful write-in campaign against Hart. Political activist Larry Spencer filed an ethics complaint against state Rep. Eric Anderson, a Priest Lake Republican who had filed an ethics complaint against Hart.

Dizzy yet? The upshot is that this is not the way an ethics process should function. An anything-goes process allows any unsuccessful candidate or naysayer to file a nuisance complaint.

Voters still have several good ways to air grievances. They can run for Legislature or support an opposing candidate. They can organize a recall effort. They can take their case to another lawmaker and request an ethics investigation. This new rule does not lock the public out of the process.

Unfortunately, another change does.

An ethics complaint is now considered confidential, at least at first. A committee will consider sealed complaints in a closed session. If the committee finds probable cause, the complaint becomes public record.

The justification, predictably enough, is to protect lawmakers from baseless smears. But this comes at an unacceptable price.

– Can you say “whitewash”? A closed process makes it easy — too easy — for leadership to keep a complaint hush-hush.

– Secrecy also makes it too easy for leadership to intimidate or punish a lawmaker who pursues an ethics case. (Keep in mind, Anderson lost a coveted committee vice chairmanship after filing a complaint against Hart, although Denney insists this was an oversight.)

– Conversely, secrecy allows a rogue lawmaker to try to slow down the process, or retaliate against colleagues, with a torrent of ethics complaints. If a lawmaker files an ethics complaint, shouldn’t his or her constituents know?

Secrecy invites more problems than it solves.

And it sends an unmistakable message.

On Tuesday, 70 House members agreed that their self-policing process had problems. One problem, apparently, was an abundance of transparency.

A sad message indeed.

“Our View” is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman’s editorial board.

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

Editorial from The Spokesman-Review

Idaho lawmaker Joe Palmer said the most puzzling thing in explaining why a bill codifying the House’s ethics rules should take a shortcut to a floor vote rather than follow the normal course back to the State Affairs Committee.

“There is no reason to come back here for a public hearing. This does not involve the public,” the Meridian Republican said.

On the contrary, everything the Legislature does involves the public. And since the measure in question would remove the public from certain proceedings related to House members’ conduct, the public is unquestionably involved.

The measure under consideration was offered by House Speaker Lawerence Denney in the aftermath of a flurry of ethics concerns over state Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol. Denney’s bill would largely reaffirm rules and practices that are already in place and backed up by an attorney general’s opinion saying only House members may file ethics complaints against House members.

That part’s reasonable. Private citizens have many other ways to kick up a loud fuss over elected officials’ misbehavior. They can make their complaints heard, and voters hold the ultimate power of the ballot to turn scoundrels out.

But Denney’s bill includes a troublesome if not downright alarming provision. It would require that member-against-member complaints be kept confidential until the Ethics Committee has found probable cause to look into them. If no such determination were ever reached, the public might never find out.

That might almost make sense if just any old rabble could drown the House in specious and ungrounded accusations. But, remember, the bill would say that complaints may be filed only by fellow honorables, from whom more reflection and restraint could be expected.

But when it does happen – when elected officials are so strongly offended by a colleague’s unethical conduct that they need to protest formally – the public has an unmistakable interest. The quality and integrity of their government is at stake.

Moreover, there are dual levels of accountability. The public – the ultimate source of political authority in a democratic system – is entitled not only to judge the accusation but also the manner in which the accused’s associates deal with it.

These are fundamentals of representative democracy. Speaker Denney and Rep. Palmer should be better acquainted with them.

Editorial from The Spokesman-Review