From the Idaho Statesman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idaho transparency leader weighs in

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

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

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

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

Libraries work to comply with law critics call ‘unclear’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Idaho Statesman

by Kevin Richert

From Idaho EdNews

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

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

So Carney took Boise State to court.

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

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

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

How we got the story — and what it cost

This story is based largely on court documents.

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

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

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

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

EdNews paid the $11.97.

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

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

A short course in Idaho’s public records law

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

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

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

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

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

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

How a records request evolved into a court case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A university spokeswoman defended the cost.

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

How the dispute started …

The two sides agree on the genesis of the dispute.

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

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

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

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

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

… and how the dispute ended

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Idaho EdNews

Download Press Release

From IDOG

Idahoans for Openness in Government, Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane, and Idaho State Controller Brandon Woolf invite the public to attend a series of four workshops on government transparency, all free to attend, and all streamed live statewide, with the first session set for Nov. 19 to focus on Idaho campaign finance reporting. The campaign finance session, like the others, will take place in the Lincoln Auditorium of the Idaho State Capitol and will be streamed live online in partnership with Idaho Public Television, at idahoptv.org/insession. The lead presenter for this first session will be Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane, assisted by Idaho State Controller Brandon Woolf, IDOG President Betsy Russell, and Attorney Andy Snook, chief counsel for Idaho Gov. Brad Little. The session will run from 1-3:30 p.m. MT.

Three subsequent sessions, scheduled in December and January, will focus on Transparent Idaho/Townhall Idaho and access to state financial data; the Idaho Public Records Law; and the Idaho Open Meeting Law. “We believe that we all benefit when the public, the media and government officials are fully aware of the public’s rights to access government information and observe the conduct of the public’s business,” said Russell, noting that that belief is central to IDOG’s mission.

IDOG is a non-profit coalition for open government whose mission is to promote open government and freedom of information. Like numerous such state coalitions around the country, it is affiliated with the National Freedom of Information Coalition (NFOIC). IDOG is a 501c3 nonprofit, and is funded entirely by grants and donations. Since 2004, IDOG has sponsored more than 50 educational workshops around the state.

These sessions are intended for citizens, members of the news media, local and state public officials and their staffs who are interested in the public’s rights under Idaho law for access to public records and meetings, the rules, and how to access the information. The sessions are endorsed by the Association of Idaho Cities, the Idaho Association of Counties, Attorneys for Civic Education and the Idaho Press Club.

The upcoming workshops are free to attend, either in-person or virtually, but participants are asked to please register in advance at www.openidaho.org or by calling the State Controller’s Office at 208-334-3100, ext. 0; say you’re calling to register for an IDOG workshop.

Continuing legal education credit is available for attorney participants in each of the sessions (1 credit MCLE per session), pending Idaho State Bar approval. Questions from the public will be taken during each session via email, and will be answered by the presenters during the sessions as time permits. Within a few days after the completion of each session, the full recording will be posted online at IDOG’s website, www.openidaho.org, for future public viewing. Idaho’s last series of workshops, in 2023, is available in full on the site now, including slide decks and presentations.

Here are the details on all four sessions in the upcoming series: 

• WED. Nov. 19, 1-3:30 p.m. MT ~ CAMPAIGN FINANCE & LOBBYING The rules and how to access data. With: PHIL MCGRANE, Idaho Secretary of State 
• WED. Dec. 17, 1-3:30 p.m. MT ~ TRANSPARENT IDAHO/TOWNHALL IDAHO How to access public data, meeting info online for free. With: BRANDON WOOLF, Idaho State Controller 
• FRI. Jan. 16, 10 a.m.-12:30 MT ~ IDAHO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT The law and the public’s rights. With: ANDY SNOOK, General Counsel for Gov. Brad Little, and BETSY RUSSELL, IDOG president 
• TUES. Jan. 27, 10 a.m.-12:30 MT ~ IDAHO OPEN MEETING LAW The law and the public’s rights. With: ANDY SNOOK, General Counsel for Gov. Brad Little; BETSY RUSSELL, IDOG president; and former longtime Chief Deputy Idaho Attorney General BRIAN KANE

_______________

IDOG’s website, openidaho.org, of ers information and resources about public records and open meeting laws and news items from around the state regarding public records, open meetings and openness in government. During the Idaho legislative session, the site features a bill tracker for legislation af ecting the Idaho Open Meeting Law or the Idaho Public Records Act. IDOG board members are: Betsy Russell, president; Peter Morrill, vice president; Steve Walker, secretary-treasurer; Butch Alford, Seth Ashley, Elinor Chehey, Melissa Davlin, Scott Graf, Christina Lords, Elizabeth Ramsey, Clay Ritter, Skip Smyser, and Ben Ysursa. 

From IDOG

From KTVB

by Aspen Shumper

NAMPA — Monday was meant to be the finish line for the Ford Idaho Center conveyance deal to the College of Western Idaho, but instead, plans are now on pause.

The Nampa City Council unanimously voted at Monday’s regularly scheduled city council meeting to postpone all decisions on the Ford Idaho Center until it receives further information from the Twin Falls County prosecutor about possible violations of Idaho’s open meeting law.

The city received a letter on Oct. 10 from the Canyon County Prosecutor’s Office stating that a complaint had been filed, alleging the council had violated Idaho’s Open Meeting Law. The city shared a copy of the letter with KTVB.

The courtesy letter cited allegations that executive sessions were held to discuss the potential transfer, including “inappropriate topics” and “inappropriate minutes and motions.”

In the letter, the prosecutor told city leaders that they can remedy the situation by “curing” any alleged violation. Voting to cure the breach would have forced the council to restart the public hearing and voting process for the conveyance. That would have been a significant setback, considering the deal was nearing the end, following months of public outreach and meetings.

KTVB spoke to Nampa Mayor Debbie Kling, who said if the council had decided to cure the violation, it would not be admitting any wrongdoing, but would rather be an attempt to keep the process going while providing transparency.

“To the best of our ability, we always intend to follow the state statute and to do things right and to listen to our legal counsel and do as they advise us,” Kling said. “In this case, the Ford Idaho Center topic is not a black and white topic, and it’s a little bit tricky, and so while we didn’t intend to do anything wrong, and I don’t know that we did do anything wrong … when you have an alleged violation and someone feels like you’ve done something wrong, it’s important to address it.”

She said there is never an intent to make a mistake.

Kling added: “Both myself and our council members have the greatest intent to be filled with integrity and to do things correctly.”

During Monday’s meeting, it was revealed that Councilman Victor Rodriguez and a private citizen brought the allegation to the prosecutor’s office. KTVB reached out to Rodriguez before the meeting but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

Rodriguez, who faced two opponents in Tuesday’s election for the city council’s Seat 2, told fellow council members he believes the council made decisions about the Ford Idaho Center before revealing it to the public. Although he acknowledged that no formal votes were taking place, he still felt that the conversations were violating open meeting laws, and decisions were being made informally.

“This is not transparent, you’re already deciding what we’re going to say, what we’re going to do, by Preston Rutter, our attorney, who knows better, who knows he shouldn’t be allowing us to do this, and then we go into the public hearing where you think you have a say so in this,” Rodriguez said to his fellow council members at the meeting.

Other council members disputed the allegation, saying they felt Rodriguez’s concerns were politically motivated during an election cycle and believed they had done nothing wrong. Several expressed disappointment that it was taken to the county prosecutor instead of directly to the council.

“We’ve had integrity and, just because there are opinions whether or not that we have, I in good faith know that we have not, and we don’t have a formal allegation, how can we make a decision on something we have not seen?” Councilwoman Natalie Jangula said.

Councilmember David Bills defended the council’s decision to go into executive session, as per the guidance of the city attorney. Bills said it is appropriate for a council to enter executive session for things like real estate negotiations. Kling added, especially when they are renegotiating a contract in competition with other Treasure Valley venues and do not want to discuss the contract publicly.

“I don’t appreciate being accused of doing wrong, and I didn’t do wrong,” Bills said.

Several council members expressed discomfort with voting to cure the violations without seeing a complaint and without feedback from the Twin Falls County Prosecutor.

The council decided not to cure the alleged violations and instead postponed a decision about the Ford Idaho Center to Friday, Nov. 7, during a special meeting at 7:30 a.m.

The city is expected to hear from the prosecutor on Wednesday. This will help them determine how to proceed with the deal.

From KTVB

From the Idaho Statesman

By Kevin Fixler

Idaho won’t be able to carry out the death penalty until the state prison system improves media witnesses’ access to a concealed room where prison officials prepare for and perform lethal injections, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Debora Grasham for the District of Idaho issued a preliminary injunction that orders the Idaho Department of Correction to upgrade the wing of the maximum security prison where executions take place so members of the media can see and hear what happens before, during and after a prisoner is put to death. The state cannot pursue an execution until IDOC makes the improvements, she wrote.

“It is clear that the performance of capital punishment in the United States has historically been open to the public,” Grasham said in her 34-page decision. “The court finds that the means and methods of an execution were also open and obvious, allowing the public to witness not only the execution itself, but the cause and effect of the execution method used.”

Grasham’s ruling came in response to three news outlets, including the Idaho Statesman, suing IDOC over the right to hear and see what goes on in the so-called “medical team room,” where the execution team prepares and administers drugs for a lethal injection. The two other news outlets were The Associated Press and East Idaho News in Idaho Falls.

Earlier in the case, Grasham denied IDOC’s efforts to dismiss the lawsuit outright.

She rejected an argument that the matter in question, of restricting journalists from seeing and hearing the medical team room during an execution, did not reflect a free press issue in violation of the First Amendment. Grasham also brushed aside arguments from the state that the lawsuit was “speculative and hypothetical” because no death row prisoner is currently scheduled to be executed, and that the news outlets could not prove potential harm over IDOC’s policy.

The Idaho Attorney General’s Office represented IDOC in the legal matter. Neither IDOC nor the Attorney General’s Office responded to requests for comment from the Statesman. The Attorney General’s Office has contracted with private attorney Tanner Smith of Boise-based law firm Moore Elia Kraft & Stacey for the case, and Smith did not respond to an email seeking comment either.

Smith contended in oral arguments earlier this month that granting the media’s request to hear and see what happens in the execution chamber preparation room, which would require IDOC to add a camera and microphone to an existing closed-circuit broadcast system, would place an “undue burden” on the state. Doing so also would constitute a judge ordering unprecedented access to a state’s execution process, Smith argued.

“It goes beyond what any court has ever done,” Smith told Grasham at the hearing.

Attorney Wendy Olson, a former U.S. attorney for Idaho and now a partner with Stoel Rives law firm, represented the three news outlets in the case. Olson in an earlier interview acknowledged that asking the judge to pause all executions in the state while the prison system addresses its access issues was a hefty request. 

“It is a big ask of a court to say, ‘State, you can’t do anything until you fix this access issue,’ ” Olson told the Statesman after this month’s hearing. “We obviously think that’s also what the First Amendment demands, and Judge Grasham will have to weigh those carefully when she decides what to put in her order.” 

Olson repeatedly argued that media witnesses at an execution, representing the interests of the public, are entitled to see all activities “inextricably intertwined” to the state carrying out the death penalty. That includes when the execution team prepares and administers lethal injection drugs by depressing syringes into intravenous lines attached to the prisoner.

In court, Smith rebutted the assertion. He framed the action of pressing syringe plungers — which is out of sight of witnesses — to deliver execution drugs to the condemned prisoner as a “minute detail.”

“It’s a minute detail that the deadly drug is administered?” Grasham fired back. “I don’t see that as a minute detail. It’s inextricably intertwined.”

Smith later conceded that an execution by lethal injection cannot happen without prison officials pushing the drugs into the IV line connected to the condemned. But to grant journalists more visual and audio access to the process, he argued, still went beyond the scope of what media witnesses had a right to hear and see.

“Ultimately, the court finds that a historical tradition of audio and visual access to the means and methods used in enacting capital punishment is well-documented,” Grasham wrote in her order Tuesday. “At this preliminary stage, the preparation and administration of the lethal injection drugs that occurs within the medical team room, is an aspect of the execution that plaintiffs have demonstrated a right to witness under the First Amendment.”

Death Penalty Action, a group that advocates for abolishing capital punishment in the U.S., praised Tuesday’s ruling.

“The days of public hangings are long gone, but executions are perhaps the most invasive government program in existence,” Abraham Bonowitz, the group’s co-founder and executive director, told the Statesman. “The media is the eyes and ears of the public, and as such they should witness every moment of the process.” 

Idaho failed to execute prisoner Thomas Creech last year

Idaho last executed a prisoner more than a dozen years ago, when it lethally injected convicted murderer Richard Leavitt in June 2012. The state tried to execute its longest-serving death row prisoner, Thomas Creech, convicted of three murders in Idaho, in February 2024, but called off his planned lethal injection when prison officials could not find a suitable vein for an IV for almost an hour.

Creech, 74, has remained in limbo ever since. His attorneys with the legal nonprofit Federal Defender Services of Idaho have argued in federal court that a second attempt to execute their client would represent cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The judge issued a stay of execution for Creech, which remains in effect pending a ruling after a December hearing.

The Federal Defenders declined to comment on Grasham’s order, which effectively blocks the possibility of Creech’s execution, at least until the prison system improves media access. Another of the nonprofit’s clients, death row prisoner Gerald Pizzuto, 69, who is terminally ill with bladder cancer, also is under an active execution stay.

Following the state’s failure to execute Creech, the Republican-controlled Idaho Legislature passed a bill this year, which Republican Gov. Brad Little signed into law, to make a firing squad the state’s primary method to carry out the death penalty starting in July 2026. New IDOC Director Bree Derrick told a legislative committee in March that remodeling the execution chamber for the controversial method will take about nine months of construction.

Little’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho applauded Grasham’s decision.

“Secrecy in executions is unacceptable and should never be tolerated. The public deserves full access to the process to ensure accountability,” Leo Morales, the ACLU of Idaho’s executive director, said in an email to the Statesman. “We believe the death penalty should be abolished entirely, but as long as it persists, the state must administer it with full transparency.”

None of the state’s 15 Democratic lawmakers voted in support of switching from lethal injection to a firing squad for Idaho executions. Idaho Democrats, however, have not entirely opposed capital punishment. 

“There are some crimes that are so heinous I don’t have a moral problem with applying the death penalty in those cases,” House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, told the Statesman late last year. “Certainly the murders in Moscow come to mind on that front. … I feel like the firing squad is kind of a bridge too far.”

Bryan Kohberger, the defendant in the University of Idaho student homicidescase, is charged with four counts of first-degree murder, and prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty if he is convicted. His capital murder trial in Boise is scheduled to start with jury selection in late July.

The execution chamber renovation to accommodate a firing squad is expected to come with almost a $1 million price tag, IDOC previously told the Statesman. A design and building firm is rescoping the project in light of the new law to update the estimated cost and timeline, in preparation of construction, Derrick said.

“We are confident that we will be able to make that happen in advance of the July 1 effective date next year,” she told the legislative committee.

This year, South Carolina became the first U.S. state to execute a prisoner by firing squad in nearly 15 years, having now done so twice since March. Utah, Missouri and Oklahoma are the three other states that allow shooting a prisoner to death, but only Idaho has made the method its preferred way to carry out the death penalty.

When Idaho’s new law takes effect next year, lethal injection will remain the state’s backup execution method.

This story was originally published April 29, 2025 at 2:38 PM.

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Idaho Capital Sun

Enrollment data, employee salaries and transaction data now available on website managed by Idaho State Controller’s Office

BY: CLARK CORBIN 

The Idaho State Controller’s Office has expanded its Transparent Idaho website to include data detailing how schools and districts spent public money and pay their employees.

The Idaho State Controller’s Office has published public records and data about state government on Transparent Idaho since the free online data portal launched in 2012.

But that effort has been expanding in recent years.

In 2021, the Idaho Legislature passed House Bill 73, which requires uniform accounting, budgeting and financial reporting procedures for Idaho cities, counties and urban renewal districts. That information has been added to Transparent Idaho, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported. 

In October, the Sun reported financial data for 198 Idaho cities is now available on Transparent Idaho. 

“We’ve had state data for 10-plus years, but our vision has always been to have local governments on Transparent Idaho as well,” Idaho State Controller Brandon Woolf said in a phone interview Tuesday afternoon.

The Idaho State Controller’s Office announced the latest Transparent Idaho addition on Monday — the posting of new education financial data. 

The new education data includes detailed enrollment figures for schools and districts, workforce salary data and transactions made by education providers, such as school districts and public charter schools.

Woolf said publishing the data isn’t meant to serve as a “gotcha” to public school districts and charter schools. Instead, Woolf said publishing the data can build trust with Idahoans and encourage the public to become informed and engaged with its government and the decisions policymakers set. 

“The public being able to track and trace and understand where the taxpayers’ money is being spent can go a long way to helping set the right types of policy and making good policy decisions,” Woolf said.

The education data is already publicly available. School districts are required by law to post it on their own websites, and Idaho Education News has been publishing enrollment, salary data, test scores, per-pupil expenditures, higher education go-on rates and more on its education data site for years. 

But publishing the education data on Transparent Idaho means the state government is now publishing education transparency data for public schools, districts and public charters schools in one spot, alongside other financial transparency data related to state government, cities and counties.  

Transparent Idaho only publishes data about schools, districts and charter schools that receive public funding. Data for private schools, homeschool programs and other private education choice programs do not appear on Transparent Idaho, the Idaho State Controller’s Office said in a press release issued Monday.

Moving forward, Woolf said he will work on adding additional demographic information and data visualization tools to Transparent Idaho — with an eye toward allowing the public to have more data to make apples-to-apples comparisons between schools and districts. 

All of the new education data is available free online at https://transparent.idaho.gov.

From the Idaho Capital Sun

From the Idaho Education News

By Ryan Suppe

It’s not a secret that some Idaho lawmakers delete their emails and text messages — which are public records when they relate to legislation and other official business, according to state law. 

But they rarely admit it publicly. 

Rep. Barbara Ehardt bucked this trend last week, in an attempt to bring some levity to a tense House debate over a bill that would restrict diversity, equity and inclusion on college and university campuses. 

The debate occurred Thursday, the penultimate day of a hectic legislative session. Ehardt, an Idaho Falls Republican who has long opposed DEI, said that she had received text messages from people “at the universities” who supported Senate Bill 1198. Then she addressed Statehouse reporters who were watching the debate and might want to see the messages.

“I’m gonna delete (them),” Ehardt said with a laugh. “Don’t put in the FOIA request.” 

Half an hour after the House approved the anti-DEI bill, Idaho Education News hand-delivered a public records request to Ehardt. 

Too late. The messages were gone.  

Ehardt later told EdNews that her comment “was all meant to add a little levity” on the House floor. When asked why she didn’t want reporters to see the messages, Ehardt said that the authors may not have expected their texts to be public.

“No one’s anticipating that that’s going to get shared,” she said. “Obviously, if I hadn’t said anything, nobody would have known.”

State law exempts from disclosure personal communications by a member of the Legislature, but communications related to “the conduct or administration of the public’s business” are considered public. In other words, someone who messages a lawmaker about a bill shouldn’t expect that it will remain private.

While Ehardt’s stunt was clearly meant to be funny, it raised a more serious question: Why are lawmakers allowed to destroy public records?

Unlike the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which applies to federal agencies, the Idaho Public Records Act doesn’t have a retention provision that bars destroying records before a certain period of time. 

State agencies adhere to a schedule — created by the Idaho State Historical Society — that guides how long various types of records should be retained, and local governments set their own guidelines. But similar rules don’t apply to the Legislature. 

Lawmakers can trash their records at any time, unless someone files an official request to see them. Destroying records after they’ve been identified in a request would violate the Public Records Act, but Ehardt didn’t appear to do that in this case. 

Still, her decision to delete the texts is a good example of why the state needs more specific retention requirements, said Scott McIntosh, First Amendment committee chairman for the Idaho Press Club. 

“The decisionmaking process of state legislators is the public’s business and should be done in public,” said McIntosh, who is also opinion editor for the Idaho Statesman. “Deleting text messages cited by a lawmaker during a legislative debate is anathema to the Idaho values of open and honest government.”

Journalists and other members of the public often rely on correspondence records to shed light on government work that happens behind closed doors. Here are some recent examples from EdNews:

• Emails between West Ada School District administrators and trustees exposed internal turmoil after the district told a teacher to remove a classroom sign promoting inclusivity.
• Messages between Idaho State University President Robert Wagner and House Speaker Mike Moyle, R-Star, revealed that ISU is considering the feasibility of buying a private medical school in Meridian. 
• Public comments on a divisive bill to fund private education using tax dollars showed widespread opposition to the proposal that was ultimately signed into law. 

On Tuesday, Ehardt declined to share details on the messages, except that they were from people affiliated with multiple universities and they weren’t from students. Ehardt said she will retain EdNews’ records request, however. 

“I did scan and copy and save that for time and all posterity,” she said.

From the Idaho Education News

From the Associated Press

BY  REBECCA BOONE

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A federal magistrate judge heard arguments Tuesday morning in a lawsuit brought by three news organizations that say Idaho prison officials are unconstitutionally hiding parts of lethal injection executions from public view. 

The Associated Press, East Idaho News and The Idaho Statesman filed the lawsuit against the director of the Idaho Department of Correction in December. They are asking U.S. Magistrate Judge Debora K. Grasham to temporarily stop the state from restricting media witnesses from viewing the actual injection of lethal chemicals in any executions that may occur before the lawsuit is resolved. 

Wendy Olson, the attorney representing the news organizations, said media witnesses play a significant role in the public’s understanding of executions. The U.S. has a history of protecting public access to executions, whether they are carried out by hanging, electrocution or other means, she said, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has said that access right includes the steps that are “inextricably intertwined” with the process of putting someone to death.

Idaho officials allow media witnesses to see the first step of lethal injection executions — placing an inmate on a gurney and inserting the IV lines — as well as the third step of the process, which is watching the impact the lethal drugs have on the inmate and seeing a coroner declare the inmate dead.

But Olson said the state is wrongly barring the public from seeing the second step, which is the process of actually drawing the lethal drugs into syringes and then pushing those drugs into the IV lines connected to the condemned person. Those steps are carried out in a separate room, she said, and the state has refused media witness requests to view the process via closed-circuit television. 

Tanner Smith, the attorney representing prison officials, told Grasham that when it comes to analyzing Idaho history, lethal injections shouldn’t be compared to hangings. There is no “historical right of access” to the work done in the “medication team room,” including the administration of lethal drugs, he said.

The pushing of the drugs is a “minute detail,” and the public can rely on prison officials to accurately tell them whether that process was successful, Smith said. Keeping the medication team room hidden from public view helps protect those volunteer team members from being identified and subjected to harassment or threats, he said.

Grasham seemed skeptical.

“It’s a minute detail?” she asked, later continuing, “How can the administration of the drug be anything but inextricably intertwined?”

Grasham also asked why the people in the medication team room couldn’t simply wear the same surgical garb that other execution team members use to hide their identities. Smith said they could, but they might have unique characteristics like their stature that would stand out despite face masks, gloves and head coverings. 

Grasham said she would issue a written ruling on the preliminary injunction request, but did not say when the ruling would be issued. 

Twenty-seven states authorize the death penalty, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, though some have paused executions or do not have anyone on death row. The states also vary widely on how many media witnesses they allow at executions, as well as how much of the execution process witnesses are allowed to see. 

This is not the first time The Associated Press and other news organizations have sued Idaho officials in an attempt to increase execution access. In 2012, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered prison officials to allow the news organizations to view the first part of lethal injection executions, including when a condemned person is brought into the execution chamber, secured to the execution gurney and the IV is inserted.

Idaho has attempted four lethal injection executions since the 1970s. Three of them were completed, but the most recent attempt, involving Thomas Eugene Creech, was aborted last year after execution team members were unable to successfully establish an IV line after eight attempts in Creech’s arms and legs. 

Lawmakers passed a new law this year that will make firing squads the state’s primary method of execution, starting next year.

From the Associated Press

From the Idaho Capital Sun

BY: KYLE PFANNENSTIEL

Idaho will become the 41st state with a media shield law, protecting sources who provide confidential information or documents to journalists.

Gov. Brad Little signed House Bill 158 into law Thursday morning, the governor’s office’s Communications Director Emily Callihan told the Idaho Capital Sun. The governor’s office plans to hold a signing ceremony with partners involved in the bill, she said. 

The Idaho Legislature unanimously passed the bill this year, following a rise in legal threats that sought to force journalists to reveal their sources. 

Idaho is one of 10 states without a journalism shield law, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. 

Idaho’s new media shield law takes effect July 1.

Idaho Press Club President Melissa Davlin wrote the bill based on language in laws in Kentucky and Alabama.

“Too many Gem State newsrooms have had to spend time and resources fighting subpoenas that would force them to betray their sources’ trust under threat of fines or jail time,” she told the Idaho Capital Sun in a written statement after the Legislature passed the bill. “The Idaho Press Club is grateful that lawmakers saw the need for this change, and we thank our legislative sponsors for their help getting this to the governor’s desk. Idaho, like the rest of America, needs a strong press corps, and this shield law will help reporters focus on their work instead of costly and stressful legal proceedings.”

The bill states: “No person engaged in journalistic activities shall be compelled to disclose in any legal proceeding, trial before any court, or before any jury the source of any information procured or obtained and published in a newspaper, print publication, digital news outlet, or by a radio or television broadcasting station with which the person is engaged or employed or with which the person is connected.”

Disclosure: The Idaho Capital Sun’s journalists are members of the Idaho Press Club.

From the Idaho Capital Sun

From KTVB-TV

As Sunshine Week opened in Idaho and nationwide on Monday, March 18, 2025, Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane and State Controller Brandon Woolf talked with KTVB-TV about the importance of open public records and making public information in Idaho easily accessible to the public.

“You have a right to know what your government’s up to,” McGrane told KTVB reporter Joe Parris on the station’s “The 208” show.”

Said Woolf, “Obscurity is the best friend of conspiracy.” When people are left wondering what their government is hiding and what’s really going on, trust erodes and conspiracies rise, he said. Woolf advocated for “changing that culture, that mindset, to say: We’re open.”

His office does that in part through its “Transparent Idaho” (LINK: https://transparent.idaho.gov/ ) transparency site, where large amounts of state and local government financial data is available to anyone who cares to look it up. McGrane’s office is in charge of the state’s Sunshine Laws on campaign finance and lobbying registration, and is working to make that data easy to access through new tools, data visualizations, and more through the office’s Campaign Finance Sunshine Portal. (LINK: https://voteidaho.gov/campaign-finance-portal/ )

Said McGrane, “That’s what our role is, is to make this easy for the public.”

You can watch the full interview here at KTVB.com. (LINK:

https://www.ktvb.com/video/news/local/208/idaho-officials-push-for-greater-transparency-in-the-gem-state/277-bf4086d7-e7bd-400a-8521-87ab7084736f )

Sunshine Week, first launched as a national event in March of 2005, helps educate the public, journalists, lawmakers, and others on the right to know in the U.S. states and federal government. There’s more information about Sunshine Week at sunshineweek.org.

From KTVB-TV