From the Idaho Press

By TOMMY SIMMONS and MARGARET CARMEL

When newly hired Boise Police Chief Ryan Lee appeared in a video press conference with Boise Mayor Lauren McLean on Wednesday, it marked the first time in the eight-month hiring process that members of the general public could ask him questions about how he views his job.

The mayor’s office announced June 1 it had hired Lee, the services branch chief of the Portland Police Bureau. The announcement followed just one other press release about the hiring process in April, in which McLean’s office declared the field of candidates had narrowed to two people.

Prior to that, an Idaho Press public records request in March revealed the city had four candidates in mind. That was the first time since former chief Bill Bones’ retirement in October that any news about the candidates had been released.

Boise’s approach to hiring a police chief isn’t unusual, but, across the country, some cities are more open than others when it comes to hiring leaders of police departments. Wednesday’s press conference marked the first time Lee answered questions from Boiseans who were not part of a city-selected panel. Other cities have had police chief candidates appear at public forums anyone can attend, to answer questions from city residents — something researchers consider to be a best practice.

That didn’t happen in Boise.

“Selection and vetting and analysis of who is the best person to lead this organization should be done in the most transparent of ways,” Rita J. Watkins, Ph.D., executive director of the Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas, told the Idaho Press. “And so … having the opportunity (for residents) to at least share what they think they should have in a police chief is critical for the selection process.”

HISTORY

One of the things McLean pointed out during Wednesday’s video call was the fact that the search for a police chief began before her tenure, when Bones retired in October. That was during then-Mayor Dave Bieter’s leadership of the city. Just after Bones’ retirement, Assistant Police Chief Ron Winegar was appointed acting chief of the department, although former police chief Mike Masterson later took over that role. McLean again put Winegar in charge in April.

In January, almost three months after Bones’ retirement, the city still hadn’t said anything publicly about the search for a new chief. In a Jan. 10 email to Melanie Folwell — McLean’s then-spokeswoman — the Idaho Press listed nine questions it would have for potential candidates and the hiring committee. These included questions such as:

• Are candidates being considered specifically from cities similar to Boise in size/demographic?
• Is the selection committee considering candidates from (or who have worked in) cities that have experienced similar explosive growth to Boise?
• Right now, Boise has a young police department. Almost all of its command staff are new within the past year, or year-and-a-half. Is the committee considering an older candidate or a younger one?
• What would be the candidate’s approach to Boise’s camping ordinance (which prohibits sleeping on the street when there’s room in a shelter)? Would they want to change department policy in any way?
• Masterson had mentioned that in terms of the department mirroring the community’s demographics, women are underrepresented among officers. Would the candidate want to hire more women specifically?

McLean didn’t address those questions in a January interview with the Idaho Press. She declined to say how many applications the city had received for the position, citing it as a personnel matter.

“I’ll be looking for a chief that continues to build on our focus on community policing,” McLean said in January.

She added she would be looking for someone who could “grow and improve upon the record of the department.”

Four panels interviewed Lee — one made up of “professions,” two of community organization leaders, and a fourth of longtime Boise Police Department employees.

OTHER CITIES

Other cities across the country have varied in their police chief search strategies, with many others taking input from the public in community meetings throughout the process or allowing candidates to stand for questions from residents in town halls before the final decision is made.

Alice Fulk, the assistant police chief of the Little Rock Police Department and one of Boise’s four finalists for the police chief position, was also a finalist to lead her current department in the spring of 2019. As part of the process in Little Rock, she was one of four finalists who participated in a town hall where residents could ask questions.

Boise officials have frequently compared Idaho’s capital to Madison, Wisconsin, because of the relatively similar population size. Masterson, the former Boise police chief, first worked for the Madison Police Department. That city started a search for a new police chief in late 2019, just like Boise, and announced plans for a series of four listening sessions for the public to provide input during the process. They were canceled due to COVID-19, but residents could still send in comments to the city to share what they were looking for in a new chief.

Richmond, Virginia, which is nearly identical to Boise in population although the greater metro area is much larger, named a department veteran as the police chief in the summer of 2019 after the city held multiple community meetings to hear input. A survey was also collected. After the input was gathered, applications were accepted and finalists were interviewed and selected by the mayor and city council.

Watkins pointed out the hiring process is entirely within the city council’s control; the body can change the process if it becomes necessary.

“They possess that type of authority because they’ve been elected by the citizens to make the best decisions for their city,” Watkins said. “They should’ve run on that level of trust, they probably got elected on that level of trust. In addition to that though, city officials need to consider … what’s critically going on, and then establish new criteria in reference to that.”

A few years ago, Watkins said, she participated in a dissertation study. In that study, a top reason police chiefs lost their jobs was because they didn’t have a solid working relationship with the community their department policed, Watkins said. Lee said on Wednesday his first priority upon arriving in Boise will be to begin establishing that relationship with the community, as well as with his officers.

But Watkins pointed out community meetings can help a police chief begin to establish that relationship, and sometimes candidates appreciate the opportunity to have those conversations before they’re hired.

“They don’t want to be set up to fail,” Watkins said. “Oftentimes, they want to have the opportunity to talk to the community first because … sometimes they’re being asked to work in another state. They’re relocating not just themselves but sometimes it’s their families. They’re going to other places, so is it going to be a fit?”

During the press conference, McLean called Lee a “partnership-builder.” His philosophy on crowd management — which informed the tactics the Portland Police Bureau used during 2017 and 2018 clashes between antifa and far-right protesters — has drawn both praise and criticism, but one of its core tenets includes building a relationship with the leaders of various protesting groups. Boise has not seen the type of heated, sometimes violent protests Portland has, but during the press conference Lee said building relationships with the community would still be his first priority as police chief, although he also acknowledged concerns about the new coronavirus would make that harder.

Asked if he’d taken steps in Portland to make the police bureau more transparent, Lee cited the data the bureau makes public online.

“People can see how we’re spending overtime for officers,” Lee said. “They can see crime rates in the city. They can see response times. They can see use-of-force data. I believe that level of transparency in the information age is important for policing, because if we’re going to have meaningful conversations with the public about how they want to see policing occur in their city, they need to know the actual data information so we can sit down and have a conversation about how we can best … work toward a solution.”

McLean also referenced transparency in her closing remarks to those on the video call.

“As Chief Lee mentioned today, transparency, open data, community engagement, partnership with the media — all those things are really important to us … here at City Hall,” she said.

From the Idaho Press

by IDOG

After the Idaho Statesman threatened a lawsuit over a denied public records request for nursing home COVID-19 information, and the IDOG board sent a strongly worded letter to Gov. Brad Little, state Health & Welfare Director Dave Jeppesen, and the directors of all seven public health districts in the state about the importance of the releasing the information, the state has agreed to do so.

You can read the IDOG board’s letter here, and here is Director Jeppesen’s response:

“Betsy,

I very much appreciate the email and letter from the IDOG board. 

I wanted to let you know that this afternoon, DHW will issue a press release and publish long term care (LTC) summary statistics for Idaho.  In addition, we will publish a list of all long term care facilities that have had or currently have a COVID-19 outbreak (defined as at least one lab-confirmed or probable COVID-positive case associated with a facility) which will include number of total cases and number of total deaths by facility.  This information will be on the coronavirus.idaho.gov site under the LTC tab.  We plan to update this information weekly.

I believe that what we publish today will address the items and concerns raised in your letter, but I am happy to discuss additional questions or concerns that you or IDOG have after you see what we publish.

The department is committed to open and transparent government.  We also are committed to protecting individuals privacy.  Our challenge on this topic has been balancing those two items, particularly when it comes LTC facilities.  We have been working for some time to find a way to balance both.  We believe we have found a solution that does both, particularly given that (unfortunately) the number of case has increased. 

Thanks again for the letter on this important topic.  I always welcome any outreach, questions or correspondence from you or IDOG.

dave”

Dave Jeppesen
Director
Idaho Department of Health & Welfare
208-334-5500

From the Idaho Statesman

By Audrey Dutton

The Idaho Statesman sent a letter Friday to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, warning that the newspaper plans to sue if the department does not provide records about coronavirus outbreaks in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.

The Statesman on May 21 filed a public record request for the names of long-term care facilities in Idaho with confirmed or probable cases of COVID-19 among their residents/patients or staff. At the time, there had been at least 22 long-term care facilities in Idaho with coronavirus infections among staff and residents, resulting in at least 273 cases and 44 deaths.

A growing number of states now publicly report not only which nursing homes, assisted living facilities and group homes have coronavirus cases, but the number of patients and staff who have been infected. Patients and residents of those facilities are especially vulnerable to the disease and make up a disproportionate share of the deaths in Idaho from COVID-19.

Nonetheless, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare denied the Statesman’s request, saying: “The Administrative Procedures Section (APS) received your request. The records custodian consulted with a Deputy Attorney General for the Department who determined your request is denied per IDAPA 16.02.10.070, 74-105(4)(b) and 74-106(12).”

Debora K. Grasham, an attorney at Givens Pursley in Boise, wrote to the department on behalf of the Statesman, saying the denial “fails to meet the requirements” of Idaho’s public records law.

She wrote that the information “is of paramount importance to the citizens of Idaho — particularly those with loved ones in such long term care facilities — as Idaho deals with the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, the widespread release and availability of such information is clearly in the public interest at this moment.”

Other states in the region, such as Colorado, Oregon, Utah and Washington publish detailed information about outbreaks in nursing homes and other settings.

Despite the refusal by Idaho officials to disclose information, the Statesman was able to confirm the names of 14 of the 22 facilities, through public record requests to local public health agencies, available public records, statements from facility owners and interviews. They included seven facilities in Ada County, two in Jerome County, two in Nez Perce County, two in Twin Falls County and one in Blaine County.

View letter to DHW

From the Idaho Statesman

From Idaho Education News

By Kevin Richert

A local teachers’ union says the Middleton School Board violated open meetings law with a closed-door discussion of labor negotiations.

Trustees plan to correct the error next week, Middleton district spokeswoman Vickie Holbrook said Friday.

The issue came to light Wednesday, when Middleton Education Association leaders filed a grievance with the board and district officials. “The Middleton School Board and Chairman Kirk Adams engaged in bad-faith practices by attempting to make unilateral decisions in a closed forum,” local union President Stephanie Boling and Vice President Dave Stacy said in their three-page complaint.

The grievance raises several concerns about a May 11 board meeting, and the trustees’ decision to discuss teacher contract renewals in a closed-door executive session.

• Union leaders accuse trustees of “voting on unknown discussions” in their closed meeting.
• Union leaders also say the May 11 meeting agenda made no reference of a closed-door discussion of teacher contracts.

Under state law, contract negotiations must take place in an open meeting, although public agencies can discuss contract offers in a closed meeting. But the state law forbids agencies from “taking any final action or making any final decision” in an executive session, and agencies must make a good-faith effort to list executive sessions on their meeting agenda.

Adams “was aware of the procedural error before the grievance was filed,” Holbrook said in an email Friday morning. She said the board will hold a special meeting early next week to address the error.

Districts across the state are beginning 2020-21 contract negotiations, facing a nonbinding July 1 deadline. Negotiations in Middleton are on hold, Holbrook said, as district officials determine how state budget cuts could affect the district.

From Idaho Education News

From the Idaho Statesman

State and local officials decide which details to publicly release about COVID-19 cases, and their response varies from state to state. 

Idaho’s government, for instance, has repeatedly declined to release geographic information about COVID-19 cases beyond the patient’s county of residence, while officials in other states have released the zip codes in which patients live.

Although private health information is protected at the federal level by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), that legislation is only the ground floor for medical privacy laws. States can enact more stringent laws and protect more information than HIPAA does, according to Stephanie Winer Schreiber, a corporate and health care attorney of the firm Buchanan, Ingersoll and Rooney, in Pittsburgh.

“HIPAA is the floor so to speak, so if a state has a more restrictive confidentiality law, HIPAA does not preempt them,” Wine Schreiber said.

HIPAA requires the weighing of 18 factors to determine if information is private health information, such as names, telephone numbers, medical record numbers, and health plan beneficiary numbers.

Only specific entities — called “covered entities” — are bound by HIPAA regulations, Wine Schreiber said. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare has determined itself to be a covered entity, and is thus bound by those regulations.

Across the country, Wine Schreiber said, few states leave their medical privacy laws close to the bare minimum HIPAA requirements. State privacy law even tends to be hypersensitive to certain topics; she listed HIV, drug and alcohol abuse, and mental health as topics that often receive additional protections.

Idaho code 74-106-12 lists as exempt from public disclosure, “records of the department of health and welfare or a public health district that identify a person with a reportable disease.”

Idaho officials, for instance, have chosen not to name long-term care facilities where COVID-19 cases have been confirmed, although they have released information about the number of cases and facilities affected. Gov. Brad Little fielded a question about the topic during a press conference Thursday, when asked why the state has not identified a nursing home in Nez Perce County where multiple people have died from the disease. The county has the state’s highest rate of COVID-19 deaths.

“We are looking at what we’re going to do forward about what our policy is,” Little said.

On Friday, Health and Welfare spokeswoman Niki Forbing-Orr confirmed 32 COVID-19-related deaths had been associated with long-term care facilities. Another 19 deaths that were probably COVID-19-related were also associated with long-term care facilities.

The state was reporting 63 COVID-19 related deaths as of Friday afternoon.

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Director Dave Jeppesen at Thursday’s press conference said, “Our policy is to not release addresses of where people live that have the virus, and that includes specific facilities, so I’m not able to share a specific facility.”

He added that any time one resident of a nursing home tests positive for COVID-19, family members of all residents are notified.

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare has stood by that approach — last month it would only confirm the number of long-term care facilities where cases were present, but would not identify them.

Yet on April 14, Central District Health sent a press release notifying the public of a fatal case of COVID-19 at Avamere Transitional Care and Rehab in Boise. There were 14 other cases connected to the facility, including both residents and staff members. City of Boise officials were not notified of the outbreak at the facility prior to the media reports about the death.

The final call on what information to share with the public rests with “individual response teams,” according to Brandon Atkins, program manager for Central District Health’s family and clinic services.

He said that while officials consider both HIPAA and Idaho’s law, “they are not the only determining factors in an epidemiological response.”

“While the statute and HIPAA regulations serve to protect individual identity, it is left to independent response teams at both a state and local level, to share certain pieces of information critical to response in an investigation scenario, based on independent agency protocols and procedures,” Atkins wrote in an email to the Idaho Press. “We take individual identity and the rights of those individuals very seriously. Sometimes, pieces of information, such as locations that may be impacted by an outbreak, for example, may be shared in an effort to clarify misinformation or supply vital information in protecting others that may be impacted by the information and its accuracy.”

He added officials have “independent protocols that guide decisions” about releasing information.

At Thursday’s press conference, Little concluded, “My belief is that most people of Idaho don’t like their personal information being shared.”

Last month, Florida released a list of names of elder-care facilities where staff or residents had tested positive for COVID-19. That reversal in policy came after increased pressure from the AARP, families of residents, and media organizations. Earlier in the month, the Miami Herald drafted a lawsuit against the state’s government over the issue.

INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN OTHER STATES

The only geographic information released about a case of COVID-19 in Idaho is the county, but that’s not the case elsewhere in the United States.

The Illinois Department of Public Health has the number of confirmed cases in each zip code statewide on its website, including both densely populated Chicago and rural areas of the state. Although it does not have cases broken down by zip code, the city of El Paso, Texas has a map of the city and the number of cases in each approximate area available on its website along with the number of cases and tests conducted. Dallas County, Texas is also reporting COVID-19 cases by zip code.

Other states have released information related to the number of cases associated with long-term care facilities and their locations. In Washington, 198 long-term care facilities had at least one case as of April 16. The data released from the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services includes a list of specific facilities impacted, whether there was a death or not, but it does not specify the number of cases for every facility.

New Hampshire’s Department of Health and Human Services is also identifying long-term care facilities with cases as outbreaks are discovered, and reporting the number of residents and staff members who test positive at the facility regardless of fatalities. In Massachusetts, at least 530 COVID-19 related deaths have stemmed from the 222 long-term care facilities where the disease has been detected. As of April 15, 4,163 residents and employees of the facilities tested positive for COVID-19.

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Idaho Statesman

by Betsy Z. Russell

BOISE — When the Idaho Press Club won its public records lawsuit against Ada County, the judge ruled that the county had repeatedly flouted the law, by taking the position that all public records are exempt from disclosure if they could possibly affect an array of broad concerns including “privacy,” “deliberative process,” “attorney-client,” “personnel,” and so forth — without reference to any of the more than 100 specific exemptions in the law.

Fourth District Judge Deborah Bail found in December that the county “not only did not follow the Idaho Public Records Act, it acted as though a different Act had been enacted — a reverse image of Idaho law.”

Now we know what that disregard for the law cost the county: $47,310. That was the award for the Press Club’s court costs and attorney fees that Bail approved in a Feb. 26 order.

“The county responded vigorously in briefing and in numerous declarations filed with the Court,” the judge wrote in her order. “The county’s motion to dismiss was lengthy and raised a number of arguments not supported by the Idaho Public Records Act, but which necessitated a substantial amount of effort on the plaintiff’s part of analyze and respond. … This case required considerable effort and commitment on the part of the plaintiff’s attorneys.”

It’s not that the elected Ada County officials, from the commissioners to the sheriff, had necessarily been purposely attempting to evade the public records law. Instead, it was the county prosecuting attorney’s office, under county Prosecutor Jan Bennetts, which acts as the in-house counsel for the county and its elected officials, that operated under a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, and enforced that misunderstanding in all its legal advice to our elected officials, leading them to violate the law over and over again.

This ruling should mark the end of those practices. County commissioners, in their reactions to the ruling, have emphasized that they want to be open and transparent, and that they plan additional training and review of their practices in regard to the Idaho Public Records Act.

There’s not often litigation over government agencies failing to comply with the Idaho Public Records Act. The “sole remedy” under the act for someone who is improperly denied public records is to get a lawyer and go to court, something few generally can afford to do. The Idaho Press Club filed the lawsuit only after a sustained, repeated pattern emerged of the county ignoring the law, regarding public records requests from multiple reporters for multiple news organizations in Idaho.

The judge’s fee order says the lawsuit “revealed an unlawful pattern of response to public records requests.”

“The results obtained were very beneficial to the plaintiff and the general public,” the judge wrote. “The thorough presentation of the issues, particularly, the extensive documentation of hundreds of documents redacted in their entirety, with redactions including the requesting party’s own information, and claims of privileges which did not exist in Idaho law, and the other responses detailed in the Court’s decision revealed a profound disregard for the Idaho Public Records Act’s requirements.”

“The decision was crafted to provide a reference for public officials and agencies to respond to Idaho Public Records Act requests in a manner consistent with Idaho law,” she wrote, providing “a hopefully useful guide for anyone wanting to comply with the law.”

Last week was Sunshine Week, a national initiative first launched by the American Society of News Editors in 2005 to educate the public about the importance of open government and the dangers of excessive and unnecessary secrecy. Smack in the middle of Sunshine Week, the Idaho Senate voted 27-6 in favor of HB 601, creating new public records exemptions for legislators and public officials; and the House voted unanimously in favor of SB 1338a, another bill creating new public records exemptions. Both bills headed to the governor’s desk.

On HB 601, Senate Majority Caucus Chair Kelly Anthon, R-Burley, told the Senate, “Legislators have privacy too. And I think this bill recognizes that some of the things that we do, in our work product and the way that we communicate with one another, and the importance of that process, are protected as well.”

SB 1338a, as originally proposed by Sen. Dan Johnson, R-Lewiston, would have made official state secrets of information so common that it’s published in the phone book – all addresses and phone numbers in all public records, plus email addresses. That would have made basic public records like county assessment records and voter registration unusable, as no record could tie a name to a specific address. Johnson proposed his bill in direct response to the Press Club’s court victory, professing shock at the judge’s ruling that such information “could not be redacted unless there was a specific statute authorizing such exemption.”

That’s exactly how the public records law works, and has always worked. Public records are presumed open, unless a specific law exempts them from disclosure.

To Johnson’s credit, he met with the Idaho Press Club and Idaho’s newspaper publishers, and realized his bill as first proposed was unworkable. As amended, it just requires redaction of social security numbers, birth dates, drivers license numbers and minors’ names.

In these uncertain times, citizens need more openness and transparency from their government — not less. So, a belated Happy Sunshine Week to everyone.

From the Idaho Statesman

From the AP/Times-News

SHOSHONE, Idaho (AP) — County commissioners in southern Idaho have temporarily banned video recordings of weekly public meetings despite advice against the motion from their legal counsel.

Lincoln County passed the motion Monday with commissioners Rick Ellis and Roy Hubert in favor of the ban and Commission Chairwoman Rebecca Wood as the only dissenting vote, the Time-News reported.

The motion was presented to commissioners a week after County Clerk Brenda Farnworth attempted to record a meeting with her cellphone in addition to taking the minutes, county officials said. The video, which was live streamed on Facebook, shows Ellis asking Wood to have the recording turned off before walking out when she refused, officials said.

County Prosecutor Richard Roats advised against the ban, explaining it could be considered arbitrary and capricious in a court of law.

Government “is for the people, by the people,” resident Steven King said. “We are the people. We need transparency in government.”

Only one person spoke in favor of the ban.

From the AP/Times-News

Editorial from the Idaho Falls Post Register

Why is it that every time lawmakers wade into the Idaho Sunshine Law, it’s to reduce government transparency?

It is, of course, annoying to have members of the public crawling through your emails and text messages.

But elected office is a sacred public trust, and it comes at a price.

Privacy is a fundamental right, and it is up to every person whether to give it up. When you enter into the public arena, and particularly when you choose to pursue elected office, you are volunteering to be subject to transparency.

The greatest price of public office in a representative democracy is public accountability. Lawmakers seem to have forgotten that basic fact this year.

Legislation recently introduced by Rep. Megan Blanksma would blow significant holes in the structure of accountability that works to ensure that our representatives are working in our interest rather than their own.

This year’s bill would narrow the beam of sunlight that was shed on state government against its will. Lawmakers did not pass the Idaho Sunshine Law. The voters did it through an initiative. In essence, the law sets up a procedure that allows any member of the public to examine a public official’s emails, text messages and letters, along with records of public spending, public contracts and other public business.

Not everything lawmakers say or write is subject to transparency. Lawmakers’ truly private communications — say, two lawmakers deciding where they should eat lunch — aren’t public record at present. Public records are defined in the Sunshine Law as “any writing containing information relating to the conduct or administration of the public’s business.” So if there’s no public business involved, there’s no public record.

Blanksma’s bill would close off important information that does involve public business.

For example, it would allow lawmakers to redact the identities of members of the public they interact with so long as they aren’t other government officials, registered lobbyists or “representatives of an organization.” This third category is so amorphous that it will allow lawmakers to redact whomever they please.

What counts as an organization? A group of people who have a common business interest in a piece of legislation and are pursuing an organized advocacy effort but who have not taken the step of formally incorporating — would they count as an organization? Or would they have all their information redacted, ensuring they can attempt to influence legislation from the shadows? Since the legislation does not define “organization,” lawmakers will be able to choose whatever definition suits them at a particular moment.

What counts as representation? Could the head of a business who’s pushing a bill that will pad his pocket communicate with lawmakers about that legislation, and then hide it by prefacing all his emails with, “Speaking only for myself…” — the sort of wink-and-nod that lawmakers understand intuitively. Because representation is not defined either, nearly any communication between someone who isn’t an elected official or a registered lobbyist and a lawmaker could be redacted.

Certainly, a member of the public who discloses personal medical information, their Social Security number, or other highly personal information that is not related to the conduct of public business deserves to have that information protected. But by entering into the public fray and attempting to influence policy, they waive their right to remain anonymous. It is standard practice, for example, to require anyone testifying at a public hearing to identify themselves.

Nothing engenders public trust more than a pledge to be public and accountable in office, which is why everyone running for office pledges to be transparent on the campaign trail. And nothing undermines and betrays their trust more than the attempt to hide from public accountability.

Fundamentally, good government means that representatives are working in the public interest. When they use the power that is granted to them by the public to further their own interests, that has a name: corruption.

And corruption thrives in the shadows. Lawmakers should reject Blanksma’s bill and preserve the measures of transparency that keep corruption at bay.

Editorial from the Idaho Falls Post Register

From the Idaho Statesman

by BETSY Z. RUSSELL

BOISE — A divided House State Affairs Committee on Friday narrowly approved HB 601, the bill from Rep. Megan Blanksma to amend the Idaho Public Records Act to add new exemptions for lawmakers and public officials.

Blanksma, R-Hammett, told the committee the bill was intended to “tighten up” the law, because it takes “a massive amount of time” for government, including the Legislature, to respond to public records requests.

“This is to help you in your drafting process, to keep that out of the public eye when you’re trying to develop those ideas,” she told the lawmakers on the committee.

The bill includes new exemptions for the personal notes of any public official in Idaho that haven’t been shared with others, including the governor; research requests by legislators to legislative staff, including documents developed as a result; personal information, including names, in constituent communications to lawmakers; and communications between lawmakers that aren’t about public business. It also requires more specificity, including a specified date range, for all future public records requests.

Matt Davison, publisher of the Idaho Press, spoke against the bill on behalf of the Newspaper Association of Idaho.

“The laws we have in place are good, they’ve been tested over time, they’ve been backed up in courts multiple times,” Davison told the committee. “It seems to me we have a system that works and has worked.”

He added, “We don’t want to hamper you from doing your job. But we want to make sure that there are open records.”

Ken Burgess, lobbyist for the Idaho Press Club, also spoke in opposition to the bill. He thanked Blanksma for showing him and the club’s 1st Amendment Committee early versions of the bill, saying, “It is a softer version of the first couple that we saw, and I think we appreciate that.”

But Burgess said some of the new exemptions proposed in the bill were problematic. For example, Idaho Education News published a story about a publicly-announced meeting between the governor and the state schools superintendent, after requesting the governor’s notes from the meeting under the Public Records Act, which were willingly provided. That could no longer happen under the proposed bill.

The new exemptions aimed at the process of developing and drafting legislation are particularly troublesome, Burgess said. “Our experience has been in recent years, that the Legislature has been more willing to share that type of information … than it has been historically, and we’d like to keep that in place.”

Do you LOVE local news? Get Local News Headlines in your inbox daily.

  Yes!  Include special offer & contest announcement emails

“In the end, that’s where the sausage-making really occurs with regards to public legislation, and we believe the public ought to have a right to know the ingredients that went into that sausage,” Burgess said.

Rep. Joe Palmer, R-Meridian, moved to send the bill to the full House with a recommendation that it “do pass.” The motion carried on a divided voice vote with slightly less than half the committee dissenting. Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, asked to be recorded as voting “no.”

Rep. Brooke Green, D-Boise, said, “I’m actually really torn on this for a number of reasons. … There’s some parts I don’t think go far enough, and some … go too far. … I do believe that sometimes the media does go overboard and as a result hurt people.”

To become law, the bill still would need passage in the full House and Senate and the governor’s signature.

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Associated Press

By Rebecca Boone

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Several news and legal organizations have told the Idaho Supreme Court that they believe state prison officials are required to reveal the source of drugs used in executions under public records law.

The American Bar Association, the Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Idaho Press Club and others filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of a lawsuit that University of Idaho professor Aliza Cover brought against the Idaho Department of Correction. Several news organizations, including The Associated Press, the Idaho Statesman, Boise television station KTVB and others joined with the Idaho Press Club in its brief.

Department of Correction didn’t have any comment on the filings, spokesman Jeff Ray said.

Cover, who is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, sued after prison officials largely denied her request for execution-related records in 2017. A state judge said last year that prison officials had to turn over much of the information she sought, including documents that would show the supplier of the lethal injection drugs used in the state’s most recent execution.

The Department of Correction appealed, and the state Supreme Court is expected to hear the case this year.

Many states are finding it more difficult to carry out executions because many drug companies don’t want their products used to kill inmates and are refusing to sell them to correctional departments.

The groups that filed friend-of-the-court briefs in Idaho said information about the source of lethal injection drugs should be available to the public to ensure that the state isn’t violating the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Idaho Press Club said in its filing Friday that reliable information is needed so the public can determine whether executions are fair and humane.

“Not only does allowing the press to report on executions promote a more informed discussion of the death penalty, it promotes the public perception of fairness and transparency concerning the death penalty,” the news organizations wrote.

The American Bar Association made a similar argument, contending that secrecy undermines public confidence in the justice system.

From the Associated Press