From the Idaho Press

By RACHEL SPACEK

MIDDLETON — An Idaho district judge has ordered the Middleton School District to turn over records to a Caldwell man, who sued the district in August over its denial of his public records requests.

The plaintiff, Ray Moore, filed five requests earlier this year under the Idaho Public Records Act with the Middleton School District, which were either denied, heavily redacted or subject to fees exceeding $3,000.

Moore sued the district — the only recourse in Idaho law for a public records denial. Third District Judge Thomas Whitney on Oct. 7 ruled that the school district had to give Moore unredacted copies of the records by Oct. 25.

Middleton School District Superintendent Sherawn Reberry, in a statement to the Idaho Press Monday, said the district is complying with the ruling and “will be working diligently over the coming months” to identify roles and responsibilities in the district office and train on the proper handling of records requests.

“We intend to be fully transparent to the extent of the law in the future,” said Reberry, who joined the district in July.

Whitney’s ruling comes as a separate public records lawsuit, between the Idaho Press Club and Ada County, is ongoing. The Press Club is suing the county over records that were heavily redacted or denied.

Moore, who represented himself in the case against the school district, said the process made him “incredibly concerned,” because even with knowledge of public records law, he found it difficult and time-consuming. If he’d used legal counsel, he estimates the lawsuit would have cost him $5,000 to $6,000.

Moore was part of a recall effort against school board members earlier this year, sparked after the board did not renew the high school principal’s contract. He was requesting documents to learn more about: The district’s decision not to renew the principal’s contract; allegations against trustee Marianne Blackwell; staff correspondence about a school board meeting agenda; and a legal agreement between the district and the law firm Anderson, Julian and Hull.

Whitney established that the records Moore requested “are public records as defined by Idaho law.”

“In this case,” Whitney wrote, “the district has not met its burden of demonstrating that any of the records requested fall under the narrow statutory exemptions” in the public records law.

One of Moore’s requests, made on May 15, asked for any notes sent to or received by the trustees and some district staff supporting Benjamin Merrill, then the Middleton High School principal, over the last six months. The district told him it would take “at least 80 man hours at a cost of $38 per hour” to complete the request. Moore said he was unable to pay that amount.

Whitney ruled there was “no evidence” proving fulfilling the request would take multiple hours of labor.

Another one of Moore’s requests, also made on May 15, initially asked for all correspondence, including text messages, from trustees and district staff regarding the topics on a school board meeting agenda for May 13, 2019.

The district’s response said there were too many people in “district staff” to meet that request. Moore then limited the request to nine board members and district staffers; however, he said he did not hear back from the district about it.

“The actions by the district, were they deliberate?” Whitney said in his ruling. “Yes, in most of these cases, they were deliberate. Particularly as to the failure to respond to the request which Mr. Moore intentionally narrowed.”

Reberry, in her statement, said her administrative team is “new and had very limited involvement with this lawsuit.” She was appointed superintendent in July.

“It is the district’s intent to fully comply with the court’s ruling,” she said, “and our work to supply Mr. Moore with the requested documents is already under way.”

Becky Worley, the district’s custodian of records at the time of Moore’s request, no longer works for the district, Reberry confirmed. She did not provide details of Worley’s departure.

Blackwell and two other trustees survived the recall election in August.

Moore requested the following records:

LAWYER LETTER: Moore requested a March 28 letter from lawyer Kenneth Mallea, containing allegations that Blackwell had shown prejudice against someone in the district. The details of the issue between Blackwell and Mallea’s client are redacted from court documents. The letter also contained an affidavit, which Moore requested.

Worley sent a response denying the request, saying it was “exempt from public records because it is part of personnel file” of a trustee, according to court documents and emails between Worley and Moore. The denial said Moore would have to obtain permission from Blackwell to get the records because they were in her personnel file.

Moore then emailed Blackwell, who gave permission for him to see the letter. Moore sent the authorization to the district.

Worley then told Moore, according to exhibits in court documents, she did not have the records and was requesting them from district counsel Scott Marotz, with Anderson, Julian and Hull.

On May 1, Marotz provided Moore with redacted copies of the affidavit and the letter, saying the redactions came because the letter and attachments are “exempt from disclosure under the Open Records Act.” Marotz told Moore in an email that the information he requested was also included in another employee’s personnel file, and therefore exempt.

Most personnel information of public employees isn’t subject to disclosure, other than some exceptions such as pay and employment history and status, as outlined in the Public Records Act (section 74-106).

However, another section of Idaho Code, in the Education chapter, applies only to school district employees. This section says a school district employee’s personnel file is confidential, and an employee must be given notice if anything is added to the file, so they have an opportunity to rebut it (section 33-518).

PERSONNEL FILE NOTICES: Moore told the Idaho Press he didn’t believe the information he request was in another personnel file. So, on May 15, he asked for the notice given to the person who had the affidavit in their personnel file and every notice given in 2018 and 2019 to district employees that a complaint was being added to their personnel file.

The district denied that request, saying personnel records were exempt from public records law. Marotz later rephrased the denial, saying the request was “overly broad and burdensome.”

CORRESPONDENCE: Also on May 15, Moore requested all correspondence between trustees and district staff regarding the topics on a meeting agenda. He later limited the request to nine board members and district staff members, understanding his request was “overly broad.”

Whitney ruled that Moore “made it easier for the government to respond, and the district did not respond.”

Moore then requested any notes or writings sent to trustees and district representatives from anyone affiliated with the Middleton School District to support Merrill over the last six months.

Worley sent a response denying these requests, citing that the information was in personnel records.

On May 29, Marotz responded to all three May 15 requests and said they were denied because they were overly broad and would cost a significant amount to fulfill. Marotz also advised Moore could get an estimate of the costs.

LEGAL AGREEMENT: Moore’s last request, on June 25, was for the “most recent legal services agreement” between the district and Anderson, Julian and Hull. The district, through Marotz, told Moore via email that the record did not exist.

However, in the affidavit Moore requested and received with redactions, Marotz sent an email to the Canyon County prosecutor and attached the legal services agreement between the Middleton School District and Anderson, Julian and Hull, proving a legal services agreement existed in 2016-17.

Marotz declined to comment on this story.

From the Idaho Press

From the Idaho Press

By BETSY Z. RUSSELL

The Idaho Public Records Law, in Idaho Code Section 74-102, has a strong presumption of openness.

“Every person has a right to examine and take a copy of any public record of this state,” the law says, “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.”

That’s why when a public agency denies a request for public records, it has to cite the specific statutory exemption from disclosure for that particular record.

In the current lawsuit between the Idaho Press Club and Ada County, we’ve learned that the state’s largest county believes a series of sweeping, blanket privileges — for privacy, attorney-client privilege and a “deliberative process” privilege — outweigh the entire law. Rather than cite any of the 100-plus specific statutory exemptions in the law for refusing to release public records, the county, according to its legal filings and arguments in court, believes it can just cite those broad privileges.

According to a lengthy legal memorandum the county’s attorneys filed in the case, they seem to believe that a 2007 case, Nation v. State Department of Correction, completely turned the presumption of openness in the Public Records Act on its ear, replacing it with a standard that no information that might possibly be private should ever be released, just in case — unless a court orders that it be released. Can you imagine if we all had to go to court every time we wanted to look at our city council’s minutes, a police report on a crime that happened on our street, or how much our local school district is paying a consultant?

Full disclosure here: I’m the president of the Idaho Press Club. That’s why I’ve not been the one writing our news articles about this lawsuit. And the Press Club’s attorneys, in their own legal filings, have strongly disagreed with the county’s argument, which is a new one on me in my 33 years as a reporter in Idaho.

“The county’s position in this case turns the presumption of government transparency and disclosure upside down,” wrote the Press Club’s lead attorney, Deborah Ferguson, in a reply brief filed with the court.

I read the 2007 case, and it wasn’t about the Public Records Act at all.

The lead attorney for the county in the records case, Deputy Prosecutor Jim Dickinson, wrote in arguments filed with the court, “In dissent from the Court’s conclusion in part of the Opinion, Chief Justice Schroeder strongly admonished Idaho governments never to release private information.”

“Idaho governments must proceed cautiously when making records publicly available,” Dickinson wrote. “The Board’s and ACSO’s (Ada County Sheriff’s Office) practices are informed by the Supreme Court’s admonition to treat personal information, or any information that could involve potential for personal or financial harm if released, or information that ‘might and probably would cause mutual distress and injury,’ with great care. As the Court instructed in Nation, should there be any question, entities should protect privacy information until a court orders otherwise.”

Really? The Idaho Public Records Act’s presumption of openness in public records was completely overturned in a court decision more than a decade ago, and none of us ever heard about it until now? I think not. And while I’m no lawyer, no other attorney I’ve talked with about public records in Idaho has ever argued anything of the sort.

Even more sweeping than the “privacy” privilege that Ada County has claimed in the case are its claims of attorney-client privilege, which it claims apply even to non-attorneys and to matters having nothing to do with litigation; and its truly bizarre claim of a “deliberative process” privilege — something that doesn’t exist in Idaho law at all.

The closest thing is an exemption in the Idaho Public Records Act, in 74-109(1), for “draft legislation.” But that applies solely to draft bills in the Idaho Legislature, known in the Statehouse as “RS’s,” that haven’t yet been taken up in a public meeting by a legislative committee. It doesn’t have anything to do with county officials deliberating on the public’s business, and it certainly doesn’t make that process secret.

The preamble of the Idaho Open Meeting Law says, “The people of the state of Idaho in creating the instruments of government that serve them, do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies so created. Therefore, the legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret.”

That’s why we have an Open Meeting Law in Idaho. That’s why we have a Public Records Act. In Idaho, we believe that the citizens have a right to see their government in action, including their deliberations on public policy matters. That’s not supposed to be secret until it’s later sprung on all of us as a done deal. It’s supposed to be open.

That’s how we’re all able to be informed participants in our unique form of government. That free, open access to government information is not just critical to allowing me to do my job as a reporter; it’s central to our freedom as Americans.

From the Idaho Press

From the Associated Press

By REBECCA BOONE Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — An Idaho judge says she agrees that fulfilling public records requests can put a big burden on governmental resources, but she expressed some skepticism about the number of completely redacted pages provided to four Boise-area journalists by Ada County officials this year.

Fourth District Judge Deborah Bail made the comments during a Wednesday afternoon hearing on a lawsuit between the Idaho Press Club and Ada County Commissioners.

In the lawsuit, the Idaho Press Club, Idaho Statesman reporters Cynthia Sewell and Katy Moeller, Idaho Public Television reporter Melissa Davlin and Idaho Education News editor Jennifer Swindell contend county officials repeatedly violated the state’s Public Records Act by wrongly denying access to some documents, over-redacting others and otherwise mishandling public information requests.

In court Wednesday, Ada County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney James Dickinson said the judge has all the evidence she needs to rule in favor of the county.

“In this instance, your Honor, we’ve given the court the best evidence: the actual documents,” Dickinson said. “However, there is some concern that some of the documents take a fair amount of context to determine exactly how — to realize how come they are privileged and protected. On those documents it’s very difficult because if anything is filed publicly, or I explain to the court what the basis is, that potentially obviates the protection.”

Dickinson maintained county officials followed the law when responding to the public records requests and only redacted what is necessary to protect individual’s privacy rights or other legally protected information. He said filling the requests was a drain on county resources, but that officials responded well.

The judge noted that Idaho’s “statutory preference is that the records be open.”

“Reading your briefing, there’s no question it puts a big burden on governmental resources — it’s a tight time period and it can require a great deal of effort,” she told Dickinson.

Still, Bail said, the Legislature is the entity that the county should ask to adjust those deadlines and burdens, not the courts.

She also questioned whether some of the redacted documents needed to be redacted in their entirety, or whether the county could have included a basic description or log of the types of things being redacted.

“These utterly blank documents seem to me to be pushing the envelope quite a bit,” Bail said.

Deborah Ferguson, the attorney for the Idaho Press Club, told the judge the county has a “culture of concealment of public records and not one of openness.”

Exemptions to the public records law are narrowly defined, not broad excuses to withhold information, Ferguson said.

“I think it’s useful to just take a minute or two to take a broader look at the county’s responses from 80,000 feet above,” she said. The county believes “that it’s better to be safe and deny, and if a requester sues, it’s better to let a court decide.”

She noted that Idaho’s public record law has hundreds of exemptions carved out by the Legislature, making it legal to withhold things ranging from library records to the location of archaeological digs, and even where seed crops are planted. Why would the Legislature be so specific, if it wanted agencies to just rely on a general notion of privacy, she asked.

The judge said she would consider the briefings before making a ruling sometime in the future.

From the Associated Press

Download our flyer.

The public is invited to attend an upcoming free seminar on Idaho’s key open government laws – the Idaho Open Meeting Law and the Idaho Public Records Law – on Oct. 10 in McCall, Oct. 21 in Boise or Oct. 24 in Nampa, led by Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden.

It’s a chance to learn what is covered by these important laws and how to comply, in a fun and accessible format. Presenters in addition to Wasden will include Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane and IDOG President Betsy Russell. Government agency employees, public officials, reporters, editors and photographers from all media, and interested citizens all are invited.

These sessions are recommended by the Office of the Attorney General, the Association of Idaho Cities, the Idaho Association of Counties and the Idaho Press Club. Admission is free; because space is limited, attendees are asked to RSVP:

• Thurs. Oct. 10, 2019 – MCCALL — Co-sponsored by The Star-News
  Downstairs Community Room, Idaho First Bank, 475 E. Deinhard Lane
  1 pm ~ RSVP to Tom Grote, starnews@frontier.com
• Mon. Oct. 21, 2019 – BOISE –– Co-sponsored by Ada County, the Idaho Press,
  Idaho Statesman and Boise State Public Radio ~ Ada County Commission Chambers, 200  W. Front St., Boise 83702
  6 pm ~ RSVP to Tom Michael, tommichael@boisestate.edu or (208) 426-1984
• Thurs. Oct. 24, 2019 – NAMPA – Co-sponsored by the Idaho Press & KTVB-TV
  Nampa City Council Chambers, 411 3^rd Street South, Nampa 83651
  6 pm ~ RSVP to Holly Beech, hbeech@idahopress.com or (208) 465-8110

IDOG and Wasden have been holding these sessions around the state since 2004. They are funded in part by grants from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation through the National Freedom of Information Coalition, the Best of the West Foundation, and the Idaho Media Project at Boise State University. Next year’s sessions will be in eastern Idaho.

IDOG is a non-profit coalition for open government whose mission is to promote open government and freedom of information. There’s more information, plus an online “User’s Guide” to Idaho’s open government laws, available at IDOG’s website, www.openidaho.org.

From the Idaho Press

By ERIN BAMER

Ada County is requesting the 4th District Court dismiss the Idaho Press Club’s lawsuit against it.

The suit claims county officials repeatedly violated Idaho’s Public Records Act in response to four public records requests by local reporters.

In a memorandum in opposition filed Wednesday, Ada County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney James Dickinson says the Board of Commissioners and the sheriff’s office followed the law when responding to reporters’ requests, while legally redacting some information to protect individuals’ rights and privileges.

The county also filed a memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the Idaho Press Club did not name or serve the proper parties in the lawsuit, and that the Press Club lacks standing to sue on behalf of the individual journalists.

In the lawsuit, Idaho Statesman reporters Cynthia Sewell and Katy Moeller, Idaho Public Television reporter Melissa Davlin and Idaho Education News editor Jennifer Swindell contend they had public record requests wrongly denied, overly redacted or otherwise mishandled by county officials in recent months, according to an Associated Press report. In the petition, the reporters included 10 pages of emails exchanged with Ada County officials pertaining to the record requests.

“These violations by Idaho’s largest county only encourage further confusion and abuse of public records law throughout the state,” Davlin, who is vice president of the Idaho Press Club, told the AP earlier this month.

In Wednesday’s filings, Dickinson wrote the Board of County Commissioners provided over 1,100 pages of records in response to the three public records requests; the fourth request, he wrote, was an email asking for a 911 call transcript.

“The (Idaho Press Club’s) petition fails for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it jumbles together four discrete requests — assuming the (Ada County Sheriff’s Office) email inquiry amounts to a request — that should be litigated individually,” he wrote.

Idaho’s Public Records Act does allow for record requests to be sent over email. State code section 74-102(4) states: “A request for public records and delivery of the public records may be made by electronic mail.”

Dickinson argued the Idaho Press Club “misapplies Idaho law,” in that Ada County officials provided a statutory basis for their denials and redactions.

“The (Ada County Board of Commissioners) and the (Ada County Sheriff’s Office) stay abreast of applicable federal and Idaho law and apply it meticulously to every request, carefully balancing all competing interests, including protecting the privacy rights of individuals inherent in many of its records,” he wrote.

Multiple media outlets, including the Idaho Press and the Idaho Statesman, have financially contributed to the Press Club’s effort to bring this lawsuit. Idaho Press reporter Betsy Russell is president of the Idaho Press Club.

A hearing the lawsuit is scheduled for Oct. 2 before 4th District Judge Deborah Bail.

From the Idaho Press

From the Associated Press

From the Associated Press

Download a copy of the complaint here.

Originally posted on IdahoEdNews.org on August 1, 2019

by Kevin Richert

Thursday’s formal vote was quick and unanimous: The state Public Charter School Commission admitted it violated Idaho’s open meeting law during a contentious closed-door meeting in April.

But the vote came after a tense one-hour public comment period, when several charter school advocates scolded the commission for breaking the law and violating their trust.

“Any trust I had in being treated fairly was already shaky,” said Kelly Edginton, head of school at Idaho Virtual Academy. “(Now) that trust is zero.”

The commission’s Thursday morning meeting came one week after Attorney General Lawrence Wasden’s office said the commission likely violated the open meetings law during a wide-ranging two-hour executive session on April 11.

But the meeting also came weeks into a simmering controversy that started in June, when the commission inadvertently released a recording of the meeting. Some charter advocates have blasted the commission for maligning student performance at several schools, and discussing the prospects of closing schools or the politics of denying a renewal of a school charter.

On Thursday, several charter administrators said they were blindsided, and said the commission took their test scores out of context. But two charter school lobbyists said April’s meeting was symptomatic of larger problems.

Teresa Molitor, a former board member at Heritage Academy in Jerome, said she was not surprised to listen to the recording and hear commissioners denigrate the school’s test scores.

“I’ve heard the same disdain and condescension from you and your staff for many years,” she said.

Suzanne Budge worked on the 2004 law creating the state charter commission. The main objective was to create a panel that could authorize charter schools — an alternative to local school districts that were sometimes reluctant to take on the authorizing role.

“The commission has strayed very, very far from its original mission,” she said.

The seven-member commission authorizes nearly three-fourths of Idaho’s 56 charter schools.

But some charter administrators and advocates came to the commission’s defense Thursday. They said the panel has an important role in monitoring student performance and charter school finances — even if that means pushing back against the schools under its bailiwick.

“We needed that feedback to get to where we are today,” said Melissa Andersen, secondary school administrator at North Star Charter School in Eagle.

Meridian’s Compass Public Charter School was one of the first schools the commission authorized. The commission quickly put the school on notice over financial issues, and it was a frustrating time, administrator Kelly Trudeau said Thursday.

“The commission was just doing their job. It was not personal,” said Trudeau, who praised the commission for juggling the interests of students, parents and staff.

Thursday’s meeting was at times awkward. Before opening the floor for public comments, commission Chairman Alan Reed offered a mea culpa. “This is an interesting meeting, humbling meeting, to say the least.”

At another point, Reed reminded speakers to talk clearly into a microphone, with an attempt at humor. “We love these recordings, you know.”

Several legal issues plagued the April 11 executive session — but one was what Wasden’s office described as “drift.” During the course of the two hours, the focus shifted from confidential student data, the stated purpose for a closed-door meeting, to topics that should have been discussed in an open session.

Commissioners did not debate that point, or any findings from Wasden’s report. Voting unanimously, the commission admitted to violating the law, as Wasden’s office recommended a week ago.

The commission then went into an open meetings training session, attended by Wasden and conducted by one of his deputies, Brian Kane. The training, and the commission’s vote, is a step toward restoring the public trust.

“I understand what it means for you to come forth … and admit your missteps,” Kane said.

From Idaho Education News

From Idaho Education News

by Sami Edge

In a five-minute special meeting Tuesday, the Emmett School District board of trustees acknowledged violating Idaho’s open meetings laws on June 5, when the board entered into a separation agreement with outgoing Superintendent Wayne Rush.

Then, trustees promptly corrected that — nullifying the June 5 action and publicly re-approving an agreement that could net Rush more than $123,000.

Tuesday’s meeting followed a legal complaint Idaho Education News filed with the Gem County Prosecuting Attorney’s office, asking for an investigation into whether the Emmett School Board violated open meetings law when trustees first approved Rush’s separation agreement.

Rush’s resignation went public after a June 12 public hearing. However, at that time, Board Chair Jody Harris said trustees had already accepted Rush’s letter of resignation during a June 5 meeting.

The agenda for the June 5 meeting didn’t mention a board vote to separate with the superintendent. Nor did the minutes from that meeting. But, a copy of Rush’s separation agreement obtained by EdNews indicates it was signed by both Rush and Harris on June 5.

Documents show the board met in a closed-door executive session on that day. But Idaho’s open meeting law requires government agencies — such as school boards — to conduct business in public. Closed-door executive sessions are allowed for limited reasons, but the law forbids government agencies from taking any final action in executive session.

Emmett officials called for Tuesday’s special meeting after Gem County Prosecutor Erick Thompson received Idaho EdNews’ complaint.

Budgets, salaries, grad rates: See data relating to Idaho public schools »

“Question has been raised with regard to possible violation of Idaho open meeting act, associated with the board meeting of June 5,” trustee Jefferson Jenkins said during Tuesday’s meeting.

He asked fellow trustees to “self-recognize a violation of the open-meetings act,” and render any improper action at that meeting null and void.

The vote was unanimous. So was the vote on the next item: a motion to re-approve Rush’s separation agreement.

Asked last week for comment on the special meeting, and allegation of an open meetings law violation, board chair Harris declined to speak to EdNews.

Emmett trustees are scheduled to discuss the superintendent search during a meeting at 6 p.m. Wednesday. The board will discuss the search in an executive session; the meeting agenda says trustees could take action on the search after their closed meeting.

EdNews reporter Clark Corbin contributed to this report. 

From Idaho Education News

From the Idaho State Journal

An audio recording of an Idaho Public Charter School Commission closed-door meeting has prompted two charter schools to express doubts about the commission’s integrity and oversight.

The chairman of the state charter school commission, Alan Reed, responded to that criticism on Saturday morning with a press release stating that the commission was correct for not opening the closed-door meeting to the public. He also said his comments during the meeting have been misquoted and mischaracterized.

Heritage Academy, a Jerome charter school with 175 students in grades kindergarten through eighth, says it’s outraged after obtaining the audio recording of the charter school commission’s April 11 executive session held in Boise. Heritage said it obtained the audio recording from four different sources to ensure its accuracy.

The Blackfoot Community Learning Center, a charter school in Blackfoot that educates 600 students in grades K-8, also obtained the audio recording and has made it available online at https://emaillargefile.com/p/HLM8FLPYRBC.

Reed said in his press release that the April 11 closed-door meeting was accidentally recorded by the commission and then accidentally released by the commission.

“Due to these two mistakes we did not do very well for those children,” Reed said in reference to the children who attend the charter schools discussed during the recorded meeting. “I am sorry about that and sincerely apologize to them.”

SHOULD CLOSED-DOOR MEETING HAVE BEEN OPEN TO PUBLIC?

After listening to the recording, Blackfoot Community Learning Center said via a press release issued late Friday night that it believes the commission probably violated the state’s open meeting laws by not holding the April 11 discussion in public.

Blackfoot Community Learning Center stated, “The purpose of open meeting laws is to allow for transparency and input from the public. The commission spent a great deal of time discussing in (the April 11) executive session how they could convince the legislature and governor’s office why it is necessary to close some charter schools in Idaho. This is a discussion that needed to be had in an open meeting, not behind a closed door.”

Much of Reed’s press release dealt with the issue of whether the meeting should have been open to the public.

“Some schools had small data numbers and due to our responsibility to keep individual student information confidential, we were instructed to hold the discussion concerning these schools in an executive session,” Reed said via his press release. “This was the direction given to us by our attorney from the (Idaho) Attorney General’s Office. Our attorney was present during the entire meeting and was responsible to make sure we did not stray into any topic or discussion not appropriate under the law.”

Heritage officials issued a press release on Friday afternoon voicing concerns about the “disparaging comments” the audio recording allegedly revealed the commission members saying about Heritage and other charter schools in the state.

The charter school commission is the state government agency in charge of overseeing Idaho’s approximately 50 public charter schools. Those schools educate over 20,000 Idaho children.

OUTRAGE OVER COMMENTS ABOUT JEROME

Heritage officials said the audio recording revealed the charter school commission’s members taking “potshots” at the Jerome School District and “slamming” the residents of Jerome.

Heritage officials are very upset with charter school commission chairman Reed, who was allegedly caught on the audio recording saying about Jerome, “What are we going to do with that town?” Heritage officials also said Reed, a dairyman, is heard on the recording saying he would not consider opening one of his ice cream shops in Jerome because “ice cream doesn’t build brain cells.”

Heritage officials said the commission’s comments were particularly hurtful considering that 95 percent of Heritage’s students need government assistance to pay for lunch, 25 percent are students with disabilities, and 23 percent are Hispanic children trying to learn how to speak English.

In response Reed said, “Our discussion (at the April 11 executive session) was concerning the test scores of the students at (Heritage Academy) and the local (school) district. They are well below state average and I was concerned for the children’s education in the area. The schools have a challenge there. Administrators for the charter school have even expressed the unique challenge they have to educate their students. This is what I said, ‘As a society what are we going to do with that town.’ My continued sentence was to help with those children. Many people began speaking and drowned out my sentence and thoughts. My comments and thoughts were only for the help and benefit of the children and their schools.”

Reed continued, “The next quote they gave me credit for was I wouldn’t consider opening an ice cream shop in Jerome because ice cream doesn’t build brain cells. As you listen to the recording we are discussing the data of the schools (and) another commissioner makes a comment off topic that maybe if I put an ice cream store in Jerome it would help. This suggestion was so off topic I made an off-the-cuff remark back at that commissioner because that was not a solution. Was it meant as a disparaging or disrespectful comment at the people of Jerome? No. It was a response back to a person for something they said. In the (Heritage Academy) press release I was truly misquoted and completely taken out of context.”

The Blackfoot Community Learning Center came to Jerome’s defense in its response to the audio recording. The learning center stated, “The comments made about the community of Jerome and Heritage Academy are not becoming or worthy of a unit of Idaho state government. The attitude toward the people of Jerome is very disheartening and reflects poorly on the commission as well. The remarks are even more troubling given that Heritage Academy serves many at-risk and special needs students.”

The audio recording of the commission also included what Heritage officials are calling “factually incorrect statements” about their school and its leadership.

NO CONFIDENCE IN CHARTER SCHOOL COMMISSION

Heritage officials said via their press release that after listening to the recording they do not believe “the current commission and its staff are capable of providing proper leadership for Idaho’s public charter schools.”

Heritage school board chairman Carroll Cone said about the commission, “It is very concerning that individuals like those who participated in the (recorded) discussion have been appointed or hired. It is my hope that these individuals could be replaced with those who support all Idaho public schools, not just those they consider high-performing.”

Longtime Jerome resident Anneli Crouch, who has children attending Jerome School District schools and Heritage Academy, was quoted in the Heritage press release as saying, “It is concerning for the Jerome community and for all of the communities criticized and slandered by the comments of commissioners and their staff members. Our children and our communities deserve better.”

Blackfoot Community Learning Center officials said that the commission also unjustly criticized their school on the audio recording.

The learning center stated via its press release, “We are troubled by remarks made about our school. We are a group of educators, volunteers, and parents who spend many hours each year trying to provide educational options for the people of Blackfoot and Bingham County. The remarks of the commission on the recording would indicate that many of the commissioners do not value the many volunteers or educators around the state who serve charter schools.”

The Blackfoot Community Learning Center said the state charter school commissioners caught on the audio recording were also unjustly critical of the Idaho School Boards Association.

Heritage officials said via their press release that they too believe the April 11 executive session should have been open to the public instead of being held behind closed doors with no members of the public present.

“Idaho open meeting law allows public boards and commissions to discuss a limited number of issues such as protected student records, in closed meetings,” the Heritage press release stated. “However, the commissioners and their staff members used the guise of discussing student data (at the April 11 executive session) to talk about individual schools, school employees, school boards, communities and state education organizations outside of the public’s view.”

Heritage continued, “In addition, commissioners and staff members deliberated and planned actions that are only allowed to be discussed in an open forum where Idaho’s citizens can observe, comment, and remain informed.”

Reed reiterated in his press release that the commission was correct in holding the meeting in executive session with no members of the public present and the Idaho Attorney General’s Office is in agreement with that decision.

“We were under the close eye of the attorney from the Attorney General’s Office and we were told everything was in line with the law,” Reed stated. “We take the open meeting law very seriously and so does the attorney general. That is why one of his attorneys is with us all of the time.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND GOVERNOR CONTACTED ABOUT RECORDING

Heritage officials said they have contacted the Idaho Attorney General’s Office about the audio recording and the school is working with its own attorney to further investigate the commission.

The Attorney General’s Office told the Journal late Friday afternoon that it is aware of the concerns regarding the audio recording but is not ready to make further comment.

Gov. Brad Little’s office has also been made aware of the audio recording but the governor has not yet issued a statement.

The Blackfoot Community Learning Center said in its press release that “it is unfortunate that the recorded executive session will injure the reputations” of the commission’s members.

The learning center stated, “After this episode, we hope the Idaho Public Charter School Commission will work to rebuild the relationship of trust it should have with the many charter schools in the state.”

Reed acknowledged in his press release that some of the commission’s comments during the April 11 executive session could be interpreted as “harsh, tough and unsupportive.”

But he added, “When you are in a meeting where you believe you are having a very frank and honest discussion that is only between you and another person you do not protect your language the way you would in a public meeting. You are not always ‘politically correct.’ That does not mean you are not sincere about wanting to help, serve and do what ever you can to help someone. The commission only wants to help each school and the children that attend to be better each day school is in session.”

From the Idaho State Journal