From the Idaho Mountain Express

Cable News Network has filed a lawsuit against Blaine County seeking information from a 1999 police investigation involving the family of Bowe Bergdahl, the Wood River Valley soldier who spent five years in captivity of the Taliban.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of CNN in Blaine County 5th District Court on June 25 by attorney Debora K. Kristensen of the Boise law firm Givens Pursley. The CNN complaint claims that the report from a 1999 investigation by the Blaine County Sheriff’s Office involving the Bergdahls is subject to disclosure pursuant to Idaho public records statutes.

Release of the report has twice been denied to CNN by Sheriff Gene Ramsey.

“I have declined to release the report because I feel it should be exempt from disclosure because it would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” Ramsey said in an interview Wednesday. The sheriff further explained that report comes from “an investigation in 1999 in which no charges were filed.”

In correspondence to CNN, Ramsey based his refusal to release the report on Idaho Code 9-335, a statute pertaining to documents exempt from public disclosure and specifically exempting documents that would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

CNN is seeking a court order requiring release of the report. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for 2 p.m. on July 21 before Judge Robert J. Elgee.

Bergdahl, 28, a U.S. Army sergeant from Hailey, has received national and international news media attention since his capture in Afghanistan on or about June 30, 2009. News media attention intensified after Bergdahl was released by Taliban forces in exchange May 31 for five Taliban prisoners held by the United States.

CNN complaint

The CNN lawsuit stems from a public records request filed with Ramsey on June 11 by CNN correspondent Ed Lavandera, based in Dallas, and CNN producer Rosalina Nieves, based in Los Angeles. In the request, CNN asked for “all documents related to law enforcement activities involving members of the Bergdahl family—Robert, Jani, Bowe and Sky—and/or reports at the Bergdahl residence” on Croy Creek Road “from 1986 to the present.”

Ramsey responded the same day by providing reports on three investigations involving the Bergdahls, one on March 27, 1998, another on Jan. 30, 2013, and a third on Aug. 25, 2013. However, the sheriff referenced but declined to release a report from an investigation on Nov. 4, 1999.

CNN, through its attorney Kristensen, responded to Ramsey’s reply on June 18. In the reply, Kristensen alleged that failure to disclose the document violated Idaho public records law and Idaho Supreme Court guidance that exemptions be “construed narrowly.” Kristensen claimed that a redacted version, wherein portions of the document could be blacked out, would be acceptable to CNN. Kristensen further threatened legal action to obtain the “record in its entirety or, at the very least, relevant information contained therein.”

Ramsey responded with his second refusal on June 20, which was followed by the filing of the lawsuit five days later.

The three investigative reports Ramsey provided to CNN are also partially redacted but provide sufficient information to ascertain the purpose behind the police investigation. All three reports are attached as exhibits to the CNN complaint.

The March 27, 1998, investigation involves a report by the Bergdahl family of someone driving by the Bergdahl residence and shooting out the rear window of one of their vehicles with a pellet gun. According to the report compiled by former Deputy Ron Taylor, Bowe Bergdahl, then 12, witnessed the shooting. There is nothing in the report to indicate whether or not the culprit was apprehended.

The Jan. 29, 2013, report involves a welfare check requested by Idaho Falls resident Tyler J. Webb, who wanted to know the living conditions of his children, in custody of his estranged wife Shekinah A. Davies, who was staying then at the Bergdahl home. Deputy Kristen Quinton wrote in her report that she visited the Bergdahl home and reported back to Webb that the “children were safe and well taken care of.”

The Aug. 25, 2013, report involves a potential “road rage” incident involving Bowe Bergdahl’s father Bob Bergdahl and his mother Jani Bergdahl. According to a report, compiled by Deputy Quinton, the Bergdahls on their motorcycles followed a man, identified as Sun Valley resident Ignacio Eugenio Lozano, who they claimed cut them off in his vehicle where the northbound lanes of state Highway 75 merge from two lanes into one just north of East Fork Road. The report states that Lozano, suspicious that he was being followed, drove to the Sun Valley Police Department office and was followed there by the Bergdahls. After discussion with police about the incident, Quinton wrote that both parties apologized.

Undisclosed reports

According to Blaine County court records, there was another Sheriff’s Office investigation involving the Bergdahls that was not disclosed to CNN.

Court records state that Jani Bergdahl was convicted in 2007 of a “vicious dogs” misdemeanor violation. She pleaded guilty, was given a 10-day suspended jail sentence and fined $225.50.

Court records also show a case involving Bowe Bergdahl. However, the case is sealed, making it impossible without a court order changing the case’s status to discern when the case was filed or whether it was a civil or criminal action. All that currently can be ascertained from the court listing is that Bowe Bergdahl was named as a party in the case.

From the Idaho Mountain Express

From the Idaho Statesman

BY CHADD CRIPE AND BRIAN MURPHY

Boise State will receive $9,081,250 from the Albertsons Stadium naming-right deal, 72.65 percent of the total package, according to documents obtained by the Idaho Statesman on Wednesday afternoon.

Albertsons will pay $12.5 million over the next 15 years for the naming rights to Bronco Stadium. Learfield, which holds the athletic department’s marketing rights, will receive the rest. The split is slightly worse than the 75-25 split that was originally described when the contract was announced.

Boise State had withheld details of the Albertsons deal — even from the State Board of Education, which was to consider the dollar-less contract Thursday in Idaho Falls.

Boise State President Bob Kustra called the Idaho Statesman on Wednesday morning, however, pledging to release the redacted information at Thursday’s State Board meeting and expressed disappointment that the information was withheld. The information was withheld at the request of Learfield, not Albertsons. But the school, after conversations with Learfield, opted to release the financial details.

The yearly payments from Albertsons to Bronco Sports Properties are as follows (with Boise State’s expected gross payment in parentheses):

July 1, 2014: $675,000 ($465,909)
July 1, 2015: $675,000 ($472,159)
July 1, 2016: $725,000 ($509,659)
July 1, 2017: $725,000 ($515,909)
July 1, 2018: $775,000 ($553,409)
July 1, 2019: $775,000 ($559,659)
July 1, 2020: $825,000 ($597,159)
July 1, 2021: $825,000 ($597,159)
July 1, 2022: $875,000 ($634,659)
July 1, 2023: $875,000 ($634,659)
July 1, 2024: $925,000 ($672,159)
July 1, 2025: $925,000 ($693,750)
July 1, 2026: $950,000 ($712,500)
July 1, 2027: $975,000 ($731,250)
July 1, 2028: $975,000 ($731,250)
Total: $12.5 million ($9,081,250)

Learfield paid Boise State naming rights guarantee fees for the last three academic years. Those amounts totaled $775,000. That total will be deducted from the payments to Boise State over an 11-year period.

The money will flow as follows for 2014-15:

Step 1: $275,000 (2014-15 naming rights guarantee fee) + $70,454 (1/11 of the $775,000 to be repaid) + $75,000 (the annual return for Learfield) = the total deduction of $420,454 from the annual naming rights fee paid by Albertsons.

Step 2: $675,000 (naming rights payment) – $420,454 (total deduction from Step 1) = $254,546

Step 3: 75 percent of $254,546 = $190,909 (university’s share) and 25 percent of $254,546 = $63,637 (Learfield’s share).

Under that calculation, Boise State would net $465,909. That matches Boise State’s projection.

“There are things that Learfield gives us that I don’t think people think about,” Kustra said at the May 21 announcement for Albertsons Stadium. “But I always would like to minimize the amount that you have to hand over to somebody who really wasn’t as directly involved in this as Mark Coyle was and as I was, but that’s the nature of these relationships.

“Over the years, Learfield has served this university well when it comes to the connections we’ve made. They’re able to reach out and find relationships for us that we can’t.”

The home of Boise State football previously was called Bronco Stadiu.

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Idaho Statesman

Boise State has withheld details of the Albertsons Stadium naming-rights deal – even from the State Board of Education, which will consider the dollar-less contract Thursday in Idaho Falls.

The home of Boise State football previously was called Bronco Stadium.

When the deal was announced last month, Boise State said Albertsons agreed to pay $12.5 million over 15 years and that the revenue would be split 75 percent to the school and 25 percent to Learfield Sports, which owns the Broncos’ marketing rights.

But the contract that was distributed to the media did not include a single dollar sign. Instead, it referenced the dollar amounts in a “letter agreement” between Albertsons and Learfield. The school initially denied the Idaho Statesman’s request for that document.

After a public records request, the school provided the letter agreement to the Idaho Statesman – but blacked out every dollar amount, claiming those details are “trade secrets.”

On Monday, the State Board posted the agenda for this week’s meeting in Idaho Falls. Boise State provided the same limited financial information and contract to the State Board as it did to the media.

The State Board staff concluded: “The net revenue to be paid to BSU under this Agreement (in concert with the Learfield agreement) remains uncertain to staff. This issue along with additional questions about the Agreement remain to be addressed at the Board meeting. Staff reserves judgment pending resolution of these matters.”

The State Board documents did indicate that $100,000 of the proceeds will go to the university’s new alumni center.

The Statesman also requested and received the original agreement between Boise State and Learfield for naming rights, part of the marketing rights deal between the two parties that began in 2010. That document also was heavily redacted.

Learfield has provided Boise State with a naming-rights guarantee – amount redacted – since 2011-12. That means the company paid for a sponsorship that it wasn’t able to sell for three years.

The contract stipulates that Boise State gets the annual guarantee (amount redacted) and that Learfield gets the next (amount redacted) from a naming-rights contract. Then Boise State and Learfield split the rest 75/25. So it’s possible that Boise State’s actual take is less than 75 percent.

Also, the payments that Boise State received the past three years from Learfield will be deducted from the school’s Albertsons payout. But once the Learfield deal expires, all of the Albertsons revenue will be split 75/25.

The Learfield contract expires June 30, 2017. Boise State has three additional one-year options.

Here are Boise State’s annual royalty guarantees from Learfield, not including stadium naming rights:

• 2010-11: $2.135 million

• 2011-12: $2.26 million

• 2012-13: $2.335 million

• 2013-14: $2.41 million

• 2014-15: $2.485 million

• 2015-16: $2.56 million

• 2016-17: $2.635 million

• 2017-18: $2.71 million*

• 2018-19: $2.785 million*

• 2019-20: $2.86 million*

* Indicates university-controlled option years.

Boise State also receives 50 percent of any revenue above a certain threshold. For 2013-14, that threshold was $4.445 million.

Boise State gets another $500,000 if it exercises all three contract option years. The contract also called for a $1 million capital stipend over the life of the contract to help with facility improvements that enhance sponsorship opportunities, such as the new video board at Bronco Stadium.

The contract also includes $300,000 in annual trade value for office equipment, cell phones and other items and $292,000 in annual trade value for advertising.

AWAY TICKETS ON SALE

Tickets are now on sale for each of the football team’s away games in 2014.

Prices for the opener against Ole Miss on Aug. 28 at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta are $83 lower level (sections 113-125), $94 mezzanine level (sections 228-232) and $109 club level (sections 217-226).

For other games, the prices are:

• UConn (Sept. 13): $45.50

• Air Force (Sept. 27): $50.50

• Nevada (Oct. 4): $51.50

• New Mexico (Nov. 8): $23.50

• Wyoming (Nov. 22): $45.50

All tickets are available at boisestatetickets.com.

For home games, only season tickets are on sale. Individual-game tickets go on sale to the public Aug. 18.

ASSISTANT CONTRACT DETAILS

Each full-time, on-field assistant football coach receives a $2,000 bonus for reaching the Mountain West championship game and either a $3,000 bonus for a bowl game or a 5 percent bonus for a College Football Playoff game, according to contracts requested by the Statesman.

They can receive $2,000-$5,000 based on the team’s Academic Progress Rate. They also get the use of a car.

Here are the staff salaries:

• Marcel Yates, defensive coordinator, $317,512

• Mike Sanford, offensive coordinator, $305,012

• Scott Huff, offensive line, $270,005

• Kent Riddle, special teams/running backs/associate head coach, $250,016

• Steve Caldwell, defensive line/assistant head coach, $220,002

• Andy Avalos, linebackers, $210,018

• Junior Adams, wide receivers, $160,015

• Julius Brown, defensive backs, $160,015

• Eliah Drinkwitz, tight ends, $160,015

Also, Boise State has added a staff member. Darren Uscher is the new football operations coordinator. Brian Wilkinson remains the director of football operations.

BUDGET FORECAST FOR 2015

Boise State submitted a $37 million budget to the State Board for 2014-15. That’s down from $41.7 million in 2013-14, but that number is inflated by the construction of the Bleymaier Football Complex.

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — The Idaho governor’s executive order creating a public records ombudsman post had to be scaled back at the last minute over concerns that it could step on existing laws, public records from the governor’s office show.

Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter issued the executive order late last month, naming Cally Younger as state public records ombudsman and calling on her to review state agencies’ policies on public records. She’s also expected to collect information about the number of denials issued by the state and to compile that and other data into an annual report for the governor.

The move was in response to a request from the Newspaper Association of Idaho, in hopes of creating an option that could resolve public records disputes without the expense of taking it to the court system. While an early draft of the executive order did just that — allowing individuals upset with records denials to ask for a second opinion from the ombudsman — that intermediate step was stripped from the official order issued by Otter on April 23.

“We just wanted to take a few steps back and really look at the whole process before we jumped in and tried to start fixing things,” Otter’s spokesman Jon Hanian told the Associated Press. “… We thought, you know, this is something that the legislature can look at.”

Emails between the governor’s staffers, the lobbyist from the Newspaper Association of Idaho and the attorney general’s office show that the bulk of the changes to the order were made the night before it was announced. The Associated Press obtained the emails through a public records request to the governor’s office.

Younger fulfilled the records request and included some documents that wouldn’t normally be released under Idaho’s public records law.

“In the interest of transparency, we have included public records that would have been exempt under the attorney-client privilege. The waiver of the attorney-client privilege and inclusion of otherwise exempt documents is specific to this request only and does not constitute a waiver for any future requests,” Younger wrote.

The emails indicate there was concern that the first draft of the executive order amounted to creating new law, a task reserved for the Legislature. But those concerns apparently didn’t arise until the last minute. A draft sent to state agency directors and administrators on the afternoon of April 22 still included the second-opinion option.

Later that evening, Otter’s chief of staff David Hensley asked several stakeholders how the office should respond to questions about whether the executive order creates a remedy in violation of public records law. The current law says the only remedy for a person aggrieved by the denial of a record request is for that person to go to court.

Deputy Chief Attorney General Brian Kane responded to Hensley’s email by saying the draft appeared to create a separate remedy through the executive branch. Kane also noted a few places where it could complicate matters if a public records case goes to court, possibly opening the agencies or ombudsman up to a “bad faith” court claim from a disgruntled record-seeker.

The issues could be avoided with a change to the state law, Kane said, adding the ombudsman as a middle or alternate step to the courts.

Just before midnight, Hensley sent a revised version to colleagues in the governor’s office and to Jeremy Pisca.

“I know it is short of where you and your clients wanted to be. I also know this is short notice. If you and your clients are willing to support this direction, I would commit to working with you on legislation for the next session to codify a review process for state agencies and local governments prior to and/or in lieu of litigation,” Hensley wrote.

From the Associated Press

From KTVB-TV

BOISE — A botched execution in Oklahoma Tuesday made lethal injections and the death penalty the subject of intense debate across the country. After the process began, condemned murderer and rapist Clayton Lockett convulsed on the table and tried to speak, according to execution witnesses who say officials then blocked their view.

It is unknown exactly what went wrong, but it took Lockett 43 minutes to die, when executions reportedly generally take around five minutes or less. He apparently suffered a massive heart attack.

This execution was the first time the state was going to use the sedative midazolam as the first drug in a three-drug cocktail. As the second and third drugs were administered, a doctor was concerned they weren’t having an effect and found Lockett’s vein had exploded.

Idaho’s procedures: What’s known publicly, what’s exempt from disclosure

Idaho currently has 12 people on death row. No death warrants are currently issued, but the state’s standard operation procedure for executions is in place, and was recently reviewed as part of a regular process by the Idaho Department of Correction.

In the state’s publicly available 50-page procedure, many logistics are outlined, including the types of drugs the state may use to carry out an execution. Other matters are kept secret by the state government, including where drugs come from.

After another botched execution in Ohio earlier this year, word that traditionally-used drugs were getting harder for states to buy, and concerns about where drugs may be ordered from, KTVB wanted details on which drugs Idaho has in stock, when they might expire, and where they came from.

A CNN investigation revealed “states have been forced to try new drug combinations or go to loosely regulated compounding pharmacies that manufacture variations of the drugs banned by larger companies.”

IDOC denies request for lethal injection drug inventory, source of drugs

In January, KTVB’s records request was denied, with IDOC saying that information is exempt from disclosure. After the situation in Oklahoma, KTVB again requested drug inventory and order information, and IDOC again denied the request.

IDOC declined a request for an interview about procedures and protocol in Idaho, but a spokesman wrote, “At every stage of the process our focus is on doing our job professionally and responsibly.”

The Department gave three pieces of state rule and law as the reasons for denying the request for drug inventory and origin. The first code cited is: “Any public record exempt from disclosure by federal or state law or federal regulations to the extent specifically provided for by such law or regulation.”

The second code cited is from a portion of state law regarding IDOC records exemptions: “Records of which the public interest in confidentiality, public safety, security and habilitation clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure as identified pursuant to the authority of the Idaho board of correction under section 20-212, Idaho Code.”

The third rule cited is in administrative rules for IDOC and executions: “Non-disclosure: The Department will not disclose (under any circumstance) the identity of the on-site physician; or staff, contractors, consultants, or volunteers serving on escort or medical teams; nor will the Department disclose any other information wherein the disclosure of such information could jeopardize the Department’s ability to carry out an execution.”

Governor Otter: ‘Our drugs need to be secured’

KTVB approached Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter about the records denial and Oklahoma situation at the Statehouse on Wednesday.

“Our drugs need to be secured, and where we get them, and how we go get them needs to be secure as well,” Otter said.

KTVB asked, “And by that you mean, not public?”

“We don’t want people to know,” Otter said. “Unfortunately these folks that are awaiting execution, and have been executed, have families. They have friends. They have people that would like to disrupt that process. And I understand it, but we’ve got to do everything we can to avoid any kind of a disruption in that process.”

The governor’s office staff said keeping where the execution drugs come from confidential is “protecting the source to maintain the source”. Because so few people are willing to provide lethal injection drugs, keeping anonymity protects the businesses, they said.

ACLU: ‘There should be no room for secrecy’

The ACLU of Idaho believes it’s wrong to keep any aspect of the execution process a secret from taxpayers.

“When it comes to this issue of the death penalty and an issue where the state is actually killing people, there should be no room for secrecy. In fact, transparency should be the upmost importance in times of this nature,” Leo Morales, ACLU Idaho Communications and Advocacy Director, said.

The organization is also calling on all governors and states that use capital punishment to re-examine the practice in light of Oklahoma’s botched execution.

“The botched execution should really be a reminder and a time for reflection for the state of Idaho or any state in the country that still has this old system, and really think if we should still continue to have the system,” Morales said. “We fundamentally believe it’s an arbitrary system that we should do away with and no longer continue in this country.”

Governor: Idaho’s procedures are sound

Otter says he used to work with Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin in Congress and in governors’ groups. He is confident she would mean no harm, and says he believes in Idaho’s procedures.

“We have a redundant system that we back up. We practice everything. I’ve gone out a couple of times to those run-throughs so that we try at every opportunity to avoid… We do everything we can to avoid any occurrence like that,” Otter said.

Oklahoma’s execution drugs vs. Idaho’s execution drugs

There are four options for execution drugs to be used in an Idaho execution: Two of them involve three-drug cocktails, two of them involve a single drug.

In Oklahoma, the three-drug cocktail was reported by CNN to be midazolan (a sedative), vecuronium bromide (to stop the inmate’s breathing), and potassium chloride (to stop the heart). None of Idaho’s four methods is identical to the method reportedly used in Oklahoma’s botched execution. The third drug, potassium chloride, is the only similar drug; it’s the third drug in both of Idaho’s three-drug methods.

See the attached spreadsheet in related items (unavailable on mobile) to compare Idaho’s four plans with the one used in Oklahoma.

In Idaho’s most recent execution in 2012, one of the single-drug protocols was used. That condemned killer was given a lethal dose of a sedative pentobarbital.

From KTVB-TV

From the Idaho Statesman

BY KRISTIN RODINE

krodine@idahostatesman.comn

As former Canyon County Prosecutor John Bujak’s bankruptcy fraud trial approaches, prosecutors are seeking to keep many of their motions out of the public eye.

Even the prosecution’s motion to seal its motions is sealed, although U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge has not ruled on the issue.

Bujak, who is serving as his own defense attorney, filed a motion opposing sealing the documents.

The U.S. attorney filed six motions in the case this past week and sealed all but one: a motion to prevent Bujak using “hearsay” when he cross-examines witnesses, which would allow him to basically testify without taking the stand.

Federal prosecutors said Bujak used that tactic while representing himself in trials in state court, questioning witnesses with sentences such as: “Isn’t it true that during that meeting I told you that after all the expenses were paid the money left over is mine to do with as I please?”

Bujak stood trial in state court four times in 2012 and 2013, with all but one of those trials related to allegations he illegally diverted money for his personal use from a contract to prosecute Nampa misdemeanors with Canyon County resources. Two juries acquitted him; two others were unable to agree on a verdict.

Unlike in state court, Bujak will not have public defenders on hand to back him up when his federal trial begins May 6. If he chooses to testify, he will need to make his two roles distinct by asking himself questions, then answering them.

Bujak faces six federal felonies, including bankruptcy fraud, concealment of assets, making a false statement under oath, money laundering and obstruction of justice. The charges stem from allegations that he failed to disclose a Rolex watch on a list of assets when he filed for bankruptcy in 2010.

Idaho U.S. Attorney Wendy Olson said Friday that she couldn’t discuss the specific reasoning behind sealing the motions in Bujak’s trial, noting that such discussion would “defeat the purpose.”

But generally, Olson said, the purpose of keeping specific pretrial documents away from the media and public is “to not pretry the case … to not have evidence that is going to be produced at trial be made public before it is actually produced at trial, and to protect the privacy of victims and witnesses.”

In his motion opposing the move, Bujak wrote, “There is nothing in the record to support a finding by the court that pretrial publicity caused by the government’s motions in limine would deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial.”

Kristin Rodine: 377-6447

From the Idaho Statesman

By ZACH KYLE

Jana Kemp was screening volunteers for a local nonprofit that serves children three years ago when she ran into what she considered a fixable problem.

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare maintains a registry with the names of residents with reports of abuse, neglect or abandonment of children, the elderly and people with developmental disabilities. Reports catalogues on the registry are substantiated in most cases by physical or medical evidence.

Kemp, a former Republican state senator from Garden City and one-time independent candidate for governor, saw the registry as a tool that businesses, schools and nonprofits working with those groups should access as part of standard background checks. However, only the department and certain types of organizations requiring Health and Welfare licenses could access the registry. The 14,000 names on the registry were otherwise confidential, making it off limits to groups such as the Boy Scouts of America, school districts or youth sports leagues.

Kemp worked with Health and Welfare attorney Robert Luce to draft a rule change to chip away at that confidentiality. The proposal easily passed in the Legislature during the 2014 session and will become law July 1.

Kemp said the ability to cross-reference criminal history with the registry will help Idaho businesses and youth organizations keep children safe. Doing so would also help protect organizations from lawsuits by preventing abuse cases through better screening.

“I don’t want a kid in an examining room with somebody not background checked to include Health and Welfare’s registry,” Kemp said. “Just because you passed a criminal background check doesn’t mean you would pass that. It’s an added level of protection.”

That added protection will soon be available to employers and youth organizations.

Employers won’t be able to access the registry themselves, Health and Welfare spokesman Tom Shanahan said. But Idahoans now can request the department to release a form stating whether or not they are on the registry for a $20 fee. So, employers can require applicants to provide the documentation during job screening, a useful cross-check against the already standard criminal background check, Shanahan said.

“We think there’s value to the rule change,” Shanahan said. “The fingerprint test in the criminal background check looked at the most serious activity. But sometimes there are substantiated cases of abuse but there’s never been any criminal record. This will be very helpful to the Boy Scouts, coaches, and just about any organizations who have contact with children.”

Kemp said now the challenge is informing stakeholder organizations that there is a new background check tool available to them.

“At this point, the education hasn’t happened,” she said. “Nobody knows the change has happened. Nobody knows they need to access the registry to protect themselves and their companies from a liability perspective.”

Meridian School District spokesman Eric Exline said he wasn’t aware of the rule change. He said the district would evaluate the rule before determining whether it would require applicants to provide registry reports.

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Rexburg Standard Journal

By Emmilie Whitlock/Standard Journal writer

REXBURG — Findings of a recent investigation of the Madison County Commissioners have shown that the commissioners did not violate open meeting law.

The investigation comes after a complaint from local resident Kelly McKamey.

The complaint alleges that the commissioners were in violation of Idaho’s Open Meeting Law when all three commissioners — Kimber Ricks, Jon Weber and Todd Smith — and county clerk, Kim Muir, came to the Standard Journal office, allegedly holding an illegal meeting during a Nov. 25 visit to editor Greg Little.

Findings from the investigation reported that on Monday, Nov. 25 — a standard day for the commissioner meeting — the commissioners discussed an opinion article previously published in the Standard Journal.

The investigation reports that this discussion was not done during the meeting but at other times not on the record.

“As the lunch break began or at some point prior to the lunch break Madison County Commissioner, Kimber Ricks, told the other commissioners and the county clerk, Kim Muir that he was going to visit the new editor to the paper, Greg Little,” the investigation reported.

After lunch, Commissioners Jon Weber, Todd Smith, Ricks and Muir met with Little.

“The conversation may have started out welcoming Mr. Little to the community but quickly evolved into a heated discussion of the article,” the investigation reported.

The findings reported that after the discussion ended after anywhere from five to 15 minutes, the commissioners and county clerk left the office.

“There was no topic discussed during the meeting at the Standard Journal that would require a vote of the Madison County Commissioners,” the report found.

Bruce Pickett, prosecuting attorney for Bonneville County, reported that it is not a violation of Open Meeting Law for the Commissioners to be together, including at lunch, even though a quorum of members is present.

“Such contact between commissioners becomes a meeting that is governed by the Idaho Open Meeting Law only if there is a ‘receipt or exchange of information or opinion relating to a decision.’”

The law defines a decision as any “determination, action, vote or final disposition upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, ordinance or measure on which a vote of a governing body is required, at any meeting at which a quorum is present…”

McKamey said in his complaint that it was his opinion that the decision to go and meet with the paper or even go to lunch is a decision that is made by the quorum of the commissioners and should comply with the Open Meeting Law.

“That opinion is not in conformity with the Idaho Open Meeting Law,” the investigative report states.

Furthermore, the results from the investigation indicate that Pickett does not believe that the legislature intended for the open meeting law to act as a bar to all communications between individual commissioners outside of open meetings.

“I find no meeting was held at the Standard Journal on November 25, 2013 that qualifies as a meeting under Idaho Open Meeting Law and therefore there was no violation of the Idaho Open Meeting Law,” Pickett wrote in his investigative report.

Included in McKamey’s complaint was the allegation that the commissioners came to speak with Little to “put pressure on the newspaper.”

According to the investigation findings, “Such conduct would still not qualify as a meeting under the Idaho Open Meeting Law as there was no ‘determination, action, vote, or final disposition upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, ordinance or measure on which a vote of a governing body is required.’”

McKamey said he accepts the findings, but disagrees with the strict definition outlined in the investigative report.

“I believe that what was exposed is that all three (commissioners) and the county clerk, came under the auspices of welcoming Greg, but they came to dispute what he put in the paper. I believe it was very much a bullying and a shot across Greg’s bow,” McKamey said.

Ricks told the Standard Journal that unequivocally, it was never his intent to do any bullying.

McKamey also said he felt the investigation exposed the commissioners actions as making a statement that the newspaper needed to come to them for the facts. McKamey said he felt this was an additional positive outcome.

McKamey said he didn’t hold out a great hope that the commissioners would be in violation of the law. But McKamey said that just because they didn’t break the law doesn’t mean the commissioners didn’t do anything wrong.

“They want to contain any controversy that might make it look like they’ve done something wrong. They want the community to be peaceful and happy. If they can keep all communication with the paper filtered, then they get to keep that happy valley thing,” McKamey said. “(The investigation) exposed that tendency of them. That attitude was verified.”

Ricks called any accusation of trying to control the news “ridiculous.”

“There has never been an effort nor will there be any effort to control or influence the news by the commissioners,” he said.

Ricks also said he was glad to have the investigation over, and was not surprised at the results of the findings.

“I thought the investigation was thorough and I was pleased that it was settled the way it was,” Ricks said.

Ricks also said McKamey had discussed everything regarding the visit to the Standard Journal with the commissioners in an open meeting before he ever filed the reports.

“We discussed it openly before, we have no secrets,” Ricks said. “If there are any secret meetings, they are secret from me. I don’t know about them.”

Several in the community have questioned the cost the investigation will bring to taxpayers.

McKamey says he is aware of the cost, and even aware he will take heat for it.

“It’s our right to question the motives or activities of elected officials,” he said.

McKamey said the elevated cost of the investigation came because after he filed his initial complaint to Madison County Prosecuting Attorney Sid Brown, the investigation was deferred to Bonneville County.

“If Sid Brown could have been objective, there would have been very little to no cost. It puts a little concern with the county’s attorney’s office,” he said. “How can they examine local officials and not be objective?”

The Madison County Prosecuting attorney’s office told the Standard Journal that any time there is a conflict of interest — such as their office working with the commissioners — a special prosecutor is used, in this case the Bonneville County Prosecutor.

As of the time of press, the Bonneville County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and the Madison County Clerk had not verified the total cost of the investigation.

From the Rexburg Standard Journal

From the Idaho Press Club CommunicatorBy Audrey Dutton

Covering the big St. Luke’s antitrust trial in U.S. District Court in Boise involved hours spent waiting outside a closed courtroom, extensively redacted documents, and cryptic references in court to information not made public.

Now the Statesman, Idaho Press Club and several other Idaho news organizations are waiting to hear from a federal appeals court on their plea for openness, after U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill left it up to lawyers and business executives to decide what should be public in the case.

Winmill has explained his decision. He wanted to protect competitively sensitive information that could be divulged during the trial.

At first, that decision seemed totally logical to me. The point of the trial was to find whether a business did something to harm competition — so I could see why a judge would be cautious about spilling trade secrets in the process. Plus, Winmill ordered 24-hour turnaround on transcripts from closed-door sessions, so the public could read what happened.

But after spending hours camped out in the hallway outside Winmill’s closed courtroom, after waiting up to six business days for those transcripts — only to get them with entire pages redacted — my personal opinion changed.

It had become challenging to follow even the public portions of the trial. So many questions were asked and answered out of earshot, and so many charts and documents were displayed out of sight. (A slip by a lawyer revealed a “trade secret” email that was alarming in its blandness.)

Meanwhile, there is a growing sea of health-care data — from doctor salaries to hospital revenues, from medical “rack rates” to actual insurance payments — that is publicly available. It isn’t always easy to find, but it’s out there. That’s because of a shift toward health-care transparency at the national level.

Winmill ruled in January that St. Luke’s did break antitrust law. Before issuing the full ruling, he allowed a trade-secret request from lawyers, who mostly wanted to block information in his ruling about costs to consumers. Winmill denied the request, saying much of what he cited wasn’t truly secret — and, besides, he wanted the public to fully grasp how he arrived at his conclusions.

Unfortunately, the source material for all that information Winmill cited? It’s still under wraps.

Audrey Dutton is a business reporter for the Idaho Statesman newspaper in Boise, and is a board member of the Idaho Press Club’s Southwest Chapter.

From the Idaho Press Club Communicator

From the Idaho Press Club Communicator

By Betsy Russell

In the fall, while traveling around southern and eastern Idaho for four IDOG open government seminars, I heard about some open meeting law problems in the city of Twin Falls. The Twin Falls Times-News reported on the problems and brought them to everyone’s attention, and the city initially took a defensive posture.

I ended up filing an open meeting law complaint with the local prosecutor, but in the end, the city reformed its practices and the outcome was a good one – especially for citizens of Twin Falls and their access to their city government.

For those who don’t know, IDOG is Idahoans for Openness in Government. It’s our state’s broad-based, non-profit coalition for open government, which includes people from the media, government, civic organizations, attorneys and more. The Idaho Press Club is a member of IDOG; I am IDOG’s co-founder (with former longtime Idaho journalist Dean Miller) and its current president.

IDOG has held more than two dozen public seminars on Idaho’s two key open government laws, the Idaho Open Meeting Law and the Idaho Public Records Act, since its inception in 2004 – all featuring Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, and bringing a powerful message to communities all around the state. That message is about how to comply with these laws and why they’re important, and it’s resounded with participants from the media, local government agencies and the general public.

Since the Twin Falls incident, I have been contacted by another Idaho city that’s looking to reform its meeting practices to ensure they don’t run afoul of the same issues.

Here’s the complaint I filed with Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs, and his response:

TO: Grant Loebs
FROM: Betsy Russell
RE: Open meeting law complaint
Dear Mr. Loebs,

It was with surprise and disappointment that I read on Nov. 13 that the Twin Falls City Council had voted 4-2 to violate the Idaho Open Meeting Law, and to make repeated violations of the law the policy of the city, by delegating City Council business to subcommittees that purposely are designed to evade the law, meet in secret, and keep no minutes. As the county prosecutor, I hereby request that you investigate and prosecute these violations in the interest of upholding the law and obtaining compliance.

The Idaho Open Meeting Law states, “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.”

According to the Nov. 13, 2013 edition of the Times-News, the council has voted to have work groups consisting of city staff, council members and citizens, meeting secretly and in defiance of the open meeting law, meet to deliberate on and make recommendations to the City Council on matters ranging from city finances to major contracts and key hires.

The council and mayor seem to think that by limiting the number of council members on each subcommittee to two – less than a quorum of the full City Council – it can somehow evade the Open Meeting Law. As you know, this is incorrect. The Open Meeting Law applies to a subagency if it has “the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public agency regarding any matter.” These City Council subcommittees clearly fit that definition.

The mayor argues that complying with the law would be inconvenient, as he believes the city would have to hire another staff member to take minutes for the 14 subcommittees already formed. This argument is specious. One member of each subcommittee could easily be designated to take minutes at each meeting, which as you know, need only contain this simple information to comply with the law: The names of those present, all motions made and their outcome, and all votes. If the subcommittee takes no votes, the minutes could simply state those present, the topics of discussion and the start and end times. This would not require the hiring of a city employee. Besides, there is no exemption in the law for those who believe compliance would be inconvenient.

Both you and I were at the recent IDOG (Idahoans for Openness in Government) seminar on the state’s open meeting and public records laws in Twin Falls, led by Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, as were city officials. We all heard loud and clear what the law requires. It requires the public’s business to be done publicly. As the county prosecutor, it is your duty to enforce the law with regard to the Twin Falls City Council, and I hereby request that you take immediate action to do so.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Betsy Russell, IDOG president

TWIN FALLS COUNTY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
GRANT LOEBS
Betsy Russell
President, IDOG

Dear Betsy:

You wrote to me last month to complain of perceived Open Meeting Violations in Twin Falls City. As you correctly pointed out, the Idaho Open Meeting laws charge the County Prosecuting Attorney with the responsibility of enforcing those statutes. And, as you know, the broad intent of Idaho’s Open Meeting statutes is to foster openness and to encourage not only compliance with the letter of the law, but with the spirit of open and transparent government.

To that end, I responded to your complaint by investigating the various incidents you referred to in your letter, as well as the policies of the Twin Falls City Council. I spoke with various Twin Falls City officials and Councilmembers, and met with the Twin Falls City Attorney about these incidents, policies and – more importantly – about the comprehensive reformation of their Open Meeting policies which they have undertaken in the last two months.

I agree with Attorney General Wasden that the goal of the State and County Prosecuting Attorneys in these matters should be to encourage such reforms as make State and Local governments more transparent to the citizens.

The questions you posed about some of the City’s previous practices and policies were important and brought to light some serious questions, not only for me, but for the City’s elected officials and staff. Twin Falls City responded to this issue and to my inquiries into these matters quickly and constructively. Issues of compliance with Idaho’s Open Meetings laws were discussed in detail at several City Council meetings. Proposals and counter-proposals were debated; some passed, some defeated. In the end, I believe that Twin Falls City made significant and meaningful reforms which address the concerns you raised.

Your chief complaint, that the City Council was “delegating City Council business to subcommittees that purposely are designed to evade the law, meet in secret, and keep no minutes,” was addressed by enacting several changes.

In December, the City Council enacted a Transparency in City Government Resolution in response to the concerns about their compliance with the Open Meeting Law. Prior to the enactment of this resolution, there existed ad hoc volunteer working groups composed of various Council members, commission members, staff and citizens. While I did not find that these groups were “created by or pursuant to statute, ordinance or other legislative act,” their existence created the perception that official meetings were being held without proper notice or appropriate transparency.

The new Transparency Resolution, in many ways, goes beyond the minimum requirements of Idaho law. In response to the concern about the ad hoc volunteer working groups, the Resolution provides as follows:

“In order to provide more transparency in City government, neither the Twin Falls City Council nor any of its commissions will permit the formation of ad hoc volunteer groups intended to report back to the City Council or commission, unless that group is formed as a committee or commission, created by a vote of the City Council or commission. No more than two elected City Council persons may serve on any committee, including ad hoc groups and subcommittees created by statute, ordinance, or other legislative act. The City Council, and its committees and commissions, shall always comply with all requirements of the Idaho Open Meeting Law.”

With the enactment of this Resolution, all the ad hoc volunteer working groups that included any Council or Commission members were eliminated. The City Attorney has met with each City Commission, to explain the requirements of this Resolution.

Since the enactment of the Resolution, the City Council has created, by vote of the City Council, two subcommittees. Both are complying with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, including posting of notices and agendas, and the keeping of minutes of the meetings.

By eliminating the Ad Hoc Committees and requiring that those Committees created by the Council or by city commissions comply with notice and minutes requirements, I believe the City has constructively and effectively addressed the concerns you brought forth.

As the county prosecutor, I share your goal, eloquently highlighted by the Attorney General, that “the public’s business be done publicly.” I believe the City’s reforms achieve this goal.

Thank you for your interest in justice in Twin Falls County.

Sincerely,

Grant Loebs
Prosecuting Attorney

Betsy Russell is a Boise-based reporter for The Spokesman-Review newspaper and writes the Eye on Boise blog; she is the president of the Idaho Press Club.

From the Idaho Press Club Communicator