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

From the Twin Falls Times-News

GOODING • Superintendent Heather Williams said Friday she has given the Gooding County School District permission to make her separation agreement with the district public.

District officials could not be reached, however, because the school district operates on a four-day week and is closed Fridays.

The Times-News filed a lawsuit Feb. 10 against the district after it refused to fill two public records requests for copies of the separation agreements with Williams and Gooding High School Principal Chris Comstock.

Comstock resigned from the district Jan. 14, and Williams resigned two days later, saying she will remain superintendent until July 1.

Friday, Williams said she had been at a middle school basketball game Thursday evening and was not served with the lawsuit. The school board clerk was served, she said.

Williams had announced Thursday that she won’t seek the state schools superintendent job, which she’d been considering. That decision wasn’t related to the Times-News lawsuit, she said, but rather because “I don’t want to miss out on my kids.”

From the Twin Falls Times-News

From the Twin Falls Times-News

By Alison Gene Smith

alismith@magicvalley.com

GOODING • After two public records requests were rebuffed, the Times-News has filed a lawsuit against the Gooding County School District, saying the district improperly denied requests for copies of separation agreements for Superintendent Heather Williams and Gooding High School Principal Chris Comstock.

In response to the requests, the school district said the documents were not public records.

In its lawsuit filed Monday, the Times-News says reporter Ed Glazar submitted a public records request to the district Jan. 22, asking for copies of the separation agreements.

The school district denied the request that day, saying only that the agreements “are confidential and not available to the public.”

That same day, Glazar appealed the district’s denial and made a second request.

On Jan. 27, the district denied his second request, saying Williams’ agreement is “a confidential agreement involving a personnel matter and is exempt from production to requests under the Public Writings Act.”

In its email to Glazar, the district said Comstock’s agreement is not signed.

In each of its notices, the district failed to cite a legal reason why the request was denied, the suit says. The suit also says the school district failed to say its attorney had reviewed the request.

In the suit, the Times-News cites the case Bingham v. Blackfoot School District No. 55, in which a judge decided the superintendent’s separation agreement was not lawfully part of the personnel file and was a public record.

“(The district’s) denial is believed to have been frivolously made,” the Times-News said in the suit.

“When the public’s business is being done, we have an obligation and duty to be that watchdog, to make sure it happens as the law requires,” Times-News publisher Travis Quast said Thursday.

Quast said the public has the right to know the terms of Williams’ and Comstock’s departure because the district is funded by taxpayers.

“After two failed public records requests in which they didn’t properly respond, we felt the district wasn’t taking our request seriously,” Quast said. “Our only option was to go to District Court.”

The school district’s leaders were served with the lawsuit Thursday. Also Thursday, Williams said she had decided not to pursue election as state schools superintendent. She did not immediately return calls, though, regarding the lawsuit.

She had submitted her resignation Jan. 16 after six years as superintendent, saying she will step down July 1. Her announcement came two days after Comstock resigned. But Williams, who has worked for the district since 1994, told the Times-News her resignation was unrelated to his.

A hearing for the suit is scheduled for Feb. 25 in Gooding County District Court before Judge John Butler.

In the suit, the Times-News asks that the district show why it has not provided the public records and produce copies of the records, that the case be heard by the court as soon as possible and that the newspaper be awarded attorney’s fees.

“We wouldn’t have filed the suit unless we thought we had a good chance of success,” said Times-News attorney Benjamin Cluff.

Cluff said Idaho law is clear on the matter.

“There’s a policy toward openness,” he said. “We feel the documents we’re asking for are not protected.”

Before Feb. 25, the district may respond in court to the suit. During the scheduled hearing, Butler will review the Times-News petition and could rule. He also could ask to review the separation agreements, Cluff said.

Comstock filed a lawsuit against the district’s Board of Trustees last year, arguing that the board violated Idaho Open Meeting Law.

District secretary Angela Jones also filed a lawsuit last year against the district and its Board of Education shortly after independent investigators wrapped up a probe into claims against Jones. The lawsuit alleges violations of open meeting laws, according to school records and court documents.

In his suit, Comstock claims a letter of reprimand was given to him in violation of state Open Meeting Law.

Court documents show Williams said Comstock shared details of the investigation into Jones with his wife, who then shared details with community members, including school board member Tracie Anderson, a violation of district policy and the Code of Ethics for Idaho Professional Educators.

From the Twin Falls Times-News

From the Idaho Statesman

As St. Luke’s Health System aggressively added hospitals and doctors over the past several years, it commanded more money from Idaho’s largest insurer, and it planned to raise prices in order to give a newly acquired group of doctors a 30 percent raise, according to newly released court documents.

Unsealed Tuesday, the documents explain why U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill last week ordered St. Luke’s to nullify its year-old merger with Nampa’s Saltzer Medical Group.

Lawyers for St. Luke’s and Blue Cross of Idaho asked the judge not to reveal some facts in the documents, arguing that they contained trade secrets. But Winmill denied the requests.

“The facts and figures sought to be redacted are crucial to the court’s analysis, and their removal would render the decision indecipherable,” Winmill said.

Winmill immediately opened his entire decision.

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

The lawsuit stems from the St. Luke’s buyout of Saltzer, which at the time was Idaho’s largest private practice. Saint Alphonsus Health System and Treasure Valley Hospital sued over the deal, saying it harmed competition and would damage their businesses. The Federal Trade Commission and Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden joined a lawsuit alleging antitrust violations that would erode competition for primary care medical services and result in higher prices.

Much of the four-week trial happened behind closed doors, and many documents were sealed or heavily redacted. Lawyers for the hospitals — and for insurance companies and local employers — marked those parts of the trial private because they said they needed to protect trade secrets.

St. Luke’s spokesman Ken Dey said some underlying data from Blue Cross of Idaho on which Winmill based his decision was sealed, and St. Luke’s lawyers could not access it. St. Luke’s is concerned that data might have led to some “misleading conclusions,” he said.

The Statesman and Idaho news outlets filed a lawsuit to pry open the court proceedings, and that lawsuit is now before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Winmill said in his decision Tuesday to make his ruling public that when the trial started, he thought there were compelling reasons to keep parts of it veiled. But as it went on, those reasons seemed less compelling, he said.

WHAT DIDN’T THEY WANT REVEALED?

St. Luke’s told Winmill that he should keep statements such as the following out of his public ruling:

“By 2012, St. Luke’s had three of the top five highest-paid hospitals, and its top hospital was receiving reimbursements 21 percent higher than the average Idaho hospital.”

“After the acquisition, if St. Luke’s were to bill for (routine services such as lab tests or X-rays) at the higher ‘hospital-based’ rates, (Blue Cross of Idaho) estimates that costs … would increase by 30 to 35 percent.”

“St. Luke’s own analysis projected that it could gain an extra $750,000 through hospital-based billing from Saltzer from commercial payers for lab work and $900,000 extra for diagnostic imaging.”

“Consultant Peter LaFleur prepared an analysis at the direction of St. Luke’s showing how office/outpatient visits could be billed for higher amounts if the visit was hospital-based rather than Saltzer-based. The hospital-based billings were more than 60 percent higher.”

St. Luke’s officials responded after the ruling was made public: “We believe the judge applied an appropriate standard and we respect his decision to share additional detail and information.”

Blue Cross of Idaho also asked Winmill to keep some facts away from competitors and the public. However, the insurance company filed its request under seal. That makes it impossible to know exactly what the insurer wanted to keep private.

But based on what Winmill said when he turned down Blue Cross of Idaho’s request, the company wanted to strike:

Any reference to its dealings with a medical group in Twin Falls nearly five years ago.

Statements that it needs to have St. Luke’s and Saltzer in its network and would be weaker without them.

The following paragraph explaining how Blue Cross, Idaho’s largest insurer, pays more than the average U.S. insurer:

“Across the United States, the average commercial insurance plan pays about 120 percent of what Medicare pays. For overnight hospital stays in Idaho, (Blue Cross) pays between 150 percent to 200 percent more than Medicare pays. For outpatient hospital services, (Blue Cross) pays 300 percent more than Medicare. For routine office visits, (Blue Cross) pays 140 percent more than other commercial plans.”

Winmill went on to say that Idaho insurance rates for a routine doctor’s office visit are higher than 95 percent of those paid by other insurance plans nationwide.

HOW DOES THE JUDGE SUM IT UP?

In the now-unsealed documents, Winmill muses on the state of health care in the United States. He thinks that the industry is in an “experimental stage.” Health care spending is high and patient outcomes aren’t good enough, he said.

“This period of change might be best described as being in an experimental stage, where hospitals and other providers are examining different organizational models, trying to find the best fit,” he wrote.

If the U.S. didn’t have antitrust laws, it might be “the best result” to leave the St. Luke’s-Saltzer merger alone and watch to see what happens — to see, for instance, whether prices go up, as St. Luke’s opponents predicted they would.

“But (antitrust law) is in full force, and it must be enforced,” he wrote. “The (law) does not give the court discretion to set it aside to conduct a health care experiment.”

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Idaho Statesman

An appeals court has ordered hospitals involved in a federal antitrust trial to respond to claims by Idaho news organizations that testimony and documents in the trial have been unjustly kept from the public.

Judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit filed an order Thursday giving St. Luke’s Health System, Saint Alphonsus Health System and other parties in the trial 14 days to respond. The court said news organizations’ complaint about secrecy in the trial “raises issues that warrant a response.”

“This means they find our concerns are at least legitimate and well-founded and deserve to be addressed,” said Charles Brown, the Idaho attorney for the news groups.

The appeals court said U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, who oversaw the trial, “may file a response if [he] so desires.”

Before the trial last fall, Winmill allowed the hospitals, health insurance companies and private employers to designate parts of the court proceedings “attorneys’ eyes only.”

St. Luke’s Health System is accused of building a monopoly on health care in the Nampa area by buying Saltzer Medical Group and employing its doctors — a deal St. Luke’s opponents say harmed competition for primary health care in that area.

The lawsuit was filed last year by St. Luke’s competitor Saint Alphonsus Health System and a Boise surgical center, Treasure Valley Hospital. The Federal Trade Commission and Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden later joined the lawsuit.

During the trial, which ran from late September to early November, news organizations — including the Idaho Statesman, Associated Press, Times-News, Idaho Press-Tribune and Idaho Press Club — filed a request to open testimony and documents, saying more than half of the first week of testimony happened behind closed doors, and even when doors were open some testimony and documents were blocked from public view.

Winmill considered that request and decided the attorneys in the trial must explain why certain parts of the trial needed to be sealed to protect trade secrets. He said “trade secrets” include documents and testimony that could reveal how a health insurance company, hospital or physician practices makes and negotiates contracts, how much a company pays and its future plans.

The businesses that filed “attorneys’ eyes only” designations included Micron Technology, Primary Health Medical Group and private health insurance companies. Those businesses opposed the news organizations’ request, saying they were not parties in the lawsuit and had revealed trade secrets when they testified and showed documents to the court.

The news organizations determined that Winmill had not enforced his ruling. The organizations appealed to the 9th Circuit after the trial had ended.

The arguments “routinely just set forth the entity’s desires and opinions as to what it wants to be removed from public view, but none of them reveal to this court nor the lower court ‘compelling reasons’ to do so,” Brown wrote to the appeals court.

He noted that more than 575 exhibits were sealed and argued that consumers should be given a window into the health care industry.

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Post Register, Idaho Falls

By Jeff Robinson

The Post Co. sued the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners on Friday, contending that commissioners are in violation of Idaho’s Open Meeting Law.

The lawsuit, filed in 7th District Court, follows a Dec. 3 letter to the commission from attorney Steve Wright. Wright’s letter on behalf of the Post Co. requested commissioners “take the appropriate remedial steps” to cure violations of the Open Meeting Law that reportedly took place Nov. 14.

The commissioners did not respond to the Post Co.’s letter and Friday was the last day under Idaho law the Post Co. could file “an action in state court to correct this impropriety,” the Dec. 3 letter said.

The Post Co. owns The Jefferson Star and Post Register.

Wright said Friday he was “surprised” that he’d heard “nothing whatsoever” from the commissioners in response to the letter. He said he expects to serve the commissioners with the complaint next week. He also is forwarding the complaint to the Idaho Attorney General’s Office for review.

Jefferson County Commissioner Brian Farnsworth, named as a defendant in the suit along with fellow commissioners Tad Hegsted and Jerald Raymond, said he was made aware of the lawsuit Friday.

“I don’t think I can comment right now,” he said. “We’ll just have to wait and see how it plays out.”

Wright, in the letter, said commissioners violated Idaho’s Open Meeting Law by reaching an agreement with Prosecuting Attorney Robin Dunn in executive session.

Specifically, Wright contends, the commission violated the law by:

Posting an improper agenda.

Making a final decision in executive session.

Failing to keep accurate minutes of the executive session.

The issues arose following a two-hour executive session Nov. 14, after which a news release announced the commission had met with Dunn and “requested and (Dunn) has agreed to reimburse Jefferson County all payments made by Jefferson County in the handling of Eagle Rock v. Jefferson County in Federal Court.”

Dunn is scheduled to repay Jefferson County $17,877.40 in legal fees.

As previously reported, Dunn told the commission he couldn’t represent the county in federal court while acting as prosecuting attorney but could do so if the county paid him as a private attorney. An Idaho attorney general’s opinion, issued Oct. 31, said “a county prosecutor does have the authority to represent his or her county in civil matters in any court, including federal court.”

The Jefferson Star reported last week that U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge ruled the dumping fee schedule enacted by Jefferson County commissioners in 2011, which was at the root of the Eagle Rock v. Jefferson County lawsuit, is unconstitutional.

The Post Co. demands “actions taken in or as a result of commissioner meetings” Oct. 28 and Nov. 14 “be null and void” and that the board of commissioners be ordered to comply with the law. The Post Co. also wants the commission ordered to pay its attorney fees and costs “in the minimum sum of $3,000.”

The lawsuit marks the second time in a year that the Post Co. has sued a public board for violations of state open meetings or public records laws.

In December 2012, the Post Register sued Blackfoot School District 55 to release documents about a secret $210,856 contract payment to former Superintendent Scott Crane. In that case, the school board chairman apologized for the Open Meeting Law breach and the district voided the agreement to “cure” the violation. But the district later reaffirmed and upheld a separation agreement and payout using a loophole in the law that the violation wasn’t caught soon enough.

“The loophole appears to be, even if you breach the open meeting act — which automatically voids all actions — if no one catches you in 30 days (the action) really wasn’t void after all,” Wright said at the time.

The district reimbursed the Post Register for its legal fees in that case.

From the Post Register, Idaho Falls

Editorial from the Twin Falls Times-News

Bulldozing something that’s stood for decades and rebuilding it anew takes courage. The Twin Falls City Council showed a lot of guts Monday night when it approved transparency legislation that just might strike down years of flawed tradition.

The legislation is a potential victory for openness and transparency, especially if City Manager Travis Rothweiler gets his way. The initiative isn’t perfect. It requires Council members to police themselves. For now, their resolve to do the right thing gives us confidence that the City Council is sincere in its want for change.

The resolution merely creates a general policy and is far from perfect, but we’re encouraged, especially after hearing Rothweiler’s pitch. He convinced us that something better will almost assuredly rise from the ashes when all is said and done.

Following Monday’s 6-1 vote, Rothweiler outlined a potential practical application of the Council’s dictate. He said that in the coming weeks he will propose opening up the most sensitive committees, such as the city’s group that negotiates with businesses eyeing the region, by turning them over to the City Council. The groups would be public, under the city’s new policy.

“I believe this is a really appropriate step,” he said.

We railed Sunday against the sudden $75,000 raise for City Attorney Fritz Wonderlich. Our criticism wasn’t about whether Wonderlich was worth the pay increase. It was about how the entire issue was never made public until it reached the floor for an up or down vote. It was a stark example of what has been broken in Twin Falls for far too long.

Much of what happens in these long-closed subcommittees will remain outside of public view in executive session. That’s legal. That’s the system. But any final vote to move the issue to the City Council for consideration will be done in public. Clif Bar representatives made it very clear during those negotiations that if the company’s name reached the media, the deal could die. We understand Council members’ concerns about job-killing leaks. But we also believe that the public, who will be affected by new development, should be involved somewhere in the process. It’s a fine balance, one that can’t be completely tilted toward corporate interests. Making this work will require some massaging.

This was a quintessentially democratic process, rife with personality clashes and political rifts. It was beautiful. The City Council worked through it and ultimately embraced change and we laud them for it.

The initiative’s ultimate success, however, will be decided in the coming weeks, as a city government is redesigned piece by piece. The new subcommittee structure will determine the actual significance of Monday night’s vote. But Rothweiler’s comments are an indication that the city is about to enter an new era of transparency and citizen involvement.

Should that happen, Twin Falls will be a model for Idaho’s local governments to aspire.

Editorial from the Twin Falls Times-News

From the Twin Falls Times-News

TWIN FALLS • The 14 closed workgroups that provide input on finances, contracts and open positions will be asked to start over and fall under state Open Meeting Law due to Monday night’s Twin Falls City Council approval of a transparency resolution.

The resolutions prohibits the council from forming “ad hoc volunteer groups” or subcommittees intended to provide members with recommendations unless the council votes to create the group as a formal committee or commission, which makes the groups subject to state Open Meeting Law.

Councilwoman Rebecca Mills Sojka was the lone dissenting voice in the 6-1 vote.

“I think what it truly does, it tells the mayor or the council anytime we say we’re going to put together a committee to review something then we need to stop and formalize that committee,” said Councilman Don Hall.

The city’s use of closed subcommittees came under scrutiny when Mills Sojka attempted to open the meetings on Nov. 12 but her resolution failed 4-2.

Before voting, Mills Sojka said she felt new transparency legislation didn’t go far enough. When Councilman Shawn Barigar asked what could be done to improve the resolution to achieve an unanimous approval, Mills Sojka offered two unsuccessful amendments.

“I don’t think it’s addressing the issue I was hoping to address,” she said. “I think it’s a good step in the direction.”

The city was using 14 informal workgroups made up of City Council members, as well as city staffers and private citizens to provide input on finances, contracts and open positions.

Councilman Chris Talkington amended the resolution to include the provision that only up to two council members can be appointed to any commission or committee.

“Three has been an unholy alliance on this council,” he said of three Council Member blocs.

“I don’t think that was anyone’s intention, that was just the number that wasn’t a quorum,” said Mayor Lanting.

“I disagree entirely,” Talkington said.

Talkington also warned that there was no penalty for the council if they choose not to comply with the resolution.

“It doesn’t take the burden of proof off of us,” he said.

After the resolution was passed, City Manager Travis Rothweiler listed subcommittees that he believes should be made open to the public.

the list of closed subcommittees not created under the council but still deliberate city business that should also be formed under the council. These include the zoning amendment committee and an economic development committee used to attract businesses to Twin Falls.

From the Twin Falls Times-News

From the Twin Falls Times-News

TWIN FALLS, Idaho • After receiving a complaint over the city’s use of closed subcommittees, Twin Falls City Council members were presented with a second transparency resolution during Monday’s meeting.

The council focused primarily on the resolution’s description of closed subcommittees.

The city’s subcommittees are made up of City Council members, as well as city staffers and private citizens who provide input on finances, contracts and open positions.

Councilwoman Rebecca Mills Sojka attempted to open the subcommittee meetings during a Nov. 12 meeting, but her resolution failed 4-2. One week later, Idahoans for Oppenness in Government submitted a complaint to the Twin Falls County prosecutor’s office over the city’s use of subcommittees.

During Monday’s meeting, Councilman Don Hall said he wished he had more time to consider Mills Sojka’s resolution. Working with Councilman Jim Munn, the two submitted their own resolution, also addressing transparency.

The critical piece of the resolution was in section three, Munn said, which addresses ad hoc volunteer groups.

“The City Council acknowledges that, from time to time, ad hoc volunteer groups may form, without the authority of statute, ordinance, or other legislative act, and without authorization to make decisions or recommendations,” the section reads.

Munn said he would approve the resolution if the council amended this section.

“The question has to be, for us to consider, will no ad hoc volunteer groups form by you or anyone sitting up here?” Munn said.

Councilman Chris Talkington, who voted in favor of Mills Sojka’s resolution two weeks ago, said he was surprised to hear other council members’ change of heart.

“I recall claims we had to use these subcommittees because it’s efficient,” he said. “Now, you’re all supporting the issue for open government. Welcome aboard. … I’m glad to see you were finally wrong.“

Mills Sojka also voiced her support of the resolution.

“The public has a right to know; they have a right to know what’s being discussed,” she said. “I believe this a step in the right direction.“

Mayor Greg Lanting said while he supported the most current resolution, he also pointed out that most of the closed subcommittees were used to select people to open City Council, commission or board positions.

“Every bit of information from the subcommittees has to come back to the public and be vetted in public,” he said.

Councilman Shawn Barigar said after taking two weeks to reflect on the failed transparency resolution, he might have been hasty in his discussion during the meeting.

“I think it was a good opportunity to hear all of the provisions of the Idaho Open Meeting Law,” he said. “I think we all express a willingness to look at these work group activities.“

Councilwoman Suzanne Hawkins said, as the newest council member, she believed citizens have multiple opportunities to learn about how the city works.

“I have nothing to hide,” she said.

The council agreed to make a final decision on the resolution Dec. 2.

From the Twin Falls Times-News