From the Idaho Statesman

Records requests by an armed man whose actions caused a stir last month – as well as new rules on public access – helped prompt a push to change Idaho law.

By DAN POPKEY — dpopkey@idahostatesman.com

From the Idaho Statesman

From The Spokesman-Review

Idaho’s cash-strapped courts are looking to go all-electronic in the future to save money and serve the public better.

State courts Administrator Patti Tobias told lawmakers Monday the courts have increasingly been using technology to gain efficiencies, and plan next year to bring the Legislature a proposal to allow Idahoans to “complete much of their court business in real time online, 24/7, without going to the courthouse.”

She said, “You will file court cases, pay your traffic ticket if you got one, find out when a case is scheduled for hearing, check criminal records, and view documents filed in a case – all electronically. … Idahoans will see better access, greater convenience, and more information.”

Meanwhile, an emergency surcharge on all Idaho offenders may be made permanent, now that it makes up more than $4 million of Idaho’s annual court system funding. The surcharge was enacted in 2010 to partially offset $5 million in budget cuts to the state’s courts, keeping the state’s courthouse doors open. “These critical services cannot be maintained at their present levels, however, without continued support from the emergency surcharge,” Tobias said.

After holding off for five years on added much-needed additional judges, the courts are requesting three new district judges next year and two new magistrate positions.

Tobias told legislative budget writers, “We are absolutely committed to finding innovative and efficient ways to meet the needs of Idahoans, using the resources that you have provided.”

From The Spokesman-Review

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

It’s time for the Idaho Legislature to eliminate those closed-door caucus meetings. The timing for taking such action has rarely been better.

Secret sessions simply are not necessary in today’s Legislature, and they add nothing to the process but suspicion and mistrust. In this day of texts, tweets and emails, closed caucus meetings are as outdated as rotary telephones.

So kick the habit and get rid of them. Abolishing closed-door sessions would send the right message at a time when lawmakers are paying more attention to applying higher standards to themselves. Lawmakers gathered last week for ethics training, a first in Idaho and hopefully not a last.

The personalities are in place to make it happen. House Speaker Scott Bedke and Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill are capable leaders, but they are not —and don’t pretend to be — party bosses. On the Democratic side, Rep. John Rusche and Sen. Michelle Stennett are congenial people who hardly fit the profile of arm-twisters.

Over the years, legislators have given a lot of reasons (more like excuses) for having closed-door sessions. The meetings have been viewed as an opportunity for legislators to gather in a relaxed setting, let their hair down and say what’s on their minds without worrying about being quoted by pesky reporters. There have been times in Idaho’s history when leaders used closed sessions to bring caucus members in line on certain issues.

The landscape is much different from the days of smoke-filled rooms. Top leaders have many ways to make their views clear on issues, including old-fashioned press releases and guest editorials. As for the rank-and-file members, they vote the way they want and are not shy about expressing their views through social networks and other outlets. Today’s legislators generally don’t respond well to edicts, threats or party discipline. Judging by the participation at the ethics-training session (Bedke made it clear that attendance was mandatory), there’s more sensitivity these days to issues of public trust and accountability.

Idaho politicians have had their share of dark moments over the years, including Sen. Monty Pearce’s failure to disclose his oil interests before voting on new laws governing the petroleum industry; former Sen. John McGee’s escapades with drinking and inappropriate conduct with a staffer, and allegations of sexual harassment; former Rep. Phil Hart’s refusal to pay taxes; and U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo’s recent drunken driving arrest. Last year, the Senate State Affairs Committee created another embarrassment by refusing to even consider legislation brought forth by supporters of the “Add the Words” campaign.

Former Iowa State Rep. Scott Raecker, who spoke at the ethics session, challenged Idaho lawmakers to “raise the bar” on ethical standards and have the courage to break from tradition in the effort to promote an atmosphere of trust and accountability.

Republican and Democratic leaders in Idaho should answer that challenge and abolish those outdated secret meetings.

“Our View” is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman’s editorial board. To comment on an editorial or suggest a topic, email editorial@idahostatesman.com.

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

From the Associated Press

By REBECCA BOONE, Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — The former attorneys for convicted murderer Joseph Duncan are asking a judge to let them testify in secret about whether Duncan was mentally competent during his death penalty hearing four years ago.

Duncan’s current attorneys — not the lawyers who represented him in 2008 — filed a motion Sunday in Boise’s U.S. District Court asking a judge to either close the courtroom for the former attorneys to testify or to allow them to testify at another private location.

Such secrecy is needed, the attorneys say, to keep from scaring other clients, who may fear that their lawyers will someday reveal protected information about them in court.

“The solution for this problem is for the court to allow defense witnesses who are subject to the attorney-client privilege to testify outside the presence of the public,” Duncan’s attorneys wrote in their motion to the court.

Duncan snatched 9-year-old Dylan Groene and Dylan’s younger sister from their Wolf Lodge, Idaho, home after murdering several of their family members in 2005. He kept the children at a remote Montana campsite for weeks before he shot Dylan and returned with Dylan’s sister to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, where he was arrested.

He was convicted in state court of murdering the children’s family members and sentenced to life in prison without parole. His crimes against the two children were handled in federal court, where Duncan pleaded guilty, represented himself, and was sentenced to death.

In 2011, however, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal judge should have held a hearing to determine if Duncan was competent when he waived his right to appeal his sentence. Last week U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge began presiding over a retrospective competency hearing, designed to help him decide if Duncan was competent back in 2008.

Duncan’s defense team first raised the possibility that his former attorneys may try to testify in secret last week — a proposal that federal prosecutors said caught them by surprise.

At the time, U.S. Attorney Wendy Olson told the judge that federal policy bars her from agreeing to a closed courtroom without getting prior approval from leaders with the U.S. Department of Justice, a process that can take weeks.

Olson has until later this week to file a response to Duncan’s motion.

From the Associated Press

From The Spokesman-Review

BOISE – Idaho’s governor and state controller unveiled a new state government transparency website Thursday, with extensive data about the state’s finances and workforce that’s automatically updated every night.

“We’ve always provided our public information whenever it’s requested, but this allows the citizens to quickly get to it without having to come through the office,” said state Controller Brandon Woolf, who at 40 is the youngest statewide official in Idaho. “They get right to the data.”

Perhaps most remarkably, the transparency site was set up within the controller’s existing budget – with no additional appropriation of state funds.

“Compared to other states, they have spent millions to do their state transparency websites,” Woolf said. “To this point, we have done it within our existing budget.”

The new transparent.idaho.gov site features myriad charts and graphs, tons of detail to dig into, and is searchable by cross-tabs including agency, county and more. “There’s thousands and thousands of reports that are available and that are out there now,” Woolf said.

Gov. Butch Otter compared it to public records requests “on steroids,” and said it’ll put state financial data “just a click away.” He called the new site “a very important big step in transparency in state government.”

“We’ve been able to enable the existing technology that we have in our office,” Woolf explained, including a data warehouse that has financial, personnel and payroll data the state controller receives from state agencies. “So when state agencies key in financial information, personnel or payroll information, it’s updated nightly as it goes through the process into our systems and into the data warehouse, and eventually to the website.”

Woolf, who has a political science degree and an MBA, has worked at the controller’s office since starting as an intern in 1997. He was named chief of staff in 2011, and was appointed state controller in October.

He said work on the transparency site started last spring. “At that point it was just some conceptual ideas,” Woolf said, crediting “some brilliant individuals” on his staff who came up with new ways to use their existing technology. “I really appreciate their hard work and their smart ideas,” he said; he introduced and recognized his staffers at a press conference Thursday with the governor in the state Capitol.

Woolf said the transparency site is a work in progress, and doesn’t yet have a capability he’d like to see: A searchable, online version of the state’s checkbook, enabling citizens to look up how much an agency spent on a particular vendor. Getting to that point will require an additional investment, he said; he may request funds for that next year, “if there’s an opportunity down the road to make it a more useful tool for the citizens.”

Woolf was appointed state controller Oct. 15 after former Controller Donna Jones resigned to focus on recovering from serious injuries suffered in a car accident. Woolf will serve out Jones’ term and has already said he plans to then seek election in his own right.

A humble Woolf said at the press conference, “Gov. Otter has continued to ensure that there are no dark corners in government spending,” and added, “I would like to thank my staff whose hard work and dedication and bright ideas made this possible.”

Otter said he expects some savings for the state due to fewer formal public records requests, because they’re seeking data that’s now readily available. “If we can lessen that … time and expense … plus provide the transparency that we should provide for the people of Idaho, I think there’s going to be some economies and some savings in that,” the governor said.

From The Spokesman-Review

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

Published: December 11, 2012

Question: Where are public comments not suitable for public viewing? Answer: In the alternative governing world of the Ada County commissioners.

The Statesman filed a public records request for 150 written comments on the controversial Dynamis waste-to-energy plant proposal. We haven’t received the comments, just a letter saying it will cost $110 to provide them.

Why? The county wants its lawyers to sift through the comments and black out any “protected information.”

Who are the lawyers trying to protect? The Ada County residents who finally got their say on this project — nearly 2-1/2 years after Ada County gave Dynamis $2 million in public money to design this plant? Doubtful.

In this case, it appears, the lawyers aren’t working for the taxpayers. Instead, they seem to be doing the bidding of two of their bosses at the courthouse, commissioners Sharon Ullman and Rick Yzaguirre, who have shown disdain for the public and disrespect for the public process throughout this long, sorry Dynamis saga.

Let’s remember, after all, that Ada County residents only got a chance to comment when the planning and zoning commission opted to hold a hearing last month. The hearing wasn’t the commissioners’ idea, so perhaps they’re so out of practice that they’ve forgotten the function of a public process.

Which is, of course, to let the public have a say about this unpopular and unproven plan to “gasify” Ada County landfill garbage into electricity. Ullman and Yzaguirre may be sold on Dynamis — but Ullman lost in the May GOP primary, and public outcry over the proposal was certainly a factor.

Instead of slowing down the process, and allowing a full and transparent review of the project, Yzaguirre and Ullman seem determined to push Dynamis through the bureaucratic pipeline before Ullman’s term ends in January — and before the balance of power shifts on the three-member commission.

So what does the county have to hide? Is there something in these public comments that Yzaguirre and Ullman want to conceal from public view, while they continue to railroad this dubious project? When elected officials squander their credibility, as Yzaguirre and Ullman have, their motives are subject to questions of this type.

There is at least some hope on the horizon.

On Thursday, the Statesman hosted a workshop, led by Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, to brief reporters, elected officials and the public about Idaho sunshine laws. Among those in attendance: commissioner David Case, the courthouse’s one steadfast Dynamis skeptic, and commissioner-elect Jim Tibbs.

Perhaps, when Tibbs joins Case, Ada County will again have a quorum of commissioners who believe the public has a right to know what’s going on in the courthouse.

Now there’s a concept.

“Our View” is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman’s editorial board. To comment on an editorial or suggest a topic, email editorial@idahostatesman.com.

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

From the Associated Press

An eastern Idaho judge has ordered the Blackfoot School District to release all documents surrounding a separation agreement and a consulting fee by mid-week.

Sixth District Judge David Nye issued the order Friday afternoon in response to an open records lawsuit filed by former Blackfoot teacher Joyce Bingham and the Post Register in Idaho Falls. Bingham and the newspaper sued after the district refused to make public a separation agreement between the school board and former Superintendent Scott Crane, as well as details of a contract payout worth more than $105,000.

Attempts to reach Blackfoot School Board chairman R. Scott Reese for comment were unsuccessful. The school board announced that it would hold a meeting Monday to discuss an issue related to the case.

The payment and the district’s handling of Crane’s exit have raised questions about who received the $105,428 check that the district made to an unnamed source the day after Crane’s June 30 retirement. When they declined to release the documents, school district officials cited protections in state law for personnel matters.

But in his ruling, Nye rejected that stance.

“Everything about this case smacks of a public agency trying to hide its decision-making from the public,” Nye wrote. “Parties cannot exempt a public record from disclosure and hide it from the public simply by placing it in a personnel file and declaring the personnel file exemption to be applicable to it.”

Bingham said she just wanted the school board to be honest with patrons about the July expenditure of $105,248.

“Ms. Bingham is pleased the judge decided the public has a right to this information,” said Bingham’s Blackfoot attorney, Jared Harris. “I felt the information had to be disclosed, especially with this kind of money.”

Crane started a new job as superintendent for the Grand County School District in Moab, Utah in July.

Crane’s attorney, Justin Oleson, said Crane has no problem with the public knowing the agreement, but he couldn’t reveal it himself because he was bound by a nondisclosure agreement with the board.

Oleson said he was unsure if the judge’s ruling would affect the nondisclosure agreement, and that he needed to discuss matters with Crane before he can make a comment about the agreement.

From the Associated Press

Editorial from the Twin Falls Times

Effective July 1, the Idaho Supreme Court adopted a new court rule that seals an entire class of public records in the name of protecting children. On the surface, who could argue with that?

Recent changes to Idaho Court Administrative Rule (“ICAR”) 32 exempt from public disclosure all court cases involving child custody, child support and paternity.

Good intentions aside, the rule change is written with broad enough brush strokes to be dangerous. It’s time for the Idaho Supreme Court to revisit and reject the rule change.

One of the more important tenets of our society is an open government. Want to know what pollutants exist in your tap water? The city is obligated to tell you. Imagine if that weren’t the case, if someone could keep important information from you.

A new Idaho court rule threatens to do just that. It presumes to seal an entire classification of court cases from the public eye.

The rule, Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32(a), was implemented with good intention, namely to protect children. It orders all child custody, child support and paternity cases automatically sealed, meaning you would have to convince a judge before you could access them. That’s unnecessary. Court rules already require that Social Security numbers, financial accounts and names of minors be redacted from the record, essentially rendering ICAR 32(a) moot.

Then why implement the rule? One reason given was that court clerks complained the redactions were making them work more. Our sympathies, but they were hired to be stewards of our records, not the gatekeepers. We’re sure a little extra effort to protect minors is worth it.

The potential pitfalls of sealing records are many. For starters, judges could act with impunity. Without oversight from the community, judges would be free to act as they please in all cases concerning a child’s well-being.

The rule, to date, has been poorly executed. Already it has been used to seal away divorce records where the couple has children. That may seem like a private matter, but let’s say someone owes you money. If that person were to receive a large divorce settlement, but has a child, you would have no way of knowing without going before a judge.

In a letter of protest to the Idaho Supreme Court dated Nov. 16, 2012, Debora K. Kristensen and Betsy Z. Russell wrote, “Problems already are surfacing around the state with reporters and members of the public being denied access to files in cases that previously were open. … Since the enactment of this law, the provisions of ICAR 32 have been erroneously applied to cases filed before the rule’s effective date and to cases not even in the categories mentioned in the rule. For example, in a Kootenai County civil case filed over management of a trust fund for crime survivor Shasta Groene, Steve Groene vs. Brandy Hoagland, Judge Lansing Haynes told a reporter the case was sealed entirely for a month under the new rule while it was gone through for redaction (it later was unsealed with redactions). The rule has caused confusion and denials of public records throughout our state.”

ICAR 32(a) is a dramatic shift for Idaho. Rather than being custodians of our legal records, the rule change turns judges and clerks into jailors, allowing us to visit our locked-up records only when they see fit. We encourage the Idaho Supreme Court to reconsider the rule, to welcome oversight of court decisions. We encourage them to do everything they can to ensure an open government.

Editorial from the Twin Falls Times