From The Spokesman-Review

BOISE – A secretive group that underwrote more than $200,000 in TV campaign commercials in favor of three Idaho school reform ballot measures must disclose its donors by Wednesday, a 4th District judge ruled Monday afternoon.

Judge Mike Wetherell ordered Education Voters of Idaho to disclose its donors by 3 p.m. on Halloween. The group must “file all required further reports when required or face sanctions,” the judge wrote.

Possible sanctions include fines and penalties contained in the state’s Sunshine law. In addition, anyone flouting a court order could be held in contempt by the court, and even jailed until they comply with the order.

“The disclosure requirements clearly do not place an undue burden on free speech,” Wetherell wrote in his 19-page decision. “Voters are entitled to know who is standing behind the curtain. Idaho voters passed the Sunshine Initiative to give themselves the right to see who is trying to influence their vote.”

Christ Troupis, attorney for EVI, said requiring the group to name its donors would “chill 1st Amendment rights,” and that the donors had a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Troupis maintained his group, as a non-profit 501c4 nonprofit, was exempt from disclosure requirements. “There is no public interest in prying into private corporate business,” he wrote in arguments filed with the court.

But Wetherell ruled, “Idaho’s Sunshine Law applies to all individuals, corporations, associations or other entities of any type.”

The judge wrote, “The interest in free, fair and honest elections free of fraud and deception and the right of the people to know who seeks their vote for a candidate or an issue is at the heart of the electoral process.”

Idaho Secretary of State Ben Ysursa sued to enforce the state’s Sunshine Law after EVI rebuffed his demands for disclosure; Idaho’s voters enacted the law through a citizen initiative in 1974. Ysursa pointed to a clause in the law that forbids groups from concealing the true source of funds used in campaigns.

Wetherell cited that clause from the law twice in his decision, once in bold-face. “Idaho law is clear and unambiguous,” he wrote. “There can be no anonymous contributions either in favor of or in opposition to Propositions 1, 2 and 3.”

He also pointed to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in a 2010 Washington case, Human Life of Washington Inc., that upheld that state’s similar disclosure requirement.

Education Voters of Idaho, which formed in August, collected anonymous donations, then passed along more than $200,000 to a related group, Parents for Education Reform, which the same day spent the money on the TV ads. The two group share directors and the same address; both were incorporated by two Boise political activists, John Foster and Kate Haas.

Former state Rep. Debbie Field, R-Boise, chair of both groups, said three weeks ago that potential donors to the pro-school reform measure campaign were told they had two ways to give: Directly to the official campaign organization, with full reporting, or anonymously through the two new groups, to avoid “intimidation” from teachers unions that oppose the measures.

Field said then that the groups provided an avenue “for people who really wanted to give, but didn’t want to go through the intimidation.” She said, “They will give if they feel like they can give anonymously to a place that will support education, but they don’t want to be maligned.”

After Wetherell’s ruling late Monday, Troupis told the Associated Press he was reviewing the decision and considering an appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court.

Ysursa maintains that Idahoans have a right to know who paid for the campaign ads before they vote on the three measures on election day – which is just one week away.

“This is about disclosure,” Ysursa said. “If we didn’t take this one to the mat, we weren’t going to take anything. To me, the crucial element of the law is disclosure.”

Brian Kane, deputy Idaho attorney general, told the court Monday, “There is a need for disclosure – the public has a right to know. This is the court’s opportunity to let that sun shine.”

From The Spokesman-Review

From the Bonner County Daily Bee

From the Blackfoot Morning News

By LISA LETE
lisaalete@cableone.net

Patrons and school teachers are reacting to the news that Blackfoot School District officials denied Joyce Bingham’s request to view copies of a payout from the school district’s bank account in the amount of $105,428 on July 2, 2012.

Bingham discovered the payout while examining public records. The payment was made through Zion’s Bank (Salt Lake City, UT) and is noted on the expenditure description as AP Contract Services.

Bingham, a former Blackfoot High School teacher, made her request to the school board last month and was informed last Friday via a letter from interim superintendent Chad Struhs that “the issue is regarding personnel and that under the advisement of the district’s attorney, her request was denied.”

Bingham was advised that if she wishes to pursue this matter that she should seek legal counsel. Sarah Condon, a third grade teacher at Stalker Elementary School and co-president of the Blackfoot Education Association (BEA), said she and other teachers in the district “want to know where this money went.”

“This is a concern,” Condon said, “especially because of the tight budget the school’s are contending with this year.

“There are rumors going around that they [the school district] paid off [former superintendent] Scott Crane,” she went on. “I don’t know if this true or not but the way they’re keeping this quiet, someone needs to look into the rumors. I hope she [Bingham] continues to pursue this.”

Bobbie Steffenson, a BEA member and employee at Mountain View Middle School agreed, saying, “this is a situation that warrants an investigation especially with the cuts that the district has endured.”

“We’ve had programs cut; people have lost jobs; supplies are limited…we can’t even order new textbooks,” she said. “That money could’ve paid for a lot of things.”

Patrons are weighing in on Facebook as well, speculating on what the payout may have been used for.?    Emily Harrington posted: “They are trying to hide the fact that they paid Mr. [Scott] Crane his bonus even though he didn’t fulfill his contract…I’d put money on it. You know dang well that this is what they’re hiding or they would’ve made it public already.”

Josh Christiansen posted: “And they say there is no money for field trips? They should be ashamed of themselves.”

Attempts were made to reach interim superintendent Chad Struhs, former superintendent Crane and members of the school board by phone. Board trustee, Mary Jo Marlow, was the only one reached by telephone; however, she declined to comment on the subject at this time. None of the others returned calls.

From the Blackfoot Morning News

From the Idaho Falls Post Register
Members of the Idaho Falls City Council conducted a “do-over” Wednesday night, voting to adopt the city’s 2013 budget after publicly apologizing for breaking Idaho’s open meeting laws.

The violation occurred Aug. 23 during a recess of the city’s budget hearing when council members Ken Taylor, Mike Lehto and Ida Hardcastle held a closed-doors discussion on how they would vote on the $186 million spending plan.

Idaho law requires that governments conduct deliberations and votes in public. The violation of the law voided last week’s budget vote, forcing council members to vote again Wednesday night. Once again, they unanimously approved the budget that relies on the same property tax collections as during the previous three years.

Council members did not make any changes to the structure of the budget and never discussed a previous proposal to raise property taxes. They also did not conduct a full-blown budget hearing.

Resident Bryan Smith, an attorney who fought the proposal to raise taxes, asked to speak during Wednesday’s meeting. He was denied the floor after council members told him the session was not advertised as an official public hearing.

The Wednesday night meeting drew a near-capacity crowd despite only one day’s notice. It was first announced Tuesday. A lengthy and technical debate over open meetings law and the definition of a quorum consumed the first hour of the meeting.

Taylor said the violation was unintentional but added that he was wiser because of the lessons he learned. With his voice breaking at times, he asked for the public’s forgiveness and restored trust.

“I had no idea I had potentially violated open meetings law,” Taylor said. “I merely wanted to find a quiet place where we could visit with each other (during a recess in the meeting) without interruption.”

Lehto apologized and asked for additional open meetings training after saying there are significant “gray areas” in the law.

“I further believe that we are entering an era now, sadly, of public service that is going to be based, perhaps, on distrust and not the spirit of the law or the intent of the law, which I firmly believe the council did not violate,” Lehto said.

The tension increased when council member Sharon Parry said city attorney Dale Storer could not represent her on matters concerning open meetings because of what she described as his personal and professional conflicts.

Parry then called on her husband, attorney Steven Parry, to issue a statement on her behalf. The statement referenced a July 12 opinion column written by Storer that appeared in the Post Register. Storer’s column made reference to Sharon Parry and open meetings law.

Later in the statement, Parry criticized Storer for not intervening during the Aug. 23 violation and made accusations of secret “telephone polls” between council members that Parry said also violated open meetings laws.

“You, collectively, have a serious systematic problem that needs to be addressed,” Steven Parry said, reading from a prepared statement.

Council members agreed to discuss those issues and accusations at a later meeting after Sharon Parry asked Mayor Jared Fuhriman whether he wanted to “go toe-to-toe now and discuss these things.”

Clark Corbin can be reached at 542-6761.

From the Idaho Falls Post Register

From the Idaho Falls Post Register

Idaho Falls City Council member Ken Taylor acknowledged he and two council members violated Idaho open meetings law during Thursday night’s budget hearing at City Hall.

Following two hours of intense public testimony, council members and Mayor Jared Fuhriman called for a short recess in the meeting. During the break, Taylor said he and council members Mike Lehto and Ida Hardcastle discussed their stance and voting preference on a proposed property tax increase behind closed doors.

When the meeting resumed a few moments later, Taylor announced to the roughly 50 people in attendance that council members had changed their minds and would not pursue a property tax increase.

Idaho law states: “It is the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret.”

Taylor admitted the breach Friday after he was questioned by the Post Register.

“First off, we screwed up, we did it wrong and I take responsibility,” Taylor said.

During meetings, council members can meet behind closed doors in an executive session, but only for a handful of specific reasons and only if a motion to do so is approved.

No one made a motion to go into executive session Thursday night. After the meeting resumed, council members eventually voted 5-0 to pass the 2012-13 city budget without raising property tax rates.

Because of the apparent open meetings law violation, the validity of the budget vote appeared to be in question.

“If an action, or any deliberation or decision-making that leads to an action, occurs at any meeting which fails to comply with the provisions of sections 67-2340 through 67-2346, Idaho Code, such action shall be null and void,” Idaho law states.

State law also provides for civil penalties of up to $50 for anyone violating the rules.

Taylor, who was traveling Friday, said he spoke with City Attorney Dale Storer and Fuhriman about the issue.

He said the city plans to publicly admit the violation. He said he believes that by coming clean, the budget vote will not become void.

“We’re going to do that, admit guilt,” Taylor said.

Fuhriman and council members Sharon Parry and Tom Hally did not participate in the closed-door discussion, Taylor said.

“I guess it would be really easy to categorize this as a city problem, but the mayor, Tom (Hally) and Sharon (Parry) were out of the loop on the infraction,” Taylor said. “It was Ida and me and Mike, but originally it was me and Mike.”

Efforts to reach Lehto and Hardcastle for comment Friday were unsuccessful. Council member Karen Cornwell was excused from the meeting and not involved in the breach.

Taylor said he made a mistake in the heat of the moment.

“I have never been in that position before and I didn’t know how to proceed,” Taylor said. “I did it wrong. Now, I know.”

Clark Corbin can be reached at 542-6761.

From the Idaho Falls Post Register

From The Spokesman-Review

BOISE – Idaho’s Supreme Court will begin live video streaming all its oral arguments from its main Boise courtroom next week, in a joint project of the court and Idaho Public Television, which pulled it together despite a dearth of state funding.

Though Washington has long televised its Supreme Court arguments, fewer than a third of states provide such video access; it’s a big step for Idaho, expanding the service that now live-streams all legislative proceedings and some executive-branch meetings on the Internet so folks anywhere in the far-flung state can watch.

“There’s a definite benefit to the citizens,” said Steve Kenyon, clerk of the Idaho Supreme Court.

Among those likely to tune in to the webcasts: Parties in appeals to the state Supreme Court, who now won’t have to drive to Boise to see the arguments before the justices; lawyers who are litigating similar issues in district courts around the state and can see how those issues play out live at the state’s highest court; reporters covering cases that originated in far-off corners of the state; and citizens interested in seeing the highest level of the judicial branch of state government at work.

“It’s giving people around the state the ability to stay in contact with their governmental process, and we’re just proud as punch to be involved with it,” said Peter Morrill, general manager of Idaho Public Television.

Adding the high court’s arguments will expand IPTV’s “Legislature Live” service, which already has been streaming numerous executive-branch proceedings in addition to legislative action.

“We just find it amazing that we have all three branches of government under Idaho Legislature Live,” said Jeff Tucker, production and creative services manager for IPTV, who noted that as a result, the name of the service soon will be changing to “Idaho Live.”

Morrill said, “We believe there is a great demand, and this is a great place for citizens across the state to be able to look in on the affairs of state government.” He added, “Certainly Legislature Live has shown the power.”

Idaho Legislature Live launched in 2008, when the Idaho Legislature moved out of the state Capitol for two years to allow the statehouse to be renovated. At its temporary quarters in an old courthouse across the street, now dubbed the Capitol Annex, there was no space for the traditional public galleries – so a virtual public gallery was created through the live video streams, which include all sessions of the House, Senate and joint budget committee; plus audio streams of all other committees.

At the same time, the statehouse renovation included the technological infrastructure to allow higher-quality webcasting once the Capitol reopened in 2010; the streaming service has since expanded to include reapportionment hearings; Department of Education sessions on school technology; and more.

Idaho Legislature Live currently has an operating budget of $220,000 a year, but the state has put no general tax funds into it; as a result, IPTV has drummed up the money through sponsors, grants and viewer donations.

Under a memorandum of understanding signed in late July between the Idaho Supreme Court and IPTV, the court paid for the hardware to add its courtroom to the service, about $65,000 worth of cameras and fiber, and IPTV absorbed the installation, maintenance and operational costs.

“We believe this is something we can manage effectively this fiscal year, and we believe that after this long, positive negotiation process that we’ve gone through with the Supreme Court … that it makes perfect sense to do it now,” Morrill said. “We have the ability to make it happen.”

He noted that IPTV will ask lawmakers in January for a state appropriation to help support the Idaho Live service; a similar request last year was approved by the state Board of Education, but didn’t win the nod of the governor or lawmakers.

Donors who currently are helping support the service include the Idaho State Broadcasters Association, the Union Pacific Foundation, Idaho Cable Telecommunications Association, Idaho Association of Cities, Association of Idaho Counties, and IPTV viewers.

From The Spokesman-Review

From the AP/Idaho State Journal

AMERICAN FALLS, Idaho (AP) — A special prosecutor appointed to handle pending litigation against Power County commissioners has filed a lawsuit against the commissioners contending they held unauthorized executive sessions or closed meetings in violation of Idaho’s open meeting laws.

The Idaho State Journal reports (https://bit.ly/N3T9AM) that Teton County Prosecutor Kathy Spitzer filed the lawsuit last week against Power County Commissioners Delane Anderson, Ron Funk and Vicki Meadows.

Spitzer was appointed special prosecutor after Power County Prosecutor Randy Kline in June won a judicial review of a complaint that commissioners exceeded their authority when they hired outside counsel to assist them with tribal jurisdictional and zoning issues.

Also in June, 6th District Judge David Nye ruled Power County commissioners failed to follow the law when approving the 2012 county budget.
___
Information from: Idaho State Journal, https://www.journalnet.com

From the AP/Idaho State Journal

From the Associated Press

State officials have spent more than a half-million dollars in court defending the firing of the first and only woman to lead the Idaho Transportation Department, public records show.

Idaho’s legal bill so far totals $540,479 in the discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit filed by Pam Lowe, according to public records requested by the Spokesman-Review ( ). Both sides confirmed Monday that they had reached a settlement in the three-year legal fight, but neither would divulge the terms.

Idaho’s tab could increase, as final papers still need to be filed in court, the newspaper reported.

State officials made their most recent payment to the private Boise law firm, Holland & Hart, on March 8. The Idaho Attorney General’s Office said it lacked the resources to handle the case when hiring Holland & Hart to defend the state against Lowe’s claims.

In a federal lawsuit, Lowe alleged her 2009 firing was a power play to help the governor and his big campaign donors. She also claimed gender discrimination.
Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter wouldn’t comment Tuesday on the state’s mounting legal tab in the Lowe lawsuit.

“I’m not sure I’m allowed to say anything about anything,” Otter said.

Neither state officials nor Lowe have publicly shared financial and other terms of the settlement agreement.

“I’m very pleased to have it resolved,” Lowe said earlier this week.

Lowe is now working as financial director for the state Department of Transportation in Delaware.

In Idaho, her termination was preceded by criticism from lawmakers during the legislative session as Otter and some lawmakers were considering an increase in the gas tax and other revenue sources to bolster the agency’s budget for road and bridge maintenance.

Some Republican lawmakers worked to get support for a bill that would give Otter power to replace Lowe, claiming she didn’t do enough to lobby for the initiative.

But Lowe argued that’s not why she was let go.

Idaho code gives the transportation board the authority to remove a director for inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance and nonfeasance in office. But Lowe made a case that none of those reasons justified her dismissal, and she provided the court with positive job reviews.

Lowe claimed she refused to bow to threats by governor’s aides not to interfere with and scale back a contract originally worth $50 million. The contract benefited URS Corp. and CH2M Hill, two engineering companies that at the time of Lowe’s firing, had given the governor at least $22,000 combined since 2005.

She said the transportation board succumbed to political pressure when they asked her to resign on May 11, 2009.

Lawyers for the state denied those allegations, and argued that the agency director serves at will and can be hired and fired at any time. The case turned in Lowe’s favor in April when U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald Bush rejected the state’s argument that Lowe was an at-will employee who could be fired at any time.
___
Information from: The Spokesman-Review, https://www.spokesman.com

From the Associated Press

From The Spokesman-Review

S-R columnist Shawn Vestal has a provocative column today entitled, “Why defend an anonymous troll’s right to insult?” in which he takes on the free-speech arguments in the current case involving an anonymous Huckleberries Online commenter whom the Spokesman-Review is being ordered by a court to identify.“A judge has ordered this newspaper to turn over information about a person who made a potentially libelous comment under an assumed name on the website,” writes Vestal. “This, of course, will have a chilling effect on free speech. A chilling effect is what we in the free-speech business always warn about. We do not want to chill speech; we want it hot and loose. This speech, though? This anonymous lobbing of insults? Chill it. Give it frostbite, even.” You can read his full column here.

From The Spokesman-Review

From the Los Angeles Times

The L.A. Times analyzes the Idaho court ruling ordering The Spokesman-Review to disclose the identity of an anonymous online commenter in an article today; you can read it here.

“When entering the comment forum of your typical news website or blog these days, it sometimes seems like a good idea to wear a helmet,” writes reporter Kim Murphy. “Well-crafted insult? Barbed bombast? Bring it on. Often cloaked in the anonymous protection of screen names, readers feel free to unload on one another, and at the world in general, with impunity. But that protection may be an illusion.”

From the Los Angeles Times