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

See the Judge’s ruling here.

From The Spokesman-Review

The Spokesman-Review must provide information that could identify an anonymous reader who typed a disparaging online comment about the chairwoman of the Kootenai County Republican Party in February, an Idaho judge ruled Tuesday.

The attorney for the chairwoman, Tina Jacobson, subpoenaed information about the identities of three Huckleberries Online readers who commented under assumed names below a photograph featuring Jacobson.

Under the name “almostinnocentbystander,” the commenter questioned whether $10,000 reportedly missing from the Kootenai County Central Committee might be “stuffed inside Tina’s blouse.”

Two other commenters, “Phaedrus” and “outofstatetater,” also typed comments responding to the original post about Jacobson’s blouse.

The comments were deleted from Huckleberries Online after S-R blogger Dave Oliveria discovered them, but the first post was visible for about 2 ½ hours.

In late April, Jacobson filed a lawsuit against “John and/or Jane Doe.” Her attorney, C. Matthew Andersen, subpoenaed the names of the commenters so the suit could proceed, and the newspaper responded with a motion to quash that request.

In a hearing last month, Jacobson’s attorney argued that his client’s reputation was hurt by the posts and sought to have the judge order the newspaper to provide identifying information about the people who made the comments.

The newspaper’s attorney, Duane Swinton, argued at the June hearing that the blouse comment “wasn’t nice” but that it was made on a blog site “where people express opinions, sometimes airing outrageous views.”

In his written decision, Luster pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled since 1942 that the First Amendment does not protect defamatory speech. “… while the individuals are entitled to the right of anonymous free speech, this right is clearly limited when abused,” Luster wrote.

He ordered the newspaper to give to the plaintiff “any document establishing the identity, e-mail address, and IP (Internet Protocol) addresses of ‘almostinnocentbystander.’”

However, Luster also ruled that the paper would not have to provide similar information for the two readers who commented on the original post, saying they did not abuse their rights to free speech “by making defamatory comments.”

Andersen, Jacobson’s attorney, said he was pleased by Luster’s ruling.

“The ruling is a reaffirmation of the historically long-standing legal rule that there is no constitutional protection for a defaming statement,” Andersen said. “The interesting twist in this is the application of that legal rule to an anonymous Internet commenter. That is the part that is refreshing.”

Gary Graham, editor of The Spokesman-Review, said he was disappointed with Luster’s decision but he has not yet decided whether the newspaper will pursue an appeal.

“However, we are glad the judge ruled that we don’t have to provide information about the two people who simply commented on the original posting,” he said.

In his ruling, Luster noted that Idaho, unlike many states, has no “shield law” protecting reporters. However, that doesn’t matter because the longtime journalist who oversees the Huckleberries Online blog, Oliveria, wasn’t acting as a reporter, but rather as a “facilitator of commentary and administrator of the blog.”

Under a clipping of a New Yorker cartoon, Luster said the court recognizes that the job description of a reporter has changed.

But “it is clear that Mr. Oliveria acted as an administrator of the blog when he removed the subject postings” and there is no indication that the information was intended to be used in a news story or editorial opinion piece, the judge wrote.

From The Spokesman-Review

From the Twin Falls Times-News

From the Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — The public will get the chance to weigh in on the fate of Idaho’s long-empty governor’s mansion.

A five-member panel that oversees finances for the water-guzzling property met Tuesday to approve a $177,400 spending plan that will cover the mansion’s upkeep during the next fiscal year. The electricity bill alone is expected to cost around $40,000, while another $80,000 is budgeted for maintenance of the expansive grounds.

The 3-2 vote, however, came with a caveat: The panel agreed to hold a public hearing in September to garner input on whether Idaho should keep, or dispose of, the hilltop mansion that has attracted controversy since it was donated to the state in 2004 by the late french fry billionaire, J.R. Simplot.

The Governor’s Housing Committee met in Boise to consider the 2013 fiscal year budget for the property after a previous vote held over email in late June was found in violation of Idaho’s open meeting law.

Sen. Les Bock, a Democrat on the panel, complained the email vote didn’t give the public adequate notice to consider the budget. On Tuesday, the committee voted to nullify the previous vote, which was also 3-2, before taking up the budget a second time.

“I recognize the error in this was inadvertent, I’m not suggesting that any of this was intentional,” said Bock, who joined Democratic Rep. Phylis King in voting against the spending plan.

Bock worried the unpublicized vote would take the spotlight off the home he wants the state to ditch because it’s quickly draining its maintenance fund.

The cost of caring for the mansion and watering its expansive lawn has taken its toll on the fund that held more than $1.5 million in 2005. The account has been drained to less than $900,000, which will only cover the bills for the next five years unless something is done.

Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter, Simplot’s former son-in-law, has declined to live in the mansion, preferring instead his ranch west of Boise. The state does charge agencies that use the home as an event venue, but that doesn’t bring in much cash.

The housing panel has long discussed options for the property.

If Idaho decides to sell the mansion, it must first give Simplot’s surviving family the right of first refusal, at market prices. And if the offer is too low, Simplot’s family could take back the place, even though Idaho has paid for six years of upkeep and used $310,000 in private donations to pay for renovations.

The housing panel’s chairman, Republican Sen. Chuck Winder, proposed the public hearing to discuss the future of the home after a handful of people showed up at the hearing on the mansion budget.

“That’s not really the issue. The issue is whether you keep it or you don’t keep it,” Winder said.

From the Associated Press

From Eye on Boise/The Spokesman-Review

The Governor’s Housing Committee has set a public meeting for this afternoon, after a senator on the panel objected that an earlier vote by email on the committee’s budget for the upcoming year for upkeep of the hilltop former Simplot mansion violated the Idaho Open Meeting Law. After Sen. Les Bock, D-Boise, objected, the panel’s chairman, Sen. Chuck Winder, R-Meridian, scheduled today’s meeting. “It is a good learning experience for all of us, including myself,” Winder wrote in an email to the committee members.

Winder sought advice from Deputy Idaho Attorney General Brian Kane, who responded, “It appears that the committee will need to take corrective action in order to comply with the Open Meeting Law.” That, he wrote, means acknowledging the violation, convening in a properly noticed and open meeting, voiding any previous action, and taking the business up again. In addition, Kane said all email traffic should be incorporated into the committee’s record.

The public meeting is now set for 3 p.m. in the Len B. Jordan state office building, Room 155. The agenda includes the panel’s $177,400 budget for the coming year, much of which would go to grounds maintenance. The Simplot family donated the hilltop home to the state as a governor’s mansion, but no Idaho governor has yet lived there.

From Eye on Boise/The Spokesman-Review