From Eye on Boise/The Spokesman-Review

When Joseph Duncan received three death sentences and nine life terms in federal court in Idaho for his murderous 2005 attack on the Groene family in North Idaho, U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge ordered two extensive mental evaluations that delayed Duncan’s death penalty sentencing trial for months. But he never held a hearing on the issue in open court; as a result, all of Duncan’s mental evaluations remained secret.

James Cohen, a law professor at Fordham University and an expert on the death penalty and mental competency, said, “There’s no reason for the judge in Idaho to keep all this stuff secret – there’s just no reason at all.” Said Cohen, “The only justification would be to protect the privacy of the defendant.” But, he said, “He lost that when he was indicted for this particular crime.”

Secrecy was extensive in the sentencing trial, with numerous documents sealed from public view, leading to several legal challenges by the media. Much of the secrecy came because the case involved a surviving child victim, but it also covered all issues of Duncan’s mental competency. Cohen said there are “at least two benefits” to a public competency hearing. The first, he said, is that psychologists, psychiatrists or other experts “might be able to learn something from his mental illness that could head off others. And two, it’s very important that our system work right – and we don’t punish people that are mentally ill to that extreme.” You can read my full story here at spokesman.com.

From Eye on Boise/The Spokesman-Review

Editorial from the Idaho Falls Post Register

By Corey Taule

One doesn’t raise the possibility of elected officials misusing their public offices lightly or frivolously. But there can be no question that events depicted in Friday’s Post Register by reporter Emma Breysse demand investigations into the actions of two high-ranking members of the Idaho House of Representatives: House State Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Loertscher, R-Iona, and House Speaker Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale.

Here’s what we know:

In December, Loertscher’s longtime political ally, former State Sen. Stan Hawkins of Ucon, asked Bonneville County’s commissioners to delay the mapping of public roads in the Bone area, where Loertscher and Hawkins own land. Hawkins told commissioners Loertscher would be too busy with the legislative session to participate in the process. Hawkins’ request was granted.

In March, Stuart Davis, lobbyist for the Idaho Association of Highway Districts, introduced a bill that would have guaranteed disputes over county roads first go through a public hearing process and be fought in the courts only as a last resort.

The bill, House Bill 246, was printed in the House Ways and Means Committee. Rep. JoAn Wood, R- Rigby, who chairs that committee, has long been involved in legislative attempts to protect public access to county roads.

Wood told the Post Register she asked the clerk of the Idaho House of Representatives where HB 246 had been assigned. The clerk, Wood said, told her the bill was in the House Transportation Committee. That was confirmed by Davis and then-House Transportation Committee Chairman Leon Smith, R- Twin Falls.

Wood said she next checked with the Transportation Committee secretary to find out when a public hearing would be scheduled. Wood said the secretary told her HB 246 had been moved to State Affairs, the committee chaired by Loertscher. Knowing that only the speaker of the House can order such a move, Wood said she asked Denney why he had taken the bill from Smith and given it to Loertscher.

Wood said Denney told her Loertscher came to him and requested the bill be moved to State Affairs.

Loertscher told Davis he needed to work on the bill and bring it back next year. The bill died without a public hearing.

In April, Loertscher, Hawkins and three other local landowners filed suit against Bonneville County. The lawsuit claims three roads on the county map are actually private and asks a judge to confirm that claim. Had HB 246 become law, Hawkins and Loertscher would have been forced to go through a public process before filing suit. Hawkins and Loertscher’s neighbors have requested public hearings on all three roads named in the lawsuit.

At a minimum, Loertscher should have recused himself from any involvement with a bill that could have impacted his personal dealings with his neighbors and the county. Clearly, Denney must convene an ethics panel to investigate what appears at best to be a conflict of interest and at worst a misuse of Loertscher’s public office. There is precedence for such a move. In 2005, Senate Republican leadership convened a panel to look into the actions of Sen. Jack Noble, R-Kuna. Noble introduced a bill that would have allowed liquor sales closer to schools and churches. Noble, it turned out, owned a store in proximity to a public school and was attempting to attain a liquor license. The Senate panel voted to censure Noble, who resigned his Senate seat.

Last year, a bipartisan House panel, led by Loertscher, looked into ethics complaints filed against Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol.

But Loertscher isn’t the only one whose actions need looking into. He could not have seized control of HB 246 without Denney’s assistance.

Why did Denney move a bill dealing with a transportation issue from the germane committee into State Affairs?

Did he know about Loertscher’s road disputes when he made that call?

What was the nature of the conversation between Loertscher and Denney when HB 246 was discussed?

The public has a right to know.

Again, there is a precedent for Denney to convene a panel to examine his own decision. In 2003, House Speaker Bruce Newcomb convened an ethics panel to examine charges that he illegally closed a meeting of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee to the public.

These are serious matters that demand immediate, thorough, fair and bipartisan investigations. Nothing is more important than ensuring that the taxpaying public knows the legislative process is fairly and transparently conducted.

Loertscher and Denney have an obligation to explain their actions to those who trusted them with their influential positions.

Editorial from the Idaho Falls Post Register

From the Twin Falls Times-News

Secret corporate spending on political campaigns may face the sharp rays of sunshine.

A draft executive order awaiting President Barack Obama’s signature would require all companies bidding for federal contracts to show the public how much money they spend on political campaigns, and where it goes. The proposal also covers corporate donations to nonprofit fronts that, in turn, pump the money into independent political spending to either help or harm certain candidates.

In Idaho, the change would mean that the public could check a government website to find the political spending of companies bidding for jobs in the Gem State or elsewhere. Federal contracts play a strong role in Idaho’s economy, particularly at installations like Mountain Home Air Force Base and the Idaho National Laboratory. In fiscal year 2010, $2.6 billion was spent on federal contracts in Idaho, according to government data.

The proposed order follows a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to make direct political donations to candidates. But since such donations would show up on a candidate’s disclosures, many trade and industry groups have kept their donations secret by creating nonprofits that aren’t required to name their fiscal supporters.

Those organizations don’t donate directly to candidates. Instead, the third-party groups put money into efforts like their own political ads, literature and phone calls during election season.

Those groups spent nearly $133 million from secret donors in the 2010 elections, with $119 million — or 90 percent — going toward Republican causes, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Government openness advocates say that showing who donates to political spending groups would be a welcome step toward transparency and away from back-door deals. On the other side are business advocates who contend that the change would bring undue political scrutiny to companies’ bids for federal work.

Corporate and business interests are lobbying fiercely against the proposal, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the biggest political spenders.

“If you have to disclose to the awarding officials what political spending you’ve done, the natural result would be for the awarding officials to consider that during the award process,” Chamber spokeswoman Blair Latoff said, adding that contracts should be awarded based on the best value for taxpayers. “… They should not be based on those contractors’ political views and they should not enlist the agencies in a witch hunt for which contractors are naughty and which are nice.”

Public Citizen, a national organization that promotes government accountability, backs the proposed order, saying the Supreme Court decision opened the door further to abuse and corruption.

“The only reason to oppose this is if you’re a massive corporation that wants to buy sweetheart government contracts without the public finding out,” Craig Holman, the government affairs lobbyist of Public Citizen, said in a statement.

The House Oversight Committee and House Small Business Committee will have a joint hearing today prior to Obama’s decision.

U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho and a member of the oversight committee, told the Times-News that contracts should be awarded competitively based on a company’s performance history and cost-effectiveness — not political activity.

“A company’s history of political activity has absolutely no place in the bidding process,” Labrador said in a statement. “I am not sure of the intent of this executive order, but in my opinion the net result of this action could be to intimidate companies into making donations it otherwise would not make in order to secure contracts or even be ‘eligible’ to win contracts.”

U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, also has concerns.

“While I have not seen any proposed language regarding a potential executive order, I am worried that any attempt by the Obama Administration to link campaign contributions to the award of federal contracts would inject politics into a process where it does not belong,” Simpson said. “There are significant constitutional and ethical considerations at play here which lead me to believe that this is a matter that should be dealt with by Congress rather than through the use of an executive order.”

From the Twin Falls Times-News

From the Twin Falls Times-News

BURLEY — A collection of city of Burley and Cassia County officials dodged potential violations of Idaho open-meeting laws Tuesday morning by asking one Burley Public Safety Committee member to leave negotiations for shared police services.

Both sides met Tuesday in Burley to discuss the expired contract for Burley’s $1.5 million annual share of Cassia County Sheriff’s Office costs, but there was a problem before the meeting started. With Burley city councilmen Casey Andersen and Jay Lenkersdorfer in attendance, Tuesday’s gathering was, in effect, an improperly scheduled meeting of Burley’s three-member safety committee.

Idaho open meeting law dictates that any gathering of the majority of a governing body must be announced and posted in a public location at least 24 hours prior to the meeting’s start. Tuesday’s meeting was not, which presented a problem when Burley Mayor Terry Greenman asked for it to be conducted behind closed doors.

“We don’t want this to be in the papers,” Greenman said after requesting to close the gathering to the public. “We don’t negotiate in the papers. And Sheriff, you have taken the liberty of going to the papers now with several comments. We see that as spin, and you’re spinning your side of this already for the public benefit, and frankly that’s uncalled for.”

But before the gathering could proceed, Burley City Attorney Kelly Anthon, Cassia County Prosecutor Al Barrus and County Administrator Kerry McMurray left to confer on its legality with both Andersen and Lenkersdorfer present. Both men volunteered to excuse themselves, and ultimately, Andersen lost a coin flip and was asked to leave.

“We have two of them here,” Anthon said of the committee after meeting with Barrus and McMurray, “so if we conduct a meeting and discuss business, we’ll have a violation of law because we did not provide notice.”

With Andersen out of the picture, the gathering was closed to the public and private negotiations moved forward. Greenman, Lenkersdorfer and Anthon were joined by City Administrator Mark Mitton. County representation included Barrus, McMurray, Commissioner Paul Christensen, Sheriff Randy Kidd and Undersheriff George Warrell.

While city and county officials’ actions helped them avoid any violation of Idaho law, their decision didn’t exactly meet muster with Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden’s guidelines for holding public meetings.

According to Wasden’s Idaho Open Meeting Law Manual: “The requirement that the Open Meeting Law be complied with whenever a quorum of a governing body meets to deliberate or make a decision should not be evaded by holding smaller meetings with less than a quorum present or by having a go-between contact each of the governing body members to ascertain his/her sentiment.”

Cassia County officials will hold a properly scheduled and announced meeting to discuss road matters and law-enforcement issues at 8:30 a.m. today at the Cassia County Courthouse in Burley.

From the Twin Falls Times-News

From the Idaho Statesman

A couple from Kooskia, Karen “Borg” Hendrickson and Linwood Laughy, won the Max Dalton Open Government award and $1,000 prize.

Hendrickson and Laughy pressed for the disclosure of transportation plans for shipments of massive industrial equipment bound for Canada over Idaho’s scenic U.S. 12. The also unveiled correspondence between oil companies and the Idaho Transportation Department and posted the material on their website, a blog and a Facebook page.

The award has been presented by the Idaho Newspaper Foundation since 1999 and is named for Meridian dairy tester Max Dalton, who won the Idaho Supreme Court case that established the right of citizens to government records.

“Their efforts, from realization of the problem to the present ongoing fight, resemble a spider web reaching every aspect of government and beyond,” said Lee Halper of Jerome, who nominated the couple. “From two, there are now many who fight this fight but the main battle is still theirs.”

The award was presented April 30. A news release announcing the award and other nominees was issued Sunday.

The news release follows:

KOOSKIA COUPLE AWARDED 2011 MAX DALTON OPEN GOVERNMENT AWARD

A Kooskia couple who battled for information about megaload shipments
on U.S. 12 in northern Idaho has been named the recipient of the 2011
Max Dalton Open Government Award sponsored by the Idaho Newspaper
Foundation.

Karen “Borg” Hendrickson and Linwood Laughy received the award and
accompanying cash prize of $1,000 at an awards luncheon in Boise on
Saturday, April 30.

The Max Dalton Open Government Award has been given each year since
1999 to a citizen or group judged to be an outspoken advocate of
openness in either public records or public meetings on the state or
local level.

The couple was honored for their efforts that resulted in the
disclosure of a large amount of information previously unreleased
about the shipments of giant oil-processing assemblies over U.S. 12
and into Montana. This information included transport plans and
correspondence between the oil companies and the Idaho Transportation
Department. Hendrickson and Laughy then started a Web site,
www.FightingGoliath.org, on which information they discovered was
posted, as well as a blog and Facebook page.

“Their efforts, from realization of the problem to the present
ongoing fight, resemble a spider web reaching every aspect of
government and beyond,” said Lee Halper of Jerome, who nominated the
couple. “From two, there are now many who fight this fight but the
main battle is still theirs.”

ABOUT MAX DALTON

Max D. Dalton was killed, at age 78, in November 1997 by squatters on
his ranch in Costa Rica. Dalton had spent most of his life in Idaho
where he operated a Meridian milk-testing business. In 1981, Dalton
filed a public records lawsuit that resulted in a 1984 landmark Idaho
Supreme Court ruling, “Dalton vs. Idaho Dairy Products Commission,”
which reinforced the right of every Idaho citizen to have swift,
convenient access to state records.

In the years since the Dalton decision, the state’s public records
law has become undermined with scores of loopholes requested by
special interests, state agencies and city and county governments. By
honoring those who emulate Max Dalton’s example, the foundation hopes
more citizens will take personal action against needless government
secrecy in Idaho.

OTHER NOMINEES

Other nominees for the 2011 award were:

* The Idaho Freedom Foundation, whose Web sites OurIdaho.com,
www.IdahoReporter.com and www.IdahoVotes.org, offer nonbiased
informational portals for the public.

* The Boise Guardian, an activist Web site operated by David Frazier
of Boise that uses open government laws in its role as an independent
observer of local politics.

* Rebecca Boone of the Associated Press for her work exposing abuses
at the privately operated prison south of Boise.

* Matthew Roetter of Hayden for his consistent use of the Idaho
public records law to obtain information about government agencies,
including the Lake City
Development Corp.

* Stan Howland, Shirley Ringo & Robert C. Huntley for their work to
open to public scrutiny the Idaho State Tax Commission’s alleged
practices with respect to granting favorable tax settlements.

ABOUT THE IDAHO NEWSPAPER FOUNDATION

The Idaho Newspaper Foundation is a non-profit organization founded
in 1983. The foundation’s mission statement is “To advance the public
understanding of newspaper journalism and a free press in Idaho; to
advocate the rights of citizens and the press in Idaho to have full
access to government, particularly in the areas of open meetings and
public records; to endorse and support efforts to increase that
access; and to oppose efforts to limit public access to government.”

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Idaho Press-Tribune

CANYON COUNTY — The county released records Thursday related to former Prosecutor John Bujak’s contract with Nampa,  including a transaction history of a trust account Bujak used to manage the funds.

Nampan Bob Henry, who sued the county last year for release of financial documents related to the contract, said the documents provided further vindication for his position that the contract should have been handled openly.

“It just proves what we’ve been saying all along — that money was going into his personal account from the first day,” Henry said.

Erik Stidham, an attorney representing Henry, said the release of the records will not stop the appeal to the state Supreme Court of a district judge’s decision to dismiss Henry’s lawsuit. The lawsuit requests additional documents, and Henry feels commissioners still have many questions to answer, Stidham said.

Most importantly, Stidham said, Henry wants to ensure officials don’t allow such a situation to arise in the future.

Bujak submitted his letter of resignation Sept. 30, 2010, after he could not pay the county for resources used to provide misdemeanor prosecution to Nampa. He has since filed for bankruptcy.

County officials released the financial records Thursday after obtaining them through subpoenas in Bujak’s bankruptcy proceedings. Bujak and the county fought to keep the records private while he was in office, but the county is now entangled in a bankruptcy court battle to protect $171,000 Bujak paid and reclaim more than $300,000 officials say he owes.

“The only reason we have these records now is because of subpoenas in the bankruptcy case,” David Ferdinand, chairman of the Board of Canyon County Commissioners, said in a press release. “It’s in the best interest of the public to know what happened here and we feel that this letter summarizes what we now know.”

The records show Bujak transferred about $420,000 from the trust account to his Bujak Law operating account between September 2009 and October 2010.

Bujak paid the county $71,000 from the checking account the day he resigned. Commissioners contend Bujak and his wife, Pepper Bujak, wrongfully used other funds placed in the account to pay creditors and for personal expenses.

Bujak has not publicly commented since his resignation, but has maintained in bankruptcy court proceedings and filings that he does not owe the county the money.

Records provided by the county show that the Bujak Law account, into which he also deposited his county paychecks, was used to make debt payments, pay bills and for other day-to-day expenses.

Bujak wrote the first $10,000 check to his Bujak Law account Sept. 4, 2009, the day he received the first payment of $145,000 from the city of Nampa. By June 2010, when Bujak issued a letter defending the contract and stating that he could profit by as much as $50,000, the bank records show he had already transferred about four times that to his personal account.

At least some of the other checks issued from the trust account appear to have been used to cover office expenses. They include:

• Numerous checks, many for about $9,800 each, written to “Bank of the Cascades” or “BOTC.” Some are labeled “payroll.”

• Checks to several restaurants ranging from about $90 to nearly $1,000. At least one is labeled “training dinner.”

From the Idaho Press-Tribune

From the Associated Press

By REBECCA BOONE, Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday agreed with The Associated Press and rejected Correction Corporation of America’s request for a sweeping gag order in a lawsuit between Idaho inmates and the private prison company.

In the lawsuit, the Idaho Correctional Center inmates ask for class-action status and say the Boise-area prison is so violent that it’s called “Gladiator School.” They say the guards use brutal inmate-on-inmate violence as a management tool and then deny injured prisoners adequate medical care. The Nashville, Tenn.-based CCA says prisoner safety is its top priority and that it works closely with state leaders to meet the standards set by the Idaho Department of Correction.

The case has garnered widespread media attention, and in January CCA attorneys asked the judge for a gag order barring attorneys, witnesses and others involved in the case from speaking to the news media. The company said one of the ACLU attorneys representing the inmates, Stephen Pevar, made inflammatory and prejudicial statements in press releases and interviews, and CCA maintained that continued news coverage of such statements would make it impossible to find an impartial jury.

Pevar and the ACLU contended that his statements were neither inflammatory nor prejudicial, and they filed a motion opposing the gag order. The Associated Press, which has extensively covered the Idaho Correctional Center and the lawsuit, also asked the court for permission to intervene in the case for the sole reason of opposing the proposed gag order.

In a written ruling handed down Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge agreed to let the AP intervene and then rejected the gag order.

Such a sweeping gag order would be a prior restraint on free speech, Lodge wrote, and infringe on the free speech rights of those involved with the case, the attorneys, the media and the public.

Lodge went on to say that CCA’s rights to an impartial jury will be adequately protected through voir dire, the process in which potential jurors are questioned about their knowledge of the case. He said an impartial jury could be found without the court resorting to gag orders.

Lodge also said that while he was concerned about the tone of some of Pevar’s statements, they were made on isolated occasions months apart. He noted that in response to a separate motion, he was splitting the lawsuit into two cases, one of which could go before a jury and another that will be decided by a judge. Pevar will only be the attorney of record for the case that goes before a judge, Lodge said, further reducing any risk that a jury would be influenced by any statements made to the press.

Lodge ended his ruling on the matter with an admonishment for the attorneys: “From this point forward, the Court trusts that all counsel will exercise discretion and refrain from making statements that might violate their ethical duties or jeopardize the fair administration of justice in this or any other case,” he said.

CCA spokesman Steven Owen said that because the ruling was just released, he wasn’t in a position to speculate on what impact it might have on the case.

“We respect the judicial process and it’s through that process that we continue to address the merits of the case,” Owen said.

Lewiston, Idaho-based attorney Charles Brown, who represented the AP, said the ruling was an example for the entire court system.

“A ruling such as this from Judge Lodge is very significant because it sends out the message that the workings of our court system are — and should be — transparent. That’s not only important for the press, but important for the public as a whole,” Brown said.

Officials with the ACLU did not immediately return calls from The Associated Press.

The judge also dealt with several other pending motions in the case, including the one to split the lawsuit. He agreed to make the claims brought by inmate Marlin Riggs separate. Riggs is asking for $155 million in damages — CCA’s entire net profit for 2009 — and if the case goes to trial, a jury will decide if he is entitled to damages. The rest of the inmates will continue to seek class-action status and their claims will be decided by the judge.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press.

From the Associated Press

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

Public money, private documents. Do you think maybe there’s something wrong with this picture? Bob Henry does. The Nampa insurance company owner has spent months fighting for records that could explain what happened to the $600,000 Nampa paid John Bujak to handle the city’s misdemeanor cases. Rebuffed in district court, Henry is taking his case to the Idaho Supreme Court.

Based on what we do know, the public clearly has a right to know more.

Bujak, Canyon County’s prosecutor, entered an outside contract to handle Nampa cases through the county’s office, with the money funneled through a private trust account. Bujak was supposed to reimburse the county for the use of office equipment, utilities and supplies. Bujak resigned Oct. 1, owing the county some $300,000.

Now, the county is trying to collect its debts through bankruptcy court. Oh, and Bujak has filed a $25 million tort claim against the county.

It is less than reassuring that the county wrote, in a recent court brief, that it wants to make the documents public “if, and when, they are obtained through the bankruptcy court proceedings.”

These documents should have seen the light of day long ago. If the state Supreme Court has to force the matter, then so be it.

“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

Editorial from the Twin Falls Times-News

From the Idaho Statesman

WASHINGTON — The Government Accountability Project, which has been trying for more than a decade to pass stronger whistleblower protections for federal workers, wants to know who put an end to their bill, and they’ve zeroed in on former Idaho Lt. Gov. Jim Risch.

Through some sleuthing and the help of NPR listeners, the group has determined Risch and three other senators are the only four who could have put an anonymous hold on the whistleblower bill.

The Government Accountability Project, in collaboration with the NPR show On the Media, asked its listeners to call their senators to ask if they had placed the hold. Whoever placed the secret hold kept the whistleblower bill from coming up for a final vote in the U.S. Senate in the waning days of 2010, effectively killing it.

“Together, we can forcefully remind our elected officials how much transparency matters to the people they represent,” a statement on the Blow the Whistle project website said.

By Friday, the project ruled out all but Risch, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

So far, though, Risch isn’t saying whether he did it. The practice of secret holds came to an end this year, when the Senate voted to require public disclosure in the Congressional Record within 48 hours of a senator raising objections to legislation or nominations.

“Sen. Risch’s policy has been to not comment on secret holds,” spokesman Brad Hoaglun said in an e-mail. “Although the rules have changed for this Congress he is still holding firm to his policy as it pertains to the last Congress.”

This week, the Blow the Whistle project asked for people to put heat on Risch, whose office said it received a “handful” of inquiries about the hold.

The group doesn’t actually think Risch did it, said Government Accountability Project’s legal director Tom Devine. Sessions and Kyl have more of a history of placing holds. But Devine said it’s shocking when elected officials “insist on secrecy as a matter of principle.”

“What’s disturbing is he says it’s none of the voters’ business how he votes for the laws of the land. How can anyone trust a politician who insists on the right for secret votes? Secrecy is the breeding ground for political and bureaucratic corruption,” Devine said of Risch.

What’s also puzzling to the Government Accountability Project about the hold is that the legislation had widespread support, and whistleblowers are supported in general by the public. The legislation, which was backed by the White House, too, would have made it easier for federal workers to report wrongdoing by their superiors without fear of reprisal.

An earlier version of the bill had passed by a voice vote in the Senate last year, and the House unanimously passed a compromise version. But with the hold in place, that compromise version of the bill never got taken up in the mad crush of legislation considered by the Senate just before Christmas.

From the Idaho Statesman