Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

It isn’t every day that state Reps. Phil Hart and John Rusche agree on anything — particularly ethics in government.

But it happened Tuesday. Hart, a Hayden Republican and Ethics Committee frequent flier, voiced his support for a rewrite of House rules. So did Rusche, the Lewiston Democrat who filed an ethics complaint against Hart.

No surprise, then, that the full House voted 70-0 for the rules changes, crafted by House Speaker Lawerence Denney. But does good consensus-building yield good policy?

In this case, yes and no.

Because, ultimately, you’re going to have to take the House’s word for it. The new rules will bring a new level of secrecy to the process.

The new rules aren’t completely bad. They take one step in the right direction by creating a catch-all offense: “conduct unbecoming a member of the House.”

That umbrella language would have come in handy in a case filed against Hart late last year. Hart was accused of logging trees from endowment lands without paying the state. Since the incident occurred before Hart was elected, it didn’t neatly fit into ethics rules limited to legislative duties.

The House also tightened up the rules about who can — and can’t — file an ethics complaint, restricting the process to House members only. Based on recent events, this is also a reasonable move.

Howard Griffiths filed an ethics complaint, months after mounting an unsuccessful write-in campaign against Hart. Political activist Larry Spencer filed an ethics complaint against state Rep. Eric Anderson, a Priest Lake Republican who had filed an ethics complaint against Hart.

Dizzy yet? The upshot is that this is not the way an ethics process should function. An anything-goes process allows any unsuccessful candidate or naysayer to file a nuisance complaint.

Voters still have several good ways to air grievances. They can run for Legislature or support an opposing candidate. They can organize a recall effort. They can take their case to another lawmaker and request an ethics investigation. This new rule does not lock the public out of the process.

Unfortunately, another change does.

An ethics complaint is now considered confidential, at least at first. A committee will consider sealed complaints in a closed session. If the committee finds probable cause, the complaint becomes public record.

The justification, predictably enough, is to protect lawmakers from baseless smears. But this comes at an unacceptable price.

– Can you say “whitewash”? A closed process makes it easy — too easy — for leadership to keep a complaint hush-hush.

– Secrecy also makes it too easy for leadership to intimidate or punish a lawmaker who pursues an ethics case. (Keep in mind, Anderson lost a coveted committee vice chairmanship after filing a complaint against Hart, although Denney insists this was an oversight.)

– Conversely, secrecy allows a rogue lawmaker to try to slow down the process, or retaliate against colleagues, with a torrent of ethics complaints. If a lawmaker files an ethics complaint, shouldn’t his or her constituents know?

Secrecy invites more problems than it solves.

And it sends an unmistakable message.

On Tuesday, 70 House members agreed that their self-policing process had problems. One problem, apparently, was an abundance of transparency.

A sad message indeed.

“Our View” is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman’s editorial board.

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

Editorial from The Spokesman-Review

Idaho lawmaker Joe Palmer said the most puzzling thing in explaining why a bill codifying the House’s ethics rules should take a shortcut to a floor vote rather than follow the normal course back to the State Affairs Committee.

“There is no reason to come back here for a public hearing. This does not involve the public,” the Meridian Republican said.

On the contrary, everything the Legislature does involves the public. And since the measure in question would remove the public from certain proceedings related to House members’ conduct, the public is unquestionably involved.

The measure under consideration was offered by House Speaker Lawerence Denney in the aftermath of a flurry of ethics concerns over state Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol. Denney’s bill would largely reaffirm rules and practices that are already in place and backed up by an attorney general’s opinion saying only House members may file ethics complaints against House members.

That part’s reasonable. Private citizens have many other ways to kick up a loud fuss over elected officials’ misbehavior. They can make their complaints heard, and voters hold the ultimate power of the ballot to turn scoundrels out.

But Denney’s bill includes a troublesome if not downright alarming provision. It would require that member-against-member complaints be kept confidential until the Ethics Committee has found probable cause to look into them. If no such determination were ever reached, the public might never find out.

That might almost make sense if just any old rabble could drown the House in specious and ungrounded accusations. But, remember, the bill would say that complaints may be filed only by fellow honorables, from whom more reflection and restraint could be expected.

But when it does happen – when elected officials are so strongly offended by a colleague’s unethical conduct that they need to protest formally – the public has an unmistakable interest. The quality and integrity of their government is at stake.

Moreover, there are dual levels of accountability. The public – the ultimate source of political authority in a democratic system – is entitled not only to judge the accusation but also the manner in which the accused’s associates deal with it.

These are fundamentals of representative democracy. Speaker Denney and Rep. Palmer should be better acquainted with them.

Editorial from The Spokesman-Review

From the Idaho Statesman

Nampa insurance salesman Bob Henry filed a 74-page brief with the Idaho Supreme Court Thursday, contending that if his public-records suit hadn’t been rejected in district court last summer, Canyon County’s financial woes with ex-Prosecutor John Bujak might have been averted.

Henry is appealing Judge Kathryn Sticklen’s July ruling that upheld Bujak’s refusal to release bank records documenting his handling of a nearly $600,000 contract for his office to handle misdemeanor prosecutions for the city of Nampa. She agreed with Bujak that the records were private, but Henry still contends they were public.

“Canyon County’s refusal to disclose the public documents has been especially costly,” Henry’s appeal states. “Not only has Mr. Henry incurred legal fees and costs, but the Canyon County taxpayers have lost several hundreds of thousands of dollars, funds which Canyon County now asserts were wrongfully taken by former Prosecuting Attorney Bujak.

“It now seems clear that had Canyon County properly responded to Mr. Henry’s first records request in March of 2010, the mishandling of funds would have been exposed to the public in time to prevent much of the loss Canyon County now seeks to recover through its litigation with Bujak.”

Bujak had the Nampa money sent to a private trust account, telling county leaders that money would cover all of his office’s non-personnel expenses and in effect profit the county around $300,000.

When Bujak abruptly resigned Sept. 30, county leaders said he owed them nearly $293,000.

Bujak filed for bankruptcy about a month later and disputes that he owes the county. Last week Canyon County commissioners filed a complaint trying to keep bankruptcy proceedings from eliminating the ex-prosecutor’s debt to the county.

From the Idaho Statesman

From the AP/Times-News, Twin Falls

TWIN FALLS, Idaho (AP) — Three adult stores under investigation for selling obscene materials triggered no complaints from residents even though Twin Falls police said public outcry had sparked the probe, a newspaper found.

A review of e-mails obtained through a public records request only found protest over one store’s large “XXX” sign at the city’s entrance, The Times-News reported Thursday. The e-mails also revealed angst over the sign from city officials, who were uncertain how to proceed.

“It is my understanding that the sign complies with our sign ordinance and does not violate any state laws,” City Manager Tom Courtney wrote Nov. 16. “If that is not correct, we need to discuss. I don’t think this is the kind of thing we want at the entrance to the city. The question is what can we do about it?”

A few days later, police sent letters that threatened action “up to and including arrest” against the owners of Karnation, Enchantress and Allen Nagel’s Smokin’ Head Smoke Shop if they didn’t comply with state law regarding the sale of obscene material.

Nagel, whose store owns the “XXX” sign, has declined to remove it.

A city building inspector reported that a portion of the sign with XXX was gone by Nov. 22, though Nagel told the newspaper he didn’t see the letter until days later.

Lt. Craig Stotts said he was unsure why the other two stores received the letter from police but told the newspaper that in “years past we had sent the businesses a letter because we had heard they were selling illegal material, adult material, pornographic material.”

The letter included a copy of the Idaho code regarding “obscene materials,” which includes books, magazines, pictures and movies that would appeal to a shameful or morbid interest in sex or nudity when considered as a whole.

The ban includes materials that depict or describe ultimate sexual acts — normal or perverted — masturbation, or lewd exhibition of genitals or genital area.

From the AP/Times-News, Twin Falls

From the Idaho Statesman

WASHINGTON — Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, who sits on both the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees, called for prosecuting not only the website’s Australian founder, Julian Assange, but other news organizations involved.

“Anyone who would do this has no regard for their country, and this is a complete departure from the allegiance that people need to have for their country,” he said. “Our State Department operations and our intelligence operations depend on the integrity of the people that are involved.”

He conceded that the documents released so far have been more embarrassing than dangerous.

In the short term, they’ve done little more than make it more difficult for diplomats to have candid discussions, he said.

The news organizations given access to the documents and WikiLeaks said they took great care to ensure no one would be put in danger. In stories about the documents, several newspapers said they voluntarily withheld information.

They also cooperated with the State Department and the Obama administration to ensure the information they published wouldn’t endanger lives or national security.

Risch suggested that the nation’s laws on disclosing secret information need revamping to reflect today’s technology.

There also needs to be a careful review of how information is shared within the U.S. government’s diplomatic and espionage arms, he said.

Regardless, if information is secret, top secret or classified, Risch said he believes anyone who handles it — including the news media — should “be bound by the laws that protect that information.”

“There are limits to the First Amendment, and in my judgment, information that is secret, top secret or classified, should be held that way,” he said.

From the Idaho Statesman

Editorial from the Idaho Falls Post Register

The logic was indisputable. An Idaho wolf hunter received a nasty e-mail from someone who doesn’t like wolf hunting. Therefore, the more
astute members of the Idaho Legislature reasoned, the names of every
single person attaining any kind of Idaho hunting or fishing license,
tag or permit had to be added to the list of state secrets.

Never mind that Idaho’s animals and the places they call home are
public property.

Never mind that preventing reporters from checking hunting records
ensures that every would-be Idaho politician from now through forever
will market himself as the second coming of Daniel Boone.

Never mind that this information has historically been public record
and that not one instance of demonstrable harm can be attributed to
that fact.

Lawmakers thought this change needed to be made, and so it was during
the 2010 legislative session. Environmentalists, who unlike hunters
generally aren’t packing heat, apparently presented a serious threat
to the emotional, physical and spiritual well-being of those who
simply must hang a wolf pelt on the wall.

We disagreed with this exemption when it was introduced during the
session. We disagreed with the vote to approve it. We disagreed when
Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter — he of the vow to claim the first wolf tag
— signed it into law.

But we have always admired the intellectual honesty of Idaho’s ruling
party, and so we’re confident that the first order of business during
the 2011 legislative session will be to remove this new exemption from
Idaho’s public records law.

Why? Because Idahoans no longer hunt wolves.

A federal judge recently struck down Idaho’s wolf hunt, and with Otter
ceding wolf management to the federal government, the state’s hunters
are out of luck.

From that one, simple, indisputable fact, we draw a couple of
conclusions: No wolf hunt, no reason for an exemption. No wolf hunt,
no threat from environmentalists.

Unless, of course, the Idaho Legislature, whose members say all the
right things about ensuring an open, transparent government, were
pining to do this all along.

Perhaps the thinking went like this: The debate over wolves is
passionate. There was that one e-mail. We don’t like the tree huggers
and it’s no fun having some pesky reporter checking out my claim of
bagging an eight-point buck in the Frank Church River of No Return
Wilderness. What the heck? Let’s pass an exemption.

But that’s the cynical view and we’d never allow ourselves that
luxury. This exemption was a bad idea from the start. It was never
necessary and has already been made obsolete. The only sensible thing
is to repeal it. We have no doubt that our elected officials will be
with us on this one come January.

– Corey Taule

Editorial from the Idaho Falls Post Register

Editorial from the Post Register, Idaho Falls

By Corey Taule

The most interesting aspect of Sven Berg’s and Rachel Cook’s Sunday story on Idaho’s open meeting law was this notion of trust. Idahoans, we were told repeatedly, should trust that elected officials are not
making decisions behind closed doors.

No thanks. We prefer Ronald Reagan, who liked to quote a Russian proverb in situations like this: “Trust, but verify.”

That’s easy to say and difficult to pull off. Idaho’s open meeting law contains myriad exemptions. And it’s almost impossible to catch violators in the act. Unless somebody inside the illegal meeting talks, there is no way of knowing what was said.

Legislators improved the open meeting law in 2009, establishing a tiered punishment system: $50 for an initial violation and fines of up to $500 for repeat offenders.

That was a start. But more is needed. In recent years, citizens have accused a long list of governmental entities of open meeting law violations — from the city councils in Salmon and Rexburg to the Iona-Bonneville Sewer District and the State Board of Education.

Obviously, Idaho needs a greater commitment to transparent government. As problematic as the state’s open meeting law is, the open records law is even worse. No enforcement mechanism. Exemptions continually added. It’s enough to make everyday folks feel as though those in power want them on the outside looking in.

So what’s the solution?

Maybe Idaho ought to look to Washington for an answer to that question. No, not D.C. — there are no answers to be found there — but Washington state, which in 2005 established an open government ombudsman position within the attorney general’s office.

This official’s job is to address citizen concerns about openness in government. Say a local school board jumps into executive session to discuss something that appears to deserve the light of day. Patrons in Washington can turn to the ombudsman to make sure the board is acting legally.

Idaho is uniquely positioned to follow Washington’s lead. Attorney General Lawrence Wasden’s unflinching commitment to government transparency would provide the ideal setting for an official whose job it would be to make sure citizen interests are prioritized over local boards and districts. It’s a matter of finding the right person and spending the necessary money.

A Post Register editorial isn’t going to bring about this change. The press has long fought to make government more transparent with little success. It’s easy for legislators to dismiss proposals as “press
concerns.”

Reagan nailed it. Unfortunately, Idaho’s lawmakers have determined that only half of that Russian proverb applies to them. This won’t change until you demand it.

So, what will it be?

Trust?

Or trust, but verify?

C’mon folks, it’s time to make the Gipper proud.

Editorial from the Post Register, Idaho Falls

From the Idaho Falls Post Register

By SVEN BERG and RACHEL COOK
sberg@postregister.com / rcook@postregister.com

It’s hard not to be suspicious of what goes on behind closed doors.

When governing bodies go into executive sessions, constituents naturally wonder why they are excluded.

Is some shadowy agenda afoot?

Are elected officials using closed-door sessions to conceal conspiracies to enrich themselves and their friends?

Or are they simply protecting individuals’ privacy and taxpayer interests?

In eastern Idaho, executive sessions — meetings or parts of meetings from which the public is excluded — are common practice for city councils, county commissions and school boards.

The Ammon City Council convenes executive sessions at almost every meeting. Idaho Falls School District 91 trustees did so at least 16 times and Bonneville Joint School District 93 board members met in private 13 times in the 2009-10 school year.

These closed sessions often lead the news media and general public to suspect impropriety. But the organizations’ attorneys and elected officials say they rarely, if ever, encounter violations of Idaho’s
Opening Meeting Law.

“Trustees have a responsibility to act in utmost good faith,” said Jerry Wixom, a District 91 board member for the past 22 years. “It’s been my experience that the trust that people place into us as
trustees is not violated.”

Idaho law allows public agencies — except for courts — to conduct executive sessions for a variety of reasons. The three most common are pending litigation, specific personnel issues and real property
negotiations.

In certain circumstances, the need for executive sessions is clear. When it comes to protecting a student’s privacy or maintaining the integrity of real estate negotiations, few would argue against the
wisdom of private discussions.

“If the board is thinking about buying a certain parcel of land or purchasing land, having that out in an open session could affect the price and the availability of that land,” said Scott Marotz, a local attorney who has advised some 20 school districts during the past two decades.

But many public bodies are too eager to shut their doors on the public, said Wayne Hoffman, a former journalist and executive director of the Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank based in the
Treasure Valley. Some elected officials, Hoffman said, stretch state law permitting closed sessions, particularly those covering personnel matters and potential lawsuits.

“You can’t just go back into executive session to discuss whether you’re going to give raises to the employees,” he said. “You can’t just go into executive session to discuss whether an ordinance that
you’re about to pass is legal or not.”

To enter executive session, a member of the agency must make a motion that specifically references the subsections of Idaho law that authorize it. Once the public has been excluded, discussion is limited to the topic that warranted the closed session.

“You need to stick to the issue at hand. You don’t waver,” District 93 board chairman Craig Lords said. “I think that’s where you trust your elected officials.”

It’s not always easy for trustees, council members and commissioners to stay on topic.

“Frankly, it’s my job to make sure that that’s what happens,” said Scott Hall, Ammon’s city attorney. “If something (off-topic) comes up, then I say, ‘Well now, hold it. We’re fleeing the topic.'”

In order to avoid slip-ups, both Ammon and Idaho Falls hold training sessions to help new council members navigate executive sessions according to the state’s Open Meeting Law.

Though playing the executive session card is the rule for many governing bodies, it is the exception for the Idaho Falls City Council. City Attorney Dale Storer said this “is really a commitment to having open and transparent government.”

Instead of calling an executive session whenever authorized by law, Storer said, the city does so only when necessary.

“There are times when you could call an executive session,” he said, “but there’s no real need for it.”

Throughout his career, Hoffman said, he has occasionally caught governing bodies breaking the Open Meeting Law. But he said he suspects organizations are more likely to break the law than the public is to find out about it.

Bob Cooper, spokesman for Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, acknowledged that, lacking an inside witness, the public has no way of knowing whether their elected officials are adhering to the law when they meet behind closed doors.

Ultimately, he said, some level of trust is necessary.

“You kind of start with an analysis that people are going to do what the law requires them to do,” Cooper said. “You’re talking here about elected officials who were chosen by the voters, so the voters presumably have some confidence in their integrity.” Marotz agreed.

“People think that when a board goes into executive session they are trying to hide (something),” he said. “Unless you know for a fact that (they are violating open meeting laws), then you should trust them.”

Comment on this story on Post Talk at www.postregister.com/posttalk/.

Open Meeting Law requirements

Idaho enacted the Open Meeting Law in 1974. It is designed to ensure meetings of public agencies — city councils, school boards, etc. — are kept public. Here are some of the law’s requirements:

In general, meetings at which deliberations are held or decisions are made must be open to the public.

No meeting can be held in a place that practices discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, age or national origin.

Notice of regular meetings must be given at least five days before the meeting.

Notice of special meetings must be given at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Public agencies must keep minutes of all meetings.

Executive sessions — meetings or parts of meetings at which the public is excluded — must be authorized by two-thirds of the agency’s members.

Executive sessions can only be held to discuss a limited range of topics.

No action or final decision can be made in executive session.

More information on Idaho’s Open Meeting Law is available at the website www2.state.id.us/ag/manuals/openmeeting.pdf.

From the Idaho Falls Post Register

From The Spokesman-Review

BOISE – The Idaho Transportation Department met with a Korean firm in September that wants to move another 40 to 60 giant truckloads of oil equipment across scenic U.S. Highway 12, and local residents who are suing over four other shipments didn’t find out until their attorney filed a public records request.

ITD officials met with half a dozen representatives of Harvest Energy and its associates on Sept. 15 to discuss the additional oversized truckloads, proposed to start in June of 2011 and travel through Idaho and Montana on the way to the Alberta oil sands project in Canada. The loads would travel from the Port of Vancouver to the Port of Lewiston by barge.

Borg Hendrickson and Linwood Laughy, a couple who live along Highway 12, said in an email, “A single state agency is in the process of changing forever the character of Idaho’s Clearwater-Lochsa corridor.” The two decried “closed-door meetings” and a lack of input.

ITD spokesman Jeff Stratten said, “They (Harvest Energy) approached us, and so obviously we’ll sit down and tell them what the requirements (are).”

He noted that the department is awaiting the Idaho Supreme Court’s ruling on four mega-loads proposed for the the route by ConocoPhillips, which wants to move equipment wider than the two-lane road from the Port of Lewiston to its Billings refinery, and had hoped to start the shipping in August.

Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil plans to send 207 oversize shipments along the same route, on the way to its Kearl Oil Sands project in Canada, starting in November.

Residents and businesses along the route, which is officially designated as the Northwest Passage Scenic Byway and runs along the wild and scenic Clearwater and Lochsa rivers, sued over the ConocoPhillips proposal, and a district judge revoked the permits for the four loads. The company and ITD both appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court; a ruling is pending.

No permits have yet been issued for the larger ExxonMobil project, which would temporarily block the two-lane route at night five nights a week for a year as the loads pass through.

“Idahoans will pay the price in personal safety, a diminished tourism industry, accelerated replacement of damaged highway and bridges, and in being pushed out of our own land by foreign corporations,” Hendrickson and Laughy charged.

Adam Rush, another ITD spokesman, said Friday, “The transportation department and Harvest Energy discussed load dimensions, bridges on U.S. 12, clearances, traffic control plans and the weight of shipments. No proposals were submitted to ITD by Harvest Energy. June of 2011 was mentioned as a preliminary start date to move equipment.”

He added, “The department meets routinely with haulers who have questions about permits.”

From The Spokesman-Review

From the Twin Falls Times-News

BURLEY — A Cassia County judge has sealed a court case regarding child-sex charges levied against a suspended Burley teacher.

Fifth District Judge Michael Crabtree’s order will keep any further information about the case, including its outcome, under wraps and bar the public from the courtroom.

Michael S. Brinkerhoff, 42, was charged in August with felony sexual abuse of a child under 16 and enticing a child over the Internet after he allegedly pretended to be a teenage boy in order to have sexual conversations with a student.

Cassia County Prosecutor Al Barrus told the Times-News in mid-September that he planned to file a motion to have the case sealed in order to protect the female teenage victim.

Brinkerhoff waived his preliminary hearing in magistrate court Sept. 10, and the case was bound over to district court in front of Crabtree.

Barrus had also filed a motion to close the Sept. 10 hearing, which was granted by Magistrate Judge Rick Bollar.

Barrus said afterwards his effort to close the hearing was also made to protect the victim.

Brinkerhoff was suspended with pay by the Cassia County School District pending the outcome of the case. He was hired by the district in 2006 and had a previous record of misdemeanor petit theft charges in Bonneville County. District officials said a background check performed prior to his employment with the district failed to turn up the charges.

Brinkerhoff taught English and drama at Burley Junior High School and was charged after he allegedly pretended to be his own 15-year-old nephew in order to engage the young girl in sexual discussions.

According to court records, the victim’s mother allegedly turned over more than 1,000 pages of messages to law-enforcement officials that had allegedly been sent between the victim and Brinkerhoff. Many of the messages were graphic and sexual in nature.

From the Twin Falls Times-News