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

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