From Idaho Education News

An open meetings lawsuit will continue to loom over the proposed University of Phoenix purchase — possibly for several more months.

A judge has ordered a trial in the case to settle one legal issue: Was the University of Idaho in competition with other bidders as it pursued the $685 million Phoenix purchase?

Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s lawsuit is one of several big obstacles standing in the way of the Phoenix purchase. Accreditors for the U of I and Phoenix must approve the deal, and a nonprofit must go into the bond marketing to line up financing.

And the clock is ticking.

U of I and Phoenix officials hope to close the deal by early next year. Either party can walk away from the table after May 31 if no deal is in place, State Board of Education Executive Director Matt Freeman said in a recent court deposition.

The trial will push the legal dispute closer to that May 31 date, although the timeframe isn’t set. Ada County District Judge Jason Scott has set a Nov. 16 hearing to set a trial date. In his order, issued Wednesday, Scott said he wants to finish the trial within three months.

After that, either side could appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court.

While Scott’s 33-page ruling kept the June 20 lawsuit alive, it also narrowed the scope of the case considerably.

Scott rejected several arguments from Labrador’s legal team. He said the State Board’s May 15 closed-door discussion met one criteria of the law, since board members were holding “preliminary negotiations” about a possible Phoenix purchase. Scott also rejected Labrador’s objections to the agenda for the State Board’s May 18 meeting — its one open session on the issue, which ended in a unanimous board vote supporting the purchase.

The State Board, which doubles as the U of I’s board of regents, held three closed-door meetings to discuss Phoenix. Board members said the closed meetings were justified under a section of law which allows closed meetings for “preliminary negotiations” of a transaction that pits an Idaho public agency against public bidders from other states or nations.

One public bidder for Phoenix, the University of Arkansas, appeared to drop out of the running on April 24, when its board of regents voted down a purchase. State Board and U of I officials have insisted the bidding process was competitive, although no one has named any other suitors publicly.

In a statement, Labrador conceded that the court had dismissed several of his arguments, but claimed vindication.

“For months, the State Board of Education has resisted accountability and has loudly claimed that my office was pursuing baseless claims,” Labrador said. “The court’s decision demonstrates just how credible this case has always been.”

In a statement Monday, Freeman predicted the State Board will prevail at trial — while decrying the legal battle that began five months ago.

“The State Board of Education is pleased that Judge Scott dismissed all but one of the attorney general’s claims,” Freeman said. “It is unfortunate, though, that the public has to bear the expense of having the invalid claims dismissed.”

From Idaho Education News

Op-Ed by Debbie Critchfield from the Idaho State Journal

When I became a school trustee in Cassia County in 2001, I knew I wanted to serve my community by being part of important educational decisions. I knew I wanted to help provide an environment for our students to gain the skills and knowledge they would need to be productive citizens. I had worked as a substitute teacher for six years prior to running for my local board and I felt as though I had a pretty decent working knowledge of our school system. Looking back, there was so much more for me to understand.

The transition from willing community member to effective school leader doesn’t happen overnight. Chances are good that most new trustees are not well versed in the complexities of school budgets, student achievement goals and open meeting laws. In fact, many trustees running for a second term often share that it took them the first term to know what they were doing!

Thankfully, trustees grow into these roles. The same goes for superintendents, principals, educators and district staff. We learn on the job, but exposure to training can flatten the learning curve and shorten the timeline it takes to become effective. In education, I would argue that training is critical for success. Fortunately, the Idaho education community is blessed with great organizations that support school administrators, trustees, teachers and others. Their workshops and seminars help us become the leaders we all want to be.

With that in mind, I want to highlight two upcoming trainings hosted by Idahoans for Openness in Government (IDOG). On October 25, IDOG will hold a training on the Idaho Open Meeting Law. A similar session on Idaho’s Public Records Act is scheduled for November 28. Both begin at 10:00 a.m. MT. They are free and will be streamed statewide through Idaho Public Television’s Idaho in Session service. The trainings will originate from the Capitol’s Lincoln Auditorium and in-person seating will be available. Recordings of the events will be archived at the IDOG website. More details are available at OpenIdaho.org.

Attendees will learn — or re-learn — the ins and outs of these two important Idaho laws to ensure future adherence and, ultimately, increase transparency. And in our work in the public sector, transparency is essential. It provides accountability to the public and fosters trust amongst the people we serve.

When opportunities like these present themselves, it’s important that we as an education community take advantage. If your schedule allows, I encourage you to attend or tune in online. If it doesn’t, I hope you can find time later to watch the recordings.

Open meetings and public records requests are part of our day-to-day in public education, so it’s crucial that we’re following the law. Your engagement with these trainings will help promote quality leadership for Idaho’s districts, schools and communities.

Op-Ed by Debbie Critchfield from the Idaho State Journal

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

The state’s most powerful board showed last week why legal counsel oversight is so important during public meetings.

The Idaho Land Board committed a violation of Open Meetings statute and then had to reassemble Friday to fix the violation. The Land Board is comprised of the governor, the secretary of state, the state controller, the superintendent of public instruction and the attorney gen —

Oh. Right.

The attorney general.

Not only was Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador present for the Land Board meeting, he’s the one who committed the Open Meetings violation. The illegal act was flagged by Idaho Statesman Opinion Editor Scott McIntosh on behalf of the Idaho Press Club’s First Amendment Committee.

In Labrador’s view, the boo-boo was merely a technical omission. He had made a motion for the board to adjourn to executive session but, counter to Idaho law, did not cite the statute that specifically covers why the behind-the-doors huddle might have been necessary.

The law is there for a reason: To try to ensure that when officials are conducting the public’s business, they’re as transparent as possible.

Yes, it’s OK to laugh out loud at that last sentence, considering the open meeting violations that have been flagged in North Idaho, particularly with the North Idaho College’s board of trustees and new Community Library Network board majority.

But when the state’s top legal beagle looks more like a watchdog taking a nap, that’s cause for concern. Scarier still is if Labrador doesn’t know the law he’s sworn to uphold.

The attorney general is engaged in a bitter legal fight with the Idaho State Board of Education over University of Idaho’s potential purchase of University of Phoenix. The board’s approval of the deal is being challenged by Labrador based on an alleged Open Meetings violation.

A judge has ruled that Labrador and two of his staff can’t participate in the lawsuit, though other members of his office may. The AG quickly twisted that ruling into a statement that now is biting him where the Open Meetings light don’t shine.

“Idaho law makes the Attorney General the sole enforcer of the Open Meetings Law against state agencies like the Idaho State Board of Education,” Labrador said in a statement, “and the Court agreed.”

The Court of Public Opinion rules against Mr. Labrador’s hypocritical stance, suing a state board for allegedly violating the law he clearly violated.

It further advises Mr. Labrador to attend one of the open meeting/public record workshops being put on this fall by former Deputy AG Brian Kane and reporter Betsy Russell. The sole enforcer might learn something important.

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

From the Idaho Press

by ERIN BANKS RUSBY

CALDWELL — The Canyon County Board of Commissioners will consider ratifying earlier decisions from its budget process following allegations of open meetings law violation.

The board of commissioners will hold a public meeting on Thursday, Sept. 7 at 4 p.m. at the Canyon County Commissioners’ meeting room at the courthouse (1115 Albany St., Caldwell) to consider ratifying two budget decisions: the Aug. 17 decision to publish the tentative budget and the Aug. 30 decision to adopt the final budget.

Commissioner Brad Holton made the announcement at a meeting on Tuesday afternoon, reading from a prepared statement. In the statement, the commissioners noted the allegations while also disagreeing that there was any wrongdoing.

“Although we as a board do not agree with the allegations, in order to move forward, the board acknowledges the alleged violations,” Holton said, reading the statement. “With that acknowledgment, we believe that completes the cure for any violation.”

The Sept. 7 meeting is being held “out of an abundance of caution,” the statement said.

The move comes following an unusually contentious public hearing about the final budget in late August. At the hearing, former Canyon County commissioner Keri Smith alleged that the board had violated Idaho’s open meeting law when its commissioners individually communicated with the county’s chief operations officer, outside of public meetings, to revise the budget, as previously reported.

Specifically, Smith took issue with the commissioners noting the hundreds of hours of work they had dedicated to developing the budget between the Aug. 4 presentation of the suggested budget and the Aug. 15 presentation of the tentative budget. Language in a document explaining Idaho’s open meeting law says that public officials are required to hold a public meeting if they are even receiving information about a matter they will be voting on, as previously reported. No public meetings on the budget were held between Aug. 4 and Aug. 15.

Smith told the board at the Aug. 30 meeting that she intended to file a formal complaint against the board.

In the statement shared Tuesday, the commissioners said that the board had had meetings related to the budget on 21 dates, including 54 budget workshops. Each commissioner also had “informal discussions” with the chief operating officer during that process, and what was discussed at those meetings was put on the record for the public to access at either the Aug. 15 or Aug. 17 meeting, the statement said.

“Although it has been alleged that deliberations were conducted at a meeting violative of the open meetings act, no firm or final decision was rendered upon the questions then discussed, so any alleged impropriety of those meetings did not taint the final action taken … at subsequent meetings,” the statement said.

From the Idaho Press

There was some surprise news at the start of this fall’s first IDOG government transparency workshop on Aug. 30: Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane, who was welcoming the audience and introducing the series of four sessions this fall, said, “As of this morning, I have a confession to make.”

“At 9 a.m. today, the State Board of Land Commissioners, of which I am one, just announced a special meeting on Friday at 9 a.m. to cure a mistake in a motion on open meetings. There was a mistake regarding the open meeting law, and so we’re working to cure that.”

McGrane noted that both he and the day’s lead speaker, state Controller Brandon Woolf, serve on the Land Board. Both also are outspoken advocates of government transparency. “So, to kick off IDOG and highlight openness in government … we want to kick it off by making sure we are open and transparent,” he said, “and hopefully encouraging not just state officials but local officials all around the state of Idaho to do the same.” 

As reported by the Idaho Press, the violation occurred during the board’s  Aug. 15 meeting in which board member Attorney General Raúl Labrador made a motion to go into executive session but did not cite the exemption under the Idaho Open Meeting Law that justified the closed-door meeting. The law requires that the code section be included in the motion. The violation was cured at the Sept. 1 special meeting by formally acknowledging the error by unanimous vote of the board, and re-doing the business at issue. 

McGrane noted that the four IDOG sessions this fall, over four months, will cover transparency in finance, issues regarding lobbying and campaign finance, open meeting laws and public records.

Betsy Russell, IDOG president, also welcomed the participants, 80% of whom were participating online via Idaho Public Television’s InSession streaming service. “IDOG’s mission is to foster open government, supervised by an informed and engaged citizenry,” she said. “We believe that we all benefit when the public, the media and government officials are fully aware of the public’s rights to access government information and observe the conduct of the public’s business.”

Russell then introduced Woolf, who is in his third full term as the state’s elected controller. “Brandon started Transparent Idaho in 2012 to provide better access for Idaho citizens to state government financial data, and it has expanded significantly since then,” she said. “He has made government transparency a hallmark of his tenure as state controller.”

Woolf then discussed how public trust in government has been declining nationwide, after hitting a peak in 1964, and how transparency can restore trust, along with other benefits including deterring fraud and increasing accountability.

Woolf shared this quote: “Obscurity is the best friend of conspiracy.” That followed several other quotations shared by McGrane in his introduction, including this quote from Mother Teresa: “Honesty and transparency make you vulnerable. Be honest and transparent anyway.”

Woolf led participants through the Transparent Idaho website, transparent.idaho.gov; its features; and the extensive, searchable, up-to-date financial data available there, from public employee salaries to expenditures of taxpayer dollars. In addition to state government and agency financial information, along with data from the state’s four-year colleges and universities, the site now is in the process of adding local government and school district data as well.

Woolf also covered Townhall Idaho, townhall.idaho.gov, a site he and Gov. Brad Little launched in 2022 to serve as an online one-stop-shop for all public meeting information for state executive branch agencies.

At the close of his presentation, with McGrane and Russell as moderators, Woolf fielded questions from participants, including both those present in person in the Capitol’s Lincoln Auditorium and those participating online, who submitted their questions via email. Among the questions were some seeking information that’s not yet available on Transparent Idaho; Woolf pledged to continue increasing the data posted on the site, and said some of the information sought, including community college financial data, isn’t yet on the site but is on his team’s “to-do list.”

Here are some comments from the evaluations completed by participants in the Aug. 30 session:

From a citizen: “Congratulations on a fantastic job! I am very much heartened by the commitment to transparency and the encouragement of citizen engagement. Thank you to all for this fantastic tool and for educating us!”

From a state employee: “There is way more information on Transparent Idaho than I realized.”

From a reporter: “I didn’t know the Transparent Idaho website existed, which as a local reporter will be very useful. I look forward to looking at salaries and natural resource expenditures in each county.”

From a local elected official: “Thanks so much for putting this on! Sorry I couldn’t attend in person like I originally planned, but the online streaming option was SO convenient and worked perfectly.”

From a member of the news media: “There’s more data about local government entities available on the Transparent Idaho website than I realized. I can never get (my local) county officials to comply with requests for salary information. But, it’s on the Transparent Idaho website, so I can now easily find it. I look forward to that being the case for school districts as well.”

From a state employee: “I learned how to navigate the Transparent Idaho site and that some of the requests for information that we receive may be available there.”

From a citizen: “I plan to get more involved in state and local government now that I am retired and I believe some of what is available online as explained in the training will be helpful to me as I do that.”

From a citizen: “I am looking for employment, so knowing salaries of various state employees is helpful.”

From a former reporter and retired PIO: “I learned that Transparent Idaho is good for much more than finding out salaries. I particularly liked the primer on local government data.”

From a citizen: “Thank you for continuing this excellent programming!”

The full video of the Aug. 30 event, along with Woolf’s Powerpoint slides, are available for viewing at IDOG’s website, www.openidaho.org.

From the Idaho Capital Sun

BY: CLARK CORBIN

Attorney General Raúl Labrador did not cite the section of law authorizing an Aug. 15 executive session.

The Idaho Board of Land Commissioners met briefly Friday morning to acknowledge and cure a violation of Idaho’s open meeting law. 

During Friday’s meeting at the Idaho Department of Lands downtown Boise office, Gov. Brad Little said the violation occurred during the land board’s most recent meeting on Aug. 15.

“I move the board acknowledge that the Aug. 15 motion for executive session violated the open meeting law by failing to specifically identify the specific subsection of Idaho code authorizing the executive session,” Little said during Friday’s meeting.

To remedy, or cure, the violation, the land board voted to void the Aug. 15 executive session and re-do the motion by identifying the section of Idaho code authorizing the executive session. The land board then went into an executive session for about five minutes Friday to meet with its legal counsel to discuss pending litigation. When the land board members returned to open session a few moments later, they announced they took no action during the executive session and then adjourned their meeting. 

An executive session is a closed-door meeting of a governing body, which is allowed under Idaho law only under a specific set of narrow circumstances. Those circumstances include meeting with legal counsel to discuss legal options for litigation or pending litigation, acquiring property not owned by a public agency, considering hiring a public officer or employee or considering disciplining or dismissing a public officer, employee or public school student. 

The violation occurred after Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador made a motion to go into executive session on Aug. 15 but did not cite the specific subsection of Idaho law authorizing the executive section, the Idaho Press reported Thursday. 

Idaho Statesman opinion editor Scott McIntosh noticed the violation and contacted the land board about it on behalf of the Idaho Press Club’s First Amendment Committee earlier this week, the Press reported. 

The land board is made up of Idaho’s top statewide elected officials, including Little, Labrador, Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield, Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane and Idaho Controller Brandon Woolf. The land board’s job is to provide direction to the Idaho Department of Lands for managing more than 2.5 million acres of state endowment lands. 

From the Idaho Capital Sun

From the Idaho Press

by LAURA GUIDO 

The Idaho State Board of Commissioners announced it would be holding a special meeting Friday to rectify an Open Meetings Law violation.

The violation was made during its Aug. 15 meeting in which board member Attorney General Raúl Labrador made a motion for an executive session but did not cite the exemption under the law that justified the closed-door meeting. The exemption was cited in the agenda, but Idaho Code requires that it be included in the motion.

The violation was flagged by Idaho Statesman Opinion Editor Scott McIntosh on behalf of the Idaho Press Club’s First Amendment Committee. He wrote to Land Board members in an Aug. 29 email to highlight the violation and asked that the board cure the violation.

Board member Secretary of State Phil McGrane, who had seconded the motion at the Aug. 15 meeting, responded and said he would “work with the board both to remedy the situation and ensure it doesn’t happen again.”

McGrane told the Idaho Press that the Friday special meeting will note the violation and what the motion should have said.

Beth Cahill, communication director for the attorney general’s office, said in an emailed statement that there is “no question of public transparency” in the Aug. 15 meeting because the agenda and minutes identified the correct citation of code.

“The Land Board is doing the right thing in this matter,” Cahill wrote. “A board or commission should quickly cure a violation in open meetings laws. Technical omissions happen from time to time, and when they occur government boards should work to remedy it.”

The motion had been unanimously approved by the other board members who were present: Gov. Brad Little and Superintendent of Public Education Debbie Critchfield. State Controller Brandon Woolf is also a member but had left the meeting prior to the motion being made.

Toward the end of the meeting, Labrador said, “We have an executive session. My attorney needs to talk to the board members real quick.”

Little responded that a motion was required as well as a roll-call vote.

Labrador said, “So, motion to go into executive session.”

The section of Idaho Code that allows for narrow exemptions to the Open Meetings Law states, “The motion to go into executive session shall identify the specific subsections of this section that authorize the executive session.”

The agenda cited Idaho Code and wrote that the session was “to communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated.”

Labrador is currently litigating an alleged Open Meetings Law violation against the State Board of Education, arguing it improperly held an executive session during negotiations in the University of Idaho’s bid to purchase the University of Phoenix.

A judge recently ruled that Labrador and two other employees in his office could not pursue this litigation against the board, because of information they may have obtained in a privileged phone call, but that other attorneys in the office may continue in the case.

Labrador, in response to the ruling, said in an Aug. 28 statement that the judge “upheld the right of my office to hold state agencies accountable for Open Meetings Law violations.”

“I am very pleased with the Court’s decision because it ensures that I can do my job and represent the people of Idaho,” Labrador wrote. “Idaho law makes the Attorney General the sole enforcer of the Open Meetings Law against state agencies like the Idaho State Board of Education, and the Court agreed.”

The Land Board special meeting will be held 9 a.m. Friday.

From the Idaho Press

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

By KAYE THORNBRUGH

COEUR d’ALENE — It appears Laura Rumpler, North Idaho College’s chief communications and government relations officer, has tendered her resignation.

Attorney Art Macomber informed NIC President Nick Swayne and college trustees Monday that Rumpler notified him she would be resigning effective Sept. 8, the college confirmed Tuesday.

An automatic reply from Rumpler’s NIC-provided email address indicates that she is currently on leave and provides no return date.

After The Press reached out to Rumpler on Tuesday morning to inform her the newspaper was working on an article about her pending resignation, and to give her the opportunity to comment on the matter, Macomber emailed the newspaper Tuesday afternoon.

“For reasons unknown to me, you requested by text to Laura Rumpler a comment by her on her employment status,” Macomber said via email. “As you know, matters related to employment of people at NIC are strictly controlled for privacy reasons.”

For public employees in Idaho, employment status is a matter of public record under the Idaho Public Records Act.

“That said, Ms. Rumpler remains employed at her position as Chief Communications & Government Relations Officer for NIC. I trust the CdA Press will refrain from libel or rumor in your newspaper,” wrote Macomber in the email.

At the time of that email, NIC had already confirmed Macomber notified the college president and trustees of Rumpler’s pending resignation.

NIC trustees Greg McKenzie, Todd Banducci and Mike Waggoner voted last week to hire Sandpoint-based attorney D. Colton Boyles as general legal counsel for the college and to retain Macomber’s services in three specific areas: NIC policies, the college president’s summer 2023 evaluation and an investigation into an unspecified personnel matter.

Multiple sources have indicated to The Press that the personnel matter under Macomber’s purview is related to Rumpler and may involve allegations of retaliation against her by Swayne.

Macomber did not immediately answer when asked by email by The Press whether he reached out to the newspaper as legal counsel for North Idaho College or as legal counsel for Rumpler.

Rumpler’s resignation announcement comes in the middle of a two-year employment contract, according to public records obtained by The Press.

In July, following a lawsuit, First District Judge John T. Mitchell ordered NIC to turn over a number of employment agreements to The Press, including Rumpler’s.

The Press submitted a public records request Jan. 4 for the employment contracts of some members of the president’s cabinet, as well some temporary hires who were brought on board by former interim president Greg South.

NIC denied the requests on the grounds that the contracts were “personnel records” and therefore exempt from disclosure under Idaho’s sunshine laws. Rumpler was also the college’s public records custodian.

In late January, the college launched a new “resource page” on its website, which stated “NIC does not release contracts or agreements or any other documents within an employee’s personnel file.”

The Press sued the college and Rumpler for the records in February.

Rumpler testified in July that she understands Idaho public record laws to mean that any documents in any employee’s personnel file cannot be released, including employment agreements.

The court disagreed.

“It is quite clear to the court that the employment contracts are not exempt,” Mitchell said.

Examination of the records revealed that Rumpler’s contract is different, not only from the other employment agreements requested by the newspaper, but from nearly all other NIC employment agreements.

Rumpler began employment at North Idaho College on Jan. 9, 2017, with a starting salary of $103,668. Her annual pay increased to $133,794, effective June 19 of this year. That date is consistent with the effective date of the annual pay increase for most other college staff.

She signed a two-year “retention contract” for employment that runs from April 30, 2022, to June 23, 2024.

The contract, which was signed by former interim president Michael Sebaaly, says NIC would reclassify Rumpler’s position to align with “the level of responsibility, autonomy, decision-making, skillset and representation of an associate vice president or vice president.”

NIC later confirmed that Rumpler’s position was no longer being reclassified.

No one else received a “retention contract” for employment within the last year, NIC confirmed. With the exception of Rumpler, only the college president and interim president have contracts longer than one year.

Unlike other NIC employment agreements reviewed by The Press, Rumpler’s was notarized.

North Idaho College is reportedly working to cover Rumpler’s responsibilities on an interim basis, and it will likely publically post the position in a few weeks.

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

From the Idaho Press

By LAURA GUIDO

BOISE — A judge has ruled that neither Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador nor his solicitor general is allowed to prosecute a case against the State Board of Education in an open meetings law case.

Ada County District Court Judge Jason Scott entered the ruling Friday, court documents show. To pursue litigation against the board for executive sessions regarding the University of Idaho’s bid to purchase the University of Phoenix, Labrador will need to appoint either outside counsel or someone else in his office.

The ruling was first reported by Idaho Education News.

The ruling came one day after the judge heard arguments on the board’s motion to disqualify Labrador from the case, alleging he sought confidential information from the board’s executive director before disclosing his intent to sue. The defendants also argued his office had a conflict because a deputy attorney general assigned to the board had advised members that the closed meetings in question were legal.

Labrador, in a statement posted to Twitter, said he was “pleased with the Court’s decision because it ensures I can do my job and represent the people of Idaho.”

He said the decision confirmed his office’s authority to enforce Idaho’s Open Meetings Law.

“This is an important ruling that will bring greater transparency and accountability to state government,” Labrador wrote. “… I respect the Court’s decision to act cautiously and have ordered certain attorneys in my office to be screened from participating in the Open Meetings lawsuit against the Board. The rest of my office will vigorously enforce the law and defend the people’s right to transparent government.”

Scott wrote in his ruling that the main issue was the phone call that took place with Labrador, Solicitor General Theo Wold, Deputy Attorney General Jenifer Marcus, and board Executive Director Matt Freeman on June 20, hours before the lawsuit against the board was filed.

The judge noted that the accounts of the call provided to the court are distinctly different; Freeman wrote that he “shared information openly and candidly” with Labrador in response to “probing questions” about the meetings in question, and didn’t learn of the lawsuit until the end of the call. Wold wrote in his testimony that the lawsuit was disclosed at the beginning of the conversation and that they at no point sought privileged or confidential information.

Labrador and Marcus did not submit their own accounts of what happened on the call.

Scott wrote he found Freeman’s account “more plausible.”

“(Freeman) says he spoke freely,” the ruling states. “A person in his position would be expected to clam up in response to an announced intention to file suit.”

He also wrote that the claim that Labrador sought no privileged information was “of dubious accuracy,” because by law, Labrador and his employees are lawyers for the state board and communications between the lawyers and their client are privileged.

“The prospect that the Attorney General’s office could or would use client confidences in litigation against a client undermines the trust placed in the office by government agencies and the public alike,” Scott said.

Scott disagreed with the defendants’ argument that Marcus’ conflict in the case was a reason to disqualify the rest of the office.

“Though it is jarring for an attorney general to sue a client of his office for following the advice of one of his deputies, Attorney General Labrador and members of his office other than Deputy Attorney General Marcus are not ethically prohibited from serving as counsel simply because he is suing the Board of Regents for following her advice.”

Scott also disqualified attorney Timothy Longfield from the case but denied the board’s request to disqualify everyone in the office.

Labrador has until Sept. 5 to appoint new counsel or the case will be dismissed.

THE CASE

The lawsuit centers on an executive session held by the state board, acting in its capacity as the Board of Regents for the University of Idaho, in regard to a proposed acquisition of the online higher education school.

The meeting was held May 15 under Idaho’s exemption under the Open Meetings Law that allows closed meetings to “consider preliminary negotiations involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is in competition with governing bodies in other states or nations.”

Labrador’s lawsuit alleges that the negotiations at that point weren’t “preliminary,” because the board voted three days later to allow the deal to move forward. It also argues that no other entities were in competition for the sale at that point.

UI and the University of Phoenix have since told the court that negotiations were still considered preliminary, especially because the deal has not yet been finalized, and that there are other entities still interested in purchasing the online school.

Those involved in negotiations had been under strict non-disclosure agreements, and many other officials and the public were largely unaware of the proposal until the day before the board voted to move it forward.

The May 18 vote allowed the university to create a not-for-profit corporation that would execute the sale and oversee the university if the transaction goes forward.

The transaction still requires approval from both schools’ accreditors.

From the Idaho Press

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

Shortly after Idaho’s attorney general was sworn in, The Press made a request on behalf of all Idahoans.

The Jan. 22 Press editorial opened with this:

“Here’s a formal request to new Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador to continue something his predecessor did, resulting in great public benefit.

“For years, former AG Lawrence Wasden and his right-hand lawyer, Brian Kane, joined esteemed journalist Betsy Russell in taking their public records/open meetings show on the road.”

Impetus for the editorial was this newspaper’s difficult decision to sue an institution it usually defends ardently. North Idaho College attorney Art Macomber and the NIC employee responsible for fulfilling public record requests illegally withheld information The Press had rightfully requested, an assertion upheld some six months later by Judge John T. Mitchell.

The Press editorial request in January persuaded Labrador not one bit. While Labrador looks the other way on serious public record and open meeting issues — except in his bitter dispute with the University of Idaho and the State Board of Education — former champions of transparency and public service are stepping up once again.

Kane and Russell are resurrecting a statewide campaign to help everyone — elected officials, public employees and the constituents they serve — understand how the state’s public records and open meetings laws work.

Only this time, instead of former AG Wasden, their transparency quest is being bolstered by two other outstanding state officials: Controller Brandon Woolf and Secretary of State Phil McGrane.

Kane and Russell will explain public record and open meeting laws in separate workshops, while Woolf will dive into accessing all kinds of public information and McGrane will explain campaign finance and lobbying rules and ways to get that data.

The Press applauds all four of these individuals and Idaho Citizens for Open Government. It’s our hope that people from all sectors of public and private life take advantage of these live-streamed opportunities to make our state stronger.

Here’s the transparency workshop schedule:

Wednesday, Aug. 30, 9 a.m. Pacific time — Transparent Idaho/Townhall Idaho: How to access public data, meeting info online for free. Presenter: Brandon Woolf, Idaho State Controller.

Wednesday, Sept. 27, 9 a.m. — Campaign Finance & Lobbying: The rules and how to access data. Presenter: Phil McGrane, Idaho Secretary of State.

Wednesday, Oct. 25, 9 a.m. — Idaho Open Meeting Law. Presenters: Brian Kane, former Chief Deputy Idaho Attorney General, and Betsy Russell, IDOG president.

Wednesday, Nov. 28, 9 a.m. — Idaho Public Records Act. Presenters: Brian Kane, former Chief Deputy Idaho Attorney General, and Betsy Russell, IDOG president.

To register for the sessions, visit https://openidaho.org/ or contact the Controller’s Office at 208-334-3100, Option 0.

And here’s the Jan. 22, 2023 Press editorial: https://shorturl.at/dxTVX

From the Coeur d’Alene Press