From the Rexburg Standard Journal

REXBURG – The Rexburg City Council has been found not in violation of the Idaho Open Meeting Law, according to an opinion delivered to the council by Special Prosecuting Attorney Penny North Shaul on Tuesday.

The opinion draws to a close a five-month investigation into the quick appointment of Rexburg Mayor Richard Woodland to replace Shawn Larsen at a City Council meeting Nov. 4, 2009.

Although at first glance this appears to be good news for the City Council, Shaul said council members “displayed a fundamental lack of understand of the underlying purpose of the Open Meeting Law.”

“Basically the conclusion that I came to … was that there were certain members of the council that violated the spirit of the Open Meeting Law,” Shaul said in an interview.

In other words, although the City Council made no technical violation of the law, in her opinion, the council’s actions violated the intended purpose of the law, which is to “promote open and honest government.”

The opinion letter, which documents Shaul’s investigation of the council, states that several of the Rexburg City Council members engaged in “serial meetings.”

The term “serial meetings” refers to a series of gatherings attended by less than a quorum of members to discuss a public issue in private.

The document states that:

1. “At least four of the council members acknowledged that they had met with other members individually, to determine how many votes certain candidates would garner.”

2. “At least two members discussed which member would move to nominate (Richard) Woodland for mayor and which member would second the motion.”

3. “At least two other members discussed the merits of (Richard) Woodland as a candidate for mayor. …”

4. “There were efforts by several council members to determine which candidate(s) would be unable to garner enough votes for appointment.”

But although the ethics of serial meetings may be in question, the Idaho Open Meeting Law does not prohibit serial meetings.

“There is nothing in the Open Meeting Law language that specifically spells out that you can’t do that,” said Shaul.

The investigation also revealed that there is no evidence that any member of the council “definitively stated what his vote would be.”

There is also no evidence that any council member was pressured into voting a particular way or that there was any sort of “agreement or promise of favors for the nomination of a particular candidate.”

Shaul concludes her legal opinion by suggesting that the council be given further legal training with regards to the “parameters and application of the law.”

The response to Shaul’s opinion has been positive both from the city representatives as well as from those who spearheaded the investigation of the City Council.

“We are not surprised (by the outcome) – it’s pretty much what we expected and confirms what we have said all along,” said City Attorney Stephen Zollinger. “The city has from the outset acknowledged that councilors met on an individual basis.”

In an interview, Zollinger reiterated that although City Council members may have talked with one another, they never engaged in deliberation or decision making outside of a public meeting.

“We are pleased that Mrs. Shaul’s opinion exonerates the council from any criminal behavior or any behavior that even approaches underhanded behavior,” said Zollinger.

He believes the council’s action to have been ethical and disagrees with Shaul’s assessment of a violation of the spirit of the law. But he says that the city will follow up on Shaul’s recommendation and get more education for council members.

But Woodland is less inclined to recommend more education for the council. He says that the council receives sufficient training regarding open meeting laws already.

“We are already doing it – we have training every six months on this very thing,” said Woodland. “No, we won’t do anything additional. We are very aware. … If we did any (additional) training, it would be on public perception and how to avoid pitfalls.”

Still, he did say that any new council members would be given proper training.

Overall, Woodland reports being very happy with the decision, although he remains adamant that no serial meetings ever occurred among the council members.

He said council members occasionally asked each other, “What are we going to do?” But he says that the council did nothing wrong.

“We had no intent of violating the law and we didn’t skirt it – that’s plain and simple,” said Woodland.

But some community members are not satisfied with the City Council’s understanding of Idaho’s Open Meeting Law.

“It’s perplexing for me that council members didn’t know they were violating the law,” said Maria Nate, a trustee on the Madison School Board, who brought the complaint forward to the Madison County Prosecutor’s Office. “Many of them have served for quite some time and have more than likely received training on the Open Meeting Law, and at the very least their attorney should have known better.”

Last November, Nate wrote a letter to the Madison County Prosecuting Attorney’s office requesting an official investigation into whether or not the City Council had violated the open meeting laws.

Like Woodland, she says that she is pleased by the outcome of the investigation, although for a different reason.

“I think that this ruling proves what I have been saying all along – that the process of selecting the new mayor was improper and the council has been put on notice,” said Nate.

Last November, Nate also had the opportunity to file a complaint with the local magistrate court 30 days after Woodland’s appointment to legally challenge his appointment, but she opted not to.

During prior interviews, Nate has said that her only interest in pushing for the investigation was to insure that government be open and transparent. She says it was never her intention to remove Woodland as mayor.

Records show that Nate also played a significant role during the investigative process.

Official investigative documents show that Nate and Tom Kennelly, a resident of Rexburg, provided the majority of the evidence against the City Council during the investigation.

The majority of the evidence presented by Nate and Kennelly came from personal interviews with past and present council members and statements made by city officials during media interviews.

The investigation documents also show interviews with members of the City Council.

Interviews of past and present councilmen by investigator Max Sprague show that Rex Erickson, Randy Schwendiman, Bart Stevens, Adam Stout, Chris Mann, Brad Egbert and Woodland all admitted to speaking in some form or another about the mayor position with another council member prior to the appointment.

Copies of these investigative documents are available, along with Shaul’s official legal opinion, at City Hall.

Woodland says that now the investigation is over, the city is free to respond to the allegations and talk about the events leading up to his appointment.

He says in hindsight the situation could have been handled better.

“What was wrong and what made it look bad was the way that the nomination transpired,” said Woodland.

“We all thought there would have been more discussion … had we submitted someone else’s name we would have had the discussion. But what did happen was that Adam (Stout) nominated me … and they voted and it happened so quickly.”

The mayor says he regrets the speed at which the decision was made and says that if they had to do it again, there would be much more discussion on all the candidates.

“If we were conspiring we surely wouldn’t have done it that way – if we were acting it out or creating a charade we wouldn’t have done it that way because it made us look bad,” said Woodland.

From the Rexburg Standard Journal

From the Twin Falls Times-News
BOISE — Somewhere in Idaho there’s a hunter who goes to bed each night with a pistol at his side because he fears harassment from those who take exception to his outdoor recreation.

That’s one reason the Senate Resource and Conservation Committee heard Monday why it should close hunting and fishing licenses to public disclosure. Because the bill already passed the House, the Senate is where the bill’s fate will be decided.

The bill, proposed by Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, would allow hunting and fishing license records to be kept under wraps as a way to prevent harassment of license holders. Idaho Department of Fish and Game records that identify those holding licenses would not be obtainable by the public, even through a public records request.

Boyle’s bill comes because of feedback she’s heard from wolf hunters who claim they were targeted by people opposed to hunting.

“He felt his life was threatened to the point where he started sleeping with a pistol,” Boyle said, telling the committee one hunter’s story.

She stressed automatic confidentiality as the route to go.

The committee hasn’t made a decision yet.

“I don’t believe someone has to have your information on every single thing that you do,” Boyle said.

Boyle’s bill has drawn the opposition of the Idaho Press Club and Idaho Allied Dailies, two media organizations concerned that government transparency will fall by the wayside if the bill passes.

Lobbyists representing the organizations asked legislators to consider an amendment to the bill. The amendment would keep public the records of anyone who is: an elected official, a candidate for elected office, a political appointee, or a candidate for a political appointee position.

Without any changes, the bill would require written permission from anyone, including public officials, to access their records.

“If this bill’s going to go through, it would at least be improved with an exclusion of the application to public officials,” said Jeremy Pisca of Idaho Allied Dailies. … “It’s like trying to kill a gnat with a sledgehammer.”

Also, there are citizens who use the records to check into someone’s background before reporting a potential hunting violation, Pisca said.

Besides that, there’s also the argument that some hunting tags are awarded in a lottery form, and not releasing the identification could lead to questions about improperly awarded tags, Pisca said.

“If you shut down the openness of your government then your government operates in the dark,” Pisca said.

Before the amendment was proposed, Sen. Bert Brackett, R-Rogerson, asked Boyle what she thought about exempting public officials from the proposal and keeping their records public.

Boyle said she believes that’s adequately covered already by allowing officials to give their written consent for the records to be released.

Sen. Michelle Stennett, D-Ketchum, said that for property owners, the records can provide a tool for reporting people doing illegal activities on their land.

Sen. Elliot Werk, D-Boise, asked why the bill would automatically make the records a secret rather than simply give people the option to keep their information confidential.

Boyle said she didn’t think people would take advantage of that opportunity or may not be aware it’s available.

“Most people, they don’t follow through on an opt-out,” Boyle said. “If you don’t know it’s there, you can’t opt out. I think for the safety of our citizens, it’s better to have an opt-in.”

The bill passed the House side earlier this month with a 55-14 vote, with Rep. Stephen Hartgen, R-Twin Falls, and Rep. Leon Smith, R-Twin Falls, among those opposed.
From the Twin Falls Times-News

Editorial from The Idaho Statesman

It’s the kind of news that frightens any parent: A retired police officer, a former school resource officer, is jailed on child sexual abuse charges.

So where was Stephen R. Young working, from 1995 to 2005? On Saturday, a Boise police spokesman wouldn’t say. “The problem is, it’s a personnel issue, protected by state law,” Charles McClure said.

If that sounds wrong, that’s because it is. By Monday morning, the Boise Police Department corrected its error and released more information about Young, a 31-year department veteran who retired last month. He worked as an SRO at Boise High School and South Junior High School.

Young is charged with four counts of lewd conduct with a child under the age of 16, and police investigators say the charges have nothing to do with his on-duty work.

Regardless, parents have an absolute right to know where Young worked. This right is preserved in an Idaho public records law that operates under the presumption of openness: A document is considered public record unless the law specifically exempts its release.

Every winter, lawmakers and state agencies push for new exemptions, often to the public’s detriment. Last week, the Idaho House approved a legislative overreaction: a bill that would seal off information from fish and game licenses.

The sponsors have a legitimate concern: They don’t want activists to harass law-abiding hunters and anglers. But hunting and angling are privileges, not rights, and the state’s wildlife is a public resource belonging to us all.

There is ample reason to allow Idahoans the chance to check on whether a fellow outdoors enthusiast is playing by the rules – and to allow the news media to find out whether a political candidate or Fish and Game appointee actually is licensed to hunt or fish. All of this would be history, under a wholesale exemption now headed to the state Senate.

Fortunately, the legislative process doesn’t always work this way. Lobbyists for law enforcement and media groups have tightened – and improved – a bill to prevent the release of officers’ home addresses and phone numbers.

Sunday marks the beginning of Sunshine Week, when media organizations unite behind a common message: An open government is an accountable government. But the interpretation of sunshine laws can be as important as the law itself – as we’ve seen in the past few days.

Last week, the Idaho Transportation Department said little about suspending and firing 21 workers over the improper use of equipment. In a mammoth agency with everything from snowplows and trucks to copiers and computers, that could mean almost anything. Here, as in the case of Stephen R. Young, government should strive for transparency, instead of using “personnel matters” as a catch-all excuse for secrecy.

“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, e-mail editorial@idahostatesman.com.

Editorial from The Idaho Statesman

From the Idaho Statesman

The bill, approved 55-14, would remove hunters’ names from public record.

Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, proposed it after Idaho’s first wolf hunters received unwanted attention from animal advocates. Under current law, the Department of Fish and Game must release the names of people who report killing animals like wolves. Boyle’s bill would keep private the names of people who buy hunting and trapping permits. A wolf advocate published the names of 122 successful wolf hunters on a Web site in January, saying he wanted to start a debate about wolves in Idaho.

Read more: https://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/03/07/1107613/idaho-legislature-updates.html#ixzz0jFaKHfa7

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Idaho Statesman

Police officers are pushing a bill to let them make their home addresses and phone numbers private, saying it’s too easy for people with grievances to harass officers and their families.

Local government offices make real estate deeds and other documents public. The proposed bill would allow police officers, correctional officers and prosecutors to replace their home addresses with work addresses.

The Senate State Affairs Committee approved the bill. It includes proposed amendments from the newspaper group Idaho Allied Dailies, which had concerns about reporters’ access to public information.

Read more: https://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/03/07/1107613/idaho-legislature-updates.html#ixzz0jFc33twu

From the Idaho Statesman

Editorial from the Moscow-Pullman Daily News

Say it ain’t so!

Idaho Democrats are going the way of their Republican brethren when it comes to government secrecy.

The minority Democrats, with just 18 House seats and seven in the Senate, made the decision to caucus behind closed doors to maximize their effectiveness.

That reason doesn’t fly with us.

The party would be more effective if it continued to conduct its business in the open.

Closed meetings between elected officials smack of shady deals and other shenanigans, once the norm when the public was nothing more than a money source.

Open meeting laws have all but eliminated secret gatherings, but that doesn’t stop elected officials from attempting to meet behind closed doors.

In Idaho, closed caucuses are allowed as a way for political parties to discuss strategy and priorities. We wonder why Republicans in the Gem State would feel the need to have such meetings when they dominate every aspect of the legislative process by their sheer numbers.

It seems the only resistance the GOP receives on a regular basis is from the state’s Republican governor, who never met a Legislature he couldn’t bully.

It would behoove the Democrats to keep the status quo of open meetings and transparency. There’s not a whole bunch of strategy that’s going to deal a huge setback to the GOP agenda.

Unfettered access to our elected officials is essential to the governing process, especially on the state and local levels.

The process stops being public once those doors close.

We cannot say for certain if legislation is illegally discussed in caucuses, because we can’t attend the meetings and participants are tight-lipped.

We encourage Idaho Democrats to reconsider their decision. It’s the best way for voters to see how their party conducts its business without having to employ X-ray vision.

Editorial from the Moscow-Pullman Daily News

From The Spokesman-Review

BOISE – Idaho’s House and Senate minority caucuses have voted to close their meetings to the public, saying they don’t want Republicans to get a glimpse of their game plan.

“To maximize our effectiveness in the Legislature, we must take the field with every advantage that we can muster,” said House Assistant Minority Leader James Ruchti, D-Pocatello.

Democratic caucuses in both the House and Senate have been open to the public for nearly a decade, while majority Republican caucuses remained closed.

“This change is effective immediately,” Democratic leaders from both houses announced Monday morning in a press release; Democrats from both houses went into a closed-door caucus immediately after issuing the release.

“It was unanimous,” said Senate Minority Leader Kate Kelly, D-Boise. “It was a strategic decision.”

Though Idaho’s party caucuses traditionally have met behind closed doors, there’s been little public support for the practice. In 2003, the annual Boise State University Public Policy Survey, a respected statewide poll, found that 76 percent of Idahoans thought all the caucuses should be open, and only 8 percent thought they should remain closed.

Ruchti said, “I think our constituents will certainly weigh in on it, and if they dislike closed caucuses, they’ll have the ability to let us know – they usually do that at the polls.”

Under pressure from media groups and others, the House Minority Caucus opened its meetings to the public in 2001, and the Senate Democratic Caucus opened up in 2002.

The majority caucuses in both houses opted to remain closed, but in 2003 House Republicans adopted a new caucus policy limiting what their caucus can do in closed-door meetings, saying closed sessions will be held only to develop party political policy or to elect party leaders, promising that no legislation will be drafted in closed-door caucuses, and saying that “discussion of any public policy issue, including legislation, shall be for educational and informational purposes only.”

Caucuses are meetings of each party’s members in the House or Senate. Though the state Constitution requires all the business of the Legislature to be conducted in public, party caucus meetings traditionally have been closed.

That’s aroused increasing controversy in the past decade, as the Republican caucus took in such a large majority that it nearly constituted the entire Legislature. In 2001, a major package of tax-cut legislation was crafted in extended closed-door meetings of the Senate Republican Caucus, which at that time held all but three of the seats in the Senate.

Rep. Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, who was House minority leader when the Democrats decided to open the doors, won an open government award in 2001 for her caucus’ decision. But she said Monday that she supports the closure move. “I just think we need a chance to help develop our own policy ourselves – it’s better for our districts,” she said.

Said Ruchti, “What it does for you is it allows you to have disagreements in an environment where you can be comfortable having disagreements. It allows you to explore ideas that are not fully developed. … We’re doing it with the intention of becoming better representatives of our constituents.”

From The Spokesman-Review

From the Idaho Statesman

The legislative minority abandoned its argument that Democrats are the champions of transparency at the Legislature.

Shortly before 11 a.m., a Democratic aide distributed a statement loaded with sports metaphors to reporters, saying the House and Senate caucuses had unanimously voted to close their caucuses.

As the news release was distributed, 18 House Democrats and seven Senate Democrats met behind closed doors in their party’s House caucus room. An Idaho Statesman reporter who opened the door was advised that the meeting was closed.

Democrats opened their meetings in 2001 to emphasize their accountability to the public. They also sought to highlight the fact that the Republican majority’s closed meetings could decide critical issues because of their supermajorities in both houses. Democrats often complained that public business was being decided behind closed doors.

But in April, Rep. Brian Cronin, D-Boise, advocated closing caucuses, saying Democrats were at a disadvantage because the party’s strategy couldn’t be kept quiet.

“Sports coaches don’t allow reporters into their halftime meetings with their teams,” Cronin said last year. “When we’ve got one party playing chess and the other playing by Candyland rules, it seems disadvantageous.”

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Idaho Statesman

A Boise boy has already made his first Juvenile Court appearance in the death of well-known cycling enthusiast Kevin Pavlis. But what happened in the courtroom remains a mystery, since 4th District Juvenile Judge William Harrigfeld is keeping the case sealed from the public.

The sealing means there is no way to know if the teen is fighting the charge of vehicular manslaughter filed by Ada County prosecutors. If convicted of the charge, he could face up to 90 days in a detention center, three years of probation, a loss of driving privileges for up to three years, community service and financial restitution.

Pavlis, 37, of Boise, died after being hit on his bike June 11 by a sport-utility vehicle on Hill Road in Boise’s North End.

Eric Pavlis, Kevin Pavlis’ brother, said he understands why many in the Boise cycling community might be upset with the secrecy surrounding the case. He hopes that someday the court records are unsealed.

“That way, if my brother’s daughter wanted to know more about what happened to her dad, she could find out,” Pavlis said.

Unsealing the records later would be up to Harrigfeld, who was not available for comment Monday.

The first hearing, held sometime after prosecutors said Nov. 6 that the boy would be charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter, was an admit/deny hearing. That’s when a juvenile suspect admits guilt or decides to fight the charge.

Under Idaho law, only the child, parents, and attorneys are allowed to attend the hearing unless the judge grants special permission to other people who have an interest in the case, such as the family of a victim.

After a plea is entered, juvenile cases are then made open to the public, unless the judge enters a formal order to keep them sealed – as Harrigfeld did.

Boise police reports indicate Pavlis was riding legally in the eastbound bike lane on Hill Road when he was struck. Police say the boy was driving west just before he turned left onto Smith Road, where his vehicle collided with Pavlis. Pavlis died a short time later.

Some members of the Boise cycling community have filled message boards and swapped e-mails questioning the handling of the case.

Ada County Prosecutor Greg Bower tried to reassure cycling groups in October that his prosecutors were working closely with Pavlis’ family and that they planned to seek appropriate justice. Prosecutors had said they would tell the public whatever information they could about the case but warned that if a judge sealed it, they couldn’t say anything.

Bower said Monday that while he could not comment on the Pavlis case, “as a matter of policy, we believe juvenile prosecution should be open, and the process transparent.”

A “ghost bike” tribute – a bike painted white and chained to a fence – still sits near the intersection, a reminder to everyone who walks, bikes or drives by.

Kevin Pavlis helped manage Boise’s Idaho Mountain Touring outdoor-recreation store. He spent a lot of his free time with local cycling groups like the Lactic Acid Cycling Race Team.

Survivors include his wife, Elise, and their daughter, Sarma, who is named after Pavlis’ mother. She was 2 when her father died.

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council

SAN FRANCISCO – The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, governing body for
federal courts in the western states, has approved, on an experimental basis, the limited
use of cameras in federal district courts within the circuit. The action was announced
today by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

The Judicial Council voted unanimously to allow the 15 district courts within the Ninth
Circuit to experiment with the dissemination of video recordings in civil non-jury matters
only. The action amends a 1996 Ninth Circuit policy that had prohibited the taking of
photographs, as well as radio and television coverage, of court proceedings in the district
courts. It also responds to a resolution supporting the use of cameras, which was passed
by judges and lawyers attending the 2007 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference.

“We hope that being able to see and hear what transpires in the courtroom will lead to a
better public understanding of our judicial processes and enhanced confidence in the rule
of law. The experiment is designed to help us find the right balance between the public’s
right to access to the courts and the parties’ right to a fair and dignified proceeding,”
Judge Kozinski said.

Cases to be considered for the pilot program will be selected by the chief judge of the
district court in consultation with the chief circuit judge. The participating district courts
will be asked to evaluate their experiences and report to the Council.

The Ninth Circuit takes in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Washington, the U.S. Territory of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. There are four district courts in California and two in Washington.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has permitted television and radio broadcasting of
oral arguments with approval of the panel hearing the case. Since 1991, the court has
permitted video and audio recordings of oral arguments in approximately 200 cases.
All of its oral arguments are available on its website –
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/

From the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council