From the Idaho Statesman

Words removed from the State of the State suggest he might drop his demand for a constitutional amendment.

BY DAN POPKEY – dpopkey@idahostatesman.com
Edition Date: 01/27/09

A passage that Gov. Butch Otter cut from his State of the State address two weeks ago suggested that he may be more flexible about permitting voter-approved local sales taxes than he was last year.

Otter’s unspoken words may suggest a softening of his earlier “unequivocal support” for a constitutional amendment before local governments could ask voters to back sales taxes for spending on transportation and possibly other needs.

That is likely to encourage proponents of a beefed-up public transit system in the Treasure Valley. They were frustrated last year when House Republicans insisted on requiring the constitutional amendment.

Cities, counties and chambers of commerce hope Otter and the Legislature will agree to give local governments this authority by passing a law, which requires simple majority votes in the House and Senate and the governor’s signature. A constitutional amendment requires two-thirds majorities in bothhouses and approval by voters at the next general election. A law would be far easier to amend.

“I think it’s heartening,” said Senate Local Government & Taxation Committee Chairman Brent Hill, R-Rexburg. “My cities in Eastern Idaho are not interested in a constitutional amendment that ties the hands of future legislatures.”

A draft of Otter’s Jan. 12 speech had him urging lawmakers to agree to allow local-option taxes – without mentioning a constitutional amendment.

But on the Friday before the Monday speech he removed two paragraphs, apparently at the urging of House Majority Leader Mike Moyle, R-Star, the most vocal proponent of an amendment. While the House voted for a constitutional amendment last year, it died in the Senate, which preferred the lower bar.

The purged words closed a long passage pitching Otter’s plan to raise fuel taxes and registration fees for highways. Otter provided the draft in response to a public records request from the Statesman. The omitted text:

“I also encourage you to come together in agreement that cities and counties must have the option – with the consent of voters – to provide financially for their own community infrastructure needs. If local folks in a given jurisdiction want to impose a tax on themselves, they should have that opportunity.

“We must not let our own views cloud our commitment to self-determination and enabling people to be the architects of their own destiny.”

Moyle said he asked Otter to remove talk of local-option because of ongoing negotiations. “I told him I was concerned about that being brought up,” Moyle said Monday. “I’d much rather work it out rather than fight it in the State of the State or the newspaper.”

House Speaker Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale, said he continues to oppose local-option without a constitutional amendment. Denney said he has discussed lowering the threshold for voter approval from two-thirds to three-fifths. “As long as it comes as a constitutional amendment, the parameters are up to the committee,” he said.

Otter declined to elaborate on whether he was taking sides on the constitutional amendment. In an interview with Idaho Public Television aired four days after the speech, he said he dropped the topic because leadership told him of “tender negotiations.” Pressed on whether he would insist on a constitutional amendment or could accept a statute, he said, “I’m not going to answer that.”

The excised statements are a departure from a March 12 letter to House Revenue & Taxation Committee Chairman Dennis Lake. Otter wrote of his “unequivocal support” for an amendment as the “best, most timely and most broadly acceptable manner” to grant local tax powers. He closes with a quote from Thomas Jefferson: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce Chairman Mark Bowen was pleased to learn of Otter’s sentiments in the earlier draft. “We welcome the opportunity to have a broader dialogue rather than, ‘This is the price of admission.’ I’d appreciate it if everybody backed away a little.”

Moyle, however, said there’s no reason to conclude Otter has stepped back. “Big deal,” he said. “That’s neutral. You could read it either way.”

Senate President Pro Tem Bob Geddes, R-Soda Springs, cautioned against too much parsing of the omitted passage. “This may be cracking the door open, but it’s not open enough for me to see what’s inside that dark room yet,” he said.

Dan Popkey: 377-6438

From the Idaho Statesman

From The Spokesman-Review

Betsy Z. Russell
Staff writer

BOISE – A new national survey ranks Washington fourth in the nation for governmental integrity, openness and accountability – and Idaho 44th.

The survey, conducted by the Chicago-based Better Government Association, compared open records laws, open meeting laws, whistleblower laws, campaign finance requirements and conflict-of-interest laws, to create a government “integrity index.”

Idaho scored particularly poorly for its open meeting and conflict of interest laws. As one of just four states with no requirement for state legislators to disclose their personal finances, Idaho tied for last place with a zero score in the conflict-of-interest category, while Washington was ranked first in the nation.

Idaho state Sen. Mike Jorgenson, R-Hayden Lake, said, “I think we need to stop and do a little introspective, and ask ourselves what’s going on.”

State Sen. Kate Kelly, D-Boise, who has sponsored ethics legislation, said, “It doesn’t come as a surprise. It’s just one more indication that this is an area we need to focus on.”

Though Washington fared well in the 50-state survey, Jason Mercier, director of the Center for Government Reform in Olympia, said, “This is a good survey of who’s got the best practices out there, whose laws are worth taking a look at. But the more interesting question to me is how are states actually implementing the laws they have on the books.”

Washington has strong open meetings and public records laws, Mercier said. “The problem: There are violations constantly.”

The state is involved in litigation over violations of the public records law, he said. “Just because you have a tool in place, that’s half the battle. Now you have to have elected officials overseeing those tools who’ll execute them properly.”

Washington has set up a Sunshine Committee to review the numerous exemptions in its public records law; Mercier said that committee just decided this week to recommend reversing two state Supreme Court decisions limiting public access to documents due to attorney-client privilege and work product rules.

The Washington Legislature will receive the committee’s first report of recommendations this year.

Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said he’s less concerned over national rankings than over how Idaho’s laws are working for Idaho. “The open meeting law ought to meet the needs of the respective states – we don’t do business the same way they do in Washington or Illinois or other locales, we do business the way we do it here in Idaho,” he said. “I do think we have an affirmative open meeting law. We are working to refine it.”

The survey ranked Idaho 44th in the nation for its open meeting law, and tied for last on conflict-of-interest laws in the form of legislative financial disclosure requirements.

Wasden investigated the State Board of Education in February for possible violation of the state’s open meeting law but concluded that while the board may have violated the law, he couldn’t prove, under a recent state Supreme Court decision, that they’d “knowingly” done so.

“We’re working on some improvements” to the law, Wasden said. “That’s an issue that we’re trying to address right now. … We’re wrestling with exactly that.”

Jorgenson said he’s also interested in legislation to improve Idaho’s law. “I think there is too much gray area in open meetings,” he said.

Wasden said he’s also working to promote compliance with Idaho’s open government laws. “It’s very important that government in this state operate under the statutes as they’re written, and it’s important in terms of maintaining the integrity of our governmental systems and our citizens’ ability to interact with their government.”

Though Idaho was ranked low in the survey for its open meeting law, the state ranked highly for its whistleblower laws – 9th in the nation – and was in the middle of the pack for open records laws, at 24th, and campaign finance rules, at 29th.

Washington ranked 16th for its open records law, 15th for its whistleblower laws, 28th for campaign finance requirements, 15th for its open meeting law, and first for conflict-of-interest laws.

The top-ranked state was New Jersey; the worst was South Dakota.

Betsy Z. Russell can be reached toll-free at (866) 336-2854 or bzrussell@gmail.com

From The Spokesman-Review

From the Post Register

The Uneasy Chair – Editing the Post Register
By Dean Miller

A dead body lay on the steps of the church adjacent to Temple View Elementary School in Idaho Falls Friday morning. It was in plain view of kids who were walking to school and being dropped off behind the church. Principal Natalie Peters saw fit to send out a letter to parents alerting them to what their kids might have seen. It’s hard to imagine a more public spot, but the Idaho Falls Police Department decided this was nobody’s business and released no report. As I write this, all we’ve been told is that it was a male. So, if you live near Temple View, should you worry about the neighborhood your kid walks through? Do police know for sure if it’s a suicide or a murder? Are they the least bit interested in what the public may have observed in the area leading up to the death? Nothing to see, here. Move along, folks. None of your business.

Saturday night, Rexburg police suppressed information about a pedestrian killed by a car. Witnesses and neighbors confirmed somone had been killed, but the police dummied up, refusing to provide even the basics. It turns out two women were hit: one killed, one badly injured. If your son walks that street to get to classes at BYUI, wouldn’t you want to know what happened? If you drive that street, would you want to know how to avoid a similar tragedy? Tough. Rexburg’s police department has decided none of it is any of your business.

A car badly injured a Rexburg pedestrian in June. And a year ago, a driver killed a pedestrian in Rexburg. So, one would have to be monumentally indifferent not to wonder if there’s a public safety problem with Rexburg’s street design. As of this morning, the Rexburg Police Department would only say “It’s common knowledge” someone died. Which is sort of like saying, “Believe what you want. This is none of your business.”

In neither case, did we insist on knowing or printing the names of the deceased. We understand that notification of next of kin is the first priority. We simply sought verification or clarification of what callers were telling us. But the area’s police have a retentive turn of mind when it comes to involving the public in the public safety work that is carried out at public expense and under the laws and constitution of the land, which give the American public the responsibility to oversee public servants.

Stay tuned. We’ll continue searching for alternate sources of credible information and report appropriate details to the public.

While it’s true that some readers have a prurient interest in public deaths, the vast majority simply want to be accurately informed about fatalities in their neighborhood.

Our ethics code places the privacy of a suicide victim’s family ahead of the public’s right to know, except when the suicide somehow endangers the public or occurs in a public place. The applicable section reads:

• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. We don’t print the names of people who commit suicide, unless they commit suicide in a public place, are involved in a murder/suicide, or are public officials or public figures.

What’s notable is that Idaho’s pros, the Idaho State Police, take a vastly different approach. When they investigate a death, they promptly release appropriate information, which is a service to the public and also encourages the public to call in with useful information. Police departments would do well to emulate their example.

Dean Miller is the editor of the Post Register in Idaho Falls. This article first appeared on his blog, “The Uneasy Chair – Editing the Post Register.”

From the Post Register

At the recent 2008 Idaho Judicial Conference, more than 100 Idaho judges from around the state participated in a session on media/court issues, ranging from cameras in the courtroom to access to court records to handling high-visibility cases.

As part of the program, Betsy Russell, president of IDOG and president of the Idaho Press Club, and Marc Johnson, former reporter, former chief of staff for Gov. Cecil Andrus and now with Gallatin Public Affairs, presented a list of “Top 10 Tips” for judges to keep in mind when dealing with reporters. Here they are:

10) Always, always return a call from a reporter

9) Understand deadlines

8) Give cameras in the courtroom a try – in Idaho it’s been a great success and leads to greater public understanding

7) Be willing to explain, educate and inform – some reporters need it and you can offer it

6) If you can’t comment, direct the reporter to someone who might comment

5) Point reporters to the Media Guide and use it yourself

4) Courts and court records need to be open – exceptions should be rare and subject to established procedures

3) Know the rules – when talking to a reporter you are always on the record unless you both agree otherwise in advance

2) Campaigns are news – even for judges. Expect and answer questions.

And the No. 1 tip for judges to keep in mind when dealing with reporters:

1. It’s not an accident that it is the “First” Amendment – think “first” before sealing a document or closing a proceeding.

The presentation was well-received, and the judges were thoughtful, engaged and constructive in their comments and questions. In addition to the “Top 10 Tips,” the panel included a discussion of the Idaho State Judiciary Media Guide, an online guide that includes extensive information for reporters about how Idaho’s court system works, how to submit a Cameras in the Courtroom request, which records are open and how to get them, etc.

The media guide, as Judge Ralph Savage told the assembled members of the judiciary, also can be highly useful for judges, with such features as tips from other states on how to handle high-visibility cases and successfully coordinate plans to meet the needs of the media. The presentation also included the airing and discussion of taped “interviews” Johnson conducted with three Idaho judges, playing the role of an aggressive reporter as each was put on the spot to respond to a fictitious, but likely, scenario.

Other members of the panel included Trial Court Administrator Burt Butler, who discussed cameras in the courtroom and other media issues, and Judge Jeff Brudie, who discussed recent changes to Rule 32, the rule that governs when court records can be sealed. The rule strictly limits the circumstances under which records can be sealed, but the change allows a temporary sealing to preserve the right to a fair trial, such as when a confession is sealed prior to jury selection. Those documents then would be unsealed when that’s no longer an issue, such as once jury selection is completed.

Check out the Idaho State Judiciary Media Guide online at https://www.isc.idaho.gov/mguide/.

From the Idaho Mountain Express

Mountain Express seeks waiver of $1,000 fee

By GREG STAHL
Express Staff Writer

The city of Ketchum agreed Monday evening to work with Idaho Mountain Express staff to furnish a records request made by the newspaper on Aug. 6. It was unclear, however, whether or to what extent the city would waive the $1,000 fee it proposed to charge for the labor involved in providing the records.

The topic was part of the Ketchum City Council’s discussion agenda at its regular Monday meeting.

The Express is seeking e-mails sent and received among members of the City Council and mayor on the topic of the Warm Springs Ranch Resort hotel proposal in the 12 months preceding the records request.

The city promptly responded Aug. 7 and said it could provide the e-mails by Aug. 20. However, wrote City Clerk Sandy Cady, pursuant to a 2006 city resolution regarding records requests, the city estimated the cost of providing the records to be $1,000.

Idaho Mountain Express Editor Shea Andersen wrote a letter on Aug. 29 seeking to have the $1,000 fee waived.

Idaho Code provides that a public agency must waive fees when the requester demonstrates “that the public’s interest or the public’s understanding of the operations or activities of government or its records would suffer by the assessment or collection of any fee.”

In a dialogue between Andersen and the City Council on Monday, Councilman Larry Helzel said his understanding of that provision was that if an applicant could prove economic hardship, then the fee would be waived.

“I’m not sure that the newspaper could demonstrate hardship,” he said.

Mayor Randy Hall said the point of the fee is so taxpayers don’t have to pay for public records requests.

Nevertheless, the city agreed to have its computer tech talk with the newspaper’s computer tech in a good-faith next step in providing the records.

From the Idaho Mountain Express

From KTVB-TV

BOISE — NewsChannel 7 talked to a well-known local attorney about the public’s access to a trial or hearing like Joseph Duncan’s despite the victim’s request that they not be allowed.

Steve Groene did not hide the fact that he didn’t want the public to see a graphic videotape of his young son Dylan being tortured and raped.

But against his requests, the Constitution says the public has the right to be there and see all evidence.

Enraged, Groene targeted two women — the only two members of the general public who chose to watch the disturbing video. Moments before the tapes were played, he rushed into the courtroom and made a profane hand gesture toward the women and verbally gave them a piece of his mind.

Groene was upset that U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge did not keep the courtroom closed from the public when the tapes were played, except to those pertinent to the hearing.

Boise attorney David Leroy says his actions were fitting for an outraged parent, but according to the law, his emotions could not be considered.

“We have in this country a constitutional right for a defendant to have a public and open trial, we have strong rights for the media and the public to see what is going on in our courts,” said Leroy.

The former Idaho attorney general and current defense attorney, David Leroy, says our constitutional rights stem from our founders who fled a king that decided a man’s fate behind closed doors. And when the Constitution was written it deemed that if life, liberty or property were at risk, then it was going to happen in a public arena — no matter how the victim felt.

“Idaho has very strong victim’s rights statues, we recognize that it’s terribly important for the sensitivity of victims to be considered in the courtroom and the sentencing process, even the parole process when people are being released from custody, however none of those victim’s rights, those statutes, control the outcome and the conduct of a case,” said Leroy.

With the outcome of the case being life or death, Leroy says the evidence for all to see must be in the bounds of reality, materiality, and relevance.

“This is a dreadful, dreadful case and a horrible set of allegations it’s probably among the worst 10 cases in the last 100 years in terms the abuse of children and those who have to sit and look at the evidence whether they’re trained police officers or whether they’re jurors drawn from the public, nevertheless the question is – what shall we do with this man? And it’s important to follow the procedure and look at the evidence objectively,” said Leroy.

The two women that Steve Groene made obscene gestures at did not want to go on camera, but quietly told us that they understood why he was mad.

They said they were in court to see the judicial process unfold and mean no disrespect toward the case and the Groene family.

From KTVB-TV

From the Spokesman-Review

Betsy Z. Russell
Staff writer

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected an appeal from The Spokesman-Review of a federal judge’s decision to close the courtroom for key testimony in Joseph Duncan’s federal sentencing trial.

A three-judge panel of the court wrote that it could not reverse U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge’s order unless the district court “clearly erred” in ordering the courtroom closure, and they ruled, “It did not.” The ruling did not elaborate.

Lodge had ordered the courtroom closed for any testimony by Shasta Groene, the 11-year-old surviving victim of Duncan’s crimes.

Gary Graham, managing editor of the newspaper, said, “We’re obviously very disappointed in the court’s ruling.” He added, “We believe that the public and the news media have a right to know and see the same things the jury will hear and observe in the courtroom. … It’s critical that reporters be allowed to observe important testimony in order to produce a detailed account of the proceedings.”

Lodge had held that the 1st Amendment interests of the public were outweighed by the “compelling interests in protecting the minor victim from further harm and embarrassment.”

James Cohen, a law professor at Fordham University, said he was surprised the appeals court applied the strict “clear error” standard of review to a 1st Amendment case. “It sounds as if the 9th Circuit is giving the 1st Amendment short shrift,” he said.

From the Spokesman-Review

Link to document: 9th Circuit appeal

From the Spokesman-Review

BOISE – The Spokesman-Review has submitted notices to the parties in the Joseph Duncan case saying it will file an appeal (8/7/08) today with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opposing closure of the courtroom for any proceedings in Duncan’s death penalty sentencing trial.

U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge ruled Tuesday that the courtroom will be closed for the testimony of Duncan’s surviving victim, 11-year-old Shasta Groene. He’s considering a request to have her testify via closed-circuit television, so she wouldn’t be in the same room as her attacker.

Spokane attorney Duane Swinton, who represents the newspaper, said in the notice that the appeal will include an emergency motion for writ of mandamus to keep the courtroom open, and if the testimony is by closed-circuit TV, to permit the public in the courtroom while the girl testifies from another room.

From the Spokesman-Review

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

GUBERNATORIAL RECORDS

Dirk Kempthorne is lurching toward releasing papers from his seven-year tenure as governor – a mere 27 months after leaving office.

No one can accuse the governor-turned-interior secretary of rushing into this one.

The problem rests not just with Kempthorne, but with state law. Idaho code contains no guidelines and sets no deadlines for the release of the archives.

As a result, Kempthorne and the Idaho State Historical Society have been engaged in a protracted public records Kabuki dance that might result in the release of some 500 boxes of gubernatorial records by September. The two sides have been meeting over the past month. As society Executive Director Janet Gallimore describes it, “We’re just working out the details now.”

Gallimore may feel obliged to put the best face on this mess. We’ll take a detached, dimmer view. It is inexcusable that Kempthorne has dragged his feet for so long – thwarting people from seeing records of his public service. The archives have been available for public viewing only with Kempthorne’s approval. The Historical Society has routinely turned down records requests, since it doesn’t have the documents.

This cloak-and-dagger policy includes equal parts paranoia and entitlement. We’re not sure why Kempthorne is trying to keep people away from the archives, but he doesn’t have the right. These may be Kempthorne’s records, but this phrase describes authorship, not ownership. The records belong to all Idahoans, although Kempthorne’s behavior would have you think otherwise.

State law requires the release of records – but the law is open-ended, and the timetable is subject to the whims of a former governor. Kempthorne’s successor, Jim Risch, promptly released his papers – although, in fairness to Kempthorne, Risch had only seven months’ worth of papers to release.

There’s nothing wrong with putting a deadline in the law; the state’s public records law has guidelines in place. A government agency has three working days to decide whether a requested document falls under the public records law, and then has 10 working days to make it available. The agency’s obligations are clear – and the process is predictable for the business person, concerned citizen or journalist seeking a record.

We don’t expect a former governor to turn over years of paperwork within 10 days.

However, we also don’t believe a former governor has any good reason to sit on records for more than two years. Somewhere in between, a reasonable timeframe can be found – and it can be incorporated into state law.

“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 Twin Falls Times-News

By Damon Hunzeker, Staff writer

Members of the Cassia County Board of Commissioners sometimes eat lunch together, sometimes bump into each other around town, sometimes discuss personal opinions privately. But according to a report issued by Attorney General Lawrence Wasden’s office Wednesday, they have not violated the Idaho Open Meetings Act.

In March, 12 residents of the Jackson area sent a letter to Cassia County Attorney Al Barrus alleging various improprieties and negligence from county commissioners regarding the law.

“Because you represent the Cassia County Commission on legal matters, we request that an independent prosecutor be appointed,” they wrote.

Barrus forwarded the complaint to the attorney general’s office – which, five months later, refuted the allegations.

The dispute began several years ago when the Jackson area was re-zoned from Minidoka County coordinates and brought into Cassia County, after which residents claimed emergency-service calls were ineffectually received, based upon confusion arising from the address changes.

Jackson citizens wanted to retain Minidoka County status. Cassia County Planning and Zoning agreed with them. The commissioners disagreed, and the residents were zoned away from their former county.

That happened two years ago. The residents attempted to incorporate a new town – Jackson – which would be part of Minidoka County. The request was denied by Cassia County commissioners.

Meetings and deliberations ensued – often, according to Jackson residents’ complaints, without sufficient notice given to the public and sometimes during executive session.

The Open Meetings Act requires that “all meetings of a governing body of a public agency shall be open to the public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided by this act.”

While granting executive-session allowances that prevent the public from attending during those moments, OMA prohibits the agency from taking any final action during that time.

The complainants’ letter includes five specific allegations and asks that their zoning address be returned to Minidoka County.

However, according to the attorney general’s report, the grievances “fail to meet the timing provisions of the OMA” – which requires that, in order to declare a decision null and void, it needs to be brought forth within 30 days of the time that OMA was violated.

That wasn’t done – regardless, the report denies that the commission violated anything in the first place.

While acknowledging the frustrations of Jackson residents regarding inadequate emergency services, the attorney general investigation found no reason to reverse the commission’s zoning-change decision, nor any reason to consider the commission in violation of OMA.

“A review of the record reveals that the board engaged in significant public debate over the issues and provided multiple opportunities for input and commentary from the Jackson residents,” the report states.

From the Twin Falls Times-News