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

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

COEUR d’ALENE — A Kootenai County judge has ordered North Idaho College to turn over certain public records to the Coeur d’Alene Press, following a lawsuit.

Judge John T. Mitchell ruled Wednesday that NIC must produce a number of employment contracts, as well as several unredacted invoices from college legal counsel.

The lawsuit, filed in February by attorneys for the Coeur d’Alene Press, alleged that NIC and chief communications officer Laura Rumpler violated Idaho’s public record laws multiple times by not fulfilling in whole, or in part, lawful requests for public records made by the newspaper.

The suit also alleged that NIC and Rumpler failed to comply with mandatory timeframes for responding to the newspaper’s public records requests.

North Idaho College denied the requests for employment agreements on the grounds that the contracts were “personnel records” and therefore exempt from disclosure under Idaho’s sunshine laws. The court rejected this reasoning.

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

The Press also requested copies of invoices from NIC’s legal counsel, including the December 2022 and January 2023 invoices from attorney Art Macomber. When NIC provided the invoices, they were heavily redacted with many lines blacked out.

After reviewing fully unredacted invoices that were filed under seal with the court, Mitchell determined that several of the redactions made by NIC must be removed.

Mitchell requested briefs from each of the attorneys detailing arguments whether the court should award attorney fees to the Coeur d’Alene Press. The judge will consider the issue Aug. 3.

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

From the Associated Press

By REBECCA BOONE – Associated Press

An Idaho judge has denied a request from roughly two dozen news organizations to lift a gag order in the criminal case of a man accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students to death. The judge did, however, significantly narrow the gag order in response to the news organizations’ concerns.

The ruling was handed down late Friday afternoon.

In it, 2nd District Judge John Judge said it was legally prudent to restrict attorneys from making some statements about the case in order to preserve Bryan Kohberger’s right to a fair trial. Still, Judge also said the original gag order — which also barred law enforcement officers and other people tangentially related to the case from speaking to the press — was “arguably overbroad and vague in some areas.”

Kohberger, 28, is charged with four counts of first-degree murder and burglary in connection with the stabbing deaths in Moscow, Idaho. Prosecutors have yet to reveal if they intend to seek the death penalty.

The bodies of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were found on Nov. 13, 2022, at a rental home across the street from the University of Idaho campus. The slayings shocked the rural Idaho community and neighboring Pullman, Washington, where Kohberger was a graduate student studying criminology at Washington State University.

The case garnered widespread publicity, and in January Latah County Magistrate Judge Megan Marshall issued the sweeping gag order that has barred attorneys, law enforcement agencies and others associated with the case from talking or writing about it.

A coalition of 30 news organizations including The Associated Press asked the Idaho Supreme Court earlier this year to reject the gag order, contending it violates the First Amendment rights of a free press. The high court declined to weigh in on whether the gag order violates the news organizations’ Constitutional rights, and said the media coalition should first ask the lower court to lift the order before asking the Idaho Supreme Court to step in.

“This Court has long respected the media’s role in our constitutional republic, and honored the promises in both the Idaho Constitution and First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” Justice Gregory Moeller wrote in the high court’s decision. He went on to quote a ruling from a federal case that said responsible press coverage, “guards against the miscarriage of justice” by subjecting the court system and those who are a part of it to public scrutiny.

In Friday’s ruling, the 2nd District judge said the gag order served a legitimate purpose and “the very limited incidental effects of the speech restrictions on the media’s First Amendment rights are overridden by the compelling interest in ensuring fair trial by an impartial jury.”

The new gag order — formally called a “nondissemination order” — prohibits any attorneys representing parties, victims or witnesses in the case from making statements that could have a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing or otherwise influencing the outcome of the case.”

The attorneys are allowed to comment about things like procedural issues, scheduling and make statements that a lawyer would reasonably believe is required to protect their client from substantial prejudicial effects of recent publicity — for instance, they can likely make public comments correcting misinformation about their client.

They cannot express opinions about the guilt or innocence of a defendant outside of the courtroom, and they can’t share information that they know wouldn’t be allowed in court. They also can’t talk about the character of a witness, expected testimony, the likelihood of a plea deal or other case-related matters.

“We are pleased that the Court significantly narrowed the nondissemination order, a clear recognition that the initial order was overbroad,” said Wendy Olson, the attorney representing the media coalition. “We all agree that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights are important but that in preserving those rights, nether the parties nor the courts can completely cast aside the First Amendment rights of the press. The press in cases like this one provide important transparency regarding how the criminal justice system works.”

The judge also denied a gag order-related request from an attorney representing one of the victims’ families. Shanon Gray, who represents the Goncalves family, asked to be excluded from the gag order so that he could talk to the press on the family’s behalf.

In the ruling, Judge noted that as an attorney, Gray could have access to confidential information about the case that would be prejudicial if it was released to the public.

From the Associated Press

From the Moscow-Pullman Daily News

by ANTHONY KUIPERS

Originally published June 7 in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News.

The media coalition urging Latah County 2nd District Court to end a gag order in the Bryan Kohberger case filed another motion arguing it creates “a vacuum for rampant speculation online.”

Since Magistrate Judge Megan Marshall signed a gag order in January prohibiting attorneys and law enforcement involved in the case from speaking publicly about it, media organizations argue it violates their First Amendment rights.

According to the gag order, as well as Kohberger’s attorneys, it is necessary to protect Kohberger’s right to a fair trial.

Kohberger faces four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary in the November stabbing deaths of University of Idaho students Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin. Kohberger remains in Latah County Jail.

His jury trial is scheduled for Oct. 2.

On Friday, Latah County District Judge John Judge will preside over a hearing where the media coalition will make its argument to vacate the order. Judge will also hear arguments from the Goncalves family attorney, Shanon Gray, who sought a hearing to amend the gag order so he can speak to the public on behalf of his clients.

Wendy Olson and Cory Carone, the attorneys for the media coalition, wrote a recently released memorandum to support the argument that the gag order should be vacated. They are urging the judge to balance the First Amendment right with Kohberger’s Sixth Amendment right.

“The State’s and Mr. Kohberger’s failure to present any evidence of prejudicial news coverage, and the Court’s failure to consider alternative measures, means the competing constitutional rights here were improperly balanced and the Gag Order should be vacated,” the memorandum says. “If anything, the Gag Order prejudices Mr. Kohberger by depriving the public of quality information, creating a vacuum for rampant speculation online.”

Olson and Carone argue that Kohberger and the Latah County Prosecutor’s Office did not submit evidence when the gag order was first issued. Therefore, the memorandum states, they should not be allowed to “ambush” the media with evidence they should have disclosed earlier.

The media coalition also filed statements from reporters giving examples of ways they were denied information because of the gag order. The examples include police officials declining to answer their questions and denying public records requests.

A June 27 court date has been set to discuss Kohberger’s request to release the record of the grand jury proceedings, including transcripts and the list of jurors. Kohberger was indicted by a grand jury May 17, which led to his arraignment May 22. Judge entered a not guilty plea on Kohberger’s behalf during his arraignment after Kohberger chose to stand silent rather than enter a plea.

From the Moscow-Pullman Daily News

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

By KAYE THORNBRUGH

COEUR d’ALENE — A report issued by North Idaho College attorney Art Macomber recommended that trustees nullify President Nick Swayne’s employment contract due to an open meeting law violation that allegedly occurred the day Swayne was hired.

Trustees Todd Banducci, Greg McKenzie and Mike Waggoner took Macomber’s advice Monday night, voting to nullify the contract but keep Swayne on as active president until further notice.

Tarie Zimmerman and Brad Corkill strongly opposed voiding the contract based on the report. Corkill said Macomber’s “unhinged analysis” appeared to be a “roadmap for a coup to get rid of the college president.”

NIC published the full 173-page report Tuesday afternoon after trustees agreed to release it to the public. Read it at cdapress.com.

Macomber acknowledged in the report that an order issued last month by Judge Cynthia Meyer — which called Macomber’s investigation into Swayne’s contract “a sham” — prohibits firing Swayne and that doing so could result in charges of contempt. In fact, following the board’s Monday night vote, a contempt hearing in Swayne’s lawsuit is scheduled for June 2.

But if trustees nullify the contract, Macomber argued, the judge’s order is no longer binding.

“The board should recognize the Swayne contract is null and void,” Macomber said. “As such, the Swayne lawsuit may and likely should fail for a lack of valid contract to interpret.”

The allegations of an open meeting violation stem from a phone conversation between Laura Rumpler, NIC’s chief communications officer, and Angela Provart, the independent consultant who facilitated the national search for presidential candidates.

NIC trustees met June 22, 2022, to choose a president from among four finalists. Prior to the meeting, in preparation for the announcement of the trustees’ choice of a president, Rumpler reportedly prepared a news release for each finalist, so that one would be available as soon as one of them was selected to be hired.

The morning of June 22, she reportedly sent an email to Provart, as well as to former trustee David Wold and former NIC attorney Marc Lyons.

“If there are two of the four candidates that are rising to the top, can you give me an indication so I can best prep, knowing we won’t know the final outcome until the board takes action tonight?” Rumpler wrote. “I’d really like to narrow down our work and strategy if possible.”

Later that morning, Rumpler said she and Provart spoke on the phone.

Rumpler alleges that Provart told her Swayne would be selected that night.

“Telephone conversations are difficult to verify, but the facts show Ms. Rumpler concluded her email exchanges with (the other finalists) early in the afternoon, while her exchange with Dr. Swayne continued late in the afternoon,” Macomber wrote in his report.

It appears that Macomber did not speak to Provart about the matter.

Provart confirmed via email with The Press Tuesday that she checked in with the trustees toward the end of the search process to gauge their feelings about the finalists.

“I reached out to all trustees individually, never as a group,” she said. “I talked with all trustees except for Banducci and McKenzie, as they did not respond to my messages.”

In the report, Macomber was critical of Swayne’s relationship with the NIC Foundation, an independent nonprofit founded in 1977 to encourage private support for NIC. Governed by a volunteer board of directors, the NIC Foundation solicits, accepts and stewards resources, including private donations, to enhance college programs and provide student scholarships.

The college president traditionally serves as the foundation’s corporate secretary. Macomber suggested this may be inappropriate and that Swayne’s loyalty may be split between the college and the charity that supports it.

“The board of trustees may want to reevaluate those potential conflicts, especially if Dr. Swayne is enjoying a second paycheck or other remuneration from the Foundation in addition to his presumably primary paycheck as North Idaho College president,” Macomber said. “This author has no written evidence of monetary payment from the foundation to Dr. Swayne.”

Macomber insinuates a conspiracy involving the NIC Foundation and the State Board of Education. The three former trustees who voted to hire Swayne were all connected to the NIC foundation. John Goedde and David Wold had served as board members, while Pete Broschet worked for a board member. Macomber implied that the State Board of Education appointed the trio to the NIC board because of their connections to the charity.

He added that the board should “reconsider the college’s relationship to this private entity.”

Macomber did not interview the former trustees he accused of participating in a conspiracy to hire Swayne. Instead, he issued subpoenas to them, along with college employees and others.

Macomber described Swayne’s lawsuit seeking reinstatement to his job as “unexpected” but “lucky” because it opened the door for him to issue subpoenas for information about Swayne’s hiring he might otherwise be unable to access.

The court quashed three of the subpoenas, calling them “unreasonable and oppressive.” Legal counsel assigned by NIC’s insurer withdrew the rest.

Macomber criticized those who did not comply with his subpoenas and said they are responsible for errors in his report.

“If any action taken by the board of trustees based on this report is found later to be in error due to a lack of information purposefully withheld by those parties, the public should understand that the blame for needless costs and delays must lie at the feet of those persons,” he said.

In her ruling, Meyer noted that the window for any action related to a June 22 open meeting violation closed in January, six months after the hiring.

Macomber disagreed, asserting that a public governing body may “self-recognize” an alleged violation and act upon it at any time, even years after the fact.

“If the board of trustees of North Idaho College wants to self-recognize its own violation of the Open Meetings Law that it may determine occurred in June of 2022, the use of this report to substantiate such act would not be time-barred under the statute,” he said.

But McKenzie and Banducci began to publicly question the legitimacy of Swayne’s hiring the very night he was selected as president, long before Macomber’s report existed.

In the June 22 board meeting, Banducci suggested Swayne’s hiring was a “naked power grab” coordinated by former trustees, the Idaho State Board of Education, Judge Meyer, the Attorney General’s Office, the governor and others.

“As far as I’m concerned, this entire process is null and void,” he said.

McKenzie, too, voiced concerns about “corruption” in the search process.

The pair also objected to voting for a president without first meeting in executive session to discuss the candidates. To enter closed session, four trustees must agree; the private session did not occur because McKenzie and Banducci blocked it.

At least $19,074 was spent to create this report, according to Macomber’s invoices from February and March, which make specific references to a “board report.”

However, because Macomber’s invoices are heavily redacted and his April bill is not yet available, it’s impossible to know the true cost of the report to North Idaho College.

Macomber report

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

From the Idaho Statesman

The Ada Community Library board violated Idaho Open Meeting Law at its March board meeting when the trustees voted to remove six books from the library’s collection without noting an action item on the agenda.

The board acknowledged its mistake in a statement posted on its website Tuesday morning after the Idaho Statesman published a story on the vote to remove the books.

“The board acknowledges the error and reiterates that those votes are ineffective and the books discussed will remain in the library’s collection pending any further action,” the statement said.

In a statement emailed to the Statesman, the board said it has no plans to take a re- vote on removing the books.

The board also credited the Statesman for making the board “realize the procedural deficit that occurred at the March meeting.”

The library trustees had voted to remove six books from the collection in March because they believed the content was “harmful to minors.”

“A series of books in the collection were read by trustees and reviewed under existing Idaho code to determine whether they contained material that fell within the current Idaho statutes’ definition of what is ‘harmful to minors,’ ” the board said in a statement to the Statesman. “Where it seemed so, the board voted to remove the books from our collection. Where the books did not contain such material, the board voted to retain.”

The board’s action came after a bill from the Idaho Legislature that would have opened library staff members to misdemeanor charges for disseminating material harmful to minors. Librarians are exempt from the current law in Idaho. The bill passed the Legislature but was vetoed by Gov. Brad Little after the board voted to remove the books.

The board voted to remove the following titles:

• “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe
• “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison
• “All Boys Aren’t Blue” by George M Johnson “Out Of Darkness” by Ashley Hope Perez
• “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison
• “This Book is Gay” by Juno Dawson

The vote was taken under the agenda’s “legislative update.” The result was null and void because the agenda didn’t list a related “action item.”

“Due to a miscommunication, this was not done for the March 21, 2023, meeting and went unnoticed until recently,” the board said on its website.

The agenda for the board’s May meeting was not posted online as of Tuesday afternoon.

From the Idaho Statesman