by Betsy Z. Russell

BOISE — The Idaho House Ethics Committee on Tuesday rejected a move pushed by two of its members to hold all future ethics committee hearings behind closed doors, after two high-profile hearings were held in public this year.

Rep. Julianne Young, R-Blackfoot, proposed that future ethics proceedings take place in “executive session,” becoming public only when the committee’s recommendation goes to the full House for a vote, in a “public hearing among a body of peers on the floor.”

“This would provide witness protection,” Young told the panel Tuesday, and would reduce the need for attorneys to be involved. “It would also eliminate this period of public conjecture that we have in our process,” she said. “It would calm a lot of that down.”

Her proposal Tuesday followed strong comments from Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, to the panel a day earlier, in which he decried the two hearings held this year as a “fiasco,” and asked, “Is transparency so paramount that we must put ourselves through a public spectacle as we did, every time those facts reach the point of we’re going to investigate further?”

The first ethics case this year involved former Rep. Aaron von Ehlinger, who the committee voted unanimously to censure and suspend for the remainder of his term for his conduct toward multiple women in the Capitol, including an allegation that he raped a teenaged House intern. He resigned before the full House could vote on the committee’s recommendation. Von Ehlinger faces trial in April on two felony charges.

The second involved Rep. Priscilla Giddings, R-White Bird, who was censured by the House and removed from one of her committee assignments for “conduct unbecoming” a House member, after she publicized the identity of the young intern both on Facebook and in her official constituent newsletter, and then defiantly refused to cooperate with the committee when it looked into her actions. She was a political ally of von Ehlinger.

Under the current House rule, ethics complaints remain confidential until the committee finds probable cause that misconduct has occurred; then, the process becomes public.

Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, was among committee members who spoke out against the closed-hearings proposal, which he called “a wholesale change in how the current House rule operates.” He said he wouldn’t be comfortable with an ethics process in which “everything is veiled in secrecy.”

Rep. John Gannon, D-Boise, said the proposal ran counter to “the way we do business in this country.”

“I think having a secret hearing would inhibit public confidence in the process itself,” he said. “I think it would be detrimental, because people who did want to examine the process by which we came to a conclusion would not be able to do so, in the way they can if they hear the entire public proceeding.”

Young said there’s precedent for such an approach, pointing to how school boards meet in closed executive session to consider disciplinary action against students. After a closed-door committee hearing, she said, there could be “a very robust floor debate.”

Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, said, “I appreciate the desire to especially protect the innocent through a private internal process, but at a certain point the public deserves the answers as much as every member of the House deserves the answers, because that is who employs us.”

Gannon said, “Due process rights can be determined a lot better with a public hearing than with a private hearing, because people can see whether there’s been due process.”

Meeting for hours both Monday and Tuesday, the committee went through the existing House ethics rule, House Rule 45, line by line and debated various ideas for clarifications and changes.

Among the changes the panel generally agreed to explore were removing all roles for House leadership in the process, including shifting responsibility for appointing the Ethics Committee chairman from the speaker of the House to the committee members; possibly providing access for a House member accused of an ethics violation to state-paid legal defense consultation; and more clarity about rules and procedures.

Barbieri said Monday that his aim was to “de-weaponize” the House ethics rule after this year’s two cases, but other members said they thought the rule had been used appropriately.

“I think they were absolutely appropriately handled and that we were diligent in looking at that rule,” said Rep. Sage Dixon, R-Ponderay, the committee chairman. “This is an effort to resolve some of those points of argument.”

The panel took no votes this week; instead, it just recommended items for legislative bill drafters to work on and present back to the committee when it meets again in January.

House Speaker Scott Bedke, R-Oakley, said the Ethics Committee wanted to discuss potential changes to the rule “while it was fresh on everyone’s minds,” but he said, “It’s not going to short-circuit the process for changing rules. We are not in session. They are advisory only.”

In order to take effect, changes to House rules must clear the House Judiciary Committee during the legislative session, and then win 2/3 support of the full House.

Crane said he thought it was worth it for the panel to take the time to exhaustively examine the rule and possible improvements, and to address “some of those critiques that were leveled against the committee.”

“As uncomfortable as it is to have those public hearings, they’re necessary,” he said.

Horman said, “There’s room for conversation here, certainly about how we can improve this process.”

But, she said, “I do think the need for transparency is paramount, because the people are who we work for.”

From the Idaho Press

From the Idaho Press

by Betsy Z. Russell

BOISE — Just how close did Idaho Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin come to jail over her defiance of the Idaho Public Records Act?

Judging by the court documents, the answer appears to be about two weeks. And that threat only appears to have hung over her for one day, between the filing of a motion for contempt of court and her release of the disputed public records the next day.

Still, it was a very real possibility, and an unusual situation for a statewide elected official.

Here’s how it happened: McGeachin refused to release public records relating to her education task force that were requested by four different Idaho reporters from three separate news outlets, starting in April. In July, the Idaho Press Club filed a public records lawsuit against McGeachin, which is the sole remedy under Idaho law when a public official or agency refuses to release records as the law requires.

The Press Club won its lawsuit on Aug. 26, when 4th District Judge Steven Hippler ordered McGeachin to turn over the records in full, fined her $750 for “bad faith” violations of the public records act, and ordered her to pay the Press Club’s attorney fees and costs.

But despite the judge’s order, McGeachin still didn’t release the records. She filed a motion for reconsideration of the judge’s ruling on Sept. 15, but never filed the required supporting documents.

On Sept. 29, the Idaho Press Club filed a motion to have McGeachin held in contempt of court until she released the records as ordered.

“If you ask to have someone held in contempt, it means they’ve violated a court order,” explained Wendy Olson, the former U.S. Attorney for Idaho who represented the Press Club in the lawsuit (and full disclosure here: I’m the club’s current president). “There’s either civil contempt or criminal contempt,” Olson said.

Under Idaho law, civil contempt applies when someone has violated a court order, but still could take action to comply with it. “So punishment is to have them detained until they do it,” Olson said. “The theory is they hold the keys to their own cell, as soon as they do what they’ve been ordered. … The typical remedy is to detain them until they comply. That’s the whole purpose of holding them in contempt.”

Criminal contempt of court comes into play when the person has violated a court order and it’s no longer possible for them to comply with it, whether that’s because evidence has been destroyed, time has passed making compliance no longer possible, or other factors. In those cases, a judge could impose fines or a jail term.

Civil contempt was what was at issue in the McGeachin case.

In a “press conference” in eastern Idaho on Thursday at which she took no questions from the press, McGeachin declared, “The characterizations of me being in contempt of court are factually inaccurate. No judge ever ordered me in contempt.”

It’s true that she wasn’t ordered held in contempt. But it’s untrue that, as she alleged, Idaho’s major news media, including the Associated Press, said she was. Here’s the lead paragraph from the AP’s report on the contempt motion: “A coalition of journalists is asking an Idaho judge to hold the state’s lieutenant governor in contempt of court for refusing to turn over public documents despite the judge’s order that she do so.”

McGeachin also claimed at the event that “the press has continued to blatantly lie and say I am asking Idahoans to pay legal bills.”

But she herself submitted a supplemental budget request to the state Division of Financial Management on Sept. 8 for “$50,000 in supplemental funding to pay for legal bills that cannot be covered by the Lt. Governor’s Office current budget without reducing staff hours and constituent services,” directly citing the Idaho Press Club lawsuit. That’s the process by which state agencies or officials request additional taxpayer funds not already included in their budget.

In the court’s Aug. 26 order, the judge wrote that McGeachin’s attempts at withholding the documents from public view were baseless and frivolous and that some of the exemptions she cited — including one specific to hunting and fishing licenses — were so irrelevant that it appeared the lieutenant governor “may have blindly selected them at random.”

In response to the Sept. 29 motion for contempt, the judge ordered McGeachin to appear in court on the contempt motion on Oct. 13, about two weeks away. He also, on Sept. 30, rejected McGeachin’s motion for reconsideration. That afternoon, McGeachin released the records.

“I think the motion had its intended effect,” Olson said. “You have to follow a court’s orders, and that applies to everybody.”

From the Idaho Press

From the Associated Press

By Rebecca Boone

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — The Idaho Press Club has dropped its request that a judge hold Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin in contempt of court for refusing to turn over public records related to her education task force.

Attorneys for the state press association and the lieutenant governor’s office filed the agreement to drop the contempt request on Friday afternoon, according to court documents. McGeachin and her chief of staff, Jordan Watters, have repeatedly ignored requests for comment from The Associated Press.

The Idaho Press Club sued McGeachin in July after several journalists said she wrongly denied public record requests for materials relating to her new Education Task Force. The task force was tasked with investigating alleged “indoctrination” in the state’s public school system, something McGeachin said was necessary to “protect our young people from the scourge of critical race theory, socialism, communism and Marxism.”

The lieutenant governor lost the lawsuit, and Fourth District Judge Steven Hippler ordered her to release the documents.

But McGeachin didn’t immediately release the materials, and a few weeks after Hippler’s ruling she formally asked the judge to reconsider the matter. She failed to comply with the judge’s order directing her to file additional legal documents supporting her request for reconsideration, according to court documents.

At the end of September, with journalists still awaiting the documents, the Idaho Press Club asked the judge to hold McGeachin in contempt of court and order her to be detained in jail until she turned over the public records. The following day Hippler formally denied McGeachin’s request for reconsideration and the lieutenant governor’s office released the records a short time later.

The judge also set an Oct. 13 hearing on the motion to hold McGeachin in contempt. The hearing was still scheduled as of Monday, according to court records, but the state courts were closed because of the Columbus Day holiday.

The judge still must agree to the stipulation to drop the contempt motion for it to go into effect.

The public records included thousands of comments McGeachin received after soliciting feedback for her task force beginning in April, the Idaho Statesman reported last week. Some of the comments were in support of McGeachin’s efforts to examine the alleged indoctrination, but far more were opposed to the task force. People who identified themselves as teachers, students, parents and concerned citizens said the allegations of indoctrination were baseless and unfounded, with some calling the task force a “witch hunt.”

Earlier this month McGeachin requested an additional $50,000 in taxpayer money to cover what she called “unforeseen legal bills” related to the lawsuit.

Copyright 2021 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

From the Associated Press

By Rebecca Boone

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Idaho Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin is scheduled for a hearing next week on whether she should be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with a judge’s order in a public records lawsuit.

Fourth District Judge Steven Hippler ordered the contempt hearing set for Oct. 13, according to court records. The Idaho Press Club last month asked that the lieutenant governor face civil contempt proceedings after it said she failed to comply with a judge’s order in the lawsuit and stalled rather than immediately releasing the public records as ordered.

Neither McGeachin nor her chief of staff Jordan Watters have responded to repeated requests for comment from The Associated Press.

The Idaho Press Club sued McGeachin in July after several journalists said she wrongly denied public record requests for materials relating to her new Education Task Force. The task force was tasked with investigating alleged “indoctrination” in the state’s public school system, something McGeachin said was necessary to “protect our young people from the scourge of critical race theory, socialism, communism and Marxism.”

The lieutenant governor lost the lawsuit, and Hippler ordered her to release the documents.

McGeachin didn’t immediately release the materials, and a few weeks after Hippler’s ruling she formally asked the judge to reconsider the matter. But then she failed to comply with the judge’s order directing her to file additional legal documents supporting her request for reconsideration, according to court documents.

At the end of September, the Idaho Press Club asked the judge to hold McGeachin in contempt of court and order her to be detained in jail until she turned over the documents. The next day Hippler formally denied McGeachin’s request for reconsideration, and the lieutenant governor’s officer released the public records a short time later.

Releasing the documents doesn’t automatically make the motion for contempt moot, though if both sides agree the matter has been settled by the release of the documents, they could ask the court to drop the matter. If the contempt request goes to a hearing, the judge could decide to reject the press club’s motion, or to allow it to move forward. If the contempt case moves forward, then McGeachin will likely be offered the opportunity to admit or deny the charge and present a defense, if she desires.

Last week McGeachin’s office asked the state for an additional $50,000 to cover its legal bills from the public record lawsuit. McGeachin hired a private attorney for the case after first being represented by the Idaho Attorney General’s Office.

From the Associated Press

From the Associated Press

By Rebecca Boone

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Idaho Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin has made public a collection of documents to journalists Thursday shortly after a judge again ordered her to reveal the records.

The public records included feedback from the public regarding her newly created Education Task Force, which was tasked with investigating alleged “indoctrination” in the state’s public school system, something McGeachin said was necessary to “protect our young people from the scourge of critical race theory, socialism, communism and Marxism.”

Several journalists first requested copies of the public records months ago. But McGeachin’s office mostly denied the requests, telling some reporters it would cost them hundreds of dollars to access the materials and cited exemptions to Idaho’s public records law that didn’t apply to the documents.

McGeachin also falsely claimed in public Facebook posts that the journalists were only seeking the records to encourage employers to retaliate against anyone who expressed concerns about the state’s public education system

In July, the Idaho Press Club sued McGeachin for the documents on behalf of Audrey Dutton and Clark Corbin with the Idaho Capital Sun, Blake Jones with Idaho Education News and Hayat Norimine with the Idaho Statesman.

In August, 4th District Judge Steven Hippler sided with the state press association and ordered McGeachin to release the documents. In the scathing ruling, Hippler said McGeachin’s attempts to withhold the documents were baseless and frivolous, noting that she tried to use an exemption that applied to hunting and fishing licenses to to keep the materials hidden.

After that ruling, McGeachin did not release the documents for weeks. When some journalists pressed again to get the public records, McGeachin’s attorneys asked the judge to reconsider his motion, effectively delaying their release.

She never followed up the legal request with a required court filing that would have explained her legal arguments in more detail.

On Wednesday, the Idaho Press Club asked Hippler to hold McGeachin in contempt of court for keeping the documents hidden. The next day, the judge denied McGeachin’s motion for relief, requiring the lieutenant governor to release the records. Her office did so a short time later.

“This approach is nothing short of sandbagging … She cannot now attempt a second bite of the apple under the guise of ‘unique and compelling circumstances.’ Any other conclusion would erode the public’s right to prompt examination of public records under the Act,” the judge wrote in Thursday’s order.

McGeachin did not respond to repeated requests for comment from The Associated Press.

The documents released Thursday included thousands of comments from people who identified themselves as parents, students and concerned citizens, the Idaho Statesman reported.

Many of the comments were in opposition to the task force, with some saying McGeachin was supporting censorship. Others said children need to learn history and how to think critically.

Some of the comments in support of the task force expressed concerns that critical race theory was being taught in schools, although educators have said critical race theory isn’t taught at the preschools, elementary or secondary school level.

By Rebecca Boone

From the Associated Press

By Rebecca Boone

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A coalition of journalists is asking an Idaho judge to hold the state’s lieutenant governor in contempt of court for refusing to turn over public documents despite the judge’s order that she do so.

Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin, a Republican, was ordered more than a month ago to release the documents regarding her newly created Education Task Force, which was tasked with investigating alleged “indoctrination” in the state’s public school system. The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by the Idaho Press Club on behalf of several journalists who said McGeachin’s office wrongly denied their public records requests for the material.

But McGeachin never released the public documents despite multiple attempts from the Idaho Press Club’s attorney, Wendy Olson, to get McGeachin to comply, according to court documents filed Wednesday. McGeachin earlier filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider the case, but then never filed the supporting documentation required by the judge.

“The Lieutenant Governor’s motion is a further attempt to delay her obligations under the Idaho Public Records Act, to the detriment of open and transparent government and to the taxpayers whom she is sticking with the bill to mount her frivolous challenge,” Olson wrote in in her motion to hold McGeachin in contempt.

McGeachin did not immediately respond to a voice mail and email from The Associated Press requesting comment.

The Idaho Press Club said in a prepared statement that it is “truly unfortunate” that the case reached the point where the organization had to file the contempt of court petition.

“This case never should have reached the court to begin with, as the lieutenant governor clearly should have released the public records upon request, and her refusal to do so was a violation of the state of Idaho’s public records law,” the organization wrote.

The press club noted that the Education Task Force’s work is resulting in draft legislation, and that the documents the journalists sought — public feedback forms — could have a bearing on that legislation.

“Without full disclosure of those records, the task force is operating in secrecy, formulating public policy outside the public view, which is exactly what Idaho’s public records and open meetings laws seek to prevent,” the Idaho Press Club wrote.

The Idaho Press Club filed the lawsuit in July after several journalists — Audrey Dutton and Clark Corbin with the Idaho Capital Sun, Blake Jones with Idaho Education News and Hayat Norimine with the Idaho Statesman — said they were wrongly denied public documents including copies of the public feedback on the task force that McGeachin’s office had gathered.

McGeachin’s office responded to some of the requests well past the time limits set by state law, and denied many of the records under a variety of exemptions. Her office also told some of the journalists the records would cost hundreds of dollars for redactions.

Fourth District Judge Steven Hippler later said McGeachin’s attempts at withholding the documents from public view were baseless and frivolous and that some of the exemptions she cited — including one specific to hunting and fishing licenses — were so irrelevant that it appeared the lieutenant governor “may have blindly selected them at random.”

“If public officials were required to disclose public records only to those, including media, they believe will support the government’s actions, we will have shed the principals of our democracy and evolved into an autocratic state where criticism of public officials is not permitted,” Hippler wrote in his ruling.

In a prepared statement after the ruling, McGeachin claimed the judge’s ruling could subject Idaho residents to harassment by forcing the release of their “personal information,” apparently referring to optional fields on her public feedback form that included spaces where people could include their names and contact information.

“After months of fighting to protect your data, the court has ruled that our office must release personal information on thousands of Idahoans to the media, where it has the potential to be misused to harass Idahoans who speak out on controversial issues,” she wrote.

From the Associated Press

From The Idaho Press/Eye on Boise

By Betsy Z. Russell

An Idaho judge has fined Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin $750 for her “bad faith” violations of the Idaho Public Records Act, and also ordered her to pay the Idaho Press Club’s attorney fees and costs for its successful lawsuit challenging her improper denial of public records requests from four different Idaho reporters for public comments submitted to her “indoctrination” task force.

McGeachin claimed an array of exemptions, from several unrelated federal laws, to “executive privilege,” to Idaho public records exemptions dealing with Fish & Game licenses, trade secrets, constituent communications to legislators, law enforcement investigations, Human Rights Commission proceedings and more justified withholding the records. All were “plainly inapplicable,” 4th District Judge Steven Hippler ruled.

“The fact that respondent found counsel that was willing to advance frivolous arguments and positions does not make respondent’s reliance thereon reasonable,” the judge wrote. “As demonstrated above, the exemptions cited in response … were so irrelevant to the Feedback Form that it appeared respondent may have blindly selected them at random.”

McGeachin even cited a federal law, the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, that makes it illegal for the government to search for or seize work product materials possessed by a journalist in connection with the investigation of a criminal offense. “For obvious reasons, this statute does not apply here,” the judge wrote.

The judge also noted McGeachin’s scathing Facebook post in which she attacked the four reporters and one of their news outlets, asking, “Why does the media want YOUR personal information? Do they plan to release it and encourage employers and government agencies to retaliate against Idahoans who have expressed concerns about Idaho’s education system?”

Among the public records McGeachin sought to block from release were not only the names of those submitting public comments to her task force, but also the comments themselves.

“The disclosure of public records is prescribed by law,” the judge wrote, “and fear mongering has no place in the calculus. If public officials were required to disclose public records only to those, including media, they believe will support the government’s actions, we will have shed the principles of our democracy and evolved into an autocratic state where criticism of public officials is not permitted.”

The judge found McGeachin’s actions to be both “frivolous” and “deliberate and in bad faith.”

“Based primarily on the plainly inapplicable, baseless exemptions proferred by Respondent in refusing disclosure,” the judge wrote, “it appears to the Court that Respondent would stop at nothing, no matter how misguided, to shield public records from the public.”

He ordered McGeachin to release the unredacted public records, along with the amount of fees paid to a private law firm she hired to defend against the Press Club’s lawsuit. McGeachin had sought to keep that secret under “attorney-client privilege.”

The Idaho Press Club – and full disclosure here, I’m the president of the Press Club – sued on behalf of four of its members, reporters Audrey Dutton and Clark Corbin, both of the Idaho Capital Sun; Hayat Norimine of the Idaho Statesman; and Blake Jones of Idaho Education News. All had submitted public records requests to McGeachin’s office.

Wendy Olson, former U.S. Attorney for Idaho, represented the Press Club in the case. McGeachin retained the law firm of Colton Boyles.

After the ruling came out late this afternoon, McGeachin issued a press release from her office, saying, “After months of fighting to protect your data, the court has ruled that our office must release personal information on thousands of Idahoans to the media, where it has the potential to be misused to harass Idahoans who speak out on controversial issues.”

She defended her actions, decried legal advice she received from the Idaho Attorney General’s office as a “dereliction of duty” and said she had “no choice but to seek outside counsel to represent my office.”

“We disagree with the court’s interpretation,” McGeachin said in her release, and called for the Legislature to tighten the public records law.

McGeachin was conducting a meeting of her task force this afternoon as the ruling came out. She also is running for governor.

From The Idaho Press/Eye on Boise

From the Idaho Statesman

BY KEVIN FIXLER

For the second time this year, the Ada County Board of Commissioners has prompted questions about a potential violation of Idaho Open Meeting Law over its handling of an appointment to the region’s public health board.

Just days before the three-member commission was set to convene for public interviews with three doctors competing for a vacancy on the Central District Health Board of Health, at least two of the commissioners exchanged emails identifying one’s preferred candidate. The appointment became baldly partisan, commissioners also acknowledged, once the Ada County Republican Party and other conservative groups threw their support behind one candidate and launched an extensive email campaign, while a progressive organization named The Idaho 97 Project publicly pushed for an opposing applicant.

In a written reply to an Idaho Statesman reporter in the days leading up to the public meeting, Commissioner Rod Beck, who acts as chair of the commission, divulged that he and Commissioner Kendra Kenyon had corresponded about her prior responses to a similar list of questions. Included among those answers in Beck’s possession was Kenyon confirming Dr. Sky Blue, an infectious disease specialist backed by the majority of the region’s medical community, as her top choice.

State law holds that a meeting between two county commissioners constitutes a quorum, but the Idaho Attorney General’s Office does not interpret that to bar all communication between commissioners. However, any private discussions, including emails, that could be seen as “deliberation” on an item coming before a commission for a vote are prohibited.

“ ‘Deliberation’ means the receipt or exchange of information or opinion relating to a decision, but shall not include informal or impromptu discussions of a general nature that do not specifically relate to a matter then pending before the public agency for decision,” Idaho’s law states.

Beck, a Republican who represents District 2, rejected the idea that the email exchange he initiated with Kenyon constituted a potential violation of the state law requiring all public business be conducted in an open forum. Earlier this year, he and fellow Republican Commissioner Ryan Davidson drew scrutiny over a prior CDH board appointment, leading to an investigation by a prosecuting attorney from a neighboring county.

“I see no issues at all regarding the Idaho Open Meeting Law. We at the Ada County Commission follow all relevant laws of the State of Idaho and the Federal Government,” Beck wrote in an email to the Statesman.

Kenyon, who represents District 3 and is the commission’s lone Democrat, also denied that her exchange with Beck ahead of the noticed meeting on Aug. 9 could be construed as a violation of law. After interviews with Blue and Drs. Stan Moss and Ryan Cole, the commission chose to delay its scheduled appointment selection from last week to Tuesday, Aug. 17.

“Never have I deliberated on this matter with my fellow commissioners outside an open meeting that was placed on the agenda for public view,” Kenyon said by email. “For an open meeting violation to occur, deliberations and decision making between two commissioners would need to occur that was not public and noticed.”

From the Idaho Statesman

From the Idaho Capital Sun

Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin’s office on Thursday sent the Idaho Capital Sun 238 pages of public records from Idahoans, sought by her to inform her education task force.

But most of it was covered in black boxes with the word “REDACTED.”

The delivery followed six weeks of back-and-forth with the lieutenant governor’s chief of staff. And by the end of the day Friday, McGeachin had taken to social media, accusing the Sun of trying to get personal information about people who responded to her appeal for stories of indoctrination in schools.

“Not only are they requesting the comments, but they are also demanding the names and email addresses of those who made the comments,” she wrote in a Facebook post on her official lieutenant governor page. “We have been making an effort to comply with their requests in a manner that is respectful of Idahoans and their personal information, but they are insistent that we give them YOUR personal information. I believe this would violate your rights and I am doing everything I can to protect your information.”

What is the ‘indoctrination’ task force?

The lieutenant governor has assembled a task force to review claims of indoctrination in Idaho’s public schools. That task force met for the first time May 27, taking no public comment.

McGeachin announced the task force April 8, saying it would “protect our young people from the scourge of critical race theory, socialism, communism and Marxism.”

“As I have traveled around the state and spoken with constituents and parents, it has become clear to me that this is one of the most significant threats facing our society today,” she said in the announcement. “We must find where these insidious theories and philosophies are lurking and excise them from our education system. … Idahoans are increasingly frustrated by the apparent lack of awareness and leadership coming from the state on these issues.”

McGeachin on April 21 announced on her website that she was seeking comments from the public regarding what Idaho schools teach students. She solicited the comments via Google Form.

Reporter requests the comments Idahoans submitted to McGeachin’s office

That day, the Idaho Capital Sun requested a copy of the public records created by that form — a public record that is maintained by the lieutenant governor’s office as a spreadsheet.

The Sun requested “a copy of the Google Sheet data from the Lt. Gov.’s Education Task Force Feedback Form, as the record exists at the time this public record request is processed. Please provide the data in its raw spreadsheet format.”

McGeachin’s Chief of Staff Jordan Watters responded to the request on May 4, saying the office had received about 3,600 comments. He provided a general breakdown of some of the data — the level of education to which comments applied (e.g. 25.1% applied to high school) and the position of the person submitting comments (e.g. 31.4% chose “concerned citizen”).

But Watters said the lieutenant governor’s office would redact names, email addresses and “personally identifying information” contained in the written comments submitted by the public. He estimated $560 in costs to redact the information, which the Idaho Capital Sun would have to pay to receive the incomplete records.

The Sun immediately responded, asking for the legal justification to redact information.

Watters responded 16 days later, saying: “Idaho code section 74-109(3) exempts from disclosure ‘personal identifying information relating to a private citizen contained in a writing to or from a member of the Idaho Legislature,’ The Education Task Force is co-chaired by Rep. Priscilla Giddings, who is a member of the Idaho Legislature. As Rep. Giddings has access to the information submitted through the feedback form, personally identifying information submitted through that form qualifies as ‘a writing to a member of the Idaho legislature,’ and is thus exempt from disclosure.”

Public comments are public records in Idaho, with few exceptions

The Sun and other media outlets routinely request and receive public comments. For example, the Sun in April requested copies of comments submitted to Gov. Brad Little regarding a bill on voter initiatives. The governor’s office provided the public records — days earlier than the deadline to do so in Idaho’s public records law.

When the lieutenant governor’s office refused to provide records, the Sun immediately reached out to the Idaho Press Club’s First Amendment Committee.

Stoel Rives attorney Wendy Olson sent the lieutenant governor’s office a letter on behalf of the Press Club and Sun reporter Audrey Dutton, saying that exemption did not apply and demanding the office send the unredacted records to Dutton by May 27 — the day of the task force’s first meeting.

Instead of providing the records, Watters sent an email. “We are currently working with the (Attorney General’s) office and should have a more substantive response for you soon,” he wrote.

The Idaho Attorney General’s Office acts as the primary law firm for the state. It has deputy attorneys general who work with state offices to provide legal counsel. Attorney General Lawrence Wasden also publishes a manual that describes Idaho’s public records laws, exemptions and the public’s recourse when those laws aren’t followed.

The next email came June 2.

“Our office can provide you with a copy of our existing spreadsheet which includes the raw data that you requested,” Watters wrote. “However, our spreadsheet contains additional information, such as narratives and contact information that appear to be outside the scope of your request. If you believe this additional information is within the scope of your original request, please let us know and we will provide you with any information not otherwise exempt from public disclosure.”

The Sun thanked him in advance for providing the full public record as requested.

But the next day, he sent over a file with names, contact information and the entirety of the public comments blacked out.

The lieutenant governor’s office did not include a citation to the Idaho law under which it made the redactions, as required by Idaho’s public records law.

“The written denial for all or part of a request for information must state the statutory authority for the denial, and include a clear statement of the right to appeal and the time for doing so,” according to the Idaho Attorney General’s Public Records Law Manual. “In addition, it is also required that the public agency state ‘that the attorney for the public agency … has reviewed the request or shall state that the public agency or independent public body corporate and politic has had an opportunity to consult with an attorney regarding the request for examination or copying of a record and has chosen not to do so.’”

A lawsuit is the only recourse Idaho’s public records law gives the public and the media if they believe a government entity has wrongfully denied access to public records.

The opinion of the attorney general’s office is that “the only legitimate reason for the agency not to consult with an attorney is that the exemption from disclosure is clear,” the manual says. “If that is the case, the letter of denial should so state. Above all, if there is any doubt about whether the information is exempt from disclosure, it is imperative that the public agency seek legal advice.”

Redactions are a partial denial of a public record request. But McGeachin’s office did not include any of the above statements in its response.

Watters on Friday afternoon said he would have to start over on the Sun’s request, saying the public comments were not in the scope of the Sun’s initial request for the full spreadsheet.

Meanwhile, McGeachin had posted to Facebook, questioning the Sun’s motives for seeking a copy of public comments that will be used to inform a task force on public education:

“Why does the media want YOUR personal information? Do they plan to release it and encourage employers and government agencies to retaliate against Idahoans who have expressed concerns about Idaho’s education system?” she wrote. “I believe that releasing this information would have a chilling effect on YOUR right to communicate your concerns to elected officials in Idaho. I remain committed to taking whatever legal actions are necessary to protect your personal information from being exposed by the media.”

From the Idaho Capital Sun

From the Idaho Press

By BLAKE JONES

BOISE — After investigating whether former U.S. Congressman Raúl Labrador’s appointment to the Central District Health board violated open meeting law, special prosecutor Bryan Taylor “found no evidence” of a legal breach.

The investigation stemmed from concerns that new Republican Ada County commissioners Rod Beck and Ryan Davidson illegally and privately discussed Labrador’s appointment outside of an open meeting in the weeks before they took office.

Kendra Kenyon — the commission’s lone incumbent and Democrat — expressed concerns the two had “teed up” the appointment outside of a quorum when Beck and Davidson introduced their pick for the health board last month, a day after they were sworn in. In response, Ada County Prosecutor Jan Bennetts asked Taylor, the Canyon County prosecutor, to act as a special prosecutor in reviewing the matter.

Taylor dropped the investigation Tuesday, writing, “the Open Meeting Law does not, by its own terms, apply to discussions between candidates for office, commissioners-elect, or private parties,” in a letter to Bennetts. “Accordingly, I have found no evidence that (commissioners) engaged in deliberation towards a decision in violation of the Open Meetings Law.”

Because Beck and Davidson reportedly did not discuss backing Labrador in the 23 hours between their swearing in and announcing their pick for the seat, they did not commit a violation, Taylor wrote. That’s because they weren’t yet in office during related discussions, even though talks occurred after they were elected to the board in November.

After concern was raised, Beck and Davidson agreed to reconsider their pick a week after appointing Labrador, a move Beck said they made “out of an abundance of caution” in light of the investigation. The commissioners again backed Labrador in a subsequent vote, reappointing him 2-1 on party lines. Kenyon supported Dr. Sky Blue, an infectious disease expert.

In light of the commission reconsidering its nomination — a “self-recognition of any potential violation,” Taylor said — he doesn’t believe that “additional enforcement action could lead to any general advantage, additional process, or outcome opportunity not already afforded.”

“The Open Meetings Law treats the transparency of a decision’s process as inseparable from the substantive validity of that decision,” he wrote, “and prioritizes corrective remediation over punitive sanction.”

A majority of county commissioners in the four counties served by CDH approved Labrador’s appointment last week. His first meeting will be Feb. 19.

Labrador, an attorney at Skaug Law in Nampa, served in the Idaho Legislature from 2006 to 2010, in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2011 to 2019, and as the Idaho Republican Party chairman from 2019 to 2020.

From the Idaho Press