From the Idaho Press

by Betsy Z. Russell

BOISE — As a reporter who covers government, a central part of my mission is to inform citizens about what their government is doing. That requires that the government operate openly, and not in secret.

But it’s certainly not only reporters who benefit from openness in government. It’s at the heart of our nation’s ideals that we have, in President Abraham Lincoln’s words, a “government of the people, by the people (and) for the people.”

For the people to drive our government, the people must be informed about the actions their government takes in their name. Only then can they be informed, engaged citizens and make our system of self-government work. That’s why we have a free press in our nation, independent of the government. It’s why we have rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. And it’s why we have laws requiring openness in government, including two key laws in our state: The Idaho Open Meeting Law and the Idaho Public Records Act.

I am a co-founder and longtime president of Idahoans for Openness in Government, a broad-based, non-profit coalition that includes people from inside and outside of government, the media, civic organizations and more. Since 2004, IDOG has partnered with Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden to present free training across our state on these two key laws, what they require, and how to comply with them.

We’ve taken our show on the road to every corner of the state, from Rexburg to Lewiston, from Idaho Falls to Coeur d’Alene, from Twin Falls to Sandpoint, and from Boise to Bonners Ferry. But the pandemic has put a crimp in our in-person events the past two years, prompting us to turn to creating virtual versions of our sessions.

Last January, more than 500 people across the state participated in our free online session on open meetings in a pandemic. It was highly productive and helpful in making sure all of us continue to be able to monitor our government at the state and local levels, and that our government agencies know how to preserve openness even amid a pandemic.

We hope to be back on the road within the year, but for now, are planning a statewide virtual open government seminar for Wednesday, Jan. 5, running from 2-4 p.m. MST.

“I often hear from constituents who have questions about Idaho’s open meetings and public records laws, and I know there are a lot of new public officials and reporters who are navigating these waters for the first time,” Wasden said in a news release about the event. “The virtual seminar is a good way to address this demand statewide.”

Participants will learn about the Open Meeting Law and the Public Records Act, how they work and what they require. It’s free and open to anyone; it’s especially recommended for elected officials, government staff, reporters, and interested members of the public.

IDOG’s open government seminars are recommended by the Office of the Attorney General, the Association of Idaho Cities, the Idaho Association of Counties and the Idaho Press Club.

Those who would like to participate are asked to register online; there’s more information and a registration link at this address: openidaho.org/upcoming-seminars. Participants will be able to submit questions via email during the seminar, and it will be live-streamed on YouTube. It also will be recorded and made available for those who’d like to view it later.

Panelists will be Wasden, myself, and Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane; Scott Graf, the attorney general’s public information officer, will serve as moderator to receive and pose your questions.

This session marks 50 open government trainings that Wasden and IDOG have hosted since 2004.

You can find more information at IDOG’s website, openidaho.org. Consider tuning in to this virtual seminar. Please pass the word to anyone you think could benefit from this – your local government agencies and their staffs, your favorite news providers, your elected officials, your friends or family.

It’s a great way to open a new year in 2022 that will see a lot going on in government, from politics, elections and redistricting to local efforts to cope with everything from growth to taxes to transportation.

It was back in 1863 when President Lincoln spoke of the “great task before us,” to ensure that “government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” 2022 is coming, and we’re still working on it.

From the Idaho Press

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