I did not realize Scott Turlington was a lobbyist. Just assumed he was a principal of Dynamis. Turlington was the one involved in all the non-public meetings held by Fred Tilman that began this whole mess. If you review the petition filed on behalf of the citizens group, you’ll see calendar items showing all the non-public meetings: 10/21/09, 5/6/10, 5/18/10, 5/27/10 meetings between Commissioner Tilman and Turlington. Turlington was also in the meetings with Commissioner Tilman and Dynamis’ Lloyd Mahaffey on 6/4/10 and 6/11/10, and he was in the meetings with Commissioner Ullman and Dynamis’ Mahaffey on 6/15/10 and the one with Commissioner Yzaguirre and Dynamis’ Mahaffey 6/15/10 (all of which led up to the 6/30/10 signing of the contract), as well as the 8/17/10 Ullman and Mahaffey meeting about compliance (or the lack thereof). To find out he received a huge payment from County coffers simply takes one’s breath away. And yes, the law that only the Prosecutor (fox) can investigate the Commissioners (henhouse) is terrible. Why can’t citizens request the Attorney General’s intervention in what may be illegal activities? I think the only way to get a true investigation is probably for someone to file an actual lawsuit. But you’re right. The law should be changed. No one should be above the law. And no one should think they’re untouchable and do not have to serve the public who elected them to office.

EDITOR NOTE–Two Cents, thanks for the additional documentation. The GUARDIAN should be a virtual treasure trove of data for the investigator–thanks to the factual information provided by readers like you.

It is not additional documentation; it is just pointing out salient details that have already been made public. Happy to spend the time flagging these items to assist the future investigator. But most thanks go to you, Dave, for your tireless efforts in this matter, especially during the earlier times when the daily newspaper did not report details nor seem to do any real investigation, as they finally are doing now.

I am suprised that some group haven’t taken the bull by the horns and started a recall election against Yzaguirre. I voted for him when he was eagle Mayor but have voted for his apponet ever since his sales tax fiasco (not paying tax collected at Justos).. This new fiasco with Dynamis smells like it is—Rotten

It is clear that the Guardian opinion is correct – SOMETHING needs to be done so that citizens can have recourse short of waiting for the next election to correct wrongs, or investigate the claims of wrongs in cases such as this. I am not enough of a legal expert to know WHAT that change should be; but, do wonder if the AG’s office couldn’t designate someone or some agency or office to act in its behalf when there is a perception of conflict of interest. Or, if the State feels it cannot act is there either some reciprocal agreement with other states, or a Federal office to which such matters could be referred? If not, should such an arrangement be made?
The clear violation of good faith seems to demand some sort of investigation, and if legal violations have taken place, some form of sanction put into place.

EDITOR NOTE–Grumpy, the Feds can come in if there is “public corruption” suspected, but the decision to investigate has to go through the Dept. of Justice in Washington. Our problem in Idaho is the existing law simply prohibits the AG from doing anything unless invited by the local prosecutor. If the local is crooked or involved in questionable acts, there is no recourse. With a law granting the AG CONCURRENT JURISDICTION just like ISP currently enjoys, it removes the excuse for the AG to hide behind or the shield for locals to ignore the law. We don’t need other states to investigate, we need officials with the cajones to do what is lawful and just.

It would take more than a statute to give the Attorney General actual, enforceable power. It would take a constitutional amendment. The Idaho Supreme Court has made this quite clear in an opinion issued back in the 90’s involving a horrific county prosecution in TF County, where the AG attempted to intervene and take over. The Supreme Court slapped the AG down. In order for the AG to actually be able to do something without an official invitation from the county prosecutor, there would have to be a constitutional amendment.

EDITOR NOTE–If true, we need to get after the legislature to pass such a simple language amendment and then send it to the people. There is no mechanism in Idaho for the people to initiate an amendment. Only the legislature can amend the constitution with a 2/3 vote of both houses and then a simple majority of the people.

Do the people taking county money know they are “moochers?” Shouldn’t someone tell them since they are Republicans?

I wonder when this is all over will the Bannock County prosecutor actually step up and prosecute someone, or will this become a case of “there was insufficient evidence to prove the use of county funds was illegal.” If anybody goes to jail they should also forfeit their PERSI, which is the real reason I suspect they will avoid prosecution.

Imagine what would have happened if Sharon had made a successful bid for the Governor.

I agree with you on this one. The new language, whether statutory or constitutional, would be a valuable addition. County prosecutors often lack the perspective necessary to properly investigate issues.

EDITOR NOTE–Are you ready to take a bi-partisan stand to introduce the bill? The language can be as simple as: “the attorney general shall have concurrent jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute any and all violations of Idaho Code in any county of the state.”

After Tamarack, I think Scott Turlington became a lobbyist for the failed PC Avimor, now apparently has gone onto this. Curious. He’s not the issue, however, only doing his job. The issue is in the Commissioners’ lap. This is becoming surreal.

Sounds like some bank records need to be subpoenaed.

Guardian wrote: Sounds like you are advocating a “county manager” professional who is governed by a representative board. We hope you don’t want even more commishes making $97,000 who will have super retirement through PERSI.

Isn’t that a bit of a straw man? I did not state that I’d like to see more commissioners making that kind of money. $97k/year, when did that happen? Last I checked it was about $80k/year. It seems like there is only one argument against expanding the number of our representatives and that is— It will cost more. Well, we get what we pay for.

All of you, you cannot complain about how things are going at Ada County and ignore the fact that there are only 3 commissioners representing 215,000 registered voters (2010 general election). No wonder there’s the air of cronyism. Only 3 people running a government which oversees the activity of 400,000, how can we accept this?

I don’t know all the ins and outs of the County Manager system. I don’t like the idea of appointments at all. The County Manager should be an elected position and there should be at least 6 County Councilors. Isn’t this the checks and balances notion that the Guardian lauds in the note to poster James Bond on this very page?

All I’m saying is that we should seriously debate the larger issue, the big picture, instead of always focusing narrowly on one controversy after another. What we have here is a can’t see the forest for the trees situation.

EDITOR NOTE–Cynic, take a deep breath! We AGREE with you! It could easily be expanded with no extra expense. Paul has advocated a system which is in essence like the city council and city manager system. The $97,000 salary is correct. We could easily agree to paying a professional manager $150,000 and splitting the remaining $150,000 among 5 or 7 part time commishes (need odd number to prevent tie votes).

Well, one should make no mistake: Canyon County and Nampa did not get rid of the corruption when Bujak resigned!!!!

And further, make no mistake: Many of the criminals have not been charged yet.

I have to agree with Boise Cynic and respectfully disagree with Dave about the concept of a County Manager. Ada County has operated in this fashion despite not being constitutionally set up to do so, since appointing Rich Wright as the Director of Administrative Services back in 2009. He operated as a defacto County Manager in all respects other than title. He receives a high salary that is, I believe, just a tad less than the Commissioners do. A County Manager is untouchable (other than being fired by those who appointed him) and he can do the dirty work for the commissioners. This method of operating as what some fondly call “the fourth commissioner” is dangerous in my opinion because there are no checks and balances and creates a terrible situation where you have a non-elected official with no accountability to voters nor even any requirement to abide by the laws that regulate how elected officials operate. At least with an elected Board, one can vote a commissioner out of office as has just occurred with Commissioner Ullman. And why on earth would a three-person board earning $97,000 each need someone to do the work for them? Isn’t that what they’re being elected to do and being paid to do?

EDITOR NOTE–I believe those who advocate the “manager” plan assume there will be MORE representatives, but they will be part timers like a city council. That is what I discussed in the note with Boise Cynic. No one wants 3 commsihes at the high pay level AND a professional.