Like sausage, it may taste good – but nobody likes to see it being made.

Unfortunately, Idaho law forces a public official sitting in judicial review (i.e., when deciding whether a land use application should be approved or denied) to recuse themselves if they’ve made a prior public comment on the development. This comes back to what legal-beagles in Idaho interpret as ex parti communication.

Believe it or not, if a candidate voices an opinion on a potential development (for or against) and then gets elected to sit in judgement on the same development – they must recuse themselves. Otherwise, the decision (approval or denial) will likely be overthrown on an appeal to an Idaho court.

For anyone who cares about planned communites (for or against), this means that the worst thing that could happen is to see a candidate speak out on the subject. The land use is so specific, that a comment on any one single proposal could be interpreted as a wholesale opinion on the entire subject. The last thing that anyone should want is to see is an elected leader (voted into office to decide on such issues) be forced to remove themselves from the decision-making process. With an office like the county commission (with just three commissioners), even a single recusal could represent a tectonic shift in the objectivity of any decision.

I know this sounds crazy, but if a decision-maker (P&Z Commissioner, Council member, Mayor, or Commissioner) even visits the site of a proposal during the hearing process – even with no one else present – this counts (in Idaho) as ex parti communication. In other states, when controversial projects get appealed to the courts, if the judge finds that the decision-makers visited the site during the hearing process (separately or together), or bother to go out into the community to ask questions of the public (proponents and opponents) it is weighed in favor of the objectivity of the decision. In several such cases the judges have congratulated such decision-makers for their commitment to educating themselves on the case. But in Idaho, the law would dictate that such actions are unethical and would be prima facia evidence for overturning any decision made by that elected (or appointed) official.

Idaho sausage is particulary nasty to watch being made.

EDITOR NOTE–George that explains why so many politicos profess and display ignorance–its the law! Not only are the voters uninformed, so are the law makers. No wonder the guys with the money usually win. What a great state.

The post up above, it’s a joke, right?

I mean, so what if Mr. T has a few typos? There was nothing malicious about them, and they reflect poorly on no one but him. (EDITOR NOTE–Thistle got 3 paragraphs deleted in this comment for not playing nice).

Meanwhile, back to the point of the thread, some money sources are easier to explain than others. In this town, short of living in a cave, you are going to have friends in the building industry. As LynneSed pointed out, you are not automatically soiled by accepting their money.

However, some contributions are troublesome, such as the money from big planned unit developers who have application pending before the commission. The Frank Martin source, P&Zs poster boy for conflicts of interest, comes to mind, with a $300 donation to both Tilman and Woods. And then there is the audacity of the $1,000 that Kimball accepted from Skyline Development. Skyline has two planned unit communities in the pipeline that Kimball, if elected, will have to rule on. I almost hope he wins so I can hear his reasons for not recusing himself. That will be precious.

By my tally, the only two candidates without planned unit developer money in their pockets are Ames and Ullman. They may not be spotless but compared to the hogs feeding at the big trough they look pretty clean. That, combined with the fact that, philosophically, they are also represent the biggest possible departure from the current commission seals it for me.

Sorry to see you leave. I thought you did a great job and represented the people of Eagle well. I thought you were well rounded and listened to all sides regardless.

Some think you have to spend a lot of money to be serious about politics or that because you have accepted money from a certain group that you in turn favor them. I have always supported you even if we did not always agree on something.

You also acted as I think an elected official should, with pride and dignity. Too bad we can’t say that about em’ all (yes clippit I know that em’ isn’t a real word.)

I am not saying they do not have a valid point or that it means anything less, but have some professionalism in writing. I think if anyone is to be taken seriously they need to come across that way. I don’t care what time of day you post something, at least proof it before you put your name on it. I am not trying to take away from the article…..but it is hard to read something like that and take it serious.

I would also like to mention the fact that there was such poor turnout at the debate shows that A. they are doing a good job, B. no one cares, or C. no one wants to get involved except to complain when things don’t go their way (that is not directed at anyone specific.)

Lastly, I also think Sharon is a loose cannon. All I see with Sharon is someone out to make life miserable for everyone. Sharon, weren’t you a Democrat at one point, then a Republican, now an Independent? I read your article about this on your site (which was well written and no spelling mistakes,) and I don’t know if I really buy that or not.

Osprey – I can understand how you might believe that the amount of money a candidate spends on a campaign defines how much effort they are putting into a race. The media, entrenched politicians, and special interest groups have been conditioning us to think that way for many years. In reality, those of us who run grass roots campaigns put as much or more effort in, because we do not have a paid staff, but rather dedicated volunteers working from the heart.

Cyclops – Elbert Hubbard said, “To escape criticism – do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.” This cannon has her feet firmly secured to this community and any volleys fired will be on behalf of the citizens.