We are told about the use of County computers by numerous individuals in the Kootenai county prosecutors office for” displaying graphic sexual images and videos” along with sexual harrassment in the department. This was published in the Statesman and is a copy of an associated press article.

I ask you again , citizens of Idaho,why are county Attorneys in this state now primarily responsible for upholding the law in this state and not the Attorney general ? by the way , the law was changed during the Kempthorne administration by a case Al lance took to the Idaho supreme court.

EDITOR NOTE–Primary responsibility for enforcing Idaho Code rests with the prosecutor of each county. The attorney general has a “support role” when asked to assist local jurisdictions, with some exceptions.

There are many sticky issues related to the two recent shootings.
Why didn’t the polioce use non-lethal weapons ,first and solely, to try to de-fuse the situation?
Who fired the first shot,in other words ,was it a case of contagious firing of weapons ?

Can bullets be traced back to the weapons that fired them?

How many times was each suspect hit by a bullet and which shots were lethal?

A coroners inquest is a time tried and proven segment of the american legal system because it gives the citizens a chance to hear the facts and make decisions based on them. For The County coroner and other county officials to decide that an inquest won’t work in Ada county is similar to saying our legal system is not good enough for Boise.

I could mention the fact that our attorney general is no longer the primary law upholder in our state. That was changed so COUNTY OFFICIALS could interpret the law, unlike most other states who always have and will continue to rely on their AG as the primary upholder of state law.

The county basically,is telling the citizens of this area that the standard practices of the American judicial system are not good enough for ADA county. I wonder why?

The general public felt there was a need for a change on the commission and voted out miss Judy and Freddy would have probably gone that way too, if he had had a challenger back in May. Don’t you suppose the same might have happened with Erwin if he had had a challenger? Like I said before, not too many people are willing to sign up to deal with dead bodies but that doesn’t mean he is doing a good job.

Since we have a medical examiner now and are paying a coroner to play golf, how could we be any worse off just paying the guy who is doing the work? This might not be the Great State of Ada, but why should we keep a system that doesn’t work because the rest of the state is still rural? They can all do whatever they want. We should do better.

There is accountability. Elected officials are accountable. Obviously the fallout from the Jones inquest was not enough for the public to feel the need for a new coroner. Not only that but no one even bothered to run in the last election. Call it voter apathy but obviously the general public does not feel there is much need for change.

Your suggestions for a medical examiner system would be very difficult for Idaho. This is mostly due to the sheer geographical size of the state and all of its poor north south transportation routes. Secondly a medical examiner system would be more expensive. Don’t forget most of Idaho is still rural agricultural. Despite what many think this is the State of Idaho not the Great State of Ada.

Having a apppointed coroner is not a bad idea. However is this really better? Having a coroner answer to a commision of three or being able to be held to the voting public. My opinion is that the current system works fine.

As far as accountability, what accountability? Remember the Matthew Jones inquest?

I tend to agree with you that there is more accountability when someone is elected rather than appointed. There are some problems with the current setup, though: 1) the medical examiner is doing the “real work” and he is not elected; 2) we don’t really have accountability, since there are few people who have the necessary skills and are willing to run for this office that deals with dead bodies; 3) the position of coroner is so far off the radar of most citizens that there is little or no oversight; and, 4) the Ada County coroner ran unopposed this year, despite bungling the Jones inquest, so we couldn’t vote against him anyway.

Solutions? Many possibilities, some better than others. A medical examiner system to replace the coroner, either at the county level or done by the state. The coroner being appointed by the commissioners so he would have to answer to someone. Even a change in election law that would allow us to vote against unopposed candidates in the general election. In other words, if there is no opposition, it would be like voting for or against a judge: shall we retain ____ to serve as ____? If the person running unopposed couldn’t get 50 percent of the vote, then they’re out!

EDITOR NOTE–That is true at English Common law. (Our laws are based on common law) You need someone able to arrest bad sheriffs. The code has several provisions where the coroner has duties to replace the sheriff.

The Suncor bill bonds the developer against losses, not the city or the county. When a “bonded” Suncor type development fails to build out, the developer gets paid off in full with no obligation to compensate the local government service providers. The full obligation to pay the bond premium gets piled onto the few unlucky homeowners. They are also the ones who have to pick up the tab for the care and feeding of their under funded infrastructure.

Ultimately, the overburdened subdivision requires relief / support from, once again, the city or the county and the rest of us pick up the tab.

The city and county building departments currently ask for bonds from every building contractor. It makes just as much sense for them to ask for performance bonds from the developers. Clippity has it nailed. The legitimate developers that do their homework would have no qualms about posting performance bonds.

Huh? said, “FYI eliminating the elected office of the coroner makes little sense. If the office was to be headed by a medical examiner you would be tying up your technical expert, “the pathologist” with administrative duties. It makes more sense to have a administrative head either elected or appointed. This way you don’t waste paying a huge salary to a MD that would have to hire another MD to do the work.”

The Chief Deputy coroner does the admin work and the coroner mostly plays golf. The medical examiner makes a lot of money contracting with the county doing the medical work. Seems we could do away with the golfer/coroner and be no worse off.