County
Supremes Issue Win, Loss, Draw Decision
May 25, 2007 
The Supremes came out with their opinion on the Ada Commishes open meeting case today and it appears to the GUARDIAN the Commishes got off the hook for the $150 fine, but were found in technical violation of the open meeting law which has since been amended by the legislature.
It would be fair to say their actions would not be permitted under the new law.
The Idaho Attorney General had pushed the case after the Commishes went into executive session for the purpose of discussing potential litigation. Boise City Councilor Vern Bisterfeldt was in the same meeting and claimed there was discussion of matters not subject to executive session. No court has made a determination regarding the statements of the Commishes or Bisterfeldt.
The case reads a bit like Bill Clinton discussing what “is” is.
The Court’s CONCLUSION :
“Idaho Code § 67-2345(1)(f) allows a governing body to meet in executive session “where there is a general public awareness of probable litigation.” The statute does not require that an attorney be present at such meetings.
However, the executive session violated the open meeting law because the motion and votes to enter executive session were not recorded in the written minutes as required under I.C.
§§ 67-2344(1)(b) and 67-2345(1).
Although there was a violation, the Commissioners are not subject to a civil penalty
unless they were aware of the violation when they held the meeting. Because the Commissioners denied any knowledge of a violation, judgment on the pleadings is not proper. A factual determination of their state of mind remains.
The decision of the district court is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.”
Justices TROUT, EISMANN and BURDICK CONCUR. JONES, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Bottom line–the decision doesn’t really matter to the average citizen and both the commishes and the AG can claim victory since the law has been changed.
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Comments & Discussion
Comments are closed for this post.
May 25, 2007, 9:57 pm
“Although there was a violation, the Commissioners are not subject to a civil penalty
unless they were aware of the violation when they held the meeting. Because the Commissioners denied any knowledge of a violation, judgment on the pleadings is not proper. A factual determination of their state of mind remains.”
So, for the commisses, ignorance is an excuse. Sure wish this one would work for me. “Honest, officer, I didn’t know I was violating any law. i didn’t know I was drunk; I didn’t know I was speeding, I didn’t know I was driving on the wrong side of a four-lane highway and then turned to go the wrong way on a one-way street; I didn’t know this car wasn’t registered to me; I didn’t know it didn’t have license plates an I didn’t know I didn’t have a driver’s license or even that I was supposed to have one.”
“OK, Sir; sorry I bothered you by stopping you. Have a good day.”
May 27, 2007, 11:04 am
Sounds bizzare. It even sounds a bit like the piecemeal decisions the Court issued during the post-2000 reapportionment litigation, where they kept alive the thin hopes of a coalition of conservative southeastern Idahoans.
When it finally became clear to the Supremes that the political willpower behind the Quioxtic lawsuit was waning, as the reality was that the populations of Idaho’s counties had shifted such that any lawsuit would not give them what they really wanted (another district), the Supremes quietly issued a brief order that ended the case. It was weird. It was almost as if the decisions were being crafted to not offend certain political power centers.
I have no idea if that could be at play in the present case, but it is yet another example of the Supremes being quite coy and mouselike in a big, political case.
May 29, 2007, 12:34 am
Hey, Dave – have you seen what the commisoners over in Pocatello have done – another huge open meeting violation. Would be interesting to hear your views on the hospital mess over there prompted by your work.
EDITOR NOTE–The “mess” is caused by commishes who will not allow a vote of citizens and banks attempting to create a “financial crises” using my name (supreme court decision). A vote would cure it all, that’s why we have a state constitution.
Jun 1, 2007, 1:53 pm
What does it tell you when the Commishes themselves are unable to follow their own laws, and plead ignorance of the law as an excuse?
Time to show the current Commishes the door, and vote in some new ones who swear to abide by and uphold the laws.
EDITOR NOTE–If you are keeping score Lew, it is one down and two to go.