N & I: Assuming you agree with all other facts noted since you didn’t respond further to those.

Looks like your issues with BCVB are Mike F, transparency and the statute, yes?

ok – we’ll take this one post at a time: First, Mike F: He is a Director on the GBAD board, not the Vice Chair. Check their website: http://gbadnow.com/GBAD-governance.asp

EDITOR NOTE–We are closing debate on this post as it is degenerating into a family fight and we are simply not part of the family.

You can’t quote bits and pieces of a statute. That isn’t the way the law works. Although, you don’t care about the law do you? The statutory language you used does exist (in part), however, you left out the part that talks about “having the purposes and POWERS (emphasis added) contained in this act”. Your argument doesn’t hold water.

There is nothing complex about Mike F. being the Chair of the BCVB and the Vice Chair of GBAD. If you don’t see the conflict you aren’t looking very hard. Don’t make “grey all the more grey” by bringing up actions of other Board members. Stay on point here. If you can defend Mike F’s conflicts in position or behaviour, have at it.

As far as transparency, your comments don’t make sense. Again, stay on point. You do like “grey don’t you? Please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by holding up .sttiboise as a bastion of transparency. This site is a one sided, mean spirited attempt to deface anyone that doesn’t think the way you do.

I didn’t know GBAD’s attorney lost the Pocatello case. The way the S.C. ruled, it looked like Pocatello was operating outside the law. Seems easy to most people. Although most individuals associated with the BCVB don’t put much stock in the law.

signed….flaming rude, oh heck, and nasty and inebriated as well.

AG opinion is on STTIBoise.org website: http://sttiboise.org/?page_id=54

Actually, the Chairman issue is a lot more complex than what you just put out – a lot. Backgrounds and details of actions of the 3 GBAD members in question for even the last 90 days appear questionable at best, so if you would like to discuss the term ‘conflicted’, it’s open and all of the details can come out.

Transparency: Specifics on what GBAD supporters believe hasn’t been provided have been asked for at numerous times with no response, or supporters who comment won’t or don’t followup. The question is still open for you to answer – go to STTIBoise and comment there to keep everyone in the loop so it can be fully discuss.

Picking and choosing which laws to uphold isn’t what I support and is against the law. However, 3 members of GBAD and their GM appear to be cherry picking among those as being proved by Public Records Requests. Upholding fiduciary duties is now in question as well.

The purpose of an Auditorium District, (from the Idaho Statute) is this: Serve the public need and use and will promote the
prosperity, security and general welfare of the inhabitants of said districts.

The Idaho Statute also clearly outlines the non-compete issue: (http://law.justia.com/idaho/codes/67ftoc/670490012.html) “To promote any functions for said district, provided that said board
shall not engage in operations that are inconsistent with the purpose of said
district; and it shall be the policy of the board not to compete with existing
facilities and services in the district, wherever practicable;. directives for Auditorium Districts”.

If you feel RFP limits are not being exceeded, prove it.

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, however, GBAD’s preferred attorney lost the Pocatello CVB case.

Regarding transparency, at least if a public records request is given to the District, they provide the information requested. You seem to forget that the BCVB has failed at every level to provide important information. Don’t sling mud at GBAD unless BCVB is above the fray. There is NO ACCOUNTABILITY or TRANSPARENCY with BCVB, THAT IS FACT. Hiding behind a non-profit status was a tactic, and it backfired, OWN IT.

As for the Statute and RFP’s. You, as well as the BCVB Board, and Kane, really don’t understand the statute very well or you wouldn’t be in this mess, ask the State of Idaho Attorney General!

Fitzgerald was completely conflicted in his positions, otherwise, he would still be the Chairman of the BCVB and Vice-Chair of the District, a nice FACT you quietly left out.

The BCVB has misplayed this event on every single level. There are plenty of hoteliers that are sick and tired of the way Ms. Patterson has handled the situation.

Now, quit whining and go back to volunteering or looking for a job!

Hotel rumblings: Unsure of your point – sounds like more rumors unless something can be shown in fact.

Not having larger set back requirements is ridiculous – what, are we running out of ground in southern Idaho? Too late to fix it now.

Disgusting.

Hope to see another article from the Guardian with in depth homework and proven facts.

EDITOR NOTE–You seem to be much better informed that are we. Please feel free to offer up facts. We have met with all sorts of folks and it seems to be a majority personality rift sprinkled with lots of insiders. We have talked to several hoteliers who offer rumblings about going to the state to get a different SWITA/BCVB contractor. Not much the GUARDIAN can offer with regard to that private contractor
— either current or future.