City Government

Update On City Cleaning Contract Caper

Note–If you haven’t read the previous CLEANING CONTRACT post, we suggest you scroll down and then come back to this update with most recent information.

Judge Thomas Neville has set a hearing on June 30 at 10 a.m. for oral arguments on the issue of “Whether documents which are generated in response to a query about certain individuals who may perform services at SECURITY-SENSITIVE sites pursuant to a contract awarded by a governmental entity are exempt from disclosure…when such documents make reference to a law enforcement investigation.”

The court holds the public record documents which were not supplied to Hample. The overall issue before the court is release of those records. Hample’s attorney seeks to question a certain city employee, but city lawyers have filed motions aimed at preventing the deposition.

In Tuesday’s order, Judge Neville allows Hample to interview the employee, but not to discuss the content of the documents which are being held by the court.

The city’s use of the SECURITY-SENSITIVE term may be a red herring. When the GUARDIAN editor defeated the city over release of a security camera video showing a game of “strip hockey” the city resisted on the basis of “national security” issues.

Comments & Discussion

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. Rod in SE Boise
    Jun 14, 2011, 9:24 pm

    So….the library is a “security-sensitive” site? Really?

  2. What a joke! This is just a cover up…..period.

  3. At what point does police involvement become a police investigation exempt from the IPRL?

    If I am required to submit completed fingerprint cards with an employment application and if I obtain those completed cards from a police agency, does that constitute a police investigation sufficient to exempt otherwise public information?

    If an NCIC or state criminal history check is required by a prospective employer on an applicant, does a law enforcement agency’s response constitute a police investigation justifying exemption?

    The question is, do police administrative actions automatically amount to police investigations subject to exemption?

  4. Grumpy ole guy
    Jun 30, 2011, 8:46 pm

    Why was the “old” contract continued for an entire year. If the “active investigation” is completed in less than a year should not the previously deemed winning contract be honored at that time? What if said investigation lasts for longer than one year, will the contract be re-advertised and re-bid with exclusionary wording? Or, would it automatically be renewed, again for an entire year, by the present holder?

Get the Guardian by email

Enter your email address: