City Government

Ada Commishes Didn’t Play With A Full Deck

When Ada County Commishes got together with Boise’s Team Dave to make a compromise deal over who pays what and how much for misdemeanor court services they were one card short of a full deck–Commish Sharon Ullman was not in the game.

We have said in the previous post the deal is probably a good one and both sides have made concessions. However, the manner in which the cards were dealt was not right. Ullman never hid her opposition to the deal and has publicly made a very long and impassioned argument against the terms. She had made those same arguments known to her fellow commishes. She will be out voted at Tuesday’s County Commish meeting and the City Council will also likely approve it.

She was not part of the meetings between the city and county and claims it was a “done deal” before she was ever informed of it–as evidenced by the official county press release quoting everyone but Ullman. There was no reason to go around her since both Chairman Rick Yzaguirre and Commish Vern Bisterfeldt favored the measure.

We have rules by which to play the game of government and politics which need to be followed. Otherwise our two primary local governments will end up in the same mess as the G-BAD boys (and girls) at the Greater Boise Auditorium District.

Like the bossy mother-in-law you have to invite to Thanksgiving dinner, ALL elected officials need to be included in the decision making process. They don’t deserve to be marginalized.

Comments & Discussion

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. Eye on Numbers
    Aug 30, 2011, 10:12 am

    Marginalization of Comm. Ullman and back door deals done in rooms most of us never get to visit is the short answer.

  2. Well then, it sounds like no deal. I also gotta wonder why the other two would do a deal to favor the city. I don’t think their loyalty is to the county for some reason. I bet they both really really want to raise taxes too. How many pensions are these to guys collecting from how many agencies? I just don’t think they vote in my favor, or the majority of those they are suppose to represent. And as for Sharon… why is she always crying fowl after the fact… how does something like this just sneek up on her? For $100K/year I expect someone that can get ahead of the job.

  3. When are the two liberals planning to raise taxes?? Perhaps we should be told about that in advance.

  4. Dave – did you just compare Sharon to a bossy mother in law????

    EDITOR NOTE–not a comparison exactly, but it was the best I could do to make the point.

  5. For a very intelligent man of high integrity, you do yourself a disservice, Dave, being an apologist for Sharon Ullman. She says she was not a part of the meetings and it was a done deal before she knew? Really? Meetings are public, so she would have known they existed ahead of time cause that’s how the public meeting laws work. If they were not public, they were illegally held and the entire deal would be nullified.

    EDITOR NOTE–You are right on all counts. The fine little meeting law line was tiptoed upon. The commishes are still being civil despite their legitimate differences of opinion. For the record, I don’t apologize for any of them. I agreed with the vote, but rightly questioned having a press release sent to me with details of the deal BEFORE it was voted upon.

  6. The good news is that Sharon’s blog is back after a 3+ month lapse. I think Sara Baker has given up completely.

Get the Guardian by email

Enter your email address: