Comments on: ITD Covers Up Expenditure Of Public Funds In Secret Deal

By: brian vermillion

brian vermillion — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:12:48 +0000

No paul, Right to work means the right to be employed without having to join a labor union. Employment at will means you may be terminated at any time for any or no reason.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:16:08 +0000

It is worth noting former Sen. John McGee had his fingers in this mess. He was chairman of the transportation committee when Ms. Lowe was terminated… “Right to Work” means “RIGHT TO TERMINATE” W/O DUE PROCESS. How this got passed into law by voters never ceases to amaze me as to all the corrupt things our rascals in the legislature can make happen.

Nepotism in Idaho is not tolerated unless you are a friend or a realtive.

By: Goobs222

Goobs222 — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:05:21 +0000

Unless there is some kind of liability insurance that would pay out to Ms. Lowe, someone in state government is going to have to issue a settlement check. (I think the State of Idaho is self insured, so issuing the payoff ought to show up somewhere in public records). If there’s a way to keep this under wraps, however, that’s the likely route to be used in an effort to eliminate the embarrassment of this whole situation.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:16:44 +0000

There are some great lines in this utube about disclosure. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16K6m3Ua2nw&feature=related

By: Porcupine

Porcupine — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:47:04 +0000

The one thing I know for sure is the citizens of Idaho lost this law suit…

By: Kappa TA

Kappa TA — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:46:13 +0000

I believe Ms. Lowe forfeited her “right to privacy” when she filed a public lawuit against the state of Idaho and the ITD. All monies spent in defense of the lawsuit and the settlement itself are public dollars, subject to public disclosure. What compelling reason could there be to seal the details of the settlement. We have a right to know how the losses to the state will impact the ITD and its programs, or the state and its programs. In the Bujak case in 2C, a judge ruled that the contract with Nampa was a “public” contract and subject to disclosure. Same thing here. Does the state’s attorney only tell us that Idaho received “a tidy sum” from settlements, or does he tell us the actual amount?

Personally, I am happy for Ms. Lowe, but still think the settlement amount is a public matter.

EDITOR NOTE–It appears at this time there is no “sealed records.” The state has agreed to hide the amount of payment from the citizens. We are working to obtain the amount and hope to have something in the near future. To the best of our knowledge there is no document filed with the court, hence no sealed file.

By: chicago sam

chicago sam — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:22:14 +0000

This case highlites what goes on all the time–consider Canyon county and the Bujak case, or Nampa when the police department was sued and on and on. Much of the litigation that is handled is not even known to the public. The cost is buried in a dozen budgets and is even more difficult to find

By: Paul M

Paul M — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:22:30 +0000

I do want to know where my money goes and I know most agencies have funds to “deal” with situations like this but I think there a fine line between needing to know what it cost and Pam Lowe’s privacy.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:27:39 +0000

I for one would like to know how much this cost. Butch and his cronies need to be exposed.

By: Paul M

Paul M — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:22:22 +0000

I’m not sure the actual amount in each case needs to be known but the total for the year that each agency spends on cases like this should be available to the public.

EDITOR NOTE–We don’t want to reveal our legal arguments at this point, but without the light of public scrutiny, officials are free to make bad decisions, cut deals with the public’s money and never be held accountable for their actions. They already spent half a million just for private legal counsel.