Archives for June 2010

From Eye on Boise/The Spokesman-Review

The state of Washington won today in the U.S. Supreme Court – and so did Idaho – as the high court upheld Washington’s Public Records Act and its requirement that signatures on a referendum petition be public, not secret. Idaho has similar laws, and joined 22 other states in filing “friend of the court” briefs backing Washington’s position. The group “Protect Marriage Washington” sued to prevent the release of the names of those who signed Referendum 71, the state’s unsuccessful measure that sought to overturn a same-sex domestic partnership law, arguing that the Washington public records law was unconstitutional because making the signers’ names public could subject them to harassment for exercising their right to free speech.

In an 8-1 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the high court found that openness is vitally important to help states make sure signatures on referendum or initiative petitions are valid. “Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures,” Roberts wrote. “Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot.” Justice Clarence Thomas was the only dissenter; the case is Doe vs. Reed, and you can read the court’s opinion here, and more on this story here.

Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed said, “This is a big victory for the people of Washington state and the cause of government transparency and accountability here and in other states. I am delighted.”

From Eye on Boise/The Spokesman-Review

From the Idaho Statesman

Prosecutor John Bujak’s efforts to protect the privacy of his $598,000 agreement to handle misdemeanor prosecutions for Nampa got more complicated Thursday.

A few hours after a hearing on a lawsuit seeking to force Bujak to disclose banking records concerning the contract, a city attorney sent a letter to the prosecutor and county commissioners, saying Nampa wants to change its contract to make sure none of its money goes into the prosecutor’s pocket.

Bujak, who outbid the firm that held the contract for years, has said it saves a lot of money for Nampa and the county.

If he can manage it well enough to make a profit, Bujak said, he should be entitled to it. He estimates he might make up to$50,000 from the deal this year.

“We find this most troubling and, indeed, request an immediate modification of the agreement so no money goes to Mr. Bujak, as originally stated, and the Nampa payment be reduced accordingly,” Nampa City Attorney Bill Nichols wrote.

Bujak could not be reached for comment Thursday evening.

Two of the three county commissioners were out of the office Thursday, so there has been no discussion about the proposal to change the contract, county communications officer Angie Sillonis said.

Commissioner Steve Rule said he hasn’t read the letter yet, but since the contract is between the city and the prosecutor, the commissioners wouldn’t have a role in any renegotiation.

Bujak has said the money is in a private trust account, so the bank records are private and not subject to public records law. Nampan Bob Henry disagrees and filed a legal petition seeking to force Bujak to disclose the records.

The city’s letter “strongly supports full disclosure of the application of these public funds” and asks the county to rescind its amended contract and direct future payments to the county auditor rather than a private account accessible only to Bujak.

The original contract between the county and city called for payments to go to the auditor, but the City Council and county commissioners later approved an amendment to pay Bujak directly.

The letter echoes several of the points raised by attorney Erik Stidham, who represents Henry in his public records lawsuit.

Both attorneys maintain that the city’s contract is not with Bujak personally, but with Bujak’s public persona as Canyon County prosecutor.

Both quoted from a county commissioners’ resolution that authorized the contract and said, among other things, that Bujak “could himself realize no financial advantage from his provision of prosecutorial service to the city.”

“The city of Nampa relied upon the integrity of this representation,” Nichols said in his letter.

Bujak has said his statements about not profiting from the contract dealt with the fact that he and his chief of staff did not take salary increases from the contract, which boosts the wages of all other employees of the prosecutor’s office.

He says that at the time he did not think he stood to benefit from any leftover contract funds, and he stresses that the Idaho Supreme Court has ruled that county prosecutors can hold and profit from private contracts to provide prosecution services to cities.

Michael Kane, the attorney representing Canyon County against Henry’s petition, said “there is nothing illegal, immoral or intellectually dishonest” about the arrangement.

Judge Kathryn Sticklen took the matter under advisement and is expected to rule within 30 days.

Kristin Rodine: 377-6447

From the Idaho Statesman

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman
Canyon County Prosecutor John Bujak seems baffled about the controversy surrounding his private contract with the city of Nampa.

Let’s clear up the confusion.

Bujak’s contract treats $598,000 of public money like private money. It introduces profit as a motivating factor in dispensing criminal justice. It seems motivated to help Bujak’s personal financial plight – and not necessarily stretch taxpayer dollars.

And there’s no transparency. Taxpayers are supposed to take it on faith that Bujak can handle Nampa’s misdemeanor cases at a better price.

Is Bujak honestly surprised by the red flags? Granted, Bujak is a relative newcomer to elected office, only 17 months removed from private practice. But this goes beyond learning-curve stuff. This arrangement, shrouded in secrecy and fraught with problems, is clearly the wrong way to do the people’s business.

Maybe Bujak can save Nampa about $150,000 by handling its misdemeanor cases. Maybe money from the city’s contract will defray non-personnel expenses in the county prosecutor’s office; Commissioner Kathy Alder pegs the county’s savings at up to $276,000.

Consolidation holds promise, in theory. And, often, in reality.

The fatal flaw is in the secretive money trail. Nampa’s money would go into a private trust account that only Bujak could access. Bujak would be allowed to personally profit from savings – perhaps up to $50,000.

Said Alder last week: “I think it stands to reason that if there was money left over, he would get it.”

Says who? The taxpayers who ponied up the money in the first place? We’re skeptical about that.

When a profit motive is part of the equation, are corners cut in the name of padding the margin? It’s one thing to save money on office supplies, but profit-driven prosecutorial decisions are unacceptable.

And no, it doesn’t comfort us that this contract covers “only” misdemeanors. This remains public work that must be conducted in the public interest.

Consider Bujak’s well-documented personal debts. His home is in foreclosure and he faces other debts stemming from his move from private practice to a $101,608-a-year county job. He has said the Nampa contract could help him pay down his debts. At some point, does Bujak’s personal predicament color his decisions?

These are valid questions, but unanswerable questions, because of Bujak’s insistence on secrecy. Bujak was in court Thursday asserting that the contract’s bank records should remain secret. Bujak’s demand for privacy flies in the face of his standing as an elected county official seeking to work on behalf of a city.

It is alarming to see a county prosecutor stride into a courtroom to argue in favor of profiteering and against transparency.

The Nampa city attorney’s office has offered a common-sense path forward: Bujak should allow the county auditor’s office to handle the city’s payments. Consider it an overdue course correction, since the Nampa City Council approved the ill-advised idea of the private account.

Bujak would have to swallow some pride and forgo some profit potential, but it would keep the public’s books open, as they should be.

Even Bujak would realize some benefit: If his prosecutorial services provide such a win-win for the taxpayer, he could stop telling us and start showing us.

“Our View” is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman’s editorial board.

Editorial from the Idaho Statesman

From the Idaho Statesman

John Bujak says he doesn’t understand why his contract to prosecute Nampa misdemeanor cases has raised red flags with some county residents.

“I’m saving Nampa money. I’m saving the county money,” Bujak said. “I would think people would be thrilled.”

Bujak says he hopes to make up to $50,000 profit for administering Nampa city prosecutions.
“Everybody wins, including me, potentially. To the extent I’m able to make money and it helps me with my debts, that’s great.”

At least two residents have contacted the media protesting Bujak’s use of a private bank account to handle the $598,000 Nampa contract and wondering whether that move was related to personal financial problems. But the contract issue that landed the prosecutor in court is simply a public records request, said Erik Stidham, who is representing Nampa insurance agent Bob Henry in his efforts to get Bujak to release the records of his bank account that receives the city’s monthly payments.

“I thought it would take maybe a letter or two” to get those records, Stidham said. Instead, he and Bujak will face off in court Thursday for the first hearing on Henry’s petition to force Bujak to open the records.

Bujak insists the records are private, not public. Stidham says that claim is untenable, since the contract is not with Bujak as a private citizen but with Bujak as county prosecutor, a public official accepting city payment for use of county resources and personnel.

But Bujak said his handling of the contract is kosher under Idaho law, upheld by the state Supreme Court in 1987 when Kootenai County commissioners unsuccessfully challenged their prosecutor’s private contract to handle cases for the city of Coeur d’Alene.

“It’s not some strange, hokey relationship,” the prosecutor said. “It’s unusual, yes. But I think taxpayers appreciate innovative ways to save them money.”

He stresses that Canyon County commissioners and the Nampa City Council approved changing the contract in September so that money would go to directly to him instead of the county auditor’s office. He asked the Idaho Attorney General’s Office to weigh in on the issue, but it declined because of the pending litigation. Now it’s up to Senior Judge Kathryn Sticklen, assigned to the case to avoid a conflict of interest for 3rd District judges who routinely work with Bujak.

Stidham said he took the case because Henry’s previous attorneys at Hamilton, Michaelson & Hilty had a conflict: They held the Nampa prosecutor contract before Bujak underbid them last year.

Bujak would like to take over Caldwell’s city prosecutions, also handled by Hamilton, Michaelson & Hilty, but he said that idea was put on hold after Henry started questioning the Nampa contract.

He said he wants a global prosecutor’s office, a “paperless” operation that handles records electronically at significant savings to taxpayers. His contract with Nampa saves the city about $150,000 per year, he said.

And it saves several hundred thousand dollars for the county, Bujak contends, because he uses Nampa’s nearly $50,000 monthly payments to cover virtually all of his office’s non-salary expenses including scanners, laptops and paper.

But where that money goes is not visible in public documents, Stidham said, and that’s the central issue: His client wants to see the records of where the money goes, because “there’s a lot of money unaccounted for.”

Of the nearly $600,000 Nampa contract, Bujak says he expects only about $30,000 to $50,000 will go to him personally – possibly much less if unexpected expenses arrive.

Stidham noted that Bujak said while pursuing the contract that he would not personally profit from it. But Bujak said those statements referred to the fact that he and his Chief of Staff Tim Fleming were the only members of his office who did not get salary increases under the Nampa contract. He also said he initially did not think he’d be able to profit from the contract but later learned the law permits it.

Bujak said he didn’t pursue the contract in order to increase his income.

Kristin Rodine: 377-6447

From the Idaho Statesman

From Eye on Boise

Idaho Secretary of State Ben Ysursa has announced fines against two groups that launched last-minute campaign attacks against an Idaho Supreme Court candidate without following the disclosure requirements of the state’s Sunshine Law. “Idaho Citizens for Justice” is being fined $1,300, and “Idaho Citizens for Commonsense Solutions” is being fined $600; the latter group provided half the funding for the former, which paid for nearly $40,000 in ads and fliers attacking Judge John Bradbury and touting sitting Justice Roger Burdick, against whom Bradbury was running in last week’s election; Burdick won. Once the two groups were contacted by the state and belatedly filed the required disclosures, it emerged that all the funding for both came from Melaleuca Inc., a personal-care products firm in eastern Idaho headed by conservative activist Frank VanderSloot.

The fines are for failure to file timely notice of the formation of the groups and of the last-minute independent campaign expenditures before the election, Ysursa said. “Timely pre-election disclosure is the key to the Sunshine Law,” he said. In letters to the two groups, Ysursa wrote, “One purpose of the Sunshine Law, as stated in I.C. 67-6601, is ‘to promote openness in government and avoiding secrecy by those giving financial support to state election campaigns…’ The Secretary of State is charged with enforcement of this law, and we take that charge seriously.”

From Eye on Boise