Legal counsel compelled to attend BOCC meetings

By Soncirey Mitchell
Reader Staff

The new year did not bring out a new side of the Bonner County board of commissioners, whose regular business meeting Tuesday, Jan. 2 devolved into an argument while attempting to approve the order of the agenda in the first four minutes. The two-and-a-half hour meeting was largely concerned with the BOCC’s standing rules — adopted on Dec. 19 — and the presence of legal counsel at meetings.
Chair Luke Omodt initially moved to amend the order of the agenda to, among other things, remove Commissioner Asia William’s two action items because “they did not include the written memorandum as required by the standing rules of the Bonner County board of commissioners.”
Williams’ action items brought forward two issues that she’s been attempting to raise for several weeks: county property management and the request to archive public records on the county’s website.
“There is no requirement that you’re stating. These particular items, one and two, have been requested by the community,” said Williams. “I think it’s unreasonable for you to table my items if you don’t want to pass them. As directed by counsel, their recommendation is that you not remove a sitting commissioner’s item, but that you just vote in the line that doesn’t allow it to pass.”

Bonner County Commissioners Luke Omodt, left; Asia Williams, center; and Steve Bradshaw, right. Photo by Lyndsie Kiebert-Carey.

Omodt reiterated that he was postponing Williams’ items, not eliminating them, and cited Idaho Code 74-201: “[T]he formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret.” In accordance with code, as of the Dec. 19 regular business meeting, commissioners are required to follow the same BOCC meeting agenda submission procedure, and therefore turn in a written memorandum with their submission, just as all other county employees and elected officials. “The reason why is for transparency, so that the general public — and so that this board — has the ability to fully weigh in on the consideration and the merits of an agendized item,” said Omodt. His motion passed with Williams dissenting.
The meeting’s final action item was a motion by Omodt to compel legal counsel to attend all BOCC business meetings and executive sessions. He read from Idaho Code 31-2607, which states that “The prosecuting attorney is the legal adviser of the board of commissioners; he must attend their meetings when required, and must attend and oppose all claims and accounts against the county when he deems them unjust or illegal.”
Omodt further explained that, among other considerations, the “multiple legal threats” against the county warrant further counsel during meetings. Bonner County Deputy Prosecutor Scott Bauer is currently suing the BOCC for $3.5 million. “I think it is exceedingly important for our business meetings — where we are entrusted to handle approximately $75 million dollars — it’s important that we have legal counsel, and for executive sessions,” said Omodt. Williams objected to the motion, as she felt it was too “absolute,” and that Prosecutor Louis Marshall should be present to speak on behalf of his office.
“[Marshall’s] job is not to referee a dysfunctional board, his job is to provide legal opinions,” she said, adding, “It isn’t our right to tell another elected official to come to these meetings unnecessarily when he has a case load.”
“If Louis Marshall doesn’t like 31-2607, then I suggest he rally the people of the state and change the Legislature. We do not have that authority,” said Commissioner Steve Bradshaw. “The dynamics around this board of commissioners and the Prosecutor’s Office over the last 12 months have been such a shitshow — excuse my expression, but that’s what it’s been,” he added.
Deputy Prosecutor Bill Wilson, who attended the meeting via Zoom, stated that it was already a “lot of work” writing legal opinions for the board of commissioners.
“I would like to point out that for the past couple of months our standing agreement has been that I would be available via phone if there were ever a procedural question. That wasn’t really taken advantage of, but it was available,” said Wilson. He requested to attend meetings over Zoom and skip the commissioner reports and the public comment section, neither of which would require his insight.
“The blanket requirement to go to all executive sessions is something that maybe needs to be looked at just because there are many executive sessions that really don’t have anything to do with legal counsel,” he added, clarifying that Marshall had already agreed to this plan.
Williams suggested moving the commissioner reports and public comment back to the beginning of the meeting, and adding a strict 10 a.m. cutoff, so that legal counsel could arrive at 10 a.m. and stay through to executive session without interruption. In her formal motion to amend, she also requested that the microphones and cameras remain on throughout every business meeting and executive session — even during recess — so that legal counsel could hear any additional conversations.
Williams’ amendment died without a second.
After extensive, heated deliberation, Omodt’s motion to require legal presence during business meetings and, as needed, during executive sessions, passed with Williams dissenting. An aggressive public comment section, wherein the commissioners argued with the public and one another, took up the remaining hour and a half of the meeting.