Rose: POHD and what is really going on
Rebuttal to the one-sided Daily Bee Article titled, “Attorney: Charges Not Warranted.” (June 30, 2019).
Our Bonner County prosecutor, Louis Marshall, championed a legal and political white-washing process, satisfying the legal definition of nonfeasance, “the intentional failure to perform a required duty or obligation,” to I.C.31-2604. Marshall avoided exclusive jurisdiction of the original May 2018 complaint for over six months, requiring the complainant to file subsequent complaints as the violations continued to occur. The “fix” needed an unaccountable “opinion,” enter … the Kootenai County prosecutor. Marshall neither provided any written authority permitting a transfer of decision making process to KCP, nor a lawful petition to the district court judge, thus violating I.C.31-2603. A Sept. 17, 2019, admission from Marshall explains his “just-us” philosophy, “I don’t really like suing another government entity.” Is that good-ole-boy patronage and/or corruption.
The primary violation still is I.C.39-1329, “a majority of the members of the [POHD] board shall constitute a quorum at any [BGH] meeting.” Discussions and/or decisions required under I.C.67-2341, the open meeting law, are immaterial to the quorum count violation, I.C.39-1329, nonetheless satisfied by complaint content and contrary to the erroneous Murphey “opinions.” It’s laughable to suggest that cross-over board conversation doesn’t occur when $1.2M of annual funding was hardly whispered at POHD board meetings.
KCP Murphey’s assessment: “the statute of limitations expired” and “there was no evidence … of specific information” is false. Items 18 and 20 of the timely submitted May 17, 2018, complaint) cited the absence of discussion and decision of a lease renewal inside the POHD open meeting venue, prior to the execution of a Jan. 31, 2018, lease renewal. The lease renewal decision was made in the BGH venue, allegedly with a quorum of POHD trustees, that violated public notice requirements and quorum counts.
The opinion offered by KCP Murphey, citing a lame condition that “the district and the BGH did not have well-defined roles at the time of the alleged open meeting violations” is again false. Murphey’s cover-up assertion is an embarrassment of POHD leadership. Contrary to Murphey’s assertion, the May 2018 complaint stated the roles were defined by a POHD and BGH cooperative agreement, which was being intentionally obfuscated since the May 2017 trustee election.
The deputy attorney general’s evaluation of POHD’s funding of BGH, “fails to comply with Idaho’s applicable constitutional and statutory provisions,” validates claims of unlawful activity at POHD. The extent of continual nonfeasance and systematic cover-up speaks volumes to complaint confirmation, and, opposition to… “charges not warranted.”
Forward to October 2019, Marshall’s office counseled the commissioners’ office, contrary to the rule of law, that a board of trustees, not lawfully reconstituted after a biennial election, can appoint a new trustee, and receive or administer an oath of office, in violation of both I.C. 39-1328 and POHD bylaws. Idaho laws must be ceremonial, or there is an unacceptable bias in its application, as a POHD Board safe-space is continually provided by Prosecutor Marshall.
More to follow … for anyone identifying as a reporter or a concerned taxpayer.
DANIEL ROSE
Samuels