privileged information

["bill london" <bill_london@hotmail.com>]

While I am sure there is plenty to discuss regarding DeWitt's farewell 
gift to the county (over-riding the county land-use ordinance to give an 
extra split to a local corporate landowner neighbor of his, that was 
detailed in Nina Staszkow's story in the Daily News Monday night), I 
would like to focus on the legal opinion of the land split decision 
authored by the county prosecutors office.

Latah County Deputy Prosecutor Michelle Evans evaluated the decision by 
the County Commission (acting on a now-familiar split vote with Spangler 
and DeWitt saying yes to breaking the rules and Stauber voting no) and 
wrote a legal opinion on that decision for the commission.

The funny part is that we won't be able to read that decision.  It has 
been labelled "attorney-client privelege."

How can this be? Both the attorney and the client are hired by the 
people of Latah County.  The decision relates directly to the people's 
business.  What kind of privilege is this protecting?

This reminds me of the federal government's use of "top secret" to hide 
embarrassing facts and mistakes.

What are the commissioners hiding?
Where is the support for open government espoused by at least one of the 
commissioners?
Why haven't the local newspapers tried to pry the truth out of this 
secretive government?
BL  

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com