Re: Chamber V. County Commissioner

[Greg Burton <gburton@sltrib.com>]

  Here's my two cents from the Idaho Code — Let's just assume when and if
county commissioner Paul seeks to expand or move the Latah County Fairgrounds,
or add to the county courthouse, or redo a county bridge or road or purchase
land for a dump and transfer station, etc..... Furthermore, let's say that
purchase involves a bank (bigtime Chamber supporter) or a large Latah County
landholder (bigtime Chamber supporter) or UI (bigtime Chamber supporter) or
development company/Realtor (bigtime Chamber supporter).

Paul, I'm sure, is a wonderful man, but even Idaho's esteemed lawmakers
understand there COULD BE conflicts, not that there are in every instance,
hence the law COMMISSIONERS MUST BE DISINTERESTED

cheers, greg. The code section can be found on the State's web site.

                             Idaho Statutes
                                 TITLE  31
                          COUNTIES AND COUNTY LAW
                                 CHAPTER 8
                        POWERS AND DUTIES OF BOARD
                             OF COMMISSIONERS
    31-807A.  COMMISSIONERS MUST BE DISINTERESTED. No member of the board must
be interested, directly or indirectly, in property purchased for the use of
the county, nor in any purchase or sale of property belonging to the county,
nor in any contract made by the board or other person on behalf of the county,
for the erection of public buildings, the opening or improvement of roads, or
the building of bridges, or for other purposes unless otherwise authorized by
law.

"Jerry L. Schutz" wrote:

> Visionaries & Whiners
>
> Once again the whining quotient on this list has exceeded palatable levels.
> This whining of conflict of interest issues is bogus, bunk, and a complete
> waste of bandwidth.  It sounds more like sour grapes to me.
>
> As a Latah County resident, a number of years back, I assisted in
> re-affirming that the position of Latah County Commissioner is a part-time
> job.  We recalled one member and seriously derailed any future attempt to
> pay for full-time commissioners.
>
> More recently, I was part of the County Commissioners Task Force on County
> Government, which proposed a new form of county government which would have
> precluded many of the issues that have been brought up thus far in the
> Commission V. Chamber debate. This change of county government was defeated.
>
> A part-time commissioner is what the people of Latah county want.  Please
> explain to me, how being a farmer, which is MUCH more than a full-time job,
> has any less conflicts than an Executive Director of a  business
> organization.
>
> There also seems to be a large misconception that the Executive Director is
> a City of Moscow employee.  This is not true.  The Moscow Chamber is NOT an
> arm of the City.  It is a private organization, whose mission is to promote
> business & economic prosperity in moscow, Latah County and the Inland NW
> region.  It's membership is comprised of individuals and businesses who
> desire to further this mission.
>
> Those of you who have 'weighed' in on the issue, are adamant anti-business
> and anti-growth people who don't even support the business community in
> Moscow.  However, you are also the first people to line up with your hands
> out asking for the business community to support your various charity
> causes.  I seem to recall one of you even demanding a boycott of the Mall,
> during the Christmas holiday.  How anti-business was that action?
>
> Paul Kimmel will be an excellent Executive Director, and will continue to be
> a fair, honest, accessible and open county commissioner.   Maybe instead of
> criticizing every action by business and government you all should run for
> office, so we can attack, scrutinize and defame your every action.
>
> Again, I say “Get a Life”, you all have WAY too much time on your hands.
>
> Jerry L. Schutz