Prosecutor: Hagadone meetings legal
Coeur d’Alene’s City Council members and mayor did not violate Idaho’s open meeting laws when they accepted invitations to meet one-on-one with developer Duane Hagadone, according to an investigation conducted by Kootenai County Prosecutor Bill Douglas.
Hagadone met individually with each elected official on Oct. 21 at the Coeur d’Alene headquarters of his hotel and media corporation. Later that same day, he publicly unveiled a proposal to reroute downtown streets to make room for a new hotel and botanical garden.
Details of the plan, plus news of the individual meetings were published the following day in The Spokesman-Review. The information prompted Coeur d’Alene resident William McCrory to write a letter of complaint to the county attorney’s office.
McCrory wrote that he was concerned city business was being conducted behind Hagadone’s closed office doors. Idaho state law requires local governments and public agencies to make decisions in public. Exceptions are made for labor negotiations and the hiring or firing of public employees.
“If the purpose of Mr. Hagadone’s individual private meetings with the city council members and the mayor was only to innocently inform them about the project, then why even hold separate and private meetings? Why not just invite them to the public unveiling later that same night and give everyone the same information in public?” McCrory wrote in his complaint letter. “One obvious answer is that it is easier to obtain off-the-record comments and commitments from elected officials out of the public’s view.”
No formal proposals are before the City Council and council members have not yet been asked to consider the street rerouting plan. A public workshop on the rerouting issue is planned for Dec. 13 at 5:30 p.m. at the Kootenai County administration building.
After receiving the complaint, County Prosecutor Douglas conducted telephone interviews of the council members. The county prosecutor is required by law to investigate any allegations of open meeting violations.
The council members made no commitments to Hagadone and none believed they were acting inappropriately by meeting in private, Douglas wrote in his two-page response to McCrory’s complaint. Council members were unaware that the invitations were extended to all the members. None had any knowledge of the focus of the meeting.
Citizens have a right to talk to their elected representatives, which is what Hagadone was doing by asking to meet individually with council members, Douglas wrote. He backed up his argument with several recent cases, as well as a refresher in the state’s official definition of meeting: “The convening of a governing body of a public agency to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision on any public matter.”
“A wooden interpretation of ‘meeting’ would lead to preposterous results and would have a chilling effect on the ability of citizens to communicate with their duly elected officials,” Douglas wrote, later adding that it was “crystal clear that there was no ‘convening’ of the mayor and council to deliberate or to achieve a decision.”
Douglas cited a 1994 court case that struck down the city of Sandpoint’s decision to annex 17,000 acres because the mayor violated open meeting laws by meeting individually with council members to press for their support.
Coeur d’Alene City Attorney Mike Gridley agreed with Douglas’s opinion and said there was never any intent by city officials to violate the law.
“One of the challenges to any elected official is to be accessible to all citizens, including Duane Hagadone. He has a right to talk to these people,” Gridley said.
City Council members often meet individually with constituents, Gridley said, comparing the case to a situation in July where homeowners complained about noise coming from a nearby concrete plant.
“I’m pretty sure every council member went out there and looked at that,” Gridley said.
When specific proposals are being considered, council members should be more cautious, Gridley said. But he added that the threshold between public and private meetings “is not a clear bright line.”
McCrory, who filed the complaint, said he raised the question because of a longtime interest in open government. “It’s just civic involvement,” he said.
The response from Douglas was clear and well-reasoned, McCrory said. “I was very pleased with it because he responded with a great deal of information and explanation at how he arrived at his decision. That’s what I had asked him to do.”