House rejects broadening misuse-of-funds law

BOISE – State Attorney General Lawrence Wasden has been rebuffed in his attempt to get rid of a legal loophole that allows some officials who misuse public money to avoid felony charges.

The existing “misuse-of-funds law” – last amended in 1887 – has traditionally been used to prosecute all government officials accused of bilking taxpayers. But in April, the Idaho Appeals Court ruled it could only be used against officials whose “official position” includes “the receipt, safe keeping, transfer or reimbursement” of public money.

As a result, those without explicit fiduciary duties to oversee money couldn’t be prosecuted, the Appeals Court ruled.

Wasden sought to extend the law’s definition to include all state and local public officials who use public money. But the House rejected his amendment Tuesday on a 44-25 vote.

Lawyers in the House, including freshmen Reps. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, and James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, complained Wasden’s alterations didn’t differentiate between elected officeholders vested with significant voter trust and average public employees.

For elected officials, they said, offenses involving relatively little money might constitute a felony, based on the official’s level of responsibility and accountability.

But for less-prominent employees charged with identical offenses, a misdemeanor might be more appropriate, they said.

“That’s really what the Idaho Constitution says: There are people who are entrusted with the authority and trust of the state,” Ruchti said. “If they (Wasden’s office) were to make those changes, I think it would breeze through.”

Supporters of the revision, including Rep. Dennis Lake, R-Blackfoot, said it could be revived with changes to ease opponents’ concerns. He said Wasden’s amendment is important, so cases don’t fall through the cracks.

In its April ruling, the Appeals Court said a Hagerman police officer couldn’t be found guilty of a felony for charging $90.84 on his city credit card for three hunting licenses because keeping track of taxpayer money wasn’t part of his official job description.

“Quite frankly, I cannot see the ghosts in it (the bill),” Lake said. “What’s the difference between putting your hand in the till and charging something to a piece of plastic? Either way, you took money that didn’t belong to you.”