Should Idaho’s attorney general prosecute mayors for crimes? What some lawmakers say

BOISE – State Rep. Chris Bruce, a Republican from Kuna who also serves on Kuna’s City Council, said he has seen it happen. A whistleblower flags that the mayor or a city council member is doing something illegal or corrupt, but he or she doesn’t have anywhere to turn. The city’s police chief reports to the mayor, and in some cases, the county prosecutor may have a close working relationship with city leaders.

A 2014 law gave the state’s attorney general the authority to prosecute elected county officials accused of violating state law, but it didn’t mention city officials. The new bill “just adds city officials to that as well,” Bruce, one of the bill’s sponsors, told members of the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration committee during a Wednesday public hearing at the Capitol.

“This just gives (whistleblowers) the ability to go outside their realm of doing things, to ask the AG to look into it for them,” he said.

It was the second time Bruce and his co-sponsor, Committee Chair Rep. Bruce Skaug, had floated the bill. Last year, their bill passed the House, failing in the Senate with a tied vote, Skaug, a Republican from Nampa, told committee members during his Jan. 10 introduction of the bill.

“I do not understand why that happened on this,” he said.

Skaug and Bruce did not respond to an email from the Idaho Statesman requesting comment. Maria Weeg, a spokesperson for the city of Boise, said she could not comment on a bill moving through the legislative process.

Bill would allow Idaho AG to open investigations against elected city officials

The bill aims to “take advantage” of the expertise the Attorney General’s Office has developed prosecuting cases involving public corruption, according to its statement of purpose.

The office has a system in place to review allegations against county officials if they are elected, have allegedly violated a state criminal law, and were acting in their official capacity, said Jeff Nye, chief of its criminal division, during his testimony at the Wednesday hearing.

An example of acting in an official capacity might be a sheriff who pulls his gun on a group of citizens protesting at his home if the gun was county-issued, Nye said. But it might exclude an official accused of a crime involving the official’s political campaign, as long as the official is conducting the campaign as a private citizen and not involving official activities such as using office funds.

“We try and be pretty strict about that line,” he said.

The existing law allows the office to bring a criminal prosecution against a county official, he said, but also to recommend a training if there was a “technical violation” of the law but the office doesn’t believe a criminal charge is appropriate.

Rep. John Gannon, a Democrat from Boise, questioned the bill’s necessity. At the county level, he argued, there are legitimate conflicts of interest because county commissioners control the funding of their county prosecutor’s offices – but no such conflict exists between city officials and county prosecutors, he said.

The conflict is a more informal one, Nye responded.

“What’s been expressed, both to me privately, and publicly, is that a lot of times, yes – they don’t represent city officials, but the county’s doing business with the city,” he said. “They have to get along. There’s relationship issues there.”

Committee members passed the bill, sending it to the full House.