BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Words matter when it comes to legal battles. But in the fight between Idaho lawmakers and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, it can be difficult navigating the multiple verbal barbs that have been recently lodged at the state’s top legal officer.
Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter and lawmakers have expressed discontentment with Wasden from how his office is structured to his former legal advice over the past few months.
Here’s a quick rundown of the claims so far.
___
On who to blame for the illegally awarded statewide contract for broadband in public schools:
OTTER: “Time after time . the administrator was advised that that was legal, that he could actually bifurcate that contract.”
THE FACTS: Otter says that Wasden’s office signed off on the illegal $60 million contract that set up broadband in public schools. In early March, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that the state violated its own procurement laws when it amended the contract after it had been awarded.
And according to the court documents, Otter’s claim doesn’t add up.
In a 2010 affidavit of one of the attorneys involved in the lawsuit, Deputy Attorney General Melissa Vandenberg testified that she was not asked for advice on whether amending the contract was appropriate and nor was she asked to review the contract to see if the amendments complied with Idaho law.
“Prior to and during the creation of this amendment, I was not involved in any discussions regarding the division of labor,” said Vandenberg, who has since left the attorney general’s office.
Furthermore, the Idaho Supreme Court singled out Mike Gwartney, former head of the Department of Administration, in its recent decision as the key architect behind the illegal amendment.
___
On whether state agencies or officials should be obligated to rely on representation by the Attorney General’s office:
OTTER: “In my private life, when I go out and hire that attorney, that attorney works for me … That is not the case the way we’re structured right now.”
THE FACTS: Otter is right. The state attorneys representing most public agencies do not work for the interest of one person.
Instead, those attorneys represent the best interest of the state.
It’s a system that has saved taxpayers money, Wasden said, because the state lawyers are paid much less than the private sector. Additionally, the current system reduces costs because taxpayers aren’t stuck paying two separate legal bills in the event state agencies square off in court.
But during Monday’s press conference, Otter questioned the loyalty of the state attorneys in each agency. He welcomed the idea of scaling back Wasden’s office to allow state agencies to hire their own legal counsel.
___
On whether the Attorney General should remain part of the Idaho Land Board:
VANDER WOUDE: “It’s just a mismatch, lot of conflicts of interest.”
THE FACTS: House Majority Caucus Chair John Vander Woude says Wasden’s involvement on the Idaho Land Board is full of conflicts of interests.
Wasden successfully sued the Land Board in 2010 alleging they violated the state constitution by setting rents below-market value on state-owned lakeshore lots. The move raised eyebrows after multiple lawmakers questioned Wasden being privy to executive sessions on the board and being able to use that information in court.
The Idaho Supreme Court, however, said Wasden had standing to sue. The justices later agreed with Wasden that the board had violated the state constitution.
“When the (attorney general) files an action on behalf of the people or particular state clients, he is fundamentally different than other litigants before the Court and not easily shoehorned into a typical standing analysis,” the justices wrote.
The five-member Land Board is made up of the governor, attorney general, state superintendent of public instruction and state controller. The board is in charge of managing Idaho’s 2.5 million acres of endowment land to reap the highest long-term financial returns. The attorney general has been a member of the board since its inception and it would require a constitutional amendment to kick him off.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.