I have not heard about this from the local media, so I thought I would post it and see what people think. Apparently Municipal Services Director Craig Lords presented the legal services contract renewal for Dale Storer and the Holden, Kidwell, Hahn, and Crapo law firm at the September 28 city council meeting,
Councilman Larry Lyon asked if another attorney had independently reviewed the contract, and Lords replied it had not. Lords added his opinion that an additional and independent legal review was unnecessary. Lyon asked if the contract extended the same city benefits to Dale Storer as city employees received. Councilman Groberg was evasive in his answer, prompting Lyon to ask a second time, and Groberg seemed to indicate the new contract was the same as the old, and the old contract had granted Storer city benefits.
Lyon said contractors do not receive benefits like permanent employees (which is what I have always observed), and Lyon did not think Storer should receive those same benefits as city employees. Lyon further said that an Attorney General’s office interview with Dale Storer revealed Storer had never reviewed Kimball Mason’s contract, but rather that Municipal Services Director Craig Lords was responsible for that review. (For those not up-to-date, there has been a debatable issue about Kimball Mason’s contract terms, and why he worked without contract for several months.)
Mayor Fuhriman interrupted Lyon and tried to redirect the conversation to just voting on Storer’s contract, and made it seem that Lyon was attempting to debate Mason’s old contract (since awarded to Dane Watkins). Listening to the .mp3, I got the impression Lyon brought up Mason’s contract in the context of Storer’s performance, not to go off track. Lyon asked the City Attorney to answer his question, and Fuhriman quipped, “it’s not going to happen” in a hostile tone. Storer volunteered to answer the question (someone unidentified said they didn’t want Storer to have to answer), and answered that he assumed he had never been asked to review Kimball Mason’s contract because it had been the same for about 15 or 20 years (only the amount increased).
Lyon observed that his questions made people uncomfortable, and as a result he was interrupted and people did not want to answer his questions. Lyon opined that the problem was symptomatic in the city administration. Lyon said he would vote against the contract renewal due in part to Storer’s glaring error a few months ago about the city’s compliance with Idaho’s Open Meeting Law. Councilmen Lehto and Groberg expressed support for the contract renewal, stating they believed it was a great value to the city and that Storer provided excellent service.
Lyon expressed appreciation for the supportive comments, but noted the same could have been said about Kimball Mason just two years before. Finally, Councilmembers Lehto, Hardcastle, Groberg, and Cornwell voted in favor of renewing the contract. Councilman Lyon was the only to vote against it, so it passed.
My question is regarding independent legal review of the contract. How much would it take to have it independently reviewed? Isn’t a few hundred dollars a good investment to ensure we are getting value for several tens of thousands of dollars, not to mention the critical legal services our city requires? I think an annual independent review would be wasteful, but one every four or five years is absolutely prudent.
Every time my pay has been reviewed, my work performance was also brought into the discussion. How is the City Attorney’s performance measured? Why wasn’t Storer’s performance measurement brought into the same discussion? Lyon brought up an excellent point about Storer’s embarrassing error regarding the city’s compliance with publishing minutes. How are we to know how Storer is doing overall in his position? Can Storer’s performance be compared to other city attorneys like Pocatello’s, Twin Falls’, and Boise’s?
Our city government still has not earned back the citizen’s trust after the Kimball Mason fiasco. This contract renewal did nothing to help that situation. Is Craig Lords an attorney qualified to review legal contracts for the city? Is he reviewing the contracts? If Lords is not reviewing them and the city attorney is not reviewing them, what is going on downtown?
Someone (unidentified in the council minutes, but sounded like Groberg) asked if “any members of the council had questions” when the motion was first raised, and after Lyon’s first question someone asked if Lyon had more questions (which obviously he did). However, after Fuhriman interrupted Lyon and a semi-argument started, Groberg said he did not believe that the City Council should go into a question and answer session about the contract. Groberg’s doublespeak from Groberg in just a space of mere minutes was strange and ironic.
What do you think? Should the City Attorney’s contract be independently reviewed? Should performance metrics and reviews be evaluated with the decision to renew the contract? Was Lyon being an unnecessary pain in the council’s neck, or did the council inappropriately ignore an important issue?
Related posts:
Loading ...
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
Joe,
Just a note of appreciation on your coverage of this city council meeting. Your post was at 3:03 a.m. When do you sleep?
Larry Lyon appears to be the squeaky wheel on the city council. Maybe we could use more like him. The thorny question he raised should have been addressed more thoroughly by the council, and yes, city contracts should be reviewed periodically. And since when is the city responsible for providing benefits to private sector contractors? I would be interested to find out a dollar amount of the benefits paid out thus far.
Thanks again for your due-diligence and vigilance in these matters. Your forum is proving to be a valuable avenue for these discussions. Maybe if you had been around with this web site a little sooner, the K. Mason fiasco could have been exposed sooner. Keep up the good work.
So file suit. A civil suit could be brought, a FOIA request or an Idaho Public documents request could be made to force the city council to provide a copy of Storer’s contract which could then be given to a private attorney for review. You’re right, the cost should only be about $150 for an hour’s work. I know someone who would do it for free!
I also think one of the most important questions to be asking is whether or not this contract was put up for bid. I do not know the provisions of the law in this regard, maybe someone else reading here does, or we could do some research, but shouldn’t this kind of contract be let out for bid so that the council has more than one individual to choose from?
I think because of the new articles, this thread did not get the attention it deserved. Don’t any of our readers have any comments on this issue? Joe, were you successful on that issue we discussed privately?
Do something that you can make an immediate differnce about. If you don’t like what’s going on then vote them out.
For example, Judge Cook, aka Kimball Mason’s rubber stamping Judge, is up for reaffirmation in a couple of weeks. She will be reaffirmed unless we vote no way. Now there’s something we can do right now, in the near future to make a change. Most people don’t know they do not have to reaffirm a judge.
That is a great suggestion. I have advocated many times that we may need to vote out every incumbent on the ballot although this article about Larry Lyons makes me think he’s a keeper, at least for now.
Judge Cook needs to be ousted — I can tell you that.
Thought I would throw a comment in here since this discussion thread was mentioned in the Post Register this morning.
One point of dispute made in the paper was of oversight for Dale Storer and his work.
I agree a supervisor would be too much money, duplicative energy, and professionally disrespectful of the city attorney position.
However, I think oversight is needed. Spot-checks of the work he is doing and 360-degree feedback (a common corporate method) would be a reasonable measure.
I keep hearing that Dale Storer does impeccable work for Idaho Falls and his work situation does not need to be questioned.
If his work is impeccable, why is there such strong resistance to standard oversight methods?
Joe,
It’s good to see that this forum is being credited in the Post Register. I doubt that they would have run the story in the paper today had it not been for the comments posted on your site.
Keep stirring the pot…maybe we can keep public attention focused on this mess at city hall.
Unless the city and its attorney have a contract that calls for compensation by the hour and statements from the attorney showing how many hours are being expended on specified city projects, the city has no way of knowing if it is overpaying or underpaying for the services it is receiving. I think that Dale Storer is a conscientious and honest attorney; doesn’t it behoove the city council however to be conscientious itself, from its end of the arrangement? Independent review would not mean re-doing the same legal work that Dale Storer does, it merely means that another attorney familiar with such matters could look over the contract and itemized, hourly billings just to see if something looks unusual.
I agree, Dale Storer may be the best attorney Idaho Falls has ever had, and I would be happy to congratulate him for doing so, if only we had a measurement of how he is doing.
Are there other city positions which have no oversight like the city attorney? Is this a common practice in our city government? If so, I think we need to add some oversight. If no, I think it proves there is a problem here.
Either way, no matter how great Dale Storer may serve Idaho Falls, without oversight it looks like a good old boy system.
In the wake of Kimball Mason and the ongoing allegations of corruption among our public officials, I hope the mayor and city council immediately take steps to shore up public confidence in this matter.
I would like to compare our city attorney arrangement with city attorney arrangements in Boise, Pocatello, Twin Falls, and Lewiston. We can see how they operate that contract and oversight compared to us.
Does Craig Lords have oversight? I agree with Joe’s comments about Dale Storer.
Also, it is fact at the firm where Storer works, Shan Perry is Assistant Attorney for the city. I don’t have a clue of whether he has or has not ever participated in any IF city business, while covering for Storer. But, if a review, allowing assessment of how weel Dale Storer is serving the citizens is implimented some how; I believe Mr. Perry should undergo the same review.
In no way am I saying I think anything about Mr. Perry, with the exception he lists this position on his CV, so IMHO, he should be audited as well.
You may keep hearing that Storer has done an excellent job, but… Storer’s proposal states that he will oversee the contracts for city business and oversee the prosecution of city misdemeanors. Since our city prosecutor had no contract and he obviously abused his position, how can we say that Storer has done his job? It just doesn’t add up.
Also, by his own admission he works between 20-40 hours per week on city business for which he is paid over $125,000 per year (which includes benefits). The city also pays someone at Storer’s firm (he’s a partner, not just an attorney there) for work Storer doesn’t do, which has added up to $115,000 last year, a portion of which Storer would receive as a partner. $125,000+ per year for part-time employment is absolutely staggering to me, especially since in my humble opinion, he is NOT doing his job.
Am I the only one who feels this way?
How do people that run a private business that contracts out to the city get away with receiving city benefits? Whatever benefits(i.e. health insurance, pensions, etc.) those people want should come out of their own pockets from the monies paid to them in the contract and other private income they receive on the side. I can’t believe they’re getting away with that. It’s absolutely wrong. Just one more reason that those contracts need to be reviewed by an independent source and be discussed at length by the members of the council. Also, how do the $$$ figures mentioned in post #13 compare with similar situations in other cities?
Although I don’t live in town any more, I did for many years, and I’ve been around here since 1962. I can’t say if these people are doing their job or not because I don’t have any interactions with them, but apparently there are some of you in the know that don’t think so. In reading many of these posts I can definitely see the markings of a Good-ole-boy network happening. The thing about Larry Lyons getting stonewalled and the benefits issue are blatant examples of this. I can’t believe that the press isn’t all over things like that. If more people knew, perhaps enough would speak up to get some changes made. The mass media is the way to get the message to the people. Unfortunately, it deserves more attention than the two minute time slots afforded by our local news channels, so that only leaves blogs like this one and the local paper. A nice long writeup about it in the PR would be good to see. While they’re at it, maybe they could mention the fact that Kimball Mason’s contract was never reviewed for 15 or 20 years other than getting pay raises, all the while stealing guns, contraband, and doing citizens
misguided “justice”. How many other contracts out there haven’t been reviewed for a long time?
SHEESH !!! The back door’s open and nobody’s minding the store.
I think were getting off track here when you talk about measurements and comparing one city attorney with another’s. Any comparison would be mostly subjective unless you were just looking at pay and benefits. The city attorney serves in his capacity and does so with the city councils approval. Everyone involved is happy with job he does, notice Lyon had nothing negative to say at the job that is being done just the contract and benefit issues. This is a legitimate concern on Lyons part but unfortunately he has not been very professional in his demanor or in his actions in the past and that hurt him in this instance in my opinion. If you time after time burn bridges it’s tough to be effective on a day to day basis.
If people are unhappy about the compensation package of any contractor or city worker they can as Lyon did speak up. The result may be that Idaho Falls may update the requirements on contractors and their contracts going forward which is great, but remember if you want to start doing measurements on individual contractors or companies you would have to develop a whole infastructure to administer it and then of course employ more legal assistance to insulate the city on a legal basis to insure that any measurement and comparison’s are within the law and not ‘discriminating’. Contractors and workers are hired based on services they can provide. If their services are good then their contract is renewed based on that good service. If the service is substandard or poor they are not retained again.
If people think it’s a good old boy network, then vote out the good old boys otherwise they are the elected officals elected by the voters of the city to make the decisions they make, and so we need to allow them to make the decisions they make and then hold them accountable for those decisions we don’t like.
Anyway, that’s my input. Remember constant pot stiring can ruin your soup, and in the current situation we need to allow the process to play out let the investigations move forward see what the conclusions are and then we can all talk about those conclusions. What I am seeing here though amounts to a ton of pot stiring with no good reason. Show me a reason for the pot stiring, convince me why we need to go to level of casting this wide net of corruption when right now we have people looking into the situation and that nothing yet to my knowledge has been concluded. Wait for the investigations to finish and if your not happy with the results…. stir away!
Inside Observer,
Would there be a way to know if that extra legal work done by someone at Dale Storer’s firm, be Ass’t I. F. City Council Attorney, Shan Perry? Would there be records to know? And if so, where would they be?
Thanks.
I think the only way to know who performed the work would be to ask either Dale Storer (that ought to be an interesting answer) or to ask the city if the records submitted by Storer’s law firm included that information. Note that the article in the PR says the money paid to the firm was for services not included in Storer’s “contract.” It did not say Storer didn’t do the work. What work would the city attorney be doing for the city that was not included in his contract?
In response to Post #15, you ask why we are trying to cast such a wide net with no good reason? Are you kidding? Dale Storer was responsible for “reviewing contracts for the city” (I believe this would include Mason who had no contract for something like 12 years during which time he claimed he had the right under his contract to take the property/money he took which the city gladly handed over in many cases) and to “oversee the prosecution of city misdemeanors” which we have now heard has been handled at an abominably poor level for over half a decade.
“If their services are good then their contract is renewed based on that good service. If the service is substandard or poor they are not retained again.” I’m not trying to insult you but I find it hard to believe that you can say that with a straight face! Again, think Kimball Mason. The Kimball Mason debacle could hardly have happened or at the very least gone as far as it did if DALE STORER had been doing his job. It was his responsibility to see that Mason had a contract for his city prosecutor position and for the forfeiture “bonus” program (which is highly unethical if you ask me). It was also his responsibility to see that the employees of the city complied with the law. These employees, such as the city treasurer, should have known per Storer’s instructions, that they don’t EVER write checks without documentation. Since Kimball didn’t have a contract, the treasurer didn’t have any paperwork and should never have written a check to Kimball. If Storer had advised her/him of this legality, he/she would have called him when a request was made for a check, and the Kimball forfeiture “bonus” program would have been uncovered much sooner than it was. In other words, Storer has done the minimal amount of work necessary to retain his position and now that the crap has hit the fan because he wasn’t doing his job, he has refused to accept any responsibility, and like Livesey, has managed to keep himself above the fray – Livesey by lying about it and Storer by refusing to talk about it at all. Those who are responsible for monitoring Storer are already smarting over Mason and are extremely reluctant to admit they have also screwed up with Storer so they’re covering his behind so he and they can cover their own. The private citizen who retained an attorney to review Storer’s “contract” has brought this issue into the clear light of day. Lyons has every right to ask questions as do we all. Just because we’re all embarrassed and angry over Mason does not mean we don’t have the right to be angry over Storer. He owns this problem. I, for one, wish he had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and accept responsibility for it like a real man. The longer he fails to do so, the more convinced I am that he is a coward, a fool, and in light of what we’ve seen in the way of his benefit package, he’s as big a thief as Mason. He’s picking the pockets of the citizens of this community and using his legal expertise to hide it. Just because I don’t have a law degree doesn’t mean I’m an idiot, although Storer, Lords, Livesey, Watkins, Fuhriman and others hope to God that I am so they can cover this mess up as quickly as possible and get back to business as usual. Hopefully that will never happen.
Storer, Watkins and Livesey should all have advised the city employees that there is never, I repeat, NEVER, a situation, with the exception of going to trial as an exhibit (in which case they would be transported to the courtroom by a police officer), that a forfeited/abandoned item would be given to a prosecutor. Items that are forfeited or abandoned are to be given to a member of the police force to auction, trade, use, sell or destroy. Under NO circumstances would that person be the prosecutor – EVER!!!!!!!!!! By turning over items that are forfeited to the prosecutor, the prosecutor is in conflict of interest with the owner. If he sees something he wants (in the Mason case that would be everything from guns to cars) how can he be expected to be clear in his mind about whether that item should be forfeited or not? He can’t be. A similar situation was already handled by the U.S. Supreme Court years ago when it ruled that judges cannot receive a portion of fines. How can they see clearly what amount of fine is appropriate if he is going to receive a percentage of it? He can’t. Mason knew this, so did Storer and so did Watkins. But hey, if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours and the foolish citizens will never be the wiser.
in response to Inside… It is obvious that this is an emotional issue for you as your rhetoric indicates and that, in that your agrument is full of attack after attack with no backing in fact. If you have an ax to grind then grind away but the majority of Idaho Falls voters are fair minded and will wait for the investigations to subside before calling people ‘thieves’ ‘cowards’ ‘fools’. And to think that local leaders ‘hope’ that you are an idiot is well… your words speak for themselves. Understand Inside that were you to be a person of stature in the community and were to go on the local networks and say what you have been saying on these blogs.. well lets just say that your fortunate that those that you are commenting on are ‘officals’ and so you have some, and I mean some lattiude concerning slander/libel. Inside, words have meaning and I would advise you to slow the stiring of your pot and think before you throw out what you have been throwing out. I’m sure i could go back to some past post of yours and pull out some nice inuendos concering the Erickson deal and the Judge giving him special treatment and some inferences you have made in that regard. Perhaps you could read today’s PR article from the AG’s office and comment..????? Please???? I will be standing by amused to hear what you have to say but then you will probably conclude the AG’s office is in on the conspiricy and that they are all thives and liars. Then again you might not respond with anything as the sound of your spoon on the pot dampers your ability to comprehend or respond to, or with anything logical.
All i’m saying is let the investigations go forward and if you don’t like what you get stir away Inside, stir away.
Dear Flyonthewall,
I read the editorial in the PR today and from my experience, the reasons cited for releasing Ericsson OR are well-grounded in law, HOWEVER, the one point that was conspicuously absent at least for me was how many times they had allowed this to happen in other cases. Not very often, I can assure you. Mr. Ericsson is receiving treatment at the hands of the court that would not be granted to the majority of citizens.
As for attacks, view them that way if you will. I am emotionally invested in this community. I grew up here and it was a wonderful place to grow up. The cops were our friends, the politicians were honestly invested in the betterment of the community. But now we have a community where there are a handful of officers who are not friends of the community, they are power-hungry and ill-mannered and more. A FEW of them are and they give a bad name to the rest. As for our politicians, from our local government all the way to the white house, we have politicians who believe with their heart, might, mind and soul they know more about what’s best for you and me than we know. In other words, they think we’re idiots and need to be taken care of. After a politician’s speech, I feel like an errant child who has asked a sincere question and is being patted on the head and told to run along and play while the big boys take care of things.
Idaho Falls will never again be the small town where a handshake is your bond, your word is good, etc. It is a city where we can no longer allow things to continue to be done the way they are just because “that’s the way it’s always been done”. Go back to the PR and read the section on Special Reports where they talk about the contract issues for Storer, Mason, Moulton and others. This question has been out there for months. We have learned, much to our dismay, that we cannot just allow things to continue as they’ve always been. We have to grow up. That means formal contracts, open scrutiny, open dialog, etc. As citizens, we have the right to know what we’re paying for, who’s minding the store, etc. If you can seriously sit there and believe that there is not a CYA mentality going on, good for you. I don’t believe that Storer didn’t know better than to have a formal contract for Mason. It’s standard stuff in law school. I don’t believe Livesey. If you read everything he has said to date, he contradicts himself and the facts again and again.
As for calling Storer a coward and a fool, I have the right to my opinion, as do you.
After Waco, Janet Reno stood up and took full responsibility for the event, even though she had very little to do with most of the decisions. Why? Because as the ultimate authority, the buck stopped at her desk, and she accepted that. Commendable. This is not happening in our community. Everyone, to a man, (exept Ida Hardcastle months ago) is saying that Mason acted alone and nobody knew and what happened is not anybody’s fault but Mason’s etc. I do believe that mason bears the lion’s share of the responsibility for what happened, but if other officials had acted in their capacity, it would not have gone on for long! In our government, back to the days of the Constitution, a system of checks and balances was put into place FOR THIS VERY REASON. Our nation is not founded on a principle where a single individual can act autonomously, unless we shrug off our responsibility to check and balance that person. Storer, Livesey, Watkins and others shrugged off their responsibility and are now failing to take responsibility for having done so. I thing that’s sad and should not be allowed to go unanswered.
I agree to some of what you are saying for sure… the Waco stuff for sure i don’t but that’s another discussion.
Your right about your opinion and your right as to what we the voters should expect and get. All I’m saying is let the investigations run their course, and see what we get. The investigations may turn up a host of things that are not yet on our radar screeens, but then they might turn up answers to questions that are different from the conclusions of some people who have already made up their minds. (if that makes sense my written abilities are severly lacking)
I have had to eat crow in my time and I don’t like it. One of the worst feelings in the world. Nothing worse then planting your flag on what you thought was a firm foundation only to have it topple over when the breeze of truth blows in. All to often overheated rehtoric that is meant to inflame and impassion does the job and then… poof… there is nothing left and everyone has to take their pitchforks and go home. Sometimes when this happens the purveyors of the initial incitement try and backtrack and make ammends for the injury that they caused but then it’s to late. Then said ringleader of the incitement claim that they meant well and that they were only trying to look out for everyone’s best interest but by then it’s to late, and using some of the rhetoric and tactics that I have seen used here is similar to what McCarthy used where the pack moved upon individuals and the blood that the mob fed on ultimately was based on the complete and utter fearmongering of a professional pot stiring grandstander!
I ask of you and others to tone down the name calling and the vicious attacks until the investigations are complete.
You don’t want to eat crow. It doesn’t taste good.
Flyonthewall missed the point entirely. As for me, I was not referring to having Storers’ work scrutinized, but rather how does the city’s contract with his firm compare to similar contracts for similar work in similar situations in similar cities as ours? Is the pay scale appropriate for the work he does for Idaho Falls? Do other cities extend city benefits to their contracted attorneys? That is the reason for an independent review. Why was the subject of Larry Lyon’s question met with so much resistance?
Let me give you a good comparison: Lets say the city of Idaho Falls contracts winter snow removal to H.K. construction. As a result of that contract all employees of H.K. receive city health & retirement benefits. Does that sound right to you?
That is the question Larry Lyons brought up, and when he rightfully questioned it he was brushed aside. That is an indication of underhanded dealings, otherwise the rest of the council should have been more responsive. Which ones of the council are getting a little something extra under the table to keep the status quo? Lets see just one of them speak up and explain the provisions of Storer’s contract, including the benefits included with it, and the reasons for extending them to private companies. Then I might have a little more faith and a little less skecpticism over the things I’m reading here. Till then you can count me among the ones that have little trust in most of our elected officials and their cronies.
In 1992, the voters of Bonneville County chose a prosecutor (David Johnson) other than Kimball Mason who was then running for re-election. The City of Idaho Falls then created an in-house position and gave it to Mason (prior to that time, the misdemeanor defense work was let to an outside law firm pursuant to competitive bidding process). So basically the City Council as then constituted decided that it knew better than the voters–the City Council gave a public job to someone whom the public had just voted out of a public job. By the way, in the general election that same year Richard Stallings lost his bid to become a U.S. Senator, but was promptly given a high-paying public job as the federal government’s hazardous waste coordinator. It seems ironic to live in a democracy where those the public don’t want nevertheless get to stay on in public jobs.
Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
When a politician takes office, public scrutiny is part and parcel of the job. When any public official makes it clear he/she does not welcome scrutiny, does not have an open door and an open mind and an open ear – I, for one, will be deeply suspicious. I am not trying to cast aspersions on the character of anyone, but I believe that if we just shut up and wait to see what happens, this investigation will die out and the guilty will never be brought to justice and the trough-feeders will never be kicked away from the slop. Our public officials will not respond openly to what has happened, what went wrong, who’s to blame and how do we fix it unless we keep up the pressure through questions and demands. The question regarding Storer’s contract was raised nearly a year ago and no one, until Larry Lyon, was willing to take it on. Why? Because the question was only asked once and no one demanded an answer. Most of the people who are posting here are demanding answers. Thank Heaven! Maybe we’ll get them for a change. I say kudos to the private citizen who retained the attorney to review Storer’s contract. The shame of it was that a private citizen should not have had to pay for that. After 25 years, it wasn’t too much for the taxpayers to ask that a SINGLE review be done at city expense. And what was the response of our city officials? “It wasn’t really necessary for a review to be done.” Says who? If a single citizen thinks it was, then it was. Fuhriman says he’ll review the letter and supposedly think about it. Do you suppose we’ll ever get a single follow up on this story? I highly doubt it. Post Register – are you reading this? Have you called Fuhriman and gotten his take on this issue after he read the letter? Has he even read it yet? Just curious.
Inside Observer, Once again, I agree with everything that you have said. Its obvious to me that you have been there. I hope that people in IF pay attention to your words. I just wish that I had a flyswatter!
Anyone know about any follow-up to this episode?