Concerned Citizens of Bonneville County
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Does anyone remember this organization who attempted to form a group to monitor the activities of our local government, in particular the justice system?
Several years ago, a group of citizens got together, the majority of whom felt they or a family member was being targeted by our local constabulary. I personally overheard them speaking in a restaurant one day and agreed to attend a members meeting at the Shilo Inn. I was doubtful about their concerns until we left the meeting late at night to find what felt like half the police force waiting for us in the parking lot.
During the meeting, several members got up to speak about what was happening to their own family members, which in my humble opinion, was way over the line and a blatant abuse of power. After the meeting, to a man, we were followed to our homes and found ourselves subjected to an obvious increased level of scrutiny. I personally could not leave my home without picking up a police tail. When I spoke to my attorney about it, he laughed (nervously) and said I must be one of the safest citizens in the county. He also advised me to begin carrying a tape recorder and camera. The first time I was approached after that, and brought up the camera to take video, I “lost” my police escort. Subsequent meetings disclosed that the majority of members were experiencing the same problem, and after using my suggested resolution, were able to convince their shadows to back off.
In the interest of fairness, it should be disclosed that most of the members had committed some sort of criminal offense. (I wasn’t one of those) None of these individuals had a problem with being arrested, charged and prosecuted for that crime. Their problem was that they couldn’t get out of the gunsights of certain police officers. The same six to eight officer’s names came up in nearly every case.
I lost touch with this group and believe it finally disbanded, most likely out of fear of retribution. Given the problems going on downtown with city and county contracts, prosecutors, etc., I wonder if this group (assuming it has disbanded) should be revived. As before, we seem to have the same few names coming up again and again in our discussions regarding our local politicians. They seem to feel that they are above the provisions of the law, above scrutiny, and scariest of all, above accountability. The CCBC, however short-lived, did manage to make some headway that was lost after they disbanded. One of their problems was the inability to disseminate information, something this site could assist in. Another one of their problems was that, like Mr. Lyons in the council meeting over Dale Storer’s contract, they were simply out-shouted and out-voted by the powers-that-be. Mr. Lyons’ problem was being in the minority. What a difference it would have made if all the members of this website had been at the meeting that night!
What do you think?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 I think it would be far more effective for those with questions and concerns to go to the City Council meetings and ask those questions during the open forum.
The open forum isn’t a place to debate, and Council generally doesn’t like to shoot from the hip, but it’s the appropriate place to voice concerns and ensure that all Council members hear them. If it’s a complicated issue, you can bring written information and ask that it be included in the record.
You may not be able to immediately get a specific answer, but your question will be on the record, rather than just on a blog, and Council usually tries to direct those with questions to the appropriate people or committee. I go to nearly all the meetings, and I’ve never seen them not promise to get an answer back. I have no way of knowing whether they do in every case, but nobody has come back and said they didn’t.
It’s amazing to me how many people complain about the City, yet week after week, nobody gets up to ask anything, or even voice their dissatisfaction.
Regarding your questions about the Assistant City Attorney, have you called him and asked? If he’s paid by the City, he certainly has an obligation to answer, and he seems pretty approachable. You could also ask the Mayor or Council members, but I usually find it’s simpler to go directly to the source…
Council meets the 2nd and 4th Thursdays of the month. I’ll probably be there tonight…
Vote:
0 0 I wish I could go to the meetings, but I have domestic duties on Thursday evenings and am not going to be one of those parents who bring their kids to boring adult meetings.
I supposed if I emailed a question to a city council member, they might read it?
Vote:
0 0 Mr. McGimpsey,
Great response. Thank you. But I think the reason I have so much concern is that according to the thread on Larry Lyons and the city attorney, Mr. Lyons was all but shouted down when he attempted to ask a question. I admit I wasn’t there, but there doesn’t appear to have been an answer to his question, which is the focus of the concern. Do you feel that this was not an accurate representation of what happened (if you were there) or was it particular to this issue and they’re pretty good about answering questions the rest of the time as long as they’re not hot topics?
Vote:
0 0 You can read the minutes and listen to the .mp3 of the meeting on the city website (linked in the footer below). Click on “Documents” in the left menu, and you’ll see the options.
It sounded to me like they all got really hostile with him very suddenly and unexpectedly when he tried asking questions about it.
Vote:
0 0 I was there. It wasn’t nearly as big a flap as it probably sounded like. The mayor made it clear (as he had previously) that the Kimball Mason case was off limits since it was back (still) under investigation. Larry probably had a legitimate point, but he led with Mason, which is why he got shut down.
It was sudden, but certainly not unexpected.
I think he could have approached it effectively from another direction, but he chose to drop it.
Vote:
0 0 I haven’t listened to the mp3, but I still find it disappointing to learn that when what appears to be a legitimate question was asked, especially by one of the council members, that he was shut down, regardless of bringing up KM. Are we only allowed to discuss what the council has put on the agenda? If Storer’s contract was an agenda item, any question is valid and any citizen should be allowed to ask questions until they are satisfied with the answer(s). It sounds like a legitimate question has been asked. Do we know if there has been an answer?
Vote:
0 0 Sorry, I have to disagree. Larry had innumerable ways of asking the question, and he chose to bring it up via the subject of a current investigation. That was his choice, and, given his self-acknowledged propensity for doing a little grandstanding, telling him to stop doing so didn’t seem at all inappropriate to me.
He had ample opportunity to ask any additional questions about the contract in a different, less inflammatory way. Instead he decided to drop it.
The public should expect the Mayor and Council to actively avoid jeopardizing an investigation. And to avoid gratuitously invoking it when it doesn’t pertain to the issue at hand.
As for discussing only what’s on the agenda, well, yes, Council is usually limited by state Sunshine statutes to discussions of agenda items. It’s a way to protect the public - ensuring that decisions, and the deliberations leading up to them, are announced in advance so that interested parties can attend. They can, and should be prosecuted if they don’t.
That doesn’t mean that they can’t take public testimony on pretty much anything that a citizen wants to bring forward, and they can give factual information out, but we as a community shouldn’t expect, or even want, substantive discussions to take place outside the alerted public eye.
That’s why every meeting (including committees) has to have an agenda published at least 48 hours in advance, to let the public know what issues will be presented, discussed, and decided.
Finally, yes, we know there’s been an answer and it was given that evening. Storer’s renewal contract was not independently reviewed by an outside attorney. It was treated the same as other renewal contracts in that regard. I’m not sure what people are expecting to find - the salary and benefits are public records. But it’s always more fun to suspect something shady’s going on.
IMO, rather than focusing on the contract, I’d think the focus should be on the value of the service provided. Larry apparently thinks that the value is not commensurate with the cost. Five other Council members and the Mayor apparently disagree.
Vote:
0 0 With all due respect Mr. McGimpsey, I’m not sure that the concern expressed with this contract centers on the “value” of the service provided. I think that the local residents have had their fill of no-bid contracts being awarded, especially in light of the Kimball Mason fiasco. In that respect, whether there is an ongoing investigation or not, KM is still relevant to this decision by the City Council.
It’s the same type of cronyism and favoritism and contract awards being decided behind closed doors. You might say that it was in the open because it was discussed at a council meeting, but it sounds to me like their minds were already made up (except Larry Lyon) and there was no opportunity for anyone else to bid for the job. That is just not right and there will come a time when people no longer tolerate business as usual.
If in fact the value of Mr. Storer’s services are greater than that available from others, he should have no problem with competitive bidding. It’s the American way.
Vote:
0 0 IIRC, competitive bidding wasn’t raised by Larry or anyone else as an issue, so it (and any relation to any no-bid awards to KM) is irrelevant to the discussion about what took place at the Council meeting, or is, at best, speculation about motives.
For that matter, I don’t know for certain that the city attorney’s contract wasn’t competitively bid.
FWIW, I generally think that competitive bidding is a good idea, but it was not a consideration raised at the time. You can certainly ask Mr. Storer if he has any problem with competitive bidding - I’m sure he’ll tell you.
Also FWIW, it certainly was evident that Larry’s mind was just as, or more, made up than anyone else’s.
I’ll echo IO from the first post in this thread: “What a difference it would have made if all the members of this website had been at the meeting that night!”
Vote:
0 0 I wish I could go to the meetings, but I have domestic duties on Thursday evenings and am not going to be one of those parents who bring their kids to boring adult meetings.
Perhaps you could find a like-minded parent to trade off sitting/going to Council once a month?
I supposed if I emailed a question to a city council member, they might read it?
I’d count on it.
Vote:
0 0 This thread deteriorated into issues that appear to be more appropriate to the Larry Lyons article. I don’t feel like I got a clear answer except for John to say we should go to council meetings more often. I’m asking if an oversight committee like the CCBC shouldn’t be revived/formed to monitor all political activities. Not just city council meetings. How about going to court and sitting in on some sentencings or hearings in general? Are there just not enough hours in the day to add a few hours a month on a rotating/as available schedule? Is there not enough interest? Do we believe our politicians have the integrity to do the right thing if we’re not watching? County planning meetings? I’m sure there are others.
What do you think?
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religiondebates.blogspot.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- Limit yourself to using one name per thread to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
Loading ...
Vote:
Thanks for the info, Inside Observer. I hope members of the I.F. City Council are aware that people from this web site are watching and now listening to their actions. None of us have the power to change things in the PD, but we all have power when it comes to who meets on the City Council representing us.
Joe, would you consider asking Larry Lyons to visit and give us a guest opinoin, if of course, Inside Observer, is ok with that and feels that it is safe to do so?
Someone has to be made aware of the feelings of real people. And, it sounds like Larry Lyons wants to address some of these issues.
I for one want to know why Dale Storer would want city benefits, given the firm in which he works and probably what his compensation package is. Additionally, I want to understand more about the Assistant City of Idaho Falls Attorney means. Shan Perry, also a member of the firm where Mr. Storer practices, promotes that he is the Ass’t City of I.F. Attorney. What does that really mean? Does he act only when Mr. Storer can’t, or does he receive a comepsnation package as well?
I think the questions are just starting. But unless we ask them, there won’t be a demand for change.