Documented backup displaces hearsay theory

To the Editor:

 Carolyn Kiesz’s letter misunderstands both the facts and the law. The concerns raised by citizens about possible Open Meeting Law violations are not about “hearsay” in a courtroom. They are about conduct that occurred in public, witnessed firsthand, and reported to the Board of County Commissioners. Idaho Code does not require a citizen to personally observe a violation before raising a concern. 

 Reports from other constituents, especially when they describe commissioners discussing pending county business outside a noticed meeting, are exactly the kind of information that must be aired publicly so the Board can address potential compliance issues.

 The Idaho Open Meeting Law is designed to protect the public’s right to know how decisions are made. Even the “appearance” that commissioners are privately discussing matters that are pending before them is a legitimate concern under the statute. That is why “optics” matter – not because anyone is making accusations, but because the Legislature has emphasized transparency, accountability, and public trust. Identifying questionable conduct is not “making threats”; it is participating in government oversight, which is every Idaho citizen’s right.

 It is also inaccurate to say that a complaint should be “dismissed” simply because the reporting citizen did not personally witness every detail. If that were the standard, most whistleblowing, most reporting of misconduct, and most community oversight would be impossible. Public officials are expected to take reports seriously, ask questions, confirm facts, and ensure that their own conduct meets statutory requirements. That is how responsible government operates.

 The issue is not who used the word “optics.” The issue is that when commissioners, a prosecutor, and other county officials gather and discuss matters pending before them – especially matters involving litigation or land-use decisions – outside a properly noticed meeting, the public is entitled to raise questions. Dismissing citizens, implying they should “say nothing,” or attacking them for bringing concerns forward, undermines the very transparency Idaho law requires.

 Raising questions about compliance with the Open Meeting Law is not nefarious. It is civic responsibility. Public officials should welcome scrutiny, not discourage it.

Respectfully,

Jeri Soulier

Weiser, Idaho