Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assessor asks for records tied to litigation; commissioners discuss paying outside redaction costs
Summary
Kootenai County Assessor Veil Kovacs described a public records request related to recent litigation and asked the board to consider paying outside counsel to review and redact records; commissioners discussed precedent and transparency and an estimate of about $500 was cited for the redaction work.
Kootenai County Assessor Veil Kovacs told commissioners on April 1 that a public-records request seeking documents tied to recent litigation involves legal-review and redaction work that will likely be performed by outside counsel under the county’s contract, and she urged the board to consider absorbing that expense in the interest of public transparency.
Kovacs said the request concerns legal expenses and records tied to “the total cost of the recent litigation” and that the redaction and review are being performed by the attorney the county has under contract. She cited Idaho Code 74-102(10)(F) as relevant to fee waivers for requesters who demonstrate the request will “contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of the operations and activities of government” and who are not primarily seeking records for personal litigation.
A county attorney present told commissioners that the county’s contract with outside counsel (entered Oct. 4, 2022) did not place a cap on expenses, meaning legal hours may accrue under that agreement. Kovacs said the outside-attorney cost estimate for review and redaction of the records was about $500, depending on time required.
Commissioners expressed a variety of views. One commissioner said a legal opinion might have been sufficient and questioned continuing to incur costs; another commissioner said the county would not be in the present situation without actions by a prior board and signaled support for paying the one-time cost to “get this done and move forward.” There was no formal vote recorded; commissioners said they were open to resolving the request “this one time” and to have the records released if the payment were made.
Kovacs asked for clarification before leaving the meeting about whether the board intended to remit payment to outside counsel and release the records; a commissioner replied they were open to approving the payment if it would resolve the matter and avoid further requests that would generate additional legal costs.
No final payment authorization was recorded in the meeting transcript; Kovacs left the session after the discussion.
