Court Opinion

ID: 9558266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:05:37.674506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:35.875646
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur in the majority’s opinion, except where it seemingly relies upon State ex. rel. Roark v. City of Hailey, 102 Idaho 511, 633 P.2d 576 (1981), in order to hold that there was no violation of Idaho’s Open Meetings Act. As pointed out in my separate opinion in Hailey, and then more recently in Baker v. Independent School District of Emmett, Idaho, 691 P.2d 1223, 1227-30 (1984), which Justice Huntley joined, Hailey’s interpretation of Idaho’s Open Meetings Act is manifestly incorrect. Therefore, today’s citation of Hailey is both unnecessary and unwarranted. It is unnecessary because the evidence reveals that no illegal action was taken at the school board’s executive session, or at least nothing was done that would call for invalidation pursuant to I.C. § 67-2340 et. seq. It is unwarranted simply because it is an unneeded, unjustified endorsement of Hailey, a shot of adrenalin, as it were.
It is regrettable, too, in that it has caused me to re-read Hailey and experience recurring dismay at this Court’s frustration of the prosecuting attorney’s attempt to implement the legislative mandate *441of open meetings. Even more regrettable is it to note that the legislatures convening since Hailey have not reciprocated the Blaine County prosecutor’s efforts at applying their law.