Prosecutor declines to charge Hall
Ketchum civil lawsuit against councilman will proceed as planned
By GREGORY FOLEY
Express Staff Writer
Strained relations between Ketchum City Council President Randy Hall, left, and Mayor Ed Simon have yielded a mix of tense and humorous moments at council meetings in recent weeks. On Monday, as Hall looked at a Taser stun gun acquired by the Ketchum Police Department, he held the device in the air and said: ?Don?t worry, Ed, it?s not hooked up to anything.? Photo by David N. Seelig
|
|
Blaine County Prosecuting Attorney Jim Thomas has declined to pursue criminal charges against Ketchum City Council President Randy Hall for alleged violations of the state?s conflict-of-interest laws.
The decision came Thursday, Oct. 14, one day before the city of Ketchum filed a civil lawsuit against Hall that alleges the councilman has violated Idaho Code by concurrently holding two paid positions with the city.
In a letter to Ketchum City Attorney Ben Worst, Thomas said he has found that Hall has committed no criminal acts in serving the city as a council member and a paid, on-call employee of the Fire Department.
?My review of the facts and law concerning Mr. Hall?s dual role with the city of Ketchum has failed to find that Mr. Hall has committed a criminal act warranting prosecution,? Thomas wrote. ?Accordingly, I have elected not to seek an appointment of a special prosecutor.?
The debate over Hall?s city service was thrust into the spotlight in early September, when Worst asked Thomas to appoint a special prosecutor to charge Hall with ?multiple criminal and civil conflict-of-interest violations.?
The request for prosecution was made after Worst received an opinion from the state attorney general?s office that concluded Hall might have violated Idaho Code by holding two paid jobs at Ketchum City Hall.
?We fully expected this result,? said Ned Williamson, Hall?s attorney. ?Obviously, Randy is pleased.?
Although the decision does relieve Hall from facing criminal charges, it does nothing to deflect the civil lawsuit filed against him by the city. In fact, Thomas explicitly notes in his letter to Worst that the decision should not directly impact the civil case.
?Despite this conclusion, I can certainly appreciate the practical difficulties created in this situation by an elected official who is simultaneously employed by a city department,? Thomas wrote. ?In addition, my decision not to appoint a special prosecutor should not be read as an opinion on the exposure created by a possible civil violation of the conflict rules on behalf of Mr. Hall.?
Indeed, Jim Davis, the attorney who drafted the civil complaint against Hall, said Tuesday that the Thomas decision will in no way impact the city?s efforts to get a court ruling on Hall?s situation.
?It?s moving forward,? Davis said. ?It?s totally independent.?
Davis was appointed this month by the Idaho Counties Risk Management Program, the city?s insurer, to review Hall?s situation and represent the city in the Hall lawsuit.
The suit filed in 5th District Court in Hailey last Friday states that ? a real controversy exists as to whether? Hall?s dual employment with the city violates any one of several conflict-of-interest laws.
The suit requests from the court a ?declaratory judgment? that Hall cannot keep both of his paid jobs with the city.
In addition, the suit asks that the city be awarded the costs associated with its lawsuit, including attorneys? fees.
Filed with the suit is a copy of the Aug. 5 opinion rendered by Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane. The opinion, which was sought by Worst as Hall applied for and declined a full-time job with the Fire Department, has been a centerpiece of the city?s position.
The Kane opinion states: ??it appears that this individual may be in violation of Idaho Code.?
Hall, who in 2002 was told by the city?s former attorney that his dual service did not constitute a conflict of interest, has denied breaking any laws and has asserted that the city?s allegations are related to his ongoing political rivalry with Mayor Ed Simon.
Davis said the lawsuit is being brought by the city?under the advice of ICRMP?to guard the city against possible liabilities that could come as a result of Hall?s dual service.
?It could easily lead to other problems,? Davis said. ?You just never know where these things are going to come back and bite you.?
Tuesday, one day after Hall was for the fifth time excluded from a City Council executive session discussion about the matter, Williamson said he would like to discuss the case with city officials outside of the courtroom.
?We?ve been trying to talk with the city,? Williamson said. ?We think there are some reasonable solutions to litigation.?
Williamson said he has not yet determined if he will directly challenge the City Council?s decision to sue Hall, which came out of an executive session that violated the Idaho Open Meeting Law.
For his part, Davis said a court ruling on the case is needed and could come as early as January 2005, if no obstacles are encountered.
