State lawmaker’s bad bill is overreach

There was irony in the bill that state lawmakers recently let die in committee that sought to prohibit cities and towns in Idaho from passing their own texting ban ordinances.

 The bill’s backer, Bonneville County Rep. Chad Christensen, R-Ammon, a newbie at legislating, said allowing cities to pass ordinances was “overreach” and exceeding their authority.

 He argued, in defense of his bill, that good drivers who can text and drive shouldn’t be penalized for those who can’t. 

 Because state lawmakers have not had the fortitude to pass a workable statewide ban on texting while driving, a couple of Idaho cities have passed ordinances.

 Here’s the inherent irony: Christensen said cities that pass texting bans are overreaching, yet his bill telling cities they can’t pass laws is in itself an overreach.

 Wait, isn’t the idea that  local governments govern best? Doesn’t the state extend the same overreach argument to tweak the federal government? 

 Does a lawmaker from Ammon know what’s best for the residents of Weiser? If a city wants to pass a law and does it by majority vote, is that not the will of the people?

 When you have a state lawmaker telling local folks what they can or cannot do, that is the definition of undemocratic.

 

• • •

 There has been a bit of a controversy of late up in Cambridge surrounding the hiring of the city’s new public works director.

 Actually, more than a bit. 

A whole lot of controversy.

 Some residents are upset that the individual hired for the job – and his name is not germane to this discussion – has a criminal conviction on his record.

 He was hired by the city council with one dissenting vote based on what the mayor said were his qualifications to do the job of operating the water and wastewater facilities. 

 The hiring got people so riled up they filled the city council chambers in January to voice their disapproval and demand action.

 The Upper Country News Reporter in Cambridge was soon pulled into the rancorous debate over the hiring. A couple of letters accused the newspaper of not reporting the public work director’s criminal conviction. 

 The city clerk ran a press release on the front page of the newspaper on Jan. 23, explaining that the hiring was done after “an extensive interview process” with the mayor and city council and the individual was forthright about his history.

 Later, the clerk was apparently criticized for what was stated in the press release and a clarification in a subsequent issue of the newspaper noted that it did not represent her personal views.

 There are a couple of issues to discuss here. Newspapers don’t always check out the background of people hired by cities. It’s assumed that city officials do the vetting of who they hire.

 Also, there are ethical considerations. Does the person get a second chance in life? We’ll assume he paid his dues to society. The conviction occurred in 2002.

 Does someone’s history follow them forever? Is it newsworthy? Is it something the public needs to know?

 There are times, certainly, when a conviction on someone’s record is  newsworthy. In a small town, that information is certain to travel fast anyway.

 A newspaper is sure to be criticized for “dragging up old news” by  reporting someone’s criminal conviction. If it’s not reported, the public perception is that there’s a coverup.

 Steve Lyon is the editor of the Weiser Signal American. Contact him at scoop@signalamerican.com.