Inside Today's 6 News; The News Director's Blog

When Former Prostitutes Testify, Part 2

One of my first blogs on here was a response to complaints about us showing admitted ex-prostitutes on TV testifying in the trial of Chris Teague.  Teague is a Boise topless club owner on trial for a second time on accusations of being a pimp (you can scroll down to the very bottom of the 'May archives' section to see it).  I wrote about the importance of us showing these women testifying publicly.  One reason is because not doing so gives the impression these women are somehow 'victims.'  Nothing could be further from the truth, and now we're staring to see how that plays out.

That's because it is now clear at least one of the women lied on the stand.

A woman is now saying she incriminated Teague after being pressured by police.  It points to the fundamental flaw of prosecutors' relying on testimony from admitted criminals who are being granted immunity in exchange for that testimony.  Adding to the problem is witnesses only get the immunity if they give the testimony Prosecutors want them to give, which as we're finding out, may or may not be the truth.  Let's say investigators go to them and ask 'Did Chris Teague push you to sell sex for money?'  They say 'yes,' and can avoid jail.  Say 'no,' and there's no deal.  In the search for the truth, that's pretty screwed up.

And so last week, we had the spectacle of a woman recanting her previous testimony because she couldn't, in her words, 'let an innocent man (Teague) go to jail.'  She also talked about how police told her they had worked for two years to put Teague behind bars, and essentially weren't going to let her screw it up. 

Here is a woman who herself may now go to jail by recanting previous testimony.  That's a pretty compelling reason for a jury to believe she is now telling the truth, and that Teague is an innocent man at least when it comes to his dealings with her.

The jury in the first Teague trial reportedly split 6-6.  Hard to imagine Ada County Prosecutors doing any better this time around.

Unsolicited Advice to Mayor Bieter on His 'Police Problem'

I give Mayor Bieter lots of credit for being accessible and having a very slick PR machine over there at city hall.  Bieter is extraordinarily available, and his staff very responsive.  Saturday office hours.  Always willing to do interviews with the media (in fact, after first refusing, he's doing one with us tonight).  Also does lots of public events.  It works for him.

Which is why his initial reaction to a police officer protest against him in front of city hall is so puzzling.  For one, in the showdown with police officers over their contract situation, he used one of the 'Phrases Public Officials Should Never Use.'

"The Mayor and City Council made a commitment with the union not to negotiate in public."

The phrase is 'not to negotiate in public.'  Why would you not negotiate this in public?  It's public dollars.  It's an elected mayor.  It's our government, not just the Mayor and City Council's government.  Shouldn't citizens have the ability to know what's going on with negotiations with the very people that protect them?  Might we even go far as to call it a right?  Take this phrase at face value, and it would seem that the Mayor and Council would rather conduct affairs of great impact to the public ... in private.

So here's some advice Mayor Bieter.  From now on, NEGOTIATE THIS IN PUBLIC!  It's not like you don't have a case.  The pay increase police are asking for is certainly a big one.  The ramifications long term for the city of Boise's budget could be significant.  You may have other concerns.  The public should hear those, don't ya' think?

At the same time, these are the people we pay to carry loaded weapons and protect us.  Public safety should be city government's #1 priority.  Recruiting and keeping quality requires quality pay.

So why not make your case publicly.  Let the police make theirs publicly.  Then listen to what the public thinks.  And when police officers show up in droves with pickett signs outside your office, come on out, say 'hello,' give them your side of the story and listen to theirs.  If it's a hot day like today, maybe you could even bring them some lemonade.

But writing formal letters and releasing statements and sending e-mails and staying in your office when there are about a hundred cops outside just kind of sings 'bunker mentality.'  It's not a style that works for you.  Maybe that's why Mayor Beiter has finally started doing interviews about it tonight.

In the meantime, we've added a poll on the issue.  Feel free to let us know what you think.

Why "Permanent Property Tax Relief" Isn't Working

It's becoming more and more apparent to Treasure Valley homeowners that Lt. Governor Jim Risch's push as Governor to raise the sales tax to provide property tax relief isn't working for them.  There's a simple reason why.  The tax shift targets the wrong thing, mainly *what* those taxes are funding rather targeting the tax itself.

A brief history lesson.  When Risch became interim Governor after Dirk Kempthone went to Washington, DC, he pushed hard for a special session to pass his property tax relief plan.  He was responding to skyrocketing home values that rose property taxes that in turn brought an outcry from homeowners who felt they were being virtually taxed out of their homes.  In comes Risch with an idea to raise the sales tax by a penny to pay for school maintenance costs and get them off homeowners' property tax bills.

Sounds great, but now many Treasure Valley homeowners are now paying higher property taxes PLUS the increased sales tax.  That's because Risch's plan didn't deal with the root of the problem, skyrocketing property tax assessments.  Remember, if you don't plan to sell your home, a rising assessment does you no good, but it sure can cost you.  We're seeing assessements triple and even quadruple since 2000!  ... raising property taxes by thousands of dollars on the same homeowners are also paying a penny more in sales taxes.

Certainly, if property tax relief was the real objective, Idaho could simply cap property tax increases just like other states such as California have.  Governor Otter is reportedly considering it, but Risch wouldn't do that because he simply didn't have the time.  Capping property tax growth would more than likely require a change to the State Constitution.  Not a good option for a governor who only gets to serve for a few months.

Risch insists many Idahoans are doing better under this plan.  Possibly, but here in the Treasure Valley, the evidence is pretty clear that most people are worse off than before.

I don't really doubt Risch's motives.  His term in office was akin to a dying man trying to make the last few months of his life meaningful.  Risch likely knew he is a long shot to ever be the elected Governor of Idaho, so he didn't want to be a caretaker in the few months he had.  He wanted to leave a mark on an issue Idahoans care deeply about.

But what ended up happening shows the pitfalls of political expediency over real reform.  Governor Otter on the other hand does have the opportunity to make a real, lasting, permanent difference here by capping the increase in property taxes for existing homeowners.  It will be interesting to see if that is the approach he takes.

Your thoughts are always welcome.  We may use your comments in future blogs and/or on air.

Idaho's Power Elite Betting on a Long-shot Named Romney

Recently, the Mitt Romney for President campaign came out with a list of its "Idaho Chairpersons."  Essentially, it is a "Who's who" of Republican power-brokers, headed by Sen. Larry Craig and Lt. Governor Jim Risch.  I've included the link at the bottom of this blog if you want to check it out.

The endorsement makes sense for Idaho's politicians.  Romney is more conservative than other frontrunners and his Mormonism is a positive here in Idaho (and I don't buy that his religion is a big negative with non-Mormon conservative republican voters).  There is only one problem.  There is no way Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

Okay, never say never, but the likely addition of Fred Thompson to the mix will make Thompson the favorite of the conservative Republican primary voters Romney is courting.  Romney is also showing signs of a lack of sure-footedness on the national stage.  Some criticize him as a political opportunist who seemlessly shifts positions to match the office for which he just happens to be running.  As one Christian Conservative told 'Newsweek' magazine, he could see Romney changing positions on one issue, but not 25 issues.

For example, several years ago, Romney professed to being pro-abortion rights and pro-gay rights.  It just so happened those are the exact moderate positions a republican candidate needs to take to be elected the Governor of Massachusetts, and he was.

Now, we're learning Romney has changed to a pro-life position, and while he professes to still believes in gay rights, he does not support gay marriage.  It just so happens those are the exact positions a republican candidate needs to take to appeal to conservative voters in the Presidential primary process.

Shifting positions is not fatal in politics.  Bill Clinton was elected President twice in spite of his "Slick Willie" reputation on some issues.  But for a man already facing great odds, Romney can't afford to spend so much time explaining flip-flops.  Add in the conservative groundswell for Thompson, and Romney will fade from view.

And there's something else.  In talking with Republican friends across the nation, I sense they are looking for something else (and full disclosure, I am a Republican, but we also do have a wide range of political perspectives in our newsroom).   A visionary over an idealogue.  Principle over political positions.  A candidate with the qualities that seem strikingly like those of Ronald Reagan.

The classic line about Reagan was "I don't always agree with him, but I know where he stands."  That's not to say that Reagan was not a pragmatist.  He was, something that separates him from President Bush.  Reagan put US troops in Beirut until a terrorist bombing convinced him to bring those troops home.  Bush stays the course and even 'surges' in Iraq.  Reagan talked directly with the 'evil empire' Soviets.  Bush refuses to talk directly with the nations he calls the 'axis of evil.'

In other words, Reagan was steadfast and consistent, but he was no idealogue.  He was a leader with vision.

So who in the Republican field best fits that mold?  It's not McCain, who also seems to be pandering a bit too hard to the party's right wing with little effect.  It isn't Fred Thompson, who shares Reagan's background as an actor but doesn't seem to have his political instincts or broad appeal beyond conservatives.  A speech Thompson gave two weeks ago was hailed by conservatives but panned by pretty much everyone else.

The man who best fits the Reagan mold is of all people, Rudy Giuliani.  Gutsy, determined, steadfast even if you don't agree his positions on issues like abortion, and certainly someone who has shown the qualities of a leader.  Giuliani has lots of warts.  His debating skill is suspect, his temper can flare, and he has hard time keeping track of how many times he's been married.  But look at the polls and also at what our "Predict 6" panel thinks, and it is pretty clear he is the man to beat right now.  Romney can raise money, but he hasn't captivated voters like Giuliani has.

There are athose who insist a pro-choice candidate cannot survive the Republican nomination process, but Rudy got one huge break.  The new primary calendar favors him.  He'll likely win New Hampshire in January to maintain momentum, and New York, Florida and California look to be virtual locks on February 5th, giving him more than 400 delegates.  It would be a minor miracle for any other candidate in a crowded field to overcome that.

Giuliani's success to date also reveals just how isolated Idaho might become from the mainstream of the Republican party and the rest of the nation.  Some consider that a good thing, but it really isn't.  Idaho will have virtually no influence on issues important to this state if we are perceived as being out on the fringe in the future.

Which brings me back to Reagan.  Reagan was also a gifted compromiser and negotiator.  He compromised and negotiated with the Democratic Congress because he respected the will of the American people, and he understood that's what leaders do in the democratic process.  If Rudy Giuliani does indeed become the Republican nominee, I'll be curious to see if Idaho's political leaders are capable of showing true leadership by falling in line behind him for the good of the party, the state and the nation.

Here's the link on Romney's campaign.

http://kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?s=6555022