Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Jones”

A style of condemnation


Whether dealing with an abhorrent event precipitated by neo-Nazis in Charlottesville or just an everyday spouting-off of hatred by white supremacists, responsible public officials should stand up for decency.

Congressman Raul Labrador says it is “not his style” to comment on events such as that which occurred in Charlottesville over the weekend. Standing mute against hateful speech and actions does not work. Idaho history demonstrates that the way to stop white supremacy is for people in positions of power to strongly and publicly denounce it.

Back in the early 1980s, the Aryan Nations organization in northern Idaho was on the rise. It attracted other white supremacists to Idaho, many of whom had cut their teeth in prison. Many good people in the area stepped forward to speak against them but it was a formidable task. I had just taken over as Attorney General and was asked by Marilyn Shuler to help with malicious harassment legislation that was designed to combat the supremacist threat. The legislation had hit a roadblock in the Legislature, which we were able to overcome. Marilyn, who was a powerful Idaho voice for human rights, brought me into the effort to deflate the supremacist cause.

I participated in a number of rallies to speak out against the supremacist group and its hateful creed but noticed something interesting about the meetings. Kootenai County undersheriff Larry Broadbent and I observed that we were the only identifiable Republican officials at the rallies. It appeared that many were holding back to see where the tree might fall.

As time went by, the public became aroused by the Aryans’ message of hate, but also about the black eye they were giving to the State of Idaho. Responsible Republican officials started stepping forward to denounce the hate mongers and that was the key to the group’s eventual demise—it took an all-hands-on-deck approach. People take note of what their leaders say and it is incumbent upon those leaders to help provide a moral compass.

Idaho leaders were generally quick this time in calling out the neo-Nazis, KKK, and other white nationalists. Governor Otter, Congressman Mike Simpson, and Senator Mike Crapo spoke out strongly and were soon joined by Senator Jim Risch. Congressman Labrador held back until goaded by the Governor because, as he explained, his style was not to speak out on these “issues” since he regarded the Charlottesville events as “politics.” White supremacy is not an issue or politics. It is indecency and it requires denunciation by society in order to deprive it of any hint of legitimacy.

The Congressman is correct that “trite media statements” will not solve our country’s problems. But, powerful, heart-felt condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and racism by people in leadership positions in our fine State can make a difference, as history shows. This is especially so for anyone who aspires to be governor, the most important position in State government.

And, the condemnation should specify the hate groups being called out, such as the KKK, neo-Nazis, and other white supremacists and nationalists. We should expect or accept no less from those who would lead the State. If a candidate does not already have such a “style,” he or she should certainly adopt a public anti-supremacy posture.

Keeping our word


The Pentagon is shamefully breaking its word to some non-citizens who joined the military for the purpose of gaining U.S. citizenship. A number of legal aliens who stepped forward to serve the United States are being denied the expedited citizen status they were promised.

The Pentagon initiated a program in 2009 to recruit non-citizens with skills considered to be vital to the national interest, including doctors, nurses, and persons with specific language expertise. The Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI) program started as a pilot program for up to 1,000 recruits and was expanded to 5,000 based on its success. It has been open to asylees, refugees and certain legal aliens. Service members recruited through the program become citizens upon completion of basic training.

The program was closed last December but service personnel who enlisted before that time have been left twisting in the wind. The Pentagon has asked the Homeland Security Department to stop processing their applications and has implied they might not receive their promised citizenship. This could result in about 1,000 service members being at risk of deportation. Can’t we do a better job of keeping our word to people who step forward to serve our country?

We have a long history of relying upon non-citizens for our national defense. Indeed, one of my ancestors came to America with French forces to fight in the Revolutionary War and was injured in the Battle of Charleston in 1780, according to family history.

My first duty assignment in the Army was as executive officer of a transportation battalion in Okinawa. The commanding officer was a German national who was serving to gain U.S. citizenship. One could hardly have imagined a more patriotic person than Captain Dietmar W. L. Zurell.

The Pentagon says that over 109,250 members of the armed services have become American citizens through their service. The Army has enlisted 10,400 persons through the MAVNI program since 2009.

The program has included some exceptional people, including a 2016 Olympic silver medalist, a 2012 Army Soldier of the Year, and a winner of the Marine Corps Marathon in 2012. About 30% of the individuals entering the armed forces through MAVNI have served in special operations units in foreign countries because of their language skills. This is a critical role, given the number of conflict areas around the world where U.S. forces are currently serving.

Although it seems to be short-sighted, the Pentagon has the right to terminate the MAVNI program. But, those who enlisted and have not yet received citizenship should get what they were promised. People who are willing to risk their lives to serve this country deserve honorable treatment.

A number of the MAVNI recruits who were caught in the pipeline have filed suit to force the government to honor its commitment to them. They should not have had to do so. Perhaps our Congressmen could help them get their citizenship.

The role of an AG


There has been a great deal of discussion of late about the rift between the President and Attorney General Sessions. President Trump apparently feels that Sessions should have stayed with the Russia investigation and nipped it in the bud. While I disagree with much of what Sessions has done, he was absolutely justified in recusing himself from issues related to Russia and the campaign. The attorney general is the person charged with upholding the rule of law. He should not be a political operative. This applies at both the federal and state level.

An attorney general must have some independence from both the executive and legislative branches. Whether at the state or federal level, an attorney general swears an oath to support the constitution and laws of the jurisdiction. He or she swears no oath to any individual in the government. The attorney general is responsible to the citizenry to see that the laws are carried out and that law enforcement is even-handed.

Browbeating the justice system, whether the target is an attorney general or the courts, erodes public confidence in the system and the rule of law. If the attorney general were to act as a political lackey, we might have a replay of the Watergate fiasco where President Nixon’s attorney general, John Mitchell, was convicted for his participation in the Watergate cover-up. Think how different things might have turned out if Mitchell had exercised some independence and advised Nixon to let the investigation move forward without obstruction.

Sessions correctly recused himself because of an apparent conflict. The President seems to feel that Sessions had a professional obligation to him. That is simply not the case. However, officeholders in the legislative and executive branches often have a similar misconception about the attorney general being their personal lawyer. When I served as Idaho Attorney General in the 1980s, some members of my party had the idea on occasion that my official decisions should favor the party. I had to advise them that my responsibility was to follow the law.

That is not to say that an attorney general cannot engage in political activity. I certainly did and almost all other Idaho AGs have done so—attending party functions, taking stands on legislative issues, supporting political candidates, and the like. But, there must be a distinct division between political or policy matters, on the one hand, and interpreting and enforcing the laws, on the other. Allowing political considerations to influence the manner in which justice is administered is an injustice in itself.

Idaho’s current attorney general is a good case study. While I may have disagreements on some policy matters with Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, I admire his courage in correctly following the law. He has been unfairly criticized by members of his party for not toeing the party line on certain hot button issues. His record of being vindicated by courts of law indicates that he was right and the critics were wrong. The State has paid out a lot of money in attorney fees to private parties by disregarding his advice.

When Wasden said the State Land Board was violating the Idaho Constitution by failing to get the maximum long-term return from State cabinsite properties, his advice was not heeded. He filed suit against the Board and was upheld by the Idaho Supreme Court. This precipitated action by the Board to get greater economic values from those lands. This is what a good attorney general does--faithfully follow the laws, regardless of friendships or politics. Presidents, governors and legislators should understand that an attorney general must have independence in order to fulfill that important role. Sniping, obstruction and interference are detrimental to the rule of law, which is the foundation of our system of government.

Forced arbitration is unjust


The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFRB) issued a rule earlier this month that prohibits financial companies from using mandatory arbitration clauses to bar group actions for redress against those companies. The rule will allow consumers to band together to sue financial firms for improper charges on bank accounts and credit cards. Presently, forced arbitration provisions in hundreds of millions of consumer finance contracts prevent group lawsuits.

In announcing the rule, CFPB Director Richard Cordray noted that “when Wells Fargo opened millions of deposit and credit card accounts without the knowledge or consent of customers, arbitration clauses in existing account contracts blocked their customers from bringing group lawsuits for the unauthorized account openings.”

While it is not feasible for an individual customer to sue for recovery of a few hundred dollars for improper activity, when thousands of them can band together to recover for the same wrongdoing it is a different story. The new rule will make it feasible for customers to recover damages for improper conduct, while also forcing the financial companies to comply with the law in future business activity.

Mandatory arbitration in the financial sector is just the tip of the arbitration iceberg. Since the 1990s, forced arbitration clauses have been added to a wide array of consumer contracts that are presented to unsuspecting customers on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

Families have been surprised when a mandatory arbitration clause prevents them from going to court when a loved one is abused in a nursing home. Such clauses are also common in contracts written by employers, medical providers, internet providers, cable companies, home builders and cruise ship operators, just to name a few.

Injured parties are deprived of the right to seek redress in impartial courts of law, to have a jury trial, and to appeal an unfair decision. Instead, they are often placed in the hands of an arbitrator who may be influenced by the prospect of getting repeat business from the defending party. This amounts to a privatization of the civil justice system and may be one of the factors that has caused a decline in civil case filings in the federal and state court systems around the country in recent years.

It should be said that arbitration is an important and efficient problem-solving mechanism where the parties stand on relatively equal ground and have knowingly agreed to arbitrate disputes rather than going to court. In past years, arbitration has primarily been resorted to in commercial disputes and works well there. The more recent and massive shift to arbitration in the consumer setting is troubling, however. Very few consumers are aware of mandatory arbitration clauses in the fine print of lengthy contracts or that by signing such contracts they are giving up the right to seek redress in court.

Congress has recognized the inequity of forced arbitration in some settings. In the Military Lending Act of 2007, mandatory arbitration was prohibited in certain loans made to service members. The Dodd-Frank bill 3 years later did away with forced arbitration in most residential mortgages. However, the new CFPB rule has been met with threats of rejection by a number of members of Congress. On the administrative side, a rule proposed last fall that would have prohibited federally-funded nursing homes from forcing arbitration on patients and their families was derailed this year.

People should not be unwittingly deprived of their right to receive justice from the court system. Voters should demand that their elected representatives oppose mandatory arbitration in consumer contracts and, instead, support amendment of the Federal Arbitration Act to do away with forced arbitration in the consumer setting.

More sunshine in the elections


Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill, House Speaker Scott Bedke and Secretary of State Lawerence Denney are to be commended for proposing to tighten up campaign finance and ethics laws.

While there has been a great deal of discussion regarding this subject over the years, there has been too little action. I hope that the working group will look at several measures that did not appear in media reports about the working group’s first meeting - disclosure of the identity of owners of business entity campaign contributors; limitation of expenditures by parties making independent expenditures to support or oppose a candidate for public office; more frequent reporting of contributions; and establishment of an independent commission to investigate complaints of violation of the Sunshine Act and conduct studies of campaign and ethics issues.

Twenty years ago, the Legislature approved House Concurrent Resolution 27, which established a special committee to study campaign and ethics issues and to recommend reforms, much like the charge of the current working group. The five-member working group included former Chief Justice Charles McDevitt and former Governor Cecil Andrus. I was appointed to the committee by legislative leadership and ended up chairing the committee. The committee met twice to receive testimony and recommendations from the public.

The 1997 committee recommended six specific proposals to the Legislature. No action was taken on any of the proposals. House Bill 546, which provided for the creation of a Political and Campaign Finance and Ethics Commission, was printed and assigned to the State Affairs Committee, but stalled out there. This is still a good idea because, as explained at the time, such a permanent committee could “continuously review the effectiveness” of the ethics statutes and recommend needed changes. The text of House Bill 546 can be found on the Legislature’s website for the 1998 session.

Recent elections have disclosed that some individuals skirt contribution limits by funneling contributions through corporations or other business entities they own. It is not always easy to determine the true identity of such contributors. Rather than prohibiting contributions by such entities, the Legislature should require disclosure of the names of persons who have ownership interests of 25% or more in such business entities.

We have also seen sizable advertising campaigns to support or oppose candidates through independent expenditures. While independent expenditures must be reported to the Secretary of State, there does not appear to be any limitation on the amount that may be spend on such an effort. Persons or entities making independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates should be subject to the same limits as are imposed on political contributors.

More frequent reporting of contributions should be required. The 7-day pre-election report does not give the public an adequate opportunity to see who is supporting a candidate. If there is something amiss, the media is often reluctant to report it at that late date for fear of being accused of unfairness. I would suggest adding 30 and 60 pre-election reporting requirements for both primary and general elections.

Candidates should also be required to report expenses as they are incurred, not when payment of the expense is made. There can be a significant gap between the two times and candidates often try to disguise how much they are spending by only reporting an expense when the check finally goes out the door.

This endeavor to bring more transparency and honesty to the election process is a worthy one and I wish Hill, Bedke and Denney success in their efforts.

Contrary to American values


Raul Labrador’s refugee bill is ill-advised legislation that needlessly targets some of the most vulnerable people on earth. The legislation, H.R. 2826, was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on June 28 on a 15-11 vote. This is a pernicious bill that will leave a stain on the moral standing of the United States.

Rep. Labrador acknowledges that America has “a long tradition of helping refugees who, through no fault of their own, are fleeing war and persecution,” but has authored a bill that is contrary to that tradition. Among other things, H.R. 2826 would limit refugee admissions to 50,000 per year, triple the waiting period for refugees to apply for lawful permanent residency from one to three years, subject refugees to continuous surveillance, give states and localities a veto over resettlement, impose needless new red tape requirements, and provide preference to religious minorities.

All of these requirements are justified by bill sponsors as necessary for national security. However, experience does not support their case. U.S. refugees have not and do not pose a danger to our country. Refugees do not pick the country they want but are referred to a country by the U.N. refugee agency. Those destined for the U.S. are subjected to about two years of rigorous screening.

A terrorist posing as a refugee would have to wait a long time to carry out his plan--spending years in a wretched refugee camp in Turkey or Jordan, hoping to be referred to the U.S. by the U.N. rather than one of the 27 other resettlement countries, and then undergoing another couple of years being vetted by U.S. authorities. He might be tempted to take the quicker and easier way that the 911 hijackers chose--to get a tourist or student visa and jump on a plane to the U.S. Interestingly, none of the countries from which those hijackers came is subject to the President’s current travel ban.

In the past, America has been a shining moral beacon for persecuted immigrants. The world has been inspired by the Statue of Liberty’s call to “send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.” We have opened our door and our hearts to terrorized people from around the globe. Our help is needed more than ever now because the world is facing the largest displacement crisis on record. There are more than 21 million refugees worldwide, more than 5 million of which are registered from Syria alone. In FY 2016 the U.S. took in only 84,994 refugees. To date we have taken in a total of less than 20,000 refugees from Syria. In comparison, Turkey has registered 2.97 million Syrians and another 2 million are registered in Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt.

We have hardly done our part, considering that our invasion of Iraq contributed directly to a refugee crisis in that country and indirectly to the much greater crisis in Syria. The leadership of ISIS is composed largely of participants in the earlier insurgency in Iraq. Colin Powell said that “if you break it, you fix it.” Rather than helping to alleviate the mess that we helped to create, we seem to be turning our backs on a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions.

The religious preference in the bill is an inappropriate and uninformed religious test. The refugees that are currently most in danger are from Sunni-majority Syria and they are being terrorized by the Alawite-minority government of Bashar al-Assad. Those people with the greatest need would get no preference. Proponents of H.R.2826 focus primarily on refugees from the Middle East but less than half of the refugees taken in by the U.S. last year were from the Near East and South Asia. About an equal number were Christians and Muslims.

As far as the 50,000 refugee limit in Mr. Labrador’s bill, that is simply not enough to fulfill our responsibility as a civilized nation. There are more than 50,000 Iraqis who endangered their lives by helping U.S. forces and who are desperately awaiting resettlement in the U.S. We are honor bound to give safe harbor to those individuals but that would take up the entire measly quota set by this bill.

This country, as great and warm-hearted as it is, has had momentary lapses in the past when it has treated immigrants badly because of anxiety stirred by fear-mongers. Irish people who fled the Potato Famine in 1845-1852 were subjected to great abuse, even as their sons fought valiantly to save the Union in the Civil War. After imported Chinese workers risked life and limb to build the western section of the transcontinental railroad, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 based on unfounded fears. The Immigration Act of 1924 was designed to hinder migrants from Italy, East European Jews, and East Asians and, again, was driven by the politics of fear. Japanese Americans on the West Coast were rounded up and imprisoned during World War II, while their sons fought and died for America in Europe.

As a Vietnam veteran with many South Vietnamese friends, I was personally incensed by the behavior of some of my fellow Americans after the fall of South Vietnam in April of 1975. They claimed that refugees from Vietnam would endanger our country and should be denied entry. The fear-mongers were wrong because we resettled close to a million Vietnamese refugees, who have been great citizens and contributed much to this country.

After each of these unfortunate episodes, we have looked back in shame and regretted giving in to fears stoked by demagogues. Let’s not let it happen again. H.R. 2826 targets refugees, who are not a terrorist risk, while failing to target home-grown, social-media-inspired persons, who do present a risk. The legislation is either ill-founded and uninformed, or it is intended as a vehicle for politicians to ride to political stardom at the expense of powerless and vulnerable refugees.

For refugees: Help on the way


A group of Boise attorneys is forming a program to provide free legal help to low-income refugees. Volunteer lawyers will supplement on-going efforts of local law-related organizations to serve the legal needs of the Treasure Valley refugee community. The pro bono lawyers will work closely with the Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program, Idaho Legal Aid, Intermountain Fair Housing and Concordia Law School to provide hands-on legal services to refugees who meet established income guidelines.

The program will not diminish legal help for non-refugees. Rather, additional lawyers are being recruited to assist refugees with their legal problems.

Additionally, the program will address issues unique to the refugee community. Volunteers will conduct informational presentations for refugees on our legal system and how to acclimate to it. Subjects will include family law, employment issues, consumer rights, immigration issues, and the workings of the criminal justice system. Many refugees come from countries where people avoid the police out of fear of their safety. The Boise Police Department has a good working relationship with the refugee community and the program’s lawyers will assist from the legal standpoint.

The pro bono program will work closely with Jannus, Inc., which operates the Idaho Office for Refugees and a variety of other programs providing social services to the refugee community. Lawyer volunteers will provide a legal component to the outstanding work presently being performed by Jannus.

One other goal of the program is to openly discuss refugee issues and the need support refugee settlement in the community. Idaho has a moral responsibility to welcome refugees into our good-hearted community.

Refugees in Idaho are settled primarily in Boise and Twin Falls. The five-year refugee population in Idaho from FY 2012 to FY 2016 was 4,350, with 3,080 in Boise and 1,270 in Twin Falls. In FY 2016, 1,121 refugees arrived in the State. Of those, 56% came from African countries, 32% were from Near Eastern and South Asian countries (including Bhutan, Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Iraq), and the remainder came from Asia, Europe, and Latin America.

While the refugees in the community are from many different countries, those coming from Middle Eastern countries have been the subject of discussion in recent months. Concerns being raised about those folks are completely unfounded. If people would take the time to get to know our refugee community, it would become clear that they just want what we all do—to live and raise their families in a safe environment.

There is another reason the U.S. must provide safe harbor for refugees from the Middle East. The invasion of Iraq set off a chain of events that produced the greatest refugee crisis in recent history. Since the United States was a large contributor to the refugee crisis in the Middle East, our country can’t simply turn its back on these unfortunate people. We have an ethical obligation to provide safe harbor for some of the people we helped to misplace. Many of these refugees have been subjected to unspeakable horrors and we should step forward to give them refuge.

The chance of a refugee being a disguised terrorist is virtually nonexistent. If a terrorist wanted to get into this country, he could do it quicker and with much less vetting by getting a tourist or student visa, like the 911 hijackers did. Sitting around a hot and dusty refugee camp in the Middle East for years and hoping to be referred to the U.S. refugee program for additional screening for another couple of years would not make much sense. The U.S. subjects refugees from all countries to very careful screening, which has effectively eliminated any threat to our communities.

The pro bono group is getting organized in the Treasure Valley and will continue to recruit more attorney volunteers for that area. Organizers have been in contact with attorneys in the Magic Valley and plan to set up a similar program in Twin Falls soon.

Has Congress no shame?


Congress should be ashamed of itself for clandestinely drafting a healthcare bill involving hundreds of billions of dollars behind closed doors.

The imperial Congress has shown contempt for citizens on every side of the issue by cutting the public out of the process, while allowing lobbyists to participate in the division of the spoils. This is not exactly government of the people, by the people, and for the people, as envisioned by our founding fathers. It more resembles the type of partisanship that George Washington warned against in his Farewell Address.

First, the House rushed through a bill, later described by the President as “mean, mean, mean,” without even knowing the number of people who would lose healthcare coverage. Many Congressmen did not even read it. Only afterwards did we learn that about 23,000,000 Americans would lose coverage, while the favored few would get many billions in tax cuts. The Senate process has been even more unseemly. The Senate bill, which affects about one-sixth of our economy and the health of many millions, did not have the benefit of even one public hearing. The bill was sprung out on June 22 with the intent of ramming it through the following week. Apparently, the Senate majority leader felt that people who depend for their very lives on the existing healthcare system did not have a right to know how the bill might affect them. His caucus meekly followed his lead out of misguided partisanship.

I grew up in a Republican party that respected voters across the spectrum and sought and valued their input. My mentor, the late Senator Len Jordan, would be sickened by the spectacle that has played out in the Congress on this legislation in recent weeks. Don’t we need to allow citizens, as well as the healthcare community, a reasonable opportunity to review and digest this legislation and then attend public hearings to advise legislators of their concerns? Or, have we reached the point where we must just shut up and let our imperial and benevolent “representatives” dictate our fate?

We do know that both bills will make massive cuts to Medicaid that will have significant adverse impacts on health care for children, the elderly, and the poor.

As Close the Gap Idaho recently disclosed, two out of five Idaho children receive federally-subsidized health care. If federal funds are slashed, the costs will fall back on the State and Idaho hospitals or the kids will simply have to go without care. Neither Idaho nor the federal government provides adequate funds for mental health services and drug treatment programs and it looks like this legislation will make a bad situation much worse. Rural hospitals could be severely impacted by the funding cuts.

These are just a few of the areas of concern that should be thoroughly explored in Congressional hearings to prevent significant damage to the healthcare system and those who rely upon it for their very lives. The issue is much too important, with far-ranging consequences for the health of millions, to just rush forward blindly merely to score political points.

Let our Senators and Congressmen know that we expect important public issues to be discussed publicly with adequate opportunity for input from those to whom they are supposed to answer--the voters.

The long run


As Chief of the Idaho Attorney General’s Natural Resources Division for over 32 years, Clive Strong has done more good for the State than practically any other public servant.

I hired Clive as a deputy attorney general in August of 1983 and within 30 days he was up to his ears in the Swan Falls water rights fight between the State and Idaho Power Company. An Idaho Supreme Court decision had given virtual control of the Snake River to Idaho Power and it took several years of struggle between the parties to reach a settlement agreement putting the State back in control of the River. Clive’s hard work played a major role in the State’s success.

The Swan Falls settlement called for a revamping of Idaho water law and an adjudication of water rights in the Snake River Basin. Clive played a lead role in getting legislation passed to modernize Idaho water law and he served as the State’s lead attorney in the Snake River Basin Adjudication. The adjudication, which quantified and prioritized over 158,000 water rights, was the first large-scale adjudication ever brought to completion in the U.S. It has been held up as a model for the country.

For three decades, Clive has counseled the Idaho Land Board regarding its duties and responsibilities under Idaho law, particularly the requirement to get the maximum long-term return from State-owned lands for the benefit of Idaho’s schools. He successfully prosecuted a suit challenging below-market rentals for the State’s cabin site properties.

Since the mid-80s, Clive has played the lead role in litigation to protect and enhance Idaho’s salmon and steelhead runs. During my tenure as AG, he became the State’s legal expert on nuclear waste issues, including litigation in 1986 that successfully challenged the U.S. Energy Department’s selection of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation as one of three potential repositories for commercially-produced high-level nuclear waste. More recently, he has been Attorney General Lawrence Wasden’s point person in holding the U.S. Government to the agreement requiring the removal of nuclear waste from our State.

One of Clive’s greatest legacies is the large number of complex, high-conflict water disputes that he was able to resolve by virtue of his ability to see the big picture and then skillfully show multiple competing parties how their various interests could be compromised. These include resolution of numerous federal reserved water rights, settlement of Native American water right claims, and resolution of priority claims asserted by Hagerman fish farmers against groundwater pumpers located upstream. He negotiated a landmark water rights agreement with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in the late 80s and, later, an agreement with the Nez Perce Tribe. One of his innovative settlements between ground and surface water users resulted in the State’s acquisition of Box Canyon on the Middle Snake and the establishment of Box Canyon State Park.

During his service in the Attorney General’s office, Clive argued two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as a dozen in the Idaho Supreme Court. In recognition of his many accomplishments, Clive received the Environment, Energy, and Resources Government Attorney of the Year Award from the American Bar Association in 2014. He has received the Idaho State Bar’s Professionalism Award, the Marvin Award from the National Association of Attorneys General, and the much-coveted Jim Jones Public Service Award from the Western Conference of Attorneys General.

Throughout his illustrious career, Clive remained a humble, grounded individual, who took pain not to toot his own horn. So, let me toot it for him for outstanding service to the people of Idaho. Best wishes to Clive and his wife and partner, Martha, for a wonderful retirement.