“All meetings of the governing body of an agency are public meetings, open to the public at all times, except as otherwise provided. No action of a governing body of an agency shall be taken except during a public meeting following notice of the meeting in accordance with this act. Actions taken at a meeting not in conformity with this act is null and void and not merely voidable.”

A copy of the petition is here: Petition Declaratory Judgment PDF, 86 KB

The actions by Commissioners Delai-Boese and Walker were clear violations of both the letter and the spirit of Wyoming statutes. The decision to both make an immediate appointment to fill the vacated position, and to nominate and appoint Don VanMatre to that position were decided before the public meeting, and out of the view of residents of Sweetwater County. The motion, second, and vote during the public portion were just details.

The following video shows this clearly. At 5:46, Commissioner Delai-Boese reads from prepared notes while she asks for a motion to appoint Don VanMatre. At 6:15, Commissioner Delai-Boese asks VanMatre, who just happens to be one of the few people at the meeting, if he will accept the nomination. (It is interesting to note that VanMatre stated publicly, after the meeting, that the the appointment was dropped on him “overnight.”) At 6:40, Commissioner Walker begins reading off of a prepared statement, detailing VanMatre’s history. At 7:53 County Attorney Brett Johnson tried to slow things down by explaining to the commissioners that they didn’t have to act right then. Commissioner Delai-Boese immediately interrupted him and rebuffed his advice. Then, at 8:42 Commissioner Delai-Boese asks for the vote, and they cast their votes. At 8:49 a reporter can be heard asking if there will be any public comment, to which Commissioner Delai-Boese answers, “Not right now, no there is not, not right now.”

In the next video, at the very beginning, you will see County Clerk Dale Davis has VanMatre’s oath-of-office in hand and ready to go. Then, at 7:50, Commissioner Delai-Boese reads from her prepared written statement, “I believe that this commission has made an excellent choice to fill the vacancy held by former Commissioner Wonnacott. Commissioner Walker and I know he is a man of great integrity and is well acquainted with government processes.” If this decision wasn’t made beforehand, why were all of these statements prewritten?

This was a complete mockery of the spirit of open government. If that isn’t insulting enough, listen to Commissioner Delai-Boese’s final statement in its entirety and take note of how many times she uses the words “transparency” “accountability,” and, funniest of all, “integrity.”

One final, laughable note. The only action that the outgoing commissioners took at their final meeting was to appoint Don VanMatre as a commissioner. It happens to be the only item they addressed that wasn’t on the agenda. Everything that was actually on the agenda was tabled and put off for the new commissioners. How’s that for responsibility?

UPDATE 01-17-2011: Rep. Joe Barbuto has sponsored HB0136 (along with cosponsoring Representatives Blake, Craft, Freeman and Jaggi and Senator(s) Cooper, Hastert and Martin) which would clean up the loophole in §18-3-524 that Commissioners Delai-Boese and Walker used to justify their actions on 12/30/2010.

A copy of the bill is here: HB0136 PDF, 25 KB

“You’re not old enough!” I said sternly. He smiled and put his hand out to get his license back. “Nope,” I said, and walked over to the phone and started dialing the police.

“We’ll get that back for you,” I heard as I pushed the buttons. I looked from the phone to the person who was standing in line next to the kid, and recognized that he was a police officer I had seen many times before in the store. He was wearing a knit cap pulled down over his forehead, a clever disguise. This was a @#$%& sting. “I’m officer _________ with the police department, we’re doing compliance checks,” he said, grinning, as the kid hurried past him and out the door.

“Uh huh,” I said, as I finished dialing, and listened to the ring tone.

“Really,” he said, pulling out his badge and waving it.

I ignored him as the voice at the other end of the line answered, “Rock Springs Police Department. Can I help you?”

“I was calling to report a minor attempting to purchase alcohol,” I said with a bit of ice in my voice, “but, apparently, they just ran a ‘compliance check’ on me. Thank you, have a good night.” I hung up the phone, walked to the counter, and tossed the kid’s I.D. on to it in front of the officer, saying nothing.

“The good thing is, you have a choice,” he said, still grinning and sure of himself, pulling a couple of restaurant gift cards out of his pocket to show me.

“I don’t want your @(*#&^% coupons. And I don’t appreciate anyone coming in here and asking me to break the law,” I said pretty angrily, starting to raise my voice.

“Well, there’s uh, a lot of people in town that would uh agree with you, but we uh have to do it,” he said, starting to stammer a little bit, and falling back onto the age old excuse that he’s just doing his job.

“I also think your &%(*#$@ program is worthless. It hasn’t done one God Damn thing to reduce the number of minors drinking alcohol!” Now my voice was even louder.

“Well, that’s your opinion,” he said, not as sure of himself, starting to get a little angry, and definitely not grinning anymore.

“Bull$#*!. It’s not a #*$^@&( opinion,” I said, “I’ve seen the statistics, it hasn’t done one $%&^#* thing!” I growled as he quickly turned around and left the store without another word. He didn’t even have me sign his “compliance check” paperwork.

Obviously, the officer did the right thing by leaving before our argument could escalate, and I was probably out of line taking my anger, at being the target of what I believe is entrapment, out on him.

But. then again, maybe I wasn’t.

First of all, I’ve written before how I feel about what I call “stings” and they call “compliance checks”, but this is the first time I’ve ever personally been the target of criminal investigation by anyone, ever, and it flat out pisses me off. I have always had a very good relationship with the members of law enforcement in my community, and have the utmost respect for them. I know most of them by name, including the officer who was in charge of this sting operation, and have always done my best to make their jobs easier when I come into contact with them. Many of them shop in my stores — on duty, when they are filling up their official vehicles with fuel, and off duty, when they are filling up their own.

That’s part of why this program infuriates me so much. Retail clerks and local business owners are sometimes the police department’s best link to the community. We see large numbers of people every day, and we hear things that help the police out with their investigations. It’s not rare for the police to come visit us, asking for information, looking for leads, or hoping to look at our surveillance cameras in order to help out with a case they are working on. Many local crimes have been solved because an officer has sat down in one of my stores and had coffee with my clerks and my customers. Conversation with the public is sometimes law enforcement’s best investigative tool.

This policy, where police officers are assigned to investigate normally law abiding citizens, endangers that previously beneficial relationship. When ordinary people become the target of random criminal investigations, how willing do you think they will be, in the future, to cooperate with the police? Instead of feeling secure every time we see a police officer, should we now be suspicious? Should we be looking over our shoulders, nervously waiting for an undercover police officer, or an undercover informant, to ask us to break the law?

And what’s next? Will they be hanging out in the school yard, asking our kids if they want to buy a little meth? Are they going to wander the halls of the Holiday Inn, asking every patron if they want a buy a fun night with a hooker? Maybe they will be standing outside the pet store, asking each customer if they want to buy an orange-bellied parrot? How far is far enough, and when have the police gone to far?

I’ll tell you. Any time the police, and those working for them, ask ordinary people to break the law, they’ve gone too far. Any time the police make ordinary people the targets of criminal investigations, they are crossing the line and endangering what should be great relationship between law enforcement and the general public. This “compliance check” program has already changed what used to be a friendly relationship between this particular officer and myself. From now on, every time we see each other he will remember me being pissed off and raising my voice at him, and I will remember what it feels like to be treated like a criminal suspect.

The fact is, the police need us, ordinary people, to do their jobs. They need a working relationship with the public in order to keep the public safe. They need our support, and our cooperation.

How willing do you think we will be, though, to cooperate with the police, to help them with their investigations, and to help them make the community safer, when tomorrow… they might be investigating us?

-Wisdom

“To declare that in the administration of criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution.”  -Justice Louis D. Brandeis, (1856-1941) US Supreme Court Justice

-Authors Note: I think any police officer who is asked to take on an assignment where they have to investigate ordinary people should ask themselves, “Did I join the ranks of law enforcement so I could investigate criminals, or make ordinary people into criminals?” Just saying that “it’s my job” isn’t enough. I’ve heard it from beat cops all the way to the chief of police that they don’t have a choice when it comes to whether or not they run these stings, and I don’t buy it. Wilhelm Keitel was just doing what he was told, too. It’s not an excuse. You always have a choice.