By SCOTT W. REED

Attorney at Law

      The McEuen Park Plan was blessed, cussed, dissected and otherwise commented upon in a continuous and lengthy packed hearing before the Coeur d’Alene City Council on May 24th. Many attending held signs and testified demanding a public vote upon the plan.

As a matter of law in Idaho, the city council could not order a public vote.

There is no provision in the Coeur d’Alene city ordinances nor in Idaho Code Title 34 “Elections” nor in Title 50, Chapter 4 “Municipal Elections” for a public vote.

Based upon four decisions by the Idaho Supreme Court spanning almost a century, it is very clear law that the Coeur d’Alene city council  does not have jurisdiction to authorize and conduct an election upon the McEuen Park Plan.

The McEuen Park Plan is an administrative action, not legislative, and cannot be the subject of a city election or a public vote.

In Perrault v. Robinson, 29 Idaho 266 (1916),  the Idaho Supreme Court  held that the Boise mayor and city council did not have jurisdiction to conduct a referendum election allowing a vote on a city ordinance that permitted the operation of theaters and moving picture shows on Sundays.

In Gumprecht v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 104 Idaho 615 (1983), the Idaho Supreme  Court issued a writ prohibiting the City of Coeur d’Alene from holding an election upon an initiative that would have adopted the shoreline ordinance.

 In Weldon v. Bonner County Tax Coalition, 124 Idaho 31 (1993), the District Court writ of prohibition preventing an election in a referendum relating to taxes was affirmed on appeal.  The Supreme Court opinion held that the referendum “.  .  . seeks to reject a process, specifically the county budgeting process.  .  .”  A referendum or an initiative can only seek to reject or implement “.  .  .an ‘act’ or ‘measure’.”  124 Idaho at 38.

The McEuen Park Plan calls for a “work in process” over many years; it is not an “act” nor a “measure.” 

Boise City v. Keep the Ten Commandments Coalition, 143 Idaho 254 (2006) involved the placement of a religious plaque in Julia Davis Park similar to McEuen Field.  The majority opinion set forth this distinction:

If a subject is legislative in nature, it is appropriate for action by initiative. On the other hand, if the proposed initiative is administrative in nature, it falls outside the scope of action allowable by initiative.

143 Idaho at 256.

In a separate opinion, Justice Linda Trout wrote that creation of Julia Davis Park was a previously adopted policy or plan just as has been the creation of McEuen Field and the surrounding areas covered by the McEuen Park Plan. The plaque change initiative was therefore “administrative” and not allowable:

Because the Coalition seeks to place a monument in the park, an act that falls within the purview of an already adopted plan, the petition is an administrative act beyond the reach of the initiative process.

143 Idaho at 259.

A Kansas Supreme Court case had made the observation “ . . . that decisions requiring specialized knowledge and experience in municipal government may be characterized as administrative, even though they may also be said to involve the establishment of a policy.”  143 Idaho at 259.

The McEuen Team enlisted architects and professional park planners with “specialized knowledge and experience.”  The McEuen Park Plan is administrative and cannot be the subject of a public vote.

Editor's note: This will be published as a My Turn column in The Press print edition soon.