OPINION: Labrador plays Don Quixote with your money

It’s not normal for Idaho taxpayers to foot the bill for opposing teams of lawyers representing state agencies.

But it’s happening with greater frequency because Attorney General Raul Labrador refuses to play by a process that prior attorneys general used for almost 40 years to resolve issues with agencies.

So far:

The State Board of Education has accumulated more than $81,000 in legal bills defending itself against Labrador’s lawsuit. The attorney general alleges the State Board violated Idaho’s open meetings law when it met in private to consider the University of Idaho’s acquisition of the University of Phoenix earlier this year. The State Board turned to Trudy Hanson Fouser to represent it.

Likewise, the Department of Health and Welfare hired Fouser after Labrador brought legal action over how it distributed federal American Rescue Plan Act grants to 80 community organizations. And because a district judge ruled Labrador’s conflict of interest disqualified him from pursuing the case, Adams County Prosecutor Christopher Boyd has been appointed as a special deputy attorney general.

When the dust settles, you can bet the taxpayer will shoulder the bill.

That’s not by accident. It’s by design. Labrador has failed to perform the most basic function of his office.

His duty is “to advise all departments, agencies, offices, officers, boards, commissions, institutions and other state entities in all matters involving questions of law.”

Yet Labrador views state agencies as adversaries rather than clients. He seeks to impose his personal policy views on agencies through litigation, rather than working with them.

Through an internal mediation process launched in the mid-1980s, prior attorneys general were able to resolve disputes with and between state agencies, thereby avoiding the costly legal fights that are occurring on Labrador’s watch.

Under that process, if the attorney general disputed the legal position of an agency, he would meet with the agency director to resolve it. If necessary, he would include a representative of the governor’s office in the meeting.

And why not? Idaho’s constitution gives the governor the duty to see that the “laws are faithfully executed,” not its attorney general.

If the dispute was between agencies, the attorney general met with the deputy attorneys general representing the warring factions, such as the Department of Environmental Quality, Fish and Game, state lands, agriculture or the Department of Water Resources. Most of the time the matter was settled there.

If the attorney general was unable to resolve the dispute at the staff level, he would elevate the issue to the directors of the agencies involved. In most instances, the administrators reached an accord on their own.

In the rare situation where the directors were unable to resolve the dispute, it was kicked up to the governor, who made the final call.

The process was based on the Idaho Constitution, which provides the Legislature writes the laws, and the governor executes the laws. Neither the constitution nor statutes delegate to the attorney general the role of policymaker. Rather, the attorney general’s statutory duty is to advise and represent the executive branch and agencies.

Labrador’s view that he speaks for the people has created a situation in which he pursues his own personal and political agenda instead of sticking to the role of advising and representing the governor and the agencies that answer to Idaho’s elected chief executive.

As a result, Idaho’s judges — not its executive branch — are being asked to resolve policy disputes.

And Idaho’s taxpayers are getting stuck with enormous legal bills.

Here, you have two state agencies — the State Board and Health and Welfare — that were acting in good faith. Both were following the advice given them by deputy attorneys general who had been assigned to them. And were the attorney general anyone other than Labrador, the question would be whether the State Board or Health and Welfare were acting within a plausible reading of the law — not whether he agreed with them.

There’s still room for Labrador to resolve these cases in a way that protects the public purse.

He could sit down with the agencies and the governor, engage in reasoned discussion and resolve their differences.

Anything’s better than shelling out tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars just to score a few political points.

And until Labrador learns this lesson, things are bound to get worse. — M.T.