HART: Source clarifies story

I would like to correct the recent article about the ethics charges I filed against Rep. Eric Anderson. I should point out that the news story was initially written by Betsy Russell of the Spokesman-Review and then picked up by The Associated Press. I refused to talk to Betsy because of her notorious ability to distort facts. She wrote the story without actually having a copy of the ethics complaint to refer to because nobody would giver her one, so perhaps I should cut her some slack for getting it so wrong.

The story claimed only members of the House can file ethics complaints, but House Rule 76 clearly states that they can be filed against a member by "any person" and they historically have been filed by non-members.

The actual basis for the complaint is that after pushing legislation forcing state funds to be spent fighting water milfoil, Rep. Anderson may have sought special treatment from the Idaho Department of Agriculture for Priest Lake, where he owns a house. That same house was bought at the peak of the market in 2007 for less than half of its actual value from a development company that was greatly benefitting from the milfoil being removed from Priest Lake. The home was bought for $180,000 when it was valued at $368,000. This year it is valued at $406,000. Why didn't Rep. Anderson explain this eyebrow-raising purchase in the story? Was he even asked about it?

The second issue was about contractor registration and the fact that Rep. Anderson's company, Priest Lake Construction, has never registered with the state as required by the law he voted for. Despite his non-compliance, he has told me he likes the law because it keeps his competition down.

If you want to read the complaint and the rest of the story, it is posted at idahopolitical.com.

LARRY SPENCER

Kootenai County