Commissioners and citizens hold separate meetings on ARPA

▶️ Listen to this article now.

SANDPOINT — Commissioners and citizens held separate meetings discussing potential legal ambiguity surrounding spending coronavirus relief funds this week.

A grassroots group of concerned citizens organized at the VFW Post on Friday evening to discuss concerns and positions on whether or not it’s financially, morally, and legally acceptable to spend money received from the American Rescue Plan Act.

The meeting also featured an appearance from Idaho Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, supporting the collective’s efforts to be informed.

“I am so excited you guys are doing this,” Scott said. “This is exactly how our country was started. It’s exactly how you make change, it’s the way that our government is supposed to work — bottom up. … It’s amazing how when citizens start doing this, government starts to listen.”

The hour-long meeting was organized by citizens unaffiliated with any formal group. Topics covered provided detailed information taken from ARPA documents, the U.S. Treasury’s final ruling on spending ARPA money, and the Bonner County Prosecutor’s Office’s legal opinion on spending the money.

“The goal is to shine a light on how ARPA affects us economically. And that’s us, this community. Us, our state of Idaho, and Us, the United States,” said presenter Eza G., who declined to give his last name.

Eza made an economic argument against spending ARPA money, stating that the federal economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic is devaluing the dollar.

“Let’s be clear, the ARPA money is not coming from the tax dollars you have already paid,” Eza said. “In 2021, there was $2.245 trillion worth of monetary expansion that is dropping new money into the economy, which then steals value from the money that is in your pockets.”

The American Rescue Plan Act was passed by Congress in March 2021. The $1.89 trillion bill was passed to aid in stemming the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress also passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, and Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act in 2020.

Toward the end of the meeting, written questions were answered by the panel ranging from refusing ARPA funds and the potential impact stemming from perceived ambiguous language in ARPA documents.

“If we refuse ARPA how will that affect us and the inflation here?” read one question from the audience.

“Well that depends on what others do,” Eza said, “if we act alone, not much. The money will still get printed. There will still be inflation here in Bonner County. We just won't have participated in the theft. We will not have accepted stolen money. And other counties hopefully will follow.”

Another argument pointed out many citizens’ concerns over ambiguous language in ARPA documents, specifically language about executive orders — a point directly addressed at both the Wednesday and Friday meetings.

“It’s the ambiguousness of the language that suggests that we have to comply or adhere to executive orders,” Kenda Martin said on Friday.

The Bonner County Prosecutor’s Office released a legal opinion regarding ARPA funding in late January. The report asserts that unknown future executive orders included in ARPA policy would not be able to be enforced in the county.

The legal opinion cites U.S. Supreme Court case NFID v. Sebilius, “though Congress’ power to legislate under the spending power is broad, it does not include surprising participating States with post-acceptance or retroactive conditions. Congress may not simply conscript state agencies into the national bureaucratic army,” read the 2012 ruling.

However, some citizens are of the impression that the federal government will disregard the spending guidelines. Asia Williams countered the Prosecutor’s Office’s legal opinion at the Friday meeting.

“If something were to happen to us, can we afford to be in litigation, is it worth it to us as a county?” Williams said. “Bill [Wilson] did a great job explaining that his memo assumes that the federal government is going to behave constitutionally. How much faith do you have in that?”

Bill Wilson, deputy prosecutor and legal advisor to the commissioners, spoke at the Wednesday meeting clarifying the prosecutor’s office’s legal memo released on Jan. 24.

“I want to correct an assertion the [Daily] Bee made. This [memo] was not meant to be an approval of any kind, it was meant to answer some legal questions. And whether the board should accept or reject ARPA funds, it’s a political decision I leave to them,” Wilson said. “This was an objective and best effort to take on the law.”

The Prosecutor’s Office report speculated on federal pressure to enact a vaccine mandate in the county.

“Even assuming [for the sake of argument] that Congress intended to delegate authority to the executive branch to enact a vaccine mandate, Bonner County would not be obligated to comply via its acceptance of ARPA funds because that condition was not stated unambiguously when the funds were accepted,” the report read.

Wilson further emphasized that point on Wednesday.

“If the federal government tries to say that we’ve done something wrong it would only be on that portion of the money – it’s not on an all or nothing thing,” he said.

The commission’s decision on whether or not the county will choose to spend ARPA money is unknown, as Wednesday’s meeting did not confirm the commission's intended future actions.

Commissioner Steve Bradshaw gave his personal opinion regarding ARPA money on Wednesday.

“This board of commissioners is the only board of commissioners in the United States of America that saw the problem in the language and addressed it,” Bradshaw said. “If we had a federal administration that was following the rule of law, then we would be relatively protected as long as we stay within the guidelines. Me, personally, I have very little faith in the current administration that the rule of law would be followed.”