Idaho Falls was preparing to vote on a contentious alcohol ordinance on July 9, but after a councilman criticized it on Facebook, and Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) reported on the proposal, the city postponed the vote.

The council claimed it was postponed so members of the public could express their views, according to East Idaho News’ report. During the July 9 meeting, the mayor reportedly pointed to the ordinance’s traction on social media and deemed concerns over the proposed changes a “hot topic” online. 

It’s unclear when the vote will take place, but the next meeting is scheduled for July 30 at 6:30 p.m. Those who cannot attend may email the Idaho Falls mayor and/or city council members their thoughts on the ordinance HERE. 

Idaho Falls published previous meeting minutes describing how residents brought their concerns to the council in early July, along with emailed comments from residents expressing concerns or proposing changes. It does not appear that the ordinance is up for a vote Thursday, based on the agenda, but there will be an opportunity for public comment. While the documents, including prior meeting minutes posted to the city council’s “Agenda Center,” span 279 pages total, the actual agenda for Thursday can be found within the first nine pages. 

The city’s explanation for postponing sounds reasonable: they simply want to hear from those who would be affected. But if that is the case, then why was the proposal draft buried underneath hundreds of pages of documents? In the interest of transparency, you would think an ordinance pertaining to people’s businesses, licenses — and let’s face it, alcohol — would be more easily accessible to the public.

Unless, perhaps, officials had anticipated the ensuing backlash.

It’s not as though this is the first time people have raised issues. Back in March, business owners spoke of their concerns, specifically regarding the “Approved Server Training Program,” which was later revised in the July draft.

Councilman John Radford posted about the scheduled vote on Facebook prior to the meeting, claiming the city council was transforming into “Big Brother” regarding alcohol on private property. The ordinance contained language concerning landlords and renters, as IFF previously detailed, and Radford expressed concerns that the proposal could hinder private property rights.

“I am concerned that landlords will be at risk of being charged with a felony if they knowingly allow people to drink in their business, we will be outside the norm of Idaho cities,” he initially stated. However, in the meeting, Radford acknowledged his use of “felony” was a mistake, according to East Idaho News.

Radford later corrected his post to state that the penalty would be a misdemeanor. The city council reportedly addressed the factual error and pushed back on allegations circulating online.

City Council President Jim Francis addressed assertions that officials tried to rush through the ordinance for profit, which he claimed were false, according to East Idaho News.

“I want to make it very clear that a recent social media [sic] suggesting that we are fast-tracking this, or looking for money, are absolutely false,” he stated. He also denied that the city’s proposed changes would make some alcohol-related violations felonies. 

Francis also raised concerns about how misinformation can sow distrust, East Idaho News reported. That may be true, but slipping contentious proposals into a compilation of hundreds of documents – which most people will not read through – can also foment distrust.

Transparency is the solution, and it appears Idaho Falls is taking the right step by allowing additional time for public comment. Council members said one of the goals of revising Idaho Falls’ alcohol ordinance was to make the code more publicly accessible, East Idaho News reported, which seems sensible. The proposed changes still raise several concerns for residents and local businesses, however, and community members voiced their opinions at the July 9 meeting about alcohol licenses and server training.

Ultimately, the fate of the ordinance rests in the hands of Idaho Falls residents. Online outrage can alert officials to the unpopularity of their proposals, but in the long term, preventing added layers of bureaucracy requires more than just posting on social media.