I have no idea whether Pam Lowe is telling the truth. I don't know if the ousted Idaho Transportation Department chief's litany of good ol' boy complaints will hold up in court. But her legal filing, reported by The Associated Press, is just the kind of a fiasco this agency doesn't need.

Fired last month, Lowe has fired back with several explosive allegations.

Lowe paints Idaho Transportation Board member Gary Blick as sexist. Here's what Lowe says the board rep from Castleford said before she was hired in 2006: "No little girl would be able to run this department. ... What are we going to do when she decides to start a family?"

More significantly, Lowe paints herself as a wrongfully dismissed budget watchdog. She says she was determined to cut budgets as needed - even if the cuts affected Washington Group International, which made campaign contributions to Gov. Butch Otter and Senate Transportation Committee Chairman John McGee of Caldwell; and CH2M Hill, which supported Otter.

To be fair, this is a one-sided story at this point. Blick isn't talking; his wife told The Times-News in Twin Falls that she is "protecting" him from the media. About the only person talking is Idaho Transportation Board chairman Darrell Manning, and he tells AP that Lowe's claims are without merit.

I don't reject Manning's response out of hand. Manning has been involved in state government for more than four decades, and his reputation is as good as his resume is lengthy. Manning also served as a Statesman editorial board community representative in 2004, and I have a lot of respect for him.

But Lowe's tort claim makes clear that the ousted chief has no plans to go away quietly, which will probably require the state to expand upon its laughably sketchy explanation of its firing. Last month, Manning said "the (transportation) board determined this change was necessary to help the department continue improving customer service, economy of operations, accountability and our relations with the Legislature."

Whatever that means.

The timing couldn't be worse. Otter is continuing his campaign to put more taxpayer money into road repairs; his transportation task force held its first meeting earlier this month. The meeting was cordial, but that doesn't mean it will be any easier to find the political will and the political consensus to put dollars into repairs. When Lowe suggests the money is being spent with an eye to helping political allies, lawmakers have one more reason to say no.

Then there is the matter of replacing Lowe. Who exactly would want to preside as ringmaster over this circus? Would-be applicants can scarcely see the job opening for the red flags. And if there's anything to the comments Lowe has attributed to Blick, you can rule out a good 50 percent of the applicant gene pool.

A DORM DICTUM?

Freshmen began classes at the University of Idaho last week.

If statistics are any predictor of the future, 79 percent of these freshmen will return for their sophomore year. But that means over one-fifth of these new students won't be back.

U of I officials are trying to do the right thing, by looking for ways to help new students adjust to college. But they're going about it the wrong way, by requiring first-year students to live in dorms or Greek housing.

The U of I is actually working on about a dozen policies aimed at helping freshmen through the transition. The university will track students who are struggling with their grades or the social adjustment, and put them in touch with help early in the fall semester. Graduate students and young faculty will serve as informal academic advisers, assigned to individual dorms and Greek houses.

None of this is as controversial as the residential requirement, which goes into effect next fall. This will force parents to shell out for campus room and board, which can cost more than off-campus housing.

Then there's the financial stake for the U of I, which could collect a projected $700,000 in additional student fees. The money is not the U of I's motivating factor, Dean of Students Bruce Pitman said Thursday.

I'll give the U of I the benefit of the doubt. But I can't go along with this mandate. College freshmen are beginning their journey to adulthood. It seems a bit antithetical to tell them where to live.

And who needs a mandate when the evidence is compelling?

According to U of I research, 88 percent of freshmen who lived on campus returned for sophomore year. For students off campus, that number plummeted to 59 percent. Students who live off campus run the risk of becoming isolated and hanging out with a small group of friends, while students on campus are closer to classrooms, the library and the hub of campus activity. "They tend to be more engaged," said Pitman.

And, in turn, they are less likely to drop out or fall behind in the pursuit of a degree - spending thousands of dollars in the process.

Makes complete sense, but I didn't need convincing. I couldn't have imagined living off campus as a college freshman. I actually stayed on campus all four years. And, full disclosure alert: When my oldest son started shopping for colleges two years ago, the U of I said it strongly encouraged first-year students to live on campus.

There is a big difference between strong encouragement and a mandate. In this case, the former is sufficient.

Ten days ago, I dropped my son back at the U of I for sophomore year. He's living in a dorm again. As a family, we put a lot of thought into what would work best for him - and what we parents could afford. Ultimately, I think families should make these decisions.

Kevin Richert: 377-6437