Todd Lakey — Addressed by the witness in response.
Todd Lakey — Addressed in McNeil's response.
Todd Lakey — Asked a follow-up confirming that rules must be followed to access information.
Todd Lakey — Confirmed by McNeil that access requires following the rules; then asked whether ISLITS has separate policies.
Todd Lakey — Seconded the motion to approve docket 11-101-2501.
Todd Lakey — Referenced as the senator associated with the motion in the prior action.
Todd Lakey — Named as the sponsor of the motion to approve the docket.
Todd Lakey — Named as the maker of the motion to approve the docket.
Todd Lakey — Senator Lakey raises concerns about the use of AI avatars in hearings, focusing on how a hearing officer can assess credibility, body language, and demeanor if a witness appears as an avatar. He questions why an avatar would ever be allowed to argue and follows up by asking whether a hearing examiner could question an avatar and receive generated answers. Mr. Nichols responds to Lakey’s concerns as part of the same discussion.
Todd Lakey — Senator Lakey asked a series of related questions about the scope of the AI-generated evidence rule, specifically whether it applies to witnesses or only documentary evidence, whether the rules extend to other agencies outside the speaker’s office, and noted that confidence in the speaker’s office does not necessarily extend to others.
Todd Lakey — Entered discussion on the motion and indicated he would vote for it despite concerns about avatars.
Todd Lakey — Opposed the motion because the rule allows avatars and he believes that creates too much opportunity for abuse.
Todd Lakey — Said he would not support the motion because he wants a policy barring avatar use until it is deemed appropriate.
Todd Lakey — Was thanked as the chair when the gavel was returned and the rules docket was approved.
Todd Lakey — Closed the meeting after thanking participants and announcing adjournment.
Shawn Dygert — Likely the intended senator referenced as 'Senator Shippey' in the transcript.
Shawn Dygert — Identified as the vice chair taking over the rules docket discussion; transcript renders the name as 'Senator Shippey.'
Shawn Dygert — Vice Chair Shippey is acknowledged during the transition after the vote as the next presenter or witness is introduced, with multiple brief references to him while the introduction proceeds.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Melissa Wintrow thanked Scott Smith for appearing and asked him for a success story from his time as commissioner; the transcript briefly misrendered her name as "Whitrow" in the follow-up reference, and Smith then addressed Senator Wintrow in his response.
Melissa Wintrow — Said many members have advocated for paying commission members what they are worth.
Melissa Wintrow — Argued that commission members should be compensated and asked about the witness's personal qualities for the role.
Melissa Wintrow — Addressed by the witness in response to her question.
Melissa Wintrow — Asks a question and corrects herself to properly address the witness as Lieutenant Colonel.
Melissa Wintrow — Confirms there are no substantive changes and asks for clarity on the rule cleanup.
Melissa Wintrow — The chair indicates a motion is in order and notes Senator Wintrow's light is on.
Melissa Wintrow — Seconded the motion to approve the docket.
Melissa Wintrow — Asks whether changing 'Idaho criminal justice agencies' to 'Idaho agencies' changes who can receive information.
Melissa Wintrow — Asks how local dispatch systems communicate with ISLITS and how communication could be improved statewide.
Melissa Wintrow — Continues asking about improving interagency communication and mentions a vulnerable person registry discussed during the interim.
Melissa Wintrow — The witness's question is directed to her about how the system works.
Melissa Wintrow — Thanks McNeil and explains she is trying to understand how agencies communicate through ISLITS and whether there are gaps.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked to repeat her question for McNeil.
Melissa Wintrow — Continues her question about agency communication and possible gaps in the system.
Melissa Wintrow — Asks whether there are gaps in disseminating information for public safety.
Melissa Wintrow — Thanked the witness and acknowledged the explanation.
Melissa Wintrow — Said she learned a lot about ISLITS and suggested considering other uses that could improve public safety.
Melissa Wintrow — Thanked for raising the broader policy question about ISLITS.
Melissa Wintrow — Named as the second on the motion.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow followed up on the discussion of AI rulemaking, asking whether the proposed rule is mainly about transparency, disclosure, and preventing misuse of artificial intelligence. She suggested the legislature could also consider a policy restricting state agencies from using AI in this way, while noting that stronger guidance may be needed but that the legislature should start somewhere. The discussion continued with the idea that guidance from the legislature or courts could help shape future AI rule development.
Daniel Foreman — Daniel Foreman thanked Mr. Smith for his service, praised his record, and asked for his view on how well the parole system is working. Mr. Smith responded that the system is the best he has ever seen.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Daniel Foreman questioned Mr. Hobson about the importance of the commission’s role and whether politics should influence its work, then offered a positive follow-up comment reinforcing that politics should not drive the process. The exchange continued with the witness acknowledging his remarks before moving on to the next question.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Foreman moves to approve docket 11-0601-2501, and the motion is then recorded by the chair.
Daniel Foreman — Moved to approve docket 11-101-2501.
Daniel Foreman — Motion to approve docket 11-101-2501 is recognized.
Daniel Foreman — Named as the second on the motion.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Foreman questioned whether the agency’s AI-related rules are being driven by current trends rather than durable policy, and pressed whether the agency has the authority, tools, and a mechanism to say no to future AI uses that do not fit its mission. Mr. Nichols then began responding to that concern about the agency’s authority under the rules.
Daniel Foreman — Seconded the motion to approve the docket.
Josh Keyser — Senator Josh Kaiser questioned Mr. Smith about the rider program, asking how effective it is for people convicted of child sex crimes and whether the legislature should add safeguards or otherwise change the program. Mr. Smith responded that the issue is very sensitive and discussed possible limits or improvements to the program in response to Kaiser’s follow-up.
Dylan Hobson — Dylan Hobson was introduced as an appointee to the Commission on Pardons and Parole, then introduced himself and noted this was his first hearing before the committee after receiving the appointment in October. He described being a native Idahoan from Boise, his education and early career, and his work in public service, including as a correctional officer and later as a probation/parole officer. He also explained his view that public safety depends on long-term behavior change because most incarcerated people will eventually be released, and he continued outlining his probation and parole career, including supervision responsibilities and promotion to deputy district manager in District 3.
Mr. Hobson — Mr. Hobson discusses his background with IDOC and recent retirement, then answers questions about what led him to serve on the commission and the workload involved. He notes he was cautioned about the amount of work, expected the hearing schedule to be manageable, and explains that commission service involves substantial uncompensated preparation. The committee then thanks him for his willingness to serve and prior service and excuses him pending a future vote on the appointments.