Josh Tanner — Representative Tanner questioned whether the $75,000 benefit would be paid for life, whether catastrophic injury cases were covered, and whether the first $100,000 employer-paid amount was in addition to other benefit options. The discussion then shifted to Representative Haas, who raised concerns about the timing and duration of benefit payments, especially for children and surviving family members, and noted that benefit duration is often estimated based on the deceased’s life expectancy.
Clint Hostetler — Chairman/Representative Holtzclaw is discussed throughout a continuous exchange about line-of-duty death benefits and pension mechanics. The discussion clarifies that a line-of-duty death would trigger a $500,000 payment and a $75,000 annual pension, that the current $100,000 benefit would be increased to $500,000, and that the payment structure involves contributions into PERSI from both employee and employer sides. When asked for further clarification on how the payment is calculated, Holtzclaw said he would need to research the answer and provide it later. The exchange then moves into the chair noting the motion to introduce RS 33349 and opening comments.
David Leavitt — Representative Leavitt moved to introduce RS 33349. The motion was then referenced again as having been made, and it was subsequently put to a voice vote and approved.
David Leavitt — Raised concerns about Percy returns and the committee's oversight role.
David Leavitt — Questioned whether Representative Hill had spoken directly with Percy about the bill's impact on the pension fund.
David Leavitt — Indicated he had a quick question and a motion.
David Leavitt — Moved to introduce RS 3343.
David Leavitt — Referenced as having noted that 15% of funds are international.
David Leavitt — Referenced in connection with the sequencing of the investment strategy.
Dori Healey — Representative Bingham asked follow-up questions about how the payment is funded, specifically whether it is taken out of employees’ paychecks, how it works similarly to life insurance, and whether it creates any liability for the state. The exchange remained focused on the same funding and liability issue.
Dori Healey — Was thanked for the questions and reminded that this was only an introduction hearing.
Dori Healey — Was included in the reminder to keep questions appropriate for an introduction hearing.
Dori Healey — Addressed in the question about whether the proposal could negatively affect returns.
Dori Healey — Prepared to make a comment cautioning against impugning motives.
Dori Healey — Warned the committee to be careful not to impugn the motives of colleagues.
Jeff Cornilles — Jeff Cornelis introduced RS 33253, explaining that it would prevent employers from counting protected sick leave as an absence or occurrence under attendance policies. He described how employees can face discipline or termination even when using sick leave they are entitled to, and clarified that the proposal would fix that issue without changing whether employers offer sick leave. The committee then opened the floor for questions to Representative Cornelis.
Ben Fuhriman — Moved to introduce RS 33253.
Lori McCann — Asked whether the bill protects employers from employees who are perpetually sick and whether protections are included.
Lori McCann — Requested follow-up on employer protections and asked that the question be brought back later.
Lori McCann — Asked how RS 33243 differs from a prior bill that affected divestment of funds.
Lori McCann — Said a prior bill caused significant work for a University of Idaho fund due to investment changes.
Lori McCann — Warned that rapid divestment could damage a foundation's portfolio.
Lori McCann — Asked whether the bill should include timelines and reporting requirements for divesting funds.
Ted Hill — Ted Hill introduced himself as Representative from District 14 (Eagle and Emmett) and presented RS 33243, the Foreign Adversary Divestment Act. He explained that the proposal would require divestment of public pension dollars and university endowment funds from countries of concern, noted that he had spoken with the treasurer who was already moving forward with divestment, and compared the measure to prior Idaho actions such as the TikTok bill and China-related land legislation. He also mentioned an upcoming meeting with the Chinese consulate and said the proposal came directly from the treasurer.
Heather Scott — Was addressed in the discussion about bringing the matter back for further review.
Heather Scott — Was asked whether he had considered concerns about the impact of the proposal on Percy returns.
Heather Scott — Responded that divesting had been considered and should be sequenced.
Heather Scott — Reiterated that divesting had been considered and argued for moving away from adversary investments.
Heather Scott — Continued arguing that the state should divest and not prioritize returns from adversary-linked investments.
Heather Scott — Said he had only spoken with the treasurer and would talk to Percy if needed.
Heather Scott — Was asked whether it would be possible to have a witness testify later.
Heather Scott — Agreed to have the 'good lady from the second floor' testify when the bill is brought back.
Heather Scott — Was addressed in the follow-up discussion about Percy and the list of adversaries.
Heather Scott — Thanked after the motion passed and the RS was introduced.
Megan Egbert — Representative Egbert stated support for the motion and, in the same discussion, indicated she would vote in favor while asking for additional information about the divestment process and Percy’s role.