Tammy Peralt — Identified as the first testifier from Boise, District 19.
Tammy Perrault — Testified on behalf of the Department of War in support of military-connected students and enrollment flexibility.
Nanette Merrill — Nanette Merrill is introduced as the next testifier and then begins her testimony as executive director of the Idaho Charter School Association, briefly describing her background in charter and public schools.
Christopher Canouse — Christopher Canouse was introduced as the next testifier and then testified as a third-generation veteran and active-duty U.S. Air Force airman with 17 years of service, describing his recent deployment and squadron accomplishments. The committee later thanked him for his service.
Ashley Cotton — Ashley Cotton, an active-duty Air Force spouse and charter school graduate, testified about how her family’s military move to Idaho on short notice caused them to miss charter school enrollment windows and struggle to find the right school for their daughter. She explained that they later moved again so their child could attend a stronger public school, while her husband now commutes nearly 100 miles to Mountain Home Air Force Base when home. Cotton emphasized that military families already endure instability and sacrifices, and argued that the issue is not school quality but access to educational opportunity. She closed by asking lawmakers to support the bill.
Ralph Binion — Ralph Binion was introduced as the next testifier and then testified in opposition to Bill 657. He identified himself as a retired senior master sergeant from Mountain Home and argued that the bill would negatively affect Mountain Home School District, despite its limited broader impact, by giving preference to active duty guard and reserve Title 10 students in the charter lottery. The exchange concluded with thanks for his testimony.
Marty Anderson — Introduced as the next witness, though the introduction is garbled.
Marty Anderson — Identified as a virtual witness who was missed and will be put on next.
Marty Anderson — Explained that the bill would not solve immediate mid-year admission, but would help families coming in midstream be first in line the next year.
Marty Anderson — Said the bill would help create a pathway for enrollment when families arrive after the window closes.
Marty Anderson — Announced as the next virtual witness.
Marty Anderson — Identified himself as a retired Chief Master Sergeant and former military liaison for the City of Mountain Home, testifying in support of House Bill 657.
Marty Anderson — Describes repeated relocations and his experience as a command chief responsible for airmen and their families.
Marty Anderson — The witness is addressed by Representative Nelson, but the connection drops.
Christopher Collins — Mentioned during witness scheduling.
Chris Collins — Chris Collins introduced himself as a veteran of 21 years in the Army who deployed multiple times and moved eight times through PCS orders. He explained how frequent relocations disrupt family life and school continuity, including a move from Kansas to New York just before Thanksgiving and a later move to Boise that left his family without the same built-in support structure. He used these experiences to support House Bill 657, arguing that military families arriving mid-year need clearer enrollment pathways and that children should not bear the burden of unstable school transitions. The exchange concluded with a brief acknowledgment from the committee.
Dave Lent — The chair is repeatedly addressed during the same committee exchange, with speakers thanking the chair and Mr. Chairman while continuing the question period.
Dave Lent — The chair is addressed as Mr. Chairman; the transcript later identifies Chairman Hawkins, but the expected chair is Dave Lent. He is not speaking in this excerpt.
Dave Lent — The witness addresses the chair while explaining how the lottery provision works.
Dave Lent — Referenced as having raised a timing question about orders and lottery access.
Dave Lent — The chair responds that the member may ask questions as desired.
Dave Lent — Representative Levitt explained that the charter school, not the local school board, determines the priority order for admissions.
Dave Lent — Thanked for collaborating on the bill.
Dave Lent — Chairman Hawkins is repeatedly addressed as the presiding chair during a continuous procedural exchange, including being returned to the floor, being thanked, and being called on during questions and responses involving Representative Tanner.
James Gilbert — James Gilbert, superintendent in Mountain Home, states his opposition to the bill and explains that he believes it is specifically targeted at Mountain Home School District and the community in an effort to bring a military charter school to Mountain Home.
James Woodward — Members continued questioning Superintendent Gilbert about the practical effect of the bill and whether amending Idaho Code 33-525 could solve the problem. Representative Matthias asked follow-up hypotheticals about transferring children and whether both could be placed together, while Representative Gardner asked whether the bill would effectively help military siblings enroll at the same time, and whether military preference matters if charter schools draw from the same public-school pool. Gardner further questioned why the preference would matter at all if parents choose schools based on quality and whether the bill would actually harm the Mountain Home School District.
James Woodward — Asked why the committee is being forced to choose between a local school district and a charter school, and whether there is another way.
James Woodward — Asked who determines the order of priority for new students on the charter school list.
James Woodward — Stated he would support the motion.
James Woodward — Thanked by Representative Levitt in response to the question.
James Woodward — Argued that House Bill 657 and the RS are materially different and said he would support the motion despite concerns about uncertainty.
James Woodward — Continued his concerns about the policy implications, but said he would support the motion.
James Woodward — Supported the motion but criticized the committee for overstating the impact of the proposal.
James Woodward — Said, as a veteran, that the committee should not pat itself on the back and that he supports the proposal based on logic and reason.
James Woodward — Said the committee should not pat itself on the back and that he supports the proposal based on logic and reason.
Mr. Gilbert — Explained that the proposal would let families place their names on charter lottery lists when orders are received, rather than after arriving in Idaho.
Mr. Gilbert — Began answering that the issue goes back to the underlying purpose and impact on the district.
Mr. Gilbert — Started to answer the question about the district impact.
Mr. Gilbert — Argued that the proposal is intended to bring a certain student demographic into the building and could create a free-for-all in charter placement.
Mr. Gilbert — Said the bill came through an information request tied to people who testified in support and expressed concern that charter schools are being proposed to target certain student groups.
Mr. Gilbert — Continued saying that targeting certain student demographics seems unfair.
Mr. Gilbert — Was asked to clarify his concerns about the bill's effect on the school.
Mr. Gilbert — Responded that the committee had not seen the new RS and that it includes modified language.
Mr. Gilbert — Said the concern is not incoming families but current military-affiliated students in the district, especially students at Stevenson Elementary.
Mr. Gilbert — Was interrupted mid-sentence while describing the targeted group.
Mr. Gilbert — Said the school had been advertised in the community for about 16 months and referenced a FOIA request showing the target of the charter school.
Mr. Gilbert — Was being questioned about whether the lottery language is problematic.
Mr. Gilbert — Said he did not understand the question and asked for clarification.
Mr. Gilbert — Said he did not understand the question, then answered that the proposal is problematic because of its impact on Mountain Home School District.
Mr. Gilbert — Said the proposal is problematic because of its impact on Mountain Home School District.