Richard Cheatum — Moved to accept the minutes from Tuesday, February 17th.
Richard Cheatum — Moved to send Senate Bill 1261 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Layton — Layton introduced herself as a new page and Boise High student who moved to Idaho about five years ago, enjoys the outdoors, and is excited to work with the committee.
David Leavitt — Representative John Weber was called to present Senate Bill 1261 and then introduced himself as the representative for District 34 in Madison County before beginning his presentation of the bill.
David Leavitt — A brief exchange in which the speaker, likely mis-transcribed as Representative Furman but intended to refer to David Leavitt, addresses Representative Boyle and the Chair while introducing questions they do not yet know the answers to. The later mentions repeat the same attribution and continue the same short exchange without a substantive shift.
David Leavitt — Representative Furman clarified that the resolution did not pass unanimously through the resolution committee. He noted that he was present at the winter meeting and resolution committee, and explained that while the resolution did not pass unanimously in committee, it later passed as part of a block of resolutions without defect.
David Leavitt — The chair addressed Representative Leavitt in thanking the witness for testimony.
David Leavitt — Representative Leavitt raised a point of inquiry about whether the committee was voting on the statement of purpose or the bill text, and later remarks referenced that same exchange by noting that he had said the actual bill is what is voted on and becomes law.
David Leavitt — David Leavitt questioned the witness about the collective bargaining process and sought clarification on how the bill’s exclusions work, especially for police, fire, cities, and counties. He pressed on whether the exclusions only affect certain provisions, how linemen collectively bargain, and whether the witness’s bargaining rights would remain intact under the bill.
David Leavitt — Representative Furman is called on to speak to the motion, and the exchange includes a brief joking aside about letting ladies go first.
David Leavitt — Voted yes.
Judy Boyle — Judy Boyle introduced and defended House Bill 745, explaining that it is intended to stop school districts from using public funds for union activity while leaving general education funding unchanged. She described the county and law-enforcement exemptions as part of a compromise and clarified that the bill applies only to K-12 schools. In response to questions, she said the $1.2 million figure referred to all covered costs in the bill, argued that school money should go to classrooms rather than union dues, and distinguished school funding from city and county funding. She also explained that firefighters and law enforcement were excluded because their funding comes from different sources, noted that some districts directly pay union dues, and clarified that the civil penalty language applies to “a person,” not specifically to union members.
Judy Boyle — Praised for bringing the bill forward and doing the work on it.
Judy Boyle — Billy Norp thanked Representative Boyle for sponsoring the bill.
Judy Boyle — Bender repeatedly references Representative Boyle’s testimony, citing her explanation of the bill as a compromise and her comments about collective bargaining in Idaho school districts and the counties using the money.
Judy Boyle — Representative Boyle was invited to close and delivered a sustained closing statement on the bill. She clarified confusion between similarly named organizations, explained that the bill clearly addresses reimbursement timing and does not impose facility restrictions, and argued that concerns about stopping community events were misplaced because such events serve the whole community. She then shared personal background about growing up in a union family to emphasize that the bill was not intended as an attack on teachers or unions, but rather as a critique of the current system using taxpayer money. The closing culminated in moving House Bill 745 forward with a due pass recommendation.
Megan Egbert — Asked Representative Boyle why different types of government unions were being treated differently and referenced a 1989 Attorney General's opinion.
Megan Egbert — Asked the witness whether he had read the AG opinion mentioned earlier.
Megan Egbert — Asked whether the AG opinion creates binding authority to carve out police and fire while treating schools differently.
Megan Egbert — Returned the discussion to the bill and addressed Mr. Reichert.
Megan Egbert — Asked how the witness knew the teachers were union members.
Megan Egbert — Invited to ask questions after the motion.
Megan Egbert — Speaks to the motion and thanks Representative Boyle for her work on the bill.
Megan Egbert — Thanked after speaking against the motion; likely the speaker is Representative Hollis.
Megan Egbert — Voted no.
Lori McCann — Lori McCann questioned Representative Boyle about the basis for the $1.2 million figure, asking where it comes from and whether it includes items such as union dues or time off.
Lori McCann — Representative Lori McCann questioned why the bill treats one government union differently from other government unions, noting that city and county union negotiations are also funded by taxpayer dollars.
Lori McCann — Representative McCann questioned Nelson about whether school districts lack authority to collectively bargain and followed up by asking why advocacy on behalf of the Freedom Foundation would be treated differently from advocating for a bill that represents a teacher’s interests, pressing for clarification on the distinction between permissible advocacy and representation.
Lori McCann — Representative McCann asked whether the witness took time off or was being paid to testify, and later referenced paid leave.
Lori McCann — Asked whether the IEA receives taxpayer funding.
Lori McCann — Asked about the Students Come First legislation and whether districts must negotiate with teachers' unions.
Lori McCann — Representative McCann questioned the witness about payroll deductions for private organizations, arguing that such deductions are not unique to unions and comparing them to other deductions like United Way. She then emphasized that once salary is paid to an employee, those dollars are the employee’s private money and should not be treated differently simply because they are deducted for private purposes. The witness continued responding directly to McCann’s comparison and point about the employee’s paycheck and the use of those funds.
Lori McCann — Representative McCann is mentioned in relation to a community event concern, specifically referencing the event in Caldwell.
Lori McCann — Is called on to speak after the prior remarks.
Heather Scott — Questioned why the bill was placed in Title 44 instead of Title 33 and noted Title 33's existing provisions on teachers' unions.
Erin Bingham — Erin Bingham questioned Representative Boyle’s framing of the bill, arguing that it appeared to target teachers’ unions specifically rather than unions generally. She pressed him on why he chose that approach and then shifted to the bill’s fiscal implications, noting that the statement of purpose says there is no revenue or expenditure impact while his opening statement referenced a $1.2 million figure.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham asked Mr. Houston whether other unions allow payroll deductions for dues, fees, assessments, fines, or contributions, and Mr. Houston responded that he was not familiar with that practice.
Erin Bingham — Was thanked for speaking on the motion.
Erin Bingham — Voted no.
Mark Sauter — Likely the intended member behind 'Representative Weber' is uncertain; the question concerned civil penalties.
Max Nelson — Max Nelson is introduced as the first public witness to testify, and the chair calls him up to speak, noting that he is an attorney and giving him two minutes for his testimony.
Maxford Nelson — Maxford Nelson, speaking for the Freedom Foundation, testified in support of House Bill 745 and argued that government should not subsidize ideological or union advocacy with taxpayer funds or public resources. He said public-sector collective bargaining is inherently political, cited Janus and related case law, and explained that Idaho law already treats different public employees differently, including teachers and firefighters. He emphasized that school districts have statutory bargaining authority but do not choose whether to bargain, and he opposed using government facilities, payroll systems, or paid time off to benefit unions or advocacy groups. In response to questions, he clarified that the bill’s concerns arise mainly in public schools, where these practices occur, and discussed how reimbursement or payroll arrangements would work under collective bargaining.
Mr. Nelson — Was asked to clarify the scope of the Supreme Court case he cited.
Mr. Nelson — Mr. Nelson explained that the bill would prohibit only district-paid time off for union activities at taxpayer expense, while still allowing unions to reimburse districts for the cost of leave used for union work. He noted that existing law already contemplates arrangements where a teacher can be on leave serving as a union president while the union reimburses the district for salary costs. He then said his team had reviewed school district teachers’ union contracts statewide and found about 50 arrangements where paid leave for union activities is not reimbursed, estimating the annual value of that unreimbursed time at about half a million dollars. He concluded by placing the issue in the broader legal context of public-sector labor relations, explaining that states have wide authority to regulate collective bargaining for state and local employees, that states vary from broad authorization to limited or no bargaining rights, and that Idaho sits somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.
Mr. Nelson — Prior testimony was cited regarding courts allowing different treatment of unions tied to fire and life-saving services.
Counselor / Mr. Nelson — Was asked to clarify his earlier statement about school districts' authority to collective bargain.
James Holtzclaw — Asked for clarification about how the bill would treat paid time off and union reimbursement arrangements.
James Holtzclaw — The chair was addressed as Chairman Holtzclaw.
James Holtzclaw — Addressed by the witness as 'Chairman Holtzclaw.'
James Holtzclaw — Identified as chair in the vote call.