Mark Harris — Referenced as the sponsor or author trying to clarify legislative intent.
Mark Harris — Senator Harris is repeatedly referenced in connection with the bill under discussion: first as the sponsor of the legislation, then as being invited to offer closing remarks. The discussion continues with clarification that the bill addresses the roles of IDL and the Attorney General, keeping the focus on the same legislative issue.
Mark Harris — Senator Harris is identified as the second on the motion.
Mark Harris — The speaker says Senator Harris is familiar with the Bear Lake comparison.
Mark Harris — Named as the second on the motion.
James Woodward — Senator Taylor seconded the motion to approve the minutes, specifically the minutes of February 11, 2026.
Phil Skinner — Phil Skinner, Attorney General Labrador’s chief deputy, testified in opposition to the bill, arguing that it would improperly expand the Department of Lands’ authority, reduce oversight by the Attorney General and the Land Board, and create constitutional problems. He explained that the Department of Lands is effectively an arm of the Land Board, that board members are intended to bring specialized roles to the table, and that removing the Attorney General’s role is especially problematic in this context. Skinner also distinguished legislative conflict-of-interest rules from attorney professional responsibility rules, described how attorneys general handle conflicts and screening, and said the office has long believed the Department of Lands arrangement was unconstitutional. He concluded that the bill would worsen those constitutional concerns and urged the committee not to advance it.
Jim Guthrie — Jim Guthrie questioned whether the bill still permits the Attorney General to be engaged by the Land Board and sit on the board, then broadened the inquiry to whether other legislative arrangements for outside counsel could raise constitutional concerns. He followed up by asking whether the Attorney General has ever hired outside counsel because of a conflict of interest, continuing the same discussion with Skinner.
Jim Guthrie — Senator Guthrie asked for one more question and directed it to the Department of Lands representative, specifically asking Director Miller whether the proposed bill would help or not help if passed.
Jim Guthrie — Asked whether the director of IDL could still ask the AG's office to represent them in a legal problem.
Jim Guthrie — Moved Senate Bill 1328 to the floor with a do pass recommendation.
Jim Guthrie — His original motion was superseded by the substitute motion process.
Jim Guthrie — Voted no on the substitute motion.
Jim Guthrie — Voted no on the substitute motion.
Jim Guthrie — Voted aye on the original motion.
Jim Guthrie — Voted no on the original motion.
Jim Guthrie — Senator Guthrie asked for a motion and moved approval of docket 13-0103-2501.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Taylor questioned whether Senate Bill 1292 from two years earlier was unconstitutional and pressed Skinner on why the Attorney General’s office had not acted sooner if it believed the law was unconstitutional, asking why the issue had taken so long to address.
Melissa Wintrow — Explained that under the original 1292, the Land Board can still hire the Attorney General or use DAGs, and can hire whoever they want if needed.
Melissa Wintrow — Confirmed the legislation brings Section 38 in line with Title 58 and moves material out of 38 into Title 58-120.
Melissa Wintrow — Explained the purpose is to delineate what IDL is to do.
Melissa Wintrow — Clarified that the bill's purpose is to delineate what IDL is to do.
Melissa Wintrow — Indicated he wanted to make a comment and then offered a substitute motion in the next section.
Melissa Wintrow — Offered a substitute motion to hold Senate Bill 1328 in committee and began explaining his reasoning.
Melissa Wintrow — Argued that the bill and the prior bill restrict the Attorney General's authority and influence on the Land Board.
Melissa Wintrow — Continued arguing that constitutional officers should have direct control over the people's assets and that the Attorney General has direct contact with the public.
Melissa Wintrow — Concluded that the legislature should not restrict authority over a constitutional function like the Land Board.
Melissa Wintrow — Voted aye on the substitute motion.
Melissa Wintrow — Voted no on the substitute motion.
Melissa Wintrow — Said he would support the original motion but reserve his rights on the floor because the issue is complex.
Melissa Wintrow — Said he is leery of doing something unconstitutional and will retain his rights on the floor while the committee educates itself further.
Melissa Wintrow — Voted no on the original motion.
Melissa Wintrow — Voted no on the original motion.
Melissa Wintrow — Was handed the meeting to begin the rules portion.
Melissa Wintrow — Took over the meeting and announced the start of the rules agenda.
Phil Hart — Mr. Skinner explained that the state had tried to make the arrangement work, but recent court cases showed the Attorney General’s attorneys and the Department of Lands’ attorneys were stepping on each other’s toes. He said the separate representation arrangement had long raised concerns about who represents the state and whether it is constitutional, noting that some agencies such as DOPL do have their own attorneys. He added that he was not aware of similar restrictions on other constitutional officers and cited Supreme Court reasoning, using hypotheticals to argue that the Legislature should not simply delegate away constitutional responsibilities. A later reference reiterated that there had been instances of the attorneys stepping on each other’s toes.
Doug Okuniewicz — Addressed as chair during the exchange.
Dustin Miller, Director, Idaho Department of Lands — Dustin Miller, Director of the Idaho Department of Lands, introduced himself, then explained that Senate Bill 1292 updated section 58-120 to allow the department to have its own counsel and described how legal representation is handled in litigation. He then asked to bring in John Richards, the department’s general counsel, to answer the question briefly.
Kevin Cook — Senator Cook asked for a specific example of a representation mix-up, then invited John Richards to state his name and who he represents, and finally asked whether the legislation would clarify the problem Richards described.
John Richards, General Counsel for the Idaho Department of Lands — John Richards, General Counsel for the Idaho Department of Lands, explained that recent transitions in legal representation had created confusion in some cases. He gave a fire cost recovery case as an example, where both IDL attorneys and the Office of the Attorney General were involved, leading opposing counsel to be unsure who to contact for settlement discussions. He said the proposed legislation would clarify the problem by addressing section 38-107 and routing enforcement through 58-120.
John Richards — Described a federal case involving adverse possession and prescriptive easements on endowment land, and explained why IDL sought to file an amicus brief.
Mr. Richards — Said he came on after Senate Bill 1292 took effect and was hired in September 2024.
Mr. Richards — Said other agencies do have general counsel, but he does not know the statutory parameters for those roles.
Mr. Skinner — Mr. Skinner was asked for closing remarks and clarified the role of certain attorneys as deputies of the Attorney General, then added that if the legislation passes, litigation is inevitable.
Mr. Sheridan — Was thanked and then used as the basis for a question about the legislature hiring its own attorneys.
— Asked whether the bill aligns Section 38 with Title 58 from the prior legislation.
— Said the bill appears to correct the code in two sections so they match.
— Voted no on the substitute motion.
— Voted aye on the original motion.
— Senator Cole participated in the motion process by seconding the substitute motion and then voting aye on both the substitute motion and the original motion.