Barbara Ehardt — Barbara Ehart is identified as the presenter for H 691, and the speaker clarifies that she is representing Barbara Ehart from District 33 in Bonneville County.
Barbara Ehardt — The speaker addressed Representative E. Hart while asking about the bill language.
Barbara Ehardt — Mentioned as having been present on the committee during earlier sexual assault kit legislation.
Barbara Ehardt — Representative Ehardt questioned the bill, saying she did not see a problem with it and noting that city daycare licenses no longer exist under House Bill 240, while the exchange also included a brief question and deferral to Senator Nichols for clarification.
co-presenter (unnamed) — An unnamed co-presenter is requested to join online and remain available for questions.
Mr. Herndon — The presenter says Mr. Herndon will provide numbers once connected.
Ms. Conrad — Ms. Conrad is mentioned in connection with sending a separate link to the witness.
Scott Herndon — Scott Herndon is introduced and then gives uninterrupted testimony on House Bill 691. He identifies himself as being from Sagle, Idaho, explains his background and prior involvement in Idaho legislative work on child protective services and neglect definitions, and describes why the bill revisits those issues in response to concerns about the volume of CPS cases and changes in other states.
Scott Herndon — Thanked after his remarks and questions period.
Diane Garvey — Diane Garvey was called as the next in-person witness and then testified in opposition to House Bill 691, stating that child protection laws should allow earlier intervention.
Ms. Garvey — The chair thanks the witness and opens for questions.
Ms. Garvey — The speaker referenced Ms. Garvey alongside Ms. Dunn in closing remarks.
Chris Mathias — Representative Matthias questioned the bill’s premise, asking whether it wrongly implies parents are being accused or arrested for ordinary parenting issues like feeding times or bedtimes. After receiving a direct denial, he continued by asking about the logic of the bill and why the definition needs tightening if most reports are already found unfounded.
Chris Mathias — Representative Matthias asked whether Idaho law has any exceptions to the rule that DNA is collected only after a plea or conviction. The response indicated that, to the speaker’s knowledge, there is no exception to that rule.
— Referenced as having shared numbers about CPS calls.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon repeatedly indicated he had questions for the sponsor and pressed concern that the bill might be creating an exception for faith healing or allowing refusal of medical care for children. The sponsor responded directly, reassuring him that the bill was not intended to do that and noting he would follow up with Representative Gannon to discuss his concerns, including language that came from the LSO.
Ms. Dunn — The speaker referenced Ms. Dunn's example as the kind of case the bill is intended to address.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler is identified as the sponsor/presenter of the bill and then moves to send House Bill 691 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Clint Hostetler — Votes yes in the roll call.
Dale Hawkins — Acknowledged after the motion; appears to be preparing to ask questions.
Dale Hawkins — Referenced as the member being thanked before comments in support of the motion.
Dale Hawkins — States he will support the motion and says the definitions are well structured.
Dale Hawkins — Referenced as having made a point about the referral numbers and substantiation rate.
Dale Hawkins — Recognized as having requested a roll call vote.
Dale Hawkins — Requests a roll call vote.
Dale Hawkins — Votes no in the roll call.
Dale Hawkins — Votes yes in the roll call.
Dale Hawkins — Votes no in the roll call.
Chris Bruce — Named as part of the roll call vote sequence.
Heather Scott — Votes yes in the roll call.
Heather Scott — Mentioned as having been on the committee when earlier sexual assault kit legislation passed.
Dori Healey — Votes yes in the roll call; likely Representative Dori Healey or another member, but the transcript is unclear.
Marco Erickson — Votes yes in the roll call.
Clay Handy — Votes no in the roll call.
Edward Hill — Votes yes in the roll call.
Edward Hill — Representative Ted Hill presents SB 1226, explaining that it would add certain misdemeanors such as sexual battery and domestic violence to DNA and thumbprint collection requirements. He argues the bill could help solve serious crimes by capturing DNA in cases that may escalate, cites a Boise State serial rapist case as an example, and shares personal testimony about his sister’s assault to underscore the importance of the legislation. He also notes how plea reductions from felonies to misdemeanors can prevent DNA collection and references prior cases where DNA helped lead to convictions. The discussion includes acknowledgment of co-presenters and supporting witnesses as the bill presentation continues.
Mike Pohanka — Votes no in the roll call; likely a transcription error for another member name.
John Shirts — Votes no in the roll call.
Ilana Rubel — Votes no in the roll call.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Rubel moved to send Senate Bill 1239 to the floor with a due pass recommendation, and the motion was later referenced by the chair as the pending motion before the committee.
Dustin Manwaring — Representative Dustin Manwaring introduces himself as the State Representative from District 29 and begins presenting Senate Bill 1240. He explains that the bill updates guardianship and conservatorship statutes to create clearer procedures and definitions for courts, practitioners, and families, while protecting constitutional rights and preserving existing protections for individuals with developmental disabilities. He then turns the presentation over to Senator Recti to continue walking through the bill.
James Ruchti — The discussion briefly identifies Senator Ruchti as the senator from District 29 who is presenting with Representative Manwaring. One speaker asks whether Senator Rutte/Ruchti is presenting, another says to kick it over to Senator Ruchti, and a later mention refers to him as the senator from District 29 and Representative Manwaring’s partner on the legislation.
James Woodward — James Woodward opened his remarks by thanking the chair, committee, and Representative Manwaring, noting their prior work together on many bills. He then said he would briefly walk through the bill before turning to subject matter experts, mentioning the committee’s time constraints. He proceeded to begin explaining the bill’s substance, including the distinction between guardianship and conservatorship, and noted that much of his understanding came from working on the bill.
Bob Aldridge — Introduced as an estate planning attorney with 50 years of experience who has written statutes in the Idaho Uniform Probate Code.
Bob Aldridge — Bob Aldridge is identified as the person who would best understand and address the particulars, and the discussion suggests bringing him up to handle that issue.
Amy Cunningham — Introduced as an attorney with decades of disability law experience and executive director of Disability Rights Idaho.
Lisa Anderson — Lisa Anderson of AARP Idaho was introduced and invited to testify, then delivered in-person testimony in strong support of Senate Bill 1240. She explained that the bill modernizes Idaho’s guardianship and conservatorship laws, updates outdated provisions, improves clarity and consistency for courts and families, and strengthens protections for vulnerable residents while preserving individual rights, due process, and judicial oversight. She emphasized that the legislation promotes best practices and more tailored alternatives to guardianship, and closed by urging the committee to advance the bill, noting from personal experience with her father’s dementia that the process could be less hurtful with better alternatives.
Mr. Alder — Said to have worked with TEPI for about six years.
Charlie Shepherd — Identified as having a question and then a motion was made to send SB 1240 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Ben Fuhriman — Representative Handy, drawing on his experience as a volunteer guardian, asked whether the bill covers the same guardianship-related code provisions and noted how difficult it is to find volunteer guardians because the process is onerous and paperwork-heavy. He then asked if the issue falls under the same code section being discussed, and was told that it is existing code and not changed by the bill.