Bruce Gogh — Presented the bill and explained that it extends confidentiality protections for persons involved in the firing squad.
Director Bree — Identified as the Department of Corrections director available to answer questions.
Clint Hostetler — Moved to send House Bill 803 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Clint Hostetler — Addressed as the sponsor of the bill.
Clint Hostetler — Voted yes in the roll call.
Rob Beiswenger — Representative Handy asked about the status of the inmate involved in the failed execution attempt and whether the inmate remains on death row. The response confirmed that the inmate is still in the Department of Corrections on death row and clarified that inmates do not choose the method of execution.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Rubel questioned the sponsor about what provisions and procedures the bill would exempt from, including whether it would affect discoverability in legal proceedings. The discussion then continued with responses about transparency and the procedures at issue, and Rubel later stated her concern that the bill would reduce transparency around executions. The transcript also contains several apparent mis-transcriptions of her name during this same exchange.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Scott is referenced as the person being responded to regarding the protection issue.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Scott is asked whether she sees the issue as a question; the response says the address is not currently protected under law.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Scott is praised for the amount of work she has put into the bill.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Scott is again praised for her work and effort on the bill.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Scott is credited with putting in the most time on the issue from the House side.
Breed Eric — Introduced himself as director for the Idaho Department of Correction.
Joe Alfieri — Voted yes in the roll call.
Joe Alfieri — Asks Representative Scott to respond to concerns about releasing a parent's information along with a child's information.
Joe Alfieri — States support for the bill while raising privacy concerns in criminal cases.
Joe Alfieri — Participated in the roll call vote; likely a mishearing of Alfieri.
Barbara Ehardt — Voted yes in the roll call.
Barbara Ehardt — Asks the witness whether other states are moving to the new standard.
Dale Hawkins — Voted yes in the roll call.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Hawkins is discussed and then speaks in support of the motion, explaining that the bill was intended to address a narrow custody-dispute context. The discussion continues with concerns about parental access, address disclosure, and how the bill relates to existing statutory definitions and prior legislation Hawkins carried, with Hawkins being affirmed as correct on the parent-definition point.
John Shirts — Voted yes in the roll call.
John Shirts — Asked for clarification about why the court should not report to a prosecuting attorney or become a party in the context.
John Shirts — Asked follow-up questions about why the court should not become a party in this context.
John Shirts — Asked a question at the end of Francis Stern's testimony.
John Shirts — Asked whether clear and convincing evidence is used very often within family law.
John Shirts — Voted yes on the motion to hold in committee.
John Shirts — Moved to send Senate Bill 1293 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
John Gannon — Was called during the roll call; the record indicates a request to repeat the vote response.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon engaged in a brief back-and-forth with the witness, first asking whether 'parent' is defined in the code and then following up on issues related to transcript costs and whether the matter involved a transcript or docket sheet record. The witness responded to these questions in the same discussion thread.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon is referenced as being right in the discussion about the task force work.
John Gannon — Supports the motion to introduce the bill and then discusses the statutory definition of parent.
John Gannon — His comments were echoed by Jason Spillman.
John Gannon — Voted yes on the motion to hold in committee.
John Gannon — Said he would have moved to hold the bill in committee but withdrew that motion.
James Ruchti — Likely the intended correction for 'Representative Matthias'; voted no.
Heather Scott — Heather Scott introduced House Bill 857, explained its purpose, and indicated she could answer questions or proceed to testimony. A subsequent reference to her asked for clarification on a specific provision in the bill, continuing the same discussion of the bill’s details.
Heather Scott — Representative Scott responds to questions and concerns about the bill by explaining that the discussion has drifted off base and that the measure is intended to ensure both parents have equal access to records relating to their minor child, including medical, educational, child care, law enforcement, and court records. She cites bill language and prior code to show that schools should not withhold information from one parent, while noting that a child’s address is removed from records to protect privacy. The exchange ends with a follow-up concern about whether such records could reveal another parent’s address.
Heather Scott — Referenced in the discussion as the sponsor whose bill is being defended and explained.
Heather Scott — The bill is still being discussed in the context of Representative Scott's proposal.
Heather Scott — Referenced as the sponsor in a sidebar before the motion.
Heather Scott — Praised for working in good faith on the issue.
Heather Scott — Referenced as someone the speaker hopes to work with in good faith on a more workable version.
Heather Scott — Asked whether the bill would be acceptable to General Orders; responded affirmatively.
Heather Scott — Will carry the bill on the floor.
Heather Scott — Introduced House Bill 859 and explained it is part of a larger bill package.
Heather Scott — Explained that the bill was pulled from a larger comprehensive bill and that a parent definition is coming.
Heather Scott — Representative Scott is discussed as someone who previously mentioned the task force survey and has done hard work in this area. The speakers also note having worked with him on House Bill 668 regarding custodial interference and express interest in continuing to work with him to improve the bill.
Heather Scott — Representative Scott is first thanked and praised for his participation and for caring about children’s best interests. Shortly afterward, Scott asks procedural questions about what the committee is voting on during roll call.
Francis Stern — Francis Stern, a Boise family law attorney, parenting coordinator, and mediator, testified against the bill. She said current Idaho law already allows both parents access to children’s records while permitting address redaction, but the bill would remove that protection and could expose private information even in cases involving protection orders or a history of violence. She warned that a noncustodial parent with a violent background could obtain sensitive information after the waiting period, while the bill’s only restriction mechanism would require a court order with written findings of substantial harm to the child. Stern argued that this standard is too burdensome and would make timely protection nearly impossible, especially because the bill gives no notice to the other parent. She also said the proposal would create financial and staffing burdens for courts and the state, and that courts already balance parental rights with child safety and best interests. In response to questions, she clarified that not having a criminal record does not mean there are no other court-addressed issues affecting parenting rights, and she reiterated that protections are sometimes necessary to ensure a child’s safety and healthy relationships.