Richard Cheatum — Cited as being correct that revenue cuts caused the funding problem.
Richard Cheatum — Supported the idea that the agency needs money and said Representative Palmer has spent many hours wrestling with the issue.
Richard Cheatum — Responded that the issue is a self-inflicted budgeting crisis rather than an organizational crisis.
Richard Cheatum — Argued that the bill takes money from counties and could worsen property taxes, while saying there must be a better way to fund state police.
Richard Cheatum — Said he would support the substitute motion because the state police must be funded, but not this way.
Richard Cheatum — His concerns were referenced as something the sponsor could continue working on.
Richard Cheatum — Argued the Rainy Day Fund can be used for a short-term problem created by the legislature and that the balance could be reduced to solve the issue now.
Richard Cheatum — Raised a point of order seeking clarification about whether the sponsor wanted half of $5 million if the bill went to General Orders.
Richard Cheatum — Likely refers to Representative Cheatum; voted yes on the motion.
Richard Cheatum — Likely a mis-transcription of Representative Cheatum in the roll call sequence.
Richard Cheatum — Addressed the chair at the end of the roll call sequence.
Richard Cheatum — Named in the roll call context, likely indicating the remaining no votes or clarification of the vote count.
Edward Hill — Director Gardner responds to questions about the lateral process.
Edward Hill — Director Gardner explains the modified academy used for lateral officers and how pay is handled.
Edward Hill — Director Gardner confirms the lateral suspension would apply to anybody.
Edward Hill — Director Gardner explains that academy length depends on the agency and notes several agencies run their own academies.
Edward Hill — Director Gardner says the $5 million is a good start but does not fully fund the original request.
Edward Hill — Director Gardner is responding to Representative Barbieri.
Edward Hill — Director Gardner responds to Representative Shepard's concern.
Edward Hill — Explained that ISP frequently assists the counties mentioned and does what it can with current staffing.
Edward Hill — Stated that ISP's original request was $12 million ongoing and that one-time emergency funding would not solve the ongoing need.
Edward Hill — Said $12 million was a carefully balanced request and discussed how long it would sustain ISP under a 3% CEC assumption.
Edward Hill — Said the sustainable, fully implemented amount for the next 10 years is $18 million.
Edward Hill — Estimated that ISP received about $20 million a year from the gas tax before the change.
Edward Hill — Explained that ISP recruits broadly, including many retired military members and some new criminal justice graduates.
Edward Hill — Continued describing ISP recruitment sources and said the George Floyd period affected policing recruitment broadly.
Edward Hill — Said ISP does not bill counties for SWAT assistance or other callouts and treats the work as a state service.
Edward Hill — Began explaining ISP's current pay structure and how the $5 portion functions as points or incentives.
Edward Hill — Moves to send House Bill 944 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Edward Hill — Representative Hill spoke about the severity of the staffing and pay crisis, drawing on military experience to underscore the seriousness of the situation, and warned that the agency is at a crisis point requiring immediate action.
Edward Hill — Voted yes on the motion.
Heather Scott — Representative Hill asks about training differences between ISP and sheriff agencies.
Heather Scott — Representative Hill expressed concern that sending the bill to general orders could cause it to die, but said he was willing to withdraw his motion if alternative changes could improve the bill. In response, he was advised that he could make a unanimous consent request, though the substitute motion would be voted on before his motion.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon asks whether the proposed $5 million will fully fund the ISP pay plan.
John Gannon — Asks whether part of the gas tax could again be dedicated to ISP.
John Gannon — Supported the motion, said ISP needs funding because of vacancies, and agreed with Birch that revenue cuts caused the problem.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri asked Director Gardner whether the proposed funding increase would meaningfully help the Idaho State Police with recruiting, attract more applicants, and fill vacant positions.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri supported the motion, describing it as reasonable while emphasizing that the funding falls far short of what police really need. She also noted that equity in hourly pay must be addressed and acknowledged the strain caused by limited resources.
Vito Barbieri — Voted no on the motion.
Charlie Shepherd — Charlie Shepherd questioned whether the bill would divert funding from county sheriffs in his district, warning that local sheriffs are already overburdened and that the measure could worsen existing staffing and resource problems. He added that he supports finding funding for ISP, but does not want that to come at the expense of county sheriffs, and asked for comment on compounding an already existing problem.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Shepard spoke in support of the sponsor, describing the issue as a dilemma, defending the sponsor’s law enforcement record, and arguing that the bill would shift money from smaller agencies to larger ones.
Charlie Shepherd — Voted yes on the motion.
David Cannon — Representative Gannon was introduced as the next questioner and then asked Colonel Gardner how much the Indiana State Police received from the gas tax before the funding change five or six years earlier.
David Cannon — Called the roll call vote and participated in the vote.
Jason Monks — Representative Jason Monks is recognized and asks whether the Idaho State Police receives reimbursement when it assists counties and local law enforcement, noting that ISP often helps local agencies and seeking clarification on how those costs are handled.
Jason Monks — Representative Monks praised Representative Palmer’s hard work on roads and law enforcement, then explained his support for sending the bill to General Orders as a courtesy to the sponsor and as a way to keep working on the issue. He emphasized that the bill would not be allowed to die and suggested that, as a member of leadership, he may have some influence in helping move the matter forward.
Jason Monks — Voted yes on the motion.
Jerald Raymond — Asked where the solution is for the funding challenge between the general fund and registration revenue.
Jerald Raymond — Voted yes on the motion.
Shawn Dygert — The text says 'brand new troopers'; no specific legislator is named, so no member ID applies here.