Lori McCann — Representative McCann is called on for a motion.
Megan Egbert — The committee notes that a substitute is present and is filling in for Representative Megan Egbert.
Julie VanOrden — The speaker referenced the chairman possibly arriving later.
Julie VanOrden — The chair was said to be over on the Senate and possibly arriving later.
Julie VanOrden — Addressed as Mr. Chairman.
Julie VanOrden — Addressed as Mr. Chairman / Mr. Chair.
Julie VanOrden — The chair is addressed as Mr. Chairman while the docket is introduced.
Julie VanOrden — The chair is addressed during the question period.
Josh Wheeler — Josh Wheeler asked about updates to the physical restraint requirements, continuing his question across consecutive mentions. He then followed up by asking whether the updated rules are more strict and referenced the 'grave bodily harm' standard.
Josh Wheeler — Representative Wheeler questioned the motion’s language, expressing concern that the requirement for supervision by a cleared employee could be interpreted too loosely. He illustrated the issue with an example of supervision occurring remotely by cell phone from another location, suggesting that such an interpretation would undermine the intent of the language.
Josh Wheeler — Representative Josh Wheeler asks a question following the motion, raising a budget-related issue about the governor’s proposal to eliminate Rezhab and whether that would make the rewrite unnecessary.
Dori Healey — Made the motion to approve the docket.
Dori Healey — Representative Healey is mentioned in connection with preparing to act on the motion.
Dori Healey — Representative Dori Healey is recognized and then asks about the bill rewrite, questioning why it was placed in Section B and what the purpose of the rewrite is, while noting that associations support it.
Dori Healey — Moved to introduce RS 33050.
Jared Larson — Jared Larson, Chief of Staff at the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, introduced the residential assisted living facilities rule docket, responded to questions, remained available for follow-up, and then offered a brief additional comment before turning the discussion over to Mr. Moss.
Tom Moss — Tom Moss of the Department of Health and Welfare’s Licensing and Certification Division was introduced and then testified as the program supervisor for the Assisted Living Program. He explained that the background-check process being discussed was not a new rule change, but longstanding practice, and clarified that employees may begin working while their background checks are pending as long as they are supervised and kept out of private areas unless supervised. He also noted that fingerprints must be taken within 21 days at the background check unit.
Mr. Moss — Larson and Fuhrman repeatedly direct questions to Mr. Moss, who then explains that the rule was reworked to clarify its intent, confirms that it applies to memory care units, and states that there are no additional more specific rules for memory care units beyond what is included in the docket.
Mr. DeMoss — Mr. DeMoss explained that the department’s practice was not a new change but a reworking of procedures, and said the department was open to the concern raised. He added that employees are supervised during surveys and that any lack of supervision would be treated as a deficiency, emphasizing the goal of keeping residents safe.
Ben Fuhriman — Representative Fuhrman asked whether the newly added restriction that an unlicensed employee may not have one-to-one contact with a resident already covers the same concern as the struck language about individuals waiting for clearance in line of sight, effectively questioning whether the deleted provision is redundant.
Ben Fuhriman — Representative Ben Fuhriman first acknowledges being called on, then questions how the proposed rule change aligns with the legislature’s intent to strengthen background checks. He argues that the current rule already requires supervision and no one-to-one contact with residents, asking how the proposed change would conflict with that intent. Later, another speaker references Fuhriman’s earlier point about the rule’s existing language, tying the discussion back to his argument.
Don Hall — Don Hall is involved in the committee’s handling of a motion to approve the docket, and later asks a procedural question during discussion of a substitute motion, specifically what would happen if the substitute motion were approved.
Steven Tanner — Asked whether the rules apply to memory care units or whether those units have separate rules.
Brian Lenney — A continuous procedural exchange in which Representative Kaler (identified in the transcript with some spelling uncertainty) makes a substitute motion, is asked to restate it for the record, and is then repeatedly asked to clarify or repeat the motion and docket/page references. The discussion continues as the motion is described and referenced again, with the speaker noting that Representative Kaler’s motion may conflict with legislative intent and that Kaler is the one raising the issue.
Mr. Larson — Mr. Larson first asked for the precise section being discussed so he could answer accurately, then was asked about the relationship between the rule rewrite and legislative intent. He responded that legislative intent is determined by the statutory authority granted to the body and indicated that the proposed change aligns with the code.
David Leavitt — He is addressed for an explanation of why the rule was rewritten.
David Leavitt — Explained that the rulemaking aimed to eliminate duplication and align with code and authority.
David Leavitt — His explanation continued regarding reducing regulation and avoiding harm.
David Leavitt — Finished explaining that other provisions require supervision and that the rewrite was intended to reduce regulation without harm.
David Leavitt — Raised a question about pending legislation and whether the rewrite was intended to preempt it.
David Leavitt — Asked whether pending legislation would change the section or preempt it.
David Leavitt — Responded that the legislation would codify background-check requirements.
David Leavitt — Explained that the legislation would support licensing authority and preserve background-check capability.
David Leavitt — His explanation continued regarding the risk of losing FBI database access and background-check authority.
David Leavitt — Was asked whether the substitute motion would remove related subsections.
David Leavitt — Responded that the motion appeared to strike subsection B and related integrated provisions.
David Leavitt — Clarified that the referenced subsections are integrated into B and would likely be removed.
David Leavitt — Responded that phone supervision would not be sufficient and that the standard is sight and sound in the building.
David Leavitt — Clarified that supervision means being in the building and in the space.
David Leavitt — Explained his concern that vulnerable communities should not be exposed to workers with unknown backgrounds.
David Leavitt — Argued that vulnerable communities should not be exposed to workers with unknown or criminal backgrounds.
David Leavitt — Questioned the difference between line-of-sight supervision and the proposed one-to-one contact language.
David Leavitt — Continued explaining his concern about the unknowns in the language.
David Leavitt — Was asked to respond to Representative Kaler's statement.
David Leavitt — Explained that line of sight is a very narrow standard and may be difficult to comply with literally.
David Leavitt — Said the rule may be aspirational and acknowledged the representative's concern for vulnerable individuals.
David Leavitt — Stated that rejecting a rule requires legislative findings explaining inconsistency with statutory authority.
David Leavitt — Said the issue appears to be a policy difference and reiterated the need for a finding of noncompliance with legislative intent.
David Leavitt — Was addressed again as the speaker continued.
David Leavitt — Was addressed while the speaker discussed licensing requirements and complaint investigations.