Heather Scott — Mentioned again as someone who may chair future meetings.
Monica Church — Representative Monica Church asks follow-up questions about the bill’s effect on flag displays, including whether community displays and graduate flags on city flagpoles in Horseshoe Bend would violate the bill. The discussion is answered in the affirmative, with alternatives suggested, and the exchange includes a light joke about restoring the Basque flag.
James Ruchti — Restated that the law would not allow the described displays on city- or municipality-owned property and introduced the question about removing public schools from the language.
James Ruchti — The speaker addresses Representative Hill with a question about removing public schools from the language.
James Ruchti — Asked why public schools were removed from the language while Idaho colleges and universities were allowed.
James Ruchti — Explained that schools already have a separate flag bill and said the current proposal is an extension; argued Boise has not followed the rules and said he is a Boise High graduate.
James Ruchti — Addressed Representative Church and the chair while explaining the school-related flag limitation.
James Ruchti — Continued arguing that the American flag and state flag should be the focus and that other flags are distractions.
James Ruchti — Was asked to clarify lines 15 and 16 of page one of the bill.
James Ruchti — Was asked to clarify the meaning of 'adjoining land.'
James Ruchti — Clarified that the language is intended to apply to government land, not neighboring private property.
James Ruchti — Continued arguing that the issue has become political and that the response should be limited to the least common denominator.
James Ruchti — Explained that the date came from a compromise with Representatives Skaug, Alfieri, and Pohanka.
James Ruchti — Was credited with intending to heal division and bring people back together.
James Ruchti — Argued that this is not the state's place and referred to local elections.
James Ruchti — Responded that the other representative was doing the same thing he was criticizing.
James Ruchti — Recorded as voting no on the motion to introduce RS 33107, C1.
James Ruchti — Recorded as voting no on the motion.
James Ruchti — Representative Diger was introduced as the next questioner and then asked whether there is a discrepancy between the fiscal notes legislators receive when agencies bring legislation and the fiscal notes used later when the bill reaches JFAC for funding.
Judy Boyle — Representative Church was addressed during discussion of the school flag language and later thanked after making a final comment, forming one continuous exchange on the same topic.
Judy Boyle — Indicated she had several points to discuss on the motion.
Judy Boyle — Questioned Tanner about whether he meant Congress's continued debt was illegal.
Judy Boyle — The discussion continues from Representative Boyle's earlier comments opposing the proposal.
Judy Boyle — Argued that supporters should have lobbied Congress directly instead of spending money on state-level efforts.
Judy Boyle — Said she was attacked politically and claimed at least $200,000 could be traced to con-con supporters trying to defeat her.
Judy Boyle — Urged supporters to work through Congress and said a prior amendment effort failed by one vote.
Judy Boyle — Reiterated opposition to a constitutional convention and said it is dangerous for the republic.
Judy Boyle — Recorded as voting no on the motion to introduce RS 33090.
Judy Boyle — Recorded as voting no on the motion.
Judy Boyle — Asked whether JFAC is discussing use of rainy day funds to ensure a sufficient ending balance.
Judy Boyle — Was addressed in the exchange about prior-year revenue and tax cuts.
Jim Guthrie — Was addressed when Paula asked to make a final comment.
Jim Guthrie — Responded that the issue exists because the mayor is refusing to follow the law and framed it as a broader question of whether Boise can ignore legislative action.
Jim Guthrie — Continued arguing that the Boise mayor is disregarding the law and that the issue has become about that refusal.
Jim Guthrie — The chair is addressed as the committee begins hearing RS 33090.
Jim Guthrie — Responded that last year's proposal combined three different things into one bill.
Jim Guthrie — Explained that the current proposal is narrower than last year's combined bill and argued it has a better chance of passing.
Jim Guthrie — Clarified that he considers the debt immoral rather than necessarily illegal.
Jim Guthrie — Chair Crane is referenced as likely having questions, and then is directly addressed by Representative Tanner in the same exchange while discussing the issue at hand, including agreement and clarification related to the fiscal note discrepancy.
Jim Guthrie — Jim Guthrie is repeatedly addressed as the chair during a continuous exchange with Representative Tanner about Medicaid budget controls. The references use both "Chairman Crane" and "Mr. Chairman," but they all point to the same ongoing discussion and do not introduce a new topic.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Representative Mickelson was called on for questions and asked for clarification about the bill’s use of 'adjoining land,' expressing concern that the term could be read too broadly. He questioned whether the language might unintentionally include neighboring private business property, such as a business adjoining government property, and therefore restrict flags on that property.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Representative Mickelsen and Representative Tanner are engaged in a continuous discussion about Idaho’s budget history, including whether the legislature historically left $25 million to $30 million on the bottom line before Governor Little took office, how reserve funding and conformity were handled, and how those practices relate to earlier budget cuts, including the 2008-2009 period.
Anne Haws — Was called on after Representative Mickelson.
Anne Haws — Was called on after Representative Hill's remarks.
Anne Haws — Asked why January 1, 2023 was chosen as the prohibition date.
Anne Haws — Recorded as voting no on the motion to introduce RS 33107, C1.
Anne Haws — Representative Haws engages Representative Tanner in a sustained budget discussion, thanking him for being present and noting she was not involved in last year’s debate. She questions whether the stabilization fund has meaningful limits, argues that unsafe bridges and other critical infrastructure still need funding, and presses Tanner on whether not paying Medicaid providers is being considered and what specific programs should be cut to solve the problem. The exchange continues with discussion of what could be reduced, including whether dedicated or endowment funds might be used as a source of money, keeping the focus on how to balance funding priorities and address the budget shortfall.
Bruce Skaug — Named as one of the members involved in the compromise on the prohibition date.
Bruce Skaug — Representative Skaug was identified as the next questioner and then asked whether support for the bill might improve on the floor this year, noting that it was soundly defeated last year despite his own yes vote.
Mike Pohanka — Named as one of the members involved in the compromise on the prohibition date.