Douglas Pickett — Said there is a distinction between school-sponsored student clubs and classroom instruction, and supported a hearing.
Douglas Pickett — Representative Pickett is referenced for a prior question he asked, which prompted the sponsor to revise the document, including changes related to temporary workers.
Douglas Pickett — Voted yes.
Michael Veile — During the roll-call vote, Michael Veile first votes yes and later votes no.
Michael Veile — Voted no.
Soñia Galaviz — Votes no; transcript says 'Galaviz' at the end of the roll call.
Soñia Galaviz — Votes no.
Soñia Galaviz — Asked how the bill would interact with parental rights and excused absences for minor students.
Soñia Galaviz — Raised a question about parental rights and school excusal procedures.
Soñia Galaviz — Continues asking about parental excusal of student absences.
Soñia Galaviz — Representative Galaviz asked follow-up questions about the bill’s fiscal implications, pressing for clarification on the zero fiscal note and the statement of purpose’s 'no cost' language, and raising concerns about the administrative burden the measure could place on school districts.
Soñia Galaviz — Voted no.
Soñia Galaviz — Moved to send the bill onward after the presentation.
Soñia Galaviz — Moved to send Senate Bill 1244 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Soñia Galaviz — Asked a question and commented on the need for standards and professional development in the AI bill.
Soñia Galaviz — Asked about standards creation, implementation, and review for AI.
Soñia Galaviz — Asks about the intention and support of administrators regarding standard creation.
Soñia Galaviz — Asks about administrator support for standard creation, especially for K-6, and notes appreciation for the amendment protecting human teachers.
Soñia Galaviz — Continues asking about AI implementation priorities for the youngest students.
Soñia Galaviz — Representative Galaviz moved Senate Bill 1227 to general orders and, speaking as a public school teacher, urged caution in how AI is used in the classroom. He emphasized limiting AI use in early years and involving educators, parents, and industry in shaping responsible implementation.
Steve Tanner — Presented RS 33332 C1 and explained that it would provide legislative oversight regarding student walkouts for protests.
Steve Tanner — Described recent student walkouts in Idaho and argued they waste taxpayer money while acknowledging First Amendment protest rights.
Steve Tanner — Explained that protest-related walkouts would be treated as unexcused absences and reported to the superintendent and legislature.
Steve Tanner — Responded to questions about the bill.
Steve Tanner — Confirmed that a student leaving for 20 minutes to peacefully assemble would still be marked unexcused.
Steve Tanner — Prepared to respond to Representative Nelson's concern.
Steve Tanner — Distinguished organized excused absences from students leaving class on their own.
Steve Tanner — Returns to the room after the vote.
Steve Tanner — Introduced a revised RS 33523-2-3 and explained it was restarted after prior discussion.
James Woodward — Representative Nelson questioned the bill’s breadth, warning that it could wrongly label politically active students as protesters and discourage young people from participating in civic activities, including coming to the Capitol to testify.
James Woodward — Representative Tanner was part of a brief, continuous exchange during the bill introduction in which members questioned his position and the bill’s implications, including concerns about nondiscrimination language, federal funding for undocumented students versus special-needs education, and a procedural reminder to keep the discussion focused on the introduction rather than turning it into a broader hearing.
James Woodward — The transcript says 'Representative Nelson'; no matching member ID is available, so this is left as an uncertain reference.
Dave Lent — Representative Matthias thanks Mr. Chairman and addresses Representative Tanner, noting appreciation for Tanner’s explanation of the difference between the current draft and the previous draft. Tanner responds by thanking the chairman, acknowledging the question, and continuing the discussion of the bill’s revised statement of purpose, including the $15,000 fiscal note from the State Board of Education and how the categories are structured to make status verification straightforward.
Kevin Cook — Kevin Cook is identified as co-chair of the AI Interim Committee alongside the speaker.
Andy Grover — Andy Grover, Executive Director of the Idaho School Administrators, testified in support of the bill. He introduced himself and explained that the bill safeguards students, supports educators, and helps prepare students for the workforce.
Dr. Grover — Dr. Grover explains that AI has expanded rapidly and schools need to prepare students for what comes next. He adds that a key challenge is helping students understand what AI is, particularly in the early grades.
Mr. Grover — Is thanked after answering questions about AI in early grades.
Mr. Grover — The speaker notes having met with Representative Ehlers and Mr. Grover about the bill, specifically in the context of AI concerns.
Paul Zimmerman — Paul Zimmerman, introduced as the next virtual witness, identifies himself as the Director of Technology in the Blank County School District and says he served on the state AI task force. He explains that the task force began work in October with the goal of putting guardrails on AI, creating standards and preserving local control for K-12 schools. He concludes that the bill was thoughtfully created and will help Idaho move forward with this evolving technology by providing needed boundaries from the perspective of a technology director.
Daniel Owsley — Daniel Owsley introduces himself as an IT architect with over 30 years of experience and then testifies about AI in education. He argues that the ethics and morals of AI depend on how it is trained, so AI used in schools should have strong guardrails, transparency about training and values, and limits on reaching out to large language models. He recommends that students first learn foundational reading, writing, and math, says AI can be taught about but should not be used as a primary teaching tool in early grades, and notes that AI may be useful for identifying outliers but should not replace the teacher.
Alexis — Alexis, representing Idaho PTA, gives public testimony in support of the discussion around AI guidelines. She says she has spoken with many Idaho parents and parent groups who want AI policies that prioritize children’s learning, development, and safety. She notes that she served on the work group that helped develop the legislation and shares a takeaway from that process: a business leader described AI making up about 15% of her regular workflow, which resonated with Alexis because she uses AI daily as well.
Idaho PTA representative — Testified that AI is already used in daily life and supported the bill's clear definitions, human judgment, student safety, and data protection.
Mr. Owsley — The speaker praised Mr. Owsley for emphasizing the need for caution when implementing new standards and building the framework for AI in education, reinforcing that these changes should be approached carefully.
Blaine Gonzati / Blan Gonzalez-Odi — Requested to explain the bill further and then identified himself as president of Idaho Family Policy Center.
Idaho Family Policy Center representative — Continued testimony supporting the bill and its historical basis.
Dan Garner — Dan Garner questioned the speaker about Idaho’s first city and its founding history, continuing the same line of inquiry with a brief follow-up reference to the historical basis for the bill.
Dan Garner — Dan Garner is involved in a roll call vote sequence: he requests a roll call vote and is later recorded as voting yes and then no during subsequent roll call calls.
Dan Garner — Voted no.
Mr. Gonzati — Representative Garner directed a question to Mr. Gonzati, who replied that he did not know the answer but was interested in hearing more and learning about it.
Mr. McNati — The witness was addressed with a possibly incorrect name while clarifying the question was outside the scope of the RS.