Mark Harris — Says the bill clarifies the roles of IDL and the Attorney General and is intended to prevent future overlap.
Mark Harris — Explained that the original 1292 language remains the same and that the Land Board can hire whoever it wants if needed.
Mark Harris — Confirmed the bill moves material out of Section 38 into Title 58-120 and said it is meant to delineate IDL's duties.
Mark Harris — Reiterated that the bill moves language into Title 58-120 and is intended to define IDL's duties.
Mark Harris — Stated the purpose is to delineate what IDL is to do.
Mark Harris — Seconded the substitute motion.
Mark Harris — Voted no on the substitute motion.
Mark Harris — Voted aye on the substitute motion; name appears in transcript as Senator Cole.
Mark Harris — Voted no on the original motion.
Mark Harris — Voted aye on the original motion; name appears in transcript as Senator Cole.
Mark Harris — Seconded the motion.
Mark Harris — Seconded the motion to accept docket 13-0119-2501.
Mark Harris — The speaker says Senator Harris is familiar with the Bear Lake pricing example.
Mark Harris — Seconded the motion.
Van Burtenshaw — The chair is addressed as Mr. Chairman during the procedural discussion, including the call for the vote on the minutes.
Van Burtenshaw — During the committee discussion, multiple speakers repeatedly address Chairman Van Burtenshaw by name and title, including a few instances where the transcription appears to misrender his name. The mentions are all part of the same ongoing exchange as participants direct comments to the chair and other senators.
Van Burtenshaw — Chairman Burt Shaw cast votes on the motion sequence, voting no on the substitute motion and aye on the original motion.
Van Burtenshaw — Chair Van Burtenshaw participates in a continuous committee exchange: he asks why a set trap should not be placed close to a live bait trap, is addressed during the witness’s explanation, and then the discussion transitions into committee procedure as the chair calls for a motion and asks if anyone else wishes to testify.
Ron Taylor — Seconded the motion on the minutes.
Ron Taylor — Senator Ron Taylor questioned whether Senate Bill 1292 from two years earlier was unconstitutional and pressed the witness on why the Attorney General's office had waited so long to address the issue if it had believed the law was unconstitutional at the time.
Ron Taylor — Senator Taylor participated in the vote sequence, first voting no on the substitute motion and then voting aye on the original motion.
Ron Taylor — Referenced in the discussion as part of the follow-up questioning context.
Ron Taylor — The question is part of the ongoing exchange involving the senator asking about distance from live bait.
Ron Taylor — Seconded the motion to approve the docket.
Phil Hart — Questions the rationale for the bill and references the Attorney General's office staffing.
Phil Hart — Senator Hart questioned whether other Idaho agencies or constitutional officers have separate legal departments apart from the Attorney General’s office, and whether any constitutional officers have had their responsibilities restricted in a similar way to what is being seen with the Attorney General’s office.
Phil Hart — Senator Hart first proposed a substitute motion to hold Senate Bill 1328 in committee, explaining that constitutional officers should manage state assets and expressing concern that the bill would improperly restrict the Attorney General’s authority and influence on the Land Board. He argued the legislature should not limit authority over a constitutional function and then voted aye on the substitute motion. Afterward, he said he would support the original motion while reserving his rights on the floor, reiterating his concern about constitutionality and the need for further education on the issue, and then voted no on the original motion before the committee moved on to rules.
Phil Skinner — Phil Skinner, Attorney General Labrador’s chief deputy, testified in opposition to the bill. He argued that the Attorney General’s role on the Land Board and with the Department of Lands was intended to provide legal counsel and save the state money, citing Constitutional Convention materials to support that view. He said removing the Attorney General from those roles is more egregious than the current arrangement, distinguished ordinary conflict-of-interest concerns from statutory pecuniary conflicts, and explained that the Attorney General’s office believed similar arrangements with IDL attorneys handling court actions on behalf of the state raised constitutional problems. He concluded that the bill would worsen those constitutional issues and urged the committee not to advance it.
Jim Guthrie — Jim Guthrie questioned whether the bill still permits the Attorney General to be engaged by the Land Board, noting the Attorney General’s role on the Land Board. He then broadened the discussion to prior legislative efforts to hire outside counsel and asked whether those arrangements raised similar constitutional concerns. Guthrie continued by asking whether the Attorney General could have handled those legal issues and whether, in the Attorney General’s experience, there had ever been a conflict of interest that led to hiring outside counsel.
Jim Guthrie — Senator Guthrie asked to hear from Director Miller and sought his perspective on the bill's effect, and Miller then responded directly to Guthrie as part of the same exchange.
Jim Guthrie — Senator Guthrie participated in the committee’s action on Senate Bill 1328 by moving to send the bill to the floor with a do pass recommendation, then voting no on the substitute motion and aye on the original motion.
Jim Guthrie — Jim Guthrie moves to approve Docket 13-0103-2501, and the motion is recorded as being made by Senator Guthrie.
Dustin Miller — Dustin Miller, Director of the Idaho Department of Lands, testified about Senate Bill 1292 and explained that the bill was intended to give the department its own counsel. He described the department’s relationship with the Attorney General’s office, noting that while the relationship is generally good, there have been issues with bifurcated representation and some confusion over legal representation.
Kevin Cook — Followed up with a request for a specific example of confusion.
Kevin Cook — Asked for a specific example of confusion or overlap in representation.
Kevin Cook — Addressed by John Richards.
Kevin Cook — Asked whether the legislation would clarify the representation problem described.
Kevin Cook — Asks whether the department's general counsel position existed before the prior law or was created afterward.
Kevin Cook — Argues the bill appears to clarify existing practice rather than create something new.
Kevin Cook — Asks whether the legislature's use of its own attorneys crosses a similar constitutional line.
Kevin Cook — Asks whether the legislation would trigger litigation.
Kevin Cook — Asks whether the bill prevents IDL from asking the Attorney General's office to represent it in a legal problem.
Kevin Cook — Was addressed in the exchange about whether the Land Board can still hire counsel.
Kevin Cook — Asked Senator Hart whether he wished to comment.
Kevin Cook — Voted no on the substitute motion.
Kevin Cook — Voted no on the original motion.
John Richards — John Richards, General Counsel for the Idaho Department of Lands, explains that recent cases have shown confusion over who represents the department and when the Attorney General, department counsel, or private counsel should be involved. He gives a fire cost recovery case as an example where opposing counsel was unsure whom to contact for settlement discussions, and says the legislation would clarify that enforcement matters run through the Land Board and Department of Lands. He then continues with another related federal case involving adverse possession and prescriptive easements on endowment land to further illustrate the department’s legal involvement.
Mr. Richards — Mr. Richards explains that he came on after Senate Bill 1292 and the 2024 amendments had already taken effect, and he notes that he has limited experience with other agencies that have general counsel, so he cannot speak to the statutory parameters of those roles.
Mr. Skinner — Mr. Skinner gives closing remarks on the bill, explaining that the Department of Health and Welfare and Industrial Commission attorneys are deputies of the Attorney General. He then says the issue has not been analyzed closely, but believes this is the most egregious example and that litigation would be inevitable if the bill moves forward.
Mr. Sheridan — Addressed in a question, likely a mistaken transcription for Mr. Skinner or another witness.