House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee
Key Moments
John Gannon — Called at the end of the vote sequence; no vote captured in this line.
John Gannon — Voted no in the amended substitute motion sequence.
John Gannon — Voted yes on the substitute motion to hold in committee.
John Gannon — Voted no on the original motion.
John Gannon — Moved to adopt Rule 11-1001-2501.
John Gannon — Made the motion to approve docket 11-102-2-2501 as presented.
John Gannon — Moved to approve temporary rule docket number 57-0101-2501 in its entirety.
John Gannon — Corrected the motion and restated approval of temporary rule docket number 57-0101-2501 in its entirety.
John Gannon — John Gannon asks about the source and originality of the committee’s artificial intelligence evidence rules. Nichols responds that the agency drafted the rules from scratch while consulting other sources. The chair then invites Gannon to follow up, and Gannon continues by focusing on the standard for admission, keeping the discussion centered on the AI evidence rules.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon asked about the use of AI in administrative hearings, arguing that such hearings are meant to be less formal than court proceedings and that many participants are self-represented. He used a personal example to suggest AI can be helpful and continued that point by saying people should not be discouraged from using it in that context.
Heather Scott — Representative Barbieri participates in a sustained discussion about a proposed House rule and the role of counsel. He argues that the matter is an internal House proceeding rather than a legal case, so counsel would not be helpful, and suggests the public nature of the existing rule is intended to pressure an accused member to resign before a public trial. He also responds to follow-up questions by reiterating that he does not believe committee counsel is necessary and is later thanked for his work on the proposal while being asked whether the rule could allow attorneys.
Heather Scott — Moved to send House Rule 27 to the floor with a due pass.
Heather Scott — Voted yes on the amended substitute motion.
Heather Scott — Voted yes on the amended substitute motion.
Heather Scott — Voted yes in the amended substitute motion sequence.
Heather Scott — Voted no on the substitute motion to hold in committee.
Heather Scott — Voted no on the substitute motion to hold in committee.
Heather Scott — Voted yes on the original motion to send the measure to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Heather Scott — Voted yes on the original motion.
Heather Scott — Asked whether the removed information would be placed elsewhere or remain in definitions.
Heather Scott — Questioned whether the rule changes would remove the reporting form or create a new one.
Heather Scott — Continues questioning about the form itself.
Heather Scott — Said the committee recently passed a bill on this topic and asked whether counties' form use would be removed.
Heather Scott — Asked for clarification on the fiscal impact and whether the rule had any fiscal impact greater than 10,000.
Heather Scott — Heather Scott questioned the proposed rule changes affecting psychosexual evaluators, asking why continuing education requirements were reduced from 40 to 30 hours and from 20 to 15 hours, and whether similar changes were being made nationwide or only in Idaho. The discussion later tied back to the same pending rule docket she had been questioning earlier in the hearing.
Heather Scott — Representative Heather Scott questioned several aspects of the proposed rule changes, starting with why the term "hearing officer" was replaced with "law judge" and expressing concern that the process was becoming too judicial and less accessible to ordinary citizens. She then raised concerns about AI use by self-represented litigants, asking how that could be considered misuse and emphasizing access issues for people without lawyers. Finally, she asked whether the agency had considered going to the legislature to seek a statutory or procedural change instead of embedding the policy directly in the rule.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Rubel raises concern that statements made in the proceeding could later be admissible in criminal proceedings, and follows up by asking whether, out of caution, counsel might still be advisable. He adds that even an innocent person would want an attorney present to avoid making damaging statements or inadvertently saying something harmful.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Ilana Rubel expressed support for the substitute motion while voicing concerns about the pressure placed on an accused member and the absence of counsel. She also referenced a prior high-profile ethics matter as context for her concerns.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Ilana Rubel participated in a sequence of roll-call votes on the same matter, voting no on the amended substitute motion, yes on the substitute motion to hold the bill in committee, and no on the original motion.
Bruce Skaug — Addressed by Representative Gannon in questioning about confidentiality and public discussion.
Bruce Skaug — Responded that the probable-cause language applies after a confidential trial and is part of deciding whether to make the matter public.
Bruce Skaug — Addressed by Representative Mathias in questioning about transparency and secrecy.
Bruce Skaug — Responded to the question about why the rule should change, citing later public spectacles.
Bruce Skaug — Responded that the right to counsel applies in criminal or judicial matters, not House procedure.
Bruce Skaug — Invited to discuss the matter privately and was thanked for extensive work on the proposal.
Bruce Skaug — Questioned the idea that there is already a trial before the matter becomes public and a second trial afterward.
Bruce Skaug — Chair or speaker appears to be calling on Representative Barbieri to respond to testimony; name is likely a transcription error for a member in context.
Ken Burgess — Ken Burgess was invited to testify and identified himself as representing the Idaho Press Club and its First Amendment Committee. He testified against the resolution, urging lawmakers to preserve public information and accountability and warning that secrecy or closed-door proceedings would undermine trust.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Hawkins asked to question Representative Gannon and raised concerns about how perjury would apply in an ethics committee setting, continuing the same line of inquiry across the overlapping mentions.
Dale Hawkins — Argued that sending the measure to the floor would let every member review it and questioned whether House ethics rules should imply counsel for accused members.
Dale Hawkins — Continued arguing that the Ethics Committee is not a court and supported sending the measure to the floor.
Dale Hawkins — Voted yes on the amended substitute motion.
Dale Hawkins — Voted no on the substitute motion to hold in committee.
Dale Hawkins — Voted yes on the original motion.
John Shirts — John Shirts is referenced in a discussion about legislative committee proceedings, including a point about perjury and the fact that legislative committees are specifically listed. The conversation then returns to Shirts’ view that the proceedings would still be discoverable even if they are private for the committee’s purposes.
John Shirts — Representative John Shirts participated in a series of roll-call votes on related motions, voting no on the amended substitute motion, yes on the substitute motion to hold the bill in committee, and no on the original motion.
John Shirts — Raises the question of whether the legislature authorized the agency to craft the AI rules.
John Shirts — Representative Shirts is identified as the sponsor of the substitute motion to approve the pending rule, with exceptions for items 11, 12, and 515.
Dan Garner — Was thanked by name at the end of the speaker's remarks.
Dan Garner — Stated he would support the substitute motion and emphasized the need for representation in ethics matters.