Joe Alfieri — Representative Alfieri is referenced as having made changes to the bill, and those changes are described as leading to the addition of carve-outs.
Joe Alfieri — Representative Joe Alfieri briefly spoke in support of the bill, emphasizing that it promotes openness and public review rather than a hidden selection process, and then was recorded as voting yes on the motion.
Doug O'Connowitz — Identified himself as being from Idaho State Senate, Legislative District 3, and presented Senate Bill 1300.
Elizabeth Bowen — Identified as the Idaho Legislature's independent and nonpartisan attorney who authored the analysis.
Heather Scott — Moves to send Senate Bill 1300 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Heather Scott — Used hypothetically as the person who might receive the appointment.
Heather Scott — Representative Heather Scott asked a question about hunting and trapping at Harriman State Park and then thanked the witness for clarifying that hunting is not allowed inside the park.
Heather Scott — Named as the next speaker after the prior remarks.
Heather Scott — Representative Scott first votes yes on the motion, then moves to hold HCR 35 subject to the call of the chair.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Questions the claim that Senate confirmation is a superior process, citing a tax commissioner appointment that has remained unresolved.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Representative Stephanie Mickelsen questions whether the bill would increase political influence over agency directors, asking if the governor’s office and the legislature would exert more control and whether the concern is with one director or all three agencies. The discussion continues as she raises concern that combining the agencies could make directors carry out the governor’s will, and she seeks clarification that if the bill passes, the board would not be able to fire the director and only the governor could do so.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Representative Stephanie Mickelsen objected to the bill, citing concerns about its impact on Harriman State Park and transportation issues, and argued that a seven-member board better balances urban and rural interests and protects lesser-known parts of the state. She concluded by saying she would vote no because the bill combines three agencies instead of addressing them separately, and her no vote was later recorded in the roll call.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Representative Mickelson is recorded as voting no on the roll call motion.
Tom Dixon — Begins public testimony and identifies himself as a grandson of Roland and Gladys Harriman.
Lori Hartog — Representative Mickelsen is referenced in the transcript; the name appears as 'Mickelsen,' which likely refers to Representative Mickelsen.
Judy Boyle — Judy Boyle thanks the witness and then presses on the issue of constitutional protections for hunting, fishing, and trapping in Idaho. She asks whether the Idaho Constitution already protects those rights and continues challenging the witness by referencing prior discussion in House Resources and suggesting inconsistency with constitutional principles.
Judy Boyle — Matt Borg said he listened to Representative Boyle's comments while serving on the committee.
Judy Boyle — Asked the senator what problem the bill is trying to solve and whether autonomous functioning is the issue.
Judy Boyle — Representative Boyle is referenced as part of the earlier committee discussion context.
Judy Boyle — Representative Judy Boyle is introduced as the next speaker and then states her support for the bill, explaining that it aligns the rules with other agencies and strengthens constitutional checks and balances.
Judy Boyle — Recorded as voting yes on the motion.
Mr. Dixon / Thomas Dixon — Is asked whether he discussed Harriman State Park with his grandparents and Governor Smiley.
Thomas Dixon — Thomas Dixon explains that he discussed the park gift with his grandparents and Governor Smiley, and that the family’s intent was to keep the property out of family ownership, preserve it as a state park run by professionals, and keep it free from politics. He adds that the family may explore legal options to preserve that original intent, and expresses concern that allowing the position to become a political appointment could lead to frequent changes and undermine professional management.
Mike Pohanka — Representative Mike Pohanka asks whether, if the bill passes, the family would pursue legal action to return the park to the family’s name. The discussion continues with the response that the family would look at all legal options, indicating they would consider ways to bring the park back into the family’s name.
Mike Pohanka — Recorded as voting no on the motion.
Mike Pohanka — Not mentioned in this section.
Mike Pohanka — Asked how long it takes for the department to know whether a technology choice was successful.
Mike Pohanka — Indicated he also had questions for the sponsor.
Mike Pohanka — Was invited to proceed with his question about line 41 of the bill.
Mike Pohanka — Votes yes on the motion; name appears as Polanka in the transcript.
Mike Pohanka — Votes yes on the roll call.
Mr. Harriman — Addressed by Representative Pohanka in a question about possible legal action.
Thomas — Is asked to explain the downside of a political appointee taking the position.
Anne Haws — Representative Anne Haws asks for clarification about the commissioners’ appointment terms and bipartisan composition, and then continues the point by clarifying that commissioners serve staggered four-year terms, are limited by party balance, and are confirmed by the Senate.
Anne Haws — Votes no on the roll call; name is misspelled as Haasz in the transcript.
Nick Fasciano — Nick Fasciano, executive director of the Idaho Wildlife Federation, testifies in opposition to the bill and argues that Fish and Game should remain as science-based and insulated from short-term politics as possible. He warns that political or regulatory changes can gradually threaten hunting and trapping rights over time, even where constitutional protections exist, and says current oversight is sufficient. The exchange then turns to questions about his prior testimony, with legislators noting that he had previously testified differently in another setting.
Michael Gibson — Michael Gibson, Idaho Policy Advisor for Trout Unlimited, introduces himself and continues his testimony in opposition to the bill, indicating support for the current commission-based system and state ownership of Harriman/Railroad Ranch.
Jeff Bitton — Jeff Bitton, president of the Idaho Outfitters Guide Association, testified in opposition to Senate Bill 1300. He explained that outfitters across the state have good relationships with the commissioners representing each district and support the current structure in which those seven commissioners choose the lead person for the fish and game department.
Charlie Lanch — Charlie Lanch, president of Friends of Harriman State Park, testified in opposition to Senate Bill 1300. He explained that the organization opposes the bill for several reasons, including concerns about honoring the Harriman family’s original intent for the park, disagreement with a legal opinion supporting the bill, and the value of the current independent board structure. He noted that similar proposals had been introduced and defeated in prior years, and urged the committee not to advance the bill in its current form. In the ensuing questions, he clarified that hunting is not allowed inside Harriman State Park, describing it as a wildlife refuge, while hunting is available in surrounding areas.
Allison Brown — Allison Brown, speaking for the Henry's Fork Wildlife Alliance and as an Idaho citizen, opposed Senate Bill 1300. She argued that Idahoans previously chose the current wildlife management structure through a citizen-led ballot initiative that passed overwhelmingly, and that this system has worked for decades by insulating wildlife management from election cycles, prioritizing science and expertise, and maintaining public trust.
Allison — The chair thanked Allison for her testimony and asked for questions.
Matt Borg — Matt Borg was introduced as the final signed-up witness testifying by telephone, then he identified himself as being with the Eastern Idaho Houndsman Association and the Idaho Sporting Dogs and began his testimony in support of the current system.
Matt — The chair told Matt his time had expired and thanked him for his testimony.
James Ruchti — Representative Haas is addressed throughout a short exchange in which he asks, "Is that the problem?" prompting an explanation from the senator. The discussion continues a few minutes later with Haas again being addressed, and a later reference to "Representative Nicholson" appears to be a transcription error for the same questioner, keeping the conversation within the same thread.
James Ruchti — Referenced as 'the good senator' whose argument about balance is being challenged.
James Ruchti — Addressed with a clarification about the role of the third-party procurement specialist and who pays them.
James Ruchti — Representative Haas asks for clarification on the bill’s terminology and legal effects, first questioning what 'direct vendor' means, then shifting to whether the statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty is four years and whether that limitation governs suits against third-party brokers. The discussion continues with questions about the fiduciary duty owed by the third-party broker and what constitutes a reasonable commission.
Monica Church — Representative Monica Church questioned whether the current agency governance structure is working effectively, suggesting the issue may be with boards rather than directors and asking whether some agencies, such as the Department of Water Resources, are exceptions. She then asked which agencies have both governor-appointed directors and governor-appointed board members, continuing her inquiry into how appointment structures affect policy implementation speed and effectiveness.
Monica Church — Representative Monica Church responded to concerns about the bill by arguing that it improperly combines three distinct agencies, focusing especially on the Parks Department and transportation provisions. She questioned the need for the bill, raised concerns about compensation-setting authority, political affiliation restrictions, and the difficulty of recruiting qualified directors, and warned that the bill could create future problems rather than solve an identified one. She also asked whether the bill would reduce public process, transparency, and oversight, and concluded by stating she would vote no; the vote record also shows her voting no on the motion.
Monica Church — Representative Church first asked follow-up questions about the bill’s fiscal impact, staffing implications, and whether the Office of Technology/Information Technology Services had been consulted. The discussion then shifted into her substantive concern that the bill would rely on third-party for-profit brokers and companies to evaluate technology firms without sufficient public or legislative oversight. The chair ultimately treated her remarks as debate in opposition to the motion.