While Simpson’s measure failed to make it out of committee last year, the vote was close at 11-8. That proposal was introduced in the House State Affairs Committee. This year Simpson routed it through the House Local Government Committee, where it voted without dissent or comment to introduce the bill.

Simpson’s new proposed moratorium is similar, but there are some significant differences. Instead of empowering the interim energy committee to look into the complaints and problems associated with wind energy and then make recommendations to the Legislature and update the state energy plan to reflect those, this version empowers the speaker of the House and the Senate pro tem to establish an eight-member task force—comprised of four House members and four Senate members—to meet and listen to stakeholder testimony, look at some of the issues and study wind-energy development in the state.

The task force would release a report by Jan. 10, 2014, to the Legislature and the governor.

In a call with IdahoReporter.com, Simpson said he believes the task force would recommend some changes regarding the industry and its influence in Idaho. “Once the task force spends the proper amount of time to investigate this industry, I think they’re probably going to recommend legislative changes with respect to taxation, with respect to energy policy, with respect to homeowner property rights and that kind of thing.”

During last year’s testimony, many homeowners testified that having the wind turbines built so close to their homes was impacting their property values and destroying the aesthetic value of their property as well.

Simpson believes there will be similar testimony this year. “I expect we will hear from homeowners again this time around, but at the same time we’re going to hear from wind-energy developers about the bill, and it’s possible we may hear from one of the utilities in the state as well.”

Another major theme during the debate over last year’s moratorium was the amount of incentives the wind energy developers receive for projects. Simpson says that the state can’t really do much about the federal incentives, but that something can be done regarding the state incentives. “There still is a state incentive, and that is the developers of wind farms don’t have to pay property taxes for those wind farms. They instead pay a production tax. And, that’s something that I expect the legislative task force would look at.”

The representative also said to expect some “staggering” numbers with regard to the subsidies the wind developers receive. “This isn’t just big money, this is huge money. The committee members will be amazed at the federal subsidies in particular that these companies are receiving on behalf of taxpayers. I mean, these are taxpayers who are paying for these generous subsidies and the end result is their utility rates are going up. It’s a terrible deal.”

Simpson expects the bill to be in committee for debate within a week or so.

In Idaho a debate rages about whether the state should set up its own exchange or let the federal government take on the task.

Two health policy experts say it really doesn’t matter who does the job.

John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute, a California-based think tank, and Christie Herrera of the American Legislative Exchange Council, told IdahoReporter.com Thursday that they believe there’s no difference between a state-based exchange and a federally run program.

The duo was in Boise Thursday to meet with lawmakers about exchanges. There trip was funded by the Idaho Freedom Foundation.

“The secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Washington, D.C., can dictate every regulation that your state health insurance exchange is going to be implementing,” Graham said. “So it’s an absolute myth that you can build some kind of firebreak or firewall or barrier. It’s an absolute myth.”

Graham believes that if the U.S. Supreme Court decides in June that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the law from which exchanges are derived, is constitutional, then federal rules and regulations take pre-eminence over anything the state wants to put into place.

“There’s no way your local authorities … is going to have any influence over the rules,” Graham warned. “Obamacare will be supreme and all the money is going to come from Washington, D.C., and power follows money.”

Herrera echoed Graham’s notion, saying that she also feels there’s no difference between a state and federal exchange. “We know that HHS has to approve every detail of the exchange,” Herrera said. “There are several factors that have come out that show there’s no such as a state exchange, only a federal exchange that’s administered and paid for by the federal government.”

But, Herrera says there’s also a misconception that the federal government will automatically implement an exchange if the state doesn’t. She says that technical provisions in the PPACA don’t allow the federal government to spend money on building state exchanges.

Herrera also says that there may not be authorization for insurance subsidies to flow through federally built exchanges.

There is also skepticism about the deadlines created by HHS for exchange creation. The first benchmark, set for Jan. 1, 2013, says exchanges must be certified by that date, though there are few details as to what certification entails.

Others believe exchanges must be operational by Oct. 1, 2013. There is also talk, however, that states slow to implement exchanges might be OK creating them by Jan. 1, 2015.

“Over the past six months, HHS has made a number of statements that show their deadlines really aren’t deadlines at all,” Herrera warned. “These HHS deadlines are moving targets.”

Video for the series by Mitch Coffman, IdahoReporter.com. 

A pair of health policy experts Thursday talked about state and federal health exchanges and they have a single message for Idaho lawmakers: Give the money back and wait.

John Graham, health care studies director for the Pacific Research Institute, a California-based think tank, and Christie Herrera, with the American Legislative Exchange Council, held meetings with lawmakers Thursday to urge them to hold off on any decisions about a state-based health exchange. Graham and Herrera were sponsored toBoise by the Idaho Freedom Foundation.

Graham told IdahoReporter.com he believes Gov. Butch Otter should return the $20.9 million in federal money he applied for to set up the exchange. Otter says he asked for the money only to keep lawmakers’ options open relating to creating an exchange, but Graham says there’s really one purpose for the funds.

“This grant has only one purpose, which is to submit to the Obamacare federal health law,” Graham said. “The immediate action is Gov. Otter needs to send back the $20 million grant he received from theUnited Statessecretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius.”

Lawmakers should hold off on exchange creation, Graham suggested, keeping the state’s standing in its court case against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). “It really weakens your case,” Graham told lawmakers about implementing exchanges, which are part of the PPACA.

Herrera agreed, telling lawmakers the court case is the state’s best chance to stop the PPACA from being implemented. “It’s going to harm the lawsuit,” she told lawmakers about exchange creation.

If the U.S. Supreme Court decides the PPACA is constitutional, Graham feels Idaho legislators should also wait until after the 2012 election, which could mean a change in the presidency. “We might get a president who will sign a simple repeal bill and we won’t have to worry about any of this stuff,” Graham said.

If an exchange, either state or federally based, is eventually implemented, Herrera says it will do little to improve health care and might make purchasing coverage more difficult. “All of the problems that are in the current health exchange market will end up in the exchange,” she warned.

While the initial subsidies for the program, more than $500 billion through 2020, will come from the federal government, Herrera says the state will bear the burden of paying for exchange operation and technical support. That, she believes, could lead to the state devoting loads of money to the exchange and less to Medicaid, public schools or other government program.

“Once the federal money runs out, you’ve created this bureaucracy, they’re not going to get rid of it because of politics, and so, something is going to have to give,” Herrera said. “It’s going to be tax increases or service cuts; you can’t have it all.”

Coming Friday: Graham and Herrera talk about how exchanges will affect the marketplace and why they won’t reduce health care costs. Video for the series by Mitch Coffman, IdahoReporter.com.

Note: IdahoReporter.com is published by the Idaho Freedom Foundation.

According to data recorded by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare and the U.S. Census Bureau,CanyonCountyis leading the state in food stamp use among its residents. In December, 44,286 of the county’s 188,923 residents used food stamps, for a rate of 23.4 percent.

Next highest by percent is Payette County, where 4,334 of the county’s 22,623 residents are using food stamps, for a rate of 19.2. Following closely is Lewis County, with a rate of 19.1 percent.

Of the state’s urban areas, Canyon County is leading in food stamp rates, but its neighbor to the east, Ada County, represents a greater share of the statewide total of usage. Some 49,933 Ada County residents are using food stamps, representing 21 percent of the statewide total of 237,364. Canyon County’s figure represents 18.7 percent of the state’s total figure.

At 12.7 percent of residents on food stamps,Ada County has one of the lower usage rates amongIdaho’s more urban counties. Twin Falls has 17.7 percent on the program, Bonneville has 16.7 percent and Kootenai has 15.6 percent of residents on food stamps.

Teton County in eastern Idahohas the lowest rate in the state, with 6.6 percent of residents on food stamps. Custer Countyis the second-lowest with 6.8 percent.

Rep. Gayle Batt, R-Wilder, said it’s “frustrating” to know that one-fourth of her county’s residents are using federal food aid. Batt said that she would like the Department of Health and Welfare, which administers the program, to see if there is any fraud in Canyon County, though she admits that’s likely a small portion of the total disbursement of food stamp dollars.

She also said that she’d like to tighten food stamp eligibility guidelines, but those are set by the federal government.

Maybe, Batt said, there are some people using food stamps as a long-term solution for groceries, which is not the intent of the safety net program.  She doesn’t mind allowing access to food aid to residents in need, but wonders if some are really in need. “There is no question that there are those who take advantage of the program,” she said.

Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Iona, whose legislative district includes Teton County, told IdahoReporter.com Monday the low usage rate in that area comes down to income, demographics and ideology.

“One part of the population is agricultural people, which is why you wouldn’t find them on the food stamp rolls,” Loertscher said. Residents with high-end homes who earn too much to need federal food support are seen by the representative as a segment also not likely to show up on food stamp lists.

But it also comes down to personal beliefs about the proper role of government. “They’ve very self-reliant people,” Loertscher said. “Even if some of them qualify for food stamps, they’re not going to be on them.”

If the coalition behind Lake pushes the bill, the group will ask for a hike of $1.25 per pack. Idaho’s tax on cigarettes is the eighth lowest in the nation at 57 cents per pack and the lowest in the Inland Northwest.  The nationwide average sits at $1.45 per pack in state taxes.

If the tax is successfully raised, it would put Idaho at $1.82 per pack, good for 15^th-highest in the country.

Lake told IdahoReporter.com Monday that is he serving as an “errand boy” for ACS and will bring the bill if the group asks him to do so. The potential legislation comes with a dual purpose: to reduce youth smoking rates and pay for some of the societal costs of tobacco use.

“Smokers don’t pay anywhere near the cost of their tobacco use,” Lake said, adding that instead of a tax hike, the potential legislation could instead be viewed as a user fee.

Heidi Low, government relations director for ACS, said that evidence in other states shows that youth smoking takes a large hit when taxes are hiked. (See the coalition’s data sheet on the cigarette tax hike here.)

It’s estimated that use of cigarettes and other forms of tobacco cost Idaho’s Medicaid at least $83 million annually. Overall, analysts say tobacco use costs Idahoans as much as $319 million in health-related costs each year.

Idaho could raise more than $50 million in new money annually if the plan successfully makes its way through the Legislature. Lake says there is no definite plan for spending the money, but says it won’t go to the general fund because some lawmakers don’t want the government to have any more money than is absolutely necessary. “They want to squeeze down government and the only way they can do it is by starving it,” Lake said.

Low said that she would like to see the money primarily dedicated to smoking cessation and health care-related programs.

How likely is it that tax hike advocates get the plan through both chambers of the Statehouse and onto the governor’s desk in 2012, which is an election year? “It’s a difficult challenge,” Lake warned, but noted that the coalition supporting the plan has some clout with legislators. “They also vote and have some political muscle.”

Low wouldn’t comment on the politics of the matter, but said that there is support for the tax increase. “We as a coalition know this is good for Idaho and its youth,” Low explained.

But a hike in the tax could mean low-income Idahoans pay more for their cigarettes. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., notes that poor or low income people make up at least half the total smokers and would bear a significant share of the cost of a tax hike. “A tobacco tax disproportionately burdens low-income Americans,” the group wrote in a 2007 editorial.

Lake says he’s unsure of when the group might decide if it wants to bring the legislation. “It’s their decision, not mine,” he explained. Low said the group will continue working with lawmakers and decide at some point in the future.

The Blackfoot Republican was poised to bring the bill earlier this year, but eventually declined because he felt it wouldn’t have enough votes to make it out of his own committee.

The state could, if it wanted, even act as a landlord for homes or condos.

This provision is stipulated in a 2002 contract between the Idaho Land Board and Jean Pierre Boespflug, the managing director of what was then known as Westrock and Associates.  The lease, made official on June 11, 2002, was originally a 10-year agreement, but has since been extended 25 more years.  It will expire, according to the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL), in 2026.

According to Article I.B.2 of the lease, the state has the ability to construct residential housing units if it wishes. “Lessor (the Land Board) shall have the right to develop single family or multi-family residential units on certain acreage within the lease premises at any time during the term of this lease, including extensions …” says the agreement.

Bob Brammer, assistant director of the minerals and range division at IDL, says the Land Board has about 60 acres on which it can build, property that sits near the golf course. The language in the contract, Brammer explained, gives the state the ability to develop prime state land in order to generate more money for the fund, which gives a share of its proceeds to public schools.

Simply because the language exists, however, doesn’t mean the state has done anything with the land.  Brammer told IdahoReporter.com Wednesday that his department hasn’t constructed anything on the property and hasn’t made plans to do so.

But, if development of the Tamarack Resort as a whole moves forward, the state does have options if it wants to build residential units on the property.  Brammer said his department could build housing units directly, though that scenario is unlikely. The department could also develop the land and then simply sell properties.

It’s also possible the department could bring in a contractor to build housing units and then act essentially as a landlord for the properties.  If that scenario occurred, the properties would be managed by the department’s commercial property manager.

That doesn’t sound swell to former state lawmaker Bob Forrey, who monitors Land Board policies and transactions.  Forrey said the state should completely avoid getting into the business of building homes because it doesn’t have the right to do so.  “There is nothing in the Idaho Constitution that gives them the authority to build homes,” Forrey explained.

The former Republican lawmaker also contended that the Idaho Constitution prohibits making investments in which the return is not guaranteed.  He says residential properties at Tamarack would not bring in guaranteed money.

Tamarack’s story is one of great expectations with little fulfillment of dreams. The resort opened with limited availability in 2003 and expanded operations in the years following. President George W. Bush stayed at the resort in 2005 and pro tennis star Andre Agassi once had an agreement to build a luxury hotel, an agreement terminated in 2008. Westrock, which morphed into Tamarack, declared bankruptcy in early 2008.

The Tamarack Municipal Association now operates five of the seven ski lifts in the winter. The two inactive lifts are the subject of lawsuit filed by Bank of America in an attempt to recoup some resort investment losses.

The instability of the situation at the resort makes Forrey nervous.  “The risk is just out of bounds,” he said of the possibility of the state building homes at Tamarack.  “I think it’s totally wrong.  It doesn’t sound like good government to me.”

Even with all the turmoil, the agreement is still valid, though Brammer did not specify who is serving as the lessee.

Even as the presidents asked lawmakers for additional money, the majority of foundations created to advance educational efforts at their schools held millions of dollars in investments and reserves.  The money, typically privately-donated, has sat in reserve while schools across the Idaho have made cuts to programs, forced by the reductions in state money to colleges and universities. Most of the foundation money, say the schools, is donated for dedicated projects and programs and, therefore, cannot always be used to supplement state budget cuts.

Boise State University Foundation, Inc.

The foundation and the university are in the middle of campaign called “Destination Distinction,” a project spearheaded by school president Bob Kustra that the effort’s website promises “will transform Boise State into a metropolitan research university of distinction, providing unparalleled opportunities for students, solving problems locally, nationally and globally and improving the quality of life for all Idahoans.”

With the effort it appears Boise State may have the only foundation planning to provide money where state budget cuts have left holes.  The goals of the “Destination Distinction” state that the foundation will push for money for a business building, several masters’ programs, and an expansion of the football stadium.  Also included, however, is an objective of $20 million for “university-wide program support.”

According to BSU spokesman Frank Zang, “Destination Distinction” campaign has surpassed its $175 million goal.

According to its June 30, 2010, IRS filing, the Boise State University Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)3 charitable organization, held more than $123 million in reserve.  Between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010, the foundation, which says its purpose is to “raise funds for Boise State University’s academic programs,” took in about $20 million.  During that same time span, it spent about $16 million in grants, salaries, and other expenses.

Zang noted that foundation grants, donations, and gifts comprised $17.6 million of the school’s $331 million budget in fiscal year 2011.

University of Idaho Foundation, Inc.

According to its 2010 IRS filing, the University of Idaho Foundation has even more money than the Boise State University foundation.  The Idaho filing shows that as of June 30, 2010, the foundation holds more than $129 million in funds.  Between July 2009 and June 20110, the foundation brought in more than $29 million and spent $18.5 million.

Jeff Stoddard, chair of the foundation, explained that while his entity is tasked with supporting the school, most of the money in the fund is allocated to specific programs, departments, and scholarships and cannot be used to day-to-day operating expenses.

There are some donors, Stoddard noted, that do give money without designating a purpose for the dollars, but he says they are few and far between.

Have the school and the foundation discussed teaming up for a campaign to prop up programs hurt by state budget cuts? Stoddard says it hasn’t happened because most donors prefer giving to a specific cause of interest.  “That isn’t a successful strategy,” he said of asking donors for money for operating expenses.  “If we had donors interested in that, we would respond.”

Lewis-Clark State College Foundation, Inc.

The foundation with the smallest treasure chest supports Lewis-Clark State College (LCSC) in Lewiston.  According to its 2010 report, the foundation is sitting on $4.3 million.  Between July 2009 and June 2010, the foundation brought in $859,156 and spent $593,396.

Bert Sahlberg, spokesman for LCSC, said that the foundation is set up to help the school.  “The Foundation is supposed to aid the school in good times and bad,” Salhberg wrote in an e-mail. “As state funding decreases, it is important that fundraising through the foundation can backfill what funding gets cut as well as continue to help students and the college any way it can.”

Even with that goal in mind, Salhberg notes that there has been no targeted work to help the college deal with state funding reductions.  “But as far as specific fundraising goals/drives, we do not have anything specific to make up for budget cuts,” he explained.

Like the University of Idaho Foundation, the LCSC Foundation is bound by what it takes in from donors.  “Most people who donate have specific areas in mind, whether it is athletics, scholarships, or helping the nursing division buy new equipment, for example,” Sahlberg concluded.

Idaho State University Foundation, Inc.

The foundation that supports Idaho State University in Pocatello is much smaller than its counterparts.  The foundation’s 2009 filing – the most current version available – shows that it holds $33.9 million.  It brought in $9.3 million between July 2008 and June 2009 and spent $7.3 million in that same time span.

A request for comment on the objectives of the foundation has gone unfulfilled.

College of Southern Idaho Foundation, Inc.

The College of Southern Idaho Foundation has the deepest pockets of the three community colleges in Gem State.  According to its 2010 IRS filing, the foundation has more than $25.7 million in the bank.  Between July 2009 and June 2010, the foundation brought in $3.7 million in contributions and investment income.  During that same time span, the foundation spent about $1.6 million.

Curtis Eaton, head of the foundation, said that everything his entity does “is for the benefit of CSI.”  The foundation, however, doesn’t provide any direct support to school programs, but instead gives scholarships to students.  Next year, Eaton said, the foundation plans $1.25 million in scholarship aid to students.

The CSI foundation does not provide general fund support to the school, but does, Eaton believes, aids the school by handing out the scholarships.  “We aid the school by attracting students,” he said.

But, Eaton points out, there is one major looming difference between community colleges and universities; community colleges are taxing districts that have the power to raise taxes when state budget times are tough.  “We already get that (general support) funding through the tax base,” Eaton explained.   “Taxes are raised within the district to support the college.”

That means that the foundation doesn’t need to go to private donors to ask for money to shore up school programs.  “That’s not the mission of the foundation,” Eaton concluded.

North Idaho College Foundation, Inc.

The North Idaho College Foundation has $13.4 million in its coffers.  Between July 2009 and June 2010, the foundation generated $4.1 million in revenue and spent $913,868 on scholarships and other grants.

This foundation is also aiding school expansion by purchasing property adjacent to the campus and leasing it to the school, though the transaction is the subject of a legal challenge.  According to the documentation, the foundation has a bond totaling $6 million for the property, though that only covers a portion of the $10 million price tag for the land.

The foundation director was unable to comment for this article.

College of Western Idaho

The College of Western Idaho in Nampa has a foundation but no financial reports for it have been made available.  The foundation was founded in 2010 and will report its finances at the end of 2011.

Creating the most interest was a decision to award some state employees a performance bonus at a time when budget cutbacks and revenue shortfalls are the rules of the day in the state.

Also coming under fire is a provision in Idaho law allowing state legislators to combine their time in the Legislature and any time as a state department head to count for retirement benefits. The result is a retirement package much higher than they would have received as legislators. It is sometimes called retirement inflation, or retirement spiking.

“How do I feel about giving bonuses and raises during these times,” Gov. Butch Otter replied to a question about bonuses. “I don’t feel very good about it.” But, he adds, he understands the rationale for them.

As the state’s chief executive, the governor has domain over the executive department and one agency that granted bonuses, the Department of Finance. The decision to grant bonuses, he said, was necessary to retain specially trained employees. “Since the federal government has taken over so much of the finance industry nationally, they’re coming in and hiring our auditors away from us. So they’re going right into our state finance department and they’re finding auditors that audit banks and other financial institutions in the state and they’re saying, ‘We’ll pay you more, we’ve got a better health package, we’ve got better retirement packages,’ or whatever they may have, and so I fully understand those (bonuses),” said the governor. “It costs us probably $8,000 to $10,000 to educate them, to train them up to do that job. Because if they’re auditing a bank, you have to be pretty sophisticated and pretty knowledgeable in order to audit that bank.”

The governor said bonuses paid to University Idaho employees, for example, would be similar to the reasoning for the money that was awarded to finance department personnel. “In order to hold on to these people at the University of Idaho, to compete with somebody who wants to hire them away, we want to give them a retention bonus.”

One bonus category that the governor does not count as a bonus but, rather, something owed to the employees is money awarded to the Idaho State Appellate Public Defender’s Office.

The agency, said the governor, “was the only non-dedicated fund agency that received a ‘bonus.’ Two years ago we went on furlough days and said you’re going to take furlough days because we’ve got to cut down the cost of the agencies and subsequently they missed their calculation and over-furloughed. And so what happened was in order to make up (for the loss of income due to the miscalculation) … here’s the money, the $19,000 that we over-adjusted for furlough days. The main thing is, in many cases they took furlough days legitimately, but they actually worked those days because of their workload. The public defender agency is one that you couldn’t hire a lawyer for what we pay the public defenders. Anyway the 21 bonuses of $19,000 were furlough rebates.”

The governor also noted that he has no authority to dictate to self-governing agencies what they can do in terms of bonuses, citing veterinarians, accountants and pharmacists as belonging to such boards and it is their money to distribute as they fit. “Their boards actually decide who they’re going to give a bonus to. I don’t decide that,” he said.

As for retirement spiking, the governor said he would be willing to look at a “diminished rule of 90.” For instance and hypothetically, he said by way of explanation, “A legislator makes $25,000 to $30,000 a year, and then they get an $80,000 a year job. I would be willing to say fractionalize that. That, if they work in that agency for eight years then maybe they don’t get 60 percent of the rule of 90. But maybe they get 40 percent of the rule of 90.”

But, he said, there is value in having a former state legislator direct a department or work in one. “Legislators or former legislators are such a fertile ground for agency heads or working in certain agencies because if they served on that committee then they’re already familiar with everything in that committee and then you have a ready-made policymaker. You’ve got a ready-made person that already understands it. I fully understand the anxiety that it causes in people, but I would hate to see them make it so onerous that the person just wouldn’t take that job. I’d like to have those people available for leadership positions.”

—

Note: Gov. Otter will address a number of issues this week on IdahoReporter.com. The Otter series:

Monday – Land Board involvement in purchasing and operating commercial properties in competition with the private sector.

Tuesday – The education reforms passed in 2011 by the Legislature and signed by the governor.

Wednesday – Are health care exchanges a good idea for the state of Idaho?

Thursday – Were the bonuses recently announced for some state employees wise given the state’s budget challenges? Is it proper for state lawmakers as permitted under the Idaho retirement system to count their time in the Legislature and any time as a state department head for retirement benefits?

Friday – What is the future and role of the Office of Drug Policy? What are the governor’s plans for 2014 when his second term will end? The governor has spent time in the private sector and has held a number of public sector, elected positions. What has he learned from those?

Heath insurance exchanges are a relatively new term to most citizens so there is little understanding of them compared to programs such as Social Security or Medicare. What is a health care exchange?

The basic concept of an exchange is to provide health care coverage for anyone who wants it by bringing together private health insurance companies and a government health insurance option to compete for coverage for individuals and small businesses. Among the required provisions is one mandating that pre-existing conditions cannot be excluded from coverage. The goal of an exchange, according to a working paper from the Obama administration, is that competition for coverage will bring down the cost of health care, plus smaller companies can be grouped together to receive coverage and rates similar to those available to larger companies.

Idaho and other states’ support of a health insurance exchange is questioned by the Cato Institute, which describes itself as a “nonpartisan, nonprofit, tax-exempt educational foundation.” It argues that when a state authorizes an exchange it helps the Obama administration “shield the law (Obamacare) from Congress, the courts and the American people” by lending credibility to the idea of public sector involvement in health care. In addition, says Cato, why not wait on health care exchanges for an expected U. S. Supreme Court decision on the constitutional challenges to Obamacare? Cato believes such a ruling will likely come in the summer of 2012.  If the high court upholds the law, states would have plenty of time to craft and submit an exchange plan to Washington by the 2013 deadline. If the law is voided, states are free to handle health care issues as they please, not as mandated by the federal government.

The governor sees no contradiction in opposing Obamacare, yet favoring health care exchanges. He believes the issue is too important not to be addressed by the state, too vital for the state not to have an option crafted in Idaho. “There is a big difference,” he says, between Obamacare and a state health insurance exchange. He says the Idaho exchange was crafted in Idaho to address needs as identified by Idahoans, not put together by bureaucrats in Washington. “That was one of the first things that came up when we started working on our health care reform and our health care needs in Idaho in ’07. I called a bunch of folks from all aspects of the health care industry together and said, ‘OK, what should health care in Idaho look like?’ The whole idea of insurance exchanges, which is providing insurance packages, providing a certain level of co-pay, providing a certain level of deductible, all of those things. We’ve been working on that since ’07. It was just co-opted into the Obamacare bill.”

A criticism of public sector care programs is that they may limit patient choices in treatment and they may interfere with the physician/patient relationship. Not so with the kind of plan he supports, says the governor.

“We’ve been working on health homes, medical homes, where you establish a relationship with one doctor so they know all of your medical background for your family and everything else so that they know what to look for depending on what your father had, or your mother had, what kind of health problem you ever develop,” he says. “They know what to watch for, so they say, “Hey, you want to be careful about this. If there’s diabetes, OK watch your sugar intake, watch the kind of food that you eat,’ and those sort of things. We’ve been working on that.”

Idaho was ahead of the curve in supporting health care exchanges, says the governor, citing, for example, his support of keeping children on a family insurance plan until they were 23. “All Obamacare did is say we’re going to make it 26. So there were a lot of things that we were doing but for the most part they were all voluntary. We weren’t compelling people to do anything.”

—

Note: Gov. Otter will address a number of issues this week on IdahoReporter.com. The Otter series:

Monday – Land Board involvement in purchasing and operating commercial properties in competition with the private sector.

Tuesday – The education reforms passed in 2011 by the Legislature and signed by the governor.

Wednesday – Are health care exchanges a good idea for the state of Idaho?

Thursday – Were the bonuses recently announced for some state employees wise given the state’s budget challenges? Is it proper for state lawmakers as permitted under the Idaho retirement system to count their time in the Legislature and any time as a state department head for retirement benefits?

Friday – What is the future and role of the Office of Drug Policy? What are the governor’s plans for 2014 when his second term will end? The governor has spent time in the private sector and has held a number of public sector, elected positions. What has he learned from those.

The bills in summary:

- S1108 phases out tenure and replaces it with one- or two-year contracts. It is intended to give local school boards more decision-making power and it limits collective bargaining.

- S1110 is a pay-for-performance measure. The idea is to reward teachers and school districts based on the academic growth the students within those districts are showing. Rewards can be given at the local level by individual districts and teachers may also be rewarded for taking “leadership roles” such as grant writing, mentoring, creating curriculum, and obtaining some advanced teaching certification.

- S1113 is designed to bring Idaho’s schools into the modern world. By introducing technology into the classroom, laptop access for some students and allowing students to take online classes, proponents of the bill argue that students are able to learn using the technology that is now part of the everyday world, computers.

When something is changed, especially if it’s a drastic change, there is going to be controversy and opposition, said Gov. Butch Otter, who supported the education bills during the legislative session, and still supports them despite opponents of the bills gathering enough signatures to put them on the ballot for voter approval in November 2012. A recall effort against Luna did not realize enough signatures, but it was another sign that the bills stirred up a lot of emotion.

The governor said the opposition to the education reforms “didn’t surprise me. It’s something new so it didn’t surprise me. I’m going to work to make sure we keep those three bills, those three reform bills in place. The high tech bill, the negotiations, the transparency. We’ve just gone in the last two months through a lot of the school boards around the state, and the 115 school districts that have negotiated the new contract, that have put in the new vendors, that have negotiated the contracts they need for the next year. And, not just with school teachers and other vendors. They’ve all reported back how smoothly they went because they were transparent, because the media could come in and sit down and if it was a one- or a two- or a three-day process or longer, they were prepared to report on it.”

There will be ancillary benefits to the reforms, believes the governor. He feels school districts will now take a look at options that will be taxpayer-friendly. “I think all of those things (reforms) are big pluses for the taxpayers and big pluses for the schools and the children themselves. Our focus is on the advancement of the students and how well they’re doing in school and that’s where it should be. But, we fully recognize that 85 percent of our costs are personnel costs, whether it’s the superintendents themselves or the teachers or the administration costs, all of those kinds of things. I think one of things that we’re going to find, which is a plus as far as I’m concerned, is we’re going to see more and more school districts come together and say, ‘Why do you have a payroll system, and we have a payroll system too? You’ve got the better equipment, you’ve got the capability. Why don’t you also use our payroll?’ So we won’t have to have a payroll system in this district, we can combine the two and have one payroll system, one accounting system.”

He feels possible changes could find their way from administrative functions like payroll and accounting right up to the management of the districts. He envisions that “school districts can come together and say, “You know, for the amount of students we have and distance that we have to travel, we could have one superintendent over the two school districts.’ That’s now management back in the hands of the patrons.”

The big test, of course, comes in November 2012 when the three education referendums go before the voters in the general election. It should be a good turnout with national, state and legislative offices on the ballot in addition to the education reform issues.

The governor is confident the reforms will survive the vote. “I think as the citizens of Idaho, who are going to go vote on those reform bills in 17 months, are going to see more pluses than all the minuses that they’ve heard about.”

—

Note: Gov. Otter will address a number of issues this week on IdahoReporter.com. The Otter series:

Monday – Land Board involvement in purchasing and operating commercial properties in competition with the private sector.

Tuesday – The education reforms passed in 2011 by the Legislature and signed by the governor.

Wednesday – Are health care exchanges a good idea for the state of Idaho?

Thursday – Were the bonuses recently announced for some state employees wise given the state’s budget challenges? Is it proper for state lawmakers as permitted under the Idaho retirement system to count their time in the Legislature and any time as a state department head for retirement benefits?

Friday – What is the future and role of the Office of Drug Policy? What are the governor’s plans for 2014 when his second term will end? The governor has spent time in the private sector and has held a number of public sector, elected positions. What has he learned from those?