Harwood’s plan was to have it sent to print but not go any further, thus putting it up on the Legislature’s website in hopes that other states could access it and begin a process of coming together to fight the EPA.

Rep. Pete Nielsen, R-Mountain Home, proposed a motion to send the bill to print, citing the 10^th Amendment and the commerce clause within it. This led to some harsh words from Rep. Eric Anderson,R-Priest Lake. Anderson felt that the bill was flawed and that it would reflect badly on the legislative body and him personally. He asked that the committee chairman, Rep. Dell Raybould, R-Rexburg, be careful of the precedent and image to the committee if such legislation is approved.

Said Anderson, “We’re putting our name on something that is admittedly a wrong piece of legislation … This is a precedent, Mr. Chairman, that I think is so full of flaws. This particular piece of legislation … it gives us a conversation piece, but it sets a precedent here that we, I have never been involved with in my life. Any other committee we would be dissecting this, we would be taking this and saying ‘well you know on page 2, line 35 this is impossible to do.’ At the very least this would go to the amending order.”

Anderson believes that to just send a bill to print to bring up discussion is not the right way to do things especially, in his eyes, if the legislation is flawed. “My thoughts, to the sponsor, would be if you want something to go on the Internet let’s make sure that it is much more defined than this. This is nullification junior if all we’re doing is having a statement here that we’re unhappy with federal law. No one is happy with certain elements of federal law and federal dominion,” said Anderson. “I understand that, I get that. I don’t think anybody on this committee doesn’t have some frustration with that.”

The representative found it personally offensive to link his name to this kind of legislation. “I am not going to do a shotgun blast with my name on it out to the Internet that I agreed with this piece of legislation. I won’t do it. To me, this defines who I am, and who I am, by the maker of the motion, is somebody that doesn’t believe in the 10th Amendment, by somebody’s opinion, then so be it. I personally do believe in the 10th Amendment. But, I believe there’s a way to get there. I believe it needs to be judicial, it needs to be properly done. Because all we are doing is yelling in the wind and I don’t care if 12 other states can start to have a discourse or whatever.”

Anderson continued, “I can’t put my name on this. This defines me and I disagree with so much of how this is presented. This is a rejection of federal law. I can’t go there. I will not support the motion to print the way this is today, and I think it does set a precedent, Mr. Chairman, that we’re just going to print whatever just to get some dialogue going.”

Harwood believes that since the EPA was formed under an executive order by President Richard Nixon, it should only apply to federal lands, not the state ofIdaho. Instead, Harwood believes that Idaho’s Department of Environmental Quality should be in charge of setting and maintaining environmental regulations within the state, including regulations dealing with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act—both federal regulations.

Harwood also echoed comments he made to IdahoReporter.com in 2011, when he said that we (the state and its citizens) need to get back to following the Constitution and that this bill would be a step in the right direction, at least to get the conversation started.

A substitute motion was made to send the bill back to its sponsor, which Anderson supported. Once it passed, Anderson had more to say about the committee and the proceedings thus far this session. “I just would like to make this point to you, Mr. Chairman, that historically this has been my favorite committee and I have seen a lot of good things happen on this committee. This year has been a bit peculiar to me. I am not going to attend this committee and have a civics lesson every time I come here about my misunderstanding of the 10th Amendment and somebody else’s more appropriate understanding. I think it’s out of order …”

The bill, brought by Rep. Dennis Lake, R-Blackfoot, will come forward again in the committee in the next week or two.

The crux of the debate rested on whether or not legislators are full- or part-time employees. Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, told members of the committee he would be “offended” if he is regarded as a part-time worker while serving in the Legislature. He believes that paring down pensions would mean fewer people would be willing to serve in Boise for three months each year.

“This is going to lead down a road where the retired and wealthy can serve in the Legislature and the rest can’t,” said Anderson.

Rep. Erik Simpson, R-Idaho Falls, echoed Anderson’s feelings. “Quite frankly, it costs me a lot of money to be here,” Simpson said, explaining that he loses wages by serving in the Capitol.

The issue stalled, however, when Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, queried the committee how legislators would accrue Public Employee Retirement System (PERSI) credit going forward and how past service would be handled. Lake was forced to leave the hearing to attend another committee meeting and wasn’t able to answer Luker’s questions.

As law stands, PERSI calculates pension benefits based on an employee’s highest consecutive 42 months of pay, but also takes into account a worker’s total span of service.

That means lawmakers can log many years in the Legislature at a pay rate of about $16,000, then take a high-paying state job and have their legislative time count at the increased wages.

Lake’s bill would end pension-spiking by averaging out wages rates over a legislator’s full career, instead of basing payouts on just the highest 42 months. If it’s eventually cleared, the measure would take effect July 1, 2012.

There are several examples of pension-spiking in the Idaho Legislature’s immediate past. Late last year, former Sen. Joe Stegner, R-Lewiston, took a job as the head lobbyist for the University of Idaho, a post paying $124,000 annually.

If Stegner had simply retired at the end of 2012—his 14^th year in the Legislature—he would receive a pension payout of about $373 per month, or $4,480 annually. If Stegner stays with the school 42 months at his starting wage, his pension payout will increase to approximately $3,410 a month, or $40,920 annually.

Former Rep. Debbie Field, R-Boise, retired as head of the Office of Drug Policy last year, just 43 months after being appointed to the job by Gov. Butch Otter. With her $70,000-a-year salary counting in her pension calculation, Field is set to bring in about $23,052 annually. If she had not been appointed to the post after losing her House election in 2006, her pension would be approximately $5,316 a year.

Former Senate Pro Tem Bob Geddes, R-Soda Springs, resigned during the 2011 legislative session to take a commissioner spot at the Idaho State Tax Commission, a job paying more than $85,000 annually. If Geddes stays with the commission at least 42 months, his pension will jump more than $2,500 each month or $30,000 each year.

The House State Affairs Committee unanimously approved a bill Thursday doing just that, with the legislation’s sponsor, Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Iona, telling committee members that the idea would allow lawmakers time to deal with legislative work before beginning campaigns.

“There’s no longer a need for a May primary,” Loertscher explained. GOP officials created their caucus and scheduled it for early March hoping to attract presidential candidates’ attention to the state. Without presidential hopefuls on the ballot in May, Loertscher feels there’s just no reason to hold the contest then.

Idaho Democrats already held its own caucus prior to the GOP’s switch.

If approved, the primary election in even-numbered years would come on the first Tuesday in August after the first Monday in the same month. This year, that date would be Aug. 7.

Also helping this push is the Idaho Supreme Court’s invalidation of the new legislative map redistricting commissioners authored last year. The commission must soon be reconvened to build a new plan, though no one is sure how long that might take.

Some officials in the state, including county clerks, are worried the commission’s work could push up against filing deadlines, set to begin Feb. 15. Loertscher said the later primary would give clerks more time to prepare ballots, though the timing isn’t perfect. “They’re (clerks) not wild about it because it falls within their budget time,” he said, adding that he believes clerks have plenty of time to prepare their yearly spending and revenue plans.

There are concerns over the proposed plan, however. Secretary of State Ben Ysursa fears that the move could drive down voter turnout. Rep. Eric Anderson,R-PriestLake, is worried the August election would unnecessarily elongate campaigns. “I think this change would actually prolong campaigns because you’d run your primary until August,”Andersonsaid.

The bill will receive further committee hearings in coming weeks. GOP executive director Jonathan Parker attended the hearing, but declined to take a position on the primary election move.

After about two hours of debate, legislations voted 11-8 to send House Bill 342 to an interim committee dealing with environmental and technological issues.  The committee meets in the months of the year when the Legislature is not in session.

Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Iona, sponsored the bill, which would have prevented wind developers from building turbines within two miles of homes without written consent.  If a developer is given consent by one homeowner, any nearby neighbors would also have to consent.

The measure would have also prevented developers from building turbines in such a way that the flickering shadows caused by the turning blades would affect travel on public roads.  “The shadow, as it comes on the road, is very distracting,” said Loertscher.

Another component of the bill was a provision that would have required developers to notify all residents within two miles and cities within five miles of projects to be notified in writing. Loertscher said that notification of construction of turbines has been poor in his area.  “The first thing that you may see is ground being broken and cement being poured,” he said.

Several stakeholders testified against the plan.  Seth Grigg with the Idaho Association of Counties panned the measure because his organization was not involved in crafting restrictions.

Bill Block, a vice president at J-U-B Engineers and husband of Rep. Sharon Block, said the bill is overly complicated and could pit homeowners against developers.  “It looks to me like this is an attorney’s dream,” said Block.

Some lawmakers felt that counties should be able to make their own decisions on placement of the turbines, which can sometimes be more than 500-feet tall.  Rep. Elfreda Higgins, D-Garden City, told colleagues that the topography of the Gem State varies wildly.  “I think these issues should be decided at the local level,” said Higgins.

Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, and Rep. Ken Andrus, R-Soda Springs, teamed up against the measure based on timing and procedure.  Anderson said the bill has not had enough stakeholder input and that the idea had not been properly researched.  “This is far too important of an issue to do a last-minute, last-week-of-the-session bill,” said Anderson. “This is an issue of policy that needs to be thought out and discussed.”

Andrus echoed that call.  “I think that issue needs to be vetted more,” he cautioned.  “There’s a lot of ramification and implication in this legislation.”

Members of the House voted 41-25 to approve a sales tax rebate bill for developers of renewable energy projects.  The measure now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration.

If the bill passes the Senate and is signed by the governor, most projects would have until Dec. 31, 2014, to claim rebates.  Those who do claim rebates must have projects in production of electricity by the deadline.

Wind projects, however, would have to all contracts signed by Oct. 31, 2011.  That provision was inserted into the legislation because stakeholders wanted to allow 18 contracts pending before the Idaho Public Utilities Commission finish the approval process.  A lobbyist for wind energy developers said that the 18 projects were crafted with the tax rebate in mind and that yanking the rebate could lead to some projects being cancelled.

Rep. Erik Simpson, R-Idaho Falls, offered passionate debate, saying that the rebate will lead to higher power rates.  He also argued that the rebate is an example of the state subsidizing an industry. “At what point do rebates become entitlements?” asked Simpson.  “It’s got to stop now. Let’s just let these things sunset.”

Rep. Steve Hartgen, R-Twin Falls, said that wind turbines are a money-maker for the state because power generated is sold in the Las Vegas market at higher rates.  He argued that Idaho should take advantage of its natural resources to generate additional tax revenues.

Rep. Ken Roberts, R-Donnelly, has been a staunch proponent against extending the rebate for wind projects during development of the legislation.  Roberts says that wind farms aren’t constantly producing power, which creates a problem in the state’s energy portfolio.

House Revenue and Taxation Committee Chair Rep. Dennis Lake, R-Blackfoot, said that developers will need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build projects only to receive millions of dollars in tax rebates.  That, Lake said, means an overall increase in tax revenue for the state.   “We like the economic development,” said Lake.  “We like that they’re spending money.”

Rep. Pete Nielsen, R-Mountain Home, said that the tax rebate manipulates the markets and skews Idaho’s energy offerings.  “Base load is what we really ought to be after, not intermittent,” said Nielsen.

Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, said that though the bill isn’t perfect, it’s a step in the right direction.  “It’s the exports of the state or a nation that creates the wealth, not the imports,” said Anderson.

One of the first bills to be discussed at the beginning of the legislative session was Meridan GOP Rep. Marv Hagedorn’s bill to cut the state’s personal and corporate income tax to 4.9 percent, effectively making the rates some of the lowest in the country.  The plan was backed by Gov. Butch Otter in his State of the State address, but has since been put on the back burner.

Hagedorn told IdahoReporter.com that the legislation is almost ready and should be introduced in coming days.  The delay, he explained, was caused by extra work on the plan in order to make sure the numbers worked within future tax revenue projections.  The bill counts on a growing Idaho economy and wouldn’t work if that isn’t in place.  “It appears that our economy is starting to recover and we need that to happen before we can pull the trigger on this,” said Hagedorn.

The proposal would reduce taxes rates incrementally in a 10-year period and new tax surpluses would cover amounts  lost due to lowering of the rates.  Idaho’s top personal tax sits at 7.6 percent, while the highest corporate income tax is 7.8 percent.   If economic recovery is slower than expected, the state could delay the downward march toward a lower tax rate in order to stabilize budget numbers.

Hagedorn believes he has enough support in the House – he says he has signed the majority of representatives on as co-sponsors – and maybe even the Senate.  “I’ve been working with the Senate and I think we’ve got good support over there,” said Hagedorn.  “The majority of senators support the concept.”

He couldn’t give a set date to expect a hearing on the bill, but did say that printing is happening this week.

Early in the session, Rep. Dennis Lake, R-Blackfoot, told IdahoReporter.com that he would bring a bill to prevent state lawmakers from getting huge pension payoffs after long legislative careers by being appointed to state jobs with six-figure salaries. Though days are short, Lake says the bill is on its way.  “We do plan on introducing it,” he said.  “The bill is out there, I just didn’t want to get it buggered up with other legislation, so I held it until the end of the session.”

Another proposal tossed around by Lake prior to the session was a plan to hike the state’s cigarette tax by $1.25.  Though he intended to bring the bill as a mechanism to cut down on smoking rates in the state, he says the measure wasn’t popular with members of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, which is where all tax bills must originate.  “We don’t have the votes to pass it,” said Lake.  “There’s no sense in beating our heads against the wall.”

One bill already introduced but that has yet to receive a formal hearing is a measure to limit what purchases the Idaho Land Board could make.   The panel is tasked with managing state endowment lands and generating money from them, but has been embroiled in controversy since it was reported last year that it had purchased a commercial storage facility.

A bill brought by Rep. John Vande Woude, R-Nampa, would have prohibited the board from buying businesses and most buildings, but the chairman of the panel to which the bill is assigned, the House Resource and Conservation Committee, won’t give the legislation a hearing.  “There’s not a reason to hear it,” said Chairman Bert Stevenson, R-Rupert.

Stevenson wants to have a discussion about the duties of the Land Board, but acknowledges that legislators might be sending mixed messages.  “We tell them to go out and run it like a business,” he explained.  “The first time they go run it like a business, we say ‘you’re out of bounds, you can’t do that.’ We need to get our act together before we start coaching them.”

One proposal that won’t be introduced this year is Priest Lake Republican Rep. Eric Anderson’s bill to challenge federal ownership of Idaho land.  Anderson told IdahoReporter.com in November that he planned to propose legislation that would use state eminent domain power to take federal land in Idaho, as Utah is attempting to do.

That proposal, Anderson said Tuesday, will not come forth in 2011. “The climate is not ripe,” said Anderson.  “It’s not ready yet. It’s one I’d hoped to bring this year.” Anderson said he was too busy with other legislative work to finalize the bill.

Rep. Bob Nonini, R-Coeur d’Alene, won’t propose an Arizona-style immigration reform bill, as he said he planned to do back in July 2010.  Nonini says that he  wants to let the legal challenge over the Arizona law work its way through the courts prior to bringing a similar measure to Idaho.

“In light of what happened with the Arizona bill, and being challenged by the federal court, and parts of it being thrown out, and those kinds of issues, my intent is to wait and see what happens there,” said Nonini. “There’s no sense running something that is going to have the same problem as Arizona’s bill had. The one I was going to run was pretty much a copy of Arizona’s.”

The panel cleared the bill on a 14-5 vote, with Republican Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, joining four Democrats in opposing the measure.  The tally came after nearly seven hours of testimony spread through two days in the Senate auditorium.

Anderson and Rep. Jim Guthrie, R-McCammon, teamed with Democrats to try to derail the motion through a procedural maneuver, but that effort was blocked by the majority of the panel.

Guthrie questioned soundness of the nullification bill, saying that the state attorney general should have helped in crafting the legislation.  “We need to go forward with something that is on sound legal footing,” he explained, adding that he does support the concept of the plan. “I like where this is headed.”

Anderson questioned the need for the bill when Idaho has already prevailed in a court case against reforms.  “But this is the second round of a three-round fight, in my opinion,” Anderson argued. “We already are in the middle of a nullification, and that nullification is going through.”

A Florida federal judge ruled last month that the federal health care reforms are unconstitutional.  Two judges have ruled in favor of the health law, while the Florida judge and one other judge have ruled against it.   Idaho is a plaintiff in the case that went before the court in Florida.

Perhaps the most damning testimony of the plan came from Dr. David Adler, a political science professor and constitutional scholar from the University of Idaho.

Adler, who explained several times he was speaking for himself and not the school, said that the Idaho Legislature really doesn’t have legal authority to cancel out federal laws.  “Since the dawn of the Republic, the Supreme Court has consistently held, without exception, that states do not have the authority to declare federal law null and void,” said Adler.  “This bill, from a constitutional standpoint, has some serious flaws.”

Committee Republicans decided to support the measure anyway, saying that the administration of President Barack Obama is in contempt of court by not halting implementation of reforms, despite  the Florida ruling.  “Are we going to sit here and not implement a judge’s decision?” asked Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise.  “I think we need to take action. That action is to put the brakes on the implementation of an unconstitutional law.”

The chair of the House Health and Welfare Committee, Rep. Janice McGeachin, R-Idaho Falls, said that regulations contained within reforms would crush states.  “As states, we need flexibility to deal with these programs on our own,” said McGeachin, adding that her committee is working to find state-based solutions to problems.

In opposition, Rep. Phylis King, D-Boise, said that health reforms were a good solution to ever-rising health care costs.  “We can’t continue this system,” said King. “I like a lot of things that are in the health care act.”

The measure will receive a hearing before the full House in upcoming days.

Note: Idaho Freedom Foundation staffers have been actively involved in crafting nullification legislation.  IdahoReporter.comis published by the Idaho Freedom Foundation.  Also, House Democrats took shots at Republicans for passing the bill in a statement released after the meeting.   See what they had to say here.

Speaker Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale, proposed a bill Tuesday in the House State Affairs Committee that would essentially shut citizens out from the ethics complaint process in more ways than one.

Denney’s bill, which comes shortly after two citizen complaints were filed against two members of the House, would prohibit that practice in the future.  The speaker told committee members that ethics complaints are solely for the use of House members, and not the general public.  ”These are the internal rules of the House,” said Denney.

The measure would also close off initial ethics hearings to the general public.  Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol, had two formal ethics complaints filed against him in the past year and all the hearing were open for all to see.  That would change under Denney’s plan, which says that ethics committees would first need to meet to determine if the ethics complaints are with merit.  If they are not, the closed-door committee would dismiss them; if they are, Denney said, the ethics committee would then hold open hearings on complaints.

The bill would also define what could be constituted as an actual ethics violation.  The bill primarily states that only abuse or serious neglect of legislative duties would represent an ethics violation, though Denney noted that other serious crimes could rise to a level what would necessitate an ethics hearing.

Not all members of the committee were satisfied with the wording of the bill.  Rep. Phylis King, D-Boise, opposed the measure, and said that the legislation should explicitly cover all actions by House members.  “I don’t want to limit this to just our duties, I want to limit it to our conduct,” said King.

Committee members fast-tracked the bill by sending it straight to the House without a second committee hearing.  “There is no need to come back to this committee because it does not involve the public,” said Rep. Joe Palmer, R-Meridian, maker of the motion to fast-track the measure.  “It’s an internal matter.”

The House Ethics Committee, which met last week to discuss the second of Hart’s ethics complaints, also dismissed two complaints filed by citizens.  One was brought by lobbyist Larry Spencer against Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, after he filed the second ethics complaint against Hart.

The other citizen complaint came from Howard Griffiths, the man who opposed Hart in November’s general election. Griffith’s complaint was against Hart.

Committee members said both complaints were without merit.

The Idaho House will vote on the measure in upcoming days. It needs a two-third vote to pass and does not need approval from the Senate or a signature by the governor.

Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, was playing the part of a real estate broker Thursday in the Idaho Capitol, but members of the House State Affairs Committee were having none of it.

“I didn’t know you were in the real estate business,” said committee chairman Tom Loertscher, R-Iona, to the Boise Democrat.

Burgoyne, in an effort to bolster funding for state parks, attempted to introduce a bill that would have forced the sale of the governor’s mansion, a home donated to the state by self-made billionaire J.R. Simplot.

Committee members were uncomfortable with the plan to sell due to the slumping real estate market, which, legislators said, might make it difficult for the state to gain a favorable dollar amount for the property.

The Burgoyne bill would have directed the Department of Administration to sell the property for no less than $2.1 million by July 1, 2012.  If that directive could not be met, the legislation said, the state could then sell the property at a lower cost.  But the bill would have also given the Simplot Company the right to first refusal, meaning that the company would have the opportunity to purchase the property before any other buyers.

Money from the sale would go straight to the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, which Burgoyne says is in need of funding.  Speaking of the tourism in Idaho spurred on by state parks, the Boise Democrat says recreational opportunities are good for the economy.  “It draws people to local communities,” said Burgoyne.

Rep. Max Black, R-Boise, sits on the oversight board for the mansion and said that Idaho should preserve the property at least until the housing market has rebounded.  “You’re mandating that we ultimately take a loss,” said Black.  “Is it best to save this property and wait until the market recovers?”

“States are getting out of the mansion business,” said Burgoyne.

Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, objected to the sale because a future governor might need the digs.  Though many of the governors in Idaho’s history hailed from the Treasure Valley, Anderson said, there is a chance that the person could be elected out of north Idaho and need a place to stay in Boise.

The home boasts a nice view of Boise and was valued at $2.8 million when the gift was given.  Simplot, who passed away in 2008, said at the time that he wanted governors for years to come to enjoy the abode.

“I just think the world of Idaho, and I’m just pleased to let someone have it like the governor,” Simplot said at a ceremony announcing his donation to the state.  “As governors come and go, they’ll enjoy it, I hope.”

But governors haven’t enjoyed it – at least not for dwelling purposes.  Gov. Butch Otter doesn’t live in the home and neither did then-Gov. Jim Risch during his stint in the state’s top job.  Even Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, in office when the property was donated, didn’t packs his bags and establish residency in the hilltop dwelling.  “In good times this made perfect sense,” said Burgoyne.  “It doesn’t make good monetary sense to me now.”

It costs about $100,000 annually to maintain the hilltop home, though the state has about $981,000 in a dedicated account for that purpose.

Rep. Joe Palmer, R-Meridian, motioned to stop the legislation on concerns counties might gain too much power.  ”I think there are concerns that it is too broad and overreaching and there may be abuses of it,” said Palmer before motioning.

The legislation was killed on a 13-4 committee vote.  Three Democrats and one Republican – Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, – voted in favor of the weed-mitigation plan.

The legislation was brought by Teresa Baker, a deputy prosecutor for Ada County.  Baker told committee members that the law would allow counties to craft their own nuisance weed ordinances and create enforcement options.  The bill would have allowed counties to declare private property to be a nuisance due to excessive weeds and then cut down and mitigate the weeds and then send the property owner the bill.

Counties would have been able to attach weed-mitigation bills to county property taxes to force payment.  ”We have a hard time getting people to pay otherwise,” said Baker.

Baker said the legislation is needed because the current enforcement option available to counties – simple fines – is not sufficient.  ”They [property owners] say go ahead and fine me and we still have the underlying problem,” said Baker.

Additionally, Baker said, there would be “plenty of notice” for property owners, including certified letters and postings on the violating ground.  Even after the notice, county officials would have been able to use the weed elimination as a last resort.  “They wouldn’t take that action unless it was necessary,” Baker said.

In the end, the majority of lawmakers expressed concerns with private property rights and infringement of them by counties.  “It’s so open-ended and could allow counties to use some heavy-handed tactics,” said Rep. Erik Simpson, R-Idaho Falls.

Rep. Ken Andrus, R-Lava Hot Springs, agreed.  “I’m concerned with the broadness of this language that we are empowering the county do something and the landowner has no recourse,” said Andrus.

Cities are allowed to mitigate weeds within their boundaries and Baker pointed out that there haven’t been reported abuses of the power. “We haven’t heard anything crazy from the 126 or so cities that already do this,” concluded Baker.