That decision will affect state college and university wages but not K-12 school salaries, which are set locally. Higher education institutions also supplement salaries with tuition and fee revenue. 

JFAC lawmakers unanimously voted to give state workers 1% raises, across the board, along with 2% merit-based increases. Agency heads will have the discretion to distribute the merit-based funds. 

The state government is Idaho’s largest employer, with roughly 25,000 employees. The Thursday vote concurred with the Legislature’s Change in Employee Compensation Committee recommendation on pay increases. 

The budget committee earlier this month included 1% across-the-board raises in agencies’ “maintenance budgets” — benchmark appropriations that exclude agency requests for new spending. The additional 2% merit raises will be incorporated in final budgets, which will be set in the coming weeks.

Employee compensation was one of two statewide decisions that JFAC had yet to settle before it sets final budgets. Still-outstanding is a revenue projection, which will limit how much the committee spends. 

But the employee raise decision allows JFAC to move forward with final budget-setting, starting Friday. 

“We needed this action today before we can set any more budgets,” said JFAC Co-chair Sen. C. Scott Grow, R-Eagle. 

IEA: Guns-in-schools bill is unsafe, unnecessary

A day after the House passed a bill that would allow more teachers to carry weapons in school, the state’s teachers’ union is stepping up its opposition to the idea.

In a letter to senators Thursday, the Idaho Education Association said House Bill 415 would allow untrained employees and volunteers to carry in school, which could put students at risk of an accidental shooting.

“Alternative solutions that do not involve arming school employees can be explored to address any concerns related to school safety,” said the letter, co-signed by IEA President Layne McInelly and its 27-member board of directors. “The status quo adequately meets the school district and community needs to keep students safe.”

Backed by the National Rifle Association, HB 415 would allow school employees to carry a weapon on campus, if they have a concealed weapons permit. The House passed the bill Wednesday on a 53-16 vote, sending it to the Senate.

Senate clears constitutional amendment limiting special sessions

When lawmakers in 2022 drafted a constitutional amendment giving themselves the right to convene a special session, they neglected a provision that limits how long the session could be. 

Since voters approved the amendment, there’s been no limit on how long the Legislature could meet for a special session. The Senate on Thursday advanced a new constitutional amendment correcting the oversight and limiting special sessions to 20 days. 

The amendment would ensure the Legislature remains part-time, a “blessing” and source of “pride,” according to Senate Majority Caucus Chair Mark Harris, R-Soda Springs. “We pass laws, we work here and we go home. And we have to live by the things that we do,” Harris told the Senate State Affairs Committee last week. 

Previously, only the governor could call a special session of the Legislature. But two years ago, voters narrowly approved an addition to the Idaho Constitution that gave lawmakers the right to convene themselves. 

Meanwhile, the Constitution continues to put a time limit on special sessions “convened…by the governor,” meaning sessions called by the Legislature are unrestrained. A handful of Republicans want to keep it that way. 

Ten GOP senators Thursday opposed the joint resolution to reinstate the 20-day limit. Sen. Scott Herndon, R-Sagle, said the Legislature — an “equal branch of government” — is more cost-effective than the bureaucratic arm of the state government. And the Legislature sometimes needs to exercise budgeting and lawmaking authority outside a regular session, like it did during the COVID-19 pandemic, Herndon said. 

“I don’t want to put a constraint on what that possibility might be for future situations,” he said. 

The constitutional amendment needs two-thirds support from the House and the Senate — it cleared the Senate with just one vote to spare. The joint resolution now heads to the House. 

A majority of Idaho voters also have to approve a constitutional amendment. Publicizing the amendment ahead of a vote will cost the state $200,000, according to a fiscal note for the joint resolution. 

We plan to write regularly on fundraising and spending, as all 105 legislative seats are on the ballot.

Look for lists and articles throughout the election, starting today, Feb. 1. Here’s a top 10 list: the incumbents and candidates who have raised the most money so far:

1. Ted Hill, R-Eagle: $110,310. There’s an asterisk here: Hill, a first-term lawmaker, has loaned an eye-popping $106,860 to his campaign. Hill sits on the House Education Committee, and he has sponsored a bill to allow teachers and school staff to carry guns on campus; the House passed this bill Wednesday.
2. Jim Woodward, Republican, Sagle: $85,568. A big-money rematch will unfold in Idaho’s northernmost legislative district. Woodward, a former state senator, has raised much of his money from mainstream GOP circles — such as Idaho Power, Spokane, Wash.-based Clearwater Paper, and State Board of Education member Shawn Keough, his predecessor in the Senate. Woodward also has loaned his campaign $20,000. (More on his opponent later in this piece.)
3. Steve Berch, D-Boise: $75,764. Berch, a three-term incumbent and House Education Committee member, represents West Boise’s battleground District 15. No opponent appears to be doing any fundraising so far.
4. Brett Skidmore, Republican, Ammon: $64,700. Skidmore is raising money from conservative circles — including Idaho Freedom Foundation vice chair Bryan Smith and former Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin. Skidmore is taking on first-term Rep. Joshua Wheeler, R-Ammon, who has raised $27,279.
5. Brandon Shippy, Republican, New Plymouth: $57,574. Shippy’s donors include Freedom Foundation chair Brent Regan and Freedom Foundation board member Doyle Beck. Shippy is opposing Assistant Majority Leader Abby Lee, R-Fruitland, who has raised $10,150.
6. Josh Tanner, R-Eagle: $56,750. Tanner, a first-term lawmaker and Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee member, has loaned $50,000 to his campaign.
7. Scott Herndon, R-Sagle: $56,602. Herndon defeated Woodward in the 2022 GOP primary, and now sits on the Senate Education Committee and JFAC. His donor base includes several Freedom Foundation connections: Regan, Beck and Smith’s Idaho Falls law firm.
8. Ben Toews, R-Coeur d’Alene: $43,539. The Senate Education vice chair has loaned $40,000 to his campaign.
9. C. Scott Grow, R-Eagle: $43,170. Grow is JFAC’s Senate co-chair. His donor base includes several industry PACs and Idaho Chooses Life.
10. Codi Galloway, Republican, Boise: $42,980. The former legislator has secured donations from at least four sitting lawmakers, and has loaned $20,000 to her campaign. She is positioning for a rematch in District 15. Democrat Rick Just, who narrowly defeated Galloway in 2022, has raised $40,155.

We haven’t received the records. On Friday, we received a second bill for the same documents — this time, in the amount of $326.15.

The U of I says both bills are legal. And the U of I doesn’t rule out billing us a third time.

At issue are records that we believe will tell an important part of the story about the U of I’s proposed University of Phoenix purchase — a controversial $685 million deal that could make or cost the U of I millions of dollars, and forge a partnership with a for-profit university with a troubled track record.

We have asked, twice, for invoices paid by the U of I and its affiliates, related to the Phoenix purchase. We submitted our original request on Dec. 22.

The U of I first billed the $88.65 to cover the cost of identifying and gathering the invoices. The U of I now says it needs an additional $326.15 to review and potentially redact the records.

In both cases, the U of I says the costs are estimates. If costs come in lower, the U of I promises to refund the difference. Or if the costs come in higher, the U of I says it will ask for more money.

In other words, the U of I isn’t ruling out charging us three times for the same set of public records. Not even when EdNews asked for assurance that the second bill would cover all costs.

“Simply put, this process, which is authorized under the law, ensures that taxpayers are not funding labor that goes solely to the benefit (of) individual requestors, such as you and your employer,” U of I senior associate general counsel said in a Wednesday email to EdNews.

State law allows agencies to bill for public records — for labor costs exceeding two hours of staff time. But the law doesn’t require agencies to seek payment, and many agencies don’t.

We also take issue with Klein’s insinuation that our records requests are self-serving. We have spent eight months pushing for details on the Phoenix purchase on behalf of our readership — and all Idahoans, who have a vested stake in this decision.

We are a public news source. And a well-read news source. Since last week, our stories on the trial that threatened to block the Phoenix purchase have been republished by the Idaho Statesman, the Idaho Press, the Lewiston Tribune, Boise State Public Radio, the Idaho Capital Sun and BoiseDev — and anyone else we might have missed along the way.

So, no, we’re not just doing this for kicks.

On Wednesday, we sent the U of I another $326.15. We’ll let you know what we get next — whether it’s a stack of public records, or another bill.

Rep. Ted Hill’s bill was scheduled for a vote Tuesday, but members voted to keep it on the calendar, for now. Hill told Idaho Education News that he’s hoping to bolster support for the bill and address concerns from the Senate, to avoid amendments once it crosses the rotunda. 

“We are trying to get the buy-in and we’ve got to give it some time,” said Hill, R-Eagle. “But we haven’t changed the bill, or anything, yet.”

The House State Affairs Committee last week voted along party lines to give House Bill 415 the go-ahead. That was after a tense public hearing in which associations representing school boards and administrators as well as the statewide teachers’ union expressed fervent opposition. 

The bill would give school employees the right to carry guns on public school campuses and grant them legal immunity if they engage in a gunfight. An employee would need an enhanced concealed carry permit, but wouldn’t need permission from school administrators or trustees, to carry on campus.  

The legislation is designed to give teachers a fighting chance in a school shooting in the minutes before law enforcement arrives, Hill argues. “The police never stop these things, almost never,” he told EdNews. “We’re trying to close this gap.” 

But law enforcement groups have said they’re concerned that the eight-hour training required for an enhanced concealed carry permit is inadequate and that the bill is taking the wrong approach to addressing school shootings. 

The Idaho Association of School Resource Officers announced Monday that it’s opposed to the current proposal, and lawmakers should instead focus on preventing school shootings. Strategies should include mandating behavioral threat assessments, establishing research-based emergency protocols and investing in school resource officers, Morgan Ballis, president of the association, wrote in a column.

“Rep. Hill, and those who support this legislation, have demonstrated their resolve to protect our students and educators,” Ballis wrote. “However, these efforts are focused in the wrong areas.”

Blaine repeal on hold, at least for the time being

A proposal to overturn the controversial “Blaine Amendment” is also on hold, at least for the time being.

The House State Affairs Committee took no action on House Joint Resolution 1, an attempt to strike Idaho’s constitutional ban on using public dollars to support religious enterprises, including schools.

The reasons to hold the amendment were not immediately clear. Rep. Joe Palmer, R-Meridian, a supporter of the repeal, asked to delay a vote so he could get answers to some technical questions. Palmer did not elaborate. His motion to delay the vote passed unanimously.

The vote came after a debate that fell along familiar ideological lines.

Rep. Elaine Price, R-Coeur d’Alene, repeatedly said that her proposal was simply designed to give Idahoans a say on the Blaine Amendment. (Constitutional amendments must pass both houses by two-thirds supermajorities, and majority support from voters.) But she also said the amendments — in place in about three dozen states, including Idaho — reflect a nationwide political campaign engineered by former U.S. congressman James Blaine, who also sought similar language in the U.S. Constitution.

“Blaine had a hatred for Catholic Irish immigrants and expressed his bigotry with this  amendment,” Price said.

Supporting the repeal, Coeur d’Alene attorney Katherine Hartley argued against a strict separation between church and state. This separation, embodied in the Blaine amendment, disfavors religion. “This is not neutral. This is hostile toward religion of all kinds.”

Opponents pushed back against the argument that the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively overturned the Blaine Amendment. A recent Supreme Court ruling said a state cannot discriminate against funding religious schools — but only if a state decides to make public dollars available to private schools.

The amendment guarantees that public dollars stay in public schools, said Nancy Gregory, a Boise school trustee and Idaho School Boards Association past president. Repealing the amendment would provide an “easy path” to pass a tax voucher or education savings account plan, she said.

And while Palmer didn’t spell out his questions, Rep. John Gannon rattled off several concerns.

Gannon, D-Boise, wanted a better sense of the cost of repeal, if it paves the way for a private school funding law. He also asked how the state would define religions that are eligible for state support — and a list of religious enterprises that could receive state funding, beyond parochial schools.

Tuition tax credit bill surfaces

A much-anticipated bill to subsidize private school tuition made its first appearance Tuesday. 

The House Revenue and Taxation Committee introduced the bill to create a $50 million program for private school tax credits and low-income grants. 

Co-sponsors Sen. Lori Den Hartog, R-Meridian, and Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, previewed the proposal in a news conference earlier this month. Tuesday’s print hearing was the first hurdle for the bill, setting the stage for a public hearing likely to draw fireworks. 

The bill would allow private school families of any income to claim $5,000 tax credits for academic expenses. That could include tuition, fees, transportation, tutoring, test-taking and exam preparation, among other things. Families with a learning-disabled student could claim an additional $2,500. 

Another $10 million would be set aside for a “kickstart” program benefitting low-income students. Rather than claiming private school expenses on their taxes, families who qualify for the federal earned income tax credit could collect up to $5,000 in grants for one year. After a year, those families would be rolled into the tax credit program. 

Altogether, the tax credits and grants — distributed on a first-come, first-served basis — would be capped at $50 million annually. That could go up in future years if there’s high demand. 

Tuesday’s meeting was a taste of the debate to come. Den Hartog tried to head off the primary criticism of proposals to subsidize private education — that they would drain public school funds. 

“This does not take funds from the public schools budget,” said Den Hartog, who said the K-12 budget would be dealt with separately.

After Rep. Kenny Wroten, R-Nampa, asked whether the bill would create a “new source of revenue,” Den Hartog acknowledged that the tax credits could decrease state revenue. 

After the hearing, House and Senate Democrats said the state’s budget is “fungible” and “any amount of funds” allocated to the proposed program would deplete money available for public schools. 

Idaho has roughly 15,000 private school students. The Mountain States Policy Center, a think tank that has supported similar proposals in the past, estimates the $50 million spending cap would limit the program to roughly 8,000 students. 

The committee voted 13-3 to introduce the bill. Wroten opposed it, along with Rep. Rick Cheatum, R-Pocatello, and House Assistant Minority Leader Lauren Necochea, D-Boise.

Charter school overhaul clears House

Atop a wave of mostly silent consent, a bill to overhaul Idaho’s charter school regulations sailed through the House Tuesday.

While three Democrats opposed the bill, there was no debate against, and very little argument for, the “Accelerating Public Charter Schools Act.” The bill is a sweeping revision of regulations governing charter school applications, operations and reauthorizations, designed to reward high-performing charters with less “red tape” and provide more support to struggling charters. 

“We’ve learned a lot in the last 26 years of charter schools,” said Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, who’s sponsoring the bill co-authored by the governor’s office. “Instead of just fixing a little piece here and there, we decided to do a total rewrite.” 

To read more about what the overhaul would entail, click here.

The bill now heads to the Senate.

New bill targets access to ‘harmful’ online materials

A House committee introduced another bill designed to restrict access to “harmful” online materials.

Dubbed the “Online Child Safety Act,” the new bill would require internet content providers to verify the age of users who view materials deemed harmful to minors. If providers don’t take “reasonable steps” to verify a user’s age, parents would be allowed to seek civil damages.

“We are just trying to provide content creators with a way to self-regulate,” said Rep. Elaine Price, R-Coeur d’Alene, one of the bill’s co-sponsors.

The House State Affairs Committee voted to introduce the bill Tuesday, a unanimous vote that could pave the way to a full hearing at a later date.

While the House bill targets content providers, a Senate bill takes a decidedly different approach to controlling access to harmful materials. Sen. Kevin Cook, R-Idaho Falls, has proposed a bill to require manufacturers to install filters on devices children use. The Senate State Affairs Committee introduced the latest version of Cook’s bill Monday.

About open meetings — which are oxygen for reporters, and an obligation for elected and appointed officials.

And that’s what unfolded last week, as Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s team squared off with the State Board of Education’s hired lawyers. A discussion about letting the public in on the public’s business — in this case, the University of Idaho’s $685 million plan to buy the University of Phoenix — is inherently a good and important thing.

Good and important, as far as that goes. The civil trial before District Judge Jason Scott was restricted to an open meetings question: Did the State Board break Idaho law when it went behind closed doors to talk about the proposed Phoenix purchase? The trial left no time for the big picture question — why does the U of I and the State Board want to do business with Phoenix, a for-profit online school with huge enrollment of 85,000 and a half century track record of trouble? The U of I and the State Board have never bothered with a public discussion, doing most of its talking in those legal or illegal closed meetings.

Reasonably enough, Scott tried to keep the lawyers on task last week, and focused on the open meetings dispute. On at least two occasions, Scott cut off deputy attorney general Gregory Woodard as he attempted to bring up Phoenix’s $191 million Federal Trade Commission fine — and the false advertising complaints that went with it. Scott also made it clear that he wasn’t going to let State Board attorney Trudy Hanson Fouser introduce evidence about Phoenix’s profits.

In other words, the lawyers had little chance to paint Phoenix as a millstone or a moneymaker.

The rationale for the Phoenix purchase came up, but only in boilerplate terms Idahoans have heard before.

State Board President Linda Clark and board member Bill Gilbert talked about the board’s longstanding goal of breaking down geographic barriers, and pushing education programs into the state’s most remote corners.

U of I President C. Scott Green explained why traditional and for-profit schools make a good match. A declining birth rate means fewer 18- to 22-year-olds will be heading to college, creating a demographic ”cliff” that will put some schools out of business. The for-profits are seeking an “exit strategy,” and a way to get out from under some government regulations.

“The Department of Education truly has been tough on that market,” he said.

This marriage of convenience gets at a central question in the lawsuit: competition.

The State Board based its series of closed meetings on a seldom-used piece of state law. It allows closed-door discussions if an Idaho agency is in competition with other public entities in another state, or abroad. It doesn’t come up much because, after all, it isn’t business as usual for a state university to spend almost $700 million swallowing up another university.

So last week, we did learn more about competition, usually in shadowy terms. Green said he didn’t press Phoenix’s brokers for names they weren’t likely to divulge. In turn, board members didn’t press Green for details. One name did come up, almost by happenstance: An internal March 16 email from Greg Finkelstein of Tyton Partners, Phoenix’s New York-based brokers, identified three suitors: the U of I; the University of Arkansas (a name that has been out in the public domain for a year); and heretofore unknown UMass Global, a nonprofit affiliated with the University of Massachusetts.

Never heard of UMass Global?  Cut yourself some slack. Last week, none of the board members said they’d heard of UMass Global either.

Which makes UMass Global a two-edged sword in the open meetings issue at play. Finkelstein’s internal email describes Phoenix as a hot commodity, supporting Fouser’s argument about competition. But Woodard clearly tried to score points off the fact that State Board members knew nothing about UMass Global, or any other possible competitor other than Arkansas. Instead, he contended, the board blindly went behind closed doors because they were told to, and because they were told the U of I was in a competitive bidding process.

So here’s where we get to a fundamental difference of opinion — and it has really important implications under Idaho’s open meeting law. What role should elected or appointed officials play, before they meet behind closed doors? Woodard and Fouser could hardly see it more differently.

When Woodard argued that the State Board didn’t do its own independent research into competition for Phoenix, the subtext was clear: It’s incumbent upon government officials to ask questions before simply accepting the rationale for closed-door meetings. Which makes sense, at some level, since the elected or appointed officials could be fined for breaking the law.

Fouser, instead, argued for the process. In this case, longtime U of I attorney Kent Nelson requested the executive session. He worked with Jenifer Marcus, the State Board’s in-house deputy attorney general, with nearly a dozen years’ experience on the job; and State Board executive director Matt Freeman, who has been on the job 8 ½ years. Fouser’s case is built around the idea that volunteer State Board members can, and should, be able to count on their experienced support staff.

As a statewide body with far-reaching policymaking authority, of course the State Board is going to have a robust support network. But hundreds of smaller government bodies — including most of Idaho’s 115 school districts — have limited staff. Rural trustees, and small-town officials across the state, have a personal stake in how judge Scott interprets their responsibilities under the open meeting law.

A robust public debate over this law is healthy and useful. It’s too bad Idahoans have never been afforded the same opportunity to debate the Phoenix purchase.

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday. Due to the timeliness of the topic, this analysis was published on Monday, Jan. 29.

More reading: Click here for our in-depth coverage of the proposed University of Phoenix purchase.

But the decision won’t come until next week at the earliest.

Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s legal team and the State Board of Education’s hired attorneys wrapped up three days in court Thursday afternoon — arguing an open meetings case that revisits the U of I’s behind-the-scenes courtship of Phoenix.

On May 18, the State Board approved the U of I’s $685 million plan to acquire Phoenix, a huge but beleaguered for-profit online university serving some 85,000 students. The State Board discussed the deal in a series of three closed-door meetings last spring. Labrador’s contends those meetings were illegal; in his lawsuit, he is asking Ada County District Judge Jason Scott to void the State Board’s May 18 vote.

Thursday afternoon’s closing arguments centered on the lawsuit’s focal point: competition. That’s because the State Board’s closed meetings were based on an obscure and seldom-used section of state law, covering transactions that puts an Idaho agency “in competition with governing bodies in other states or nations.” 

As he did throughout the three-day trial, deputy attorney general Gregory Woodard said the State Board did not ask enough questions about competition — relying instead on assurances from U of I President C. Scott Green, who in turn received much of his information from Tyton Partners, a brokerage working on Phoenix’s behalf.

Woodard’s closing arguments honed in on what he called “a three-week gap” in due diligence. On April 24, the University of Arkansas’ board of trustees rejected a Phoenix purchase in a public vote. But board members didn’t press Green for information, instead taking his word that Arkansas was still in the running. Board members also didn’t ask staff to look into the marketplace for Phoenix. Then they held another closed meeting on May 15, partly on the assumption that Arkansas was still a bidder.

“That type of blind vote is a gross violation of the law,” Woodard said.

Trudy Hanson Fouser, one of the State Board’s attorneys, said the board followed a proven process, counting on staff and in-house attorneys to vet open meetings issues. And board members had every reason to believe Phoenix was in high demand — based in part on their professional backgrounds ranging from education to business.

“They are applying their life experiences to what they are hearing,” she said.

Attorneys have until Monday afternoon to file final written arguments, and make their final appeal to Scott, the presiding judge in the case. Scott pledged to issue his ruling as soon as possible, but he didn’t commit to a date.

For the U of I — and Phoenix — time is of the essence. The lawsuit stands as one of the biggest obstacles to the sale.

The U of I’s accreditors still must approve the purchase. A nonprofit affiliated with the U of I must secure financing, and the ongoing legal battle has effectively put bonding on hold.

If the deal isn’t closed by May 31, either side can walk away.

The State Board’s lawyer speaks

After Labrador’s team called a dozen witnesses, including all eight State Board members, the State Board’s team called its lone witness Thursday morning.

That was Jenifer Marcus, the deputy attorney general who has been assigned to the State Board for nearly 12 years.

Marcus’ testimony ran for more than an hour, and focused largely on process and procedure. The requests for the closed meetings came from U of I legal counsel Kent Nelson, a member of the university team studying the Phoenix purchase. In a March phone call, Nelson told Marcus the U of I was vying with other bidders for Phoenix.

Marcus said she did not try to look into the competition issue on her own, but put the closed meetings on board agendas based on what she had heard from Nelson. And based on what she heard herself, as she listened in on the executive sessions, she said it was clear that there were multiple bidders for Phoenix.

“It seemed unlikely to me that the University of Idaho would prevail,” she said, “because it was such a competitive environment.”

Marcus also discussed her relationship with the board. She says it’s her job, as staff attorney, to examine open meetings issues and other legal matters, so volunteer board members don’t have to. “If they see a scheduled executive session, they know it’s been properly vetted.”

Cross-examination illustrated the unusual politics at the heat of the lawsuit, as one deputy attorney general grilled another deputy attorney general. In a tense exchange, Woodard repeatedly and pointedly asked Marcus if she could have counseled board members about competition for Phoenix. Marcus finally said she could have.

The repeated questioning drew fire from Fouser, who called the questioning “rude.”

Scott seemed to agree.

“Let’s not snipe,” he said.

Notes from a board member

Cindy Siddoway was the eighth and final State Board member called to testify in the trial. Her Thursday morning testimony covered Woodard’s standard script of questions — with a plot twist.

The issue: handwritten notes Siddoway took during the March 22 State Board executive session. The notes, jotted on the upper left-hand corner of the meeting agenda, focus on competition. On one line, Siddoway wrote “U. of Arkansas.” Below that, she wrote, “2 others interested,” referring to other suitors. A third line mentioned land-grant institutions.

Siddoway said the notes helped her recall details from that first closed-door meeting, which she attended via Zoom. The board heard about three potential competitors, Arkansas and the unidentified bidders, she testified Thursday morning. And someone in the meeting suggested Phoenix wanted to partner with a land-grant institution such as U of I, although Siddoway said she couldn’t remember details.

Some intrigue surrounded the notes.

Siddoway said she only discovered her notes last week; she said they were misfiled in her home office in Terreton, where she also runs her family’s sheep operation. She passed the notes on to the State Board’s attorneys — who passed them on to Woodard on Saturday, two days before the start of the trial.

Noting that Siddoway had received a records request and subpoena months ago, Woodard objected to having the notes admitted into evidence at the last minute. The notes weren’t admitted as evidence, but still were discussed at length during Siddoway’s testimony.

More reading: Click here for our in-depth coverage of the proposed Phoenix purchase.

Alex Adams, Gov. Brad Little’s budget chief, appeared to satisfy early skepticism for a bill that would overhaul Idaho’s charter school regulations. 

The House Education Committee almost unanimously advanced the legislation after a lengthy public hearing Thursday. Dubbed the “Accelerating Public Charter Schools Act,” the bill is a sweeping revision of the rules governing charter school applications, operations and reauthorizations.

Charter school administrators and policymakers mostly praised the effort, which supporters have touted as a consolidation of lessons learned in the 26 years since Idaho enacted charters.

But the bill also is a response to recent strife in and around the Public Charter School Commission, the group responsible for authorizing and overseeing most of Idaho’s charters. Leadership instability over the last year has shed light on philosophical differences about the Commission’s role: Should it be a support agency that helps underperforming charters improve, or an oversight body that more aggressively holds schools accountable?

Those who worked on the bill, including the governor’s office and commissioners, sought to strike a balance, Adams told the Education Committee. 

“What we tried to accomplish…was (to) balance accountability with earned autonomy,” he said. “A lot of what I tried to do in this bill is separate the high performers from the not-so-high performers.” 

For high-performing charters, that means extended renewal periods, less “red tape” required to replicate a charter school and shorter performance reviews, which Adams likened to TSA PreCheck. 

And for under-performing charters, the bill would allow authorizers to intervene more quickly in response to distress signals, like declining enrollment, Adams said. Struggling charters also would have access to the Idaho Department of Education’s building capacity program. 

Staffed by a team of experts, the program helps schools diagnose performance problems, Adams said, and the governor’s budget this year includes additional funding for charter schools to access those resources.

“We’ve blended the sweet with the sour,” he said. 

Rep. Lance Clow said he initially “had a bunch of questions,” but they were “properly answered” Thursday. The bill would “simplify and coordinate” the Charter School Commission and school authorization process, said Clow, R-Twin Falls. 

Here are some highlights from the bill: 

• It would allow new charter schools to operate for six years, up from five years, while established charters could get a 12-year renewal
• Allow charter holders with multiple schools to enroll as a single local education agency
• Allow charter schools to operate daycare and after school programs as long as they don’t use state funds
• Create a special category of “pilot charters,” which are granted three-year terms to “test an innovative or novel model”
• Allow charter schools to receive funding from private organizations

Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, and Sen. Lori Den Hartog, R-Meridian, are the legislative co-sponsors of HB 422. But Thursday’s hearing showed the governor’s office was the driving force behind it, and a bevy of charter school stakeholders provided input over the bill’s five-month development.

One charter administrator criticized a provision of the bill that could limit how much a school could grow its enrollment. Otherwise, charter administrators lauded the proposal, noting it would streamline administrative work and allow schools to focus on teaching. 

“It puts everything in one place, makes it simpler to get into the law and look at what applies to us — when we need to do what and how we’re held accountable,” said Andy Johnson, executive director for Sage International, a network of Treasure Valley charters. 

Not everyone was on-board, however. The League of Women Voters strongly opposed the bill over concerns that it would diminish the Department of Education’s role in regulating charters, among other things.

The proposed pilot program for new charters allows “testing experimental educational approaches on children,” said Jean Henscheid, co-president of the group. 

State Superintendent Debbie Critchfield briefly said that the Department of Education is “fully supportive” of the bill.

An earlier draft made the Public Charter School Commission a self-governing agency, but the Commission would remain under the State Board of Education’s purview in the current version of the bill. 

Rep. Steve Berch, D-Boise, was the only Education Committee member to oppose a motion to advance HB 422. Concerned that removing limitations could allow charter school numbers to explode, Berch said the Department of Education would be on the hook to “support what’s essentially a private enterprise.”

Whether the legislation would resolve the conflict over the Commission’s fundamental role remains to be seen. Terry Ryan, CEO of Bluum, a major charter school investor, is optimistic. The bill offers support to under-performing charter schools, but “that doesn’t mean that’s going to keep you alive forever,” Ryan told Idaho Education News after the hearing. 

“At some point, the school has to deliver results and show that it works for kids,” he said. “I think they got the balance right.”

Disclosure: Idaho Education News and Bluum are funded by grants from the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Family Foundation. 

First, the for-profit online giant wanted to affiliate with a public university. Second, the University of Idaho was in competition with other unidentified bidders.

“They always used plurals,” Green, the U of I president, said in an Ada County courtroom Wednesday morning.

And Green went on to explain that he didn’t press for names, for tactical reasons. Brokers like Tyton Partners, Phoenix’s financial advisers, work for a seller, trying to drive up competition, and they’re not in the business of divulging names to prospective buyers. Saying he didn’t want to look like he’d “just fallen off the turnip truck,” Green took Tyton at its word.

In nearly two hours of testimony, Green offered new insights into the Phoenix purchase — a polarizing $685 million deal that he says could transform rural online education and provide the U of I millions of dollars in annual revenue. But the deal would also align the U of I with a partner with a half century of reputational baggage, and potentially leave the U of I on the hook for up to $10 million a year in financing costs.

Green is at once a peripheral and pivotal figure in the civil trial unfolding in district court this week.

Green is not a defendant, and nor is the U of I. Attorney General Raúl Labrador is suing the State Board of Education over the closed-door meetings that led up to their May 18 public vote endorsing the Phoenix purchase.

But Green plays a central role, because the State Board took much of its direction from him. The board held its contested closed meetings based on Green’s assertion that the U of I was in a high-speed, high-stakes competitive bidding process.

Green also is a central player in Labrador’s lawsuit. Over two days in court, deputy attorney general Gregory Woodard has implied that the State Board trusted Green and demanded no details about the U of I’s unidentified competitors. Woodard has also tried to discredit Green — since most of Green’s information came from Tyton, which had a vested interest in creating an air of competition.

On the witness stand Wednesday, Green talked at greater length and in greater detail than ever before about the U of I’s pursuit of Phoenix. His testimony offered brand-new information and behind-the-scenes details:

The first overture. Green said he first heard that Phoenix was on the market on Jan. 27 — but not from the university or Tyton. He said he first heard about the possibility from a contact with Wells Fargo, a bank that helped the U of I finance a 2020 plan to outsource operations of its steam plant. Green said he began talking to Tyton on Feb. 1. The Jan. 27 conversation is a new wrinkle in the U of I’s public stated timeline, which it had already rewritten after an Idaho Education News story called its original narrative into question.

A newly identified bidder. On Wednesday, the name of another suitor finally came to light: UMass Global, a nonprofit affiliated with the University of Massachusetts. A March 16 internal email from Tyton managing director Greg Finkelstein named UMass Global, the U of I and the University of Arkansas as would-be buyers.

Woodard used Finkelstein’s email as an exhibit. And while the email supports the narrative about competition, Woodard also appears to be using the document to challenge the board’s knowledge of the marketplace. Woodard has asked board members about UMass Global, and no board member has said they’d heard of the nonprofit.

‘Project Neptune’ PowerPoints. Woodard also introduced PowerPoint presentations the U of I created for closed-door State Board meetings on March 22 and April 25. The presentations were titled “Project Neptune,” a code name for Phoenix, frequently used by Tyton and U of I officials.

The PowerPoints say little about competition. But under questioning from Woodard, Green said there really wasn’t much to say about competition — except that it existed. But Green said he and the board discussed competition in these meetings.

The Arkansas vote. On April 24, the University of Arkansas’ board of regents narrowly voted to reject a Phoenix purchase. That public vote was covered locally and nationally, and was well-known to State Board members when they again met behind closed doors the following day. On Wednesday, Green testified that he still considered Arkansas a rival. “I was pleased with the vote,” Green said, “but they were clearly going to try to move forward. … They had a head start on us.”

State Board members have repeatedly said they considered Arkansas a competitor, even into May. The evidence is mixed. University of Arkansas President Donald Bobbitt has said he thought he could pursue a purchase without trustee support — and he did just that, according to a court statement from Finkelstein. But through a spokesman, Bobbitt had also said it would be difficult to proceed without the board’s backing.

A bid for exclusivity. At some point in the April executive session, a State Board member suggested that Green approach Tyton about negotiating exclusively with Phoenix. Green liked the idea, he said, “(because) we were about to spend a lot of money on due diligence.” Not surprisingly, Tyton said he wanted to keep as many bidders as possible in the mix. “To this day, we’re not exclusive, although we think we’re in a pretty good position,” Green said Wednesday.

The trial, which continues and could conclude Thursday, is crucial to the U of I’s buying position. Labrador wants District Judge Jason Scott to throw out the State Board’s May 18 vote supporting the Phoenix purchase — a ruling that could stymie the sale. And even if the State Board prevails in court, the U of I still needs approval from its accreditors, and a U of I-affiliated nonprofit must secure financing for the purchase.

The U of I hopes to close the deal early this year.

Other Wednesday developments

Other testimony Wednesday focused on the crux of the lawsuit, and the three closed State Board meetings. The board held closed executive sessions under a section of state law that covers purchases that pit a state agency against other public bidders, from another state or another nation.

That’s why the case centers on competition — and whether the U of I was vying with other public bidders.

Some other developments from Wednesday:

• Kent Nelson — the U of I’s special counsel, working on the Phoenix sale — said he engineered the closed meetings. Nelson said he knew of other Phoenix bidders, namely Arkansas. He requested the State Board use the exemption covering competitive negotiations. Nelson, who has worked on state education legal issues since 1998, said he could not recall any similar closed meetings invoking this section of law.
• State Board President Linda Clark also discussed the process surrounding closed meetings. As in this case, a college or university requests a closed meeting, and works with the State Board’s staff and in-house deputy attorney general to iron out the details. “I’ve been on the board for eight years and this process has served us well.”
• State Board member Cally Roach pushed back against one of Woodard’s recurring arguments — that board members should have done their own research about other Phoenix bidders, and the need for closed meetings. “That would be a hindrance to the whole state governance system … It wouldn’t be very productive.”

More reading: Click here and here for previous trial coverage. And click here for our in-depth coverage of the Phoenix purchase.

Despite fervent opposition from school trustees, administrators and teachers as well as concern from law enforcement officials, Idaho Republicans advanced a bill that would grant school employees the right to carry guns in classrooms and give them legal immunity if they engage in a gunfight on campus.

After a tense public hearing Wednesday, in which most testimony strongly opposed the proposal, the House State Affairs Committee voted along party lines to advance House Bill 415. 

The National Rifle Association-backed legislation would grant school employees — from teachers to secretaries to bus drivers — the right to carry guns on public school campuses, as long as they have an enhanced concealed weapons permit. 

“These select school employees will provide an armed force to protect children in the first minutes of an attack,” bill sponsor Rep. Ted Hill said. “We don’t want to have a stack of 20 kids dead in a classroom because we didn’t do anything.”

The statewide teachers union and groups representing school boards and administrators slammed the proposal for sidestepping trustees and parents. Neither an elected school board nor parents could stop guns from being in their district’s classrooms “and that is really troubling,” said Paul Stark, executive director of the Idaho Education Association.

“As far as we can see, no educators are actually asking for this,” Stark told the committee. “There has been some testimony this session about not trusting librarians with books, but this trusts librarians with a Glock.”

Current Idaho law makes it a misdemeanor to bring a gun on a school campus. But school boards can authorize teachers to carry, and some do. The bill would take that decision out of trustees’ hands and fine school districts if leaders try to make their campuses “gun-free zones.” 

Under HB 415, enhanced concealed carry permit-holders who intend to carry on campus would have to inform their principal, and the principal would need to maintain a list of campus carriers to share with the police. Those lists would be kept secret and exempt from disclosure under Idaho’s public records law. 

Quinn Perry, deputy director for the Idaho School Boards Association, said the legislation would be “completely impractical” to implement, and she questioned the lack of training required for employees who intend to carry on campus.

To get an enhanced concealed weapons permit in Idaho, one must complete eight hours of firearm training and give their fingerprints to Idaho State Police. But school districts that currently allow teachers to carry guns, like Mountain View, require active shooter training, Perry said. 

“They do this groundwork to make sure that parents, staff, community members have the buy-in before they authorize their staff to carry,” she said. 

Idaho law enforcement officials did not testify Wednesday, but they have raised similar concerns directly with the bill sponsors. Jeff Lavey, executive director of the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association, said his members worry that the training required for an enhanced concealed weapons permit is “not adequate to carry (a gun) in a school environment.” And even if it was adequate, the training is “one and done” as long as the permit doesn’t expire, he said. 

“There is a reason law enforcement trains yearly on active shooter scenarios,” Lavey told Idaho Education News by email.

The Sheriffs’ Association also opposes a provision in the bill that grants “absolute immunity” from civil or criminal legal action if a school employee chooses to use their weapon and is “wrong in their perceived threat,” Lavey said. The Association has yet to take an official stance on the bill but could vote on it later this week. 

“Our sheriffs are not opposed to guns in schools,” Lavey said. “We just believe it needs to be done right, and what works in one community does not necessarily work in another.”

The State Affairs Committee’s two Democrats grilled Hill on the legal immunity provision and the fact that school volunteers, not just employees, would be granted a right to carry guns on campus. The Republican from Eagle was noticeably peevish during one exchange with former Boise School District superintendent Don Coberly, who is filling in for Rep. Colin Nash, D-Boise. 

Coberly started to ask about sidestepping school board authority. “It would seem to me that, especially in a small district, it would make sense for the school board to have knowledge…” he began, before Hill cut him off.  “Why do they need to know?” Hill snapped. “This comes down to the principal, who’s protecting the school, not the superintendent, somewhere else.”

Rep. John Gannon, D-Boise, repeatedly asked whether Hill or the NRA has surveyed educators and parents about the proposal, particularly in the Boise area. 

“A survey here is not necessary, a survey was not taken,” said Aoibheann Cline, Idaho state director for the NRA. “Here, where we have the school boards that are not authorizing this, it’s for a reason…They think the gun is the problem.”

Aside from the NRA representative, one person testified in support of the bill: Robert Gillis, of Idaho Tough on Crime, a group that advocates for harsher sentences for child predators and fentanyl traffickers. Gillis said he’s a retired police sergeant who was on the scene of a 2019 school shooting in Southern California that left three students dead, including the shooter.

“We have to do something drastic to protect our kids, because nothing has been done so far,” Gillis said.

Gannon moved to delay a vote on the bill, which was introduced Monday, to allow more people to read it. All 11 Republicans voted down that motion and supported a separate motion to send the legislation to the full House, recommending that it pass. 

Rep. Julianne Young, R-Blackfoot, said she had received dozens of emails in support of the bill during the committee meeting. “I think I’d be hard pressed to think that folks haven’t had the chance to be aware.”

Teachers could get funds for out-of-pocket classroom expenses

A new bill would help public school teachers finance classroom expenses like books, cleaning supplies and technology. 

Teachers often pay, out-of-pocket, “hundreds of dollars or more” to equip their classrooms, said Sen. Scott Herndon, R-Sagle. Herndon’s bill would give teachers a to-be-determined amount in state funds for buying paper towels, posters, arts and crafts and other supplies.

The Idaho Department of Education would oversee the purchasing system, according to the bill. And the funds could not be used on administrative expenses, only classroom supplies.  

Herndon sponsored a similar bill last year. It had unanimous support in the Senate but didn’t get a hearing in the House. The new version removed professional development as an eligible expense, and added that the allowance could be rolled over for one year before it expires. 

The bill leaves it to the Legislature’s budget committee to decide how much each teacher would get. Sen. Dave Lent, R-Idaho Falls, asked Herndon to bring a “ballpark” estimate of what the program would cost to a forthcoming public hearing on the bill.

That’s one major change in a fresh draft of the sweeping legislation first introduced last week by Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale. The original bill made the Charter Commission a self-governing agency. 

“We did hear the comments from the committee and the public,” Boyle said Tuesday. “It’s back under the State Board, where it should be.”

The second draft is also five pages longer, which didn’t ease concerns of some lawmakers who seemed overwhelmed by the first draft and remained skeptical Tuesday. 

“I’m troubled, in general, by the 36-page bill, which has an indeterminate number of moving parts in it,” said Rep. Steve Berch, D-Boise. “I’m not confident that I even know what I’m voting on.”

Otherwise, the bill appears to be largely the same. Supporters have said the overhaul incorporates lessons learned since the state opened the door to charter schools in 1998. The tweaks include: 

• Allowing new charter schools to operate for six years, up from five years, while established charters could get a 12-year renewal
• Allowing charter holders with multiple schools to enroll as a single local education agency 
• Allowing charter schools to operate day care and after school programs as long as they don’t use state funds
• Creating a special category of “pilot charters,” which are granted three-year terms to “test an innovative or novel model”
• Allowing charter schools to receive funding from private organizations 

Charter Commission board members last month voted to endorse the bill, and the governor’s office has vetted it.

Rep. Lance Clow, R-Twin Falls, asked the bill sponsors to provide a one-page summary of major changes from the original draft before the committee hosts a public hearing, which has yet to be scheduled. 

Rep. Soñia Galaviz, D-Boise, requested that sponsors invite stakeholders who would be impacted by the legislation. 

“They all weighed in on this,” Boyle responded. “I’m sure they’ll be here.”