Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public Television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

>>Lawmakers are eyeing the calendar and hoping to adjourn soon, but there are still major issues to tackle, including big budgets and a proposal to change the way the state handles public defense.

I'm Melissa Davlin.

Idaho Reports starts now.

Hello and welcome to Idaho Reports.

This week, Logan Finney discusses the implications of a major property tax relief proposal with Quinn Perry from the Idaho School Boards Association.

Then Ruth Brown talks to Richie Eppink from the ACLU of Idaho and Seth Grigg from the Idaho Association of Counties about a proposal to overhaul public defense in Idaho.

But first, let's get you caught up on the week.

The Joint Finance Appropriations Committee made more progress, setting the K through 12 public schools budget and approving Governor Brad Little's education recommendations.

That includes setting starting teacher pay at about $47,000, adding $145 million for teacher raises.

Closing the salary gap for classified employees like bus drivers and cafeteria workers with $97.4 million for raises.

And boosting discretionary funds for schools with $48.8 million.

That total budget came in at $3.3 billion, including federal and dedicated funds.

But the Joint Budget Committee still has work to do.

It hasn't yet set next year's budget for the Department of Health and Welfare, including the hotly contested Medicaid budget.

And it has to redo budgets for the Idaho State Liquor Division, which failed on the House floor and the attorney general's office and the state appellate public defender, which the co-chairs had sent back to committee before a vote.

The Joint Legislative Oversight Committee finally met this week after House Speaker Mike Moyal appointed two of his members to the committee that allowed the Office of Performance Evaluations to release a long awaited report on direct care workforce shortages in Idaho.

OPE outlined the demand for more direct care workers and how Idaho uniquely experienced a national shortage in 2021 that remains in place today.

>>And over time, we saw that we were pretty close with national staffing levels, but then started to drift.

And in 2022, it's estimated that in order to get back up to the national staffing ratio, so the national shortage, we would need 3000 more direct care workers by 2032.

That's expected to more than triple to 9500.

The National shortage appears to exist and that Idaho's shortage of direct care workers appears to be worse than that national shortage.

We've been adding workers slowly but it wasn't keeping up with the demand that we had because of our aging population.

And then we saw a sudden drop in the number of workers here.

That's following the start of our pandemic in Idaho and does not seem to be aligned with the pandemic itself, but instead, after the pandemic, which would align with the hypothesis that other wages started to rise in industry settings following the pandemic.

>>We'll have more on the health care workforce shortage in coming weeks.

On Thursday, the Senate passed a bill that would create a private school tuition pilot program within the existing Empowering Parents Grant program.

Part of the proposed K through 12 education budget would make that grant program permanent to the tune of $30 million a year.

The program gives $1,000 grants to students families for tutoring help, counseling, education supplies or extracurricular activities.

That program rolled out last year.

This proposal by Senator Lori Den Hartog would add $12 million to that to provide 2000 students with up to $6,000 to pay for private school starting next year.

The bill now goes to the House.

Election bills are still making their way through the legislature.

On Wednesday, Governor Little signed a bill that disallows the use of student identification cards as a valid form of ID at the polls.

On Friday, the House State Affairs Committee advanced two more bills, one that would do away with signed affidavits in lieu of ID for voters who don't have their ID with them, and one that would create a free ID card for those who don't have driver's licenses and can no longer use their student ID cards to vote.

One bill that's dead for the session, a proposal to severely restrict absentee voting to those who are disabled or for or who are out of state for approved reasons.

d has House killed that bill on Monday.

>>If we give false information on an application, we may be subject to a fine of up to $50,000 and or imprisonment.

And that's under federal and state law.

So here's the question I'm asking.

Are we really comfortable with potentially making the fellow citizens in our state accidental criminals?

Because we put forward a bill that adds unneeded complexity to a system that is currently not at risk of fraud, has not experienced fraud, and has worked just fine for the citizens of this state, as is.

>>The last couple elections.

I mean, we've been standing in lines for an hour or more, and it's really difficult, even even for healthy people, not only to stand in those lines, but to accommodate the the timing.

You know, many people go after work and if they get caught up at work, fully planning to be there that day, they miss that 8:00 to 8:00 window.

They don't get to vote.

It doesn't seem very fair.

>>That isn't the end of election talk.

This week, the House passed a massive property tax proposal that sets aside more than $300 million for two projects, helping school districts pay down their existing bonds and levies, and providing tax credits for property taxpayers who qualify for the homeowner's exemption.

The bill is a combination of two prior proposals from the House and Senate.

>>I feel like we came into this legislative session with a mandate of sorts to deliver meaningful property tax relief to the taxpayers of Idaho.

And it's my belief that through House Bill 292, we will deliver on that mandate.

I feel good about particularly three things that this bill does.

First, I just like the the bottom line.

I think that it's more common than it should be to set out to deliver something really meaningful and to end up with something pretty paltry.

And I think that this is a good, solid amount of property tax relief.

And so from a bottom line standpoint, I'm proud of House Bill 292.

Secondly, I love the fact that this is not simply a tax shift.

We're not just taking and targeting some winners and paying for it through others that might be deemed the losers in this process.

We are literally giving relief across the board to property owners and to homeowners without shifting that burden on to anyone else.

And third, I think that this is a good bill.

That is a consensus bill that kind of takes different views that were expressed and shared early in the session.

And is a good balance between a focus on delivering relief to property owners across the board.

But with a little extra emphasis to primary residence owners who have been particularly hard hit with increased taxes over the last four or five years.

>>The Senate Local Government and Taxation Committee approved the bill on Thursday, getting it one step closer to the governor's desk.

But one part of the bill makes school districts nervous.

The proposal would also do away with a March election date that is reserved for school districts to ask voters for supplemental bonds and levies.

On Friday, Logan Finney sat down with Quinn Perry of the Idaho School Boards Association to get her take.

>>Well, now let's talk about that existing debt, those bonds and levies that currently school districts are able to run on for election dates throughout the year.

House Bill 292 would get rid of the March election date.

So talk to me about that election where it falls in the budgeting cycle and why it's so concerning for the district.

>>Yes, thank you.

You know, school districts, they begin setting their budgets really almost exactly after they set their previous year budget.

They're really making calculations about how their enrollment and their attendance is impacting their their ability to budget now.

And they're looking at the future.

And when we get to the spring in school district operations, the first thing that usually takes place is that they go into negotiations with their professional staff, which is our certificated teachers, school counselors, other professional school personnel that are on a certificate.

And I think that's one of the differences in any other local government than it is to a school district, which is that 90% of our staff are on a contract and we negotiate with them yearly what their salaries and benefits look like.

And, you know, I think those negotiations have largely gotten easier as the investments with the legislature are coming down with increased health insurance funding.

And of course, the governor and the legislature's emphasis on teacher pay.

But those negotiations have to happen earlier and earlier, because if you're not able to come to consensus with enough time for you to set your budget, which is required by law to be done roughly a month before your July meeting, which is when the new fiscal year begins.

If you didn't have that certainty in your budget because your district might rely on an operational levy to supplement, say, your salaries and benefits that are coming to you from the state, you could be at kind of a quick timeline to have to kind of finalize negotiations.

And if you're not able to finalize negotiations and issue contracts to your teachers, the teacher shortage is real and teachers can easily move to a neighboring district that might have more budget certainty.

So it's really removing what we call the more stable date when it comes to budgeting and negotiations that gives really school districts the most certainty going into their fiscal year projections.

>>And so the School Boards Association, the School Administrators association and the Education Association Teachers Union have kind of, as a group said that maybe the March idea isn't the best one, but we'd be willing to give up the August election.

That has not made it anywhere really.

>>Correct.

>>So tell me about the negotiations and how that process has gone.

>>I think if I want to talk about the four election dates I might talk about it from back in 2008 when the state moved to elections, consolidation back, You know, prior to then, local governments ran their their tax questions really any time throughout the year.

They ran them themselves.

And when the counties took over that election duty, school districts were specifically given four dates to have a property tax question out to the voters.

And really at that time, the conversation was we know March is necessary because that provides budgeting certainty.

And then Representative Dennis Lake was a former school board member and knew that he needed to provide that certainty.

But the other part was that there is a constitutional requirement that our facilities bonds are a 66.7% threshold.

And, you know, that kind of the deal at the time was, you know, until we can really lower that date, we should get school districts, at least four opportunities to get these kind of questions settled within their community.

>>Sure, whether it should be a simple majority versus >>Correct Yes, two thirds.

Any kind of reduction would be helpful.

You saw just this last week that, you know, some school district bonds were still over 60% of a voter approved threshold and are unable to still be considered passed under the eyes of the Constitution.

So I think that's really where the history of the dates were.

But you are correct in that.

First, I want to say that at some time these four election dates have played a critical role in how the school district can operate.

You know, our largest school district in the state West Ada.

They ran a supplemental levy that they needed to supplement their budget, you know, back in a couple of years ago in August, and that was necessary for them.

However, August is the least used date out of all of the four election dates.

And, you know, we don't believe that removing a date is necessary for the property tax relief in this bill to really come to fruition.

But if there if there needed to be a date for political reasons, really August is the one that is most preferred by school leaders.

And the reason why is that you know, it is close enough to the general election.

I think for county clerks, they would prefer to kind of see that go away.

But really, for us, March keeping March is really one of the most important things because it just gives school districts that amount of predictability and stability going into their negotiations process.

>>All right.

Well, Quinn Perry, Idaho School Boards Association.

Thanks so much for your time this week.

>>Thanks for having me.

>>The Senate will soon take up a bill to change the way Idaho funds the public defense system.

The bill would do away with the existing public defense Commission and county public defenders and instead create a state public defender's office.

The office would be funded by the state rather than the county's.

Producer Ruth Brown spoke with Seth Grigg of the Idaho Association of Counties and Richie Eppink of the ACLU of Idaho to discuss the proposal.

Seth and Richie, thanks for joining me today.

The State Public Defense Act made it through Senate committee.

I believe it has yet to get a vote on the floor.

This would be a total overhaul of the state public defense system.

Seth, walk me through some of the changes that that'll have for the counties.

>>Yeah, thanks, Ruth.

So this is actually something that my organization has been working towards for over a decade now.

And we we strongly believe that if you look at case law, if you look at the state constitution, the public defense is a state responsive ability to this point in time, that responsibility has been delegated to the counties in each of the 44 counties is currently providing public defender services, either through the direct employment of attorneys or through contracting with with contracted criminal defense attorneys to represent those who have been accused.

And so this is a significant shift from the way public defense is currently provided.

Essentially, the bill provides for the establishment of a regional based public defense system in Idaho that will be overseen by the state.

So within each of our seven judicial districts, there will be a chief public defender appointed who will oversee public defense within that judicial district.

Again, rather than the counties doing that, it will be it will be the state that will have oversight.

The governor's office will appoint a state public defender to oversee the provision of public defense in the state of Idaho.

And so, you know, for the counties, again, it's it's relieving the counties of both their financial and also their their other obligations in providing public defense, that the state will assume all of those responsibilities.

>>What is the price tag with the state taking over those responsibilities?

>>So currently, as we look at what the county expenses are, counties are budgeting upwards of $36 million a year in county tax dollars.

In addition to that, they receive 12 million and pass through funds from the state of Idaho.

And so the bill itself is is a follow up actually to House Bill 735 from last session, which established the funding stream for public defense.

And in essence, the first 36 million will be dedicated and come from sales tax collections at the state level.

The other 12 million that's currently appropriated by the state to to pass through the counties will continue to be appropriated.

So there will be $48 million there on the table.

Now, I think you know, there can be a debate as to whether that's enough to meet the state's needs.

I do think that the legislature has the ability to appropriate additional funds and a good example of that counties used to administer on behalf of the state the catastrophic health care program.

And for individuals that didn't have insurance, we would cover those medical expenses.

The county would pay a portion of that and the state would pay a portion of that.

Very rarely did the amount appropriated by legislature meet the needs of the program.

And so each year the legislature would come in and pass a supplemental appropriation, paying the necessary bills to make sure public or excuse me, to make sure the indigent medical claims were were met.

And I see public defense much the same way.

I mean, the state will have to defend all of those cases.

And if there isn't enough money appropriated initially, the legislature is going to have to come in and pay those bills and appropriate sufficient funds.

>>RIchie, the ACLU of Idaho has long taken issue with the public defense system in the state.

Can you walk me through some of your concerns with this bill?

>>Certainly, yes.

Well, Seth is definitely right.

The courts have made clear that it is the state's responsibility to provide public defense.

And what we have in this bill is a bill that's going to continue the crisis that has existed since at least 2010.

The state could no longer pretend in 2010 that the house wasn't on fire.

And we filed suit in 2015.

And what we've seen since then is only turning a little bit of a hose on that that system.

We are now shifting from a county focused system under this bill, if it's enacted, to a state based system.

We have a number of problems that will that this bill will just perpetuate.

One of them is independence of the public defendent function, the public defense function.

And it's tomorrow, actually March 18th will mark will mark 60 years since the landmark Gideon versus Wainwright case from the U.S. Supreme Court, which made clear that while a fair trial may not be essential in some other countries, it is an ours.

And the way you ensure a fair trial is you separate, you build structures in between those entities that are prosecuting people, those people that are hauling people into the state's courts and the people who are providing that defense before we have that controlled by the counties, by county elected officials at the county level.

And now we will have that controlled ultimately by the governor, the same executive branch that is prosecuting folks and that is holding people in its jail.

So we have that independence problem, as Seth alluded to.

We still have under this bill and the funding mechanism underlying it, a major funding problem.

Public defenders all across the state are doing outstanding jobs against impossible odds, against impossible workloads.

We know approximately what those workloads are.

We know that they seem to be getting worse.

And we know that public defenders do not have the time, do not have the resources that they need.

And so even the $48 million that Seth is talking about, while the state continues its addiction to prosecution, it's addiction to incarceration is not going to be nearly sufficient to give those public defenders a fair fight in court.

>>Richie, I want to ask you, so not everybody has had a public defender.

Not all of our viewers are familiar with the system.

What does it mean when the public defender's caseload is too high?

What does that mean for the defendant?

>>Right.

And it's an excellent question.

One thing we should all recognize that when we talk about public defense, when we hear the term indigent defense, we're really talking about probably most Idahoans.

If you found yourself in court, if any of us found ourself in court tomorrow and we couldn't afford the thousands of dollars that it's usually going to take for an attorney, for investigators, for experts, for testing and other resources needed to defend these cases, that means we're probably going to have to turn to the state to try to provide that.

But having a public defender means that you have somebody who knows what's going on in the court and who can connect you with the resources to defend to defend your case.

And just like housing in Idaho and across the country, even groceries across the country are unaffordable.

Legal services are unaffordable to most of us as well.

And so this bill really and the public defense system in Idaho really casts the structure that will either give us justice in our courts, give us a fair trial or not.

And we haven't had that for over a decade now.

And this bill is not going to change that either.

>>We've had a little bit, too, the separation of powers issue or political independence.

Independence, I should say right now, when you look at a county based system, the county is both prosecuting and defending.

One of the advantages that I see in this is that while the counties will continue to prosecute, we won't be responsible for the defense side.

And I will say, because I've been involved in a lot of discussions as it relates to, you know, the bill that ultimately came to be There were a lot of changes made to this bill to address some of the concerns regarding political independence.

For example, the selection of local judicial district public defenders is is insulated from the governor's office.

The magistrate commission, which is comprised of citizens, will select who that judicial district public defender is.

And then as it relates to the governor's office, yes, the governor will ultimately appoint who the state public defender is.

However, the names from which the governor will choose will be recommended to the governor by a committee that's established.

And there will be one representative from each of the seven magistrate commissions who will who will recruit those individuals and recommend them to the governor.

And so I do think there were efforts undertaken to try to provide some protections there.

I know that, you know, if you read the text of the bill as well, that the state public defender, most state employees are at will employees in the case of the public defender.

And that position will be a for cause position.

And so I do appreciate, you know, the concerns about the governor appointing, but I think we've tried to address that in the bill to provide some level of protection to prevent some of that undue political influence.

>>But this is an important point, because I have heard throughout the progress of this bill that the phrase don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

But whenever I hear that, I realize there's a profound misunderstanding of what the stakes are here.

We are talking about fundamental human rights on which our system of justice depends.

And so the perfect is being the enemy of the good is not at issue here.

What we have here is the political compromise being an enemy of individual constitutional rights and personal liberty.

>>I want to talk a little bit about parity.

You mentioned perhaps prosecutors earlier.

We have about 5 minutes left, so we're going to have to keep it short.

County prosecutors will still be elected and they will still be on the county payroll.

Is there a concern with the counties about parity between what those public defenders will be making and what the prosecutors will be making?

How will that be addressed?

>>Absolutely.

We we have have heard from our county commissioners in particular on this issue, because ultimately the county commissioners are responsible for approving and implementing the county budget, how those tax dollars will be spent.

And this has been an ongoing issue.

You know, frankly, you know, as long as this has been on the table.

What we find is, you know, if you give public defenders a raise, the prosecutors will seek a raise.

Once they get a raise, public defenders will seek another raise.

And there has been concerns raised by county commissioners that moving public defense to the state level, The state now will be funding defenders.

And there has been concern raised as to whether, you know, the salaries, for example, of public defenders will outpace the salaries of prosecutors and then will that require the county to levy more on property taxes to meet higher salary demands of public defenders or excuse me, of prosecutors?

>>Is there a guess yet or.

>>I guess time will tell?

Certainly.

And it is a competitive marketplace right now for attorneys in general.

You know, it's a very competitive marketplace.

I think public defender offices and prosecutor offices around the state are facing the same dilemma of being able to retain attorneys when you can go into the private sector and make so much more money.

>>RIchie, the class action lawsuit that the ACLU has been supporting, Tucker versus Idaho, is set to go to trial next year.

What does what does this change and if anything, we’ll start with that?

What does this change?

>>Right.

I mean, I think unfortunately, even though there were times during the progress of this bill that I, I felt that we were so close to the finish line that I thought that the legislature and the stakeholders involved would let this bill get to where we could resolve this litigation and move on for Idaho.

But we didn't get there.

And so I think the case will will continue on.

Ultimately, a court's going to have to rule on this, and that may come as soon as the hearings that are set, both for later this year and trial set for early 2024.

>>What more would it take to get there, though?

>>Well, I think we certainly need more money if the prosecution levels are going to continue as they are.

It's going to cost a lot more to make sure public defenders have the resources that they need.

Now, another way that the state could address that, which even suggested by the U.S. Supreme Court, is to take out a lot of the lower level crimes that public defenders are spending their time on out of the criminal courts and address them in other ways.

So decriminalization could lower that price tag for this for this legislation.

But we need more money.

We need greater separation.

Even though the magistrate commissions are involved, the magistrate commissions are largely dominated by county level and local level elected officials.

So we've got to create greater separation there.

We need to tie Idaho more directly and clearly to national standards because we don't have adequate Idaho standards to make sure that public defenders have the workloads that are manageable for them.

>>Briefly, Seth, do you want to weigh in on whether the magistrate commissions are politically influenced?

>>Well, I think a broader issue that I think I want to address is well one to get to your point on on the magistrate commission.

It is again, it's comprised of county commissioners, it's comprised of mayors.

It will also be comprised of defense attorneys.

And, you know, these are all people who are in the communities.

And I think I give them the benefit of the doubt, knowing, knowing many of these county commissioners that serve on the magistrate commission, that they are truly going to find the best attorneys they can.

And if you look at some of the institutional public defenders around the state that have been selected by county commissioners, there are some of the top defense attorneys that you're going to find.

So I have confidence in our local magistrate commissions.

I also want to point out quickly that one of the unique aspects of this bill is that it creates a transition team which can help with any of these dilemmas or issues that pops up between now and implementation.

>>I'm going to have to leave it there.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your time.

I really appreciate it.

>>Thanks so much.

Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public Television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.