Narrator: 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.

Logan Finney: It was the first time since 2012 that the Idaho Department of Correction was set to execute someone by lethal injection.

As the events unfolded on Wednesday, we learned it was also the first time one of those executions has ended unsuccessfully.

I'm Logan Finney, filling in for Melissa Davlin.

Idaho Reports starts now.

Hello and welcome to Idaho Reports.

This week, Sara Omundson, Idaho's administrative director of courts, joins me to discuss cybersecurity and the court's funding request for the upcoming year.

Then Kevin Richert of Idaho Education News brings us up to date on the legislature's attempt to have more say in the proposed acquisition of the University of Phoenix.

But first, on Wednesday, the Idaho Department of Correction called off the execution of Thomas Creech after nearly an hour of attempting to establish an IV line to administer the necessary lethal injection chemicals.

According to IDOC director Josh Tewalt, the medical team tried to set up an IV line in eight different locations on Creech's body, including his arms, hands and legs, before calling off the procedure.

Josh Tewalt: Consistent with our training and with our protocols, We, from the very beginning, try to be we from the very beginning, try to be very candid and upfront that this isn't a do it at any cost process, that our first objective is to carry this out with dignity, professionalism and respect.

with dignity, professionalism and respect.

And part of that was training and practicing for the chance that they were unable to establish I.V.

access.

access.

Once the medical team leader had determined that it would be unlikely that they were going to be able to establish I.V.

access.

That was when we halted the execution.

We don't have an idea of timeframes or next steps at this point.

Those are things we will be discussing in the days ahead.

Finney: You can find that full Wednesday press conference, and our lead producer, Melissa Davlin's reporting on the halted execution at IdahoReports.org On Thursday, Melissa spoke with media witnesses Scott McIntosh of The Idaho Statesman and Roland Beres of KIVI Channel 6 about what they saw and what the state might do next.

Roland, I think most people know that the state called off the execution after an hour.

But what exactly happened on Wednesday morning?

but what exactly happened on Wednesday morning?

Roland Beres: Well, as we watched, they went through eight different I.V.

attempts and each one failed.

And, and each one failed.

And, you know, I think Creech was calm throughout the entire process.

was calm throughout the entire process.

There was no outbursts, really not much from him.

There was no outbursts, really, not much from him.

And they kept trying and kept explaining to him it didn't work, we're going to try again.

They tried one arm, then the other arm, two places on each arm, two places on each leg.

two places on each arm, two places on each leg.

And they couldn't find a vein that was suitable.

That doesn't mean necessarily they couldn't get into the vein.

I think you you know, to put the chemicals in it has to be a proper, you know, setting.

And they may have gotten into a vein.

I don't know if they did or not, but they said it wasn't I don't know if they did or not, but they said it wasn't acceptable enough.

And so eight tries, eight fails, and those are I think the common places to try an I.V.

And they said, well, that's it.

Davlin: At 10:58 I think you said they called it.

Beres: Close to that, yes.

Davlin: Scott, from your perspective, how transparent was this process?

Scott McIntosh: I think in general it was transparent.

I think it generally was transparent.

We saw everything that was going on.

The head of the medical team inside the execution chamber The head of the medical team inside the execution chamber was announcing every step of the way.

We are going to apply an alcohol swab now.

We are going to apply a numbing agent.

We are now going to see if we can find a vein to establish an I.V.

if we can find a vein to establish an I.V..

The one issue that I have with the transparency is the the quote unquote, medical team itself.

is the quote unquote, medical team itself.

I don't think there's a lot of information about who they are, their level of training.

their level of training.

You know, when you say medical team, I think you think of a doctor.

Well, apparently these are not doctors.

We don't know exactly what qualifications they have.

There's very little information about that.

So while the process overall was transparent, So while the process overall was transparent, I think that that is the one area.

And, of course, we've got a situation where you had eight attempts to find a vein for an I.V.

that were all unsuccessful.

And so I think it's fair to question the level of And so I think it's fair to question the level of qualifications of those who are performing the I.V.

setting.

Davlin: And the Department of Correction does have an SOP here where they outline who is qualified to be on the medical team.

We know that they, you know, it's not just a random person off the street.

They do need to have medical training.

They do need to have medical training.

But there's also another key part that But but there's also another key part that that has been an issue for years in Idaho, has been an issue for years in Idaho, and that's been where they get the chemicals in the first place.

where they get the chemicals in the first place.

You know, in 2022, we know that the legislature passed a law to make that information exempt from public records request after losing a lawsuit about where, you know, similar execution attempts in the past and similar attempts to get lethal injection chemicals.

to get lethal injection chemicals.

We don't know, and we won't know, where the state procured these chemicals.

McIntosh: Right.

And I think that that is a good point.

And And I think that that that is is a good point.

And again, the state had trouble procuring these chemicals until they passed that law, that made the identity of the seller of those drugs exempt from public records law.

And then miraculously, they were able to secure those drugs.

And then miraculously, they were able to secure those drugs.

And so, again, we never got to that point yesterday, And so, again, we never got to that point yesterday on Wednesday, with with Mr. Creech.

So we don't know what the outcome would have been.

So we don't know what the outcome would have been.

But that is the concern that if the chemicals But that is the concern that if the chemicals are they expired or what reaction that Mr. Creech might have to those chemicals.

Without knowing what those chemicals are, we're just left in the dark on that point.

Davlin: Executions are kind of this perfect nexus of justice, of public policy, of media and government transparency and religion and ethics and culture.

And you've touched a little bit on the press in the press conference after they called it off, that it was pretty surreal, actually seeing this happen in the execution chamber.

actually, seeing this happen in the execution chamber.

Can you talk a little bit about what it was like to actually witness this attempt?

Beres: Well, this is the first time I'd been in the witness chamber.

I've covered three total executions in my career.

But first time in there.

And, you know, walking through a prison to begin with is a weird experience.

Then going into the death chamber witness room.

Then going into the death chamber witness room, It's sparse.

But once you see the people come in, you see people in masks fully, you know, obscured.

That's a very bizarre thing to see three people working That's a very bizarre thing to see three people working on, someone covered basically from head to toe so you can't identify them.

So you can't identify them.

And just knowing the gravity of the situation that someone's going to die.

of the situation that someone's going to die, You don't run into that very often.

That's certainly the case for most people in the world.

So it's very bizarre.

They are very precise with what they're doing.

They're very precise with what they're doing.

The staff that's there, it's almost ceremonial.

They once they brought Creech on to the table, they had, I think, eight or nine big officers lift him up lift him up off the gurney and then onto the table.

off the gurney and onto the table.

And then they lifted up a big white sheet like they were setting, you know, a bedspread.

like they were setting, you know, a bedspread and All of that sort of almost ceremonial.

It's just a very surreal experience to know that you're there to witness this person die to know that you're there to witness this person die and to see all the elements that go along with it.

It's really strange.

Davlin: And then for this specific instance, the added layer of it not happening, of them calling it off.

Sure.

I noticed that both in Governor Little's comments after in his press release, after and Director Tewalt's comments in the press conference that there was a defense of the medical team, that they made the right call, that this is an experienced medical team, that did what they should have done.

That contrasted with Attorney General Raul Labrador, his statement.

There was a sense of frustration in that statement that justice had been delayed once again.

had been delayed once again.

I thought that was notable, Scott.

McIntosh: Yeah, and it was palpable, I think, in the media witness room, at least that, you know, you had the first attempt and it wasn't successful.

And then you had another attempt and it wasn't successful.

And again, every time they were trying to find a vein and set an I.V., you were thinking, okay, this is the one that they're going to do it, and we're finally going to have lethal injection here.

finally going to have lethal injection here.

But then after the fourth or the fifth try, there's kind of a sense of frustration that, you know, what is happening.

Why is this?

Why is this not happening?

What is the problem here?

And so I we are not privy to the other witness room.

We were just in the media witness room.

But I could imagine that the feelings were the same in the other room.

And for Creech and his family and friends, there must have been a tremendous sense of relief each time they said we were unsuccessful.

Each time they said we were unsuccessful.

Davlin: There were a lot of questions too, about what now?

We already know that, you know, Thomas Creech's death warrant expired at 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, but he's still on death row.

on Wednesday, but he's still on death row And there are still seven other people on death row who are watching this play out.

other people on death row who are watching this play out.

Scott, any indication of what might happen next?

Scott, any indication of what might happen next?

McIntosh: No.

And in fact, Idaho Department of Correction Director Josh Tewalt was asked that very question at the press conference and said, that very question at the press conference and said, we really don't know.

We're looking at our options.

We're trying to figure out what to do next.

The only options really are, according to state law, is lethal injection or firing squad.

law, is lethal injection or firing squad.

Firing squad is not available to the state right now because they still need to build the facility.

And so that just leaves lethal injection.

And so the question, I think is would they try that again, knowing that after eight attempts they were not able to find a vein?

Would they go through that all over again in an attempt go through that all over again in an attempt to do lethal to do lethal injection again?

Davlin: There's always the possibility too, Roland, that the legislature that is watching this, that has already made multiple changes to statute to make it easier to carry out executions between the firing squad and the shield law on chemical providers for lethal injections.

on chemical providers for lethal injections.

There's the possibility that they're watching this and might make more statute changes.

and might make more statute changes.

Beres: I don't know what statute is going to change the fact that you can't find a vein.

going to change the fact that you can't find a vein.

Davlin: But there's also nitrous hypoxia using.

But there's also nitrous hypoxia using.

Beres: Yeah, I understand that.

And when we talk about, you know, a firing squad, there's not just building the facility.

There is the protocol that goes along with it.

There's the possible lawsuits that other sources of execution have gone through and have been tested through, you know, trial by fire, and have been tested through, you know, trial by fire, no pun intended.

It, you know, to get to that point where we can actually, you know, execute someone by firing squad, to me, seems like it would be very extensive no matter what the legislature does.

very extensive no matter what the legislature does.

To me, again, what the legislature has done to this point is something that the public should question.

this point is something that the public should question.

When you do any of this in secret, When you do any of this in secret, any of it in secret, in the name of the people of Idaho, any of it in secret, in the name of the people of Idaho, it raises a lot of questions and concerns.

That's why we're there to keep an eye on the process.

But when they say, well, you can't know where this came from, you can't know the procedures, it raises questions in people's minds that maybe it raises questions in people's minds that maybe things are being hidden.

And that's not a good thing.

Davlin: Roland Beres, Scott McIntosh, thank you so much for joining us.

McIntosh: Thank you.

Finney: You can find Melissa's full discussion with Scott and Roland online at YouTube.com/IdahoReports On Thursday, Director Tewalt testified in front of lawmakers on the House Judiciary Rules and Administration Committee, where he fielded questions about use of the firing squad as a backup execution method and whether the medical team would have purposely failed in their attempts to establish an IV line.

Tewalt has expressed consistent confidence in that medical team.

You can find producer Ruth Brown’s story on the hearing at IdahoReports.org In other Justice news, the revenue that the Idaho Supreme Court generates from court fees has been in decline over the past several years.

But at the same time, the costs to run the court technology systems has increased.

I spoke with administrative Director of Courts Sarah Omundson on Thursday about the cybersecurity threats facing Idaho's court system and what they're doing to address them.

starting in about 2019, we started seeing courts around the country subject to things like ransomware attacks.

to things like ransomware attacks.

We started to undertake an evaluation of our system to say, We started to undertake an evaluation of our system to say, Are we safe?

We know that other courts are being attacked.

We know the impact of that.

Just this year, in October of this year, the Kansas courts were subject to a ransomware attack.

It took them five months to get back up.

It took them five months to get back up.

They had to go back to paper for five months.

So we started looking at this in about 2019.

We had an assessment done in 2020 and ultimately what came back after working with the vendor and ultimately what came back after working with a vendor was we learned that we were at serious risk of a breach.

We learned that our security was as they described it, immature We learned that our security was, as they described it, immature, and we needed to make some significant changes to the architecture of our system.

So we went to the legislature, we explained this, and they provided us with about $20 million.

That's ARPA funding, that we're using to actually improve our system.

We're using it to do things like We're using it to do things like shrink our threat vector.

shrink our threat vector.

So fancy term, what that really means is there are different ways people can get into your system.

there are different ways people can get into your system.

We currently, the way that our system is currently set up, We currently, the way that our system is currently set up, we have a pretty large threat vector.

We want to shrink that down.

And so we're working on some things to do that.

The other thing that we want to do is move our basic functions into the cloud.

And so we're working towards moving things like our case And so we're working towards moving things like our case management system from an on premise system into a cloud based system.

And so that would be something moving to a centralized system Finney: And so that would be something moving to a centralized system that the state runs rather than having it divided up between the 44 counties.

Is that right?

Omundson: Sort of.

So right now, all counties are on the same case management system.

And so they're, we have servers throughout the state where an entire single unified court an entire single unified court system is running on a single case management system.

So that exists today.

But that's not necessarily true of other parts and the underlying architecture and how you get to that system.

And so what we are And so what we are trying to do is unify that underlying architecture now.

Now, we'd still be on the same case management system.

We'd still be on the same case management system.

It would be hosted differently, and you would reach it through a state network.

through a state network.

Finney: And so going back to that factor of cybersecurity, the kind of the goal here is to make it harder for people to break into the system.

What does that mean for the average Idahoan who has records in the court system?

At the end of the day, cybersecurity is a At the end of the day, cybersecurity is a good idea, but what does it actually mean for people?

So just to Omundson: So just to give you an idea of what the risk looks like, last month, so the month of January, we had over 250,000 attempts we had over 250,000 attempts just by China to get into our system.

just by China to get into our system.

The fact is, is that last week we had over 6000 The fact is, that last week we had over 6,000 attempts, high risk attempts to get into our system.

And so what we've learned is that state courts hold a lot And so what we've learned is that state courts hold a lot of very important information.

If you've ever had a speeding ticket, we have your name, your date of birth, your driver's license number.

everything they need to steal your identity.

Everything they need to steal your identity.

But we also hold other important information.

We have trade secrets.

We have small business bank accounts.

There are those out there There are those out there who have figured out what we hold.

And it's not just Idaho.

It's state courts in general.

We hear about 97% of all cases.

And so we see a lot of outside actors trying to get to And so we see a lot of outside actors trying to get to that information.

They know what we hold.

For the average Idahoan we have to make sure that when they have to provide us we have to make sure that when they have to provide us with information, when you're stopped on the side of the road and you have to give up your driver's license, we are now going to hold that information.

So we're trying to be accountable for that and we're trying to make sure we're doing everything we can to protect that information.

But actually, that's not even the most scary thing to me.

But actually, that's not even the most scary thing to me.

So a ransomware attack where someone gets enough information to steal your identity is scary.

enough information to steal your identity is scary.

What is just as scary?

What is just as scary, if not more scary, is the idea of what if someone gets into our system and suddenly information is changed and suddenly information is changed?

That felony that they don't want on their records so they won't have to register as a sex offender?

What happens if that quietly goes away?

What happens What happens if that adoption, that that child became a member of the family?

What happens if that record disappears?

Our records are official court records, they actually impact how people live their lives.

And so we've got to do everything that we can to protect them and to be responsible with the records that we're accountable for holding.

Finney: Okay.

Well, we've identified the risks.

We've identified what the court is trying to do about it.

Let's talk about the funding now, because there's the one time costs of making the changeover from the old system to the new system.

And then there's the ongoing costs of keeping it running.

We've referenced that some of the ARPA money went to the changeover.

Talk to me about the court technology fund, Talk to me about the court technology fund, I believe it's called.

Can you talk to me about that fund and what the trends have been over the last couple of years?

Omundson: Sure.

So the Court Technology Fund is a dedicated fund.

So when the courts started moving to a digital record in 2014, they came to the legislature and said, we need funding to fund court technology.

There was already a court There was already a court technology fund that a small amount of money went in.

But what the legislature did is they said, But what the legislature did is they said we're going to increase the fees that people pay on civil cases and we're going to impose fees in criminal cases and we're going to impose fees in criminal cases so that people who are using the courts are paying fees, which will support court technology.

At that time, there was an expectation on those civil filing fees that they would increase about 11% year over year, and that would take care of any inflationary costs that and that would take care of any inflationary costs that come with court technology.

What we have What we have learned over the last ten years is that's not accurate.

So the fees into the system, the fees into the court technology fund, they're dropping about two and a half percent a year.

So we're getting less money.

The inflationary costs in the system are rising about 5, actually 7% year over year.

actually 7% year over year.

So our revenue is going down.

So our revenue is going down, our costs are going up.

Our costs are going up.

What we've been doing What we've been doing is sort of cobbling together funding right now.

So we have some money that was leftover from when we moved from paper records to digital records.

We actually came in under budget on that process, We actually came in under budget on that process and so we've been using that to keep things afloat over the past few years, knowing that at some point we were going to run out of funding.

Finney: What is that drop dead date for you?

If you have a little bit of savings, but also revenue is going down, costs are going up.

What's the the the break even point where the courts would go into the red?

Omundson: So that's why we're here this year.

We will actually run out of the savings that we have in that account in fiscal year 25. the savings that we have in that account in fiscal year 25.

So the budget request from the court So the budget request from the court this year, the majority of it really is, we know what the system is going to look like when we're done with the project.

We know that we are We know that we are serving over 5,000 people and we know that the system is it's spread across the entire state.

We know to keep it safe what we need to do We know to keep it safe what we need to do and we know we don't have the funding.

And in fiscal year 25, we will be in the red.

if we just got a maintenance budget.

If we just got a maintenance budget, in other words, if all we received this year is exactly what we received last year, we will be cutting services.

We don't have enough funding to maintain the services that we have today.

Finney: What's the court proposing that the lawmakers do about that?

Does that look like more money from the state?

Does that look like increasing those fines and fees that users of the court system pay?

What's the solution you're proposing?

Omundson: So what the Supreme Court has asked is that we receive some general fund dollars some general fund dollars instead of relying solely on the fines and fees that are coming in and going into that dedicated fund.

What we have asked is to move some staff out of that dedicated fund and to have in the general fund some of our IT staff.

staff.

And so we're looking at about six And so we're looking at about six point about $6 million in staffing costs that we're asking to be moved to the general fund.

And then in addition to that, we're asking for about $1.9 million in operating costs.

So ultimately, So ultimately, we would ask the court technology not be solely reliant on this dedicated fines and fees, but rather that also there be some dedicated investment but rather that also there be some dedicated investment in that.

To get to where we need to be to protect that system, We need additional dollars, and that's the budget request we need additional dollars, and that's the budget request that's before the legislature right now.

Finney: One final question for you.

How receptive have the budgeting committee and the rest of the lawmakers been to that idea?

Omundson: You know, some have been very receptive and others have had questions.

I've been asked things like, are we buying a Cadillac system I've been asked things like, are we buying a Cadillac system when we really only need a Ford?

So I'm doing my very best to educate folks and to let them understand this is the risk that we face.

Truly, this is not a program that the courts came up with on Truly, this is not a program that the courts came up with on their own.

We've been working with some global leaders in security for government services.

We've looked at a lot of different options.

We've looked at a lot of different options.

And there is some pain.

There are some pain points here.

It's not.

It's not, you always have to balance security with the ease of use, And the courts have actually and the courts have actually really struggled with how do we make that balance?

How do we make it easy for the clerks and court users to access the system while at the same time making sure to access the system while at the same time making sure that we're doing our level best to ensure the security?

So I will tell you that some have been receptive.

Others have asked, is it really worth the investment to avoid a breach?

Maybe a breach would be less costly.

We've tried to explain it's not just about the financial We've tried to explain it's not just about the financial cost.

It's also about trust and confidence in the courts.

It's also about the impact on those people whose information that we keep.

So there's a good, robust, ongoing discussion about it.

We're very hopeful that in the end, we will have We're very hopeful that in the end, we will have what we need to continue to run the court system that we have, but in a more secure manner.

Finney: All right.

Well, we'll keep an eye on those bills as the session continues.

Sara Omundson, state administrator for the courts, thank you so much.

Omundson: Thank you.

Finney: Also online this week, I sat down with Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield to talk about the education issues she's watching this legislative session.

You'll find that conversation online wherever you listen to podcasts or on the Idaho Report's YouTube channel.

We, of course, can't reference education issues without bringing up the proposed University of Phoenix Purchase.

Joining us to discuss that is Kevin Richert of Idaho Education News.

Kevin, I literally laughed out loud yesterday in the capital pressroom when I overheard you say, I'm tired of writing about Phoenix.

Well, Richert: Well.

Unfortunately, there's still a lot to write about Phoenix, and it's to write about Phenix, and it's all kidding aside, all kidding aside.

It is a fascinating story that continues to unfold at the state house.

Finney: Yes.

Over this week, we had three days of hearings and interfacing between University of Idaho and state board officials and the lawmakers between the House State Affairs Committee and JFAC.

What were your biggest takeaways from those hearings?

Richert: I think my takeaways are that you've got a number of legislators who have a lot of concerns about the Phoenix Purchase.

They have concerns about the risk attached to the purchase, and they have real concerns about the process as well.

They feel like they've been cut out of the conversation and pretty resounding vote out of the House State Affairs Committee on Friday, unanimously supporting a resolution that urges the state Board of Education to reconsider its approval of the Phoenix purchase back in May and leaves open the door for the legislative leadership for the legislative leadership to look at a lawsuit.

to look at a lawsuit.

So this is a major development in the story because as we heard this week, a lawsuit from the legislature could delay this purchase a lawsuit from the legislature could delay this purchase and could possibly kill the purchase outright.

Finney: And honing in on that lawsuit detail.

You referenced it.

But this resolution has some teeth in it.

It's not just a suggestion.

There was an attempt in passing the legislation out of committee that might have taken the lawsuit language out, but that fell pretty flat, I understand.

Richert: A very quick attempt to send the resolution to the amending order on the House floor with the idea of trying to strike the language pertaining to a lawsuit.

Nobody on the committee liked that idea, except for Representative Todd Achiles, Democrat from Boise, who made the motion.

It pa, it failed with with only one vote in favor.

And then the resolution was sent to the floor unanimously.

Finney: So even the rest of the Democrats on the panel in favor of.

Yeah.

Yeah.

All right.

All right.

Well, in the rest of that hearing, we also heard from some public figures, including Attorney General Labrador, BOR state board member Curt Levick.

border state board member Curt Levick.

What what were their voice concerns?

Richert: It was interesting, especially hearing from Attorney General Labrador on Friday.

He restated a lot of the concerns that we've heard him raise in legal documents, What we've heard from legislators what we've heard from legislators, concerns about the transparency surrounding this deal.

Very interesting exchange, though.

At one point Representative Vito Barbieri asked Labrador kind of for some free legal advice.

He said, Do we have any other recourse here He said, Do we have any other recourse here other than a lawsuit?

And Labrador said.

Well, that's a really important question, but I'm not prepared to answer it today.

That is, I think, one of the big looming questions, though, about this whole Phoenix saga as it's unfolding at the state house now.

Finney: And something I seemed to get from Labrador in the part of his back and forth that I listened to, he's really concerned more about the transparency in the process than about the financial risk to the state.

Richert: That's what he talked about today, was the finan, the transparency.

the transparency.

He said that he's not weighing in one way or the other on the merits of the purchase.

But obviously, if you read his legal documents over the past few months, he's made it pretty clear that he's got serious reservations about the purchase on its merits as well.

Finney: We also heard from University of Idaho President Scott Green.

They even referenced some of your reporting in the hearing.

Tell us about that.

Richert: Well, I broke a story on Tuesday that we've been working on for a couple of months.

We've been going back and forth with the University of Idaho on records requests because we wanted to see the invoices.

We wanted to see how much the university has outsourced on consulting.

We now know it's more than $11 million.

The big thing that we found from those invoices, $7.3 million, went to Hogan Lovells.

That's the law firm that Scott Green worked for before he became president of the University of Idaho.

before he became president of the University of Idaho.

He didn't like the story.

He twice referred to it as character assassination.

But what was interesting, as he Finney: I think thinly veiled character assassination is the quote I have .

Richert: Yes.

Yes.

Yeah, that's that's the exact quote.

That's the exact quote.

But interestingly, we wrote the story on Tuesday.

But interestingly, we wrote the story on Tuesday.

He spoke on it at the state house on Wednesday and Thursday.

And his points about the story were points that were already made in the story.

You know, we reported that he says that he has no financial stake in the firm.

We reported that the decision to hire Hogan Lovells was made by university counsel, not by Greene personally, although he recommended it.

That was in my story.

And he said that Hogan Lovells was hired because they are the best in the business at issues like acquisitions and education law.

at issues like acquisitions and education law.

That was in the story.

I didn't hear much of anything that suggested an inaccuracy in my story, much less character assassination.

Finney: Well, we are going to have to leave it there, unfortunately.

We'll have you back, Kevin.

We have much more online about bills moving through the statehouse this week.

You'll find that written coverage a IdahoReports.org Also this Saturday, March 2nd, is the Idaho Republican Party's presidential caucus, scheduled to begin at noon Mountain Time 11 Pacific.

Registered party members will find their local caucus locations online.

We'll have analysis early next week.

Thanks so much for watching.

We'll see you next Friday.

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 more and Betty's family legacy of building the great state of Idaho by the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.