Latest news with #Lenney
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Controversial child care deregulation bill heads to Idaho Senate
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee narrowly approved House Bill 243 Wednesday. Among other cuts in state regulations, the bill would allow child care centers to set their own staff-to-child ratios — the most divisive of the legislation's proposed changes. (Getty Images) This story was originally posted on on March 5, 2025. A controversial child care deregulation bill is heading to the Idaho Senate. The Senate Health and Welfare Committee narrowly approved House Bill 243 Wednesday. Among other cuts in state regulations, the bill would allow child care centers to set their own staff-to-child ratios — the most divisive of the legislation's proposed changes. Currently, the state requires one staff member for a certain number of children, determined by a formula based on the age of children under a provider's care. House Bill 243 would eliminate the current statute and allow providers to set their own ratios, which must be 'appropriate to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all children in attendance.' Bill sponsor Rep. Rod Furniss said the proposal is aimed at easing Idaho's child care shortage by eliminating 'onerous regulations.' 'We're not leaving the day cares out there to run themselves,' said Furniss, R-Rigby. During an emotional public comment period Wednesday, opponents said flexible ratios could lead to increased rates of neglect and abuse. 'Stripping these key safety standards from law opens the door to operators and bad actors who cut corners to save costs,' said Christine Tiddens, executive director of Idaho Voices for Children. 'In a child care setting, cutting corners results in babies being put into harm's way.' Sen. Camille Blaylock made an unsuccessful motion to send the bill to the Senate's amending order, to reinsert the ratio standard. Blaylock, R-Caldwell, said the state sets minimum safety requirements for private businesses in other contexts, like foster care. 'We're just setting the standard, which is a good thing,' she said. 'I think there's a precedent for it.' After rejecting Blaylock's motion by one vote, the committee approved Sen. Brian Lenney's bid to advance the bill. Lenney, R-Nampa, said fears about the regulatory changes were based on 'false dichotomies' — the bill wouldn't eliminate child-to-staff ratios, he said — and he chided city 'bureaucrats' for their opposition. 'I've heard cities and bureaucrats saying that they know how to run a day care better than a day care owner,' Lenney said. 'It'd be like a bureaucrat telling a farmer the best way to milk a cow.' Kathy Griesmyer, director of government and policy affairs for the city of Boise, touted the city's efforts to incentivize child care providers by offering a property tax rebate to in-home providers, among other strategies. 'There are a number of creative and innovative ways that government can help incentivize business creation without restricting or removing safety,' Griesmyer said. A police chief and chamber of commerce president also opposed the bill, along with a handful of current and retired child care providers. Overall, nearly 40 people signed up to testify, according to Senate Health and Welfare Committee chairwoman Sen. Julie VanOrden, R-Pingree. All but two people — representatives from the Idaho Freedom Foundation and Mountain States Policy Center — opposed the legislation. Kate Haas, a lobbyist for Kestrel West, presented the bill alongside Furniss. Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, who opposed the bill, asked Haas who she was representing, but Haas declined to answer. According to lobbyist disclosures filed with the secretary of state, Haas has lobbied on House Bill 243 for Wonderschool, an online platform that connects parents to child care providers and offers startup resources for providers. In an online post Tuesday, Wonderschool CEO Chris Bennett wrote that he's a 'proponent of policies that detail age-specific ratios for different types of programs.' 'Although we never have and never will recommend or advocate for the elimination of child-to-staff ratios, we know that — regardless of our view — states will pursue different approaches grounded in both their unique geographic, demographic and political realities, and the broader set of policies and tools at their disposal.' The House previously approved House Bill 243 by a 54-15 vote. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Bill requiring Idaho Legislature's approval to expand public assistance programs advances to Senate
The Idaho State Capitol building in Boise as seen on Jan. 11, 2023. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun) A bill to require approval from the Idaho Legislature to expand eligibility for public assistance programs is headed to the Idaho Senate — one of its last legislative hurdles before potentially becoming law. House Bill 90 would require legislative approval through passed laws, called statutes, to expand eligibility criteria or benefits for public assistance programs — which are largely run by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. The Idaho House already widely passed the bill last month, with only two votes against it. The bill is cosponsored by House Health and Welfare Committee Chairman John Vander Woude, R-Nampa, and Sen. Brian Lenney, R-Nampa. Presenting the bill to the Senate Health and Welfare Committee on Monday, Lenney said at a high level, the bill ensures Health and Welfare doesn't decide on policies that can impact the budget — while the Legislature isn't in session. He referenced Health and Welfare's decision in August 2024 to pause new enrollments in the Idaho Child Care Program until January, as the agency projected a $15.5 million budget deficit, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported. Since 2011, the agency changed the program's income eligibility level for families twice, Department of Health and Welfare Director Alex Adams told the leaders of the Legislature's budget committee last year. 'This is a bill that addresses bureaucrats behaving badly,' Lenney told the committee. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The bill would repeal language in Idaho law that required statutory approval for changes that amount to 'any change in financial' eligibility criteria, expanding the law's language to 'any change that would expand eligibility criteria' or benefits for public assistance programs. The committee advanced the bill to the full Senate. It could go up for a Senate vote in the coming days. Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, voted against the bill in the Senate committee Monday. But she said she might support the bill later. 'I was on the committee and remember the conversation distinctly that the department did present with their estimates, and we as a group voted to support that rule. Because, and I believe one of the things we said was, … if we could help more people we should,' Wintrow said in committee. Generally, Idaho agency administrative rules — which are subject to legislative approval — are easier to change than state laws. Wintrow said she has supported recent moves by the Idaho Legislature to convert rules into laws, but she said she's starting to question the impact of that practice. 'What are the cons to this? What have we not seen or thought about in the future that we could have some misgivings about?' Wintrow rhetorically asked. Expanding on language already in Idaho law that says eligibility changes can't be made in agency rules, the bill would add new language specifying that eligibility changes can't be made through state plans, state plan amendments, agency guidance or other documents. In a text message, Lenney told the Sun that Health and Welfare had made several other program changes to the Idaho Child Care Program through those mechanisms. 'Beyond childcare we have like 10-15 welfare programs that are primarily spelled out in state plan or rule — food stamps, heating bill assistance, weatherization assistance, cash assistance, etc — and this ensures what happened at childcare doesn't happen in any other state program,' he told the Sun. If the bill passes the Idaho Senate, Idaho Gov. Brad Little has three options: He could sign it, allow it to become law without his signature, or veto it. If passed, the bill would become law July 1. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Idaho Senate widely passes anti-SLAPP bill that aims to curtail frivolous lawsuits
Idaho Lt. Gov. Scott Bedke, R-Oakley, (left) and state lawmakers take a break from legislative proceedings on the Idaho Senate floor on Jan. 7, 2025. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun) The Idaho Senate on Monday widely passed a bill intended to protect free speech by curtailing frivolous lawsuits. Sen. Brian Lenney, R-Nampa, has described the bill as an anti-SLAPP measure, targeting what are known as strategic lawsuits against public participation. The bill — Senate Bill 1001 — would put lawsuits on hold if a party files an anti-SLAPP motion. The bill would let the winning party recover attorney fees. Idaho is one of 15 states without anti-SLAPP protections, Lenney said in the state Senate on Monday. 'These are lawsuits that happen all over the United States that can take years to defend. And they can cost tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of dollars in legal fees for the defendant,' Lenney said. 'Because the type of lawsuits this bill deals with are not designed to win. They're designed to intimidate, to distract, to bankrupt or to punish a person for exercising free speech.' Anti-SLAPP laws are in place in 35 states and the District of Columbia, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Free Speech. The Idaho Senate passed the bill on a 32-1 vote. Two Idaho state senators — Sens. Codi Galloway, R-Boise, and Ali Rabe, D-Boise, — were absent for the vote. Idaho Senate President Pro Tempore Kelly Anthon, R-Rupert, was the only senator to vote against the bill. Anthon said he agreed with Lenney's goal, but Anthon said he had a slightly different approach — through civil procedure rules. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The bill now heads to the Idaho House, where it could be considered by a committee before a possible vote by the full House, where Idaho Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, is listed as a co-sponsor. To become law, bills must pass the Idaho House and Senate and avoid the governor's veto. If passed, the bill would take effect on Jan. 1, 2026. The bill says it would apply to civil actions or causes of actions filed that day and later. Last year, Lenney sponsored a similar bill, Senate Bill 1325, which failed to pass the Idaho Senate on a 15-20 vote. Members of both major political parties voted against last year's bill after concerns over its legality were expressed. The bill gives courts a 'comprehensive, efficient framework' so they can 'quickly resolve sham lawsuits,' Lenney said in Senate floor debate on Monday. The bill has wide, diverse political support, he said. 'The judge still has discretion to be a judge. Decisions can still be appealed. This doesn't take away anything from the courts,' Lenney said. 'It just gives them, like I said, an additional mechanism. Nor does this bill give anyone a hall pass to engage in defamation, slander, things like that.' The bill would give courts an earlier chance to determine whether lawsuits should advance, said Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, who serves as assistant minority leader. 'It is designed for cases where it's not the outcome of the trial that everyone is interested, or that the person who brought the lawsuit is interested in,' he said. 'It's the lawsuit itself. It's the cost of litigation. It's the notoriety. It's the pressure. It's an effort to use lawsuits against somebody to get them to change their behavior, rather than the outcome of the lawsuit.' Without the bill, Ruchti, an attorney, said the first opportunity for that is usually within six months of the lawsuit's filing, if a motion to dismiss is filed. The second opportunity, he said, could happen if a motion for summary judgement is filed. 'That's where the court would say, 'Yep, there is law that supports your claim. But even if the facts are as you say, no reasonable juror could determine that you prevail, and so we're going to dismiss the lawsuit,'' he said. 'But that is done rarely. And when the court determines whether reasonable jurors could find in your favor, they take that very seriously,' Ruchti continued. 'In other words, the tendency, the trend, is always to allow — except in rare cases — the case to go to trial. Because you deserve your day in court.' Sen. Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, also an attorney, said he believes the bill protects the integrity of the judiciary and legal system. 'People need to be confident that they're getting an independent and unbiased review, and that the legal system is not being used to the advantage of some parties that may have the resources' to do that, he said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
