UV Eye Opener, Week of Mar. 2 - 7, 2008

published Sunday, March 09, 2008

839 Views

A special interest plane flight. Last week, Republican legislators cut short a public hearing on the public's business and boarded a private plane owned by a wealthy corporate executive to attend a fundraiser on the other side of the state. He made sure they made it back to Boise in time to vote for the bill he was lobbying for. When a reporter pressed legislators to explain what they were thinking, they all gave different answers. This reinforces the fact that standards of public accountability are not very important among many legislators. Some said they knew they might have to pay for the trip, others didn't. Rep. Lenore Barrett said she would not have gone if she knew she would have to pay. Rep. Russ Matthews figures he can claim it as a corporate donation to his campaign. The problem is the market value of a privately chartered flight is more than the $1,000 limit imposed by Idaho law. The fact that none of the legislators seemed to know what the market value was before they took the trip indicates that they did not think through the obvious conflict. Perhaps they hoped it would not be made public. Rep. Dean Mortimer, in fact, had flown on the same corporation's plane to attend a political event last year but did not report it on his finance report. (The names of legislators who took the flight and a discussion)

Non-compete agreements: good for private employers but not for public employers? Senate Bill 1393 is what some legislators hopped on the private plane back to Boise to vote for. It gives private employers more power to prevent key former employees or independent contractors from going to work for the competition. A similar bill died last year but this year it had enough lift to take off and clear the Senate by a vote of 25-10. “Non-compete” agreements are common in the private sector. When they unreasonably infringe on the ability of a former employee to get another job, courts have sometimes voided them. What does the employer want to protect? The bill says it includes all those things the employer has invested in that employee such as “the employer's goodwill, technologies, intellectual property, business plans, business processes and methods of operation, ... customer contacts and referral sources, ... vendor contacts, financial and marketing information.” Do YOU as the employer of key public officials get the right to have a small measure of this protection for what YOU have invested? No. Republican leaders have refused to hold a hearing on Senate Bill 1302 which would require key public employees to wait just a year before they could lobby their former agency on behalf of a private company (i.e. they could not immediately convert the asset you have paid for in their contacts, technologies, and other skills and information into a private benefit for one interest.) Call 332-1326 if you think the public's bill SB1302 ought to have a hearing since the private bill got one. More here.

Pretending they can’t find the resources to invest in protecting kids. For the fourth year in a row, legislators washed their hands of any responsibility for protecting kids in day care centers. Senate Bill 1376 to set minimal standards for centers that care for four or more unrelated children, died in committee without a vote. Opponents raised questions about the cost of conducting inspections but showed no interest in finding the resources to cover those costs if, indeed, those concerns were legitimate. Senate Health Welfare Committee Chair Patti Anne Lodge of Nampa said “my only promise to my constituents was that I would be mindful of their tax dollars.” Yet, she and most of her colleagues have eagerly supported more tax exemptions that further damage Idaho’s capacity to protect kids and shift more of the tax burden on ordinary workers. In a few cities, public officials understand that it is their responsibility not only to protect kids with standards but to find the resources to invest in enforcing those standards. Unless day care centers are located in those few cities, Idaho parents will continue run the risk that the people caring for their children might not pass a criminal background check, or that no one on the premises has been trained in CPR, or that other children might be put in charge of small children, or that smoking and drinking are allowed on the premises during operating hours. Add your comments.

Can a bill be a beautiful piece of art? A beautiful piece of art takes time, hard work and lots of diverse colors and textures. Idaho’s landscape epitomizes that kind of art so it is appropriate that over several years a diverse group of people worked hard to develop a creative tool to preserve pieces of Idaho’s landscape: its private farm, ranch and forest lands. They unveiled their work – House Bill 467 – on Monday. It allows owners of these lands to apply for a tax credit to protect the land from development in perpetuity. The unlikely “artists” included the Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Farm Bureau, Idaho Forest Owners Association, Idaho Sportsmen's Caucus, Idaho Woolgrowers' Association, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and The Nature Conservancy. These groups are often at odds on public land issues but recognized that without better options, more private farm, ranch and forest land will be lost to development and local taxpayers will bear greater burdens created by sprawl.

Slashing the artwork. Even though HB 467 provided an effective tool to let landowners decide how to protect their land and even though Idaho’s landscape is what Idaho has marketed to the world as a vital reason to move here, a group of ten legislators slashed away at the bill and may have destroyed it. They voted to have the bill amended with what amounts to killer amendments. They could not accept that economic tools should be created to help conserve land, not just develop it. They could not accept that any coalition that included advocates for environmental protection could produce good legislation. By the time amendments will be considered next Tuesday, it may be too late to heal the bill before the end of the session. The legislators who supported amending the bill are here, join the discussion.

Taking no responsibility to reduce greenhouse gases. Two weeks ago, a majority of senators on a committee refused to acknowledge that our state has any responsibility to stop supporting genocide. This week, a majority of the entire Senate refused to acknowledge there is global warming, let alone that our state should evaluate ways to reduce greenhouse gases. Cities have shown more leadership probably because their elected officials tend not to take campaign contributions from the oil industry. Senate Concurrent Resolution 128 was killed on a 20 to 13 vote. While some Senators including Brad Little of Emmett and Kate Kelly of Boise said the evidence is so overwhelming that they can no longer deny what is happening, most Senators kept up their denial. They cling to the myth that there is insufficient evidence of global warming and climate change and, therefore, no reason for the state to take a leadership role promoting alternative energy and other strategies. The list of how legislators voted, and a discussion is here.