[MUSIC] From the studios of Boise State Public Radio News, I'm Gemma Coddette, this is Idaho Matters. It's Friday, which means it's time for our report around table. We're going to spend the next hour getting you updated on the news that made headlines in this last week. And today, our panelists include Clark Corbin and Kyle Funnestiel with Idaho Capital Sun, Logan Finney with Idaho Reports, Emma Eperly and Carly Flandro with Idaho Ed News. Hi, everybody. Happy Friday. Happy Friday. So we are 25 days away from election day, if you can believe that. So I want to start with elections today. And Clark, let's begin today's discussion with Proposition 1. And for folks who may not be familiar with this, can you give us a brief overview of this ballot initiative that folks will be seeing on the ballot come November 5th? Yeah, for sure, Gemma, I appreciate the chance to talk about it today. Proposition 1 is a ballot initiative, which is a form of direct democracy where the Idaho voters decide whether to pass a law or not, not the Idaho legislature. And for Proposition 1 to pass, it would take a simple majority of votes, which is to say 50% plus 1. But what Proposition 1 would do is it would make changes to both Idaho's primary elections and general elections. I think the thing that people are most familiar with is that it would repeal Idaho's closed party primary laws, which have been on the books since 2011, and which means that a political party does not have to let voters vote in their primary elections unless that voter is formally affiliated with that political party. There is an exception in the law where parties can choose to instead have their primary elections open to other voters or to all voters, but only the Idaho Democratic Party has done that. So that means that the Republican primary, the Constitution primary, and the Libertarian primary are all closed. And in Idaho, we have 1 million registered voters and 275,000 of those registered voters are independents, are folks who are not affiliated with a political party and who are not allowed to vote and close primary elections. And so the first thing Prop 1 would do is it would repeal the closed party primary elections and it would replace it with a new nonpartisan top four primary election that's going to be open to all voters and to all political candidates regardless of party affiliation. And then that in that primary election, the four candidates who receive the most votes will all advance to the general election again, regardless of party affiliation. So that means you could have multiple candidates from the same political party advancing to the general election, or in some cases, you could have no candidates from a given political party advanced to the general election if they weren't in that top four. And so that's kind of the first part of what Proposition 1 does. And then what is the second part? Yeah, the second part applies to the general elections. And that would replace our current system with something that's called ranked choice voting. It's also sometimes called an instant runoff system. And under that system, voters would still pick their favorite candidate, but they would have the option to rank the remaining candidates in order of their preference, second choice, third choice, or fourth choice. And then when it comes to the voting, the candidate with the fewest amount of votes would be eliminated. And their votes would instead be transferred to the next highest ranked remaining candidate on a voters ballot. And then that process would continue until there are two candidates left, and then the candidate with the most votes would be elected the winner. Just a couple of things to point out, there would only be one election day. You would just be using the same ballot to mark your second, third, and fourth choices. And it's also optional. You don't have to rank beyond picking your favorite. You don't have to do the second, third, or fourth choices. You can if you want, but it's specifically written into the initiative that even if you just pick one, your ballot will still be counted and processed. And so it would make changes, gentlemen, to both the primary election and the general election. Okay. So, Clark, if proposition one passes, if it's approved by voters, and I believe we only need it's not like a two-thirds majority, right? It's just it's a simple majority to pass on the ballot. Okay. So why, then, in Idaho, this is a this is an initiative that was brought by voters, right? It is a voter initiative to get voter approval. Voters say yes to this. Legislators still have the power to change this proposition. Yeah, that's exactly right. I did an article for the Idaho Capitol Sun this week about it, and I had a good interview with Jacqueline Kettler, who's a political scientist at Boise State University. And if voters approve proposition one, like you said, Jimma, it just takes a simple majority of votes. The legislature could still repeal it or still amend it, just like any other law. It would be treated the same as any other law in the state of Idaho, even though it is coming from the citizens. And a couple of things here, it has happened before there is precedent for this. In 1994, Idaho voters approved a ballot initiative calling for term limits for elected officials in Idaho, including Idaho legislators. And then the Idaho legislature repealed the term limits law and even went so far as to override a gubernatorial veto to prevent term limits from coming in place. And so it has happened before if voters approve it, legislators will be back in Boise for the 2025 legislative session about nine weeks later in that first full week of January. And I've talked to a couple of influential Republicans in the Idaho House who have already come out against proposition one, and they said they do foresee scenarios where the Idaho House could seek to amend or repeal proposition one, even if voters approve it. So they are already discussing that. But then on the other hand, I spoke with Luke Mayville from Reclaim, Idaho, who's backing the open primaries ballot initiative proposition one. And he said, he's confident that it's going to pass. And he said when it passes, everybody from the open primaries coalition is going to be getting a public awareness campaign to make sure that legislators hear from constituents in their districts who voted for the ballot initiative. And Luke Mayville told me on the phone earlier this week that if the legislature makes any attempt to repeal or revoke or water down proposition one, if it's approved at the polls, then that would be a betrayal of the voters trust, Jima. All right. Well, I appreciate that update, Clark. And folks, if you want to know more, you can read Clark's article at the Idaho Capitol Sun. Now, Kyle, I also want to talk about a constitutional amendment that's going to be on the Idaho ballot come November. And this would make it so non US citizens. So they could not vote in Idaho elections. Okay. So Kyle, can you explain this? Because I thought only US citizens could vote. Yeah, Jim, I think so having me on. And you're right. So to back up this, this amendment was proposed by the Idaho legislature this spring, they passed a resolution and it has to be approved by voters in November to go on the ballot. This amendment would essentially ban non citizens from voting in Idaho elections. It's similar to ballot measures that are being considered in seven other states this year. And just to be clear, the Idaho Constitution already requires you a citizenship for people to be considered qualified electors. And citizenship is also required to vote in federal elections. And there's only been a handful of attempts of non citizens trying to vote in Idaho elections. It's not in large scale numbers. That's what the secretary state, Phil McRane told me. And across the board, research has found relatively few cases of voter fraud caused by non citizens voting in US elections. But the lawmaker who brought this amendment forward, his name is representative Kevin Andros. He's a Republican from lava hot spring, lava hot springs, he says the amendment will make out a whole lot clear that non citizens can't vote in any government of elections. And he says it would preemptively block local governments from allowing non citizens to vote in local elections, which some local governments have done across the US. But Democrat state lawmakers are skeptical that the amendment is even needed, given that there are such few instances of non citizen attempts to vote in Idaho. And they worry that this is their word sloppy language in the amendment could allow it to be interpreted to block non citizens from voting and even in private elections, like for HOA, Homeowner Associations, or PTA elections, that the bill's that the amendment's original sponsor says that wouldn't happen. And that wasn't his intent. So with that said, Kyle, you mentioned that Idaho is one of eight states they're trying to pass pass similar measures in November. Can you tell us why they're trying to pass this? I mean, even here in Idaho, where it says, as you said, in our state constitution, you must be a US citizen to vote only US citizens can vote in federal elections. This is what is coming up in November with a presidential election. So why this push in eight states to pass similar measures? Yeah, and I should note there was even a congressional bill proposed earlier this year that didn't advance by congressional Republicans. And I guess there's two main things to understand about this. These proposals are coming after use of election security concerns fueled in part by false claims about droves of non-citizens voting in federal elections, which again, research shows is not the case. And then the interesting issue with some of these state ballot measures is that a handful of local governments across the country have allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections. These are for municipal elections, like school board elections and municipal city elections. Most state lets non-citizens vote in statewide elections. Municipalities in three states in Washington, D.C. let citizens vote in some local elections. That's what the bipartisan policy center says. So these eight states that are pursuing these ballot measures to prevent non-citizens from voting in elections, Rudra's reports that these would mainly tweak state constitutions to explicitly say that only citizens can vote, but that some critics say the changes wouldn't really make much of a difference, since it's already illegal for non-citizens to vote in these states. And sticking with elections for a little bit longer, first. Emma, welcome to the report around table. It's your first time with us. So thank you so much for joining us and being a part of this. Yeah, thanks for having me. Absolutely. So Emma, Idaho Education News is doing a series of reporting on legislative races that will be on the ballot in November that could have implications for education here in Idaho. And you recently wrote some articles about the race in District 6. So can we start with the race for state representative in that district and tell us a little bit about these candidates? Yeah, sure. So Representative Brendan Mitchell is a local business owner and he's running for re-election. His opponent is a Democrat, Kathy Dawes. She's a retired science educator. So both candidates agree that schools, especially in the real parts of their district, need more funds or facilities. But they differ slightly on how to do that. Brendan Mitchell floated some ideas like having cookie cutter schools, so a small school, a medium school, and a large school plan that the state would create and then school districts could use when building new schools. And those schools obviously could adapt the plan based on their land use needs and those types of things. He also liked the idea of giving funds to schools for building projects based on demonstrated need. You know, how Kathy Dawes really wants to move away from the levy system using property taxes to fund the gap for school districts based on a lack of state funding. She had some ideas on how to do that like tightening up sales tax exemptions, but said she'd come up with more firm plans if elected. The two candidates also differ on private school choice. Representative Mitchell said that he would support a private school choice plan. If he felt it was right for Idaho, he doesn't like the voucher program. He kind of mentioned the Arizona issue, Arizona implemented a voucher program and it's caused some budget issues for them. So he said he would support a proposal, but it's really on a case-by-case basis. Dawes doesn't support private school choice. She has it takes away from public education and there are already a lot of options for families in Idaho with public charter schools, career and technical programs along with private schools. She raised concerns about out-of-state interests, packed specifically sending mailers and push-pulls in support of Mitchell and private school choice. She made it very clear that Representative Mitchell had talked to her and said he was not endorsing these mailers. He wasn't behind sending them, but she is concerned about those out-of-state interests who are supporting Mitchell. So let's now go to District 6, the Senate race, and we should say that District 6 for our listeners, if you're wondering where it is, it takes in all of Laetat and Lewis counties and then a section of Nez Paris County up in North Idaho. So Emma with that said, talk to us about this Senate race that will also be on the ballot. So the Senate race, people have probably heard about this wing because there was some controversy at a candidate forum in Kendrick. So it's between Senator Dan Foreman and Moscow's Sea Council member and local nurse Julia Parker. So Miss Parker said that she's really tired of the negativity around schools and teachers saying that schools need more community support. They need to feel valued and teachers need to feel valued. That was the first thing she said when it comes to education. She opposes private school choice in all of the proposals, vouchers, education savings, accounts, and tax credits. She says it takes away from public education. And also like Kathy Dawes noted that there is already a lot of school choice in Idaho, specifically mentioning charter schools. She also wants to move away from funding schools through local property taxes and instead wants the state to increase funding. Senator Foreman didn't have time to talk to Ed News. He said he had no time in his schedule over the next six weeks. But looking at his voting record, he voted in support of a private school choice bill last year for education savings accounts. He voted against the higher education budget after some of his fellow more hardline Republicans raised concerns over state funds being used to push diversity, equity, and inclusion, along with social justice ideologies. That kind of leads to the outburst in Kendrick at a candidate forum. So all of the candidates for district six races were present. So the both representative seats along with the Senate candidates. And so according to people who were there, Senator Foreman allegedly had an outburst towards candidate, Trish Carter, Goodheart for race. We haven't written about the other state representative seat. And it was over a question about systemic racism and discrimination. And Senator Foreman had already answered the question a few other candidates had answered, and then Ms. Carter Goodheart was answering the question. And according to a statement, she put out on her Facebook page, Senator Foreman had an outburst. He stood up. And after a little bit of profanity, he said, "Why don't you go back to where you came from?" And it's important to note that Ms. Carter Goodheart is a Nez Perce tribal member. And so Senator Foreman said you denied using a racial slur or a statement of that nature in a Facebook post, and he characterizes what Ms. Carter Goodheart said is patently false. From the opponent, Ms. Parker said she couldn't remember the exact wording of what Senator Foreman had said, but agreed with Carter Goodheart's description of the situation. Then in a secondary Facebook post, the Senator went on to say that he enlightened Ms. Carter Goodheart to the fact that he was born in America, and therefore he is an Native American. He's drawn quite a bit of criticism online over that post and to the alleged comments at the forum. We appreciate that update, Emma. I want to turn now to another big story, and Logan, you've been following this, and that is the Quagga Mussel invasion. So can you just start out by telling us what Quagga Mussels are? Absolutely. Thanks for having me on, Gemma. Quagga Mussels are an invasive species. Picture a muscle or clam like people eat, but these are not a food product. Quagga Mussels and their cousin Zebra Mussels are a species that is native to actually some water bodies on kind of the edge of Russia and Ukraine. And they made it over here to North America in kind of the mid 80s, early 90s through international shipping routes, actually. So they were brought over in ballast tanks on big international shipping boats and made it into the Great Lakes, which is where they kind of got their first foothold here on the North American continent. And then they have slowly spread over the country and over the continent, over the last several decades. And Idaho has monitored our water bodies for years to try and detect these muscles early on if they did show up. And last year was the first time that they were actually detected here in the state of Idaho. Okay. And with that said, Clark, I want to bring you into the conversation as well, because as Logan said, when they were detected last year, they treated the Snake River, correct? But I mean, it killed thousands of fish. Yeah, Jim, you're right. They used copper based chemical called nitrix, which is actually the same chemical that they're administering in the Snake River this week, as we speak. And yeah, they administered that they know that it is lethal to muscles. They said it killed a significant amount of muscles the officials with the Department of Agriculture are saying that there are fewer muscles than there were last year. But we know that it killed a significant amount of fish so many fish that officials with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game took to the Snake River with nets and they removed, I think it was six or seven tons of dead fish, including some sturgeon that were up to eight feet long and up to 35 years old. There are crews from the Department of Environmental Quality and other agencies monitoring the copper levels in the river and monitoring the fish populations. But yeah, the chemical that they used last year is the chemical that's being administered this week. And then again, and in November there, Jim and Logan. And Logan, you actually spent a time yesterday, right, in Twin Falls with the Department of Agriculture. What did you learn and what did you see when you were down there? Yes, we were able to get on a boat with some of the Department of Agriculture staff on the Twin Falls Reservoir. The Twin Falls Dam there is a power plant operated by Idaho Power. And so last year, the very first detection happened at Centennial Waterfront Park in Twin Falls. And so the Department treated kind of that stretch of the river upstream and downstream from Centennial Park. And like Clark said, it was fairly successful. This year they have seen fewer numbers of muscles. And we're actually talking about the larva, or I think the technical term, is villagers of these muscles. So these are teeny tiny microscopic. You cannot see them with the naked eye. And yes, so the way the copper works is it actually binds to gills and things like that. So the way the copper treatment is working is it actually binds to the gills and prevents muscles and fish as well, unfortunately, from being able to breathe in the water. And in terms of the fish kill that we saw last year, the Department of Ag folks told me that the fish kill has been a lot smaller this year, part of that being that they are working hand in hand with all of those other state agencies. And this is actually a stretch of the river that fishing game stocks with fish sometimes. And so they specifically did not stock the stretch of the river over the last season because they knew that they were going to have to treat this river again. And it would be kind of counterintuitive to stock it with a bunch of fish that we're going to die anyway. So yes, they are treating a bigger part of the river this year. So we were up on Twin Falls Reservoir, which is it's a little bit different characteristics on the river here. Part of this, like in the Shoshone Falls section of the river and the Pillar Falls section of the river, those waterfalls fall into the deep pools and churn up the water and mix it pretty well and pretty consistently. Whereas further upstream on Twin Falls Reservoir, it's a little bit slower moving water, but there still are pretty big deep sections. So part of what we got to see yesterday out on the boat was chemists and staff from the department and the private. They actually have some staff from the company that they bought the chemical from out there doing monitoring and making sure that this chelated copper solution is consistently and at the right concentration through all of the water. They're dropping it in at the top of the river. They are piping the chemical directly into some of the power plants to make sure it gets into all of the turbines and all of the cooling systems and they need to keep it at a concentration of one parts per million for 200 hours is what they told me. So it is, they want to make sure it's at the right concentration and it's there long enough to take effect and get every single muscle and larva that they possibly can. So Logan, with that said, as Clark mentioned as well, there was a big fish kill when this happened last year when they had to treat this. For folks who might think that this is just I mean truly just such a terrible thing that happens, right, with this fish kill in order to treat the quagga muscles, why is it so incredibly important though to get a handle on these quagga muscles? Well, like we talked about it a little bit earlier, these are an invasive species. They are not native to North America. Our ecosystems in their natural state do not have a way to handle this. So once the quagga muscles are introduced, they pretty much take over. One adult muscle can produce up to a million offspring per year. And when they grow on surfaces on the rocks and the dam faces, they can there can be over 30,000 muscles per square meter. So they completely take over an area. Once there is an infestation, it can be up to it basically takes over and crowds out all of the native fish. So in areas like the Great Lakes, where these muscles have been established, they're filter feeders, so they suck everything good out of the water and don't really leave anything else for the rest of the food chain and would have a catastrophic cascading effect on the rest of the ecosystem. And also important to note here is the Snake River is the largest tributary of the Columbia River and the Columbia River Basin. Generally speaking, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and parts of Canada, this basin that we're in is the last basin that is good quagga muscle habitat that they have not taken over yet. So that is part of the reason why the state has been so closely monitoring all of this water because kind of the Columbia Basin is the last, well, until they were detected last year, it was the last basin on the North American continent where they could take off and wreak havoc and have not yet. So talking to the Department of Agriculture, they are in an extermination campaign right now. Their goal is to, if they can, remove every single larva and muscle and keep them from getting a foothold in in this basin because it would, it would be just catastrophic. And if they keep spreading downstream, you know, from Twin Falls through Hagerman through Boyce Nampa through the Hell's Canyon to Lewiston, it could, it could really get out of hand really quickly. And especially by the time that these muscles have grown and covered things to the point where you can see them with the naked eye. By that point, it would be too late and it would be just trying to, trying to put a band in on a bullet hole, if you will. So Carly, can you tell us more about the story you recently wrote in regards to teacher retention rates here in our state? Because as I read it, it seems, at least right now, retention rates seem to be okay. But some are saying there is still a reason to be concerned about this. So can you explain? Yeah, so about 89% of Idaho teachers returned to the classroom last school year. So that means just 11% of Idaho teachers retired left the profession or took different jobs in education, like as a principal, for example, and most teachers, 79% stayed at the same school. And it's notable because the 89% retention rate is a slight uptick from the year before and it reverses a multiple year trend of post-pandemic declines in the statewide teacher retention rate. So that's good news, but there is still some cause for concern when you look at long-term workforce needs. And school district leaders still cite stopping shortages as a concern, and certain areas in teaching are harder to fill than others, like special education, math science, and career technical education. Some other concerns are that aging teachers are outpacing younger teachers. And if that trend continues, it means that when those teachers retire, there could be a large teaching shortage. Kind of related to that, the five-year retention rate among new teachers is just 63%. So that all leads to a gap of expertise and mentorship. And state leaders aren't seeing as many new teachers become veteran teachers as they would like. And then another wrinkle is that relatively low teacher salaries can hinder recruitment and retention efforts. Teachers' salaries in Idaho lag behind those in neighboring states, they lag behind the national rate, and teachers tend to make 24% less than comparable college graduates. So there's all those issues in the mix. So the state boards identified a couple ways to shore up those retention and recruitment shortfalls, including having more competitive salaries for teachers and strengthening teacher preparation and support programs. And what I thought was interesting too, Carly, you guys put a chart together looking at the state's largest school districts who returned last year. And I would have assumed it would be the Treasure Valley that had the largest retention rate. And that's not the case. Yeah, that's what I thought we'd see as well, because urban school districts tend to pay teachers more. And that's, you know, linked to having a larger tax base and things like that. But the Pocatello school district had the highest teacher retention rate at 90%. We did see some Treasure Valley districts coming in after that. We see at 89.9%, West 8 at 86.7. And then a couple large Treasure Valley districts were lower on the list. Nampa had an 83.2% retention rate, and Valley View came in at 85.8%. And for listeners, if you're curious and you want to look up the teacher retention rate at your district or at a specific school, we have published all that data online at ihoenews.org if people want to check it out. All right, thanks, Carly. So, Clark, you posted a story just this morning about water negotiations. And I don't want people to think, oh, water negotiations, what does this matter? It matters because there was an October 1st deadline that came and went without a mitigation plan. So, Clark, for folks who are not familiar, can you start by telling us about this plan that expired? Yeah, for sure. Thanks, Jim. And it gets a little bit complicated. But I guess where I would start is this summer when things came to a head under the existing plan. I believe it was back in May, the Department of Water Resources issued a curtailment order, which curtailment means shutting off the water. But the Department of Water Resources issued a curtailment order that applied to folks who hold about 6,400 junior groundwater rights in eastern Idaho. And that was in place for about three weeks that shut off order. And then the two sides reached a settlement agreement that took care of the issue for this summer for the irrigation and growing season and allowed those farmers to turn their water back on. But the October 1st deadline that you mentioned comes in place because at that time, Governor Brad Little issued an executive order saying that he wanted two sides in the debate to come together and come up with a new long-term plan. The original deadline that he said of October 1 came and went last week without a deal. And I talked with Representative Stephanie Mickelson, who's with the Idaho groundwater appropriators. She said that they're close, that the two sides are working on a deal. And it's at the point where attorneys have taken over and are drafting it up. Folks are hoping to have a deal in place in November. But this has a big impact in the agricultural community because what farmers were faced with was after they had already put their plants and their crops in the ground in the spring is when this curtailment order was issued. And so they're saying that one of their priorities for the groundwater users' standpoint is that they don't want to be facing this uncertainty of having their water potentially shut off during the growing season. It creates a lot of economic uncertainty and these kind of ripple effects that can affect not just the farmers but food producers and equipment providers and eventually to people who are buying food and paying prices. But so anyways, the negotiations are ongoing. But one of the controlling issues is that folks who have the oldest rights have control. They have priority over folks who got their rights more recently. And so the reason that the water was going to get shut off was to protect against a predicted shortfall to the folks that have the older water rights. And so that's kind of where the dispute is at. We're looking at coming up with a new mitigation plan, the idea being how to mitigate or how to handle a shortage when it does come up. And this is something that has come up for years. It's been in and out of the courts for decades. But I know it's faced with drought conditions, climate change makes this worse. And so it's been a series of intense negotiations between groundwater users and surface water users. Governor Brad Little did put out a statement saying he was encouraged by the negotiations, even though they didn't make the October 1st deadline. And he said that his preference is for farmers and water users to continue to negotiate and to not bring other outside groups in or have the government tell them what to do. So it sounds like the governor is going to allow them to continue to negotiate as long as he views things are moving along and are productive. And like I said, when I spoke with Representative Mickelson from the groundwater perspective, she was saying they're hoping to have a deal in place by November 1st or by the end of the year. The main thing is to have some certainty heading into next spring's planting and growing seasons there, Gemma. Yeah, that would make the most sense, right, Clark, is to get this figured out before farmers were in the same pickle that they were last year, which is you plant and then you find out you have to curtail water. Yep, that's exactly right. So Kyle, you recently wrote about funding for crisis pregnancy centers here in Idaho. And I know this gets a bit complicated. So can you begin with the original resolution by the Idaho Medical Association? Now it was never adopted, but what was this resolution? Yeah, so the Idaho Medical Association's House of Delegates meets each year to set policy for the large group of doctors in the state. The original resolution, which again wasn't adopted, called for the Idaho Medical Association to oppose state and federal funds being used to support crisis pregnancy centers. It defined crisis pregnancy centers as organizations that "hose" as clinical centers, but provide misinformation and are exempt from regulatory licensure and credentialing requirements that apply to legitimate health care facilities. Okay, so after this resolution, what was written and put out in the public? Kyle, there was a backlash and it came from Stanton Health Care over the resolution. So before we get to why Stanton Health Care opposed this, can you tell us what Stanton Health Care is? Yeah, so Stanton Health Care is an anti-abortion. They call themselves a pregnancy medical center because they provide medical services. They're entirely privately funded and don't charge for services and they have locations in Idaho. Okay, so they opposed this resolution, Stanton Health Care did. Why did they oppose it? So yeah, and I just quickly want to state that the resolution, the policy that the IMA House of Delegates adopted was more generally opposing public funds for clinics that skirt medical standards. But when Stanton first heard about this proposed resolution, Stanton representatives were really critical of the Idaho Medical Association asked them to retract the resolution and they said that Stanton was considering legal options if the original resolution advanced. Stanton said that the first resolution had false information about Stanton and other facilities and they took issue with a few things in it. First off, they defended how Stanton operates. They say that Stanton staff are all licensed. All their medical staff are and its clinic does have third party accreditation and I guess to share a little more background, Stanton itself doesn't provide contraception like birth control, but they do offer natural family planning and because the clinic doesn't accept insurance or charge for its services, it isn't subject to HIPAA, the federal health privacy regulation law that many people know about. Stanton says that they voluntarily follow HIPAA practices and they're required to and they do comply with Idaho's medical privacy laws. But they said this resolution painted their clinic in a false light. They didn't really provide a ton of information about how other clinics operate or how they're licensed. I asked them for more specifics about this and they said they were speaking specifically to Stanton. So with that said, Kyle, what now has the medical association done in response to this critique from Stanton health care? Yeah, so the Idaho Medical Association, the House of Delegates, it's made of about 130 doctors who vote each year and set policy for the medical group. The medical group staff and including its CEO can't set policy. So the policy they adopted was after they debated this initial resolution opposing funds for crisis pregnancy centers. They amended that and adopted a policy that more broadly opposes public funds for clinics that skirt medical standards. And that can be from truthfulness, transparency, and confidentiality standards, including providing services that are medically accurate, non-directive, not pushing patients toward a certain type of health care and making sure that the care is provided by licensed professionals. The Idaho Medical Association itself had nothing to do with the creation or wording of the original resolution. That's what the group's CEO told me. The resolution was proposed by Dr. Kaitlyn Gustafson, a member of the group who has worked with Planned Parenthood on abortion-related lawsuits. And the original resolution, like the past policy, didn't name specific clinics. The original resolution called out crisis pregnancy centers more broadly and called to oppose government funds for them. All right, appreciate that update, Kyle. Emma, before we wrap up for the day, tell us about the meeting of the Idaho Public Charter School Commission, I should say, because they discussed the impacts of the Accelerating Public Charter Schools Act that passed a legislature earlier this year. And I have about two minutes left with you. Perfect. Yeah, so they specifically talked about one aspect of the act, which is that charter schools were given access to the Idaho Department of Education Building Capacity Program. They're running a specific version of the program for charter schools. There are four schools enrolled, Blackfoot Charter Community Learning Center, Mountain Community School, Rolling Hills Public Charter School, and Peace Valley Public Charter. Those schools were struggling academically and their administrators showed a willingness to learn and benefit from the program. So through the program, they get a mentor that helps them create a plan to improve the development over the course of three years. But the problem is there's only funding for one year of the program. So the Department of Education and the Commission plan to ask for more funding from the legislature this year. The Commission also discussed their plan to review policies to streamline reporting requirements for charter schools, which is in light of the Accelerating Public Charter Schools Act, and they also voted to suspend the evaluation framework for alternative education programs for this year so that they can rewrite the metrics for that evaluation framework. Well, I want to thank all of you so much for joining us today. We have been speaking with Clark Corbin and Kyle Fondenstiel with Idaho Capital Sun. Logan Finney joined us from Idaho Reports along with Emma Eperly and Carly Flandro with Idaho Education News. Thanks so much for listening to Idaho Matters. Boise State Public Radio and Idaho Matters are members of the NPR Network. It's an independent coalition of public media podcasters. You can find more shows in the network wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jamaka Dett. We'll see you tomorrow. The candidates for November are set. I know Donald Trump's tight. Between now and election day. We are not going back. A campaign season unfolding faster. Kamala Harris is not getting a promotion. Then any in recent history. Make America great again. Follow it all with new episodes every weekday on the NPR Politics podcast.
