Idaho Oilseed Commission seeks removal of refund application from rule ahead of planned grower advisory vote

The Idaho Senate Agricultural Affairs Committee heard a presentation from Pachi Laricia Phillips, administrator with the Idaho Oilseed Commission, on a proposed rewrite of the commission’s administrative rules that would remove a refund-application provision the commission says conflicts with Idaho law and prepare for a grower advisory vote.

Pachi Laricia Phillips, speaking for the Idaho Oilseed Commission, said the pending rulemaking (IDAPA 43.01.01 — chapter rewrite) reduces duplicative language and cleans up administrative code. Phillips said the rule package is roughly a page and a half of consolidated rules and that most revisions remove unnecessary or duplicative material. She asked the committee to focus on the rule’s final section, Section 500, which contains the refund-application language the commission proposes to remove.

Phillips told the committee that Idaho Code sections 47-17 and 47-18 establish a referendum and refund framework for commodity commissions. She said subsection 6 of the referenced statute states that if a referendum of growers is held and the referendum passes to continue the commission, the refund provision must be removed from rule. The commission submitted an affidavit from Doug Scoville, a past chairman of the Idaho Oilseed Commission, showing that a referendum was held and passed; that affidavit is included in the committee packet, Phillips said.

Phillips explained the commission’s plan to hold an advisory vote of growers this year, as the statute also prescribes an advisory poll every five years to evaluate effectiveness and whether the commission should continue. Phillips said she has worked for the commission since October 2023 and could not find records showing prior advisory polls; she said the commission intends to conduct the advisory vote this year and report results to the committee at a later meeting.

Senator Van Orden asked how often the advisory vote is required; Phillips replied that it is prescribed by statute to occur every five years. The committee did not take a final vote on the rule at the session recorded in the transcript; Vice Chair Zito told the presenter the committee will vote on the pending rule at its next meeting so an absent sponsor can view the recorded hearing.

The transcript records that the commission held negotiated-rulemaking meetings and an open meeting with growers and dealers during the rulemaking process. The rule package was developed with the assistance of the Department of Financial Management (DFM), Phillips said. The committee did not adopt or amend the rule during the hearing; action will occur at a subsequent meeting.