Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oilseed Rule Rewrite topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oilseed Commission seeks removal of refund application from rule after statute indicates referendum removed it
Summary
The Idaho Oilseed Commission presented a ZBR (zero-based review) chapter rewrite of its rules and asked the Senate committee to adopt changes removing a refund-application provision that appears to conflict with Idaho Code refund/referendum language; the commission plans an advisory grower vote this year.
Pachi Laricia Phillips, representing the Idaho Oilseed Commission, presented an administrative-rule rewrite under the ZBR process and explained why the commission proposes removing a refund-application section from its rules.
“What you have in front of you here, is the removal … of the refund application,” Phillips told the Senate Agricultural Affairs Committee, and she cited Title 22, Chapter 47 of Idaho Code, specifically sections addressing refund provisions and grower referenda. Phillips said the statute provides that if growers hold a referendum on continuation of the commission and the referendum passes, the statutory refund provision should be removed. She said the administrative rule still contained the refund-application language, creating a conflict with statute.
Phillips said the commission worked with Department of Finance and Management (DFM) and held negotiated rulemaking meetings on Aug. 22 and Oct. 3 and an open meeting with growers and dealers. She referenced an affidavit from Doug Scoville, a past commission chairman, indicating a referendum had been held under statute and had passed, which would trigger removal of the refund provision from rule. Phillips said she could not find records showing earlier advisory votes and that, since joining the commission staff in October 2023, the commission plans to conduct an advisory grower vote this year and will report results to the committee next year.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about the statutory conflict and the timing of the five-year advisory poll required by statute. Phillips replied that the advisory vote is prescribed by statute to occur every five years and that the commission will hold it this year to determine growers’ views about the commission’s continuation and effectiveness.
The committee did not adopt the pending rule at this meeting; Senator Zito said the committee will vote on the pending rule at the next meeting to allow Senator Josh Cole to view the presentation on video and remain in the loop.
