Eye on Boise: Idaho GOP eases up on party platform ‘loyalty oath’

The Idaho Republican Party’s central committee, at its winter meeting, voted to do away with a 2011 party rule that required all candidates to vow compliance with every plank of the party platform. The rule also required the party chairman to monitor that compliance and publicly report on any lapses.

It was known as the party’s “loyalty oath” provision.

“It was a bad idea when it started, and it’s not ever been actually even imposed,” said Grant Loebs, the Twin Falls county prosecutor and legislative District 24 chairman for the Idaho GOP, who successfully proposed striking the rule.

“It would cost a lot of time and money for anybody to do that kind of monitoring, which of course is what the voters do when they go to the polls. As written, that rule pitted the Republican Party leadership against elected officials, it made for a lot of bad blood between them, especially if it would have been enforced.”

He added, “I have no problem with the platform being the general statement of what we as Republicans believe in, and even pointing out specific things that we’re for or against, but when the entirety of a long platform like that becomes a litmus test, then I think you are in danger of narrowing the party considerably, and making it very difficult for many people to be elected who support every single thing that’s on there.”

The Idaho GOP central committee also considered 13 proposed resolutions; nine were approved by its resolutions committee, and six passed the full central committee, but all with amendments softening some of the harsher language initially proposed. Proposed resolutions backing changes in the legislative committee process cleared the resolutions committee but failed in the full central committee.

The successful resolutions include a call for defunding Planned Parenthood; a call for halting all refugee resettlement until security and economic issues are examined; opposition to the Paris climate change agreement; support for transferring federal public land to states; a resolution critical of banks; and a call for legislation to allow a precinct committeeman to be removed for malfeasance or nonfeasance.

First bill DOA

The first bill proposed to a legislative committee this session – a pipeline safety fines bill from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission – has been rejected. As he began his presentation to the House State Affairs Committee, Idaho PUC Commissioner Paul Kjellander, a former state representative, recalled a lobbyist once saying, “The earliest Christians get the hungriest lions.” He said, “I’m first out of the chute and I hope you’re not too hungry today.” But they were.

The PUC’s bill would have raised the maximum fine for pipeline safety violations from $2,000 a day, a level set 45 years ago and never changed, to a maximum of $100,000 a day. The federal standard is $200,000 a day, and Idaho’s lost some federal pipeline safety funds for being so far below the standard, but Kjellander said that’s not the main problem. All surrounding states have adopted the federal standard, except Utah, which is at $100,000 a day. Kjellander said the federal maximum fines were set five years ago after a pipeline tragedy in San Bruno, California, that claimed several lives. The real problem is the perception that Idaho is lax, he said.

“Compliance will still be the focus, not fines,” Kjellander said. “The real issue is a public perception issue that if an event did occur, that … in those most gross negligent scenarios, it would look to some as if we weren’t necessarily doing our job.” He noted that ratepayers aren’t responsible for fines; only shareholders are.

Rep. Joe Palmer, R-Meridian, moved to reject the proposed bill and not allow a hearing on it.

“Going from $2,000 to $100,000 I think is a long reach – I can’t even go there,” he said. “It looks to me like we’re just grabbing money here and putting it into the general fund. … We’re just doing this to look good instead of for a purpose. I think if we’re going to start fining somebody at a huge amount like that, we better have a good purpose,” such as directing the fines toward safety or training.

Rep. Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, made a substitute motion to introduce the bill, allowing a full hearing.

“I think it’s worthy of discussion,” she said. “I have a lot more questions. And I think the public safety and environmental concerns are enough to have a discussion.”

Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, said, “This is a significant increase in a fine. Maybe they should have looked at stepping this fine up over a period of time.” Rep. Ken Andrus, R-Lava Hot Springs, countered, “I’m not afraid of a hearing. I think we ought to hear things out and see if we’re really justified in passing this or not.”

After Rep. Gayle Batt, R-Wilder, called for a roll-call vote, Wintrow’s motion was rejected, 9-6, and Palmer’s passed on a divided voice vote.

Among North Idaho members on the committee, Rep. Paulette Jordan, D-Plummer, voted in favor of Wintrow’s motion; voting against were Reps. Kathy Sims, R-Coeur d’Alene; Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens; and Shannon McMillan, R-Silverton.

Staff writer Betsy Z. Russell can be reached at betsyr@spokesman.com or (208) 336-2854. Follow the Eye on Boise blog at www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise.