Bill Description: House Bill 510 would make it clear that public employees can share non-confidential information with the Idaho Legislature and prohibit their employers from retaliating.

Rating: +1

Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?

House Bill 510 creates Sections 6-2110, Idaho Code, to say that public employees “may communicate in good faith with any member of the Idaho legislature, any member of a legislative committee, or legislative staff, including the provision of information, data, analysis, or professional expertise.”

It further says that no public employer may “adopt, enforce, or maintain any policy, rule, directive, practice, or agreement, written or unwritten that prohibits or restricts employee communication with any member of the Idaho legislature, any member of a legislative committee, or legislative staff; requires prior approval, notification, or authorization before such communication; or subjects an employee to discipline or retaliation for such communication.”

The bill also creates Section 74-127, Idaho Code, to say that “every agency shall respond in good faith and as provided in this section to a public records request from a member of the Idaho legislature, a legislative committee or subcommittee, or legislative services office staff acting on behalf of the legislature.”

Taken together, these provisions protect and expand the Legislature’s ability to oversee executive agencies.

(+1)

Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency, accountability, or election integrity? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency, accountability, or election integrity?

While the bill would increase transparency for legislators and their staff, it does not do so for  the media or members of the public. It is appropriate for the Legislature to exercise oversight of executive agencies, but civic health dictates that the public be able to exercise oversight as well. But instead, House Bill 510 would widen the gap between what information is available to the Legislature and what information is available to the public. 

Likewise, the prohibitions against agency policies limiting or punishing employee communication with legislators should be extended to allow similarly uninhibited communication and full transparency with the public. 

Transparency within government is generally a good thing, but true government transparency requires expanding the public’s access to the public, too.

(0)