Bill Description: Senate Bill 1303 would reduce transparency for certain government contracts. 

Rating: -1

NOTE: The Senate Amendment to Senate Bill 1303 reduced the increased reporting threshold from $50,000 to $30,000. While this makes the amended bill somewhat better than the unamended version, the fundamental objection remains the same. The rating has not changed.

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?

Section 59-514, Idaho Code currently says that "the state of Idaho, and all taxing entities within the state of Idaho, shall publish within fifteen (15) days of entering into any personal service contract, the parties, amount and a one (1) sentence purpose of all such personal service contracts over ten thousand dollars ($10,000) annual payment, regardless of whether the moneys for such contract are derived from state taxes, local taxes, federal funds, or a combination of such funds."

Under this law, "personal service" refers to "performance for remuneration by an individual on a specified contractual basis of specialized professional or consultive expertise germane to administration, maintenance or conduct of governmental activities which require intellectual or sophisticated and varied services, dependent upon facilities, invention, imagination or a specific talent which the state or the taxing entity itself cannot provide or accomplish."

Senate Bill 1303 would amend this section to increase the reporting threshold to $30,000. The argument made for this change in the bill's statement of purpose is that "the current threshold has been in place for over 40 years and has not been increased to account for inflation."

While this may be true, technology has generally reduced the cost and complexity of complying with transparency requirements, so who would benefit from concealing more personal service contracts from public scrutiny?

The bill's fiscal note suggests that governments could realize a "very small, positive fiscal impact" from this change, but reducing government transparency requires a more compelling argument than a de minimis reduction in costs.

(-1)