Idaho ivermectin bill shows need for stronger conflict rules | Opinion

By today’s Idaho legislative standards, it seems quaint that then-Sen. Jack Noble, R-Kuna, would be censured and then resign from the Legislature for failing to disclose that his bill changing Idaho’s liquor laws would have benefited the store he owned in Melba.

All he had to do was declare a “Rule 80,” letting his fellow legislators know that he had a conflict.

Then, he could have continued to sponsor the bill, argue for it, debate on it and even vote for it.

But Noble’s sin was that he didn’t disclose he had a conflict.

To his credit, Idaho Rep. Jordan Redman, R-Coeur d’Alene, who owns a pharmacy up north, did disclose he had a conflict when he proposed a personal bill to allow ivermectin to be sold over the counter without a prescription — a drug that his pharmacy now sells, according to an Idaho Statesman article this week.

But, if anything, Redman’s disclosure in committee and on the House floor is yet another illustration of just how weak and useless Idaho’s conflict rules are, and how much they are in dire need of reform.

Redman went on to present the bill in committee and on the House floor, and voted in favor of it.

He now benefits financially from passage of that bill.

The Legislature’s conflict rules, known as Rule 80 in the House and Rule 39 in the Senate, require only that legislators declare a conflict. They don’t even require legislators to disclose the nature of the conflict, much less recuse themselves from voting on the bill.

Idaho’s ‘citizen legislature’

Idaho has a “citizen legislature,” meaning that being a legislator is a part-time gig. Legislators have to have “real” jobs the rest of the year. They’re farmers and ranchers, lawyers and small-business owners, stay-at-home parents and, yes, pharmacy owners.

This is good, as we don’t want our legislators to be full-time politicians; we want them to be “of the people,” and bring their experience to the Legislature.

And sometimes, that creates a conflict; it’s unavoidable.

But as such conflict arises, Idaho needs stronger rules when a legislator stands to gain personally or financially from a proposed law.

Such rules could include mandatory recusal anytime there’s a conflict, and many states require legislators to fill out disclosure forms in advance of each session, detailing personal financial interests, business relationships, outside employment, investments and other assets that could present a potential or actual conflict of interest with their legislative duties.

Unfortunately, Idaho is peppered with examples of legislators using their position to their own benefit.

In 2020, then-Rep. Bryan Zollinger, R-Idaho Falls, who was also an attorney representing Medical Recovery Services — an East Idaho medical debt collector that long received criticism and was accused of abusive medical debt collection practices — debated and voted against the Idaho Patient Act, which was drafted and introduced, largely to address the practices of his firm.

In 2021, as the Idaho Press reported at the time, Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, who owns an alarm company, introduced legislation that would exempt alarm system upgrades from certain inspections.

Also in 2021, apparently a busy year for conflicts of interest, then-Rep. Greg Ferch, R-Meridian, a property manager, proposed legislation to prohibit Idaho cities from “regulating rent, fees, or deposits,” an apparent attack on the city of Boise’s ordinance capping rental application fees at $30.

Trust in government is at historic lows, and a jaded electorate widely believes that politicians are enriching themselves at the public trough.

When the president is using the presidency to line his pockets, members of Congress are buying and selling stocks with uncanny timing, and even U.S. Supreme Court justices are accepting extravagant gifts and trips, the public more than ever needs assurance that its legislators are indeed, as the House rules state, “presumed to act in good faith and in the public interest.”

Passing stricter conflict-of-interest rules could go a long way toward restoring public trust.