Communities can once again decide the best course for handling their homeless challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court today confirmed that bans on homeless camping do not violate the Constitution. The court's ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson is welcome news for cities and towns up and down the west coast, as the ball now returns to the local court. This case began when the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, enforced city ordinances that prevented camping and sleeping in public parks, by issuing civil citations and fines to violators. The plaintiffs in the case contested the citations received under these ordinances as ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ claiming that no other option for sleeping existed for them. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found imposing civil penalties on homeless people for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go are unconstitutional. That ruling essentially handcuffed policymakers throughout the west. California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, said: "California has invested billions to address homelessness, but rulings from the bench have tied the hands of state and local governments to address this issue. The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need.” The court agreed. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said: "Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not." Local leaders in communities where homeless encampments are out of control will likely applaud the ruling, not only from the standpoint of public health but also public safety. But in other communities, like Boise, the reaction is more defiant. Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, who filed an amicus brief in support of overturning the 9th circuit decision, said this: “I’m very pleased the Supreme Court has concurred with our arguments.  We have all witnessed the impacts to public streets and spaces in once-beautiful cities like Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle. Homeless camping has destroyed the vitality of these cities, fueled by the enabling policies of legalized drugs and de-prioritized mental health resources.  Residents sidestep used needles, garbage, and human waste in their public spaces as they go to work every single day.  This SCOTUS decision is at the heart of preserving safety and livability in cities everywhere.”

Collective bargaining in government is controversial, but it should never be a secret. Collective bargaining talks are the negotiations government unions have with government officials over salaries, benefits and working conditions. Because they involve millions of dollars of taxpayer money, they should be open and transparent. This doesn’t mean the public participates in the negotiations, but the public should be allowed to observe the process. This kind of process is not only good for taxpayers, but also for union members who are able to see how their union leadership is representing them at the bargaining table. Idaho law prevents cities and unions from negotiation any contracts in secret. Democrats and Republicans passed the law unanimously and it was signed into law by former Governor Butch Otter in 2015. Washington state, however, is a different story. While numerous attempts have been made to bring sunshine to the secretive process, government unions have resisted every step of the way. The latest saga comes from Spokane, where unions sued the citizens who overwhelmingly approved a 2019 charter change that would have required sunlight on the process. The city didn’t seem interested in the oversight, and because of its weak defense, the courts tossed the voter-approved change. But various forms of open, transparent negotiations continue in more than half the states – including Idaho - and taxpayers and union members are all the better for it. In Montana, Article II, Section 9 of the Montana State Constitution contains a sweeping government transparency requirement: “No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.” Ideally, contract negotiations should be fully open to the public. But at a minimum, government officials should adopt an openness process like the one used by the City of Costa Mesa, California, to keep the public informed. The city’s policy is called Civic Openness in Negotiations, or COIN. Under COIN, all contract proposals and documents to be discussed in closed- door negotiations are made publicly available before and after the meetings, with fiscal analysis showing the potential costs. While not full-fledged open meetings, access to all of the documents better informs the public about promises and tradeoffs being proposed with their tax dollars before an agreement is reached. This openness also makes clear whether one side or the other is being unreasonable in its demands, and quickly reveals whether anyone is acting in bad faith. It’s a hybrid solution that could be adopted by local officials if full open meetings are not allowed.

Mountain States Policy Center - the region's top source for free market policy and research - has announced the publication and release date of its first Mountain States Policy Manual. The Policy Manual is a 200-page guide filled with facts, figures, research and more than 80 recommendations that will be an invaluable tool for current and future lawmakers, media and the general public. It will be published in July. Attendees to MSPC's Policy at Poolside event in Eagle on July 10th will receive the first copies. "Our new Mountain States Policy Manual will serve as a comprehensive resource on virtually every key issue facing the region, including topics like agriculture, budget, taxes, technology, education, and more," explained MSPC President Chris Cargill. Akin to the Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership," the manual will offer citizens many practical ideas and hope for the future. It will provide media with background and research needed to improve accuracy. And it will offer policymakers of any political persuasion a go-to resource for navigating key issues facing the Mountain West, all rooted in proven, free market solutions. "There is nothing else like it available," Cargill said. The Mountain States Policy Manual will be structured to provide accessible and comprehensive information on a variety of policy areas. Each section will include an overview of the issue, current challenges, policy recommendations, and case studies or examples of successful implementation. Specific chapters in the manual will cover: Fiscally Conservative Policies Tax Transparency Improving Government Transparency and Governance Advancing Student-Centered Education Reforms Improving the Economic Climate Reforming the Health Care System Policies for Managing Technology Advancing Free-Market Agriculture Policy Managing Natural Resources and Energy Development Guiding Principles for Transportation Mountain States Policy Center is a non-profit, non-partisan research center that provides free market solutions to successfully grow the region. It concentrates its work in Idaho, Eastern Washington, Montana and Wyoming – one of the first organizations of its kind to cover multiple states. MSPC’s mission is to empower those in the Mountain States to succeed through non-partisan, quality research that promotes free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government.

As we highlighted in our previous study (Powering the Mountain States: A snapshot of the region’s energy portfolio) our region is pursuing many different strategies to meet growing energy needs. Washington State for example is attempting to decrease its carbon emissions by turning to intermittent sources like wind and solar. Idaho officials are working to protect the dependable power provided by the Snake River dams and Governor Mark Gordon of Wyoming is emerging as a leading voice on promoting green energy projects. Wyoming is also advancing an innovative nuclear project that could be the first of its kind in the United States. A nuclear design engineering firm based in Bellevue, Washington recently made a big step in providing climate-friendly baseload power for Wyoming and neighboring states. Bill Gates and his energy company, Terrapower, recently broke ground in Kemmerer, Wyoming to start a nuclear power project. This project is estimated to cost $4 billion, half of which will be paid by the U.S. Department of Energy. Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon celebrated this news by saying: “Today we celebrate a trifecta. This first-of-its-kind project is good for the community of Kemmerer-Diamondville, the State of Wyoming, and our nation. As Natrium moves boldly toward establishing a new domestic energy source, it offers the promise of hundreds of jobs, enhanced careers, and renewed vitality.” A similar project was recently completed in Plant Vogtle, near Augusta, Georgia run by a Southern Nuclear company and owned by a multitude of power companies, including Georgia Power. Plant Vogtle’s 4 units are now the largest generator of clean energy in the U.S, estimating 30 million megawatt hours of electricity each year. U.S Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has been pushing for more reactors to be built in the U.S. and worldwide, but utility companies have grown wary because of the price tag. Terrapower is backed by billionaire Bill Gates and has raised more than $1 billion from private investors. Another difference in Wyoming is Terrapower’s plant will use advanced reactors known as Natrium. This system utilizes sodium-cooled fast reactors (SFR), rather than the usual water-cooling process. Natrium can operate at higher temperatures and lower pressures which improves the safety and efficiency of the unit. This plant is estimated to consistently generate 345 megawatts of energy to about 250,000 homes- with the capability of ramping up to 500,000 megawatts for short periods of time. Nuclear energy usually excites state officials and stakeholders because of its potential to decarbonize electricity production, produce electricity cheaply, and reduce the risk of grid disruption from weather events. Terrapower is still waiting for approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for its nuclear components but hopes to get approval by 2026. In the meantime, the plant has already been approved by the NRC for its construction permit application and will work with the NRC to have an expedited process.  If all goes as planned, the units are estimated to finish by 2030 at the earliest. Given the newest EPA rule package, Wyoming coal plants have been given the choice of shutting down by January of 2032, converting to natural gas co-firing by 20230 with a forced shutdown by 2039, or installing CO2 capture facilities by 2032. This takes a huge hit on Wyoming’s economy as it supplied 41% of the country’s coal in 2024 and the state labor market is dependent on coal production. Kemmerer especially has high hopes for this plant to be successful and supply jobs as their coal plant is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2036 which has supplied jobs in the town for decades. Once operational, the new Natrium plant will support roughly 250 permanent jobs. The 2,400-resident town is already seeing the effects of the project as there are plans for a new truck stop, two large housing developments, a new grocery store, a new coffee shop, and a long-abandoned apartment building to be turned into 64 Airbnb units to house the temporary workers when the nuclear plant is being built. Terrapower has promised to retrain existing coal workers for the new plant. Their CEO Chris Levesque commented on the labor pool: “That in no way is a burden for us. That, in fact is an opportunity for us. Because if you look at how you make electricity in an advanced reactor, it’s not that much different from how you make electricity in a coal plant." Gates says that the company chose the location in 2021 because of its existing power grid and the local labor force already working at the Naughton power plant. Warren Buffet owned, Pacificorp, has agreed to operate the new Natrium plant in Kemmerer. Pacificorp currently operates in six states including Oregon, Washington, California, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. They serve under the name “Rocky Mountain Power” while servicing Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. The western utility giant has reportedly been considering taking on five or more Natrium reactors by 2035 mostly in Utah and Wyoming. They plan on locating the new plants where they already are going to retire coal units. Natrium plants seem to be a feasible way to appease the EPA’s guidelines for lower carbon emissions, provide solid baseload energy, and continue to employ the labor force that is on the verge of being unemployed. Terrapower breaking ground in Wyoming will be the first of many Natrium plants to be built in the Mountain States. MSPC’s power study emphasized the need to find a balance between pursuing climate-friendly avenues, while still delivering affordable and reliable energy. Wind and solar look attractive, but practically they cannot deliver stable energy through weather events. Hydroelectric and nuclear power seem to be the future of dependable, baseload green energy. A major hurdle is to transition at the correct pace from fossil fuels to other baseload sources, so that the grid is stable, and the existing labor force can find new employment. The Terrapower and PacifiCorp blueprint for targeting soon-to-be decommissioned coal plants could be a fantastic solution. This Kemmerer project is a huge step towards a pragmatic future for lower carbon emissions, driven by the free market. Neighboring states should look to Wyoming as an example going forward.

It only took a minute for former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to make perhaps the best argument for education choice. At a recent event at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Dr. Rice, the current director of the Hoover Institute at Stanford, said this: “We already have a choice system in education. If you are of means, you will move to a district where the schools are good and the houses are expensive like Palo Alto, California. If you’re really wealthy, you will send your kids to private school. So who’s stuck in failing neighborhood schools? Poor kids. A lot of them minority kids. How can you say you’re for civil rights, how can you say you’re for the poor when you’re condemning those children to not be able to read? By the time they’re in 3rd grade, they’re never going to read. So, if you want to say that school choice and vouchers and charter schools are destroying the public schools, fine, you write that editorial in the Washington Post. But then don’t send your kids to Sidwell Friends [a D.C. private school].” The number of states providing parents and students with the option for Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), education choice tax credits, or an education tax scholarship has now grown to 29. Several states are also in the process of expanding their existing education choice programs to cover even more students. As of March 2023, there have been nearly 190 studies on the impact of education choice. Researchers have looked at fiscal effects, parent satisfaction, test scores, attainment, civic values, school safety and racial integration. Remarkably, 84% of studies show a positive effect, 10% show no impact, and 6% show a negative result. Studies were completed in red states and blue states, in those rural and urban. With 187 studies now published, we have more information on the impact of education choice than ever before. When it comes to student test scores, researchers across five states and Washington, D.C., produced 17 pieces of analysis. Eleven found that vouchers and scholarships improved test scores for at least some students. Four studies found no effect, while three found that vouchers and scholarships negatively impacted test scores for certain groups. Seven studies across five states and Washington, D.C. examined the educational attainment of students in four voucher programs, one tax-credit scholarship program, and one privately funded scholarship program. Five of these studies found that the programs had a positive impact on educational attainment for some or all participating students, while two studies found no discernible effect. None of the studies uncovered negative outcomes for any student group. Thirty-three studies across thirteen states and Washington, D.C. have examined parent satisfaction with education choice programs. These studies looked at three Education Savings Account programs, seven voucher programs, eight tax-credit scholarship programs, and at least seven privately funded scholarship programs. Of these thirty-three studies, thirty-one found that private school choice programs had positive effects on parent satisfaction, one study found no discernible effect, and two studies found negative effects. Examining the effects of private school choice programs on public school student test scores, 26 of 29 studies across eight states and Washington, D.C. found positive effects. These studies analyzed nine voucher initiatives, one tax-credit scholarship, and one privately funded scholarship. Only one study found no effect, while two studies saw negative effects. The studies examined two voucher programs and at least three privately funded scholarship programs across four states and Washington, D.C.. Of the 11 studies examining the effects of private school choice programs on civic values and practices, six found positive effects, five found no visible effect, and none found negative effects. Examining five voucher programs across three states and Washington, D.C., eight studies found mostly positive effects on racial integration in schools with seven showing integration improvements, one detecting no discernible effect, and none revealing negative consequences. The largest body of research we have is on the fiscal impact of school choice. Researchers have examined 24 voucher programs, 18 tax-credit scholarship programs, three education savings account programs, and one privately funded scholarship program in 23 states and Washington, D.C. Of the 74 studies reviewed, 68 found that these programs generated net savings for taxpayers. Another 5 studies found the programs to be cost-neutral, while 5 estimated net costs. However, 4 of the studies that found net costs also reported net savings over the long term, with only short-term costs. Finally, across four states and Washington, D.C., eight studies examined the impact of five voucher programs and three privately funded scholarship programs on school climate and safety. All eight studies found that educational choice programs had positive effects on school climate and safety, with none finding negative outcomes. The point here is that every program is different. Every state is different. Every child is different. It shouldn’t matter what school a child is attending, so long as they are receiving a quality education. It’s easy to understand why increasing numbers of Americans support education choice. The facts and the research don't lie.

I had the privilege of attending the Technology and Innovation Summit 2024 hosted by the James Madison Institute in sunny Miami, Florida. The summit brought together some of the brightest minds in technology and policy to discuss pressing issues shaping our digital future. From AI to cybersecurity, the discussions were not only enlightening but also forward-thinking. A standout moment of the summit was the round table discussion on Artificial Intelligence. The conversation centered around the implications of AI on various sectors, particularly in government offices. It was exciting to witness the consensus among experts regarding the potential for AI to revolutionize efficiency and cost savings in public services. An additional highlight was the shout-out to Mountain States Policy Center for our groundbreaking study on AI implementation in government, showcasing substantial cost savings. This study underscores the transformative impact of AI technologies when strategically deployed, prompting lively discussions on regulatory frameworks and ethical considerations. The Summit also discussed conservative perspectives on key technological issues. Education emerged as a critical topic, with discussions emphasizing the role of technology in enhancing learning outcomes while preserving traditional values. Broadband implementation in rural areas was another focal point, highlighting the necessity of equitable access to digital infrastructure for economic development. Another issue that MSPC has touched on is through our "Plugged in: Five keys to expanding broadband coverage" study. Cybersecurity emerged as a cornerstone of the discussions, with experts outlining essential 'do's and don'ts' to safeguard digital assets against evolving threats. The consensus was clear: robust cybersecurity measures are paramount to protect our privacy, our children, and our national security. This does not mean, however, that we need to be stifling technology innovation, but rather the opposite. It was reaffirmed to me that locally, we must take more initiative in creating practices educating and informing parents and youth of the dangers of technology, rather than heavy-handed, short-sided legislation that limits innovation. Artificial Intelligence remained a recurrent theme throughout the summit, transcending mere buzzwords to explore its practical applications. From healthcare to transportation, AI's potential to drive innovation and streamline operations was a recurring theme. The discussions underscored the need for responsible AI development, ensuring transparency and accountability in algorithmic decision-making. We were honored with the attendance of Florida's 43rd Governor Jeb Bush. Governor Bush gave an impassioned panel on advocacy for education reform and government efficiency. The former Florida governor and education advocate articulated a compelling vision focused on empowering parents and leveraging technology to transform both education and governance. Bush emphasized that schools should be centered around parents' aspirations for their children, advocating for policies that prioritize student needs and parental choice. His vision underscored the importance of shifting educational funding to follow the student, promoting competition and innovation among schools to improve outcomes. In addition to his education reform agenda, Jeb Bush highlighted the imperative of integrating technology and innovation into government operations. He stressed the need for leaner, more efficient government services that harness technological advancements to reduce bureaucracy and costs. The Technology and Innovation Summit was a resounding success, offering a platform for meaningful dialogue and insights into the future of technology. The James Madison Institute continues to serve as an exceptional resource for informed policy discussions, bridging the gap between innovation and governance. As we navigate the complexities of a rapidly evolving digital landscape, events like these remind us of the importance of collaboration and forward-thinking in shaping a tech-enabled future.

The headlines paint a dire picture. "Schools are struggling to balance their budgets," the Seattle Times recently read. "Kuna School Board cuts millions in school budget," KTVB reported. "Moses Lake School District cuts 100 teachers after $11 million budget error," The Spokesman-Review said. To read the news, you'd think most public schools are one dollar away from going under. But every district is different, and expectations of funding sometimes need a strong dose of reality. For example, in Washington, much of the decline in budgets is because so many students have left the public school system. Enrollment in the Evergreen State is down more than 4%, or roughly 60,000 students. That's the equivalent of the two largest school districts in the state - combined - having zero students. If you don't have as many customers, you can't expect to continue on as normal. It's simple math. In Moses Lake, the math didn't work, because school district officials counted dollars multiple times. (Yet another reason why policymakers should be looking at a Public School Transparency Act.) In Kuna, cuts are being made in part because the district counted on COVID-19 federal funding, and now that funding is running out. Idaho is one of the few states where public school enrollment has held steady since the pandemic. While it slightly declined last year, it increased by roughly 2.5% from 2021-2023. If this year's drop becomes a trend, policymakers will need to review options. But we must resist the urge to spend the same amount or more on fewer students. While it's not a comfortable conversation to have, the fact remains that declining enrollment might have led to the closing of a school. That doesn't mean K-12 funding is declining, in fact, our recent study showed every one of the top 10 school districts in Idaho are spending more than $10,000 per student, per year. In Washington, the statewide average is approaching $18,000 per student. Taxpayers are not in the business of simply funding empty seats. Declining school enrollment and budget constraints require policymakers to fundamentally rethink their approach to education - and that can be a good thing.

At the start of the summer and as days are getting warm an American pastime is for kids to run a lemonade stand. These stands are often spontaneous, usually short-term, and frequently have little to no profit margins, being heavily subsidized by the family pantry. But what these stands lack in monetary gains, they more than yield in educational opportunities. Kids engaged in lemonade stands or other entrepreneurial activities improve skills in money management, problem solving, creativity, leadership, and community involvement. Who wouldn’t want this for America’s youth every summer, on every street, and in every town? Unfortunately, across the country, some government officials think these kid-run stands should be shut-down. 36 states have no legal protection for lemonade stands or other kid entrepreneurship, and so the only protection is the local discretion of the current leadership. For many this laughable oversight has no real teeth. But for youth across America, local officials have tried to take a bite out of their profits. In 2010, a 7-year-old girl had to shut-down her stand in Portland, Oregon at an art vendor event. It was a relief to hear that the crowd at the event was appalled by the regulator, but the stand still had to close. The regulators claimed, “they had a duty to enforce regulations consistently.” The County Chairman Jeff Cogen could see through the mess and waved the fine saying, “A lemonade stand is a classic, iconic American kid thing to do. I don't want to be in the business of shutting that down." But in Oregon and all of the Mountain States, lemonade stands are still unprotected by statute and still vulnerable to regulators “being consistent.” This regulator consistency became frequent enough that Country Time Lemonade created its Legal-Ade in 2018 for “Taking a Stand for Lemonade Stands.” In their press release it reads, “Go ahead, kids. Run your lemonade stands. Country Time Legal-Ade is on your side and will protect you. When life hands you outdated laws, make lemonade, and get Legal-Ade.” Instead of kids needing to rely on local regulator discretion or a Lemonade Legal-Ade, it is imperative that our elected officials taste the sourness of these laws. Let’s look at Idaho as an example. According to Idaho Code Section 50-307: 50-307. LICENSE OCCUPATIONS AND BUSINESSES. (1) Cities shall have authority to levy and collect a license fee on any occupation or business within the limits of the city and to regulate the same by ordinance. All such fees shall be uniform in respect to the classes upon which they are imposed. No exemptions exist. Now, back in 2019 a spokesman for previous mayor David Bieter of Boise said, “If children are running a lemonade stand, that’s fine. We love that. It’s a part of growing up and a part of summer.” But is the current administration okay with that? What about lemonade stands outside of Boise? What about lemonade stands in ten years from now? It is essential that kid-run businesses are protected within the statute and not left to the discretion of future local authorities. In 2021, the Idaho State House passed a bill that included an exemption in this code by adding: (2) A business owned and operated exclusively by a person or persons under eighteen (18) years of age is exempt from any licensing, permitting, or fee requirements imposed by a city. But this bill died in the Senate. It’s time Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington protect lemonade stands within their statutes. Kid entrepreneurship is good for America and shouldn’t be left to the whims of local bureaucrats trying to be consistent. Helping young entrepreneurs is something I care deeply about. In fact, I wrote a children’s book about a lemonade stand business: The Lemonade Stand in the Middle of Nowhere In the spirit of that book, here’s a new rhyme for lemonade stand reform. To learn more about the Clearwater Kids and their lemonade stand, buy their book on Amazon and look forward to new releases from the Common Sense Climb in October.

Where should you live in the Mountain States? The question seems to be on the country’s mind as it has been the fastest growing region over the last five years. Cities like Boise, Billings, and Spokane have drawn crowds of new residents. But of those three cities, certain trends are making the locations easy to rank for desirability. Former mayor of Nashville Tim Prucell said, “There’s no Democratic or Republican way to fill a pothole or sweep the streets.” But as a quick look at the data suggests, there is good a way and bad way. For example, if you are in favor of low taxes, higher incomes, and moderate government spending then Boise and Billings are an ideal option. High property costs, high taxes, high density, and high property crime are making Spokane less than desirable. Just look at the data from Mountain States Policy Center’s latest research report. The three cities highlighted in this report, Billings, Boise, and Spokane are as similar as they are different. The cities are large and growing, with tight housing supplies, surrounded by multiple other towns in their metropolitan statistical areas. However, when it comes to the budget and roles these similar cities differ by hundreds of millions of dollars. It is worth noting many of the similarities. These are similar-sized municipalities between 100,000 to 240,000 residents, residing in a larger metropolitan area within historically rural regions, with similar age, race, and household demographics. But there the similarities end. The three cities vary in income differences, housing costs, poverty, crime, city budgets, finances, and most importantly taxes. The differences between the cities are growing, all because of local and state government choices. Billings’ quiet location in Yellowstone Valley appeals to many new residents, with most residents having relocated between 2015 to 2016, and a population increase of 12% since 2012. Billings is the smallest population of the three cities and the lowest density. The median household income is $77,711 and housing costs are the lowest. Unsurprisingly, with higher incomes and lower property costs, poverty rates are the lowest of the three cities. The only thing detracting from Billings is the high rate of violent crime, attributed to gang and drug violence. Boise is the leader in many ways, with the highest populations and highest incomes. However, the population growth has led to a significant upturn in housing costs and so the higher incomes must stretch to live in the Treasure Valley. Boise’s second highest poverty rate of the three cities reflects these higher costs. However, crime is the lowest in this region. Spokane is home to over 230,000 residents, a similar size to Boise. The city has the lowest median income and a significantly lower household income at $62,287. The average Spokane resident then must compete for a high property cost, that outpaces the area’s income, and poverty rates and property crime are high. Despite being similar in size, Boise and Spokane are a stark contrast in the proper role of government in delivering local services. Both Spokane and Boise employ approximately 2,000 positions, but the budgets differ by almost a hundred million dollars. The spending difference between Boise and Spokane over the last forty years averaged $1,200 per capita. All three cities were funded mostly by their own revenue through taxes and business activities. However, Spokane has a higher reliance on state and federal funding, in comparison to Boise and Billings. A closer look at the city taxes per capita, shows that keeping with the trend, Spokane has had the highest taxes per capita for the last 15 years. The influx of new residents in the last five years into the mountain states, reiterates the message that the regions around Boise, Billings, and Spokane are desirable. However, data show that regions with smaller governments are much more likeable than cities expanding financial obligations. Spokane has experienced this painful reality over the last 5 years, as its growth stagnates and doesn’t meet expectations but the neighboring city limits of Liberty Lake and Spokane Valley skyrocket in growth. Billings and Boise seem to recognize that smaller government is appealing and have kept their spending per capita more manageable. The differences between Boise, Billings, and Spokane are likely to become more pronounced if the trends of government growth continue in Spokane.

Some believe that Idaho is sitting on a goldmine of forgone taxes through “wasteful” tax preferences. There were comments made to that effect during the last legislative session, with the argument made that billions in sales tax revenue should go to public schools instead of staying in the possession of taxpayers via targeted tax preferences. Is that true? According to Idaho’s tax experts, more than $6 billion is expected to remain in taxpayers' hands instead of being collected for new spending. Why is this happening and what exactly are those tax preferences? Here is how the state of Idaho defines this process: “We define these departures from the tax base as tax preferences – noting that they derive from the Idaho legislature. The most common forms they take in the codification of taxes are exemptions, credits, exclusions, and deductions. The result is always the same: a tax that is defined based on a broad economic concept (income, consumption, wealth, etc.) is not applied uniformly against the broad base of the tax. Herein, a tax preference is any provision of Idaho law that excludes some portion of the tax base on a selective basis . . . These tax preferences can be thought of as foregone revenue the state could be collecting if the expenditure is repealed or thought of as tax relief currently provided to Idaho consumers and businesses.” For Idaho’s state income tax: “The principal Idaho income tax credits are: Grocery Credit Elderly Dependent Credit Other States Tax Credit Schools, Libraries, and Museums Credit Investment Tax Credit Youth and Rehabilitation Credit Research Activity Credit Broadband Investment Credit Child Income Tax Credit Reimbursement Incentive Credit The principal Idaho income tax deductions and exclusions are: Social Security Exclusion Retirement Benefit Exclusion Energy Efficiency Upgrades Deduction Alternative Energy Device Deduction Child Care Deduction Capital Gains Exclusion Medical Savings Account Deduction Government Interest Exclusion College Savings Deduction Health Insurance Deduction Long–Term Care Insurance Deduction Indigenous Earnings on Reservation Exclusion First–time Homebuyer Deduction Idaho Lottery Winnings Exclusion” Here is how Idaho tax officials explain the impact of these income tax savings for taxpayers: “Income tax credit preferences are expected to be worth no more than $619 million in calendar year 2023 or $637 million in 2024. The largest contributors are the grocery tax credit and other states tax credit. The grocery tax credit increased $20 per person in tax year 2023 which explains the large jump. The investment tax credit is also expected to continue to be worth more than $100 million each year going forward. Income tax deductions and exclusions are expected to be worth no more than $316 million in 2023 or $326 million in 2024. Deductions and exclusions may have a smaller impact because they reduce taxable income rather refund actual taxes. Many of the deductions are expected to stall or slow down in 2023 because of the tax cuts passed in HB1 of the 2022 special session. Social security remains the largest exclusion although capital gains may be competitive if corporate profits and stock prices continue to grow.” As for sales tax savings in Idaho: “Sales tax preferences relating to specific uses and entities are expected to be worth no more than $1.5 billion in 2023 or 2024. The overwhelming bulk of these sales tax exemptions are for equipment and supplies used in industry, mining, agriculture, and irrigation. Sales tax preferences relating to goods and services are expected to be worth no more than $3.7 billion in 2023 or $3.8 billion in 2024, the majority coming from services rather than goods. Health care and professional services are expected to make up half of this amount.” The Idaho tax preference report notes: “Together these preferences are expected to be worth no more than $6 billion in 2023 or $6.2 billion in 2024.” So, are these targeted sales tax preferences for things like construction, agriculture, irrigation, production, hospital purchases, and professional services wasteful? Your answer may depend on whether you think that consumers should pay more in Idaho and the cost of doing business be increased to allow state spending to grow faster. Or instead, if you view these tax preferences as critically important and economically vital “tax relief currently provided to Idaho consumers and businesses.” Idaho’s Tax Preferences (Source: General Fund Revenue Book; Dollars in thousands)

In a time when government regulations increasingly encroach upon various sectors of the economy, Mountain States Policy Center stands firm in its commitment to free-market principles. Recently, MSPC joined a coalition led by the Center for Individual Freedom to voice strong opposition against the Biden Administration's attempts to regulate broadband internet rates. This move not only defies Congressional intent but also jeopardizes the efficacy and growth of the broadband sector. The issue at hand centers around the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which explicitly prohibits the regulation of broadband rates. Despite this clear directive, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration has been implementing price-setting measures through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. Such actions contradict sworn statements from NTIA officials, including Administrator Alan Davidson and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, both of whom have acknowledged the legal prohibition against rate regulation. In a letter addressed to Secretary Raimondo, MSPC along with over 30 other national and state free-market organizations, expressed deep concern over these regulatory overreaches. The letter underscores that by imposing specific price points or formulas to set rates, the NTIA is effectively engaging in rate regulation, thereby violating the IIJA’s provisions. This not only undermines the law but also disrupts the regulatory framework intended to foster innovation and expansion in the broadband market. From our perspective, allowing the free market to dictate broadband rates is crucial for several reasons: Encouraging Competition and Innovation: Free-market principles encourage competition, driving companies to innovate and offer better services at competitive prices. Heavy regulation, on the other hand, can stifle innovation by imposing constraints that may not align with market dynamics. Ensuring Provider Viability: Imposing price controls can lead to financial strain on providers, particularly smaller and newer entrants, making it difficult for them to sustain operations and invest in infrastructure improvements. This could ultimately harm consumers by reducing the availability and quality of broadband services. Bridging the Digital Divide: The primary goal of the BEAD program is to close the digital divide by expanding internet access to underserved and unserved areas. However, the imposition of rate regulations could deter well-qualified providers from participating in the program, leaving these communities without the necessary resources and expertise to achieve meaningful connectivity improvements. The coalition’s letter concludes with a clear call to action: the NTIA must cease any form of rate regulation and approve BEAD plans that do not include price-setting measures. This approach will ensure that providers remain viable and capable of delivering the needed services to bridge the digital divide effectively. We remain steadfast in our belief that the free market, not federal mandates, should dictate broadband rates. By advocating for a regulatory environment that respects Congressional intent and fosters competition, we aim to ensure that broadband services remain innovative, affordable, and accessible to all Americans. As debates over broadband regulation continue, MSPC will persist in championing policies that uphold free-market principles and promote the long-term health of the broadband industry.

Idaho officials must feel like exhausted parents of independent toddlers. As any parent of young kids can relate to when you tell toddlers, “Don’t do it,” you really hope they won’t because if they ignore you there will be a mess. A mess is exactly what Idaho elected officials are facing this week after they told the Bureau of Land Management “Don’t do it” in regard to the proposed Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project last fall. The federal bill, “Don’t Develop Obstructive Infrastructure on our Terrain Act” would require the Secretary of the Interior to deny solar or wind energy projects that were opposed by the state legislature. The bill has only been introduced and has not moved forward. Mountain States Policy Center wrote on this issue. This week, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced the project is still moving forward. Though the proposed ‘mess’ of the federal government is not as big as originally designed, it still promotes California’s green energy priorities over the priorities of Idaho residents. Idaho officials are voicing new concerns about the mess Lava Ridge makes of federal overreach, grazing permits, recreational use, prioritizing California over local Idahoans, and aviation paths. Governor Little said: “This is the latest example of the Biden Administration’s unsound energy agenda. The BLM is determined to give California electricity from Idaho despite overwhelming opposition from Idahoans and contrary to formal actions by Idaho’s county, state, and federal elected officials, including federal legislation and federal law.  It may not matter in Washington D.C., but it matters to those of us who live here.” Lt. Governor Bedke echoed the frustration by saying: “Ranching, farming, and recreation are a major part of the Magic Valley’s heritage…the BLM disregarded Idahoan’s input on a project that is in our backyard and, instead, favored Californians energy needs. Simply put, California will reap the benefits and Idaho will get all the negative impacts. We will know California is serious about green energy when we see wind turbines in Hollywood’s hills.” In addition to these concerns, Senators Crapo and Risch and Congressman Simpson all made statements on the Lava Ridge Project. Additionally, State Attorney General Raul Labrador filed an appeal with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) fighting the project. The filing states: “If built, the wind turbines would increase the difficulty and safety risks of performing aerial applications that are already quite difficult and risky. In some locations, or under certain conditions, the increased difficulty and risk may effectively preclude aerial applications to the crops or fields." Unfortunately, for opponents of the Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project in Idaho, the Bureau of Land Management is still moving forward, albeit with a smaller scope. The new proposal would reduce the project by almost 50%, from 400 turbines to 241, removing them from sensitive historical and natural areas, and limiting the height to 660 feet (still taller than the Seattle Space Needle). Some activists are praising the move saying, “the Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project would help Idaho become more energy independent.” But in the trade of any commodity, especially electricity, independence is not only a myth but a damaging pursuit. Think about the consequences of pursuing production independence in any commodity. We talked with Todd Myers, current Vice President and former Environmental Director with Washington Policy Center. Myers said: “States should not be energy independent. We are not car independent, or steel independent, or software independent or even food independent. Thank God we don’t require Washington or Idaho to be coffee independent. Build things where they make sense and trade. Additionally, electricity doesn’t work that way. We not only trade with other states in the aggregate, we trade at different times of the year and even within the day. Electricity independence is such a monumentally dishonest concept.” It is appreciated that the BLM reduced the size of the project and relocated the wind farm away from historically sensitive areas, but the voices of today’s Idahoans have been largely ignored in favor of out-of-state interests. The Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project overlooks the realistic outcomes of its design. Pursuing energy independence denies the benefits of trade and competitive and comparative advantages between states. Wind energy is usually inefficient at the hours of peak demand. Idaho ranchers, farmers, and recreators will be burdened while California benefits. Now the frustrated officials who said, “Don’t Do It,” need to find a way to negotiate with the federal government. Hopefully, the Idaho elected officials will be able to gain traction through the judicial or legislative system, because the federal executive branch appears set to continue to ignore Idaho residents. *Image Generated using Midjourney AI and edited and composed with Photoshop by MSPC **Top Image Source: https://www.blm.gov/get-involved/resource-advisory-council/near-you/idaho/lava-ridge-subcommittee

We’ve previously highlighted Washington’s Democratic Secretary of State’s concerns about Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Showing the continued bipartisan opposition to RCV, Montana’s Republican Secretary of State is also among the regional opponents of this highly controversial voting scheme. I recently had the opportunity to talk with Montana’s Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen about Ranked Choice Voting and asked if she had any concerns. Here is what Secretary Jacobsen told me: “I have serious concerns with the efforts funded with dark money to impose Ranked Choice Voting. It is a very deceptive practice and would undermine all of our efforts to secure our elections in Montana. It would also create serious voter confusion and frustration. For example, following implementation of RCV in Alaska, my Alaskan election colleagues referred to it as ‘the biggest nightmare they've ever had to deal with’ – so much in fact, that Alaska is currently in the process of getting RCV repealed. Studies have shown that RCV can decrease voter turnout, create distrust in the process, and disenfranchise voters, specifically minorities. With RCV, you are essentially forced to vote for someone you would never vote for or endorse to begin with. Montana has very well-run elections, the best in the nation. We have implemented laws that enforce election integrity and confidence of elections in our state. We will not allow any implementation of Ranked Choice Voting to weaken our strong elections.” Here is a quote from the Princeton University professor who conducted one of the RCV studies referenced by Secretary Jacobsen: “In recent years, ranked choice voting has been hyped as a solution to many perceived problems in American elections. Unfortunately, the hype has often outpaced the evidence. My research raises major concerns about whether RCV may work to further reduce the electoral influence of racial and ethnic minority communities.” As the debate around RCV continues across our region, it is important to remember that there is a big difference between open primaries and ranked-choice voting. Moving to a clean open primary is a debate worth having (preferably a Top Two). For example, this is exactly what is occurring right now in South Dakota. South Dakota voters will consider a clean open primary (Top 2) constitutional amendment this year that is not tied to the controversy of Ranked Choice Voting. Whether or not to adopt open primaries should stand alone as a policy debate without being joined at the hip with the problems associated with RCV. Additional Information Another warning about Ranked Choice Voting from Washington’s Secretary of State

Idaho's legislative Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC) held a work session today discussing performance-based budgeting and its possible use. I had the opportunity to present before JFAC and provide our recommendations on how the committee can build on its new process to focus the legislature's budget on performance outcomes. Along with including examples from other states, I encouraged the JFAC members to ask these questions when writing the budget: What are the results citizens expect from the state government? What strategies are most effective in achieving those results? How should we prioritize spending to buy the activities that are most critical to implementing these strategies? How will we measure progress? Is the activity a core function of government or commercial in nature? If it is a core function, can the service be provided more efficiently and effectively through competitive contracting? Does it provide a broad public benefit or only serve a special interest? Does it duplicate the activities of non-profits or other private initiatives? Does it duplicate the efforts of other state agencies or programs? Does the activity demonstrate quantifiable performance? I also encouraged JFAC members to consider the following going forward: Take a more active and direct role in demanding accountability for agency spending of tax dollars. Approve statewide priorities and performance targets for agency activities. Make this data publicly available. Focus spending on outcomes by routinely requesting and using performance information in policy and budget decisions. Place performance targets directly into the budget. Have JFAC track performance outcomes to facilitate performance-based budgeting like Texas. Provide an opportunity for public comment before adopting appropriation bills. Here is a copy of my full JFAC presentation. You can view the JFAC discussion about performance-based budgeting here. Additional Information Use performance-based budgeting to focus taxpayer dollars on expected outcomes

When taxpayers provide their hard-earned dollars to government officials, they are doing so in hopes of receiving a tangible outcome for this investment in public services. The true measure of success for these tax dollars is not how much is being spent but whether a measurable performance outcome is being achieved. This is why state and local budgets should be transformed from a list of spending to a performance agreement with taxpayers on what the expected results will be for these investments. This type of budgeting is known as performance-based budgeting. Although many states use a variation of performance-based budgeting, Texas is the clearest example of transforming a state’s actual appropriation bills into a performance agreement with taxpayers on what outcomes are expected. As noted in a 2005 United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit: “In Texas, funds are appropriated by agency goals and strategies, which are defined in the agency’s strategic plan. Strategies set forth actions to be taken by an agency to achieve its goals. There may be multiple strategies under one goal. Funding is provided at the strategy level . . . in Texas agencies work with legislative and executive budget staff throughout the strategic planning and budgeting processes to determine the measures they will report in the next biennial budget.” GAO further notes about the Texas performance-based budgeting process: “In addition to funding amounts, the legislative budget estimates and general appropriations bill also include other budget-related information, such as performance measures and targets, financing procedures, and historical summaries of previous funding requests and approved agency budgets. The Governor’s Office also provides its budget proposal at the beginning of the legislative session using a similar format as the LBB . . . Texas’s General Appropriation Act is structured by goals and strategies. In general, an agency will have three to five substantive strategies, sometimes referred to as ‘direct strategies,’ as well as one or more strategies labeled ‘indirect administration’ for functions shared among strategies, such as accounting, human resources, information technology, reporting, and overall administration in the higher executive offices . . . Texas also includes outcome, output, and efficiency targets to show what level of performance is expected for each goal and strategy based on the appropriation level each receives.” Here is an example of what the Texas budget looks like by using this type of process: The Texas Legislative Budget Board further explains: “As a part of the strategic planning process, agencies develop performance measures. Performance measures are quantifiable indicators of achievement. Texas uses four types of measures: * Outcome—indicates the effect on a stated condition; * Output—counts the services produced by an agency; * Efficiency—gauges resource cost per unit of product; and * Explanatory/input—provides information to help assess reported performance . . . Over the next two years, an agency collects data on its performance measures and reports this information quarterly to the LBB, GBPD, and other agencies. As part of the data collection process, an agency must establish controls to ensure the data is properly collected and reported. Among the duties of the SAO are auditing performance measures and certifying those measures. The audit report on performance measures includes a report on the adequacy of controls in reporting data and the accuracy of agency reporting on actual performance.” Although caseloads, inflation, and population changes are important drivers of budget pressures, the fiscal conversation should always be focused on what the expected performance outcomes are for the taxpayer investments being made. By using a budgeting process that places desired performance outcomes directly into the actual appropriation bills, budget writers can help refocus the spending debate while signaling a clear expectation to agencies on what they are expected to accomplish on behalf of taxpayers.

Understanding whether your school district has the resources it needs to be successful can be difficult. Reading a school district budget can be the equivalent of learning another language.  Budget documents are a maze of numbers and legal jargon – if you can even find them. Depending on the district, they can be hidden on websites, and only accessible if you know where to look. When you finally do track down the document, it can be very difficult to read and understand. It is a good thing that budget documents are posted online. Unfortunately, transparency doesn’t mean much if it’s not understandable. In 2021, Idaho legislators passed House Bill 73, which tasks the state Controller to create a uniform accounting, budgeting, and financial reporting procedure. It is expected to be completed by January of 2025, and it will be another tool available to track results and demand accountability. In the 2024 legislative session, lawmakers introduced legislation to adopt the Public School Transparency Act[1] – a Mountain States Policy Center idea to require districts on the first page of their budgets as well as on their website, clearly report key data including spending, student to teacher ratios and more. The idea had more than 80% support in MSPC’s 2022 Idaho Poll. While the legislation did not pass, lawmakers should continue to make it easier for parents and the community to understand budgets and compare and contrast districts across the state. The release of all public data is paramount, but for working families and concerned citizens, certain data points are most important and should be easily found and understood – without a calculator or a degree in accounting. This publication highlights Idaho’s 10 largest school districts, the staffing of each, the average salaries of administrators, principals and teachers, and key ratios. All data contained in this publication comes directly from the school district’s posted budget, as well as the Idaho Department of Education, using the most recent year available.

When he was first elected, President Barack Obama proclaimed to the nation that he would not just wait for Congress to act. “I’ve got a pen,” the president said. It’s likely that those who agreed with President Obama’s politics applauded the statement. And maybe you’re one of the millions of Americans who want presidents, governors, and bureaucrats to act – even if the legislative branch of our government (i.e., the people) never gave them the authority to do so. If this describes you, it’s time to rethink your position and commitment to our Constitution. Civics 101 teaches us that the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. Of the three branches, the legislative is perhaps the most important as it is the only part of the government that can make new laws or change existing laws - or at least that’s the way it was supposed to be. In reality, all three branches are now trying to make laws – an effort that is dramatically changing the size, scope, and confidence in government. This is true at the federal level and in many states as well. Consider the President’s most recent action forgiving student loans. Congress never passed such a law. Instead, the Biden Administration is using different interpretations of an early 2000’s piece of legislation to "forgive" the debt (i.e., have taxpayers cover), despite court rulings that have called it unconstitutional. In the tug of war over separation of powers, executives (whether they be presidents or governors) have always tried to push the limits of their power. The founders knew this would be the case, which is why they tried to instill so many checks and balances, as well as place the legislative branch first in the Constitution. But more recent executive actions have so blurred the lines that it is difficult to see how a restoration of our founding principles would be accomplished. President Biden has issued 138 executive orders. Former President Trump issued 220 in his four years in office. Both issued various orders that dabbled into policymaking. Many courts have done the same. The U.S. Supreme Court re-wrote portions of the Affordable Care Act in 2012 to uphold the law by a vote of 5-4. The Nevada Supreme Court once overturned a voter-approved constitutional amendment for a two-thirds vote on taxes, so that education spending could increase. Interpreting law? No. Policymaking? Yes. On the state side, Washington Governor Jay Inslee has frequently used executive orders to adopt policy that he couldn’t get the Washington state Legislature to pass, even at one point making it illegal to go fishing during the pandemic – again, something the Washington legislature never passed. Montana Governor Greg Gianforte and Idaho Governor Brad Little have been more cautious about stepping on the toes of the legislative branch. Still, bureaucrats have a history of finding a way. One needn’t look further than the proposed $685 million purchase by the University of Idaho of the University of Phoenix. The Idaho state Board of Education unanimously approved the deal, which caught many legislators and the public off guard. In fact, it was made public only 24 hours before the vote, even though it’s the Legislature that appropriates money to the University. As former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia would frequently say, if you want a law, “convince enough of your fellow citizens” to pass it.  And if you want a role in policymaking or appropriating, join the legislative branch. If the Congress or the Legislature won’t act, elect a new Congress or Legislature.

The World Health Organization (WHO) was established in 1948 to provide a forum for international health issues and to promote healthy living. It is an agency of the United Nations and includes 194 countries at the present time. Recently, the WHO leadership proposed a “Pandemic Agreement” that would essentially give the organization control over how countries should combat a global epidemic. In other words, an unelected group of international bureaucrats would potentially have the ability to dictate how member countries treat their citizens’ health problems. No surprise, Republican governors, including those in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, are extremely upset by this proposed takeover. Twenty-four governors sent a formal letter to President Biden strongly resisting any move by the WHO to undermine federal and state sovereignty. They closed the letter with the following paragraph: “As governors, we affirm that public health policy is a matter reserved for the states, not the federal government, and certainly not international bodies like the WHO. We are committed to resisting any attempts to transfer authority to the WHO over public policy affecting our citizens or any efforts by the WHO to assert such authority over them.” The reasoning behind the formation of the United Nations and its agencies was to establish a forum that aligned member goals and worked for world peace after World War II. The success and accomplishments of the U.N. are questionable and controversial. The COVID pandemic was an international catastrophe that had an impact on the citizens of every country and was undoubtedly the driving force behind the WHO’s “Pandemic Agreement.” Yet, no unelected international organization should have the right to dictate the medical treatments of Americans. These governors are absolutely justified to speak up for their citizens and demand state and federal sovereignty.

In the vastness of the Mountain States, where rugged landscapes and rural communities define the region, one pressing issue stands out; the lack of reliable broadband connectivity. With a significant percentage of these populations residing in remote areas, access to high-speed internet isn't just a convenience, it's a necessity for economic growth, education, and quality of life. Yet, traditional solutions like laying fiber-optic cables across extensive territories pose fiscal challenges, especially for states with limited budgets and vast rural landscapes. However, amidst these obstacles lies an opportunity for innovation and collaboration, paving the way for a fiscally conservative approach to solving the rural broadband dilemma. The state legislatures and broadband entities, rather than federal mandates, hold the key to unlocking broadband access in the Mountain States. This approach not only ensures fiscal responsibility but also fosters a sense of ownership and accountability among local stakeholders. Take Wise County, Texas, for example. Faced with similar challenges of rural connectivity, Wise County embraced wireless technology, leveraging the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) to deliver high-speed internet without the hefty price tag of traditional fiber optics. Through a strategic public-private partnership, Wise County achieved remarkable results, transforming the digital landscape for its residents and businesses alike. Inspired by Wise County's success, the Mountain States can chart a similar course toward bridging the rural broadband gap. By prioritizing innovative solutions and local empowerment, we can overcome the fiscal barriers that have long hindered progress in expanding broadband access. Investing in wireless technologies like CBRS offers a potentially cost-effective alternative to fiber optics, providing scalable solutions that can reach even the most remote corners of our region. By embracing adaptability and resilience, we can ensure that no community is left behind in the digital age. Policymakers can seize this opportunity to bridge the rural broadband gap and wisely learn from the example of Wise County, ensuring that every resident of Idaho, Washington, Montana, and Wyoming has access to the transformative power of high-speed internet. By empowering our counties, municipalities, and communities to lead the charge In helping states prepare "shovel-ready projects," we can achieve meaningful progress In broadband expansion, while staying true to our principles of fiscal conservatism.

An engaged citizenry should be the pursuit not the torment of democracy. Adopting policies favoring government transparency at all levels of government is of utmost importance to the progression of free market ideals. Providing citizens with notice of public meetings and meaningful details of the topics on agendas is the first step towards more government transparency. In a survey by CivicsPlus of 16,000 people, 82% wanted more government transparency at the local level. The same survey also found that individuals engaging with city websites more than once a month were 5 times more trusting in their city council. As local governments share information, engage with constituents, and increase dialogue, more trust in government is built. This trust is a time-saving effort. Government officials spend less time on dispersing information when a framework already exists. Also, an informed citizenry needs less time spent on history and background information and can move forward to solutions. These benefits of transparent government can be realized when: 1.     Public Meetings are Announced and Available: Public meetings should be announced on a regular platform, where it is easy for citizens to find and attend. Meetings should take advantage of the digital age, and allow attendance through online meeting platforms – this includes remote testimony. Meetings should also be recorded for citizens to have access to and review previous material. 2.     Five Days Public Notice of Agenda: It is difficult for citizens to come prepared to government meetings without knowing the agenda items before the meeting. Local government, including all councils, commissions, and boards should provide agenda items with at least five-day notice. 3.     Policy Changes and Proposals Included in Packet: All policy changes and proposals included on a public meeting agenda for any level of government should have related documents and information publicly available before the meeting. If the item is included in the agenda and up for discussion, information should be included before the meeting explaining the issue. This includes the actual text of ordinances (etc.) to be considered. Efforts towards more open public meetings are ongoing throughout the country. For example, the Transparent Idaho website has already taken a great step towards open and transparent government finances by providing spending information for the cities and school boards. The Town Hall Idaho website also provides a list of all upcoming public meetings and links to virtual platforms when available. The natural next step is for the documents and proposed measures under consideration to also be available when notice of a public meeting is made. We asked Idaho State Controller Brandon Woolf for his thoughts on these recommendations. Woolf said: “To have a truly engaged citizenry, public entities must publish documents and policies pertinent to any action or discussion before a public meeting. Providing transparency through Townhall.Idaho.gov is crucial for empowering Idahoans to engage with their policymakers. At present, Townhall Idaho provides meeting notices for state agencies, with opportunities to expand this service to include local government notices. We wholeheartedly support any initiative that will ensure Idahoans have the information needed to participate meaningfully in their government.” One of the few benefits of the pandemic was increased government transparency. All levels of government adopted virtual meetings and had electronic notice of meetings (at least to the board). Pandemic angst and frustrations increased public participation in government meetings. Unfortunately, among state and local authorities, some entities are ending live streaming and remote participation. There is no good reason for this reduction in public access. State and local governments should embrace increased transparency and provide access to the same details provided to public officials when issuing a public notice of a meeting and agenda. Citizens will benefit when government meetings are public for everyone (online and in-person), a five-day notice is provided, and relevant information is publicly included in the agenda notice before the meeting.