Business
How About Testimony Under Oath At Legislature?
April 4, 2011 
After 40 plus years of watching the Idaho Legislature and seeing how much influence (control) the lobbyists have over legislators and ultimately the laws they pass, we think it is time that all testimony–written or oral–given to a legislative committee should be taken under oath with the penalty of perjury for offering false information.
Jurors make decisions that affect the lives of criminals and corporations during trials with evidence that is offered under penalty of perjury. It seems only logical that legislators should make laws the affect the entire population with sworn testimony. The GUARDIAN has seen and heard some “whoppers” offered to legislative committees–usually in the form of predictions about the economy or jobs.
However when special interest business groups show up and make claims about paying “millions in taxes” and the truth is only “thousands,” there should be a civil or criminal penalty. Honest mistakes or differences of opinion can be just that. Attempts to mislead should be punished and not simply discounted as “politics.”
With the simple admonition, “Remember, you are under oath,” perhaps testimony would have a little more credibility.
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Comments & Discussion
Comments are closed for this post.
Apr 5, 2011, 2:15 am
As one who has testified before committees of both chambers of the Idaho legislature I can attest to the fact that the foundation of the process is in being honest, truthful (and brief). The Legislators I’ve seen appreciate factual statements and understand that opinions are part and parcel of the process. Most of the witnesses I observed tried to distinguish between the two elements of testimony and most of the Legislators seemed to appreciate that. Beginning two or three years ago I began to notice a shift in this, away from the factual and adventuring into the fanciful. Then came the Education bills presented by the Superintendent this year; they are the most political of any I’ve ever observed or even heard reported, they lack fact and honesty and the Legislators, by and large, seemed to care not a whit. Sad doings at a sad time. The corporations and private businesses will profit as our children suffer, all because honesty and fact were avoided.
Apr 5, 2011, 9:12 am
Gee Grumpy, was the “mis-leading” testimony on education any more dire on the superintendent’s side as it was on the Idaho Education Union’s side?? Did anyone really believe the cry ” this will mean we will lose 770 teachers ” that rose from the education union people. Funny, there wasn’t a word spoken about the “top heavy” positions we are suffering with regard to administration. Nor was there discussion about questionable positions that have risen from the “bloated ” budgets of the past few years. Do we really need “Directors of future student development” in MIDDLE school???
As far as the under oath thing, I believe it would cause people to think twice before they start spreading the manure around the legislature. After all, we have landscapers for that. But it seems to be the reason the lawn at the capitol is brown. Over fertilized would be my diagnosis! Just like every year,it will green back up a couple of weeks after the “jamokes” go home.
Apr 5, 2011, 9:17 am
Good idea Dave. The abuse of the term “testimony” is profound.
To balance the scales, the Legislators should also be under oath, thus reducing their fanciful flights of repeating unsubstantiated talking points from the likes of Wayne Hoffman.
Apr 5, 2011, 9:22 am
In my 64 years of pullin air on this earth I have found there are many truths to any issue. I would like to see a chart of who benefits and who loses a +/- assessment of issues before the legislature and the one where the people (“of the people by the people and for the people”) get the nod in laws passed by the legislature.
My favorite whipping post law is Urban Renewal, it rarely benefits the “people” and puts a lot of cash in the hands of folks who are accountable to nobody, yet the Legislature set this messy set of laws up back in the day.
Apr 5, 2011, 10:03 am
We need more watchdogs like you. Keep the red hot torch on the lobbyists behinds.
Apr 5, 2011, 10:28 am
I saw this done at one point in the past in a local municipality (Eagle) during public hearings. Don’t know if it changed the ultimate outcome of decisions, but it seemed to make those testifying a bit more cautious about what they had to say — and provided a chance for the Council and Mayor to seek clarification of information with that oath as a reminder. Administrations changed over the past 20 years, though, and so did the approach to handing public testimony.
Apr 5, 2011, 10:30 am
Agree with Grumpy’s opinion.
Our government has become of, by and for the corporations, at the expense of the people. We need our democracy back.
Apr 5, 2011, 12:03 pm
Testimony is a declaration of truth or fact. Unfortunately the legal profession has pulled, pushed, twisted and tied the word “testimony” so much we hardly recognize it. Oh and don’t we have a bevy of attornies in the legislature? Hmmm. Not to mention that lobby groups have their token legal eagles. Just remember the words “truth” and “fact”. Simplicity wins out in the end.
Apr 5, 2011, 8:23 pm
Bingo! But that’s like saying you can’t fix the tables in Vegas
Apr 6, 2011, 2:30 am
You are such a radical extremist dreamer, Guardian. Next thing you’ll be wanting a requirement of at least some truth in campaigns and campaign promises. Why, that’s downright un-American.
Apr 11, 2011, 9:16 pm
I would have no problem with testifying under oath under the penalty of law…if the legislators also had to legislate under oath…ie; tell the plain unvarnished truth about their legislation and motivation.