Senate Pro Tem Brent Hill, R-Rexburg, announced McGee’s resignation at a Wednesday afternoon press conference, telling reporters that the Caldwell Republican has been accused of sexual harassment by a legislative aide.

Hill wouldn’t release the name of the female aide, saying he would like to protect her privacy. Hill said that she is not a minor and has since been put on paid administrative leave.

Senate leadership was notified of the allegations Feb. 18. Hill said he immediately reassigned the staffer to different duties before discussing the matter further.

The attorney general’s office has been asked to investigate the claim, a process which is ongoing and will continue even after Wednesday’s resignation. Hill said that McGee hasn’t admitted any wrongdoing.

Hill said it was entirely McGee’s decision to step down, though he wouldn’t say if his leadership team pressured him into doing so.

McGee, once thought to be destined for higher office later in his career, resigns after a year of turmoil. Last June, he was arrested for grand theft and drunk driving after he stole an SUV and trailer and jackknifed it in the driveway of a south Boise home.

Later in the year, McGee was found to be taking extra per diem money for maintaining a second home during the 2011 legislative session. Reports say that McGee slept on his parents’ couch in Boise.

A few weeks ago, the Senate Republicans voted to uphold McGee’s caucus chair leadership position, though the vote was far from unanimous. Sen. Chuck Winder, R-Boise, who was one of the nine senators who voted against McGee’s retention in the post, says he isn’t vindicated by the new allegations. “No one is saying I told you so now,” Winder told reporters.

McGee was in his fourth term in the Senate. His leadership post, Hill said, will now be put up to a vote of Senate Republicans.

See the video of the press conference below:

Gov. Butch Otter’s office confirmed the resignation prior to a press conference scheduled by the Senate Republican caucus Wedensday.

McGee was in the midst of his fourth term and was the GOP’s caucus chair in the Senate.

This year, the House Education Committee has begun another run at cap removal, though the latest version includes a new hitch.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Bob Nonini, R-Post Falls, would eliminate the statewide cap of six per year, but would also allow multiple charter schools to be formed within districts each year, a huge break from the established process. As it stands, only one charter school is allowed to be established each year.

Rep. Cliff Bayer, R-Boise, is working with Nonini to push the bill and says the cap stands in the way ofIdahoreceiving federal and private grants to aid charter schools.

Diane Demarest, head of the Idaho Charter School Network, warned thatIdaho, once a leader in school choice, is no longer seen as a charter-friendly state.

Penni Cyr, president of the Idaho Education Association (IEA), explained that while her group supports charter schools, she believes the bill goes too far. She also said that the IEA supported removal of the cap a few years ago believing public schools could learn from innovative practices used in charter schools. She said the idea sharing just hasn’t happened.

Karen Echeverria of the Idaho School Boards Association sided with Cyr, saying Nonini’s bill would mean less regulation of charter schools.

Noting that argument, Rep. Sue Chew, D-Boise, moved to send the bill to the House amending order to leave the one-per-district rule in state law, but the maneuver was defeated on a 4-13 vote.

Rep. Linden Batemen, R-Idaho Falls, a former educator, said that while he supports charter schools, he believesthat too many of them open in a single year in one district would be devastating to public schools. He also said that charter schools take additional resources from local districts in a time when funding is scarce. “I just think this is not the year to remove the cap per district,” Bateman warned.

The bill passed on a 12-5 vote and now heads to the House floor.

Similar legislation has been introduced by Idaho lawmakers in the last 2-3 years, without success in passing the Legislature. Sen. Jim Hammond, R-Coeur d’Alene, believes that this current version of an anti-texting bill is simple, effective and also enforceable. The penalty if found guilty of texting while driving would be $85 plus court costs.

Part of the suit contends that Occupy members’ property will be unlawfully seized, which violates the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution has been the main catalyst during this process, as lawmakers have had to battle with what constitutes free speech and freedom of assembly, against pushing it too far and violating a reasonable right to air their grievances in a public area.

A federal judge will hold a conference call Friday to discuss the matter.

The figure represents a 3.12 percent increase from last year’s appropriation of $35.4 million.

With the appropriation, the budget committee funded the program for the full fiscal year 2013, unlike 2012’s allotment. Last year, lawmakers paid the program’s expenses for six months and then asked fund officials to return after that period of time to justify costs and ask for more money.

Rep. Fred Wood, R-Burley, complained about the practice, saying it provided unneeded difficulty for fund administrators.

The budget committee also approved a resolution asking the fund to return any unused funds back to the state at the end of fiscal year 2013.

With some legislation pending in the Idaho Senate, it is possible the fund could have some extra cash at the end of the year. Rep. John Rusche, D-Lewiston, is pushing a bill that would allow the catastrophic fund to purchase health insurance policies for program recipients who need long-term treatment, like those with cancer or other serious ailments.

The idea behind the legislation is that the catastrophic care program pays high premiums for a patient, but would shift treatment costs to the insurance carrier.

Rusche says the shift is likely to save the fund $3 million next year. The measure has cleared the House and is awaiting hearings in the Senate.

Nonini introduced a resolution in the House Education Committee Wednesday asking Idaho’s insurance carriers to create their own exchange using their own funds. The measure would have no force of law, but could send a strong message about the coming debate on a health insurance exchange.

The measure passed with strong objections from Rep. Brian Cronin, D-Boise, who railed against the free market’s ability to solve rising health care costs. “This is absolutely mind-boggling,” Cronin complained.

The Boise Democrat, calling some on the committee “free market zealots,” questioned why insurance companies hadn’t taken this step yet. “You cannot say the free market is going to solve this problem when no one has stepped up,” Cronin said. “What has been holding back the insurance industry for the past 25 years, since the exchange idea has been out there for that long?”

Rep. Pete Nielsen, R-Mountain Home, said he doesn’t believe the threat of the federal government setting up an exchange if Idaho doesn’t isn’t reason enough to set up the program using state funds. “I think that’s a pretty poor reason to have a state insurance exchange,” Nieslen said. “I think the industry can create one.”

The resolution may be a starting point in the coming battle over the health insurance exchange. Some lawmakers, like Cronin, are all for taking the federal money to create a state-based program. Others, like Rep. Fred Wood, R-Burley, and Sen. Dean Cameron, R-Rupert, are pushing a state-based program using only general fund dollars.

Yet, there are more lawmakers, like Nonini, who feel government needs to stay out of the process. “I think we are going down a terrible road,” Nonini said. “We don’t need, in my opinion, a bunch of involvement at the state level.”

Gov. Butch Otter originally came out in support of creating a state exchange using the federal money, but has since backed off that position and has said he and members of his administration are weighing other options.

Nonini says a plan with the backing of Wood and Cameron, which avoids using the federal money, still wouldn’t do anything to address rising health care costs. In fact, he says, through taxes and fees on insurance carriers, it would actually add to the problem. “I find every part of it drives up health care costs,” Nonini said. “I just don’t see where the legislation put in front of us does anything to drive down health care costs.”

Instead, he says, it’s time for the insurance carriers to put up the money to pay for a program they want. “They can spend some of their own money and put their own exchange together,” Nonini said.

The measure will now head to the House Health and Welfare Committee for a more thorough hearing.

This legislation would create IGEM and an accompanying grant fund. The bill provides for an IGEM council to administer the fund and advise state agencies and the governor on matters related to technology transfer and the commercialization of research with the goal of developing “high-quality jobs and new industries in the private sector in Idaho.” The IGEM council would also “establish economic development objectives” for IGEM projects.

The program is modeled after a similar one from Utahcalled the Utah Science Technology and Research Initiative (USTAR). According to its website, since its inception in 2006, USTAR has produced 121 invention disclosures with 46 patents filed, along with the creation of four companies.

Jeff Sayer, director of the Idaho Department of Commerce, said that the bill may not produce results immediately, but for the long-term outlook it should perform well. Sayer noted that the funding of the program has not been determined. “As I understand it,” he said, “those (funding issues) will be addressed by the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee once this bill is approved. Those will include $2 million in funding for our universities, ongoing permanent funding for CASE (Center for Advanced Energy Studies) of $2 million, and a million dollars for a fund to be housed at the Department of Commerce.”

Rep. Steve Thayn, R-Emmett, voted in favor of the bill, but questioned the details, or lack thereof, in the bill. “You know, it’s a lot easier to allocate funds for research, and that’s important, don’t get me wrong here … but it’s harder to get outcomes.” Thayn then pointed to several generic lines in the bill involving processes and steps in the program, but noted specifics were lacking.

“So, right now this is the beginning of the process, but I don’t see too many outcomes. … There’s not too many outcome-based measures here that we can come back in a year and see if we’re really making progress or not,” said Thayn.

Other than Thayn’s remarks, questions were few with those testifying praising the governor for proposing this program and pushed legislators to pass the bill to the floor with a do-pass recommendation.

Jason Ronk, vice president of the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI), praised the bill and said his organization is in full support of the plan.

“We feel the IGEM legislation is a positive long-term vision for Idaho’s future. We think the tech transfer and commercialization of this legislation will help create a potential catalyst for growth,” testified Ronk.

Testimony from a number of organizations in favor of IGEM echoed IACI’s stance on the bill, including statements from Boise State University, Idaho State University, University of Idaho, the State Board of Education and the Idaho Technology Council.

The only organization to testify against the bill was the Idaho Freedom Foundation, represented by policy analyst Briana LeClaire. LeClaire said, “The odds of the purpose of this legislation being accomplished are better if as many decisions as possible are left up to the private sector, and we don’t increase public spending and Idahoans’ tax burden in the process.”

She said that decisions in technology must sometimes come quickly, and letting the private sector adjust to these changes is best because it can act faster than government. “The Idaho Freedom Foundation thinks that the $5 million that will get spent on this program would be better utilized as a start toward tax relief for the private sector, so that private entities can spend their money as they best see fit,” she said.

The bill now heads to the House floor for consideration.

Note: IdahoReporter.com is published by the Idaho Freedom Foundation.

The measure, if passed, wouldn’t mean the start of Internet tax collection, rather that Idaho would standardize its code to conform to commonly accepted terms and rules. The bill wouldn’t make any changes to rates or exemptions.

Essentially, the bill would help Idaho to stand at the ready if Congress allows states to collect internet sales taxes. The Quill decision, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the issue, says that unless companies have a physical “nexus” in a state, they cannot be taxed by other states. That means that because Amazon, an online mega-retailer, doesn’t have a company location in Idaho, the Gem State cannot collect taxes on purchases made on the site by residents.

That decision stands until Congress changes the tax law. The so-called Main Street Fairness Act, a federal bill that would allow the practice, has been debated a number of times by Congress, but it’s still waiting in the wings.

The Idaho measure, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Nessett, R-Lewiston, will receive a formal hearing next week, but not everyone is happy about it.

Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, called the measure unconstitutional because she believes it would cede the Legislature’s constitutional duty to determine state laws to the federal government. She also argued that the nexus ruling is important because companies pay taxes to cover costs they incur to their own states, including road wear and tear, fire and police protection and other expenses.

“What did Idaho do to deserve that?” Barrett asked of possible online sales taxes from companies outside Idaho. “You better be careful, because you might get what you ask for.”

But Rep. John Rusche, D-Lewiston, said Idaho’s small businesses are at a 6 percent disadvantage because they have to charge state sales tax for online purchase while out-of-state retailers don’t. “I came to the Legislature to make sure the values of my district are represented,” Rusche explained, “and one of those is fairness.”

In the middle sits Rep. Dell Raybould, R-Rexburg, who voted to introduce the bill, but didn’t promise his support for it in the next hearing. Raybould said after years of rejecting the plan, it’s time for the public to have an open hearing on the issue. “This is extremely important legislation,” Raybould said.

Idaho already requires residents to pay taxes for online purchases, but doesn’t have a method to ensure it’s taking in the appropriate amount of revenue. The tax is basically on the honor system, as residents are asked to self-report when they file their state income taxes.

The idea of taxing online sales is supported by Gov. Butch Otter, a position he pronounced three weeks ago in a statewide Chamber of Commerce meeting.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Christy Perry, R-Nampa, would prevent recipients of the Temporary Assistance for Families in Idaho (TAFI) from using the money they receive on items that don’t provide for their general welfare.

The measure passed with unanimous backing, but amendments are coming. Perry said one change involves a small group of people who, according to federal rule, can’t have their benefits restricted. The other change is a minor language clarification supported by the Idaho Retailers Association.

The TAFI program, administered by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, is problematic, Perry says, because of the flexibility afforded to program recipients. Recipients are given cash allotments each month on state-issued debit cards and benefactors can use the money as they please.

But it’s that freedom, Perry believes, that needs to be restricted. “This is what taxpayers want to know,” Perry said, “that their money is being spent correctly.”

The bill would ask businesses peddling tattoos, alcohol, body piercings and adult entertainment items to stop patrons from using the TAFI cards at their establishments. It would also ask that businesses be cognizant of TAFI recipients who use ATMs to access cash and then use money on the prohibited items.

The TAFI program has a maximum monthly benefit of $309 and payments are indexed to income. If someone qualifies for the program, but has a higher wage level, that person receives less than the full amount. Slightly less than 2,000 people are TAFI recipients.

Perry says the plan isn’t perfect, but that it’s something that can be done to prevent program abuses. “I don’t believe this is 100 percent foolproof,” Perry said of enforcement. “There’s only so much the department can do.”

The Nampa Republican expects critics to howl about the legislation, but says public money should come with certain restrictions. “When you are using someone else’s nickel, you can’t have everything you want,” Perry concluded.