The Governor’s Science and Technology Advisory Council was scheduled to meet this week in Boise.

That meeting isn’t going to happen.

I’m told the meeting has been cancelled because of an ongoing discussion with the Governor’s office about revamping the council.

That’s not a surprise. Gov. Butch Otter has had a somewhat rocky relationship with the council since taking office in January.

The council got off on the wrong foot with Otter by promoting a $50 million package of incentives and programs to help grow Idaho’s high tech industry.

That plan was supported by Gov. Jim Risch, during his brief stint in office, but Otter had his own plans in mind.

But several council members still lobbied hard for the proposal, which also included a $25 million tax credit to encourage investment in small tech and bioscience companies.

The outspoken support, drew a strong rebuke from Otter at the council’s April meeting in Twin Falls.

"I want to find out whether or not you believe your role is one of advisory rather than advocacy," Otter said at the time. "You’re not the advocates, you’re the advisers. And if I’m wrong I need to know now."

I would guess that since that meeting there have been a few closed-door discussions between Otter and John Grossenbacher, the council’s chair and director of the Idaho National Laboratory, about the council’s future.

At the council’s August meeting, it was Grossenbacher who brought up the future.

"Are we ready to evolve this service to the state and governor in a different direction?" Grossenbacher said at the time. "Perhaps with a different charter, different membership and a different focus."

The council was formed in 1999 by former Gov. Dirk Kempthorne to develop a strategic plan to grow the state’s science and technology industry. Council members consist of industry leaders, university presidents and government officials.

There’s been no official announcement yet about what a new council could look like, but I would bet that it will be much smaller. I also expect that much of the advising would be behind closed doors away from the prying eyes of the press.

Grossenbacher hinted at such a structure at the August meeting.

“I think there is value in open public meetings because it encourages public debate and the flow of information," he said at the time. "But there is also some difficulty with it because you wind up with council members wondering — what is the press in the back of the room going to hear? Sometimes that adds value and is usable, and sometimes it dissipates energy in ways that aren’t useful.”