I can't believe I am doing this because it is TLDR, but here is a partial analysis of the language. It's not enough to read the bill aloud to us and then declare, "What he said."
And yes, this is excruciating in its detail, but you absolutely must regard legislation as a game of chess between you and "lawmakers and the special interests that drive legislation".
Section 2-1 creates a legal definition of “licensed severe weather tracker” and distinguishes this class as distinct from the storm trackers that are not associated with television stations and Oklahoma academic institutions
- Prior to this, law enforcement had no legal grounds to treat storm chasers from universities or television outlets differently from other storm chasers.
- Now we will establish a statutory distinction, which will permit state agencies to treat licensed and unlicensed trackers differently.
- At the very least, the provisions of Section 5B-3 can be used to restrict the activities of “unlicensed severe weather trackers.”
In Section 2-2, the restriction of licensing to television media outlets excludes radio, print, and various internet-based media
- Members of the media that are not regulated by the FCC are not qualified to participate.
There is no evidence the drafters of this bill consider or bothered to coordinate with other agencies involved in severe weather emergencies such as county employees deployed as spotters during severe weather.
In Section 2-3, we note that not every institution of higher learning in OK has a meteorology program. The language in Section 2-3 excludes those schools from participating in the licensed tracker program by declaring them to be “unqualified”.
Meteorology programs in other states conduct field projects in Oklahoma, which projects normally employ advanced research vehicles and fleets of instrumented automobiles as mobile instrument platforms. No provision is made to extend the licensing program to out-of-state research programs
Section 2-4(a) can easily be interpreted as, “Whenever and wherever the SPC has defined a risk area regardless of whether or not severe weather is occurring.”
- This is very important, as it broadens the conditions under which the provisions of the bill can be used to restrict access to roads from “presence of severe weather hazards” to “conditions favorable for the development of severe weather.
- THEREFORE: Item 2-4(a) is far too broad in its application to make for good policy.
Sections 2-4(b)-(d) and 2-4(f) create conditions under which a private corporation (television media outlet) can trigger law enforcement action (closing roads)
In Section 2-4(b)-(d) and 2-4(f), various advisories, watches, and warnings issued by qualified private corporations (i.e. television media outlets) are given the same legal status as the official watches issued by the NWS. They are not the same.
In Section 3B-4, the “knowledge, experience, and training to exercise the powers and duties” needs to be carefully defined; it is not enough to assume there is uniformity of approach between the television media outlets, or between institutions of higher learning, or between media outlets and academic institutions.
- Item 3B-4 will inevitably lead to a requirement that the State of Oklahoma spell out explicit guidelines for what level of “knowledge, experience, and training” is necessary to obtain a license.
Referring to 3C-4: not all academic storm observers (e.g. trackers, or chasers) are associated with meteorology programs. This item excludes students associated educational programs other than meteorology programs from participating.
In Section 3C-4, the “knowledge, experience, and training to exercise the powers and duties” needs to be carefully defined; it is not enough to just
assume there is uniformity of approach between the various academic institutions and television media outlets.
In Section 5B-2, it is likely that permitting licensed trackers to act as emergency vehicles will necessitate additional special training. Therefore, additional certifications may be needed.
In Section 3F: “agency promulgation of rules” is overutilized in legislation and should not be used as a substitute for the development of more precise statutory language. There should be a provision for legislative review of the rules, given how imprecise is the language in this bill.
The following is an incomplete list of causes of potential unintended consequences based on how Service Oklahoma interprets what the legislature means by:
- “valid insurance coverage”
- “sufficient training, knowledge, and experience”
- Meaning of any violations of statutes applying to emergency vehicles
- Extent of tracker liability
In Section 5B, the new special class of weather trackers is given quasi-official powers when permitted to act as emergency vehicles or pass law-enforcement roadblocks, but their status as private or government employees remains unclear for the purpose of any tort claims that may arise from their activities.
Under §47-11-1108(b), it is possible
unlicensed storm trackers would be forbidden from following licensed storm trackers or driving purposely to any location where licensed storm trackers have stopped.
- In non-storm-related situations, §47-11-1108(b) is intended to eliminate sightseers and other persons who do not have official business at the scene of an emergency, and whose presence would tend to cause traffic congestion.
- However, without defining what represents an emergency for the purposes of this bill, the moving “licensed tracker as an emergency vehicle” may be considered en route to an emergency, and the stopped “licensed tracker as an emergency vehicle” may be considered at the site of an emergency.
- THEREFORE: In the case of significant weather events (as defined in the bill), §47-11-1108(b) may be interpreted (by law enforcement and licensed trackers alike) to effectively lock-out unlicensed storm trackers when a licensed tracker is present.
The consideration of “licensed tracker” as an “emergency vehicle” in Section 5B is awkward and grammatically incorrect; while the reader might understand the meaning, this really should be fixed.
In Section 5B-3, law enforcement agencies are implicitly permitted to close roads in response to an SPC Outlook, which should not be intent of the Legislature.
- This should probably be re-worded to permit authorized vehicles to travel on roads closed due to the presence of weather-related hazards, severing the problematic linkage with “SPC Outlooks” as “significant weather events”.
As emergency responders, what will be the official status of licensed storm trackers on the scene of a weather event compared to that of Police, Fire, and EMS? The language here should be specific.
- Section 5B makes it legal for media storm chasers and emergency responders, both of whom have different goals, to pursue those goals in the same potentially unsafe environments.
- While it is generally accepted that police have broad authority to enforce the law, it would help to establish a more comprehensive hierarchy of authority other than offered by Section 5C, which only requires that the tracker present a copy of his or her license to law enforcement on demand.
To what kind of liability does Section 5D refer? For example, it is not clear if licensed trackers may be regarded as government employees for the purposes of tort claims, since they are permitted to act as emergency personnel (i.e. as in driving emergency vehicles). But the issues surrounding liability need to be more carefully explored.
. Astute, intelligent, thoughtful, brilliant…. I could go on and on. This bill is HUGE problem.
