Oklahoma Weather Tracking Licensure Legislation

[gdlewen]

It seems that Fetgatter is hellbent on fast-tracking this bill through. Is there any way to possibly slow down this process by creating doubt in some technical point, like the cost to the state if this bill becomes law. For example, if we can convince just one fiscally-conservative Republican to look more closely at just how much it might cost on an annual basis to fund this bill, maybe we can get this legislation tabled until an appropriations study is done. A temporary delay might "buy" at least 6 more weeks of time, during which perhaps other more sensible pols may weigh in to oppose...

I reviewed the updated status of the bill on the Senate website last night, and found title was struck but no vote to strike title was taken. Then I reviewed the recording of the proceeding--something I should have done before this but the idea that it passed out of committee with no discussion really irritated me and I really didn't need the aggravation. That was a mistake.

Outside of the committee meeting, McMann and the Chair seem to have agreed to "strike the title", which means the bill was able to be voted out of committee but cannot come to the floor unless title is restored. In Oklahoma it is unconstitutional for a bill without "title or enabling clause" to become law.

That means changes are coming and at least one new version will be presented in the Senate and it's not clear how that will happen--as a "committee substitute" in Appropriations and then a vote to restore title would be one way to restore title.

So there are opportunities to stop this in the Senate but someone with the voice of authority will have to be able to speak to the financial costs and public safety risks. I have plenty of issues with the language, but those did not seem to be persuasive. Bergstrom spoke of his initial "disdain" for the bill and yet he was persuaded to let the bill move forward pending changes.

I am thinking of trying to make an appointment with Bergstrom to argue against it but am probably not the best person for this. If we can get some of the language removed that can be used by government officials to restrict public chasing that would help but it would still result in a bill that gives some of the worst actors in the business leave to behave even worse.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I reviewed the updated status of the bill on the Senate website last night, and found title was struck but no vote to strike title was taken. Then I reviewed the recording of the proceeding--something I should have done before this but the idea that it passed out of committee with no discussion really irritated me and I really didn't need the aggravation. That was a mistake.

Outside of the committee meeting, McMann and the Chair seem to have agreed to "strike the title", which means the bill was able to be voted out of committee but cannot come to the floor unless title is restored. In Oklahoma it is unconstitutional for a bill without "title or enabling clause" to become law.

That means changes are coming and at least one new version will be presented in the Senate and it's not clear how that will happen--as a "committee substitute" in Appropriations and then a vote to restore title would be one way to restore title.

So there are opportunities to stop this in the Senate but someone with the voice of authority will have to be able to speak to the financial costs and public safety risks. I have plenty of issues with the language, but those did not seem to be persuasive. Bergstrom spoke of his initial "disdain" for the bill and yet he was persuaded to let the bill move forward pending changes.

I am thinking of trying to make an appointment with Bergstrom to argue against it but am probably not the best person for this. If we can get some of the language removed that can be used by government officials to restrict public chasing that would help but it would till result in a bill that gives some of the worst actors in the business leave to behave even worse.

Thanks SO MUCH for the update. Please update us here when anything moves. You obviously have the best handle on how things work in Oklahoma. If we could just gain the support of a few responsible, sensible legislators who understand the insanity of this bill, we might have a shot. We can assume that any maneuvering of titles, etc., are strategic in nature giving their hard core stance. They tried to appease chasers with the asinine paragraph saying the bill would not affect them, but most chasers saw it as pandering bull shit that changed nothing legally.

 

[gdlewen]

@Mike Thornton when representatives of OK emergency services met with Fetgatter and/or McMann, how did those meetings go? What were the responses to the obvious public safety concerns? This bill is such an obvious "no-brainer" I am trying to get a handle on why there is any support for it among legislators who would normally oppose such a bill.

This is a nakedly-partisan statement but it is largely true: "Conservative legislators normally oppose bills creating arbitrary protected classes or regulating human activities not related to public safety or public welfare, etc."

This bill does both and yet received conservative votes with no debate. I'd like to better understand why.

 

[Mike Smith]

"Conservative legislators normally oppose bills creating arbitrary protected classes or regulating human activities not related to public safety, etc."

This bill does both and yet received conservative votes with no debate. I'd like to better understand why.

I have gone back and forth about writing the info below but have decided to go ahead and everyone can do with it as they wish.

For seven years in the late 1990's and early 2000's I was chair of the lobbying group for the Commercial Weather Services Association. I spent far too much time in Washington. I learned the following (in no order):

• Generally, the brightest people do not run for Senate or House. It is likely this is also true at the state level. I have first-hand info pertaining to a group of state legislators being swayed to vote for an absurd special interest because of a committee chair being treated like king with great liquor and great cigars over a period of months.*
• The people who actually run the legislative branch are the staffs of the representatives and the committees (i.e., the House Science Committee has full time staff who work for the committee). The staffs are usually not subject to the conflict of interest rules aimed at the legislators. They, too, can be lobbied and wined and dined.
• While there are people who run for office because they are patriotic and want to make a difference, most are there because they crave power or riches. And, of the former, the Swamp ends to crush them over time.
• Back about ~2010, each member of Congress had to personally raise ~$10 million/yr for their political party (both D and R). Legislators spend far too much of their time with fundraising and far too little reading bills and thinking about how to make our nation better. It is likely the amount of money they have to raise has risen since then due to inflation.
• I had a U.S. Senator demand a bribe for supporting a bill we favored. Really.
• The U.S. Congress suffers from "learned helplessness." Example: as of Wednesday of last week, it had passed exactly one bill into law since it convened in early January.
• Far too many in both parties care more about what the NYT or WaPo editorial pages say about them than they care about what their constituents think -- except in the few months before an election.
• Term limits is the only hope but since Congress must initiate a Constitutional amendment, the chance of that happening is zero.
• "Electing better people" won't work. Forget politics, the example of Haiti is repeated with congressional appropriations all the time in matters both foreign and domestic: MSN
• As many of you know, since 2012, I've been doing everything I can to get a National Disaster Review Board created by Congress. A highly respected, independent political reporter (I won't use her name, she said this in a private conversation) told me the reason it isn't going anywhere is because, "it makes too much sense." There's no $$$$ to be made in straightforward solutions because there isn't enough money to grift. Prolonging problems makes them more profitable to the swamp. There's little money to cure diabetes when managing it is so profitable.

I'm certain almost everyone will not like the above but it is the unexaggerated truth. Really.

It is quite likely the beneficiaries of the storm chase bill have done a fine job wining and dining the people whose support is needed. *The fact the bill makes little sense is irrelevant, a given legislator wants riches and power, you do what your buddies and donors want.

It really is that simple.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Another problem is the lack of professional media now days. This has been brought up before on ST in reference to bad behavior. For example, TWC did a brief story about sb158 but it read as though it was written and researched by a grade school student. The only chasers they interviewed were both clueless about the bill and thus, the potential impact of the story was zero.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I just want the supporters/sponsors of the bill to answer this one simple question:

Given that 1.) TV media tornado reports represent a small percentage of overall reports and the 2.) intent of the bill is public safety, then why not open the qualifications up to include anyone who reports tornadoes?

It is very clear that while TV chasers are a part of the tornado reporting class, they are not even *close* to the majority of it. What makes their reporting different from spotters and chasers - who account for far more tornado reports - that would warrant such an extreme elevation in status over them?

Could someone with the ability to pose this question get that in front of them? I'm sure they've seen the bar graph but I haven't heard any response about it.

 

[gdlewen]

I’m not sure what they’ve seen. If the argument is that media chasers are a primary source of spotter reports, and that’s why they need these privileges, then the bar graph puts the lie to that argument.

I just don’t know what they were told to justify their votes. (We have to assume there is a counterargument that will work.)

 

[Warren Faidley]

I just want the supporters/sponsors of the bill to answer this one simple question:

Given that 1.) TV media tornado reports represent a small percentage of overall reports and the 2.) intent of the bill is public safety, then why not open the qualifications up to include anyone who reports tornadoes?

It is very clear that while TV chasers are a part of the tornado reporting class, they are not even *close* to the majority of it. What makes their reporting different from spotters and chasers - who account for far more tornado reports - that would warrant such an extreme elevation in status over them?

Could someone with the ability to pose this question get that in front of them? I'm sure they've seen the bar graph but I haven't heard any response about it.

Dan, I answered this on X but others might have missed my reply. I asked Rep. Fetgatter this during the podcast two weeks ago.

1: The TV and OU research vehicles alone will add about 50 emergency vehicles (according to him). If they add radio, as in the latest revision, that will equal some 60 emergency vehicles, maybe more. Fetgatter did not believe adding more vehicles would be a good idea. This is silly, because even 50-60 emergency vehicles would severely disrupt traffic, block roads and cause accidents. Adding over 100+ emergency vehicles would be insanity on a completely different scale. Please understand the vast powers granted to emergency vehicles under Title-47* in Oklahoma.

Can anyone imagine over 100 emergency vehicles being driven by aggressive chasers, allowed to speed, run traffic lights, pass on the left or right and block roads. It would be the greatest death trap in the history of transportation and would make even Mad Max stay at home.

2: Everyone forgets the purpose of this bill is to "eliminate amateurs on the highways" during storms as noted by Sen. Mann. Non-TV crew chasers or OU researchers are "amateurs" under the bill.

3: News stations what to eliminate online, live Internet presenters like Ryan Hall.

* 2024 Oklahoma Statutes :: Title 47. Motor Vehicles :: §47-11-106. Authorized emergency vehicles.

 

[gdlewen]

Dan, I answered this on X but others might have missed my reply. I asked Rep. Fetgatter this during the podcast two weeks ago.

1: The TV and OU research vehicles alone will add about 50 emergency vehicles (according to him). If they add radio, as in the latest revision, that will equal some 60 emergency vehicles, maybe more. Fetgatter did not believe adding more vehicles would be a good idea. This is silly, because even 50-60 emergency vehicles would severely disrupt traffic, block roads and cause accidents. Adding over 100+ emergency vehicles would be insanity on a completely different scale. Please understand the vast powers granted to emergency vehicles under Title-47* in Oklahoma.

Can anyone imagine over 100 emergency vehicles being driven by aggressive chasers, allowed to speed, run traffic lights, pass on the left or right and block roads. It would be the greatest death trap in the history of transportation.

2: Everyone forgets the purpose of this bill is to "eliminate amateurs on the highways" during storms as noted by Sen. Mann.

3: News stations what to eliminate online, live Internet presenters like Ryan Hall.

* 2024 Oklahoma Statutes :: Title 47. Motor Vehicles :: §47-11-106. Authorized emergency vehicles.

Not to mention that there is no spatial restriction on the emergency vehicle privileges. A TV station in Lawton could issue a tornado warning and media chasers everywhere in the state would be automatically "activated". That's how bad this bill is written. Breathtaking.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I'm in agreement that adding to the emergency vehicle ranks would be excessive and dangerous, but that's not the angle I think is the best approach against this. The better argument is why should TV crews be the only group that qualifies for this status when spotters and chasers out-report them by a significant margin? If anything, *spotters* should be the ones getting emergency vehicle status, not TV chasers. I know there is no way they'd go for that, and that's the point. We know the bill's main push is by TV entities, and if spotters and chasers also get to apply for the status, they lose the main thing they were after in the first place: making only TV chasers the "professionals". I think the whole thing dies at that point because they lose the main advantage they were after.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I'm in agreement that adding to the emergency vehicle ranks would be excessive and dangerous, but that's not the angle I think is the best approach against this. The better argument is why should TV crews be the only group that qualifies for this status when spotters and chasers out-report them by a significant margin? If anything, *spotters* should be the ones getting emergency vehicle status, not TV chasers. I know there is no way they'd go for that, and that's the point. We know the bill's main push is by TV entities, and if spotters and chasers also get to apply for the status, they lose the main thing they were after in the first place: making only TV chasers the "professionals". I think the whole thing dies at that point because they lose the main advantage they were after.

Because the legislators have made it clear that they don't care about other chasers and spotters, especially those from out of state. They are NOT going to change the bill for us because they can't, as I noted. The only way the bill fails is if the public realizes the dangers of 50-100 emergency vehicles terrorizing the city streets and highways. We have to pick a wining fight that both the public and other legislators will back. Plus, there is not enough support from the chasing community to make a chase-related argument.

 

[Randy Zipser]

I reviewed the updated status of the bill on the Senate website last night, and found title was struck but no vote to strike title was taken. Then I reviewed the recording of the proceeding--something I should have done before this but the idea that it passed out of committee with no discussion really irritated me and I really didn't need the aggravation. That was a mistake.

Outside of the committee meeting, McMann and the Chair seem to have agreed to "strike the title", which means the bill was able to be voted out of committee but cannot come to the floor unless title is restored. In Oklahoma it is unconstitutional for a bill without "title or enabling clause" to become law.

That means changes are coming and at least one new version will be presented in the Senate and it's not clear how that will happen--as a "committee substitute" in Appropriations and then a vote to restore title would be one way to restore title.

So there are opportunities to stop this in the Senate but someone with the voice of authority will have to be able to speak to the financial costs and public safety risks. I have plenty of issues with the language, but those did not seem to be persuasive. Bergstrom spoke of his initial "disdain" for the bill and yet he was persuaded to let the bill move forward pending changes.

I am thinking of trying to make an appointment with Bergstrom to argue against it but am probably not the best person for this. If we can get some of the language removed that can be used by government officials to restrict public chasing that would help but it would still result in a bill that gives some of the worst actors in the business leave to behave even worse.

Excellent report. Since you are in Oklahoma and closer to sources in-the-know than we out-of-staters are, please keep us informed of any future developments as you become aware of them.

All of these games the Oklahoma politicians are playing are just really fancy political maneuvers to hide the fact that the "die has already been cast" to pass this bill, although it has not yet been officially voted on. If there is no argument voicing common sense that any open-minded pol will listen to or actually consider investigating, its fate is almost a certainty at this point. Blaming out-of-state opposition, regardless of where it comes from (individual chasers, social-media, or thematic platforms like this one) may just be a smokescreen to hide their true intentions. The real question is: Who (or what) are Mann and Fetgatter really taking their cues from, especially if not in the "public sunshine" or in OK residents' best interests? More importantly, why such urgency (there's still plenty of time before the law would take effect in July, if passed)?

 

[Dan Robinson]

Because the legislators have made it clear that they don't care about other chasers and spotters, especially those from out of state. They are NOT going to change the bill for us because they can't, as I noted. The only way the bill fails is if the public realizes the dangers of 50-100 emergency vehicles terrorizing the city streets and highways. We have to pick a wining fight that both the public and other legislators will back.

Hopefully there is a vocal and motivated enough contingent of in-state chasers and spotters that could argue for that? Oklahoma's per-capita spotter and chaser number is likely the highest in the USA.

The additional strategy I'm advocating is this: just hypothetically grant them their main argument that reporting tornadoes is important enough for the person reporting to have emergency vehicle status. Then, if that is indeed true, then there is no reason at all to deny in-state, non-TV chasers and spotters that status since they out-report TV chasers by a huge margin. (It's likely true that out-of-state chasers out-report them also, but there is no way to prove that.) There is no argument to elevate TV chasers only if their principal assertion is true.

I'm in wholehearted agreement with the emergency vehicle concern thing. But this bill has several weak points each that could independently be pointed out simultaneously

 

[Mike Smith]

We have to pick a wining fight.

The real question is: Who (or what) are Mann and Fetgatter really taking their cues from, especially if not in the "public sunshine" or in OK residents' best interests?

Exactly! But, as Randy correctly notes, the "winning fight" -- from the point of view of legislators in Oklahoma -- is to support OU and in-state chasers, especially if palms are being greased either literally or figuratively. This was the point of my long piece (above).

It likely that there's no way those of us from out-of-state can win this. Any effective opposition would have to come from someone or something within Oklahoma who can grease palms in a superior way.

From the Oklahoma legislators point of view, in-state good (they pay taxes, buy them good whiskey and cigars) and
Ryan Hall + the rest of us = bad.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

I posted a longer version of this yesterday but deleted it because I was speculating, but I'll post a shorter version here anyways fwiw.

I believe DP is pushing this to fend off the internet weather crowd and maintain audience. I believe one of the best angles to approach fighting this bill is to convince the House/Senate members (along with the governor) that by putting the legacy media segment ahead, you are putting a significant portion of other types of media behind, and there is a good chunk of people who get their weather from somewhere other than TeeVee these days.

If the fight against the bill were approached in a way to convince House/Senate members that they are alienating and possibly putting at risk that segment of population who don't have TV or get their weather elsewhere (YT, FB, etc). they may not be so inclined to move forward.