• After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.

    I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.

    For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.

    From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.

    Sincerely, Jeff D.

Oklahoma Weather Tracking Licensure Legislation

From OK legislative law references:

"A committee substitute is a revised version of legislation proposed for consideration and adoption by a committee. The committee substitute replaces, in whole, the original bill that was referred to a committee, including conference committees.

It is quite common for the language of a committee substitute to be entirely different from previous versions of a bill, especially in the House of Representatives when a bill is introduced as a shell bill. The House and Senate each have rules specifying when and how a committee substitute may be introduced."
 
I don't recall this bill being revised by any committee during the process? Yes, Fetgatter would appear to be playing tricks by trying to push the bill without revealing additional revisions and/or jamming it through with as little publicity as possible. This just goes to illustrate the disgusting low-levels of transparency and aggression he is using. There is obviously a reason he is doing this.
 
Warren Faidley said:
I don't recall this bill being revised by any committee during the process?
Click to expand...
A complete replacement of the bill happened in committee on 3/6 and it came out of committee as a complete substitute. See "CR; Do Pass, amended by committee substitute Commerce and Economic Development Oversight Committee" at https://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB2426

Here is my worry now - the bill and version history on the HB2426 page link above only has the floor mod of the committee substitute.which still has the emergency vehicle designation (dated 3/7). It doesn't have the floor ammendment posted at https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2025-26 FLOOR AMENDMENTS/House/HB2426 FA1 FETGATTERSC-JBH.PDF (dated 3/17) that removed the emergency vehicle designation. My understanding of OK House rules is that on a third reading (which could happen as early as Tuesday 3/26), amendments are not allowed. So long story short, it looks like that amendment dropping the emergency vehicle designation might have been a red herring to throw us off and we may be back to them being emergency vehicles and the requirement to yield to them.

[TR]
[td]
[/td]
[/TR]
​
 
I just received some clarification. When the bill is presented today, there will be a brief reference to the amended version, which becomes the current bill they will be voting for. This is normal for amended bills. My gut feeling is that it will pass, because most House members are voting on face value, not technicalities. I believe this will change in the Senate where there is stronger opposition.
 
Warren Faidley said:
I just received some clarification. When the bill is presented today, there will be a brief reference to the amended version, which becomes the current bill they will be voting for. This is normal for amended bills. My gut feeling is that it will pass, because most House members are voting on face value, not technicalities. I believe this will change in the Senate where there is stronger opposition.
Click to expand...
And I am hoping that the Senate and Governor will pay heed to the objections of the OHP, County Sheriffs, and County Emergency Managers
 
This is an edited post: If you saw my original post saying that HB2426 had passed the house - I was incorrect. Just as I joined the live stream, they finished voting on HB2646, also by Rep Fetgatter, and I misread the bill number in the brief seconds it was up. HB2426 has not been discussed yet. Live stream at: House Audio/Video - Oklahoma House of Representatives. They are NOT going in order of the Daily Floor Activity Calendar.
 
In listening to the stream, they can amend it before the third reading, so it is possible for them to still substitute with the version that deletes the emergency vehicle language. They are going thru bills fast. So far banning cultivated meat is the only thing that had any real discussion (it passed by the way).
 
There is another angle we haven't tried yet: going after the perjury regarding the testimony in committee that TV stations are the primary method of severe weather information dissemination. That assertion is at the foundation of the bill, yet is materially false. Knowingly presenting the legislature with that assertion to mislead them into passing the bill is a criminal offense, correct?

I can't find the statute in Oklahoma, but in other states, witnesses testifying before a legislative committee are under oath, and making knowingly false statements is a felony.
 
Dan Robinson said:
here is another angle we haven't tried yet: going after the perjury regarding the testimony in committee that TV stations are the primary method of severe weather information dissemination. That assertion is at the foundation of the bill, yet is materially false. Knowingly presenting the legislature with that assertion to mislead them into passing the bill is a criminal offense, correct?
Click to expand...
Sadly no. Much like Article I, Section 6 of the US Constitution (the speech and debate clause), OK constitution protects OK Senators and Reps from prosecution for their speech.

"SECTION V-22Privileges - Arrest - Speeches or debates. Senators and Representatives shall, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during the session of the Legislature, and in going to and returning from the same, and,for any speech or debate in either House, shall not be questioned in any other place."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gdlewen
Where is the Secondary Cold Front of January 19, 2024?
Replies
2
Views
993
gdlewen
gdlewen
As a monster tornado bore down, many in the Mississippi Delta had no chance of finding a shelter
Replies
2
Views
2K
Sam Soman
Tony Laubach
'Not Feeling It' Chase Burnout?
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Jamie H
Jamie H
Steve Miller
Matthew Cappucci: I'm being chased away from storm chasing ... by storm chasers
2
Replies
16
Views
7K
Jeff Wright
Dan Robinson
2015-1-1 Reports: Texas/Oklahoma winter storm sequence
Replies
4
Views
5K
Brian G
Brian G
Back
Top