Randy Jennings
Supporter
- Joined
- May 18, 2013
- Messages
- 826
It is on the floor now (4:11 PM)
-
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
- Thread starter JamesCaruso
- Start date
Randy Jennings
Supporter
- Joined
- May 18, 2013
- Messages
- 826
Lots of question by Reps. The floor mod removing the emergency vehicle provision was offered without objection. Rep Osburn moved the title be struck again and no objection. Third reading happened. Fet moved to vote right away without debate. Bill passed 53-45. Lots of vote flipping along the way.
It is important to note that this still requires Senate approval and will have to have title restored in the House.
More later.
It is important to note that this still requires Senate approval and will have to have title restored in the House.
More later.
Warren Faidley
Supporter
The bill is passed in the House. Now it's on to the Senate. We need to flood every single Senator with calls and emails!
Warren Faidley
Supporter
Still, no comments on public traffic safety.
Jeff Smith
EF3
I cannot believe this passed. I quickly emailed my state senator (which has clout) and they are against it and said they are keeping an eye on it.
Side note--Fox23 in Tulsa (which is not like OKC sensationalists) highlighted Ham radio and Skywarn and our role as spotters working with the NWS. This is an excellent piece to get out in front of people and let them know how valuable spotters are in contrast to the KWTV lobbyist bunch.
Watch the segment at 10:50 in the YouTube link below.
Fox23 weather show
Side note--Fox23 in Tulsa (which is not like OKC sensationalists) highlighted Ham radio and Skywarn and our role as spotters working with the NWS. This is an excellent piece to get out in front of people and let them know how valuable spotters are in contrast to the KWTV lobbyist bunch.
Watch the segment at 10:50 in the YouTube link below.
Fox23 weather show
Warren Faidley
Supporter
We need a list of every single Senator and full contact information. If I have time I'll try to get it done by the end of week. There may already be a source?
Senators | Oklahoma Senate
Glaringly clear that the OK house either bought the channel 9 sales pitch and is too dense to see any negatives to this disaster, or there are back room deals going on that won support. Probably both. Lots of head scratcher legislation passes every day, and it comes down to the fact that many who seek office (true politicians) love the sneaky underhanded games and think with their ego not logic or decency.
Let's hope the senate is more informed and does the right thing, otherwise I would say this is likely the start of another big money interest movement against the people in multiple states.
gdlewen
EF4
Ugh. I was out this afternoon and came home to find this ^^^^. Very disappointing. I can't even say I'm shocked anymore. We have to stop it in the Senate now, of course, but I think we can prevent title being restored in the House. We only need a few votes.
I email-blasted the entire House last night, and got some feedback that gave me hope it might fail. I really think they listened to Fetgatter and not the rest of us. Bad 'cess to them, then. They passed an unconstitutional bill and it's their embarrassment not ours.
I email-blasted the entire House last night, and got some feedback that gave me hope it might fail. I really think they listened to Fetgatter and not the rest of us. Bad 'cess to them, then. They passed an unconstitutional bill and it's their embarrassment not ours.
Dan Robinson
EF5
The House vote was 53-45, passed, but not by a lot: just 4 votes. I don't know what the normal spread is on these and how much that matters. Good to see there was significant opposition, those members who voted against it deserve a thank-you.
Randy Zipser
EF1
I suggest one or more of the OK residents on this thread who are closely monitoring the legislation and have close access to the state senators go through all 39 pages of discussions and replies already posted on this thread and compile a thorough list of all the potential "tools" or "levers" that have appeared from the beginning of this forum that could possibly be used to defeat this bill. Over the past month or so, many excellent suggestions have been made, including ideas from not only in-state, but also many interested out-of-state, posters, who have offered numerous innovative and mind-expansive (i.e. "thinking outside the box") ideas to bring to the attention of the pols as part of a sensible, "reality-check" opposition strategy. Who knows? ST's intelligent members might just have thought of something that the senators may have never considered heretofore, and now may be the perfect time (and maybe our last chance for now!) to reach out with one unified voice and potentially sway them toward our opposition viewpoint before they cast their vote. Just a few votes by still-undecided or open-minded senators could make all the difference in the world toward getting this legislation defeated (ideally), or at least tabled until next year's session (thus buying us more time in the interim to mount a really strong, united "campaign" in favor of our opposition arguments). A quick, intensive in-state mobilization effort right now, however, just might do the trick in this session!
gdlewen
EF4
The bill passed committees overwhelmingly. Something like 8-0 and 14-2, so yes we have made progress.
Warren Faidley
Supporter
I'm going to repeat this for those who did not see my prior posts. The only way to defeat this bill is the argument of public safety. I continue to see chasers on social media complaining about their chasing rights. This may be true, but it's not a winning argument this late in the game. The only way this bill is defeated is by arguing the public safety aspects of allowing civilian vehicles to run lights, speed and basically do everything emergency vehicles can do. This is why the OHP and DOT oppose this bill. Not a single Representative or Senator has questioned this during the process. Chasers who continue to bitch about their rights will lose this fight because the bill is written in a sneaky way to make that a false argument.
Warren Faidley
Supporter
Warren Faidley
Supporter
Brett Roberts
EF5
I watched the floor "debate" prior to the bill passing, and it was a shameful display. I'm quickly becoming disillusioned with almost every aspect of this. The "questions" by the GOP rep from Inola gave me a very sketchy vibe, almost as if he was in on a setup to make those opposing the bill look like drooling simpletons in front of a wider audience. Then there's the inconvenient fact that the author admitted the bill is (ostensibly) still just a "conversation" open to further sweeping changes, yet still pushed hard to have it passed anyway. Finally, the narrow margin of passage can be reason to wonder whether there could possibly have been coordination in advance to give as many politicians as possible plausible deniability with their constituents while still delivering for a special interest donor (this is of course highly speculative and I have no evidence for this bill; but Hill insiders have reported this sometimes happens in the U.S. Congress with Manchin/Sinema/Murkowski types casting the deciding vote, for example).
In summary, it still feels like the "die had been cast" long ago in the state house, as someone put it in this thread. We can only hope that isn't true of both the state senate and governor.
Interestingly, my own state house rep whom I contacted expressing opposition did vote nay, despite being GOP. I will certainly contact my state senator again if/when it appears a vote is imminent there.
In summary, it still feels like the "die had been cast" long ago in the state house, as someone put it in this thread. We can only hope that isn't true of both the state senate and governor.
Interestingly, my own state house rep whom I contacted expressing opposition did vote nay, despite being GOP. I will certainly contact my state senator again if/when it appears a vote is imminent there.
Similar threads
