Oklahoma Weather Tracking Licensure Legislation

[gdlewen]

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.

I would say “Don’t wait for an imminent vote.” The bill is unconstitutional and should never have been heard by any House Committee.

We need to make sure the Senate gives this bill a “hard pass” and spends its valuable time on bills that will benefit Oklahomans and not TV stations.

 

[Randy Jennings]

Here is the most dangerous line of legislation within #HB2426. This basically means ANY DOT authority, law enforcement officer, Turnpike Authority Officer, any city or county (imagine that), can close a road (or entire city) and only allow licensed chasers to pass

Legally this bill does not give anyone the authority to close any road. The reason is context. The section (a new part of Title 47) that Warren cites:

"2. Travel upon roads, highways, and county roads closed by the Department of Transportation, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, any city or county, or any law enforcement agency by reason of conditions triggered by the significant weather event."

is a subparagraph under "B. Once the conditions of a significant weather event have been met, a professional severe weather tracker located in the area for which the significant weather event is located may:"

Note my bolding. Item #2 only applies as something a "professional severe weather tracker" may do. #2 doesn't give anyone else permission to do anything. No where in HB2426 does it give any new powers to LEO, OK DOT, or OTA to close a road.

Having said that, Warren's fear is valid. This wording could easily give LEO, OK DOT, and OTA the impression that they can close a road for a severe weather event. The bad news is arguing this to a member of the OK legislature is not likely to get you far because "legally" the bill doesn't change anything as far as who can close a road and when.

Just for grins, I spent my lunch time trying to find what in Oklahoma Statues allows any of these parities to close a road to begin with, especially for a weather event. They are very poorly written and organized (typical of almost every state really) and I didn't read every OK Statue, but here is what I did find:

• OK DPS- I did find in Title 47 Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2-117 that OK Department of Public Safety (DPS) can "5. At all times to direct all traffic in conformance with law and, in the event of a fire, or other emergency, or to expedite traffic, or to insure safety, to direct traffic as conditions may require, notwithstanding the provisions of law;" and "19. To regulate the movement of traffic on the roads of the state highway system;". I suspect this is what would be used to say they can close a road for almost any reason.
• Other LEO: I can't explicitly find anything allowing them to close a road, but I suspect it exists, local ordinances likely allow it, and well to be honest this is so established in case law that one is not likely to win a case where they argue that Sheriff/Police didn't have that authority. OK Title 21 §21-1209 also makes it unlawful to "purposely drive to any location on or near a highway where a disaster area exists" and OK Tile 21 Chapter 2 Section 99a says that Peace Officers can "enforce the criminal laws....1.In response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property;". Either of both of those might be used by LEO to justify closing a road for a weather event (although that would be an interesting court case).
• OK DOT and OTA: OK §47-11-1302 says that OK DOT and OTA "are hereby authorized to close any highway or section thereof, within their respective jurisdiction, to traffic while the highway is flooded or under repair, maintenance or construction and, in exercising the authority, shall erect or cause to be erected traffic-control devices and barricades to warn and notify the public that the highway has been closed to traffic". Unless something else exists in OK statute, it looks like OK DOT and OTA do NOT have legal grounds to close a road for a "severe weather event" unless the road is flooded. This is likely another example of how sloppy HB2426 is.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

Count me in the camp of "can't believe it made it this far". Watching DP deliver what could be considered a convincing argument for passage in committee was certainly a boost to help this along. The bad thing is most if not all of the members of the House and Senate are mere footsteps from one another on a daily basis and don't sit in silos so I'm sure there have been many conversations behind closed doors to help it through.

Stepping outside the chaser/weather world in which I live, the problem with the argument against (and that has been made thus far), is that it makes for dangerous situations on the highways during a storm, which is true. But, the argument for says "It has great benefit for the public in general, which far outweighs what's going on out on a single highway", which is hard to mount a defense against. Nobody really cares about chaser safety while we're purposely putting ourselves in harms way in the first place except chasers themselves (some, at least), and nobody really cares about who can chase and who doesn't or what classes we belong to (have or have nots) except us weather weenies. Most in the public would probably side with this bill in reality, and the number of responses against it online is a bit of an illusion as it's a tiny fraction of the public in general, and mostly people who are involved in the weather community in some way.

From what I've gathered, there have been a few chasers who have been able to provide input for modification, but all that has changed is it includes a little larger umbrella to include said chasers within the idea framework, which still stinks for everyone else and still presents a template for other states to follow suit. ODOT and OHP opposition is about the only hope to avoid passage at this point and that depends on how vocal they are or if/how they are being appeased.

This whole process has laid bare so many things and it's hard not to just want to shake my head at all of it.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I just got a notice that there was a first reading in the Senate today? I need to confirm this.

 

[gdlewen]

I just got a notice that there was a first reading in the Senate today? I need to confirm this.

This is a useful resource, probably linked somewhere in the discussion history. Maybe even by me.

A citizen’s guide to the Oklahoma Legislature

Few of us have thought much about how the Legislature works since our 9th-grade civics class or maybe a freshman college government course, so most of us…

ocpathink.org

First Reading of a House Bill in the Senate is when it is introduced to the Senate and before it is assigned to a committee.

Any other resources for which anyone can provide links? I think the more we can read about this the better-prepared we will be. (Wait..what? After 40 pages of ST discussion, did I just say that?)

I THINK it will get a 4th Reading in the House because its title was struck and title needs to be restored before it can go to the governor.

Chances to stop it:
• In Senate Committee(s)
• On the Senate floor
• In House to restore title (I need to confirm my understanding or someone
can correct me here.)
• Governor

 

[Randy Jennings]

I just got a notice that there was a first reading in the Senate today? I need to confirm this.

It was. When a bill is passed in one house (here the House), it is sent to the the other house (here the Senate) and it is gets a First Reading (not really read, just announced that HB2426 had passed the House). Next step is it gets a second reading in the Senate and gets assigned to a Senate committee.

While it could get a second reading any time, I suspect is not likely to happen until Friday at the soonest, as the Senate also has a Thursday deadline to have a third reading and pass Senate originated bills - so they are busy on their own bills.

As a side note, House originated bills have to be out of Senate committee by 4/24 and a third reading and vote has to happen by 5/8. It then has to go back to House for a fourth reading and vote in order to restore title. All this could happen quicker - these ate just deadlines.

 

[Warren Faidley]

There actually already is professional advocacy help in Oklahoma. There are two professional advocacy groups right in the OKC area:
Oklahoma Society of Professional Advocates, based in Edmond. Their URL is: Oklahoma Society of Professional Advocates
and National Association of State Lobbyists (NASL) in OKC. Their URL is: Oklahoma | National Association of State Lobbyists

The NASL is specifically tailored to fight OK state governmental issues. I'm sure they act on a fee-paid basis, but it might be worthwhile for one or more of ST's OK-resident posters to check into these options and determine what it might cost to hire an in-state advocate to argue our opposition viewpoints. These people do this for a living and will get results! If the cost is not too high, perhaps a one-time, voluntary fund could be organized and set up to cover the cost if enough ST posters chip-in. Just a thought...

Don't discount this last step. The Governor has, in the past, saved the Republican-dominated legislature from itself by vetoing bills that should never have been passed. It's not beyond the realm of possibility. Lots of chances to stop the bill, still.

SB158 is slated to go before the Senate Appropriations Committee next. They meet tomorrow at 1:30PM CST, but as of just now, no agenda has been posted for the meeting, so we don't know if SB158 will be heard in Appropriations, nor do we know what what the latest version in the Senate will look like.

In the Oklahoma House, Fetgatter's HB2426 has been referred to the Commerce and Economic Development Oversight Committee, which meets at 10:30AM CST today. HB2426 is not on the agenda for that committee as of 10:15AM CST.

Not sure what's up but do not assume anything is dead until the Legislature adjourns in May.

Sorry. Call me a cynic. I certainly am that.

The operational privileges section is quite scary. Can't wait to see a hypothetical person, say called Cal Vastor, blowing through a stop sign 30 mph over the posted limit on the wrong side of the road because a fictional meteorologist, say Pavid Dayne, has called a tornado warning on a rotating severe thunderstorm. That won't be dangerous at all.

This blows the mind. Neutral? As much as LE complains about chasers, you want to give some of them special privileges to break the law?

Neutral?

How about an enterprising reporter in OK (I assume some exist) contact these agencies? "Are you really OK with this bill?" "If so, why?" "If not, have you expressed your opposition? Do you plan to do so?" Anybody have back channels to these agencies? Get some idea about how to prod them?

Has Channel Nine's sister station in Tulsa, KOTV, weighed in on this?

Thought the same myself. Other reps either offered up nothing useful "can I come on a storm chase?" or could only say they had local opposition, which wasn't adequately addressed before it was passed.

David Payne was allowed to come and say all the right things, but at no point during the 30 mins or so did anyone question:

- how will they safely pass traffic?
- how will the public be able to pass them if they are stopped?
- what is the emergency driving test like? Is it just a course, or can people fail?
- what specific scenarios have existed in the past that make this bill necessary? Payne said he has a problem if one of his people is stuck in traffic behind tourist chasers, but when has a TV reporter not been able to catch up to a storm and has that then led to people's lives being in danger?
- if this has been a problem since 1996, why is it now needing new laws?

Found this on a press release:

"Fetgatter said last year, tornado sirens sounded in the cities of Okmulgee and Morris in his House district, but weather radar had picked up the storms too late, and residents already were in danger. Had it not been for the quick action of a local storm tracker, residents would not have known to take shelter, he said."

Who was this storm tracker? Were they impeded by chaser traffic or was it a non-FCC chaser who sounded the alarm, and what would his bill do to limit the ability of these people and their life-saving warnings?

I don’t think the public cares about this. Over years of chasing, I’ve found that as storm chasers we vastly overestimate the level of awareness around severe weather topics even in places like Oklahoma. The likelihood and frequency of severe weather impact to individual people is simply not that statistically significant. Even if the public had a perfect understanding of the circus on the roads that this bill could cause, I am certain they will simply think, “I wouldn’t be out driving around in a storm environment anyway.”

HB2426 is no longer on the House Floor Agenda for today. There are 233 measures up for consideration, and searching for the bill number or keywords in the title is coming up empty.

Not sure want that means in terms of its future. We'll see.

Check it here:

House Floor Agenda - Oklahoma House of Representatives

former.okhouse.gov

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 Bill Information

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]

​

Legally this bill does not give anyone the authority to close any road. The reason is context. The section (a new part of Title 47) that Warren cites:

"2. Travel upon roads, highways, and county roads closed by the Department of Transportation, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, any city or county, or any law enforcement agency by reason of conditions triggered by the significant weather event."

is a subparagraph under "B. Once the conditions of a significant weather event have been met, a professional severe weather tracker located in the area for which the significant weather event is located may:"

Note my bolding. Item #2 only applies as something a "professional severe weather tracker" may do. #2 doesn't give anyone else permission to do anything. No where in HB2426 does it give any new powers to LEO, OK DOT, or OTA to close a road.

Having said that, Warren's fear is valid. This wording could easily give LEO, OK DOT, and OTA the impression that they can close a road for a severe weather event. The bad news is arguing this to a member of the OK legislature is not likely to get you far because "legally" the bill doesn't change anything as far as who can close a road and when.

Just for grins, I spent my lunch time trying to find what in Oklahoma Statues allows any of these parities to close a road to begin with, especially for a weather event. They are very poorly written and organized (typical of almost every state really) and I didn't read every OK Statue, but here is what I did find:

• OK DPS- I did find in Title 47 Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2-117 that OK Department of Public Safety (DPS) can "5. At all times to direct all traffic in conformance with law and, in the event of a fire, or other emergency, or to expedite traffic, or to insure safety, to direct traffic as conditions may require, notwithstanding the provisions of law;" and "19. To regulate the movement of traffic on the roads of the state highway system;". I suspect this is what would be used to say they can close a road for almost any reason.
• Other LEO: I can't explicitly find anything allowing them to close a road, but I suspect it exists, local ordinances likely allow it, and well to be honest this is so established in case law that one is not likely to win a case where they argue that Sheriff/Police didn't have that authority. OK Title 21 §21-1209 also makes it unlawful to "purposely drive to any location on or near a highway where a disaster area exists" and OK Tile 21 Chapter 2 Section 99a says that Peace Officers can "enforce the criminal laws....1.In response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property;". Either of both of those might be used by LEO to justify closing a road for a weather event (although that would be an interesting court case).
• OK DOT and OTA: OK §47-11-1302 says that OK DOT and OTA "are hereby authorized to close any highway or section thereof, within their respective jurisdiction, to traffic while the highway is flooded or under repair, maintenance or construction and, in exercising the authority, shall erect or cause to be erected traffic-control devices and barricades to warn and notify the public that the highway has been closed to traffic". Unless something else exists in OK statute, it looks like OK DOT and OTA do NOT have legal grounds to close a road for a "severe weather event" unless the road is flooded. This is likely another example of how sloppy HB2426 is.

I'm sorry, but the bill does allow LEO, cities, counties, OHP, etc. to "block access" to non-licensed chasers as opposed to all chasers. It's not completely clear how they will do this in large cities, but it's entirely possible on isolated highways and in small towns. For example, once a "qualifying severe weather event" is activated, they could only allow licensed chasers to cross into any area they deem as a severe weather hazard. There is nothing in the bill to prevent a "qualifying severe weather event" to be treated like a state of emergency.

Theoretically, this means once a "qualifying severe weather event" is activated, a county road crew, for example, could prevent anyone except licensed chasers to proceed past any given point, because the bill affords this privilege to cities and county authorities. This is the way it will be abused and used because it creates two classes of chasers, professional and amateur. Amateurs will be treated differently.

 

[Randy Zipser]

Something just struck me as humorous but appropriate to say at this point: I have learned more during the past thirty-days from the ultra-informative posts in this thread about the deepest inter-workings of the Oklahoma legislature than I had ever learned in the whole five-years I sat in meteorology classes at OU during my college days of the 1970s! [LOL!]

My point is simply this: Let's keep an even-keel perspective about what the goal and "end-game" of our involvement is in this matter: to convince the OK politicians to see the many obvious pitfalls in this bill and the unintended hardship it will inevitably bring to all Oklahomans after it becomes law there! Let's not get so wrapped up in the minutia of the political process, hanging on every nuanced word, minute-by-minute, as this piece of legislation winds its way though the daily rules process--which, in of itself, probably makes little logical sense to anyone outside the House and Senate chamber anyway--and, instead, focus on mounting a solid, common-sense, easy-to-understand set of talking-points to present to your OK state senators (at this stage of the current session) arguing why they must defeat this bill because it will not serve their constituent's welfare nor interests, rather only one or two special interests! There are plenty of excellent talking-points presented within the preceding forty pages of this thread, so, to our OK-resident members, please take control and lead by example rather than succumbing to a rules process over which we have no control whatsoever.

I hope you'll understand that my intent with this post is to be optimistic and constructive, not judgmental in any way...

 

[Dave C]

I'm sorry, but the bill does allow LEO, cities, counties, OHP, etc. to "block access" to non-licensed chasers as opposed to all chasers. It's not completely clear how they will do this in large cities, but it's entirely possible on isolated highways and in small towns. For example, once a "qualifying severe weather event" is activated, they could only allow licensed chasers to cross into any area they deem as a severe weather hazard. There is nothing in the bill to prevent a "qualifying severe weather event" to be treated like a state of emergency.

Theoretically, this means once a "qualifying severe weather event" is activated, a county road crew, for example, could prevent anyone except licensed chasers to proceed past any given point, because the bill affords this privilege to cities and county authorities. This is the way it will be abused and used because it creates two classes of chasers, professional and amateur. Amateurs will be treated differently.

Might be more correct to say the bill allows big money TV chasing to go into restricted areas. The bill is not giving new power or criteria to the mentioned LEO and government groups to close roads - they already have that power. Now Jonas and his nightcrawlers can simply go through closed areas on the wrong side of the road if they like- but don't worry, it is not to get to better filming locations (yea right) and only to keep up with the storm since they are so critical to getting the word out (absolute BS).

 

[Dave C]

Stepping outside the chaser/weather world in which I live, the problem with the argument against (and that has been made thus far), is that it makes for dangerous situations on the highways during a storm, which is true. But, the argument for says "It has great benefit for the public in general, which far outweighs what's going on out on a single highway", which is hard to mount a defense against. .....

This whole process has laid bare so many things and it's hard not to just want to shake my head at all of it.

There is evidence disputing the claims of the bill sponsors, so I do believe an effective challenge to their 'public good' facade can be made. Their entire premise is flimsy and disengenuous. The scariest traffic I ever saw on a chase was the miles long lines of locals who panicked when media told them to drive away from the storms on May 31, 2013 in OKC. The same big media types who now want more power and influence back. The same ones who are always the ones crashing or getting people hurt or killed on storm days now want more power, when they cannot handle that which they already have.

I agree somewhat that a line of chasers clogging a road that cannot handle it is a problem, but this bill does NOTHING to address that. That will still happen with this bill passed. The bill was openly stated by Payne to be about getting his people closer to the storm and how everyone in their way is a problem (sounds to me like he has a massive ego and twisted morality, but hey thats just my opinion).

I do think there is room for simple messaging to take this bill down, and risking sounding like a broken record, those points are:

1. Big media is not the leading cause of weather awareness to the public as they claimed to the legislature. Far from it in the age of cell phones and internet nearly everywhere. Amateurs (anything not big money interests as defined in the bill) are a larger source of warnings, and their effectiveness may be limited by this bill if they are getting pushed around on the roads.
2. Big media and academia are the group with the highest percentage of fatalities and incidents while chasing, despite how much smaller in number they are than the 'amateur' chasers. They are already a proven problem, and they don't need more power, they need less.
3. With all of their money, and the fact they are so called professionals, somehow they are at the back of the line and can't stay a step ahead of amateurs? Yet, amateurs are out there being successful already? Why do we need to legislate special poweres for incompetent media?
4. The bill is being applied to citizens/voters of OK, as well as any visitors, under the auspice of public safety. This purpose and reality is easily disproven (see above points). The bill only benefits large money interests at the expense and safety of the general public.
5. Enforcement of this bill (yielding to media) will be a complete joke and near impossibility. People scrambling out of the way, or chasers heading to storms are going to be put in real danger by having the sudden unexpected factor off some media idiot trying to run them off the road. Real first responders who are trained to have code 3 power only when life is threatened are going to be far too busy to be writing tickets for not yielding to channel 9's corporate chaser convoy running their special code 3 for no other cause than TV ratings.

For anyone representative who does not understand the above points, maybe we can get them to watch Twister and learn by analogy? Everyone in the public are the 'good guys'. The bills sponsors seem to be behaving somewhat like the villain Jonas - they seem to be placing corporate interests above everything else and ignoring any other opinions. The difference is, in the film, Jonas didn't get special laws to enable his bad behavior even further, and in that ideal film world karma got him for being what he was. Jonas was probably actually a nicer guy than some of the real world people we are all observing.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

1. Big media is not the leading cause of weather awareness to the public as they claimed to the legislature. Far from it in the age of cell phones and internet nearly everywhere. Amateurs (anything not big money interests as defined in the bill) are a larger source of warnings, and their effectiveness may be limited by this bill if they are getting pushed around on the roads.
2. Big media and academia are the group with the highest percentage of fatalities and incidents while chasing, despite how much smaller in number they are than the 'amateur' chasers. They are already a proven problem, and they don't need more power, they need less.
3. With all of their money, and the fact they are so called professionals, somehow they are at the back of the line and can't stay a step ahead of amateurs? Yet, amateurs are out there being successful already? Why do we need to legislate special poweres for incompetent media?
4. The bill is being applied to citizens/voters of OK, as well as any visitors, under the auspice of public safety. This purpose and reality is easily disproven (see above points). The bill only benefits large money interests at the expense and safety of the general public.
5. Enforcement of this bill (yielding to media) will be a complete joke and near impossibility. People scrambling out of the way, or chasers heading to storms are going to be put in real danger by having the sudden unexpected factor off some media idiot trying to run them off the road. Real first responders who are trained to have code 3 power only when life is threatened are going to be far too busy to be writing tickets for not yielding to channel 9's corporate chaser convoy running their special code 3 for no other cause than TV ratings.

I agree with all of this. I think part of why it's making it so far can be ways of thinking. I believe many of us can get down to the granular level because we live it each and every year. I also believe someone at the House or Senate levels have a 30K foot view of things, so they may see the argument like this:

Reasons to vote for:

I have a leading (or most visible, well respected) meteorologist telling me that he can do his job better by having his people stay up with storms. This is a positive benefit for the mass public and will help save lives. *This is the gist of this entire bill*.

Reasons to vote against:

Highways blocked by LEO's during a storm? No worries that's their job.

Chasers upset? Non factor.

TV chasers reckless? They seem to do ok whenever I watch. Have any statistics or data to back this up?

Channel 9 looking to increase ratings through a bill? Oklahoma owned company right? Where's the problem?

Again, not my thought process or anyone else's here, but with a Rep/Senate member considering so many other bills, there's no way they can get to the amount of detail needed to make this decision on their own. It has to be fought with hard, impactful statistics showing why not - a few which have been introduced in this thread. But without a point person who can make the time for each member of the House or Senate armed with lots of data, all the members can ask is large sweeping questions to get the best feel for which way to go. Which is basically what we've seen up to this point.

Looking at it through this lens, maybe it's not so surprising it's made it this far.

 

[Randy Jennings]

Again, not my thought process or anyone else's here, but with a Rep/Senate member considering so many other bills, there's no way they can get to the amount of detail needed to make this decision on their own.

Sean brings up a very good point and one that I was thinking about after watching the stream of the OK House the other day. There are a lot of bills under consideration. Their is no way each Rep/Senator can effectively analysis, research, and talk to every bill. There are Reps/Senators on our side, but between the volume of legislation and the rules of the legislature, it is hard for them to be an effective advocate for us and public safety. So, we have to fix that by making it easy for them to be the advocate and to make effective arguments against HB2426 in committee and session. I have some ideas in that area, but I need the help of some OK residents (as a Texas resident, I will not get the time of day from them). If you live in OK and are willing to help in that area, please reach out to me. As much as I would like to post details here, I believe that is not in our best interest, as we have to assume that the people pushing this bill read everything we say here and I don't want them to give Rep. Fetgatter our talking points in advance so he can prepare a response.

 

[gdlewen]

Sean brings up a very good point and one that I was thinking about after watching the stream of the OK House the other day. There are a lot of bills under consideration. Their is no way each Rep/Senator can effectively analysis, research, and talk to every bill. There are Reps/Senators on our side, but between the volume of legislation and the rules of the legislature, it is hard for them to be an effective advocate for us and public safety.

I have to disagree with this. The job they signed up for is to understand each bill that comes before them, and vote as their conscience dictates . They actually get paid a decent salary for serving. Not great but not peanuts either.

They don't need to go to school on each of the 3000+ bills that get submitted between both chambers each year. Just the few hundred that actually reach their committees or the floor. There is no excuse for them to vote carelessly or in ignorance--if they can't be prepared they should not run for their seat.

Having said that, it is unrealistic to expect this and I am aware that not all of the legislators exercise due diligence when it comes to preparing for votes. But some do. I email-blasted the whole House with my arguments against HB2426 and received some replies that indicated the senders were on top of things (and voted No.)

 

[Warren Faidley]

I believe this bill could be stopped cold if the OHP and ODOT would have a prime time press conference. I seriously doubt that will happen, as I'm told they generally don't cross over into state politics. Maybe they would if they realize that every single officer will be put in greater danger by lunatics acting like code-3 heroes.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I have to disagree with this. The job they signed up for is to understand each bill that comes before them, and vote as their conscience dictates . They actually get paid a decent salary for serving. Not great but not peanuts either.

They don't need to go to school on each of the 3000+ bills that get submitted between both chambers each year. Just the few hundred that actually reach their committees or the floor. There is no excuse for them to vote carelessly or in ignorance--if they can't be prepared they should not run for their seat.

Having said that, it is unrealistic to expect this and I am aware that not all of the legislators exercise due diligence when it comes to preparing for votes. But some do. I email-blasted the whole House with my arguments against HB2426 and received some replies that indicated the senders were on top of things (and voted No.)

BTW, I was told the 4-5 yes votes at the end, that got the bill passed were "copycat" votes by legislators who follow a long-time representative that they wait for until he casts his vote and follow him. Hopefully, the Senate is made up of classier, better looking and more intelligent members.