Item 7: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

? SB 293 – Relating to use of mobile communication device while driving. Recommended Priority 3 Oppose Ms. Bettman said she had asked to review the bill because she wanted to run it by the committee and the Council, as it was a big policy issue, despite cell phones being the third most dangerous driving hazard after food and children. Her inclination was to support the bill with the amendments as articulated by public safety, i.e., with exemptions for certain law enforcement personnel. Because of her own feelings and constituent requests, she felt the issue should be addressed statewide. Mr. Cushman said that to avoid specifying “cell phones,” the legislative text was expanded to include personal digital assistants, anything with text messaging capability, and two-way radios. The ban on two- way radio usage affected police, fire, emergency vehicles, public works, EWEB and some private entities. He said if that category of devices could be excluded from the bill, it would not adversely affect safety. He noted that the bill was focused on cell phones, as opposed to other things that constituted “distracted driving.” Mr. Cushman said that this bill and a similar one, HB 2482, were fairly innocuous except as they applied to two-way radios. Ms. Bettman moved to change the recommendation to Priority 2 Support with amendments as articulated by Mr. Cushman. Mayor Piercy and Mr. Pryor suggested that the position should be “oppose unless amended.” Ms. Bettman’s understanding was that if the committee supported something with an amendment, it meant they actively sought the amendment. Ms. Wilson confirmed this. Mr. Pryor said he could not support the bill and wondered why there were no bills to ban the number one and two dangers – food and children. He suggested that the way to address the problem was to go after “distracted driving.” Ms. Taylor said the problem with cell phones was that someone could call a person, and even though the person chose not to make calls, that person might be tempted to answer. Ms. Taylor seconded the motion. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. ? HB 2370 – Relating to Oregon security. Recommended Priority 3 Support Ms. Wilde reported that the bill had been introduced by the Governor and proposed moving the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) from the Oregon State Police to the Oregon military. She noted that it was seen as a positive by the OEM staff and would provide more resource support in the form of grants tied to homeland security and natural disaster. She added that there had been discussion of an amendment that had to do with who could confiscate firearms during a catastrophe and how they would be recovered afterward, an issue the City would want to watch carefully. Mr. Pryor said that, politics aside, the Department of Homeland Security had many good things in it, and that placing them in closer proximity would be beneficial. Ms. Wilde pointed out that this would give Oregon the same structure for disaster preparedness and homeland security as Washington, Idaho, Alaska and Montana, states Oregon worked with, as well as 23 other states nationwide, making it easy to connect in many ways. She emphasized that the employees would not be military employees or have a military budget. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 6, 2007 Page 4 Relations