Item 4: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

Mr. Cushman said Police Chief Lehner had talked with university officials, that they were opposed to the bill and the Police Department was inclined to support that. Under the original bill, he said the university could request to have public safety officers on campus and the board (of Higher Education?) could grant that request. The amendment mandates that the university have six armed commissioned officers on campus, whether the institution wanted it or not. He said the staff opposed a mandate. Ms. Bettman commented that it was a burden on the City police force to make up for the fact that there was no campus police force and this was a resource issue for the City. She said at the least she would favor a Priority 2 neutral position, to be involved in the discussions to amend it to make it permissive rather than mandatory. Mr. Cushman said the university now contracts with the City to get armed police officers, so the City did get some compensation from the school. Ms. Bettman wanted to work to get the bill amended to make it permissive. Ms. Wilson said she could work with the University to try to get that done. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Neutral position. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3314-A The staff opposed this bill, which would create an offense for inflicting serious physical injury or death to a vulnerable user of a public way. Mr. Cushman said the staff’s opposition was twofold: The bill did not address whether the person identified as a vulnerable user had contributed to the accident, and if a person were injured or killed in an accident, it would not matter what kind of vehicle the other person was driving as long as he or she had been driving carelessly. Ms. Bettman said it did not distinguish situations such as a kid on a skateboard scooting out between two vehicles into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Mr. Cushman said it did require a threshold that the vehicle driver was driving carelessly or recklessly. Ms. Taylor felt people should use extra care if they saw a bicycle or a pedestrian and wanted to support the bill. Mr. Pryor said this bill did not address that. Ms. Wilson said she believed the bill would pass both chambers. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to adopt a Priority 3 Neutral position. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 480-A The staff recommended support Priority 3 for this bill that would set safety requirements for motor vehicle passengers under 13 years of age. Ms. Taylor said she wanted to change this to support Priority 3. Ms. Bettman noted that it already was support Priority 3; Mr. Pryor added that the bill was discussed at the last meeting. Ms. Taylor said it still did not address the size of the children. Ms. Wilson said the staff had tried unsuccessfully to get the bill amended to include a size requirement instead of age as the sole criteria in the section requiring 13 year olds to sit in the back seat. She said there had been an amendment to allow 13 year olds to sit in the front if there was no available space in the back. Ms. Taylor was satisfied with that.