Month: January 2017

Montana House Rep. Kirk Wagoner, R-Montana City, wants to protect public employees who blow the whistle on government misconduct. He has introduced two bills, HB 202 and HB 208, “that would criminalize attempts by supervisors to retaliate against state employees who report corruption,” attorney and former Rep. Matthew Monforton, R-Bozeman writes.

While Wagoner’s proposals — in lockstep with the First Amendment — should not be about partisan politics, Monforton doubts that House Democrats and the Governor’s office will act accordingly:

Democrats (another group that supposedly looks out for state employees) weren’t impressed. Governor Steve Bullock will never sign a bill that immunizes employees who open closets holding his skeletons.

For his part, and to his credit, Rep. Wagoner has pledged to work with Democrats. From the Helena IR:

Wagoner said he would work with opponents to tweak his bill. For instance, he said he would reduce the penalty so it was not a felony, specify the case would be a private action that could go straight to a judge without investigation, and clarify the law does not cover local governments.

But will Democrats work with him? Monforton offers some excellent suggestions for Republicans in the face of Democrat obstructionism.

Read his entire post here.

Today, the Montana House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 194, a bill sponsored by Rep. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls, that would prohibit local governments from imposing “restrictions on [the] use of mobile communications devices while operating a motor vehicle.” We published Trebas’ prepared remarks two days ago.

In testimony opposing Trebas’ bill, City Commissioner Bill Bronson included a letter from our very good police chief (and arguably the City’s finest department head), David Bowen. It reads:

Members of the House Judiciary Committee:

In order to take a proactive step in reducing distracted driving crashes that result in property loss, personal injury and even death, cities like Great Falls have passed local ordinances to prohibit the use of electronic hand-held devices in order to equip law enforcement with the tools necessary to address this rising problem.

By prohibiting the ability of the local communities to help curb this problem, you are endangering the welfare of our citizens that we have taken an oath to safeguard. I am opposed to HB 194 and would strongly encourage our lawmakers to consider the consequences of how this bill affects the motoring public.

David Bowen

Great Falls police chief

Trebas thinks his bill will make it out of committee, but is unsure of its chances on the House floor.

Even if it does, we can’t imagine Governor Bullock would sign it into law.

Rep. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls

Rep. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls (HD-25), submitted to us testimony he will add to to the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, January 17, at 8:00 a.m. Here is the full text:

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,

Today I am presenting a unique bill to you, House Bill number 194. It is unique because it goes in the opposite direction of most if not all other governments, State and Local, in the U.S., on the topic of cell phone use while driving. While most are getting harsher in their penalties for driving while using a cell phone, this bill proposes that we stop the enforcement of cell phone bans, at least until they are shown to be effective in protecting public safety.

Why should we put a stay on the bans? The short answer is that they don’t really seem to be working, meanwhile cities are charging citizens large fines and in at least one city in Montana, instituting mandatory community service for 2^nd and 3^rd offenses, at 20 hours and 40 hours respectively.

I have some statistics from a recurring study to present to you, which serves largely as the basis for my argument to take a wait-and-see approach as far as bans are concerned. The study is conducted by The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. They are the organization that you hear quoted in commercials about vehicle crash data. They give out the “Top Safety Pick” awards to vehicle manufacturers. I think you will find them to be an unbiased and reputable source of information. Their studies have indicated no discernible difference in collision rates prior to and post bans in States that have made cell phone use illegal while driving. In fact, one of their studies indicated a slight increase in collision rates post ban. There is speculation as to why that happened, and two main reasons stick out. One reason is that people try to hide the activity by lowering their phone down into their vehicle to avoid detection, causing their eyes to be further from the road than they otherwise would be. The second reason is that while the bans decrease use of cell phones among law abiding citizens, the bad drivers out there are just going to continue being bad drivers. So again, collision rates do not decrease because of these bans. I’ve heard the argument that we just have to give them time to work. I would tell you that the study I referenced was first published in 2009, and then they ran tests again and published another study in 2011, and yet again in 2013, with increased special enforcement in their most recent study. If these bans were working, there should have been an indication by now, proven out by the statistics.

I would also like to say that I know unbanning an activity that is dangerous makes some of you uncomfortable. I get that, and I understand that being distracted while driving is dangerous and there are also studies and statistics that point that out, which I acknowledge. But we are picking one small area of distracted driving and saying that it is the worst form, while numerous other distracted driving activities go unenforced. There is already a law on the books to enforce distracted driving, we don’t need a special category just for cell phones, which as I hope I have made clear, just doesn’t work to increase the safety of the public, however counter-intuitive that may seem.

So, some questions I have received in the 4 years I’ve been making this argument include, things like, “How about just a texting ban?”

The studies from IIHS included the study of texting while driving, and banning it only seemed to cause people to try and hide the activity, by further lowering their phone and their eyes down into the vehicle and away from the road. It didn’t help reduce collision rates.

Or “Why can’t people just use a Bluetooth/Handsfree device?”

It is not the device, necessarily, that distracts a person, it is the conversation. While engaging in conversation, whether it is with a person inside the vehicle or on the phone, the brain switches to a part of the brain called the parietal lobe, which takes away some of the focus necessary for driving. So it is not the device that distracts you but the conversation. It is still legal to have someone sit next to you in the vehicle and distract you by talking. It’s also legal to have kids fighting in the back seat. Sometimes talking on the phone helps mitigate greater distractions while driving.

Some people ask whether I have ever received a ticket for driving on my cell phone?

No. The City of Great Falls instituted their ban in August of 2012 and I have not received a ticket. I’m a fine, upstanding, law abiding citizen, most of the time…

And lastly, “Don’t we have more important things to work on?”

Yes and no. There are more important issues to work on, but this issue is important to those that are receiving fines and community service sentences in the name of public safety, when no increase in public safety has actually occurred.

Thanks for your attention Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I’ll field any questions you may have, and I reserve the right to close.