Texting-While-Driving Bans: A Continued Discussion

Blogger Ron Black recently posted a guest editorial by Craig Dawkins on the issue of texting-while-driving bans.

Texting and Driving Bans are Abusive

By Craig Dawkins

February 18, 2011

The Oklahoma State Senate jumped on the ‘no texting while driving’ bandwagon when the Public Safety Committee approved Senate Bill 146 this week. Texting and driving bans have been approved in 30 other states and it appears that Senator Jerry Ellis –D, Valliant, wants Oklahoma to follow their lead.

Ellis cites discussions with people who’ve witnessed texting drivers driving badly. Perhaps they have. But I’ve witnessed many people driving badly while eating, applying makeup, lighting cigarettes, reading books, talking to people in the back seat, looking at attractive females, and I could go on. I’ll bet you’ve seen that too. So do we need to ban all of those things as well?

Read the rest of the column here. His post is also along the lines of a previous article I linked to back in January.

The fact is, a texting-while-driving ban is not much more than a PR stunt. Oklahoma already has laws on the books to crack down on inattentive driving. These laws are much broader and wide-ranging than a texting-while-driving ban would be.

The way to crack down on texting-while-driving is to enforce existing law, not pass a new law.

Brogdon's take on the two-year moratorium

As controversy continues over the appointment and/or hiring of ex-legislators by Governor Fallin and Insurance Commissioner John Doak, former State Sen. Randy Brogdon weighs in with his take. Brogdon, now with a job in the Insurance Department, is one of the three hires in question.

Many of my supporters have been asking what I will be doing in the future, so I want to give you an update.  I have been asked by Insurance Commissioner John Doak to serve as his Deputy Commissioner of the Fraud Division.  I am honored to serve and am excited about the opportunities to protect the citizens of Oklahoma. 

There has been a lot of discussion whether or not legislators can work for a state agency within two years after their legislative service is over.  The answer to that question is yes.  As a matter of fact there have been several Supreme Court decisions as well as Attorney Generals opinion stating the affirmative.  Following is an honest appraisal of the facts along with the spirit and the intent of the law.

The bill has three distinct provisions.  First, no member of the legislature can be appointed to an office that was created during his term of office.

Secondly, no member can receive an appointment from the Governor during his term of office.

The third provision of the bill deals with the two year moratorium which is often mischaracterized. The moratorium specifically restricts a legislator from entering into a “contract” with any state agency that was authorized during his term of office.

For example if the legislature created the “Department of Prescription Drugs” during his term of office he could not serve or contract with that department for a period of two years after his term was over.

The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are not to restrict a former legislator from working for a state agency, it is simply designed to prevent a legislator form having influence in creating a position and then moving directly in to it.

Other Oklahoma bloggers have been discussing this topic as well. Mike McCarville posted a poll asking if the appointments violated the spirit of the "no hire" law; 60% said that it went against it. Ron Black agreed with McCarville's poll respondents.

I'll be posting more on this issue later. The section of the Oklahoma Constitution in question is here.

Schools & SQ744 Campaigning

News is coming out in this final week of the election that public school superintendents are illegally campaigning for State Question 744 on and with state property.

"It's for the children," we hear all the time and this time, school superintendents and officials plan to use our children as campaign volunteers for the infamous State Question 744.  Today, a Yukon resident filed a temporary injunction and restraining order against Sandy Garrett and Superintendent Bill Denton of Yukon.  The plan was to give out materials to children to take home the day before the vote on State Question 744.

Click here for the rest of Ron Black's post.

Patrick McGuigan reports:

Julia Seay, a Yukon resident, filed the restraining order and temporary injunction through her attorneys, Shawnnessy Black and Anthony Ferate.

The injunction states, in part: “Petitioner, Julia Seay, believes that the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the various proponents of State Question 744 have conspired to engage in electioneering and distribute flyers that are in clear support of Oklahoma State Question 744, such material is intended to be distributed to the parents of students attending Oklahoma Public Schools.”

The Seay injunction continues: “Petitioner, Julia Seay, has knowledge that the Superintendent of Public Instruction requested that flyers in support of Oklahoma State Question 744 be distributed on Monday, November 1st, 2010, to impressionable school age children.”

Shawnnessy Black, one of Seay’s attorneys, said in a statement sent to CapitolBeatok, “Distribution of political material through the classroom is a direct violation of state law and citizens and supporters of State Question 744 will stop at nothing to get what they want – and what they want is to use our children as campaign volunteers for their tax increases.”

Click here for the rest of the article on CapitolBeatOK.com.

I have copies of two emails sent out by Braggs Superintendent Lucky McCrary through his official school email account that campaigns for State Question 744 (including another document by Crescent Public Schools Superintendent Steve Shriever).

Additionally, I have received information from a Muskogee parent who, while attending a recent parent-teacher conference, was given information by a teacher who encouraged her to vote yes on SQ744. The teacher told the parent, "I know I'm not supposed to be doing this, but..." and continued on with her electioneering.

As I have said before, schools are meant for learning, not electioneering. This is shameful, and there should be swift penalties for electioneering with state resources and at schools. The Oklahoma taxpayer is not paying the salary of their local superintendent (or any other state employee) so that he or she can campaign on our dime or exploit our schoolchildren.