H.B. 178 School Zone Speeding Amendments: transcript

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could I have permission for my intern to PA to pass out a handout? That'd be great. Teachers always like handouts. And while I'm waiting, Do you, do you want a chalkboard or anything? No, we use whiteboard. A whiteboard? Yeah. No, I'm fine. Um, may I just mention while she's doing that, um, a custom we've had for many years in the legislature is, uh, something to promote collegiality and a little bit of fun, and it's called Animal Print Friday. And I've been in charge of it for a few years, and I forgot to have my intern prepared an email yesterday. But I want you to note that several of us did wear our animal print and Representative Chew will never forget, and notice his ties from now on. He started with his zebra tie, and he has many other animal print highs. We'd love to have you join. Okay. Uh, you, you didn't ask for a personal privilege, did you? Oh, my word. You'd think I'd know the protocol well as she's, should I just begin as she said? Yeah, you're fine. Go ahead. Um, now, Mr. Chair, I have a, a substitute. I have first substitute, so that's what I'll be speaking to, but would you like to wait till later? Uh, um, would you like to adopt That now? So the rules committee adopted the substitute, and so we don't need to adopt that. Oh, we don't? Okay, So we'll just, uh, that's correct. But there is an amendment right to the substitute. No, there's not. That's in the, okay. Yeah, just speak to the substitute. Okay. Thank you. And, and I also wanna give you this background on the bill that, uh, it passed last year. Uh, uh, the request for the bill was from my police Chief Unified Police Department, uh, chief Justin Hoyle of holiday. And he was planning to be here, but he had a training that he'd signed up for a long time ago, and so he wasn't able to make it. I'm happy to have Sergeant Mike Mays and another sergeant here from, uh, unified Police, the Millcreek Precinct, which is also in my district. So they're here to answer any technical questions and he's will add anything. So what this bill does is it change. So let me just start with this. It's critical that our children crossing streets in school zones are safe. You know, that's imperative. And we have streets that are, um, not major streets, and some that are State Street, maybe you've driven on State Street during, that's a very long crossing for kids. Uh, the one close to me is on Holiday Boulevard, holiday Elementary and Millcreek, it's 2300 East. And so the speed limit is 35 miles an hour, but of course, school zones are 20. But what has been the practice for some time is for judges, um, to, uh, in addition, they offer compensatory service for fines. And if you were, if you look at the bill and you see the fines, a minimum fine going from 21 to 29 is $320. Then you go to 560, and then 40 or more is 960. And if you were often offered compensatory time in lieu of a, um, in lieu of a fine, you'd probably accept it. But this is what the compensatory time, compensatory time involves. It involves 45 minutes standing with a school crossing guard. Now, while I first heard about this, I thought, what a good idea, because then you really see traffic going and the speeds and so on. But it has created a lot of problems. The person that's doing the content story time is often not happy about doing it. And we have, we, it said the previous bill that was a shall they shall, even if they're just a first time offense, going say 25 or 29 miles an hour. But this is what has happened in my community and many others, they're not happy to be there. They have to have a form signed. The crossing guard, usually a young mother or an retired person is trying to watch the kids, and some person approaches them and says, I need to get to work. Sign my form right now. I've gotta go. Well, the crossing guard doesn't know how long they've been there, and these people haven't been screened. I mean, they, you know, they, they might be have a criminal background and they're standing here watching kids. And so this is a remedy that I think really gives that opportunity if it's really egregious. But the thing that is really critical in the substitute, this is what the substitute does. If you look on line 45 B, in addition to any other sentence, the court may oppose impose a court may see, and we've also changed the shall to may. That's what the says on here. Current state law says they shall, if they're going 30 miles, it says that the court, if the court has coordinated with a local school and an applicable law enforcement agency, uh, now because of this issue with, uh, hostility and the diverting their intention, attention, police chief, like mine and others have assigned an officer like this, this sergeant, to go watch that person. So it takes them away from other duties. So this is the remedy that to, to limit that compensatory service and only when it's the most egregious and when they've consulted with the local school. So that's what this Bill's intention is. And so it really is a safety issue for the kids. It's to make it safer for the kids, because those crossing guards can give them their full attention. And I could be open to questions.

It it is a technical amendment to sub one. Now tell me where it is because I don't see it. It crosses out or bail forfeiture, Excuse me. It crosses out the term, the word or bail forfeiture. Does that help? I'm getting, uh, help right here from Heather Anderson. She's the lobbies for

Hi Heather Anderson representing the Unified Police Department. So you're correct. The House Amendment one is simply a technical change in the original draft of the bill, or Bel Forfeiture was deleted, and when they drafted the substitute, adding the mechanism that the courts must work into conjunction with the local school and the local law enforcement agency, they forgot to delete that. So it's just a technical change fixing that.

It does. Okay. And then I'm open to any questions and I have a good sergeant here to assist me.

Now I feel very safe now. Hello again. Uh, my name is, uh, Sergeant Herbert Jesse Allen. I represent the Unified Police Department of Greater Salt Lake. Um, on behalf of the Law Enforcement Legislative Committee and the Utah Chief of Police Association, I would just like to say that they do support this bill.

Yeah, I'd just like to ask the, the sergeant a question, if I may. Um, I, I'm curious on lines 45 to 54 H, how, how does that mechanically work? A court may impose, uh, order an individual subject to a fine to perform service if the court is coordinated with a local school and an applicable law enforcement agency. And the offense, you know, goes on with the, is this already happening where courts are coordinating with schools and with law enforcement? How, how, how does that mechanically work? Who does that? How does that get coordinated?

The current model, it's the judge. So the judge would just order that for the individual that, um, committed the violation. So really there's no, with law enforcement at this point in time with the current law, we're not notified of it. We just are told that they're coming to watch the crossing guard or the crosswalk.

Okay. Yeah, I'm just trying to, so, so a judge orders it, but then it's gotta go through the process and it says if the court is coordinated with a local school. And so I'm just, I'm trying to figure out how does the court then go coordinate with the school and then go coordinate with law enforcement to, to do this? I'm not,

And unfortunately I don't have the answer to that. That would be coming from the judge and the court. I'm not sure. Okay. So, but there's, so there's not that kind of mechanism established already then At this point in time? Not that I'm aware of, no.

Okay. Okay.

Right. No, I, I mean, I understand that, but you know, how, so do they call the principal? Do they call the superintendent? Do I mean, if it's not in there, then I'm just curious how a judge then, does the judge put their caseload aside and go to try to coordinate to find someone at the school, but we may not know who that is and someone with law enforcement. Mm-hmm. If there's not a kind of a procedure already mm-hmm. Then I'm not sure who calls whom to coordinate.

And I know just on our end, from what I see is we have a crossing guard coordinator with the Unified Police Department. I'm not sure outside agency is how it works, but with us, we, um, that crossing guard co coordinator is notified by someone. I'm not sure who that is. Yeah. But then that crossing guard coordinator, depending on which precinct reaches out to that law enforcement, um, with Unified Police Department and lets them know on this date and time, an individual's gonna come watch the crossing. So we are made aware, I'm aware, made aware in the Millcreek precinct from our crossing guard coordinator with the Unified Police Department.

Okay. Representative, have, have you talked to, to Michael d Dressel from the courts to kind of see how they would process this coordination?

She can. Great. Uh, that's an excellent question. Michael d Dressel is actually the one who requested we put that language in.

Oh, okay. So they must have a process. All right then. Okay.

Unfortunately, I don't know it, but since they requested it, I assume they have a process for it. I would assume so too. But I can ask him and get back to you.

No, that helps you. I mean, if the court knows how they're gonna do it, then that's, that's great. It just seems like, you know, I'm just picturing a judge putting their caseload aside to go figure out who to find and what to do. But sounds like they have it set up. So that's great. Thank you. Excellent question.

I've got, I'm, I need to use, use my glasses more. I was ready for action. So, yeah, we're ready, I think. Ready? Alright.

Um, I'd like to make a motion that we adopt an amendment. Oh, hang on. Substitute.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move that we adopt the amendment first. Substitute excuse. Be first substitute Of No, the amendment. You're right. Sub, you're right. The amendment. Oh, So the amendment to the substitute. Yeah. We need to substitute, we need to approve the amendment. That's Right. Oh, we did? Oh, I apologize. Yes, we did.

I do. Thank you for asking. I'd like to make a motion that we pass out favorably for substitute HB 1 78 school zone speeding amendments.

Thank you for this discussion. I'll waive.

I'll waive. Okay. That is waived. And we'll go to a vote.

You hardly leave and got the opportunity to sit down. Perfect girl. Well, as you probably learned, we were still on the floor and I kept thinking, well, the committee can't start if we're on the floor. It's a senate committee. We're not. We were not on the floor. You're The Senate. Let me just take a, we Hey, go ahead. Okay, thank you. Hello. Okay, I need just a second here too. Okay. House Bill, 1 78, second substitute school zone speeding amendments. Now. Oh, is it okay if my intern passes that? Yes, go ahead. It's a handout. She needs to give me one too.

Um, this bill originally went through house transportation, um, unchanged and it passed unanimously. And, um, I had these very nice sergeants with me that day to talk about the issue. And just quickly to tell you what the problem was in school zone speeding is of course a very dangerous thing. And we must have penalties for people who, um, who break the law and speed because we have children's lives at risk. And many, many judges around the state had been giving compensatory time in lieu of a fine. Uh, and that compensatory time involved watching, uh, going to crossing zone and watching, uh, the kids and having the school crossing guards sign off on the paper that they'd spent 45 minutes there. Well, that may sound like a reasonable thing, but what happened? It turned into a huge problem for the, um, for the crossing guards. They were being, felt like they were being harassed. People weren't happy to be there. They'd say, sign this, I have to get to work. I've been here 45 minutes. Well, how did they know? It distracted them from their job. And they started complaining saying, this is not part of our job, uh, to monitor these people that are here doing compensatory time. So we wanted to alleviate that and make the, on a that, on a first ti offense, there would not be, uh, compensatory time. They just, and the fines are hefty. They really are. And then make it a higher speeding before they used compensatory time in lieu of a, uh, of a, um, a fine. So anyway, the bill passed and then Representative Peterson, who was on the committee, uh, had a substitute when it was on the floor. And what his substitute does, and that's what we're speaking to now, 'cause that was adopted and passed, um, on the house floor, was it eliminates, if you see on line 39, it eliminates that whole section about the court shall order person to perform content story service observing a crossing guard. And then it gives the, the specifics about it. But it leaves one thing in on line 37, except as provided under subsection two A. The court may order the person to perform compensatory service in lieu of the fine or any portion of the fine. But here's the difference not to watch a crossing guard. They could clean restrooms, right? They could, um, empty trash, do anything else, but because that not only put the crossing guards at risk, but it put the children at risk, the other one. So now that's the only ki people have to pay the fines. And, and if you see, they're pretty hefty from going just over 20 miles an hour, up to 29, 300, 20, 30 to 39, 560, 40 miles an hour, 960. So my understanding, and, and, and correct me officer if I'm wrong, um, only if somebody couldn't afford to pay the fine. I guess that's the idea. So that's the bill. It eliminates the part about the observing crossing guards, and it makes it safer for, uh, for children. And it makes it safer for those crossing guards who, if you probably know, I pass through a couple of zones, uh, often on my way to work. And, um, I know some of those people, uh, they're young mothers, they're often retired people. Maybe I'll do that after I leave here. But they're, they don't make a lot of money and they do it because they care about the safety of our school kids. So that's the bill, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Presentation. Yes. Okay. Part of my presentation. Thank you.

Yeah. Just as, uh, Representative Moss mentioned, um, the concerns were twofold. Uh, just with

Sorry, Sergeant, uh, Mike Mays with Unified Police Department. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. As Representative Moss mentioned, uh, the concern was that, uh, when people would, uh, come up for the compensatory service, that it greatly diverted the attention from the, the duties assigned to the crossing guards. What Unified police did was they would then assign an officer to monitor that individual so that the crossing guard, uh, could maintain their duties. But then that took a police officer away from monitoring, um, active school zones as well. So it, it, uh, just safety concern for the children first and foremost.

Hello. Uh, my name's Herbert Allen. I'm a Sergeant with the Unified Police Department. I'd just like to testify on behalf of the Utah Chiefs of Police Association and the Utah, uh, law Enforcement Legislative Committee that they do support this bill.

Hello, Heather Anderson, representing the Unified Police Department. Thank you very much for sponsoring this bill and, and we urge your support. There is a House Amendment one that is published online that the Attorney General's office asked that we adopt somehow in the drafting of the second substitute, or Bill forfeiture was crossed out and deleted on a number of lines. This just puts it back in not quite sure why it was deleted in the first place, but the ags office asked that it be added and we don't see that it impacts the billing any negative way. Thank You. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment one in, uh, representative Moss's name.

Do you want to, that just does what Heather said, correct? Right. I think it was just inadvertent that it was removed. And when the drafting attorney called me today to tell me, he said if we, um, if we left it in, it could add 30 more pages to the bill to explain all about bond forfeiture. So I think this was a good choice here.

Thank you, Senator. That's okay. Did I Say that again? It's okay. I keep looking at Representative Moss. It's all right. That's, that's strike two on me? No.

You, Mr. Chair. Uh, I move that we, uh, pass out favorably HB 1 78, uh, second sub as amended

Representative Hayes Motion to circle.

Uh, Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Speaker proto, if it's, uh, the correct time, I'd like to make a motion to move sub two in my name on this bill.

Thank you very much. House Bill 1 78. First substitute school zone speeding amendments is the bill that was brought to me by law enforcement, including my own police chief and holiday. And what it does is changes the current mandatory requirement for observing a school crossing guard as a form of compensatory sentencing to a permissive option. In other words, from shall to may. Now the problem is created. And why? The reason that this bill raises the speed limit at which a person would have to go over 30 miles an hour to get compensatory time. Um, is that with the, if they went just 25 miles over and they chose compensatory time instead of a fine, it was creating a hazard for school crossing guards. And it may seem contrary to think that to have somebody to go watch a school crossing guard would be a positive thing. It's turned out to be a negative. It it has distracted crossing guards who are usually young mothers or retired people. Um, people that don't wanna be there, that have to spend 45 minutes and get something signed would go up to this crossing guard and say, sign this right now. I have to get to work. And often hostile and un uh, unhappy and the distraction and the di and the fact that crossing guards said this should not be part of our job. So they started assigning officers to, to watch them and that took an officer off the streets. So it wasn't just the holiday district court, but district courts around the state. So by increasing, by changing it to a may and adding that, it had to be a second offense or over 30 or 35 that's cut down in the number of compensatory time. And I had police officers there who said, we have had to go watch these and, and it, it, it's created a negative instead of a positive. And so that's what the bill does. But Mr. Speaker pro tem, I don't quite know how to do this, but now, um, there is another substitute to this bill.

Thank you. I'd like to move Mo uh, substitute two in my name.

I would thank you. My, my dear uh, colleague from Salt Lake County was, was absolutely correct in her, in her recognition that the, that the, uh, statute needed to be changed because that compensatory service of following a a an, uh, observing a crossing guard was a nuisance and not, uh, not very practical. Um, so, so her bill originally says to do, uh, instead of a shall to a May, and I'm, my, my substitute just says that we just take that whole compensatory service thing out because it's, it's just too difficult to do. And let's don't even, uh, let's don't even play with that anymore.

And I have to admit that I thought that we should have done that, but didn't know if we could and none of the officers suggested. So I credit the good representative for making it even better. So I approve this substitute.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, I'm a little confused on this. So, uh, we talk about that, uh, this'll be on the second, uh, uh, I mean removing it to the second offense. And, uh, what happens on the first offense? Representative Chew, do you have a question? Excuse me. Um, Mr. Speaker Trem Will is sponsor yield Sponsor of the substitute or of the bill? The sponsor of the substitute. That's what we're speaking to here. I just speaking to the motion is all and then I'll have to speak to the substitute afterwards. Is that how it works? I can't remember. I've only been here a long time.

Peterson, will you yield? Will you yield? Yes, Of Course. Go ahead. Rep M two.

So if I understand your No, I'm a little bit, uh, confused in Mr. Speaker part. I'm, we're we, we should be to the voting part of it, then we speak to it or do I speak to it in case it makes a difference on how we vote?

You're speaking to the second substitute.

Okay. On the second sub, my question is To the motion to substitute. Is that your intent? I'm good with the motion to Sub the motion force. Should we adopt the second substitute? Um, I wanna speak to the sub, not the motion. Thank you. Okay,

I am speaking in support of the motion to adopt the substitute. Uh, I think it makes sense. Our crossing guards are gonna be sorely distracted in the event the underlying bill passes. This will actually prevent a judge from allowing compensatory service. In other words, when your children or grandchildren are crossing an active crosswalk during school, do you want the crossing guard actively watching your kids or actively watching someone who's there as a result of compensatory service? 'cause they're not gonna be able to do both. That is why I support the motion to substitute.

Peterson for summation. Uh, I, I appreciate the, what my good friend from Roy has has reminded us. We, we want our, uh, crossing guards to pay attention to the crossing, uh, to the crossing of those children and not having to supervise people who don't want to be there in the first place and who are causing problems. Secondly, we don't wanna burden our police departments and our school districts with trying to coordinate these, uh, these crossing guard activities. This is not what, this is not gonna be beneficial. So I appreciate your, your, your vote of this. Thank you.

So, uh, on your original, uh, uh, delivery, excuse me.

We have to yield. So on your original delivery, you talked about the, uh, uh, your, the, the compensatory service only is, uh, on second offenses. Have I understood that correctly or, or more?

Uh, the first offense is not gonna be a compensatory service. That's what the original bill did. It, it didn't take the first one. They, they had to pay the fine.

Uh, um, But the Following offenses, the, would the sponsor yield to, uh, a few more questions. A series of questions.

Chu. Thank you. Uh, so the way, the way it is now, a first offense, uh, deals with compensatory service. Is that not correct?

No, that's not correct because the substitute takes all the compensatory service out simply, you pay a fine and the fines are pretty hefty. And I think those are really good preventive measures. So it doesn't involve judges doing any compensatory time. You go over the speed limit, if it's 22 miles, 25, you see on the bill, the scale from the, from a first offense and whatever it is, up to going over 30 miles, that goes clear up to $900. So we want, primarily the purpose for this bill is to keep kids safe. And second, it was to assist the school crossing guards in doing their job as keeping them safe. So this does away with compensatory time. It's all fines for any speeding.

So, so I understand that that's, uh, what we're, do what the proposal is here. Now, what my question was, is that uh, com compensatory services? What it is currently? Yes. And who decides that that is to go obstruct a crossing guard? Is that the way the commissary service was supposed to be? Or could it be something like cleaning out the restrooms or something like that at a school? That's what I'm wondering. Is it specific to the, a person has to go help a crossing guard?

That's correct. The compensatory service, and I don't know when that came into being, but was to go and observe a crossing guard. So presumably they would see the dangers, you know, when people are speeding. But that was the only kind of compensatory service. And so the bill originally it said, shall, when they put that in, then my bill changed it to May, and then my good friend from Cash County did an even better job with this by eliminating that program altogether.

Okay. I I appreciate that explanation. If you remember here a few years back when things got adjusted a little bit, I suggested that people at speed in a school zone ought to be put in stocks and we found out that that's not legal to do so. So, uh, I appreciate what's going on here and I I would support, uh, the second sub.

Thank you. Just a, a comment on that last, uh, question that was brought up. Line 17 does say that you can have compensatory services, uh, provided, but the following paragraph, uh, takes out the compensatory service for, uh, crossing guards. So I think the judge is able to, to make that, uh, an option. Thank you.

Well, I'm looking at that now and it says the court sh i, it, my understanding was it took that out entirely. So it's completely based on fines. And when I presented it, I'm not supposed to say in committee, it did have, we changed it from shall to may, but there's no content story time in the second substitute. And that completes my presentation. I know it's been a little Confusing. And Mo for

Thank you. I'd like to move Mo uh, substitute two in my name.

I would thank you. My, my dear uh, colleague from Salt Lake County was, was absolutely correct in her, in her recognition that the, that the, uh, statute needed to be changed because that compensatory service of following a a an, uh, observing a crossing guard was a nuisance and not, uh, not very practical. Um, so, so her bill originally says to do, uh, instead of a shall to a May, and I'm, my, my substitute just says that we just take that whole compensatory service thing out because it's, it's just too difficult to do. And let's don't even, uh, let's don't even play with that anymore.

Thank you Representative Peterson, Representative Moss to the motion to substitute As a friendly substitute. And I have to admit that I thought that we should have done that, but didn't know if we could and none of the officers suggested. So I credit the good representative for making it even better. So I approve this substitute.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, I'm a little confused on this. So, uh, we talk about that, uh, this'll be on the second, uh, uh, I mean removing it to the second offense. And, uh, what happens on the first offense?

Excuse me. Um, Mr. Speaker Trem Will is sponsor yield

Sponsor of the substitute or of the bill? The sponsor of the substitute. That's what we're speaking to here. I just speaking to the motion is all and then I'll have to speak to the substitute afterwards.

Is that how it works? I can't remember. I've only been here a long time.

Of Course. Go ahead. Rep M two.

So if I understand your No, I'm a little bit, uh, confused in Mr. Speaker part. I'm, we're we, we should be to the voting part of it, then we speak to it or do I speak to it in case it makes a difference on how we vote? You're speaking to the second substitute. Okay. On the second sub, my question is To the motion to substitute. Is that your intent? I'm good with the motion to Sub the motion force. Should we adopt the second substitute? Um, I wanna speak to the sub, not the motion. Thank you. Okay,

Uh, I, I appreciate the, what my good friend from Roy has has reminded us. We, we want our, uh, crossing guards to pay attention to the crossing, uh, to the crossing of those children and not having to supervise people who don't want to be there in the first place and who are causing problems. Secondly, we don't wanna burden our police departments and our school districts with trying to coordinate these, uh, these crossing guard activities. This is not what, this is not gonna be beneficial. So I appreciate your, your, your vote of this. Thank you.

So, uh, on your original, uh, uh, delivery, excuse me. Um, uh, with the sponsor yield. With

We have to yield. So on your original delivery, you talked about the, uh, uh, your, the, the compensatory service only is, uh, on second offenses. Have I understood that correctly or, or more? Uh, the first offense is not gonna be a compensatory service. That's what the original bill did. It, it didn't take the first one. They, they had to pay the fine. Uh, um, But the Following offenses, the, would the sponsor yield to, uh, a few more questions. A series of questions.

Chu. Thank you. Uh, so the way, the way it is now, a first offense, uh, deals with compensatory service. Is that not correct?

No, that's not correct because the substitute takes all the compensatory service out simply, you pay a fine and the fines are pretty hefty. And I think those are really good preventive measures. So it doesn't involve judges doing any compensatory time. You go over the speed limit, if it's 22 miles, 25, you see on the bill, the scale from the, from a first offense and whatever it is, up to going over 30 miles, that goes clear up to $900. So we want, primarily the purpose for this bill is to keep kids safe. And second, it was to assist the school crossing guards in doing their job as keeping them safe. So this does away with compensatory time. It's all fines for any speeding.

So, so I understand that that's, uh, what we're, do what the proposal is here. Now, what my question was, is that uh, com compensatory services? What it is currently? Yes. And who decides that that is to go obstruct a crossing guard? Is that the way the commissary service was supposed to be? Or could it be something like cleaning out the restrooms or something like that at a school? That's what I'm wondering. Is it specific to the, a person has to go help a crossing guard?

That's correct. The compensatory service, and I don't know when that came into being, but was to go and observe a crossing guard. So presumably they would see the dangers, you know, when people are speeding. But that was the only kind of compensatory service. And so the bill originally it said, shall, when they put that in, then my bill changed it to May, and then my good friend from Cash County did an even better job with this by eliminating that program altogether.

Okay. I I appreciate that explanation. If you remember here a few years back when things got adjusted a little bit, I suggested that people at speed in a school zone ought to be put in stocks and we found out that that's not legal to do so. So, uh, I appreciate what's going on here and I I would support, uh, the second sub.

Thank you. Just a, a comment on that last, uh, question that was brought up. Line 17 does say that you can have compensatory services, uh, provided, but the following paragraph, uh, takes out the compensatory service for, uh, crossing guards. So I think the judge is able to, to make that, uh, an option. Thank you.

Well, I'm looking at that now and it says the court sh i, it, my understanding was it took that out entirely. So it's completely based on fines. And when I presented it, I'm not supposed to say in committee, it did have, we changed it from shall to may, but there's no content story time in the second substitute. And that completes my presentation. I know it's been a little Confusing. And Mo for

Um, the legislature had a great idea a couple years ago. We said, you know what, let's take people whose speed in school zones and let's force 'em to go and work with the crossing guards so they can see how dangerous that is. So we passed that bill and we patted ourselves on the back and it turns out it was a really bad idea. House Bill 1 78 second sub removes the mandatory requirement for observing a school crossing guard as a part of someone's compensatory sentencing for speeding in a school zone. A judge. However, if this will passes, a judge can still require some form of compensatory service, just not observing as a school crossing guard. Why was that a bad idea? First of all, the crossing guards got never got consulted. They don't wanna babysit a, a someone that doesn't wanna be there who's complaining and grumbling and is distracting their attention from keeping the kids safe. Um, so this has been an unfair burden on the crossing guards and, uh, we have no evidence that it's actually helping, uh, the speeding motorists. And so, um, crossing guards, uh, were never consulted with the bill. It's, it's turned out to be not a pleasant experience for them to have a grumpy person who doesn't want to be there standing there and complaining to them for the whole time. Um, they're not comfortable signing the documents that these people need to be signed so that they can go back to court and show that they did this. And monitoring ci cited motorists and signing court documents is just not part of their job description. They're not paid for that. Their sole responsibility is to safely help children cross the street. Um, and so, uh, this bill, um, would just allow them, uh, allow the judge to give them other, another type of community service, but stop punishing the crossing guards for something that somebody else did. And with that, I'll yield to any questions.

Thank you. I move that second substitute house Bill 1 78. Be read for a third time. Thank

Senator Vickers Baldy Bwin Brammer bus Comore es Camilla Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Pson Johnson. Juab McKay Aye. Mikel Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers er Aye. Wilson Winterton.

One last motion. Encircles house bill 23 That I don't believe Senator, but it may be for the next few minutes. But anyway, motion to circle house bill 2323 First sub. The motion is done. Circle first, substitute house bill 23.

Thank you Mr. President.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move to Concur, um, with the amendment on house bill at 1 78.

It's a tech, it's a technical change. Okay. It doesn't really do anything. It's just two words. Bail forfeiture that were left out.