The Texas Fertilizer Plant Explosion Wasn't an Accident

Almost everyone in America knows the names of the two young terrorists allegedly responsible for the April 15 Boston Marathon bombings, but few can identify the owner of the fertilizer plant that exploded in West, Texas, two days later. Both are culpable of killing innocent people, but the media, along with government regulators and law enforcement agencies, poured much more time and resources into finding the two Tsarnaev brothers than they did in investigating Donald Adair. Crime in the streets (particularly by terrorists) is big news but crime in the suites rarely makes headlines.

Why isn't the American public calling for the arrest, conviction, and imprisonment of Adair, the owner of the West Fertilizer Company in West, Texas, where an explosion on April 17 killed 14 people, left 200 others with injuries (including burns, lacerations, and broken bones), flattened houses and a 50-unit apartment building, destroyed a nursing home, damaged a local school, and left a crater 93 feet by 10 feet?

The explosion was so devastating that investigators, almost two months after the incident, are unable to definitively determine the exact cause of the explosion. But it is possible that Adair -- who also owns Adair Grain (the parent company of West Fertilizer) and Adair Farms, including about 5,000 acres of cropland and grassland in the area, worth several million dollars -- consistently flouted the law and common sense safety measures that put both his employees and the surrounding community at risk.

When 84-year-old Eula Bingham, OSHA chief under President Jimmy Carter, heard the news about the West, Texas, explosion, she thought, "Oh my god a fertilizer plant." According to Bingham, "fertilizer plants are well known as the most horrible, explosive places in the world." Adair had ample opportunity to know and follow the law and certainly knew the consequences of failure.

After 9/11 companies like Adair's were required to inform the government of chemicals that could be used in terrorist attacks. West Fertilizer stored large quantities of anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate, in the middle of a small town. The company failed to tell the Department of Homeland Security that it was storing 270 tons of ammonium nitrate (the same chemical that Tim McVeigh used to bomb the Oklahoma city federal building in 1995, which left 168 people dead) as required by law.

The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration fined the factory in 1985 for mishandling storage of anhydrous ammonia. In 2011, the same agency cited the firm for "not having a security plan" and for improperly planning to transport anhydrous ammonia and issued a fine of $5,250.

The federal EPA last inspected the plant in 2006 and assessed a fine of $2,300 for failing to update a risk management plan. The company responded in 2011 with an updated but misleading plan, stating that its chemicals did not pose a risk or fire or explosion, and claiming that the "worse-case scenario" was a 10-minute release of gas or a leak from a broken house, neither of them harmful to human.

The company also reported contradictory information to state agencies. It filed reports with the Department of State Health Services that it had not stored ammonium nitrate on site until 2012. Yet it reported to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality that it had a "maximum annual through put" of 2400 tons, or 4.8 million pounds of ammonium nitrate after the department found that it was operating without a permit.

Adair ran a fertilizer company that stored tons of highly explosive ammonium nitrate, failed to follow government safety guidelines and -- laws or no laws -- shirked his basic responsibility to prevent a foreseeable, preventable and tragic disaster. Is he any less a killer than the Boston bombers?

If so, Adair shares that responsibility with others. There are at least 2,500 facilities around the country that could each put over 10,000 people at risk in the event of an accident, according to a recent Congressional Research Service memo. Last year alone, 1,270 people died in over 30,000 chemical spills and accidents.

Corporate lobby groups have consistently opposed common sense safeguards for our food, consumer products, environment, drugs, and workplaces. They've spent billions of dollars in campaign contributions, lobbyists and donations to conservative think tanks and front groups to oppose and weaken these and other safety laws and gut the budgets of government agencies set up to enforce them. Their resistance delayed life-saving protections for decades in some cases. The chemical industry has been one of the most effective lobby groups in this regard. In the 1970s, for example, the industry lobbied Congress to prohibit OSHA from regularly inspecting workplaces with fewer than 10 employees in industries with low reported injury rates. Fertilizer plants are included on the list of exempted industries. This may be why OSHA hadn't inspected the West Fertilizer plant since 1985.

The chemical industry opposed a 1981 OSHA "hazard communication" rule requiring employers to label toxic chemicals used by workers on the job. The common sense rules would have put "virtually unmanageable burdens on small manufacturers," according to Ralph Engel representing the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association. Engle claimed that "workers would be just as safe without this regulation." It's hard to imagine workers able to take proper precautions when they don't know about the dangers of the poisons they work with.

The chemical industry successfully delayed federal "right to know" legislation requiring disclosure of toxic chemicals to workers and nearby communities until a 1984 gas leak at a Union Carbide factory in Bhopal, India exposed 500,00 people to toxic gas that killed nearly 4,000 and disabled many more. The disaster created public demand for action that overwhelmed industry opposition and led to the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986. Eugene Humphrey, representing the Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, testified before Congress that disclosing the existence of dangerous chemicals would burden small business and wouldn't "significantly improve the protection of human health or the environment."

In 1992, the Fertilizer Institute, another trade group, successfully lobbied for a "retail exemption" rule that allows facilities storing large amounts of dangerous chemicals to avoid strict OSHA and EPA regulation if they sell more than half of their chemicals to "end users," including farmers. It is possible that West Fertilizer claimed this exemption, even though the amount of anhydrous ammonia stored at the facility would otherwise have required extensive precautions.

In 2009 the chemical industry -- joined by major business lobby groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Farm Bureau -- spent $51 million pressuring Congress to oppose legislation that would have tightened security standards on chemical factories, fertilizer depots and water-treatment plants. The lobbying effort included "mining companies, refiners, paint makers, explosive fabricators and fertilizer plants," according to Bloomberg News. The industry -- including such giant firms as Dow Chemical and DuPont -- donated $34 million to political candidates in the last three elections, two-thirds of which went to Republicans. "If enacted, it could lead to disruption in our nation's food supply," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 25 other groups representing companies that mine, refine fuels, mill grains or make fertilizer, wrote in a letter to congressional leaders. The CEOs of these corporations, and the heads of their corporate industry lobby groups, don't intentionally want to see Americans killed or injured by unsafe workplaces, dangerous consumer products, and unhealthy toxic chemicals that destroy people's health. But by pushing Congress and state governments to weaken safety and health standards, and to slash budgets for inspection and enforcement, they make it inevitable that many Americans will needlessly die, suffer injuries, and ruin their health.

Business lobbies want to be free from government rules. Unfortunately, their freedom leads to tragedy for workers, families and communities.

Texas prides itself on the lack of rules for businesses. Texas is the only state that doesn't require companies to have workers compensation insurance. Houston is one of the few cities that have no zoning laws to create buffers between schools, homes and toxic chemical manufacturers. Texas doesn't have a state fire code and prohibits small counties from having local codes allowing fire marshals to inspect and prohibit the storage of highly flammable and explosive chemicals near homes and schools. According to the New York Times, some Texas counties even cite the lack of local fire codes as a reason for companies to move there.

Texas lawmakers have also recently sought to further weaken the state environmental agency that oversaw the West plant and reduced its budget by $305 million. Even after the explosion, Texas Governor Rick Perry claimed that more government oversight and more safeguards aren't needed.

The harsh reality is that none of the state or federal agencies has enough budget and staff to routinely inspect and enforce the laws on the books. For example, OSHA's tiny staff of around 2,400 inspectors is spread so thin that it would take more than 90 years to conduct even cursory inspections of all eligible workplaces in Texas.

We can't depend on government agencies to police every company and workplace to guarantee our safety and health. We have to expect businesses -- big and small alike -- to obey the law and take every precaution, whether required by government or not, to prevent the kind of needless death and destruction that happened in West, Tex. That is both their legal and moral responsibility, the social contract they agree to in order to stay in business and make a profit.

If they put profit before people, and allow greed or indifference to put lives at risk, they should be punished, even if an OSHA, EPA, or FDA inspector hadn't visited their operation for the past six months, year, or five years.

Corporate criminals rarely get caught. But even when they do, they rarely suffer sufficient consequences to deter them or their counterparts from routinely flouting health and safety laws. And even when they are found guilty, the fines are rarely big enough to make them change their ways.

Last year, for example, a serious violation of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act drew an average penalty of $2,156. State-level OSHA agencies imposed an average $974 penalty for a serious violation. The median penalty in fatality cases investigated by federal OSHA was a meager $6,625. Corporations view these as just a cost of doing business, not a real deterrent.

Corporate lobbies routinely block laws that would impose stiffer penalties -- and would thusly serve as real incentive for businesses to change their behavior rather than cut corners, flout the law, and put human lives at risk.

America's criminal justice system operates on a double standard -- one for the rich and one for everyone else. According to federal law, someone caught using illegal food stamps goes to jail for one year. Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the architects of the bipartisan immigration bill, recently told reporters that employers who hire an undocumented worker will "get fined heavily, lose your business or may go to jail." It's hard to imagine Graham making the same argument about employers that flout workplace safety laws or the Clean Air Act.

By using their political clout to oppose and weaken health and safety laws, by violating laws because they don't think they'll get caught, and by viewing the small fines and sanctions they will face as simply a cost of doing business, America's corporate executives do more harm to society -- more deaths, more injuries, more chronic health problems -- than all the lunatics, sociopaths, and spouse abusers who kill and injure people by pulling the triggers of their guns.

Perhaps if corporate executives saw a significant number of their counterparts on the nightly news being handcuffed and sent to jail for violating laws meant to protect workers, consumers, and the environment, they would be more likely to make sure that their companies met the health and safety standards embodies in our laws.

Surely Donald Adair did not want to see his friends and neighbors in West suffer death and injury from explosion in his fertilizer plant. But he is culpable nonetheless for flouting the laws and shirking responsibilities that would make such explosions less likely. The explosion -- and thus the deaths and injuries -- was preventable. Perhaps people in West, Texas give Adair a pass because he's a local man who runs a small family-owned business. Does that make him any less of a killer?

_______________________________________________________
Source: The Blog (Dreier, 6/4)

First-time DWI arrests increase Memorial Day weekend

Arrests for first-time DWI offenders were up more than 41 percent during this year’s Memorial Day weekend, according to Midland County Sheriff’s Office arrest records.

There were 18 DWI arrests between Friday and Monday — the same number of arrests in 2012 during the holiday’s four-day weekend time frame, according to the records.

Of this year’s arrests, 17 were first-time offenders, five more than last year. Fifteen DWIs were Class B misdemeanors, an 87.50 percent increase. There weren’t any second- or third-time offenders this Memorial Day weekend.

Public intoxication arrests also were up by 20 percent with 24 charges, four more than the holiday weekend in 2012.

This past weekend also saw one arrest for intoxicated manslaughter when a San Angelo man struck a motorcyclist Saturday night and fled the scene on foot, according to previous Reporter-Telegram articles.

Midland County Sheriff Gary Painter said he attributes the increase in arrests of first-time offenders to a greater law enforcement presence on the roadways.

He said that during this year’s Crude Fest, the Sheriff’s Office made more arrests related to alcohol, which prompted increased enforcement during the Memorial Day weekend, when many people were expected to be consuming alcohol.

The Midland Police Department has made 240 DWI arrests through May 20 of this year, according to Sara Higgins, the city’s public information officer. She said it’s not surprising to see an increase in DWI arrests with the city’s rapidly growing population.

The law enforcement increase comes in the wake of a “drastic” rise in alcohol-related accidents, Painter said.

In the past three fatal crashes in Midland County, the drivers all were under the influence of alcohol, according to Reporter-Telegram records. With the National Transportation Safety Board’s recent recommendation to lower the legal blood alcohol content limit from 0.08 to 0.05, Painter said the legal limit should be even lower.

“I want to see the legal limit lowered to 0.02,” he said.

Painter said people should not be drinking and driving, regardless of how much alcohol they have consumed. He said with less restrictive alcohol laws, people frequently will take advantage of the law.

“If you give them a foot, they’re going to take a mile,” he said.

Painter said the best and safest place to consume alcohol is at home or a place where a person can stay and not get back on the roadways. Memorial Day Weekend 2013 Statistics

First-time offenders: 17 (41.67 percent more than 2012)

Open container of alcohol: 1 (one more than 2012)

Public intoxication: 24 (four more than 2012)

DWI: 15 (87.50 percent more than 2012)

2nd DWI : 0 (three fewer than 2012)

3rd DWI: 0 (three fewer than 2012)

DWI open alcohol container: 2 (one more than 2012)

2nd DWI open alcohol container: 0 (one fewer than 2012)

DWI with child under 15 years of age: 0 (one fewer than 2012)

Minor in possession of alcohol: 0 (two fewer than 2012)

Intoxicated manslaughter: 1 (one more than 2012)

DWI with a BAC >= 0.15: 0 (one fewer than 2012)

_______________________________________________
Source: My west Texas (White, 5/28)

Food Recalls Driven by Companies Issuing Multiple Recalls in the First Quarter of 2013

According to the ExpertRECALL Index released today, nearly three out of four food recalls in the first quarter of this year were issued by companies facing two or more recalls during the 90-day period, a situation that is taxing the resources of food companies to successfully navigate the logistical challenges and regulatory complexities of recalls.

The Index found that 73.4 percent of food recalls documented by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) involved companies with two or more recalls. A total of 133 food companies instituted recalls during this period, affecting 9.7 million units of products such as bread and flour products, bagged fruits and vegetables, and frozen entrees. Many times, the multiple recalls occur because of an issue with an ingredient that is used in more than one product.

"It is not unusual for companies to face more than one recall at a time, driven largely by the fact that ingredients are used in more than one product," said Mike Rozembajgier, Vice President of Stericycle ExpertRECALL. "However, the ongoing trend of multiple product recalls can complicate the logistics of a recall, making it harder for companies to communicate to consumers and maintain trust in their brand."

For the first time since its inception, the Index includes data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which involve recalls of meat, poultry and egg products. An analysis of data from the first quarter found that extraneous material was the single largest cause of USDA-requested recalls this quarter, accounting for more than one in four recalls (28 percent). Of these recalls, more than half were the result of traces of plastic found in products.

Undeclared allergens were the second most frequent cause of recalls reported by the USDA, with a total of five product recalls this quarter. Following the Center for Disease Control's recent report on the heightened levels of food allergies in children, this is a poignant reminder to food companies just how important managing food ingredients and food labeling is. It also points to the need for a clear and well-rehearsed recall plan for when issues arise.

Multiple recalls was also a trend echoed in the medical device industry, as close to 40 percent of companies named in FDA Enforcement reports faced two or more recalls in the second quarter.  This demonstrates the need for device companies to implement stringent quality control throughout the supply chain, including supplier components.

Consumer product recalls decreased overall from the previous quarter, but the number of affected units increased dramatically from 3 million units to more than 6 million units. This was driven primarily by one product recall that affected 2.3 million units, nearly half of the total units recalled this quarter. In particular, sports and recreational equipment product recalls reached the highest level of activity in 11 quarters with 26 recalls issued.

The pharmaceutical industry experienced 107 drug and pharmaceutical recalls in the first quarter, an increase of 32 percent from the previous quarter. Compounding pharmacies continue to show frequent recall activity, with one pharmacy issuing 13 individual events alone.

____________________
source: Fierce Pharma Manufacturing

Texas senator says 0.05 blood alcohol limit ‘not realistic’

Don’t expect Texas’ legal blood alcohol limit for drunken driving to fall to 0.05, at least not while state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, is still running the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.

“It’s just not realistic, if you’re going to drink at all,” said Whitmire, who was chairing that same committee in 1999 when Texas joined a nationwide movement and lowered the limit from 0.1 to the current 0.08. A woman weighing 120 pounds or less can reach a 0.05 blood alcohol limit with just one drink, studies show.

Meanwhile, the Texas office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving said a 0.05 limit would save lives in the long run.

The National Transportation Safety Board staff recommended the lower threshold as one of several recommendations aimed at reducing drunken driving.

Angela Tidwell, law enforcement program specialist for the Texas office of MADD, said the recommendation isn’t aimed at stripping people of their right to drink.

“We’re not trying to be prohibitionists,” she said. “We just want everyone to get home safe.”

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said in a statement Tuesday the idea was worth exploring, but he stopped short of endorsing it.

“APD is aware that this issue is being discussed at the national level,” Acevedo said. “It is a standard that has been adopted in other Western nations and an issue worthy of robust exploration and debate.”

Whitmire said that those campaigning in 1999 for the 0.08 blood alcohol content threshold said that would be as low a limit as they would seek. The lobbyist for MADD, Whitmire said, told him “you’re not going to see us again on this.”

What needs to happen, he said, is more education about the dangers of driving while intoxicated, and encouragement for people to use a designated driver. Whitmire said, only half-jokingly, that setting the limit at 0.05 would have the effect of criminalizing mouthwash.


_______________________________________
Source: Austin American-Stateman (Chang, 5/14)

Round Rock increases use of flashing yellow arrow lights

Motorists in Round Rock are undergoing a transition in how they manage left turns.

On Nov. 13, the city began converting the left-turn signals along some of its busiest corridors. The new systems, which add a flashing yellow arrow to the existing green, yellow and red arrow signals already in place, were first installed along University Boulevard and have since expanded to Gattis School Road.

The changes, which were done in compliance with new federal and state standards for left-turn signals, are designed to eliminate confusion as to the meaning of left-turn signals, according to the Texas Department of Transportation. Round Rock transportation officials, however, admit the new system will take some time and experience for motorists to adjust to.

“There is no question there is a bit of a learning curve,” Round Rock Transportation Director Gary Hudder said. “But I have seen over the last weeks an improved understanding. At this point I would say I’m a believer.”

The flashing yellow arrows act as a replacement left-turn signal to the green circle light, which according to TxDOT was commonly confused to mean a protected left turn. When drivers are given a flashing yellow arrow signal, it indicates that left turns are allowed, but that motorists should yield to oncoming traffic and pedestrians in walkways. The remaining light signals act as they did prior to the change. A steady green arrow indicates a protected turn, a steady red arrow indicates stopping and a steady yellow arrow means drivers should prepare to stop.

“The No. 1 benefit is improved safety,” TxDOT spokeswoman Kelli Reyna said. “People already have it ingrained in their mind that yellow means slow down or stop, so it is helping them to be more cautious.”

Hudder said one benefit of the new system is improved traffic flow. The new system allows traffic systems to display the flashing yellow lights when in the past the lights would have remained red. The result is an increase in the amount of cars turning left during the average light cycle.

“We have seen up to a 30 percent improvement in left-turn through traffic,” Hudder said.

According to evidence collected by another Texas city that has been running the flashing yellow arrow system, the greatest benefit may be to traffic flow, not drivers’ safety.

The City of Waco began installing the flashing yellow arrow systems in June 2010, soon after the new federal mandates were released. The city is currently studying the effect of the light systems and has noticed an increase in accidents at several of the intersections since the change, said Colin Taylor, a City of Waco traffic analyst.

“Whenever you change a signal system, it is something that people take some time to get used to,” Taylor said.

The City of Waco’s Transportation Department released a study one year after the installation of its first flashing yellow arrow signals that found a slight increase in the number of accidents but a decrease in travel time along some corridors.

“While the safety for some approaches ... [has] not improved due to the allowance of permissive left-turns ... the amount of delays, stops and consumption of fuel has been greatly reduced due to this implementation,” the report stated.

The new systems are only required in newly constructed intersections. Round Rock’s Transportation Department, however, decided to integrate the system onto some of its busiest roads to coincide with the retiming of its light signals. Hudder said the city already has plans to add the flashing yellow lights to intersections along Old Settlers Boulevard and is also planning to include signals along Hwy. 79 and RM 620 in the near future.

Hudder said the conversion to the new system will cost the city an average of $1,500–$2,000 per intersection, paid from the city’s existing traffic signal budget.

“This is a pretty intricate process,” Hudder said about the light conversions. “It does require different [signal] hardware and sometimes computer software as well.”

_________________________________________
Source: Impact Newspaper (Eichmiller, 5/2)

Court Finds Breath Mints Are Evidence Of DUI

Use of breath mints can be considered evidence a driver is intoxicated, according to a divided Texas Court of Appeals ruling delivered earlier this month. The three-judge panel made the decision in the case of limousine service driver Robert Richardson who was stopped in Lewisville, Texas on August 25, 2010 while transporting customers from the airport.

Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Fulford was about to issue a speeding ticket to a motorcycle on Interstate 35E when he noticed Richardson's Chevy Tahoe change lanes without signaling, almost hitting the motorcycle. Trooper Fulford was concerned primarily about the bad driving, but in the back of his mind he thought it could also be a case of driving under the influence (DUI). Once stopped, there was a mild odor of alcohol in the Tahoe, the passengers denied drinking, and Richardson was nervous. Trooper Fulford told Richardson he would write him a warning for his failure to signal before changing lanes. When he returned from his squad car with a warning notice in hand, Trooper Fulford said he noted an "overwhelming" odor of breath mints.

"Did you just take a breath mint?" Trooper Fulford asked.

When Richardson said yes, he was ordered out of the Tahoe. From there, he was arrested and convicted of DUI. Richardson appealed, arguing the traffic stop was complete after the trooper handed him back his driver's license with a warning, and that anything that happened beyond that point amounted to an illegal detention. The Texas judges acknowledged the principle that once a traffic stop concludes, it should not be used as a fishing expedition for unrelated criminal activity. The court had to decide whether the use of breath mints constituted a specific articulable fact suggesting another crime had been committed beyond the bad lane change.

The appellate judges agreed with the trial court that all of the clues Trooper Fulford picked up on prior to smelling the breath mints combined to provide the suspicion needed to make the search reasonable and consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

"These facts, which Trooper Fulford identified during his testimony at the suppression hearing, were sufficient to provide him with reasonable suspicion that Richardson had been driving while intoxicated," Justice Anne Gardner ruled for the court. "We overrule Richardson's sole point. Having overruled Richardson's sole point, we affirm the trial court's judgment."

______________________________________
Source: The News Paper (AP, 4/18)

To text or not to text

A proposed statewide law banning texting while driving may make Texas roads safer — but the question is if it’s enforceable.

The bill that would make cellphone texting while driving illegal passed its final reading in the Texas House on Thursday, April 18, by a vote of 97-45. The Senate will review the bill next, and if it is successful there, it will go to Gov. Rick Perry.

The governor vetoed a similar bill in 2011.

The current bill, HB 63, was sponsored by Rep. Tom Craddick, R-Midland. It is referred to as the Alex Brown Memorial Act in honor of West Texas teen Alex Brown, who was texting when she died in a vehicle accident in 2009.

If the bill becomes law, a driver caught texting would face a $100 fine for a first offense and a $200 fine for a second offense.

Lubbock County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Lt. Bryan Taylor said he isn’t familiar with the bill’s language but personally supports any legislation that gets drivers off their phones.

“I think it’s gonna save lives,” Taylor said. “The whole concept is beneficial.”

As written, the bill would still allow people to look up phone numbers and talk on their cellphones. This aspect of the bill might cause problems for lawmen trying to enforce it.

An email sent to Craddick’s office asking why he didn’t include all cellphone use in the bill wasn’t immediately answered.

Lubbock Police Department Sgt. Jason Lewis said he hadn’t read the bill, but if people are still allowed to use their phones for some functions it could make enforcing the law a challenge.

Trying to determine just what a driver is doing on the phone could be difficult, but Lewis has an example to illustrate where it wouldn’t be. He said if an officer sees a driver sitting through a green light while using a phone, it’s pretty obvious what the driver is doing.

Taylor agreed with Lewis that the proposed law may pose enforceability issues for officers if suspected texters refuse to allow police to look at their phones to obtain definitive proof they were texting while driving.

Currently, Lubbock has a city ordinance that prohibits the use of electronic devices in active school zones. Some Texas cities have already enacted ordinances that are stricter than Lubbock’s ordinance or the proposed bill.

Amarillo enacted an ordinance last year that made cellphone use illegal while driving.

Amarillo Police Department spokesman Cpl. Jerry Neufeld said APD officers have written 25 tickets to violators of the ordinance since February.

If the bill becomes law, Amarillo’s ordinance will be voided because municipalities can’t make ordinances that are more strict than state laws.

Neufeld said his department isn’t worried about whether or not the bill is signed into law, and APD generally doesn’t comment on pending legislation.

“We’ll just follow the rules that are given to us,” he said.

The Texas Department of Public Safety isn’t commenting on the pending legislation either, according to Sgt. Bryan Witt. He deferred comment on the matter to Tom Vinger, the department’s spokesman in Austin.

DPS does not take positions on any proposed legislation, Vinger said in an email. Further, in certain cases, a department employee may provide testimony or serve as a resource witness during a committee hearing as requested by a member of the Texas Legislature.

He was unsure if any member of DPS had testified before the House on this matter.

___________________________________
source: Lubbockonline (Loesch, 4/20)