Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Time Policy Standard Time topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witness urges committee not to advance SCR 6, cites health and safety risks of year‑round daylight time
Summary
A Safe Standard Time board member opposed Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 in a second hearing, urging the Government Oversight and Reform Committee to keep year‑round standard time as the preferred option, citing circadian research and urging committee members to review studies.
Michael Gerahan, a board member of Safe Standard Time, offered opponent testimony at the second hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 and asked the committee not to advance the resolution.
Gerahan told the committee that moving the clock ahead year round "is not like traveling where the sun at our destination helps us reset. It's more like bringing the other time zone here, and the sun keeps doing what it was doing." He said morning light is the most important signal for circadian rhythm, that losing morning light "tends to degrade sleep and increase the risk of certain chronic health conditions such as cancers, diabetes, even fatal accidents," and that scientific and medical organizations including the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the American Medical Association recommend year‑round standard time.
Gerahan described historical experience with expanded daylight time in the 1970s following an oil embargo and said that public opinion turned against winter daylight time because of dark winter mornings that raised safety concerns for schoolchildren and for transit and road safety. He noted that states bordering Ohio have considered year‑round standard time bills and cited a Gallup poll, reported in his testimony, showing 48% public support for year‑round standard time, 24% for year‑round daylight time and 19% for the status quo.
Vice Chair Brenner asked Gerahan to provide the committee with the studies he referenced; Gerahan said he would email the committee clerk. The committee concluded the second hearing on SCR 6 with no vote taken.
Gerahan asked members "to not advance SCR 6" and to "keep a fair share of light in the morning," framing his testimony around public health, school safety and the state's ability to respond to federal action such as the Sunshine Protection Act. No committee action or vote was recorded at the conclusion of the hearing.
