Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances distracted‑driving ordinance after public objections to police exemption; vote 3‑2
Summary
After public comment and council debate over wording and a potential state law overlap, Libby’s council voted 3‑2 to move forward with Ordinance 20‑53 (focused on texting while driving) with edits limiting prohibited conduct and leaving state preemption to future action.
The Libby City Council voted 3‑2 to advance Ordinance 20‑53 addressing distracted driving after public comment and a contentious exchange over exemptions and draft language.
The ordinance, as discussed by the ordinance committee, focuses on banning specified distracted behaviors while driving, with council members proposing edits to narrow the language to texting while driving. "I just wanna say that this is at least the third time they've tried to do distracted driving… but this is specifically, like, texting and driving this time," one council member said during committee review.
During the public comment period, resident Caroline Buckner urged the council to remove an exemption that would apply to police officers. "It should not apply to the police," Buckner said, describing an incident she said involved a law enforcement vehicle traveling while the officer was looking down at a phone.
Another public commenter (D C Orr) questioned the council's process and raised concerns about ordinance committee minutes and transparency; the mayor ruled parts of that comment out of order when it strayed from the ordinance topic.
Council members debated whether to delay enactment until the state legislature acts — members noted a similar bill had its third reading at the state level that same day — and whether the city should include language to rescind or allow the state to supersede a municipal ordinance. One councilor proposed striking subsection d on page 2 and moving a definition subsection for clarity; another proposed leaving any rescission to a later council action if the legislature passes a statewide law.
After discussion, motions were made to approve Ordinance 20‑53 with the suggested edits; the council voted 3 in favor and 2 opposed to move the ordinance forward.
Why it matters: The ordinance would criminalize or restrict certain distracted driving behaviors in city limits; if later adopted, it could create local enforcement obligations and overlap with future state law. Residents and at least one public commenter urged that exemptions not protect police officers.
Next steps: The council advanced the measure for the next phase of consideration; the record shows the council expects to revisit language depending on final state action and committee recommendations.
