Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disability Registry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers removing disability registries from emergency bill, seeks alternatives
Summary
Legislative counsel warned that striking a ban on disability registries from draft 2.3 of the omnibus emergency management bill would eliminate an existing practice without replacing it; lawmakers debated referencing the voluntary CARE program and expanding outreach rather than banning registries outright.
The Government Operations & Military Affairs committee revisited draft 2.3 of an omnibus emergency management bill and spent substantial time debating a provision that would prohibit certain disability registries, a move legislative counsel warned could leave some residents without planned evacuation assistance.
"Afternoon — Tucker Anderson, Legislative Council, here to bring legal perspective and analysis," Anderson said as he opened the panel’s legal review and flagged a key concern: the bill removes the registries while the state-level high-rise evacuation rules that might have replaced them were not included in the current draft.
That omission, Anderson said, risks removing an operational tool used now to identify people who need assistance during evacuations. A committee member noted the E911 board’s CARE program functions as a voluntary registry and currently includes roughly 400 people who have self-registered; committee discussion centered on whether the CARE program should be referenced in the bill or given time and resources for expanded outreach instead of being barred.
Lawmakers debated practical alternatives. Several members said they did not want to force individuals to enroll in a registry but also did not want to cut off existing information first responders use. Counsel told the committee that if section 8 (the prohibition) were removed, the CARE program could continue to operate; members discussed adding language allowing emergency managers and first responders to consult such voluntary registries rather than creating a statewide mandatory registry or leaving no replacement.
Operational concerns surfaced about who would be responsible for maintaining accuracy: counsel noted requiring local EMS or volunteer fire departments to check a registry regularly would be difficult because people move, and voluntary outreach may be the more feasible near-term strategy.
No formal amendment or vote was taken during the session; members asked counsel to draft options for the committee — including (1) removing the prohibition and adding a permissive reference to the CARE voluntary registry, (2) developing replacement evacuation-rule language, or (3) pursuing additional outreach to expand the CARE program — for consideration at a subsequent meeting.
The committee also flagged a drafting detail for staff review (the transcript references "section 8, page 13" as the prohibition clause) and agreed to continue work with Legislative Council at the next sitting.
