Committee co-chair Sen. Julian Bradley noted that many of the issues discussed will need continued discussion from lawmakers and members of the public in the future as AI continues to develop and become a bigger part of Wisconsinites’ lives. (Screenshot via WisEye)

A Wisconsin study committee met Thursday to discuss regulation of artificial intelligence as well as investments in AI that it will recommend to the state Legislature. 

The committee includes four lawmakers — Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), Rep. David Armstrong (R-Rice Lake), Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee) and Rep. Clinton Anderson (D-Beloit) — as well as eight members of the public. Members have been meeting monthly since July to hear from an array of stakeholders about the ways that AI is currently being used in the state, issues that have or could arise from the technology and ways to address those and how the state could capitalize on potential benefits.

The study committee is the latest effort as Wisconsin government and business leaders attempt to confront increased use of and ongoing advancements of AI technology. Gov. Tony Evers and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos both organized task forces in the last year to address the issue.

Bradley, the committee’s co-chair, noted at the end of the meeting that many of the issues will need continued discussion from lawmakers and members of the public as AI develops and becomes a bigger part of Wisconsinites’ lives. The committee is considering recommending an ongoing and more permanent body that will continue looking into AI after members end their work this year.

“I believe that a lot of these start with an ongoing committee. There’s a lot of things that say we need to continue to explore … because the technology is changing,” Bradley said. “Things are changing constantly, so we want to be able to have public members with the Legislature come together and say, ‘Hey, maybe not yet,’ or ‘OK, it’s time now.’ ” 

A final report with recommendations for lawmakers will be put together in coming weeks. 

Potential regulations and state uses 

The committee considered a number of proposals during the meeting for regulating the use of artificial intelligence, protecting consumers and exploring how state government will interact with the existence of AI. 

One of the first proposed concepts was to apply existing state laws to AI models in the same way the laws apply to humans, including when it comes to disinformation, impersonation and creating and distributing fake imagery.

“Anything that’s illegal for a human, should be illegal for AI — as a general principle,” CEO of the MKE Tech Hub Coalition Kathy Henrich said during the meeting. 

Wisconsin has already enacted two laws that regulate the use the AI: 2023 Wisconsin Act 123, which requires disclosure of the use of generative AI in political ads, and 2023 Wisconsin Act 224, which made it a crime to possess virtual child pornography and obscene material, including that created with generative AI.

Henrich acknowledged that this could be a complicated issue because any law would need to be able to determine a liable party. 

“Is it the developer? The deployer? The consumer?” Henrich said. “The devil will be in the details of making sure we’ve really thought through how you hold people accountable and where that accountability lies.” 

Sarah Alt, the chief process and AI officer for Michael Best, said the question of accountability for new technology is not a new dilemma, but it is complex because of how quickly AI has developed. 

Aly also proposed that the Legislature enact a couple of laws related to data privacy. 

Wisconsin considered a bill, 2023 Assembly Bill 466, that would have established certain requirements for “controllers and processors” of consumers’ personal data, including confirming what information they have, obtaining that data and requesting the deletion of data. It also included financial penalties of a forfeiture of up to $7,500 per violation. Three states, including Colorado, Connecticut and Utah, enacted similar data privacy laws in 2023.

Alt said that data is a “crucial raw material for artificial intelligence.” 

“If we’re not going to be able to legislate every possible use case … I do believe data is certainly one of the places where we would declare that to be no different than other raw materials that are regulated,” Alt said. She compared data to asbestos, saying, “there are safe ways that you can use asbestos and there are also very harmful ways that you can use asbestos.”

Jay Hill, Vice President of Advanced Technology for GE Healthcare, agreed that this type of regulation could help keep people accountable for how data is used.

“If it’s free, then people could do all sorts of crazy and exploitative things, but if there’s some cost to it, I think it elevates the level of responsibility for people who will use those data,” Hill said. 

Alt also said that lawmakers should look at resurrecting a bill similar to 2023 Wisconsin AB 824, which would have defined various roles and laid out a set of responsibilities for people or groups that own, control and share personal data. 

Members also discussed three other issues that lawmakers could explore including requiring the labeling of communications that use AI, possible bias embedded in the algorithms of large language models and requiring companies to publish clear AI guidelines and principles.

Anderson said that he thought that requiring disclaimers of AI when communicating with the public would be best practice. 

“I think I’m pretty good at discerning when AI is being used or not, but I think of my dad, who’s definitely not capable of determining what’s AI and what’s not. … So, just making sure we’re protecting the public, so they’re aware,” Anderson said. 

Henrich cautioned that legislation such as that could potentially set a bad precedent by discouraging people from using their own discernment skills to determine whether AI was used. 

“If you legislate that you mark things as AI, people will get trained to believe that anything that’s marked as AI is AI, and anything that isn’t is human,” Henrich said. “If I’m a bad actor, I’m more likely to not mark it and therefore I’m more likely to fall for bad actors who may be using AI in the wrong ways.” 

Henrich said that lawmakers would also need to think about how that kind of legislation would be enforced.

Potential Investments in AI

The committee also considered potential areas where the state could invest to help support universities, technical colleges, businesses and other stakeholders in the ongoing education, innovation and integration related to AI.

One suggestion the committee could make is to expand Fast Forward, a program administered by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development that provides grants to employers to provide training to workers, and specifically dedicating funding to learning how to work with AI and requiring courses on computer science and statistics for students. 

Henrich said an investment in teaching people skills related to AI could be essential as the technology may affect the job market and could come through the Fast Forward program and through technical colleges and universities. 

“I’ve seen market dynamics in play, and as much as people want to say everyone will be employable long-term with AI, I am a firm believer that there’s disruption in the middle, that as AI is implemented normal market dynamics will go to saving costs and may result in people losing roles as a result of that,” Henrich said. “Investing up front and people understanding AI so that they maintain employable skill is going to be very critical.”

Henrich noted that there might need to be changes to the Fast Forward legislation to make it applicable to AI. 

Two potential suggestions the committee discussed involve incentives for businesses, including tax breaks and a grant or revolving loan program. 

Armstrong suggested that lawmakers could explore creating a program that would give small manufacturers an incentive to adopt automation and AI through a revolving loan fund or a small grant. He said he did a survey of small manufacturers in his part of the state and found that many aren’t really exploring the use of AI currently. 

“Only 4% of them were even looking at AI right now,” Armstrong said. “A lot of them, when I started talking to them [said] we don’t even know where to start at this point. … They’re looking for somebody within a company to develop a curiosity about, what could AI do for us, and then I think you’d probably have a champion within that company that can run with it. This is more of a way to maybe jump-start that.”

Alt said she liked the concept of a revolving loan because of how quickly technology moves and the fact that a company would have to keep working on improvements. 

“If your grant is one and done, then even if you do get what you needed that first time that you implemented it, there is still the constant tuning and the constant investing and the constant improving, and because the technology moves so quickly your idea is already old within months, if not a couple of years,” Alt said. 

The full list of potential recommendations to lawmakers can be found here. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building pictured on Nov. 25, 2024. (Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump’s pledge to get rid of the U.S. Department of Education will be far easier said than done.

As Trump seeks to redefine U.S. education policy, the complex logistics, bipartisan congressional approval and redirection of federal programs required make dismantling the department a challenging — not impossible — feat.

It’s an effort that experts say is unlikely to gain traction in Congress and, if enacted, would create roadblocks for how Trump seeks to implement the rest of his wide-ranging education agenda.

“I struggle to wrap my mind around how you get such a bill through Congress that sort of defunds the agency or eliminates the agency,” Derek Black, an education law and policy expert and law professor at the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law, told States Newsroom.

“What you can see more easily is that maybe you give the agency less money, maybe you shrink its footprint, maybe we’ve got an (Office for Civil Rights) that still enforces all these laws, but instead of however many employees they have now, they have fewer employees,” Black, who directs the school’s Constitutional Law Center, added.

What does the department do?

Education is decentralized in the United States, and the federal Education Department has no say in the curriculum of public schools. Much of the funding and oversight of schools occurs at the state and local levels.

Still, the department has leverage through funding a variety of programs, such as for low-income school districts and special education, as well as administering federal student aid.

Axing the department would require those programs be unwound or assigned to other federal agencies to administer, according to Rachel Perera, a fellow in Governance Studies in the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution.

Perera, who studies inequality in K-12 education, expressed concern over whether other departments would get additional resources and staffing to take on significantly more portfolios of work if current Education Department programs were transferred to them.

Sen. Mike Rounds introduced a bill last week that seeks to abolish the department and transfer existing programs to other federal agencies.

In a statement, the South Dakota Republican said “the federal Department of Education has never educated a single student, and it’s long past time to end this bureaucratic Department that causes more harm than good.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 proposed a detailed plan on how the department could be dismantled through the reorganization of existing programs to other agencies and the elimination of the programs the project deems “ineffective or duplicative.”

Though Trump has repeatedly disavowed the conservative blueprint, some former members of his administration helped write it.

The agenda also calls for restoring state and local control over education funding, and notes that “as Washington begins to downsize its intervention in education, existing funding should be sent to states as grants over which they have full control, enabling states to put federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law.”

Title I, one of the major funding programs the department administers, provides billions of dollars to school districts with high percentages of students who come from low-income families.

Black pointed to an entire “regulatory regime” that’s built around these funds.

“That regime can’t just disappear unless Title I money also disappears, which could happen, but if you think about Title I money — our rural states, our red states — depend on that money just as much, if not more, than the other states,” he said. “The idea that we would take that money away from those schools — I don’t think there’s any actual political appetite for that.”

‘Inherent logical inconsistencies’

Trump recently tapped Linda McMahon — a co-chair of his transition team, Small Business Administration head during his first term and former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO — as his nominee for Education secretary.

If confirmed, she will play a crucial role in carrying out his education plans, which include promoting universal school choice and parental rights, moving education “back to the states” and ending “wokeness” in education.

Trump is threatening to cut federal funding for schools that teach “critical race theory,” “gender ideology” or “other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children,” according to his plan.

On the flip side, he wants to boost funding for states and school districts that adhere to certain policy directives.

That list includes districts that: adopt a “Parental Bill of Rights that includes complete curriculum transparency, and a form of universal school choice;” get rid of “teacher tenure” for grades K-12 and adopt “merit pay;” have parents hold the direct elections of school principals; and drastically reduce the number of school administrators.

But basing funding decisions on district-level policy choices would require the kind of federal involvement in education that Trump is pushing against.

Perera described seeing “inherent logical inconsistencies” in Trump’s education plan.

While he is talking about dismantling the department and sending education “back to the states,” he’s “also talking about leveraging the powers of the department to punish school districts for ‘political indoctrination,’” she said.

“He can’t do that if you are unwinding the federal role in K-12 schools,” she said.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum on Friday was tapped by President-elect Donald Trump as both Interior secretary and head of a new National Energy Council. In this photo Burgum, center, and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., right, and Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., left, watch as Trump walks towards the courtroom for his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 14, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement Friday afternoon that his pick for Interior secretary, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, would also coordinate a new council on energy policy is a sign the incoming administration will make energy production a core part of its domestic policy.

Few details of the new National Energy Council were available Friday, as activists and lawmakers processed the surprise 4 p.m. Eastern announcement. But the move likely reflects a focus by Trump and his next administration on energy production, including fossil fuels.

“They’re signaling ahead of time that this is one of their priority areas,” Frank Maisano, a senior principal at the energy-focused law and lobbyist firm Bracewell LLP, said in an interview.

Burgum “will be joining my Administration as both Secretary of the Interior and, as Chairman of the newly formed, and very important, National Energy Council, which will consist of all Departments and Agencies involved in the permitting, production, generation, distribution, regulation, transportation, of ALL forms of American Energy,” a written statement from Trump said.

“This Council will oversee the path to U.S. ENERGY DOMINANCE by cutting red tape, enhancing private sector investments across all sectors of the Economy, and by focusing on INNOVATION over longstanding, but totally unnecessary, regulation.”

Trump said the council’s objective to increase U.S. energy supply would benefit the domestic economy and allies overseas and help power “A.I. superiority.”

“The National Energy Council will foster an unprecedented level of coordination among federal agencies to advance American energy,” Burgum said in a written statement. “By establishing U.S. energy dominance, we can jumpstart our economy, drive down costs for consumers and generate billions in revenue to help reduce our deficit.”

It was unclear what the role of the Department of Energy would be in such an arrangement. The current secretary in the Biden administration is Jennifer Granholm, a former governor of Michigan.

‘Drill, drill, drill’

Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump frequently pledged to expand oil and gas production. The issue was one of two he told Fox News host Sean Hannity he would seek to address as a “dictator” on the first day of his administration.

Trump told Hannity during an Iowa appearance in December that he would not be a dictator, “except for day one. I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.”

Comments like that foreshadowed something like a new council to oversee energy policy, said Lisa Frank, executive director of the advocacy group Environment America.

“President Trump has been very clear that one of his top priorities is to ‘drill, baby, drill,’” Frank said. “I’m not surprised. It was such an important part of his campaign, and it is the case that energy decisions are made by all sorts of different agencies in different ways, and that can be kind of a difficult thing to manage if you’re trying to drive an agenda.”

Under outgoing President Joe Biden, the administration promoted an “all-of-government approach” to climate change, with several departments and agencies across the federal bureaucracy tasked with addressing the issue. White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi was tasked with coordinating a consistent climate approach across the executive branch.

Burgum’s role could be similar, though the aim likely will be much different. 

“This is similar to what the previous administration did, but the previous administration focused on climate,” Maisano said. “It’s just energy instead of climate.”

Another key difference is that Burgum will also be tasked with running an entire, separate Cabinet-level department with a nearly $18 billion annual budget.

Balancing the priorities of the Interior Department — which includes public lands management, protecting endangered species, maintaining national parks and overseeing tribal relations — with an initiative to vastly expand fossil-fuel production could be difficult, Frank said.

“The really tough decisions about balancing those two agendas will lie, to some extent, with Secretary Burgum, if he’s confirmed,” she said. “Do we want more drilling at our national parks? Do we want it on our families’ ranches? Do we want it where you want your kids to hunt? Do we want fracking near the best trout streams? Those are going to be very difficult questions for both him and the American public.”

All of the above

Burgum is seen across the political spectrum as favoring an all-of-the-above approach to energy, meaning he wants to expand both fossil-fuel and sustainable-energy sources. Environmental groups see his record on climate as mixed.

His state ranks ninth in wind-energy production, Frank said, but also last in reducing carbon emissions over the last two decades.

“He’s familiar with all aspects of energy, because as governor of an all-of-the-above energy state, he has to be,” Maisano said.

Some Democrats and left-leaning groups voiced immediate opposition to the selection of Burgum. The U.S. House Natural Resources Committee Democrats sent a series of tweets Friday dubbing the governor “Big Oil Burgum” over ties to the oil and gas industry.

But others were more tempered in their reaction to Burgum’s selection as Interior chief than some of Trump’s other picks for Cabinet positions.

Patrick Donnelly, the Great Basin director for the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity, tweeted Thursday evening that it did not seem likely the Trump administration would roll back expansion of renewable energy.

Trump’s first term saw an expansion of clean-energy projects, Donnelly wrote. Burgum is “not a climate denier” who doesn’t have a record of stifling renewable energy, he added.

“Burgum sucks but he’s not a complete lunatic that I’m aware of,” Donnelly said in an earlier tweet. “Could have been worse.”

Ohio’s school districts are facing an uphill battle to meet state student transportation requirements amid a persistent school bus driver shortage, resulting in financial penalties and a high-profile lawsuit filed by the state attorney general. 

The lawsuit and related fines levied against school districts for noncompliance with state regulations detail how the struggles in providing timely and reliable bus services for both public and non-public school students.

The compliance issues are in the spotlight after Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed a lawsuit against Columbus City Schools in September, accusing the district of failing to fulfill its statutory transportation obligations. This lawsuit has added to the urgency for Ohio’s school districts, which are already contending with a shortage of qualified school bus drivers, to find solutions that will ensure the safety and punctuality of school transportation across the state.

Attorney General Yost’s lawsuit claims that Columbus City Schools failed to provide transportation for students attending charter and private schools, a legal requirement under Ohio law. According to the lawsuit, Columbus City Schools labeled the transportation of these students as “impractical” and did not notify parents until days before the school year began, which left families scrambling to find alternate transportation.

“As a parent and grandparent, I understand the importance of making sure every child has a safe way to get to and from school,” Yost said at the time. “These families have a right to choose what school is best for their child, and the law is clear that transportation is to be provided.”

The lawsuit seeks a writ of mandamus compelling Columbus City Schools to resume transportation services for affected students immediately and to properly notify parents of their rights. The Attorney General’s office also issued a cease-and-desist letter to the district on Sept. 3, suggesting that the district’s failure to comply is suspected of being a deliberate attempt to circumvent legal obligations.

Last month, Columbus City Schools extended transportation service to about 100 students who were previously denied service and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Yost in a statement said he is not convinced and remains undeterred.

“It remains to be seen whether the district will live up to its press release and really transport these children,” he said. “The state already has received some information suggesting that it is not. … Simply put, this case is far from over.”

Fines and Compliance Challenges Across Ohio

According to data from the Ohio Department of Education, Columbus City Schools is not the only district facing compliance challenges. The department has collected substantial fines from several districts over the past couple of years due to delays in meeting transportation standards, which the school districts claimed were the result of school bus driver shortages.

In fiscal year 2024 alone, over $7.3 million in penalties were imposed on Columbus City Schools for failing to meet timing and operational requirements under Ohio Revised Code 3327.021. Youngstown School District was fined $1.91 million, while the state will collect nearly $250,000 from Middleton City Schools. The total of $9.5 million was 472 percent more than the state collected for fiscal year 2023 ($1.66 million) and 70 percent more than for fiscal year 2022 ($5.6 million).

An Ohio Department of Education spokesperson confirmed that refunds received by Columbus City Schools, Dayton City Schools and Toledo Public Schools were were the result of litigation settlement agreements.

So far for fiscal year 2025, the data indicates a $2.2 million fine to Columbus City Schools.

Under Ohio law, school districts are considered “out of compliance” if students arrive at school more than 30 minutes late or are picked up more than 30 minutes after dismissal for five consecutive days or 10 total days within a school year. Additionally, if a school bus fails to arrive at all, the district may also face penalties. These regulations are intended to ensure the reliability of transportation for all students, including those attending charter and private schools.

Todd Silverthorn, the second vice president of the Ohio Association for Pupil Transportation and director of transportation for Kettering Local City Schools, provided additional context on the challenges facing Ohio school districts. He explained that the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce is conducting a timing study to assess district compliance with Ohio Administrative Code 3301-83-05. This study evaluates whether routes are practical and efficient based on the most direct path between public and non-public schools.

Silverthorn emphasized the complexities of the timing study, as fluctuating student enrollment and significant bus driver shortages complicate compliance efforts. He noted that while state regulations are meant to uphold standards, the severe staffing shortfall has left school districts like Columbus City scrambling to cover essential routes, often falling short of the required timing standards.

“While state lawmakers may argue that there is adequate funding for transportation, the core issue is not funding but staffing,” Silverthorn said. “Districts are facing increasing difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified bus drivers. This isn’t about budget limitations but about the challenges inherent in the role [of driving] itself.”

---

Related: Local School Bus Seatbelt Grant a Potential Template for Ohio Program
Related: Ohio School Bus Safety Recommendations Call for Technology Funding, No Seatbelt Mandate
Related: (STN Podcast E229) October Updates: Green Funding, Cellphone Bans & Special Needs Legalities

---

The Impact of Ohio’s Decreased School Bus Driver Staffing Level

The statewide bus driver shortage has intensified the transportation crisis. Before the pandemic, Ohio employed 25,706 active bus drivers. By August, that number had dropped to 18,817. This shortfall is affecting the 612 public school districts and over 1,000 chartered non-public schools statewide, many of which depend on reliable transportation services.

The role of an Ohio school bus driver requires a Class B commercial driver’s license, criminal background checks, drug and alcohol screenings, and the responsibility of managing student safety and behavior. The part-time hours and split shifts many school bus drivers receive combined with a high level of responsibility have deterred many potential applicants, creating a pipeline problem that exacerbates the staffing crisis.

As a result, school districts face challenges in meeting the compliance standards set forth by Ohio law, especially when drivers resign or retire. Schools have reported delays, cancellations and logistical obstacles that disrupt the school day and create stress for families.

In response to these challenges, school districts have implemented various strategies to optimize transportation resources. Some districts have consolidated school bus routes, modified school start times, and offered incentives such as signing bonuses and wage increases to attract and retain bus drivers. However, these adjustments are only temporary solutions to a deep-rooted problem.

“The reality is that we need a multi-faceted approach. This means not only increasing recruitment efforts but also rethinking the job to make it more appealing,” Silverthorn said.

If or until that happens, school districts like Columbus City Schools will continue to face pressure from state to provide transportation services on time and consistently.

“It shouldn’t take a lawsuit and an emergency motion to decide to follow the law. Columbus City Schools admitted the law was to transport the children. Glad these kids are finally getting the transportation they were entitled to,” Yost added last month. “But this is not the end. There are more kids who still are not receiving transportation despite the district’s clear obligation to provide it.”

The post Ohio School Districts Face Mounting Compliance, Staffing Challenges Amid Legal Battle appeared first on School Transportation News.

Michael Gableman in Dane County Circuit Court on Thursday, June 23 | Screenshot via Wisconsin Eye

The Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint against former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman on Tuesday. In 10 counts, the complaint alleges Gableman violated numerous provisions of the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys during and after his much-maligned investigation of the 2020 election. 

Among the allegations, Gableman is accused of failing to “provide competent representation” and to “abstain from all offensive personality” and of violating attorney-client privilege. 

The OLR investigation into Gableman was initiated after a grievance was filed by voting rights focused firm Law Forward. In a statement, Law Forward president Jeff Mandell said the organization would continue to hold people accountable for undermining faith in the state’s election system. 

“Gableman misused taxpayer funds, promoted baseless conspiracy theories, and engaged in improper intimidation tactics; his efforts undermined the integrity of our electoral system,” Mandell said. “Law Forward is committed to ensuring accountability for those who undermine the public’s trust in our elections, and we will continue to pursue legal action to hold others who impugn elections responsible for their actions, ensuring that they face consequences for any misconduct that threatens the freedom to vote. Our work is far from finished, and we are dedicated to securing a future where elections remain fair, transparent, and free from interference.” 

The first two counts against Gableman involve statements and actions he took after filing subpoenas against the mayors and city clerks of the cities of Green Bay and Madison. The complaint alleges that Gableman mischaracterized discussions he had with the lawyers for both cities, communicated with Green Bay’s city attorney when the city had obtained outside counsel in the matter, lied to Green Bay city officials about the work of his investigation and mischaracterized those actions when he filed a petition with a Waukesha County Circuit Court attempting to have the mayors of both cities arrested for not complying with his subpoenas. 

The third count alleges that Gableman made false statements in his testimony to the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections when he accused officials at the Wisconsin Elections Commission, as well as the mayors of Green Bay and Madison, of “hiring high-priced lawyers” to conduct an “organized cover-up.”

Gableman – Complaint

“Gableman did not characterize his assertions as opinions,” the complaint states. “He presented them as objective, proven facts. His assertions were public accusations of improper, possibly unlawful activity by Mayors Rhodes-Conway and Genrich. Gableman had no tangible, verifiable, objective, persuasive evidence to support his assertions. Gableman’s accusations caused serious reputational damage to the public officials involved. He publicly sought to jail the mayors of Madison and Green Bay, despite all they and their attorneys had done to comply with Gableman’s subpoenas.” 

The fourth through seventh counts against Gableman involve actions and statements he made during open records litigation involving his investigation by the public interest organization American Oversight. 

Those counts allege that Gableman’s statements while on the witness stand, in open court during a recess and to the news media after a hearing about his investigation’s failure to provide records constituted demeaning statements about a judge and opposing counsel and displayed a “lack of competence” in following the state’s open records and records retention laws by destroying records and failing to comply with American Oversight’s records requests. 

Count eight alleges that Gableman used his contract with the Wisconsin Assembly and Speaker Robin Vos to pursue his own interests, including by stating multiple times he had to “pressure” Vos into continuing the investigation that dragged on for months after it was supposed to end. 

The complaint states that Gableman was paid a total of $117,395.95 during the investigation and the Assembly paid $2,344,808.94 for the investigation, including $1,816,932.26 for hiring outside counsel in multiple instances of  litigation initiated during the review. 

“Before signing the contract, Gableman did not tell Vos that he did not agree with the objectives Vos had outlined, the time frame for submitting the final report, or the compensation to be paid to him,” the complaint states. “Gableman also did not tell Vos that he intended to enlist public support to pressure Vos to change the objectives of the investigation, increase the budget, or expand the time frame.” 

The ninth count in the complaint alleges that by supporting a failed effort to recall Vos, and making various public statements at rallies and in the media about his discussions with Vos and Vos’ staff, Gableman violated his duty of confidentiality with his client, the Assembly. 

The final count alleges that Gableman lied in an affidavit to the OLR submitted during its investigation into his conduct. Gableman stated in the affidavit that at no time during his investigation was he “engaged in the practice of law.” However the complaint includes excerpts from a number of the agreements he signed with the Assembly that served as contracts for “legal services,” lists the instances during the investigation in which he gave legal advice to the Assembly and the times he made court filings as an attorney during the investigation. 

The complaint states that he made “multiple demonstrably false statements” in the affidavit in which he was attempting to show he had not violated the state code of conduct, itself a violation of the code. 

OLR complaints are heard by the state Supreme Court. The office said it doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

This chronology of major events related to the development and use of occupant securement systems in motor vehicles, including school buses, may provide some perspective and details to anyone who is unfamiliar with this topic.

Information presented here is based on research by the National Transportation Safety Board, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the European Commission and other sources, as well as School Transportation News reporting. The following chronology has been pieced together from sources including the HAR NTSB/SS-86-03, NTSB Safety Study: “Performance of Lap Belts in 26 Frontal Crashes,” pp. 225-230. Dates and developments from 1967 onward pertinent to safety belt systems on school buses has been added by the editors of School Transportation News. Information about safety belt developments in Europe is drawn from the European Commission website. (School Transportation News is solely responsible for the contents of this history.)

2024

School bus manufacturer Blue Bird announced in June it was making lap/shoulder seatbelts standard equipment in all models at no additional cost, starting in the fall.

An Ohio School Bus Safety Working Group initiated by Gov. Mike DeWine following a school bus crash in 2023 that fatally ejected a student concluded that a state law requiring the restraint systems was not necessary. A resulting list of 17 recommendations issued on Jan. 31 included the recognition individual school districts should be able to invest in seatbelts, if they fit their unique needs.

2022

IMMI crash-tests two school buses at its Center for Advanced Product Evaluation (CAPE) for attendees of the STN EXPO East conference to highlight the differences between belted and unbelted passengers.

2019

IMMI conducted a crash test by launching a school bus off a ramp and onto its side at CAPE for STN EXPO East attendees to demonstrate what happens to both the school bus and the belted and unbelted occupants in the event of a rollover, when compartmentalization by federally regulated high-back, padded school bus seats is ineffective. IMMI said the event was the latest reminder that compartmentalization only works in frontal- and rear-impact crashes, and that students who don’t wear lap/shoulder belts in side impacts and rollovers are susceptible to serious injury or death.

2018

Montana PBS airs a 57-minute documentary in November that explores the question asking if school buses are “Safe Enough?” without lap-and-shoulder seatbelts. The report by Anna D. Rau looks back at a 2008 school bus crash that killed 7-year-old Sarah Fark and led several school districts, led by Helena Public Schools, to voluntarily add the seatbelts despite repeated, failed efforts to pass state legislation that would require them. The documentary discusses how compartmentalization is inadequate protection for students in side-impact and roll-over crashes and how lap-shoulder seatbelts improve student behavior on the school bus to limit driver distraction.

On Aug. 25, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signs A4110 into law, which updates existing law to require lap-shoulder seat belts in newly manufactured school buses, from the previous requirement for lap belts. Law goes into effect in January 2019.

The National Transportation Safety Board on May 22 recommends that all states enact laws requiring lap-shoulder seat belts in school buses.

2017

The Nevada Assembly passed AB485 on June 1 to require lap-shoulder seat belts on newly purchased school buses as of July 1, 2019. Gov. Brian Sandoval signed the bill into law on June 4.

In March, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed into effect HB 1002 that states that if 10 percent of local voters to sign a petition seeking lap-shoulder belts on the school district’s school buses, then the school district must propose a levy on property taxes to raise funds for purchasing the occupant restraint systems and training students on their use.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbot signed into law a new school bus lap-shoulder seat belts requirement that removed a previous provision hat the legislature must appropriate funding for school district implementation. Instead, the SB693 requires school districts to install the occupant restraints in model-year 2018 and newer school buses, unless local school boards vote during a public meeting that they do not have the funds necessary. The law goes into effect on Sept. 1, 2017.

Metro Public School Board in Nashville, Tennessee, unanimously passed a one-sentence resolution to commission an impact study to determine whether seat belts on buses are in the best interest for the safety of students.

Due to the deadly school bus crash that recently occurred Chattanooga, the Metro Public School Board asked Director of School, Shawn Joseph to study the correlation between seat belts and safety, as there have been contradicting reports.

The report’s findings are expected by early February and will be discussed on the board floor in order to decide on which measure the board will enforce. However, the resolution does not state which restraint systems will be required depending on the findings.

A Kansas bill to equip seat belts on every school bus is being considered by Kansas Legislature. House Bill 2008 was pre-filled by State Rep. Susie Swanson in light of a deadly school bus crash that killed six elementary students in Chattanooga, Tenn. On Nov 21.

If passed, the bill would lead to higher costs for the purchase of school buses. It could add upwards of $10,000 to the cost of a new school bus. The bill would also require all buses purchased after Jan. 1, 2018 to have seat belts on all seats and does not require the retrofitting of buses already on the road.

2016

Washington State House of Representatives passed legislation to proceed with a study on the cost and feasibility of equipping school busses with seat belts and harnesses. The bill was passed early February with a vote of 87 to 9.

The bill would require the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to analyze the costs and the benefits of requiring each new school bus purchased after December 2017 to be equipped with seat belts, safety harnesses or other approved restraint systems.

The study would include the different seat belt and safety harness options available, the potential pros and cons of each, as well as the approximate cost.

If the legislation passes through the state senate, OSPI will need to submit its study’s results to the legislature by Oct. 15, 2016.

In November Louisiana Legislators began examining a law requiring lap-belts on school buses that has been in existence for more than 12 years, but does not have funding to enforce it.

After the fatal Chattanooga, Tenn. school bus accident that claimed the lives of six elementary school children in late November, the restraint issue was re-visited.

Louisiana revised Statute 17:164.2 and was enacted in 1999 and required all school buses used in the state primarily for the transportation of students to be equipped with occupant restraint systems by no later than June 30, 2004, if the legislator appropriates the necessary funds.

State Sen. Troy Carter authored Louisiana State Resolution 122 that directs the Department of Education “to establish a task force to study and make recommendations regarding student transportation and school bus passenger safety.” The task force report is due no later than Jan 31, 2017.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requested a public comment on a published proposal that focused on obtaining data collection regarding the application and cost of three-point seat belts on school buses.

NHTSA’s proposal identifies school districts that implemented the lap-shoulder systems on school buses, whether voluntarily or in response to a state or local law. It also seeks a stronger understanding of the decisions school districts make to install the occupant restraints and the funds necessary to pay for them.

The proposal also includes a web-based survey to gather additional information regarding bus driver distractions correlating to student behavior caused by using seatbelts. The findings will be used as a base model to develop a potential policy and guide to assist jurisdictions that will consider the use of seat belts on school buses

2015

Houston Independent School District announced November 17th that all new school buses the district purchases will be equipped with three-point seat belts. The decision was made due to the fatal accident that claimed the lives of two high school students last September.

The announcement comes a week after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration updated its position to recommend occupant restraints on all school buses at the National Association for Pupil Transportation’s Annual Summit.

This makes HISD the first school district in Houston, and among the first in the state to implement such a measure, according to a district statement.

2014

State Rep. Robert L. Kosowski introduced two bills in March to the Michigan House. Both bills aimed at requiring all school buses to be equipped with seat belts. The first bill (HB 5436) would mandate that all new school buses provide a seat belt for every pupil, yet does not specify if it must be a lap or a lap/shoulder belt. The second bill (HB 5437) would allow districts with voter-approved sinking funds to use these monies to buy school buses equipped with restraint belts. However, the bills would present a funding dilemma for districts that contract with intermediate school districts for transportation, as intermediate districts cannot seek sinking funds under state law.

2013

IMMI, the manufacturer of the SafeGuard line of seat belts and child restraint systems for school buses and other vehicles, crashed a 1981 model-year Type C conventional school bus head-on into a concrete barrier at 25 mph. The crash was done to demonstrate the impact seat belts have on students.

The crash, Safety 101, was held on Aug. 8 at IMMI’s Center for Advances Product Evaluation (CAPE) at the company’s headquarters in Westfield, Ind. The live simulated crash used the largest barrier block in the world and used an 800-foot track before meeting the wall. On board the school bus were several dummies that doubled as young children and teens.

The crash concluded, thanks to video footage, that the unrestrained dummies were thrown from their bus seats, while those that were restrained using three-point, lap-shoulder belts struck the back of the cushioned seats in front of them, but otherwise remained within their compartmentalized area. During the Safety 101 crash the chassis separated from the bus body, with the chassis being moved backwards about 16 inches.

2012

An amendment to legislation in Missouri on allowing external advertisements on the sides of school buses includes a provision that advertising will only be allowed in newly purchased buses with model years of 2015 or newer that are equipped with safety restraint systems for students.

The National School Transportation Association publishes a paper in March that outlines the safety, cost and operational factors that state and local policymakers should consider when looking at developing a mandate for seat belts in school buses.

In February, Collins Bus Corporation announced its line of Type A Collins Bus, Mid Bus and Corbeil school buses will come standard with the SafeGuard XChange seat from IMMI that allows bus operators to convert a base bench seat to one with three-point, lap-shoulder belts.

2011

The industry awaited the Oct. 21 effective date of NHTSA’s upgrade to school bus passenger crash protection that was finalized in 2008. The new rule requires all Type A school buses under 10,000 pounds to roll off manufacturing lines with installed three-point, lap/shoulder restraints. The update also publishes performance standards for these lap/shoulder belts voluntarily installed on large Type C conventional or Type D transit-style school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. Seat backs mus also be raised to 610 mm (24 inches) from the previous standard of 508 mm (20 inches), and the seats must come equipped with a self-latching mechanism on seat bottom cushions that are designed to flip-up or be removable without tools.

In August, NHTSA denied a petition brought by the Center for Auto Safety and 21 other organizations or individuals that sought a federal requirement for lap/shoulder seat belts on large school buses. NHTSA said school buses are already one of the safest vehicles on the road, and a requirement for the three-point restraints could actually result in more student fatalities each year because of reduced ridership on buses. NHTSA estimates that the seat belts incur an incremental cost of $5,485 to $7,345 per bus.

IC Bus announced in July that it had partnered with IMMI to develop the BTI Seating System that makes it easier for school districts to upgrade to three-point seat belt systems. The entire seat back can be removed in a matter of minutes and replaced with a seat back equipped with the seat belts or integrated child safety restraints without the need to reconfigure the bus floor. The BTI Seating System was expected to be in production by October.

In May, IMMI announced that it was finalizing testing on a new seating line that would enable customers of Thomas Built Buses to more easily upgrade existing bench seats to three-point, lap/shoulder belts or integrated child safety seats. The XChange Seat allows school bus operators to swap out existing seat back modules and replace them in a matter of minutes with modules equipped with the restraint systems. IMMI said the new seat was expected to go into production in the fall.

2010

On Oct. 29, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published three proposed changes to the October 2008 final rule on seat belts in school buses centering on how the height of occupant torso belts are measured, integrated seat belts for wheelchairs and the self-latching requirement for seat cushions.

A University of Alabama study group formed in response to a fatal Huntsville school bus crash three years earlier published its final report to Gov. Bob Riley and the Alabama Department of Education that the funds required to equip school buses with seat belts is best spent mitigating student injuries and fatalities that occur during loading or unloading.

Passed in 2007, a Texas law requiring lap/shoulder seat belts on newly manufactured school buses went into effect on Sept. 1 only for those school districts seeking to receive reimbursement for the additional cost of these school buses from the state. This makes the state requirements for implementation of school bus seat belts voluntary, only holding school districts to the letter of the law if they received state funding. But absent was the $10 million in funds authorized by the state legislature to reimburse school districts. That pot of money shrunk to $3.6 million in January by the Texas Education Agency after Gov. Rick Perry ordered at least a 5 percent cut of programs statewide. The Legislative Budget Board signed off on the allocation of funds on Sept. 2. At this writing, TEA was working out details before issuing further guidance to school districts informing them of the procedures to follow when applying for the grant money. This was likely to occur in October 2010 with funds being disbursed by the end of the year, according to a TEA spokesperson. The Texas Transportation Institute completed a draft implementation plan in June and submitted it to the Legislative Budget Board, which released the plan publicly on Sept. 2. TEA issued guidance to school districts in October on how to go about applying for the voluntary funds.

In response to the Jan. 9 death of a 16-year-old boy during a crash involving a school bus and a car driven by another teen, the first school bus fatality in the state over the past four decades, a Quinnipiac University survey of nearly 1,600 voters in Connecticut found that three out of four respondents favored a new law requiring seat belts on school buses. Resulting legislation to require three-point belts statewide eventually reached the compromise of an optional program that provides a revenue stream to school districts and private school bus operators that choose to purchase new school buses equipped with the occupant restraint systems.

A Minnesota state legislator introduced a bill in January that would require 3-point lap/shoulder restraints on all large buses manufactured after Dec. 31, 2010. The bill would also protect school districts, school bus drivers, other school employees or volunteers from wrongful death lawsuits brought about by any student fatality the might occur onboard the school bus that was related to the use of seat belts or lack thereof. All students would be required to buckle up in school buses equipped with the passenger safety restraints unless the school received and filed a letter from a child’s parents or guardians that excused them from wearing their seat belt.

Meanwhile, for the second consecutive legislative session, Colorado lawmakers reject a bill that would have mandated three-point lap/shoulder restraints on school buses. They cited as reasons the added cost to vehicle purchases and the existing safety record of school buses. The state has not seen a fatality on board a school bus since 1989.

2009
NHTSA conducted a follow-up study that agreed with a 1986 study that concluded that school buses without seat belts have little if any carryover effects to school children and if they use a seat belt in a personal vehicle.

No new state legislation had yet passed to require seat belts in school buses, although Wyoming came close to seeing a law.

2008
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued on Oct. 15 a long-awaited final rule that updated FMVSS 207, 208, 210 and 222 by requiring all new Type A school buses that weigh 10,000 pounds or less and that are manufactured on or after Sept. 1, 2011 be equipped with three-point, lap/shoulder belt systems. NHTSA stopped short of requiring the seat belts on all school buses, instead opting for voluntary requirements for equipping large buses weighing more than 10,000 pounds with systems. NHTSA said the requirement will cost the industry about $100 million to implement and on average will save one life a year

The NPRM also called for seat back heights in all buses to be raised to 24 inches from the current requirement of 20 inches and for a self-latching mechanism on all seat bottom cushions.

Later in October at annual conference of the National Association for State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services. Dr. Roger Saul, director of NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Testing Center, said further side-impact crash testing was not necessary to show whether lap/shoulder belts in large buses should be a requirement and that their installation should be a voluntary choice made by states or local school districts.

2007
U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters announces “first ever federal rules for three-point belts” the morning of Nov. 19 at Morrisville Elementary School in Raleigh, N.C. A Noticed of Proposed Rulemaking calls for three-point lap/shoulder belts on all Type A school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) due to their higher rate of rollover in crashes than large Type C and Type D school buses (GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds). While calling lap/shoulder belt and school bus compartmentalization “optimum protection,” NHTSA only issues guidelines for voluntary use of the passenger safety systems in large school buses due to potential reduced passenger capacity, which could lead to more student deaths each year in other vehicles during the normal school commute. NHTSA also cites the increased costs of three-point belts. Instead, NHTSA calls for an increase in seat back heights to 24 inches from their current 20 inches, implementing test procedures for all three-point seat belts in buses to ensure strength of the anchorages and the compatibility of the seat with compartmentalization and requiring all school buses with seat bottom cushions designed to flip-up for easy maintenance to have a self-latching mechanism.

The NPRM was based on a NHTSA-sponsored school bus seat belt summit held in Washington, D.C., on July 11 to discuss the feasibility of three-point lap/shoulder belts on school buses.

A month earlier, on June 8, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed House Bill 323, the nation’s second state law requiring three-point lap/shoulder belt systems on all new school buses. It goes one step further than a similar law in California by including charter and multi-function school activity buses purchased after Sept. 1, 2010. There was no funding immediately appropriated. An aide of Sen. Eddie Lucio, Jr., the bill’s primary sponsor, said the legislature will be tasked with appropriating the difference between the current cost of newly purchased school buses and that of new buses equipped with the new occupant securement systems.

2006
A Missouri legislator introduced on Feb. 6 House Bill 1673, which would have required all newly purchased school buses to be equipped with 3-point lap/shoulder belts as of Jan. 1, 2007. Click here to read the article. The bill failed but the legislator vowed to try again.

2005

On Dec. 14 several Michigan legislators introduced a curiously worded bill that would require safety belts on public and private school buses “owned, leased or operated” beginning Jan. 1, 2006. It was unknown if House Bill 5519 contained typos. Calls by School Transportation News to Rep. Lamar Lemmons III, the bill’s primary sponsor, for clarification was never returned.

After several past attempts by the Virginia General Assembly to introduce seat belts on school buses, Del. Robert G. Marshall offered a bill requiring either 2-point lap belts or 3-point lap/shoulder belts, with the variety of securements to be approved by the superintendent of state police, on school buses purchased on or after July 1, 2006. The motion was prefiled on Dec. 13, with the intent to formally offer it on the General Assembly floor on Jan. 11, 2006. HB 51 says “The Board of Education must adopt policies, guidelines, and regulations to ensure that all passengers, including the driver, wear these belts or harnesses or both, whenever the bus is in motion. However, a school bus driver may not be held personally liable for the failure of passengers to wear safety belts as required by the Board’s regulations.” Meanwhile, HB 84 prefiled by Del. Lionel Spruill on Dec. 16 uses similar language sans a provision reducing driver liability, with an effective date of Jan. 1, 2007. The bills died in a House committee but Spruill told the Associated Press he would try again.

Despite a letter from former NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey Runge to congressional committees in the fall detailing the administration’s intent to develop a tool to measure the economic impact of installing the safety belts on school buses, School Transportation Director reported Dec. 7 that NHTSA currently does not have funding in place to fund such an effort during the upcoming fiscal year. A NHTSA spokesman told School Transportation Director, a publication of the Federal News Service, that the administration’s School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness Report (see details below under 2002 events) was comprehensive and no new plans existed to study the requirement of lap-shoulder belts on school buses. Charlie Hott, NHTSA’s school bus administrator, meanwhile told members of the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services and the National Association of Pupil Transportation that proposed rulemaking would most likely occur in late 2006 that would change the federal requirement for seat belts on Type A special needs buses to the 3-point lap-shoulder variety from the currently mandated 2-point lap belt systems. Also, NHTSA would look into proposed regulations for making the 3-point harnesses voluntary on large school buses.

Kansas became the latest state on Nov. 18 to introduce a proposed lap-shoulder belt law for school buses. The state legislature would require all school buses to be equipped with lap-shoulder belts for all seating positions, including a retrofit of the state’s fleet of approximately 5,600 existing buses. If passed, House Bill No. 2546 would require all bids for the purchase of any bus to include requirements for the 3-point harness systems. School districts and contractors would be held responsible. Usage of the lap-shoulder belts would be mandatory for all passengers; congruently, the law would neither hold liable the school district, school-bus company nor the driver in the event of passenger injury due to improperly adjusted or fastened seat belts. The Kansas State Department of Education would be responsible for developing and implementing a school bus safety program that covers behavior of students in the loading/unloading zone, including boarding and egress, and the proper use of the lap-shoulder belts.

On Nov. 6, Western Australia Premier Geoff Gallop announced that seat belts would be introduced throughout the state’s “orange” school bus fleet, with retrofits at a price of about $18 million for 800 buses, speculated one local media outlet. The government later said the seat belts would be of the 3-point lap/shoulder variety. Priority was set for those vehicles that operate on country roads. Non-governmental schools were expected to follow suit and Gallop added that he would push for legislation to ensure compliance. A total cost was said to be forthcoming by the end of the year. The decision was made following an Oct. 21 school bus crash in Baldivis, where emergency responders credited the occupant belt systems with minimizing injuries. Other states were urged to also implement school bus seat belts. The National Transport Council Planning accepted the proposal from Planning and Infrastructure Minister Alannah MacTiernan on Nov. 18. Reece Waldock, CEO of the Public Transport Authority Administration, told SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION NEWS the new 3-point lap/shoulder belt and seating configurations will be compliant with the National Australian Design Rule Standards set forth by the Department of Transport and Regional Services. They will also follow the guidelines of the “National Code of Practice – Retrofitting Passenger Restraints to Buses,” which is currently being developed by the National Transport Commission. Western Australia transports approximately 24,000 students to and from school.

Effective July 1, California required all new large school buses (Type I or Type C or D) purchased and/or leased by school districts to be equipped with three-point lap/shoulder belts, bringing in line all state school buses regardless of size (see the 2004 entry, below). The securements will be phased into fleets meaning it could be decades before all state school buses have the 3-point lap/shoulder belts.

Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt took a school bus task force recommendation one very large step further in August by calling for legislation requiring three-point lap/shoulder belts in all state school buses. The governor called to order the task force in the spring after a spate of highly publicized school bus accidents in the Kansas City area. By the end of the summer, and after taking testimony from a host of school industry experts, safety consultants and seat belt proponents – and taking into consideration the safety benefits of school bus compartmentalization and high seat backs and the recognition by NHTSA and NTSB of the school bus’ exemplary safety record, task force members concluded that school districts and school districts alone were in the best position to decide if three-point occupant protection systems on school buses would be both beneficial and financially affordable. Instead, Blunt opted for the legislative route to potentially force all school districts to add the occupant safety belts. He said he will work with legislature to come up with whatever funding is necessary to assist school districts with compliance.

Meanwhile, the Tennessee state legislature formed a committee to investigate the possibility of requiring three-point lap/shoulder seat belts on school buses and was planning the bill draft process. The committee was unanimously approved in both the House and Senate following a 2003 school bus crash left a 7-year-old girl with a serious brain injury. But a study was never performed. WTVF-TV in Nashville in November questioned House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh on why the committee never met. The media attention prompted him to name members and the committee first met on Dec. 1. If a seat belt mandate is passed, he told School Transportation News the state should provide the necessary funding instead of placing the burden on local government or school districts. An analysis prompted by a separate bill in April 2004 determined that it would cost $84 million to retrofit all school buses in Tennessee . A phase-in, as old school buses are retired, would cost less than $6 million a year. The Tennessee Association of Pupil Transportation also told STN that it was in the process of conducting its own cost study and survey to determine the level of support for seat belts on school buses from school transportation officials.

2004
Effective July 1, three-point lap/shoulder belts are required on all new small Type II (also known as Type A or A-1) school buses, carrying 16 or less passengers, in California. On Nov. 9, the state Department of Education issued regulations pertaining to the training of students on how to use the passenger restraint systems. Title 5, Section 14105 of the California Code of Regulations says that all students riding school buses, including the School Pupil Activity Bus (SPAB), “shall be instructed in an age-appropriate manner” on the proper fastening and release of seat belts. The new code, which does not apply to special needs students or in cases of emergency evacuation, describes the appropriate positioning of the lap-shoulder belt snug across the shoulder and chest, away from the neck, and low and tight across the pelvis area, not the stomach. When not in use, “passenger restraint systems shall be fully retracted into the retractors so that no loose webbing is visible, or stored in a safe manner per the school bus manufacturer’s instructions.”

2003
On 20 June 2003 the European Commission adopted a Directive making installation of safety belt systems in all types of vehicles placed on the market effective in July 2004. Whereas only private cars have had to be fitted with seat belts to date, this requirement will extend in future to all other categories, particularly minibuses, coaches, light commercial vehicles, lorries and the like. It will affect nearly two million commercial vehicles every year. Click here for further details.

Directive 2003/20/EC [PDF or HTML] of the European Council and the European Parliament, adopted on 8 April 2003, amended 1991 Council Directive 91/671/EEC, and will, when it comes into force in Member States, require the use of seat belts, where provided, in all vehicle categories (M1, N1, M2, N2, M3, N3). In addition, under this new directive, children must use appropriate child restrains in passenger cars and light vans (M1, N1).

The C.E.White Co. introduces the Student Safety Seat, an integrated 3-point lap/shoulder belt seats for use in school buses. The company begins working with school bus OEMs to gain final certification of the system.

IMMI of Indiana introduces the SafeGuard seating system. Safeguard offers a 3-point lap/shoulder belt system for application in school buses. Girardin Minibus is the first school bus manufacturer to offer final certification of the occupant restraint system.

IC Corp. offers an optional 3-point lap/shoulder belt system of its own design in the company’s new 2005 CE series of school buses.

2002
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration publishes School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness Report, its study about the next generation of occupant protection in school buses that Congress ordered in 1998. [large PDF file]. This report is the first to suggest an active occupant restraint system for school buses; previously, compartmentalization offered only a passive occupant restraint system.

2001
The state of California extends implementation of AB 15 that requires lap/shoulder belts on all new school buses purchased after January 1, 2002. The new law, SB 568, requires lap/shoulder restraint systems in new Type 2 small school buses by July 1, 2004, and lap/shoulder restraint systems in new Type 1 large school buses by July 1, 2005. The measures only affect new school buses procured after those dates. Retrofitting would not be permitted.

The country of England requires compliance with an EU Directive that minibuses, coaches and buses (apart from those designed for urban use with standing passengers) first used on or after 1 October 2001 must have seat belts fitted by the manufacturer. The seat belts must be fitted in all forward and rearward facing seats. Moreover, children on organized trips in minibuses and coaches must be provided with forward facing seats with seat belts. In minibuses and coaches first used on or after 1 October 2001, which have seat belts and anchorages that meet the EU Directive requirements, children may also be provided with rearward facing seats with seat belts.

2000
Minnesota State Legislature enacts the Education Omnibus bill which includes language authorizing seat belts installed in new school buses. The bill mandates education of proper use, model training and addresses liability issues. See Minnesota Seat Belts in School Buses Bill H.F No. 935. No funds were appropriated to implement the law, and the appropriation expired June 30, 2001.

1999
Florida enacts law requiring that “each school bus that is purchased new after December 31, 2000, and used to transport students in grades pre-K through 12 must be equipped with safety belts or with any other restraint system approved by the Federal Government ….” The law does not require school buses purchased prior to December 31, 2000 to be equipped with safety belts. Legislation also required 28″ seat backs. See Title XXIII Motor Vehicles Chapter 316 Florida State Uniform Traffic Control 316.6145

California enacts law requiring improved occupant restraint systems on large school buses. California law specifically mentions “lap and shoulder restraints.” For new buses purchased after January 1, 2002.

Louisiana enacts law requiring school buses used to transport children be equipped with occupant restraint systems. The law to become effective June 30, 2004.

Officials in Louisiana, California and Florida announce they will wait for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to complete an occupant protection study before deciding the exact system to use.

1998
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration sends a report to Congress titled, “School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America’s Children,” announcing a two-year research project to develop the next generation of occupant protection systems for school buses. The study is expected to be complete by the July 2000.

1996
Economic Commission of Europe approves amendments to three directives relating to: [1] seat belts, [2] seat belt anchorages, and [3] seat strength for Minibuses and Medium and Large Coaches. Requires 3-point seat belts in all seating positions of minibuses (vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes) and at least 2-point belts.

1995
Great Britain requires seat belts on mini buses used in school transportation

1992
New Jersey becomes the second state in the nation to require seat belts on large school buses. Use is mandatory. Legislation also required 28″ seat backs.

1991
The European Union adopted Directive 91/671/EC on 16 December 1991 imposing the compulsory use of safety belts in all seats, where fitted, starting January 1993. The Directive applies to vehicles of the categories M1 (i.e. private cars) and N1 (light vans), and also the category M2 (minibuses, i.e. buses weighing less than 5 tons ). This included minibuses used in school transport. The directive also applies to vehicles weighing less than 3,5 tonnes or minibuses containing specially designated standing areas. This Directive does not cover buses and coaches carrying more than 9 persons, but there are requirements regarding the fitting or installation of seat belts for these vehicles.

1987
New York becomes the first state in the nation to require two-point seat belts on large school buses. Use of the lap belts is not made mandatory but is dependent on individual school districts adopting a policy requiring their use. Legislation also required 28″ seat backs.

1986
A NHTSA study conducted by Gardner, Plitt, and Goldhammer concludes that whether seat belts were installed on school buses had little effect on a student’s use of seat belts in personal vehicles. Students reported that parents and mandatory seat belt laws played a significant role on their seat belt use in personal vehicles.

1985
Nova Scotia makes belt use mandatory, front and rear

Norway makes rear seat belt use mandatory in vehicles registered after 1/84 (front seat use mandatory since 9/75)

New York makes belt use mandatory, front and rear (in rear for persons 10 years or older)

Mercedes-Benz introduces driver side air bag with knee bolster (in addition to pre-tensioned 3-point belts) in U.S. market

1984
Austria makes belt use mandatory in rear for cars with vehicle approval after 1/84 (front seat use mandatory since 7/76)

West Germany makes rear seat belt use mandatory in cars manufactured since 5/79 (mandatory use in front since 1/76)

Seven of Canada’s 10 provinces by this time require occupants of moving vehicles to use whatever set belt system is available to them

1983
New Brunswick and Ontario make belt use mandatory, front and rear (front seat use mandatory in Ontario since 1/76)

Saab introduces 3-point in rear in all models sold in U.S. (had provided “for years” in Scandinavia and Europe)

1981
NHTSA rescinds requirements for eventual installation of passive restraint systems

1980
Mercedes-Benz provides driver side airbag and knee bolster, and pre-tensioner an all 3-point belts

1979
France mandates seat belts in rear: either 3 lap belts or 3-points at outboard positions and lap belt at center (most manufacturers choose latter option)

New Zealand requires 3-point belts, front and rear outboard positions

1977
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222 “School Bus Passenger Seating and Occupant Protection” promulgated through rulemaking by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The European Union adopted a directive about the fitting of occupant restraints.

1976
The first European Union Directive concerning seat belt anchorage was adopted in this year.

1975
Sweden requires 3-point, ELR belts in rear; mandates front use by persons 15 and older

1974
GM becomes the first automaker to develop and offer air bags in production vehicles. Offers dual air-bag-equipped Cadillacs, Oldsmobiles and Buicks, hoping to sell 100,000 a year. Drops effort three years later after selling only 10,000 ***

Mercedes-Benz provides ELR on 3-point belts in midsize (300 Series) cars

Sweden requires ELR on belts in front seats

NHTSA requires 3-point belts (i.e., nondetachable shoulder straps) in front outboard positions

U.S. cars provide “vehicle-sensitive” ELRs in front outboard shoulder belts (lap belt portion has ALR)

First production tension relief device on U.S. vehicle.

1973
Mercedes-Benz provides ELR on 3-point belts in large (“S” class) cars

General Motors manufactures 1,000 Chevrolets equipped with experimental air bags and provides them to fleet customers for testing

An Oldsmobile Toronado, first car with a passenger air bag intended for sale, rolls off assembly line

1972
NHTSA begins rulemaking leading to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222: Occupant Seating Protection in School Buses

Volvo introduces adjustable B-post anchor point (not standard) to permit better fitting of shoulder portion of front lap/shoulder belts

Last Australian state law requiring belt use, front and rear, goes into effect 1/1

New Zealand requires belt use, front and rear

1. Germany requires 3-point belts, front and rear

NHTSA requires anchorages for (detachable) shoulder straps for rear outboard (FMVSS 210)

VW displays 3-point belt system with webbing pre-tensioner (Transport 72, Washington, D.C.)

1971
Ford builds experimental air bag fleet

Volvo provides ELRs as standard in rear, all markets

NHTSA amends FMVSS 208 to require passive restraints in front, to be effective 1973

New South Wales requires use of seat belts

1970
Sweden requires belts in rear (diagonal and static allowed; lap-only not approved)

Victoria, Australia requires 3-point belts, front and rear and mandates use, front and rear

1969
Sweden requires 3-point belts of approved type in front

Volvo provides 3-point belt in rear as standard, all markets

Mercedes-Benz adds 3-point belt in rear outboard seats as standard, all markets

Japan requires seat belts, front and rear

Australia requires 3-point belts, front outboard seats, all cars registered since 1965

1968
Volvo provides emergency locking retractors (ELRs) as standard in front, in Sweden

Great Britain requires retrofit of 3-point belts in front in MY 65 and newer cars

Many U.S. cars this MY provide ALRs.

1967
Society of Automotive Engineers study at UCLA leads to calls for two-point seat belts, high back seats and other occupant protection strategies for school buses.

U.S. manufacturers provide lap belts at rear outboard positions (MY 1967)

NHSB issues initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 208, 209, setting standards for lap and shoulder belts in front outboard positions, lap belts in all other positions (to take effect 1/1/68 and 3/67, respectively)

Volvo introduces 3-point belt in rear as standard, certain markets

Great Britain requires 3-points in front outboard positions

Australian standard for belt anchorages issued

South Australia requires seat belts (lap belts OK) at front outboard positions

1966
Swedish regulations prohibit 2-point cross-chest diagonal belt at seats next to a door, and Y-type of 3-point belt altogether

U.S. Commerce Dept. issues revised seat belt standard (SAE j4c)

U.S. Congress passes P.L. 89-593, establishing National Highway Safety Bureau (now NHTSA)

Sports Car Club of America requires competing drivers to wear a shoulder harness as well as a lap belt (perhaps 1967, according to ref. 131)

1965
Rules for School Bus Passengers were published in the NSC Fleet Safety newsletter.
U.S. Commerce Dept. issues first seat belt standard (adopted SAE standard)

SAE issues revised standard (J4c)

All U.S. manufacturers providing lap belts in front outboard positions by this time

Some U.S. manufacturers provide automatic locking retractors (ALRs) in front seat belts

1964
About half the U.S. States require seat belt anchorages at front outboard

Most U.S. manufactures provide lap belts at front outboard seat positions

Victoria and South Australia require seat belt anchorages at front outboard positions in new cars (either 2- or 3-point permitted)

1963
Questions of whether to install seat belts in school buses were answered by the director of Florida’s State Department of Education at the National Safety Council’s Division Midyear Meeting.

Volvo introduces 3-point belt in front as standard, in USA

Some U.S. manufacturers provide lap belts in front outboard positions (23 States have laws to requires belts in front, most effective 1/64)

SAE issues revised standard (J4a)

U.S. Congress passes P.L. 88-201 to allow Commerce Department to issue mandatory standards for seat belts sold in interstate commerce

1962
Virginia Trailways reported to be the first U.S. bus company to install passenger safety belts.

Association for Aid to Crippled Children and Consumers Union sponsor landmark conference on “Passenger Car Design and Highway Safety” with occupant protection the sole theme

Six U.S. States require front outboard seat belt anchors

U.S. manufacturers provide seat belt anchors in front outboard as standard

1961
SAE issues standard for U.S. seat belts (J4)

New York requires seat belt anchors at front outboard seat positions (effective January 1, 1962)

Wisconsin requires seat belts in front outboard seat positions

Standards Association of Australia issues standard for “safety belts and harness assemblies”

1960
New York again considers and again rejects seat belt bill

1959
Volvo introduces 3-point belt in front as standard, in Sweden

New York considers and rejects bill to require seat belts in new cars sold in State

1958
Nils Bohlin, a design engineer with Volvo in Sweden, patents the “Basics of Proper Restraint Systems for Car Occupants,” better known as a three-point safety belt. The device comprises two straps, a lap strap and shoulder strap. **

Volvo provides anchors for 2-point diagonal belts in rear

1957
Volvo provides anchors for 2-point diagonal belts in front

Special Subcommittee on Traffic Safety, U.S. House of Representatives, opens hearings on effectiveness of seat belts in automobiles

1956
Volvo markets 2-point cross-chest diagonal belt as accessory

For and Chrysler offer lap belts in front as option on some models

Ford begins 2-year ad campaign based on safety, focusing heavily on belts

1955
California Vehicle Code is amended to require State approval of seat belts before their sale or use

National Safety Council, American College of Surgeons, International Association of Chiefs of Police vote to support installation of lap belts in all automobiles

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) appoints Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Committee

1954
Sports Car Club of America requires competing drivers to wear lap belts

American Medical Association House of Delegates votes to support installation of lap belts in all automobiles

1953
Colorado State Medical Society publishes policy supporting installation of lap belts in all automobiles

1930s
Several U.S. physicians equip their own cars with lap belts and begin urging manufacturers to provide them in all new cars

Sources:

Dates and developments from 1977 to present pertinent to occupant protection in school buses, added by School Transportation News.

* HAR NTSB/SS-86-03, NTSB Safety Study: “Performance of Lap Belts in 26 Frontal Crashes,” pp. 225-230

** “TRAFFIC SAFETY,” National Safety Council, March/April 1998

motorvista: History of Airbags

*** GM Canada website

The post The History of Seat Belt Development appeared first on School Transportation News.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday considered a federal firearm regulation aimed at reining in ghost guns, untraceable, unregulated weapons made from kits. In this photo, a ghost gun is displayed before the start of an event about gun violence in the Rose Garden of the White House April 11, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices Tuesday grappled with whether the Biden administration exceeded its authority when it set regulations for kits that can be assembled into untraceable firearms, and a majority of justices seemed somewhat skeptical the rule was an overreach.

In Garland v. VanDerStok, the nine justices are tasked with determining whether a rule issued by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in 2022 overstepped in expanding the definition of “firearms” to include “ghost guns” under a federal firearms law.

Ghost guns are firearms without serial numbers and can be easily bought online and quickly assembled in parts, usually through a kit. Law enforcement officials use serial numbers to track guns that are used in crimes.

Arguing on behalf of the Biden administration, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices that there has been an “explosion in crimes” with untraceable guns across the U.S.

She added that the federal government has for years required gun manufacturers and sellers to mark firearms with a serial number.

“The industry has followed those conditions without difficulty for more than half a century, and those basic requirements are crucial to solving gun crimes and keeping guns out of the hands of minors, felons and domestic abusers,” Prelogar said.

She said with the kits to make untraceable homemade guns in as little as 15 minutes, those manufacturers “have tried to circumvent those requirements.”

Prelogar said untraceable guns “are attractive to people who can’t lawfully purchase them or who plan to use them in crime.”

Because the ATF saw a spike in crimes committed with those firearms, Prelogar said it promulgated the 2022 rule. The Biden administration said since 2016, it’s seen a tenfold increase in ghost guns.

What the rule does

The regulation does not ban ghost guns, but requires manufacturers of those firearm kits or parts to add a serial number to the products, as well as conduct background checks on potential buyers. The regulation also clarified those kits are considered covered by the 1968 Gun Control Act under the definition of a “firearm.”

The Biden administration is advocating for the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s decision that favored gun rights groups and owners that argued the agency exceeded its authority.

Pete Patterson on Tuesday represented those gun rights groups, such as the Firearms Policy Coalition and clients, and argued the ATF expanded the definition of a firearm to “include items that may readily be converted to a frame or receiver.”

A frame or receiver is the primary structure of a firearm that holds the other components that cause the gun to fire.

“Congress decided to regulate only a single part of a firearm, the frame or receiver, and Congress did not alter the common understanding of a frame or receiver,” he said. “ATF has now exceeded its authority by operating outside of the bounds set by Congress.”

The case has already been before the high court on an emergency basis in 2023. The three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, and two conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Amy Coney Barrett, allowed the regulation to remain in place while going through legal challenges.

The case is similar to the Supreme Court decision that struck down a Trump-era ban on bump stocks from the ATF, but that was on the grounds of a Second Amendment argument.

Omelets and turkey chili kits

Justice Samuel Alito questioned Prelogar whether the kits were defined as weapons.

“Here’s a blank pad and here’s a pen,” he said. “Is this a grocery list?”

She said it wasn’t because “there are a lot of things you could use those products for to create something other than a grocery list.”

Alito asked her if he had eggs, chopped up ham, peppers and onions, “is that a Western omelet?”

“No, because, again, those items have well known other uses to become something other than an omelet,” Prelogar said. “The key difference here is that these weapon parts kits are designed and intended to be used as instruments of combat, and they have no other conceivable use.”

Barrett asked if her answer would change if “you ordered it from HelloFresh and you got a kit and it was like turkey chili, but all of the ingredients are in the kit?”

Prelogar said it would.

“We are not suggesting that scattered components that might have some entirely separate and distinct function could be aggregated and called a weapon, in the absence of this kind of evidence that that is their intended purpose and function,” she said.

“But if you bought, you know, from Trader Joe’s, some omelet-making kit that had all of the ingredients to make the omelet, and maybe included whatever you would need to start the fire in order to cook the omelet, and had all of that objective indication that that’s what’s being marketed and sold, we would recognize that for what it is,” Prelogar continued.

Roberts asked Patterson what the purpose would be of selling a receiver without a hole in it, meaning the gun is not complete.

Patterson argued that the kits are mainly for gun hobbyists, who would have to drill their own holes to put the product together.

“Some individuals enjoy, like working on their car every weekend, some individuals want to construct their own firearms,” Patterson said.

Roberts seemed skeptical.

“I mean drilling a hole or two, I would think doesn’t give the same sort of reward that you get from working on your car on the weekends,” Roberts said.

Patterson argued that putting together a homemade gun was somewhat difficult, especially if an individual had no experience.

“Even once you have a complete frame, it’s not a trivial matter to put that together,” he said. “There are small parts that have to be put in precise locations.”

No hobbyists

In her rebuttal, Prelogar pushed back on the notion that hobbyists were using those kits, arguing that “if there is a market for these kits, for hobbyists, they can be sold to hobbyists, you just have to comply with the requirements of the Gun Control Act.”

“What the evidence shows is that these guns were being purchased and used in crime. There was a 1,000% increase between 2017 and 2021 in the number of these guns that were recovered as part of criminal investigations,” she said. “The reason why you want a ghost gun is specifically because it’s unserialized and can’t be traced.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE