Line of Duty Act; definition, and funding for Line of Duty Death and Health Benefits Trust Fund. (SB329)
Introduced By
Sen. Fred Quayle (R-Suffolk) with support from 26 copatrons, whose average partisan position is:
Those copatrons are Del. Kris Amundson (D-Mount Vernon), Del. Bob Brink (D-Arlington), Del. Chuck Caputo (D-Oak Hill), Del. Al Eisenberg (D-Arlington), Del. Bobby Mathieson (D-Virginia Beach), Del. Brian Moran (D-Alexandria), Del. Paul Nichols (D-Woodbridge), Del. Ken Plum (D-Reston), Del. Jim Scott (D-Merrifield), Del. Steve Shannon (D-Vienna), Del. Shannon Valentine (D-Lynchburg), Del. Margi Vanderhye (D-McLean), Del. Vivian Watts (D-Annandale), Sen. Kenneth Alexander (D-Norfolk), Sen. George Barker (D-Alexandria), Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria), Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke), Sen. Mark Herring (D-Leesburg), Sen. Dave Marsden (D-Burke), Sen. Jennifer McClellan (D-Richmond), Sen. Ralph Northam (D-Norfolk), Sen. Toddy Puller (D-Mount Vernon), Sen. Dick Saslaw (D-Springfield), Sen. Richard Stuart (R-Westmoreland), Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-Winchester), Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple (D-Arlington)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✗ |
Passed Committee |
☐ |
Passed House |
✓ |
Passed Senate |
☐ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Line of Duty Act; definitions; funding for Line of Duty Health Benefits Trust Fund. Includes local employees disabled on or after January 1, 1966, in the definition of disabled employee. The bill also provides for a $1 fee to be collected from alarm company operators for each alarm system monitored and a $5 fee to be collected for processes and services in civil proceedings to provide funding to the Line of Duty Health Benefits Trust Fund. Read the Bill »
Outcome
History
Date | Action |
---|---|
01/08/2008 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 087024308 |
01/08/2008 | Referred to Committee on Finance |
01/21/2008 | Impact statement from DPB (SB329) |
01/30/2008 | Reported from Finance with amendments (16-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
01/30/2008 | Rereferred to Courts of Justice |
01/31/2008 | Assigned Courts sub: Civil |
02/04/2008 | Reported from Courts of Justice with amendments (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/05/2008 | Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/06/2008 | Read second time |
02/06/2008 | Committee amendments from Finance agreed to |
02/06/2008 | Reading of amendments waived |
02/06/2008 | Committee amendments from Courts of Justice agreed to |
02/06/2008 | Engrossed by Senate as amended SB329E |
02/06/2008 | Printed as engrossed 087024308-E |
02/07/2008 | Passed by for the day |
02/08/2008 | Read third time and passed Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/08/2008 | Reconsideration of passage agreed to by Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/08/2008 | Passed Senate (39-Y 1-N) (see vote tally) |
02/08/2008 | Communicated to House |
02/13/2008 | Placed on Calendar |
02/13/2008 | Read first time |
02/13/2008 | Referred to Committee on Appropriations |
02/19/2008 | Assigned App. sub: Compensation and Retirement (Jones, S.C.) |
02/25/2008 | Impact statement from DPB (SB329E) |
03/03/2008 | Left in Appropriations |
Comments
Hopefully the 900 of so firefighters, police officers and deputies, injured in the Line of Duty will finally get the same health insurance now afforded to all state officers and local officers since 2001. I noticed a vote AGAINST giving these officers the same health insurance as the majority of officers. I can only hope that came from an alarm company that wants to make sure the profits keep rolling in. But, as it is the local police who answer your alarm calls it is only fair that when we get hurt we are duly compensated for the risks we take. It is patently UNJUST, UNETHICAL and IMMORAL to treat the 900 local officers differently and DENY them Line of Duty benefits when they are injured. How is that supporting the Thin Blue Line? Is this how Virginia treats her wounded in action?
To those of you voting "NO" in the poll on this page. Do you profit from the alarm industry? Doe sit make your Lexus payments for you? Why are you against providing health insurance to the last law enforcement officers excluded from the Lien of Duty Act? Why? I imagine you would support the rationale that Vietnam Vets should have their benefits canceled as that war is over and done with! With all the wasteful spending Richmond has made over the years why suddenly deny benefits to the few officers cut out? If you have the courage post your convictions and rationale for permitting state officers to collect Line of Duty Act benefits but denying local officers. While you are at it, recall who answers YOUR 911 calls when you or your family are in dire need of help or WHO responds to your home's alarm system.