2008 Response

1. 

Yes – It is only fair that we care for those that have sacrificed for us in the line of duty under the State of Idaho definition.

 2.      

Yes – The proportional amount that is paid from income for medical expenses should not change after injury. Example: if one is paying 15% of their income for medical coverage before their injury it should remain the same amount for the same coverage after injury.       

3.     

Yes – For those who are injured in responding for any call of duty. However, I do have some questions about training activities.  

4.     

Yes – I also believe we are too lenient on violent offenders and do not give sufficient rehabilitation opportunities to non-violent offenders.  

5.      

I am deeply concerned with the easily accessibility of all public records for all citizens by non-governmental agencies and governmental subcontractors.     

6.      

Yes – However, we cannot have double standards.  

7.      

I do have some questions about answering this question. While I agree that training in real-life situational training is needed for public safety on the roadways, I am also concerned about putting the public at risk on the roadways by those still in training. Perhaps we could do something to elevate public safety such as escort vehicles in the first part of the training.