Pennsylvania Senate Bill SB623

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/11/25
• Refer: 4/11/25

Caption

In general provisions, further providing for definitions; in Commonwealth services, further providing for definitions; and, in emergency responder mental wellness and stress management, further providing for definitions.

Summary

SB 623 amends several definitions in Title 35 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes to explicitly include telecommunicators in state law. The bill adds a new definition of “telecommunicator” for purposes of general provisions, describing a PSAP employee whose primary job is to receive, process, transmit, or dispatch emergency and nonemergency calls for public safety services. It also revises the definition of “emergency responder” in two separate Title 35 chapters so that telecommunicators are expressly included alongside firefighters, EMS workers, law enforcement officers, coroners, public health workers, and other emergency-related professionals. The measure appears aimed at ensuring 911 dispatchers and related call-taking personnel are recognized as emergency responders for purposes of mutual aid, emergency response, and emergency responder mental wellness and stress management provisions. By updating these definitions, the bill would extend the reach of existing statutory programs and protections to telecommunicators, likely affecting eligibility for training, support services, and any benefits or responsibilities tied to the emergency responder designation under Title 35.

Impact

SB 623 would amend Title 35 by changing statutory definitions in sections 7102, 7332, and 75A01. The practical effect is to place telecommunicators—such as 911 dispatchers, call takers, and supervisors—within the legal category of emergency responders in multiple parts of Pennsylvania law. That could expand their access to or inclusion in emergency management, mutual aid, and mental wellness/stress management frameworks, while also clarifying that PSAP personnel are covered by provisions that reference emergency responders.

Sentiment

The bill’s apparent sentiment is broadly supportive and noncontroversial based on the available record. It was introduced with bipartisan-looking sponsorship from multiple senators, including members from different political perspectives, which suggests a shared interest in recognizing telecommunicators as part of the emergency response system. No committee transcripts or votes are available, so there is no recorded debate or formal opposition in the provided materials.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the available bill history. If concerns were raised, they would most likely center on whether expanding the definition of emergency responder could create new obligations, costs, or eligibility questions for counties, PSAPs, or state programs. Another possible issue is whether telecommunicators should be treated the same as field responders for all purposes under Title 35, but the provided record does not show any opposition or amendment disputes.