Item 3: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

legislative concepts developed by the task force could be pursued in 2009. Mr. Cuyler left the meeting. 4. Process of Reviewing and Giving Direction on Legislation Ms. Wilson reported on the preparations for the upcoming special legislative session and noted a bill that had been submitted by Eugene for review by Legislative Counsel. She anticipated a maximum of 109 bills would be introduced. She referred the committee to its operating agreements and briefly described the mechanics of how bills were processed internally and by the committee. She noted the committee’s recommendations were forwarded on to the full City Council and that all non-unanimous votes would be placed on the next available City Council agenda for resolution by the entire Council. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Wilson said staff was trying to find a way to get the full Council to discuss the bills that the committee did not have a unanimous position on in the abbreviated timeframe for the special session. She invited suggestions. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Wilson said that she did not know what bills were involved, but under the ground rules established for the session no controversial bills were to be introduced. Any council action must occur by February 12, 2008 due to the deadline currently in place for all bills to be scheduled for a work session by that date. The committee briefly noted the public notice requirements related to council meetings and e-mail ex- changes. Mr. Poling recommended that time be scheduled on the council agenda of February 11 in case the committee had disagreements. Ms. Wilson thought that could be done. Ms. Taylor suggested the council agendas could include a standing item for such discussion. She recommended that staff follow-up on e-mail messages to councilors with requests for a response if the committee decided to take that approach. The committee acknowledged that Ms. Wilson might have to contact councilors on their personal telephones for direction. 5. Process of Reviewing and Giving Direction on Grants Ms. Wilson reviewed the current process used by the committee to review grant proposals. She brought up the suggestion that the committee might want to consider setting a dollar threshold for grants it decided to review. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Wilson said that the timing of grants rather that the need to seek the committee’s approval was an issue for staff. It has sometimes been an issue when grants came up when there was no committee meeting or the committee’s e-mail vote was not unanimous and no council meeting was scheduled in time to meet the grant deadline. Ms. Ortiz wished to find some way to distinguish between controversial and non-controversial proposals. Ms. Wilson said that it was difficult to draw that threshold; even when there was not a money match required, some grants still had a financial impact on the City. Mr. Poling suggested that often the subject of the grant would be more controversial than the amount of money involved. Ms. Taylor questioned if there was a need for the committee to change its ground rules because the situation mentioned by Ms. Wilson did not happen often and staff could contact the councilors for direction. There was general concurrence. Ms. Wilson indicated that staff might call the committee members to remind them MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations January 3, 2008 Page 2