Item 8 - Ratif.IGR Comm.Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

amendments, but believed the bill would be improved with amendments. The chair of the Police Commis- sion had sent a letter suggesting the amendments to the bill's sponsor, who appeared amenable to the changes. Mr. Cushman reviewed the desired amendments. Ms. Bettman noted an obstacle to successful police recruitment was the State prohibition on the administra- tion of polygraph tests. She suggested the City might want to develop a strategy to address that. Ms. Towle said she raised the issue with the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) but had received no support. She noted that a psychologist indicated that only a polygraph would have stopped the hiring of former officer Magana. She thought it was a critical issue and could not understand the prohibition on administering such tests to potential public safety candidates. Ms. Bettman regretted it was too late to introduce anything in this session. Mr. Cushman referred to SB 0630, related to the protection of identifying information, and said staff was proposing to change the status of the bill from Support to Support with amendments to address an issue raised by Ms. Towle. Listing a name would trigger the need to shred or eradicate data. Staff did not think a name alone or an address without a name was a concern, but when the data elements were combined that provided the information people could use to steal identification. He suggested that the bill be amended to indicate '~name if associated with another piece of information." Mr. Cushman also recommended that the bill be amended to require an entity that became aware the information they held was stolen or lost make a reasonable effort to notify the person whose information was stolen. Ms. Towle said if the bill was left as was, it would mean that Eugene would be unable to recycle as much because it was more difficult to know if the shredded material could be recycled. She supported the need for secure information, but if overly broad, it would seriously affect the City. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of SB 0630 to Support with amendments. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman referred to SB 0657, which required a city or county to take final action on a land use application within 90 days after the application was deemed complete, Mr. Heuser recalled that similar legislation had been introduced in the last legislative session and had been halted in committee. Referring to SB 0660, relating to requirements for special districts, Ms. Bettman noted the council's stated opposition to such districts in metropolitan areas. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to assign SB 0660 a status of Priority 1 Op- pose. The motion passed unanimously. The committee agreed to hold SB 0663 to a future meeting for further discussion of the bill's priority status. Priority 3 Bills Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of HB 2015 to Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously. The committee discussed HB 2123, which was held over from the previous meeting. Mr. Duckett noted that the bill seemed fairly benign. It had been sponsored by the Water Resources Division and two water watchdog groups in Salem were taking a neutral position on the bill. He acknowledged the concerns expressed by the committee that the bill would facilitate the siting of an energy facility. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 9, 2005 Page 4