Item 3D: Ratification of IGR Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

whether or not it impacted local control, and whether or not it was in line with or against a priority that had been set by the City. She reiterated that a 1, 2, or 3 dictated the amount of staff resources that would be deployed. Ms. Taylor thought there had been a big emphasis on financial implications. Ms. Bettman concurred, adding that it did not seem to take into account issues and positions. She recalled that they had identified legislation as Priority 1 based on policy. Ms. Wilson offered to reword the memorandum. She said she would bring it back to the next meeting of the CCIGR. Regarding the recommendations, Ms. Wilson related that the subcategories had proven a little onerous for staff. She conveyed staff’s recommendation to revert to the four main headings with a place for comments on the sheet. She also thought it would make it easier when addressing the so-called “gut and stuff” bills. Ms. Bettman averred that they had ended up in some tenuous positions and this was why they had created the three subcategories. She said otherwise they could end up opposing a bill that they could support with one small change. She did not believe this was more complicated. Ms. Wilson agreed that it was not unworkable. She thought clearer direction would aid the legislative coordinators. She conveyed their confusion as to what exactly oppose/amend meant for them. She thought some clarification of when and how this should be used would help. Ms. Taylor averred that the CCIGR had made it clear what they meant by the subheadings. She said sometimes they would not support a bill unless it was amended. Ms. Wilson explained that to her a bill that they were unsure of was a ‘monitor’ bill; staff would monitor the bill to see how “the wind blows it.” She related that some of the information staff was receiving from the legislative coordinators was that they were not sure when to use the subheadings and the result was that the staff recommendation was unclear as to exactly what they wanted. She thought more education would help clear it up. Mayor Piercy stressed that the issue was that a lot of the time the City did not have the power to amend a bill. She said they were not the ones that were in charge of the bills so they did not get to amend them. Ms. Taylor responded that then they would just not support the bill. Ms. Wilson said this was the issue. She asked if they said that they would support a bill with an amend- ment, if the amendment did not happen would they no longer support the bill? Ms. Bettman recalled that their intention was to express support for the concept of a bill as long as it was amended to change one small thing, such as where the funds should come from. She said usually the amendment was a “deal killer.” Ms. Wilson related that some staff thought ‘support/amend’ meant that they would support the bill with a set of amendments and without the amendments they would oppose it. To her that was a bad bill. She suggested that they say “we oppose it and here is why.” Ms. Bettman averred that there were political reasons why some people did not want to oppose a bill. She suggested they just refine the definitions and offered to help Ms. Wilson work on them. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 16, 2007 Page 5 Relations