Item 3D: Ratification of IGR Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman asked that HB 2357 be pulled so that Ms. Mauch could return with more information. ? SB 126 – Relating to satisfaction of monetary obligations imposed in judgment for benefit of victim. Recommended Priority 3 Support Ms. Bettman said the bill seemed to give different treatment to people who had resources and people who did not have resources; the record could be expunged if one had enough money to pay one’s fines and obligations. Ms. Mauch explained that the court supported it because the court was looking out for the benefit of the victim. She said if someone was damaged by a crime there would at least be an effort to resolve it prior to being able to get the charge off the record. Ms. Bettman moved that the CCIGR remain neutral on SB 126. Mr. Pryor asked if it was common to provide an alternative for someone who could not meet his or her financial obligations. Ms. Mauch replied that the court did try to provide alternatives in the case of a monetary issue such as community service, but the alternatives would not pay restitution to a victim. She said a person who filed to have his or her record expunged and who had not paid restitution to a victim as ordered in a court proceeding, under this bill, would not be able to do so until the restitution issue had been addressed. Ms. Taylor provided a second. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. ? HB 2335 – Relating to evidence Recommended to Drop Ms. Bettman asked why the recommendation was to drop the bill. Ms. Mauch responded that the Municipal Court did not handle cases the bill would apply to. ? HB 2336 – Relating to expunction Recommended to Drop Ms. Mauch explained that the recommendation to drop on HB 2336 was for the same reason. ? HB 5048 – Relating to financial administration of the Department of Transportation Recommended to Drop Ms. Mauch stated that the Municipal Court did not request a lot of data from the Department of Transporta- tion, so there was no monetary impact. She noted that the City of Eugene also charged the types of fees the bill would affect in the Department of Transportation. Ms. Bettman ascertained that the fees were for accessing information. She asked if the Municipal Court would be the only venue for which the bill would have an effect. Ms. Mauch replied that it would apply to anyone requesting information from the DMV. Ms. Bettman thought the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and the Department of Public Works might have an interest in reviewing the bill. She asked that the bill be pulled so that it could be reviewed to determine if it would cost the City more money. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 6 Relations