Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />? <br /> HB 2123 – Relating to judicial review of rules. <br />Recommended to Drop <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz explained that the court would not declare an official challenge to a rule. He said the bill would <br />tell the court that it should look only at whether a rule on its face is unconstitutional and not to ask if there <br />was a situation that could be imagined wherein the rule as applied would be unconstitutional. He stated that <br />this was consistent with how the court would review a statute or an ordinance. He did not believe it was a <br />change in the law and he was uncertain as to why the Attorney General thought this bill was necessary. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was amenable to leave the stance on the bill as a ‘drop.’ <br /> <br />? <br /> <br /> HB 2314 – Relating to collection of debt. <br />Recommended Priority 3 Support <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said the bill disturbed her because she believed collection agencies “put a person so much in <br />debt” that it would be contrary to city policies for not making people homeless, as an example. <br /> <br />Mr. Hill explained that the City did occasionally use a private collection agency for collection of debts, but <br />the collection agency kept a percentage of the debt as payment for its service. He said the bill would allow <br />the City to recover part of all of the cost of collecting the debt. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor averred that it just increased a person’s debt. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor asked how often the City had to utilize such an agency. Mr. Hill replied that it was an infrequent <br />occurrence. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor asked how large the debt tended to be. Mr. Hill was uncertain. <br /> <br /> <br />The CCIGR agreed to take no position on it and pull the bill until more was known. <br /> <br />? <br /> HB 2413 – Relating to business transactions of public bodies. <br />Recommended Priority 3 Support from two staff members and Priority 3 Oppose from another <br />staff-member and the City Attorney <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman felt the bill looked like it was anti-Union. <br /> <br />Mr. Hill said the bill would prohibit public contracting agencies including cities from including as a <br />condition of a public contract the involvement of a labor union. He noted that this was not a practice the <br />City engaged in as the City did not issue contracts that spoke to labor union membership. He stated that the <br />bill itself did violate the principle of home rule authority that was strongly stated in the legislative policies <br />document and it also created a private right of action. He asked the City Attorney to speak to the latter. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz related that his concern with the private right of action was that the bill not only prohibited the <br />City from adopting a certain policy, but it required it to enforce the legislative policy with regard to all of its <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 7 <br /> Relations <br />