My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 7: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2007
>
CC Agenda - 03/12/07 Meeting
>
Item 7: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:55:38 PM
Creation date
3/8/2007 2:46:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
3/12/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the recommendation to Priority 1 <br />Oppose. The motion passed 2:1, Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. <br /> <br />? <br /> HB 2357 – Relating to courts. <br />Recommended Priority 3 Support. <br /> <br />Ms. Mauch said the bill had been pulled at Ms. Bettman’s request, and had to do with the use of electronic <br />documents. Ms. Bettman said her concern with the issue was that it destroyed the archive. She posited that <br />a virus or a change in technology would be a problem if there were no backup. Ms. Mauch said the court’s <br />intent was to not destroy the paper copy until a case was closed, which was consistent with how archiving <br />wass currently done. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Mauch said the use of electronic <br />documents would streamline the administrative function, but they would review the matter thoroughly before <br />accepting electronic filings. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor asked if in 15 years someone wanted to review a document, it would still be available, albeit in <br />electronic form. Ms. Mauch said it depended on the retention schedule as set by the archivist as well as <br />database usage. Speaking to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding a mandate for change and the amount <br />of work involved, Ms. Mauch said they had not decided what method to use, but that a time-forward process <br />made the most sense. Ms. Bettman said she was still nervous about destroying archives, but would defer to <br />Ms. Mauch’s judgment. <br /> <br />? <br /> HB 2367 – Relating to Council on Court Procedures. <br />Recommended to Monitor. <br /> <br />Ms. Mauch said the bill had been pulled at the request of Ms. Taylor, who suggested the bill be dropped <br />because it did not seem worth spending time on. Ms. Mauch said the motivation for the “monitor” <br />recommendation was the relating clause. If something unforeseen was added and get through, it could <br />greatly affect what the court does. Ms. Bettman and Mr. Pryor felt the recommendation was fine. Ms. <br />Taylor acquiesced. <br /> <br />? <br /> SB 83– Relating to terminology describing persons. <br />Recommended to Monitor. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor also suggested this bill be dropped. Ms. Mauch explained that the bill was huge but was “just a <br />lot of terminology clean-up.” However, she said their experience in the past was that it was the type of bill <br />that could have something different inserted, which they would want to track. Everyone agreed that it could <br />continue to be monitored. <br /> <br />? <br /> SB 267 – Relating to Council on Court Procedures. <br />Recommended to Monitor. <br /> <br />Ms. Mauch said the bill, which involved operating the court as a court of record, had been pulled at the <br />request of Ms. Bettman. Ms. Bettman said she had heard that they were pursuing this idea. Ms. Mauch <br />explained that a previous policy was around being a court of record. Now, the Supreme Court was <br />overseeing that courts opting to be courts of record did so appropriately and consistently. In response to <br />Ms. Bettman’s question, Ms. Mauch said they were not pursuing the matter, not because of the associated <br />technical cost, but due to the amount of staffing required. She added that they had originally pursued the <br />matter because it was enacted during the last session and they had the option. Ms. Bettman said she was <br />fine with the recommendation. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 6, 2007 Page 3 <br /> Relations <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.