Item A: Role of IGR Committee and Process to Establish Legislative Policy

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT C Excerpt from the IGR Committee Meeting of February 13, 2007 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order Ms. Bettman called for additions or changes to the agenda. Ms. Taylor requested clarification on what had passed and what had not passed. Ms. Bettman said she wanted to talk about that as well. Mr. Pryor concurred. Ms. Bettman indicated that she wished to discuss the issue of pass/fail. Ms. Wilson requested clarification on the protocol should be for a motion made by the CCIGR to change staff recommendation that had to go before the full City Council, so she would know how to carry the City's agenda forward on such bills. Ms. Bettman stated that the precedent in the past had been that a majority vote for a specific recommendation of the CCIGR would be placed on a list that was similar to a matrix. She said if a motion passed at the CCIGR, even if not unanimous, it was the recommendation unless someone pulled it at council. She averred that the only time a motion failed was if it did not receive a second and would, therefore, not "go anywhere;" this was considered an endorsement of the staff recommendation. She underscored that a councilor had a right to pull any bill for discussion, though usually councilors only pulled bills that did not have unanimous support for the CCIGR position on them. Ms. Piercy said a vote of the CCIGR was a recommendation to council, which the council could accept or not, and did not go forward as a position until it had passed through the council. Ms. Bettman disagreed. Ms. Taylor concurred with Ms. Bettman. Ms. Piercy asserted that the CCIGR was an advisory body. Ms. Bettman responded that the CCIGR had a right to take a stand on bills unless it was challenged by the council. She reiterated that the CCIGR vote was a recommendation on a bill. Mr. Pryor understood that if a position on a bill did not receive unanimous support it did not automatically go onto the Consent Calendar. For him, the issue lay in that passing through on a Consent Calendar meant the item was something presumed to be matter-of-fact business. He said a 2: 1 vote moved a legislative issue to the level of needing some discussion. He suggested that he bring this up to the council for review and discussion. Ms. Taylor noted that even a vote of3:0 at the CCIGR was less than the majority of the council. She opined that it was up to the councilors to be diligent and review the work of the CCIGR. She remarked that they "may as well not have the committee" if the council needed to review every 2: 1 decision. Ms. Bettman did not like changing a process that had not changed for as long as she had been on the council ')ust because all of a sudden people do not like the votes." She opined that the process worked when there was a "conservative majority on the IGR" and should continue to work if there was not a conservative majority on the committee. She declared it to be a fair process in its current form and it gave the council the ability to question any position the committee took. She said it did require a matrix that tracked every bill along with the minutes. Ms. Wilson said she had a matrix she used in her lobbying efforts and she would provide a copy to the CCIGR. LICMOl2007 Council AgendaslM070411 IS070411AattC.doc