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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Piercy believed that when the CCIGR took a position on a bill and the lobbyist took that position forward it was the position of the City Council. She could not see having the process move forward without the endorsement of the whole council. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the Mayor's concern. She said it had been her concern, too, because it took a long time for the CCIGR work to come before the council. She averred that if the Mayor was recommending a change to the process the council should have a work session and adopt, via ordinance, the process for the CCIGR. She did not want every change in the political landscape to mean a change in the CCIGR process. Ms. Taylor concurred. Mr. Pryor reiterated his discomfort in moving forward on a recommendation for a bill that only had two votes. He said it indicated disagreement and a need for discussion. Ms. Wilson said the City of Eugene had its credibility in Salem and when the City argued against itself, in that it took one position at one point and then reversed its position after further council discussion, the City lost credibility with the legislature. She noted that the change on Senate Bill (SB) 187 had not affected the City as the bill was now dead. Ms. Bettman said there were other 2: 1 votes and she had been disturbed to see that Ms. Wilson was not lobbying on them. She commented that she had heartburn about changing the process based on the assertion that the CCIGR should not have the authority to represent the City. She reiterated that the process had been the same since she had served on the council. She requested a work session be held as soon as possible. She was willing to support a change in the process as long as it was in an ordinance. She opined that the process had been unquestioned when people she alleged were conservative served on the CCIGR. Ms. Taylor thought the council would have to eliminate scheduled breaks during the legislative session in order not to hamper lobbying efforts, should CCIGR decisions have to be discussed by the full council. Ms. Bettman said the CCIGR should ask itself how the City could lobby at all without the council's full review. She suggested that to stop lobbying on votes that were 2: 1 should mean that votes that lobbying should stop for votes of 3: 0 until the council endorsed it. Ms. Wilson requested some direction on the human resource and collective bargaining bills, as some of those bills were "moving." She wished to ensure she was representing the correct City priority and recommendation. Mr. Pryor appreciated that dilemma. He acknowledged that it was difficult for Ms. Wilson to do her job given the uncertainty coming from the CCIGR. Regarding the previous precedents for the CCIGR process, he averred that even if a tradition had been followed for 100 years, if it was the wrong tradition he could not get behind it. He was conscious of the fact that the City of Eugene's position had to represent the position officially endorsed by the City. To him, the body that did that by charter was the City Council. He felt that a 2: 1 vote by the CCIGR put Ms. Wilson at risk of going to Salem to lobby on behalf of a position that was not necessarily endorsed by the council and, thus, the City. He thought they might have to develop a system to get bills that had immediacy to them before the council expediently and expressed willingness to work on such a system. He reiterated his discomfort at directing Ms. Wilson to lobby for a position on an issue supported by only two votes. Ms. Bettman reiterated that the council had vested that authority in the CCIGR and the committee had functioned on that assumption that a majority vote was a majority vote and that was the recommendation that would go forward unless a councilor pulled it. She said Mr. Pryor wanted to change this. Mr. Pryor acknowledged that he was seeking to change it. LICMOl2007 Council AgendaslM070411 IS070411AattC.doc