Item 6: Ratification of IGR Minutes and Direction on Legislative Policy

Home Browse Search

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 of 3:0 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 “just 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. 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 recommend- ing 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 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 2 Relations