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

Home Browse Search

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 recommenda- tion. 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 an 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. Ms. Bettman averred that before it could be changed there had to be a system currently in place for the CCIGR to function and she declared it should be based on the precedent to date, which was that a majority vote at the CCIGR instructed the City’s lobbyist on what position he or she should advance. She did not think they could make a unilateral change in a process if this was how it had been done to date. Ms. Piercy agreed that things would have to continue as they are until a change could be put into effect. Regarding the human resource bills, she related that she had asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to look into whether there were any reasons why they should look at statewide policies. She recognized that the council had no purview over personnel issues specific to the City of Eugene. She thought statewide policies were another matter. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to have the bills related to human resources come before the CCIGR. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Pryor said he would ask the Mayor, Council President, and City Manager for a work session on the proposed changes to the CCIGR process to be scheduled. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 3 Relations