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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor ascertained that she would not have a second to change the current ‘Priority 3 Support’ position to an ‘Oppose.’ HB2341 The staff recommendation to adopt a ‘Priority 3 Support’ position stood. HB2349 In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Cushman explained that Sgt. Flynn recommended to ‘Drop’ the bill because it did not pertain to the City. He noted that the EPD would not oppose supporting the bill; rather it was a resource issue. The staff recommendation to ‘Drop’ the bill stood. HB2482 Mr. Cushman noted that HB2482 was identical to SB293. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt a position of ‘Priority 2 Support’ with an amendment to exclude two-way radios used by public entities. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB161 Mr. Cushman stated that the bill would require the DHS to run a criminal record check on someone who submitted an application to run a “grow operation” for medical marijuana use. He noted that the bill included some items that he considered to be housekeeping and that it had been submitted by the DHS. Ms. Taylor moved to change the position on the bill to ‘Oppose.’ The motion died for lack of a second and the staff recommendation to take a ‘Priority 3 Support’ position stood. HB2215 Ms. Bettman asked why staff had recommended taking a ‘Support’ position when HB2062, a bill that also did not have a significant effect on the City, had been recommended as a ‘Drop.’ Mr. Cushman replied that though the bill had a limited affect on the City, it would increase funding to the State Police and as this would improve law enforcement outside of the city limits, there was some benefit to the City. Ms. Bettman felt the bill would create a negative incentive for the purchase of additional insurance. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the position to ‘Drop.’ The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB78 Ms. Feldman clarified that the bill would allow a request for an absentee ballot to be submitted electroni- cally. She stressed that the ballot itself could not be submitted electronically. She stated that it would be difficult to make a fraudulent request as a voter who did not receive a ballot would likely call the elections office looking for a ballot and the signature on a fraudulently submitted absentee ballot would not match the signature of record. The CCIGR agreed to retain the staff recommended position of ‘Priority 3 Monitor.’ MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 7 Relations