Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Wilson said the wording of the bill was due to an error in drafting. She related that the bill was <br />supposed to have a work session and amendments would be added to the bill on April 27. She stated the <br />concern Mr. Cushman raised had been pointed out in the hearing on the bill. <br /> <br />Mr. Cushman stated that if the bill expanded the restrictions on access to personal information of people <br />working in law enforcement the Eugene Police Department (EPD) would support it. He commented that it <br />was hard to articulate in words how important it was that a police officer’s address not be easily releasable <br />to anyone who wanted it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman concurred. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to Oppose the motion unless it was amended. <br />The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. <br /> <br />HB 2333-A <br /> <br />Ms. Wilson reported that the bill had already passed through the house. <br /> <br />Mr. Cushman stated that the title of the bill was misleading. He explained that the bill exempted from sex <br />offender reporting certain categories of sex offenses wherein the only reason it was a crime was because the <br />victim was below the age of consent and there was no force involved. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman indicated she supported the staff recommendation to Monitor the bill. <br /> <br />HB 2536-A <br /> <br />Ms. Wilson stated that the CCIGR had previously adopted a Support with amendments to attach some sort <br />of size requirement to the 13-year-old in order to allow that child to ride in the front seat of a car (the bill <br />would institute a requirement to have all youth 13 and under in the back seat). She said the argument that <br />the CCIGR had made, that 12-year-olds do not like to sit in the back seat, was not a strong argument against <br />the pro argument, which was that statistically everyone who rode in the back seat was safer in the event of <br />an accident. She related that the amendment made to the bill was that if there was no available seat in the <br />back a 13-year-old could ride in the front seat. She added that the pro side had presented actual pictures of <br />decapitated children and children with permanent brain damage that had resulted from an accident and that <br />trauma nurses had testified during the hearing. She underscored that the amendment the CCIGR had sought <br />would be very difficult. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor commented that the problem lay in that some people were a lot bigger at 11-years-old than <br />others. She said it did not make sense to her to dictate an age limit. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy pointed out that the intent of the bill was to try to get children up to a certain age into the back <br />seat. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman indicated she was fine with the existing recommendation to adopt a Priority 3 Support position <br />on the bill. Ms. Taylor agreed. <br /> <br />SB 1012 <br /> <br />Ms. Wilson reported that the bill was believed to be dead. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 26, 2007 Page 2 <br />