Item 2H: Ratification of Actions of Intergovernmental Relations Committee

Home Browse Search

The existing recommendation to Monitor the bill stood. HB 3432 Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would reduce the members of the Department of Public Safety Standards Training (DPSST) board. Mr. Cushman stated that after an initial analysis it did not seem like a big deal to the Eugene Police Department (EPD), but the Chief wanted to oppose it. He said the bill would take management-type people off of the board. He related that the bill would add some line-level positions and they were not opposed to this, rather it was the loss of the higher level of expertise on policies for what the training for officers should be. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 1035 Ms. Bettman said the bill would give an employee the right to sue and it did not mean the employee would win if he or she litigated. Ms. Towle stated that her concern lay in the amount of litigation the bill would create. She said while she had strong feelings about what was appropriate in the work place and how people should treat each other, she also had concerns regarding what should be litigated versus what should be handled administratively. She related from her experience in human resources that her staff was very often in the midst of conflict between employees. She noted that an employee could call it harassment if someone did not get along with him or her or if someone was deliberately not speaking to that individual. She opined that the bill was an “attorney employment” bill. She felt the terms were vague and the standards were not delineated. Ms. Wilson reported that the bill would have a public hearing work session on April 30. Ms. Bettman was more inclined to suggest amendments to the bill. She supported a person’s right to sue. Ms. Towle expressed concern with the specifics such as one clause that indicated that a derogatory remark or anything that undermines an employee’s work performance. She felt they were broad concepts. Ms. Bettman countered that it would still have to be proven in court. Ms. Towle responded that the City of Eugene had paid legal fees for harassment cases in which the City had ultimately prevailed that had still cost the City $200,000. While she believed that there were certain employment actions people should have the right to bring, she averred that language needed to be tight enough that it would be definable. Ms. Bettman said she did not see the amendments presented that would tighten up the language. Ms. Towle did not know how she would tighten the language. She underscored that amendments would be up to the CCIGR. Mr. Pryor thought the bill would create an enormous amount of lawsuits. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Neutral position on the bill. The MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 26, 2007 Page 3