Item 2H: Ratification of Actions of Intergovernmental Relations Committee

Home Browse Search

Mayor Piercy commented that it was difficult to keep on top of things that were moving quickly. She felt there was no room in the procedures for a process that addressed something that required imminent action. Ms. Wilson related that she had discussed the issue with City Attorney Glenn Klein. Her primary concern with rushing the process was to maintain compliance with the public meetings law. She said she would provide the CCIGR with the information Mr. Klein had provided her. Ms. Bettman suggested that they discuss what would constitute an emergency and how to meet the public meetings law. She thought there should be a section that addressed protocol in that case. Mayor Piercy noted that such emergencies would be rare. Ms. Walston pointed out that the legislative policy document would provide guidance for the majority of potential issues. Mayor Piercy recommended that the description of what constituted a Priority 1 bill include policy implications as well as financial implications. Ms. Bettman suggested that it be reworded to be value neutral. Mayor Piercy commented that the human rights positions that the City held could warrant a Priority 1 position on a bill that had no financial impact. Mr. Pryor asked what was meant by “unmanageable scale that could not be remedied.” Ms. Walston explained that it referred to bills that took away the City’s ability to maintain home rule on certain issues. Mr. Pryor responded that unmanageable made him think in terms of chaos. Ms. Walston offered to change the language. Ms. Bettman said the portion of the language under Lobby and Resource Allocation that indicated that a high level of support from the legislative coordinators assigned to the bill would involve the Mayor and/or the council testifying. She averred that it would either have to be individual councilors or CCIGR members. She asked whether this language intended to pull from the councilors at large. It seemed to her that the language indicated the whole council would testify. Ms. Bettman also perceived the language regarding Priority 2 and Priority 3 bills to have taken a defensive posture. She asked that it be reworded in order to be value neutral. Ms. Bettman suggested that the language referring to Priority 1 and Priority 3 should reflect that at times something would be made a Priority 3 thought it was a top priority for the City only because other entities were throwing a lot of lobbying resources at it or that it was already moving and likely to pass. She did not want to give the perception in some instances that a Priority 3 bill was simply less important. Continuing, Ms. Bettman called out the language under Lobby and Resource Allocation that said “any City staff that has reviewed and commented on a bill that is pulled for discussion should be prepared to discuss the bill at the IGR meeting.” She wanted the word ‘should’ to be replaced with ‘shall’ or ‘must.’ She expressed a preference for the word ‘must.’ Ms. Bettman reviewed the operating agreement having to do with a CCIGR vote that was not unanimous on the position to take on a bill. She opposed lobbying a position in Salem with less than a unanimous vote until the position was potentially changed by the council. She wanted to clarify that a neutral stance should MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 26, 2007 Page 6