Item 3E: Ratification of IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

ever attended, and that the bill had been strongly opposed at that hearing by the League of Oregon Cities (LOC). She added that during the hearing the LOC had proposed significant amendments but that the chair of the legislative committee had refused to hear those amendments. Ms. Wilson noted that despite the opposition from the LOC, it appeared that there would be no way to stop the passage of HB 2420. Ms. Wilson reported that while Mr. Zelenka had asked to have HB 2420 brought before the City Council to recommend a support position for the bill, she had alternatively suggested to Mr. Zelenka that the bill could be brought to the City Council to see if they voted unanimously to support HB 2420. Ms. Wilson noted that the City of Portland had also assumed a supporting position on HB 2420. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Polling as to why staff had recommended the assumption of a monitor position regarding HB 2420, noted that staff had made such a recommendation so that they could first see the amendments that the LOC was attempting to incorporate before supporting the bill any further. Ms. Wilson reiterated that no amendments drafted by the LOC had been included in the bill. Ms. Wilson briefly discussed the intention of HB 2420 and how as drafted the bill would presume that any of the identified cancers diagnosed for firefighters would be presumed to be duty-related. Ms. Wilson noted that all of the duty-disability concerns related to such a diagnosis as well as any legal attempts to refute such diagnoses might be extremely expensive, which is why staff had recommended the monitor position with respect to the LOC amendments. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that the LOC amendments to HB 2420 would have made it easier to rebut the presumption of duty-related cancers. Ms. Wilson reiterated that politically there was no chance of having any such amendments incorporated into the bill. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Polling, moved to direct City staff to reconsider its monitor position regarding HB 2420 and assume a position of Priority 2 support of the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2246 - Relating to the consumption of alcoholic liquor by underage persons. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, clarified the nature of HB 2246 for the benefit of the committee. Ms. Wilson reported that staff had recommended a Priority 3 support position regarding the bill. Ellwood Cushman briefly described the specific intentions of HB 2246 in that it would provide for a practical measure of parental supervision/oversight for the consumption of alcohol by minor persons. The Committee let the staff recommendation stand. HB 2263 - Relating to kidnapping. Ms. Ortiz expressed that she supported HB 2263 but asked Ms. Wilson to explain the levels of priority support and opposition recommended by staff for HB 2263 and the other bills under discussion during the meeting. Ms. Wilson explained that Priority 1 support/opposition indicated the City’s highest possible level of involvement and would involve testimony from elected officials and executive staff; Priority 2 support/opposition would involve testimony from City staff directly knowledgeable of the legislation in question; and Priority 3 support/opposition would involve written testimony entered into the record or testimony from available City staff. Ms. Ortiz maintained that the City should adopt a Priority 1 or 2 support position regarding HB 2263. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill was sponsored by Oregon’s Attorney General and as such the bill would have a great MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 4, 2009 Page 2