Item 5: Action: Discussion and Approval of Non-Unanimous IGR Positions

Home Browse Search

This bill does two major things: it expands statutory protections already in place to all public safety officers (rather than just police officers), and it significantly expands those protections. We are neutral on the expansion of existing law to include other public safety officers (i.e., corrections officer, youth corrections officer, parole/probation officer) because this would not affect the City. In terms of the expansion of protections, although we already do many of the things listed, we oppose on principle having such things in the law. First, they are an unfunded mandate which requires local jurisdictions to take certain actions, and restricts other actions which they can take, in opposition to the City's desire for home rule. Second, they are protections which are provided for very specific categories of employees for investigations of allegations of misconduct. In addition, there are some specific provision of the bill which are of particular concern: * Section 2(2)(b): This section allows an employee being interviewed to have "a representative of the officer's choosing present at the interview." This language could allow an employee under investigation to select another employee who was involved in the same incident to be present for his/her interview, and compromise the ability of the employer to conduct a thorough and fair investigation by interviewing the two employees separately. * Section 2(2)(j): This section requires that, if the employer records the interview, that the employee be provided with a "transcript" of the interview upon request. Although not defined, this is presumably a written record of what was recorded. Transcribing an interview is a time-consuming task, and it may not be necessary in every case to have a verbatim transcript of an entire interview. However, this section would require that the employer incur that expense if the employee requests a transcript. * Section 2(3)(a): Although the bill is attempting to provide an exception for the more routine interactions between employees and supervisors, this language does not clearly establish a "bright line", and there would certainly be many debates, grievances, and perhaps litigation about this. Such an exception clearly needs to be included, but needs to be more clear. * Section 4(7)(a): This section states: "Upon request, a public safety officer may inspect the officer's own personnel records during normal business hours and without loss of compensation." It does not place any limit on the amount of time that the employee may spend doing this (while s/he is being paid to work), or even how many times an employee may do this. Arguably, an employee working during "normal business hours" could, under this statute could make a request every week to look at his/her records, and spend several hours doing so, all while being paid by the City. At a minimum, the words "and without loss of compensation" need to be deleted. HB 2725 Relating Clause: Relating to tax incentives for use of organic matter; prescribing an effective date. Title: Prohibits allowance of tax incentives for use of biofuel or biomass that is fit for human consumption. Applies to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010, and to preliminary certifications issued on or after January 1, 2010. Takes effect on 91st day following adjournment sine die. Sponsored by: Representative WINGARD; Representatives CAMERON, ESQUIVEL, FREEMAN, GILMAN, RICHARDSON, THATCHER, WEIDNER, Senator KRUSE URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2700.dir/hb2725.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Ethan Nelson PDD-BPS 2/24/2009 Pri 3 Yes YesIV. A Oppose Comments: HB 2725 restricts the types of fuel sources that are eligible for renewable fuels and energy incentives offered by the State of Oregon. The restriction is to not allow organic 6