Item 2G: Ratification of Unanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling supported the bill but questioned why it was limited to coaches and did not include teachers or clergy or other similar authority figures. Mr. Cushman did not know. He thought that logically the bill should have included teachers. He suggested that coaches were singled out because such abuse was easier to accomplish outside the classroom. He did not oppose including more categories of individuals with potential influence over youth. Ms. Wilson clarified that individual categories were not left out; rather, the bill was requested by a specific constituent focused on a particular issue. She said she could ask the bill’s requester if they would be opposed to adding more categories. She cautioned that if the list of categories was too broad, it could serve to kill the bill. Mayor Piercy clarified the details of the bill with Mr. Cushman. The committee had no changes to make to the staff position of Priority 2, Support. HB 2463/HB 2099 Ms. Wilson said the two bills were virtually identical; HB 2099 was included in the packet, and HB 2463 was not. Both would provide people with a license to carry a handgun in another state with protections provided to persons in Oregon with concealed handgun licenses. Mr. Cushman recommended the City oppose the bills at a level of Priority 3. The committee supported the staff position on the bills; both being Priority 3, Oppose. SB 29 Ms. Wilson said the bill, copies of which were provided to the committee just prior to the meeting, would allow a jurisdiction to adopt an instant runoff voting (IRV) system. Former City Recorder Mary Feldman believed the bill was more of a county issue given that Lane County would bear the costs of such an election. There had been discussion of an amendment to push those costs on the first jurisdiction to employ the methodology. Former City Councilor Ken Tollenaar had asked that the committee take a position on the bill. Ms. Taylor recalled that the Charter Review Committee had made a similar recommendation to the City Council in 2001. She supported the bill. Mr. Tollenaar, a member of that committee, recalled that subsequently, the voters declined to approve such a change. He acknowledged there would be additional costs involved but those were unknown. He believed the Association of Oregon Clerks had legitimate concerns about IRV but thought the bill removed an obstacle to the issue. Mr. Tollenaar averred that things had changed since 2001 and further averred that many jurisdictions in the United States were now employing IRV. Mr. Tollenaar discussed his own electoral experience and why he thought that IRV was preferable to the current “one person, one vote” system that prevailed in the United States. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Tollenaar said former Senator Kate Brown introduced the bill. Mr. Poling expressed appreciation to Mr. Tollenaar for his contributions to the community but respectfully disagreed with him on the topic of IRV. He suggested that if the committee was to allow Mr. Tollenaar to speak, it should let an IRV opponent present their position.He preferred to monitor the bill at this time. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 18, 2009 Page 5