Item 2F: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

House Bill 2547 Ellwood Cushman, Policy Analyst for the Eugene Police Department, explained that the bill related to denial of public assistance to individuals fleeing from law enforcement authorities. Ms. Ortiz related that her concern lay in the undo burden this could cause hospital emergency rooms. She explained that if a person was denied Oregon Health Plan (OHP) benefits the bill for care would fall on the hospital to pay. Mr. Cushman replied that he was uncertain as to whether OHP was classified as public assistance. He said the goal was to prevent individuals who were actively fleeing law enforcement from receiving public assistance. He did not believe the goal was to prevent health care providers from receiving payment. He felt that if this was the case it would make sense to ask for an amendment that would hold them harmless. He indicated he would look into it. Ms. Piercy commented that she was comfortable with the bill because she felt it contained adequate safeguards. The CCIGR made no changes to the staff recommendation of Priority 3 Support. House Bill 2713 Mr. Poling believed that they should change from a Priority 2 Oppose to support because the bill provided due process to employees that were under investigation for policy violations. He said this was covered under the Police Officer’s Bill of Rights and in a lot of areas under contracts. He understood that the bill would ensure that the employer would engage in a full, fair, and impartial investigation of an employee. He thought the bill would benefit officers who were not covered by contracts by giving them the same protections as officers who were protected by bargained contracts. Mr. Cushman remarked that a bill of this type came up every session. He said it contained provisions that were basic and almost human rights issues and other things that they believed should be locally determined and others that were “just flat unworkable.” He underscored that there were already avenues of appeal. He acknowledged that the contract did not cover the rank of sergeant and above, but there were still issues around employment law that required just cause. He noted that the bill contained more specifics, four of which gave cause for concern such that the department would remain strongly opposed to the bill if no amendments were made. He added that it also brought up the home rule principle: should the state be dictating to city and county police agencies how they should discipline one particular group of employees in a way that did not apply to any other class of employees? Ms. Taylor wondered why the CCIGR would oppose the bill. Ms. Ortiz thought Mr. Cushman had articulated the reasons to oppose it well. She did not oppose the concept of the bill but she thought the concerns the department had about it were valid. Ms. Wilson noted that the League of Oregon Cities had opposed the bill based on home rule and that it was an unfunded mandate. Mr. Poling, seconded by, Ms. Taylor, moved to monitor the bill. Mr. Poling thought that with a little tweaking to the language, the concerns of the department could be addressed. He preferred to monitor the bill to see if some of the changes would be made to the bill. Ms. Piercy said she was sympathetic to the issues raised by Mr. Cushman and the issue of home rule. She MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 4, 2009 Page 3