Item 2H: Ratifiaction of Unanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

Mr. Cushman thought it would be helpful to have a position that would say the bill would be acceptable if some changes were made. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to support the bill if it would be amended to change the mandatory jail sentence and the mandatory action required of the arresting or citing officer. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2842 Ms. Wilson said the bill would repeal Ballot Measure 57 and related provisions. Staff recommended adoption of a Priority 2 Oppose position. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would have to pass through the committee on rules; it had been referred to the Ways and Means Committee. She said it would require a two-thirds majority in order to pass. Ms. Piercy remarked that she cared about property crimes being prosecuted but she was not a fan of Ballot Measure 57. She was inclined to support it. Ms. Taylor moved to change the position to support the bill. The motion died for lack of a second. HB 2872 Ms. Wilson related that the bill would increase the punishment for second and subsequent convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm. Staff had recommended adoption of a Priority 3 Support position. Ms. Ortiz indicated that her chief concern was that the priority for support should be stronger. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to change the priority to a Priority 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 708 Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would provide that if a person applied for employment with a law enforcement agency, all former and current employers of the person must provide to the law enforcement agency all the information available related to that person. Staff recommended a Priority 3 Oppose position. Captain Steve Swenson agreed that the concept was good; people should be held accountable and it would be good to ensure the department had good people coming to work for them. He said the bill had some from the employer should be provided and this was too broad; it did not say all records or all disciplinary records and this another area of concern had to do with background information. He explained that a lot of people provided background information about themselves or potential employees because they were guaranteed that the information would be confidential and would not go any further from that point on. He said there were times that a family member or close friend would indicate that while they cared about that person they did not feel the person would make a good police officer. If that information was then available when the person applied for the willingness to be absolutely frank. He was also concerned that it would affect how they were able to MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 4