Item 2H: Ratifiaction of Unanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

speak about someone who had left the department in lieu of facing potential termination. Ms. Piercy said she would be opposed to the bill unless the CCIGR heard from the department and from labor in general about it. Capt. Swenson had been struck, when looking at the bill, by how much the department was already doing a lot of the things the bill would require. police officer. He example, if the spouse thought his or her concerns would become information the applicant would someday have access to. He stressed the importance of having as much information as possible about a potential officer so that someone with anger issues or other issues would not be hired for the position. Ms. Ortiz commented that she had some experience with job clearances for the military. She related that She assumed that this was the same sort of thing and that they wanted people to be anecdotal in truth. Ms. Taylor was concerned that this would preclude an employee from finding out why they were not hired. She suggested they change the position to monitor. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill had not been scheduled for a hearing at this point. Ms. Taylor decided to leave the staff recommendation to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose position in place. HB 3023 Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would require health benefit plans and health insurance to allow depen- dents to continue coverage past the current age limit for coverage under specified conditions. Ms. Ortiz noted that her place of employment would provide insurance for another adult who shared the micile, even if that person was not family. She observed that many older children were being forced to return to live at home and she was not certain the City should not take care of those dependents, too. Myrnie Daut, Risk Services Manager, responded that the bill defined a dependent as a child and would require that insurance be provided to dependents up to the age of 30. She explained that the current plan allowed dependents to remain on the policy to the age of 19 and, if the dependent was going to college, he or she would receive coverage until the age of 23. She supported monitoring the bill. She added that in a right to require a dependent up to the age of 30 to be covered. struggling right now. She observed that the age bracket between 25 and 35 was the most likely to not get medical care and was also the most likely to have long-term benefits from regular health care. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to monitor the bill. Ms. Piercy remarked that universal health care was the answer. She averred that there needed to be other ways of handling this situation. Ms. Taylor preferred to oppose the bill. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 5