My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2H: Ratifiaction of Unanimous IGR Actions
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 05/11/09 Meeting
>
Item 2H: Ratifiaction of Unanimous IGR Actions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:41:54 PM
Creation date
5/8/2009 11:34:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/11/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
speak about someone who had left the department in lieu of facing potential termination. <br />Ms. Piercy said she would be opposed to the bill unless the CCIGR heard from the department and from <br />labor in general about it. <br />Capt. Swenson had been struck, when looking at the bill, by how much the department was already doing <br />a lot of the things the bill would require. <br />police officer. He <br />example, if the spouse thought his or her concerns would become information the applicant would <br />someday have access to. He stressed the importance of having as much information as possible about a <br />potential officer so that someone with anger issues or other issues would not be hired for the position. <br />Ms. Ortiz commented that she had some experience with job clearances for the military. She related that <br />She assumed that this was the same sort of thing and that they wanted people to be anecdotal in truth. <br />Ms. Taylor was concerned that this would preclude an employee from finding out why they were not <br />hired. She suggested they change the position to monitor. <br />Ms. Wilson stated that the bill had not been scheduled for a hearing at this point. <br />Ms. Taylor decided to leave the staff recommendation to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose position in place. <br />HB 3023 <br />Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would require health benefit plans and health insurance to allow depen- <br />dents to continue coverage past the current age limit for coverage under specified conditions. <br />Ms. Ortiz noted that her place of employment would provide insurance for another adult who shared the <br />micile, even if that person was not family. She observed that many older children were <br />being forced to return to live at home and she was not certain the City should not take care of those <br />dependents, too. Myrnie Daut, Risk Services Manager, responded that the bill defined a dependent as a <br />child and would require that insurance be provided to dependents up to the age of 30. She explained that <br />the current plan allowed dependents to remain on the policy to the age of 19 and, if the dependent was <br />going to college, he or she would receive coverage until the age of 23. She supported monitoring the bill. <br />She added that in a <br />right to require a dependent up to the age of 30 to be covered. <br />struggling right now. She observed that the age bracket between 25 and 35 was the most likely to not get <br />medical care and was also the most likely to have long-term benefits from regular health care. <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to monitor the bill. <br />Ms. Piercy remarked that universal health care was the answer. She averred that there needed to be other <br />ways of handling this situation. <br />Ms. Taylor preferred to oppose the bill. <br />MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.