Laserfiche WebLink
against what he perceived to be not a good bill. He disagreed that this could be characterized as a <br />personality attack. He averred that to support or oppose a bill just because one of the local elected <br /> <br /> at something that they <br />might not to be bothered with. <br />Ms. Taylor ascertained that since the motion had been made but the second had withdrawn, the bill would <br />come before the council for discussion. <br />HB 3131 <br />Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would prohibit a public employer from using a replacement worker to <br />perform the duties of a public employee engaged in a lawful strike. <br />Susan Mullett, Management Analyst for the Human Resources Division, considered the bill to be written <br />so broadly that it would dictate that no replacement workers could be hired and that non-represented <br />employees could not be placed in roles served by represented employees during a strike. She said two of <br />the four unions the City contracted with were in public safety and a third, the American Federation of <br />State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), comprised the largest number of city employees. <br />She stated that many of the AFSCME positions were on the front of customer service for the public and <br />the way the law was written would disallow non-represented employees from providing those services in <br />the event of a strike. <br />Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill. She did not want to oppose it because she considered that position <br />to be anti-labor. <br />Ms. Mullett underscored that the City had good relationships with the unions and had worked hard to <br />resolve contracts. <br />Ms. Taylor noted that the law applied to the whole state. Ms. Piercy concurred. <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to monitor the bill. The motion passed un- <br />animously, 3:0. <br />SB 743 <br />Ms. Wilson explained that SB 743 related to electricity from low-impact hydroelectric facilities that could <br />be used to comply with renewable portfolio standards. She said staff had recommended opposing the bill <br />pending contact with the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). She related that EWEB had indicated <br />that it supported the bill and staff wanted to change its position to Priority 3 Support. <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support position on the <br />bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. <br />HB 3008 <br />Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would require a bicycle licensing and registration system. <br />MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 7 <br />