Item 2F: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes

Home Browse Search

Wilson clarified that while the adoption of a neutral position regarding the bill would indicate neither support of opposition, such a stance would come with an official statement from staff as to why such a position had been adopted. Ms. Ortiz felt that there had been conflicting comments made by staff with regard to the recommendations. She further maintained that she would like to see the City support the bill but understood the reasons the City Attorney and Human Resources staff might wish to stay out of it completely. Ms. Wilson, responding to a request from Ms. Ortiz, quoted a statement from the City Attorney’s office and read, “The bill does not really apply to the City, since the City as a public entity cannot advocate for or against religious beliefs or for or against political beliefs with its employees. I am concerned about the City taking a position on the bill since the Establishment Clause [of] the First Amendment prohibits the government from taking any actions that either support or are opposed to any particular religion or religion versus non-religion. My concern is if the City takes any position on this bill it could be construed as possible opposition to the expression of religious beliefs in the workplace and a violation of the Establishment Clause. It is unlikely that anyone would challenge the City on this, but I think it’s safer to take a neutral position on the bill, especially since as a practical matter it won’t apply to the City anyway.” CMO Division Manager Andy Fernandez noted that from a civil and human rights perspective it had initially made sense for the City to support SB 519 but in light of the City Manager’s comments regarding the bill in relation to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment it seemed more prudent to adopt a neutral position. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the City’s recommendation to a monitor position regarding SB 519. Mr. Poling asked that it be stated in the record that his motion regarding SB 519 had been based on the advice of the City Attorney’s office. Ms. Piercy reiterated her earlier comments about the importance of protecting the rights of the City’s employees and asked if the City’s legal advisors could find any way the City could support the bill while at the same time protecting itself against any perceived misconceptions or liabilities. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, stated that it was currently unknown how likely SB 519 was to pass and that she would have more information in that regard after April 24. Ms. Ortiz maintained that it would be difficult for her to agree to a monitor position regarding the bill and indicated she would vote against Mr. Poling’s motion. Ms. Taylor called for a vote on Mr. Poling’s previously stated motion. The motion did not pass (Ms. Ortiz voting in opposition). HB 3025 - Relating to climate change. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 3025 to the committee members and noted that staff had originally recommended a Priority 3 opposition position regarding the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that staff had recently discussed the bill with staff representatives from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Solid Waste division and was now and had subsequently changed their recommendation to a neutral position. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 22, 2009 Page 3