Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Role of IGR Committee and Process to Establish Legislative Policy EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ~ Work Session: Discussion on Role of Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations and Process to Establish City Council Policy on Legislative Matters Meeting Date: April 11, 2007 Department: City Manager's Office www.eugene-or.gov Agenda Item Number: A Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson Contact Telephone Number: 682-8441 ISSUE STATEMENT At the request of Councilor Pryor, a work session has been set to discuss and review process and procedural issues related to the relationship between the City Council, Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (IGR), and City Manager on legislative positions per past agreements and Resolution No. 4139. BACKGROUND The Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relationships (IGR) is the only standing committee of the City Council. It was created in the 1980s as a way, in part, to more efficiently inform the City Council about legislation being considered in the Oregon Legislature. The IGR Committee is a three- member committee appointed by the Mayor. Processes and procedures for the IGR Committee have been developed and refined over the years due in part to the changing composition of the committee and the evolving methods to track and monitor bills. At the same time, the staff resource for legislative matters has decreased. Further, the composition of the Legislature itself changes every session and this creates new dynamics, new authorities, and requires staff who manage legislative matters to be very creative in the short period of the legislative session. When established, the purpose of the IGR Committee was to act on behalf of the full City Council to direct policy efforts regarding bills introduced in the Legislature. Guided by the legislative policies adopted by the City Council, the IGR Committee reviewed staff comments on proposed legislation affecting the City organization or of interest to the City, and then gave direction to the intergovernmental staff who lobbied for or against bills. Over the years, a ranking system was developed for the bills, ranging from "Priority 1" to "Priority 3" or "drop." This, in turn, then provides direction to staff in Salem as to the level of effort and intensity to direct toward a particular bill, be it harmful or beneficial for the City. Under the current process, bills are assigned to one or more legislative coordinators within the City organization. The bills are reviewed and staff enters comments into a tracking system. The comments offer possible impacts and results of the proposed legislation, specify who has introduced the bill and why and, finally, recommend a position for the City to take on the bill. LICMOl2007 Council AgendaslM070411 IS070411A.doc The IGR Committee reviews the analysis of each bill and can ask staff to provide more detail on a particular aspect of the bill review. The committee then votes to agree to or modify the staff position on the bill. The next step in the process is the ratification of the recommendations of the IGR Committee by the full City Council. The minutes of the meeting are placed on the council agenda for approval. This provides direction and guidance to staff in Salem on positions on various bills. All of the analysis review and processing of the bills needs to occur within a very short turnaround time due to the pace of the work in Salem during the legislative session. At any point in the process, any member of the council can ask that the full council discuss a bill. The operating agreements of the IGR Committee have required that the full City Council pull any vote on a bill which has not received a unanimous vote at the IGR Committee for a discussion. The above-described process and procedures were discussed and affirmed at the most recent process session held on September 18, 2006 (see attachments A and B). At the IGR meeting of February 13, 2007, a discussion ensued regarding the role of the IGR Committee, the authority of the committee to direct lobbying positions and when the full City Council should be asked to review a bill. Also at that meeting, a motion, which received unanimous support, was made to have bills related to human resources come before the committee. The minutes of that meeting are attached to this summary (see Attachment C). In sum, the purpose of this work session is to clarify the role of the IGR Committee in making recommendations to the full City Council and answer the following policy questions. Are the recommendations of the IGR Committee the position of the City Council until such time that the full council approves or modifies those recommendations? Or, are the recommendations advisory until the full council has the opportunity to review the work of the IGR Committee? What is the role of the IGR Committee in the review of collective bargaining and/or personnel matters? RELATED CITY POLICIES When staff reviews bills, existing City policies and practices are considered, as well as the set of legislative policies that have been approved by the City Council. (The City Council approved the Legislative Policies for the 2007 Legislative Session on November 8, 2006.) The legislative policy document covers a number of matters of importance to the City of Eugene including home rule, taxation, youth, telecom, housing, public safety and land use. COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council has several options with regard to this issue: . Take no action and continue the current practices. . Refine or revise the current process ground rules with regard to the IGR Committee and/or revise the role IGR Committee itself. . Repeal Resolution No. 413 9 regarding the role of the City Manager on the matters of collective bargaining and personnel matters. LICMOl2007 Council AgendaslM070411 IS070411A.doc CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council develop process and procedural agreements which can clearly, quickly and efficiently provide direction to City legislative staff. The City Manager recommends that the City Council clarify the role of the IGR Committee regarding collective bargaining and/or personnel related bills. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to direct staff to draft operating agreements for the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations and to direct staff to draft a resolution to formally adopt the operating agreements for approval by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS A. Overview ofIGR Committee Functions Distributed at the September 18, 2006, Meeting B. Excerpt from the Process Session Minutes of September 18, 2006 C. Excerpt from the IGR Committee Meeting of February 13, 2007 D. Resolution No. 4139 FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson Telephone: 682-8441 Staff E-Mail: brenda.s.wilson@ci.eugene.or.us LICMOl2007 Council AgendaslM070411 IS070411Adoc ATTACHMENT A INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE PROCESS Eugene .City Council PURPOSE: The Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IGR Committee) exists to make recommendations to the full City Council on State and Federal issues affecting Eugene, and on City' applications for funding from outside agencies. A primary responsibility. is to ensure that th~~e is prior City Council approval of legislative policy positions and grant applications. .: MEMBERsmp: The Committee consists of three City Council members, appointed by the Mayor. Two members constitute a quorum for th~ transaction of Committee business. MEETINGS: The Committee meets as needed. The Committee meets more often when the Oregon Legislature is in session, usually twice a month. STAFFING: The Office of Intergovernmental Relations provides staff support to the Committee. However, all City departments are involved in preparing and presenting analysis and recommendations on specific issues. PROCESS: State: Regular sessions of the Oregon Legislature convene in JanuaIy of every odd-numbered year, and continue for approximately six months. As each session approaches, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee ~eviews' and updates, for recommendation to the full Council, the City's Legislative Policies document,' based on Council goals for the community. I The City frrst adopted a formal set of legislative policies prior to the 1985 session, recognizing from past sessions that many staff recommendations were repeated from session to session, and that a great ' percentage of a session's legislative proposals could be anticipated. Given that the City staff routinely analyzes about 1,000 bills during a session, the adoption of policies prior to each session has led to a significant workload reduction for the Co~mittee and the Council, and also has enabled more timely l efforts in Salem. Legislative advocacy is done on' the basis of a priority system. Bills considered to have a potentially high policy or fiscal impact on the City are given a priority 1 position. Bills with moderate but still significant impact are priority 2 bills. Priority 1 bills are those staff actively work on and priority 2 bills are ones staff monitor in Salem. During the session, bills that affect the City are analyzed by staff in the appropriate City department, and a priority recommendation (along.with a recommended position -- support or oppose) is presented to the Intergovernmental Relations Committee: When priority I and 2 issues are not covered in the Legislative Policies, a staff memo is attached recommending a legislative position and included in the Committee's agenda packet. Staff is present at the Committee's meetings to discuss the issues. Bills covered by legislative policies are listed on the Committee's agenda. Minutes of the Committee's meetings are submitted to the full City Council for ratification. These routinely appear on the Council's consent calendar. However, items may be scheduled for ~ll Council consideration separately from the minutes when the Committee is not. unanimous or at the request of a .Committee or Council member. . (over) \, '.... The City is represented full-time inS~lem during each session by Intergovernmental Relations staff who serve as the City's representative for Council approved poH~ies. Other staff, and Council members, also travel to Salem frequently to present information to legislative committees or indi.vidual members. In addition, Eugene has analysis and lobbying resources available through its membership in,the League of Oregon Cities. The City lobbies Eugene's priority issues in accordance with their priority and as circumstances in.Salem and state wide may dictate. The activities may include: doing nothing (this. usually happens because a bill is dormant and will not move); working in a coalition with other entities; submitting written testimony on the City's behalf; testifying before a committee of'the Legislature; arranging for Eugene's elected or appointed officials to give testimony; or any combin~tion, as appropriate. All bills analyzed by the City are tracked on an automated legislative tracking system, which the City modeled after Portland's tracking system. It allows for online sharing of information among City departments and with the Salem office. The system also generates IGR Committee agendas and reports, including a complete list of bills lobbied by the City; which is.presented to the City Council following each session along with a narrative report on results. Federal: At the beginning of each calendar year, the Committee recommends to the full Council a set of Federal priorities for that year. This takes the form of a short five to ten item list of goals that are specific to Eugene 'or to this region, rather than national, and that are considered achievable. The Federal goals are shared with other local jurisdictions as part of the Unitied Front. The Federal priorities list becomes the basis for presentations made during the Council's annual visit to Washington DC, which normally occurs in February or March. The City is represented on this visit by the Mayor and/or one Qrmore Council members, with staff support. During the visit, local elected official~ and staff meet with elected and appointed Federal officials to discuss the City's Federal priorities. Occasional visits to Washington DC by Councilors and staff may take place between the scheduled annual visits. Eugene is represented in Washington .DC on a day-to-day basis by the flffil of Smith Dawson' & Andrews (SDA), an independent contractor. SDA principals visit Eugene at least once each year and report to the Mayor and Council on progress made towar<l achieving the City's Fe4eral goals. Funding applications: This area of responsibility was added to the Committee's purview in 1989. The Committee acts on staff recommendations to apply for funding (grants) from outside'agencies, either governmental or :private foundations. This process is intended to help avoid situations in which City departments may inadvertently be competing with each other for -funding, and to allow the Committee and City Council to decide whether staff has planned adequately, from both a program and budgetary standpoint, for the eventuality that the grant.may be.received. Staff prepares written information of proposed grant applications for the Committee's consideration. When the Committee is not scheduled to meet prior to the application, or when the amount being requested is less than $10,000, the Committee is informed of the p~oposed application via electronic mail. In all cases, the Committee and Council have authoritr to direct that the app lication not go forward, or, if it has already' been submitted for some reason, that it be withdrawn. ATTACHMENT B Excerpt from the Process Session Minutes of September 18, 2006 CCIGR Committee . Preparing for the 2007 Legislative Session Ms. Shepard explained that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Committee (CCIGR) was in preparation for the 2007 Legislative Session. City Manager Taylor related that Mr. Pryor and Mayor Piercy brought this item forward with regard to how items, such as resolutions not directly related to the legislative session, become part of the regular agenda. This had brought up the preparation for the legislative session and how to address a division of opinion on the CCIGR in the course of a regular meeting. He said one suggestion was to make such a division into an action item. Mr. Pryor was uncertain of the exact process the CCIGR work underwent. He recalled that he had heard that an item on which the CCIGR was in agreement be placed on the Consent Calendar and items on which the CCIGR was not in agreement be put on the agenda for discussion. Mr. Kelly understood that items that were not unanimously approved were highlighted for "pre-review" by the councilors. He said anyone who wanted a discussion on an item could then request it be placed on the agenda. Ms. Bettman agreed that was the process, as did Mr. Pape. Ms. Taylor noted that the councilors could pull items that had been agreed upon from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Mr. Carlson cited the last paragraph on Agenda Item Summary (AIS) page 5, Attachment A: Intergovernmental Relations Committee Process. Mr. Pryor noted that there were hundreds of bills and wondered if it was possible for something to "slip through the cracks." Mr. Kelly felt there was a check in process in that the nine councilors and Mayor, with the help of Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser, were tracking them. He added that bill details were available on the Legislative Web site. Ms. Bettman reiterated that a split vote on the CCIGR could lead to an item being pulled from the Consent Calendar at the City Council level. Mr. Pape stressed that any legislative item could be revisited. Mr. Pryor commented that it was good to know the process. He added that he had experienced some confusion when he was new to the council. City Manager Taylor stated that the work session on November 8 would include a review of historic priorities, what was tracked, and how it was prioritized. Mr. Kelly asked if the completed legislative policies document would be available to review. Ms. Walston indicated it would. LICMOl2007 Council AgendaslM070411 IS070411AattB.doc ATTACHMENT C Excerpt from the IGR Committee Meeting of February 13, 2007 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order Ms. Bettman called for additions or changes to the agenda. Ms. Taylor requested clarification on what had passed and what had not passed. Ms. Bettman said she wanted to talk about that as well. Mr. Pryor concurred. Ms. Bettman indicated that she wished to discuss the issue of pass/fail. Ms. Wilson requested clarification on the protocol should be for a motion made by the CCIGR to change staff recommendation that had to go before the full City Council, so she would know how to carry the City's agenda forward on such bills. Ms. Bettman stated that the precedent in the past had been that a majority vote for a specific recommendation of the CCIGR would be placed on a list that was similar to a matrix. She said if a motion passed at the CCIGR, even if not unanimous, it was the recommendation unless someone pulled it at council. She averred that the only time a motion failed was if it did not receive a second and would, therefore, not "go anywhere;" this was considered an endorsement of the staff recommendation. She underscored that a councilor had a right to pull any bill for discussion, though usually councilors only pulled bills that did not have unanimous support for the CCIGR position on them. Ms. Piercy said a vote of the CCIGR was a recommendation to council, which the council could accept or not, and did not go forward as a position until it had passed through the council. Ms. Bettman disagreed. Ms. Taylor concurred with Ms. Bettman. Ms. Piercy asserted that the CCIGR was an advisory body. Ms. Bettman responded that the CCIGR had a right to take a stand on bills unless it was challenged by the council. She reiterated that the CCIGR vote was a recommendation on a bill. Mr. Pryor understood that if a position on a bill did not receive unanimous support it did not automatically go onto the Consent Calendar. For him, the issue lay in that passing through on a Consent Calendar meant the item was something presumed to be matter-of-fact business. He said a 2: 1 vote moved a legislative issue to the level of needing some discussion. He suggested that he bring this up to the council for review and discussion. Ms. Taylor noted that even a vote of3:0 at the CCIGR was less than the majority of the council. She opined that it was up to the councilors to be diligent and review the work of the CCIGR. She remarked that they "may as well not have the committee" if the council needed to review every 2: 1 decision. Ms. Bettman did not like changing a process that had not changed for as long as she had been on the council ')ust because all of a sudden people do not like the votes." She opined that the process worked when there was a "conservative majority on the IGR" and should continue to work if there was not a conservative majority on the committee. She declared it to be a fair process in its current form and it gave the council the ability to question any position the committee took. She said it did require a matrix that tracked every bill along with the minutes. Ms. Wilson said she had a matrix she used in her lobbying efforts and she would provide a copy to the CCIGR. LICMOl2007 Council AgendaslM070411 IS070411AattC.doc Ms. Piercy believed that when the CCIGR took a position on a bill and the lobbyist took that position forward it was the position of the City Council. She could not see having the process move forward without the endorsement of the whole council. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the Mayor's concern. She said it had been her concern, too, because it took a long time for the CCIGR work to come before the council. She averred that if the Mayor was recommending a change to the process the council should have a work session and adopt, via ordinance, the process for the CCIGR. She did not want every change in the political landscape to mean a change in the CCIGR process. Ms. Taylor concurred. Mr. Pryor reiterated his discomfort in moving forward on a recommendation for a bill that only had two votes. He said it indicated disagreement and a need for discussion. Ms. Wilson said the City of Eugene had its credibility in Salem and when the City argued against itself, in that it took one position at one point and then reversed its position after further council discussion, the City lost credibility with the legislature. She noted that the change on Senate Bill (SB) 187 had not affected the City as the bill was now dead. Ms. Bettman said there were other 2: 1 votes and she had been disturbed to see that Ms. Wilson was not lobbying on them. She commented that she had heartburn about changing the process based on the assertion that the CCIGR should not have the authority to represent the City. She reiterated that the process had been the same since she had served on the council. She requested a work session be held as soon as possible. She was willing to support a change in the process as long as it was in an ordinance. She opined that the process had been unquestioned when people she alleged were conservative served on the CCIGR. Ms. Taylor thought the council would have to eliminate scheduled breaks during the legislative session in order not to hamper lobbying efforts, should CCIGR decisions have to be discussed by the full council. Ms. Bettman said the CCIGR should ask itself how the City could lobby at all without the council's full review. She suggested that to stop lobbying on votes that were 2: 1 should mean that votes that lobbying should stop for votes of 3: 0 until the council endorsed it. Ms. Wilson requested some direction on the human resource and collective bargaining bills, as some of those bills were "moving." She wished to ensure she was representing the correct City priority and recommendation. Mr. Pryor appreciated that dilemma. He acknowledged that it was difficult for Ms. Wilson to do her job given the uncertainty coming from the CCIGR. Regarding the previous precedents for the CCIGR process, he averred that even if a tradition had been followed for 100 years, if it was the wrong tradition he could not get behind it. He was conscious of the fact that the City of Eugene's position had to represent the position officially endorsed by the City. To him, the body that did that by charter was the City Council. He felt that a 2: 1 vote by the CCIGR put Ms. Wilson at risk of going to Salem to lobby on behalf of a position that was not necessarily endorsed by the council and, thus, the City. He thought they might have to develop a system to get bills that had immediacy to them before the council expediently and expressed willingness to work on such a system. He reiterated his discomfort at directing Ms. Wilson to lobby for a position on an issue supported by only two votes. Ms. Bettman reiterated that the council had vested that authority in the CCIGR and the committee had functioned on that assumption that a majority vote was a majority vote and that was the recommendation that would go forward unless a councilor pulled it. She said Mr. Pryor wanted to change this. Mr. Pryor acknowledged that he was seeking to change it. LICMOl2007 Council AgendaslM070411 IS070411AattC.doc Ms. Bettman averred that before it could be changed there had to be a system currently in place for the CCIGR to function and she declared it should be based on the precedent to date, which was that a majority vote at the CCIGR instructed the City's lobbyist on what position he or she should advance. She did not think they could make a unilateral change in a process if this was how it had been done to date. Ms. Piercy agreed that things would have to continue as they are until a change could be put into effect. Regarding the human resource bills, she related that she had asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to look into whether there were any reasons why they should look at statewide policies. She recognized that the council had no purview over personnel issues specific to the City of Eugene. She thought statewide policies were another matter. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to have the bills related to human resources come before the CCIGR. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Pryor said he would ask the Mayor, Council President, and City Manager for a work session on the proposed changes to the CCIGR process to be scheduled. LICMOl2007 Council AgendaslM070411 IS070411AattC.doc RESOLUTION NO. lf13' A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY .GOVERNING CITY TESTIMONY AND FUNDING REQUESTS, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 26'25 ADOPTED . FEBRUARY 2.8, 1977. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: 1.. Under..the .Eugene Charter, it is the exclusivt!.. role of the City Council to set legislative pollcy for 'the city. 2. . Testimony by City representatives before the Federal 9overnm~nt" the Legislative Assembly of. the state of oregon or its committees, State'. agencies as defined in ORS 291.002 (7), or before municipal corporations' asdef'iiled by ORS 294.311(19) is regarded as the assertion of City policy . As used herein, in additi.on to the Congress of the United states, references ~o IfFederalgovernment" includes all committees, commissions, departments, 'agencies, bureaus, and other governmental divisions or instrumentalities of the United states. -; , 3. Requests for funding from these _ entities- and from private foundations also constitutes the assertion of City poli~y.. As used herein, '.private foundations" .means tax-exempt .or9~nizations'. which provid~ funds or services for. the implementation .of City'of.Eugene pdlicy. . . .( . Officers, ..employees and agents of the city I the.Mayor, 'and 'members .of the Councilor the City's. boards and. c~mmissions often desire to testify before or~ubmit funding. applications to these entities. s. The Council has determined that City po1icy should be spoken' with one voice apd adopted Resolution No. 2625....~!1: February 28,'1977~ governing such testimony. Resolution No. 2625 shQuld be repealed and the provisions hereinafter set forth establ'ishedas Ci ty '.policy governing testimony before' t.hese bodies and submission of' funding requests. NOW, THEREFORE, , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNC:rtOF THE CITY. OF EUGENE, a ~unicipal Corporation o~. the state of oregon, as follows: Section 1. Based upon the above findings, .which are adopted herein, Resolution No. 2625, adopted by the council on February 28 I 1977 I . an'd any other Resolution in conflict herewith are hereb.y repealed, and City policy governin.g testimony and funding .requests is established as hereinafter set forth. Section 2. Any employee or agent of the city, the Mayor, or Resolution'- 1 any member of the C'ity ,councilor any City board or commission desiring to testify ~n his or. he~ official capac.i.ty on legislative or regulatory matters before the state Legislative Assembly, state agencies, municipal borporations, or the Federal government, or desiring to submit funding requ~sts f'or municipal activities thereto or to any private foundation, shall present the essence of the testimony or funding request to the Council for prior approval, modifi~ation, or disapproval. . section 3. No. employee, agent or officer of the City shall testify on legislative or regulatory matters before a . governmental. entit.y .or request funding' from a public or private sourc~ in his or her official capacity' contrary to the adopted policies of the C9uncil. The 'Mayor, members of the City Council, and members of city boards or -commissions sha.ll not .make a funding request contrary to the adopted policies of the Council. No such person shall testify c~ntraiy to adopted policies of the Council unless prior to thepresehtation t~e speaker submits to the .governmental entity a written statement of the City's position and orally. acknowledges before sp~aking that" the testimony will .be contrary to tbe City's position. summaries of all testimony delivered under this' seQtion shall be provided to the Council. Each summary shall includ'e a description 'of. the time, place and group before which the statement was made. Section 4. In the event time pressures do .not permit the council to . consider the test~mony before the. intended time of presentation by a representative of a city board or commission, the.. person may speak for the board or commission, but must explain that the Council has not. considered the issue. Summaries .of all testimony under this section shall be provided to the Council. Section 5. Any officer, employee or agent of the city, the 'Mayor, ora member of the Councilor a city board or commissio~ may take a position before or request funding from admin~~trative staff of' state agenci-es I municipal corporations, the - Federal government, or private foundations without prior approval of the Council, but must declare that consideration and approval of the Counci 1 ha s not been obtained if that is the case. This declaration need not be given if the position or funding request presented represents application of previousl)' adopted Council po~icies with respect to the issue being considered. Section 6.' If the.. City Manager, or his or her d~signee determines it is importan't that the City of Eugene speak on a legislative issue or apply for available funds and the hearing schedule or funding application deadline does not permit prior Council approval, the City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to speak on behalf of the city of Eugene after consultation "lith the Council Legislative commit,tee Chair. Summaries of all . testimony delivered or funding applications ~ubmitted under this section shall be. provided to the Council. Resolution - 2 section 7 ~ If a legislative issue concerns personnel or collective bargaining matters, the City Manager, or his or her 'designee is authorized to speak on behalf of the City of Eugene. section 8. This Resolution is not to be' construed to abridge the ~ights of individuals. to testify in their own names. Section 9~ The provisions of this Resolution do not apply to testimony before an agency or. court in a quasi-judicial or judicial proceeding. .' Section 10. 'Copies of this Resolution shall be di~tributed to the departments, boards and commissions of the City of Eugene 'and t. as deemed appropriate by the city Manager, to the Federal government, state Legislative Assembly, state agencies, municipal corporations, and private foundations before presentation of testimony or funding requests. The City Manager.is directed to take any other necessary administrative action to implement this .Resolution. . t;-..... The foregoing Resolution adopted the /3 - day of 5:ptf~y 1989. , Il~ A- ?r . city ReZ Resolution - 3