Legislative History. The legislative history to section 13(c) shows that Congress intended to provide for a continuation of "collective bargaining rights" as that phrase was understood when section 13(c) was enacted. In 1963, a Senate committee reported a bill that provided only for "the encouragement of the continuation of collective bargaining rights." S. Rep. No. 82, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 34 (1963). The committee nevertheless "expected that specific conditions normally will be the product of collective bargaining subject to the basic standard of fair and equitable treatment." Id. at 28. Going further than the committee, Senator Xxxxx proposed an amendment providing for "the continuation of collective bargaining in any situation where it now exists." 109 Cong. Rec. 5627 (1963). He explained that the amendment would clarify and improve the protective arrangements of the reported bill by, in relevant part, "mak[ing] it clear that collective bargaining in any situation where it now exists will be continued." Id. He explained that the amendment raised a question of public policy: Should the Federal Government make available to cities, States, and local governmental units Federal money to be used to strengthen their mass transit system in those communities when the use of that money would result in lessening the collective bargaining rights of existing unions? Id. (emphasis added). His position was, "we cannot justify, as a matter of public policy, the use of Federal dollars by a local community or a governmental unit thereof to be spent for development of a transit system, the expenditure of which would result in worsening the present collective bargaining rights of free labor which operates that transit system." Id. (emphasis added). Opponents of Senator Xxxxx'x amendment also understood that the change from "the encouragement of the continuation of collective bargaining rights" to "the continuation of collective bargaining rights in any situation where it now exists" was "an important and significant change." Id. at 5683 (statement of Sen. Tower). They proposed an amendment providing for the continuation of collective bargaining rights where it was "not inconsistent with the laws of the State in which the project or a portion of the project is located." Id. at 5684. Senator Xxxxx responded that if a state law prohibited a municipality from bargaining with its employees, federal funding could be available if the municipality established a private managerial commission to operat...
Legislative History. The Township of West Orange has long provided significant attention and services to its Older Adults, in recognition of their importance to the community. This legislation is designed to create a board for the purpose of further contributing to this effort by focusing on issues affecting Older Adults and their caregivers, as well as advising the Mayor and Township Council. As the U.S. population ages, attention and services to our Older Adults are growing in importance to our society. A key element of this trend is the emergence of the approach known as “Aging In Place,” which seeks to strengthen our society and improve the quality of life and independence of Older Adults with services, living arrangements and social lives that leverage and benefit the communities where they live. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE, IN THE COUNTY OF ESSEX, STATE OF NEW JERSEY (not less than two-thirds of all the members thereof affirmatively concurring), AS FOLLOWS:
Legislative History. The purpose of this ordinance is to update the provision of the Municipal Code of the Township of West Orange governing the local licensing requirements and zoning conditions for Licensed Cannabis Entities within the Township of West Orange to: (i) clarify that it shall be unlawful for any individual or entity to distribute cannabis or cannabis products that do not have a license from the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission and a local license from the Township of West Orange, including any gifting of cannabis or cannabis produce; (ii) provide that all Licensed Cannabis Entities holding a local license, must submit a renewal application not less than sixty (60) days before the expiration of the local license; (iii) extend the existing distance from the property line of any property with a school building for which the operation of a Cannabis Entity is prohibited from 100 feet (100’) to 200 feet (200’); (iv) add an additional condition whereby a Cannabis Entity shall not be allowed to operate within 200feet (200’) from a house of worship; and (v) clarify the parking requirements for Licensed Cannabis Entities; and (v) provide reference to the Township Municipal Code provisions governing the standards and criteria for commercial signage for Cannabis Entities.
Legislative History. The Nevada State Legislature established the Nevada Prepaid Tuition Program (the “Program”) in 1997. The Program is governed through the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 353B and the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 353B. The Program is administered by the Board of Trustees of the College Savings Plans of Nevada through the State of Nevada Treasurer’s Office. With legislative approval, the NRS and NAC’s that govern the Program may be amended from time to time.
Legislative History. The Township of West Orange is located in an area of steep slopes. In addition, over recent years the Township has been experiencing severe weather conditions as a result of global warming and climate change. The purpose of the ordinance changes is to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Township is protected in light of the climate changes that are occurring.
Legislative History. 1936 to 1985 [57] The state of affairs existing in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s was described by the Supreme Court in Vigneux. In his reasons, Chief Justice Xxxx described the environment which led to a series of amendments to the Act as it stood in 1921 (at 352-53): Seven years after the Act of 1921 came into force the legislature realized that in respect of performing rights a radical change in the statute was necessary. Societies, associations and companies had become active in the business of acquiring such rights, and the respondents in this case admittedly have more or less successfully endeavoured to get control of the public performing rights in the vast majority of popular musical and dramatico-musical compositions which are commonly performed in public. The legislature evidently became aware of the necessity of regulating the exercise of the power acquired by such societies (I shall refer to them as dealers in performing rights) to control the public performance of such musical and dramatico-musical works. […] … it is evident that the legislature realized in 1931 that this business in which the dealers were engaged is a business affected with a public interest; and it was felt to be unfair and unjust that these dealers should possess the power so to control such performing rights as to enable them to exact from people purchasing gramophone records and sheets of music and radio receiving sets such tolls as it might please them to exact. It is of the first importance, in my opinion, to take notice of this recognition by the legislature of the fact that these dealers in performing rights, which rights are the creature of statute, are engaged in a trade which is affected with a public interest and may, therefore, conformably to a universally accepted canon, be properly subjected to public regulation. [58] It can thus be seen that the mischief which Parliament sought to correct was the quasi- monopoly which performing rights societies had achieved by acquiring performing rights from the original owners of the copyright. The scheme which Parliament enacted in the Copyright Amendment Act, 1931, S.C. 1931, c. 8 and An Act to amend The Copyright Amendment Act, 1931 S.C. 1935 c. 8, was consolidated in the Act (1936). The discrete elements of the scheme are summarized below. The references are to the Act (1936). Mandatory filing of a statement of the works in a society’s repertoire (s. 10(1)); Mandatory filing of a statement of proposed fees, charge...
Legislative History. In section 2
Legislative History. The history and purpose of the IAD confirm what the text plainly says about the nature of a receiving state’s custody of a prisoner. As noted earlier, the drafters of the IAD designed the compact according to certain guiding principles. In addition to requiring prompt action by law enforcement and correctional officials to resolve detainers, those principles stressed the temporary nature of the receiving state’s custody of the prisoner: “There should be assurance that any prisoner released to stand trial in another jurisdiction will be returned to the institution from which he was released” and “it is essential that the institution [in the sending state] be assured of [the prisoner’s] return after the trial has been completed.” Council of State Governments Report at 75. From its inception, the IAD was intended to give states with pending charges against prisoners in other states only temporary custody over those prisoners for the limited purpose of resolving the pending charges. When the IAD was proposed for adoption by the Maryland General Assembly in the early 1960s, the Legislative Council provided the following description of the operation of the compact when it recommended its adoption: [The IAD] provides a means whereby [a prisoner] can test the substantiality of detainers placed against him and can secure final judgment on indictments outstanding against him in party states. The prisoner will benefit from having a greater degree of certainty concerning his future than he now has. It will be of benefit to Maryland correctional authorities in that they will be able to provide more suitable programs of treatment for the prisoner while he is incarcerated. Legislative Council of Maryland, Report to the General Assembly of 1964, p. 36.
Legislative History. • Please note—References in the legislation to other legislation or instruments or to titles of bodies or offices are not automatically updated as part of the program for the revision and publication of legislation and therefore may be obsolete. • Earlier versions of this Act (historical versions) are listed at the end of the legislative history. • For further information relating to the Act and subordinate legislation made under the Act see the Index of South Australian Statutes or xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xxx.xx. The Non-Metropolitan Railways (Transfer) Act 1997 amended the following: New entries appear in bold. Year No Title Assent Commencement 1997 53 Non-Metropolitan Railways (Transfer) Act 1997 31.7.1997 11.9.1997 (Gazette 11.9.1997 p703) 1998 39 Non-Metropolitan Railways (Transfer) (Building and Development Work) Amendment Act 1998 30.7.1998 30.7.1998 1998 72 Non-Metropolitan Railways (Transfer) (National Rail) Amendment Act 1998 3.12.1998 24.12.1998 (Gazette 24.12.1998 p2074) New entries appear in bold. Entries that relate to provisions that have been deleted appear in italics. Provision How varied Commencement Long title amended under Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 s 11A inserted by 39/1998 s 2 30.7.1998 s 11B inserted by 72/1998 s 3 24.12.1998
Legislative History. SB 516 (Xxxxxxx, (2023/2024), amongst other provisions, would under the AFITL, allow all taxpayers to submit an offer for an IA online or by phone. Additionally, this provision would add an additional requirement of requiring a taxpayer who failed to comply fully with the terms of the IA to be given reasonable opportunity to cure the failure before an IA could be considered null and void or otherwise terminated. SB 516 has been referred to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. AB 3060 (Chapter 1361, Statutes of 1986) authorized the FTB to allow taxpayers under the PITL to enter into IAs.
