On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 10:28:58 -0800 Aleksandr Milewski <n6mod@amt.org>
writes:
>
>> Notice: "Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee:
>> yes. State-mandated local program: no."
>>
>> I read this to mean:
>> a.) The bill passed
>> b.) No money to go with it.
>> c.) Committee deems it financially sound. (no cost)
>> d,) States can legislate against it.
>>
>> I think that means it's not enforceable in California. Any
>opinions?
>>
>> Barney Gaylord
>> 1958 MGA in Illinois
>
>No, what that means is:
>
>a.) The bill will need a simple majority to pass. (Some kinds of bills
>require 2/3rds.)
>b.) No money needed to fund it. (It doesn't cost anything to not test
>cars.)
>c.) The fiscal committee must review it. (Not sure why, given b.)
>d.) This is not something the State (this is a CA bill, remember) is
>requiring the counties to enact.
>(Here in CA, the counties are very touchy about the State requiring
>things of them, mostly because the
>mandates never come with any money from Sacramento.)
>
>Elsewhere on the same site, it lists the current status, which has the
>bill in the Transportation
>Committee.
Thanks. I knew I wasn't destined to be a politition.
Barney
|