DOCSLIB.ORG

Section II LEGISLATURES and LJEGISLATION 1. Legislatures 2. Legislation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section II LEGISLATURES and LJEGISLATION 1. Legislatures 2. Legislation Section II LEGISLATURES AND LJEGISLATION 1. Legislatures 2. Legislation V; fi ^ •U ^9 /""^•. C^ aS''. \ \ .\ P- \ .. SO' 1 Legislatures <^i>^ NiW, LEGISLAliYE ORX3ANIZATION AND SERVICES BY LEO F. KENNEDY* fc> r I IHE MOVEMENT to modernize State quate legislative compensation; a more I Legislatures,contintied to accelerate productive committee system; better during 1968-^9;"Jn each of the States equipment and facilities; and improving actions werie taken^^^modernize the Leg­ the quality and increasing the numbeTof " islature. Part of a long-term movement, staff assistants. these actions were based upon the realiza­ Various elements stimulated and sup­ tion that Legislatures needed to develop ported the legislative modernization more adequate structures, procedures and movement such as legislative study staff services if they were to solve the com­ groups, the voters and national organiza­ plex problems facing the States. tions interested in legislative improve­ The legislative modernization move­ ment. ' /. ment was part of a broader movement Diiring the biennium numerous com­ aimed toward revitalizing state govern­ mittees both within and outside Legisla­ ments. XVhether directed 'toward broad tures studied the legislative process and constitutional or functional changes, recommended improvements. In forty- these efforts were set in the context of so­ four States studies were made by legisla­ cial developments that challenged the tive cominittees, staff agencies, constitu­ antiquated structures and processes of tional revision committees and citizens' many state governments. These techno­ groups. In many. States comprehensive logical, ecological and demographic"~de- examinations of* the legislative process velopments created a host of challenges were conducted; however, in other States which the States, and more specifically the the studies were limited in scope. Often State Legislatures, needed to solve if they formal reports were prepared, and by the were to continue to play a vital role in the end of 1969 eighty-one reports were issued federal system. in thirty-five States. The goal of the legislative moderniza­ Many of the suggested, improvements tion movement was an effective decision­ in legislative organization, procedure and making process addressed to urgent prob­ staffing could be realized by legislative lems. To achieve this aim legislative action without recourse to constitutional modernization Was directed toward a change. In States with constitutional re­ number of specific goals: more efficient strictions on legislative organization, pro­ scheduling of legislative activities; ade- cedure and power, proposed changes were submitted to the voters for their approvalr-t *Mr. Kennedy is Assistant Director of Research The">oters generally supported the rec­ of the Council of State Governments. Assisting ommended changes, as evidenced by the in-the preparation of this chapter, by provision of fact that'they approved fifty-two of sixty- much of tne data for it were-Miss Virginia Cook, Mrs. Carolyn Kenton ahd Mrs. Barbara Nelson of eight constitutional amendments dealing the Council of State Governments'; staff. with the Legislature submitted during 51 52 THE BOOK OF THE STATES .1968-69, (For further details on constitu­ than once in two; years. The ariiendment tional amendments, see. page 5.) did not specifically establish an annual The legislative modernization move­ session, but it enabled the Legislature to ment also was stimulated by the activities do so if it wished. As of late 1969 the and reports of national organizations in­ Legislature had not done so. Annual ses­ terested in legislative improvements. The sion pr'oposals were defeated in Kentucky Council of State Governments, through and Texas in 1969. - . its committees on legislative moderniza­ The trend toward providing for annual tion and training, regional conferences sessions slowly gained momentum. Con­ and affiliated organizations, fostered the stitutional provisions existed for annual modernization movement. One of its sessions in six States by 1947, in eighteen affiliated organizations, the National States by 1961 and, excluding Wisconsin, Legislative Conference, contributed an— twenty-six States by 1969. Annual session important stimulus to, the movement.. projx)sals were scheduled t{^be on the bal­ The Citizens Conference on State Legis­ lot in 1970 in several Stat/es including latures provided much research, informa­ Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada tion and advisory sei'vice. The Advisory and Origgon. • Commission on Intergovernmental Rela­ Another approach used to expand the tions sponsored periodic conferences for session time structure was to eliminate legislative leaders. In addition, the Na­ restrictions on topics Vk^hich may be con­ tional Municipal League, the National sidered during the second year session. Conference of State Legislative Leaders Two annual session States, Hawaii and and university groups demonstrated con­ Delaware, dropped the restriction on sub­ siderable interest in legislative moderni­ ject matter for the alternate year session. zation. With the addition of Delaware and Ha­ waii, twenty-one annual session States SESSIONS had no restriction on subject matter dur­ During 1968-69 many States took ac­ ing the/alternate year. However, in five tions directed toward a more effective use annual session States—Colorado, Louisi­ of the legislative biennium through bet­ ana, New Mexico, Utah and West Vir­ ter distribution and organization of ses­ ginia—the second year session was limited sion time.^ Two trends were evident: to budget and fiscal matters. Legislatures were experimenting with' Other approaches used to increase the more expanded time structures and they session time structure were to eliminate were developing procedures for more or ease the limitation on length of regular efficient internal organization of the ses­ and special sessions^^ During the biennium sion time. • Arizona and North Carolina eliminated The movement toward an expanded the restriction for regular and special ses­ time structure encompassed numerous sions. Delaware dropped the restriction approaches. One approach was to amend on special sessions and increased the regu­ the constitution to provide for annual lar session length by providing that both sessions. Mississippi voters in July 1968 the even and odd year sessions adjourn approved an annual session proposal and by the last day of June. Hawaii eased the Florida, Idaho, Iowa and Utah voters limitation during the alternate year by passed annual session measures in No­ increasing the number of days allowed vember 1968. from thirty to sixty calendar days. In addition to the favorable action by Special sessions were utilized to expand voters in the five States inentioned above, the amount of time available for. formal special notice should be made of an legislative deliberation. During 1968-69 amendment approved by the Wisconsin a total of thirty-eight special sessions were voters deleting the provision prohibiting held in twenty-four States. Actually, spe­ the Legislature from meeting more often cial sessions were called less frequently in 1968-69 as compared with 1966-67 ^For a further elaboration on this approach see • The Time Structure of Legislatures Today, Wis- . when fifty-one were held. Possibly the consin Legislative Rieference Bureau, May 1968. , easing of reapportionrnent presstires and LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 53 the move toward longer and more fre- session. These meetings Were a useful quent sessions were reflected in the re- procedure by which new members could duced number ol special sessions. be .acquainted with their duties, legisla-. Legislatures were also attempting to tive procedures, staff services, major pro- achieve a better distribution^ of session grams, and each other. New legislators, days by alternating sessjon and recess pe- and often veterans, attended these meet- riods without adjourning sine die or by ings which lasted from one to several days, splitting the sessions. Either approach had Beginning with Massachusetts in 1933, the advantage of permitting standing the number of States providing orienta- committees to function during the recess tion conferences for legislators has in- period. Legislatures in Illinois, Ohio, . creased over the years. By the end of the Tennessee, _ Vermont and Wisconsin, 1950s such sessions had been held in at which met biennially, achieved the effect least thirty-two States, and during 1968- - of an annual session by utilizing their 69 forty-six States reported holding these power to recess rather than adjourn sine meetings. Idaho held its first conference die. Through thisr^procedure these Legis- in 1968 and Louisiana reinstituted its con- latures were able to meet during the sec- ference in 1968. Thirty-one States held ond year of their biennium. Annual ses- conferences prior to the session, while six- sion States such as California, Georgia, - teen held, conferences early in the session. ^Hawaii, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Minnesotahad two meetings, one prior to Island and Pennsylvania recessed at least the session and one early in the session, once during the biennium and gained the Other procedures used to increase legis- advahtage of a better distribution of ses- lative efficiency were presession bill draft- sion timie. ' . ing and presession bill filing. Through The second basic trend was more ef- the yeairs Legislatures have relied more ficient internal organization of session and more on these procedures as a
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alaska Legislature 2020 Salary and Business Expense Report
    ALASKA LEGISLATURE 2020 SALARY AND BUSINESS EXPENSE REPORT PREPARED BY: LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 3 JUNEAU, AK 99801 ALASKA LEGISLATURE 2020 SALARY AND BUSINESS EXPENSE REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Explanatory Notes 2. Part A Total Payments 3. Part B Payments by Calendar Year This report includes amounts paid during calendar year 2020 to legislators and legislative directors, or to third parties on their behalf, by the Legislative Affairs Agency and Division of Legislative Audit. I Explanatory Notes ALASKA LEGISLATURE 2020 SALARY AND BUSINESS EXPENSE REPORT SALARY BUSINESS EXPENSE Legislators expend funds during the calendar year in the 1. Salary (Part A, column six) performance of their duties. The majority of these expenses are The Alaska State Officers Compensation Commission sets salaries paid directly to third parties. The remainder are reimbursed to for legislators. At the end of 2019, the Legislative branch legislators for receipted expenditures. converted from a semi-monthly (twice a month) to a bi-weekly (every two weeks) payroll cycle. This caused the number of 2. Business Expense Allowance (Part A, column five) paychecks to go from 24 to 26 in 2020. With the new calculation in payroll each member of the Legislature was entitled to a salary of Legislators receive an annual allowance for postage, stationery, $50,407.50. The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the stenographic services and other expenses. Senators receive up to House of Representatives are each entitled to an additional $500 a $20,000 and Representatives receive up to $12,000. The allowance year during tenure of office.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorectal Cancer
    Preventing Colorectal Cancer Tool Kit CSG’s Healthy States Initiative ß Legislator Policy Brief Trends analysis, innovative responses and expert advice ß Talking Points on critical public health issues for states. ß Reducing Colorectal Cancer: Screening, Access and Services in Minority and Underserved Communities www.healthystates.csg.org ß Sample State Legislation ß Resources Guide for State Policymakers 859.244.8000 8dadgZXiVa8Vc8Zg Published June 2007 June Published necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. government. U.S. the of policies or position official the represent necessarily U38/CCU424348. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not not do and author the of those are document this in view of Points U38/CCU424348. EgZkZci^c\ Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, under Cooperative Agreement Agreement Cooperative under Prevention, and Control Disease for Centers Services, Funding for this publication is provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Human and Health of Department U.S. the by provided is publication this for Funding National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators. State of Caucus Hispanic National the initiative are the National Black Caucus of State Legislators and the the and Legislators State of Caucus Black National the are initiative the responses, and provide expert advice on public health issues. CSG's partners in in partners CSG's issues. health public on advice expert provide and responses, health experts to share information, analyze trends, identify innovative innovative identify trends, analyze information, share to experts health Disease Control and Prevention, state health department officials, and public public and officials, department health state Prevention, and Control Disease enterprise brings together state legislators, officials from the Centers for for Centers the from officials legislators, state together brings enterprise to help state leaders make informed decisions on public health issues.
    [Show full text]
  • POVERTY and OPPORTUNITY: STATE GOVERNMENT TASK FORCES MEMBER COMPOSITION and OPERATIONS
    March 2011 POVERTY and OPPORTUNITY: STATE GOVERNMENT TASK FORCES MEMBER COMPOSITION AND OPERATIONS round the nation, state governments have established task forces economic diversity among the membership, such as including a or commissions to develop new strategies and recommendations member with personal experience of or currently living in poverty; A for tackling poverty and providing opportunity. Managed others also specified other diversities. Representatives of the business effectively, the high-level attention of a task force created by a communities and economic development were included in more than a governor or legislature is an important step toward building the third of the task forces. Some commissions augmented the core group political and public will that is essential for policy change. with working groups, advisory groups or subcommittees made up of issue experts and public members. As legislators or governors move forward in establishing a task force, some early questions include who should be on the task force and how After the table of authorizing language is a summary of some of the will the work of the task force itself get funded. The following chart funding and staffing support for the state task forces. This isn’t a lists the composition of the 21 tasks forces established since 2003. comprehensive review of operational supports. The majority of the Some of these are on-going; others have completed their work. The task forces didn’t have explicit funding in their authorizing language, chart is followed by the full authorizing language. The composition of but many of them were able to receive staff support in kind and the task forces ranged from being at the discretion of the Governor to outside funding through public-private partnerships.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Project on Term Limits 2004
    Kansas: A Retro Approach to Lawmaking By Michael A. Smith, The University of Kansas Brenda Erickson, National Conference of State Legislatures Joint Project on Term Limits 2004 National Conference of State Legislatures Council of State Governments State Legislative Leaders’ Foundation 7700 East First Place Denver, CO 80230-7143 (303) 364-7700 • fax (303) 364-7800 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 624-5400 • fax (202) 737-1069 http://www.ncsl.org © 2005 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. Introduction Among the fifty state legislatures, Kansas’s might be termed a retro approach to governing. The state lacks the petition initiative, and therefore it also lacks many of the complicating factors that have changed governance in many other U.S. states. Kansas has no citizen-initiated tax cap such as California’s Proposition 13, Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or Missouri’s Hancock Amendment. Furthermore, the state still maintains a citizen legislature with low pay, limited staff, and short sessions. And finally, Kansas does not have term limits on its legislators. The legislative process in Kansas has changed recently to accommodate a more-complex government, a changing political climate, and the advent of new information technology. But overall, Kansas’s Legislature has not changed radically in its functioning during the past ten years. Kansas is unlikely to have legislative term limits anytime in the foreseeable future. Because the Sunflower State lacks the petition initiative, the only way to pass such a policy in the state would be for the legislators themselves to send voters a constitutional amendment limiting their own terms—an unlikely prospect, especially given the near-universal disdain for term limits expressed by legislators during our interviews.
    [Show full text]
  • Section II LEGISLATURES and LEGISLATION 1. Legislative
    I . s . ^ • -• -y- ;•,.-. • ; ,. ; -, /,. •,;.-.^ •• .. ^ "'• " '-"t- Section II LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 1. Legislative Organization and Services 2. Legislation • .••••.4- J • •••••fe^^r^. • "^VV"/. „._'*; T- Qi A-.. ^!^ 0 1 Legislative Organization and Services -T-^ STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES HE citizens of the states through their widely from state to state:—in Idaho there Tconstitutions have vested the su- are forty-four Senators to fifty-nine Rep- preme latv-making power in their resentatives; in New Hampshire there are legislatures. They have provided for the twenty-four Senators to 400 RepresenP**' popular election at frequent intervals of atives. *'. those whoxomprise th^ legislative bodies. With two noteworthy exceptions, only Except in Nebraska they have established minor changes have been made by sta|jes two-house legislatures. during the past biennium in the size of. Beyond these common elements, a wide their legislatures. The exceptions ar$ variety of constitutional provisions, stat- Alaska and Hawaii, which became istate^ utory requirements, rules and preceden^ts during the period under review. In the. govern the workings of the state legisla- former the legislature was increased from tures. Together they determine the many forty to sixty members;" in Hawaii, the details of legislative structure, organiza- total went from forty-five to seventy-six. In tion and procedure, the purpose of which both states, the lower house noyf is ahnost is to enable the legislatures to carry out exactly twice as large as the Senate, their responsibilities in an orderly and "In all states legislative terms are either effective manner. two years or four. State Senators in thirty- „ five states—an increatse of three in the past biZE AND lERMs biennium—serve for four ycarsHn fifteen In Nsize American state legislatures (including Nebraska) they serve for two.
    [Show full text]
  • Newly Elected Representatives in the 114Th Congress
    Newly Elected Representatives in the 114th Congress Contents Representative Gary Palmer (Alabama-6) ....................................................................................................... 3 Representative Ruben Gallego (Arizona-7) ...................................................................................................... 4 Representative J. French Hill (Arkansas-2) ...................................................................................................... 5 Representative Bruce Westerman (Arkansas-4) .............................................................................................. 6 Representative Mark DeSaulnier (California-11) ............................................................................................. 7 Representative Steve Knight (California-25) .................................................................................................... 8 Representative Peter Aguilar (California-31) ................................................................................................... 9 Representative Ted Lieu (California-33) ........................................................................................................ 10 Representative Norma Torres (California-35) ................................................................................................ 11 Representative Mimi Walters (California-45) ................................................................................................ 12 Representative Ken Buck (Colorado-4) .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Minnesota Gag Law and the Fourteenth Amendment
    MR, HARTMANN, a resident of Minneapolis, is enrolled in the University of Minnesota graduate school, where he is working toward a degree in American constitutional history. This is his first published article. The Minnesota GAG LAW and the Fourteenth Amendment JOHN E. HARTMANN ON JUNE 1,1931, the Supreme Court of the and the protection it affords a democratic United States handed down a decision community without the privflege this act which, according to one authority, repre­ seeks to limit." ^ sented "the climax of a striking evolution The origins of the Minnesota "gag law" in our Constitutional law whereby freedom are obscure. Some claim that it was spon­ of speech and press is at last effectively sored by a legislator intent on silencing an "nationalized'." In this decision, rendered in editor who was attacking him, and that the case of Near v. Minnesota, the court the editor died before the law could be for the first time used "the guarantee of applied to his particular publication.^ The liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment . bill was initiated in the Minnesota Senate to completely obliterate a state law."^ by Freling H. Stevens, a Minneapolis attor­ The law in question, which had been ney whose firm included his brother and enacted by the Minnesota legislature in his two sons. He was serving his second 1925, declared certain types of publications term as state senator, and politically he was a nuisance and provided for injunctions to a Progressive-Republican. When the bfll prevent their circulation. Of this Minnesota was introduced on March 27, 1925, as Sen­ measure — the first to provide for actual ate File 1181, it did not cause a furor.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizens' Guide
    CITIZENS’ GUIDE AN OVERVIEW FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AT THE NEW JERSEY STATE HOUSE New Jersey Legislature Office of LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Prepared by the Office of Public Information Current as of July 12, 2021. WELCOME TO THE NEW JERSEY STATE CAPITOL The public is invited to the Capitol to participate in the lawmaking process. Galleries on the second floor of the State House allow for citizens to observe voting sessions. The Senate President and General Assembly Speaker establish standards for access and decorum, which are enforced by Sergeants at Arms. Committee meetings are held in the State House Annex and are open to the public. Committee chairs determine matters of protocol. Advance registration to provide testimony typically is required and arranged by the committee aide. If public attendance exceeds room capacity, an overflow space is provided when possible. Citizens seeking to address legislators may wait in public corridors, with the expectation they will not impede anyone’s progress, hold signs, or create a disturbance. Rules for access are set by the State Capitol Joint Management Commission and enforced by the State Police. Public events and displays inside the Capitol are coordinated through the Public Use Program (609-847-3130). Outside gatherings require a permit from the State Police (609-984-4222). Notice of legislative activity is available at www.njleg.org, on Twitter @OLS_Leginfo, and from the Legislative Information and Bill Room (LIBR) in Room B1 of the State House Annex (800-792-8630/609-847-3905). A publication with information for visitors with special needs is available from the LIBR and at www.njleg.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Prayer Practices
    Floor Action 5-145 Prayer Practices Legislatures operate with a certain element of pomp, ceremony and procedure that flavor the institution with a unique air of tradition and theatre. The mystique of the opening ceremonies and rituals help to bring order and dignity to the proceedings. One of these opening ceremonies is the offering of a prayer. Use of legislative prayer. The practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer is long- standing. The custom draws its roots from both houses of the British Parliament, which, according to noted parliamentarian Luther Cushing, from time ”immemorial” began each day with a “reading of the prayers.” In the United States, this custom has continued without interruption at the federal level since the first Congress under the Constitution (1789) and for more than a century in many states. Almost all state legislatures still use an opening prayer as part of their tradition and procedure (see table 02-5.50). In the Massachusetts Senate, a prayer is offered at the beginning of floor sessions for special occasions. Although the use of an opening prayer is standard practice, the timing of when the prayer occurs varies (see table 02-5.51). In the majority of legislative bodies, the prayer is offered after the floor session is called to order, but before the opening roll call is taken. Prayers sometimes are given before floor sessions are officially called to order; this is true in the Colorado House, Nebraska Senate and Ohio House. Many chambers vary on who delivers the prayer. Forty-seven chambers allow people other than the designated legislative chaplain or a visiting chaplain to offer the opening prayer (see table 02-5.52).
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Justices of the Delaware Supreme Court in Support of Petitioner ______
    No. 19-309 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________ JOHN C. CARNEY, GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE, Petitioner, v. JAMES R. ADAMS, Respondent. ___________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ___________ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FORMER CHIEF JUSTICES OF THE DELAWARE SUPREME COURT IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ___________ VIRGINIA A. SEITZ* KATHLEEN MORIARTY MUELLER SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae January 24, 2020 * Counsel of Record TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .......................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 3 ARGUMENT ......................................................... 6 I. OUR CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITION EMBRACES THE SELECTION OF JUDGES BASED ON PARTY AFFILIA- TION .............................................................. 6 II. DELAWARE’S CHOSEN JUDICIAL- SELECTION PROCESS IS CONSTITU- TIONAL ......................................................... 12 A. Delaware’s Judicial-Selection Process Is Within Its Authority As A Sovereign And Has Produced An Excellent Judiciary ..... 12 B. This Court’s Decisions In Elrod And Branti Confirm The Constitutionality Of Delaware’s Judicial-Selection Process ..... 16 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 20 (i) ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980) ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Legislative Scorecard
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD OCTOBER 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR..... 3 ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA................... 4 AT A GLANCE SCORE SUMMMARY......... 8 BILL DESCRIPTIONS............................ 12 SENATE SCORECARD........................... 18 ASSEMBLY SCORECARD....................... 23 ABOUT NEW JERSEY LCV ..................... 27 New Jersey League of Conservation Voters Board of Directors: Julia Somers, Chair Joseph Basralian, Vice Chair Carleton Montgomery, Treasurer Bill Leavens, Secretary Michele S. Byers, Trustee James G. Gilbert, Trustee Scott Rotman, Trustee Arniw Schmidt, Trustee New Jersey League of Conservation Voters Staff: Ed Potosnak, Executive Director Kaitlin Barakat, Water Quality Coordinator Dominic Brennan, Field Organizer Lee M. Clark, Watershed Outreach Manager Henry Gajda, Public Policy Director Joe Hendershot, Field Organizer Rebecca Hilbert, Policy Assistant Anny Martinez, Bi-Lingual Environmental Educator Hillary Mohaupt, Social Media Strategist and Inclusion Manager Eva Piatek, Digital Campaigns Manager Kristin Zilcosky, Director of Digital Engagement Jason Krane, Director of Development 2 DEAR FELLOW CONSERVATION VOTER, I am excited to present the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters’ 2019 Environmental Scorecard. Our scorecard rates each member of the New Jersey Senate and Assembly on their conservation record and actions taken to protect the environment in the Garden State. It does this by tracking how New Jersey’s 40 senators and 80 Assembly members voted on key legislation affecting air and water quality, open space, and the fight against climate change. As “the political voice for the environment,” New Jersey LCV uses its resources to elect environmental champions and support them in office while helping to defeat candidates and officeholders whose legislative priorities do not include air, water, and land protections. We empower legislators by providing background information before key environmental votes, and we hold legislators accountable for their positions and actions related to our environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Concerns Workshops Inc
    LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE LIBRARY This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp , L~r~jIfllil 1111/1/11/1III/IIIIII/IIII/II! 3030700041 8049 Urban Concerns Workshops Inc. ~120 Le 1091 ,U75 PREFACE As a part of the Bicentennial Celebration, URBAN CONCERNS WORKSHOPS INC. developed PROJECT 120. The idea behind the pro­ gram was to give one hundred and twenty Minnesota high school juniors and seniors the opportunity to see Minnesota government in operation. With a grant from the Minnesota Bicentennial Commission and the Minnesota Government Learning Center, URBAN CONCERNS WORKSHOPS INC. took six groups of twenty students to the Minnesota Capitol during the 1976 Legislative Session. The students had the opportunity to observe the Legislature in opera­ tion for one week, meet with state elected officials, Congressmen, Legislators, lobbyists, reporters, and legislative staff members. Representatives of both political parties talked with the stu­ dents and mock precinct caucuses were conducted. Each student also had the chance to visit with his or her legislator. With the success of the 1976 program, URBAN CONCERNS decided to continue the program even after the Bicentennial Celebration was over. Funded by the Minnesota Government Learning Center and individual contributors, the 1977 program was expanded. Even though the name remains PROJECT 120, one hundred and sixty Minne­ sota high school juniors and seniors will go to the Capitol in 1977. Instead of six weeks the program will run eight. More emphasis will be placed on what the students can do when they return home.
    [Show full text]