Wednesday February 10, 2016
Jump to content
We have just finished discussion three very important AZLEG bills. When putting up bills for discussion in the past it has been confusing at times because the information, having been taken from unofficial sources, often included some opinion, which then found its way into the discussion.
So this time I went to the AZLEG site and used the official AZLEG summary of each bill as the starting point for the discussion.
Since the AZLEG summary can be quite long at times I pruned it wherever I thought it was possible to do it without leaving out pertinent facts.
Here's the format we used:
• Official title — exactly as stated:
(Example: SB 1227: municipalities; counties; energy efficient codes)
• Purpose — exactly as stated:
(Example: Prohibits municipalities and counties from certain actions relating to energy efficiency, energy conservation or green construction regulations in new construction.)
• Background, summarized:
(Example: The ICC, or International Code Council ... develops ... codes for construction, but Arizona is ... a home rule state, meaning that codes are adopted and enforced locally and such enforcement is regulated by the state.)
• Provisions, either complete, or leaving out obvious details that would not affect opinion (the example below is complete):
a) adopting any mandatory building codes, ordinances, stipulations or other legal requirements; and
b) denying licenses or building permits, or imposing any fines, penalties or other requirements for non-compliance.
Okay. Now you've seen the whole format.
My question is do you think it is a good format for the discussion of other AZLEG bills as they come up in the legislature?
Okay, unless someone has a better idea I'll stick with that format.
Sure, and I will try to keep on the subject.
Posting comments requires a free account