Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Counties with a home rule charter may design their own form of county government, but are still generally subject to the County Code (which covers first-, third-, fourth-, fifth-, sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-class counties) or the Second-Class County Code (which covers second-class and second-class A counties).
Grand Island adopted a home rule charter in 1928; it was repealed by the voters on April 2, 1963. The city council subsequently repealed the charter on April 17, 1963, with Ordinance 3990. Nevada: No [14] Yes Home rule legislation SB29 took effect July 2015, and gave more power to county commissioners.
Philadelphia became the first home rule city of Pennsylvania in 1951. The Assembly further adopted the Optional Third Class City Charter Law in 1957, and in 1968, the new Constitution declared that "Municipalities shall have the right and power to frame and adopt home rule charters." The new Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law, creating ...
The Home Rule charter allows the residents of a county to make changes to its government, according to information from the Municipal Research and Services Center.
Jan. 2—A handful of charter changes, a successful Home Rule application leading to passage of a 1 % municipal sales tax and whole lot of Holland Avenue held Westover City Council's attention in ...
The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter reform campaign is a campaign in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to rewrite the city's 1951 Home Rule Charter.The campaign began in response to several local political scandals, the most recent being City Council members' participation in DROP, a Deferred Retirement Option Plan originally intended for civil service.
Amendment No. 2: Repeal of inactive special funds in Constitution. A vote for would: Remove six inactive funds with zero or near-zero balances from the Louisiana Constitution. A vote against would ...
Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde , 466 U.S. 2 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the analysis of the tying issue must focus on the hospital's sale of services to its patients, rather than its contractual arrangements with the providers of anesthesiological services.