Record votes a clear path to good state government

If it's good enough for Craddick, it's good enough for the rest of us!

Folks in the Austin press corps got a big chuckle in January when Tom Craddick pushed his fellows to record how they would vote in his effort to be re-elected Speaker of the Texas House.

You see, Craddick has been a staunch, behind-the-scenes opponent of record votes in the Texas House but, when his political power was threatened, he jumped on the bandwagon - temporarily, at least - because it gave him a way to intimidate recalcitrant legislators.

The rhetoric and debate leading up to that vote was a bit dizzying. Suddenly, some of the same people who de-railed last session's record vote legislation were heard arguing forcefully in favor of record votes!

It's too bad those arguments were disingenuous. Neither Craddick nor any other House leader has any intention of actually putting into law a measure that would require all substantive votes taken in the Texas House of Representatives be on the record. In their opinion, the concept is too much trouble, good only as a tool of intimidation not as a method to ensure transparency.

Here's the issue: There is nothing in the law that requires Texas legislators to state, on the record, how they voted on important legislation. And, unless the issue is forced, legislators won't go on the record with their votes.

In just one example from the 2005 session, representatives voted to exempt themselves from a bill requiring candidates to file campaign contributions and expenditures electronically - but not their future challengers. But, you can't tell who voted how because the vote wasn't recorded.

Now, before you say that all you expect of a Texas Legislator is that he votes his conscience, know that whether or not a vote is on the record has a profound impact on the outcome. A motion to table that bill - essentially killing it - appeared headed to easy passage until a record vote was requested. Suddenly, the vote flipped, and the motion to table failed.

In other words, Texas legislators often have one set of ethics when the vote is on the record and another when it's not.

Sadly, many legislators believe this issue is important only to the media. The disdainful comments legislators made during committee hearings make that clear, and the same comments make it clear many legislators don't take this very seriously.

It's true, the media - specifically newspapers - have pushed very hard over the last two or three sessions for this kind of legislation, not because it makes our jobs easier - though, in some ways, it does. Newspapers are in favor of this legislation because it makes it easier for citizens of Texas to hold lawmakers accountable.

Ironically, legislators are all in favor of accountability (especially for educators) but not so much where it comes to their own actions.

As it did in 2005, the Texas Senate will likely approve some type of legislation mandating record votes. But, unless they can pass the House State Affairs Committee in the next week or two, none of the several bills filed will make it to the House floor for debate and that means the fate of this legislation rests in the hands of nine state representatives (see sidebar).

Texas is one of only 10 states that does not have some sort of requirement that votes on major legislation be on the record, and it's easier to find out how your U.S. Congressman or city council member voted than your state representative or senator.

Good government advocates all across the state - including the League of Women Voters and nearly every citizen advocacy group you might name - have called for this kind of legislation in Texas.

Indeed, in the run-up to the Speaker's vote, 80 Texas legislators voted in favor of record votes, at least on the Speaker's race. That some of the same people who've quashed previous attempts to mandate record votes are among these 80 legislators merely adds to the irony.

Texas legislators must end the hypocrisy of using voice votes to avoid accountability. If it's important that folks back home know how legislators voted in the Speaker's race, it's important for them to know how they voted on other important issues.

Texas House State Affairs Committee
Chairman: David Swinford (R-Amarillo)
Vice chair: Ken Paxton (R-McKinney)
Committee: Corbin Van Arsdale (R-Houston), Wayne Christian (R-Center), Jessica Farrar (D-Lindale Park), Byron Cook (R-Corsicana), Dan Flynn (R-Canton), Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound) and Marc Veasey (D-Ft. Worth)

Of this committee, all voted in favor of having a record vote for Speaker of the House, except Jessica Farrar and Marc Veasey who were only two of 16 legislators to vote against Rep. Tom Craddick for Speaker of the house.

This opinion column was syndicated February, 2007.

Perry’s orders are out of bounds

You might almost feel a bit of sympathy for Rick Perry. Almost.

After all, it isn’t often that the leader of one of this nation’s greatest states get his hand slapped by both the legislative and judicial branches of government, all in the same week.

Last Tuesday, State District Judge Stephen Yelenosky rebuked Gov. Perry’s executive order to “fast track” the permitting process for a clutch of new coal-fired electrical generating plants.

Then, the very next day, the House Public Health Committee repudiated Perry’s mandate that all sixth-grade girls be vaccinated for the human papilloma virus. Since the bill the committee was considering had 90 sponsors, it’s probably a lock for passage when it goes to the House floor for debate.

It’s as if Perry had said, “Hey, guys … let’s go this way! Talley Ho!” and the state’s legislators and judges turned around, looked at him askance and replied, “And, who are you, exactly?”
And, really, that’s as it should be. In these two cases, at least, Perry overstepped his authority, and the folks against whom he trespassed told him so.

On the one hand, the state’s judiciary ruled the governor can’t just set aside processes and procedures, designed to curb the damaging excesses of big polluters, simply because the permitting rules take danged near one year to observe. On the other, legislators took serious umbrage at Perry’s decision to bypass the legislative process in favor of a flat mandate for a health issue that probably deserves a great deal of public debate.

You have to wonder a bit at Perry’s “fast track” order, especially after the furor raised in rural Texas by the proposed Trans Texas Corridor. I agree we’ll need the power in the not-too-distant future (just like we’ll need to address our highway system) but is this really the best way to go about it?

And, why are we in such a hurry?

And, do we really want to return Texas to the bad old days when power plants belched thick, black smoke into the air, refineries pumped toxic sludge into our bays and trucks drove through our residential streets spraying DDT to control mosquitoes?

I don’t think so. While the process to permit a new power generating plant can be expensive and excruciating, that process is there for some very good and very sound reasons.

Besides, the plants will probably get approved anyway. It’s Big Bid’ness, after all. This just gives us all a chance to get used to the idea.

On the other issue, I have to admit a grudging respect for Perry while at the same time wondering at his incredible hubris. If his heart’s in the right place (and, on this issue, I believe it probably is), that decision took a lot of courage. There are few orders he could issue more likely to profoundly upset his base than one mandating a vaccine, that controls the spread of a sexually transmitted disease, be given to sixth-grade girls.

On top of that, we’re Texans, by gum! We don’t kowtow to just anyone. I mean, who is this guy to tell us how to raise our kids!? (Never mind that the vaccine will also likely prevent the most common form of cervical cancer in a tremendous number of women and, like the power plants and highway, be approved anyway.)

Perry must miss his days as lieutenant governor. The Governor of Texas barely has the authority to blow his nose on his own, much less make sweeping, unilateral changes to environmental and public health policy. Texas may be one of the greatest states in the nation but everybody knows its governor is among the weakest.

The lieutenant governor is the state’s most powerful elected official and even he has to bow to the appearance of a legislative process. But, even then, the lieutenant governor is only as powerful as the Senate allows, which it usually does (for modern examples, see Bob Bullock, Bill Hobby, et al.).

Oh, uhh ... as I recall, the Senate curtailed the lieutenant governor’s power those two years Perry held the post.

Instead of side stepping the rules, Perry should encourage vigorous public debate on issues that are sure to be controversial. This is laudatory and well within his purview as governor. Anything else smacks of overweening pride and behind-the-scenes deal making.

This column was syndicated Feb.2, 2007.