TANSTAAFL*

No one particularly likes taxes and all of us want our government — at all levels — to be efficient. However, we all expect our government to deliver certain services (police and fire protection, good roads, clean water, etc.) and to deliver those services well, and on demand.

This simply cannot be done with out financial support (taxes). Each year, it costs more to provide those services than it did the previous year. Yet, very few of us actually want our government to cut any of these services. This is why your city or county or school board will need more money this year, just to stay even with last year, never mind accommodating growth.

But, the public hearing on the new county tax rate I attended last week was an eye-opener. The commissioners proposed that our tax rate drop by a penny on property values that had dropped by 8-10 percent over the last year. In simple terms, that means that the vast majority of the people in that crowded court room last week would see a much lower county tax bill. But, to hear them talk, one would have thought that the county was asking for a huge increase.

At the same time this was going on, there was grumbling in the room about services. Roads. Bea's Kitchen. Roads again. Even more roads. So, these people want government, and the services government provides, but they don't want to pay taxes. How can that work?

What these people have forgotten — along with just about everyone else who hammer local government officials about taxes — is that the State of Texas has balanced its budget for the better part of two decades by forcing counties and cities and school districts to fund more and more of what used to be the State’s obligations. It isn't that the State is spending less money, far from it. It's that fewer and fewer of our tax dollars are making it back to Milam County.

You’ve heard of “unfunded mandates,” right? That's a big part of what's at play in the tax rates set by your county commissioners or your city council or your school board.

What's more, it's obvious by the vitriol on display last week that our state's leaders have done a masterful job deflecting the blame for local tax rates. This is not to say that our local guys are all saints, or that every tax dollar they collect is spent wisely, but they're taking the fall for the true culprits: Gov. Perry, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, Sen. Steve Ogden and the Republican leadership in Austin. If you're upset about local taxes, direct your ire there.

*There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch — coined by Robert Heinlein, a noted writer of science fiction and Libertarian

Finalists, schmienalists.

The Rockdale Reporter published a fine editorial in Thursday's edition slamming the Texas Association of School Boards for doing an end-run around Texas' open government laws.

TASB is helping the Rockdale School Board find a new school superintendent. RISD has 49 applicants. Of that number, they've decided to talk to six and expect to offer the job to one of those six on Dec. 10. Despite the fact that state law requires that a list of finalists be released to the public, Rockdale voters will know the name of only the person RISD trustees select.

Aren't the six people trustees will interview "finalists?" No, they are "candidates." Only one "finalist" will be announced. This follows the letter -- if not the spirit -- of state law. Go look it up -- Section 552.126 of the Texas Government Code.

Down in Karnes County, the Runge school board is doing the same thing. In fact, it's getting harder and harder to find information about the people who are applying for many top government management jobs.

Again, in Karnes County, county commissioners retired to executive session to interview interim candidates for the brand spanking new position of county road administrator, despite the fact that the county never advertised for the position as required by state law. I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out the relationship between those four applicants and the commissioners.

According to the Karnes Countywide, even the Karnes County Attorney, Robert Busselman, said the closed door meeting was unlawful. That's significant because, according to state law, it is the county attorney who prosecutes local violations of open government statutes.

No word on whether Busselman will indict the commissioners for the illegal meeting but he should. That's how this kind of thing is stopped. Most local elected officials have nothing but contempt for laws that require documents and meetings be open to the public.

Ah, well ... according the The Countywide, at least, reading between the lines, this isn't the only misstep Karnes County commissioners have committed implementing the new county road system. One hopes The Countywide will keep a bright light shining on these guys. They'll deserve what they get.

What Karnes commissioners did was unlawful. What Runge and Rockdale trustees did (or, more accurately, will do) isn't.

For the last several sessions, open government advocates and local newspaper editors and publishers have been trying to convince the Texas Legislature to address the issue of finalists for top school and college administration position, but to no avail.

Groups like TASB, the Texas Association of Counties, the Texas Municipal League and the Texas Association of District and County Attorneys -- to name only four of many -- carry a lot of weight in Austin. They carry a lot of weight because they represent local elected officials and most of the people in Austin were local elected officials before they became Legislators.

The fact is, these groups are beneficial, for the most part. This is good because they represent your tax dollars at work (local governments pay dues to these organizations; they get the money to pay those dues from you). However, they also spend an inordinate amount of time picking apart open government laws looking for loopholes and exceptions so our local governments can avoid having the great unwashed juggle their collective elbows.

One thing is certain, especially in the more rural parts of Texas: the folks you elect to office would just as soon you stay away from meetings and leave 'em in peace so they can get on with the important business of spending your money.

The Culture Wars aren't over

It seems that even in these days of supposed post-partisan, post-racial, post-everything harmony, we still can't get past the culture wars.

I know this because the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday about a Utah town that refused to allow one sort of religious monument on city property while staunchly defending another.

From the NYT editorial 11/12/08:

Pleasant Grove City, Utah, has a city park, known as Pioneer Park, that includes various unattended displays. These include historical artifacts from the town, a Sept. 11 memorial, and a Ten Commandments monument that was given to the city by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a national civic group.

A religious organization called Summum, which was founded in 1975 and is based in Salt Lake City, applied to install its own monument in the park. The monument it proposed would include the group’s Seven Principles of Creation (also called the Seven Aphorisms), which it believes were inscribed on tablets handed down from God to Moses on Mount Sinai.

So, here we are again ... obstinate local governments deciding that neither the Establishment Clause nor the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment apply to them. So, now, they're in a fight over a religious monument planted in a city park in the mid-1950s by a civic group given money to promote a movie.

Okay —quick disclaimer, here. One of the more enticing stories I've read (or heard or been told) over the years is that, in advance of the movie, "The Ten Commandments," Cecil B. DeMille helped finance the Fraternal Order of Eagles' efforts to place monuments featuring the Ten Commandments in as many public spaces as possible. This may be simply an urban myth but it rings true and if true, it could be said that the battles the Culture Warriors have fought on this topic are less about Christian values and more about capitalistic values.

... but, I digress.

The SCOTUSblog has a wonderful analysis of the arguments set forth Tuesday. The blog's author called it the "Tyranny of Lables," which is apt. However, the legal arguments do little to disguise the fact that the leaders in this community have little or no respect for or understanding of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

It would be so easy for most local governments to have their cake and eat it, too because no interpretation of the Establishment Clause I've ever read forbids religious displays on government property. The Establishment Clause simply says the government may not promote one religion over another — it may not allow one sort of religious display in the public's space while forbidding another. The primary reason most dissenters object to Christian iconography on government property is because they are not allowed to display their own religious iconography.

Local governments could have Nativity scenes, post the Ten Commandments* and, really, do whatever their pinched little hearts desired if they also allowed other religious displays in the public's space. All they'd have to do is pass a resolution declaring public spaces open for religious displays on High Holy Days (whatever that religion's High Holy Day happens to be). Let the local Christian churches build their Nativity scenes or whatever then just sit back.

In most communities, there would few takers because, in most communities in this country, the only religion practiced is the various forms of Christianity. It seems like a simple solution, to me — maybe too simple — and I'm not sure why more local governments don't try that.

Are they so unsure in their faith that they absolutely cannot allow competition from the occasional Wiccan or Buddhist shrine? I dunno ...

Now, this would not solve the problems we have at our schools ... public prayer, proselytizing at required student events, etc ... but few SCOTUS rulings speak to all the issues and the Prayer in School crisis bids fair to continue the culture wars for a bit longer.

(*I've always wondered why we chose to fight over the Ten Commandments. That's so Old Testament. Aren't Christians supposed to pay more attention to the New Testament? If so, we ought to be posting Christ's version of the Jewish law: The Beatitudes.)

Democracy is pretty cool; register to vote

There’s a world-changing election coming up in about a month. But, if you aren’t registered to vote, you can’t take part.

Citizenship in this country is not simply a given. It comes with certain fairly simple obligations. Among them are serving on a jury, when asked, and voting. Registering to vote is the first step.

Monday is the deadline if you want to vote in the next election. If you aren’t registered to vote and you haven’t registered by Monday, your voice won’t be heard.

And, it’s crucial that your voice be heard, and not only because of the presidential race.
Make no mistake, that’s an important vote but some of the races further down the ballot are just as critical.

For example, Texans will cast ballots for one of two representatives to the United States Senate. John Cornyn, a former Texas Attorney General, is running for his second term against an upstart war hero by the name of Rick Noriega. Right now, it’s a surprisingly close race. With a narrow partisan division in Congress, I’m not overstating the case at all when I say who we elect as our Senator will alter the shape of the U.S. Senate.

Here’s another example of how important it is that you cast a vote. The people we put on the Court of Appeals and Texas Supreme Court will determine how much access — if any — you have to our state’s legal system. The phrases “tort reform” and “frivolous lawsuits” are merely code words for a bench weighted in favor of the defense of big corporations. Of course, “access to the courts” is usually a code phrase for the opposite position.

Vote a certain way in those obscure judicial races and we’re telling the courts that we’d rather see to the financial health of the business community, even if that means individual liberties are curtailed. Vote another and we’re telling them that our right to redress our grievances before the legal system is more important than a few more dollars of profit on the balance sheets of our state’s big manufacturers.

Which brings up the second step of being a full-fledged citizen and that is casting an intelligent vote. As I noted, those judicial races are pretty obscure. Few of the names involved are familiar — and, too often in judicial races, those that ARE familiar are suspiciously familiar.

Further, ideological purity is dangerous when installed in a courtroom. Along that path lies “legislating from the bench,” another one of those code phrases that can mean whatever the heck you want it to mean except that judges of both political parties are guilty.

This, combined with some frankly misleading political advertising, makes it very difficult for the average voter to become educated about a given race, especially judicial races.

So, how do you become educated? Well, that presidential election will suck all the air out of the room as far as the national press is concerned. If you can’t figure that one out, you aren’t trying.
For the rest, this paper is probably your best source for the county and local statehouse races. The Sunday issue of your regional metro daily is also a good source.

If that doesn’t work for you, the next best source I know of for non-partisan information about elections is the Texas League of Women Voters (www.lwvtex.org). They’ve published a 16-page guide to the elections, an awful lot of it concerning the judicial races.

But, before anything else, you have to register to vote. It’s probably a bit late to request an application by mail but they are available at almost any county, state or federal office. Your post office, for instance, or the County Clerk’s office. Put it in the mail for postmark by Monday, Oct. 6. You should get your voters registration card back in plenty of time for the election.

Then, read up on the election and join the rest of your fellow citizens at the polls. It’s called democracy and it’s pretty cool.

Power of myth

All of a sudden, the debate regarding Evolution/Creationism has flared up here in Texas.

I don't understand why we're still having this argument.

Actually, I do. Too many Christians can't wrap their heads around the fact that they can't wrap their heads around the Mind of God. So, they try to stuff God into a box that that they CAN understand.

A lot like the guy (and it probably was a guy) who wrote the book of Genesis. This fella told a story and tailored it to fit his audience. Since his audience was unfamiliar with the scientific method, he used allegory to answer some of life's fundamental questions.

This technique is tremendously effective and perfectly valid to help a male-dominated, pre-industrial society struggling with issues of identity and survival, hunting desperately to learn what caused the thunder and lightening (and, by the way, horribly threatened by the "pagan," female-dominated cultures around them).

An all-powerful — and slightly capricious — Jehovah seemed to fit the observed facts pretty well, and completely validated their patriarchal culture to boot. But, it was a story — a recitation of myth and legend — told in a way that gave comfort to the intended audience.

Myth is powerful ... but it isn't necessarily literal.

Public's right to know depends on press freedoms

I've worked as a reporter and editor for small-town Texas newspapers for over 15 years.

During that time, I've dealt with many sensitive or highly controversial topics, and even a confidential source or two, but never has a local prosecutor asked me to testify in front of a grand jury - or any jury - or to relinquish my notes or unpublished photos, or to reveal the name of a confidential source.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that few local prosecutors have ever tried to compel a reporter to testify or turn over stuff like that.

There are a lot of reasons for this. One is few local reporters ever get credible information from someone demanding confidentiality. And, even when they do, few of the people who publish small-town newspapers ever use information like this, and certainly not without independent confirmation.

Another reason is, most prosecutors work very hard to develop their cases and resort to compelling testimony from the press only as a last resort.

That's why a bill working its way through the Texas Legislature establishing guidelines for such things sounds like so much “inside baseball” to most people who read weekly and small daily newspapers - and to most of the people who work at them.

But, it's not just some esoteric debate fit only for policy wonks. Not any more.

Over the last few years - and especially the last year - there have been several high-profile cases that illustrate the peril reporters invite when they offer confidentiality to a news source.

I don't have to detail those cases here - the Valerie Plame case and the BALCO steroids investigation have gotten tremendous coverage - but they seem to mark the end of an admittedly uneasy truce between the news media and the government that has existed since the end of the Watergate era.

Quite suddenly - at least, at the glacial pace of jurisprudence - the unspoken agreements and policies that have for years moderated relationships between the working press and prosecuting attorneys has begun to morph dangerously - at least from a standpoint of press freedoms.

Should journalists have at least some protection against subpoenas seeking to compel testimony or the surrender of notes and tapes?

In Texas, reporters will risk jail time if they refuse to hand over their notes and unpublished photographs or reveal sources to whom they have promised confidentiality. That threat, which was seldom ever invoked, is now very real.

Open government advocates, press associations and citizen-driven public policy groups in Texas say yes, there should be some sort of protection for reporters. County and district attorneys in Texas, along with other law enforcement officials, say no, there shouldn't.

Prosecutors' arguments boil down to: It is a citizen's duty to give truthful testimony when asked. Why should journalists be any different?

Advocates of the bill respond this way: The government has all kinds of incredibly persuasive tools to compel cooperation. It is important that the press have some protections - even if those protections are strictly limited - else it is little more than another arm of the government. If so, this creates a chilling effect on the ability of the public, for which the press is a surrogate, to criticize the government and look into governmental corruption.

The Texas Free Flow of Information Act (SB966 sponsored by Senators Rodney Ellis and Robert Duncan, and HB 382 by Rep. Aaron Pena and HB 2249 sponsored by Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale) seeks to strike a balance between these two positions.

It grants very specific and limited protections for confidential sources, work derived from confidential sources and related notes, and sets out a three-pronged test that, when met, allows a prosecutor to compel testimony.

Simply, it codifies the relationship that most of the press in Texas already has with most of the county and district attorneys in Texas.

When people have access to a free and unfettered flow of information, they make better decisions and can hold officials accountable. Allowing reporters a limited ability to protect confidential sources only strengthens the public's ability to get good information and that strengthens our democracy.

This is good legislation and deserves support.

This column was syndicated to Texas newspapers April 2007.

Access to public information unearthed TYC scandal

If you ever needed an example of the importance of our state's open government laws, you need look no further than the current scandals rocking the Texas Youth Commission.

Last month, the Texas Observer broke the story about how TYC officials ignored, then tried to cover up evidence that administrators at the Pyote unit in West Texas molested several boys in 2004 and 2005.

The Dallas Morning News broke its coverage Feb. 19, two days later and, the next thing you know, everyone knew about it.

Texans exploded in anger and the revelations touched off a legislative firestorm. The more the story came into focus, the more the vastness of the problem became apparent, the more enraged everyone became.

The governor appointed a special master and a new administrator. Last week, Texas Rangers, DPS troopers and attorney general staffers staged an unannounced occupation of TYC offices statewide. Newspapers carry tales of new, horrible discoveries every day.

There are allegations of physical abuse, extortion, and over 750 instances of sex abuse.

Certain TYC officials had managed to keep it buried - even though the Texas Rangers investigated early allegations - but, once people started digging, it just all spurted out like pus from a gangrenous sore. It shows no sign of abating any time soon.

And it all came to light because Texas has laws protecting your right to know what your government - and its various, labyrinthine agencies - are doing in your name.

A handful of diligent reporters heard a tip then used the Public Information Act to unearth all the documents, records and emails they needed to build the story. Then they started asking questions. Lots of them.

Before long, a different group of very powerful people started asking some rather pointed questions of their own.

And that shows no sign of abating either. Thank God and, apparently, it's about time.

We can't tolerate this kind of criminal behavior against people put in the state's care. Never mind that these juveniles are serious trouble, many of them. As individuals, they are very nearly helpless in the clutches of the State. No matter what they've done to earn their time in the TYC, they shouldn't have to fear physical or sexual abuse at the hands of the people who control their fate.

This awful circumstance is exactly what our open government laws were intended to uncover. It's a shame that not everyone really understands importance and intent of those laws.

According to an Associated Press story published Sunday, a handful of Texas newspapers recently conducted an informal public records audit and the results weren't encouraging.

Reporters went to nine local agencies across the state and asked for copies of the community's emergency response plans. Congress mandated that these plans be available to the public so, except for some very narrowly defined security information, confidentiality wasn't an issue. Indeed, in the wake of the state's struggle to absorb evacuations that resulted from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, public scrutiny of local emergency response plans is entirely appropriate.

But, of the nine requests, three were denied completely. Three other requests were granted, but only after a great deal of information was redacted. At only three of the nine agencies were reporters granted full access to the emergency plans, as the law requires.

That's sad. All it took was for someone to shine a little light on the cesspool the TYC had become to uncover the abuses of that system Š but someone had to shine that light.

Who knows what might be found buried in local emergency response plans? Perhaps we'd simply find that our public officials are doing a good job preparing for the worst.

Perhaps not, but it doesn't matter. When any government official or agency decides it's okay to determine what's good for us to know and what isn't, that constitutes an abuse of our state's open government laws and an abuse of public trust.

As the TYC scandals point out, government simply works better when the people's business in conducted in the public.

This column was syndicated to Texas newspapers March 2007.

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.

EDITORIAL: It's time to fix how we pay for schools

At last. Someone has finally come up with a sane and practical way to look at the debate on how we pay for public education.

Last week, John Sharp told Texas newspaper publishers that the problem of school funding is so complicated by interest groups who want to reform the way we educate our children along with the way we pay for it, the effort is as pointless as "watching a cock fight while a nuclear war is going on outside."

That analogy is quite apt.

The Supreme Court recently found that the way we pay for our school system is unconstitutional because it amounts to a statewide property tax. The court didn't order the Legislature to consider vouchers or to increase per student spending. It didn't really speak to how Texas educates its students or what it teaches them. It said that the way we pay for public education is unconstitutional and ordered the Legislature to fix it. By June 1. Or else.

The Legislature must stop worrying about the peripheral issues and make the school finance infrastructure constitutional. Those peripheral issues - vouchers on one hand and increased per student spending on the other - cannot be addressed until this state overhauls the tax code and reduces its dependence on property tax.

But the folks who want to use tax reform as a springboard to education reform muck up the works and make it impossible for the Legislature to accomplish anything regarding tax reform. Several failed special sessions and two regular sessions attest to this failure. We must save those battles for after we put a constitutional tax system in place.

Sharp pointed out that our tax code worked pretty well in the late 1950s and early 1960s but it is completely inadequate to the task of keeping up with our global economy and high stakes development. That's why, aside from the court mandated deadline, it's critical that the Legislature develop a tax code that is fair, makes sense, promotes our economy and doesn't balance that budget on the backs of our senior citizens, shrinking middle class and chronically poor.

Further, that deadline is important. Should the Legislature fail to come up with a constitutional plan, the court could shut off state money to the schools and do it in June. Sharp noted that, since she is locked in a bitter election campaign with Gov. Perry, Carole Strayhorn, the current Texas Comptroller, would very likely cooperate with that court order and that would create incredible havoc.

Now, the Legislature could duck the whole issue. It could put another band aide on the problem (like redistribution, the so-called "Robin Hood" plan) by throwing enough money at the problem that the court looks the other way for a couple of months.

But, that's not going to solve anything. That's not doing the job we hired them to do. Indeed, that approach guarantees continued ideological strife, taxpayer stress, expensive special Legislative sessions and legal battles.

That's not good public policy. It's not good tax policy.

The Legislature must divide the issue of how we pay for education from all the other issues, then take the deadline imposed by the Texas Supreme Court seriously.

"Don't let them do it half-way," Sharp urged. "Make them stick to this deadline."

It's past time for our leaders in Austin to quit squabbling like a bunch of spoiled 5 year olds and show some backbone and leadership.

This article was published Jan. 2, 2006 as an editorial by The Cameron Herald

The Trans Texas Corridor will be built ... somewhere

TxDOT Executive Director Behrens pitches TTC-35 to rural newspaper reporters

Get ready. TTC-35 is coming.

Though Michael Behrens wouldn't use those words, not exactly, and he'd probably cringe to realize it, that's the impression he left at the end of an hour and a half of questioning Thursday.

"Something is going to have to be built somewhere," the executive director of the Texas Department of Transportation said after meeting in Cameron with a group of reporters from several rural newspapers. There was touch of resignation in his voice when he said it.

The Trans Texas Corridor is a proposed multi-lane transportation network designed to carry passenger, freight, rail and utilities. The TTC-35 portion of the corridor would roughly parallel Interstate 35 from Laredo to the Oklahoma border north of Dallas. Along the way, it will slice through a portion of east Williamson and Bell counties, or a portion of west Milam and Falls counties. Maybe both.

Behrens said that traffic demands on IH-35, Texas' primary north-south transportation corridor, have grown to the point of bursting. That's what's behind the push to build this portion of the corridor now.

"We were seeing the pressures on IH-35 eight, nine years ago while we were going through this same process for Texas 130," he said, referring to the new toll road under construction looping east of Austin. "We were already thinking back then that it would have to go off and head to Dallas. I don't know about you but I've driven IH 35 many times and wished there was another road to go on."

LIKE IH-35, ONLY BIGGER
Behrens, who has worked for TxDOT for over 35 years, often recalls Texas' early experiences with IH-35 when talking about the TTC-35 concept.

Early on, Texas didn't buy enough right-of-way for IH-35. Access to the highway was strictly controlled. Entrance and exit ramps were sharp and short. The entire concept of separating passenger and freight traffic on the highway was absurd, as was the idea of carving space out of the right-of-way for passenger and freight rail lines.

"What we're trying to do here is think ahead," Behrens said. "The interstate system was 100 percent financed by federal government. They said, 'go out an buy the right of way you think you'll need for the next 20 years.' That's how the right of way was bought."

At first, Behrens said, Texas highway planners bought 22-foot rights-of-way but, as traffic patterns and design standards changed, so did the amount of land needed to build a highway.
"I understand fully where a lot of the comments are coming from but, if you have the opportunity to travel back east, and drive on US Highways that are 22-feet wide, you see that we have better farm roads than that. They have no space."

As a result, the right of way for TTC-35 will be 1,200 feet wide, on average. That's as wide as the length of four football fields.

MORE PRESSURE
Two other factors are driving this concept: population growth and cost.

Behrens said that the population of Texas is expected to double in the next 25 years. An awful lot of that growth will be along IH-35 and that highway is already at capacity, he said.

The second factor is money. Texas really doesn't have the money to build this kind of highway system.

Behrens explained how Texas gets money to build and maintain highways. Most of Texas' highway dollars come from a 20-cent gasoline tax. A nickel of that goes to public education. "Last year, we got $2.2 billion from the gasoline tax," he said. "We spent $2.3 billion just to maintain our current system, the 80,000 miles of highway out there."

He said that the only money the state has to add capacity is federal dollars, of which we get back roughly 80-cents for every tax dollar we send. "That's not a lot when you look at all the needs we have, especially in this part of the state."

That's why the TCC-35 concept evolved into a toll road built and maintained by a private contractor, and one of the reasons the Texas Highway Commission chose Cintras-Zachary to build this portion of the corridor.

Cintras is the Spanish company with the money - $7.2 billion - and the experience to build and operate a public transportation system. The company will invest $6 billion in construction and pay the State of Texas $1.2 billion as a concession to operate the toll road.

Zachary is a heavy construction company based in San Antonio. This is the part of the partnership that will build the highway.

"We didn't just pick some company out there," Behrens said. "We went through a competitive process."

Money is also driving the route of the corridor.

"There have been comments suggesting [that] we just use the existing footprint of IH-35. Just widen that enough ... what ever it takes."

But, the property along IH-35 is some of the most highly valued commercial real estate in Texas.
"We do not see it as financially feasible to buy and relocate everything along existing IH-35," Behrens said. "Granted, there some areas of IH-35 not built up, and some of that is being looked at ... there might be some areas along IH-35 where we could put a new facility. We don't think that it is [feasible to buy up everything along the corridor] because we just can't afford it."

WHO OWNS THE LAND?
But land in this part of rural Texas isn't that expensive, which leads another reason some oppose the idea.

"One of the myths [going around is] that this company, a foreign company, is just going to come in and take our property and we'll have 90 days to get off. I can assure you that that is not the case," he said. "It's not like we'll be there today and start bulldozing tomorrow. It does not happen like that."

Because the state will actually own the land - then lease it to Cintras-Zachary on a 50-year concession - the right-of-way acquisition processes are the same for this highway as they are for any other highway the state builds.

Right now, TxDOT's highway planners are slogging through a long, detailed process of picking one 10-mile wide corridor in which to locate a 1,200-foot wide right-of-way. This has been underway for some time and is expected to conclude in the spring of 2006.

Highway planners have a similar process ahead for the more detailed studies necessary before a final route can be chosen and it will be several years before anyone will make an offer to any property owner.

"It's the same process we always use," he said. That process, of course, includes the possibility of condemnation proceedings for property owners along the final route who won't sell, Behrens said. "That process has been there a long, long time."

Even then, Berhens said, it will likely be some time before the full width of the right-of-way will be used.

"It doesn't make any sense to have the land out there underutilized," he said. "I remember about 20 years ago I was building a 4-lane divided highway [near Yoakum]. We'd bought the land but some farmers had planted corn in one area. I told them not to worry about it because it would all be harvested by the time we got that far. We do try to use some good common sense. If it's workable, we'll work with people."

LIVING WITH A HIGHWAY
Other areas of opposition to the corridor revolve around access to the highway and its impact on rural life.

Behrens acknowledged that the project will have an impact but he insists that planners are sensitive to people concerned about this disruption.

"It's hard for me to sit here today and tell you exactly how that would be addressed, but we addressed a lot of similar things on IH-35 and other major thoroughfares. In a perfect world, you would like to build these things along property lines, which is being looked and taken into consideration, but, again, it doesn't always hit all the time."

And, he noted that an intended by product of the project is for communities along the corridor to realize some economic benefit from it.

"I think you'll see development along this corridor like we saw when we built IH-35," he said. "When we get to a point that the some segments are built, the people who see the opportunities of locating along the corridor will come."

He predicted that the initial opportunities will likely service traffic on the highway but that will grow. "I truly believe that you will see companies look at properties along these corridors to locate a business, whether it would be manufacturing or warehouse distribution centers like you see now."

He also stressed that access won't be as difficult as some opponents suggest.

"You will have access at every intersection of Interstates, U.S. highways, state highways and major farm-to-market roads," he said.

He said that a look at the evolution of IH-35 would show how county roads left out of the initial plans might find access to the corridor. "Those decisions will be made when we get down to a final alignment. Go back and look at the interstates. Most county roads did not have direct access to the interstate but, through the development of frontage roads and overpasses, this was solved."

Behrens said that there is still a lot of planning and study before TTC-35 moves off the TxDOT drawing board and onto the Blackland Prairie. And, he said, the Feds could kill it, though that's unlikely.

But the problems that drew the concept to this point - growth, money and highway capacity - won't be solved until TTC-35, or something very like it, is built.
If not here, then somewhere.

This story was published Wednesday, October 12, 2005. Copyright © 2005 The Cameron Herald. All rights reserved.

The Ragged Edge: Follow the money to tax reform

If you think that there is no connection between campaign contributions and the drive to change the way we fund Texas' public schools, think again.

An editorial we published in our April 8 edition asserted that only a few school districts are clamoring to reform the way Texas finances public education but that Texas Legislators are beholden to these districts for votes and campaign contributions.

A new report states plainly that these few school districts also have tremendous clout with Texas' political leadership. Last week, Campaigns for People, an Austin-based political action committee, released a study indicating that the districts that stand to benefit the most by dismantling the so-called "Robin Hood" school finance system are also those whose citizens donated most generously to political campaigns. This study draws its conclusions through information gleaned from campaign finance reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.

Indeed, the report points out that campaign contributions from people living in the top 10 wealthiest school districts accounted for almost 28 percent of all campaign contributions to all candidates in the 2002 election.

House Speaker Tom Craddick was the chief beneficiary of this largess. Nearly 31 percent of his campaign contributions came from within these school districts. Donors from only two wealthy school districts - Austin and Highland Park -- accounted for over 15 percent of all the money Craddick raised to finance his 2002 re-election bid.

These districts took care of Gov. Rick Perry as well. In all, he raised over 25 percent of his 2002 war chest from people living in the top 10 wealthiest school districts.

Of course, these districts represent some of the wealthiest communities in Texas so it's probably not too surprising that they also contributed to re-election campaigns at higher rates than the rest of the state. Still, when you look at the numbers this way, and you recognize that many of these same districts are the ones hollering the loudest for school finance reform, it's got to make you wonder.

Now, I'm not diving back into this issue because I'm opposed to reforming the way we finance our public schools; nor do I think holding a special session or three to address the issue is a waste of time.

It's not a waste of time. Wealthy schools are right to beef about this and rural schools have been watching their state-sponsored revenue stream steadily dry up over the last few years. The current plan isn't really working for anyone. It was, at best, a band aide applied to our tax structure in order to get out from under a Texas Supreme Court mandate. We need to find a more permanent fix, not another crazy-quilt patchwork cobbled together because of political expediency.

My biggest heartburn is with the idea that any system devised at the behest of people from wealthy school districts will be entirely fair to small rural schools or to middle class taxpayers.

Everybody, it seems, insists that our property taxes be reduced, despite the fact that Texans have one of the lowest state and local tax burdens in the United States. The Tax Foundation, a non-profit Washington group, found that Texas ranks 46th nationally. Only Tennessee, Alaska, Delaware and New Hampshire pay lower state and local taxes than Texans.

Further, high property taxes don't seem to be deterring anyone (who can find a job there) from moving to Richardson or Plano or Alamo Heights. These school districts maintain tremendously high growth rates. If low property taxes were such a draw, more folks would be moving to Granger or Buckholts or Zapata.

If we cut property taxes, we'll have to find some other source (or series of sources) for the balance of the $26 billion required to pay for our public education system. You're kidding yourself if you believe that there will actually be more money in education's pot, after all the dust settles. There won't. It's entirely possible that there will be less.

In fact, few of the financing schemes I've heard about actually end Robin Hood. Most of them establish a sort of Super Robin Hood plan that ships all property tax money off to the state for redistribution.

You'll also be kidding yourself if you believe that middle class taxpayers will have a lower tax burden when this is all over. Our property taxes may see a small cut but most of us will pay more in sales and "sin" taxes than we saved. Even the most ardent supporters of tax reform acknowledge this.

So, once the Legislative shell game has run its course, our schools won't have any more money than they do now and most Texans will have a higher tax bill. Does that sound right?

I don't know what the answer is. I think it was former Gov. Ann Richards who said you can't really "fix" school finances; all you can hope to do is manage them.

Our tax system needs to be reformed but it's just not right to "manage" the state's education budget on the backs of rural schools and middle class taxpayers.

This column was published April 22, 2004 in the Cameron Herald.

Ragged Edge: Gay Marriage, a moderate perspective

The topic of gay marriage is divisive, emotional and freighted with bigotry (on both sides of the issue).

Further, I'm not convinced this is the best time to hold this particular national debate. I mean, what's the hurry?

But, since Rev. Dan Darby took up one corner of the debate last week ("Gay marriage: a Christian perspective"), I'll stake out another.

First of all, I'm just parochial enough that the whole idea of gay marriage leaves me a bit uneasy. However, I learned at my parents' knee that it is my place to neither condemn nor condone cultural differences and personal choices. It's not our place to judge personal behavior.

My parents (a preacher and a teacher) preached tolerance to (and sometimes at) my brothers and me so I grew up with an appreciation for and recognition of personal differences.

While I'm not convinced that we should mainstream gay marriage, I'm very distressed at the idea that we would consider amending our Constitution to discriminate against certain of our citizens simply because some of us are uneasy - or downright hostile - about certain lifestyles.

There are so many facets to a marriage: love, commitment, affection, devotion, sharing of experiences, mutual support, sharing of financial obligations, etc. It seems to me that the State only has an interest in one of those things - the sharing of financial obligations, specifically to provide for children.

The document that the State uses to formalize a relationship between two people is simply a legal contract. Its purpose is to delineate the responsibilities of the parties involved. From a purely civil perspective, a marriage license is no different from any other legally binding contract.

What this contract does not do is sanctify, edify or in any other way make this relationship holy. The State cannot sanctify a marriage. We reserve that to God and His terrestrial representatives.

Frankly, I'm not sure we really want to walk down a path that ends with State being able to tell an adult with whom he (or she) can or cannot enter into a legal contract.

Aside from mutual support (in all its permutations), the primary purpose of a marriage (both civil and Biblical) is to provide for children. Since gays and lesbians are able to adopt children, the State should allow them to enter into a contract that provides for the support of those children. Indeed, they should probably be obligated to enter into such a contract.

I know, I know ... the Bible says certain things regarding marriage and those who are adamantly opposed to this idea can ferret out chapter and verse to support their contention that gay marriage is unholy, disgusting, unnatural and represents a clear and present danger to the Republic.

The simple fact is, you can look in the Bible - particularly the Old Testament - and find justification for all sorts of things our society no longer condones including several forms of polygamy, the execution of women who have lost their virginity out of wedlock, the murder of children who tease old men and several passages that grant men permission to keep mistresses ... as many mistresses as they can afford.

However, you cannot turn to the New Testament and find a verse where Jesus taught we should judge other people. You won't find it because it doesn't exist.

Never mind that our secular government shouldn't meddle in religion - and vice versa. Never mind that our secular government should be able to find room for all sorts of cultural, choice and religious lifestyles. Biblical prohibitions against gay marriage are no more relevant to our secular society than Biblical exhortations to murder girls who lose their virginity before they get married.

This country was founded on certain principals, among them that all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who are we to allow the tyranny of the majority to impose its will on the few who are simply trying to live that American Dream? Aren't all of our citizens entitled to a life free from bigotry and religious persecution?

(Look it up: when a class of people are subjected to unfair treatment, it's persecution. When that persecution is justified because of religious beliefs, it's "religious persecution.")

I've known a few - a very few - openly gay men and women. I can't say that I can call more than a bare handful of those friends. However, none of them are ogres bent on destroying the moral fabric of this country. They are simply people - sinners like the rest of us - who want to be accepted for who and what they are.

It's okay to be uneasy about all this and to question how best to protect our society from too-rapid change.

But it is just plain wrong to allow our Constitution to be sullied with words of hate, fear and discrimination.

This column was published March 4, 2004 by The Cameron Herald and was part of a package of personal columns which won a First Place from the Texas Press Association.

The Ragged Edge: Politics and religion don't mix

Let's be clear on this. I believe with all my strength that there is no place for politics in religion and no place for religion in politics.

The very worst chapters of human history were written when these two very powerful spheres of culture collided. Theocratic states -- countries either run by a religion or so bound up in religious law that secular and theocratic doctrine become confused -- have generally been intolerant of people who do not firmly and zealously hold to the beliefs of the majority religion.

This intolerance has ranged from oppression of women and denial of citizenship to non-believers, to torture and outright genocide. Indeed, many of the worst atrocities ever committed by mankind have been committed in the name of one religion or another.

That's why this democracy was founded on the very clear understanding that our government has no business messing around with church business and churches should stay out of the government's business.

I bring up this point because there as been a recent trend -- a trend illustrated by several letters published in this newspaper -- that political ideology and religious beliefs should go hand-in-hand.

This trend has been growing for a number of years but intensified after the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. In the span of 24 hours, it seemed that you couldn't be patriotic unless you are also a Christian. Never mind that this country has always been a haven for a cacophony of religious voices ... and a place for non-believers as well.

Now, all of a sudden, according to some, you can't be a Christian if you are also a Democrat.

'Democrats believe in abortion and no Christian can hold to that.' Besides, every good right-wing Republican knows that all Democrats are godless.

Excuse me, all liberal Democrats are godless. Those other Democrats are simply confused.

Baloney. That's not only wrong-headed, it's dangerous, divisive and completely against the spirit of our country and Christ's teaching.

There is a sharp difference between secular law and religious doctrine. Secular laws -- the laws passed by the federal and state governments -- are meant to apply to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. There's even tolerance built into our secular laws to allow for different religious beliefs.

Religious laws apply only to those who believe in that particular sect of that particular religion. To believe and act in any other way smacks of sanctimonious self-righteousness.

Though some of our laws are grounded in the Judeo-Christian foundation of this country -- in fact, there is a distinct correlation between most common law and Christian doctrine -- the U.S. Constitution does not recognize any religious law as the law of the land.

This is so for the very simple fact that one person's religious law is another person's idiocy.

For example, there are some (actually most) religious doctrines that teach that taking any life is against the Word of God. In fact, the set of laws most revered by Christians in this country include a frank prohibition against taking a life. As I recall, there are no exceptions to the Commandment: "Thou shall not kill."

Indeed, many of the same people who would carve the Ten Commandments on the walls of every public building in the land cite that Commandment as grounds to deny women the legal right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, the right to retain control over her own destiny.

Yet, many of those same people also support capital punishment, state-sponsored execution.

So, which religious laws should we observe? The ones that tell us what food we can and can't eat? The ones that tell us to take unruly, disrespectful children out to the edge of town and smash their heads against rocks?

Who will play Solomon and decide which of God's Words we must observe and when it's okay to safely ignore them?

Politics and religion make a dangerously volatile mixture. Our government is an instrument of secular life, not a tool to compel conformity according to some religious principle.

The Constitution specifically protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

We can't afford to let the narrow religious beliefs of a vocal few -- no matter how right and moral they believe they are -- dictate to the rest of us how we should feel, what we should believe, which laws we should pass or overturn and how we should vote.

It would be un-Christian and un-American.


This was published in the Cameron Herald in January, 2004.