If there is one document the lays out a government’s vision for public policy it is a budget. No other piece of legislation lays out the priorities of an administration more clearly than a budget proposal. The budget proposals that have been introduced in the Texas House or Representatives and the Texas Senate clearly layout public policy priorities for the current Legislature. What are they priorities of the Republican majority? Protect business, corporations, and special interest, while selling out middle and working class Texas families. Governor Perry and Republican lawmakers in Austin are willing to place the economic burden on the backs of Texas families as a consequence of the failed economic policies that they have promoted, which will undermine the long term economic health of Texas.
As reported by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the proposed budget in the House is $156 billion of state and federal money for 2012-13 that is 17 percent smaller than the current two-year budget. Republicans proposed closing the $27 billion budget shortfall entirely with budget cuts without using any of the $9 billion so-call rainy-day fund and without raising any new revenue. Of course significant cuts where made in programs that many middle class and working class Texans rely on, such as health and human services and pubic safety. According to analysis 9,610 positions from the 241,000 jobs in state government would be eliminated. Also there is a proposal to close a prison in the Houston area and to close four junior colleges which would eliminate work forces that pump money into surrounding local communities.
Among the hardest hit by the budget cuts is the foundation for the long term economic success of Texas: the public schools. The American Independent reports that in the House budget public education funding would be reduced by $3.1 billion (9.1%), including reducing funding for the Foundation School Program (to be $9.8 billion below formula requirements after accounting for student population growth) and cutting other programs by two-thirds, including teacher incentive pay and pre-K grants, in addition to increasing the maximum student-teacher ratio in elementary schools. Higher education funding would be reduced by $2 billion (15.6%), including cutting general higher education funds by 10%, shutting down four community colleges and reducing funding for the need-based TEXAS Grant program. According to a report by the American Independent, the Senate budget would not make as drastic cuts as the House version but the cuts would still be substantial. Austin analyst Lynn Moak predicts the loss of 100,000 jobs in school districts across the state if the cuts are implemented.
It is often said that the Great Recession did not have as much of an impact on Texas as it did the rest of the nation. As I have noted before, that perception is much more about perception than it is about reality. The middle and working class in Texas have felt the effect of the recession as much as if not more than the rest of the country. Now Texas Republicans want to let hard working Texans bare the brunt of the burden of a budget shortfall that was created by Republican policies.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Texas Legislative Watch: Update on Bill Filings
Left of College Station reported on bills pre-filed by Representative Fred Brown (R-Brown) before the 82nd Texas Legislature began. Those pieces of legislation included a proposal to abolish the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and transferring the coordinating board's functions and activities and the State Board of Education, a proposal to create one independent school district in each county in this state, and a bill that would require cities with a population of less than 185,000 but more than 65,000 to receive approval from voters in an area they wish to annex before the annexation is allowed. According to the Texas Legislature’s web site, no action has been taken on any of Brown’s initial filings and none have been assigned to any committees.Since those initial filings Representative Brown has filed five more pieces of legislation (which brings the total amount of bills filed by Brown to twelve.) Among the new pieces of legislation filed is another piece of legislation concerning annexation, a proposal to require that college class syllabi be posted online, a proposal to shorten the amount of time before a vehicle is considered abandoned, and a proposal to allow state agencies to sell advertising on the state web sites. None of the pieces of legislation that Brown has recently filed have had any action taken on them, and none have been assigned to any committees. In fact the only thing that Brown has filed that has any action taken on it is House Resolution 33 “Congratulating members of the Texas Agricultural Lifetime Leadership XII class on their selection for participation in the program.” Perhaps after Governor Rick Perry’s legislative priorities have been addressed, other pieces of legislation will be considered.
Bills Filed by Fred Brown:
HB 381 “The student health center of an institution of higher education shall assist a student or other person entitled to obtain health care services from the health center in receiving benefits under a health benefit plan by filing or having a claim filed with the health benefit plan issuer on behalf of the student or other person.”
HB 524 Removes the provision “failed to perform in good faith” from the law that says that “if the governing body fails or refuses to disannex the area within 60 days after the date of the receipt of the petition, any one or more of the signers of the petition may bring a cause of action in a district… [which] shall enter an order disannexing the area if the court finds that a valid petition was filed with the municipality and that the municipality failed to perform its obligations in accordance with the service plan.”
HB 537 “Each institution of higher education shall make available for public inspection through the Internet or in person a list of required or recommended instructional materials for a semester or other academic term at the same time the institution provides the list to the operator of a university-affiliated bookstore.”
HB 668 Would shorten the amount of time from 41 days to 10 days after a notice is mailed to the own of a vehicle that has not been “claimed by a person permitted to claim the vehicle,” before the “operator of the vehicle storage facility shall consider the vehicle to be abandoned.”
HB 682 “A state agency may lease advertising space on the agency's official Internet website; and the department may lease advertising space on the official Internet website for the State of Texas.”
Texas Progressive Alliance Roundup - January 31, 2011
The Texas Progressive Alliance is ready to retire the phrase "blue norther" for another year as it brings you this week's blog roundup.
Off the Kuff took an early look at fundraising for 2011 city of Houston elections.
The Big Gas Mafia says it's impossible but hydraulic fracturing causes gas to migrate threatening life...AGAIN. TXsharon puts 2 and 2 together at Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS.
Bay Area Houston has a press release from Rick Perry titled Rick Perry Asks Republican Voters to Quit Their State Jobs.
Texas republican at the forefront to kill Medicare. CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is not surprised.
This week at Left of College Station, Teddy calls out Congressman Bill Flores’ health care hypocrisy for voting to repeal health care reform that ensures health care for millions of Americans while voting against repealing his own government health care. Left of College Station also covers the week in headlines.
The Texas Cloverleaf highlights the TX state house GOP vote against open government.
Ryan at TexasVox asks "Where's the outrage?" from TCEQ approving another polluting power plant despite local opposition, warnings from the EPA, and rulings from two SOAH hearings, this time the ironically named Las Brisas plant in Corpus Christi.
During the voter I.D. legislation fight on the floor of the Texas Senate last week, a new problem emerged on the policy. And it's not what you think this time - potential problems for minorities, or the elderly, or rural Texans, or poor folks. This time, it's a problem with your right to vote. Yes, you. Letters From Texas explains why.
Eye On Williamson, points out that the GOP's proposed budget is asking for huge sacrifices from poor and working Texans, but little or nothing from the wealthy and corporations, the Texas GOP budget proposal is morally bankrupt.
Ever been broken down on the side of the road and everybody in the car is arguing about who's going to get out in the rain and try to fix what's wrong? Well, that's where the state's highway fund is. And our Austin representatives are "ready to have a discussion" about it. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs double-checked, and no, nobody has a roadside assistance plan, either.
At TexasKaos, Libby Shaw serves up a heaping helpin' of snark, in Governor Rick Perry Urges Republican Voters to Abandon Public Schools. By the reactions she got, she ruffled a few feathers. You go girl!
Neil at Texas Liberal had jury duty in the past week. Neil dressed well for jury duty and feels that you should do the same when you are called. What merits greater respect than our common society?
Local News: Texas A&M Facing Significant Budget Cuts
Loftin: Cuts Can't Keep A&M Down
By Vimal Patel
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
Texas A&M could face a $61 million reduction in state formula funding for the two-year period that begins in September, in addition to a $13 million cut in the Competitive Knowledge Fund and $12 million in financial aid mostly for the neediest students, Texas A&M President R. Bowen Loftin said Friday.
That's according to an appropriations bill filed in the Texas House by Rep. Jim Pitts of Waxahachie, which calls for a 10 percent reduction in formula funding for higher education. A bill also has been filed in the Senate by Republican Sen. Steve Ogden of Bryan that instead calls for a 5 percent reduction.
That would result in a $42.9 million cut in formula funding, and similar reductions in financial aid and the Competitive Knowledge Fund, which had provided $1 million in state support for every $10 million earned in external research grants
The bills represent the starting numbers in the Legislature for a budget debate that already has resulted in the reductions of several hundred faculty and staff positions at Texas A&M as leaders aimed to get ahead of the cuts. And the final bill could be different.
"We must remember that Aggies are 'Can do!' people, and that our great university has emerged from past adversity stronger than before," Loftin said in an e-mail to the campus. "We will continue to share our message that Texas A&M is efficient, effective and a great value -- the best investment for the State of Texas -- as we continue to affirm the profound significance of our academic mission."
The financial aid reduction is directed toward incoming freshmen. For instance, there would be no new students in Texas Grants, the state's largest aid program for low-income students. Last year, about $4.5 million was doled out in grants of $6,780 to Texas A&M freshmen.
"This is all really directed at the need-based aid," said Joesph Pettibon, Texas A&M's associate vice president for academic services. "We're concerned that any reduction in need-based financial aid means some of these students may end up having to borrow money, so you're talking about a potential increase in student debt."
Both bills also include a 25 percent reduction in what's known as special-item funding, projects that, though they have external funding support such as federal grants and private sources, the Legislature funds as well.
Five projects would be impacted a total of about $800,000. The items include the Cyclotron Institute, Texas Sea Grant Program, Energy Resources Program, Public Policy Resource Laboratory and the Center for Housing and Urban Development.
Ogden said that his bill is a starting point and that it won't get any worse for Texas A&M in the Senate than what he filed.
"The lowest that is possible is already out there," he said. "What's going to happen over the next three months is I'm going to have to work with my fellow Senate colleagues to see where we need to add back funding in order to get them to vote for the bill. I'm not going to get any senators to vote for this bill unless we add some more money back into higher education."
Ogden said he's hoping the House and the Senate have their bills done around April, so then they can head to a conference committee, where House and Senate members reconcile differences in the bills.
Loftin is scheduled to testify before the Legislature on Feb. 10. In an interview, he said his message will be the same as it has been for months: "We are highly effective in what we do, and we are highly efficient in how we do it.
Published on Sunday, January 30, 2011
By Vimal Patel
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
Texas A&M could face a $61 million reduction in state formula funding for the two-year period that begins in September, in addition to a $13 million cut in the Competitive Knowledge Fund and $12 million in financial aid mostly for the neediest students, Texas A&M President R. Bowen Loftin said Friday.
That's according to an appropriations bill filed in the Texas House by Rep. Jim Pitts of Waxahachie, which calls for a 10 percent reduction in formula funding for higher education. A bill also has been filed in the Senate by Republican Sen. Steve Ogden of Bryan that instead calls for a 5 percent reduction.
That would result in a $42.9 million cut in formula funding, and similar reductions in financial aid and the Competitive Knowledge Fund, which had provided $1 million in state support for every $10 million earned in external research grants
The bills represent the starting numbers in the Legislature for a budget debate that already has resulted in the reductions of several hundred faculty and staff positions at Texas A&M as leaders aimed to get ahead of the cuts. And the final bill could be different.
"We must remember that Aggies are 'Can do!' people, and that our great university has emerged from past adversity stronger than before," Loftin said in an e-mail to the campus. "We will continue to share our message that Texas A&M is efficient, effective and a great value -- the best investment for the State of Texas -- as we continue to affirm the profound significance of our academic mission."
The financial aid reduction is directed toward incoming freshmen. For instance, there would be no new students in Texas Grants, the state's largest aid program for low-income students. Last year, about $4.5 million was doled out in grants of $6,780 to Texas A&M freshmen.
"This is all really directed at the need-based aid," said Joesph Pettibon, Texas A&M's associate vice president for academic services. "We're concerned that any reduction in need-based financial aid means some of these students may end up having to borrow money, so you're talking about a potential increase in student debt."
Both bills also include a 25 percent reduction in what's known as special-item funding, projects that, though they have external funding support such as federal grants and private sources, the Legislature funds as well.
Five projects would be impacted a total of about $800,000. The items include the Cyclotron Institute, Texas Sea Grant Program, Energy Resources Program, Public Policy Resource Laboratory and the Center for Housing and Urban Development.
Ogden said that his bill is a starting point and that it won't get any worse for Texas A&M in the Senate than what he filed.
"The lowest that is possible is already out there," he said. "What's going to happen over the next three months is I'm going to have to work with my fellow Senate colleagues to see where we need to add back funding in order to get them to vote for the bill. I'm not going to get any senators to vote for this bill unless we add some more money back into higher education."
Ogden said he's hoping the House and the Senate have their bills done around April, so then they can head to a conference committee, where House and Senate members reconcile differences in the bills.
Loftin is scheduled to testify before the Legislature on Feb. 10. In an interview, he said his message will be the same as it has been for months: "We are highly effective in what we do, and we are highly efficient in how we do it.
Published on Sunday, January 30, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Week in Headlines
Texas News
Special Interests Donate Millions After Election
Texas Politics
Senate Budget Chief Puts Medicaid and Schools on Chopping Block
National News
Wall Street Firms Earn High Profits With Uncle Sam's Backing
National Politics
Corporate Contributions Have Surged for New Republican Leaders in House
International News
Thousands in Yemen Protest Against the Government
War & Peace
Number of US Casualties From Roadside Bombs in Afghanistan Skyrocketed
Foreign Policy
Federal Inquiry Under Way of No-Bid Contract in Afghanistan
Veterans Issues
Bill in Texas Legislature Would Exempt Veterans' Survivors From Property Taxes
Domestic Policy
FCC's Rules to Protect Internet Access Spark Claims of Violations
Economics
Long-Term Unemployed Face Stigmas in Job Search
Poverty
Report Finds Urgent Action Needed to Avert Global Hunger
Health Care
Obesity is Why US Life Expectancy Behind Some Other Countries
Education
Public Universities Relying More on Tuition Than State Money
Environment
Great Plains Oil Pipeline Plan Sparks Grass-Roots Activism
Science & Technology
University of Texas Scientists Seek Means to Burn Coal Cleanly
Justice
Arizona's Gun-Death Rate Among the Worst in US
Human Rights
Human Trafficking May Be Widespread in South Florida
Immigrant Rights
The Cost of Anti-Immigration Bills
Reproductive Rights
Abortion Does Not Increase Risk of Mental Health Problems
Women’s & Gender Issues
Case Shows Lenient Treatment of Rapists
GLBT Issues
Proposed Housing Protections for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Race & Racism
Eight Men of Color Sue Philadelphia Over “Stop-And-Frisk” Policy
From the Blogs
In Other Words:
Protect Seniors by Cutting Their Benefits!
Mean Rachel:
Death by a Thousand Budget Cuts
Eye on Williamson:
Texas Budget Proposal Morally Bankrupt
Local News: Mayor Berry and Councilmeber Lyles Will Defends Seats During Recall
Mayor Berry to Defend Her Seat
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
College Station Mayor Nancy Berry and at least one City Council member will attempt to keep their elected seats after recall petitions seeking their removal from office were officially certified Thursday.
The third target for recall, Dave Ruesink, declined to disclose his plans. He has five days to decide whether to resign or face the voters and indicated that he will take the whole time before announcing his intentions.
"Five days from now I will comment on that," he said. "I'll hold off until then."
All three targets -- Berry, Ruesink and Councilwoman Katy-Marie Lyles -- joined the entire council in voting to certify the petitions. Each petition needed signatures totaling 40 percent of the people who voted in the race that each council member won. City Secretary Sherry Mashburn said her office spent over 231 man hours and $3,828 in wages -- not including overtime -- verifying the signatures.
"I find myself in a very interesting position to put my head on the chopping block," Lyles said before the vote. "The people have spoken. They are upset and we are going to allow them to have their voice."
The elections are expected to be held in May during the uniform election day -- though some petitioners have argued that they should be held earlier. An ordinance declaring the election will be submitted to the council at an upcoming meeting.
"My plan is to be mayor until the citizens of College Station tell me otherwise," Berry said in an interview after Thursday's council meeting.
Councilman Dennis Maloney then stepped in and offered his support. He said he has voted against Berry three times in campaigns for mayor and City Council but will campaign for her this time around.
"She has really stepped up," he said.
The recall campaign was initiated by two groups opposed to the proposed annexation of Wellborn. The council hasn't made a final decision on whether or not to annex but voted to proceed with gathering more information about the possibility. The recall organizers offered to hold off on their campaign if the council tabled the incorporation issue, but the council has declined.
In fact, the three targeted officials joined Maloney and Councilman John Crompton in voting to move forward with the next step of the annexation process moments before the petition was certified. That step is to order city staff to prepare a service plan that would give detailed information on how much it would cost to annex the 681 acres south of College Station's city limits. The council also set two dates -- March 22 and 24 -- for public hearings on the issue. A final decision on annexation is expected in April.
Council members Jana McMillan and Jess Fields voted against taking the next step. Fields said he thought the Wellborn residents should be able to vote on whether they want to join College Station -- even though there is no legal requirement to do so.
"I feel it is important that there is an element of self-determination for property owners that are going to be annexed," he said.
In other action Thursday night, the council:
* Unanimously approved a revision to the city's unified development ordinance to allow for micro-breweries and micro-wineries in commercially-zoned districts.
Under the previous law, those businesses were banned except in areas zoned for heavy industrial uses. Two separate businesses -- a winery and a brewery -- had hoped to open, but were restricted.
The new law allows micro-industrial companies to open if their facilities are less than 5,000 square feet and all the manufacturing happens indoors.
* Lowered the speed limit of Greens Prairie Road from 60 to 45 miles per hour. The change will affect the road from the western city limits to about 1,000 feet west of Woodlake Drive.
Published on Friday, January 28, 2011
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
College Station Mayor Nancy Berry and at least one City Council member will attempt to keep their elected seats after recall petitions seeking their removal from office were officially certified Thursday.
The third target for recall, Dave Ruesink, declined to disclose his plans. He has five days to decide whether to resign or face the voters and indicated that he will take the whole time before announcing his intentions.
"Five days from now I will comment on that," he said. "I'll hold off until then."
All three targets -- Berry, Ruesink and Councilwoman Katy-Marie Lyles -- joined the entire council in voting to certify the petitions. Each petition needed signatures totaling 40 percent of the people who voted in the race that each council member won. City Secretary Sherry Mashburn said her office spent over 231 man hours and $3,828 in wages -- not including overtime -- verifying the signatures.
"I find myself in a very interesting position to put my head on the chopping block," Lyles said before the vote. "The people have spoken. They are upset and we are going to allow them to have their voice."
The elections are expected to be held in May during the uniform election day -- though some petitioners have argued that they should be held earlier. An ordinance declaring the election will be submitted to the council at an upcoming meeting.
"My plan is to be mayor until the citizens of College Station tell me otherwise," Berry said in an interview after Thursday's council meeting.
Councilman Dennis Maloney then stepped in and offered his support. He said he has voted against Berry three times in campaigns for mayor and City Council but will campaign for her this time around.
"She has really stepped up," he said.
The recall campaign was initiated by two groups opposed to the proposed annexation of Wellborn. The council hasn't made a final decision on whether or not to annex but voted to proceed with gathering more information about the possibility. The recall organizers offered to hold off on their campaign if the council tabled the incorporation issue, but the council has declined.
In fact, the three targeted officials joined Maloney and Councilman John Crompton in voting to move forward with the next step of the annexation process moments before the petition was certified. That step is to order city staff to prepare a service plan that would give detailed information on how much it would cost to annex the 681 acres south of College Station's city limits. The council also set two dates -- March 22 and 24 -- for public hearings on the issue. A final decision on annexation is expected in April.
Council members Jana McMillan and Jess Fields voted against taking the next step. Fields said he thought the Wellborn residents should be able to vote on whether they want to join College Station -- even though there is no legal requirement to do so.
"I feel it is important that there is an element of self-determination for property owners that are going to be annexed," he said.
In other action Thursday night, the council:
* Unanimously approved a revision to the city's unified development ordinance to allow for micro-breweries and micro-wineries in commercially-zoned districts.
Under the previous law, those businesses were banned except in areas zoned for heavy industrial uses. Two separate businesses -- a winery and a brewery -- had hoped to open, but were restricted.
The new law allows micro-industrial companies to open if their facilities are less than 5,000 square feet and all the manufacturing happens indoors.
* Lowered the speed limit of Greens Prairie Road from 60 to 45 miles per hour. The change will affect the road from the western city limits to about 1,000 feet west of Woodlake Drive.
Published on Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Addicted to Risk
Days before this talk, journalist Naomi Klein was on a boat in the Gulf of Mexico, looking at the catastrophic results of BP's risky pursuit of oil. Our societies have become addicted to extreme risk in finding new energy, new financial instruments and more ... and too often, we're left to clean up a mess afterward. Klein's question: What's the backup plan?
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tonight on Biased Transmission
Tonight on Biased Transmission our studio guest is Dr. Jorge Gonzalez, Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at Texas A&M University. Dr. Gonzalez’s primary emphasis is School Psychology and does research in the area of literacy and language development for at-risk children. Among other things we will talk about what Dr. Gonzalez refers to as the persistent, almost intractable achievement gap between Latino/Black and poor and Caucasian children.
Listen to Biased Transmission every Wednesday from 6-7pm on the Brazos Valley’s only community radio station, 89.1FM KEOS. Tune in to hear Teddy, Michael, Danny, and Sam discuss the issues and interview guest. Every week Biased Transmission discusses dangerous ideas for dangerous times.
Biased Transmission on Facebook
Biased Transmission on LiveStream
Biased Transmission Online Archive of Shows
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Local News: College Station Recall Campaign Signatures Validated
Recall signatures validated; 3 CS officials may face election
Eagle Staff Report
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
Although their terms do not expire for more than a year, College Station Mayor Nancy Berry and two City Council members likely will be forced to defend their seats because an anti-annexation group gathered enough signatures to require a recall election.
Berry was elected to a three-year term eight months ago, while Katy-Marie Lyles, Place 4, and Dave Ruesink, Place 6, were elected in May 2009.
City officials said the charter requires each petition be signed by a number of qualified electors equal to at least 40 percent of the total number of votes cast for the office in question. Under state law, signatures by unregistered voters or non-residents were disqualified.
Five petitioners with SaveWellborn.org -- a group of College Station residents fighting the annexation of their neighbor to the south -- needed 1,553 signatures to put Berry on a recall ballot and received five more than necessary; 1,210 were needed for Lyles and the group obtained 318 more than that; and 342 signatures over the 1,160 required for Ruesink's were documented.
City Secretary Sherry Mashburn said Monday that she will present the official certification of the signatures during a council meeting Thursday. The city's charter, which does not require a reason to be given for a recall election, allows for the mayor and two council members to resign from their office five days following that council meeting. Should one or more opt not to resign by that fifth day, Feb. 1, a recall election is expected to be ordered at a Feb. 10 council meeting.
City officials said the charter specifies that an election should be held 30 to 60 days after the petition is presented to the council, but state law requires it to be held on the next uniform election date, which is May 14.
Timothy Delasandro -- who started the group SaveWellborn.org, which is made up of College Station residents -- said they're pleased with Monday's outcome, but don't agree with the city regarding the timing of an election.
"We will continue to push for a March recall election, as required by the city charter," Delasandro said. "The state law that the city cites allows for exceptions that are included within the city charter recall process. This recall is the referendum on Wellborn that the city previously refused to allow. To circumvent that referendum by displacing the election to May would be an injustice to College Station voters."
Citizens for Wellborn, a group of residents from that community, also is fighting annexation of the unincorporated area, which is in College Station's extraterritorial jurisdiction.
The petitioners publicly stated the primary reason they were embarking on the effort was to remove five council members who voted in favor of starting the information-gathering process used with annexations. The other two targeted were John Crompton, who can't run again due to term limitations, and Dennis Maloney, who said he will not seek re-election.
Those five council members emphasized that the fact-finding did not mean that the small section of the Wellborn area would ultimately be annexed. No vote on annexation has been taken by the council. Still, the petitioners said they'd only abandon their cause if the council agreed to table any annexation talks for two years.
Jess Fields is the only council member unaffected by the recall effort or May's general election in which the most recent official elected to the council will have to run again: Jana McMillan is filling an unexpired term that ends in just over three months.
Mashburn said staffers from her office spent up to 70 hours over the past two weeks, including some nights, weekends and a holiday, verifying each signature submitted by the SaveWellborn group. The process included checking each signature and cross-referencing it with birth dates, voter registration number and checking with the voter registrar's office in some instances. The names on the Berry petition had three different sets of eyes since the numbers were so close, Mashburn said.
Almost 565 signatures were disqualified from Berry's petition alone: 482 were thrown out mostly because people weren't registered voters at the time they signed the petitions and some because they didn't live in College Station; another 79 were disqualified because a circulator's statement was incomplete per the city charter; and three signatures were removed at the request of those three individuals who signed affidavits prior to the petitions being submitted.
City officials said another 18 signatures were allowed to remain even though there were accidental discrepancies that the city determined they legally could allow. Asked if disqualifying those 18 could have made the effort toward Berry fail, city officials said yes.
"Essentially, the entire staff dedicated themselves to this process," said Mashburn, who has been a city secretary since 1999 and before that served as a tax assessor-collector, but never has had to be involved in a recall election. "It was very thorough, very fair."
Published on Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Eagle Staff Report
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
Although their terms do not expire for more than a year, College Station Mayor Nancy Berry and two City Council members likely will be forced to defend their seats because an anti-annexation group gathered enough signatures to require a recall election.
Berry was elected to a three-year term eight months ago, while Katy-Marie Lyles, Place 4, and Dave Ruesink, Place 6, were elected in May 2009.
City officials said the charter requires each petition be signed by a number of qualified electors equal to at least 40 percent of the total number of votes cast for the office in question. Under state law, signatures by unregistered voters or non-residents were disqualified.
Five petitioners with SaveWellborn.org -- a group of College Station residents fighting the annexation of their neighbor to the south -- needed 1,553 signatures to put Berry on a recall ballot and received five more than necessary; 1,210 were needed for Lyles and the group obtained 318 more than that; and 342 signatures over the 1,160 required for Ruesink's were documented.
City Secretary Sherry Mashburn said Monday that she will present the official certification of the signatures during a council meeting Thursday. The city's charter, which does not require a reason to be given for a recall election, allows for the mayor and two council members to resign from their office five days following that council meeting. Should one or more opt not to resign by that fifth day, Feb. 1, a recall election is expected to be ordered at a Feb. 10 council meeting.
City officials said the charter specifies that an election should be held 30 to 60 days after the petition is presented to the council, but state law requires it to be held on the next uniform election date, which is May 14.
Timothy Delasandro -- who started the group SaveWellborn.org, which is made up of College Station residents -- said they're pleased with Monday's outcome, but don't agree with the city regarding the timing of an election.
"We will continue to push for a March recall election, as required by the city charter," Delasandro said. "The state law that the city cites allows for exceptions that are included within the city charter recall process. This recall is the referendum on Wellborn that the city previously refused to allow. To circumvent that referendum by displacing the election to May would be an injustice to College Station voters."
Citizens for Wellborn, a group of residents from that community, also is fighting annexation of the unincorporated area, which is in College Station's extraterritorial jurisdiction.
The petitioners publicly stated the primary reason they were embarking on the effort was to remove five council members who voted in favor of starting the information-gathering process used with annexations. The other two targeted were John Crompton, who can't run again due to term limitations, and Dennis Maloney, who said he will not seek re-election.
Those five council members emphasized that the fact-finding did not mean that the small section of the Wellborn area would ultimately be annexed. No vote on annexation has been taken by the council. Still, the petitioners said they'd only abandon their cause if the council agreed to table any annexation talks for two years.
Jess Fields is the only council member unaffected by the recall effort or May's general election in which the most recent official elected to the council will have to run again: Jana McMillan is filling an unexpired term that ends in just over three months.
Mashburn said staffers from her office spent up to 70 hours over the past two weeks, including some nights, weekends and a holiday, verifying each signature submitted by the SaveWellborn group. The process included checking each signature and cross-referencing it with birth dates, voter registration number and checking with the voter registrar's office in some instances. The names on the Berry petition had three different sets of eyes since the numbers were so close, Mashburn said.
Almost 565 signatures were disqualified from Berry's petition alone: 482 were thrown out mostly because people weren't registered voters at the time they signed the petitions and some because they didn't live in College Station; another 79 were disqualified because a circulator's statement was incomplete per the city charter; and three signatures were removed at the request of those three individuals who signed affidavits prior to the petitions being submitted.
City officials said another 18 signatures were allowed to remain even though there were accidental discrepancies that the city determined they legally could allow. Asked if disqualifying those 18 could have made the effort toward Berry fail, city officials said yes.
"Essentially, the entire staff dedicated themselves to this process," said Mashburn, who has been a city secretary since 1999 and before that served as a tax assessor-collector, but never has had to be involved in a recall election. "It was very thorough, very fair."
Published on Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Health Care Hypocrisy of Congressman Flores
Congressman Bill Flores joined the Congressional Republicans in the House of Representatives in voting to repeal health care reform. A law that among other things bars insurance companies from denying coverage to applicants on the basis of pre-existing conditions, requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of their premium revenues on medical costs, and enables children to stay on their parents' policies until they turn 26 and closes the "donut hole" in the Medicare drug plan.However, the most interesting effect of voting to repeal health care reform is that Flores is also voting to increase the budget deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that the law will reduce annual deficits by a cumulative $143 billion through 2019 and $230 billion through 2021. Meaning Flores voted to increase the deficit by $230 billion over ten years. During an interview with Bloomberg, Flores said that one of the priorities for any piece of legislation was what it did to “balance the budget.” After making government spending and the deficit a focal point of his campaign against Democrat Chet Edwards, Flores has voted for what he campaigned against.
After voting to repeal health care reform, which will extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans, Flores then voted against repealing his own government health care. That’s right. While voting to prevent millions of Americans from receiving health care through government subsidies, Flores voted to ensure that he maintains his health care through a government subsidy.
By the way Congressman Flores, the Texas Department of Insurance issued a report last week saying that health care reform will make it easier for many Texas families to get health coverage. It seems as though that our new Congressman is going to stand in lockstep behind the political agenda that has been put forth by Congressional Republicans, and ignore the real policy implications and the affects that that agenda has on Texas families.
Texas Progressive Alliance - January 24, 2011
The Texas Progressive Alliance congratulates the Packers and the Steelers as it brings you this week's roundup.
WhosPlayin helped organize a cleanup for an historic African American cemetery dating back to about 1845 that had been the target of litterbugs and illegal dumpers. Respect for the dead, and respect for the land are still values that people from left and right can agree on.
Off the Kuff analyzed the initial Republican budget proposal and the utter havoc it would wreak on the state.
TXsharon reported on two important developments on hydraulic fracturing: 1) the EPA is confident gas in Parker County water wells is from Barnett Shale, and 2) the media took a lie about the EPA and regulating diesel fuel and repeated it without fact checking.
At Letters From Texas, Harold points out that Rick Perry keeps calling things "emergencies" that aren't, and continues to ignore emergencies that are.
Capitol Annex takes a look at a study showing that Texas gets an "F" when it comes to reporting outbreaks of food-borne illness and wonders why the media wasn't paying attention last year when candidates were making an issue of food safety in Texas.
There's a muddy, grunting scrum developing among the Republicans coveting the US Senate seat Kay Bailey is vacating, and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs posts an update at a safe distance from the bottom of the pile.
Exactly why does Governor Perry want to insist that you can cut spending and maintain services? McBlogger's pretty sure it's a case of cognitive dissonance.
Libby Shaw gets it dead right whem she tells Goodhair to Man Up Governor Perry. Of course he won't. He has already double-downed on completing the demoliiton of Texas public education according to everything coming out about the new state budget.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants to know why Republicans hate people so very much.
TexasVox welcomes guest blogger Jim Hightower as part of a one-two punch on the nuclear waste dump in West Texas: Hightower's Dumping on Texas for Fun and Profit and an expose of Harold Simmons' last minute contributions to Texas politicians in 2010.
Neil at Texas Liberal wrote on the massive budget deficit in Texas. In this fine post, Neil offers up the view that Republican mismanagement of Texas is not the only reason for the shortfall. Neil also cites poor citizenship by the many Texans who don't want to pay taxes in a state with no income tax, but who at the same time kick up a fuss when government services they use are cut.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Week in Headlines
Texas News
Texas Public Safety Agency Loses Track of Assets
Texas Politics
House Budget Plan Puts Texas in Reverse and Stalls Progress
National News
States’ Budget Crises Cut Deeply Into Financing for Mental Health Programs
National Politics
House of Representatives Votes to Repeal Health-Care Reform
War & Peace
WikiLeaks Cables Show Obama Sent More Troops to Afghanistan Despite Warnings
Veterans Issues
Retired Generals Won't Divulge Ties to Defense Contractors
Education
Study Suggests U.S. Colleges Fail to Challenge Undergrads
Health Care
House GOP Passes Resolution to Repeal Healthcare Reform
Environment
Texas Approves New Wind Power Transmission Lines
Climate Change
Arctic Sea Ice Still at Lowest Extent Ever
Science & Technology
Multiple Asteroid Strikes May Have Killed Mars’s Magnetic Field
Civil Rights
US Prepares to Lift Ban on Guantánamo Cases
Human Rights
Federal Prisoners With Unpopular Political Beliefs Isolated and Abused
Immigrant Rights
Mississippi State Senate Passes Anti-Immigration Law
Reproductive Rights
Anti-Abortion State Legislators Rise in Power
Women & Gender Issues
Study Finds Breastfeeding Beneficial to Woman Who Had Cancer
GLBT Issues
Same-Sex Couples Face Financial Hurdles
Race & Racism
Third of Americans Say Obama Presidency Has Improved Race Relations
From the Blogs
Texas Liberal:
Texas Budget Deficit Crisis Reflects Republican Mismanagement And Poor Citizenship
Burnt Orange Report:
Republican Budget Unbalanced, Unfair, and Destructive
Letters From Texas:
The Governor's Emergencies
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Local News: Ogden Files Bill to Require Release Utility Budgets
Ogden Bill May Release Utility Budgets
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
State Sen. Steve Ogden said he has already heard from concerned public utility companies after filing a bill this week that would repeal their exemptions from state public information disclosure laws.
The legislation would require government-owned utilities -- including Bryan Texas Utilities -- to follow the same open government laws as all other public agencies. Currently, the utilities are allowed to decide unilaterally what information they provide to the public.
Publicly owned utilities have been exempt from information disclosure laws since 1999, when the Legislature voted to deregulate the state's power market. Deregulation opened the possibility for private companies to compete with municipally owned utilities, and lawmakers wanted to protect government-run companies from being undercut.
The public companies were allowed to declare information as "competitive matters" that could be restricted from public view.
That has allowed BTU to avoid releasing salary and budget information for its employees after receiving repeated requests this summer. Then-City Manager David Watkins clashed with BTU leadership at the time, complaining that he wasn't receiving the budget information he was requesting.
After multiple open records requests from The Eagle, the city-owned utility agreed to disclose the 2010 compensation of its top 13 managers, but declined to give similar information from the past five years.
"Their argument is that we need this exception so that citizens can have more choices and lower utility rates," said Ogden, who has publicly promised to try to rework the law since the summer. "My belief is I have heard no compelling reason why they need it."
Ogden's bill would remove the entire section of the Texas Government Code that sets the rules for how publicly-owned utilities release information. If passed, his bill would require the companies to follow the laws that govern all other government agencies.
The Republican said that he expects the bill will meet some resistance, but he couldn't gauge the opinions of other senators.
BTU General Manager Dan Wilkerson has said that releasing more detailed budget and salary information would make BTU susceptible to competition and might mean an increase in electricity rates for customers. More than 10 years after deregulation, BTU still has a monopoly over its service area. It does bid against other power companies on the wholesale electricity market and their bidding practices need to be protected, Wilkerson has said.
Wilkerson declined to comment on Ogden's bill, saying he hadn't seen it and didn't have time to review it on Wednesday.
Ogden dismissed concerns that rates would increase. He said government agencies are allowed to protect sensitive information, but they often must seek approval of the Texas Attorney General's Office before they withhold it. He said he sees no reason why publicly owned utilities should be any different.
Open government advocates have applauded Ogden's plan.
"Financial transparency is one of the best ways to build public trust between the government and taxpayers, and when you have a loophole like this ... it is not good for taxpayers," said Keith Elkins, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.
Elkins said he has followed the BTU controversy and sees no reason why competition should restrict the company from releasing most budget information.
"In this particular case, the information was needed by government leaders to put together a budget in tough budget year," he said. "We believe the taxpayers were being kept in the dark."
Published on Thursday, January 20, 2011
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
State Sen. Steve Ogden said he has already heard from concerned public utility companies after filing a bill this week that would repeal their exemptions from state public information disclosure laws.
The legislation would require government-owned utilities -- including Bryan Texas Utilities -- to follow the same open government laws as all other public agencies. Currently, the utilities are allowed to decide unilaterally what information they provide to the public.
Publicly owned utilities have been exempt from information disclosure laws since 1999, when the Legislature voted to deregulate the state's power market. Deregulation opened the possibility for private companies to compete with municipally owned utilities, and lawmakers wanted to protect government-run companies from being undercut.
The public companies were allowed to declare information as "competitive matters" that could be restricted from public view.
That has allowed BTU to avoid releasing salary and budget information for its employees after receiving repeated requests this summer. Then-City Manager David Watkins clashed with BTU leadership at the time, complaining that he wasn't receiving the budget information he was requesting.
After multiple open records requests from The Eagle, the city-owned utility agreed to disclose the 2010 compensation of its top 13 managers, but declined to give similar information from the past five years.
"Their argument is that we need this exception so that citizens can have more choices and lower utility rates," said Ogden, who has publicly promised to try to rework the law since the summer. "My belief is I have heard no compelling reason why they need it."
Ogden's bill would remove the entire section of the Texas Government Code that sets the rules for how publicly-owned utilities release information. If passed, his bill would require the companies to follow the laws that govern all other government agencies.
The Republican said that he expects the bill will meet some resistance, but he couldn't gauge the opinions of other senators.
BTU General Manager Dan Wilkerson has said that releasing more detailed budget and salary information would make BTU susceptible to competition and might mean an increase in electricity rates for customers. More than 10 years after deregulation, BTU still has a monopoly over its service area. It does bid against other power companies on the wholesale electricity market and their bidding practices need to be protected, Wilkerson has said.
Wilkerson declined to comment on Ogden's bill, saying he hadn't seen it and didn't have time to review it on Wednesday.
Ogden dismissed concerns that rates would increase. He said government agencies are allowed to protect sensitive information, but they often must seek approval of the Texas Attorney General's Office before they withhold it. He said he sees no reason why publicly owned utilities should be any different.
Open government advocates have applauded Ogden's plan.
"Financial transparency is one of the best ways to build public trust between the government and taxpayers, and when you have a loophole like this ... it is not good for taxpayers," said Keith Elkins, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.
Elkins said he has followed the BTU controversy and sees no reason why competition should restrict the company from releasing most budget information.
"In this particular case, the information was needed by government leaders to put together a budget in tough budget year," he said. "We believe the taxpayers were being kept in the dark."
Published on Thursday, January 20, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Local News: Bryan Texas Utilities Receives Clean Rating After Audit
BTU's Books Get a Clean Rating
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
Bryan Texas Utilities received a clean rating last week in an audit of its financial reporting.
The audit said that BTU fairly reported its financial results for its urban and rural services. A similar audit is performed every year, and BTU has always received a clean rating, BTU staff said.
"This is a regular annual audit done by external auditors," said Dan Wilkerson, BTU general manager. "I think the key thing for our customers and those from Brazos County to see is that the auditors have given us a completely clean opinion. It is what we expected."
The company that performed the audit, Weaver and Tidwell, LLP, is also reviewing the management structure of BTU at the request of the Bryan City Council. Wilkerson said that audit is still being performed and "it will not be very long" until it is ready.
The council requested that audit amid controversy last year over how much financial information BTU has made available to city staff and the public.
BTU is owned by the city of Bryan, but has its own oversight board. Then-City Manager David Watkins publicly complained over the summer that he wasn't receiving enough details about BTU's executive compensation and that it was allowed to operate with limited oversight from the city.
He eventually resigned amid the controversy.
Public utilities are allowed to keep most of their budget details private because of a 1990s law deregulating the utility market in Texas. That law opened up the possibility of local competition for electrical providers and was designed to keep the public agencies from being undercut by private groups that could access budget information.
There has been no competition in Bryan, however. BTU last month released pay details of its top 13 managers for 2010. It declined to release their pay for the past five years, however.
State Sen. Steve Ogden has said he plans to work in the current session of the Texas Legislature to remove some of the rules that allow public utilities to keep budget information private.
Published on Monday, January 17, 2011
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
Bryan Texas Utilities received a clean rating last week in an audit of its financial reporting.
The audit said that BTU fairly reported its financial results for its urban and rural services. A similar audit is performed every year, and BTU has always received a clean rating, BTU staff said.
"This is a regular annual audit done by external auditors," said Dan Wilkerson, BTU general manager. "I think the key thing for our customers and those from Brazos County to see is that the auditors have given us a completely clean opinion. It is what we expected."
The company that performed the audit, Weaver and Tidwell, LLP, is also reviewing the management structure of BTU at the request of the Bryan City Council. Wilkerson said that audit is still being performed and "it will not be very long" until it is ready.
The council requested that audit amid controversy last year over how much financial information BTU has made available to city staff and the public.
BTU is owned by the city of Bryan, but has its own oversight board. Then-City Manager David Watkins publicly complained over the summer that he wasn't receiving enough details about BTU's executive compensation and that it was allowed to operate with limited oversight from the city.
He eventually resigned amid the controversy.
Public utilities are allowed to keep most of their budget details private because of a 1990s law deregulating the utility market in Texas. That law opened up the possibility of local competition for electrical providers and was designed to keep the public agencies from being undercut by private groups that could access budget information.
There has been no competition in Bryan, however. BTU last month released pay details of its top 13 managers for 2010. It declined to release their pay for the past five years, however.
State Sen. Steve Ogden has said he plans to work in the current session of the Texas Legislature to remove some of the rules that allow public utilities to keep budget information private.
Published on Monday, January 17, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Local News: Finalist Named for Texas A&M Provost
2 Finalists Named for Texas A&M Provost
By Vimal Patel
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
The search for Texas A&M's top academic official has been whittled down to a pair of administrators, including the person temporarily filling the spot.
Karan Watson, who is serving as interim provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, is a finalist for the position, which hasn't been filled permanently since Jeff Vitter resigned in July 2009.
The other finalist is James Coleman, vice provost for research and a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Rice University, where he oversees the private school's $100 million research enterprise.
Both candidates are scheduled for on-campus interviews later this month, Coleman for Tuesday and Wednesday, and Watson for Jan. 27 and 28. Detailed schedules will be posted on the provost search website when completed.
"We actually had some really strong candidates," said Bob Strawser, a committee member and speaker of the Faculty Senate. "We ended up with two strong candidates we feel could do the job. The difference between the two, as I see it, is that Karan Watson has already demonstrated that she can do the job."
The decision now appears to be in the hands of Texas A&M President R. Bowen Loftin. The 18-person committee's charge was to forward between two and four names to the president, so both names will be sent unranked, said John Crompton, a professor and co-chair of the search committee.
Coleman earned a bachelor's in forestry from the University of Maine in 1982, as well as a master's in 1985 and doctorate in 1987 from Yale University's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
Before joining Rice, he was the vice chancellor for research and professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri at Columbia, and he has been principal or co-principal investigator on $40,000 in competitive grants or cooperative agreements.
Watson earned her bachelor's in 1977, master's in 1981 and doctorate in 1982, all in electrical engineering from Texas Tech University.
She started as a faculty member at Texas A&M in 1983 in the electrical and computer engineering department. In her application letter she touted a deep knowledge of the university and her experience overseeing a budget of more than $900 million as interim provost.
Published on Thursday, January 13, 2011
By Vimal Patel
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
The search for Texas A&M's top academic official has been whittled down to a pair of administrators, including the person temporarily filling the spot.
Karan Watson, who is serving as interim provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, is a finalist for the position, which hasn't been filled permanently since Jeff Vitter resigned in July 2009.
The other finalist is James Coleman, vice provost for research and a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Rice University, where he oversees the private school's $100 million research enterprise.
Both candidates are scheduled for on-campus interviews later this month, Coleman for Tuesday and Wednesday, and Watson for Jan. 27 and 28. Detailed schedules will be posted on the provost search website when completed.
"We actually had some really strong candidates," said Bob Strawser, a committee member and speaker of the Faculty Senate. "We ended up with two strong candidates we feel could do the job. The difference between the two, as I see it, is that Karan Watson has already demonstrated that she can do the job."
The decision now appears to be in the hands of Texas A&M President R. Bowen Loftin. The 18-person committee's charge was to forward between two and four names to the president, so both names will be sent unranked, said John Crompton, a professor and co-chair of the search committee.
Coleman earned a bachelor's in forestry from the University of Maine in 1982, as well as a master's in 1985 and doctorate in 1987 from Yale University's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
Before joining Rice, he was the vice chancellor for research and professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri at Columbia, and he has been principal or co-principal investigator on $40,000 in competitive grants or cooperative agreements.
Watson earned her bachelor's in 1977, master's in 1981 and doctorate in 1982, all in electrical engineering from Texas Tech University.
She started as a faculty member at Texas A&M in 1983 in the electrical and computer engineering department. In her application letter she touted a deep knowledge of the university and her experience overseeing a budget of more than $900 million as interim provost.
Published on Thursday, January 13, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Tonight on Biased Transmission
Tune in to Biased Transmission tonight to hear the music group the States, who are the progressive activists Martin Bates and Janie Marie Stein. They will discuss the work that they do as peace activist and their involvement in human rights, as well as sharing their music.
Listen to Biased Transmission every Wednesday from 6-7pm on the Brazos Valley’s only community radio station, 89.1FM KEOS. Tune in to hear Teddy, Michael, Danny, and Sam discuss the issues and interview guest. Every week Biased Transmission discusses dangerous ideas for dangerous times.
Biased Transmission on Facebook
Biased Transmission on LiveStream
Biased Transmission Online Archive of Shows
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Local News: Recall Campaign to Face Legal Challenges
Courts May be Needed to Settle Recall Disputes
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
The effort to unseat College Station Mayor Nancy Berry and two members of the City Council will almost surely go to the polls after recall petitions were submitted to City Hall on Monday.
But the issue may end up in court first because of disagreements between city staff and the two political groups pushing the recall.
The groups Citizens for Wellborn and Save Wellborn want to remove Berry and council members Katy-Marie Lyles and Dave Ruesink because they voted to begin the annexation process of Wellborn, a small unincorporated community southwest of College Station.
The city is still months from completing the annexation process, and the council could decide to stop it at any point. But Wellborn residents said they fear a decision has already been made. They want to delay the process until the Texas Legislature considers a bill that would require cities the size of College Station to let residents vote on whether they want their area to be annexed. That bill was filed by state Rep. Fred Brown of Bryan for consideration during this year's legislative session, which opens Tuesday.
The petitioners collected 2,103 signatures for Berry, 2,078 for Ruesink and 2,038 for Lyles. Those numbers exceed the required 40 percent of votes each official won in the last election.
"The citizens of College Station are sending the city a strong and clear message," said Timothy Delasandro, leader of Save Wellborn and one of the five people who collected signatures. "It's long past due for city leadership to lend their ears and listen to the will of the people."
The three recall targets said Monday that they will continue to conduct business as usual while the process plays out.
"I am going to continue doing my job and I am going to continue doing everything I can to serve the people of College Station," Lyles said. "I feel like they have acted legally, and legally they can do this. Whether it is the right thing to do is a whole other question. ... It does create obstacles, but I am not going to let them interfere with my duties as a council member."
Ruesink declined to comment, other than to say, "Life keeps going on as usual."
Berry learned that the petitions had been submitted while boarding a plane in Los Angeles. She gave a quick comment before having to hang up the phone.
"If all the signatures are confirmed, it will be brought to council and we will act accordingly," she said.
The petitioners also targeted council members John Crompton and Dennis Maloney, but didn't collect the necessary number of signatures. The two other members of the council, Jana McMillan and Jess Fields, voted against the annexation process and weren't targeted.
City staff began to review the petitions on Monday. They must confirm that those who signed are registered voters who live in the city limits before taking further action.
"We are going to be looking at voter registration rolls and street indexes and, if there is any question regarding their eligibility, we will contact the voter registrar," said City Secretary Sherry Mashburn.
If the city determines that enough of the signatures are valid, they will notify the elected officials. Each official will then have five days to resign. If they don't, the city will call a special meeting of the City Council to set an election date.
But the review process is likely to become controversial. Delasandro argued with city staff on Monday over who was eligible to sign the petition. Staff members have said that they will only accept signatures that are eligible under Texas law, meaning they were legally able to vote on the day they signed and live within College Station city limits.
That would disqualify about 250 people who registered to vote on the same day they signed the petitions because it takes 30 days for a person to become eligible to vote in Texas after registering.
Delasandro said the city should accept the signatures of the newly registered voters, but the two groups have collected enough signatures that it won't affect the recall of Lyles and Ruesink.
"It may have a bearing on the mayor," Delasandro said. Berry's petition had 2,103 unverified signatures -- 550 more than required.
The city and the petitioners also disagree over when the election should be held. College Station has said that it would hold the election in May, on the next uniform election day. They cite Texas election code, which requires special elections to be held on the uniform election date.
But Wellborn supporters argue that the election must be held within 60 days of the time the petition is submitted. That rule is included in the College Station city charter.
An employee of the Texas Secretary of State said Monday that Texas election code trumps the city charter and the city should hold the election in May.
Delasandro admitted that the petitioners would likely lose any legal battles over the election date. Regardless, he said, they plan to file a request for a temporary injunction in Brazos County court if the city sets the date for May.
"This is just a short trip over to the district court," Delasandro said. "It is not like, 'Oh brother, the city is being sued again.' This is a pretty quick district court case."
Published Tuesday, January 11, 2011
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
The effort to unseat College Station Mayor Nancy Berry and two members of the City Council will almost surely go to the polls after recall petitions were submitted to City Hall on Monday.
But the issue may end up in court first because of disagreements between city staff and the two political groups pushing the recall.
The groups Citizens for Wellborn and Save Wellborn want to remove Berry and council members Katy-Marie Lyles and Dave Ruesink because they voted to begin the annexation process of Wellborn, a small unincorporated community southwest of College Station.
The city is still months from completing the annexation process, and the council could decide to stop it at any point. But Wellborn residents said they fear a decision has already been made. They want to delay the process until the Texas Legislature considers a bill that would require cities the size of College Station to let residents vote on whether they want their area to be annexed. That bill was filed by state Rep. Fred Brown of Bryan for consideration during this year's legislative session, which opens Tuesday.
The petitioners collected 2,103 signatures for Berry, 2,078 for Ruesink and 2,038 for Lyles. Those numbers exceed the required 40 percent of votes each official won in the last election.
"The citizens of College Station are sending the city a strong and clear message," said Timothy Delasandro, leader of Save Wellborn and one of the five people who collected signatures. "It's long past due for city leadership to lend their ears and listen to the will of the people."
The three recall targets said Monday that they will continue to conduct business as usual while the process plays out.
"I am going to continue doing my job and I am going to continue doing everything I can to serve the people of College Station," Lyles said. "I feel like they have acted legally, and legally they can do this. Whether it is the right thing to do is a whole other question. ... It does create obstacles, but I am not going to let them interfere with my duties as a council member."
Ruesink declined to comment, other than to say, "Life keeps going on as usual."
Berry learned that the petitions had been submitted while boarding a plane in Los Angeles. She gave a quick comment before having to hang up the phone.
"If all the signatures are confirmed, it will be brought to council and we will act accordingly," she said.
The petitioners also targeted council members John Crompton and Dennis Maloney, but didn't collect the necessary number of signatures. The two other members of the council, Jana McMillan and Jess Fields, voted against the annexation process and weren't targeted.
City staff began to review the petitions on Monday. They must confirm that those who signed are registered voters who live in the city limits before taking further action.
"We are going to be looking at voter registration rolls and street indexes and, if there is any question regarding their eligibility, we will contact the voter registrar," said City Secretary Sherry Mashburn.
If the city determines that enough of the signatures are valid, they will notify the elected officials. Each official will then have five days to resign. If they don't, the city will call a special meeting of the City Council to set an election date.
But the review process is likely to become controversial. Delasandro argued with city staff on Monday over who was eligible to sign the petition. Staff members have said that they will only accept signatures that are eligible under Texas law, meaning they were legally able to vote on the day they signed and live within College Station city limits.
That would disqualify about 250 people who registered to vote on the same day they signed the petitions because it takes 30 days for a person to become eligible to vote in Texas after registering.
Delasandro said the city should accept the signatures of the newly registered voters, but the two groups have collected enough signatures that it won't affect the recall of Lyles and Ruesink.
"It may have a bearing on the mayor," Delasandro said. Berry's petition had 2,103 unverified signatures -- 550 more than required.
The city and the petitioners also disagree over when the election should be held. College Station has said that it would hold the election in May, on the next uniform election day. They cite Texas election code, which requires special elections to be held on the uniform election date.
But Wellborn supporters argue that the election must be held within 60 days of the time the petition is submitted. That rule is included in the College Station city charter.
An employee of the Texas Secretary of State said Monday that Texas election code trumps the city charter and the city should hold the election in May.
Delasandro admitted that the petitioners would likely lose any legal battles over the election date. Regardless, he said, they plan to file a request for a temporary injunction in Brazos County court if the city sets the date for May.
"This is just a short trip over to the district court," Delasandro said. "It is not like, 'Oh brother, the city is being sued again.' This is a pretty quick district court case."
Published Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
Budget Semantics
Business Insider publishes an article about the fact that Texas is facing a significant budget shortfall, and that is not being included in the narrative about the budget crisis facing many states. Matthew Yglesias blogs about it, the Paul Krugman blogs about it, the Ryan Avent responds to Krugman’s blog, and then Krugman responds to Avent’s response. Krugman writes a column in the New York Times, and then Kevin Williamson responds to the column at the National Review. So, what is the argument all about? Semantics. But, let’s start from the beginning.
Since the Great Recession began after the financial crisis in 2008, the narrative has been that Texas has weathered the storm better than the rest of the states. However, since Texas budgets biannually, the last budget was passed only a few months after the recession began in 2009. The effects of the recession are now being felt in full affect in the budget that will be passed in 2011. Having a budget crisis in a pro-business, low-regulation, low-spending, no-union, Republican-dominated state goes against the narrative. As Yglesias notes, “keeping taxes low by simply not having taxes be high enough to pay the bills is in the best Texas conservative tradition of George W Bush but it doesn’t work for state government during a recession.”
Texas has maintained an unemployment rate below the national average throughout the recession. According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Texas currently has an unemployment rate of 8.2% compared to the national average of 9.4%. But, Krugman notes that on his blog that when you compare the unemployment rate in Texas and New York they are statistically similar. However, Avent notes that the two states are different because of the dramatic difference in their respective labor markets, and that a large share of the rise in the unemployment rate in Texas is due to migration. Although, Krugman responds that the unemployment comparison is relevant because “in terms of personal hardship, in terms of people looking for jobs but not finding them, Texas has done essentially no better than New York.” So far it has just been a policy debate among economic policy wonk bloggers.
Then Krugman writes about “The Texas Omen” in his bi-weekly New York Times column, during which he expands on the subject of Texas and points out that it is the state where conservative economic policy has most completely been put into practice. Then Williamson takes issue with Krugman assessment of Texas, and says in his National Review post that “no, Paul Krugman, Texas is not broke.” Williamson continues, “keep your pants on, professor. Texas is not going to have a budget shortfall.” So, what’s the deal?
There seems to be a semantics problem. Why does Williamson think even though there is shortfall projection that there will not be a shortfall? “Texas doesn’t do shortfalls. Texas starts from scratch: Every year is basically Year Zero when it comes to the state budget — there is no assumption that next year’s funding will match or exceed this year’s.” Sounds great. But, it is not entirely true. As Williamson notes, in 2003 Texas did address a $10 billion budget shortfall by using zero-based budgeting. Of course, the legislature did raise new revenue with fees. But, while zero based budgeting sounds great, it is not done in practice. The 2003 budget was the exception, and the 2011 budget is not being addressed in a similar fashion. Governor Rick Perry has already asked state agencies to cut 10% from their last appropriations, and it has been made clear generating new revenue is completely out of the question.
Williamson also takes issue with the size of the budget shortfall, that he says doesn’t exist. Williamson writes that “Texas’s potential shortfall probably is not $25 billion. The inside guys talk about $11 billion to $15 billion, spread out over a two-year budget.” The size of the shortfall has been a source of debate over the last year, and projects have steadily increased from $15 billion, to $18 billion, to $20 billion, and then to $25 billion. Although, Governor Perry has often cited Republican State Senator Steve Ogden’s (R-Bryan) estimate of a budget shortfall around $10 billion. Well, it turns out everyone was wrong. The Austin American-Statesman reported today that Comptroller Susan Combs released a report stating that Texas is facing a $27 billion shortfall.
Another word conservatives are taking issue with is Krugman’s use of the word “deficit” as opposed to “shortfall.” There is a point to be made here, because they are technically not the same. When the federal government has a budget deficit it is filled with credit and contributes to the national debt. However, due to provisions in their constitutions 49 of the 50 states cannot use credit to fill a budget deficit, and must pass a balanced budget. So, when Krugman talks about a $25 billion deficit he is referring to the $25 billion shortfall. They are essentially the same thing, except Texas is constitutionally obligated to balance the budget while the federal government is not.
Texas showcases what happens when uncompromising conservative public policy meats reality: the elites reap the benefits while working and middle classes bear the brunt. The two places in the budget that will likely face the most dramatic cuts are education and health and human services. Even though according to the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Texas spends $7,561 per student which ranks 48th in the nation, and at 26.8% Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation. It is likely that over the course of the next 140 days we are likely to see the working and middle class pay the bill for a conservative economic policy that still does not deliver on its promises.
Since the Great Recession began after the financial crisis in 2008, the narrative has been that Texas has weathered the storm better than the rest of the states. However, since Texas budgets biannually, the last budget was passed only a few months after the recession began in 2009. The effects of the recession are now being felt in full affect in the budget that will be passed in 2011. Having a budget crisis in a pro-business, low-regulation, low-spending, no-union, Republican-dominated state goes against the narrative. As Yglesias notes, “keeping taxes low by simply not having taxes be high enough to pay the bills is in the best Texas conservative tradition of George W Bush but it doesn’t work for state government during a recession.”
Texas has maintained an unemployment rate below the national average throughout the recession. According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Texas currently has an unemployment rate of 8.2% compared to the national average of 9.4%. But, Krugman notes that on his blog that when you compare the unemployment rate in Texas and New York they are statistically similar. However, Avent notes that the two states are different because of the dramatic difference in their respective labor markets, and that a large share of the rise in the unemployment rate in Texas is due to migration. Although, Krugman responds that the unemployment comparison is relevant because “in terms of personal hardship, in terms of people looking for jobs but not finding them, Texas has done essentially no better than New York.” So far it has just been a policy debate among economic policy wonk bloggers.
Then Krugman writes about “The Texas Omen” in his bi-weekly New York Times column, during which he expands on the subject of Texas and points out that it is the state where conservative economic policy has most completely been put into practice. Then Williamson takes issue with Krugman assessment of Texas, and says in his National Review post that “no, Paul Krugman, Texas is not broke.” Williamson continues, “keep your pants on, professor. Texas is not going to have a budget shortfall.” So, what’s the deal?
There seems to be a semantics problem. Why does Williamson think even though there is shortfall projection that there will not be a shortfall? “Texas doesn’t do shortfalls. Texas starts from scratch: Every year is basically Year Zero when it comes to the state budget — there is no assumption that next year’s funding will match or exceed this year’s.” Sounds great. But, it is not entirely true. As Williamson notes, in 2003 Texas did address a $10 billion budget shortfall by using zero-based budgeting. Of course, the legislature did raise new revenue with fees. But, while zero based budgeting sounds great, it is not done in practice. The 2003 budget was the exception, and the 2011 budget is not being addressed in a similar fashion. Governor Rick Perry has already asked state agencies to cut 10% from their last appropriations, and it has been made clear generating new revenue is completely out of the question.
Williamson also takes issue with the size of the budget shortfall, that he says doesn’t exist. Williamson writes that “Texas’s potential shortfall probably is not $25 billion. The inside guys talk about $11 billion to $15 billion, spread out over a two-year budget.” The size of the shortfall has been a source of debate over the last year, and projects have steadily increased from $15 billion, to $18 billion, to $20 billion, and then to $25 billion. Although, Governor Perry has often cited Republican State Senator Steve Ogden’s (R-Bryan) estimate of a budget shortfall around $10 billion. Well, it turns out everyone was wrong. The Austin American-Statesman reported today that Comptroller Susan Combs released a report stating that Texas is facing a $27 billion shortfall.
Another word conservatives are taking issue with is Krugman’s use of the word “deficit” as opposed to “shortfall.” There is a point to be made here, because they are technically not the same. When the federal government has a budget deficit it is filled with credit and contributes to the national debt. However, due to provisions in their constitutions 49 of the 50 states cannot use credit to fill a budget deficit, and must pass a balanced budget. So, when Krugman talks about a $25 billion deficit he is referring to the $25 billion shortfall. They are essentially the same thing, except Texas is constitutionally obligated to balance the budget while the federal government is not.
Texas showcases what happens when uncompromising conservative public policy meats reality: the elites reap the benefits while working and middle classes bear the brunt. The two places in the budget that will likely face the most dramatic cuts are education and health and human services. Even though according to the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Texas spends $7,561 per student which ranks 48th in the nation, and at 26.8% Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation. It is likely that over the course of the next 140 days we are likely to see the working and middle class pay the bill for a conservative economic policy that still does not deliver on its promises.
Texas Progressive Alliance Roundup - January 10, 2011
The Texas Progressive Alliance is keeping all of the victims of the Arizona shooting in its thoughts as it brings you this week's roundup.
Refinish69 at Doing My Part for the Left has misgivings about the border patrol shooting teenagers because they are throwing rocks. The hate mongering expressed in the Immigration bills for the 82nd Texas Legislature will only add fuel to the fire.
Off the Kuff writes about the upcoming legislative battle over class size limits.
Bay Area Houston gives the bird back to the Harris County GOP. (With video.)
Hydraulic fracturing brings PEAK WATER to the Eagle Ford Shale as residents find their water tables dropping. A resident found Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS and contacted TXsharon about their flammable water.
This week on Left of College Station, Teddy covers Texas Congressional District 17’s new Republican congressman Bill Flores' first days on the job in Congress. Also, as the 82nd Texas Legislature prepares to gavel into session facing a possible $25 billion budget shortfall, Teddy asks what’s the matter with Texas?
BossKitty at TruthHugger is watching, with amazement, current events unfolding after the Arizona Tragedy. The venom being spewed by extreme groups toward the victims and praise for the shooter is absolutely incredible. BossKitty tries to unravel the reasons these events are now mainstream in this country. Wounded America On Life Support – Op Ed.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme sees the republican priority - cronies, cronies, cronies.
nytexan at BlueBloggin looks at who we have become Arizona Shooting, Political Discord and Americans Disrespect. American should be ashamed of what we have become, gun toting, hate mongering Neanderthals. We are continually pointing fingers at each other, continually shouting, continually spewing incorrect information, continually exhibiting disrespect. This has now become a national pastime.
Neil at Texas Liberal posted the fourth annual version of his Martin Luther King Reading & Reference List. It is the best such reference on the web.
Texas is not like Arizona, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs observes. In Texas we don't arrest people for looking "illegal", or let Medicaid patients die because the governor doesn't want to pay the bill, or shoot Congresswomen in front of supermarkets. Yet.
WhosPlayin is disgusted by a City Council that refused to table a vote on 12 gas wells and a wastewater facility when the operator submitted a weaselly P.R. document instead of a real emissions reduction plan. It's time to replace some councilmen, because one is an illiterate fool, and the other is unethical enough to push an ordinance backed by his employer.
After the Texas Eagle Forum weighed in on the House Speaker's race, Letters From Texas weighed in on the shenanigans of the Texas Eagle Forum.
Over at TexasKaos, libbyshaw, has a reality pill for Rick Perry and his minions. Check out The Great Texas Failure: A Smoke and Mirrors Economy.
TexasVox has a complete rundown of last week's vote to allow the nation's radioactive waste to come to Texas. Long story short? We got screwed.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Playing With Numbers: Councilwoman McMillan Promotes Push Poll
As reported by KBTX Channel 3, College Station City Councilmember Jana McMillan commissioned a Pulse Opinion Research poll, which asked a variety of questions about College Station City Council issues and about the issues surround the possible annexation of Wellborn and the campaign recall five city council members. Reportedly McMillan commissioned the ten-question poll of 400 likely voters, and paid for the reported $2,000 cost of the poll herself. The poll has caused City Manager Glenn Brown to release a statement, and this caused McMillan to release statement in response. The poll seems to have cause a public discussion about the results of the poll, and whether or not the poll itself was biased.
The results of the poll found that 67% of those surveyed oppose using utility bills to generate revenue “as method of taxation,” 72% said that the city should not “commit to spending an additional $170,000 every year in maintenance fees for a new water feature and festival site at Wolf Pen Project,” and 65% oppose building a “$50 million Convention Center” which “will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to operate.” After that series of questions, 47% of those surveyed said that the current College Station City Council does not “care what the voters think,” and 48% said that the current College Station City Council does not “handle city finances in a responsible manner.”
After the series of questions about the City of College Station, the survey then turns to questions about Wellborn. The survey found that 64% supported citizens of College Station having “the right to vote on annexation of Wellborn,” 43% favored the “recall of the city council members who voted to proceed immediately with the annexation of Wellborn,” and 72% favored the allowing the Wellborn Citizens to incorporate, and 56% said the City Council should “stop their efforts to annex Wellborn.” The last question of the poll found that 43% of those surveyed said they would “vote to remove them [College Station City Council members] from office” if there is a recall election. The margin of error for the poll was +/-5%.
The most common criticize of the poll was that the questions were biased, and that it was often referred to as a push poll: a poll that pushes the respondents in a certain direction to get a desired result. Matthew Watkins notes on his blog at the Bryan-College Station Eagle that the way the questions are asked could affect the answers in the poll:
“An example of the potential for the questions to elicit a certain response includes, question eight: Wellborn is a 140-year-old community with its own history. Should the Wellborn Citizens be allowed to incorporate?
The answers were strongly in favor of allowing them to incorporate. But some may wonder if the results would have been different if it had been phrased by an annexation proponent: Wellborn residents drive on College Station streets and use some city services, but don't pay city taxes. Should the Wellborn citizens be allowed to incorporate to avoid being annexed?
Or just simply this: Should the Wellborn Citizens be allowed to incorporate
Poll experts say that the way the questions are asked and the order they are given is very important. Question number five, for instance, follows four prior questions about spending projects in College Station. Would the results be different if it was asked first?”
Nate Silver expanded on this point on his blog FiveThirtyEight.com, when he examined a poll commissioned by Fox News that used a similar technique to produce a similar result:
“There's a Vietnamese proverb, con sâu làm sầu nồi canh. This loosely translates to: a drop of poison spoils the whole glass of wine. Here is an analogous proverb in polling: a drop of bias can spoil your whole poll.”
The point is that you set your audience up with leading statements, such as referring to raising utilities rates as a form of “taxation” or referring to a “shortfall in revenues” before asking about spending funds, or you could even use statements that are untrue such as whether or not you favor or oppose the “recall of the city council members who voted to proceed immediately with the annexation of Wellborn.” (A vote to annex Wellborn has not yet taken place.) As it is often said, it’s all about the context.
Now, let’s take a look at the likely voter model that was used. First, it must be said that there was not important likely voter data included in the release by POR, which would include whether or not the likely voters where registered to vote, had voted in a previous election, and other factors. Creating a likely voter model for a very localized poll is extremely difficult, considering that many of the factors that go into creating a likely voter poll are more difficult to determine. Looking at the demographic data, it is difficult to determine the accuracy of the likely voter model because of the lack of exit poll data from local elections. However, looking at the demographics used can be a indicator of the accuracy of the results. The likely voter model used a 52%-48% gender split in favor of women. This makes sense, because while the gender percentage in College Station is reversed, women are more likely to vote than men. The break down by race of likely voters was 82% white, 6% black, and 12% other, which are the exact demographics of College Station according to the Census Bureau. Although without a person of color on the ballot, it is not likely to get a full turnout from black voters or voters of other races. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of voters in the College Station municipal elections are white.
Another demographic used in voter model was age, which broke down as 24% between the ages of 18-39, 50% between the ages of 40-64, and 26% that are 65 or older. In this area Census figures are rather useless, since the almost fifty thousand students make the median age of a resident of College Station 22 years old. However, it could be argued that the 18-39 age range should have been weighed less, and the 65 and older range should have been weighed more. In municipal elections voters 65 and older are often the most reliable, but it is difficult to determine what their overall percentage of the electorate might be. The last set of demographics was party affiliation, which was 52% Republican, 20% Democrat, and 28% other. In determining a municipal election likely voter this demographic set is completely useless. (With the notable exception the municipal election that took place during the midterm election in November.) The bottom line is that this is a generic likely voter model, and without extensive research it would be difficult to create an accurate model of a small municipal election.
What can we take way from this poll? It may provide some interesting generic data on how different people in the community think about different issues, and I will be looking into the interesting breakdowns by demographic later. Also, even with the biased nature of the questions some of the more important results are very close, and within the margin of error. Whether or not the respondents of the poll would support removing city councilmembers or keeping them in place broke down within the margin of error at in support of removing the councilmembers 43%-39%. That is even with the first nine questions placing the city council in a negative light. What do the numbers mean in the end? Not much. This poll should not be taken as a barometer to measure the possible outcome of a recall election. Councilwoman McMillan is just playing with numbers.
The results of the poll found that 67% of those surveyed oppose using utility bills to generate revenue “as method of taxation,” 72% said that the city should not “commit to spending an additional $170,000 every year in maintenance fees for a new water feature and festival site at Wolf Pen Project,” and 65% oppose building a “$50 million Convention Center” which “will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to operate.” After that series of questions, 47% of those surveyed said that the current College Station City Council does not “care what the voters think,” and 48% said that the current College Station City Council does not “handle city finances in a responsible manner.”
After the series of questions about the City of College Station, the survey then turns to questions about Wellborn. The survey found that 64% supported citizens of College Station having “the right to vote on annexation of Wellborn,” 43% favored the “recall of the city council members who voted to proceed immediately with the annexation of Wellborn,” and 72% favored the allowing the Wellborn Citizens to incorporate, and 56% said the City Council should “stop their efforts to annex Wellborn.” The last question of the poll found that 43% of those surveyed said they would “vote to remove them [College Station City Council members] from office” if there is a recall election. The margin of error for the poll was +/-5%.
The most common criticize of the poll was that the questions were biased, and that it was often referred to as a push poll: a poll that pushes the respondents in a certain direction to get a desired result. Matthew Watkins notes on his blog at the Bryan-College Station Eagle that the way the questions are asked could affect the answers in the poll:
“An example of the potential for the questions to elicit a certain response includes, question eight: Wellborn is a 140-year-old community with its own history. Should the Wellborn Citizens be allowed to incorporate?
The answers were strongly in favor of allowing them to incorporate. But some may wonder if the results would have been different if it had been phrased by an annexation proponent: Wellborn residents drive on College Station streets and use some city services, but don't pay city taxes. Should the Wellborn citizens be allowed to incorporate to avoid being annexed?
Or just simply this: Should the Wellborn Citizens be allowed to incorporate
Poll experts say that the way the questions are asked and the order they are given is very important. Question number five, for instance, follows four prior questions about spending projects in College Station. Would the results be different if it was asked first?”
Nate Silver expanded on this point on his blog FiveThirtyEight.com, when he examined a poll commissioned by Fox News that used a similar technique to produce a similar result:
“There's a Vietnamese proverb, con sâu làm sầu nồi canh. This loosely translates to: a drop of poison spoils the whole glass of wine. Here is an analogous proverb in polling: a drop of bias can spoil your whole poll.”
The point is that you set your audience up with leading statements, such as referring to raising utilities rates as a form of “taxation” or referring to a “shortfall in revenues” before asking about spending funds, or you could even use statements that are untrue such as whether or not you favor or oppose the “recall of the city council members who voted to proceed immediately with the annexation of Wellborn.” (A vote to annex Wellborn has not yet taken place.) As it is often said, it’s all about the context.
Now, let’s take a look at the likely voter model that was used. First, it must be said that there was not important likely voter data included in the release by POR, which would include whether or not the likely voters where registered to vote, had voted in a previous election, and other factors. Creating a likely voter model for a very localized poll is extremely difficult, considering that many of the factors that go into creating a likely voter poll are more difficult to determine. Looking at the demographic data, it is difficult to determine the accuracy of the likely voter model because of the lack of exit poll data from local elections. However, looking at the demographics used can be a indicator of the accuracy of the results. The likely voter model used a 52%-48% gender split in favor of women. This makes sense, because while the gender percentage in College Station is reversed, women are more likely to vote than men. The break down by race of likely voters was 82% white, 6% black, and 12% other, which are the exact demographics of College Station according to the Census Bureau. Although without a person of color on the ballot, it is not likely to get a full turnout from black voters or voters of other races. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of voters in the College Station municipal elections are white.
Another demographic used in voter model was age, which broke down as 24% between the ages of 18-39, 50% between the ages of 40-64, and 26% that are 65 or older. In this area Census figures are rather useless, since the almost fifty thousand students make the median age of a resident of College Station 22 years old. However, it could be argued that the 18-39 age range should have been weighed less, and the 65 and older range should have been weighed more. In municipal elections voters 65 and older are often the most reliable, but it is difficult to determine what their overall percentage of the electorate might be. The last set of demographics was party affiliation, which was 52% Republican, 20% Democrat, and 28% other. In determining a municipal election likely voter this demographic set is completely useless. (With the notable exception the municipal election that took place during the midterm election in November.) The bottom line is that this is a generic likely voter model, and without extensive research it would be difficult to create an accurate model of a small municipal election.
What can we take way from this poll? It may provide some interesting generic data on how different people in the community think about different issues, and I will be looking into the interesting breakdowns by demographic later. Also, even with the biased nature of the questions some of the more important results are very close, and within the margin of error. Whether or not the respondents of the poll would support removing city councilmembers or keeping them in place broke down within the margin of error at in support of removing the councilmembers 43%-39%. That is even with the first nine questions placing the city council in a negative light. What do the numbers mean in the end? Not much. This poll should not be taken as a barometer to measure the possible outcome of a recall election. Councilwoman McMillan is just playing with numbers.
Week in Headlines
Texas News
Willingham Inquiry Finally Goes to the Experts
Texas Politics
Freshmen Will Make Up a Quarter of the New House
National Politics
Republicans Seek Repeal of Financial Rules
War & Peace
Pentagon Plans to Send 1,400 Extra Marines to Supplement Spring Campaign
Foreign Policy
Pentagon Seeks Biggest Military Cuts Since Before 9/11
Veterans Issues
Veterans Nervous About Tricare Health Changes
Domestic Policy
Recovery Act Kept 4.5 Million People Out of Poverty
Economics
Unemployment Drops Sharply to 9.4%
Education
Policy, Fiscal Challenges Confront State Officials
Environment
BP Well Blowout Revealed Industry-Wide Problems
Climate Change
Republicans Attempt to Stifle Action on Climate Change
Health Care
Health Care Spending Increase is Smallest in 50 Years
Immigration
Texas Sheriffs Split on Making Immigration Checks
Civil Rights
Illinois House Votes to Abolish Death Penalty
Women’s Issues
Women Fight Assault Over Internet
GLBT Issues
Michigan City Extends Protections to GLBT
Race & Racism
Tucson Has 60 Days to Shut Down Ethnic Studies Classes
From the Blogs
Dog Canyon:
Aristotle and the Cyberpoke
Letters From Texas:
Soaring with the Eagles
Texas Liberal:
Take Ownership Of The Constitution From The Far Right
Thursday, January 6, 2011
17th District’s New Congressman in the 112th Congress
The 112th Congress was gaveled into session yesterday, and the Texas 17th Congressional District has a new Congressman in Washington. Republican Bill Flores defeated incumbent Democrat Chet Edwards in November; the first successful Republican after a long line of challengers to the Democrat who held one of the most conservative Congressional districts in Texas.According to an article in the Dallas Morning News, Flores is confident of his and the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives ability to affect policy change. "We're 20 percent of the House. We're over 30 percent of the Republican conference. I'm not an army of one. I'm an army of many. I feel confident we'll hold together."
That remains to be seen. Newly elected Speaker John Boehner may have significant problems holding together a Republican caucus that will have several ideological divisions. One of the test to the new Speaker’s ability to hold together the Republican caucus will be the vote to raise the debt ceiling; a vote which many of the more conservative Congressman have pledge to vote against.
The Houston Chronicle reported that Flores said that “if the federal government was not spending beyond its means then we would not be having this vote [to raise the debt ceiling," and that he would not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless changes are made in the federal spending. "It will have to have substantial changes in the way we do business and substantial revisions in the budget process.”
Bloomberg interviewed Flores yesterday outside the Capitol, during which he said that his priorities as a new Congressman were legislation that creates private sector jobs, that grows a robust economy, and that balances the budget:
Republican leaders have been planning a legislative push that includes cuts to the Federal budget that amounts to $100 billion dollars. However, Flores said in to the Dallas Morning News that it "is not nearly enough when you're talking about a $1.1 trillion deficit. ... The voters are very impatient. I am very impatient to set the ship on a better course. But I do realize it's a very big ship. We're going to have to be pushing at the tiller pretty hard."
Of course Republicans have not announced any specific cuts to the budget, but just what cuts that they will not make to the budget. The New York Times reports that Republican lawmakers have said that they will not cut discretionary spending from the military, domestic security, or veterans programs. However, according to a report by Politico earlier this week, House Republicans have said that their budget challenge might require a cut of only $50 to $60 billion.
Flores was quoted by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram as saying that being a part of the new Republican majority gives him and his colleagues the power to push their legislative agenda. “I think it gives us the resources for the huge mandate the American people want us to accomplish." Although, with a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Democrat in the White House, it is likely that much of the legislation passed by Republicans in the House will not likely make it to the President’s desk and if it does could face the veto pen. While Republicans often said during the campaign the Congressional Democrats overreached, Republicans may have overpromised.
So far Congressman Flores has cosponsored three pieces of legislation including a proposal for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a resolution to repeal the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and a resolution to repeal the expansion of information reporting requirements for payments of $600 or more to corporations. It is going to be interesting to watch what kind of legislation Flores authors and it is going to be interesting how he votes on key pieces of legislation.
It is also going to be interesting to watch the reaction of his constituents in District 17 to his performance in Congress. Will redistricting affect Flores’ seat in Congress? Will Flores be able ensure the federal funding for Texas A&M that Edwards was able to provide? Will Flores’ lack of sonority affect his ability to craft pieces of major legislation? Will conservative activist put pressure on Flores to vote with the Tea Party backed lawmakers on their issues? For now there are only questions, and no answers.
Local News: Questions Remain Over Costs of Annexing Wellborn
Questions Remain Over Costs of Annexing Wellborn
Reporter: Clay Falls
From KBTX Channel 3
A preliminary report from the City of College Station estimates the city would profit from annexing Wellborn but a Brazos County Justice of the Peace believes annexation would be costly.
The debate over the potential annexation of Wellborn continues and one of the big questions on many people's minds is how much it will cost the City of College Station to annex the proposed 681 acres.
News 3 spoke with a Brazos County Justice of the Peace who believes the annexation will be very costly and also talked with city staff to get their preliminary analysis.
Mike McCleary is a Justice of the Peace for Brazos County Precinct 1 and has lived in Wellborn 41 years.
"I work for the citizens of Brazos County, College Station, Bryan, just about everybody and I feel an obligation to let the citizens of College Station know what it's gonna cost properly, the proper amount to annex Wellborn and to give them city services," said Mike McCleary of Wellborn.
A recent fiscal impact analysis from the city estimates annexing Wellborn would cost the city $157,000 a year, which is a preliminary number and does not take into account potential sewer service.
"The lift station that was put in on Wellborn Road just last year cost I think it was $328,014. 28. That's a long way from $157,000 annual budget...the figures I'm coming up with are going to be close to $14 million and if you amortize that over ten years you're looking at $1.5 million a year, not $157,000," McCleary said.
News 3 spoke with Lance Simms, the Assistant Director or Planning and Development Services for College Station, over the phone.
He said the city calculated their figures using the same model they've used for other annexations and more figures will be gathered this spring.
One service the city will not have to provide is fire hydrants. City staff said even if annexation happens, Wellborn Water and developers would be responsible for installing them.
As far as revenue, in an initial report the city estimates it would receive $125,000 per year in property taxes and $60,000 in sales tax revenue.
The city's profit per year was estimated at $140,000 upon build out.
McCleary believes though the costs of annexation will far outweigh the income for the city.
"To me it looks like a bottomless pit to throw tax dollars in to as a citizen of Wellborn and most of the people in Wellborn we believe that Wellborn is not quite heaven, but it's awfully close to it and we like it the way it is," McCleary added.
For now the true cost of annexation stays in question but a final impact analysis and service plan will be completed by March.
Two public hearings on the possible annexation are also tentatively scheduled for March with the City Council expected to make a final decision on annexation in April.
Published on Thursday, January 06, 2011
Reporter: Clay Falls
From KBTX Channel 3
A preliminary report from the City of College Station estimates the city would profit from annexing Wellborn but a Brazos County Justice of the Peace believes annexation would be costly.
The debate over the potential annexation of Wellborn continues and one of the big questions on many people's minds is how much it will cost the City of College Station to annex the proposed 681 acres.
News 3 spoke with a Brazos County Justice of the Peace who believes the annexation will be very costly and also talked with city staff to get their preliminary analysis.
Mike McCleary is a Justice of the Peace for Brazos County Precinct 1 and has lived in Wellborn 41 years.
"I work for the citizens of Brazos County, College Station, Bryan, just about everybody and I feel an obligation to let the citizens of College Station know what it's gonna cost properly, the proper amount to annex Wellborn and to give them city services," said Mike McCleary of Wellborn.
A recent fiscal impact analysis from the city estimates annexing Wellborn would cost the city $157,000 a year, which is a preliminary number and does not take into account potential sewer service.
"The lift station that was put in on Wellborn Road just last year cost I think it was $328,014. 28. That's a long way from $157,000 annual budget...the figures I'm coming up with are going to be close to $14 million and if you amortize that over ten years you're looking at $1.5 million a year, not $157,000," McCleary said.
News 3 spoke with Lance Simms, the Assistant Director or Planning and Development Services for College Station, over the phone.
He said the city calculated their figures using the same model they've used for other annexations and more figures will be gathered this spring.
One service the city will not have to provide is fire hydrants. City staff said even if annexation happens, Wellborn Water and developers would be responsible for installing them.
As far as revenue, in an initial report the city estimates it would receive $125,000 per year in property taxes and $60,000 in sales tax revenue.
The city's profit per year was estimated at $140,000 upon build out.
McCleary believes though the costs of annexation will far outweigh the income for the city.
"To me it looks like a bottomless pit to throw tax dollars in to as a citizen of Wellborn and most of the people in Wellborn we believe that Wellborn is not quite heaven, but it's awfully close to it and we like it the way it is," McCleary added.
For now the true cost of annexation stays in question but a final impact analysis and service plan will be completed by March.
Two public hearings on the possible annexation are also tentatively scheduled for March with the City Council expected to make a final decision on annexation in April.
Published on Thursday, January 06, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
About That Annexation Legislation
During the public discussion around the possible annexation of Wellborn by the City of College Station and the campaign to recall five College Station City Council members, a piece of legislation that has been pre-filed by Republican State Representative Fred Brown is often brought up as a means to prevent the annexation of the community. As reported by the Bryan-College Station Eagle:“The hope, recall organizers said, is to delay the vote until after the Texas Legislature has had time to consider a bill filed by Brown that would make it more difficult for College Station to annex Wellborn. Under the proposed law, a city the size of College Station would need the approval of residents of an area with 50 or more people before it could be annexed.
…
Brown, who served for nine years on the College Station City Council before being elected to the Texas House, said the better solution would be to wait for his bill, House Bill 107, to pass. Bills in Texas usually go into effect 91 days after the close of the legislative session, but they can become law immediately if passed by a two-thirds vote. Brown said he thinks he can achieve that.
"Normally, property rights bills that make it to the House floor pass with the two-thirds vote because it is hard to be against property rights in Texas," Brown said.”
Apparently part of the strategy of the anti-annexation activist is to prolong the process long enough so that the legislation could be possibly passed by the Texas legislature. Taking a closer look at the legislation reveals a few things about the strategy. Below is the complete text of the legislation (emphasis mine):
HB 107
SECTION 1. Subchapter B, Chapter 43, Local Government Code, is amended by adding Section 43.0225 to read as follows:Sec. 43.0225. Voter Approval in Area to Be Annexed By Certain Home-Rule Municipalities Required.
(a) This section applies only to a home-rule municipality located in a county:
(1) with a population of less than 185,000; and
(2) in which two or more municipalities with a population of more than 65,000 are wholly located.
(b) A home-rule municipality may annex an area with 50 or more inhabitants only if:
(1) the municipality holds an election in the area to be annexed for which the ballots are printed to provide for voting for or against the proposition: "Annexation of the area described in the municipal order calling this election, generally described as (a general description of the area to be annexed)"; and
(2) a majority of the votes received at the election favor the annexation.
(c) The general description on the ballot proposition may not be a metes and bounds description or a legal description and need not exactly describe the boundaries of the area. The description may refer to land features, landmarks, streets or highways, subdivision names, or other commonly understood points of reference to provide the voters with a reasonable general understanding of the area to be annexed.
(d) The election order and the notice of the election must describe the area to be annexed by metes and bounds or by a legal description and must generally describe the area to be annexed. The general description is subject to the same provisions that apply under Subsection (c) to the general description on a ballot proposition.
(e) If the annexation is not approved as required by Subsection (b), the municipality may not initiate annexation proceedings in any part of the area until after the fifth anniversary of the date of the election.
SECTION 2. The changes in law made by this Act by the addition of Section 43.0225, Local Government Code, apply only to an annexation for which the first hearing notice required by Section 43.0561 or 43.063, Local Government Code, as applicable, is published on or after the effective date of this Act. An annexation for which the first hearing notice is published before that date is governed by the law in effect at the time the notice is published, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.
First there is the time frame of when the legislation would become law. If the bill is passed with a two thirds majority, it would become law when Governor Rick Perry signs the legislation. However, if the bill is not passed with a two thirds majority, then it would no become law until September 1st, which is long passed the time frame in which annexation would probably take place. However, this is not the most significant shortfall with the legislation.
While the bill would require an election before certain municipalities are allowed to annex adjacent territory, if the election fails the municipality has to wait five years before it annexes the territory. This basically means that if a community is unable to protect itself through incorporation, for example if it happens to be in the extrajurisdictional territory of another city, that that city could annex the community five years later despite the election. If passed without amendment in committee or on the floor, this piece of legislation is rather toothless when it comes to preventing annexation.
This seems to part of the interesting dynamics that is developing from the political train wreck currently taking place in College Station. While Brown has public supported the Wellborn groups advocating for incorporation, he is also supporting the College Station City Council in opposing the recall campaign. There seems to be a situation unfolding in which both sides of the debate are losing support, while a resolution between Wellborn and College Station is getting less and less likely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
