Saturday, April 30, 2011
Crises of Capitalism
In this RSA Animate, renowned academic David Harvey asks if it is time to look beyond capitalism towards a new social order that would allow us to live within a system that really could be responsible, just, and humane?
Friday, April 29, 2011
Week in Headlines
Texas A&M News
Texas A&M Professors Express Concerns About Reforms
Texas News
Report Finds No Evidence of “Market Manipulation” During Blackouts
Texas Politics
Texas House to Consider Redistricting Maps
National News
One Million Exhausted Jobless Benefits in Past Year
International News
Yemen’s Opposition Accepts Deal for Transfer of Power
Foreign Policy
Americans Disapprove of Obama’s Management of Afghan War
Domestic Policy
States Face $1.26 Trillion Retiree Benefits Shortfall
Economics
Economists Say Stimulus by Fed Is Disappointing
Poverty
Affordable Rental Housing Scarce in United States
Health Care
Insurers Clash With Health Providers as States Expand Medicaid Managed Care
Education
More College Graduates Delinquent on Repaying Student Loans
Environment
Half of All Americans Breathe Polluted Air
Climate Change
Climate Change Will Affect American West Water Supply
Religious Issues
Atheists Seek Chaplain Role in the Military
Civil Rights
Connecticut Likely to Abolish Capital Punishment
Labor Rights
Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law
Immigrant Rights
Why Immigration Reform Is Going Nowhere
Reproductive Rights
Several States Take Up Fight Over Defunding Planned Parenthood
Women & Gender Issues
New Sexual Assault Policy on Campus Introduced in Senate
GLBT Issues
Texas Trying to Repeal Law Allowing Transgender People to Marry
Race & Racism
Study Finds Post-Crash Mortgages Scarce for Minorities
From the Blogs
Notes From a Texas Patriot:
The Price of Oligarchy
Texas Liberal:
Neither Party Telling The Truth On The Budget
Letters From Texas:
Waiting For Rain
Local News: College Station City Council Voters to Ease Regulations on Business
College Station Lifts Limits on Signs, Rejects Fees
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
Developers in College Station scored two political victories Thursday when the City Council voted to ease some restrictions on the appearance of retail buildings and declined to impose fees for new home buyers to hook up to the city water system.
The development community has fought to loosen regulations on retail stores for months, saying they were too burdensome and stymied new business growth. City officials said the council's actions tonight were a step toward addressing those concerns while keeping provisions that protect the appearance of the city.
The council voted 5-0 to amend the city's unified development ordinance to remove most color limitations on store signs in areas considered gateways to the city -- including the restaurant row on University Drive and the intersection of Texas 6 and William D. Fitch Parkway. Councilman Jess Fields, who owns a retail store, abstained. Councilwoman Katy-Marie Lyles was sick and missed the meeting.
Signs were previously limited to two different fonts and three colors from a specific city-approved palette. The new ordinance allows any font or color -- except a few that are specifically banned. Restrictions on sign height remain in place.
"I am not saying let's do away with standards, but having said that, you have got to have common sense, too," said Mayor Nancy Berry.
By a 6-0 vote, the council also removed some of the requirements for non-residential accessory structures, which are smaller buildings set apart from a main commercial building that is often used for storage.
The prior law required two architectural relief elements -- such as windows, columns, canopies or balconies -- for every 60-foot section of facade on the buildings. Now, those relief elements are no longer necessary if the small buildings are made of the same materials and colors as the larger main building.
In other action, the council rejected citywide water and wastewater impact fees proposed by city staff as a way to help pay for expanding water and wastewater infrastructure as the city grows. The vote was 4-2, with councilmen John Crompton and Dennis Maloney dissenting.
The idea behind the fees was that anyone who built a new home in the city would be required to pay to hook up to the water and sewer system. The money collected would be earmarked to pay for new lines, lifts and pumps across the city. Those projects are currently funded by water and wastewater rate increases for all city customers.
Under state law, College Station could have imposed water and wastewater fees at a combined total of $3,058. Earlier this year, city staff suggested charging $800 in combined fees. The Planning and Zoning Commission suggested implementing $0 fees, which would have allowed the city to raise fees in later years as the economy improved but avoid potential immediately harmful effects to the economy.
Proponents said the current system gives new home buyers "welfare" by forcing the entire city to subsidize their hook-ups.
"As a fiscal conservative, there is no reason why you would do that," Crompton said. "Those who benefit should pay."
But homebuilders fought the idea, saying it would be harmful to College Station's new home market and drive new housing developments to Bryan, which doesn't have wastewater impact fees. The Wellborn Special Utility District, which charges $2,100 for water hookups, is the only other provider in Brazos County that currently has the fee.
The homebuilders said that new construction "pays for itself" by creating new jobs, adding tax revenue and providing economic growth. Increasing the cost of a new home would not be good in this unstable economy, they said.
"In the last five years, building permits have decreased 10 percent a year," said Steve Arden, a local developer. "This is not the time to be looking at adding costs to the housing industry."
Supporters of the impact fees criticized the council for bowing to the interests of developers instead of regular citizens. But opponents of the fees disagreed.
"I have no interest in helping developers," said Councilman Jess Fields. "But I do have an interest in keeping our economy strong."
The city currently has five areas where new homes do have to pay to hook-up to the water system. Those fees will remain in place.
Published on Friday, April 29, 2011
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
Developers in College Station scored two political victories Thursday when the City Council voted to ease some restrictions on the appearance of retail buildings and declined to impose fees for new home buyers to hook up to the city water system.
The development community has fought to loosen regulations on retail stores for months, saying they were too burdensome and stymied new business growth. City officials said the council's actions tonight were a step toward addressing those concerns while keeping provisions that protect the appearance of the city.
The council voted 5-0 to amend the city's unified development ordinance to remove most color limitations on store signs in areas considered gateways to the city -- including the restaurant row on University Drive and the intersection of Texas 6 and William D. Fitch Parkway. Councilman Jess Fields, who owns a retail store, abstained. Councilwoman Katy-Marie Lyles was sick and missed the meeting.
Signs were previously limited to two different fonts and three colors from a specific city-approved palette. The new ordinance allows any font or color -- except a few that are specifically banned. Restrictions on sign height remain in place.
"I am not saying let's do away with standards, but having said that, you have got to have common sense, too," said Mayor Nancy Berry.
By a 6-0 vote, the council also removed some of the requirements for non-residential accessory structures, which are smaller buildings set apart from a main commercial building that is often used for storage.
The prior law required two architectural relief elements -- such as windows, columns, canopies or balconies -- for every 60-foot section of facade on the buildings. Now, those relief elements are no longer necessary if the small buildings are made of the same materials and colors as the larger main building.
In other action, the council rejected citywide water and wastewater impact fees proposed by city staff as a way to help pay for expanding water and wastewater infrastructure as the city grows. The vote was 4-2, with councilmen John Crompton and Dennis Maloney dissenting.
The idea behind the fees was that anyone who built a new home in the city would be required to pay to hook up to the water and sewer system. The money collected would be earmarked to pay for new lines, lifts and pumps across the city. Those projects are currently funded by water and wastewater rate increases for all city customers.
Under state law, College Station could have imposed water and wastewater fees at a combined total of $3,058. Earlier this year, city staff suggested charging $800 in combined fees. The Planning and Zoning Commission suggested implementing $0 fees, which would have allowed the city to raise fees in later years as the economy improved but avoid potential immediately harmful effects to the economy.
Proponents said the current system gives new home buyers "welfare" by forcing the entire city to subsidize their hook-ups.
"As a fiscal conservative, there is no reason why you would do that," Crompton said. "Those who benefit should pay."
But homebuilders fought the idea, saying it would be harmful to College Station's new home market and drive new housing developments to Bryan, which doesn't have wastewater impact fees. The Wellborn Special Utility District, which charges $2,100 for water hookups, is the only other provider in Brazos County that currently has the fee.
The homebuilders said that new construction "pays for itself" by creating new jobs, adding tax revenue and providing economic growth. Increasing the cost of a new home would not be good in this unstable economy, they said.
"In the last five years, building permits have decreased 10 percent a year," said Steve Arden, a local developer. "This is not the time to be looking at adding costs to the housing industry."
Supporters of the impact fees criticized the council for bowing to the interests of developers instead of regular citizens. But opponents of the fees disagreed.
"I have no interest in helping developers," said Councilman Jess Fields. "But I do have an interest in keeping our economy strong."
The city currently has five areas where new homes do have to pay to hook-up to the water system. Those fees will remain in place.
Published on Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Path to Plutocracy
Last year I wrote about Congressman Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2010 and how it would increase the tax burdens on working and middle class Americans and make significant cuts to the social safety net. Earlier this month Ryan released the Path to Prosperity, which would dramatically reduce taxes on the wealthy and corporations while making draconian cuts in the social safety net. While the Roadmap and the Path are both radical conservative proposals, apparently Ryan left his Roadmap to go on a Path where the laws of arithmetic do not apply.
One of the main components of the Path that is getting significant amount of criticism is the way in which it essentially shifts the burden of rising health care cost from the government to the people. Not only does it shift cost, but it does by using unrealistic numbers. First the Path assumes repealing health care reform will save $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years while the Congressional Budget Office estimates that health care reform saves more than $200 billion over those same ten years. The Path also claims that the growth of Medicare vouchers will be held below inflation, productivity growth, and increase in health-care costs; beneficiaries would have to make up the difference. Essentially a massive cost-shift as seniors and Medicaid beneficiaries had to pay the difference between what their insurance premiums and the support Ryan’s budget was giving them. Ezra Klein notes that the Path is not about saving money but shifting cost, and that “a lot of what Ryan’s budget does is shift costs from the federal budget to someone else’s budget: Medicaid’s costs moves to the states, and then when the states cut it, to the people who need it, or to their families…The budget doesn’t have a clear theory for how to spend less on health care. It has a clear theory for how the federal budget can spend less, and other people can spend more.”Ryan claims that “starting in 2022, new Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled in the same kind of health-care program that members of Congress enjoy.” But, an analysis by the Center for American Progress shows that if the rate of growth under the proposal were applied to “federal employees’ most popular health option, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Standard Option, federal workers, including members of Congress, with family coverage would have to pay another $3,330 for the care they enjoy today. Those with individual coverage would have to pay another $1,555.” The CBO estimated that under the proposal “federal payments for Medicaid under the proposal would be substantially smaller than currently projected amounts. States would have additional flexibility to design and manage their Medicaid programs, and they might achieve greater efficiencies in the delivery of care than under current law. Even with additional flexibility, however, the large projected reduction in payments would probably require states to decrease payments to Medicaid providers, reduce eligibility for Medicaid, provide less extensive coverage to beneficiaries, or pay more themselves than would be the case under current law.”
So, the Path leads to the end of Medicare as it currently exist. What else does this path lead to in the name of fiscal necessity? How about cutting taxes for the wealthy while making cuts to programs that benefit working and low income Americans? According to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Path would get nearly two-thirds of its $4.5 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years from programs that serve people of limited means. As Tavis Smiley often says, budgets are moral documents. This particular budget might claim to prevent the country from going fiscally broke, but it does it by going morally broke. The Path cuts $2.9 trillion from programs that benefit low-income Americans including $2.17 trillion in reductions from Medicaid and related health care, 350 billion in cuts in mandatory programs serving low-income Americans (other than Medicaid), and $400 billion in cuts in low-income discretionary programs. These cuts come while giving $4.2 trillion in tax cuts that would go disproportionately to the wealthy.
The thing about this budget is that it is being taken seriously as a policy document, even though it makes some dubious claims on the way to accomplishing none of the goals that Republicans set forth. The budget uses dynamic scoring model in which the cost of tax cuts is blunted by assumptions about future growth caused by the tax cuts based on discredited Heritage Foundation forecast. It also makes the ridiculous claim that the Path will lead to bringing unemployment down to 2.8 percent in 2021. The Path would not only require an increase in the debt ceiling, but would also violate the balanced budget amendment and spending caps that Republicans have proposed as the cost of increasing the debt ceiling. However, while the Path is a policy failure, it might be a political success.
Despite the criticisms Republican politicians, including Ryan, are currently facing from constituents (particularly those on Medicare), it has succeeded in staking out the far right budget position. What makes this such a success is the budget position taken by the White House. What is more infuriating than the radicalism of the Path to Prosperity budget proposal is the radical moderation of the Obama Administration budget proposal. The White House plan doesn’t so much stake out a goal post on the opposite side of the field as it does start on the fifty yard line. There is no public option, Medicare doesn’t get the power to negotiate drug prices, the Bush tax cuts don’t expire, there’s no short-term stimulus, and protected fund for investment. For all of the discussion about a grown up debate about the budget, all we have seen is a political debate that has ignored the needs middle and working class in favor of the elite corporate oligarchy. But there is still someone standing up for working people.
Senator Bernie Sanders on Radical Ryan Budget
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Local News: Voting Records Show Some Candidates Do Not Participate in Democratic Process
Three College Station Council Hopefuls Missed May Election
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
Three of the eight candidates seeking a spot on the College Station City Council didn't vote in the most recent May municipal election, according to records reviewed by The Eagle.
Place 3 candidate Karl Mooney and Place 5 candidates Hal Hawkins and Danyal Shaikh didn't go to the polls on May 8, 2010, when Mayor Nancy Berry and Councilman Jess Fields were elected.
Shaikh, records show, has never voted in Brazos County during the almost five years he has lived here. The 24-year-old medical student's candidacy has been a mystery. He hasn't attended any forums or campaign events, nor has he responded to repeated requests for interview.
The other two candidates who didn't cast a ballot said voting is an important city duty, but that circumstances prevented them from doing so last year.
Hawkins said he was busy trying to start a small manufacturing company at the time. He moved to College Station in the fall of 2009 and was driving to Rockdale each day for work.
"I was never really in town that much," he said, noting that he often worked from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
He now works locally as a Realtor and has more time to devote to politics, he said.
"At the time I was very unfamiliar with the way things were going, and I wasn't even involved with the Republican Party," he said.
Hawkins has been a staunch supporter of the local GOP in recent months and served as an officer of the local party prior to his run for council. He did vote in the November election, which included races for governor, U.S. representative and city council.
The other two Place 5 candidates, Sherry Ellison and Julie Schultz, have voted in every local and national election in the past three years, records show.
"It seems unusual that someone would want to govern us and lead us when they have never participated in the selection process before," Schultz said.
Mooney said he was ineligible to vote locally in May 2010. He moved to College Station from Florida in February 2010, but signed up to vote and get his driver's license two months later after getting his "business affairs in order." By that time, it was too late to vote in the May elections.
"I missed it by two or three days," Mooney said.
But Mooney said he was a regular voter in municipal elections when he previously lived in College Station from 1989 to 2001.
His opponent for Place 3, Arthur Pinto, voted last year by absentee ballot, city officials said.
"I have been voting as far as I know in every election for the last 35 years," he said.
Pinto declined to comment on Mooney's voting history.
Both candidates for the Place 1 seat, Blanche Brick and Shawn Rhodes, have voted regularly in recent years, records show.
May municipal elections are held on Saturdays, and voters have two weeks to cast a ballot early. Election Day is May 14 this year, with early voting scheduled to begin Monday.
Published on Thursday, April 28, 2011
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
Three of the eight candidates seeking a spot on the College Station City Council didn't vote in the most recent May municipal election, according to records reviewed by The Eagle.
Place 3 candidate Karl Mooney and Place 5 candidates Hal Hawkins and Danyal Shaikh didn't go to the polls on May 8, 2010, when Mayor Nancy Berry and Councilman Jess Fields were elected.
Shaikh, records show, has never voted in Brazos County during the almost five years he has lived here. The 24-year-old medical student's candidacy has been a mystery. He hasn't attended any forums or campaign events, nor has he responded to repeated requests for interview.
The other two candidates who didn't cast a ballot said voting is an important city duty, but that circumstances prevented them from doing so last year.
Hawkins said he was busy trying to start a small manufacturing company at the time. He moved to College Station in the fall of 2009 and was driving to Rockdale each day for work.
"I was never really in town that much," he said, noting that he often worked from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
He now works locally as a Realtor and has more time to devote to politics, he said.
"At the time I was very unfamiliar with the way things were going, and I wasn't even involved with the Republican Party," he said.
Hawkins has been a staunch supporter of the local GOP in recent months and served as an officer of the local party prior to his run for council. He did vote in the November election, which included races for governor, U.S. representative and city council.
The other two Place 5 candidates, Sherry Ellison and Julie Schultz, have voted in every local and national election in the past three years, records show.
"It seems unusual that someone would want to govern us and lead us when they have never participated in the selection process before," Schultz said.
Mooney said he was ineligible to vote locally in May 2010. He moved to College Station from Florida in February 2010, but signed up to vote and get his driver's license two months later after getting his "business affairs in order." By that time, it was too late to vote in the May elections.
"I missed it by two or three days," Mooney said.
But Mooney said he was a regular voter in municipal elections when he previously lived in College Station from 1989 to 2001.
His opponent for Place 3, Arthur Pinto, voted last year by absentee ballot, city officials said.
"I have been voting as far as I know in every election for the last 35 years," he said.
Pinto declined to comment on Mooney's voting history.
Both candidates for the Place 1 seat, Blanche Brick and Shawn Rhodes, have voted regularly in recent years, records show.
May municipal elections are held on Saturdays, and voters have two weeks to cast a ballot early. Election Day is May 14 this year, with early voting scheduled to begin Monday.
Published on Thursday, April 28, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
This Week on Biased Transmission
Our guest on Biased Transmission this evening is Phil Shackelford, who served as a field representative for former U.S. Congressman Chet Edwards during the last 3 1/2 years of Edward's tenure. Shackelford also worked as a legislative assistant for State Rep. Paula Pierson during 80th Legislative Session and serves on the boards of local non-profits. With hindsight and insight on the 2010 election, the subject will be Texas politics and the Democratic Party, past, present and future.
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 online on LiveStream
Biased Transmission on Facebook
Local News: Student Body President Vetoes Bill Aimed at GLBT Resource Center
SBP Vetoes Sex Ed Bill
By Naila Dhanani
From The Texas A&M University Battalion
Although entrenched in a sea of protests regarding the creation of a resource center in opposition to the GLBT resource center, Texas A&M might see some relief. Student Body President Jacob Robinson vetoed the controversial student senate bill, SB 63-106, the "Sexual Education Equality in Funding Bill" on Tuesday.
"The [proposed] center has no definition. The services that some senators have proposed already exist in student counseling and adults, graduate and office campus student services. I can't, in good conscience, support student fees going to services we already have," Robinson said.
Online petitions, tweets and notes on Facebook have stirred emotions from both sides.
Student senators have not been immune to the controversy.
"We don't want to slash funding of any organization. We [the Senate] were merely talking about equal spending. I've been accused of homophobia, an accusation I have been unable to defend myself on," said Greg McDuffie, a senior economics major and student senator.
Although she voted for the bill's passage, Speaker of the Senate Hilary Albrecht said Robinson is right to veto the bill. "Given the dialogue that the bill has produced since its passage, the veto was arguably the right decision to make. I can't say I regret breaking the tie in favor of the bill because it has produced valuable discussion this past week that wouldn't have occurred otherwise," Albrecht said. "On behalf of the Student Senate, I apologize for any ill-will that was perceived and apologize to everyone who was angered or hurt by the legislation."
Other senators have a different perspective.
McDuffie said implementing a resource center focusing on "family and traditional values" is in the best interest of A&M. "Student fees are not the only source of funding. We, the students, are not financiers. It's very possible to fund a center without raising student fees and without defunding an organization," McDuffie said.
Brian Hutchinson, officer of Aggie Allies and junior economics major, is pleased with
Robinson's decision. "The student senate is ignorant of the issues facing the GLBT community.
The bill presents a false dichotomy of the GLBT community not being part of the ‘traditional family values' community," Hutchinson said. Hutchinson said that members of the gay and lesbian community do have traditional values. The reason gay marriage and adoption are controversial issues is because homosexual couples want to have traditional families.
"Robinson's actions were courageous. He stood up for an inclusive diverse student body. Senators who supported this bill used a thinly disguised attempt to discriminate against a community who already face harsh inequalities," said Brad Dressler, chairman of Aggie Allies.
Despite Albrecht's view that vetoing the bill is the right decision, she said that ideally the SBP would have been proactive in addressing concerns prior to the bill's passage, which she thinks would have mitigated a lot of the miscommunication.
McDuffie said the minority has a stronger voice when it comes to our student body president vetoing bills. "The voices of the minority are given an unfairly large consideration. The protestors present at the senate meeting don't represent the majority of students on campus," McDuffie said.
Robinson has a history of vetoing bills that have overwhelming support from minority groups, including his veto of a bill that would end in-state tuition waivers from undocumented students.
"It seems the opinions of interest groups are more valuable than those of the student body," McDuffie said. "Our mission is to serve the student body and this bill represents the views of the students at A&M."
Published on Wednesday, April 27, 2011
By Naila Dhanani
From The Texas A&M University Battalion
Although entrenched in a sea of protests regarding the creation of a resource center in opposition to the GLBT resource center, Texas A&M might see some relief. Student Body President Jacob Robinson vetoed the controversial student senate bill, SB 63-106, the "Sexual Education Equality in Funding Bill" on Tuesday.
"The [proposed] center has no definition. The services that some senators have proposed already exist in student counseling and adults, graduate and office campus student services. I can't, in good conscience, support student fees going to services we already have," Robinson said.
Online petitions, tweets and notes on Facebook have stirred emotions from both sides.
Student senators have not been immune to the controversy.
"We don't want to slash funding of any organization. We [the Senate] were merely talking about equal spending. I've been accused of homophobia, an accusation I have been unable to defend myself on," said Greg McDuffie, a senior economics major and student senator.
Although she voted for the bill's passage, Speaker of the Senate Hilary Albrecht said Robinson is right to veto the bill. "Given the dialogue that the bill has produced since its passage, the veto was arguably the right decision to make. I can't say I regret breaking the tie in favor of the bill because it has produced valuable discussion this past week that wouldn't have occurred otherwise," Albrecht said. "On behalf of the Student Senate, I apologize for any ill-will that was perceived and apologize to everyone who was angered or hurt by the legislation."
Other senators have a different perspective.
McDuffie said implementing a resource center focusing on "family and traditional values" is in the best interest of A&M. "Student fees are not the only source of funding. We, the students, are not financiers. It's very possible to fund a center without raising student fees and without defunding an organization," McDuffie said.
Brian Hutchinson, officer of Aggie Allies and junior economics major, is pleased with
Robinson's decision. "The student senate is ignorant of the issues facing the GLBT community.
The bill presents a false dichotomy of the GLBT community not being part of the ‘traditional family values' community," Hutchinson said. Hutchinson said that members of the gay and lesbian community do have traditional values. The reason gay marriage and adoption are controversial issues is because homosexual couples want to have traditional families.
"Robinson's actions were courageous. He stood up for an inclusive diverse student body. Senators who supported this bill used a thinly disguised attempt to discriminate against a community who already face harsh inequalities," said Brad Dressler, chairman of Aggie Allies.
Despite Albrecht's view that vetoing the bill is the right decision, she said that ideally the SBP would have been proactive in addressing concerns prior to the bill's passage, which she thinks would have mitigated a lot of the miscommunication.
McDuffie said the minority has a stronger voice when it comes to our student body president vetoing bills. "The voices of the minority are given an unfairly large consideration. The protestors present at the senate meeting don't represent the majority of students on campus," McDuffie said.
Robinson has a history of vetoing bills that have overwhelming support from minority groups, including his veto of a bill that would end in-state tuition waivers from undocumented students.
"It seems the opinions of interest groups are more valuable than those of the student body," McDuffie said. "Our mission is to serve the student body and this bill represents the views of the students at A&M."
Published on Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Tradition of Privilege at Texas A&M
While gathering my thoughts about the events that took place during the Texas A&M Student Senate meeting last week, during which a bill was passed to support legislation in the Texas House of Representatives that would require Texas A&M University to fund a center promoting "family and traditional values,” I kept coming back to one idea. Others have already written eloquently about the underlying homophobia of the proposal and the problematic nature of so-call “traditional values.” From a former student who wrote an open letter to the Student Senate who now feels that he is no longer an Aggie, to a graduate Student who wrote an editorial in the student newspaper about why he no longer feels he can defend the university from criticism. Of all of the ideas expressed and arguments made, I kept coming back to one idea: privilege.
But before I unpack and deconstruct let’s examine the specifics. During the Texas House of Representatives budget debate Republican Texas Representative Wayne Christian added an amendment to the Texas House Budget that would require state universities that fund GLBT resources centers to fund centers promoting "family and traditional values.” According to the American Independent, Christian released a statement saying that “if the universities are intent on using taxpayer funds to operate these centers, they should at the very least provide balance in their message by funding centers that promote traditional and family values.” Christian went on to say that “these gender centers are not about providing health services or counseling services, they are about promoting a certain life style and culture.”
The American Independent reports that Tony McDonald, senior vice chairman of the Young Conservatives of Texas, credits his organization with helping craft the language of the amendment. McDonald told the American Independent that it was in fact not just about creating the so-called traditional family values centers, but is a “clever way” to work around directly defunding taxpayer-supported gender and sexuality centers that are accepting of homosexuality. He went on to say that “traditional family values, nuclear families are what is normal and what is right. Homosexuality is outside what is normal and what is right. I don’t think student organizations for gay rights need taxpayer money to promote their message. They are doing just fine promoting their social and political agendas as is.”
Then last week the student senate passed a SB63-106 supporting the amendment, with a vote of 21 for and 21 against, with the speaker of the senate breaking the tie and voting for the passage of this bill. The bill was introduced by ten members of the Senate, including Christopher Russo and Scott Bowen who are members of the Texas Aggie Conservatives (formerly known as the Young Conservatives of Texas at Texas A&M). According to an article in the American Independent, the advocates of a family center say they want to see a quality resource center that will support traditional couples and their everyday struggles and do not want to see their student fees go to the promotion of values they oppose. Today the Texas A&M Student Body President Jacob Robinson vetoed student bill, which can be overturned with a two-thirds vote majority by the Senate next week.
At the Texas Aggie Conservatives’ blog at Campus Reform, the Chairman of the TAC Justin Pulliam wrote that “Texas A&M has had a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Resource Center since 2007 and GLBT student groups for decades. The GLBT Resource Center, funded primarily through mandatory student fees and state funding, has a yearly budget of over $100,000. However, there is no resource center at A&M promoting traditional and family values such as the benefits of marriage and abstinence. The Student Senate bill seeks to end this outrageous disparity by requesting the university to "provide equal funding for family and traditional values education." It is interesting that Pulliam would support this bill. When a bill that would add sexual orientation to the Texas A&M University Anti-Discrimination Policy was debated last year by the Senate, Pulliam held the position that bill was political in nature and should not be debated by the Senate. Somehow a bill that endorses a piece of legislation in the Texas Legislature is not political, but a bill that deals specifically with university policy is?
Without question, this has nothing to do with “education equality,” and everything to do with preservation of the dominance of those that want to maintain the status quo. In other words, this is about taking away equality from others. One speaker said that they do not “believe that one set of values should be promoted over another,” as if “traditional family values” are not promoted far more than any other set of values. For example, the myriad of ways in which so-called tradition family values are promoted by many different university institutions, organizations, and traditions. From the Texas A&M Christian Fellowship, to the multiple Christian student organizations, to mug down at Midnight Yell, to the Breakaway Bible study that has been held at Reed Arena and Kyle Field. Texas A&M’s signature organization, the Corps of Cadets, is steeped in a long tradition of promoting traditional values. The point is that the reason that Texas A&M does not need a center dedicated to promoting “traditional family values,” is because the university itself serves that roll. This is where privilege comes in.
The supporters of so-called “education equality” don’t seem to notice all the ways in which what they perceive cultural norm, the white heterosexual Christian conservative, is reinforced on a daily basis at the university. That is because they don’t have to notice, because they have the privilege of being oblivious. When you are privileged, you have the luxury of not knowing the experience of other people, which in this case means not knowing the truth that members of the GLBT community know.
This privilege allows you to experience life on campus, without given a second thought to how you might be perceived by your fellow students. Being privileged means that when you walk through Northgate, you do not have to worry about the reactions you may get when you hold your partner’s hand. Being privileged means that when you take the required KINE 198 examples that are given when discussing romantic or sexual interactions and the health guidelines related to them will all be heterosexual. Being privileged means that when the Aggie football team scores a touchdown, you do not have to think about what people around you think when you kiss your significant other in Kyle Field. Being privileged means that you do not have to go far from campus to find a church that reflects your particular religious views. Being privileged means that you can be completely oblivious to fellow students who must struggle with the everyday realities of being different in Aggieland, and not having to know about a relatively small refuge they have in Cain Hall.
Read about what it is like to be Gay in Aggieland.
But before I unpack and deconstruct let’s examine the specifics. During the Texas House of Representatives budget debate Republican Texas Representative Wayne Christian added an amendment to the Texas House Budget that would require state universities that fund GLBT resources centers to fund centers promoting "family and traditional values.” According to the American Independent, Christian released a statement saying that “if the universities are intent on using taxpayer funds to operate these centers, they should at the very least provide balance in their message by funding centers that promote traditional and family values.” Christian went on to say that “these gender centers are not about providing health services or counseling services, they are about promoting a certain life style and culture.”
The American Independent reports that Tony McDonald, senior vice chairman of the Young Conservatives of Texas, credits his organization with helping craft the language of the amendment. McDonald told the American Independent that it was in fact not just about creating the so-called traditional family values centers, but is a “clever way” to work around directly defunding taxpayer-supported gender and sexuality centers that are accepting of homosexuality. He went on to say that “traditional family values, nuclear families are what is normal and what is right. Homosexuality is outside what is normal and what is right. I don’t think student organizations for gay rights need taxpayer money to promote their message. They are doing just fine promoting their social and political agendas as is.”
Then last week the student senate passed a SB63-106 supporting the amendment, with a vote of 21 for and 21 against, with the speaker of the senate breaking the tie and voting for the passage of this bill. The bill was introduced by ten members of the Senate, including Christopher Russo and Scott Bowen who are members of the Texas Aggie Conservatives (formerly known as the Young Conservatives of Texas at Texas A&M). According to an article in the American Independent, the advocates of a family center say they want to see a quality resource center that will support traditional couples and their everyday struggles and do not want to see their student fees go to the promotion of values they oppose. Today the Texas A&M Student Body President Jacob Robinson vetoed student bill, which can be overturned with a two-thirds vote majority by the Senate next week.
At the Texas Aggie Conservatives’ blog at Campus Reform, the Chairman of the TAC Justin Pulliam wrote that “Texas A&M has had a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Resource Center since 2007 and GLBT student groups for decades. The GLBT Resource Center, funded primarily through mandatory student fees and state funding, has a yearly budget of over $100,000. However, there is no resource center at A&M promoting traditional and family values such as the benefits of marriage and abstinence. The Student Senate bill seeks to end this outrageous disparity by requesting the university to "provide equal funding for family and traditional values education." It is interesting that Pulliam would support this bill. When a bill that would add sexual orientation to the Texas A&M University Anti-Discrimination Policy was debated last year by the Senate, Pulliam held the position that bill was political in nature and should not be debated by the Senate. Somehow a bill that endorses a piece of legislation in the Texas Legislature is not political, but a bill that deals specifically with university policy is?
Without question, this has nothing to do with “education equality,” and everything to do with preservation of the dominance of those that want to maintain the status quo. In other words, this is about taking away equality from others. One speaker said that they do not “believe that one set of values should be promoted over another,” as if “traditional family values” are not promoted far more than any other set of values. For example, the myriad of ways in which so-called tradition family values are promoted by many different university institutions, organizations, and traditions. From the Texas A&M Christian Fellowship, to the multiple Christian student organizations, to mug down at Midnight Yell, to the Breakaway Bible study that has been held at Reed Arena and Kyle Field. Texas A&M’s signature organization, the Corps of Cadets, is steeped in a long tradition of promoting traditional values. The point is that the reason that Texas A&M does not need a center dedicated to promoting “traditional family values,” is because the university itself serves that roll. This is where privilege comes in.
The supporters of so-called “education equality” don’t seem to notice all the ways in which what they perceive cultural norm, the white heterosexual Christian conservative, is reinforced on a daily basis at the university. That is because they don’t have to notice, because they have the privilege of being oblivious. When you are privileged, you have the luxury of not knowing the experience of other people, which in this case means not knowing the truth that members of the GLBT community know.
This privilege allows you to experience life on campus, without given a second thought to how you might be perceived by your fellow students. Being privileged means that when you walk through Northgate, you do not have to worry about the reactions you may get when you hold your partner’s hand. Being privileged means that when you take the required KINE 198 examples that are given when discussing romantic or sexual interactions and the health guidelines related to them will all be heterosexual. Being privileged means that when the Aggie football team scores a touchdown, you do not have to think about what people around you think when you kiss your significant other in Kyle Field. Being privileged means that you do not have to go far from campus to find a church that reflects your particular religious views. Being privileged means that you can be completely oblivious to fellow students who must struggle with the everyday realities of being different in Aggieland, and not having to know about a relatively small refuge they have in Cain Hall.
Read about what it is like to be Gay in Aggieland.
Local News: Aggies March for Equality
GLBT, Aggie Allies March for Progress
By Rosalee Getterman
From the Texas A&M University Battalion
Some had mouths taped shut; some brought along pets, and some proudly displayed the well-known rainbow flag. Students and faculty marched through campus in support of Aggie Allies and the Texas A&M GLBT groups on campus.
The march was organized by Brad Dressler, the chairman of Aggie Allies. The organization is composed of members whose goal is to provide a safe place and a listening ear for the Texas A&M GLBT community.
"Marches promote awareness," said Camden Breeding, a junior electrical engineering major and president of the Texas A&M GLBT organization. "The reason it is today is because today is the day of silence which is a way to represent the silencing affect of homophobia, biphobia, etc., so you see the duct tape and it represents the silence you feel when you're in the closet and have to hide who you are."
Many students had individual reasons for participating including raising awareness of Aggie Allies and the GLBT community on Texas A&M's campus, "[Aggie Allies and GLBT] provide support, a family away from home," said Danielle Pool, a senior sociology major. "There are people that accept me despite our differences and there is a bond of understanding. It's a place where I feel safe."
There are more than 600 Aggie Allies throughout campus. The organization is composed of both straight and GLBT, according to Dressler, who said that about 68 percent of the group identified as straight.
"I identify as a straight ally, and I think it's important to give a message of acceptance and tolerance and take away the stigma that people have toward the GLBT community," said Tiffany Creecy, a human resource development graduate student.
Not all participants in the march were official members of either group, but said they attended due to what they felt was a moral obligation to support the GLBT community.
"I never decided to be an ally, I just never thought it made sense to discriminate," said Jakob Koschberg, a junior management information systems major. "I got a piece of paper with the [GLBT awareness] shirt that said that Texas A&M was ranked the 17th most homophobic campus in America, which made me sad that I go to a school where people would discriminate against anyone who is part of the GLBT community."
Members of Aggie Allies and the GLBT organization said they hope to provide a safe community for those who have experienced discrimination and make the Texas A&M campus more welcoming for everyone.
"As a faculty member in the performing arts, I was surprised to go an entire year without knowing anyone who was out," said Rayna Middelton, an instructional assistant professor in performance studies. "As I displayed my Aggie Ally placard on my office door and let people know I was open to talking, I felt that students felt more comfortable being themselves and speaking about those issues with me."
With the growing numbers of Aggie Allies, around 150 new members from the past year alone, members said that they were encouraged by the increasing support and feel that the Aggie family is becoming more united.
"To become an Aggie Ally, students have to attend a three hour training, which are held throughout the semester and this summer, called the Advance Workshop, that you register for online at allies.tamu.edu. The idea is that you are advancing your knowledge of the GLBT community," Dressler said.
Published on Sunday, April 24, 2011
By Rosalee Getterman
From the Texas A&M University Battalion
Some had mouths taped shut; some brought along pets, and some proudly displayed the well-known rainbow flag. Students and faculty marched through campus in support of Aggie Allies and the Texas A&M GLBT groups on campus.
The march was organized by Brad Dressler, the chairman of Aggie Allies. The organization is composed of members whose goal is to provide a safe place and a listening ear for the Texas A&M GLBT community.
"Marches promote awareness," said Camden Breeding, a junior electrical engineering major and president of the Texas A&M GLBT organization. "The reason it is today is because today is the day of silence which is a way to represent the silencing affect of homophobia, biphobia, etc., so you see the duct tape and it represents the silence you feel when you're in the closet and have to hide who you are."
Many students had individual reasons for participating including raising awareness of Aggie Allies and the GLBT community on Texas A&M's campus, "[Aggie Allies and GLBT] provide support, a family away from home," said Danielle Pool, a senior sociology major. "There are people that accept me despite our differences and there is a bond of understanding. It's a place where I feel safe."
There are more than 600 Aggie Allies throughout campus. The organization is composed of both straight and GLBT, according to Dressler, who said that about 68 percent of the group identified as straight.
"I identify as a straight ally, and I think it's important to give a message of acceptance and tolerance and take away the stigma that people have toward the GLBT community," said Tiffany Creecy, a human resource development graduate student.
Not all participants in the march were official members of either group, but said they attended due to what they felt was a moral obligation to support the GLBT community.
"I never decided to be an ally, I just never thought it made sense to discriminate," said Jakob Koschberg, a junior management information systems major. "I got a piece of paper with the [GLBT awareness] shirt that said that Texas A&M was ranked the 17th most homophobic campus in America, which made me sad that I go to a school where people would discriminate against anyone who is part of the GLBT community."
Members of Aggie Allies and the GLBT organization said they hope to provide a safe community for those who have experienced discrimination and make the Texas A&M campus more welcoming for everyone.
"As a faculty member in the performing arts, I was surprised to go an entire year without knowing anyone who was out," said Rayna Middelton, an instructional assistant professor in performance studies. "As I displayed my Aggie Ally placard on my office door and let people know I was open to talking, I felt that students felt more comfortable being themselves and speaking about those issues with me."
With the growing numbers of Aggie Allies, around 150 new members from the past year alone, members said that they were encouraged by the increasing support and feel that the Aggie family is becoming more united.
"To become an Aggie Ally, students have to attend a three hour training, which are held throughout the semester and this summer, called the Advance Workshop, that you register for online at allies.tamu.edu. The idea is that you are advancing your knowledge of the GLBT community," Dressler said.
Published on Sunday, April 24, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Texas Progressive Alliance Roundup - April 25, 2011
The Texas Progressive Alliance thinks it's never too early to plan your Sine Die Day activities as it brings you this week's roundup.
The long range plan to kill public education is reaching the end game. Over at TexasKaos lightseeker talks about seeing one of the (unintentional) moving parts at a public lecture given by one of the premier charter schools in the nation. Check out Educational Reform and Our Common Peril!
Bay Area Houston has the latest on State Representative Larry Taylor's emergency surgery.
What conservatives believe to be true ranks far above what is actually true, and even what is demonstrably true according to science and mathematics. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs points out that this why Rick Perry declares Easter weekend as 'Days of Prayer for Rain in Texas', and why John Cornyn "isn't so sure" that Jon Kyl was wrong when he claimed that abortions were 90% of Planned Parenthood's budget. It should consequently be no surprise that they place no value in teachers and education.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme thinks the Texas Supreme Court, aka the republican crony justice system, sucks.
Always looking out for your mental health and well-being, Letters From Texas Worldwide Headquarters, Psychological Testing Department, offers a redistricting rorschach test.
The Senate Finance Committee lead by GOP Senator Steve Ogden approved their version of the Texas budget last week. WCNews at Eye On Williamson shows that it truly is the lesser of two evils.
How about a bit of good news for a change? Off the Kuff notes that a bill that gives microbreweries greater latitude in getting their beers to customers passed the House last week.
Neil at Texas Liberal praised Governor Perry for his call for prayer to end the severe drought in Texas. At the same time, Neil asked that if prayer can end the drought, might it be that Texas is being punished by God for hard-hearted policies towards the poor?
McBlogger take a looks back on one idea to bring more water to Texas that will work, and another that's from Governor Perry.
Easter Lemming discovers Oh the places you will go as an iPhone, even if it is no longer your iPhone.
Friday, April 22, 2011
An Open Letter to the Texas A&M Student Senate, Signed ‘An Aggie No More’
Dear Senators:
I once thought that I was an Aggie. Next year will be my 5th year of study. I am a Presidential Endowed Scholar. I attended Fish Camp. I went to football games and yelled until my voice was dead and my ass was red. I joined a FLO. I started two organizations. I received the prestigious Buck Weirus Spirit Award for my contributions to this student body. I have made hundreds of friends, touched hundreds of Aggies’ lives and been touched by thousands more. Yes, I once thought that I was an Aggie.
On April 20th, 2011 the Student Senate made it clear that, in their eyes, I am an Aggie no more.
That day, the student senate told me that I was not worth as much as other Aggies. You told me that breaking the Aggie Honor Code and lying to my fellow students was preferable to you deciding to respect me for who I am. On that night, S.B. 63-106, otherwise known as the “Sexual Education Equality in Funding Bill” in support of Representative Wayne Christian’s amendment to HB 1 passed. And with its passage, the Student Senate made its position clear: that because I am gay, I am not truly an Aggie.
Now you may be saying to yourself that I’m being overly dramatic, that that was not your intention in passing that bill, or something else along those lines. Some of you may have stopped reading this letter as soon as you saw the words “I am gay”. I would expect nothing less from the 17th least friendly campus for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students in the country (according to the Princeton review). If you’re still reading, then allow me to explain why I don’t at all feel like I am being melodramatic and state my reasons for concluding that the Student Senate no longer views me as an Aggie:
1. Harming the Texas A&M GLBT Resource Center was the purpose of this bill, not, as the authors claim, the creating of centers for the purpose of so-called “traditional values education.” This is made clear in the second operative clause, where the opposition of increased student fees to cover this new “traditional values education” is set forth. The authors of the bill are not fooling anyone, since the drastic budget cuts make it clear that no additional government funding is at all likely for this new “traditional values” education, leaving one clear option: cut the GLBT Resource Center’s budget in half. This barely concealed attempt to attack the funding of the biggest support system for GLBT students and their allies on this campus is not just an attack on some perceived “immoral lifestyle choice” or whatever phrase people might choose to use. It is a direct attack on Aggies like myself, a clear “shot over the bow”, warning us that we are not welcome on this campus.
2. The purpose of this bill was not to promote equality of funding for support for all students. If that were indeed the goal, then allow me to point you to several areas where there is a severe problem. First of all, why is there a Women’s Resource Center on campus but no Men’s Resource Center? Applying the same logic that has been applied in the passage of S.B. 63-106, it is clearly unfair that my student fees, as a male, go toward funding the Women’s Resource Center, especially if I disagree that women need any special attention. I should demand equality of funding towards a center that supports me and my needs as a male. Likewise for the Department of Multicultural Services, because I as a Caucasian Amercian have no need of their services. Where is my Department of White American Services? Clearly, the student body does not have a problem offering support to the communities of women and multicultural students within the Aggie family. Thus, singling out support for GLBT students like me sends a crystal clear message: “you and people like you are not worthy of our support. Women, multicultural people, those groups deserve support. You do not.“
3. The assertion that there is not already “traditional values” education related to sex on this campus is laughable. Anyone who has taken a KINE 198 class can tell you that only heterosexual examples are given when discussing romantic or sexual interactions and the health guidelines related to them. And a mandatory class is far more pervasive in educating the students of Texas A&M than a resource center buried in Cain Hall that never requires people to pass through its doors. The programming that the center offers is optional for those who wish to attend. There is no requirement that straight Aggies listen to a discussion of sexual safety for gay men or lesbian women, but clearly the same is not true for GLBT Aggies. We are treated to a discussion of straight sexual safety and relationship guidelines whether we want to be or not. Thus, the assertion that “alternative sexual education” is being funded more than “traditional values” sexual education on this campus is not only patently false, but demeaning to those of us who are consistently maligned for being attracted to (a) different gender(s) of people than the Student Senate apparently feels we should be.
Senators, let me reiterate what I said at the beginning of this letter. Next year will be my 5th year of study. I am a Presidential Endowed Scholar. I attended Fish Camp. I went to football games and yelled until my voice was dead and my ass was red. I joined a FLO. I started two organizations. I received the prestigious Buck Weirus Spirit Award for my contributions to this student body. I happen to be gay. I am also a strong Christian, attend a local church, and have a wonderful relationship with my father.
A year ago, all of that almost vanished. I almost became a name read out at Silver Taps Senators, because I was so tired of living the lie, feeling controlled by fear. And the voices that were in my head were delivering the same message that the Student Senate is delivering to the GLBTQ students of this university: you aren’t worth as much as everyone else. I’m not accusing the Student Senate of causing suicides, but the passage of this bill simply reinforces a message that many GLBT people have been hearing their whole lives. Will it take a Tyler Clementi here at Texas A&M before this becomes apparent?
You may think it’s a sin, that I chose to be gay, and that I’m having wild, promiscuous, unprotected sex every chance I get. You may think of me as a faggot, a queer, a poof, a fairy, or a dirty homo. You may think that I will certainly die of AIDS…some of you may even think that I should die because of it. I know people on this campus and in this community who think that I deserve the death penalty for being gay. That is the reality of being gay on this campus, Senators. Even if a GLBT man or woman never once experiences outright discrimination, the knowledge that if it weren’t for Texas politeness they almost certainly would stays with them. It is fear, a constant awareness that we have to have when we’re on a date or walking across campus, an undercurrent of uncertainty about how people will react to us holding hands, wearing a GLBTAggies t-shirt, or standing in front of an Aggie Allies table by the Academic Building.
That is why the GLBT Resource Center is essential. It was part of what kept me alive a year ago, having a community where I knew I could find support, be able to talk to people who knew what I was going through and had the funding and resources to help get me (and every other person who visits the center, gay or straight) the information and support that they need to make it through a day, a week, a year, a lifetime.
Because guess what Senators? Somehow, most of us still love Texas A&M. Despite everything, we still bleed maroon. That’s why we are still here, why we haven’t just up and left, packed our bags, and hit the road for California or New York. The people who work at the GLBT resource center could have just given up years ago; it would have been easier. GLBT Aggies and their allies are still bettering this campus through our involvement in the student body. But we will continue to fight to be recognized fully as Aggies, despite the Student Senate’s clear position that we are not.
In closing, you will notice that my name is not attached to this letter. You may accuse me of cowardice, of choosing to hide behind the cloak of anonymity as I take potshots at you. Then again, you may not. But let me be clear: I have chosen to withhold my name not out of fear, but because you, as a senate body, have lost my trust. Choosing to come out to someone, which is what I would be doing if I included my name, requires trust. However, I do not trust you with my name any more than you as a senate trust that the GLBT students of this campus honestly need the support and resources that the GLBT Resource Center offers. You clearly no longer represent me, so you are no longer entitled to my name.
Maybe when you are willing to repair the damage that you have done to the Aggie Family I might be willing to trust you again.
Sincerely,
An Aggie No More
*Originally printed in the Dallas Voice
I once thought that I was an Aggie. Next year will be my 5th year of study. I am a Presidential Endowed Scholar. I attended Fish Camp. I went to football games and yelled until my voice was dead and my ass was red. I joined a FLO. I started two organizations. I received the prestigious Buck Weirus Spirit Award for my contributions to this student body. I have made hundreds of friends, touched hundreds of Aggies’ lives and been touched by thousands more. Yes, I once thought that I was an Aggie.
On April 20th, 2011 the Student Senate made it clear that, in their eyes, I am an Aggie no more.
That day, the student senate told me that I was not worth as much as other Aggies. You told me that breaking the Aggie Honor Code and lying to my fellow students was preferable to you deciding to respect me for who I am. On that night, S.B. 63-106, otherwise known as the “Sexual Education Equality in Funding Bill” in support of Representative Wayne Christian’s amendment to HB 1 passed. And with its passage, the Student Senate made its position clear: that because I am gay, I am not truly an Aggie.
Now you may be saying to yourself that I’m being overly dramatic, that that was not your intention in passing that bill, or something else along those lines. Some of you may have stopped reading this letter as soon as you saw the words “I am gay”. I would expect nothing less from the 17th least friendly campus for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students in the country (according to the Princeton review). If you’re still reading, then allow me to explain why I don’t at all feel like I am being melodramatic and state my reasons for concluding that the Student Senate no longer views me as an Aggie:
1. Harming the Texas A&M GLBT Resource Center was the purpose of this bill, not, as the authors claim, the creating of centers for the purpose of so-called “traditional values education.” This is made clear in the second operative clause, where the opposition of increased student fees to cover this new “traditional values education” is set forth. The authors of the bill are not fooling anyone, since the drastic budget cuts make it clear that no additional government funding is at all likely for this new “traditional values” education, leaving one clear option: cut the GLBT Resource Center’s budget in half. This barely concealed attempt to attack the funding of the biggest support system for GLBT students and their allies on this campus is not just an attack on some perceived “immoral lifestyle choice” or whatever phrase people might choose to use. It is a direct attack on Aggies like myself, a clear “shot over the bow”, warning us that we are not welcome on this campus.
2. The purpose of this bill was not to promote equality of funding for support for all students. If that were indeed the goal, then allow me to point you to several areas where there is a severe problem. First of all, why is there a Women’s Resource Center on campus but no Men’s Resource Center? Applying the same logic that has been applied in the passage of S.B. 63-106, it is clearly unfair that my student fees, as a male, go toward funding the Women’s Resource Center, especially if I disagree that women need any special attention. I should demand equality of funding towards a center that supports me and my needs as a male. Likewise for the Department of Multicultural Services, because I as a Caucasian Amercian have no need of their services. Where is my Department of White American Services? Clearly, the student body does not have a problem offering support to the communities of women and multicultural students within the Aggie family. Thus, singling out support for GLBT students like me sends a crystal clear message: “you and people like you are not worthy of our support. Women, multicultural people, those groups deserve support. You do not.“
3. The assertion that there is not already “traditional values” education related to sex on this campus is laughable. Anyone who has taken a KINE 198 class can tell you that only heterosexual examples are given when discussing romantic or sexual interactions and the health guidelines related to them. And a mandatory class is far more pervasive in educating the students of Texas A&M than a resource center buried in Cain Hall that never requires people to pass through its doors. The programming that the center offers is optional for those who wish to attend. There is no requirement that straight Aggies listen to a discussion of sexual safety for gay men or lesbian women, but clearly the same is not true for GLBT Aggies. We are treated to a discussion of straight sexual safety and relationship guidelines whether we want to be or not. Thus, the assertion that “alternative sexual education” is being funded more than “traditional values” sexual education on this campus is not only patently false, but demeaning to those of us who are consistently maligned for being attracted to (a) different gender(s) of people than the Student Senate apparently feels we should be.
Senators, let me reiterate what I said at the beginning of this letter. Next year will be my 5th year of study. I am a Presidential Endowed Scholar. I attended Fish Camp. I went to football games and yelled until my voice was dead and my ass was red. I joined a FLO. I started two organizations. I received the prestigious Buck Weirus Spirit Award for my contributions to this student body. I happen to be gay. I am also a strong Christian, attend a local church, and have a wonderful relationship with my father.
A year ago, all of that almost vanished. I almost became a name read out at Silver Taps Senators, because I was so tired of living the lie, feeling controlled by fear. And the voices that were in my head were delivering the same message that the Student Senate is delivering to the GLBTQ students of this university: you aren’t worth as much as everyone else. I’m not accusing the Student Senate of causing suicides, but the passage of this bill simply reinforces a message that many GLBT people have been hearing their whole lives. Will it take a Tyler Clementi here at Texas A&M before this becomes apparent?
You may think it’s a sin, that I chose to be gay, and that I’m having wild, promiscuous, unprotected sex every chance I get. You may think of me as a faggot, a queer, a poof, a fairy, or a dirty homo. You may think that I will certainly die of AIDS…some of you may even think that I should die because of it. I know people on this campus and in this community who think that I deserve the death penalty for being gay. That is the reality of being gay on this campus, Senators. Even if a GLBT man or woman never once experiences outright discrimination, the knowledge that if it weren’t for Texas politeness they almost certainly would stays with them. It is fear, a constant awareness that we have to have when we’re on a date or walking across campus, an undercurrent of uncertainty about how people will react to us holding hands, wearing a GLBTAggies t-shirt, or standing in front of an Aggie Allies table by the Academic Building.
That is why the GLBT Resource Center is essential. It was part of what kept me alive a year ago, having a community where I knew I could find support, be able to talk to people who knew what I was going through and had the funding and resources to help get me (and every other person who visits the center, gay or straight) the information and support that they need to make it through a day, a week, a year, a lifetime.
Because guess what Senators? Somehow, most of us still love Texas A&M. Despite everything, we still bleed maroon. That’s why we are still here, why we haven’t just up and left, packed our bags, and hit the road for California or New York. The people who work at the GLBT resource center could have just given up years ago; it would have been easier. GLBT Aggies and their allies are still bettering this campus through our involvement in the student body. But we will continue to fight to be recognized fully as Aggies, despite the Student Senate’s clear position that we are not.
In closing, you will notice that my name is not attached to this letter. You may accuse me of cowardice, of choosing to hide behind the cloak of anonymity as I take potshots at you. Then again, you may not. But let me be clear: I have chosen to withhold my name not out of fear, but because you, as a senate body, have lost my trust. Choosing to come out to someone, which is what I would be doing if I included my name, requires trust. However, I do not trust you with my name any more than you as a senate trust that the GLBT students of this campus honestly need the support and resources that the GLBT Resource Center offers. You clearly no longer represent me, so you are no longer entitled to my name.
Maybe when you are willing to repair the damage that you have done to the Aggie Family I might be willing to trust you again.
Sincerely,
An Aggie No More
*Originally printed in the Dallas Voice
Local News: Study Finds College Station Sewer System Needs Expansion
Sewers in College Station Need a Revamp
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
College Station's sewers are nearing capacity and it may cost $90 million to adequately expand the system over the next decade, according to early results from a wastewater study.
The growth will likely mean increases in sewage rates for city customers, though how much they will go up isn't yet known. Failure to act could mean hampered development or sewage overflows, city staff said.
"We are at a point right now where the wastewater system is going to require some significant investment," said David Coleman, director of water services for the city.
The City Council was surprised when it learned of the situation on Thursday.
"I've been on the council for four years and I have never heard this before," said Place 1 Councilman John Crompton.
But none expressed opposition to increasing capacity.
"If we are going to continue to grow, we have got to be able to take care of that growth and this is one of the core items that we as a city council need to be providing," said Place 6 Councilman Dave Ruesink.
Place 5 Councilwoman Jana McMillan did, however, show interest in contracting out wastewater treatment to private companies -- a possibility that Coleman said the city hasn't fully explored.
City officials became aware of the situation while preparing a new wastewater master plan. That project used new technology to measure the flow in the sewer system and determine future needs. The final plan is still being completed and will officially be presented to the council in four to six weeks.
But three areas of need have already been identified: The city's two wastewater treatment plans are nearing capacity, new sewer lines need to be installed in growing areas and older lines need to be rehabilitated.
Use of the Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in the southern area of the city is expected to grow by 6.5 percent each year and reach its capacity in 2020. Texas regulations require plants to begin planning for expansion when they reach 75 percent capacity, which will likely happen in 2015.
The older Carter's Creek Treatment Plant in north College Station is growing at a slower 2.6 percent rate. It is expected to reach 75 percent capacity in 2016 and full capacity in 2028.
Coleman said the city would like to upgrade the facilities to handle enough wastewater for 119,000 homes, which would handle the city's needs for the long-term future.
The city will also consider changing to an anaerobic digestion process to treat the sewage, meaning microorganisms would break down the sludge and create methane gas. That would cost $15 million more, but would eliminate odor around the facility. Plus, the gas could be sold to create renewable energy -- possibly making the costs about the same as the current system.
Coleman said the city has identified 10 new lines or lift stations needed to expand sewer capacity by 2017. The most expensive would be a $12 million relief line that would run parallel to an existing line along Bee Creek. The current line in that area provides sewer service west of F.M. 2154 and is at 100 percent capacity at some sections.
More developments have been platted in the area, Coleman said, and failure to expand sewer capacity could stymie development. If nothing were done, sewage could start backing up in the "next couple of years," he said.
Twenty-five rehabilitation projects have also been identified, mostly in the older northern part of the city. In some areas, sewer lines are 50 years old.
Coleman said the city could use some cash to pay for the projects, but bonds will also need to be issued. The city's annual water and wastewater revenue is about $23 million, he said.
Published on Friday, April 22, 2011
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
College Station's sewers are nearing capacity and it may cost $90 million to adequately expand the system over the next decade, according to early results from a wastewater study.
The growth will likely mean increases in sewage rates for city customers, though how much they will go up isn't yet known. Failure to act could mean hampered development or sewage overflows, city staff said.
"We are at a point right now where the wastewater system is going to require some significant investment," said David Coleman, director of water services for the city.
The City Council was surprised when it learned of the situation on Thursday.
"I've been on the council for four years and I have never heard this before," said Place 1 Councilman John Crompton.
But none expressed opposition to increasing capacity.
"If we are going to continue to grow, we have got to be able to take care of that growth and this is one of the core items that we as a city council need to be providing," said Place 6 Councilman Dave Ruesink.
Place 5 Councilwoman Jana McMillan did, however, show interest in contracting out wastewater treatment to private companies -- a possibility that Coleman said the city hasn't fully explored.
City officials became aware of the situation while preparing a new wastewater master plan. That project used new technology to measure the flow in the sewer system and determine future needs. The final plan is still being completed and will officially be presented to the council in four to six weeks.
But three areas of need have already been identified: The city's two wastewater treatment plans are nearing capacity, new sewer lines need to be installed in growing areas and older lines need to be rehabilitated.
Use of the Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in the southern area of the city is expected to grow by 6.5 percent each year and reach its capacity in 2020. Texas regulations require plants to begin planning for expansion when they reach 75 percent capacity, which will likely happen in 2015.
The older Carter's Creek Treatment Plant in north College Station is growing at a slower 2.6 percent rate. It is expected to reach 75 percent capacity in 2016 and full capacity in 2028.
Coleman said the city would like to upgrade the facilities to handle enough wastewater for 119,000 homes, which would handle the city's needs for the long-term future.
The city will also consider changing to an anaerobic digestion process to treat the sewage, meaning microorganisms would break down the sludge and create methane gas. That would cost $15 million more, but would eliminate odor around the facility. Plus, the gas could be sold to create renewable energy -- possibly making the costs about the same as the current system.
Coleman said the city has identified 10 new lines or lift stations needed to expand sewer capacity by 2017. The most expensive would be a $12 million relief line that would run parallel to an existing line along Bee Creek. The current line in that area provides sewer service west of F.M. 2154 and is at 100 percent capacity at some sections.
More developments have been platted in the area, Coleman said, and failure to expand sewer capacity could stymie development. If nothing were done, sewage could start backing up in the "next couple of years," he said.
Twenty-five rehabilitation projects have also been identified, mostly in the older northern part of the city. In some areas, sewer lines are 50 years old.
Coleman said the city could use some cash to pay for the projects, but bonds will also need to be issued. The city's annual water and wastewater revenue is about $23 million, he said.
Published on Friday, April 22, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Campaign Finance Reports Show More Spending Than Donations
In the first month of the campaign most of the candidates for College Station City Council are spending money, but not everyone is raising money. Candidates reported a total of $7,473 in campaign contributions and a total of $9,866 in campaign expenditures. While all but one candidate reported at least $1,000 in campaign expenditures, only three candidates reported over $1,000 in campaign contributions. Blanche Brick, Place 1 candidate, led all candidates with a reported $3,723 in campaign contributions, while Arthur Pinto, Place 3 candidate, led all candidates with a reported $2,710 in campaign expenditures. Pinto was also one of only two candidates (the other being Place 1 candidate Shawn Rhodes) that reported no campaign contributions, while Julie Schultz, Place 5 candidate, was the only candidate to report no campaign expenditures.
Brick reported the most amounts of individual donors, as nine people donated from $100 to $350 to her campaign. In total twenty different people were reported as donating to different candidates. Two people donated to multiple campaigns; Katherine Edwards donated to both Brick and Karl Mooney, Place 3 candidate, and Richard Startzman donated to both Brick and Sherry Ellison, Place 5 candidate. The single largest donation report was by the Clayton Stribling Estate to Hal Hawkins, Place 5 candidate. While the vast majority of the donations came from donors in College Station, four donations came from donors outside of College Station including one donation from the community of Wellborn. In mapping the location of donors that contributed to the campaigns there is no discernable pattern that has developed, but Brick seems to have the largest geographic diversity of donors.
View Mapping the Money (2011 Campaign) in a larger map
Some of the most interesting information from the first of the campaign finance reports came from the details of the campaign expenditures. Most candidates reported more in expenditures than they did in donations, and only three out of the eight candidates reported any cash on hand. Candidates reportedly spent $341 on miscellaneous campaign supplies, $1,241 on campaign web sites, $1,276 on campaign literature, and $6,717 on campaign signs. Several different businesses were utilized by the candidates, including ten different businesses from the local area. These local businesses included Copy Corner, Copy Stop Print & Postal, Cricket Communication, Fast Signs, Office Max, the Matthews Group, the UPS Stores, Tops Printing, and Wal-Mart. In all $3,612 was spent by candidates utilizing local businesses, which means that the majority of the campaign expenditures went to businesses outside of Bryan-College Station.
The business that has benefited the most from the campaigns is Campaigns & Promotions, which is based in Huntsville, Texas. The candidates that are members of the so-called “conservative coalition” have each reported over $1,000 in campaign expenditures with the business. In total $3,961 in expenditures have been reported going to Campaigns & Promotions, which is by far the most amount of any business and represents 40% of the entire campaign expenditures. Only one candidate used local businesses exclusively for campaign expenditures, Ellison reported $1,381 in expenditures all with local businesses.
Brick reported the most amounts of individual donors, as nine people donated from $100 to $350 to her campaign. In total twenty different people were reported as donating to different candidates. Two people donated to multiple campaigns; Katherine Edwards donated to both Brick and Karl Mooney, Place 3 candidate, and Richard Startzman donated to both Brick and Sherry Ellison, Place 5 candidate. The single largest donation report was by the Clayton Stribling Estate to Hal Hawkins, Place 5 candidate. While the vast majority of the donations came from donors in College Station, four donations came from donors outside of College Station including one donation from the community of Wellborn. In mapping the location of donors that contributed to the campaigns there is no discernable pattern that has developed, but Brick seems to have the largest geographic diversity of donors.
View Mapping the Money (2011 Campaign) in a larger map
Some of the most interesting information from the first of the campaign finance reports came from the details of the campaign expenditures. Most candidates reported more in expenditures than they did in donations, and only three out of the eight candidates reported any cash on hand. Candidates reportedly spent $341 on miscellaneous campaign supplies, $1,241 on campaign web sites, $1,276 on campaign literature, and $6,717 on campaign signs. Several different businesses were utilized by the candidates, including ten different businesses from the local area. These local businesses included Copy Corner, Copy Stop Print & Postal, Cricket Communication, Fast Signs, Office Max, the Matthews Group, the UPS Stores, Tops Printing, and Wal-Mart. In all $3,612 was spent by candidates utilizing local businesses, which means that the majority of the campaign expenditures went to businesses outside of Bryan-College Station.
The business that has benefited the most from the campaigns is Campaigns & Promotions, which is based in Huntsville, Texas. The candidates that are members of the so-called “conservative coalition” have each reported over $1,000 in campaign expenditures with the business. In total $3,961 in expenditures have been reported going to Campaigns & Promotions, which is by far the most amount of any business and represents 40% of the entire campaign expenditures. Only one candidate used local businesses exclusively for campaign expenditures, Ellison reported $1,381 in expenditures all with local businesses.
Local News: Brown’s Bill Would Make It More Difficult for Minors to Obtain an Abortion
Brown's Bill Takes on Abortions by Minors
By Maggie Kiely
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
A bill authored by state Rep. Fred Brown to eliminate a minor's ability to obtain a judge's consent to get an abortion without parental notification was introduced in the House's State Affairs committee on Wednesday.
The proposal by the Bryan Republican would eliminate the "judicial bypass" option and require a doctor to receive a certified statement from parents or guardians stating that they know their minor child has elected to have an abortion. Or, it would require a physician to notify parents that their minor is seeking an abortion.
The doctor would have to wait 48 hours after the notice had been delivered before being able to perform the abortion.
The proposed bill indicates that if the notification is mailed and returned as undeliverable, the minor can still receive an abortion.
Brazos County District Clerk Marc Hamlin said he's been speaking in favor of the bill for several months, visiting with local churches and service organizations.
The issue isn't one of pro-life or pro-choice for him, he said. What bothers him is that under current Texas law girls can have abortions without their parents ever knowing.
"Today in Texas, if a child younger than 18 years of age wants a tattoo, he or she has to have parental consent, and yet we're giving abortions without notification? It makes no sense," Hamlin said.
Under current law, a judge can allow a minor to get an abortion without parental consent under several conditions: If she is "mature and sufficiently well-informed to make the decision," if telling the parent or guardian would not be in her best interest, or if informing the parent or guardian "may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor."
If Brown's bill passed, minors who told physicians they had been abused wouldn't have to get parental notification, and the doctor would be required to report the abuse to authorities.
Law enforcement officials and Department of Family and Protective Services would have to write a report about the alleged abuse within 12 hours of being notified, according to the bill.
Strict record-keeping guidelines -- such as maintaining all certified mail receipts and other documents for up to seven years -- are outlined in the bill, as well as consequences doctors who don't obey the law would face.
Published on Thursday, April 21, 2011
By Maggie Kiely
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
A bill authored by state Rep. Fred Brown to eliminate a minor's ability to obtain a judge's consent to get an abortion without parental notification was introduced in the House's State Affairs committee on Wednesday.
The proposal by the Bryan Republican would eliminate the "judicial bypass" option and require a doctor to receive a certified statement from parents or guardians stating that they know their minor child has elected to have an abortion. Or, it would require a physician to notify parents that their minor is seeking an abortion.
The doctor would have to wait 48 hours after the notice had been delivered before being able to perform the abortion.
The proposed bill indicates that if the notification is mailed and returned as undeliverable, the minor can still receive an abortion.
Brazos County District Clerk Marc Hamlin said he's been speaking in favor of the bill for several months, visiting with local churches and service organizations.
The issue isn't one of pro-life or pro-choice for him, he said. What bothers him is that under current Texas law girls can have abortions without their parents ever knowing.
"Today in Texas, if a child younger than 18 years of age wants a tattoo, he or she has to have parental consent, and yet we're giving abortions without notification? It makes no sense," Hamlin said.
Under current law, a judge can allow a minor to get an abortion without parental consent under several conditions: If she is "mature and sufficiently well-informed to make the decision," if telling the parent or guardian would not be in her best interest, or if informing the parent or guardian "may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor."
If Brown's bill passed, minors who told physicians they had been abused wouldn't have to get parental notification, and the doctor would be required to report the abuse to authorities.
Law enforcement officials and Department of Family and Protective Services would have to write a report about the alleged abuse within 12 hours of being notified, according to the bill.
Strict record-keeping guidelines -- such as maintaining all certified mail receipts and other documents for up to seven years -- are outlined in the bill, as well as consequences doctors who don't obey the law would face.
Published on Thursday, April 21, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Minority Rules: College Station Municipal Election Voter Turnout
On May 14th the citizens of College Station will vote in municipal elections and citizens from the city will determine who will represent them on the city council. This year citizens will be voting for three at large council seats, and on whether or not to recall three other council members including the mayor. So how many people decide who will be representing the residents of the College Station?
An estimated 94,964 people live in College Station and in 2009 there were about 48,000 registered voters. There are about 90,000 registered voters in Brazos County, and an average of 43,828 residents cast ballots in the general elections over the last five election cycles. During a general election about 49% of registered voters or about 31% of all residents participate in the democratic process. However, during municipal elections the number of people who participate in the democratic process is much less.
Over the last ten years an average of 3,376.6 residents in College Station voted in municipal elections. While College Station has consistently had higher voter turnout than her sister city of Bryan, this is mainly due to the fact that Bryan has single member districts and all residents of College Station vote for every councilmember. In the last five municipal elections an average of 3,852 College Station residents have voted and an average of 1,182 Bryan residents have voted. The average voter turnout in College Station for municipal elections is about 8%, and the average voter turnout in Bryan is about 3%. About 6% of registered voters in both cities participate in the democratic process on the local level. When you look at the entire picture, roughly 4% of the people are speaking for the citizens of Bryan-College Station.
What is voter turnout going to look like this year? The highest voter turnouts are during years in which College Station is electing a mayor, although the highest turnout for both Bryan and College Station in the last five years was in 2008 municipal elections when over 5,400 College Station residents voted. However, the highest combined turnout in the last five years was during the 2007 municipal elections when 7,000 residents voted in both cities. This year the residents of College Station will not only be voting for three city council members, but on whether or not to recall three other council members including the mayor. (The only member of the council that will not be on the ballot this year is Place 5 Councilmember Jess Fields.)
From talking to city officials and those that are familiar with local city politics, people seem unsure what kind of voter turnout to expect. Voting for three city council candidates and voting to whether or not to recall three city council members in the same election is unprecedented in College Station city politics. I am predicting that there will be a modest rise in voter turnout compared to the average over the last decade, but I do not think that the turnout will much larger than the 5,551 residents that cast ballots in the 2008 election. I think that when all the votes are counted that between four and five thousand residents will have voted. But even with that modest rise in turnout, less than a tenth of the residents will be deciding the representation in city government. It is unfortunate that so few people participate in the local municipal elections, so much so that in a sense residents of College Station are under a form of minority rule.
An estimated 94,964 people live in College Station and in 2009 there were about 48,000 registered voters. There are about 90,000 registered voters in Brazos County, and an average of 43,828 residents cast ballots in the general elections over the last five election cycles. During a general election about 49% of registered voters or about 31% of all residents participate in the democratic process. However, during municipal elections the number of people who participate in the democratic process is much less.
Over the last ten years an average of 3,376.6 residents in College Station voted in municipal elections. While College Station has consistently had higher voter turnout than her sister city of Bryan, this is mainly due to the fact that Bryan has single member districts and all residents of College Station vote for every councilmember. In the last five municipal elections an average of 3,852 College Station residents have voted and an average of 1,182 Bryan residents have voted. The average voter turnout in College Station for municipal elections is about 8%, and the average voter turnout in Bryan is about 3%. About 6% of registered voters in both cities participate in the democratic process on the local level. When you look at the entire picture, roughly 4% of the people are speaking for the citizens of Bryan-College Station.
What is voter turnout going to look like this year? The highest voter turnouts are during years in which College Station is electing a mayor, although the highest turnout for both Bryan and College Station in the last five years was in 2008 municipal elections when over 5,400 College Station residents voted. However, the highest combined turnout in the last five years was during the 2007 municipal elections when 7,000 residents voted in both cities. This year the residents of College Station will not only be voting for three city council members, but on whether or not to recall three other council members including the mayor. (The only member of the council that will not be on the ballot this year is Place 5 Councilmember Jess Fields.)
From talking to city officials and those that are familiar with local city politics, people seem unsure what kind of voter turnout to expect. Voting for three city council candidates and voting to whether or not to recall three city council members in the same election is unprecedented in College Station city politics. I am predicting that there will be a modest rise in voter turnout compared to the average over the last decade, but I do not think that the turnout will much larger than the 5,551 residents that cast ballots in the 2008 election. I think that when all the votes are counted that between four and five thousand residents will have voted. But even with that modest rise in turnout, less than a tenth of the residents will be deciding the representation in city government. It is unfortunate that so few people participate in the local municipal elections, so much so that in a sense residents of College Station are under a form of minority rule.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Routine Rhetoric at City Council Candidate Forum
With campaign season come candidate forums, and with candidate forums come predictable questions and predictable answers. Last night seven of the eight candidates for College Station City Council gathered in a candidate forum at the Hilton, sponsored by the Bryan-College Station Chamber of Commerce. For about an hour the candidates presented themselves to the voters, and what they said was heavy on rhetoric and light on specifics.The first topic discussed was what the proper role of the city of College Station is to attract and retain businesses. Arthur Pinto, Place 3 candidate, said that the permitting process should be streamlined and criticized the city for being “unfriendly towards business,” but could not cite any specific examples for how the city is unfriendly toward local business. The use of nodal development in the comprehensive plan was stressed by Pinto’s opponent, Place 3 candidate Karl Mooney, who also said that the community should be proactive in recruiting businesses. Place 1 candidate Shawn Rhodes said that it’s not the city’s job to “pick winners and losers,” and that the city does not have to “buy businesses to come here.” Providing high quality of life and providing infrastructure is what Rhodes opponent, Place 1 candidate Blanche Brick, said the city should do to attract new business development. Hal Hawkins, Place 5 candidate, said the city should be less interfering and that the city should waive all the fees charged to business that move to College Station. One of Hawkins’s opponents, Place 5 candidate Sherry Ellison, said that the city should provide the amenities that attract business and people to the community. Finally, Place 5 candidate Julie Schultz that while she was not particular excited about offering businesses incentives, other cities are offering them and in order to be competitive it might be required to offer them in College Station.
The first round of answers seemed to preview the way in which the evening would progress. While the moderators did press the candidates on some issues, for the most parts candidates gave unspecific answers and provided little substance on the specific policies that they support or would like to see changed. One of the few topics that seemed to generate a significant amount of debate and disagreement was about the city’s debt obligations. When asked about the city budget, Hawkins said that his biggest concern was for what he claimed was $311 million in debt obligations, which he said was a “burden we cannot keep putting on our citizens.” Hawkins proposed paying off the debt and creating a so-called “rainy day fund,” but offered no specifics for how that would be accomplished. Pinto agreed with Hawkins assessment of the debt, and said that he is “extremely concerned with the amount of debt” that the city owes. Mooney disagreed with the concerns about the debt, and said that the city council had done well to decrease the budget by $3 million over the last budget cycle while maintaining core services. Rhodes noted that he thought the budget was not in “that bad of a shape,” and that the surplus the budget currently operates with acts as a de facto “rainy day fund.”
The candidates agreed on one of the issues. None of the candidates thought that the members of the city council should receive a pay check, but Brick said she wouldn’t mind the extra money (which provoked laughter from the audience). But for the most part, the candidates that were endorsed by Council member Jana McMillan and are a part of the so-called “conservative coalition,” did not support any kind of fees or taxes, and supported cutting the city budget by offered no specifics on what areas should be cut. Schultz did say that she is supportive of outsourcing of some of the services such as maintenance in the parks, and was “curious about just giving money” to local non-profit organizations that she characterized by say that the city supporting non-profits as “handouts.” Brick, Mooney, and Ellison all supported maintaining the ROI, while Pinto and Hawkins both supported eliminating the ROI without providing what cuts should be made or what other revenue should be raised to make up for the $8 million the ROI provides. However, Pinto did propose phasing out the ROI over three years, while Rhodes said that it would be “fiscally irresponsible” to eliminate it at this time.
There were few surprises during the forum, with the possible exception of Brick’s ability to make the crowd laugh. I do not think that we learned much about the candidates at the forum, except for their ability to speak about the issues in front of the public. But, decide for yourself what you thought of the forum. Listen to the forum at the WTAW archives, or watch the video at the KBTX politics page.
Can the Earth Feed a Population of 9 Billion People?
Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist, looks at past rates of food production to explain why it should eventually be possible to produce enough food to feed a global population of 9 billion people.
Trained at Oxford as a zoologist and an editor at The Economist for eight years, Matt Ridley's newest book is The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves. His earlier works include Francis Crick; Nature via Nurture; Genome; and The Origins of Virtue. - The Long Now Foundation
Matt Ridley's books have sold over 800,000 copies, been translated into 27 languages and been short-listed for six literary prizes. In 2004 he won the National Academies Book Award from the US National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine for Nature via Nurture.
In 2006 he published Genome, a national bestseller. In 2007 he won the Davis Prize from the US History of Science Society for Francis Crick. His most recent book, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves, was published in 2010.
From ForaTV
Local News: City Council and School Board Candidates Share Ideas at Forum
B-CS Candidates Key in on Finances at Forum
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
Candidates for the College Station City Council and the Bryan and College Station school boards focused on finances during a forum Monday.
School district candidates shared ideas to keep local education strong during tough economic times and state funding reductions. Council candidates disagreed over fees and the city budget.
The event was the first major forum for candidates running in the May 14 elections. Early voting begins May 2.
College Station Place 6 school board candidate James Lancaster called for a community effort and looking toward the parent-teacher organizations and College Station ISD Education Foundation to raise money. His opponent, Kimberly McAdams, said bringing in money is up to the state and the school district should be mostly focused on providing a good education with the resources it has.
Place 7 incumbent Valerie Jochen said the board has done a good job of going through the budget and finding ways to cut while continuing to offer students a good education. She said the district could use "more pointed distribution" of money raised by the district by outside groups. Her opponent, Richard Howe III, said the district needs to tap parent involvement and find more creative ways to raise money, such as selling advertisements on school buses.
Roy Flores, who is seeking the Place 6 seat on the Bryan school board, said the school district should hire an internal auditor who would report directly to the board on possible savings. His opponent, longtime incumbent David Stasny, said paying and retaining teachers was the top priority.
In the College Station City Council races, candidates debated fees.
Place 3 candidate Arthur Pinto and Place 5 candidate Hal Hawkins called for the elimination of a return-on-investment fee on College Station residents' utility bills that goes into the city's general fund. Place 1 candidate Shawn Rhodes said the fee could be reduced slightly.
The other candidates said that eliminating the fee would require the city to make severe cuts or raise taxes. Neither of those would be palatable, they said.
Pinto and opponent Karl Mooney debated the city's debt. Pinto and Hawkins have said the debt is too high, at more than $200 million in obligations. They called for that number to be reduced dramatically and for a rainy day fund to be established.
Mooney said the debt is relatively small compared to the city's $5.4 billion in assets. Other candidates supported Mooney's statements. Place 1 candidate Blanche Brick noted that the city has a strong bond rating -- an indication that it is in good financial shape.
Place 5 candidate Sherry Ellison said the city has done a good job keeping its fire and police departments staffed during the recession. But the city also relies on its parks and libraries, she said.
With 13 candidates from two cities seeking election to three elected boards, no candidates had a significant amount of time to discuss their full platform during the two-hour event. The candidates were friendly and rarely confronted each other directly.
About 100 people attended the forum, which was broadcast live on WTAW 1620 AM. An archive of the full program will be available at wtaw.com.
Published on Tuesday, April 19, 2011
By Matthew Watkins
From the Bryan-College Station Eagle
Candidates for the College Station City Council and the Bryan and College Station school boards focused on finances during a forum Monday.
School district candidates shared ideas to keep local education strong during tough economic times and state funding reductions. Council candidates disagreed over fees and the city budget.
The event was the first major forum for candidates running in the May 14 elections. Early voting begins May 2.
College Station Place 6 school board candidate James Lancaster called for a community effort and looking toward the parent-teacher organizations and College Station ISD Education Foundation to raise money. His opponent, Kimberly McAdams, said bringing in money is up to the state and the school district should be mostly focused on providing a good education with the resources it has.
Place 7 incumbent Valerie Jochen said the board has done a good job of going through the budget and finding ways to cut while continuing to offer students a good education. She said the district could use "more pointed distribution" of money raised by the district by outside groups. Her opponent, Richard Howe III, said the district needs to tap parent involvement and find more creative ways to raise money, such as selling advertisements on school buses.
Roy Flores, who is seeking the Place 6 seat on the Bryan school board, said the school district should hire an internal auditor who would report directly to the board on possible savings. His opponent, longtime incumbent David Stasny, said paying and retaining teachers was the top priority.
In the College Station City Council races, candidates debated fees.
Place 3 candidate Arthur Pinto and Place 5 candidate Hal Hawkins called for the elimination of a return-on-investment fee on College Station residents' utility bills that goes into the city's general fund. Place 1 candidate Shawn Rhodes said the fee could be reduced slightly.
The other candidates said that eliminating the fee would require the city to make severe cuts or raise taxes. Neither of those would be palatable, they said.
Pinto and opponent Karl Mooney debated the city's debt. Pinto and Hawkins have said the debt is too high, at more than $200 million in obligations. They called for that number to be reduced dramatically and for a rainy day fund to be established.
Mooney said the debt is relatively small compared to the city's $5.4 billion in assets. Other candidates supported Mooney's statements. Place 1 candidate Blanche Brick noted that the city has a strong bond rating -- an indication that it is in good financial shape.
Place 5 candidate Sherry Ellison said the city has done a good job keeping its fire and police departments staffed during the recession. But the city also relies on its parks and libraries, she said.
With 13 candidates from two cities seeking election to three elected boards, no candidates had a significant amount of time to discuss their full platform during the two-hour event. The candidates were friendly and rarely confronted each other directly.
About 100 people attended the forum, which was broadcast live on WTAW 1620 AM. An archive of the full program will be available at wtaw.com.
Published on Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Texas Progressive Alliance Roundup - April 18, 2011
The Texas Progressive Alliance sincerely hopes that the wildfires in West Texas will soon be controlled as it brings you this week's roundup.
The first State House redistricting map is out, and Off the Kuff has a look at it and some alternatives to it.
Letters From Texas poked fun at the...um...hard turn John Sharp's web domain has taken, in which somebody has...um...erected quite a different focus. But most of the week was spent on more serious concerns - the West Texas range fires.
Having previously declared himself out on supporting President Obama's re-election campaign, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs finds even less to like about the rumored candidacy of Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez for US Senate. Less, as in nothing.
The Texas Cloverleaf looks at the proposed TX House redistricting implications in Denton County.
This week on Left of College Station, Teddy covers the local politics of the City of College Station controversial vote to annex the community of Wellborn, and Teddy covers the national politics of the Congressional Republicans failure to lead by their politicalization of military pay. Left of College Station also covers the week in headlines.
From Bay Area Houston: The Houston Chronicle asks How stupid are Texans?
DosCentavos opines on State Rep. Leo Berman's kinder gentler racism through a "cost-saving" English-only bill.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants everyone to know that Victoria DA Hissy Fit's tainted case against city officials has been dropped.
The Texas GOP released it's proposed map of Texas state House districts for the next decade. Dembones at Eye On Williamson posted about the most oddest shaped district in the map, Gerrymandering Wilco.
Libby Shaw at TexasKaos tells us that When Middle Schoolers Serve in Congress there is price to be paid.
Neil at Texas Liberal noted that Rick Perry has asked Barack Obama and Washington on help with Texas wildfires. While everybody impacted by the fires merits help, it sure is something that Washington-basher Rick Perry feels he must turn to the federal government to solve Texas problems. Where are the Texas Tea Party citizen-volunteer disaster relief teams to help people in need?
Like many, the crew at McBlogger is feeling the pinch of higher gas prices. What's really causing it and what can be done about it may surprise you.
TexasVox brings you a double dose of bad news about fracking, first bad news for the climate from shale gas as it could be warming the planet worse than coal and second, the awesome press conference put on by our TPA friend TXSharon about health effects from fracking. Oh, and on a completely unrelated note and blog, I warn you not to go see the new movie version of Atlas Shrugged.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The Pensions Burden
Falling short: People are living longer so they need to retire later and save more.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Week in Headlines
Texas News
Texas Mistakenly Exposes Personal Data of 3.5 Million
Texas Politics
Small Businesses Lobby to Keep Margins Tax exemption
National News
Car Dealers Adopt Outlawed Mortgage Tactics
National Politics
Americans Support Budget Deal and Credit Democrats
International News
Global Military Spending Hits High but Growth Slows
Foreign Policy
Pakistan Tells US It Must Sharply Cut CIA Activities
War & Peace
Rate Drops for Ex-Guantanamo Detainees Labeled Terrorists
Veterans Issues
$75 Million Cut in Homeless Veteran Benefits
Domestic Policy
House Votes to Repeal Net Neutrality Order
Economics
Budget Cuts Raise Doubt on Course of Recovery
Poverty
More Americans Leaving Workforce
Education
Burden of College Loans on Graduates Grows
Health Care
Medicaid to Offer Rewards For Healthy Behavior
Energy
US Nuclear Regulator Lets Industry Help With the Fine Print
Environment
Fracking Shale for Gas Brings Wealth and Concerns
Climate Change
Antarctic Penguin Population Declines with Krill
Science & Technology
Antarctic Lake Hides Bizarre Ecosystem
Human Rights
Mentally Ill Languish In Hospital Emergency Rooms
Civil Rights
Finding Jobs a Challenge for Ex-Inmates in Texas
Immigrant Rights
Georgia Lawmakers Pass Immigration Control Bill
Women & Gender Issues
Military Gender Roles Still Thorny Problem
Reproductive Rights
Abortion Opponents Use Health Law to Put Restrictions in Private Insurance
GLBT Issues
Hawaii Legislature Passes Transgender Employment Protections
Race & Racism
More Black Men Now in Prison System than Enslaved in 1850
Thursday, April 14, 2011
College Station Annexes Wellborn
After over a yearlong battle, the College Station City Council voted tonight to annex the community of Wellborn. According to an article in the Bryan-College Station Eagle, the community, which the city staff says has 84 homes in the proposed annexation area, will be eligible to vote in the upcoming May elections and use city sanitation services. College Station's police and fire departments previous began preparations to provide service to the area tonight. For all intensive purposes the question of whether or not College Station will annexation of Wellborn is over, but the debate surrounding the annexation seems to be far from over.During the meeting Mayor Berry allowed a couple residents of Wellborn to speak to the City Council about annexation, which seemed to be the final words from the residents of Wellborn before the vote to annex. Justice of the Peace Mike McCleary asked the City Council to table the vote until the cost of annexation was furthered studied. McCleary went on to raise questions about the cost to the city, the county, and the citizens of Wellborn. Wellborn resident, Linda Hale, said that there are a lot of myths surrounding the annexation of Wellborn. These myths she said included that if Wellborn is not annexed that College Station would not have room for growth, and that if Wellborn incorporates it will create conflict with College Station.
John Crompton asked questions about “back of the envelope math” about the tax revenue that could be generated from annexation. Jess Fields spend his time asking about the short term and long term cost of annexation. Dennis Maloney raised concerns the estimates about assumptions that there would be no growth, and that he expect “explosive growth” over the next few decades. Katy-Marie Lyles asked about mechanisms that might be in place to preserve the “rural lifestyle of Wellborn,” and Bob Cowell, Director of Planning & Development Services, answered that there are no mechanisms available other than zoning to preserve the current character of Wellborn. Dave Ruesink asked about the benefits to both Wellborn and College Station residents from annexation, and Lance Simms, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services, touted the services being extended to the residents of Wellborn and the ability of College Station to manage growth as benefits. Jana McMillan inquired about the cost to residents of tying into the College Station waste systems, which Cowell said would typically cost about $400.
After asking questions, the council members then gave their own statements. Ruesink said that the Wellborn annexation is one of the “more important issues that we have ever dealt with.” He went on to say that the “the intent of the annexation is not to destroy a community; it is to preserve it.” McMillan read a prepared statement that said that she “cannot support the idea of forcing people to join the city against their will,” and then asked that the vote to annex Wellborn to be tabled until after mediation. Lyles began her statement by saying that she was “going to vote to support annexation,” and then spent time address statements that she believes are untrue. Maloney spent his time reviewing the history of the area of College Station, and that Wellborn residents had over a century to incorporate but chose not to. He also said that not annexing Wellborn would cost residents millions if they are allowed to be “bookended” by the two cities. Field’s spent time discussing the frustration surrounding the issue. Fields that that “this country was founded on one single thing: the right to vote,” and went on to say that he would vote against annexation because he was choosing the “individual.”
In the end, the College Station voted to annex the community of Wellborn, and the vote was the expect 5-2 margin with Fields and McMillan dissenting. However, while the issue of whether or not Wellborn will be annexed may be over, the politics of the debate and the vote will range on for another month at least. On May 14th we will find out if the upcoming city election is going to be a referendum on this issue. But for now the Citizens for Wellborn are now residents of College Station.
*For more information about the details of the annexation read the City of College Station press release and Annexation Service Plan.
Wellborn Timeline
January 2010 – Wellborn residents begin public push for incorporation.
February 2, 2010 – Residents of Wellborn submit request to the College Station City Council to allow their community to vote on whether to incorporate as a city. (400 signatures and a map with proposed city limits)
March 11, 2010 - College Station City Council asks city staff members to continue working with the Wellborn community on a plan for the area's future, delaying a decision on whether to allow Wellborn residents to vote on incorporation. (City staff members urged the council not to grant Wellborn's request for consent to incorporate.)
March 24, 2010 - Wellborn residents begin a petition drive in College Station on aimed at persuading city leaders to allow the community to vote on incorporation.
March 30, 2010 - College Station City Council holds Special Meeting concerning possible action and discussion regarding a request for consent to incorporate submitted to the City of College Station by “Citizens for Wellborn.”
March 30, 2010 - City Attorney Harvey Cargill says any petition that is submitted would not have legal ground and could be ignored.
May 4, 2010 - Petition with more than 1,286 signatures of College Station residents delivered to City Hall in an effort to encourage the City Council to let Wellborn residents vote on incorporation.
May 17, 2010 - College Station officials say that petition turned in by Citizens for Wellborn asking for consent to incorporate is invalid.
May 27, 2010 - Citizens for Wellborn board and the College Station City Council meet as a group during a special meeting to focus on the yearlong controversy over incorporation. (The council members agreed at the end of the meeting to continue discussions on the matter with Wellborn residents.)
June 10, 2010 - College Station City Secretary Connie Hooks says at Council meeting that an amended petition submitted by Wellborn residents seeking authorization to vote on incorporation was invalid.
July 23, 2010 - Citizens for Wellborn files a writ of mandamus request asking a Texas 10th Court of Appeals to order the city to allow residents to vote on whether the community should incorporate.
August 18, 2010 - Texas 10th Court of Appeals rules by a 2-to-1 vote that College Station can't be compelled to put the issue to a city-wide vote.
August 31, 2010 - Texas Supreme Court declines to hear Wellborn case.
October 6, 2010 - Little progress made in meeting between the College Station City Council and a group of Wellborn residents.
October 22, 2010 - Meeting between the College Station City Council and a group of Wellborn residents results in willingness to consider an alternative to the boundary alignment it has long pushed for an incorporated Wellborn.
November 8, 2010 - State Representative Fred Brown pre-files HB107 which requires 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.
November 8, 2010 - Annexation of Wellborn placed on College Station City Council agenda.
November 10, 2010 - College Station City Council votes to begin the process of annexing nearly 700 acres, including the community of Wellborn. (Council members Jess Fields and Jana McMillan voted against moving forward with the annexation process.)
December 9, 2010 - Citizens for Wellborn and SaveWellborn.org submit affidavits to the city to begin the recall petition process. (Recall targets Mayor Nancy Berry and council members John Crompton, Dennis Maloney, Katy-Marie Lyles and Dave Ruesink.)
December 22, 2011 - Report presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission estimates that College Station would receive $297,000 each year in new revenue from sales tax, property tax and utility payments.
January 10, 2011 - Citizens for Wellborn and Save Wellborn turn in petitions to initiate the recall process of College Station Mayor Nancy Berry and two members of City Council.
January 25, 2011 - Signatures on petitions seeking to recall Mayor Nancy Berry and Council members Katy-Marie Lyles and Dave Ruesink validated by City Secretary Sherry Mashburn, and presented to College Station City Council on January 27th.
January 27, 2011 - City Council votes 5-2 votes to directed staff to prepare a service plan that would outline the cost of providing services to any annexed areas. Council's vote also allows two public hearing dates - one in Wellborn and one in College Station - where the service plan would be discussed in detail.
January 28, 2011 - Members of SaveWellborn.org filed a petition in District Judge Travis Bryan III's court asking that an election to recall Mayor Nancy Berry and Councilmembers Katy-Marie Lyles and Dave Ruesink be held between 30 and 60 days after January 27th, when the certified petitions requesting the election were presented and to the full city council.
February 19, 2011 - College Station on asks a judge to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to move up the recall election of Mayor Nancy Berry and two city council members to March.
March 3, 2011 - District Judge Travis Bryan III dismisses a lawsuit filed in January by members of SaveWellborn.org to move recall election date.
March 8, 2011 - Plan detailing how the residents of Wellborn could expect city services to change if the community is annexed by College Station outlined at a special city council meeting.
March 22, 2011 - Public hearing held at the Wellborn Community Center Assistant on possible annexation of the Wellborn. Twenty-nine people spoke at the meeting, eight in favor of annexation and twenty-one opposed.
March 22, 2011 - Texas House of Representatives Land and Resource Committee votes 7-0 to move to the full House a proposed law would require Bryan and College Station to obtain permission from voters in an area they want to annex before incorporating it into their city limits.
March 24, 2011 - Second public hearing held by City Council on possible annexation of the Wellborn. Residents were given three minutes to express their opinion about annexation.
April 14, 2011 - College Station City Council to vote on annexation of the community of Wellborn.
February 2, 2010 – Residents of Wellborn submit request to the College Station City Council to allow their community to vote on whether to incorporate as a city. (400 signatures and a map with proposed city limits)
March 11, 2010 - College Station City Council asks city staff members to continue working with the Wellborn community on a plan for the area's future, delaying a decision on whether to allow Wellborn residents to vote on incorporation. (City staff members urged the council not to grant Wellborn's request for consent to incorporate.)
March 24, 2010 - Wellborn residents begin a petition drive in College Station on aimed at persuading city leaders to allow the community to vote on incorporation.
March 30, 2010 - College Station City Council holds Special Meeting concerning possible action and discussion regarding a request for consent to incorporate submitted to the City of College Station by “Citizens for Wellborn.”
March 30, 2010 - City Attorney Harvey Cargill says any petition that is submitted would not have legal ground and could be ignored.
May 4, 2010 - Petition with more than 1,286 signatures of College Station residents delivered to City Hall in an effort to encourage the City Council to let Wellborn residents vote on incorporation.
May 17, 2010 - College Station officials say that petition turned in by Citizens for Wellborn asking for consent to incorporate is invalid.
May 27, 2010 - Citizens for Wellborn board and the College Station City Council meet as a group during a special meeting to focus on the yearlong controversy over incorporation. (The council members agreed at the end of the meeting to continue discussions on the matter with Wellborn residents.)
June 10, 2010 - College Station City Secretary Connie Hooks says at Council meeting that an amended petition submitted by Wellborn residents seeking authorization to vote on incorporation was invalid.
July 23, 2010 - Citizens for Wellborn files a writ of mandamus request asking a Texas 10th Court of Appeals to order the city to allow residents to vote on whether the community should incorporate.
August 18, 2010 - Texas 10th Court of Appeals rules by a 2-to-1 vote that College Station can't be compelled to put the issue to a city-wide vote.
August 31, 2010 - Texas Supreme Court declines to hear Wellborn case.
October 6, 2010 - Little progress made in meeting between the College Station City Council and a group of Wellborn residents.
October 22, 2010 - Meeting between the College Station City Council and a group of Wellborn residents results in willingness to consider an alternative to the boundary alignment it has long pushed for an incorporated Wellborn.
November 8, 2010 - State Representative Fred Brown pre-files HB107 which requires 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.
November 8, 2010 - Annexation of Wellborn placed on College Station City Council agenda.
November 10, 2010 - College Station City Council votes to begin the process of annexing nearly 700 acres, including the community of Wellborn. (Council members Jess Fields and Jana McMillan voted against moving forward with the annexation process.)
December 9, 2010 - Citizens for Wellborn and SaveWellborn.org submit affidavits to the city to begin the recall petition process. (Recall targets Mayor Nancy Berry and council members John Crompton, Dennis Maloney, Katy-Marie Lyles and Dave Ruesink.)
December 22, 2011 - Report presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission estimates that College Station would receive $297,000 each year in new revenue from sales tax, property tax and utility payments.
January 10, 2011 - Citizens for Wellborn and Save Wellborn turn in petitions to initiate the recall process of College Station Mayor Nancy Berry and two members of City Council.
January 25, 2011 - Signatures on petitions seeking to recall Mayor Nancy Berry and Council members Katy-Marie Lyles and Dave Ruesink validated by City Secretary Sherry Mashburn, and presented to College Station City Council on January 27th.
January 27, 2011 - City Council votes 5-2 votes to directed staff to prepare a service plan that would outline the cost of providing services to any annexed areas. Council's vote also allows two public hearing dates - one in Wellborn and one in College Station - where the service plan would be discussed in detail.
January 28, 2011 - Members of SaveWellborn.org filed a petition in District Judge Travis Bryan III's court asking that an election to recall Mayor Nancy Berry and Councilmembers Katy-Marie Lyles and Dave Ruesink be held between 30 and 60 days after January 27th, when the certified petitions requesting the election were presented and to the full city council.
February 19, 2011 - College Station on asks a judge to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to move up the recall election of Mayor Nancy Berry and two city council members to March.
March 3, 2011 - District Judge Travis Bryan III dismisses a lawsuit filed in January by members of SaveWellborn.org to move recall election date.
March 8, 2011 - Plan detailing how the residents of Wellborn could expect city services to change if the community is annexed by College Station outlined at a special city council meeting.
March 22, 2011 - Public hearing held at the Wellborn Community Center Assistant on possible annexation of the Wellborn. Twenty-nine people spoke at the meeting, eight in favor of annexation and twenty-one opposed.
March 22, 2011 - Texas House of Representatives Land and Resource Committee votes 7-0 to move to the full House a proposed law would require Bryan and College Station to obtain permission from voters in an area they want to annex before incorporating it into their city limits.
March 24, 2011 - Second public hearing held by City Council on possible annexation of the Wellborn. Residents were given three minutes to express their opinion about annexation.
April 14, 2011 - College Station City Council to vote on annexation of the community of Wellborn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
