#TXLEGE: School Choice Advocates headed for YET ANOTHER EPIC Election Season FAIL

Dan Huberty (Center), Gary VanDeaver (Right), and Ken King (Left);
of those three, King is the only one who *might* face a competitive primary. 

"For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins."
2 Peter 1:9

Last week, one of our most trusted sources expressed the following sentiment: "The [school choice] lobby has to be the dumbest, most incompetent, group at the Capitol.  Here you have the public school lobby actively encouraging Democrats to vote in the Republican primary, and it's being left to individual county party executive committees to smoke this behavior out.  What gives?!?"

That was a good start, but there are several other reasons why we think the effort remains doomed for the foreseeable future.

-------

Democrats voting in Republican primaries:

The Texas Monitor summarizes a recent event from Hood County:

A school superintendent running as a Republican for the Texas House was slapped with a “no confidence” vote by the local party this week.

Granbury ISD Superintendent James Largent called the move “shameful.”

Hood County GOP Chairman Jim Logan said Largent had it coming.

“To our knowledge, he has never participated in local or state Republican Party activities. He has said he disagrees with most of the party platform, and openly disparages Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick,” Logan told The Texas Monitor in an interview.

As a result, the executive committee of the local party issued a unanimous vote of no confidence in Largent in the House District 60 race.

State Rep. Mike Lang is running for re-election in HD 60 against Largent and Gregory Risse in the March 6 primary.

....

Largent, 52, does not hide his politics. Opining regularly on the Granbury ISD website, the superintendent’s commentaries echo increasingly shrill attacks from the state’s “Big Ed” establishment.

In a post titled “Conservative Leadership,” the superintendent defends forced collection of union dues, assails school choice legislation and attacks state Republicans, ridiculing Abbott and Patrick.

Slamming the so-called “bathroom bill” last session, Largent wrote that Patrick “does not understand the transgender issue.”

Hood County residents question whether the superintendent understands the boundaries of professional ethics.

Plumping for an $85 million school bond, Largent emailed teachers urging them to call parents to support the debt package at the polls. Some instructors balked at the political gambit, and public-records requests into Largent’s official correspondence are pending with the district.

Meantime, Hood County Democrats, including the wife of a GISD School Board member, are actively pushing their support for Largent.

“He’ll attend Democratic Party meetings and has declined our invitations,” Logan noted.

That's all well and good.  We're glad that the Hood County Republican party stepped up to the plate.  But this is going on all over the state, and it shouldn't be left up to local activists to play an ad hoc game of whack-a-mole to smoke this out.

Empower Texans and the Texas Monitor have done good work exposing this nonsense, but they're general interest publications.  They can only do so much.  Where are the single issue education reform groups?!?

Imagine an alternative scenario: Every time one of these socialized education front groups attempts to get Democrats voting in the Republican primary, the conservative "education reformers" are on it in the local community.  Then they get the message out in each individual community on their own.  Nobody waits for general interest websites that might or might not ultimately pick up the story.

It's too soon to know the ultimate number, but there will be house seats left on the table this cycle because the socialized education bureaucracy gets democrats to vote in the Republican primary.  And a big reason why will be because the single-issue education reform groups failed to take care of business.  General interest websites can only do so much.

-------

Huberty coming back:

Between his disgraceful personal conduct and the lies he's told related to school finance, there are few house members less deserving of another term than Dan Huberty.

Unfortunately, look at his opponent's latest campaign finance report:

It's bad enough for Huberty to have a cakewalk re-election campaign from an ethics perspective and a school finance/property taxes perspective.

But lets remember what Dan Huberty did last session on school choice:



So, you have a committee chairman who disses you in the most humiliatingly public way possible?!?  And you represent an issue where donors have recently started to open checkbooks.  Yet the only person opposing the committee chairman in question has $440.00 cash on hand.

The school choice advocacy community's failure to make an example out of Dan Huberty means their issue will be just as dead on arrival in the house next session (even with a new speaker) as it was last session (they'll just be nicer about it).

-------

VanDeaver running unopposed:

But beyond Huberty's cake-walk, check out what's happening to the guy long known to be house leadership's next public ed chair after Huberty cashes out:

In other words, in addition to failing to unseat the biggest obstacle to the legislative change you're seeking, you're also leaving in place the guy being groomed to be his successor.

-------

Answer this question: If you're a Republican house member, and you're personally on the fence about school choice, how would YOU interpret Huberty and VanDeaver coming back without much of a fight?!?

-------

Inadequate Effort focused in the wrong direction:

Beyond the shortcomings of any particular election cycle (after election cycle, after election cycle, after election cycle), the biggest problem school choice advocates face is that their efforts both fall short and aren't focused where they need to be.

School choice advocates love to talk about how school choice is "the civil rights issue of our time."  But their actions don't match their rhetoric.  Where's the urgency?!?

Newsflash: The actual civil rights movement didn't limit themselves to a passive political strategy.  While politics were certainly a component of their strategy, it was only a component.   The actual civil rights movement held boycotts (hint, hint).  The actual civil rights movement held sit-ins.  The actual civil rights movement did a heck of a lot more than simply holding rallies at the state capitol every other year.

Then there's the fact that, while school choice advocates can sometimes "drive a conversation" in Austin, they rarely seem to do much in the districts of recalcitrant members.

Last session, we suggested to a well known school choice advocate that, if you really wanted to pass a school choice bill next session, you need to start holding sit-ins at high school football games in the districts of recalcitrant rural Republicans.  Force the issue at Churches and coffee shops across the relevant districts.  We got a blank stare in response.

[Note: Having had several additional months to ponder the strategy, we actually wouldn't start with sit-ins at football games.  We'd start with sit-ins at rural school board meetings and threaten to take them to Football games as the next step.  But, either way, if this is truly "the civil rights issue of our time" you need to be holding sit-ins in the districts of recalcitrant rural Republicans and that ain't happening.]

-------

Bottom Line: Absent a gigantic course correction, school choice will remain dead on arrival in the Texas house for the foreseeable future, and the issue's most passionate advocates have no one but themselves to blame.

#TXLEGE Sexual Abuse: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly from Yesterday's Austin Chronicle Article (WARNING: Graphic)

"It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness,
For a throne is established by righteousness.
Proverbs 16:12

[Note: As a friendly trigger warning for some of you Baptist types, you should know the original Austin Chronicle article contained swear words that we are going to quote (and address) without sugarcoating; if that's something your snowflake Baptist eyes can't handle stop reading.]

[Note II: Did we mention that this blog post will be quoting swear words verbatum?!?  If you find a couple of swear words overwhelming, you are free to look elsewhere.  This author is not interested in receiving your Facebook messages.]

[Note III:  Swear words ahead; seriously, no Facebook messages.]

Yesterday, the Austin Chronicle published another chilling account about the culture of chronic sexual abuse in the Texas Legislature.  No new names dropped.  We will address topics thematically rather than chronologically.

-------

The house's new policy being a joke:

The House Administration Committee, which is led by Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Ft. Worth, approved new rules that clearly define sexual harassment – including sexual jokes, gifts, and "intentionally brushing up against a person" – and offer ways for victims to seek recourse through a complaint process. Complaints about staffers can be sent to Geren or the House personnel department; complaints about members can be sent to Geren or committee vice chair Gary VanDeaver. All complaints will be "investigated by impartial individuals." If necessary, external resources (such as an outside attorney or investigator) can be used to ensure impartiality. Identities of victims and witnesses will be protected from disclosure to the "greatest extent allowed by law," the five-page policy reads.

....

[W]omen filing complaints would be better served by a third-party, neutral arbiter than legislators. "You don't want the fox guarding the hen house," she said. "Lawmakers who depend on their relationships with other lawmakers to get things done can't oversee the process in a fair way." The third party should also be a constant presence at the Capitol, she suggested, tackling the culture of inequality and misogyny.

Also under the new policy, all House members and staff are required to attend sexual harassment training by the end of January, and every two years afterward. There won't be much enforcement of that, although records of who attended the trainings will be made public, leaving citizens the opportunity to pressure those who fail to take the course.

The good: The Chronicle points out that the new policy is an unenforceable farce, leadership's self congratulatory absurdities notwithstanding.

The bad: The Chronicle fails to point out that the Chairman responsible for overseeing the new policy has been engaged in a sexual relationship with a lobbyist for many years.  We understand that some people disagree with us about the degree to which this represents a conflict of interest.  But, at a minimum, one would think it's a relevant detail that should be reported upon and left to the reader to decide it's importance.

The ugly: The Chronicle fails to mention that Geren has already been caught lying about this topic.

-------

"Worshiping the Capitol":

The Chronicle details the story of Taylor Holden, a left-leaning activist who worked as an intern several sessions ago:

She never reported the incident to her boss because she felt that she had "no power" as an intern. "I worshipped the Cap­it­ol and always wanted to work in politics, but after that experience I felt betrayed," said Holden. She now works for a progressive organization in Colorado.

There's an obvious spiritual component to what she said that might be worth addressing in the future, but for the moment we'll focus on something more immediate.

To say that one "worships" a government building illustrates an unhealthy lack of perspective.  Whatever you hope to accomplish, ultimately politics is just politics.  It's not THAT important.

We don't want to belittle Ms. Holden's experience in any way, shape, or form, but if she's coming from the perspective of "worshiping" the political process, some modest disillusionment might be in order.

-------

"Everybody Fucks Everybody":

Also from Holden:

While touring her around, she says, an aide commented that the Capitol was a "non-stop party" where "everybody fucks everybody" and proceeded to make a sexist remark about a fellow female staffer.

Annnnd, THIS is where we take exception.

With all due respect to every other faction at the Capitol, "everybody" at the Capitol does not "fuck everybody" at the Capitol.  That, straight up, DOES NOT HAPPEN among conservatives.  Furthermore, if such behavior were discovered in our ranks, it would NOT be tolerated.

To clarify:

• Have conservatives who've met at the Capitol dated?!? Yes.

• Have conservatives who've met at the Capitol gotten married?!? Yes.

• Has a conservative ever had a one-off sexual encounter with someone they met at the Capitol?!?  Not to this author's knowledge, but the law of averages suggests that it must have happened at some point.

But the lecherous meat market that seems to exist everywhere else at the Capitol does not exist in our faction.  And, if it were to emerge, it would be dealt with.  Thus, we take exception to that remark.

For the record: This author has NEVER had a sexual encounter with someone we met at the Capitol; we find the thought BILIOUS.

-------

Hinojosa misses point:

From Gina Hinojosa:

"I believe the biggest contributing factor to an environment where there's a problem with sexual harassment is not enough women in power," Hinojosa remarked.

On the one hand, we don't disagree with Rep. Hinojosa that having more women among the elected officials could help.

On the other hand, who is she kidding?!?

As the legislature currently stands, there are 27 women serving in the house and 8 in the Senate.  That's 35 total.  And of the 35 women currently serving, at best, 6 have stepped up to challenge this garbage. (And, at least a few of the men are ahead of the overwhelming majority of the women)

Make no mistake: Rep. Hinojosa is one of those 6, and we applaud her for doing so, but consider us skeptical of her underlying claim as long as 82% of the women currently in office at the Capitol are saying nothing.

[Note: Then, of course, there's the fact that Rep. Hinojosa's own father did this the day before.]

-------

Going surprisingly easy on the Senate:

Moving onto the Senate:

Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has asked Senate Administration Com­mit­tee Chairwoman Sen. Lois Kolk­horst, R-Bren­­ham, to review the Senate's sexual harassment policies, while Sens. Sylvia Gar­cia, D-Houston, and Kirk Watson, D-Aus­­tin, called on Kolkhorst to hold a public hearing. "The Legislature has clearly failed to create a safe environment for women in the Capitol. That must change," said Watson. Kolkhorst heeded their calls on Dec. 14, letting senators voice concerns in a public forum about the lack of accountability and reporting procedures for how offices handle sexual harassment. But the upper chamber has yet to issue any updated policies.

We've spoken previously about how the Senate's response to what we already know has been woefully inadequate; we're surprised the Austin Chronicle (of all places) didn't let them have it a lot stronger than that.

------

Bottom Line: It's good that a clearer picture of this garbage is beginning to emerge, but yesterday's article makes equally clear how much distance remains to be traveled before anything will change.

#TXLEGE: House greases skids for school district property tax hikes....

"But the former governors who were before me laid burdens on the people, and took from them bread and wine, besides forty shekels of silver. Yes, even their servants bore rule over the people, but I did not do so, because of the fear of God."
Nehemiah 5:15

Earlier today, by a 90 to 49 margin, the House approved HB 486 (VanDeaver):

Relating to the calculation of the rollback tax rate of a school district. 

This bill would change the formula by which the limit for school districts to raise taxes without voter approval is calculated; Empower Texans has more from earlier this month:

Currently, voter-approval is required for any district seeking to raise property taxes above the state defined “rollback” rate. The new proposal (HB 486), authored by liberal Republican State Rep. Gary VanDeaver of Clarksville and liberal Democrat Donna Howard of Austin, would give “certain” districts the ability to avoid the current limit.

Which districts, you ask? Any district that’s already asked voters to raise property taxes since 2006. This fact is left out of the bill’s subject line, but is plainly stated in its analysis published online.

The stealthy measure is crafted with clever language that leaves the current limit in place, but provides an escape route for tax-hiking districts. It accomplishes this by creating a less restrictive standard that very few districts would ever exceed, ensuring they’re unaccountable to future taxpayers.

The new “limit” is egregious. It would amount to the maximum property tax rate a district has levied since 2007, which would now include all outstanding bond debt.

In other words, it'll be significantly easier for school districts to raise taxes without voter approval.

Because who cares about Texans getting taxed out of their homes when bureaucrats need to get paid.

Bottom Line: This bill BETTER be d.o.a. in the Senate....