#TXLEGE: Patrick's "Select Committee on Mass Violence Prevention" appointments aren't much better

"Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built. And the one who sounded the trumpet was beside me."
Nehemiah 4:18

Yesterday, we discussed Bonnen's appointments to this new select committee to exploit El Paso and Odessa to push a longstanding agenda.  Lt. Dan waited until later in the day to release his appointees.  Likewise YIKES:

PR 09 04 2019 Lt. Gov. Patr... by Cahnman on Scribd

Thoughts:

• The fact that Huffman is chairing this committee tells you everything.

• If you don't see the chilling implications for civil liberties in second and fourth charges...are you even paying attention?!?

• That being said, the list of charges does seem long enough that to suggest that there won't be a special session in the immediate future.

• At least a committee of 5 R's and 3 D's is an accurate reflection of the partisan breakdown of the Texas Senate.

• We can't go into detail without burning sources, but some of the R's on that committee have been talking out of both sides of their mouth on the second amendment for a long time.

• It might very well be for the best, but considering that he's the Senator who represents Odessa, for Patrick to not include Seliger is insanely petty.

• Pray for Kelly Hancock.
• For real y'all.

• Bryan Hughes taking over State Affairs might have positive implications over the longer run.

Bottom Line: Nothing good is coming out of this process....

#TXLEGE: Senate (finally) gets some things done!!!

"The end of a thing is better than its beginning;
The patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit."
Ecclesiastes 7:8 t

Finally, some stuff happened:

• SB 2 -- Property tax reform -- It finally passed!!!  To get it out of the Senate, they had to change the cap for non-school district taxing entities to 3.5%.  But school districts stay at 2.5%.
  
  Seliger voted for considering the bill (ie. motion to suspend), but against final passage (aka. Dan Patrick's gambit worked).
  
  In its current form, SB 2 is far from ideal.  But it's good enough.  Assuming you can keep the bill in its current form, you should take it and fix its shortcomings next session.  (TBH, what you really need are spending caps, but we'll take automatic revenue triggers.)

• SB 9 -- Election integrity -- This was one of the major must pass bills of this session.  Texas' elections have a lot of issues.  This bill helps address them.

It's also worth pointing out that, with bills successfully out of the Senate, you're not at the mercy of the (rapidly dwindling) house calendar.

Bottom Line: These are two major priorities, and they just got a major shot in the arm....

#TXLEGE: Greg Abbott should appoint Seliger to the UT Board

"Can a man take fire to his bosom,
And his clothes not be burned?"
Proverbs 6:27

As the Dan Patrick/Kel Seliger feud worsens, one conclusion becomes increasingly obvious: Greg Abbott is the only person who could maybe negotiate a settlement.

The TL,DR version is that Patrick and Seliger both trust Abbott.  Both like Abbott.  Other things being equal [note: they aren't, but hear us out], both would prefer to make the Governor happy.

A humble suggestion: Greg Abbott has four appointments to the UT Board of Regents to make very soon...and Greg Abbott ought to offer one of those appointments to Kel Seliger.

Obviously, that's a less than ideal solution.  But it's a face-saving exit for the involved parties.  In the current crisis, that's more important.

Sources have suggested there's no chance Seliger takes that offer.  We're not convinced.  Abbott should still try.  There are ways to structure a deal.

Furthermore, Greg Abbott did people like Kel Seliger some gigantic favors not very long ago.  Favors related to the University of Texas Board of Regents.  Without dwelling on the (recent) past, Kel Seliger owes Greg Abbott.  That is a fact about which Greg Abbott ought to politely, but quite firmly, remind Kel Seliger.

Bottom Line: If anyone has a better idea, we're open to suggestion....

#TXLEGE: Hot Mess continues to get Hotter

"Can a man take fire to his bosom,
And his clothes not be burned?"
Proverbs 6:27

Apparently, Dan Patrick thought it would be a good idea to go run his mouth to the Dallas Morning News.  Patrick's interview consisted of rationalization filled verbal diarrhea mixed with Olympic level mental gymnastics.  Aka. Not good.

• Patrick: "Senator Seliger, on this particular radio show, has called out Senator Buckingham and Senator Kolkhorst and Senator Perry by name, criticizing them. He, I’m told, and you’ll have to check the facts, but I’m told by them he called them, called Lois and Dawn, ‘gutless,’ you know, selling out to the conservative movement."
  
  Except, apparently, that never happened.

• Patrick: "He, I’m told, and you’ll have to check the facts, but I’m told by them he called them, called Lois and Dawn, ‘gutless,’ you know, selling out to the conservative movement. That does not go down well with members. He’s had a very sharp showdown on the floor with a female senator, dropping the f-word, because he was unhappy with the senator’s vote. These were things, Lauren, I just kind of heard about but I discovered in the last couple of days."
  
  Dan Patrick being oblivious to the Texas Senate not being the best working environment for women...you don't say!

• Patrick: "So it wasn’t his votes. It’s the, it’s the, what’s the word I’m looking for? It was just the way he went about it on the floor and putting amendments on the bills that put members in a very difficult situation."
  
  That's called politics.

• Patrick: "So I didn’t take him off Finance or off Higher Ed because of his votes. I need people – we have a lot of serious business to do and I need people who are on the team, pulling together."
  
  He literally just said one thing then contradicted himself in the next sentence.

• Patrick: "I didn’t see moving him from Higher Ed to Agriculture as a demotion, by the way."
  
  That's preposterous.  It's also insulting to the intelligence of anyone who hears it.  If Patrick genuinely believes this, he's deeper in denial than we thought.

• Patrick: "Finance — I told senators when I became lieutenant governor, ‘I think every senator should have the chance to serve a session or two on Finance’ because until you serve on Finance, you don’t have a complete view of how the process works."
  
  That's not a bad idea in terms of running the chamber, but doesn't change the fact that leaving Seliger on Finance was a face-saving solution to keep him out of the way.

• Patrick: "Uresti had been in the Legislature for 20 years and never been on Appropriations or Finance...."
  
  Polka dot thong.

• Patrick: "You know, this particular senator told me, this female senator, she’s never had a man talk to her in her entire life anywhere like he talked to her on the floor."
  
  This coming from a guy who missed the first day of session to hang out with Donald Trump.

• Patrick: "You know, Lauren look, if somebody said that about you, I would take the same position. It’s just inappropriate. It doesn’t matter. We just went through an hour, an hour and a half training on sexual harassment. Lois Kolkhorst worked all the interim to look at this issue and to be that, you know — Sherry Sylvester is a 30-year plus professional. She’s not ‘some lady.’ She’s not a ‘messenger,’ which I also thought demeaning. I mean, you’re a professional writer. I wouldn’t talk to you in that way."
  
  Guy who 5 paragraphs earlier was bragging about putting Carlos Uresti on the Finance committee now wants female reporter to give him kudos taking for an hour and a half long class.
  
  It's a shame the phrase 'mansplaining' has been so badly abused over the years, because if it were ever appropriate....

• McGaughy: I have to bring up the Sen. Schwertner issue because it’s been an issue that’s been raised in light of all of this. We haven’t seen a similar statement from you that perhaps he should he removed from his vice chairmanship, or, he says he didn’t send this text to this young lady –
  
  Patrick: No, I think you saw me act very clearly. He asked for a lighter schedule.
  
  McGaughy: I’m sorry?
  
  Patrick: He asked for a lighter schedule.
  
  To use the phrase "He asked for a lighter schedule" in describing this situation is, at best, an extremely poor choice of words.

• Patrick: "They are two totally different issues. The one issue he was accused of something where there was no finding and no one has come forward. There is no place for us to go with that. This is a separate issue. This is something said in public on a radio station about a professional woman that every senator – I haven’t talked to every senator – but Democrats and Republicans alike, men and women, were appalled."
  
  You're not seriously trying to rationalize this Seliger situation as being worse than the one with Schwertner in terms of treatment of women...are you?!?

• McGaughy: "Sen. Seliger also said you’ve sent a message to other senators. You’ve talked about being a team player. He’s a free agent now. He can do whatever he wants. Do you have a concern about him going rogue?
  
  Patrick: No.
  
  WELL.  YOU.  SHOULD.  (See what we said above about Patrick being deeper in denial than we thought).

• Patrick also compared himself to Tom Brady.

Bottom Line: Dan Patrick didn't do himself any favors in this interview.

#TXLEGE: Patrick escalates JUVENILE Conflict with Seliger

"Can a man take fire to his bosom,
And his clothes not be burned?"
Proverbs 6:27

We said what we said on Saturday.

Today we're here:

State Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, was just trying to head to a meeting with other Republican members of the Senate when Lt. Gov Dan Patrick stood at this door and told him: “I didn’t invite you to this meeting.” pic.twitter.com/UzSKDU0OtF

— Jeremy Wallace (@JeremySWallace) January 22, 2019

Which begs the natural follow up question:

#TXLEGE: Annnd this is supposed to advance a conservative agenda...how exactly?!? https://t.co/XWDcGCuSAG

— cahnman (@cahnman) January 22, 2019

Followed by this:

PR 01 22 2019 Lt. Gov. Patrick Statement on Senator Seliger Comments by Cahnman on Scribd

Followed by this:

Shorter Seliger: I should’ve told Dan Patrick to kiss my ass instead. https://t.co/DzLMe9QgMl

— Emily Ramshaw (@eramshaw) January 22, 2019

And this:


via GIPHY


It would have been one thing if Patrick and Seliger had had a falling out over a policy issue. Instead, it's over personality.  And the worst part is that Patrick both started and escalated it.

Historically, Dan Patrick has been pretty good at managing the more moderate members of both the R and the D caucuses.  The key is that you allow the moderates in question to pass a lot of small, relatively, inconsequential bills.  Then the moderate either supports Patrick, or stays out of the way, on Patrick's major priorities.  Case in point: Kevin Elitife two sessions ago.

But for some reason, even though it's the obvious play to make with Seliger, Patrick chooses this route.

It's mystifying.

That being said, even at this late date, 3 facts remain the case:

• Dan Patrick needs Kel Seliger more than Kel Seliger needs Dan Patrick.

• Kel Seliger still needs Dan Patrick badly enough that it's in Kel Seliger's interest to find a way to stay on the reservation.

• The price of keeping Kel Seliger on the reservation goes up each time you have one of these public blowups.

Unfortunately, it remains an open question whether anyone in a position of authority recognizes the afore mentioned facts.

Bottom Line:  These are unforced errors.  They need to end.  Right now.

#TXLEGE: Patrick, Seliger, and Playing with Fire....

"Can a man take fire to his bosom,
And his clothes not be burned?"
Proverbs 6:27

Yesterday, we said "time will tell" as it relates to Seliger's committee assignments.  Initial reports are in.  They're not good:

Seliger said he looks forward to championing agricultural issues and that education legislation will remain a top priority. But the senator, who’s back in his Panhandle-area district for the long weekend, said many in the area are feeling “dismayed and disrespected.”

“It’s not what I desired,” Seliger said in a phone interview Friday afternoon. “There’s a negative reaction in this district, because [the finance committee] is a good position to try and do the things that are important in an area in West Texas that seems to have to fight for everything, from a budgetary point of view.”

“I know exactly what motivated the change. It was a couple of ‘no’ votes for the lieutenant governor’s priorities in 2017,” the longtime higher education chairman said. “It was a very clear warning to the Republicans that if you get off the reservation, you better be careful.”

Hoo boy.

Patrick's staff replies:

"If Senator Seliger believes serving as Chair of the Agriculture Committee — a critical committee for West Texas and all of rural Texas — is beneath him, he should let us know and the Lt. Governor will appoint someone else," said Sherry Sylvester, the Patrick advisor.

Yowza.

This is bad; if it's not resolved quickly, it will consume the session.

-------

Understand something: Dan Patrick needs Kel Seliger's vote (during the regular session).

It takes 19 votes to pass a bill in the Texas Senate (during the regular session).  There are 19 Republicans.  If Patrick loses Seliger, he has to find a Democrat.

Depending on the issue, it might not be impossible to find some Democrats, but it's a lot easier to pass bills with Seliger on board.

-------

There's nothing wrong with removing Seliger from higher ed.  While we had no complaints about his chairmanship last session (he passed the two bills we wanted passed), there's a fairly obvious case for replacing him.  Furthermore, now that his wife is head of the Texas Exes, one could argue it's a conflict of interest.

But tossing Seliger from Finance was STUPID.

Finance is a gigantic committee.  One member's vote doesn't change anything (esp. now that property taxes have been moved to a separate committee).  Keeping the Finance appointment as a courtesy pick to a senior member Senator have been a no-brainer.

Instead, Dan Patrick just gratuitously insulted that senior Senator at a time when the Senator in question has a lot of leverage.

-------

The worst part is that there was an obvious path to placate Seliger; it should have at least been tried.

Kel Seliger is a legislator who, every session, has about a zillion priorities.  Obviously, many conflict with conservative priorities.  But a decent number of them don't.

It doesn't take a genius to envisage a deal where Seliger gets all of his lower profile stuff in exchange for supporting Patrick's high profile stuff.

As cooler heads prevail, here's hoping that still happens.  But the cost for Seliger's cooperation just went up.  And it will continue to rise as long as this conflict festers.

-------

Let's not overlook the potential nightmare of Seliger on Nominations.

Evan Smith hasn't:

#txlege smarty points out Senate Nominations could get interesting post-@kseliger dis. If Dems — @CarolforTexas @BorrisLMiles @KirkPWatson — hold together, he is swing vote #kelfreezesover

— Evan Smith (@evanasmith) January 19, 2019

Kel freezes over indeed.

-------

For all that, remember one other thing: Kel Seliger also needs Dan Patrick.  Not as bad as the other way.  But bad enough.

For as much leverage as Seliger possesses during the regular session, it evaporates in a special.  The Texas Senate operates under completely different rules during a special.  This is something Seliger already knows, but it's something about which he should be reminded.

If Kel Seliger is the only reason for a special session, he should get nothing.

-------

Bottom Line: Dan Patrick and Kel Seliger can both accomplish more by working together than by feuding.  That's still true.  Hopefully, cooler heads prevail.

#TXLEGE: Initial Thoughts on Senate Committee Assignments

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan."
Proverbs 29:2

Senate Committee assignments are out:

86th #TXLEGE Senate Committees by Cahnman on Scribd

Thoughts:

• Kolkhorst OUT at admin -- Given her disgraceful neglect (at best) of the Texas Senate's very real problem with sexual misbehavior, this is a welcome development.

• Schwertner out, Kolkhorst in, at HHS -- Given what we just said, to see Lois Kolkhorst take over for Charles Schwertner is...to put it mildly...ironic.
  
  Beyond that aspect, however, this is a strange assignment.  Kolkhorst's background is in Oil and Gas, not health care.  Why her?!?  Why here?!?
  
  It's not like there's a shortage of Doctors in the Texas Senate.

• That being said, good precedent on Schwertner -- We've been arguing for over a year that loss of committee chairs was the most important sanction we could impose on legislators who engage in funny business.  However bizarre that route it took to get to this place might have been, that precedent is now established.
   
• Seliger to chair new Ag. committee -- Tough to know what to make of this one.  On the one hand, it's easy to view it as a demotion.  On the other hand, it's also easy to see how this is a good fit with Seliger's district.
  
  Only time will tell.
  
  If it is a demotion, however, beware the wrath of Seliger down the line.

• Solid Conservatives on Education

• Creighton in at Higher Ed. -- Ummmmmm?!?
  
  We've never known Brandon Creighton to have any particular interest in Higher ed. issues.  So this is...odd.  On the one hand, Creighton has historically tended to vote solidly.  On the other hand, he's not somebody who likes to upset the apple cart.
  
  Tough to know how that breaks on Higher Ed. issues.
  
  Longhorn.

• Buckingham in at Nominations -- This could be interesting.
  
  Last session, Dawn Buckingham was the only Senator who even showed a pulse during the UT regent confirmation process.  We have no idea if they will be, but Regent confirmations should be an even bigger issue this session.  None of them are great, but Buckingham's record on this subject is less bad that most of the others.
  
  That being said, if Buckingham puts down her foot on regent confirmations, Watson, Seliger, and Alvarado will go BALLISTIC.  We have no idea how that plays out.  But it would be really entertaining to watch.  If nothing else, it would be a healthy debate to have in public.
  
  We've also signed onto the coalition letter related to the Sec'y of State confirmation.

• Plum assignments for Flores

• Business as usual for Borris Miles -- Obviously, he doesn't have a chairmanship to lose but Economic Development and HHS are...not bad.

Bottom Line: No obvious roadblocks on any major issues.  Couple interesting personnel moves.  We shall see.

#TXLEGE: Senate Tea Leaves

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan."
Proverbs 29:2

"Differences will be settled in a professional manner."

Dan Patrick spoke at TPPF's policy orientation this afternoon.  The quote above was in response to a question about how he expects to work with Dennis Bonnen.  It's also a good summary of what (at least so far) seems to be different under the new speaker.

Patrick stated the top priorities for this session were the interrelated issues of property taxes/school finance/teacher pay.  A more efficient school finance system frees up money for property tax relief/reform.  In order to accomplish a more efficient school finance system, you need to "repurpose" money out of the bureaucracy into the classroom.  Patrick made a really interesting point about it being difficult to blame teachers for turning into bureaucrats when you look at the pay disparity between the two.

Kel Seliger also spoke on a panel about higher ed.

Seliger said some things with which we agreed and some things with which we disagreed.  He'll still do that.  He's still Seliger.  But Seliger's tone seemed constructive, not obstructionist (which is smart, considering that we don't need his vote in a special session).

Bottom Line: Obviously, the margin for error is a lot thinner in the Senate this session.  On some issues, the window is closed.  But, barring unforced errors, the votes are there on most issues.   If it takes a special session (16 votes instead of 19), so be it.

#TXLEGE: School Choice lobby SQUANDERING Yet ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY in SD-19 Special Election

"He who gathers in summer is a wise son;
He who sleeps in harvest is a son who causes shame."
Proverbs 10:5

Led by Texas Right to Life, followed by Lt. Gov. Patrick, this past week a consensus seems to have emerged that Pete Flores has a decent shot at qualifying for the SD-19 special election runoff.

Unfortunately, one group who could potentially be very helpful is (yet again) missing in action.

A quick search of Flores' website reveals:

I do support a voucher program, as a parent should have a choice where their child goes to school.

Meanwhile, nothing from the school choice lobby.

This is political malpractice.

From both a tactical and a strategic perspective, the SD-19 special election ought to be a political no-brainer for the school choice lobby:

• Tactically -- Adding another R senator would significantly decrease the leverage Seliger and the other squishy R Senators would have in the Senate; this makes it easier to pass a strong bill in the Senate and sets up a better negotiating position with the house.

• Strategically -- In the urban parts of the district, a strong performance by a pro-school choice candidate would put the urban D's on notice.  Ditto the rural R's in the rural parts of the district.  This special election is an opportunity to put both the rural R's and the urban D's on notice, yet the school choice lobby appears to be doing neither.

And that's political malpractice.

Bottom Line: The school choice lobby never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity (but at least we won't run out of yellow scarves)....

#TXLEGE: Abbott's property tax plan likely faces similar trajectory as Perry's 2013 "Budget Compact"....

"That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun."
Ecclesiastes 1:9

We've seen this movie before.

Setting: The Governor of Texas announces a fantastic fiscal policy proposal a year before the next legislative session.  The Lt. Governor signs on and the relevant activist/policy groups tout it's merit.  Then, once session gets underway, the proposal dies due to a combination of a couple intransigent Senators, a house that likes to spend money (no matter what they say on the campaign trail), and a Governor too distracted to get his own policy proposal implemented.

We've discussed more than once how Rick Perry's 2013 "Texas Budget Compact" proposal was our formative experience in the Texas legislature.  It's worth reviewing that history in the context of Greg Abbott's current property tax proposal.  We don't think all that much has really changed.

In 2012, following the collapse of his first Presidential campaign, then-Governor Rick Perry returned home and outlined a very strong package of budget/transparency reforms he wanted to see the legislature implement.  Under pressure from Ted Cruz during their original U.S. Senate race, then-Lt. Governor Dewhurst quickly signed on.  Empower Texans and TPPF did everything right.

Then, we got into the legislative session in 2013.  Joe Straus did what Joe Straus does.  Dewhurst, despite a good faith effort, couldn't line up the votes he needed in the Senate.  And Rick Perry was more interested in bashing California on Fox News than doing the day-to-day work of the Governor of Texas.

Sound familiar?!?

To be fair, a few things have are different since then, specifically:

• The Senate has a) changed the 21-vote threshold to 19, and b) grown significantly more conservative in its membership.

• Joe Straus, personally, is leaving.

Both of those changes are positive...but it's an open question whether either is a big enough to get Abbott's property tax proposal across the finish line.

While Abbott's proposal has a decent chance in the Senate, it's not a slam dunk.  Charles Perry pulled some major league shenanigans on property taxes during the recent special session.  Bob Nichols is always a wild card.  There's a 50/50 chance Seliger returns.  Even if Lt. Governor Patrick can line up 19 votes, doing so could easily involve icky legislative trade-offs.

On the house side, as the membership currently stands, 76 votes DO NOT EXIST for Abbott's proposal.  That's true regardless of the next speaker's identity.  For that to change, conservatives are going to need to have a very, very good primary season.

A better speaker can get a bill to the floor, but you still need 76 votes.

Bottom Line: Don't get your hopes up.

#TXLEGE: Wrapping up our testimonies from the 85th Regular Session....

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
John 8:32

[Note: A very big, public, THANK YOU to Buddy Kipp of Empower Texans for pulling the video from the legislature's website.]

We've finally gotten our legislative testimonies from the regular session online; presented in chronological order.

• 1/26/2017 -- UT Regent confirmation hearing (Original post 1, 2)
  
  

• 3/14/2017 -- SB 113: "Relating to the provision of and local regulation of certain for-hire passenger transportation." [Note: This was Don Huffines version of the Uber bill that would have completely deregulated ALL ground transportation.] (Original Post)
  
  

• 3/14/2017 -- SB 451: "Relating to regulation of short-term rentals and short-term rental marketplaces by municipalities and counties."
  
  

• 3/23/2017 -- SB 19: "Relating to performance-based tuition limitations for and a temporary limitation on the amount of tuition and fees charged by certain public institutions of higher education. (Original Post)
  
  

• 3/27/2017 -- SB 445: "Relating to the authorization and reporting of expenditures for lobbying activities by certain political subdivisions and other public entities." (Original Post)
  
  

• 4/4/2017 -- SB 650: "Relating to tax increment financing." (Original Post)
  
  

• 4/11/2017 -- HB 3418: "Relating to municipal zoning affecting places or areas of historical, cultural, or architectural importance and significance." (Original Post)
  
  

• 4/18/2017 -- HB 2551: "Relating to regulation of short-term rentals by municipalities and counties." (Original Post)
  
  

• 4/26/2017 -- SB 1151: "Relating to the protection of expressive activities at public institutions of higher education." (Original Post)
  
  

• 5/11/2017 -- HB 100: "Relating to the regulation of transportation network companies; requiring an occupational permit; authorizing a fee." (Original Post)
  
  

• 5/11/2017 -- CSHB 21: "Relating to the funding of primary and secondary education." (Original Post)
  
  

• 5/15/2017 -- HB 17: "Relating to the establishment of the Texas Higher Education Innovation Accelerator for public institutions of higher education." (Original Post)
  
  

• 5/17/2017 -- SB 822: "Relating to the transfer of certain property from The University of Texas System to the Parks and Wildlife Department." (Original Post)
  
  

• 5/17/2017 -- SB 19: "Relating to performance-based tuition limitations for and a temporary limitation on the amount of tuition and fees charged by certain public institutions of higher education." (Original Post)
  
  

#TXLEGE: Scalise shooting changes Constitutional Carry calculation for #SpecialSession

"Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built. And the one who sounded the trumpet was beside me."
Nehemiah 4:18

Regarding constitutional carry, one reality has guided our thinking since the end of the regular session: According to several private conversations with knowledgeable sources, we are at least four votes short in the Texas Senate.  Thus, this issue has struck us as one that just requires one more election cycle before it becomes a realistic possibility.  During a special session that already features more issues than we will have the bandwidth to cover, it has struck us as prudent to save this one for 2019.

But last week's Congressional shooting changed our thinking.

Since then, we can't escape the following conclusion: In a world where politically motivated assassination attempts are a contingency for which we must prepare, what if removing barriers to entry for lawful firearms ownership prevents (or even minimizes) one tragedy?!?

It would be hard to live with ourself if we didn't try.

We want to make one thing clear: During the special session, this author will almost certainly not have time to work this issue.  Thus, even if it does get added to the call, don't expect to hear a lot about it here.  But this issue has a corps of very committed activists and the truth is that our personal participation is not necessary.

Furthermore, from a political perspective, there's also the fact that during a special session you only need 16 votes to pass a bill in the Senate.  Thus Kel Seliger, Bob Nichols, Joan Huffman, and Craig Estes would be free to vote no.  While holding the other 16 Senate Republicans isn't necessarily a slam dunk, it does strike this website as a realistic possibility.

Bottom Line: Even if this author has personal bandwidth limitations, this issue really should get added to the call.

#TXLEGE: Charlie Geren marries Karl Rove crony....

From Left to Right: Kelly Hancock, Geanie Morrison, Carol Alvarado, Kel Seliger, Charlie Geren, the New Mrs. Geren, Joe Straus, Drew Darby, and Four Price.

Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.”
1 Corinthians 15:33

Via Carol Alvarado's (natch) twitter:

House & Senate come 2gether 2 celebrate SURPRISE wedding of @charliegeren & Mindy Elmer! @85thLegislature @TXlege pic.twitter.com/Q0MJSInENN

— Carol Alvarado (@RepAlvarado145) June 2, 2017

Mindy Geren (nee. Elmer) is a well known lobbyist around the Capitol.  During the past legislative session, Geren and Elmer were accused of conflicts of interest related to legislation he was carrying and her position as an AT&T lobbyist.  In fairness to the Gerens, this website thinks those specific accusations are an exaggerated nothing-burger.  [Update 3/1/2018: Given everything we've learned during the 2018 primary campaign, we retract the crossed out sentence and want to emphasize that Charlie Geren is such a sociopath that there's nothing we'd put past him.]

That being said, when a bill to close a loophole that allows lobbyists to hide how much they're spending to wine and dine legislators dies in committee, it does strike one as notable when the bill author marries a lobbyist the day after sine die:

But our favorite Mindy Geren story, including her close connections with Karl Rove, can be viewed here.

Bottom Line: We suppose that, on a personal level, we wish the Gerens the best....

#TXLEGE: HB 17, adding university bureaucracy...to streamline university bureaucracy?!?

"If you see the oppression of the poor, and the violent perversion of justice and righteousness in a province, do not marvel at the matter; for high official watches over high official, and higher officials are over them."
Ecclesiastes 5:8

[Note: The Higher Ed. committee hearing can be viewed here. HB 17 is the first bill considered.  Our testimony is at the two minute mark.]

Read this bill caption and consider whether anything good can come from this:

Relating to the establishment of the Texas Higher Education Innovation Accelerator for public institutions of higher education.

We signed in against this hot mess of a bill when it was originally considered in the House.  We were disappointed (but not surprised) when it passed the house in early May.  Today it got a hearing in the Senate Higher Ed committee...and that makes us nervous.

The bill's proponents say that it's a workaround from the current bureaucracy, but all the does is add new bureaucracy cloaked in tech industry buzzwords; just read Section 5 of the bill:

Sec. 60.005.  INNOVATION PLAN. (a)  To participate in the
	accelerator, an eligible institution shall:
	(1)  submit a letter of intent to participate to the
	commissioner; and
	(2)  develop and submit an innovation plan to the
	institution's governing board as provided by this section.
	(b)  An innovation plan must:
	(1)  summarize the proposed educational programs to be
	offered under the accelerator, including:
	(A)  each program's design, delivery methods, and
	implementation plan; and
	(B)  the anticipated number and demographics of
	students to be served by each program;
	(2)  describe in detail the modifications to
	traditional program structures necessary to implement the proposed
	educational programs, such as changes to institutional calendars,
	course schedules or structures, faculty workload, credit hours, or
	other program requirements;
	(3)  identify how the proposed educational programs
	align with specific state and institutional goals;
	(4)  include, to the extent practical, data regarding
	educational programs offered at other institutions of higher
	education that are similar to each proposed educational program,
	including:
	(A)  student enrollment and demographics;
	(B)  student academic success, including the
	average time for a student enrolled in the program to complete a
	certificate or degree; and
	(C)  career placement data;
	(5)  provide for the assessment of student academic
	success and ongoing program evaluation and improvement;
	(6)  commit the institution to participation in regular
	meetings of the participating institutions and to the research and
	evaluation efforts of the accelerator;
	(7)  include a plan for operations, staffing,
	oversight, and sources of funding for the innovation plan; and
	(8)  identify any state statutes or rules that inhibit
	the goals of the innovation plan and from which the institution
	should be exempted on adoption of the plan, subject to Section
	60.006, and state how the identified statutes or rules inhibit the
	goals of the plan and how an exemption from those statutes or rules
	will advance state and institutional educational goals.
	(c)  In addition to the state statutes or rules identified
	under Subsection (b)(8), the institution may also identify other
	state statutes or rules that inhibit the goals of the innovation
	plan but from which the institution is not seeking an exemption.
	(d)  An innovation plan may include one or more departments
	or certificate or degree programs.
	(e)  If an eligible institution's governing board approves
	an innovation plan developed under this section, the institution
	shall:
	(1)  submit a copy of the plan to the commissioner; and
	(2)  post the plan on the institution's Internet
	website.
	(f)  An eligible institution may implement one or more
	innovation plans that comply with this section.

We testified and told the committee that we thought this bill would accomplish nothing but adding more bureaucracy, and in that spirit we think the section of the bill quoted above speaks for itself.

But the chairman of the committee is carrying this bill, which means it has a real chance of passing.

Bottom Line: If the Senate kills this bill, they would be doing the state of Texas a favor.

-----

Chairman Kel Seliger: (512) 463-0131
Lt. Governor Dan Patrick: (512) 463-5342

-----

#TXLEGE: Senate passes Campus Free Speech bill!!!

"He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still."
Revelation 22:11

Amidst all the craziness last Thursday, the Senate quietly moved forward something pretty awesome: Dawn Buckingham's campus free speech bill has now passed the full Senate.

We testified in favor of this bill in late April.  But, to be honest, we thought it was dead in committee.  Thus, we didn't even realize that it had been voted out.

But, apparently, Chairman Seliger defied our expectations last week.

And now the bill is out of the full Senate!

Making matters even better, during floor debate Bryan Hughes added a floor amendment that would ban so-called "free speech zones" on campus.  So the bill is even stronger than what was originally considered in committee.  Booyah!!!

Finally, we would like to publicly thank Chairman Seliger.  He did not have to move this bill, but he did.  While we've certainly had our disagreements over the years, his leadership of the Higher Ed committee this session has been a pleasant surprise.

Bottom Line: It's still moving....

#TXLEGE: Senate hears bill protecting free speech on College Campuses....

"When they heard this, they were furious and plotted to kill them."
Acts 5:33

[Note: The hearing can be viewed here.  The consideration of the free speech bill begins at the 1:35 mark.  Our testimony can be found about ten minutes later.]

As national headlines can attest, the assault on free speech on college campuses has gotten significantly worse in recent years.  In response, several states have passed bills to protect speech on campus.  This morning, we attended a hearing for, and testified in favor of, Texas' equivalent attempt to do so.

SB 1511 (Buckingham) would prohibit "free speech zones" on campuses.  It would prohibit universities from punishing students based on political ideas.  It would also prohibit public universities from disinviting speakers based on the political content of their ideas.

TPPF's Tom Lindsay testified in favor of the bill and recited a litany of abuses against students holding views contrary to the bureaucracies that run these institution.  We largely echoed Dr. Lindsay's views, while also highlighting the mess that occurred with YCT's affirmative action bake sale at UT last year.  To be honest, we think the national headlines speak for themselves.

But there's one point we made in testimony about which we want to elaborate here: The biggest problem is that the Boards of Regents aren't doing their jobs to protect students.  If the legislature wants free speech on campus protected, they've got to stop rubber stamping Regent appointments, otherwise they're going to gut this law the same way they gutted campus carry.  It's not a coincidence that we made this exact point during our testimony for the last round of UT regents.

During dais discussion, Chairman Seliger tried to claim that the first amendment renders this bill superfluous.  Kirk Watson came up with a serious of cute lawyer distinctions designed to show that the bill was unnecessary. Seliger and Watson both chimed in to claim that the bill is toothless and thus unnecessary.

Unfortunately, according to a Senate source, Senator Buckingham had to remove most of the teeth from the bill to get it a hearing in the first place; thus Seliger is talking out of both sides of his mouth on this issue.

Bottom Line: This bill won't get to the Governor's desk this session, but we commend the Senate for starting the conversation because we have a feeling political correctness in public universities is going to get a lot worse.

-----

#TXLEGE: Senate PASSES MULTIPLE BILLS curtailing University Tuition!!!

"Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord."
Colossians 3:20

If colleges and universities are ever going to be brought under control, you need to restrict their ability to raise tuition at will; this afternoon the Texas Senate passed two bills to that effect.

SB 18 (Seliger), which would restrict something called 'tuition set-asides,' passed 20-11 in a party line vote.  SB 19 (Seliger), which would freeze tuition for two years and places limits on increases beyond that, passed 29-2.  While we welcome both bills, we've always felt SB 19 was a stronger approach, and we consider this view vindicated by today's respective vote totals.

Tuition set-asides are a somewhat obnoxious subsidy whereby 15% of the tuition a student pays is dedicated to provide financial aid to 'low income' students.  If that sounds like an excessively complicated policy that raises costs for everyone not deemed 'low income,' that's because it is.  The problems with SB 18, however, is that it doesn't prohibit the practice.  It merely ends the legislative mandate for this practice.  The actual policy decisions are still left in the hands of the respective boards of regents (and it doesn't take a genius to see that the UT board, at a minimum, would ignore this bill).  Furthermore, considering the large number of minority students who receive set-asides, the risk of inflaming the identity politics crowd is obvious.  As we've discussed previously, we're worried SB 18 will produce a lot of sound an fury without changing much on the ground.

SB 19, however, is a straight two-year tuition freeze followed by meaningful limitations moving forward.  If that sounds like a much simpler approach than the one detailed in the previous paragraph, that's because it is.  That's why it received nine more votes.

Indeed, the fact that the overwhelmingly majority of the Democrat caucus in the Senate voted for SB 19 suggests that it will be very difficult for the House to kill this bill.  Like it or not, you need Democrat votes to pass things in the House.  And it could be difficult for Democrats in the House to go home without passing this bill after it flew through the Senate.

As we have discussed previously,colleges and universities love to build expensive buildings and hire lots of bureaucrats at six figure salaries and that forcing them to take a time out on tuition hikes would begin to curtail that process.

Bottom Line: We'll have to see what happens, but this will be hard to kill in the House without significant blowback.

Tuition Day in Texas Senate's Higher Ed Committee!!!

"Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord."
Colossians 3:20

[Note: Our testimony can be viewed just after the 1:36 mark here; we'll try to get it up on our YouTube page in the next few days.]

Yesterday morning, the Texas Senate's higher education committee heard five bills related to reigning in university tuition increases.  The hearing was in an unusual format where all five bills were laid out then testimony was taken on all five.  Due to misreading the Senate schedule (we thought the hearing began at 9 when it began at 8), we arrived late to the hearing, but we've watched the remainder of the hearing online and did make it in time to testify FOR SB 19 (Seliger) and SB 250 (Schwertner).

Seliger's bill would impose a hard tuition freeze for four years, while Schwertner's would impose a long term cap on tuition at the rate of inflation.

For the most part, testimony was the predictable litany of 'sky will fall' nonsense in the event public universities were required to show mild discipline in containing costs; lots of hysteria about "workforce" and "economic" development.

Chancellor McRaven, however, used his testimony as an opportunity for chutzpah about the UT board being "conservative" with tuition hikes over the past half decade, considering that he came on board at the end of that time and one of his first acts as chancellor was to push a tuition hike.  McRaven cited 2011 tuition data even though he was only hired in 2015.  Also, for the record, Wallace Hall was on all of those boards 5 and 6 years ago.  Beyond that, the Chancellor spoke in cliches about "being competitive," "excellence," and "investing in student success."  The Chancellor did not refer to his military service at any time during testimony.

As it relates to Senator Seliger's bill, we testified that colleges and universities love to build expensive buildings and hire lots of bureaucrats at six figure salaries and that forcing them to take a time out on tuition hikes would begin to curtail that process. [Note: It's also worth pointing out that it could be VERY hard for the House to kill (or Abbott to veto) a full tuition freeze...like it or not, suburban parents vote.]  On Schwertner's bill, we testified that if Boards of Regents are going to continue defying the legislature then the time has come to begin removing various authorities from them.

Finally, we urged the committee to take a very hard look at UTIMCO's $37 billion in assets as it debates higher ed. funding moving forward.

Bottom Line: An encouraging hearing, we'll have to see what happens moving forward.

-----

About SB 18 -- An Open Letter to Chairman Kel Seliger....

"Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord."
Colossians 3:20

Dear Chairman Seliger,

I had to work during today's hearing on SB 18.  Had I been able to attend the hearing, I would have testified on the bill without taking a position.  Consider this note the equivalent of written testimony.

First things first, thank you for your attention to the tuition issue.  As we discussed at TPPF's policy orientation, I think a wide range of options should be on the table for the tuition issue.  Furthermore, I want to state publicly that considering the degree to which we haven't always seen eye to eye on higher education policy, for you to consider this bill with the promptness that you have is a tangible action I notice and appreciate.

That being said, SB 18 makes me nervous.

Specifically, SB 18 only ends mandatory tuition set asides.  The Universities are still free to engage in the practice, it's just no longer required.  Thus, I'm afraid SB 18 will produce a lot of sound and fury (and inflame the identity politics crowd) without changing much on the ground.

SB 19 is a much stronger approach.  A hard tuition freeze would be a tangible step over which the University of Texas Board of Regents various governing bodies of the various public universities could not defy the legislature.  Furthermore, it would be a lot harder for the House to kill it would be significantly more likely to attract meaningful bi-partisan support.

Thus, I encourage you hold a hearing on SB 19 at the earliest practical date.

But again, thank you for making this issue a priority.  Indeed, I'm pleased that you've already voted it out of committee before I'd even sat down to write this note.  I look forward to seeing similar action on SB 19 shortly.

Sincerely,
Adam Cahn
Austin, TX
February 22, 2017