#TXLEGE, #TXSEN: Royce West, Borris Miles, and a test of oppo research

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

[Note: Just for fun, imagine the reaction if any Republican candidate in a similar situation had secured an endorsement from Charles Schwertner.] 

Texas Tribune, Thursday:

[Democrat U.S. Senate candidate Royce] West has suggested he is optimistic that he can be more than just a Dallas-centric candidate by tapping into his legislative relationships throughout the state. He wasted little time proving that after his announcement as he earned endorsements from state Sens. Carol Alvarado and Borris Miles, both from Houston. And state Sens. Jose Menendez of San Antonio and Jose Rodriguez of El Paso attended the announcement itself.

[Note: Emphasis added.]

We remarked shortly thereafter:



It's now been two full days, and nobody has commented.

In case you've forgotten why an endorsement from Borris frickin' Miles might be considered a big deal:

Lauren*, a Texas legislative intern, was standing underneath the bright blue-and-red neon sign of The Continental Club, a famed Austin bar frequented by schmoozing politicians, lobbyists, and reporters.

That week in May 2013 was filled to the brim with end-of-session (“sine die”) parties, and Lauren was with a group of other interns on South Congress when Democratic state Rep. Borris Miles pulled up.

According to Lauren, Miles leaned out of the carriage he was riding in and pulled out a large roll of money. He handed “maybe $500” to an intern and then looked at Lauren.

“You know how you have the roll of hundreds that you see on TV? It was like that,” Lauren told The Daily Beast.

“I said, ‘Hi Representative, how are you?’ Then he slowly looked me up and down, counted out more money, reached out his hand and said, ‘Bitch, you want to fuck with me tonight?’

“I said ‘No, thank you’ and physically stepped back,” Lauren recalled. “I didn’t want to be rude to him. I remember his intern pacifying him and saying, ‘It’s time to go.’

“Everyone was just shocked that he said that—that he cussed at me and that he was offering me money. It was outrageous,” she continued. “I just remember thinking, ‘I need to go, and I need to not be here anymore.’”

And this:

One time, Chris said, he “witnessed [Miles] catcalling women in Downtown Austin on the way back from a Spurs game, and there had to have been at least 15 or 16 other members that were there because it was a member event.”

The Spurs had played the Lakers that April, and the lawmakers went together to San Antonio to watch one of the games. “As we’re driving back towards the W, he’s hanging out of the open door of the bus and shouting at women,” said Chris.

Chris could not recall the catcalls specifically but said, “It was not something that I would want shouted at anyone.”

Chris’ chief of staff confirmed to The Daily Beast that he heard about the alleged catcalling the next morning.

And this:

Ben*, a former staffer who recently worked in the Capitol and “spent a lot of time with Miles,” said he witnessed the then-state representative “forcibly kiss” at least one woman at the W Hotel.

“He offered to buy her a drink, kept trying to kiss her, and she kept trying to push him away,” said Ben. “He kept laughing about it.

“It was so creepy, and he had this big smile,” said Ben. “Borris loves the W Hotel, and he has a tendency to force himself upon women at bars and kiss them or grope them. He’ll tell them that he is a higher elected official than he actually is.”

....

“He also has a tendency to call women out of their name when they turn him down,” he said. “‘Bitch,’ ‘ho,’ ‘whore.’ He doesn’t like being told ‘no.’

And this:

When Heather* first covered the Texas Legislature as a journalist in 2011, she was repeatedly targeted by Miles, she told The Daily Beast in a story published last month.

Late one night when the legislature was in session, Heather was reporting on HB 400, which would have scrapped Texas’ law mandating class size ratio. Miles famously used a point of order to defeat the bill, landing him the title of Star of the 2011 Legislative Session by the Texas Classroom Teachers Association.

Heather said she had been trying to get details about the bill negotiations, when that night, around midnight, Miles cornered her in a hallway and forcibly kissed her outside the House chamber.

“It happened quickly,” Heather said, noting that Miles laughed afterward. “I think he thought it was hilarious.”

“He’d said several times already, ‘If you go out to dinner with me, I’d be happy to give you the details,’ and I’d sort of laugh it off but it was weird and obviously gross.”

You can read the full report here.

So, yeah, that guy made an endorsement in the current U.S. Senate race.

Yet neither MJ Hegar nor John Cornyn seem to care.

Odd.

Obviously, this is a longstanding beef for this author.

Last election cycle, we discovered that Beto O'Rourke likewise did a campaign event with Borris Miles.  In addition to writing a blog post, we also passed that information along to both the Cruz campaign and the RPT chairman.  Unfortunately, neither did anything with that information.

This time around, the difference is that this author doesn't particularly care who wins the U.S. Senate race.  So we're not going to tell any campaigns.  But we mentioned them by name, so they'll get the Google alerts.

Bottom Line: Any campaign that allows an opponent to get away with touting an endorsement from someone with Borris Miles' "alleged" record is completely incompetent and deserves to lose....

#TXLEGE: The Texas Senate needs to STOP giving the Austin Chronicle easy material

"God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
John 4:24

Longtime readers know there is no media outlet this author despises more than the Austin Chronicle; which is why it kills us that they got this one 100% correct:

Sex and the Senate
What will it take to curb sexual harassment at the Texas State Capitol?
BY MARY TUMA, FRI., JAN. 25, 2019

Not more than two days into the 86th Texas Legislature, the 150-member House of Representatives approved a new, stronger reporting process to secure justice for victims of sexual harassment at the Capitol. The unprecedented (at least in recent history) move comes in the wake of the #MeToo movement, which ousted abusive male figures from their perches in politics, journalism, and Hollywood. And it follows a string of shocking media reports from last session that alleged harassment in the halls of the Capitol building from Democrats and Republicans alike over several years. Those reports ignited conversation within both legislative chambers on how best to respond to inappropriate behavior moving forward.

However, one body is noticeably working more steadfastly – and openly – on the issue than the other.

The House Committee on Administration acted quickly, proposing a first draft in December 2017 that was seen as a solid start that needed more work. Former Speaker Joe Straus then created a working group in May 2018 to examine the Texas House's sexual harassment policy and recommend ways to improve it. The 10-member group, led by Reps. Donna Howard, D-Austin, and Linda Koop, R-Dallas (who lost her re-election bid in November), was tasked with researching best practices in other states to "prevent and eradicate" misconduct in the Legislature. The latest iteration, approved as a resolution by a unanimous vote of the House on Jan. 9 after months of review, moves misconduct complaints to a House investigating committee with subpoena power, adding real teeth to a once-feeble policy.

Meanwhile, the Senate – recently encumbered by allegations of lewd behavior against one of its most powerful members, Georgetown Republican Charles Schwertner, has taken a slower approach. While the Senate elaborated its misconduct policy from one to six pages some five months after the House released its first draft, it has no plans to hold hearings or take a formal vote as the House did. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, never as engaged on the issue as Straus, also opted not to conduct a Senate investigation into Schwertner, instead taking the wait-and-see route as a University of Texas investigation played out. Both the Senate's weaker policy and its inaction in the Schwertner case have drawn criticism on the state's editorial pages, including a piece penned by former Sen. Wendy Davis.

During the few months of the current regular session, the Senate has the power to strengthen and codify its rules, but will it? Or does the upper chamber hope the issue of sexual misconduct – and public complaints against its members – gradually falls by the wayside?

The article goes on to discuss everything we already know.  We recommend reading the whole thing, but you already know  the names.  Carlos Uresti, Borris Miles, Craig Estes, Charles Schwertner....

The Chronicle then contrasts the reaction between the two chambers.  While we think they give both Joe Straus and the house more credit than they deserve, at least the House is trying.  The Senate, meanwhile, hasn't done anything meaningful.

The Texas Senate's political opponents have noticed.

Unfortunately, they're not wrong.

It gets better:

The Senate's inaction prompted Wendy Davis, who served two terms in the chamber representing Ft. Worth, to pen a critical editorial in the Statesman earlier this month demanding that the upper house get its act together. Among her chief complaints: There remains no legitimate recourse for people who are sexually harassed by legislators; there is no independent, third-party investigator to whom such complaints can be made; the Senate policy fails to define consequences for violations and has not extended its subpoena power, which could have compelled Schwertner (or others) to testify or provide information.

"What happened after the credible allegations against Sen. Schwertner – and also Sens. Miles and Uresti – starkly highlights how broken the system is," Davis told us. "I found myself feeling very upset and frustrated after reading the UT report. I was angry on behalf of the young woman and on behalf of many others who have endured sexual harassment at the Capitol. It's disappointing that the Senate appears disinterested in further investigating the incident."

....

Davis slams the policy as "a little more than window dressing, but not a whole lot more." She notes the "glaring differences" between Straus' leadership and Patrick's. "Straus supported the effort in an authentic and sincere way, with an open process and a work group," said Davis. "On the Senate side, there is more of an appearance of a process, but without any real desire to hear from experts and people who may have been on the receiving end of sexual harassment at the Capitol. To me, the process looked more like a kangaroo court."

There appears to be a "greater interest in protecting the body than in protecting young women working at the Capitol," says Davis. "It's often part and parcel of the way elected bodies function – if you protect your members, you gain their loyalty." Sexual misconduct at the Capitol is an open secret among members, she says, and she had her own brush with harassment as a freshman senator. During a social, UT-affiliated event, a House member, clearly inebriated, touched her inappropriately. She says it took that member three years to apologize; she never reported the incident because the Senate's policy did not make clear where or who to report to. Even if there had been a direct path, there was no hope that anything would come of it because there were no defined consequences, she says.

"We need to apply continued pressure on the Senate," said Davis. "We cannot give them a pass on this."

You know the situation is bad when you're getting hammered by Wendy Friggin' Davis...and she's completely right.

It's pathetic.

Bottom Line: You can't blame the other team for swinging the bat when you're the one lobbing softballs down the middle of the plate....

#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: 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: Is Schwertner in Deep Doo Doo?!?

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."
Ephesians 5:11

Hoo Boy:

AUSTIN — The University of Texas completed its investigation on Tuesday into whether State Sen. Charles Schwertner sent sexually explicit messages — including photos of his genitals — to a student, issuing a report that neither fully incriminates nor clears the Georgetown Republican of wrongdoing.

The same afternoon, responding to a public record request, the university released the offensive text messages and LinkedIn messages that led to the probe. Schwertner told a UT investigator that the texts came from his accounts, but were sent by a person he knows and shared his user information with, but refused to identify.

Schwertner and his attorneys said the report served as vindication for their claims that he was innocent.

"I do not condone sexual misconduct of any kind. The University of Texas has closed their investigation because I did not send the offensive text messages in question," Schwertner said in a prepared statement.

The university reported it could not prove Schwertner sent the offensive messages, and a forensic investigation found that they did not come from his phone. However, the messages did come from Schwertner's Hushed account, a privacy app that allows people to send messages from separate phone numbers, and his LinkedIn account.

The UT investigation also described Schwertner as uncooperative and unwilling to be interviewed or answer questions about whether he had other electronic devices where the messages could have originated.

Schwertner's attorneys said in a statement that they prevented him from being interviewed by the university because they considered the school's investigative process unfair.

An attorney purporting to represent a mysterious third party, whose identity was never revealed to the investigators, at some point claimed responsibility for sending the messages. Schwertner told investigators he knew this unidentified person, and shared his user name and passwords with the individual, but refused to reveal their identity in the investigation.

The university investigative report acknowledged that the unnamed person might not exist.

"We recognize that it is plausible that the Respondent [Schwertner] sent the text messages and photograph from a device other than his personal cell phone and the third person claiming responsibility is being untruthful or does not exist, but we have no evidence to support those possibilities," the investigation summary reads.

[Note: Emphasis added.]

Yikes; this story looks worse every time we re-read it.

Two possibilities exist.  Either Schwertner is lying.  Or, he could be telling the truth.  Neither is good.

If Schwertner is lying, then a 48 year old male elected official sent lewd photographs to a female college student seeking professional advice.

That would be awful.

But consider what it would mean if Schwertner's telling the truth:

• Schwertner engages in enough encrypted communication with an unnamed third party that he gave the unnamed third party access to his encryption account.
  
• Who does that?!?

• Schwertner also gave the unnamed third party access to his LinkedIn account.

• Again, who does that?!?

• The third party in question had a motive to burn Schwertner in the most publicly humiliating way possible.
  
• What, as yet unknown, behavior on Schwertner's part could have produced such a motive?!?

• Even after having been burned in the most publicly humiliating way possible, Schwertner still refuses to identify the third party.

Pick your poison; neither one is good.

-------

That being said, this political cheap shot from the Democrats is cute:

On Tuesday evening, Texas Democrats jumped on the results of the report.

"These are not the actions of an innocent man," said Texas Democratic Party Executive Director Crystal Perkins. "Sen. Charles Schwertner is a liar and clearly unfit to serve in elected office."

Shut up.

You people haven't done a damn thing about Borris Miles.  You didn't lift a damn finger about Carlos Uresti until after a separate criminal conviction.  Yet, now you want to lecture the rest of us on sexual propriety?!?  Puh-leeze.

In a just world, Borris Miles and Charles Schwertner should probably both go.

In the real world, now that they're the political equivalent of "mutually assured destruction," Miles and Schwertner probably get away with everything.  We don't like it.  But that's reality.

-------

Bottom Line: You know it's a bad situation when you can't tell whether lying or telling the truth is worse....

UT's RIDICULOUS Contract to "Investigate" Schwertner Accusation

"You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness."
Exodus 23:1

From yesterday's DMN:

AUSTIN — The University of Texas investigation into whether state Sen. Charles Schwertner sent sexually explicit text messages to a graduate student could last as long as 11 months and cost the school as much as $50,000, according to a contract between the university and the outside counsel hired to investigate.

The University of Texas signed a contract with former federal prosecutor Johnny Sutton beginning Sept. 24 with an end date of Aug. 31, 2019. However, the contract could be terminated earlier or amended to be extended.

Is this a joke?!?

Nothing in this allegation requires an ELEVEN MONTH investigation.  All they have to do is determine of the alleged photo actually comes from a phone of which Charles Schwertner ever had possession.  Frankly, there's no reason this investigation should have already been completed.

On the other hand, if UT's objective was to launch a fishing expedition (complete with curiously timed press leaks) that would last through next session against a Senator who's historically been a thorn in their side, well....

Bottom Line: Last month, we proposed a cynical hypothesis about this accusation; you be the judge....

#TXLEGE: An EXTREMELY Fishy Accusation Against Schwertner

"Let the righteous strike me;
It shall be a kindness.
And let him rebuke me;
It shall be as excellent oil;
Let my head not refuse it.

For still my prayer is against the deeds of the wicked."
Psalm 141:5

[Note: If anyone reading this has a better idea what's really happening, e-mail us at cahnman@hotmail.com; confidentiality guaranteed.]

Sssssssssssssssssay what?!?

The University of Texas is investigating an allegation that state Sen. Charles Schwertner sent a sexually explicit image and text message to a graduate student he met at an on-campus event this summer, three senior UT officials with knowledge of the investigation told the American-Statesman.

If the allegation is deemed true, the university would consider banning Schwertner from campus, two of the officials said. The third official said the university is also considering hiring outside legal counsel to investigate further.

Through a spokesman, Schwertner on Tuesday said he “categorically denies any knowledge of the accusations” and plans to cooperate with UT’s investigation.

The student met Schwertner, a Georgetown Republican and a UT alumnus, at an on-campus event to which Schwertner was invited and told him she was interested in working at the Legislature, according to two of the officials. After the event, they exchanged messages on the networking site LinkedIn before moving to text messaging, the two officials said.

During an otherwise professional exchange on networking and career advice, Schwertner abruptly wrote, “I just really want to f—- you,” and sent her an image that appeared to be a picture of his genitals that was taken in the shower, according to a UT official who has seen the exchange and the photo. The image does not include his face, the official said. The Statesman has not seen the photo.

The student told Schwertner that she thought he had acted inappropriately, the officials said, and Schwertner did not respond. The student then reported Schwertner’s behavior to the school, prompting the investigation, they said.

All UT officials interviewed by the Statesman declined to reveal the identity of the student out of respect for her privacy and to honor the promise of confidentiality that the university made to her when she reported the incident. Student privacy laws also prohibit the university from disclosing the student’s name.

The officials, who declined to be identified because they are not authorized to speak on the matter, said that the investigation into Schwertner has not found any potentially criminal misconduct.

Schwertner campaign spokesman Tom Holloway said Tuesday in a statement, “The Senator categorically denies any knowledge of the accusations leveled against him and only became aware of this allegation when contacted by the media late this afternoon. The Senator is eager to cooperate with the University of Texas and hopes to make clear he played no part in the behavior described.”

In a statement, UT spokesman Gary Susswein said the university does not discuss ongoing investigations “in order to protect the integrity of the investigative process.”

[Note: Emphasis added.]

Seriously...Charles Schwertner?!?

Wow.

Wasn't expecting that one.

Now, look, the Texas Legislature has a VERY serious problem with sketchy sexual behavior among its members.  Among its members, we wouldn't put this sort of behavior past ANY of them (including the ones we like).  But...Charles Schwertner?!?

We suppose it's possible.

But this is the first time we've ever heard Charles Schwertner's name associated with this sort of behavior.

Very few people have been more outspoken than this author about the Texas legislature's need to clean up this behavior (see here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here).  During that time, we've heard unflattering reports about any number of legislators.  We've seen sketchy behavior from several legislators.  But this is the first time Charles Schwertner's name has come up.

We've been working sources since last night.  So far, it's unanimous.  This seems to be the first time anyone, anywhere, has heard any sort of allegation along these lines regarding Schwertner.

Then there's this:

Got lots of questions about this: No, I had not gotten any tips about Charles Schwertner. There are a lot of men in the #txlege I was told to look into, but he wasn't one of them.https://t.co/NT7plKVMCF

— Olivia Messer 💀 (@OliviaMesser) September 26, 2018

To be clear, that's not in any way meant to be a comment on the Statesman's story. Just that I was not independently aware of any allegations.

— Olivia Messer 💀 (@OliviaMesser) September 26, 2018

This is not to say it's impossible.  Certainly, none of us participated in the alleged conversation.  But it is to say that, as far as we can tell, this is the first time Charles Schwertner's name has ever come up in association with this sort of behavior.

-------

Which begs a natural follow up question.  Where, pray tell, did this accusation emerge?!?  Glad you asked:

[T]hree senior UT officials

So, the accusation isn't coming from the afflicted party.  It's coming from "three senior UT officials" not speaking on the record.  No doubt laundered through several layers of the UT bureaucracy.

Why does this matter?!?

Because UT has a history with Schwertner.  And UT also has a history of fighting dirty when their financial interests are threatened.  Very dirty.

More than any other Senator, Charles Schwertner has taken the lead against UT's incessant tuition hikes.  Schwertner has also voted against Regent nominees.  Thus, he's a threat.  If you don't think UT is willing to fight this dirty to protect its financial interests, you don't know UT.

Then there's the alleged matter of privacy.  It would not be difficult to redact the accuser's personally identifiable information.  Even if they didn't want to make it public, they could have at least show a copy of the picture to the Statesman.  That they didn't, while hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, is suspicious.

Again, that's not to say it's impossible.  UT could be telling the truth.  But their record of truthfulness, especially where money is concerned leaves a lot to be desired.

-------

That being said, for UT's sake, they better have the goods.

From the Lt. Governor:

PR 09 26 2018 Lt. Gov. Patrick Statement on Allegations Against Sen. Sch... by Cahnman on Scribd

It doesn't take a genius to read between those lines.  If UT doesn't have the goods, they just picked a gigantic fight with the Senate and the Lt. Governor.  That suggests UT knows what they're doing.  But the UT politburo's record also suggests they're arrogant enough to try.

Only time will tell.

Last session, the Senate caved on Regents and the higher ed budget.  Efforts on tuition fizzled in the house.  That can change.

But here's where they're really playing with fire: UT's record on Title IX leaves a lot to be desired.  Now they're making an, at best, thinly sourced allegation against a Senator.  Woe unto them if they are wrong.

--------

Even more than Dan Patrick, however, the person to watch is Greg Abbott.  It's not a secret that, both as Governor and as Attorney General, Greg Abbott has run a lot of interference for UT.  Does that continue?!?

There are already signs Abbott is getting sick of UT's nonsense.  Late last year, Abbott's staff started leaking about his displeasure with the University.  And that was after Abbott forced out the Chairman of the Board after he started working to undermine Abbott's legislative agenda.

And now "three senior UT officials" are leaking to the Statesman about this sensitive of a topic.

Does anybody think they gave the Governor's office a head's up?!?

-------

Since this issue re-emerged last year, our biggest fear has been that it would become weaponized for political purposes.  We don't know that that's what happened in this instance.  But it's happened before.

On the other hand, the Senate's reaction to previous allegations has sucked.

If it takes a weak accusation against a Republican for the Senate to get its act together, that might be a silver lining.

-------

Finally: This is exactly why we offered our platform amendment at the convention.  We specifically called on the Legislature to establish a "credible system of due process."  At the time, it was primarily about the known cases.  But imagine if such a system was in place now.

Unfortunately, RPT convention delegates, YOU'RE the ones who voted it down.

The Schwertner situation is a textbook example of why the adopted platform language is dangerous.

-------

Bottom Line: It's a mess.  We'll have to see how it unfolds.  But there's A LOT of history between these two parties.

#TXLEGE: Roundup from today's pro-Life hearing....

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5

[Note: The hearing can be view here; our testimony on the DNR bill can be views around the 3 hour 20 minute mark, our testimony on the local defunding bill is a smidge before the 5 hour mark.]

This morning, the Texas Senate committee on Health and Human services committee heard bills on four distinct pro-life related topics.  This website supports all four.  However, we specifically testified in favor of abolishing involuntary Do-Not-Resuscitate orders and in favor of eliminating all local government subsidies to abortion providers.

SB 11, by Charles Perry, would prohibit hospitals from placing a DNR order on a patient without their consent (or, in certain circumstances, the consent of the person with medical power of attorney).  Did you know that's currently legal in Texas for hospitals to do?!?  Well, it is....

We testified that we find it astonishing that this practice is even legal in the first place.  Furthermore, it's a symptom of the erosion of patient rights alongside the enlargement of bureaucrats that's currently taking medicine in really creepy direction.  Finally, we discussed how the recent Charlie Gard case in the UK illustrates the urgency of this issue.

SB 4, by Charles Schwernter, would prohibit abortion providers from receiving taxpayer funding from local governments.  Emily Horne, of Texas Right to Life, gave detailed testimony about the various offenses from cities, counties, and hospital districts around the state.  Horne furthermore explained that a statewide prohibition was the only way to end the cycle of local whack-a-mole.

We testified about how, as a resident of Austin and Travis County, we're offended that our tax dollars go to subsidize this brutal, gruesome, barbaric process.

The committee voted everything out at the end of the hearing; the bills succeeded along party lines.

Bottom Line: All of the Senate's pro-life bills are out of committee, they'll probably be on the floor early next week.

------

DAMN RIGHT:

This guy wants everyone to know that he really really really hates abortion... #TXLege pic.twitter.com/FMjmm1qcYq

— Teddy Wilson (@reportbywilson) July 21, 2017

#TXLEGE: Uninspiring Uber bill slogs through Senate....

"The Lord has made all for Himself,
Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom."
Proverbs 16:4

[Note: The hearing can be viewed here.  The section on HB 100 begins just after the one hour mark.  Our testimony is at the 1:28 mark]

The saga of the Uber bill continued into the Senate State affairs committee this morning, where Sen. Schwertner introduced yet another committee substitute...which means conference committee.  To be honest, this bill becomes less appealing with each new iteration.  But, nevertheless, it remains superior to the status quo and we continue to support getting this bill to the Governor.

A good metaphor for the trajectory of this bill is that TPPF switched their testimony from "for" the bill to "on."  TPPF outlined issues with the licensing and fee aspects of the bill that represent a potential barrier to entry for new competitors.  We echo TPPF's concerns and were very close to changing our own testimony...

...when the City of Austin invented yet another objection out of thin air.  Now, they claim to be worried that the bill will threaten "data privacy."  Please.  This is nothing more than an attempt to shift the goalposts.  Likewise, the taxpayer funded lobbyists at the Texas Municipal league said something about "airports."  And therein lies the rub: we need to get this issue out of the hands of disingenuous local officials and their taxpayer funded lobbyists.  We can address the flaws in a future session.

One woman objected to the bill based on the experience of a friend who had been raped by an illegal alien Uber driver in Boston; we addressed her concerns in our testimony.

As stated above, we testified that we shared TPPF's concerns with the bill.  There's a reason why Senator Huffines total dereg. bill was the only one on which we'd testified in favor back in March.  This bill still includes too many regulations, and too many mandates, but nevertheless the state legislation continues to have fewer regulations and mandates than the various local ordinances.  Seeing the City of Austin once again shift their goalposts solidified our position.  But understand that, as technology continues to evolve, we are going to have to revisit this issue in future sessions.

As to the woman who was worried about TNC drivers who have been previously deported: We pointed out that, from the Texas Senate's perspective, SB 4 renders the issue moot.

Bottom Line: This bill sucks. But the status quo sucks even more. Just get this bill to the Governor.

-----

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.

-----

Thoughts on (#TROXROX) Local Government Accountability Day (#TROXROX) in the Texas Senate (#TROXROX)

"Through wisdom a house is built,
And by understanding it is established;"
Proverbs 24:3

We've been in a holding pattern for several hours as the Senate debates the privacy act; this seems like as good a time as any to post our thoughts on this hearings this morning about property taxes, ridesharing, and short-term rentals in the Texas Senate:

[Author's Note: Points about property taxes will be listed in blue; points about Ridesharing and STR's will be listed in green.]

• We've never seen a day when this many issues related to local government accountability were heard in a day; this is new.

• In terms of obvious storms on the macroeconomic horizion, the property tax system in Texas (alongside local government debt) is the equivalent of the national debt in term of predictable problems on the short to medium term horizon.  Texans currently pay the highest property taxes of any state without an income tax.  This is a high priority mess that needs to be addressed before it bites us in the backside.

• On the TNC issue, Don Huffines' bill (SB 113) is the only bill up today that will pre-empt the next round of regulatory challenges related to ground transportation and new technology.  That's why we testified in favor of it.  Nevertheless, we can count votes and Charles Schwertner's bill represents a significant step forward from the status quo.

• Additionally, the property tax system as it currently exists is the mother's milk that feeds all sorts of other corruption in the legislature.

• As we have previously discussed; Senator Bettencourt confessed to several good reasons why SB 2 (the property tax relief bill) doesn't go nearly far enough.  Under questioning from other Senators, he repeatedly admitted that the bill does not amount to a revenue cap, and he also admits local jurisdictions will still be able to raise taxes close to 10% without an election.  Nevertheless, this is a significant step in the right direction and see our previous comment about counting votes.

• Bettencourt's bill would rename the effective tax rate the "no new taxes" rate; this can only simplify things for the average taxpayer.

• Bettencourt -- Taxpayers in Harris county often pay 10 taxing jurisdictions at a time.

• Bettencourt too frequently talks in policy wonk language and goes over people's heads.

• Actually, Bettencourt straight up talks too much.

• Paul Bettencourt: We love you, and we agree with you, but shut up.

• Ann Kitchen plugs "new" Austin TNC's while ignoring last Saturday's meltdown.

• #TROXROX -- Texas less desirable place to invest because of Austin Ridesharing debacle.
• "Local control is only valuable as a tool to protect individual liberty."
• Mentions what happened Saturday.

• Schwertner: Restricting mobility options is just wrong.

• Kelly Hancock goes full trial lawyer on Ann Kitchen.

• Committee took the black market that emerged in Austin after council kicked out Uber and Lyft to the cleaners.

• Samsung's largest physical plant in the world is located in NE Austin.
• Even with the incentives they receive, Texas' property tax system still isn't competitive.
• Note: That's quite a remarkable statement coming from a big business.
• Whitmire goes full Elizabeth Warren.

• #TROXROX -- Rates should go down as appraisals go up.
• Austin had an additional $50 million to spend last year even at "no new taxes" rate.
• Austin budgets have consistently grown 7 to 10% even without counting 'exemptions.'
• SB 2: "A critical tool that must be adopted."
• First thing to cut would be new vehicles every three years.
• Voted against bailing out library.
• Kel Seliger tried to throw her under the bus and she threw it back.
• No reason you can't hold cities and counties accountable alongside school districts.

• #TROXROX: Several activists from outside the local area who'd never seen Ellen Troxclair in action before spoke positively about the degree to which she refuses to take crap (especially re: the exchange with Seliger).

• They laid out but have yet to take testimony on the short term rental bill, but the short version is as follows: the degree to which the Austin anti-STR ordinance creates new police powers out of thin air is creepy.

Bottom Line: We'll include links to testimony and deeper thoughts at a later time, but the short version is that after decades of atrophy the Texas Senate is beginning to rehab their constitutional muscles as it relates to local government accountability.

-----

Texas Senate hears ban on Dismemberment Abortions

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5

Update: Texas Right to Life has an update on how the hearing went:



-----

Kudos to Chairman Charles Schwertner for not wasting time:

A separate bill by Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, would ban “dismemberment” abortions performed in the second trimester. Senate Bill 415 requires that there be no fetal heartbeat before a “dilation and evacuation,” or D&E, abortion can be performed, he said.

“You are required to terminate the life of a child before you tear it apart piece by piece,” Perry said. “We are not outlawing D&Es,” which he said account for 96 percent of second-trimester abortions.

Watson asked what about the bill would enhance the health and safety of women.

“If you are going to allow abortions, then (the Supreme Court has said ) the state has a vested interest in doing it as humanely and civilly as possible,” Perry said. “The health and safety of a woman is not the target, not the intent of SB 415.”

While Senator Schwertner's bill (SB 8) that was heard today is also a worthwhile effort, as Texas Right to Life pointed out last month not all allegedly 'pro-life' bills are created equal:

These policies, while well-intended, only take effect after an abortion. Although these policies reflect the values of Texans — ensuring dignity is afforded to all innocent humans when they die, regardless of circumstance — the proposals do not stop abortion, nor do they offer protection to pregnant women.

The 85th Texas Legislature includes 98 Representatives in the 150-member Texas House, who can be relied upon to publicly oppose abortion. Similarly, the 31-member Senate opened with 21 members professing to want to protect the unborn and abortion-vulnerable pregnant women.

With overwhelming pro-life majorities in both chambers, the passage of nominal or symbolic pro-life bills that do not protect life before abortion would be embarrassing. In other words, this session will be a dismal failure if the Legislature fails to stop any of the 55,000 abortions occurring within Texas each year. Merely regulating what happens after a baby is killed by abortion is not enough.

Bottom Line: While other efforts have merit, SB 415 (the dismemberment abortion ban) is the strongest pro-life bill with a realistic chance of getting through the legislature this session.

Schwertner leads on tuition (again)!!!

"The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower is servant to the lender."
Proverbs 22:7

FANTASTIC:

The unintended consequences of tuition deregulation continue to shortchange Texas students. By providing public universities the flexibility to set their own rates, the Texas Legislature has essentially given them a perverse incentive to increase tuition and fees as the simplest means of expanding their own operating budgets.

In fall 2003, a resident undergraduate attending class full-time paid $1,934 per semester in tuition and fees. A decade later, the same student owed an average of $3,951 per semester.

Since 2003, tuition and fees at Texas public universities have more than doubled, and designated tuition (the portion of tuition set directly by the universities) has increased an astounding 222 percent. Are we really expected to believe that the value of an undergraduate degree is worth twice what it was only a decade ago?

As students struggle to repay the exorbitant cost of higher education, they have less money to purchase a home, start a small business or otherwise contribute to the Texas economy. A survey conducted earlier this year by the consulting firm Accenture found that 46 percent of recent U.S. college graduates consider themselves underemployed, working jobs that do not require a college education.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the survey also revealed a significant disparity between what students had expected to earn and their actual starting salary: while only 18 percent of graduating students believed they would earn less than $25,000 a year, over 40 percent of recent graduates indicated they made that amount or less.

This broken system is leaving an entire generation of students mired in debt and frustrated by a lack of opportunity while supplying universities with extravagant budgets to fund special projects and ever-expanding administrations.

The Texas Legislature must reassess how we manage our public universities and consider whether the deregulation policies enacted over a decade ago still make sense for our students. Texas simply cannot maintain a strong economy without also maintaining a strong workforce, and we cannot maintain a strong workforce without affordable access to higher education.

Read the whole thing here.

First Major Pro-Life SENATE Bill of 85th #TXLEGE Filed!!!

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5

We've yet to make final decisions about how we will pursue the life issue next session, but this is a strong start:

PR 11 17 2016 Lt. Gov. Patrick Statement on Filing of the Pre-Born Protection and Dignity Act by Cahnman on Scribd

Bottom Line: What you really need is a full ban on dismemberment abortions (to say nothing about a full ban on ALL abortions), but considering political reality at the Capitol this might be an achievable step towards eliminating the most abhorrent practices in which we learned two summers ago that Planned Parenthood was engaged.

Post Prop. 1, EVERYONE needs to eat some humble pie....

But He gives more grace. Therefore He says:

“God resists the proud,
But gives grace to the humble.”
James 4:6

Prop. 1 is over.  Uber and Lyft have left town.  Now, it's up to those of us who actually live in Austin to pick up the pieces.

And the only way that's going to happen is with humility and forgiveness.

EVERYONE bears responsibility for the mess in which we find ourselves.  No one is innocent.  The silver lining, however, is that it also means everyone has the opportunity to save face as cooler heads prevail.

Consider the following:

• Uber and Lyft -- We said our piece about their cartoonishly inept campaign on Sunday morning.  Matthew Yglesias' 2014 essay about Uber is worth re-reading.  Suffice to say, with a smidgen of common sense and basic manners Prop. 1 would have passed by 20 points.

• Council -- That being said, Uber and Lyft aren't the only ones who've displayed a petulant, "my way or the highway" attitude throughout this process.  The only reason Prop. 1 materialized in the first place was that council refused to listen to the thousands of Austinites who practically begged them not to pass the ordinance.  Aloof haughtiness is neither attractive nor sustainable.
  
  We think this is the most interesting (and dangerous) aspect moving forward.  By (justifiably) refusing to validate the worst behaviors of Uber and Lyft, the voters de facto (if unintentionally) validated the worst behaviors of council.  Thus, to put it mildly, we fear council over-interpreting their mandate.
  
  But just because voters punished one group of arrogant jerks in the Prop. 1 election doesn't mean they've discovered new-found patience and respect for the other group of arrogant jerks who got us into this mess.

• The Taxi cartel -- Speaking of arrogant jerks, these guys need to understand that their 1930's regulatory model is dead and never coming back.  While it has been obscured by the Prop. 1 spending, the taxi cartel gamed the old system for decades.  That must end.

• Local Prop. 1 supporters not affiliated with Uber or Lyft -- We would consider ourselves part of this category.  While we stand by our positions on the underlying regulatory issues, we were slow to realize the degree to which Uber and Lyft were being jerks to our friends and neighbors.  We shouldn't have outsourced this campaign to a bunch of Silicon Valley and D.C. based political hacks with no understanding of our community [Author's Note: One day, we'll tell the breakfast taco story.].
  
  Obviously it's too late to do anything about it , but there's a 'what if' scenario that we've been pondering since Saturday.  What if, about 10 days before the election, a group of local supporters of Prop. 1, not affiliated with Uber or Lyft had created a group along the lines of "Austinites for Prop. 1."  Our message could have been: "We're sorry about all the mail and phone calls you're getting from Uber and Lyft.  We didn't sign up for this either.  But that doesn't change the fact that the regulations passed by council will still lead to higher fares and longer wait times without any benefit to public safety."  Couldn't have hurt.
  
  That being said, the fact that our fingerprints were nowhere near this debacle turned out to be a blessing in disguise!

• Prop. 1 opponents -- Laura Morrison's election night speech speaks for itself; see our above comment about 'the other group of arrogant jerks.'

• The Texas Legislature -- We appreciate Sen. Huffines' and Schwertner's interest in this subject, but Joe Straus' silence speaks volumes.

• The Austin Chronicle -- While we rarely agree with their editorial positions, we've always found their willingness to show up and cover boring meetings of local governmental entities to be a valuable public service.  We just said something nice.  Would it kill you to return the favor?!?

Stef Shrader summarizes what the Prop. 1 campaign ended up becoming:

On one side, we have a city council where many representatives received campaign backing from the taxi industry—an industry which would like to see their new app-based competition go the way of the dodo.

On the other side, there’s a proposition to overturn several recent city regulations written by the Ridesharing Works for Austin PAC, a PAC that has been entirely funded by Uber and Lyft, according to KUT. That proposition, Proposition 1, is the only thing Austinites are voting on today.

This choice is beyond asinine. One industry should not be allowed to push through less favorable conditions for their competition. Likewise, no industry should be in the business of cherry-picking favorable regulations for itself via over-spending, over-campaigning, and threatening to rage-quit an entire metropolitan area, either.

And Josh Baer also says it well:

Bad attitudes and egos are what got us into this mess — and only cool heads and open arms will get us out of it.

Moving forward, several things have become obvious:

• Obnoxious corporate attitudes notwithstanding, no one does the basic blocking and tackling of urban passenger transportation nearly as well as Uber and Lyft.  That's not likely to change anytime soon.  Get Me has already been a disaster and there's no plausible alternative on the horizon.

• Fewer than 1000 taxis simply isn't sufficient for a metropolitan area of 2 million people.

• Joe Straus is still Joe Straus therefore a path through the Texas legislature is uncertain at best.

Austin needs to develop a regulatory framework that fosters a wide variety of transportation options with minimal barriers to entry.  That being said, people's legitimate safety concerns will also have to be addressed.  Our biggest challenge will be to discern between what's a legitimate safety concern and what's a barrier to entry.

Personally, we think the city should eliminate the cap on taxi licenses and franchises and allow the market to set their prices.  Once that happens, most of the other issues will work themselves out.  But we're open to suggestions.

Bottom Line: Moving forward, this discussion needs people to stop acting like obnoxious jerks.  This means everyone.  No matter where you stood on Prop.1, everyone includes YOU.

Texas Senate begins to act on Tuition

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

Yesterday, Lt. Governor Patrick and Sen. Seliger held a press conference to discuss recent tuition hikes at Texas' public universities.  The press conference was followed by a hearing in the Higher education committee.  The combined press conference and hearing began to reveal details of the tuition related actions the Lt. Governor assured us were coming in our interview last fall.

The biggest takeaway is that tuition related bills will be priority legislation for the Texas Senate next session.  Lt. Governor Patrick assured the press conference that something addressing tuition "will have a low bill number."  The precise details are still in flux.  A redux of Sen. Schwertner's tuition bill might be the approach the Senate takes, but it also might not.  Nonetheless, Lt. Governor Patrick warned the universities: "it's safe to say, there's a new crew [in the Texas Senate]."

Lt. Governor Patrick spoke very favorably about ending tuition "set asides."  These set asides are a resdistributive tax through which one group of students subsidizes the tuition of a more politically favored group.  Senator Seliger bemoaned one university system that increased it's budget 5-fold in just nine years.  The Lt. Governor also voiced his displeasure at the obscene salary increases we've seen recently at public universities (UT, of course, is the worst offender, but none of the Universities' noses are clean here).  Most interestingly, the Lt. Governor assured that the next round of regental confirmation will have lots of questions about costs and tuition.  In what can only be seen as a de facto endorsement of Wallace Hall, Lt. Governor Patrick said "[The Board of Regents'] job is not to be a rubber stamp for our higher education."  Time will tell how much they listen.

Higher Education coordinating board chairman Raymund Paredes led of the hearing.  He made a lot of bureaucratic excuses about tuition in Texas being less out of control than other states.   This reminded us of Michael Quinn Sullivan's old quip about Texas being "the least drunk state at the bar."  Another shocking aspect to which Paredes testified is the financial illiteracy of students taking out loans.  There are, literally, students in Texas who don't know they've taken out loans until the repayment calls start.  Texas A&M chancellor John Sharp and Tech chancellor Bob Duncan testified next.  They made the difficult to believe claim that administrative costs were less than 7% of each system's respective budget.

Bill McRaven testified next.  Unfortunately, his testimony occurred at the same time as the Franklin Graham event, so we didn't witness it.  Apparently, the Senators tore him a new one over the tuition hike and the Houston expansion.

One interesting political note: to his credit, it appears (Higher Ed Chairman) Seliger is on board with the Senate's efforts.  This is notable, considering that Seliger has historically been one of the bad guys on Higher Ed.  We don't know if Seliger's motivation is genuine or political, but either way it's a very positive sign moving forward (and, we suspect, a tremendous credit to the Lt. Governor).

Bottom Line: For the Universities to raise tuition over the objections of the Texas Senate was the equivalent of poking a sleeping bear with a stick.  Yesterday, the bear began clearing the cobwebs.  This is going to be a really fun subplot next session.

----

Lt. Governor Patrick's statement:

AUSTIN - Today, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Senate Higher Education Committee Chair Kel Seliger held a press conference to address data collected related to skyrocketing university tuition, fee rates and student debt.

"The issue of rising tuition and rising student debt is of great public concern," said Patrick. "It is the responsibility of the legislature to respond and work with our higher education institutions to lower costs. After passing a budget that increased funding for higher education by 8.9 percent last session, universities quickly raised their tuition rates. Since 2002, university tuition and fees increased 147 percent while the median household income and consumer price index have only increased 32 percent. Costs have simply outpaced what families are earning and able to pay.

"Next session the Senate will look closely at a number of cost reforms, including performance-based funding, which brings increased accountability and affordability back by requiring education institutions to meet high performance targets before increasing tuition above inflation.

"The issue of rising tuition rates and student debt must end and I will do what it takes to bring relief to hard-working families across Texas," concluded Patrick.

To see the press conference on tuition rates and student debt from this morning click here:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/avarchive/

-----

TPPF's statement:

TPPF Statement on Rising Tuition and Student Debt for Higher Education

AUSTIN – Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for Higher Education Policy Analyst Trevor McGuire issued the following statement on Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s and Texas State Senate Higher Education Committee Chairman Kel Seliger’s announcement to address high tuition costs and student debt:             “The cost of tuition in Texas has increased 149 percent since tuition deregulation, almost five times the growth of the median income in Texas over the same period,” said McGuire. “We support the Lt. Governor and Senator Seliger’s plan for addressing the issues of tuition and student debt by considering performance-based funding, the elimination of tuition set-asides, and reining-in excessive administrative costs during the next legislative session. The Legislature should address these three issues, which primarily affect four-year institutions, while also providing sufficient attention and resources to Texas’s community and technical colleges – where both student debt and tuition are much lower than at four-year institutions.             “While the most effective solutions to rising tuition costs and student debt will be those developed collaboratively between the Legislature, colleges and universities, and the Coordinating Board, we are encouraged by the Lt. Governor’s promise to hold university regents more accountable if suitable progress cannot be made toward making Texas higher education more affordable.”