#TXLEGE: Abbott facing first Sustained Revolt Re: "Contact Tracing" Boondoggle

"David said furthermore, 'As the Lord lives, the Lord shall strike him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall go out to battle and perish.' "
1 Samuel 26:10

Tony Tinderholt:

I would like to make one final point which concerns contract tracing. The MTX contract must end promptly. It is a gross invasion of personal liberty and privacy. I also have serious concerns it violates HIPPA and other medical privacy laws. Why is Texas spending nearly $300 million of taxpayer money on tracking Texans for two years over this? Though it may be federally funded, every dollar spent by local, state, or the federal government either comes from current taxpayers or the children or grandchildren of taxpayers through debt service. Therefore, we could have forgone the federal funds, saved taxpayer dollars, and not conducted privacy-infringing tracing.

[Note: While the scope of this blog post is limited to the so-called "contact tracing" boondoggle, Tinderholt's full letter is brutal.]

Bob Hall:

“Contact tracing is technically wrong, as it may be an effective tool to trace slow moving deadly viruses such as Ebola or Tuberculosis, but not for a fast-moving virus with a low death rate that is primarily spread by asymptomatic people.

“Contact tracing, for COVID-19, is a colossal waste of money which could be better spent on resources to protect the elderly and immune-compromised populations that are the most affected. Contact tracing will shred our constitutional rights to privacy.

“Texas must stop contact tracing and change course by adopting new policies consistent with the facts as we now know them...."

Matt Krause: 

James White:

State Reps @RepMattKrause and @James_E_White have called for termination of @MTX_Inc’s $295m contract for contact tracing. Anyone else out there doing same? My DMs are open https://t.co/K1mzSZto2r

— Jay Root (@byjayroot) June 1, 2020

It's not a full statement, but this retweet from Donna Howard's certainly suggests discomfort with the contract.

All of which is really, really, interesting.

Obviously, we've been around the block several times.  We know that the legislature often talks a big game during the interim, then fails to follow through once they get the chance.  Still, this is not a good place for a Governor to be heading into the most difficult session in awhile.

If Abbott's smart, he'll cancel the contract (and fire Mike Toomey).  Whether or not he is smart remains to be seen.  That being said, it wouldn't surprise us to see that announcement as a Friday afternoon document dump this week or next.

Bottom Line: The long term fallout remains to be seen, but the bloom is certainly off the rose in a way it hasn't been previously.

#TXLEGE, #atxcouncil: Howard redirects boondoggle to a reasonably useful purpose

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

Longer term readers know that the so-called "Capitol complex" project is one of this author's pet peeves.  The TL,DR version is that it's silly to build luxury office towers for state employees on prime real estate that should be sold for residential/commercial development.  Making matters more infuriating, council granted the state a gigantic fee waiver on the project a couple years back.

Last night on Twitter, however, we learned that that last part has now been addressed:

Good:https://t.co/tt3Hp6ILkH

— cahnman (@cahnman) July 6, 2019

Clicking through the KVUE story, we learn:

In fact, the City and state have struck real estate and construction deals for more than 100 years. Most recently, in 2017, the Austin City Council voted to waive $6.8 million in fees, expedite permitting and aide in road closures and conversions so the state can transform Congress Avenue, north of the Capitol, into a massive green space called "The Texas Mall."

That deal in particular led Representative Donna Howard (D-Austin) to file House Bill 2977. The bill allows real estate deals between the state and City to have more flexibility and let Austin negotiate a credit with the state for the Texas Mall deal. The bill passed and was signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott last month.

She also filed and passed House Bill 2978 to let Austin cash a credit in and gain an easement on land owned by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. That easement will soon become a bridge connecting the mixed-use community The Grove at Shoal Creek – which is currently under construction – to the trail.

"The state legislature approved an easement on the State Archive tract, which is on the other side of Shoal Creek, to allow us to build a bridge over Shoal Creek. That bridge will connect the Shoal Creek Trail and Shoal Creek Boulevard to the project," said Robert Deegan, the landscape architect and planner for The Grove at Shoal Creek.

"This hike-and-bike bridge is a significant element of the Shoal Creek Trail Plan and we look forward to it happening," said Ted Siff, Board President of Shoal Creek Conservancy, in a press release. "It will be a wonderful benefit to the Grove residents, the surrounding neighborhoods and all Austinites who walk or bike."

The Grove developers will foot the entire bill and build the pedestrian and bike bridge and part of the trail.

Essentially, Howard's bill makes city taxpayers whole while state taxpayers break even.

All things considered, not the worst solution.

#TXLEGE: There's a reason why I respect you more than I respect 95% of the Republicans.... https://t.co/zH1kgRRz7o

— cahnman (@cahnman) July 6, 2019

Bottom Line: While the original shady real estate deal between the state and the city has not been undone, it's now relatively benign.

#TXLEGE: Sham Bill Nevertheless Accomplishes Political Purposes

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Matthew 18:6

[Note: Van Halen's "Runnin' with the Devil" literally came on in the background as we sat down to write this blog post.]

Fascinating write up in the Texas Observer over last week's passage of the 'born-alive' act:

As the Texas House voted on the first anti-abortion bill to make it to the floor this session, advocates rolled down a banner above the board displaying lawmakers’ votes: “STOP TURNING LIES INTO LAWS.”

The House gave initial passage to the bill, titled the “Texas Born-Alive Infant Protection Act,” after a brief but tense floor debate Tuesday evening, and gave it a final stamp of approval on Wednesday. The measure, House Bill 16, is Texas’ version of a national proposal that failed in the U.S. Senate earlier this year. HB 16 would penalize doctors who don’t give full medical treatment to babies born alive after abortion. Practically speaking, the bill does very little: There have been zero cases reported by the state since it started tracking them in 2013. Even if it did occur, federal law already requires infants born alive at any stage in development be given equal protection. But abortion-rights advocates say the measure is dangerous political propaganda that aims to paint abortions later in pregnancy as extreme and target the doctors who provide them.

[Note: Emphasis added.]

Money quote from Donna Howard:

“We refuse to waste the limited time we have here to take care of the people’s business by entertaining malicious and purely political attacks against women and doctors,” Howard said. “We refuse to ignore the expertise of medical professionals and allow them to be targeted and harassed. We refuse to use the power entrusted in us by our constituents and the voters of Texas for political theater, or to be party to turning lies into law.”

Here's the thing: Donna Howard is correct.  This 'born-alive' bill is political theater.  But (like all Democrats) she misunderstands the intended target of the theatrics.  In her misunderstanding, she led Democrats right into the trap.

Allow this guy to explain:

The Democrats' refusal to support children born alive will haunt them in the upcoming elections. Republicans are on the right side of life. There's only a tiny constituency who favors killing kids born alive. #txlege https://t.co/sBUtJQnFOS

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) April 21, 2019

-----

As we explained about six weeks ago:

There's nothing inherently wrong with this bill.  Obviously, babies still alive after an abortion deserve medical care.  But, notice that phrase: After an abortion.

A month ago, following Democrats' stunt at the committee hearing:

This bill doesn't stop a single abortion.  This bill only goes into effect after the baby is 100% outside the birth canal.  That's why we've been unenthusiastic about it.  But Holy Toledo Democrats....

There will be plenty of time to discuss the proper response, but it's worth taking a second to reflect on the insanity of this position: Texas Democrats want to Deny Medical Care to Infants who are 100% outside the birth canal.

Again, The Texas Observer article linked above is correct. This bill doesn't stop a single abortion.  That's not its purpose.

The purpose of the 'born-alive' bill is to find an obvious, common sense, issue with almost zero practical impact.  Then get the Democrats to vote against it.  Which most of them just did (more on that below).

------

This issue polls well with suburban women.

-------

Here's what's crazier: In a session in which 'bi-partisanship' (hashtagNewDay, hashtagTexasPlan, hashtagTheTimeisNow) is all the rage, the Democrats could have used this to neutralize abortion as a campaign issue.

Had the Democrats gone along with this farce, they could have taken a vote for political cover without stopping a single abortion.

They could have made it all about 'bi-partisanship.'  They could have spun it as being 'magnanimous.'  They could have appeared to have made a concession (without conceding anything in reality).  Heck, they probably could have traded their support for several Billion dollars of additional spending.

Instead, they took the vote they took.....

-------

Democrat State Reps elected in 2018 who voted against 'born-alive' act:

• Michelle Beckley

• Rhetta Bowers

• John Bucy

• Gina Calanni

• Art Fierro

• Vicki Goodwin

• Julie Johnson

• Ray Lopez

• Terry Meza

• Lina Ortega

• Ana-Maria Ramos

• John Rosenthal

• Carl Sherman -- Note: Apparently, this guy's a Pastor.

• James Talarico

• Erin Zweiner

Obviously, a few of those are safe seats where one Democrat took over for another.  But most of those are districts the D's picked up last fall.  Good luck defending that vote.

Furthermore, most of those Democrats are white, a point upon which we will elaborate below.

-------

Let's return to the Texas Observer article that was the original reason for this blog post:

The bill passed, 93-1-50; Republicans were joined by 12 Democrats to support it, while state Representative Harold Dutton, D-Houston cast the sole “no” vote and 50 lawmakers registered “present, not voting.”

Sssssssssay what?!?  12 Democrats voted for the 'born-alive' act?!?  While there are a handful of D's that vote for pro-life bills, 12 is really high.

Which ones?!?

[Note: Joe Moody later made a journal statement for the bill.]

The overwhelming majority of those members are Black or Hispanic; all of those members, except one, represent majority-minority districts.

That's a racial dynamic Republicans should exploit.

Especially when white Democrats are taking the votes referenced above.

-------

Bottom Line: We'd rather prevent abortions, but we'll take the campaign issue....

#TXLEGE: Consensus and Dissention on University Tuition

"Wealth gained by dishonesty will be diminished,
But he who gathers by labor will increase."
Proverbs 13:11

[Note: The hearing can be viewed here; our testimony is 90ish minutes in.]

We testified this morning in favor of HB 132 (Gonzalez): "Relating to a limitation on the amount of tuition charged by public institutions of higher education"; this is the tuition freeze bill we discussed in January.

Gonzalez did a really good job laying out her bill.  She explained how public university tuition has exploded across Texas.  This is personally relevant to Gonzalez seeing how, apparently, she's just completed her Phd.  What we really loved, however, Gonzalez pointed out that shuffling off tuition to the Board of Regents' was a way for the legislature to duck responsibility.

Amen.

Gonzalez made most of the points we wanted to make.  During our testimony we added that, while most of the problems in higher ed. policy are federal, that was no reason for the state of Texas to make things worse.  We've thought that how Texas public universities set tuition rates was a particularly bad system for at least five years.

That was where things got interesting.  Following our testimony, Chairman Turner felt compelled to explain that, while he was very sympathetic to the complaint, tuition reform needed to be accompanied by more state spending.  We're familiar with the argument.  As we explained to Chairman Turner, we're sympathetic to the argument, but we need tuition restraints with teeth up-front.  We were about to make a further point about cost controls when...

...John Smithee spoke up.  As the only member of the committee who was in the legislature when the current system passed, Smithee called it "a vote I wish I could have back."  Smithee then made the same points about expensive buildings and excessive bureaucracy this author would have made.

Bottom Line: The breakdown of support/opposition to this bill was very intersting....

--------

Political Note for Republicans: There were (at least) four Democrat bills dealing with tuition on today's docket.  Zero from Republicans.  If you want to know why you're getting killed with the under-40 crowd, that would be a good place to look....

#TXLEGE: Good stuff happening all around today!!!

"And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart."
Galatians 6:9

Nothing's done.  And there's a long way to go.  But today must be encouraging.

--------

Citizens Property Tax Rally:

HUNDREDS of taxpayers showed up this afternoon to demand the lege pass the property tax reform package AND come up with a substantial relief package.

Speakers called upon the lege to finish the job on both subjects OR for Governor Abbott to call a special session.

We still suspect this gets done during the regular, but there's a part of us that wants to take this to a special.

What else would Abbott include on the call?!?

--------

House unanimously passes (at least) two GOOD Sexual Assault bills:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  We get it.  This issue has been a political football.

Get over yourself; these are good bills.

HB 8 (Neave) addresses the disgraceful rape kit backlog.  This is a blot on our state.  The bill passed unanimously, as it should have.

HB 1735 (Howard) creates good rules to deal with sexual assault on college campuses.  The language on due process is some of the strongest we've ever seen.  It should be the new national standard.  The bill also creates much better processes for survivors.

We haven't written about this bill (due to time), but we've supported this bill since it came onto our radar screen last month.

The bill passed on a voice vote.

Anyone who has problem with this author supporting a Donna Howard sexual assault bill can step on a Lego.

--------

Senate Passes Ban on Taxpayer Funded Lobbying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's out of a chamber!!!

What else do we need to say?!?

-------

Senate to hear bill on Austin's "Major League" Soccer stadium:

SB 1771 (Bettencourt) would knock out Austin's soccer stadium nonsense, it would also establish a good precedent for other sports stadium giveaways.

-------

Note on the sexual assault bills: The house is passing a whole bunch of bills on the topic today.  We're only familiar with the ones listed above.  We know nothing about the others.

--------

Bottom Line: We still have a long way to go, but there's a lot from today to like....

#TXLEGE: House's new sexual harassment policy...doesn't look like it changes much

"But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;"
Ephesians 5:3

From today's rules debate:

Amid continued scrutiny over how lawmakers handle reports of sexual misconduct by their colleagues, members of the House on Wednesday approved a measure that will strengthen the way the chamber addresses complaints of sexual harassment.

As part of a unanimous vote on the House's standard housekeeping resolution that governs its operations, the chamber approved a new internal policy that would move investigative duties for complaints of inappropriate behavior to a legislative committee with subpoena power. It also cements the use of independent investigations of elected officials.

....

Under the new policy, sexual harassment complaints would go through the chamber's general investigating committee, which would investigate and recommend sanctions based on the severity of the harassment. If the complaint involves a member of the House, the committee would be required to appoint an independent investigator.

House members made a slight change to the proposed policy that specified any independent investigation of a state representative would be a fact-finding mission only and not involved in any potential remedial action.

In other words, this is still the House investigating the House.  Sure, they say they'll appoint an "independent investigator."  Baylor did the same thing.

We all know how that worked out.

Furthermore, there's no timetable for potential investigations.  This means the House can still slow walk things.  Delay still equals death.

That being said, to the House's credit, at least they don't have Borris Miles and Charles Schwertner continuing to hide in plain sight.

Bottom Line: It's probably a small amount of incremental progress, but the underlying dynamic remains unchanged.

#TXLEGE: So it's Bonnen....

"Do not remember the former things,
Nor consider the things of old."
Isaiah 43:18

This afternoon, Dennis Bonnen announced he has the votes to be the next speaker:

Dennis Bonnen speaker pledges by on Scribd

It's tough to know what to make of this (besides, obviously, the fact that there's NOTHING anyone can do about it).

On the one hand, Bonnen was the least bad person with a realistic chance.  He's on the record supporting the Governor's property tax plan.  He's known at the Capitol for having a good relationship with the Governor.  As Empower Texas points out, someone with an inconsistent record might be better than someone who's consistently bad.

On the other hand, he's Dennis Bonnen.

One interesting tidbit: Neither Donna Howard nor Celia Israel were on Bonnen's list.  Neither were any of the Hays/Travis/WillCo D's who flipped seats last Tuesday.  That might create an interesting dynamic on local bills.  (Note: Eddie Rodriguez and Sheryl Cole were on Bonnen's list.)

Bottom Line: Regardless of the speaker's identity, this is going to be a very challenging session....

#TXLEGE: Trib's "Austin & the Legislature" event illustrates Workman's irrelevance

"And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit."
Ezekiel 16:50

Trib this morning:

Join us in person or on our livestream for the first installment of this series: a conversation about public education, immigration, health care, spending, taxes and other consequential matters with Austin-area state Reps. Gina Hinojosa, Donna Howard and Eddie Rodriguez. Tribune co-founder and CEO Evan Smith will moderate.

LOL, they didn't even include Paul Workman.

This shouldn't surprise anyone: As long as the current Democrat/liberal Republican coalition rules the House, the Democrats will always be the most important members of the Travis County delegation.

While Workman filed some good bills to rein in the city of Austin during the 85th, those bills went nowhere (because of the afore mentioned Democrat/liberal Republican coalition).

And that's why we can no longer afford Paul Workman.

Bottom Line: It's nothing we didn't previously know, but it's still funny that they're this blatant about it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------

The house's new policy being a joke:

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

....

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

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

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

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

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

-------

"Worshiping the Capitol":

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

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

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

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

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

-------

"Everybody Fucks Everybody":

Also from Holden:

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

Annnnd, THIS is where we take exception.

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

To clarify:

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

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

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

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

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

-------

Hinojosa misses point:

From Gina Hinojosa:

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------

Going surprisingly easy on the Senate:

Moving onto the Senate:

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

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

------

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

#TXLEGE: First major #SpecialSession day of House committee hearings.....

"Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy!
For You shall judge the people righteously,
And govern the nations on earth. Selah"
Psalm 67:4

[Note: We'll post links to the videos as they become available.]

The House had its first major day of committee hearings today.  We signed up to testify on seven bills and deliverd that testimony on four.  Bills we support will be listed in green, bills about which we are neutral will be listed in yellow, and bills we oppose will be listed in red.

• HB 70 (Workman): "Relating to a property owner's right to remove a tree or vegetation."
  
  We testified in favor of the House version of the tree bill in the Urban Affairs committee.  We echoed the property rights related arguments you've seen delivered elsewhere.  We also pointed out that trees usually add value to a property, which means that property owners rarely want to cut them down, but in the cases where it's necessary they shouldn't have to wade through a cumbersome process to do so.
  
  But, let's be honest: This is not the first time this author has testified in front of the Urban Affairs committee this session.  We testified in favor of two separate property rights related bills in this committee during the regular session, and the Democrat committee chair refused to vote either one out of committee.  As chair of the urban affairs committee, Carol Alvarado has a bad recent record on moving property rights related bills.

• HB 71 (Bohac): "Relating to the limitation on increases in the appraised value of a residence homestead for ad valorem taxation."
  
  We testified in favor of this bill in the Ways and Means committee.  To be honest, we were pleasantly surprised that Dennis Bonnen chose to give it a hearing.  It's well within the bounds of the special session call.
  
  The short version of why we support this bill is because there's two places to reign in the property tax system: the appraisal and the rate; while we fully support the discussion related to tax rates that's been generating more attention, we'd also love to do something about the appraisal system.

• HB 124 (GREG Bonnen): "Relating to the date for ordering or holding an election to ratify the ad valorem tax rate of a school district."
  
  We signed up to testify on this bill in Ways and Means but were out of the room when our name was called.
  
  This bill would require tax ratification elections for school districts to be held alongside November general elections; this would make it harder for school districts to game the system by calling tax ratification elections at strange time where only district employees show up to vote.

• HJR 18 (Howard): "Proposing a constitutional amendment requiring the state to pay at least 50 percent of the cost of maintaining and operating the public school system and prohibiting the comptroller from certifying legislation containing an appropriation unless the requirement is met."
  
  We testified neutrally on this bill in the Appropriations committee.
  
  As we explained in our testimony in the school finance testimony yesterday, we don't think it's entirely crazy to say that the state should pick up a greater share of the education tab.  But, for that deal to make sense, the additional state funding needs to be accompanied by some form of structural reform to the system or dollar for dollar reductions in local property taxes (preferably both).  But the house seems to really, really want to do a school finance package and we want to make clear what we would need to see to become interested.

• HB 80 (Darby):  "Relating to a cost-of-living adjustment applicable to certain benefits paid by the Teacher Retirement System of Texas."
  
  We were out of the room when we were called to testify on this bill in Appropriation but we oppose it because it pours more money into the current broken system without any reform.
  
  Appropriations also considered multiple bills related to raiding the rainy day fund to pay for teacher health care, which would be a terrible idea.

• HB 3 (Dennis Bonnen): "Relating to ad valorem taxation; authorizing fees."
  
  This is the property tax transparency bill Bonnen started pushing late in the regular session when the he was unable to get the automatic rollback election bill out of his committee.  We testified in favor of the bill as an improvement over current law.  But we also made it clear that we did not consider this bill sufficient to call the 85th legislative session successful on property taxes.
  
  This led to a moderately contentious exchange with Bonnen about the relative merits of transparency vs. automatic rollbacks.  Bonnen attempted to argue that we were saying that we'd be fine with taxing entities raising taxes just up to the limit into perpetuity.  We pointed out to the chairman that moving from a forgiveness based system to a permission based system was the biggest thing anyone was discussing at the moment.
  
  Another fun fact we realized after discussion of this bill: Mayor Adler also testified in favor of this bill; while this isn't the first time Mayor Adler and this author have agreed on an issue, the fact that he's supporting it should tell you everything you need to know about the practical effect it will have.

• HB 4 (Dennis Bonnen): "Relating to the calculation of the ad valorem rollback tax rate of a taxing unit and voter approval of a proposed tax rate that exceeds the rollback tax rate."
  
  We had to leave before Bonnen called us to testify, but considering we'd had a sharp exchange of views during the previous bill he knows why this authors supports this bill.
  
  That being said, the most notable aspect of the testimony on this bill was that the local officials all showed up and lost their minds in opposition to this bill; had we been able to stick around, we would have pointed out to the chair that those people being that upset should tell you everything you need to know about which of his two bills would have had a greater impact.
  
  It's also worth pointing out that Drew Springer and even one of the Democrats on the committee grew visibly exasperated with some of the disingenuous claims made by the local officials; we'll see what that means for getting this bill out of committee.

Bottom Line: We'll know how quickly these bills are moving in a couple days.

#TXLEGE: Tuition Freeze gets late House hearing....

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

[Note: The hearing can be viewed here.  SB 19 is the third bill under consideration (about 45 minutes in).  Our testimony can be viewed at the 58:12 mark.]

Following our unlikely kumbaya session with Greg Fenves this morning, less than an hour later we were in more familiar territory testifying on the opposite side of Chancellor McRaven on the subject of tuition increases.

SB 19, the tuition freeze bill that the Senate heard in March and passed out in April, got a late session hearing in the House Higher Ed. committee this morning.  We showed up to support the bill.  But unfortunately, we doubt it moves forward.

Chancellor McRaven continued in the disingenuous vein in which he testified in the Senate hearing.  He claimed the UT system has been "conservative" with tuition increases.  Of course, he overlooked the fact that most of the period under consideration occurred before his tenure and that one of the first things he did was push a tuition increase.

Representative Donna Howard asked the Chancellor several leading questions about needing tuition hikes in the face of "insufficient state appropriations" and tried to claim the legislature was "forcing costs down" to the institutional level.  Naturally, he agreed.  Howard closed by noting she was "hopeful this legislation won't go anywhere," which is a noteworthy statement coming from the vice chair of the calendars committee.

That being said, there's one rumor we've heard that's worth considering: It might be the case that Lt. Governor Patrick has asked for SB 19 in exchange for giving the House the higher ed funding it's asked for in the budget.  During an appearance before the committee on an unrelated bill, Appropriations chair John Zerwas teased that he thought a deal on higher ed funding was likely...which is interesting considering that the committee heard Patrick's priority tuition bills immediately afterwards.  If that deal indeed exists, it's one we'll take.

We testified that public universities love to build expensive buildings and hire expensive bureaucrats; refusing to permit them to pass these costs onto students is the first step to forcing them to set priorities in their budgets.  We also refuted Chancellor McRaven's selective reporting on the history of university tuition by pointing out that most of the time period under consideration was during a different era in Board of Regents history.  Finally, we cautioned the committee that if the tuition freeze died this session, the outrage over this issue would only grow between now and 2019.

Bottom Line: We'll just have to see....

-----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

85th #TXLEGE: "Kitchen Table Agenda" = More Spending

"There is desirable treasure,
And oil in the dwelling of the wise,
But a foolish man squanders it."
Proverbs 21:20

[Author's Note: Never forget, the Democrats in the Texas House are Joe Straus' cat's paw.]

There is a quite obviously focused-grouped talking point we've been hearing with increasing frequency over the past month: "Kitchen Table Agenda."

A couple days ago, the Trib and the Democrats let the cat out of the bag:

Minutes later, a group of Democrats from the Texas House criticized what they characterized as an embrace of divisiveness in the Senate and promised to focus on what they characterized as "kitchen table" matters.

"We have been the grownups" in the Legislature, said Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin. "We are going to continue to be the grownups."

....

The Democrats, meanwhile said they'd focus on reforming the state's school finance system, improving access to health care and making it easier for residents to register to vote and cast a ballot on election day.

Many Democrats and school officials had been hoping that the Supreme Court of Texas would rule that the state's method of funding schools is unconstitutional, forcing the state to take on the political perilous task of rebuilding it. That didn't happen, though the court did say the system was problematic and should be fixed.

Such a fix was notably absent from Patrick's list of priorities. But Democrats listed it near the top.

"We know that the school finance system is broken," said Rep. Mary González, D-Clint. "We know that, as the Supreme Court said, we need transformational change."

One key way to do that is for the state to send more money to the school districts, which would ease the property tax burden that homeowners pay to fund K-12 education, Democrats said. Howard, for instance, said she filed a bill on Monday that would force the state to pay at least half of the cost of education each year.

Translation: Pour more money down the rathole of existing bureaucracies without asking for anything in return.

Read the whole thing here.

Local establishment goes all in for Pool in #ATXCouncil D7....

"He who walks with wise men will be wise,
But the companion of fools will be destroyed."
Proverbs 13:20

Show us your friends and we'll show you your future; from this week's Austin Chronicle:

Leslie Pool Campaign Kick-Off Join Lloyd Doggett, Donna Howard, Elliott Naish­tat, Eddie Rodriguez, Celia Israel, Gina Hinojosa, Brigid Shea, and Elizabeth McQueen is the special music guest. Thu., Sept. 8, 6-7:30pm.

That list is practically a who's who of Austin's NIMBY old guard.

Speaking of Celia Israel, someone who's so inclined could have a lot of fun with that connection.