The Musings of the PlotShot

No Money for Public Schools from Largest Tax Bill in Tx History

2006-04-25T08:57:00.000-07:00

"It is the largest tax bill in Texas history, and it doesn't give one penny to the public schools," said Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco.

Not a single penny will go to public schools in Texas in HB3, a complete overhaul of the tax system in Texas which according to a description by the Houston Chronicle would "set up a new business franchise tax to replace another tax many companies avoided paying. Requires most medium and large companies to pay a tax on their gross receipts after deducting either the cost of goods or employee compensation."

This is the same bill which we discussed in an earlier blog which candidate for Texas Senator and radio show host, Dan Patrick, felt would lead to many businesses being shutdown.

Yes, the bill means a new source of money for the state, but it just replaces another, not giving any assistance to a school system in our state that is dramatically underfunded. The expanded business tax and an increase of the state cigarette tax (which was bounced back to the Ways and Means commitee for revisions), as well as parts of the budget surplus in an effort to cut school operating taxes by one-third over the next two years.

This is the state of our public education system. You have even the state's teacher association not caring one way or another about the bill due to it's lack of impact on the schools. They want money for raises, for better facilities, to buy supplies, but this bill did nothing thanks to the efforts of the GOP to shutdown any ammednments that would reform school, outside of the taxes.

Bills on the Floor

2006-04-24T06:56:00.001-07:00

Figured I would post this explanation that the Austin Statesman had of all five bills that are hitting the floor today, which are the basis of this whole special session. These explanations are as good as they come and I hope you can understand what's going on in Austin with these explanations:

Tax cuts, Round One: House Bill 1 would dip into the surplus to give school districts enough money to reduce their property tax rates for maintenance and operations from $1.50 to $1.33 per $100 of assessed property value. Backers say the plan would provide enough of a cut to satisfy the Texas Supreme Court if no other piece of Perry's proposed tax overhaul passes. Critics call it the "get outta Dodge" plan.

Tax cuts, Round Two: House Bill 2 would use money from three tax increases to replace dollars lost if school property taxes are cut by one-third or more. The tax increases would be a new business tax, a higher cigarette tax and a change in sales-tax reporting on used cars.

Business tax: House Bill 3 would replace the corporate franchise tax with a new 'margins' tax, which would apply to more businesses. The tax would require businesses to pay 1 percent of their gross receipts, with deductions for either salaries and benefits or costs of goods sold. The rate would be 0.5 percent for retailers and wholesalers. General partnerships and sole proprietorships would be exempt, as would businesses with annual revenue of less than $300,000.

Car tax: House Bill 4 would require someone who buys a used car to pay sales taxes on at least 80 percent of the 'blue book' value of the car. The buyer could hire an independent appraiser to appeal that value.

Cigarette tax: House Bill 5 would raise the cigarette tax from 41 cents per pack to $1.46 over three years, starting with a 55-cent increase.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/04/24session.html

Bills on the Floor

2006-04-24T06:56:00.000-07:00

Merging Texas Southern? Not A Current Option

2006-04-23T06:36:00.000-07:00

More on Texas Southern this morning as it seems there is an apparent fear from those in the Houston black community about the chances that Texas Southern would be engulfed by the University of Houston system, which has their flagship campus a few blocks away from where Texas Southern is located.

Of those individuals speaking to the issue including Minister Robert Muhammad, who represents the Nation of Islam's southwest region. In a quote from the Houston Chronicle, Muhammad stated, "I think the merger issue is coming up, absolutely. It's difficult when you lose your independence. That's about to happen here." ("Firing at TSU revives anxiety", 4/23/06).

Back in 1999, Texas Southern was hurting in a bad way. This is about the time that current university President Prisiclla Slade, who is on the verge of being ousted from her position, came onboard and her predecessor was fired from his position as university President. There were lawmakers in Austin who were interested in merging Texas Southern into the University of Houston system. However, that effort was stopped, in large part due to fear of black lawmakers that the historically-black Texas Southern would have to close their doors.

Now with Slade having been put on a tight rope and pending her public hearing, probably removed from her position, the major concerns are that there is a lack of direction as it relates for the future of this institution. Prior to Slade, there were three Presidents over a period of six years. One individual resigned, the other two had their tenure ended by the board of regents (one had their contract go unrenewed after serving two years while the other was abruptly fired).

If Texas Southern wants to avoid issues in the future, they are going to have to make dramatic changes to their institution. Slade, who now finds herself under investigation by the District Attorney's office for failure to follow university and state policies, must go. The university then needs to work with the community and it's alumni base to find a leader that can provide stability for the institution. The "revolving door" that existed prior to Slade and is feared to occur after her, needs to be avoided.

The university needs to pull the money from somewhere to bring in a slew of new administrators that can bring this university foward. They must be able to hold the university accountable across the board as compliance has been an issue that has been ignored from the top to the bottom for years, only ruining the credibility of Texas Southern.

As a school with what amounts to "open enrollment", the graduation rates do raise an eye. Texas Southern needs to decide whether or not it wants to advance it's academic standards in an effort to keep enrollment locked down, so the university does not outgrow itself in a time that the amount of individuals partaking in higher education has increased. Texas Southern can not handle being too big for it's britches at a time the university's future is in question and from what I gather, right now, they need to evaluate where they want to head.

I do not think they will be consolidated in the near future as there's enough lawmakers in Austin who will fight for them not to be including Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) and Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston). The situation that presented itself in 1999 is much different than today's, as individuals are saying the issue faced now is that of a personnel matter gone bad. It must be recognized however that with the wrong personnel leading the institution in the future, the issues that existed in 1999 can be relived and there is a chance that we can revist the merger discussion.

For now, Texas Southern will stand as is, an independent institution, one of just a few in the state of Texas.

Patrick 'Patronizes' Perry Plan

2006-04-22T07:04:00.000-07:00

Well, isn't this something worth taking a look at?

Republican candidate for state Senator, Dan Patrick of Houston, who is going for Jon Lindsay's (R-Houston) current seat after the long-time state Senator resigns, came out blasting the GOP leaderhsip and Governor Rick Perry at the Americans For Prosperity-Texas Taxpayer Summit which is being held in Austin this week.

In his remarks at the summit, Patrick, who is a conservative radio show host, stated that Governor Perry's plan is bad for businesses, workers, shoppers and bad for Republicans.

All of this because of a new business tax that Perry suggests to replace the corporate pay tax and to help lower property taxes, which is at the base of the special session we are currently in.

Patrick feels that this new business tax will not help businesses, in fact impact 100,000 Texas businesses even leading some to shut their doors. The Governor's office believes only half of the 100,000 suggested by Patrick would feel the impact of this new business tax.

Instead of replacing one tax with another, Patrick drew a line in the sand, suggesting "using the state's $8.2 billion surplus to cut property taxes, give teachers a pay raise, pay bills left over from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and boost security on the border" (Austin American Statesman, 4/22/06, "Taxpayer summit focuses on limiting government growth").

Patrick is confident that all of this can be done without raising a single new tax dollar. Well, we're going to have to wait and see considering the GOP leadership has fast-tracked the Perry plan by closing off debate on school finance reform to strictly "finance reform".

As Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Houston) said on the floor of the Legislature yesterday, "it's almost like me sleeping with a woman tonight and telling her I'm going to marry her on tomorrow. Why shouldn't we get married before we sleep?"

There won't be any school finance reform nor teachers raises considering the GOP leadership continues to say that they'll get to those issues "tommorow" or as Rep. Pete Gallego (D-Alpine) said, "mañana is the busiest day of the week because the Legislature always says everything will be taken care of mañana and we never get there".

Rep Chisum's Attempt to Push the Issues to Mañana

2006-04-21T09:08:00.000-07:00

Rep. Pete Gallego (D-Alpine) gave the best quote I've heard on the floor of the Legislature since the sexually-suggestive remarks from Rep. Al Edwards (D-Houston) we heard during the regular session. Gallego in discussing a calendars commitee rule adoption during this morning's session said, "Mañana is the busiest day of the week because the Legislature always says everything will be taken care of mañana and we never get there".

The rule adoption by Rep. Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) was a pretty big debate about getting through doing the minimum of which the Texas Supreme Court has asked. Representatives, namely from the Democratic side of the aisle were against this rule because it would not allow discussion/ammendments on various education-related issues, that while not officially on Governor Rick Perry's call list, could also be handled as an ammendment due to being tied into the financial appropriation issues of schools.

Chisum's bill, HB1, is referred to as the 'Get Out of Dodge' bill, which will speed up the session if passed, because it answers all of the Supreme Court's calls. However, does it answer it in the best way? According to education groups, it's just shows how the controlling party of the Legislature is not interested in handling many of the other issues that face education, such as increased teacher pay and equal funding of all pupils in the state of Texas. This rule effort was made to speed up the process in getting that bill to the floor and passed, effectively cutting off several of the methods related to floor debate/discussion.

By a count of 79-61, the Republicans were able to pass the rule adoption, which will speed up the process in doing the bare minimum asked by the Supreme Court, but still does not guarantee any answers to the calls of those affiliated with the educational community.

In layman's terms, a more long-term fix to the educational problems will be put off til mañana (whether it be two weeks or another few years) as the Republicans in Texas are more concerned about just getting out of Austin, not with the children of Texas.

In their description, the Texas State Teacher Association said on their web site that, "the House took up a series of rules on Friday morning to limit debate on the five tax bills that the House will take up on Monday. The rules were intended to limit pro-public education advocates from proposing amendments to the tax bills that would help public school employees and public education". That's probably as good an explanation as you'll get.

Of course, Republican Lt. Governor. David Dewhurst, who oversees the Senate, is on a thin-rope pertaining to his own campaign for Lt Governor this coming fall states that it's not enough for the Legislature to cut taxes without spending money to improve public education. As it stands now, the Republicans in the House are the ones pushing for a quick vote, but it may not fly as the Senate may put the brakes on that.

Protecting Schools from Gang Members

2006-04-20T13:01:00.000-07:00

There's nothing new about gangs in our public schools. In a bill filed by Rep. Scott Hochberg (D-Houston) and moved into the Public Education commitee during today's session, individuals who are affiliated with gangs would be moved into a disciplinary alternative education program.

The question is, will the process in determining which individuals must go into this program be fair? According to the text of the bill, individuals would need to have exhibited or admitted to two of the following before they would meet the criteria:

(1) self-admission by the student of criminal street gang membership;
(2) identification of the student as a criminal street gang member by a reliable informant or other individual who is not a member of the board of trustees or the board's designee;
(3) a corroborated identification of the student as a criminal street gang member by an informant or other individual of unknown reliability;
(4) evidence that the student frequents a documented area of a criminal street gang, associates with known criminal street gang members, and uses criminal street gang dress, hand signals, tattoos, or symbols; or
(5) evidence that the student has been arrested or taken into custody with known criminal street gang members for an offense or conduct consistent with criminal street gang activity.

While I do feel that some of the aformentioned options are going to be tough to verify, the fact that Hochberg makes it where two of the provisions must be met is ideal and makes the process fairer.

The question remains on whether or not this will see support in the House and the Senate. In a way, you can liken this bill to some of those related to bullying bills that made their way into the 79th regular session last year. However of those bills, only one bill passed, that being HB 283 by Rep. Ruben Hope (R-Conroe) which allowed the transfer of a student who was bullied.

This time, the state would be taking preventative action, protecting potential victims and insuring that student safety is taken into account. Safety is a big issue facing our schools in this age of terrorism and in public schools in a post-Columbine society. Here's hoping the Legislature finds it in them to protect their students.

Rep Guillen's Attempt to Level Playing Field

2006-04-19T17:42:00.000-07:00

While the typical resolutions are being passed in Austin during the special session, there is a lot of movement as everyone is jockeying for position as the real "fight" begins in the House early next week over the first of several major bills that will point this special session in whichever direction it may fall.

A constitutional ammendment, HJR 21 for those keeping score at home, filed by Rep. Ryan Guillen (D-San Diego), really got me interested. The official description is "a constitutional amendment requiring the state to provide for equitable funding for each student under the public school system."

One of the bigger arguments is that there is a great deal of disparity from district to district as it relates to spending per pupil. Spending on transportation, spending on teachers' salaries, spending on buildings, so forth and so on. A great deal of that is because of the tax-related issues faced in each district, namely the taxes made off of living in an area and how those translate to money for a given district.

What would this constitutional ammendment, if passed, do? I think it does a great deal towards improving the system by locking everyone, whether it as big a district as the Houston ISD or a district as small as many of these rural districts, into funding each student equally. The state, which does not properly fund education (and still may not after this special session regardless of what some may think) will be locked into helping out the districts to the point that they will have to meet the levels of funding required by the state.

The official text addition to the Texas Constitution proposed by Guillen reads, "suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools, the Legislature shall provide for a system that results in the availability of an equitable amount of total state and local funding for maintenance, operations, and facilities costs to provide an equal educational opportunity for each student with comparable educational needs."

So, Rep. Guillen, for the most part, after initial review, covers all the bases that have led to inadequate school facilities and maintenance in order to provide a level "playing field" for all those seeking an education in our state. Hopefully, the members of the Legislature realizes the needs of all districts, not just those they represent, which may be richer or poorer than that of their colleagues. It's not about one district or even a handful, it is about all of them.

As it stands right now, a great deal of lobbyists and Republicans are backing Governor Rick Perry's plan "that would allow the wealthiest districts to raise 5 times as much money as about 750 districts could raise with the same tax rate" according to Wayne Pierece of the Equity Center, which represents property-poorer school districts (Austin American Statesman, "House tax-cut plan draws fire from education advocates", Apr 19 2006).

No one, whether it Democrats or Republicans can answer the call from the Texas Supreme Court this special session unless they find a way to make the "playing field" level and Guillen's constitutional ammendment proposal does more for that than most of the other options being presented. The Republican leadership needs to be open-minded in their debates to things they may not be comfortable with. A short-term solution, such as the one the Perry plan presents, may lead to a long-term mess that future Legislatures could be dealing with for sessions to come.

Of course, there's always the much opposed proposal from Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin) to repeal the constitutional ammendment banning a state income tax and in turn, giving Texans one that helps fund our schools. However, this is Texas and one of the things most Texans like is being one of the few states without a state income tax.

Higher Ed Commish Discusses Where Texas is Heading

2006-04-18T17:05:00.000-07:00

I was able to watch the Texas House commitee on Higher Education today. Higher Education as I have noted will be a big issue in 2007 as it relates to the state of Texas moving forward with dealing with the population growth in our state.

In 2000, to prepare to fix higher education, the state of Texas came out with the 'Closing the Gap' initiative which covers many issues from helping low-income families to improving the research dollars coming into Texas to getting students from first-generation families into college.

Raymund A. Paredes, the Commissioner of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board was the featured speaker. Paredes said that Texas has a long way to go to reach parity with the rest of the states in the country in terms of percentage of students enrolled. Paredes said that the good news since Closing the Gaps came about in 2000 that there has been a 162,000 increase of students since. However, he did note that growth has become stagnant in the last year. The most shocking of which is slow growth in south Texas, where the population is booming, mostly with Hispanics.

The three fastest growing regions noted by Paredes are the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, Houston/Galveston and South Texas. He stated the Higher Education Coordinating Board will be focusing on these three areas to attract college students with 85% of the growth in the next few years in higher education coming from these areas. Of note, Sam Houston State, which draws heavily from the Houston/Galveston area had the largest increase in an enrollment this past year.

Paredes feels the most crucial issue towards getting more individuals in higher education is the growth and stability of community colleges and technical colleges. The goal is getting the transfer-rates from these institutions to four-year institutions higher. Many schools are signing agreements with these two-year institutions, with once more, Sam Houston State being the trendsetter.

As we look towards preparing students for college, a great deal must be done at the high school level. Paredes states that colleges must participate in high school college-preparation courses in order to get students away from taking developmental classes during their years in college. The biggest step that Paredes sees is bringing the high school exit standards to that level of "college ready standards", an initiative which has been granted an executive order from the Governor with backing of the head of the Senate Education commitee, Sen. Florence Shapiro (R-Plano).

One of the questions asked to Paredes was about the amount of high schools credits and perhaps the state needs to require more credits of the high school students to prepare them better for college. Paredes said that the state needs to make for four years of math, English, science and social studies as well as stress that ability of students to comprehend a second language, so that our state can compete in our global community.

This was insight that shows that Texas has a great deal of different issues in making sure schools are uniformed and strong across the board so students are at equal footing upon entering their institution of higher education. Paredes feels that the access issue for higher education comes from this and not taking care of the "low hanging fruit" by giving them more financial aid.

Slade Voted Out as TSU President, Implications on Higher Ed

2006-04-17T18:01:00.000-07:00

An interesting development occured today in Houston that while it may seem like a minimal impact on the state of higher education, it probably has a great deal of impact.

It is no secret that there is talk of system consolidation as it relates to higher education. There are probably a few more systems than need be in the state of Texas with several institutions that operates independent of any system. One of these schools is Texas Southern University which has had a fair share of issues in the past as it relates to staying independent.

About a decade ago, Texas Southern was at a really crucial point in their history. The university was truly not heading in the right direction and they brought in Priscilla Slade as their university president in an effort to turn around the fate of the school, which was very close to being engulfed into a university system.

Well, the Slade era came to an end today. The decision was pushed a few weeks earlier than expected and today, the Texas Southern University Board of Regents decided to dump Slade after a great deal of controversial spending of school money.

According to audit reports, over a seven-year period, Slade spent over $650,000 on various services (including maid service and car repairs) with university money. This all came to light a few months ago when the Slade's Memorial area home had it's lawn redesigned at the expense of the university in a spending "mistake" by the institution.

The chief financial officer, who himself had a criminal track record related to monetary issues, was put on paid leave as was Slade during this period of time. Well, the final verdict is in and Slade it out. Due to her contract, she gets one public hearing before it becomes official, but she definitely dug her own hole and buried herself in.

Interestingly enough, in the last few weeks as her hopes of remaining as President got slimmer and slimmer, Slade became very vocal. In the last few days especially, Slade contends that if it weren't for her administration, Texas Southern would have been engulfed into a system and not been an independent institution as it is now.

Perhaps the next President will reverse the good fortunes of Texas Southern?. You just never know now, do you? I wonder how this divides the faculty, students, administration and alums, but more importantly as it relates to this blog that we have here, how will it impact the state of Texas and could it have been another step closer to system consolidation in the state? Time will tell...

Campaign Season's Impact on Special Session

2006-04-16T16:42:00.000-07:00

This special session will be full of campaign season issues as all of the representatives in the Texas House as well as one-third of the state Senators are back up on the ballot.

The most intriguing situation however seems to be that of the Governor position. Republican Governor Rick Perry is on the hotseat after several shortcomings with lowering property taxes while taking care of the public education problems facing the state. This is made an even bigger issues due to the fact he is facing competition in the race for the Governor's Mansion from Democrat Chris Bell, humorist Kinky Friedman and state comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn. Of the three, Strayhorn is really shaking things up with her remarks from her position as comptroller.

After Perry released his plan, representatives from both sides of the aisle approached the comptroller, Strayhorn, to gauge what her office expected from the Perry plan. Strayhorn told the representatives that Perry's tax plan does not work.

Okay, it may be politically-motivated, but there is a legitimate problem to what Strayhorn says. That's because the word of her office has an official impact on the legislation passed by the Texas Legislature. As Rep. Jim Keffer (R-Eastland), who chairs the Ways and Means Commitee said, Strayhorn's conclusions are a "problem, no doubt" since her office has final say in judging the fiscal implications of legislation. (Austin American-Statesman, 4/15/06)

With Strayhorn campaigning against Perry, of course she wants him to fail this special session and face the wrath of the Supreme Court and ultimately, Texas voters. However, is this really politically motivated? Or is Strayhorn being legitimate? It's tough to tell as her office has waged war with Perry's plans in the past from her office in Austin as state comptroller.

Time will tell what comes of the Perry plan and whether or not those under the dome in Austin are favorable to it. Then again, this is just one story of many that have direct links to the election season this fall.

The special session begins tommorrow and I am sure we'll hear many more remarks from both Perry, Strayhorn and the rest of the circus acts getting together for the 30-day show.

Special Session Time in Austin - Here We Go Again

2006-04-16T11:29:00.000-07:00

You ready?

This should be an interesting time as the gavel is brought down to usher in the special session in Austin tommorrow. This special session's main focus will be on the Legislature's ability to fix school finance and properly fund the state's education system. After several failed attempts, the Supreme Court has placed a June 1st deadline on the Legislature for doing their assigned task (by the Constitution) or there could in fact be no school starting this coming August.

This session has been made even more interesting because of the recent party primaries. We have lots of GOPers who were targeted by education groups whom were ousted during primaries by other GOPers. That group, the Texas Parent Political Action Committee played a huge role, however the individuals they ousted will still be around for atleast this one special session as new terms do not kick off til the next regular legislative session in January 2007.

Among those who recieved the boot is Rep. Kent Grusendorf (R-Arlington) who heads the House Public Education Commitee. He was joined by Reps. Elvira Reyna (R-Mesquite) and Scott Campbell (R-San Angelo), all three of whom are huge allies of the current speaker, Rep. Tom Craddick (R-Midland) who is under no political pressure at all in a heavily Republican district. The same can not be said for Lt Governor David Dewhurst and Governor Rick Perry, both Republicans who face re-election in a state that has shown they are fed up with the current political issues in Austin.

Of note, we also have Al Edwards (D-Houston), the long-time representative who brought about the Juneteenth holiday and most recently, known for "sexually suggestive dancing" this past session over his long tenure in Austin. He will make a final appearance before being replaced next year during the regular session by Borris Miles, a Democrat that's over two decades his junior. After claims he was too close to the GOPs and Speaker Craddick, where will Edwards stand in his last hurrah?

Questions abound about spending for education and property taxes. Will we see a cigarette tax increase of $1? How will the Supreme Court act to the response by the Legislature? And lastly, how will the lobbyist react to the actions of the Legislature? Can the Perry plan which was formulated by former Democrat state comptroller Jon Sharp going to make sense? Or will it just shift around money while not solving the educational woes of the state's public system

Is there even a chance that Governor Rick Perry will add hurricane preparedness to the special session or will Texas not fix up some minor details (or begin work on major details) before the coming hurricane season?

Slick Rick Aims to Rob Poor

2005-06-23T14:21:00.000-07:00

Well, Governor "Slick" Rick Perry's plan won't be reviewed until it's filed as legislation. However, his plan is pretty close in line to another plan that has been reviewed, as is the case with all plans that will be turned into legislation that have a financial impact. According to the Houston Chronicle, the official Legislative Budget Board analysis of a tax plan the House Ways and Means Committee is taking up today says the plan would increase the overall tax burden for all but the wealthiest Texans. Wait, the GOP has intents on taxing people? Is that in line with the GOP agenda? Eh, who cares? As long as the richest are protected, right?

So, who does Perry's plan go after? Well, since families with an annual income of more than $100,000 collectively would receive a $351 million-a-year tax cut, everyone else needs to pay up. So, for all of those of you with families that do not collect more than $100,000 a year, get ready to pay up a collective $935 million-a-year. Heck, Governor Perry is the antithesis of Robin Hood. He's robbing from the poor!

Perry must be blind to this. Perry spokesman Robert Black said the governor believes his plan will give tax relief to all income groups. All income groups? Just the wealthiest. Oh, it continues. In the Houston Chronicle analysis of Perry's plan, a family of four that rents a home out of an income of about $35,000 a year would end up paying about $72 a year more in state taxes. But a family of four with an income of about $150,000 a year and owns a home valued at $300,000 would receive a state tax cut of about $567 a year. Once more, the Republican Perry takes care of th wealthy while ignoring those who are less fortunate, in the lowest bracket of the financial ladder.

So, who is going to suffer? Well, according to the last US census, about 37 percent of the families in Texas earn less than $35,000 a year. That's more than 1/3rd of Texas, Governor Perry. I know your an Aggie, so math may not come as easy to you. According to the U.S. census, on the other end of the scale, that huge tax savings will go to the five percent who earn $150,000 a year or more. About half the families in Houston are renters, who would be impacted the most. No wonder the city of Houston votes Democrat!

Arguments please? As we all know, Republicans argue that the wealthy pay the most taxes and in doing so, deserve the biggest breaks. The "protectors of the poor", the Democrats argue that sales taxes impact the poor the hardest because they pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes when they can least afford it.

Just another day for Republicans and Governor Perry to "attack" the poor, nothing new in Texas or in the United States now, is it?

Strayhorn Enters Governors' Race On A Roll

2005-06-18T13:48:00.000-07:00

Though not a Republican and obviously supporting independent candidate, Kinky Friedman, I am of course, interested in Texas politics. I'm very impressed by the remarks that Texas' favorite grandma, state comptroller Carole Strayhorn, came out and said during her announcement of her run for Governor in the Republican primary aagainst incumbent Governor Rick Perry.

"A leader does not call a fifth special session — costing taxpayers another $1.5 million dollars — when he does not have a plan," she said during her opening schpiel as she announced her candidacy. "A leader does not hold our children's education hostage and certainly would never even allow a discussion about schools not opening on time."

Atleast someone knows something. Taxpayers are paying for Republican leaders to come to the table once more and come up with nothing. How many times have they failed in the last few years? And now, Governor Perry is risking all of Texas children by striking out the public education money and keeping it hovering above the Legislature as a reason of action. Strayhorn is attacking Perry, right where it counts!

And you know what? Strayhorn already has solutions! Not only does she want to pay for two years of college for EVERY high school graduate, she wants to legalize video lottery terminals. Would it help a lot? Eh, we've seen the lottery cover just a small chunk of the state's expenses, but perhaps this will help give some money for immediate teacher pay raises and allow Texans to have another source of revenue. Any additional sources of revenue are a welcome sight, especially when it goes to paying teachers.

You Republicans need to vote smart come primary time and put Grandma as your candidate. With Kinky, the Grandma and possibly Bell, we'll be better off than any combination of Craddick and Perry...

Kay Announces Senate Run

2005-06-18T06:58:00.000-07:00

Well, I guess Kay Bailey wanted to save the Texas GOP and instead of going for Governor, will keep her focus on being re-elected for a third term as a US Senator, a position she once claimed, she would only seek twice. Well, we know how politicians are when it comes to such claims (i.e George W. Bush claiming to serve his full-term as Governor, but then seeking President among many others).

I was looking forward to a three-way battle, but of course, that meant that Governor Perry would win. Now with Strayhorn vs Perry, one on one, I think Strayhorn has a better chance. I'd hope that Kay Bailey comes out in support of Strayhorn as it wouldn't hurt her chances of winning and I believe Kay Bailey realizes how Perry is the biggest idiot we've ever had running the state, considering his multiple failures on getting the Legislaure to properly perform their duties.

Now, since we have this out of the way, the question turns to who will run for the position of Governor on the Democrat side? Will Kinky Friedman get enough signatures to run for Governor? How will Kay Bailey's decision impact the rest of Texas government since David Dewhurst will probably remain as Lt Governor? Will Greg Abbott make a move up the ladder? Or will he kick back as Attorney General? State comptroller is now wide open.

Perry's Stupidity May Lead to Sam Causes Being Rejuvenated

2005-06-18T06:00:00.000-07:00

Well, Governor Perry is set to announce line-item vetoes today in Austin that would lead to a special session. Unfortunately for education, both higher education and public education budgets may be vetoed. What would this mean? No one would have a clue, both universities and public schools, of what piece of the "pie" they would be recieving from the state, just weeks or even days before school starts. Yes, the budget kicks in September 1st, but seriously now, who knows what the Legislature will do?

How does this impact Sam Houston State? Well, if Governor Perry vetoes higher education spending, this means that higher education is one of the items that the Governor will be forced to put on the agenda for the special session. Two major issues backed by the Student Government ran into roadblocks in the Legislature could be brought back to the table as ammendments to a larger higher education spending bill.

First, the credit card issue sponsored by student Senators Evan Dierlam, Chris Whitaker and Armando Lopez by SGA and in the Texas Legislature by Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Houston) and Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas). This bill would change how credit card institutions would be able to come on campus. During the regular session, the bill was replaced by a commitee substitute, that did not reach the floor in time. With second life, this bill could pass.

Secondly, the Name Protection ammendment sought by student Senators Chris Whitaker and myself, which would protect the names of Sam Houston State, Lamar and Sul Ross was not added to a bill protecting the name of Prairie View A&M during the last session. This bill would add to the Texas Education Code section on the Texas State University System, that it would take an act by the Legislature to change the name, somewhat complicating the process a little more in case that the name change of SHSU, Lamar and Sul Ross ever came out. We have lacked a sponsor who was 100% gung-ho about this, though Rep. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham) had talked about sponsoring similar legislation or getting an ammendment to the Prairie View A&M bill in the House.

Interestingly enough, former SHSU student Dallas Jones helped author the Prairie View A&M bill, which served as the model for my draft of what SGA is looking for our legislators to do.

So, we'll see what happens. As I've noted before, SHSU had no funding withheld related to tuition-revenue bonds like other universities have. All of this is of course dependent on Governor Perry putting higher education back on table, which he seems to be threatening to do, along with school finance. SHSU has strong allies in Reps. Turner and Kolkhorst, as well as Sen. West. We just need to get some of the "old guard" of allies from previous legislative battles back on board.

** UPDATE **

Check that. Unfortunately, Perry only vetoed the public education budget and not that of higher education. He has not said higher education is a potential area of discussion at this special session.

That effectively means two things:

1) The causes of Sam Houston State are delayed - as in name change and credit card institution reform
2) The money of the universities looking to captalize on tuition revenue bonds will not occur via the state legislature.

SHSU Not Impacted by Legislative Failure

2005-06-08T18:17:00.000-07:00

After sending out an e-mail to our SHSU PR Director (who I figured would've been contacted by the media about this issue) and talking to some contacts with legislative ties, I've determined that our university was not impacted by the fact our legislators were not able to approve the state-approved tuition revenue bonds.

You may have seen some articles and news packages about universities that were also hurt by legislative failures. In fact, there was several billion dollars that were tied up in this legislation, HB 2239, for all of those interested in the Texas Legislature. Notably, hundreds of millions of dollars that were set to the University of Texas medical branches were held up.

I think we can attribute this to President Gaertner, Vice President Parker and others involved in the fiscal issues of the university. On top of that, many of our construction projects have already been linked to bond money or are paid by other sources. At this time, we do not need to rely on the state for any growth beyond what they have already pledged, so this defeat as noted above does not impact us.

In our system, quite a few things were botched by this failure, which may be corrected in a special session, though depending what happens with the Republican leadership in Austin, notably the disagreement over school finance reform between the Lt Governor and Speaker, they may need to wait til 2007.

Over in San Marcos, their vice president of finance, said the university needs at least 300,000-square feet of space to accommodate students. Most importantly for our sister school, plans for a nursing school were also dependant on tuition revenue bonds. In total, they had about $170M blocked in this move, which included a fine arts center, communications building and over $45M in infastructure repairs.

In Beaumont, Lamar University was due to recieve $40M in funds for educational facilities. The other Lamar components were due 3.5 to 4.25M respectively for their own educational facilities. Sul Ross was due to recieve 7.5M and Angelo State was not slated to recieve anything.

Republican Leader: "Education is not a Priority"

2005-06-08T07:20:00.000-07:00

Well, we know why Lt. Gov David Dewhurst, Governor Rick Perry and Speaker Tom Craddick (of Midland), our Republican leaders in the state of Texas have now failed three times in making school finance reform a reality under the dome in Austin.

According to Tarrant County Republican Chairwoman Pat Carlson in the Fort Worth Star Telegram, "School finance wasn't necessarily a priority of the conservative movement."

Yes, you heard it here! Despite our Govenor calling school finance an emergency in January, he won't be signing a school finance bill at a school, similar to signing an abortion bill at a church.

An emergency? Not for the conservative movement. This same bowel movement put redistricting as a priority in 2003 and surely had their other priorities flushed down the toilet in 2004 and 2005 when they couldn't agree on school finance reform or deal with state-approved tuition revenue bonds.

But, wait. Speaker Craddick explains it all commenting recently that "all the education groups were against us". Against you? All the education groups? Of course the are against you. They know more about education than you and your buddies under the dome. Even former school administrators on the Republican side of the aisle were against you because they know education. If these individuals are against you, don't you think they understand that your solution is not good enough?

As Sam Rayburn once said, thanks to Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) for sharing this, "You cannot be a leader, and ask other people to follow you, unless you know how to follow, too". Perhaps Speaker Craddick can follow those who know and learn something.

Hopefully the conservative movement learns something soon because these "representatives" have refused to do their job. Instead, they continue to point fingers and have decided to pass the task on to the Texas Supreme Court. Let's all jump for joy! The Supreme Court of our state will take a long time to iron out things, possibly a year.

Perhaps by the time that year is up, more and more students who continue to suffer in an underfunded public school system would fail TAKS three times, not allowing them to advance. Perhaps our legislators can learn a thing or two about failing three times, as they already have failed Texas school children three times since 2003.

Curbing Our Tuition? Wait for 2007, I Hope

2005-06-02T05:59:00.000-07:00

The Legislature met and discussed ways to deal with tuition during the 2005 session of the Texas Legislature. As I've said before, I do not see major changes in higher education until the pivotal 2007 session when we could see changes to both tuition and with system consolidation.

According to the Associated Press, higher education spending in Texas is set to grow from nearly $17 billion in 2004-05 to more than $18 billion for 2006-07.

"If the schools continue to skyrocket increases on tuition, the mood of the Legislature will be such that we'll either put a cap on it or repeal deregulation," Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said Tuesday in an article published by the Associated Press.

I hope that Lt. Governor Dewhurst and his colleagues in the Legislature repeal deregulation. This session, Senators and Representatives alike were saying they did not expect the huge increases that most state institutions saw following tuition deregulation's passage in 2003.

Governor Rick Perry signed an executive order during the 2003 regular session of the Texas Legislature saying that all fee and tuition increases must be justified by better quality. Have we truly seen that?

I'd say that the academic quality has worsened as our university has struggled in hiring qualified professors to teach classes. We have more adjuncts than I recall in the time I've been at SHSU. We have better quality students thanks to admission requirement changes, but I am not sure our quality has improved. Faculty are more concerned with research due to the changes in the track system. Due to enrollment increases, we've had the need for these adjuncts and lecturers. And academic money is being used on flat-screen televisions instead of needed materials. The Deans seem to run in circles covering that one up!

Thanks to tuition deregulation, during the 2003-2004 academic year, tuition statewide increased on average 16 percent. Here's hoping the legislators regain control, so we never have to deal with increases like those. Unfortunately, it comes down to the state budget and whether or not a shortfall will exist for the 2007-2009 budget which will be put together during the 2007 regular session.

Legislators Fail Texas School Children

2005-06-01T17:32:00.000-07:00

It was his fault! No, it was his fault! No, it was their fault! Texas Republicans are sure having a great deal of infighting as the Texas Legislature came to an end. Hey, Paul right here on the BB will still blame the Democrats, right?

Constitutionally, the Legislature is supposed to do several things. One of them is to provide adequate education, which obviously leans on funding. State District Judge John Dietz last year ruled the school funding system unconstitutional. He gave the state until October 2005 to fix the problem or stop funding public schools.

Well, that date is getting even closer, especially after House Speaker Tom Craddick (a Republican) and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst (also a Republican) could not work with Governor Rick Perry (a Republican) to settle differences between the disputing chambers. In fact, Craddick did not even place one Democrat on the conference commitee. Hey, let's close the process to the minority party over the BIGGEST issue of the session. The Republican way, right Paul?

Oh well, this is good for the sole fact that it more than likely spells the end for Governor Rick Perry. The Republicans in the primary will eat him alive since he bombed on school finance.

Perry says he'll call a special session if they can come to a deal. The damage has already been done. Can they pull things off in the short term? We'll see. The Texas Supreme Court will be hearing this one soon, in July, but those decisions take awhile to come down. It will be an interesting few months here in Texas.

Egg in the face of the Republican leaders in the Senate and House who could not come close to a compromise. Shame on Craddick for blocking out Democrats from the conference commitee process.

Courtesy of the Texas State Teacher Association, what failed (thankfully) and died with the death of HB 2...

The failure of HB 2 resulted in $2.4 billion in funds appropriated for the public schools in HB 10 to not be expended. As a result, there is no teacher pay raise, no restoration of the $1000 health care stipend, no funding for textbook proclamation 2002 and only enough new state money to cover enrollment growth.

A number of bad provisions also died with HB 2:
Merit pay tied to standardized test scores
Privatization of low performing schools
Bad due process language
Mandatory school start date after Labor Day
Creation of a new Value Added measure to classified teachers on standardized test scores
Creation of a new salary schedule that encouraged districts to hire uncertified teachers
Over $2 billion in new mandated programs

Cell Phone Law Change Thrown in During Mad Rush

2005-05-19T08:13:00.000-07:00

Rep. Jose Menendez, D-San Antonio was having a fun time on the floor of the Texas House when SB 1257 hit the floor to gain passage in the chamber. In what has become a mad rush to get bills passed on the floor, Rep. Menendez pretty much snuck in an ammendment that would make it illegal for new drivers to use cell phones.

The ammendment to SB 1257 changes the Transportation Code to read that a person under the age of "18 years of age, during the six-month period following issuance of an original Class A, B, or C driver's license to the person, may not operate a motor vehicle" under the following provisions:

(1)after midnight and before 5 a.m. unless the operation of the vehicle is necessary for the operator to attend or participate in employment or a school-related activity or because of a medical emergency; [or]

(2)with more than one passenger in the vehicle under 21 years of age who is not a family member; or

(3)while using a wireless communications device.

(b)A person under 17 years of age who holds a restricted motorcycle license or moped license, during the six-month period following the issuance of an original motorcycle license or moped license to the person, may not operate a motorcycle or moped:

(1) after midnight and before 5 a.m. unless:

(A) [(1)] the person is in sight of the person's parent or guardian; or

(B) [(2)] the operation of the vehicle is necessary for the operator to attend or participate in employment or a school-related activity or because of a medical emergency; or

(2)while using a wireless communications device.

Amendment No. 1 was adopted. (R. Cook, Harper-Brown, and Keel recorded voting no.)

Outside of the "wireless communication device", all the other provisions were already in place. That is the only one he added.

"I am hoping to get the next generation of drivers used to not using cell phones," Menendez said in an interview with the Houston Chronicle. "I think we can make all streets in Texas safer."

The funny thing is that in this mad rush to get all these bills passed before deadlines, the House did not realize what it was doing as the amendment was adopted without much debate nor without a record vote (as many bills are done if questionable that there is a good divide in the House).

There was an attempt later in which members of the House tried to reconsider their decision after realizing what the measure entailed. That motion failed 61-77.

During this session, there were numerous other bills filed relating to cell phones and when one can use them. None of those bills passed. Those bills included measures that would prohibit the use of phones while driving in a school zone to a bill that would lead to the ultimate elimination of cell phones without the use of headsets.

While this bill is not a law yet, it's just a few steps from becoming one. Due to it's placing in the process, this bill now returns to the Senate where the Texas Senate can accept the ammendment or send the bill to a conference commitee. I'm sure we'll see this bill in conference commitee for final approval of this particular ammendment before heading up to the Governor for the signing, if it gets that far.

Drinking Reform in Texas?

2005-05-10T07:01:00.000-07:00

Three drinking bills which I have been monitoring have had action taken. One bill passed second reading and will be due a third today. The others were in commitee with one failing to get enough votes to make it on to the House floor and the other recieving the necessary votes to make it to the House.

Rep. Stephen Frost, D-Atlanta authored a bill, HB 2868, that would "make an adult liable for damages caused by an intoxicated minor under age 18 if the adult knowingly served or provided the minor with alcohol".

This law relates to the fact parents will provide alcohol for their own children knowingly and friends that come over. This would put the parent responsible of each child that they provide alcohol to.

Facts presented by the Texas Trial Lawyers Association note that Texas has the highest rate of alcohol-related automobile crash deaths in the country among people 15 to 20.

As usual, Texas is behind in making such laws a reality as other states have long been implementing similar legislation. In fact, 35 other states in our country have similar laws in place regarding this subject.

Another measure, which I called the "21st Birthday Act" sponsored by Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands failed in commitee. The bill, HB 36, after not recieving enough votes in the Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee in the House will not be able to make it to the floor this sesssion.

The legislation would have tossed out the period between midnight and 1 AM when 21 year olds are able to take their first legal drink. In fact, it would've postponed drinking once one turns 21 until the next drinking day, which starts at 7 AM most days of the week or until noon on Sunday.

This Eissler proposed bill came after a constituent of Eissler's died after binge drinking on their 21st birthday.

The "Keg Bill", HB 193, passed in commitee however. The bill, also by Eissler made it a requirement that all kegs sold should have a registration label so that it can be tracked. Another attachment to this bill would require the individual buying the keg would have to sign written documentation in which they clearly state they will not provide alcohol for use of underage drinking.

No surprise here as 24 states and Washington D.C already have similar laws in place. This bill should hit the floor in the next week.

A Verdict on Top 10% in Texas

2005-05-07T05:31:00.000-07:00

The Senate and the House both debated over the top 10% issue, which to me was the biggest issue that will be tackled in this year's legislative session before things really get rolling in 2007 as higher education becomes the focus.

The Senate decided to back Royce West, a Democratic Senator of Dallas and his bill. The changes that some people wanted were practically ignored in favor of strengthening the requirements to make it into the top 10%.

Instead of anyone getting into the top 10%, students would be required to take the state's recommended or advanced high school curriculum. This of course in place of the basic or "core" course load that is required to graduate high school. The new requirements would begin with students applying for college in 2008. So, it would start with this year's current HS freshmen, I believe if I did my math right.

Something that I liked that was tacked on via an ammendment was a statewide grade-point average scale. We see all these weird scales from a four-point scale all the way up to a nine-point scale. You can really never note what's going on at some of these high schools in terms of comparing GPAs to other districts.

The state education commissioner's office is going to develop a standard with honors courses still getting bonus through an additional weight, which most districts do already.

The Senate Bill, SB 333 also requires that school districts provide written notification of top 10% placement. Nothing too special, but this should alleviate confusion that occurs.

The House on the other hand is probably going to have to duke it out with the Senate in conference committee over this one. The pressing issue with the top 10% was the cap on admissions. The House voted on a 50% cap of how many students could be admitted under the top 10% policy that was being adjusted.

That 50% cap of course is mostly for the University of Texas at Austin and the flagship of the Texas A&M system in College Station. Texas is already over the 50% mark and A&M is just about to eclipse it (and probably will for the freshman class of 2005).

We'll see what happens with a cap, but I see no cap coming out of things this session. Perhaps in 2007 when higher education becomes the banner topic of discussion in the Legislature as far as education goes, it will become an issue.

HB 1476 - Sexually Suggestive Dancing Gets Initial Approval

2005-05-04T09:38:00.000-07:00

They busted out the pom-poms in what turned out to be a close vote in favor of House Bill 1476, the sexually suggestive dancing bill that I've talked about before in this blog. The bill has now passed the House once and needs one more vote in the House before sending it over to the Senate. If you do not recall, the bill reads, "(b) If the commissioner determines that a performance group described by Subsection (a) has performed in an overtly sexually suggestive manner, the commissioner shall inform the appropriate school district and the district shall take appropriate action against the performance group and the group's sponsor, as determined by the district."

The vote was 65 to 56. Seems more Democrats were opposed than in favor on this one, though it was a Democrat sponsor. In Houston, most Dems went against while most Republicans were for, with folks on both sides.

How can you fight against suggestive dancing when the bill does not specifically define the prohibited behavior or set any penalty for violations?

They brought up my favorite ammendment, the cupcake issue which you can read about in this blog and how they, in the Texas House, have done some crazy bills in the past. They brought up the amputation of the fingers of drug dealers bill that Representative Al Edwards (D-Houston) has presented in the past.

What was funny is how they also had the song "shake, shake, shake, shake, shake your booty" in the background at one point, I'm assuming, someone in the gallery played it.

Rep. Edwards said "you know it, when you see it" in terms of what is sexually suggestive and what is not. I sure as hell can't tell what is sexual when I see it. Rep. Edwards also said it doesn't matter what they wear and the Texas Education Agency will handle who defines what is sexually suggestive. Do they know what is sexually suggestive? Is it defined in a dictionary that I have not seen?

Rep. Edwards was also questioned if he had anything that proves that sexually suggestive dancing leads to HIV, AIDS, herpes or other STDs. This question coming from Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Fort Worth) and really was interesting as Rep. Edwards copped out of that question, but said no.

Rep. Kent Grussendorf (R-Arlington) asked what Jon Stewart thought of the bill and Edwards responded that he didn't know how the piece would come out as it hadn't aired.

"This is a ridiculous bill. I don't know how it got to the floor," said Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston in a Chronicle article. "We don't have any business mandating anything. We are spending time on '2-3-4, we can't shake it anymore.' It's an embarrassment."

Rep. Thompson was downright hillarious. She was saying it was insulting and that Rep. Edwards' family gave the land to Rep. Thompson's elementary school. She went out of her way to compliment him, but said that he's on the wrong agenda and that this is a local issue. She was screaming into the mic and getting all emotional. She also said the TEA has enough to do to rework schools and make our kids better educated.

"Sometimes as adults, we should say there are proper ways to behave. It's time we send a message and say we are going to expect certain behavior," Rep. Carter Casteel, R-New Braunfels, who agree legislators should not be legislating morality or telling people what to do, but she voted for the bill.

Rep Rene Oliveria (D-Brownsville) said that Rep. Edwards was bringing up a good point, but he did not agree with it. He defended Rep. Edwards' right to file a billbut said it was taking precious legislative time when the House was not working on the Governor's major issue. Several mentions, including Oliveria about Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet possibly being sexually suggestive. "When I was 15, anything a cheerleader did was interesting to me. When I was 17, I knew better" said Oliveria. Oliveria brought up how President George W. Bush, Governor Rick Perry and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson were cheerleaders and we should recognize them to vote no.

Yes, this bill passed. However, we were all amused in the process. This is a terrible problem with our government. We have people. It should be noted that state Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale (D-Houston) signed on as a co-sponsor. Rep. Joe Crabb (R-Kingwood) and Rep. Debbie Riddle (R-Houston) were the Republican co-sponsors.

And no one has yet defined "overtly sexually suggested" though we still don't know what it is, if you don't know it, how can you see it?

The History of SWT Name Change

2005-05-04T07:50:00.000-07:00

Here is a history of the name change issue with Southwest Texas State and how Sam Houston State is involved.

For several years, there was a push by the Associated Student Government at Southwest Texas to change the name of their university to Texas State University. This organization not only passed legislation backing the name change, but also had individuals campaign on it during their yearly elections. The last two of which were Robert Doerr and Justin Fischer, who became elected ASG President and Vice President, respectively in the spring of 2002 for the 2002-2003 school year.

During regents meetings as well as meetings held at SWT, the name change was brought up and commitees were put in place to investigate the benefits of such a change. The main argument was that they would become a nationally-recognized school instead of one with a regionally-based name. The alumni at their university were split with many individuals claiming they would not support the school financially if the name changed. Others felt the name change would help with a move to Division I-A football for a program that had been a cellar dweller in the Southland Conference and had not produced multiple winning seasons since the early 1980s under legendary coach Jim Wacker.

Fast forward to the spring of 2003. Filed during the 2003 Texas Legislature, was a senate bill sponsored by State Sen. Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio) and backed by the Associated Student Government of Southwest Texas. SWT was undergoing a change in Presidents and were conducting a thorough investigation into the name change for presentation to the Board of Regents, who tabled the name change until an analysis could be presented.

The first draft of the bill died in the Senate's S/C on Higher Education thanks to the effort of Chair Royce West, a Senator out of Dallas. Wentworth circumvented the commitee with the aide of Lt. Governor David Dewhurst and went to the Administation commitee of the Texas Senate, for which he was Vice-Chair. In the House, Representative Vilma Luna and Patrick Rose, the name change effort.

SHSU alums did not step up in mass to stop the measure which is why it passed. There was confusion after the first bill had died and people were practically dancing in the streets thinking the issue had died with it. Unfortunately, that was not the case and a last-ditch effort was mounted to inform then-Alumni Association director Kevin Hayes.

In the Texas House, Rep. Lois Kolkhorst rose to question Rep. Luna, but she was shot down and not given a chance to speak. In the Senate, the measure passed with several dissenters led by Sens. Rodney Ellis and West. Debate came forth about having a formal survey, which was blocked. An ammendment that made it Texas State "-" San Marcos instead of Texas State "at" San Marcos was adopted for possible flexibility in the future for other schools that could switch names.

For the record, six Senators voted against the name change, none of whom were SHSU's own state Senator, Steve Ogden and Kolkhorst filed that she was against it. Also, Sam Houston State would not have changed to Texas State - Sam Houston or Texas State - Huntsville. The bill that was in the Legislature was solely for the name change of Southwest Texas State to Texas State University - San Marcos, which did occur.

During the fallout, then-SGA Secretary Jason Plotkin ran for SGA President against then-Student Life Commitee Chair Angie Cartwright, who would eventually win. During the debate amongst the two candidates, Plotkin criticized the student leaders at the time for their failure in uniting everyone against the change as well. This included individuals at the other system component schools who were against the name change.

There was a worry that if the name change passed, all schools in the system would change names. That is what the Chancellor of the Texas State University System said as he felt all schools should be unified like the Texas schools and the A&M schools. Perception he said, perception.

A year later, it was brought up to change Angelo State to Texas State - San Angelo. The President in San Angelo balked at it and half the alums were against it, so it did not occur. The new Chancellor is against name changes of the schools so it will not happen.

The Student Government Association passed legislation in the spring of 2005 sponsored by Sens. Jason Plotkin and Chris Whitaker that asks the Texas Legislature to protect the name of our university and the names of SUl Ross and Lamar, also named after Texas heroes. This notion would've been added to a bill regarding protecting the name of Prairie View A&M which passed in both houses.

If the measure were to ever pass in the Legislature, it would make it impossible for regents to change the name and put that power in the Legislature where they would face heat if trying to change the name of historical figures. This would have made the process tougher to change the names, adding in extra hurdles that would not have existed before.

It was determined that SHSU should wait til the 2007 Legislature before pressing any more name concerns as it was suggested that perhaps Sam Houston State could change their name to Sam Houston University.

An Update on Suggestive Dancing

2005-04-15T18:15:00.000-07:00

State representative Al Edwards (D-Houston) has reworked the bill after it went to Public Education commitee in the House. According to the commitee substitute, which is now heading to the House floor, no fiscal damage will be done to these groups or their advisors had been previous suggested in the original copy of HB 1476.

The bill instead reads, "(b) If the commissioner determines that a performance group described by Subsection (a) has performed in an overtly sexually suggestive manner, the commissioner shall inform the appropriate school district and the district shall take appropriate action against the performance group and the group's sponsor, as determined by the district."

So, it is saying the district will take action against the group's sponsor and the performance group whether it be whatever punishment that fits the "crime". I agree much more with this one then the previous form of the bill. Give the power to the district to act on the problem. Do not punish anyone financially as was the original plan with this piece of legislation.

The bill as written now should fly in the Texas House and it seems that Rep. Edwards may get a victory with one of his crazy bill ideas that he presents each legislative session. Now, Rep. Edwards is going to be thinking up all the crazy things he can do for the next session in 2007. Don't get too excited, I am sure he has a list in his office that he crosses off things every two years. That'd seem very Al Edwards-like.

Threatening the Texas Grant

2005-04-11T06:00:00.000-07:00

Rep. Geanie Morrison, R-Victoria, is sponsoring a bill that would bring together the Texas Grant and the B-On-Time loan program. The bill would make it where the Texas Grant would be in place the first two years while the B-On-Time loan would be the second two. If students are not able to maintain their B average or must take more than four years to get out of school, these students would have to pay back the loan to the state of Texas, interest-free (so atleast something is good, eh?).

Everyone was asking why the university asked how much students work when they registered for classes. Think about this. Many students at Sam work a great deal of hours and does this impose time restrictions for graduations? Doesn't more work hours typically prolong the process that it takes to fufill the requirements to graduate from college?

The two bills to keep your eye on in Austin are HB 3000 by Morrision which would do the two and two proposal spoken of above. The other is SB 31 by Sen. Judith Zaffrini (D-Laredo) which would just change the parameters of the Texas Grant in which students must take at least 30 hours per year, "with exceptions for people who have severe illness or are responsible for the care of a sick, injured or needy person."

As Zaffrini has stated, she feels this plan is more reasonable as it does cost the state a bit more if a student sticks around longer. She feels a typical student can pull off the 30 hours and it would encourage them to get out rather timely. Morrision's bill on the other hand puts that hard-cap on the four years while Zaffrini's bill would provide some flexibility with no year stated -- just the hours -- which would get the job done.

In the Chronicle, Morrison said, "Students are staying in school for six years to get their degrees, and that's a detriment to the state, to the school and to the citizens. Hopefully this will help."

Well, Representative Morrison, do you realize that not everyone is as fortunate as your kids? Most kids have to work through college and by doing this, instead of helping the future of the state, your taking away their right to a college education.

What do these stats mean to you? About 23 percent of all Texas college students and 17 percent of TEXAS Grant students graduate in four years, according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Can you do that math and realize how many students would lose out? Or be in debt because of your proposal?

Is she also blind that Texas ranks #45 in the percentage of HS students that go to college, right above 50%? Or that Texas provides about $120 million less in the form of state financial aid than the other five biggest states in the nation. Georgia, a state one-third the size of Texas, spends $50 million more in direct state financial aid. How awful is that? Texas already does a piss poor job of taking care of it's perspective college students. I guess we could get worse...

The Search for Fair Redistricting in Texas

2005-04-10T05:18:00.000-07:00

Why can't bills get hearings in Austin? You would think a huge bi-partisan effort to form a redistricting commission would get a hearing, especially after the political rhetoric of the 2003 Texas Legislature when the evil trio of Governor Perry, House Speaker Tom Craddick and US Congressman Tom DeLay led a "gerry-mandering" effort of Texas in what is historically a non-re-districting year.

SB 1404, sponsored by long-time GOP Senator, Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio) is the main bill floating around. Sen. Wentworth is joined by Sens. Ken Armbrister (D-Victoria), John Carona (R-Dallas), Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) and the Dean of the Senate himself, John Whitmire (D-Houston). No, this is not about GOPs and Dems. This is a bi-partisan effort bringing together in my mind, some of the most powerful Senators under the dome in Austin.

There are actually quite a few more bills floating around. House Joint Resolutions in fact. HJR 64, sponsored by Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin), HJR 83 sponsored by Rep. Mark Strama (D-Austin) and HJR 93 backed by Rep. Dave Farabee (D-Wichita Falls) have redistricting commission plans within them. HB 2752 does too. HB 2752 is so popular that it has Reps. Jim Keffer (R-Eastland), Farabee, Mark Homer (D-Paris) and Patrick Rose (D-San Marcos) taking part. Yes, a Republican as the sponsor with a slew of Democrats following along.

Texas is ussualy not a trend-setter, so why would pushing the idea of creating a bipartisan redistricting commission be a bad idea? It's one of those ideas that most everyone likes except Perry, Craddick and DeLay. And it's not like this plan hasn't worked elsewhere.

In Iowa, the plan works thanks to computer programs that create districts that ignore partianship and incumbency. It's approved straight up or straight down. In turn, according to a Houston editorial op/ed by former US Rep Chris Bell (D-Houston), the result is that three out of the state's five congressional districts are in play.

Who could forget California where Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed an independant panel of retired judges to take up the effort? Arnold was not so thrilled when none of the US Representative positions in his state turned to another party and he wanted the democratic process to take place, without political rhetoric and gerry-mandering.

Texas once more seems to be left out of the equation in what is becoming a very large ethics issue that is stemmed by greed from mainly Republicans who have led efforts across the state in gerry-mandering in years that states do not typically touch this issue. In addition to California, it's being reported by Common Cause that redistricting reform campaigns are under way in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Correct me if I am wrong, but those are quite a few states taking this issue up.

So, any hearing set for any of these bills? Are you kidding me? Governor Perry, Speaker Craddick. You think either of these two are going to let this happen? Perry would veto it in a single swoosh if given the chance to do so. Perry, a former Democrat, would not want his conservatives to think that he is allowing the Democrats any chance at increasing their delegation to the nation's capitol once more. That would not be a good idea to his re-election bid in 2006 against what could be a slew of popular Republicans here in Texas, would it not?

So, where's Texas? Until the GOP leadership that stands under the Dome in Austin stops taking political soft money from DeLay and his loyal backers, we're not going to see a change in Austin that would benefit all, Democrats and Republicans, alike.

BCS and the Legislature

2005-03-29T14:23:00.000-08:00

Texas. A&M. Texas Tech. Baylor. Four Big 12 schools playing in a Bowl Championship Series conference with goals set on making it to a BCS bowl game reaping the rewards of their program's success on the playing field. That is the goal, right?

Not so fast there. If a bill sponsored by state Sen. Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio) were to pass through the Texas Legislature and similar bills would be adopted in other states, these schools would no longer be eligible (outside of Baylor, who the state can not really dictate policy over since it is a private school) unless the post-season competition for these teams "is part of a national playoff system consisting of at least 16 teams competing in successive elimination games resulting in a final game for the national championship of that entire division or level of intercollegiate competition." This all according to SB 1790.

An interesting provision is part of this bill. If a similar law is not enacted in at least four other states, then this legislation falls apart and expires the day before the BCS bids are handed out. According to this legislation the laws in these four states must occur before December 1, 2005. The states noted on the bill all have atleast two schools eligible for the BCS (with the exception of Colorado, as Colorado State is not in a BCS conference). Those states being, Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, and Washington. States with one BCS school like Arkansas and Lousiana are not in this group.

While this bill is symbolic in nature, it shows that the politicos are part of the growing frustration that exists with the current system. There has in the past been a great deal of controversy surrounding the system which is intended to give us one national champion, though we've actually had split champions since the system was implemented to put the #1 and #2 schools on the field in a rotating championship game.

To note with this bill is that Wentworth was given clearance to file the bill, a good two weeks after the filing deadline has passed. Enough Senators must join in per Senate tradition to allow for a bill to filed following the deadline. Ussually, bills do not have too much problem in getting this special permission in the Senate.

Texas A&M and the University of Texas are the only schools in Texas to have recieved a BCS bid with Texas playing in the Rose Bowl this past season, defeating Michigan. Houston, Rice, Texas Christian, North Texas, SMU and UT-El Paso are other schools that play Division I-A football, but are not in BCS conferences guaranteed automatic bids for their champions.

Sam Houston State, Texas St- San Marcos and Stephen F. Austin compete in the Southland Conference, a Division I-AA football league where the winners of eight conferences as well as eight at-large bids enter a 16-team championship tournament. Prairie View A&M and Texas Southern also play Division I-AA football in the Southwestern Athletic Conference, but due to SWAC commitments, the champion is not guaranteed an automatic bid to the I-AA football playoffs.

I have gone on record against the BCS saying that I'd rather have the old system over the current system, unless we were given a playoff. Looking at the compelling NCAA tournament that is still taking place, I believe there is argument for a playoff. Revenues galore, guaranteed. Will the NCAA move to this? It's not looking good in the near future due to TV contracts, however you won't find me not supporting Sen. Wentworth and other legislators in states opposing the BCS.

Perry's Video of Foe Covers Own Holes

2005-03-27T06:57:00.000-08:00

Isn't it funny how this video that Governor Rick Perry's camp is leaking all over the place with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Texas) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York) sharing an embrace comes from a joint appearance by the two honoring women who long ago worked hard to make it possible for women to vote in this country? Isn't that something conservatives don't mind? Or am I mistaken? Then again, what do conservatives know? They'll get scared of Hutchinson and the very liberal Clinton being jovial with each other.

Perry obviously feels that reaching out to a conservative base and seperating himself from Hutchinson is ideal. He feels that Hutchinson and him will compete for the same conservative voters come GOP primary time in the Texas gubernatorial race.

What I find even more hillarious is Perry has two ideals that seperate himself from most conservatives. Do you think he is attempting to hide these? Of course! Those two issues being the expansion of legalized gambling and the use of more toll roads, both which are widely accepted as issues that the GOP in general is against.

If Perry wants to attack Hutchinson and regain his conservative base and in theory protect his own holes in a conservative plan, he should atleast go after Hutchinson's abortion record. As we all know, Hutchinson has consistently voted for abortion restrictions. However, being the strong woman and supporter of womens' rights that she is, she has supported abortion rights over the years, something that differs from Texas conservatives' thinking.

When will Perry learn? Then again, the state of Texas isn't learning much in Perry's lead. Education funding has not been kept to par and all we're doing is repetitively testing the children in our state. Testing them over a test which is solely what most of our teachers are teaching to due to the bonuses associated with susccess.

Bullying - We All Know About It

2005-03-24T13:53:00.000-08:00

Bullying. In no means is it a friendly word. We all can envision the images from movies or can imagine what we've seen on the news or even read in books.

HB 283, authored by state Rep. Ruben Hope (R-Conroe) covers this issue, as it has become a big issue in our schools to the point that "cyber-bullying" is even being tackled in the United States House.

In HB 283, bullying is defined. The bill states that bullying, "means engaging in written or verbal expression or physical conduct that: (1) the student knows or reasonably believes will cause significant emotional distress to another student; (2) causes significant emotional distress to another student; and (3) would cause significant emotional distress to a reasonable person under the same circumstances."

Sounds good enough, eh? HB 283 also provides for the parent of the victim of bullying to call on a given school Board of Trustees to transfer the victim of such acts to another classroom or even another school that is not attended by the bully.

My feelings are in support of zero behavior for bullying. We've seen what has occured at most notably, Columbine, by those who felt they did not fit in at their schools. We all know the negative consequences brought forth by bullying.

However, my issue with this legislation is that the victim should not have to be the one to transfer. Why should they be the one? Can't the victim's guardians/family have such the option if the bully is forced to transfer instead of the victim? My concern is that the school that would have to host the bully would have to deal with this problem and that a sysem should be in place for this bully to be counseled in one form or another regarding their behavior at the previous school or the school they currently attend.

What Benefits Does Virtual Vouchers Provide? None

2005-03-24T13:32:00.000-08:00

This makes absolutely no sense to me. The House Committee on Public Education heard HB 1445 by Rep. Jerry Madden (R-Plano) this past week. This bill is known as the "virtual voucher bill". According to research by the Texas State Teacher Associate, the bill "provides for school districts, ERCs and Texas Education Agency to provide online courses for any and all subjects between K-12 to as many students who wish to sign up from anywhere in the state and perhaps across the country at state expense."

Who would benefit most from this bill, you may ask? Home Schoolers. Private Schoolers. So what do you expect? The teachers were among many groups and individuals who testified against this bill.

Perhaps, we should just leave children infront of a computer all day without a teacher. Expectations? Hardly, not when they have a teacher assisting them in these efforts. Also, the Texas State Teacher Association has raised concerns that it would be hard to verify and validate attendance for these classes, which would be paid for by some money, which I am not sure our state has at this point. Don't we want accountability for the money we are spending?

Why should we support this bill? House Public Education Chairman Kent Grusendorf (R-Arlington) has stated numerous times on the floor and in commitee that there "is no more money for public education". Well, where is this money coming from to support this initiative? Are there trees in Arlington that just grow money? In my last visit to representative Grusendorf's district, I did not see such trees.

If there is more money for public education, let's put it in the programs that the GOP feels are not important enough, such as advanced placement courses which had all their funding stripped from them during this session in the GOP plan unleashed in HB 2.

The bill was left pending.

Student Board of Regent

2005-03-22T14:23:00.000-08:00

SB 870 sponsored by Sen. Eliot Shapleigh (D-El Paso), Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos (D-Austin) and Sen. Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio) has been left pending in the sub-commitee of Higher Education.

This bill is the one which would place a student regent (as well as a designate, who would be an apprentice before taking over for the student regent the following year) on all the system board of regents. Currently, 39 states have a similar system in place or atleast a system where there is a student regent member on a system board of regents. Texas, as always, a slow poke to catch up with the rest of our society here in the United States. No surprise, eh?

Would this individual be from one given school? Or would it be from all system component schools? The answer is that the Governor would pick someone from a pool of school-finalists. Each school in a given system will submit a short list of applicants that went through a process and then a selection would be made.

This commitee would be made up of students from all schools who would then submit three names for review to the system board of regents. One of my concerns about an individual being from the same school for several years in a row is not allowed as a school is not allowed to have the designated position in back to back years as stated in the bill. These terms do last just a year.

My personal opinion is that this student would not have the best interests of all the students involved within the system. The good thing is that the student government will maintain the power at a given school to put in both a graduate and undergraduate student on the system nominating commitee. So, by the student governments at all the schools having some bit of input, I am assured that they will be in touch with the student governments on the needs and issues of the student bodies.

Sen. Wentworth's Chief of Staff said we should be happy to have our foot in the door with this one. Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) has been a big advocate of this bill and has said in the past he was for it. Sen. West, the Higher Education commitee chair continued such support in commitee. I've found Sen. West to be very support of Student Governments/Associations in the state of Texas.

Another note on this legislation is that according to the legislation, this individual would be more like an ad-hoc member with no voting power or ability to make motions. They could take part in discussion and debate while representing the good and welfare of the students within a given system. Nor do they impact quorum counts at regents meetings.

Another issue is that it could eliminate the student advisory board/council, the student arm of the various university systems, where the student government leaders from all the system schools gather together. Unfortunately, not all systems have a solid student advisory board/council that communicate to the regents adequately. It is a sham and nothing ever gets accomplished in the Texas State University System Student Advisory Board. So, perhaps the elimination of such a board would not be a bad thing.

I support passage of this bill when it comes down to it as I do agree with the Chief of Staff of Sen. Wentworth. We need a foot in the door and with major issues relating to the Close the Gap intiative with our higher education system and the ongoing debate over tuition, it is imperative that we have more student input. If it doesn't work, we can go back and fix it. A bi-partisan effort is in place and this bill should see passage out of the Senate.

HB 1184 - Textbook Savings for Students

2005-03-20T12:11:00.000-08:00

A potential major victory for college students is brewing in the Texas Legislature where House Bill 1184 is sitting there, waiting for students across the state to unite behind it. The bill sponsored by state representative Abel Herrero (D-Corpus Christi) would urge in core classes, that professors are urged to use the same book for three academic years, thus bringing down the costs of textbooks for students.

As I am sure all the college students and anyone who has ever attended college could tell you, textbooks are one of the largest burdens felt by those taking classes. When these students attempt to sell their books at the end of the semester, they either can not do this or instead, are getting peanuts for doing so. The reasoning? Professors continue to get new editions for books.

Why should a professor get a new edition of a book when nothing has happened? Anything new in ancient history? Unless there is some large discovery dug up from out of the ground, I would bet every dollar in my pocket, there isn't any reason.

This bill looks out for those needs if something does happen. According to the text of the bill, if passed, a "good cause for a change as established by the appropriate faculty member, department, or school, the same textbook and textbook edition, or textbooks and editions, as applicable, be used for a period of at least three academic years in a specific core curriculum course, regardless of the faculty member teaching the course and regardless of how frequently the institution offers the course during that period."

This legislation also states that the only reason for changing the textbook in these classes is that "(1) significant advances in knowledge or technology affecting the subject matter of the course or (2) significant differences between sections of a course in emphasis placed on one or more course topics or objectives."

Students need to get involved in the legislative process and push to get this bill through. I am not sure where it stands in the eyes of the legislators, but it does not cost the state any more money. The only people profiting are the professors who are getting many from the other benefactor, the publishers.

Why do big corporations and professors who are already making money off of student tuition have to continue to profit? The state, which continues to cut the amount of money it gives to the universities, which in turn increases tuition costs can atleast do one thing right and that is give money back to the students by passing HB 1184.

GOP Taxing Diapers and Medical Parking? No Joke!

2005-03-20T08:34:00.000-08:00

This is beyond disgraceful. If you want to see how Republicans care for the lower-income bracket and those in the middle-class, we have yet another example. Republican, let me tell you, they "care" about families.

After more reading on what our fine legislators in Austin are doing, I have come across the fact that in the GOP-backed HB 3 regarding tax reform, diapers and parking at medical facilities were among the things that the GOP had full intentions on taxing.

Diapers? They only cost so much as is, right? I am sure my parents, your parents and anyone hear who has kids can attest to that. Perhaps we can pay even more on diapers thought the GOP. Did they also think that by taxing diapers, that this would curb teenage pregnancy? Probably. All hail diaper taxing Republicans!

Oh, it's get's better. I was at Texas Children's this past week with my brother. An hour of parking, four dollars. It seems to raise a dollar every 30 minutes after that with a $10 max. Short time in, your paying alot compared to staying a long-time. Makes no sense. Costs a lot. Burns a hole in my pocket as well as my family's. I didn't want to be there at all. Going to the hospital is not fun. This coming from someone who is still recovering from my knee surgery in December. Well, the GOP wanted to tax that as well. Might as well bring the life-savings when you go to park at the hospital says the GOP.

Never fear, state representative Scott Hochberg (D-Houston) is here! Ally to families and religious minorities, reprsentative Hochberg worked hard for the families of the state. In exchange for the taxes on diapers and the parking at medical facilities, representative Hochberg told the House to tax "elective, cosmetic surgery". Yes, not the surgery for those who were in a car accident or radical medical surgeries that are required, but those who are getting needed "updates" to their body. Sounds reasonable, right? Taxing optional services that the upper-class is drooling over.

Not to the GOP! The GOP was looking out for their cosmetic surgeon friends. 51 Republicans voted against the measure.

Even more embarassing to the GOP is that nine Republicans later wanted it noted in the journal tha hey had intended to vote with representative Hochberg. Are you kidding me? Where were you? You should've known what was going on. These Republicans are just trying to cover themselves. In order to make sure we all know which of our Republican legislators feel we should be taxed for diapers and medical facility parking instead of optional cosmetic surgery, I will provide a list.

Here's a list of those voted to table (essentially voting 'no" to the ammendment) and those who later made effort to "cover" themselves:

Yeas — Allen, R.; Anderson; Berman; Bohac; Bonnen; Brown, F.; Casteel; Crabb; Davis, J.; Dawson; Denny; Driver; Eissler; Flynn; Griggs; Grusendorf; Haggerty; Hamric; Hardcastle; Harper-Brown; Hartnett; Hill; Hope; Hupp; Isett; Jackson; Jones, D.; Keel; Keffer, B.; King, P.; Krusee; Laubenberg; Madden; McCall; Morrison; Mowery; Nixon; Orr; Otto; Paxton; Riddle; Solomons; Straus; Swinford; Talton; Wong; Woolley; Zedler.

And here's a list of those who later looked to cover themselves...

"I was shown voting yes on Record No. 110. I intended to vote no."
Bonnen, Denny, Keel, T. King, Krusee, Madden, McCall, Orr, Otto and Solomons

"My vote was indicative of my desire to extend debate to further analyze the definition of elective surgery."

Baxter,Branch

Protecting the Good Name of Texas Heroes

2005-03-18T14:59:00.000-08:00

Rep. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham) informed a group of students in Austin that she was going to file legislation to protect the name of Sam Houston State University during the 79th regular session of the Texas Legislature. At this point, no legislation has been filed and many students are worried that she is not going to follow through on this process considering the time table for filing legislation has passed. When her office was called, the aide who picked up had no idea what was occuring with it and had not even heard of it.

The legislation in which Rep. Kolkhorst was referring to, as she noted name changes to Prairie View A&M and Tarleton State in the same conversation was HB 1409, sponsored by Garnet Coleman (D-Houston). The bill has a companion bill, SB 1118 by Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-Houston). Each of these bills are in their respected Higher Education commitees.

The bill adds to section 86.23 of the Higher Education Code (which is in Chapter 86 pertaining to the Texas A&M University System) that the board of regents may change any name of an institution, agency or service in the Texas A&M system except that of Tarleton State University. The companion bills would add Prairie View A&M to that list as Texas A&M attempts to rename them Texas A&M - Prairie View.

Prairie View A&M is the historically black university of the land grant and it would start a huge uproar if they attempted to change the name of this institution. You'd never see many activists as loud as you would if they changed the name.

Anyhow, I am interested in protecting the name of my university, Sam Houston State University, which has been threatened with name changes on several occasions. I'd also like to protect Sul Ross State named after General Sul Ross and the Lamar Universities named after "Father of Education" Mirebeau Lamar. Well, I had a plan! I was going to write the state some law that I'm working on getting to occur under the dome in Austin.

I would like to add the following to Chapter 96 of the Texas Education Code (which pertains to the Texas State University System). Subchapter F needs to be added to Chapter 96. And it should state:

SUBCHAPTER F: NAME OF SYSTEM AND COMPONENT INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES

§ 96.801. PARAMETERS OF CHANGING NAME OF SYSTEM AND COMPONENT INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES.

(a) The board by resolution may change the name of the
system or of any institution, agency, or service under the control
and management of the board.

(b) This section does not apply to Sam Houston State University, Sul Ross State University, Lamar University, Lamar State College - Port Arthur, Lamar State College - Orange, and Lamar Institute of Technology.

This is an ammendment that needs to be added to HB 1409 and SB 1118. I have already begin urging memmbers of my Student Government and other colleagues to support this proposed ammendment in order to make this occur.

We must make sure this ammendment is added to these bills as it would protect the names of Texas legends Sul Ross, Sam Houston and Mirabeau Lamar. With this in place, we will have no fears of our name ever being changed to some "Texas State - Sam Houston" crap! That would make me embarassed to be a graduate of this university if it ever had to result to a name change.

HB 1476 Aims to Stop the 'Sexually Suggestive'

2005-03-18T05:43:00.000-08:00

My friend, Frank and I were discussing how we have many useless bills going through Austin that have no reason being there in the first place. Frank has a strong feeling that bills should impact the state of Texas, whether it through funding or a blanket law instead of Texas going after specific muncipalities.

Well, one of my favorite state representatives, Al Edwards (D-Houston) is showing us the light with HB 1476, which in recent days has been referred to the commitee of Public Education in the Texas House.

The caption on this one states that the bill is "relating to regulation of sexually suggestive performances at certain public school events." More or less, this bill would curb "sexually suggestive" performances at athletic events and other extracurricular competitions.

In the Houston Chronicle, J.M. Farias, owner of Austin Cheer Factory, was quoted as saying that cheering competitions already penalize for suggestive movements or any vulgarity.

Keep in mind that I believe he was not referring to UIL competitions, but to competitions put on by various national organizations, such as the ones that dance groups such as the national champion Orange Pride of Sam Houston State University and the Sam Houston State Bearkat Cheerleaders participate in, as is the case at my institution of higher learning.

This bill goes a step further than stating that "sexually suggestive" performances are a bad thing. It states that "if the commissioner determines that a school district or a campus in a school district knowingly permits a sexually suggestive performance prohibited by Subsection (a) or knowingly permits a school performance group to perform in violation of Subsection (b), the commissioner shall reduce the funding the district receives under Chapter 42 by an amount the commissioner determines appropriate."

Yes, that's right. The education commisioner can cut funding from districts for allowing such behavior by dance teams and cheerleaders. This would penalize schools and potentially lead to the removal of such teams as the funds (pending the size of the funding cut) would not permit these teams to stay around to continue their support of athletic teams, school spirit in general and participation in these competitions.

One individual quoted on a local newscast stated that parents should know in their right mind whether such activities are occuring and be vocal enough to their child's cheerleading or dance squad coach. As you and I know, these parents are definitely involved in their children's activities as parents of athletes and cheerleaders customarily are.

If passed, this bill would go into effect September 1st, 2005. Right in time for high school football season to begin. It should be noted that state Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale (D-Houston) signed on as a co-sponsor.

Safe Clear Jumps Commitee, Heads to Floor

2005-03-17T12:36:00.000-08:00

HB 857, the House bill relating to Safe Clear in Houston, which has kind of fallen out of public scrutiny, was voted out of commitee this past week. In the House's Urban Affairs Committee, they voted 6-1 to pass it along to the House floor. Rep. Alma Allen, D-Houston, was the only member of the commitee to cast a "no" vote. The sponsor of HB 857 is Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena.

Well, this bill could very well pass the House and I hope it does. However, Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston who was the one who got this whole thing rolling just a few months ago, is pretty much stalling it from taking place in the Senate. His version has passed commitee and is ready for second reading. However, he's stalled it and if HB 587 passes on to the Senate, we're not going to see it there either because of this.

Sen. Whitmire stalled the bill after a meeting with Houston mayor Bill White as the two came together on their differences. The meeting was put together by former Houston mayor Bob Lanier, who as always, continues to be a major player in the Houston political scene.

This should be interesting, these next few weeks monitoring what kind of political power play goes on as the House and the Senate are a stand still. Sen. Whitmire has admitted to not discussing this matter with Rep. Talton in recent weeks, but respects the House for moving forward with the legislative process.

For the record, those testifying before the Urban Affairs Commitee included several representatives of small wrecker companies in the Houston area. They testified in favor of the legislation acknowledging that their business is suffering because they can't tow cars from freeways. A few weeks ago, these same owners protested in Austin, complete with a convoy of their wrecker trucks and support from LULAC.

The city of Houston was also represented in Austin at the hearing this past week before the commitee. Houston police Capt. Lori Bender and Joe Breshears, director of the Mayor's Office of Mobility testified against the bill, on behalf of the city and the Safe Clear ordinance, backed unanimously by the Houston City Council.

TexShare and It's Importance to Our Schools

2005-03-15T05:45:00.000-08:00

As many of you know, one of my big areas of support is our libraries. My mom is a librarian and has been very active in education since I was little, whether it serving as a PTO President of my high school or her current position on the Houston ISD District Advisory Board. These two things go hand in hand for the legislation I'm going to discuss today.

SB 483 filed by state Sen. Todd Staples (R-Palestine) according to it's action statement would allow "designated school libraries to participate in group purchasing agreements with the TexShare Library Consortium."

TexShare for those of you who don't know is the program that allows books to go from one library in this program to the next through a program that is similar to interlibrary loan. Currently, many public school libraries do not have the proper funds, given to them by the state of Texas. This makes it nearly impossible to have the adequate funds to utilize databases and other programs/initiatives that are beneficial to these libraries.

My personal opinion is that small libraries and/or public school libraries can become large databases and archives of knowledge if they do have access to programs such as TexShare and the plethora of databases which libraries can purchase. The passage of SB 483 would allow for public school libraries to work together to bring down the cost of TexShare, which is very vital to the success of our students.

How could one say libraries were not successful to students? Unfortunately, we are not accurately funding our libraries to begin with. According to recent figures obtained in a recent editorial in the Houston Chronicle, our state's public libraries only get nine cents per Texan each year for their budget. Nine cents? It sounds like a lot when you consider we have so many citizens in our state of Texas, but really, how far does this stretch when you have so many libraries in so many cities and communities across the state?

Our Legislators need to do a better job of funding our libraries. SB 483 by state Sen. Staples is just the start. Much more can be done and should be done in order to further the education of our students through the resources they use to succeed.

HB 661 is the companion bill to SB 483. HB 661 is authored by state representative Dan Branch (R-Dallas) with co-sponsors being representatives Dan Flynn (R-Canton) and Dennis Bonnen (R-Angleton).

Must admit, while being a Democrat supporter most of the time, I'm glad to see these four Republicans are taking the initiative to help fix one of the problems in our system by making TexShare more affordable for our schools.

Cupcakes in the Classrooms

2005-03-09T08:36:00.000-08:00

After quite a bit of bi-partisan debate on bringing cupcakes for birthdays to school, which it was orginally prohibited, a record vote took place (after requested) in which it was passed by a count of 148 ayes and zero nays. It was followed by a large applause from the floor and gallery.

Rep. Jim Dunham (D-Waco) sponsored this important ammendment to House Bill 2 (HB2) today during debate. Lauren, his eldest daughter is the reason this was drafted after she complained that her friends were mad they could not have oupcakes for birthdays. Rep. Fred Hill (R-Richardson) asked to clarify name of the act and it will be called "Lauren's Law".

This ammendment includes anything with candy sprinkles and the parents would have to bring it. And this would also allow for the "Donuts for Dad" and "Muffins for Mom" program. Rep. Hill said this was a good way to get parents involved.Rep. Dunham said this was the first time his child had brought up an issue that they wanted him to handle.

I'd like to applaud Rep. Dunham for bringing this important issue to light and handling it appropriately. From now on, I urge all those referring to Dunham to call him "Cupcake" in accordance with the wishes of our state representatives. I will attempt to follow suit here in my blog as well.

Cell Phones While Driving - Ongoing Dispute

2005-03-06T07:25:00.000-08:00

State representative Jose Menendez (D- San Antonio) has continued what seems to be an annual tradition in the state legislature. Once more, we have several bills related to cell phone usage while driving before the Texas House and presumably, the Texas Senate, by the time it's all said and done.

While filing one bill related to this subject would have been fun, Menendez wanted to have a bit more fun, filing three bills related to this subject matter. Each bill has it's own restrictions related to cell phone usage.

House bill 237 (HB 237) would provide that all drivers must use a hands-free device while driving. It sounds like a good thing, right? Wrong. I don't care if your holding the cell phone device or not, the problem lies in the conversation and whether or not it is distracting. Even with a hands-free unit, your still having to press in the numbers to dial in most cases. Does anyone else realize this? I know there are statistics out there that would prove this.

I even agree with state Steven Ogden (R-Bryan) on something for once. "I don't think that requiring people to use a hands-free device makes a lot of difference, but I'd be willing to listen to the arguments for it," Ogden said. "It has less to do with having their hands on the steering wheel and more to do with them being distracted enough by the conversation. If the bills make it to the Senate, I probably would not support them."

Another bill, HB 236, would strictly prohibit the use of cell phones in a school zone. This bill seems logical, but like the whole issue related to Safe Clear in Houston, there would be confusion here. "Hold on hunny, I'm going through a school zone". I'm a big supporter of school safety, especially those stop signs on the buses that say you can not pass the bus when loading or not loading, but again, does this help the situation? Especially when there are bills to add "school zones" around day cares and other establishments also on the floor this session.

Lastly, a third bill, HB 1094, would prohibit persons under the age of 18 from using a cell phone while driving for the first six months of possession of a driver's license. Reasonable and probably the sole bill I support. Those first few months are very crucial to the new driver, especially since they need to have an understanding of the rules to drive. We all know how many kids out there are stupid and try to do this, that and the other when they're first allowed to drive. This is a great idea and again as stated before, the only bill related to cell phones by Rep. Menedez that I support.

Some more information about this one. The National Transportation Safety Board recommended in June 2003 that all states ban teens from talking and driving. Maine has already done so, and several other states are considering similar legislation. Texas following suit of other states, especially when getting such a recomendation from a governing board like the National Transportation Safety Board is a good thing in my eyes, as long as the recommendation is not too radical.

"Teenagers should have phones in their vehicles for emergency situations," said David Willis, a senior researcher at the Texas Transportation Institute, "but because they are inexperienced drivers, teens should wait to talk until the engine is off. Text messaging and taking photos or videos with phones ought to be out of the question."

A fourth bill was filed by Rep. Helen Giddings (D- DeSoto) that would make it illegal for bus drivers to use cell phones except for in the case of an emergency. This bill, HB 610 seems like a good bill too. It does not relate to drivers like you and I, bu solely to drivers of school buses. We know school bus safety has been a large issue facing our roads. When a school bus has an accident, it is a major deal and while I do not have facts on how much of a problem this has become before my eyes, I can understand where Rep. Giddings is coming from with her actions. I support the passage of HB 610.

Thanks to the Associated Press and Huntsville Item for the quotes which were used to explain some of the happenings in the above blog.

The Top 10% Issue

2005-03-02T13:02:00.000-08:00

The "Top 10%" is a very big issue in the state of Texas. Since it was developed, thousands upon thousands of students have taken advantage of it. Basically, if your in the top 10% of your graduating class, your automatically accepted to any public institution in the state of Texas. This means the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M at College Station, Sam Houston State or whomever your applying for. Just fill out an application and your in.

This law was pretty much made as an affirmative action method of allowing minority students a better chance to get into these top research institutions or any school, public, of their choosing in the state of Texas. Affirmative action. That's an evil word, isn't it?

Well, there's issues! When are there not issues? The problem lies in the fact lots of students who are qualified are not making the top 10%. Texas and Texas A&M are complaining that all the freshman they accept are coming in through the top 10% and they have to turn away other people due to this, because they can not turn anyone down from the top 10% until they meet their quota on incoming freshmen.

As legislators have become aware of this thanks to the calls from the UT and A&M system offices, several plans have been made. Let me highlight these plans and discuss each of them for you.

1) Capping the top 10% at a certain percentage of the admissions for incoming freshman at state institutions. This way, not all of the incoming freshmen are top 10% students at Texas and A&M. If you are top 10% and you apply in time to make it into UT or A&M before the quota, your good to go. You still have a chance to get in if you don't, but you get thrown into the pool with everyone else.

2) Eliminating the top 10%. Eliminates the top 10% completely. No more top 10%. No more problems related to a top 10%, just tries by everyone else in future Legislatures to get something similar put in place. Sponsored by state Sen. Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio).

3) Cutting it down to top 5%. This is in HB 1113, filed by Rep Tony Goolsby (R-Dallas). More or less, keeping the top 10%, but limiting to those in the top 5%. So, it would cut down the amount of those applying and make these students, theoretically more qualified.

4) Making it where to be in the top 10% and accepted, you have to have the reccomended or distinguished diploma. This is HB 656 by state Rep. Tony Goolsby (R-Dallas). Note there are protections for students who's schools do not offer such a diploma due to size and other issues of the school. This is also SB 333 in the Senate, filed by Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas), joined along with Kip Averitt (R-Waco), Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), Mario Gallegos (D-Houston), Juan Hinojosa (D-McAllen), Eddie Lucio (D-Brownsville), Frank Madla (D-San Antonio), Steve Ogden (R-Bryan), Eliot Shapleigh (D-El Paso), Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) and John Whitmire (D-Houston).

While in Austin this past week, I had the opprotunity to meet with Rep. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), who represents Walker County and SHSU. She wants the first option and wants to limit it to 60%. Her concern was the rural schools that she represents. She thinks top 10% is a great idea and should be kept, but thinks tinkering it would make it better. I was not able to ask her about her thoughts on any sort of degree requirement enhancement. One thing should be stated that she made it adamant that it not go any lower than 60% or any higher.

Many from SGA that think it should be eliminated will show you facts that minority enrollment at Texas and A&M did not go up until they started giving money out. Top 10% did not help, it came down to the monetary issues. These schools put in place monetary amounts geared towards minority students. Some of the bigger schools in the state have practically added diversity czars to assist in this as well. There's facts that prove that to be true.

An interesting fact here. Did you know that Lamar has more incoming freshman in the last year than A&M and Texas combined? Go figure! Lamar is in Beaumont, an hour east of Houston and is in the Texas State University System. It's also much cheaper, like Sam Houston State is, then those schools in Austin and College Station that everyone desires to attend. I think we need to realize that just as good education can be sought elsewhere and it's not just the two big flagship schools where a great education can be earned. It's not always about the name.

I personally am a supporter of option #1 and #4. I think you can combine them. Top 10% would become the sole people getting into Texas and A&M if you do not cap it. This would make it unfair. Rep. Kolkhorst and her proposed 60% is a number that I agree with. You do not want to go too far over the majority that would come with any person over the 50% mark.

I also feel that by increasing the standards to the recommended or higher diploma, your making these students not be students that fill up their schedules with electives to get in the top 10%. Also, it makes these students even more qualified and ready for higher education. It also protects the rural students at smaller schools and as noted before, there is a provision that would protect those students who go to schools where they have no chance at obtaining the recommended degree due to issues pertaining to the size and financial status of the school (or school district).

What gets me is that many feel there are just two options, to eliminate or keep the top 10%. There's no way there are just two options. Because where I stand, as stated above, I am for somewhere in the middle. I think top 10% is crucial, but we need to increase the standards and protect those outside of the top 10% who will have no chance to get in, though equally qualified.

Financial Safety at Universities in Texas

2005-03-02T05:56:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 817 was filed yesterday by Senator Royce West (D-Dallas). This bill was written in large part by the External Affairs commitee of the Student Government, namely in large part due to efforts by student Sens. Evan Dierlam and Christopher Whitaker.

The caption of this bill, which provides the summary for what the bill relates to states that SB 817 relates "to financial transaction awareness plans to be adopted by public institutions of higher education."

In the text of the bill, which can be viewed at the below link or searched by going to the Texas Legislature web site, universities (or pretty much their Board of Regents) would be asked to change their policy in regards to "credit card issuers".

The bill states that this plan/policy change would "(1) educate the institution's students concerning safe and unsafe practices in financial transactions, especially credit card transactions and solicitations for credit card applications; and (2) protect students from financial situations,
especially situations involving credit cards, that may negatively affect student financial security or credit scores."

This plan includes seven points, which were devised by the External Affairs commitee. Originally, this bill suggested these seven points be followed, but the legislation was changed by Sen. West's office to make them enforced and required by institutions of higher education. These points are as follows:

(1) prohibit a credit card issuer from entering the institution's campus to solicit or distribute credit card applications unless the issuer, in the manner prescribed by the plan, applies to participate in one or more solicitation events on campus and receives the institution's written approval to participate;
(2) as part of the application process under Subdivision (1), require a credit card issuer to pay an annual fee in an amount established by the plan;
(3) require the institution to use the money collected under Subdivision (2) to provide to the institution's students regular financial awareness events, including presentations on
financial matters, credit card counseling, and financial awareness and management classes;
(4) require a credit card issuer to be sponsored by a student organization as a condition of approving the issuer's application to participate in solicitation events on campus;
(5) prohibit a credit card issuer from accepting a student's completed application for a credit card during a solicitation event;
(6) restrict on-campus distribution by credit card issuers of free items or other incentives, including prizes; and
(7) require a credit card issuer to include information on safe practices in credit card transactions as part of any credit application provided to a student by the issuer.

This bill is currently without a commitee and will be sent to one in the next few days. Upon being sent to a commitee, a commitee hearing will be scheduled with representatives from the Student Government traveling to Austin once more to represent the cause. If passed in commitee, the bill will travel to the floor of the House for second and third readings.

Once passed in the Senate, the bill will more than likely be sponsored by rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Houston) who attempted to pass similar legislation in the 2003 regular session of the Texas Legislature.

I should note that when in Austin, many of the individuals that the Student Government discussed these matters were Chiefs of Staffs and Legislative Aides for the representatives and Senators in Austin. All of these individuals for the most part were recent college graduates and this issue hit home with them. This can be nothing, but beneficial to those who are supporting the bill as having these individuals that know firsthand how these "vultures" come on to campus will help the representatives and Senators see how this does play a major role in the happenings of university life.

I'd like to personally applaud the efforts of Sen. West, Rep. Turner and student Sens. Evan Dierlam and Christopher Whitaker for their actions. I'd also like to applaud the Student Government for passing this through their floor and onto the floor of the Texas Senate, where a battle will be waged and hopefully won. It all will culminate with the signing of the Governor once enrolled in both House and Senate, a victory that many of us here would love to see, for the financial well-being of our students now and students to come.

SB 817

The Consolidation of Our Systems

2005-03-02T05:40:00.000-08:00

In a recent Huntsville Item article, our new Chancellor Charles Matthews noted the following in regards to consolidation of the state's systems and including the four schools that do not have a system at this point.

"Matthews also expects the 2007 session to decide the fate of the state's only four remaining independent universities: Stephen F. Austin in Nacogdoches, Texas Women's in Denton, Midwestern in Witchita Falls and Texas Southern in Houston. Many observers expect the trend toward consolidating into existing systems. "

This past week in Austin, Chancellor Matthews explained to a group of us from the Sam Houston State Student Government, that the new head of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is from California. In California, they have three system. One for the junior colleges. Another for the state colleges and a third for the research institutions. My aunt, who lives in California actually explained this to me once when her son was looking for a university to attend within the state.

After some personal research, seems several states do this. One of those is Georgia, which I found a map that illustrates such systems. There they have research institutions, state institutions, regional institutions, two-year colleges (also known as junior colleges) and state colleges. You can link to this at http://www.usg.edu/inst/index.html to see for yourself what I am referring to. It's a great visual showing exactly which colleges and universities fall under which of the systems in that state. Other states are similar in nature and I urge those from other states that read this to share information about the systems in their states.

As you may or may not know, Texas currently has several systems. These include the Texas, A&M, Texas State, North Texas, Houston and Texas Tech systems. Several of the Democrats in the Texas Senate, namely Sen. Royce West and Judith Zaffrini, are against consolidation at this point. Not sure of the reasoning behind this decision. This is something we all need to follow because it could turn out to be very interesting and could actually impact the names at many institutions across the state if Arlington and Corpus Christi were not in the Texas and A&M systems respectively, as well as funding issues pertaining to the universities with the systems.

What should be noted is that consolidation allows the state to cut some of the administrative overhead and allows for more consistent policy. As we all know, the state is always looking to cut costs and if it leads to some consistency and easier organization of something, they'll more than likely back it. I don't think we can trim it to the point that California has, but if we could get it down to 3-4 public university systems, that would be a great move. I think that schools like Sam Houston State, Lamar and Stephen F. Austin need to be seperate from schools like a Texas Tech, Texas A&M and University of Texas. Time will tell...

Gambling Back to the Forefront

2005-02-25T06:28:00.000-08:00

Ellis and Geren Looking to Gamble Revenue from Casinos
by Jason Plotkin, Feburary 25, 2005

Downtown Houston has seen revitalization in recent years with the addition of Metro Rail, Minute Maid Park, the Toyota Center and sweeping changes to the highways and streets in the area. This could change and get even better, becoming a casino destination that can compete with Las Vegas said one state Senator on Thursday in Austin.

"Why should we subsidize Louisiana and Nevada when we can create jobs and boost economic development here at home?" Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) asked.

On Thursday, Ellis finally took the steps and filed a proposed constitutional amendment that would give power to Texans to decide whether or not the state should allow seven casinos in urban areas, with two on Gulf Coast islands (South Padre and Galveston) and three in targeted economic development areas, which are a major focus of this current legislative session.

Senate Joint Resolution 18, would require a statewide vote by all of Texans on the November ballot and then local option elections would occur in every impacted county where a casino is proposed to be laid out. The issue with gambling, which is desired by some due to the large gains it can make with state revenue would need to jump over huge hurdles and obstacles, needing two-thirds support in the Legislature. And we know how many Republicans do oppose gambling here in the state, except the Governor surprisingly, which has caused a riff in the party.

Even more interesting is that Ellis, the Democrat is being joined state representative Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, who plans on leading the efforts to get a similar measure through the House. Geren, like me, agrees that it's time to put this issue before the voters, who have pretty much not had a chance (outside of electing representatives), to get a say in gambling outside of allowing the state to add the lottery in the early 1990s.

As always with big issues, there's a different ammendment already filed. The proposed constitutional amendment by state representative Sylvester Turner, D-Houston is geared towards adding slot machines at horse and dog tracks as well as Indian reservations. Turner's House Joint Resolution 38 also would put slot machines at one location in each of nine areas around the state.

Ellis said track owners would have to compete along with everyone else for casino licenses. Turner, according to the Houston Chronicle, said his video slot proposal would raise more than $1.2 billion a year.

Ellis in the same Houston Chronicle article said that a study by economist Ray Perryman showed that casino gaming would create more than 250,000 jobs over a three-year construction phase. Perryman said after casinos are operational, they would generate $2 billion for the state and $730 million for local governments every year.

It should also be noted that the joint resolution filed by Ellis would create a Texas Gaming Commission to grant licenses and regulate gaming. Turner's measure would give that authority to the Texas Lottery Commission.

Ellis is an interesting individual, having first tried getting casino legislation passed in 1993 and also authoring legislation that would have turned the Astrodome into a casino. All of these actions have failed. And like those previous actions, I'm just not seeing the Republican controlled House and Senate support gambling. They may be willing to send it to the voters, knowing that public opinion would make for failure, further killing the issue for the time-being, but lots of hardcore conservatives that support many of these GOPers in the Legislature would not even like that.

It's going to fail. Do I think we'll see more attention related to it in this Legislature than previous Legislatures? Yes, solely on the fact the state is looking for better ways to fund education due to the problems they face with people sueing the state for not providing adequate education. Education and generating more money for it is the biggest issue we are seeing in this regular session of the Legislature. Gambling continues to be what is leaned on as a possible solution time and time again. When the slot machines will be the big winner, well that's not looking like anytime in the near future.

Sale of Sexually Explicit Video Games to Minors -- Up For Debate

2005-02-24T19:48:00.000-08:00

Texas Legislature Tackles Graphic Video Games
by Jason Plotkin, February 24, 2005

What would you think if the sale of video games to minors that contained sexually explicit scenes or graphic violence was against the law? I'm sure a lot of people that wouldn't really care about such subjects as politics finally got their ears and eyes interested. House Bill 1433 filed by state representative Tony Goolsby (R-Dallas) during this current session of the Texas Legislature would do exactly this.

According to the text of the legislation an offense of this would lead to a Class B misdemeanor unless someone has been convicted of this offense, which in that case, it would be a Class A misdemeanor. The attorney general would have final say in helping a peace officer determine if the law was being broken as peace officers would have free reign in doing inspections (similar to what they do in making sure alcohol is not sold to a minor).

This bill would form an official state regulation on the "rental or sale of adult video games" and would be placed right in the 35th Chapter of the state's Business and Commerce code. The video games that would fall under this are based on the widely accepted rating system that has been made for video games. "Violent content" has also been defined for this one to include graphic and realistic depiction of physical content, including depictions of decaptitation, bloodsheed, dismemberment or grotesque cruelty.

The thing that I am seeing is this. Do parents really know what their minors are playing? Minors are always going to video game stores on their own or with older siblings (who may also tend to be minors). Now, they have this hurdle in the way that their parents or someone who is of age, must buy the video game on their behalf. They will not be able to rely on older sibling if they aren't older than 18. I'm not sure how many times you go to a video game store, but I am always seeing these 10 and 11 year-olds there by themselves buying games. Raymond and I have even run into a family friend at the video game store on several occasions. He was technically a minor as he has yet to turn 18 and he could go about buying these games, so the older youth also frequent the stores and buy such games.

I take my brother all the time in recent years. This became the case especially after I got my car because he gets money from the relatives and has cards that let him get cheaper games. Keep in mind I've been older than 18 for most of this, as I am now 21 (going on 22 in a few months), so for the most part of this time, I would've been able to purchase these games for him. Regardless, my brother goes about buying what he wants, because my parents don't entirely care too much. My brother is pretty much into gruesome things, has a very well established vocabulary of profanity and such, which he has learned from television and movies. And you know they're buying the same gruesome games that us older kids are into.

I'm very interested to see how the lobbyists come out in this one. Seems to me that it doesn't do much restrictions outside of limiting minors. Do you think this will have such a tremendous impacts on the amount of sexually explicit and graphic video games that are sold? I really do not think so as the people that want video games will get them, just like those who want alcohol and are minors want that. The video game lobbyists out there are not going to really wreak havoc on this one. It's not like the restrictions are harsh to the point they have to alter the way they sell video games.

My thoughts are that the bill will get passage in both the Senate and House without many hurdles in the way. This legislation is actually already followed at many stores who refuse to sell video games that may be graphic into nature to youngsters. Some bills like this show how the Texas Legislature is just behind the times and making every effort to catch up with other states or sometimes even the federal government to put laws in the book that are not officially on the book yet in Texas, there.

Currently, the bill is in commitee having completed it's first reading in the Texas House. There is no companion bill at this point in time.

2005-02-24T17:41:00.000-08:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.