In February of last year we posted a number of articles on election issues. A quick review shows that the points we raised then are still valid today. You might want to review them before we add new questions such as capital maintenance and infrastructure needs. The school bond issue will get special attention, as you have probably noticed already.
As always, you comments are welcome. When you comment on these issues, you can add you opinion of where you think a candidate falls on a particular issue. That is welcome and encouraged. Just keep it tied to the issue. Don't just say "candidate x is the best on y". Tell us why you think X is the best on issue Y, with as much support and reason as you can. Quotes from campaign ads are probably not good supporting material though.
Try to keep comments to what can be verified, and don't try to embarrass the candidates. I am sure they are all fully capable of doing that themselves.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Something Different: Music
This is something we don't talk about here much, but San Angelo is getting a reputation for good music. Los Lonely Boys is known world wide. Other groups are getting recognized regularly, and making it on to the charts.
There are lots of charts out there. Some, such as billboard, track sales by the major labels. Others track the sales and air time of bands that haven't signed with a major label. A local singer, Darren Morrison, has made it to the top of one of the charts. Take a look and listen.
There are lots of charts out there. Some, such as billboard, track sales by the major labels. Others track the sales and air time of bands that haven't signed with a major label. A local singer, Darren Morrison, has made it to the top of one of the charts. Take a look and listen.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Is the tail wagging the dog
I will say this for National Public Radio: my quibble with the tax funded portion of their budget aside, they do come up with serendipitous odd information that tickles a truck driver's mind. Just last week I heard an interview on the origins of the Texas University Interscholastic League, now most commonly known as UIL, and associated with high school sports competition.
Long forgotten by most folks, including me, the UIL was formed in 1909 by a group of high school debate coaches who wanted to formalize interdistrict debate competition and grant recognition and trophies to better teams. It wasn't until 1913 that some high school football coaches woke up to what the eggheads were up to and thought, “Hey, we need to get on board this train”. Looking at the public attendance at debate matches vs football games, it was then utterly predictable that sports rapidly became the tail that now wags the UIL dog.
Bear with me, there is relevance to the local school bond election. This week I requested from the SAISD-Huckabee website a breakdown of the project costs for the proposed new Central High, particularly how much of the $100 million was dedicated to athletics. The response, is illuminating as to the mindset. For openers, “our intent is to build a fully equipped 5A high school.” Folks, 5A is a UIL designation having exactly nothing to do with academic proficiency, graduation or drop-out rates or anything except the level of athletic competition.
As I have mentioned on this Blog and at the March 3 Board meeting, one concern I have with the entire planning process behind this bond issue is the extent to which options were limited in pursuit of a desire to assure San Angelo keeps a sole 5A football team. Now anyone who knows me can tell you, I am a football freak. In season, I can usually give you current spread and over/under off the top of my head for any NFL game on the board. My biggest beef with the cable/KLST showdown last year was that I missed the college hoops “March Madness” for the first time in years. I love sports, support them to the level my budget allows. What I do not do is ask the public to subsidize my hobby.
The response I got from the bond website indicates that a substantial, but undefined, part of the money we are being asked to pony up is going for non-academic use. Towards the end I was told, “It is very difficult to remove the cost of athletic facilities because they are not solely used for athletics.” Come on, guys, are you asking us to believe the Trig class meets on the softball field on sunny days? As reported in the Standard-Times Feb 28 under the headline “Proposal appeals to the athletes” the new Central includes; a jv field, a softball and baseball field, two practice infields, three practice fields for football and soccer, a 10 court tennis facility, an outdoor fieldhouse, a gymnastics building, and a swimming pool. I don't think the average reasonable viewer (also called “voter”) has much difficulty designating the aformentioned facilities as “athletic”.
To what extent were the options considered on this bond limited by “our intent to build a fully equipped 5A high school”? I have heard discussion over the last decade since our last bond of: making our two high schools more equal in capacity and shifting attendance zones (Heaven forfend, Central and Lakeview would have to play each other); or building a smaller third high school in southwest Angelo and evening out attendance zones to come up with three 4A schools. Maybe good, maybe not, might have been cheaper, we'll never know because these ideas were never on the table due our dedication to build a fully equipped 5A high school. We deserve to know to at how much expense is the athletic tail wagging our school bond dog.
Long forgotten by most folks, including me, the UIL was formed in 1909 by a group of high school debate coaches who wanted to formalize interdistrict debate competition and grant recognition and trophies to better teams. It wasn't until 1913 that some high school football coaches woke up to what the eggheads were up to and thought, “Hey, we need to get on board this train”. Looking at the public attendance at debate matches vs football games, it was then utterly predictable that sports rapidly became the tail that now wags the UIL dog.
Bear with me, there is relevance to the local school bond election. This week I requested from the SAISD-Huckabee website a breakdown of the project costs for the proposed new Central High, particularly how much of the $100 million was dedicated to athletics. The response, is illuminating as to the mindset. For openers, “our intent is to build a fully equipped 5A high school.” Folks, 5A is a UIL designation having exactly nothing to do with academic proficiency, graduation or drop-out rates or anything except the level of athletic competition.
As I have mentioned on this Blog and at the March 3 Board meeting, one concern I have with the entire planning process behind this bond issue is the extent to which options were limited in pursuit of a desire to assure San Angelo keeps a sole 5A football team. Now anyone who knows me can tell you, I am a football freak. In season, I can usually give you current spread and over/under off the top of my head for any NFL game on the board. My biggest beef with the cable/KLST showdown last year was that I missed the college hoops “March Madness” for the first time in years. I love sports, support them to the level my budget allows. What I do not do is ask the public to subsidize my hobby.
The response I got from the bond website indicates that a substantial, but undefined, part of the money we are being asked to pony up is going for non-academic use. Towards the end I was told, “It is very difficult to remove the cost of athletic facilities because they are not solely used for athletics.” Come on, guys, are you asking us to believe the Trig class meets on the softball field on sunny days? As reported in the Standard-Times Feb 28 under the headline “Proposal appeals to the athletes” the new Central includes; a jv field, a softball and baseball field, two practice infields, three practice fields for football and soccer, a 10 court tennis facility, an outdoor fieldhouse, a gymnastics building, and a swimming pool. I don't think the average reasonable viewer (also called “voter”) has much difficulty designating the aformentioned facilities as “athletic”.
To what extent were the options considered on this bond limited by “our intent to build a fully equipped 5A high school”? I have heard discussion over the last decade since our last bond of: making our two high schools more equal in capacity and shifting attendance zones (Heaven forfend, Central and Lakeview would have to play each other); or building a smaller third high school in southwest Angelo and evening out attendance zones to come up with three 4A schools. Maybe good, maybe not, might have been cheaper, we'll never know because these ideas were never on the table due our dedication to build a fully equipped 5A high school. We deserve to know to at how much expense is the athletic tail wagging our school bond dog.
Apolgia
I have always promised that I would, in this space, correct errors of fact I have posted. I mischaracterized the law regulating the Existing Debt Allotment as that impacts our tax liability for the bond issue before us May 12th. The details of how I came to my concept as posted are irrelevant at this time. The point is, I was flatly wrong, and admit it.
It appears likely that state EDA will continue, and this bond will qualify for EDA support at some yet undefined level. This is not to say I have been converted to a pro-bond position, and my incorrect read of the EDA legislation was not a core factor in my opposition to the bond proposal. An important factor in public debate is credibility of the debating parties. I will not intentionally mislead readers on any issue.
It appears likely that state EDA will continue, and this bond will qualify for EDA support at some yet undefined level. This is not to say I have been converted to a pro-bond position, and my incorrect read of the EDA legislation was not a core factor in my opposition to the bond proposal. An important factor in public debate is credibility of the debating parties. I will not intentionally mislead readers on any issue.
Friday, April 13, 2007
News from the school bond front
The SAISD educational effort on the proposed school bond, includes under “Tax Rate Information” a very thorough analysis of tax impact of the bond. It does however seem to assume we will receive a state funded Existing Debt Allotment payment, the effect of which would reduce our tax liability for the new bond.
If one looks at the Texas Association of School Boards' “Funding School Facilities” report, the rate without the EDA appears to be the rate taxpayers should bear in mind on May 12. In order even to be eligible, a district (read SAISD) “must have made a payment on the bonds on or before August 31 prior to the start of a new biennium in order to receive EDA funding”. Go to the “Issues” section of the same 3 page report, and we are at the edge of a formula for funding.
Actually, EDA is a state program started in 1999 intended to assist low-wealth districts with EXISTING debt. It was not started to encourage extravagant bond issues, but to help low income districts which had fallen on hard times after passing a bond. We barely qualify for the low wealth side, and unlike a district having difficulty paying off a bond from better years, we are proposing to pass a brand new indebtedness and slough off part of it to the state, assuming the legislature rolls over EDA this term.
I quote from the TASB's own Issues analysis, “School districts hope for, but cannot be certain of, the extension of EDA funding for another biennium. Uncertainty makes school district fiscal planning and clear communication to the public difficult.” I have asked the saisd.huckabee.com website for a rendering of approved/unapproved applications for EDA, with a breakdown by dollar amounts. This could give us a ballpark range of our odds of winning the “EDA lottery”. I hope that as the hired gun pros on this bond business Huckabee might have handy the information I have not found...yet. I have discovered that Paris, Texas is getting very nervous about its EDA hopes on a $35 million bond scheduled for a May 12 election. In short, failing to pass the bond in May and make a first payment by August 31 would mean we have no chance for state EDA money this biennium, but passing the bond in May by no means assures we WILL get EDA funding. Also, should we tell the Board “no, you wish for too much”, and end up passing a slimmed down version in November, next session we can apply for help with our then existing debt, if indeed our circumstances qualify and EDA is again rolled over.
My advice to the voter now is, if you think the issues in this bond are worth an effective SAISD tax increase of roughly 35 cents, so be it, but do not bet the ranch on a state funded EDA bailout. I further advise the voter that in considering this bond as the recommendation of a three year Facilities Advisory Committee we should keep in mind, this is the first of three shoes to drop. The Long Range Facilities Plan envisions two more bonds of similar size to complete its proposal. The Board is reluctant to speak to this three phase plan, but voters should force them to acknowledge this reality of their own making. Long term, we are not discussing a $130 million bond, but phase one of a package that, with debt service, will cost taxpayers half a billion over thirty years or so.
For comparison, Midland ISD is putting a two part, $37 million bond before voters in a district with a growing enrollment. Their package adds to and renovates, the second part separates athletics from classroom building, and their superintendent assures voters this bond will serve Midland's needs “for the next 50 years”. How can that Be?! By SAISD standards, under which buildings start to crumble after 40 years, Midland (and presumably we) will be totally rebuilding in less than that 50 years.
On another posting on this Blog we offered an old post-completion 12 page booklet on Central titled “America's First Ageless, Campus Style High School”. A couple things are clear from it. The Central campus was designed to be flexible of use, but also to stand, with anything like reasonable maintenance, for a long time. Also, a great deal of planning and thought went into the design before the Board of that day approached a drought-stricken, hard times electorate. Today's Board makes much of the three year Facilities task Force work, but at the same meeting the Board voted formally to put the bond on the ballot, they flushed a couple of critical items from the Task Force's work. Only this week, barely a month before the election, are voters finally given a peek at some crude, rough draft concept drawings of what the new schools might actually look like if approved by an infrastructure-stricken, overtaxed already electorate. Compared to the Central proposal of the 50's with a clearly defined, truly visionary concept put forth, this last minute, back-of-the-envelope sketch is insulting to our intelligence. It amounts to “Give us a pot full of money and we'll build you, oh something with it, and if we're lucky, all this will actually be built before we hit you up with the next bond.”
SAISD does need a bond issue for very real building and renovation items. Like it not, and I don't, schools typically do “maintenance by bond” and our schools have physical plant needs, some left over from promises made but not kept in the '96 bond. SAISD does NOT need this bond, and the voters are justified in saying “NO” loudly enough to get the Board's attention. Then they can go back, and like any home or business owner on a budget, figure what they really need as opposed to the unaffordable McMansion on the hill they wished for on our nickel.
If one looks at the Texas Association of School Boards' “Funding School Facilities” report, the rate without the EDA appears to be the rate taxpayers should bear in mind on May 12. In order even to be eligible, a district (read SAISD) “must have made a payment on the bonds on or before August 31 prior to the start of a new biennium in order to receive EDA funding”. Go to the “Issues” section of the same 3 page report, and we are at the edge of a formula for funding.
Actually, EDA is a state program started in 1999 intended to assist low-wealth districts with EXISTING debt. It was not started to encourage extravagant bond issues, but to help low income districts which had fallen on hard times after passing a bond. We barely qualify for the low wealth side, and unlike a district having difficulty paying off a bond from better years, we are proposing to pass a brand new indebtedness and slough off part of it to the state, assuming the legislature rolls over EDA this term.
I quote from the TASB's own Issues analysis, “School districts hope for, but cannot be certain of, the extension of EDA funding for another biennium. Uncertainty makes school district fiscal planning and clear communication to the public difficult.” I have asked the saisd.huckabee.com website for a rendering of approved/unapproved applications for EDA, with a breakdown by dollar amounts. This could give us a ballpark range of our odds of winning the “EDA lottery”. I hope that as the hired gun pros on this bond business Huckabee might have handy the information I have not found...yet. I have discovered that Paris, Texas is getting very nervous about its EDA hopes on a $35 million bond scheduled for a May 12 election. In short, failing to pass the bond in May and make a first payment by August 31 would mean we have no chance for state EDA money this biennium, but passing the bond in May by no means assures we WILL get EDA funding. Also, should we tell the Board “no, you wish for too much”, and end up passing a slimmed down version in November, next session we can apply for help with our then existing debt, if indeed our circumstances qualify and EDA is again rolled over.
My advice to the voter now is, if you think the issues in this bond are worth an effective SAISD tax increase of roughly 35 cents, so be it, but do not bet the ranch on a state funded EDA bailout. I further advise the voter that in considering this bond as the recommendation of a three year Facilities Advisory Committee we should keep in mind, this is the first of three shoes to drop. The Long Range Facilities Plan envisions two more bonds of similar size to complete its proposal. The Board is reluctant to speak to this three phase plan, but voters should force them to acknowledge this reality of their own making. Long term, we are not discussing a $130 million bond, but phase one of a package that, with debt service, will cost taxpayers half a billion over thirty years or so.
For comparison, Midland ISD is putting a two part, $37 million bond before voters in a district with a growing enrollment. Their package adds to and renovates, the second part separates athletics from classroom building, and their superintendent assures voters this bond will serve Midland's needs “for the next 50 years”. How can that Be?! By SAISD standards, under which buildings start to crumble after 40 years, Midland (and presumably we) will be totally rebuilding in less than that 50 years.
On another posting on this Blog we offered an old post-completion 12 page booklet on Central titled “America's First Ageless, Campus Style High School”. A couple things are clear from it. The Central campus was designed to be flexible of use, but also to stand, with anything like reasonable maintenance, for a long time. Also, a great deal of planning and thought went into the design before the Board of that day approached a drought-stricken, hard times electorate. Today's Board makes much of the three year Facilities task Force work, but at the same meeting the Board voted formally to put the bond on the ballot, they flushed a couple of critical items from the Task Force's work. Only this week, barely a month before the election, are voters finally given a peek at some crude, rough draft concept drawings of what the new schools might actually look like if approved by an infrastructure-stricken, overtaxed already electorate. Compared to the Central proposal of the 50's with a clearly defined, truly visionary concept put forth, this last minute, back-of-the-envelope sketch is insulting to our intelligence. It amounts to “Give us a pot full of money and we'll build you, oh something with it, and if we're lucky, all this will actually be built before we hit you up with the next bond.”
SAISD does need a bond issue for very real building and renovation items. Like it not, and I don't, schools typically do “maintenance by bond” and our schools have physical plant needs, some left over from promises made but not kept in the '96 bond. SAISD does NOT need this bond, and the voters are justified in saying “NO” loudly enough to get the Board's attention. Then they can go back, and like any home or business owner on a budget, figure what they really need as opposed to the unaffordable McMansion on the hill they wished for on our nickel.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Energy Moguls and Deceptive Loqutions
I happened to see an article in the Standard Times written by the president of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, Alex Mills, and was motivated to respond to this clearly deceptive propaganda piece.
The article implied that interest in renewable energy (i.e wind, solar, etc.) is a waste of time, that any funding to this sector of the industry was a waste of tax dollars, and that we should just stick to the old tried and true standards, oil and gas. Whereas the allocation of tax revenue to corporate interests has the tendency to inspire a ceaseless chain of corrupt activity, I would argue that the government should not steal ANY money from taxpayers to maintain corporate welfare; whether it be for wind farms, for nuclear power plants owned by foreign companies, or handouts to the oil and gas industry.
Here are some of the major components of THE 2005 ENERGY BILL as it relates to the oil and gas industry:
Section 1329
Allows “geological and geophysical” costs associated with oil exploration to be written off faster than present law, costing taxpayers over $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. Record-high oil prices should provide a sufficient incentive for oil companies like ExxonMobil to drill for more oil without this huge new tax break.
Section 1323
Allows owners of oil refineries to expense 50% of the costs of equipment used to increase the refinery’s capacity by at least 5%, costing taxpayers $842 million from 2006-11 (the estimate claims the provision will actually raise $436 million from 2012-15).
Sections 1325-6
Allows natural gas companies to save $1.035 billion by depreciating their property at a much faster rate. This tax break makes no economic sense, as natural gas prices remain at record high levels, and these high prices—not tax breaks—should be all the incentive the industry needs to invest in gathering and distribution lines.
Section 342
Allows oil companies drilling on public land to pay taxpayers in oil rather than in cash.
Sections 344-345
Waives royalty payments for drilling for some natural gas in the
Section 346
Waives royalty payments for drilling in offshore
Sections 353-4
Waives royalty payments for gas hydrate extraction on the Outer Continental Shelf and public land in
Title IX, Subtitle J
This section would provide $1.5 billion in direct payments to oil and natural gas corporations to drill in deepwater wells. This section is a pet project of Texas Republican and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. It would designate a private entity, Sugar Land-based
Also, in
This is an enormous and unseen liability of the oil and gas industry that we must start paying attention to. An oilman might argue that there are all kinds of permits required for them to do business, but what is not mentioned is that these permits are virtually NEVER denied. If you have concerns about our future water supply, PLEASE investigate further here: http://salon.glenrose.net/searchresults.asp?test=%22injection%22
So, rather than creating an illusion of a free market -the smoke and mirrors of federal subsidies-wouldn't it be best to put an end to ALL handouts to energy producers and allow the consumer and taxpayer really decide where to get their power?
If the playing field truly were leveled we would likely begin to see many consumers absolving themselves from the tyranny of the energy cartels and producing their own energy...
This is where wind and solar do become a viable option. These technologies may not be practical, or even desirable, solutions for huge commercial producers (this is the real problem for the energy corporations). Renewables work best on a small scale. But (especially in
Most importantly, let’s be aware of the grand illusion is created in the media when these issues are polarized and we believe that the Democrats are going to save the earth with green technology or the Republicans are going to save humanity by wiping out the middle east and stealing their oil.
It’s high time we realize that none of these "leaders" are working for you or me - and whether it's a wind farm or an oil well, the same people are making most of the money.
Yes, Cheveron owns a whole bunch of those wind farms... When they make money on wind, the kickbacks go to the Democrats, and when they make money on oil, the kickbacks go to the Republicans!
It is clear to any attentive observer that the emergence of solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and all technologies falling under the current "green" trend is being carefully controlled in the market place. As we watch this drama unfold please be aware that solar power was invented over 5 decades ago, the original Tesla car over 70 years ago, and my great grandmother ran her ice box off an old windmill and some golf cart batteries. So, come on, why are we going backwards here? How much longer will we allow ourselves to be duped?
Open Thread Thursday
We are going to try something a little different today.
This thread is for general comments about anything that could be covered here. Just keep it clean, not personal attacks, and no advertising. If it relates to San Angelo or the Concho Valley, it's welcome. Anonymous is also okay, but names add credibility.
This thread is for general comments about anything that could be covered here. Just keep it clean, not personal attacks, and no advertising. If it relates to San Angelo or the Concho Valley, it's welcome. Anonymous is also okay, but names add credibility.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Objectives and Reasons
I keep getting asked "When are you going to run for office?" Quick answer is "I'm not." The question is becoming so frequent, I need to give an explanation.
I first got involved actively in politics during the last sales tax campaign. Built the website and did a number of ads and articles. It was a great learning experience. After reflecting on the campaign and digesting the results, ConchoInfo.org was born.
I got involved because I wanted to make a difference. One of the first articles posted was this one by Jim Ryan, one of our other bloggers.
There were two big lessons I learned from the sales tax campaign. First was that information is critical to any issue. Complete information. Information that people can use and understand. That's much more than a laundry list of facts. That includes some analysis and explanation of how these facts are connected, and what the real impacts are. That is my primary goal with this site.
My second lesson was on preparation. In the sales tax campaign the side with the best preparation won. I learned that if an issue is important, you don't wait until it's on the ballot or makes the news to start researching it. Be proactive. Get prepared. Get informed.
Combine these lessons with my belief that truth is essential to freedom, and you have the reason why ConchoInfo exists. It is a very small, open information, volunteer think tank that concentrates on San Angelo and the Concho valley. We look at issues at all levels of government, and provide facts, analysis and some opinions. We also supply ideas as the mood strikes us. This is important to me. ConchInfo needs to be an outside, objective observer, analyzer, and chronicler of the issues we face here. It needs to be totally independent. That is the main reason I don't run for office.
I first got involved actively in politics during the last sales tax campaign. Built the website and did a number of ads and articles. It was a great learning experience. After reflecting on the campaign and digesting the results, ConchoInfo.org was born.
I got involved because I wanted to make a difference. One of the first articles posted was this one by Jim Ryan, one of our other bloggers.
There were two big lessons I learned from the sales tax campaign. First was that information is critical to any issue. Complete information. Information that people can use and understand. That's much more than a laundry list of facts. That includes some analysis and explanation of how these facts are connected, and what the real impacts are. That is my primary goal with this site.
My second lesson was on preparation. In the sales tax campaign the side with the best preparation won. I learned that if an issue is important, you don't wait until it's on the ballot or makes the news to start researching it. Be proactive. Get prepared. Get informed.
Combine these lessons with my belief that truth is essential to freedom, and you have the reason why ConchoInfo exists. It is a very small, open information, volunteer think tank that concentrates on San Angelo and the Concho valley. We look at issues at all levels of government, and provide facts, analysis and some opinions. We also supply ideas as the mood strikes us. This is important to me. ConchInfo needs to be an outside, objective observer, analyzer, and chronicler of the issues we face here. It needs to be totally independent. That is the main reason I don't run for office.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Some assembly required
I talk to people all over town about local issues. I keep hearing the same question over and over. People will run down an inventory of resources we have like the industrial park, our schools, the coliseum, the lily collection, COSADC, etc. and wonder why things aren't better. There are plenty of problems but one common thread is connections.
Everyone has horror stories about assembling a toy or piece of furniture. "Some assembly required" scares many people. Connecting all those parts can be difficult, especially with the average instruction sheet. Now imagine a larger, more complex project where the connections are not always visible, and all you have are bits and pieces of notes on how other people connected their pieces.
A community, whether it's a neighborhood, a city, or a state, is very complex and only works when the connections are right. Take a look at a neighborhood. In any neighborhood you will find a number of houses and apartments and maybe a park, school, some churches and businesses. In a healthy, thriving neighborhood all of these things will be connected. It could be economically such as with a neighborhood grocery store that supplies food and jobs to the neighborhood. It could socially as in a park, club, recreation center, or business where people meet to party, play, or just cuss and discuss what is going on in their world with friends and neighbors. It could be a strong spiritual connection like that found in many small neighborhood churches. The connection could be concerns about the welfare and future of children, especially when schools, parks and sports facilities are concerned. A clean, kid friendly park can be a connecting force for a neighborhood. A run down, poorly maintained park with graffiti and gang activity will break these connections and damage the health of a neighborhood.
Too often in the planning and discussion of schools, parks, sports facilities, etc. community connections are either ignored or treated as only a matter of dollars and cents. It's not uncommon to see discussions about some sports facility end up being bogged down by where it is cheapest to build it or how many (low paying) jobs it might create or how much sales or occupancy tax it might generate if a national tournament, through some miracle, happened to play here. Its connection to the community and how it could be a focal point for a stronger community gets lost among the dollar signs.
Schools have a very special connection to neighborhoods. Any real estate agent will tell you that good schools make it much easier to sell homes in a neighborhood. When you renovate, close or move a school, you are doing heart surgery on a neighborhood. If not done skillfully, the neighborhood might not survive.
In the end, every government worker and elected official should be given a briefing packet with this warning at the beginning "This is our community. You are hired to take care of it. Some assembly required."
Everyone has horror stories about assembling a toy or piece of furniture. "Some assembly required" scares many people. Connecting all those parts can be difficult, especially with the average instruction sheet. Now imagine a larger, more complex project where the connections are not always visible, and all you have are bits and pieces of notes on how other people connected their pieces.
A community, whether it's a neighborhood, a city, or a state, is very complex and only works when the connections are right. Take a look at a neighborhood. In any neighborhood you will find a number of houses and apartments and maybe a park, school, some churches and businesses. In a healthy, thriving neighborhood all of these things will be connected. It could be economically such as with a neighborhood grocery store that supplies food and jobs to the neighborhood. It could socially as in a park, club, recreation center, or business where people meet to party, play, or just cuss and discuss what is going on in their world with friends and neighbors. It could be a strong spiritual connection like that found in many small neighborhood churches. The connection could be concerns about the welfare and future of children, especially when schools, parks and sports facilities are concerned. A clean, kid friendly park can be a connecting force for a neighborhood. A run down, poorly maintained park with graffiti and gang activity will break these connections and damage the health of a neighborhood.
Too often in the planning and discussion of schools, parks, sports facilities, etc. community connections are either ignored or treated as only a matter of dollars and cents. It's not uncommon to see discussions about some sports facility end up being bogged down by where it is cheapest to build it or how many (low paying) jobs it might create or how much sales or occupancy tax it might generate if a national tournament, through some miracle, happened to play here. Its connection to the community and how it could be a focal point for a stronger community gets lost among the dollar signs.
Schools have a very special connection to neighborhoods. Any real estate agent will tell you that good schools make it much easier to sell homes in a neighborhood. When you renovate, close or move a school, you are doing heart surgery on a neighborhood. If not done skillfully, the neighborhood might not survive.
In the end, every government worker and elected official should be given a briefing packet with this warning at the beginning "This is our community. You are hired to take care of it. Some assembly required."
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Ethical Standards for Used School Salesmen
This Blog post has already been sent to all school board trustees. It is both longer and more technical than I usually shoot for here, but the presentation we expected last week was delayed until this Monday, 3/26. In that time I have had time to do a week's more research and that is what is presented here. I have little doubt that new information will come out Monday, we will add it to this site and if necessary apologize for my mistakes, but this should serve as a guide for pertinent questions if nothing else.
Open Letter To School Board Trustees:
I offer the results of my research in anticipation of the Election Ethics Training to be offered by Huckabee and Associates Monday evening. I have no reason to doubt Huckabee will be thorough and professional, but it may profit the board members to ponder some of the issues at hand prior to the presentation. Off of the SAISD agenda report on item 6, Ethics training, I read, “There are very clear parameters for written and oral communication about bond elections”. Well, maybe not so much.
The two primary Election Code references are going to be 251.001 and 255.003. Most commonly, people take 255.003(b), the second paragraph allowing “a communication that factually describes the purposes of a measure if the communication does not advocate passage or defeat of the measure.” to be a truck sized loophole permitting almost anything not using specific “magic words” such as “vote for”, “support”, “defeat”, “elect” and therefore avoiding “express advocacy”. Well, maybe not so much.
Let's start with Ethics Advisory Opinions (EAO, henceforth) 37 and 45. (By the way, these opinions can be obtained in their entirety at www.ethics.state.tx.us/opinions then scroll down to the #) Both are from 1992, but some important groundwork is laid in. The first, 37, rules on a corporate, non-partisan, get-out-the-vote effort and finds that acceptable, the second rules on a school board's use of its existing internal mail system to support a bond measure, and finds that to be a violation. Most important here are the citations of 251.001 and 255.003 in both, making clear that the same principles which limit corporate expenditures apply also to “political subdivisions”, of which a school board is one. That linkage will come back in later EAOs. In fact, from EAO 45 “Thus, for example, a circular advocating a particular position on a bond election would be political advertising. An officer or employee of a school district is prohibited from spending funds “for” such a circular. Expenditures for distribution [italics by Commission] of a circular or other written materials are within that prohibition.” Did I read somewhere about a planned mailing of the bond brochure to potential voters?
If that seems perfectly clear, it is only because we have not come to EAO 198 from '94, one of the most complex Opinions due to a situation very much in flux. Here, a corporation was going to expand the “get-out-the-vote” principle by including candidates' records, summaries of positions, written answers to prepared questions and info about poll results and endorsements. In one paragraph, the Commission opines, “We believe the Texas Legislature intended section 253.094 to prohibit political expenditures by corporations and labor organizations to the full extent allowed by the Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court.” Problem was the Supreme Court had appeared to limit “express advocacy” (forbidden) to communications specifically using the phrases I called “magic words” from the Buckley v Valeo case and ruling further limitations as an unconstitutionally overbroad limitation on free speech. In note #2 to this EAO, Commission noted that Fifth Circuit (ours) had not addressed this limitation, but cited other Circuits which had, in short, the Appealate choir was singing off-key. The closest the Commission comes to giving firm direction in 198 is in the final paragraph, “Nevertheless, whether an actual communication constitutes express advocacy can be answered only on a case by case basis.”, which utterly useless direction was repeated in the case summary. If anyone thought it might actually sell a thousand copies, a scholarly book could be written about the confusion that produced 198.
Now comes 1996 with a clutch of Opinions, 327, 336 and 343. Although the first two do refer to 198, the Commission seems to have largely recovered from the case of the vapors it fell into with 198 two years prior. EAO 327 was a corporation which proposed to place candidate-supplied information on its internet site as a get-out the-vote effort. Commission ruled that so long as candidate access was totally even-handed, this internet proposal was legal. In 336, another corporation was proposing to allow candidates to place their literature in a site available to employees, again, a get-out-the-vote effort. In this case, Commission noted that while “express advocacy” would be there, it would be the product of the individual candidates, not of the corporation. So long as both the invitations to candidates and the access by employees were totally unbiased, this idea passed muster. Again, in a nod to 198, Commission stated, “whether a communication expressly advocates the election or defeat of a specific candidate will always depend on the the specific nature of the communication. This Commission therefore cannot give advance approval to a general plan.” and further that, “the answer to this question depends on whether each candidate in the election is given the same opportunity to provide information.”
EAO 343 comes from Austin. The city proposed to provide a televised candidate forum on the city's public access channel, but only available to those candidates who had agreed to an Austin inspired, extra-legal limitation on campaign contributions and expenditures. Commission opens with the statement, “In our view, a forum from which certain candidates are excluded would be a communication in support of those present.” Later; “The answer to this question depends on whether each candidate in the election is given the same opportunity to provide information.” Substitute “viewpoint on a measure” for candidate, which will absolutely be the equivalent if anyone forms an SPAC, well, we see where I'm going.
One last EAO, 443 from '02, last on-point EAO I'm aware of. In this event, some anonymous soul posted a school board candidate's flyer in a teacher's lounge that was not accessible to the public. In EAO 443 Commission states, “The question presented raises two separate issues: whether the situation described involves the 'spending' of public funds and, if so, whether the public funds would be spent “for” political advertising.” “In a 1992 advisory opinion, (EAO 45) we concluded that the “spending” of public funds included the use of school district employees' work time as well as the use of existing school district equipment.”
According to the Presentation Schedule at http://saisd.huckabee-inc.com we are going to send our new superintendent and at least two other well paid SAISD employees on a 30 stop whistle tour of every group that will sit still to listen to them between now and election day. At least seven are listed as “no” on the public welcome column, and all but two of those open to the public scheduled for what those of us with day jobs would call normal working hours. This schedule not only precludes attendance by those of us who work regularly to pay the taxes this bond will increase, it opens the question of whether we will be “spending” compensated employee pay to advocate in favor of the bond. Avoiding the “magic words” from SCOTUS is not a definitive shield. Use of those terms, such as “vote for”, “favor”, or “pass” would constitute a definite violation, but beyond that Ethics Commission warns repeatedly that prior approval cannot be given to a general plan and legality will depend on specific language on a case by case basis.
Beyond the legality, Board would do itself a favor by remembering it is trying this case not primarily before an Appealate Court panel, but before a jury of voters and taxpayers. Any possible legal repercussions will be on down the road. Convince the voters you are skating too close to the thin ice and you will definitely lose an election voters are already thinking is overpriced..
By the way Huckabee, we were slap serious about being even-handed. I've already mentioned your new website and your comments on our site, www.conchoinfo.org are welcome and will not be removed for other than the usual rules, obscenity, personal attack, etc. We anxiously await invitations to bond critics to present at the 30 meetings coming up, not to mention the creation of a reader comment section on the new website. It would not hurt our feelings to have some disclosure of exactly who is paying for the cute little 4x5 stick-figure ads in the Standard-Times. Oh, duh, getting slow in my old age, we the taxpayers are, of course. Still be nice to know who is writing the checks off which account.
Open Letter To School Board Trustees:
I offer the results of my research in anticipation of the Election Ethics Training to be offered by Huckabee and Associates Monday evening. I have no reason to doubt Huckabee will be thorough and professional, but it may profit the board members to ponder some of the issues at hand prior to the presentation. Off of the SAISD agenda report on item 6, Ethics training, I read, “There are very clear parameters for written and oral communication about bond elections”. Well, maybe not so much.
The two primary Election Code references are going to be 251.001 and 255.003. Most commonly, people take 255.003(b), the second paragraph allowing “a communication that factually describes the purposes of a measure if the communication does not advocate passage or defeat of the measure.” to be a truck sized loophole permitting almost anything not using specific “magic words” such as “vote for”, “support”, “defeat”, “elect” and therefore avoiding “express advocacy”. Well, maybe not so much.
Let's start with Ethics Advisory Opinions (EAO, henceforth) 37 and 45. (By the way, these opinions can be obtained in their entirety at www.ethics.state.tx.us/opinions then scroll down to the #) Both are from 1992, but some important groundwork is laid in. The first, 37, rules on a corporate, non-partisan, get-out-the-vote effort and finds that acceptable, the second rules on a school board's use of its existing internal mail system to support a bond measure, and finds that to be a violation. Most important here are the citations of 251.001 and 255.003 in both, making clear that the same principles which limit corporate expenditures apply also to “political subdivisions”, of which a school board is one. That linkage will come back in later EAOs. In fact, from EAO 45 “Thus, for example, a circular advocating a particular position on a bond election would be political advertising. An officer or employee of a school district is prohibited from spending funds “for” such a circular. Expenditures for distribution [italics by Commission] of a circular or other written materials are within that prohibition.” Did I read somewhere about a planned mailing of the bond brochure to potential voters?
If that seems perfectly clear, it is only because we have not come to EAO 198 from '94, one of the most complex Opinions due to a situation very much in flux. Here, a corporation was going to expand the “get-out-the-vote” principle by including candidates' records, summaries of positions, written answers to prepared questions and info about poll results and endorsements. In one paragraph, the Commission opines, “We believe the Texas Legislature intended section 253.094 to prohibit political expenditures by corporations and labor organizations to the full extent allowed by the Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court.” Problem was the Supreme Court had appeared to limit “express advocacy” (forbidden) to communications specifically using the phrases I called “magic words” from the Buckley v Valeo case and ruling further limitations as an unconstitutionally overbroad limitation on free speech. In note #2 to this EAO, Commission noted that Fifth Circuit (ours) had not addressed this limitation, but cited other Circuits which had, in short, the Appealate choir was singing off-key. The closest the Commission comes to giving firm direction in 198 is in the final paragraph, “Nevertheless, whether an actual communication constitutes express advocacy can be answered only on a case by case basis.”, which utterly useless direction was repeated in the case summary. If anyone thought it might actually sell a thousand copies, a scholarly book could be written about the confusion that produced 198.
Now comes 1996 with a clutch of Opinions, 327, 336 and 343. Although the first two do refer to 198, the Commission seems to have largely recovered from the case of the vapors it fell into with 198 two years prior. EAO 327 was a corporation which proposed to place candidate-supplied information on its internet site as a get-out the-vote effort. Commission ruled that so long as candidate access was totally even-handed, this internet proposal was legal. In 336, another corporation was proposing to allow candidates to place their literature in a site available to employees, again, a get-out-the-vote effort. In this case, Commission noted that while “express advocacy” would be there, it would be the product of the individual candidates, not of the corporation. So long as both the invitations to candidates and the access by employees were totally unbiased, this idea passed muster. Again, in a nod to 198, Commission stated, “whether a communication expressly advocates the election or defeat of a specific candidate will always depend on the the specific nature of the communication. This Commission therefore cannot give advance approval to a general plan.” and further that, “the answer to this question depends on whether each candidate in the election is given the same opportunity to provide information.”
EAO 343 comes from Austin. The city proposed to provide a televised candidate forum on the city's public access channel, but only available to those candidates who had agreed to an Austin inspired, extra-legal limitation on campaign contributions and expenditures. Commission opens with the statement, “In our view, a forum from which certain candidates are excluded would be a communication in support of those present.” Later; “The answer to this question depends on whether each candidate in the election is given the same opportunity to provide information.” Substitute “viewpoint on a measure” for candidate, which will absolutely be the equivalent if anyone forms an SPAC, well, we see where I'm going.
One last EAO, 443 from '02, last on-point EAO I'm aware of. In this event, some anonymous soul posted a school board candidate's flyer in a teacher's lounge that was not accessible to the public. In EAO 443 Commission states, “The question presented raises two separate issues: whether the situation described involves the 'spending' of public funds and, if so, whether the public funds would be spent “for” political advertising.” “In a 1992 advisory opinion, (EAO 45) we concluded that the “spending” of public funds included the use of school district employees' work time as well as the use of existing school district equipment.”
According to the Presentation Schedule at http://saisd.huckabee-inc.com we are going to send our new superintendent and at least two other well paid SAISD employees on a 30 stop whistle tour of every group that will sit still to listen to them between now and election day. At least seven are listed as “no” on the public welcome column, and all but two of those open to the public scheduled for what those of us with day jobs would call normal working hours. This schedule not only precludes attendance by those of us who work regularly to pay the taxes this bond will increase, it opens the question of whether we will be “spending” compensated employee pay to advocate in favor of the bond. Avoiding the “magic words” from SCOTUS is not a definitive shield. Use of those terms, such as “vote for”, “favor”, or “pass” would constitute a definite violation, but beyond that Ethics Commission warns repeatedly that prior approval cannot be given to a general plan and legality will depend on specific language on a case by case basis.
Beyond the legality, Board would do itself a favor by remembering it is trying this case not primarily before an Appealate Court panel, but before a jury of voters and taxpayers. Any possible legal repercussions will be on down the road. Convince the voters you are skating too close to the thin ice and you will definitely lose an election voters are already thinking is overpriced..
By the way Huckabee, we were slap serious about being even-handed. I've already mentioned your new website and your comments on our site, www.conchoinfo.org are welcome and will not be removed for other than the usual rules, obscenity, personal attack, etc. We anxiously await invitations to bond critics to present at the 30 meetings coming up, not to mention the creation of a reader comment section on the new website. It would not hurt our feelings to have some disclosure of exactly who is paying for the cute little 4x5 stick-figure ads in the Standard-Times. Oh, duh, getting slow in my old age, we the taxpayers are, of course. Still be nice to know who is writing the checks off which account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)