Your turn! What do you think?

Let the sunshine in

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the state of Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) which requires that most local and state government meetings be held in public.  The 1967 law makes violating the act a misdemeanor crime punishable by a fine up to $500 and from one to six months in jail. TOMA is like all the other sunshine laws in different states that provide public access to governmental records and makes the decision-making process of government more visible to the general public.   These sunshine laws are sometimes called open records laws or public records laws, and there is also a federal counterpart in the federal Freedom of Information Act which mandates access to government records at the federal level.  Such laws are designed to allow the public to have greater contact with the work of government because deliberations must be made public.

Sounds good doesn’t it? The law provides greater accountability and requires that government have greater transparency about the decision-making process.  So what were the two public officials accused of doing?

It seems the two city council members were brought up on criminal charges under TOMA because they discussed the scheduling of a council meeting about a contract matter through emails in which 2 other council members were included.  Technically there was a quorum (the minimum number of members of a committee/organization who must be present for official business to be transacted) because there were four persons on the emails, so the appellate court found that the officials were conducting business on emails.  Those comments, the appeals court noted, should have been made in public meetings.

Attorney General Greg Abbott declared the decision a victory for open government, but the two city council members who were brought up on charges under TOMA said they will appeal (even though the charges were later dismissed) because their concern is that it violates their free speech rights.

Your turn! What do you think?

Going Green, Seeing Red, and Vote Purging Gets a Yellow

Dallas took a giant step in going green by expanding recycling programs to have a zero-waste landfill by 2040 (target goal-84% of the city’s garbage recycled).  The transition will not be easy for the second city in Texas to undertake such a program (Austin—first in 2008 established target goals of 90% recycled). The first roadblock?  There are disagreements among city leaders, businesses, interest groups, and citizens about the timeline and costs for achieving goals. The original plan requires apartments and businesses implement recycling programs forcing increased costs on property owners. This is arguably an unfunded mandate—requirement or regulation set down by an agency that does not provide funding to carry out the requirement. Until more consultations, the timelines for compliance have been trashed.

And speaking of trashed, a north Austin homeowner, Bud Johnson, trashed his symbolic speech display this week after receiving much public attention. Symbolic speech is any nonverbal communication, typically political in nature including marching, wearing armbands, and mutilating the U.S. flag.   Here, Johnson’s display of a rope around an empty chair hanging from a tree had neighbors and civil rights activists seeing red.  Since Clint Eastwood used an empty chair at the Republican National Convention to both symbolize and criticize the Obama administration, empty chairs are being used all over the country by Republicans to highlight why the country needs to go red in November.  The lawn display attracted much attention from both the media and the public because the concern is that this is hate speech (any communication which disparages a person or a group based on some characteristic like race, gender, or sexual orientation). The head of the Austin chapter of the NAACP noted that the image reminded people about lynching.  Hate speech is protected under both federal and state law.  The owner, Bud Johnson, finally removed the chair saying only “[i]t has nothing to do with racism. Nothing.”

And speaking of being removed, State District Judge Tim Sulak issued a temporary injunction (a restraining order which prohibits further action from being taken) to prevent Texas from purging voters off registration lists. The injunction only causes a slow down for Secretary of State, Hope Andrade, who is enforcing a 2011 Texas law to remove voters who are deceased.    The Secretary of State—who is responsible for overseeing elections in Texas—sent 80,000 letters to persons from Social Security lists of recently deceased telling them they had 30 days to respond, or else lose their status as a registered voter. That prompted voting rights watch dog groups (organizations that protect and act as guardians against illegal practices) to cry foul.  When laws are enacted, the implementing agency has rulemaking authority-the ability to set rules to carry out the law. Here, Andrade established a rule for determining whether a match was “strong” or “weak” and sent letters to both types.  A match is “strong” if the name, birth date and Social Security numbers match; and a “weak” match means that one of the three did not match.  All of the complaints about purging have come from persons identified as “weak” matches who want the Secretary to know they are alive and well, and that they intend to vote.

Your turn! What do you think?

Pumping up the Pay?

The Texas House Pensions and Investments Committee held meetings to revise the state employee retirement system.  One proposal would change the system for state employees from a defined benefit plan (you pay into the system and receive a set income when you reach qualifying retirement age) to a defined contribution plan (you pay into the system, but the amount you receive at depends on how well the private investments have done over the years). This has led critics of the proposal to say hands off because it’s a risky system, while others argue that the system needs reform.

In this debate about privatizing retirement benefits, the question is should public employees be allowed to choose private investment companies to structure their retirement benefits? Conservatives tend to favor privatized systems where businesses invest retirement monies, while liberals tend to prefer traditional systems where the state manages retirement income.  Both sides are concerned about the long-term fiscal health of investment plans and whether the programs are sustainable for the next generation of workers who retire.

The debate at the House hearings hit a bit closer to home than expected because the legislators own retirement programs came up for discussion. After all, they too are part of the two million public employees in Texas, and some questioned why state legislators wanted reform for public employees, but did not advocate reform for state legislator retirement plans.

Texas legislators are among the lowest paid public officials in the country receiving only $7200 annual salary plus $150 per diem expenses (per day) costs to cover food and lodging (they also get mileage reimbursement). That rate (set by the Texas Ethics Commission) means that when you do the math its about $21,000 for the 140 biennial session-the legislature only meets every other, odd-numbered year.  That doesn’t really seem like that much for someone who is serving the public interest, and who may have to let their own career, law firm, or business suffer as the official tends to the business of the state.

What those numbers don’t tell you, however, is that the retirement benefits of legislators is based not on what their annual salary is, but on the salary of state district court judges (which is $125,000 because the legislature in 1981 changed the law to make a judge’s pay the base rate for qualifying pensions, instead of the measly $7200 in that was their salary). So even though the pay is lousy as a legislator, the payoff at retirement can be decent. States pump up the pay all the time. Look at former House Speaker Tom Craddick. If his pay was pegged to $7200, his annual benefit would only be $3312 (you don’t receive your full salary at retirement-typically less than half). Instead Craddick’s benefits are $57,500/year because its based on the $125,000 state judge salary. The average public pension for a state employee is $17,526.

No wonder some legislators want to keep their retirement income separate from reform efforts. Nice work if you can get it.

Your turn! What do you think?

Give ‘Em Something to Talk About

In the last current events blog, I talked about the issue of the government taking property and the requirements for just compensation.  After reading the news story about the property owners suing over TxDOT projects which are blocking billboards, look at the Article I, section 17 of the Texas Constitution.

What are arguments for and against `whether the Texas Constitution supports the government’s claim that the state cannot be sued?  What is your opinion about whether the companies are entitled to just compensation?

Roads, Reading, Writing & Arithmetic

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) was sued this week by seven outdoor advertising companies for failing to do an impact study (an assessment of the environmental and capital costs associated with certain government projects) of public construction projects outside Dallas.  TxDOT was required to do one to protect the property interests of the owners under the Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act (PRPRPA).  The businesses argue there has been a “taking” of their property interests because the highway improvements and repairs block the visibility of their billboards and impair their ability to reap profits.  A “taking” occurs whenever government takes ownership of real property through its actions which reduce the property’s access or value, and it must to give just compensation for the value of the property.  Both our federal and the state of Texas constitutions prohibit the taking of property without compensating the owner, and along with statutory laws like PRPRPA, these laws are designed to limit government encroachment on property rights.  Texas general counsel (the attorney for the state) argued in response to the plaintiffs’ complaint (the list of allegations by the businesses are suing) that the government cannot be sued, but we will see what a district court judge says. Even so, the construction project continues while the litigation moves forward.

And speaking of moving forward, the Texas Senate Education Committee met this week in advance of the legislative session that begins in January 2013. Texas, because of its biennial session only meets for 140 day in odd numbered years, and that means that it is difficult to address complex policy decisions like education reform.  So even though the legislature is not technically in session, the policy committee responsible for legislative oversight (the review of laws and implementation of those laws by legislators) continues to address concerns about Texas education, including budget deficits and concerns about overall educational quality.   Texas currently ranks 32^nd in the country for education, but the committee is considering adding on longer school hours and additional days to the calendar.

Your turn! What do you think?