Taxpayer beware! Local government budget season has arrived

Brace yourselves, folks.  Just yesterday, the Statesman's Laylin Copelin reported that Travis County property appraisals had fallen 3.5% this year.  Which means every taxing entity in the county that collects property taxes will lose revenue.  Today, Travis County commissioners were presented with the FY 2011 budget - and in said budget, the county property tax rate will go up 4.43%, meaning just from county property taxes, your bill will go up $48.  Inevitable since the budget is more than $32 million more than last year's budget (due to rising health care costs, says the county).

This really should not surprise anyone, but that's not all.  The Austin City Council got their proposed budget as well, and while it is "balanced," it is also going to cause your property taxes to go up.  According to the city's press release:

 "Under the proposed budget, the property tax rate would increase to 45.71 cents per $100 property evaluation. This is the first time since 2006 the City has not applied the rollback tax rate – which this year would have been 46.93 cents per $100. If approved, the tax bill for the projected median-priced home is estimated to be $843 per year, or $70.27 per month. This is an approximate increase of $4.37 per month for the owner of a median-priced home in Austin."

So far, if you own a "median-priced" home in Austin, you can expect to pay more than $50 more in your taxes next year. But that assumes your appraisal doesn't go up - and with appraisals down this year, it is more than likely that appraisals will go up. Under state law, appraisals on homesteads can go up 10% each year.  It also assumes that the school districts around Travis County don't decide to change their tax rates as well; the majority of the property taxes you pay are school district (ISD) taxes.  And don't forget the community college district, and the multitudes of other taxing entities that have this power.

Something similar may happen in Williamson County - there, tax rolls were down 6%, and the county commissioners' court is right now trying to make a decision on the budget and tax rate for next year.  The county has to make a decision on the budget and tax rate by Tuesday, August 31.

AND IT GETS WORSE - also today, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and the U.S. Conference of Mayors began crying to the heavens about a projected local government shortfall of $74 billion, and began hinting that federal money would be better to bail them out than local money. Travis County certainly isn't acting that way - the budget going up speaks to their confidence - but scare tactics about "essential services" could encourage state legislatures to join in the new clamor, and our already obliterated federal pocketbook may be harvested once more. Local governments, ladies and gents, are going a little haywire.

Back here in Texas - taxpayers are still wrapping up summer vacations and are therefore distracted from caring about these things, and if they protested their property taxes this year they only got the decisions in the last few weeks.  It is not a time when most people are looking at what will happen next year.  But taxing entities have to make decisions on budgets and taxing rates very quickly, and it will all be over before the next big distraction comes down the pike.  NOW is the time to pay attention and to weigh in on what your local taxing entities are doing - now is the time to have your say.

If you didn't protest your appraisal this year, you're probably in for a shock when you get your appraisal next year, and definitely when you get next year's tax bill.  Austin and Travis County are all smiles and optimism about the economic forecast - in other words, their revenue forecast, and the hit your pocketbook is more than likely to take as a result.

Austin's proposed budget for FY2011

I'll post the press release here without comment for the moment.  Talk amongst yourselves.

City Manager presents proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2011


City Manager Marc Ott today outlined the proposed budget for the 2011 Fiscal Year, which maintains core services and includes additional funding for a number of key initiatives.

For the first time since 2006, the proposed budget will not apply the “rollback” property tax rate. The proposed improvements – and associated property tax rate – are due to the sustainable structural reductions City Council has approved in the past, an aggressive process of repurposing funds and eliminating long-term vacancies, and positive news regarding both sales tax returns and property valuations.

“During the previous two budget cycles, the City Council made some tough decisions in terms of permanent budget reductions, which has helped get us to the point where we are today,” City Manager Ott said. “With this proposed budget we’re able to minimize impacts on the property tax rate while still funding some new initiatives that the community told us were most important, particularly in the area of public safety.”

The proposed budget includes the addition of 48 police officers, 30 EMS paramedics and 10 firefighters. It also includes:

- An additional $100,000 in funding to address homelessness in Austin

- A $500,000, or 26 %, increase in the books and materials budget for the Library Department

- Funding to improve the maintenance of downtown parks

- 11 new positions in the Planning and Development Review Department

- A “general wage adjustment” of 2.5% for non-union employees

Staff conducted an intense review of historical departmental expenditures, position vacancies and previous reduction proposals to cut $9.8 million from the proposed budget.

Under the proposed budget, the property tax rate would increase to 45.71 cents per $100 property evaluation. This is the first time since 2006 the City has not applied the rollback tax rate – which this year would have been 46.93 cents per $100. If approved, the tax bill for the projected median-priced home is estimated to be $843 per year, or $70.27 per month. This is an approximate increase of $4.37 per month for the owner of a median-priced home in Austin.

In the past month, approximately 2,500 people have had the opportunity to provide budget feedback online – both for potential reductions and for “unmet needs.” They were also able to submit and vote for their own ideas during the process. The City also held a public forum at the Austin Convention Center and solicited feedback from boards and commissions, as well as local community groups.

“I’ve said all along that this is not my budget; this budget belongs to our residents, employees and community. It’s imperative that the budget process is a transparent effort that reflects the priorities of this community, and I believe we were able to accomplish that,” said City Manager Ott. “This process involves many difficult decisions, and our staff has cautiously managed our priorities in order to bring together a balanced budget.”

Austin Energy plans no electric base rate increase; however there will be a transmission rider that will cost the average residential user $0.79 per month. This transmission rider helps to pay for the cost associated with moving high-voltage electric energy over the Texas grid to the local utility. Austin Water Utility has proposed a 4.5 percent system-wide increase that will add $3.84 to the average monthly residential bill.

Departmental budget presentations will take place Aug. 18 and 25, with public hearings Aug. 19 and 26. The Austin City Council is scheduled to approve a budget Sept. 13-15.

The proposed budget, along with other budget information, may be found at www.cityofaustin.org/budget.

Former Texas Supremes Betray the Republicans that Elected Them

This message was written by Timothy Bradberry of the Travis Monitor blog.  I am reposting it here with my complete agreement.  This was written on behalf of the board of directors of the Central Texas Republican Assembly, of which I am a member.

In similar vein to Speaker Joe Straus “endorsing” Democrat Patrick Rose by headlining a fundraiser for Rose while Rose’s very viable Republican opponent, Jason Isaac was ignored by the Speaker, three former Republican members of the Texas Supreme Court have explicitly endorsed Democrat Kurt Kuhn in his bid for the 3rd Court of Appeals while Kuhn’s very viable Republican opponent, former District Judge Melissa Goodwin, is left with what can only feel like a knife in her back.

Here is how the announcement of this latest Republican betrayal is reported on the Texas Lawyer Blog (Tex Parte Blog):

On his campaign website, Kurt Kuhn, the Democrats’ nominee for a seat on Austin’s 3rd Court of Appeals, touts endorsements by three former Texas Supreme Court justices, all Republicans. Former Chief Justice Tom Phillips and former Justices Craig Enoch and Scott Brister confirm they have endorsed Kuhn, a partner in Austin’s Brown McCarroll. Phillips, now a partner in Baker Botts in Austin, says, “Most of us who have been on the [Supreme] Court in recent years do not regard the judiciary as a partisan enterprise.” Enoch, a shareholder in Winstead in Austin, says, “I’m retired [from the bench], so I’m free to express my opinion.” Brister, a partner in Andrews Kurth in Austin, says he has known Kuhn for a long time. “I think he’ll do a great job,” Brister says. Kuhn says he is trying to run a broad bipartisan campaign. “I’m not going to be a Democrat if I’m elected; I’m going to be a judge,” he says.

The former “Republican” Supremes may not view the judiciary as a partisan enterprise but if they truly want themselves to be seen as apolitical, they picked a strange time to stir the political pot by endorsing a Democrat in a general election. Also, former Chief Justice Tom Phillips' motivation for taking off his robe at this time in this election is clouded by the fact that he advocates for appointed rather than elected judges.

Regardless of their apolitical status or reasons for endorsing a Democrat I ask, like I did about Speaker Straus, what kind of Republicans are they? If they were members of the Central Texas Republican Assembly they would be expelled from membership as our members are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates of other political parties. Though we did not end up making an endorsement in the Republican Primary in the 3rd Court of Appeals race, once Republicans choose Melissa Goodwin we were and are bound to follow the lead of the Republican Primary voters and put our weight behind the Republican nominee. What the three former Supremes have done is to betray Republican Party voters, many of whom had previously voted them into office.

Apparently ignored by the three former Supremes, the reason we need Melissa Goodwin on the 3rd Court is her extensive experience with administrative law, criminal law, and family law. These three facets of the law account for nearly 2/3 of the cases that the 3rd Court will potentially hear on appeal. Goodwin brings the most experience to the table on these important areas of law and fills a void on the existing 3rd Court, which is made up almost entirely of former civil litigators who have represented deep pocketed clients and have very little experience representing the little guy or gal. Kuhn fits that mold, and if he is elected, he would add nothing to the court that's not already heavily represented (and thoroughly dominates at the Texas Supreme Court).

All evidence from her prior jurisprudence indicates that if Melissa Goodwin gets on the court she would not carry water for trial lawyers or business interests but would be fair and respect the right to a trial by jury. She would also bring important expertise in areas of law that are very much underrepresented on the appellate courts as described above. She has a lot to contribute that isn't there yet, unlike Kuhn.

In summary, Goodwin’s experience covers a supermajority of the kinds of cases that will come before the 3rd Court of Appeals and on the flip side Kurt Kuhn is lacking in the experience that is sore needed on the Court.

So, let me just say in response to this betrayal, Republicans should ignore the three former Supremes and give our full support (read money, money, money, etc.) and encouragement to Melissa Goodwin in her bid to be the next elected Republican on the 3rd Court of Appeals.

How is that Open Meetings Act challenge going, anyway?

Back in January, I posted about the city of Pflugerville joining in with a cadre of smaller cities in their challenge to the Texas Open Meetings Act.  As usual with these stories, which get buried quickly in the cacophony of national headlines, I'm a little late in reporting back on what's happening.  It's been about two weeks since Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott weighed in, defending the constitutionality of the Open Meetings Act (FortBendNow has a story here).

From the state's brief in the case:

“The First Amendment protects citizens against government oppression – not government against citizen oversight,” the state’s brief said. “Open government laws are based on the same premise: that public officials work for the people.” The legal filing also noted that openness in government “is a First Amendment virtue, not a First Amendment violation."

A court case can only do so much, and if Chuck Lindell at the Statesman is right in surmising that the case will be appealed, don't count on higher federal courts upholding lower decisions as the saving grace for sunshine.

The competing theories on the First Amendment — which guarantees the key democratic freedoms of speech, religion and assembly — are set out in recently filed motions for summary judgment, with each side asking U.S. Judge Robert Junell to rule in their favor without the benefit of a trial.  Junell's decision will likely be appealed, setting up the appellate courts for a precedent-setting decision on the future of the Open Meetings Act, a 1967 law credited — by both sides in the legal dispute — with minimizing back-room deals by elected and appointed public officials. Reply motions are due within a month. Junell has no time limit on issuing a ruling from his Pecos court.

Lindell also listed out the names on the lawsuit in a follow-up to his earlier story here.  Councilman Victor Gonzales is the only Pflugerville official listed.

I wish now that I'd thought to talk a little about the Open Meetings Act at the Defending the American Dream summit earlier this month, because this is an issue that isn't going to go away soon.  The cities involved are adamant about their case, that the Open Meetings Act is too broad.  We have a legislative session coming up in which a lot of legislation will get passed without hard scrutiny (with the budget, redistricting, and major sunset bills to deal with, this is an inevitable side effect).  It is really difficult for regular citizens to follow everything that goes on, and with the Texas Municipal League on the side of the cities here, if legislation is filed to curtail the Open Meetings Act, there will be a very tough fight to keep the sun shining on Texas cities.

One can only hope that citizen watchdogs are keeping an eye on what happens here.  I can only think that the bigger cities in Texas are watching this case carefully, eager to see if they will be able to start hoodwinking their constituents any time soon.  We know some of them are already practicing such arts, after all.

Could a "Transportation Manager" be in Austin's future?

This morning, just as Todd & Don were wrapping up their show on KLBJ, a news clip played about the possibility of Austin hiring a transportation manager to oversee a campaign to convince people to talk public transit when coming downtown.

Being terribly cynical when it comes to the City of Austin's transportation boondoggles, I can't help but think that this new position would be created just so that the city can try and justify the millions of dollars being wasted on the toy trains no one wanted in the first place.  So they'll ask taxpayers to foot the bill for salary, benefits, and probably a million-dollar advertising campaign.

Oh, but here's the best part: "If approved, Capital Metro would share the cost of the transportation management association $148,000 fee."

Great idea, Austin.  Except it really isn't.

What Not to Do: Version Ciro Rodriguez

Oh, this one is just a classic.  And it does not seem to matter - Democrats in Texas are either blatantly corrupt, liars, clueless, or in this case, kind of desperate.

We should show this video as "What Not to Do" to all candidates and elected officials.

Priceless.

Open mouth, insert foot: Version Sheila Jackson Lee

Just another day in the life.

Just the facts, ma'am

Mr. "Being Obama's Running Mate Would Be Cool" Mark Strama seems to be getting quite the buzz on the blogosphere tonight, as the facts about his failure to tell the truth about his voting record spread.

Disrupt the Narrative says:

He’s taking credit for being hawkish on taxes and cool on the schools, but he’s had no demonstrable role in either issue since he has been in the legislature. He’s voted with the Democrats, lock step, or done nothing visible at all. And Politifact’s narrowly designed fact-check just side-stepped that whole issue, even though it’s the very core of story. This is how liberal Democrats in Texas tend to roll, and it’s also how Politifact tends to roll.

Austin Public Policy Examiner says:

What Strama actually did do in 2006 was to support Keffer's anti-business, job destroying and tax increasing franchise tax bill, one of the most negative pieces of legislation to come out of the Texas legislature this decade. /.../ So not only did Strama not cut property taxes as claimed (though the legislature did it without his support), he helped create a whole new strongly anti-busienss tax structure with the collaboration of big government Republicans.

Voters will figure it out, you know, when you consistently either vote against their interests (read: pocketbook).  Rep. Strama thinks he's in a "safe" district, protected by his white knight image.   However, this is not the year of the moderate, unoffensive Democrat, especially Obama Democrats like Mark Strama, who promote big government while reassuring their constituents with shiny promises they have no intention of upholding.

Wentworth confirms he's talking to TX A&M

More big Senate news today, as Sen. Wentworth confirms he's in talks with Texas A&M about a job.

Important point in that article, though.  Wentworth says he'll remain on the ballot in November.  If he does, and resigns later, we're looking at a special election to fill his seat.

Of course, if he leaves the Senate in time to have his name removed from the ballot, there's a lot of election law minutiae that could come into play.  Who chooses the Republican who replaces him on the ballot, etc.  And if there's no special election, the Democrats (who failed to field a candidate in SD 25 originally) won't get to play.

Biggest question right now is clearly not whether Wentworth leaves, but when, and for Republicans the question has to be asked - who will run?  The district is pretty solidly Republican, and is six counties (Comal, Guadalupe, Hays, Kendall, and parts of Bexar and Travis).  There are some current elected officials, and former, who may look to duke it on the Republican side, and there are already reports that neither Rep. Patrick Rose nor Rep. Valinda Bolton are interested in challenging for the seat.  I would think that the major contenders for the seat would come from Bexar County, the population heavy in SD 25.

The rumor mill in Austin is indeed efficient.  Now we just have to wait and see what ends up happening for sure. There have been some major Senate shifts recently, and this latest possibility could be another real opportunity for conservative Republicans looking for strong representation.

Confirmed: Big changes in Texas Senate

Lt. Gov. Dewhurst made some changes with committee assignments in the Senate, given the retirement of Sen. Averitt, the impending retirement of Sen. Shapleigh, and the recent election and swearing-in of Sen. Birdwell.  Some of the changes are pretty significant, and could have impact on policy matters.

Administration - Sen. Kevin Eltife
Business & Commerce - Sen. John Carona
Economic Development - Sen. Mike Jackson
Jurisprudence - Sen. Chris Harris
Natural Resources - Sen. Troy Fraser
Nominations - Sen. Bob Deuell
Transportation & Homeland Security - Sen. Tommy Williams
Select Committee on Veterans Health - Sen. Jeff Wentworth

Of course, the most interesting ones are Carona and Wentworth.  Carona was chairing Transportation, and now he's not even on that committee.  Meanwhile, Wentworth was chairing Jurisprudence, and has been given a relatively low-pressure assignment.

The Wentworth move could signal a change in Wentworth's career altogether.  My thought is that Wentworth gave Dewhurst a heads-up about a possible retirement, not out of the realm of possibility.  Wentworth was pretty sore at Rep. McCall for taking the Texas State chancellor job - if there is a chance Wentworth could move to the higher education sector, I suspect he would jump on it.

Meanwhile, Sen. Joan Huffman was put on the Higher Education committee as vice-chairman, and Sen. Birdwell was also named to that committee.  Sen. Dan Patrick moved off Higher Ed. and replaces Shapleigh on Finance.

Big day in the Senate, that's for sure.

Carona off Transportation, Wentworth to retire?

Will be listening carefully today for any debunking or confirmation, but there are rumors circulating around the Texas Senate today.  Seems like the return of summer heat to Austin is making everyone twitchy.

Quorum Report has unconfirmed reports of the following:

1 - Senator Carona is going to be moved to chair Business & Commerce instead of Transportation.

2 - Senator Williams will take over at Transportation.

3 - Senator Eltife will then move to Admin.

4 - Senator Fraser will take over at Natural Resources (now that Sen. Averitt has resigned)

5 - And Senator Wentworth will retire to take a post at Texas A&M University.

??????????

These are all completely unconfirmed rumors at this point, but at least one (Fraser taking Nat. Resources) could have some validity.  After all, Averitt does need to be replaced since he has actually moved on.

Obama promises he won't rest

Anybody believe him?

Courtesy of The Right Scoop.

They did survive

This was in the comments on the YouTube page:

Sir, if you are alive, you have survived. If you can live and go back there and not run screaming, you are courageous.

But if you can go there, with the family you have raised in love, if you can dance in the place they tried to murder you, if you can show your defiance of them and still be a mensch... well sir... then you have won.

I can't agree more.

Ohio (Gone to Florida)

Seems like everyone took a bit of a break yesterday to pay attention to LeBron James and the drama he created with his one-hour special on ESPN last night.

You friendly neighborhood lege blogger really couldn't care less about the NBA and LeBron James.  I'm a baseball fan, and it's July.  But my take on all of this so far?

Either you're a fan of LeBron James and you like his decision, or you're a Cavs fan and you hate his decision, or you hate the Miami Heat and are just ticked on general principle (or like me, you're just glad you cancelled cable before the LeBron James Special came on ESPN last night).  Stephen Spruiell over at the Corner has his $.02 in this post.  In it he quotes ESPN's J.A. Adande:

LeBron is free to go wherever he wants, whatever suits him best. Just because he's always lived in Akron and Cleveland doesn't mean he should always stay there. ... But it's not too much to ask him to be respectful on the way out. In this case promotion took precedence over protocol. He strung everyone along, tried to build the drama at the expense of the common courtesy of notifying teams of his plans so they could get about constructing their teams. Everyone associated with this looks bad.

I do agree with Adande - is it too much to ask for a player who has been an integral part of an organization, such an icon where he is, to be respectful as he leaves?  I've seen this compared to Alex Rodriguez and I don't think it is the same situation - A-Rod, when he left Texas, was an albatross for a last-place team, and had not been here long enough to become "beloved" (had he left Seattle for New York, that might have been a different story).  Also, when A-Rod left Texas, he didn't have a one-hour ESPN special to announce which team he was going to play for.  LeBron James' stunt last night, and his dragged-out decision-making, might have made for interesting drama for bored basketball fans in the heat of summer, but it was ultimately hurtful to his Cleveland fan base - and a display of ego that rivals even the most incredible of Mr. Octobers.

LeBron James is an icon for basketball fans, and he left Cleveland in a terribly ungracious way.  Now, from a promotion and career standpoint, was his decision a good one?  Time will tell, won't it.

Chairman Kuempel has all the fun

No, really!  State Rep. Ed Kuempel (R-Seguin) is chairman of the House Licensing & Administrative Procedures committee. Sounds dull as dishwater - except, this is the committee that has charge of the Racing Commission and the Lottery Commission.

Today, the committee met for an interim hearing to do the usual interim charge work - and, item #3, "Gaming and the expansion of gambling in Texas."

You can view the archived broadcast of this hearing online at this link (you need RealPlayer installed on your computer to watch - these are .ram files).  Trust me, you'll want to check it out.  There are a lot of forces at work in the state in favor of gambling expansion right now, using the excuse that the state could make up a lot of lost general revenue in this way.  Not so fast, though - Texas' chief revenue estimator, John Heleman, made sure to warn the committee and all who were listening that gambling revenue was not guaranteed and it would not be immediate, noting that gambling revenue is down nationwide.  Of course, that didn't stop legislators from then arguing that it just means doing it now is just as good as doing it later (making it look like the difference between certain Republicans and the liberal Democrats is not whether they want to expand gambling, just how quickly).

There were those who came to today's hearing in opposition of gambling expansion (like State Rep. Charlie Howard [R-Sugarland], and at least one activist who made sure she left Kuempel in no doubt that he would be hearing from her again and often).  Not that you'll see anything about their stances in the media echo-chamber.  The issues with gambling expansion (crime increase being just one of them) are being talked about, just not within earshot of Jim Dunnam's personal press secretary Quorum Report or the Trib, apparently.  It's all in the video, though.

Texas Tribune has a good breakdown of the competing gambling interests that weighed in at today's hearing, all anxious to get a piece of the pie that some are viewing as inevitable.

A lot of important things are discussed in the interim, and it is just as important for citizens to weigh in now when possible (letters and phone calls, if you can't testify during an invite-only interim hearing).  I have RSS feeds on the right-hand side of this blog that list upcoming hearings, and you can also monitor them yourself at Texas Legislature Online.

Strama getting credit for things he didn't do

Going to have to give you some background for this one to make sense.  At the Republican convention held in Dallas in June, former party vice chairman David Barton circulated a letter to the delegation, and in it he told people that Republican Rep. Jim Keffer of Eastland had endorsed Democratic Rep. Mark Strama.  PolitiFact checked out the story - voters in HD 50 will recall that Keffer's name and a quote were on Strama's mail pieces in 2006.  Keffer, in responding to PolitiFact's query on this, said that Strama "worked with Republicans to cut property taxes and keep our public schools open."  Moreover, in the PolitiFact piece, Strama refers to legislation on school funding that Keffer authored and Strama co-sponsored.

This is certainly news!  PolitiFact, concerned only with the validity of the claim that Keffer has supported Strama in the past, ignored these statements.  Fair enough.  So your friendly neighborhood lege blogger decided to look into this herself, and well, it is really difficult to find where Strama was a part of any effort to cut property taxes.

Here's what I found when looking for what these two could possibly be referring to.  Strama, you'll recall, was a freshman legislator in 2005, the big session for school finance and property tax relief.  The session that went into three specials, the third one giving Texans the business franchise tax.  Keffer has had no hand in any of the school finance legislation that has passed since Strama has been in office, and Strama's name is not on any school finance legislation that I can find. HB 2 and HB 3 in 79th Reg. session (2005) were both bills that Keffer authored or co-authored, but both died during the process. In the 79th 3rd special, Rep. Chisum (R-Pampa) had a school finance bill that did pass (HB 1), but neither Keffer nor Strama were co-sponsors or co-authors. In this last session, Rep. Hochberg (D-Houston) had a school finance bill that passed (HB 3646) but again, neither Keffer nor Strama had anything to do with it.

Regarding property tax relief legislation: Right now, I can't find where Strama did anything on property tax relief, unless Keffer was referring to HB 3 in the 79th 3rd special in 2006 - that's the infamous business franchise tax bill. There, Keffer was a co-author, and Strama had no visible hand on the legislation. It is possible that Strama was part of unverifiable behind-the-scenes efforts to corral Democratic support, as the bill did have Democratic co-authors in Vilma Luna and Mike Villareal.  It is impossible to say for sure.

The property tax relief bill from the 80th session (2007) was one that every Democrat opposed on final passage.  That would be HB 2 by Rep. Chisum.  Caption: "Relating to making appropriations to the Texas Education Agency for the purpose of school district property tax rate reductions and providing for the transfer of general revenue into the property tax relief fund."  The Democrats attempted to amend the bill in the House to divert the funds away from pure property tax relief, or make property tax relief contingent upon, funding for education projects that they were unable to get support for in separate legislation.  Strama voted with the Democrats on each one of those amendments.

Once the bill had gone through the process, and the House and Senate had both taken the opportunity to vote on it and send it to conference committee, the House Dems all revolted and voted against the amended bill en masse.  HB 2 passed the House 86 to 53.  Strama was one of the 53 Democrats who voted against it.

Claims of Mark Strama's "bipartisan" work on property tax relief and school finance reform ring false, and prove false upon inspection.  So why would Jim Keffer, a Republican, come out and support him like he did in 2006 (link to Strama mail piece courtesy PolitiFact)?

The conspiratorial answer is that Keffer was gearing up to challenge Tom Craddick as speaker, which he did in fact attempt to do in 2007 during session and after, and he needed the support of affable liberals like Strama to be successful.  Why he would obfuscate now and make it sound like Strama is some kind of taxpayer champion is kind of beyond me - the facts are there, Mark Strama was part of the general Democratic effort to block or kill property tax relief.

(Full Disclaimer - I am working for the Patrick McGuinness for State Representative campaign in HD 50.)

Speaker politics at the WilCo Tea Party

A citizen in Williamson County, holding up a sign explaining her persepective on speaker politics at this weekend's Wilco Tea Party event.

I know the leadership would prefer this went away.  The fact of the matter is, people are ticked.  They want to know why a Republican majority doesn't act like a Republican majority.  Why is a Republican speaker, who very correctly promised not to challenge any incumbent, turning around and actively supporting liberal Democratic incumbents?  This is a growing issue in the grassroots.  This sign popping up at a tea party proves that.

Thanks to WilCo Republican Assembly president David MacEwan for this picture.

A resolution proposed by Mr. Lee

Happy Independence Day, y'all. May God save our American states.

CapMetro afraid of a little sunshine

I think it is just perfect that while the Defending the American Dream/RightOnline summit is going on over in the Arboretum, Capital Metro is making headlines because they've ducked and dodged open records requests concerning their legal expenditures.  KXAN broke the story because it was their open records requests - you can check it out here.  According to the story, "the request followed the approval of Capital Metro’s budget for 2010, which included $1,571,026 for outside legal services, a 70 percent increase over 2009."

Wooboy!  Gotta tell ya, I'm interested to know myself how exactly CapMetro can justify this, and I'm going to take a wild guess and say that it could be related to the sunset process - undoubtedly, an agency that has to be concerned about its future, and about the added scrutiny on their budget and revenue and business practices, that kind of agency would feel the need to amp up their legal counsel.  However, CapMetro's refusal to release all information pertinent here is shameful.  Not that we expect anything else from them, let's be honest here.

Like I said, very timely in light of the Texas Defending the American Dream Summit being put on up in northwest Austin, where hundreds of bloggers and tea party activists are being trained in the finer art of holding local governments accountable.  A cautionary tale, perhaps - just because you pay their salaries, doesn't mean they consider themselves duty-bound to be upfront, honest, and transparent with you.

PowerPoint - Defending the American Dream Summit

For those readers visiting from today's Defending the American Dream Summit, here is the PowerPoint presentation I used in the "Investigative Reporting" panel.

http://rapidshare.com/files/404569247/michele_samuelson.ppt.html

Some other sources that you may want to check out, in wake of what we discussed today:

Texas Watchdog:  http://www.texaswatchdog.org/

Texas State Auditor's Office:  http://www.sao.state.tx.us/default.html

Texas Budget Source:  http://texasbudgetsource.com/

Sunshine Review:  http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Main_Page

If you need information on the Freedom of Information Act, and how to use FOIA for your investigations, WikiFOIA is a great resource.  Check that out here:  http://wikifoia.pbworks.com/

There is a TON of information on the web to get you started if you're digging around on your local and state governments.  A one-hour info session is really just there to whet your appetite, and I think I can speak for Trent Seibert as well as myself when I say, if you want to learn more, just ask.  We were only able to hit the tip of the iceberg today with a household ice pick.

Thanks for stopping by!