July, 2007:

Yesterday, Clay Robison wrote about Governor Perry’s controversial community college funding veto, and speculated about the possibility of political gain for Democrats as a result:

There is a potentially large, negative political impact — not for Perry, who won’t be on the ballot next year and maybe never again — but for a few Republican legislators who may find themselves with competitive Democratic challengers in 2008.

There are 50 community college districts throughout Texas, and most are still recovering, in one way or another, from state budget cuts imposed by the Legislature to bridge a multibillion-dollar revenue shortfall in 2003.

This veto, of course, wasn’t the fault of any legislator. Perry struck the money because, he said, the two-year community colleges have been inflating the number of employees entitled to state-paid health benefits.

College officials have denied falsifying budget requests and say they will have to raise tuition, increase local property taxes or cut programs to make up for the vetoed funds, which amount to 8 percent of their state funding for the next two years.

The veto could play into the hands of Texas Democrats, who in recent years have been trying to paint Republicans as anti-education. Democrats already are attacking Republicans over the 2003 budget cuts, a tuition deregulation law that has sharply raised the costs of attending four-year, public universities, and a GOP priority on property tax cuts over increased education spending.

It also could be argued with only limited imagination in a campaign mailout that the veto represents a retreat from lower property taxes because it could force some community colleges to raise their local taxes.

It would have been interesting for Robison to name a few legislators he thinks might have a problem with Perry’s action. It’s sufficiently early that some of the folks who might potentially need to deal with this don’t have anyone lined up against them yet, but for what it’s worth I can tell you that Joe Jaworski (running against Sen. Mike Jackson in SD11) and Diane Trautman (going for a rematch against Rep. Joe Crabb in HD127) have been beating the drums over this. I suspect there are more who aren’t too happy to be in this position, but if Robison has any in mind, he doesn’t let on about it. Alas.

Meanwhile, the Chron took the opportunity to pile on with this editorial.

After supporting full funding for Texas community colleges during the legislative session, Gov. Rick Perry shocked educators and lawmakers by vetoing $154 million earmarked for state-mandated health benefits for college employees. As a result, the institutions that provide the backbone of vocational and four-year university preparatory education face an unnecessary budgetary crisis.

Representatives of Houston-area community colleges met with the Chronicle’s editorial board and painted a grim picture. The veto will cost the Houston Community College System $11 million. HCCS Chancellor Mary Spangler stated the college will be forced to cut spending this year by $5 million and another $5 million next year. At a time when Texas needs to increase the number of residents pursuing higher education, HCCS and other colleges might be forced to raise taxes, tuition and fees.

[…]

Perry claimed he was vetoing the funding because it violated state law prohibiting state dollars from being used for health benefits for locally paid staff, but the money was approved by the Legislature. Perry also blamed community college leaders for attempting to pad the amount of money they could justifiably claim from the state to cover employee health benefits, an allegation that North Harris Montgomery Community College Chancellor John E. Pickelman denied. Pickelman said that after the governor supported full funding for community colleges, “he vetoed his own message. What changes your mind in four and a half months?”

[…]

In a letter to the governor, 47 Democratic members of the Texas House stated, “Your ill-conceived veto is equivalent to a tax increase on middle-class Texans who are working hard to build better lives by obtaining a community or junior college education.”

It is more than strange that an elected official who campaigned on a platform of cutting property taxes would cast a veto that is likely to result in the exact opposite. In an article justifying his veto, Perry noted that if community colleges are short on money, “they are empowered to raise taxes from the population they serve, not unlike a local hospital, school or utility district.” Those who wind up shouldering higher tax bills will have no one to blame but the governor.

Think there might be an ad or two in that? We’ll see what the LBB does, and what Perry does with his second chance.

As we know, Attorney General Greg Abbott is soliciting briefs from various parties before he makes a ruling of some kind on the Keffer request, which is about the legality of House Speaker Tom Craddick’s assertion that he is not required to recognize a motion to vacate the Speaker’s chair. Among those who have filed a response to Abbott’s call for comment is former Speaker Rayford Price, who took issue (PDF) with Craddick’s assertion that the Speaker can only be removed by impeachment (as is the case with statewide officeholders), on the grounds that it would leave matters up to the Senate. Now Pete Laney, who was the last Speaker before Craddick, has joined in as well.

“The 10 years I was speaker I never thought they (elected representatives) couldn’t get rid of me,” Laney said Thursday during a telephone conversation.

[…]

“I don’t think it was ever intended for the speaker to have absolute power,” Laney said. “That is why we left England in the early days to come to America so we did not have an emperor.”

Laney said he interprets the speaker’s role as a facilitator.

“In my opinion, the speaker is there as a vehicle so that every representative can have access to the system regardless of where they come from or what their philosophical beliefs are,” Laney said.

“They are elected from an area just like the speaker is,” the retired legislator said. “The members are benevolent enough to elect an individual to preside over them, and to help with the job of representing their constituents.”

When asked if he planned to submit a written statement to the attorney general’s office, Laney said he did not.

“I pretty much agree with what Rayford Price wrote,” Laney said of an Austin attorney who served one term as speaker in 1971-1973 during the 62nd Legislature.

I love Laney’s framing of the issue, and I think it’s what the politics of the situation ultimately comes down to. We don’t like the idea of absolute power in this state or this country. We like it when people who are in a position of power have to answer to somebody, even if it’s not the voters directly. Tom Craddick’s position in all this has been “I don’t have to listen to you”. Call me crazy, but I think any halfway decent politician can run a campaign against that. And I think Greg Abbott knows it. We’ll see if he takes Burka’s advice and remains above the fray or not.

I’m reading this AusChron article (link via PinkDome) about more reaction to the community college funding veto (see here and here for more, and I’m reading Burka’s post on why we shouldn’t count out Rick Perry after all this time, and I’m thinking that the veto both counts as an admittedly rare error in political judgment by Perry, as well as another source of opposition to him that (in Burka’s words) he’s conjured out of thin air. It makes me wonder if Perry’s desire to prove that he’s no lame duck may lead him to be more likely to make errors in political judgment, since he’s basically in a position where he’s got to swing for the fences. Hard to say, and barring a dreaded special session, there may not be another opportunity for him to strike out till 2009. It’s just a thought, so take it for what it’s worth, and file it away for future reference.

Oh, and if the GOP base is so desperate for someone with “real” conservative credentials that they’d seriously consider adding Rick Perry to the ticket as Vice President, all I can say is that I hope the Democrats realize this would make Texas more winnable for them, not less. Not that they would, of course, but someone needs to say it.

I just have one question regarding this article about the cancer research bill that passed the Lege and will appear as a referendum on the November ballot.

The rhetoric was befitting a $3 billion assault on the nation’s No. 1 killer of people under 85.

State Rep. Ellen Cohen, D-Houston, called it “an answer to our prayers.” Colleague Senfronia Thompson, also D-Houston, said she’d “like to sit back and tell my grandchildren I had something to do with the cure.”

And seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong told Texas legislators that “if we get this done, I can honestly say that it’ll be the greatest thing I’ve ever done with my work within cancer, which makes it one of the greatest things I’ve done in my life.”

Thanks to such support, the bill to establish a cancer research center in Texas sailed through the Legislature in May and was signed by Gov. Rick Perry in June. All that remains is for Texas voters in November to approve the center’s funding, a constitutional amendment allowing the state to issue up to $300 million a year in bonds over the next decade.

There’s just one problem: A lot of health care experts think the initiative is a bad idea.

“The issue is whether it makes sense for a state to front the money for research whose benefits presumably will be spread around the nation,” said Seth Chandler, a law professor with the University of Houston’s Health Law and Policy Institute. “It’s nice and altruistic, but is it sound fiscal policy? I’m skeptical.”

Wouldn’t it have made more sense to write this article while the Lege was in session and debating the bill in question? I mean, this is good to know and all, and perhaps it should be brought up again later, when people are thinking about voting in November, but what good is it to discuss now? I’m just asking.

Vince has a copy of a letter (PDF) written by House Speaker Tom Craddick to his former parliamentarian, Denise Davis, in which he tells her that she can never speak about anything she did in that job because she’s a lawyer and he was her client. Vince explains why this is baloney:

Denise Davis served not only as Parliamentarian but as Special Counsel to the House. In her capacity as Parliamentarian, she no doubt advised not only Speaker Craddick–who appointed her–but also other members of the Legislature, committee staff, and more. Although Davis is an attorney and special counsel, her duties as Parliamentarian are not necessarily governed by the same requirements as her service as Special Counsel.

Does attorney-client privilege apply to parliamentary advice given to the Speaker or other members merely because Davis is an attorney and also Special Counsel? Probably not. Her ruling papers are public record (and we’ve published some on Capitol Annex before).

Craddick, by sending this letter, is doing his best to attempt to muddy the waters between the positions of Special Counsel and Parliamentarian.

Why?

The answer should be obvious: Craddick clearly does not want Davis to ever say publicly how she advised him on rulings on motions to vacate the chair. Again, one may ask, “why?”

While Davis has never publicly acknowledged that she likely advised Craddick he had to recognize those who moved to vacate the chair, it is clearly obvious that she was in such disagreement with his decision not to recognize House members for such motions that she resigned.

Obviously, Craddick doesn’t want the public at large hearing from his former Parliamentarian that he disregarded her professional advice and instead turned to lackeys Terry Keel and Ron Wilson to bail him out of a political jam.

Also, given it was pretty clear from the outset that the matter would either end up in Court or before the Texas Attorney General’s Office, Craddick clearly didn’t want Davis submitting a reply brief to the Keffer/Cook Opinion Request. Why? Because she would likely “tell it like it is,” and hammer nails all over Craddick’s already lined political coffin.

Craddick appears to be trying to use attorney-client privilege to paint, with a very broad brush, everything Denise Davis did as parliamentarian as legal advice to him personally rather than what it was: serving out the duties of the appointed office of Parliamentarian.

The sad thing is that AG Greg Abbott may be buying into Craddick’s logic, since he has not solicited a brief from her to help him make his ruling on the Keffer request.

One person Abbott did solicit was former Speaker Rayford Price, who took issue with the assertion made in Craddick’s brief that the Speaker could only be removed by impeachment. As Price points out (PDF), that means the House has to depend on the Senate to complete that process.

The AG is now accepting briefs from “any interested parties”, so perhaps Ms. Davis will directly challenge Craddick’s interpretation of their relationship. And who knows, there may be other input that’s worth reading. We’ll see. In the meantime, Burka reviewed Craddick’s arguments about what he calls “the divine right of Speakers”, and declares “I do not believe that the Craddick brief makes a persuasive case that the speaker can be removed only by impeachment”.