You know that you must have made an impression at today's governors summit when you manage to impress even the likes of Good Hair:
The bipartisan meeting included governors and governors-elect from both parties. Mr. Perry lauded Mr. Obama for meeting with the governors, hearing their problems and also taking in the concerns laid out by conservatives about costly federal bailouts.
"Not only was it good policy, it was good politics," Mr. Perry said, noting that he had never attended such a gathering in eight years on the job. "He was very open."
Obama has been very active since winning the presidency on November 4th filling cabinet positions and hiring staff. But he has taken a great deal of time to really listen and hear concerns of elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Hat-tip to President-Elect Barack Obama for being a leader. Even Rick Perry approves.
One more interesting tidbit from the Dallas Morning News Report was this Perry and Obama exchange:
The governor reported afterward that as they shook hands, "He said, `How are the people in Galveston?' And I said, we need some help from FEMA, Mr. President-elect."
Mr. Perry elaborated on the point, urging Mr. Obama to restructure the agency so that instead of managing disaster response directly - a system that creates bureaucracy, delay and wastefulness - it only allocates and oversees funding, with states taking charge of relief efforts after a hurricane or other crisis.
As Mr. Perry recounted, the incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, responded that in one of the states represented Tuesday there is a "great person who can come in and run FEMA."
I have a "great person" in mind, Rahm, and his name is Rick Noriega. The good news about Noriega is that he wouldn't be a political hack receiving a political reward like what Perry's predecessor did with "Brownie." Noriega is the best man for the job.
(This is tonight -- everyone come out! Also, I just started finals, so I'll be light on posting the next week or so. If we start missing stuff, write a diary and we'll put it on the front page. - promoted by Phillip Martin)
Tomorrow night, we celebrate.
Come join the Travis County District Attorney's Office as they celebrate Ronnie Earle's 32 years as our District Attorney and join as we all thank him for his outstanding dedication, leadership and service in making Travis County and the State of Texas a safer place to live.
The party us at Stubb's Bar-B-Q at 801 Red River Street on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 from 5 p.m.- 8 p.m. as we express our deep appreciation and gratitude to Ronnie for the 32 years of inspiration, wisdom and vision.
Joe Jaworski, coming off a strong yet unsuccessful run for the Texas Senate, is coming into the public eye some more with the suit he is carrying for the Texas Faculty Association. From his law firm's public advisory:
Galveston attorney Joe Jaworski will file a lawsuit on behalf of the Texas Faculty Assn. (TFA) and other plaintiffs alleging that University of Texas Board of Regents and other UT officials violated the Texas Open Meetings Act when they held a closed meeting and conference phone calls before they announced the layoffs of 3,800 employees of the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) in the wake of Hurricane Ike.
The decision by the Board of Regents came earlier in November in a unanimous vote. UT's public affairs office insisted that without the layoffs, UTMB would have found itself without any money in a matter of weeks.
As the cuts began taking effect, a non-human realization appeared that was also daunting: The clinic's capacity reduced from 550 to 200 beds. That hits home for me, because 10 years ago I was a boy who needed one of those many beds. A student doctor and her mentor passed me off to more expert doctors before I received complete care, but the hospital represented the only emergency room within thirty minutes of the far side of Galveston. Visitors to a beach island can easily be prone to accidents; that hospital is pretty important.
Also, I've always known the UT Medical Branch to be one of the best medical schools in Texas, especially since the institution trained my grandfather, who, at least a small time, owned the largest single-physician practice on this side of the Mississippi. Although a horrible hurricane is the primary cause, I am saddened by the loss of many great employees to a fine institution of my university.
You can see the entire text of the advisory from the Jaworski Law Firm below the fold. The case will be filed tomorrow morning at 10:00 A.M.
It's December 1 which marks World AIDS Day. Of course, it also means the kick off of the Product RED shopping craze to benefit AIDS in Africa. I'll be honest in saying that I generally dislike the whole Project RED thing in its glorifying mass consumption for minor social investments. It's like socially conscious mutual funds. While well intentioned, they're dumb (ed. from the standpoint of a goal oriented investment portfolio shouldn't be based on ideology or say "Austin only companies" and expect that nature to better for returns. I've seen new investors drawn to these things just because of that, which isn't an investment strategy in my view.). Being a RED product doesn't mean it's better quality or more fashionable just like a politically motivated mutual fund doesn't make it a smarter return on investment (and may have higher fees).
I'd rather buy and invest in things in a logical manner and write Becky a check for the AIDS Ride instead!
I'm not sure if that makes me a bad person but it's just my opinion.
Now that the turkey has been eaten and your holiday decorations are up--or at least out of the garage--it is time for another edition of the Texas Progressive Alliance's weekly round-up.
jobsanger looks at the $7.5 million of sales tax money that Wal-Mart gets to keep every year here in Texas, and says it is time to cap the amount of tax money a business may keep to cover the cost of collecting the tax in I Learned Something New & I Don't Like It.
Key Point: Legal standards for counting votes must be uniform across all voting systems. That is the legal argument that Democrats are making, and that is what the Secretary of State does not want to accept.
The Texas Democratic Party filed suit in federal court today to determine what the legal procedures are for counting ballots using different voting systems. From Chairman Richie's press release:
As a result of their partisan intervention in the HD 105 election, the Secretary of State’s office has forced the Dallas County Elections Office to change the election rules in the middle of the game, ignoring Department of Justice requirements that demand pre-clearance for changes.
Republicans on this site and others will claim that this is all about jockeying for whether or not a Democrat is elected from HD 105. Nope. As I wrote about last week, legal standards for vote counting must be uniform:
The Secretary of State is trying to uphold different legal standards for counting paper ballots vs. electronic ballots. Any vote, cast in any form and tallied by any voting system, should be counted the same way. That's state law, that's common sense -- and that's at the heart of what Democrats are fighting for in the recount. [...]
The "de-selection" of an electronic vote is not the same as a "cross over" vote -- plain and simple. The Secretary of State wrote a memo that tries to argue otherwise -- on Thursday. Not before the election started, or even as votes were being cast. This new and magical ruling that suddenly allows "de-selected" votes to be thrown out came out after the fact.
The recount started this morning because the District Court judge believed he did not have the authority to rule on the issue; however, he stated he was willing to consider it if he was granted authority to rule.
Is there a short-term fight? Of course. A 75-75 split in the Texas House is much more beneficial for Texas Democrats than it is for Texas Republicans. But beyond that is the bigger issue -- the processes of how we conduct our elections.
The Texas Democratic Party is fighting -- with every power granted to them through our state and federal constitution -- to ensure every Texan has their vote counted. The Republican Secretary of State is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game to protect their own power.
One party is trying to skirt the law; the other is fighting to uphold it.
In order of likeliness, what Capitol staffers are most likely doing right now:
Having lunch.
Thinking about having lunch.
Calling around to offices to see if anyone else has any lunch.
Thinking about having a second lunch.
2009 Calendars. Oh my, the calendars. Each office is allowed to order official State calendars, that have 12 photos inside/around the TX Capitol. The calendars can be personalized, with the Member's name, signature, and personal message. They then have to be stuffed into calendar envelopes and mailed. And despite the fact that the Rep. says (s)he wants to personally sign them all, there are still 3 stacks of them in their office that have gone untouched. The calendars are the bane of December existence.
Filing bills
Preparing to file bills
Calling other offices about bills that have been filed
Waiting to get HB 500, HB 600, HB 1000, and other easy to remember numbers for their bills
Avoiding the bill number HB 2292 at all costs
Completing one of their Capitol walks (There needs to be a profile done on the Capitol walkers -- the group of folks that take at least 2 breaks a day to walk along the edges of the entire extension (at least) to get a break from sitting on their computers. I'm thoroughly convinced these are the most informed, most connected people in the Capitol, and we know almost nothing about them. Gardner Selby: go!)
Answering constituent calls about utility bills
Answering constituent calls about X local issue
Avoiding that call from that special constituent that calls every day
Wondering why more constituents don't come by the office with a free lunch
Staring at the mail pile, determining if it is time to sort it already
Thinking if it is time to check the mail or not
Checking the mail, only to be disappointed at more interagency letters that no one ever reads
Figuring out how long a "I'm checking the mail" trip can reasonably last without anyone else wondering where you've gone off to
Reading Quorum Report
Reading Burkablog
Trying to determine if reading perezhilton.com will get them in trouble or not
Reading Burnt Orange Report
Seeking out those hidden bathrooms in the extension that almost no one uses and are always 10 times cleaner than any other bathroom in the Capitol
Finding out that a State Rep. is in there
Making awkward bathroom conversation with a State Rep.
Making more awkward bathroom conversation with a State Rep. because you walked into the women's bathroom instead of the men's
The list of five Democrats and three Republicans running against Craddick includes conservatives such as Republican Jim Keffer, who represents Granbury, and Burt Solomons of Carrollton. But either would need a centrist majority of both Democrats and Republicans to win.
Correct! Craddick can't win without Democrats, and neither can any Republican. Kennedy went on to mock the recent "OMG the liberals are coming! the liberals are coming!" letter that is floating around, correctly noting that Craddick is beholden to Democrat votes as much as any other Speaker candidate.
For now, let's forget the idea that Democrats will support Craddick. If he can't win any decisive block of support from Democrats (and he can't), no one Democrat should support him (they won't), and there are too many important issues this cycle for anyone to make a power play for their own losing benefit at the expense of good public policy.
But, that's just an argument. Anyone can have an opinion.
The problem is when Kennedy get into some strange cocktail napking math that refutes public records that are out there:
At least eight of the 76 Republicans either think Craddick stinks or are running against him. On the other side of the aisle, eight Democrats think Craddick’s a great guy.
So if everybody votes as expected, the cross-party math shows Craddick clinging to an edge as thin as one vote.
No, no, no, no.
There are 11 Republicans, as I've tallied preivously, that are publicly opposed to Craddick. Again, here are the eleven:
Add those 11 to the "64 strong" Democrats, and you have 75 "Not Craddick" Members of the Texas House. Add in Rep. Al Edwards, who e-mailed me to tell me he is not supporting Tom Craddick (so I am taking him at his word), and you have 76 House members that have publicly stated they are not supporting Tom Craddick this election.
Of course, you cannot then attribute the remaining 74 to Craddick's camp (as Kennedy does), because there are still at least 12 "toss-ups" out there that have not definitively publicly declared who they will support:
(Click "There's More" for the rest of the numbers)
Texas lost to Tech on the road, at the end of a 22-day stretch during which they beat then No. 1 Oklahoma, Big 12 North champ (and previous top 3 team) Missouri, Oklahoma State, and then Tech.
Oklahoma, during that same stretch of time, lost to Texas and then gave up 94 points to three mid-level Big 12 North teams.
Scoring 60-points in a row isn't impressive when you're running up the score in the last 25 seconds instead of taking a knee. McCoy didn't even play the 4th quarter this week. And people ask why we say OU has no class.
Last year, ESPN rated the 10 best bowl games of the BCS era. Texas was on the winning end of two of those games (USC win was #1, Michigan win the year before was #4). Oklahoma was on the losing end of two of those games.
Honestly -- do you remember the recent bowl games?
Year
Bowl Game
TX Result
Bowl Game
OU Result
2004-05
Rose Bowl
UT beat Michigan 38-37
Orange Bowl (Title game)
USC beat OU 55-10
2005-06
Rose Bowl (Title game)
UT beat USC 41-38
Holiday Bowl
OU beat Oregon 17-14
2006-07
Alamo Bowl
UT beat Iowa 26-24
Fiesta Bowl
Boise St. beat OU 43-42 (OT)
2007-08
Holiday Bowl
UT beat AZ St. 52-34
Fiesta Bowl
WV beat OU 48-28
Totals
UT is 4-0, winning 157-133
OU is 1-3, losing 160-97
Imagine for a moment that you don't attend a Big 12 school.
Who would you rather see in a title game -- a team that has won all of their last four, or one that has lost three of the last four, including two embarrassing blowouts in BCS games and another BCS loss where OU gave up two touchdowns in the final 1:30 (Boise St. game) and then lost in overtime.
Now -- go back and look at 45-35. Who belongs in the title game?
That's all I have to say on the matter.
UPDATE: Turns out I had more to say. A commenter wrote, in response to my second reason:
2. A loss is a loss -- no excuses. Texas Tech beat Texas and has the same record as Texas (and Oklahoma). If beating Oklahoma automatically lifts Texas, why should Texas Tech not receive the same benefit. If they don't because of the lopsided loss to OU, why should that be held against OU -- after all, they delivered the demolishment.
2) Scheduling matters. Context matters. If context didn't matter, OU wouldn't be arguing that they are "the hot team right now" etc. etc. If Tech beat Texas in the first Big 12 game of the year, then Texas beat OU, Texas would be ahead of OU. Pretending that context doesn't matter is silly.[...]
I don't expect Texas to go ahead of OU. I expect Florida to crush OU in the title game, for UT & USC to have an awesome game that is much more exciting (and one where UT prevails), and for everyone to realize that "Big Game Bob" doesn't get his nickname back for beating Tech at home.
What: City of Austin Council member and likely Mayoral candidate Lee Leffingwell will be our speaker at First Unitarian Universalist's Public Affairs Forum.
Council Member Leffingwell plans to discuss major topics that have surfaced recently in our Austin community. Topics will include, but are not limited to: Water and Energy Conservation, BioMass Energy contract, recent changes in Solid Waste collection policy, and city finances.
Leffingwell was first elected in 2005 and was re-elected in May 08'. Get there early if you want a good seat. Seating is limited and total occupancy is limited to 180 people. There will be ample opportunity for audience questions so be prepared to ask concise questions. The forum will be filmed and later broadcast on Public Access TV. DVD copies of the forum will be available for purchase shortly after the presentation.
When the Texas Legislature convenes in January, it should take action to remove Sharon Keller from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for willful neglect of duty. We are still waiting for a report from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct regarding the reprehensible actions of Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The last communication we received from the Commission was that their investigation was nearing completion. That was in September. There were several judicial complaints filed against Keller (scroll down for list).
We do not know what, if any, action the Commission will take to discipline Keller for her violation of the policies of the Court of Criminal Appeals on Sept 25, 2007, when she neglected to inform the duty judge that the lawyers for Michael Richard wanted to submit an appeal 15 minutes after the end of the day's office hours. Keller said, "we close at 5" and refused to accept the appeal. Richard was executed later that night. In truth, the Court does not "close". Justice is always open. Keller knew it and yet she obstructed justice by her actions. The Commission could recommend that the Texas Supreme Court removes her from office. However, there are two other methods that could be used to remove Keller from her position.
The Texas Constitution Article 15, Section 2 says that "impeachment of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Commissioner of the General Land Office, Comptroller and the Judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and District Court shall be tried by the Senate."
Before such a trial can take place, the Texas House has to impeach the officer to be tried. "Impeachment" is the formal charging of misconduct.The actual removal of office would be by the Senate's trial. Even if the Senate did not vote to remove her, being officially indicted by the Texas House could be encouragement enough to convince her to resign.
If the commission doesn't act quickly, we'll have to wait until January 2009, when the Legislature-which has the power to oust high judges-reconvenes, or worse, 2012, when Keller is up for reelection. The fact is, we need to do it now. Impeach Sharon Keller.
The Texas Constitution also says in Article 15, Section 8 that judges can be removed for causes that are not sufficient for impeachment:
The Judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and District Courts, shall be removed by the Governor on the address of two-thirds of each House of the Legislature, for willful neglect of duty, incompetency, habitual drunkenness, oppression in office, or other reasonable cause which shall not be sufficient ground for impeachment; provided, however, that the cause or causes for which such removal shall be required, shall be stated at length in such address and entered on the journals of each House; and provided further, that the cause or causes shall be notified to the judge so intended to be removed, and he shall be admitted to a hearing in his own defense before any vote for such address shall pass, and in all such cases, the vote shall be taken by yeas and nays and entered on the journals of each House respectively.
Ratcliffe's reporting seems to have uncovered the smoking gun admission that Keller broke the CCA's policies in effect on the day of Richard's execution. He should be given a journalism award for his work. Congratulations to him on his idea of asking for the policies in effect on Sept 25. His article left me wanting to see the entire text of the policies myself, so I submitted my own PIR to obtain the letter Keller wrote to Radcliffe.
Reading the entire text of the policies makes it very clear that Keller violated the rules by not contacting the assigned duty judge about the request by Richard's lawyers to file a late appeal.
I sent a copy to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct of Keller's letter to Ratcliffe and of the document "Execution-day Procedures".
Execution-day Procedures
A designated judge will be assigned to be in charge of each scheduled execution. Generally, judges will be assigned in rotating seniority order by the general counsel. Exceptions in order of assignment will be made for prior involvement in the death-row inmate's case as trial judge, prosecutor, or defense counsel, or for recusal. Judges may also trade assignments, with notice to all other judges and general counsel, for other good cause such as anticipated absence from court on the day of execution. Unless the Court has been informed by defense counsel that no pleadings will be filed, or pleadings have been filed and ruled on, general counsel shall be present at the Court on the date of the scheduled execution until the time of execution has passed. The assigned judge shall be present at the Court, or immediately available, on the date of the scheduled execution until the time of execution has passed. Support staff may be requested to remain, also, as needed.
All communications regarding the scheduled execution shall first be referred to the assigned judge. The term "communications" includes pleadings, telephone calls, faxes, emails, and any other means of communication with the Court. The assigned judge may call a special conference or gather votes by telephone, email, fax, or other form of communication.
If the communication includes a request for stay of execution, the assigned judge shall contact, by any reasonable means, the other members of the Court and request a vote on the motion to stay. Non-assigned judges will provide to the assigned judge an adequate means of contact. "Reasonable means" includes calling a special conference and contact by electronic communication.
Below are some of the people who filed complaints last year against Keller with the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
* A group of about 1900 people signed a complaint sent to the Commission by Texas Moratorium Network.
* Twenty lawyers represented by Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project, including:
o Dick DeGuerin
o Chuck Herring
o former State Bar President Broadus Spivey
o University of Houston law professor Mike Olivas
o former appellate Judge Michol O'Connor
o State Representative Harold Dutton
* Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, signed by more than 130 lawyers and others, including:
o State Representative Dora Olivo
o State Representative Garnet Coleman
* National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
* Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association
* State Representative Lon Burnam
* State Representative Jessica Farrar
Several newspapers also called for Keller to be removed from office, including the Houston Chronicle, which wrote on Oct 15, 2007:
Judge Keller let her personal bias in favor of the death penalty trample the right of now-executed prisoner Michael Richard to access the courts and have due process. In doing so, she abdicated her role as the state's chief criminal justice to become its chief executioner.
Cartoon image from 
