Category Archives: local news

So long, Texas Senate civility

It took Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick no time at all to get his wish as the man who runs the Texas Senate.

The Republican super-majority that now comprises the 31-member legislative body has done away with the two-thirds rule.

As Texas Monthly blogger/editor Paul Burka notes, it signals the end of “adult behavior” in the Legislature’s upper chamber.

Here’s what Burka wrote: “The death of the two-thirds rule was inevitable from the moment that Dan Patrick defeated David Dewhurst in the primary. Patrick has always opposed the rule, even before he became a senator. The Democrats’ reduced strength in the Senate made it all but impossible for the remaining members of their party to muster the ability to fend off the majority (one Democrat, Eddie Lucio Jr., joined the Republicans in the vote).

“I have always been a fan of the two-thirds rule because it gave the minority a fighting chance to take on the majority and it required a level of bridge-building and consensus to pass legislation. On a more basic level, it imposed ‘adult behavior on people who might be otherwise inclined.’ Unfortunately for the Democrats, their party just doesn’t have the numbers to fend off the majority, so Patrick doesn’t have to worry about bridge-building, consensus, or adult behavior as the presiding officer.”

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/end-two-thirds-rule

The only party crossover vote was Lucio, according to Burka, who made no mention of whether Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, crossed over to the other side to preserve the two-thirds rule — which Seliger has said repeatedly that he favors.

I’m guessing Seliger sided with his GOP brethren to show unity among the ranks.

This tradition has lasted through the decades as lieutenant governors of both parties have honored the rule of requiring two-thirds of senators to approve of a bill before sending it to the floor for a vote.

Patrick laid down his marker early in his 2014 campaign by declaring that a simple majority of Republicans ought to be enough to decide the fate of any Senate bill.

Bridge-building between the parties? Who needs it? Lt. Gov. Patrick got his way.

Now the fun can really begin.

 

Obama goes 'Red' to tell his story

Hand it to President Obama. He delivered a State of the Union speech to a Congress now in full control of the opposing party and then he heads right into the center of the Red State base of the Republican Party.

He took his sales campaign today to Idaho. He is heading to Kansas on Thursday.

Idaho gave 64 percent of its vote in 2012 to GOP nominee Mitt Romney, while Kansas was casting nearly 60 percent of its vote for Mitt.

That doesn’t deter a lame-duck president who isn’t likely to call himself such as he pitches his middle-class tax cut to residents in states where he’s held in relatively low esteem.

“I still believe what I said back then,” Mr. Obama told a crowd at Boise State University. “I still believe that as Americans we have more in common than not.”

He’s surely entitled to believe that. Some of us out here in the Heartland aren’t so sure about the commonality. Still, I give the president props for taking the campaign into the heart of the loyal opposition’s territory.

Here’s a thought. How about coming here, Mr. President?

Texas isn’t friendly to you, either. But you did do nominally better in the Lone Star State than you did in Kansas, winning 42 percent of the 2012 vote against Mitt.

I even can make a pitch for Barack Obama to come to the Panhandle, where the 26 counties of this region only gave him 20 percent of the vote in 2012. But hey, he says we’re “not a Blue America or a Red America. We’re the United States of America.” He repeated that mantra Tuesday night at his State of the Union speech, recalling how he introduced it to the nation during his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Look at it this way: If Bill Clinton can come here in 2008 and campaign on behalf of his wife, Hillary, and pack the Civic Center Grand Plaza Ballroom to overflowing, surely the Leader of the Free World can command a big audience to sell his vision for the country.

I know more than a few Republicans who’d attend.

 

Amarillo not No. 1 … and that's a good thing

It’s said occasionally that Texans like to brag about their state, their cities and towns and, oh yes, their athletic teams.

We’re No. 1, yes?

Well, a report from the FBI has given Amarillo a pass on a category that most of us wouldn’t just as soon let slide. We’re not in the top 20 most crime-ridden cities in Texas.

http://texaspolicenews.com/default.aspx?act=Newsletter.aspx&category=News+1-2&newsletterid=50330&menugroup=Home

The FBI Uniform Crime Report lists Weslaco, in far South Texas, as the most “dangerous city” in Texas. Your chances of being victimized by a criminal is one in 12. That’s the “best” ranking of any Texas city.

Only one West Texas city made this infamous Top 20 list. That would be Lubbock, which ranked No. 6; you’ve got a one in 16 chance of being hit by a criminal.

How did the big cities — the really big cities — fare? San Antonio ranked No. 5, Houston was No. 7, and Austin was No. 12.

Amarillo is in some pretty heady company by failing to appear on this list. We’re right up there with Dallas, Fort Worth, El Paso and Corpus Christi, none of which made the list either.

My friends at the Amarillo Police Department know how I feel about them. I am one of their more ardent fans. The police put their lives on the line every time they suit and hit the streets. We have an active Crimestoppers program that produces results. The city’s PD is a progressive outfit.

TexasPoliceNews.com released the study report and did so with an important caveat: “We realize that this topic is inherently controversial in nature and hits close to home. We are aware that there are many different ways to present this data, but when compiling this list we chose to consider not just murder rate, but both violent and property crimes.”

I am not going to infer that the cities that did make the list are unsafe or are havens for bad guys.

I’m just grateful that Amarillo has avoided this bit of public-relations smudge.

Gov. Perry sounds bipartisan note? Wow!

Why do politicians do this? They campaign for office as tough partisans, govern the same way and then, as they prepare to leave office, sound like the Great Compromiser in Chief.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry took his turn at the farewell podium this week as he said so long to the Texas Legislature. He’s leaving office, having served as governor seemingly since The Flood.

He’ll likely run for president of the United States — again! — in 2016.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/15/farewell-speech-perry-encourage-compromise/

But his Austin swan song, in the minds of some of who heard, sounded like a “campaign speech.”

Perry told legislators: “There is room for different voices, for disagreement … Compromise is not a dirty word if it moves Texas forward.”

Some Democrats thought the Republican governor’s speech took a surprising turn, given that he often dug in his heels at Democratic initiatives during his umpteen years in office.

One comment stands out as I read reports of his speech. It was his support of drug treatment diversion programs as an alternative to jail time for non-violent drug offenders. “We must remember when it comes to the disease of addiction, the issue is not helping bad people become good, but sick people become well,” he said. “Turning to diversion programs hasn’t made us soft on crime. It’s made us smart on crime.”

That sounds like a ringing endorsement of drug courts, such as the one started in the Panhandle by 181st District Judge John Board.

Well, the speech is over. Perry is cleaning out his office. He’s heading back onto the campaign trail soon. One of his first post-governorship stops will be in Iowa, where he’ll attend a conservative political forum hosted by TEA party Republican firebrand U.S. Rep. Steve King.

I’m guessing he won’t sound so conciliatory there.

Still, thanks for the good words, governor.

 

Making the case for public education

An Amarillo public school teacher has been named one of four finalists for National Teacher of the Year.

Her name is Shanna Peeples, who teaches advanced placement English at Palo Duro High School.

She made an important statement today in accepting the honor of representing Texas at the national competition.

http://agntv.amarillo.com/news/pd-teacher-named-national-teacher-year-finalist

It was a statement honoring public education and the teachers who are entrusted with the task of educating public school students.

Let me reiterate the importance of “public education.” This is the system that is financed by you and me. We pay the freight. We finance this valuable contribution to the state’s future. It is our responsibility to ensure that public education is the best it can be and it produces students who we hope will grow up to the best they can be.

In the interest of full disclosure, I worked with Shanna for a time when we both were employed by the same company, the Amarillo Globe-News. She was a marvelous reporter and writer during her time at the newspaper and she has become — as the honors that have come her way have demonstrated — a tremendous educator.

She represents the very best in all of us, those who proudly support our public schools.

We should be proud of Shanna — and of all the great public educators who work on our behalf.

 

 

Politics determines ambassador picks

CNN White House reporter Jim Acosta wanted to know whether a campaign “bundler” for President Obama is the best person to represent the United States at its embassy in Paris.

Well, what difference does it make? Ambassadorships are political prizes. Always have been. Republican presidents dole out these gifts and so do Democratic presidents.

Acosta’s question came while wondering whether U.S. Ambassador to France Jane Hartley questioned the White House about the “optics” that might occur if we didn’t send a high-ranking emissary to the unity rally.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/13/cnns_acosta_asks_earnest_about_campaign_bundler_ambassador_to_france_is_she_the_best_weve_got.html

Then came the query about Hartley’s role as someone who gathered up campaign cash from contributors to the Obama campaign; she and her husband had hosted a high-dollar campaign dinner at their New York home for conributors, which apparently earned her an ambassadorial appointment to Paris.

With few exceptions, ambassadorships go to political allies and those who have contributed tangibly to the winning presidential candidate’s political effort.

Take the time George W. Bush appointed the late Teel Bivins to be our ambassador to Sweden. Was the state senator from Amarillo an expert on Sweden? Did he have keen insight into the geopolitical relationship between the nations? No on both counts.

He was a longtime friend of the Bush family and he worked tirelessly to get President Bush elected in 2000.

Thus, he got himself a ticket to Stockholm.

I wish it weren’t that way. Jane Hartley is no different than the vast majority of ambassadors representing this country at overseas posts.

This issue, though, does make me wonder: What does someone have to do to get an ambassadorial appointment to a hellhole of a country?

 

This anniversary got past me

Anniversaries and other memorable dates usually pop into my skull as they occur.

I’m quite good at remembering birthdays, wedding anniversaries (starting with my own) and important dates that come and go.

But this past Friday, a fairly memorable anniversary slipped right on past me. I didn’t even recall it until two days after the fact.

It was 20 years ago, on Jan. 9 that I started a new job in Amarillo. I reported for work at the Amarillo Globe-News on Jan. 9, 1995 after making a two-day drive from way down yonder, in Beaumont, to the High Plains.

I actually remember quite a bit about my arrival at the newspaper.

I had met the staff with whom I would work on a previous visit. We were acquainted, but I would need some time to get to know them, and for them to know me. I remember thinking how blessed I was to be able to work in an environment that enabled me to actually delegate responsibilities to others and to depend on them to do as I asked. They never let me down.

We published two newspapers then. The morning Daily News was the dominant edition; the evening Globe-Times — despite its Pulitzer Prize-winning history — had become second banana in this market.

But oh, man, was it fun to produce those two editions every day.

My task as editorial page editor was to coordinate the work of two editorial writers, each of whom was primarily responsible for providing editorials for a specific edition.

Our secret weapon was our administrative assistant, whose job was to verify letters to the editor and guest column submissions — most of which came unsolicited. She then would edit them, turning raw text into readable essays. She exhibited great patience with our contributors and great skill in working with the text.

We had a part-time editorial cartoonist who illustrated commentary for the Globe-Times. He was, shall we say, a one-of-a-kind character, as most cartoonists tend to be.

The business would evolve over time from those heady days.

Not many years after my arrival, we debuted an online edition. That’s when the change began to accelerate.

I recall early on in the development of our online edition, the young man we hired to run the digital edition boasted that we had 44,000 visitors to the page in a single month! That was big news for us. Well, the numbers kept growing. I don’t know what they are now, but I’m guessing the paper reaches 44 grand about every hour or two.

The changes kept coming.

The fellow who hired me retired in 2002. The young man who replaced him instituted even more changes.

I’m sorry to say that it became less fun as time marched ahead. One of the writers left the paper; we didn’t replace him. Our cartoonist had retired. Our administrative assistant, aka our “secret weapon,” was reassigned to another department. Then our remaining editorial writer was reassigned to another department as well.

I was left to do it myself.

On Aug. 31, 2012, my time at the paper ended. There was no fanfare. Just a “reorganization.” I was told I wouldn’t be doing what I had been doing here for nearly 18 years and for more than three decades all told. The reorganization plan allowed me to apply for another job. That was fine, except that I was qualified to do one thing, which I had done pretty well — or so I thought. Silly me.

I decided to quit. Then I left.

Maybe it was the nature of my departure that brought so little attention to the anniversary of when I arrived on the High Plains.

No worries. Life has been good. I’m still blessed, but in ways I never imagined 20 years ago.

Free college for anyone who wants it?

Is it me or is President Obama in a fight-picking mood these days?

Now it’s free community college for any high school graduate who carries a 2.5 grade point average or better. The president this week proposed a new plan to enroll more students in community college. He made the pitch in Tennessee, which has a statewide program after which the president modeled the federal idea.

What’s more, he made his pitch in the presence of Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, who once served as education secretary during the George H.W. Bush administration.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/barack-obama-free-community-college-114094.html?hp=rc3_4

Will this plan fly in Congress? Well, it’s worth a serious look. But I am dubious about Republicans’ ability or willingness to make an “investment” in public education while it has its dander up at the president over immigration policy, health care and, oh, just about anything.

Amarillo College President Russell Lowery-Hart seems willing to give it a look, if not yet ready to give it a try. He told NewsChannel 10: “I think it’s something our community needs. When you look at last year, for every $1 of taxpayer money invested in Amarillo College, there was a $3.50 return on investment. I think the proposal today acknowledges the economic impact community colleges have on communities and we would certainly want to be a part of that conversation.”

The sticking point is going to be its cost and where the federal government will get the money.

Republicans aren’t in an investing mood these days. Job-training bills have gone nowhere. Infrastructure restoration? Forget about it.

Free college for millions of high school graduates? Well, the president of Amarillo College — which sits in the heart of Anti-Obama Territory — seems willing at least to discuss the notion.

So, let’s start talking.

 

Abandoned building gets another new owner

Is this it? Is this the corner that an abandoned, dilapidated, rotting hulk of a downtown Amarillo office building needs to return to life?

A Dallas developer, Tom Pauken, has just foreclosed on the long-abandoned Barfield Building, wrestling it away from its owner who’s said for longer than anyone can remember that, by golly, he’s going to find someone to develop the structure.

Todd Harmon hasn’t delivered the goods. From where I sit, it doesn’t appear that he ever will.

Enter the group headed by Pauken, a lawyer, real estate developer who’s worked with property in Amarillo, former Texas Republican Party chairman — and a longtime friend of yours truly. (I thought I’d throw that last thing in for grins and giggles.)

Pauken leads a group called Henderson Willis Ltd., which has foreclosed on mortgage notes totaling about $550,000 on the building at the corner of Sixth Avenue and Polk Street.

It’s a complicated procedure, but as of today Pauken’s limited partnership has control of the Barfield Building. The former controlling owner, Harmon, so far hasn’t responded to media requests for comment.

Pauken’s foreclosure comes as well after another Amarillo business group sought to develop the Barfield Building, only to have Harmon get it back in some more complicated maneuvering.

What is Pauken’s aim here? He wants to find someone to invest in breathing life back into the Barfield Building. Harmon had gutted the ground floor and a few floors above. Then the work stopped. The ground floor was boarded up and the crews walked away; that was a decade ago.

It has sat vacant, rotting ever since.

Pauken said he believes the Barfield “is a natural” for some sort of redevelopment. Harmon had sought to turn the 88-year-old building into a combination of apartments, retail shops, a restaurant, day spa, bank branch, coffee house — and Lord knows what else.

Enter the Pauken group, headed by someone who’s already had some success redeveloping property in downtown Amarillo.

Can this group do what no one else has been able to do? I am cautiously optimistic my pal Tom can get ‘er done.

 

 

Random selection for grand juries?

 

Grand juries have been in the news of late.

A Travis County grand jury indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry on charges of abuse of power and coercion; another grand jury declined to indict a Ferguson, Mo., police officer in the shooting death of a young black man; and still another grand jury no-billed a Staten Island, N.Y., cop in the choking death of a black man.

All those decisions provoked controversy.

I bring this up as an introduction to a chance encounter I had Tuesday with a state district judge whom I’ve known for nearly 20 years. Judge John Board and I were visiting for a time and our discussion turned to grand jury selection in Texas. Board mentioned he’s been using a random selection method for some time, rather than relying on a jury commissioner system that remains the selection-method of choice for most trial judges in Texas.

We talked about an editorial campaign of which I was part in Beaumont many years ago. We argued vehemently at the Beaumont Enterprise for a change in the way grand jurors are selected in the two criminal courts in Jefferson County. We didn’t like the commissioner system, as it relied on jury commissioners’ discretion in picking grand jurors. Jury commissioners — who are appointed by judges — could pick friends, or friends of friends to serve on the grand jury; they could pick judges’ friends.

The theory is that the jury commissioner system enables courts to pick the “best and the brightest” of a community to decide whether criminal complaints warrant prosecution. But the system is exposed to the possibility of manipulation. It could be used to settle scores. A jury commissioner with a bone to pick with someone — for whatever reason — could find grand jurors who would side with him in getting revenge.

I’m not saying such a thing happens frequently, nor do I even have first-hand knowledge of it ever happening. But it could.

I am a strong believer in the random selection method. I was heartened to hear my friend, Judge Board, say that he uses the random system in his court, which has jurisdiction in Potter and Randall counties.

Our newspaper in Beaumont finally won out, by the way. The two courts in question in Jefferson County eventually switched to a random selection method — with grand jurors selected off the voter registration rolls — and to my knowledge it’s been working fine ever since.

So, why not require it across the state?

Amarillo is represented in the Legislature by two fine lawyers — Republicans John Smithee and Four Price. Might there be an opportunity for one or both of them to pitch legislation calling for mandatory random selection of grand juries?

If a trial jury chosen at random can be charged with sentencing someone to death, surely the state can put its trust in a random selection method to pick a grand jury to decide whether to prosecute someone for a crime.