Tag Archives: Houston Chronicle

Big Government Texas Part 2: ‘Open Scary’ Spooks Texas Lege

All year we’ve heard from various Texas lawmakers about their rights the 2nd amendment… even Governor-Elect Greg Abbott himself has pledged to sign the first Open Carry Bill that comes across his desk.  If enacted open-carry legislation would allow gun owners to take their lethal weapons to virtually any public venue.

But apparently what legislators seem to keep forgetting??  The state capitol is also a public venue, and these guns ain’t just for show. From the Houston Chronicle, here’s a rundown about how legislators got a big dose of reality…

AUSTIN – The Texas House on Wednesday approved new rules that will allow legislators to eject hostile members of the public from their offices and recoup the cost of installing panic buttons to summon Department of Public Safety officers following confrontations between a handful of lawmakers and pro-gun activists on the opening day of the session.

The move, which was approved 137-5 in the Republican-dominated House, has some open-carry advocates worried the bad impression left by a small number of activists could endanger their legislative agenda.

“The chances of passing what they call ‘constitutional carry’ got more remote with yesterday’s shenanigans,” said former Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who supports efforts to legalize the unlicensed open carrying of handguns in Texas. “That set the stage. That’s the topic of discussion now.”

On Tuesday, roughly 15 to 20 members of the group Open Carry Tarrant County visited several lawmakers’ offices urging them to support House Bill 195, which seeks to undo Texas’ 125-year ban on carrying handguns openly. Several House members, including Democrats Poncho Nevarez of Eagle Pass and Celia Israel of Austin, said the group hassled them or staff members.

In a video posted Tuesday online by Kory Watkins, the Tarrant County group’s leader, open-carry activists can be heard calling Nevarez “a tyrant to the Constitution” and telling him he “won’t be here very long, bro.” Nevarez, who repeatedly asked the group to leave, later said he was concerned for the safety of his staff, family and constituents and complained one activist “reeked of marijuana.”

Catch the video in question right here…

Yep that’s right… even TEACONs in the Texas legislature felt threatened enough by the vigilante group from Tarrant County that they quickly wanted to protect themselves with beefed up security and panic buttons.  Which begs the rest of us to ask one question…

Where is our panic button??

If a couple of gun-toting guys can spook grown adults at the Texas state capitol, why on earth are Republicans in the lege pushing for any and every person in the state to be able to take their guns wherever they choose?  No where in the bill does it say that the state of Texas will pay for all 27 million of us to carry around panic buttons and a security guard.  I suppose the protection of lawmakers far outweighs protecting the rest of us?

Here’s the simple answer to this conundrum.  Guns have a place, but that place is not in the public arena.  The best way to keep Texans safe is to have fewer deadly weapons around, not more.  Even without the threat of some mysterious criminal looking to do harm, guns, by their very nature, are dangerous.  Children in the United States are 17 times more likely to die from accidental gun deaths than children in any other developed nation.  This is not a talking point… it is fact.  Why?  Because the United States has more guns in public use than other developed nations.  A parent could be the most responsible person on the planet, but when they have a young child, they should know that children pick things up.  They touch hot stoves and irons.  And if they see a gun, there’s a huge chance they will try to play with it.  No matter how many people in Open Carry Tarrant County or other groups threaten, they are still a clear minority and do not represent the views of most Texans, as evidenced by swift actions from the Texas House.

As this legislature gets rolling, let’s hope that they remember one thing about guns.  If you pass an Open Carry law for Texas, you pass it for everyone.  All the panic buttons in the world won’t change that.  It’s time for Texans to unite for common-sense policies, and say no to a Big Government legislature that would force all of us to be less safe.

Without Medicaid Expansion, Harris County Healthcare Workers Laid Off

Home to an estimated 4.4 million people, there’s not too much that is small about Harris County, Texas.  It is the 3rd-largest county in the United States of America, and of course is the home for most of the city of Houston.

As a rapidly-growing county, no one should be surprised that there is also a rapid need for expansion of health services.  So many people may be shocked to hear that one of the country’s largest public health systems is actually laying people off this week, with more lay-offs possible in the near future.  And as Kyrie O’Connor of the Houston Chronicle notes, these lay-offs have little to do with falling oil prices…

Facing an expected budget shortfall of $71.8 million, Harris Health System is in the midst of laying off about 113 employees, an agency spokesman confirmed Tuesday. A number of vacant positions where employees have already left won’t be filled, bringing the total to 261.

Harris Health, formerly known as the Harris County Hospital district, is the county’s primary public health service agency serving low-income people. It employs 8,237 workers.

[…]

Harris Health officials have blamed the deficit on several factors, chief among them the state’s decision not to opt for expanded Medicaid from the federal government. They also cite decreased payments to the agency from other federal programs. Expanded Medicaid would have offset those cuts. Harris Health says it has expanded its services in recent years in response to growing demand.

“We are this community’s safety net health system. Nobody provides healthcare to those most in need better than Harris Health,” Masi said. “We will continue to deliver high-quality health services as efficiently as possible with the resources we have available.”

The board is scheduled to meet Thursday to consider proposals to offset the $71.8 shortfall and possibly to tentatively adopt a budget. At last week’s meeting, the members discussed the possibility of approving a budget with a $11.8 million shortfall, to preserve as many of the threatened patient services as possible.

Harris Health officials state that this round of lay-offs “will not result in a cut in services”, which is hard to believe at this point.  And even if that is the case, what happens when the next round of cuts come through??

These people do not have to lose their jobs at all, as legislators in Austin have it in their power to accept the Medicaid Expansion, or come up with a unique Texas solution right now.  But thanks to their selfishness, real Texans are paying real consequences.  As smart Republican leaders like Harris County Judge Ed Emmett already know, it is anything BUT Conservative to be letting go of health professionals in a place growing as rapidly as Harris County.  It’s time to drop the political games around the ACA and do what’s best for Texas.

These may be the first round of area layoffs due to the state’s refusal to expand Medicaid, but they likely will not be the last.  If you ever cared about this issue enough to write your lawmakers in Austin, now is the time to do it.

SCOTUS Takes Up Landmark Pregnancy Discrimination Case

In recent times, there has been a large amount of focus on discrimination waged against certain classes, particularly the LGBT community and certain racial groups.  But while it may not be as widely discussed, many Americans also face discrimination during a very important part of their lives… pregnancy.  What is should be a joyous time in a woman’s life is all too often one of the most dangerous situations for their professional career, as many employers have a long history of discriminatory practices against young mothers and mothers-to-be.

But a big move by the nation’s highest court will bring pregnancy discrimination into the national focus over the next year.  Here’s more from the Houston Chronicle (via AP)…

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is taking up a pregnancy discrimination case with the potential to affect many American women who continue to work throughout their pregnancies.

The case before the justices Wednesday involves a former driver for United Parcel Service who wanted a temporary assignment to avoid lifting heavy packages after she became pregnant in 2006.

UPS refused to accommodate driver Peggy Young, who did not return to work until two months after she delivered her baby.

The court is weighing whether the company’s actions violated the 36-year-old federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Young says she should have been offered light-duty work because some UPS workers were.

The Atlanta-based package delivery company says it will voluntarily offer pregnant women light duty starting in January. But the company contends it complied with the law in Young’s case.

The question at the Supreme Court is whether UPS was required to accommodate Young, 42, because it gave temporary assignments to some workers, including those who were injured on the job or had a condition that was covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

[…]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is among those on UPS’ side. The chamber says many of its members do provide additional benefits to pregnant workers, but says policies at thousands of companies would be upended if the court were to rule for Young. Lower federal courts have rejected her claim.

Since the justices agreed in July to hear the case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission updated guidance to employers to make clear that they should accommodate people in Young’s situation. Yet the U.S. Postal Service, an independent federal agency, maintains the practice that UPS has now abandoned, UPS said in court papers. The Postal Service declined to comment.

So while the Obama Administration has done more to protect pregnant with strengthened EEOC guidelines, a SCOTUS decision favoring the plaintiff could cause a landmark shift in the way companies treat pregnant employees.

Barring potential outcomes of the court case, there are still many state and local protections that go above those outline in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  When Houston City Council passed the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance earlier this year, pregnancy was included as one of the protected classes to combat discrimination in the workplace, housing and public accommodations.   This ordinance not only clarifies that discrimination is illegal in Texas’ largest city, but also gives Houstonians increased accessibility to file discrimination complaints.  And despite any of the copious lies out there, the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance does NOT allow men to enter women’s bathrooms!!  Not a part of this law in any way.

HERO faces its own court challenge January 19th to determine whether the new law will be forced to face a recall.   Meanwhile after hearing the case today, a SCOTUS decision isn’t expected until June.

City or Senate? The Van de Putte Dust-Up

Though the dust hasn’t even begun to settle on 2014’s contest, it’s pretty amazing how one tweet can set off a whole new political firestorm.  But such was the case this week in San Antonio, where a recently defeated Democrat is proving that she still has plenty of political clout.  Here’s what’s going on from the Houston Chronicle, via AP…

SAN ANTONIO (AP) — Democrat Leticia Van de Putte says she will likely decide next week whether to leave the Texas Senate and run for San Antonio mayor.

Van de Putte said Monday she has long admired her local government and praised former Mayor Julian Castro, who gave the office a higher profile as an up-and-coming Democrat.

Van de Putte spent the past year running for lieutenant governor but lost badly to Republican state Sen. Dan Patrick.

Others are already eyeballing Van de Putte’s seat. Democratic state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer says he will give serious consideration to make a run at the upper chamber if Van de Putte steps down.

Van de Putte says she is focusing this week on a charity event in honor of her late grandson who died last year.

Along with Martinez Fischer, fellow State Rep Jose Menendez is also closely vying for the possible Senate seat.  Further complicating matters is Rep. Mike Villarreal, who officially declared his race for Mayor and resigned from the Legislature within days of the November results being read.  Van de Putte jumping in would pose a serious challenge to his hopes of being the Alamo City’s top elected official.

Two paths to consider here… what’s best for the Senate, and what’s best for Leticia Van de Putte.  Given that the person on the Dais was her opponent for this election season, it’s understandable why Van de Putte may not feel welcome at the Capitol for the upcoming legislative session.  But that aside, losing the experienced state Senator means that we also lose an important bipartisan voice in the state.  Again, that assumes that she’d be welcome in the first place with the new leadership in town.

What’s best for Van de Putte?  It’s true that she lost her campaign for Lieutenant Governor.  But what she gained is a massive improvement in stature and name ID, and has risen to the top ranks among all Texas Democrats.  The nonpartisan City Council, where Van de Putte could actually set the legislative agenda and get things passed seems a much better position to launch another statewide run than suffering under a boastful Lieutenant Governor in Austin.  It’s unlikely at this point that much in the way of bipartisan cooperation is going to be achieved anyway.

By any account, it’s a tough choice given the grueling months the whole Van de Putte family just spent on the campaign trail.  Though we don’t know her next role, at least this much is clear… we’re not even close to Leticia Van de Putte’s finale in Texas politics.

Texpatriate and Off the Kuff have more.

Policing Issues– Cameras Will Help, But What Next??

In the wake of recent protests in Ferguson, MO., there has been new attention placed on law enforcement interactions with citizens across the nation.  The increased scrutiny is also causing organizations like the Houston Police Department to quicken some of changes that they may have had planned down the line.  For HPD, those changes start with body cameras.  Here’s more from James Pinkerton of the Houston Chronicle

Houston Police Chief Charles McClelland is asking City Hall for $8 million to equip 3,500 police officers over three years with small body cameras to record encounters between law enforcement and residents as a way of improving accountability and transparency.

Last December, McClelland announced a pilot program that fitted 100 officers with the recording devices at a cost of $2,500 per officer, explaining that body cameras were more likely to record officers’ contact with residents than dashboard cameras in patrol cars.

[…]

Proponents of body cameras – roughly the size of a pager that can be clipped to the front of a uniform shirt- say the technology can be key in lowering use of force by police and citizen complaints. However, the effort to equip additional officers with the devices faces uncertainty as Mayor Annise Parker’s administration acknowledged Wednesday it is having trouble finding money to pay for the project.

The addition of body cameras has had some dramatic effects on other police forces, some of which have seen as much as an 88 percent decrease in complaints filed against the force within one year of deploying the technology.  Perhaps the best part of camera use is that what is records is objective… protecting good the good parties and exposing the bad on both sides.  They don’t take sides between the officer or the person filing the complaint… but merely show the truth of all altercations.    After the horrific and wholly unnecessary assault of Chad Holley, Houstonians already know the difference that one camera can make.

Cameras are a big step in the right direction, but they won’t solve all of the issues with contemporary policing.  HPD, and all area law enforcement agencies can do much more to make the region safer.

There is much more examination to be done on how, when and why police officers engage in brutality, and/or make the decision to take a life.  Many citizens assume from basic gun training that the police know to prioritize non-lethal force when interacting with a possible assailant. But as Dara Lind of Vox recently discovered, this is simply not the case with most law enforcement interactions…

In principle, when a cop fires a gun at a citizen, it’s so the officer can neutralize the threat — he’s not shooting to kill, per se. But in the two seconds that a cop actually has to make a decision, the most certain way for him to neutralize a threat is to aim for “center mass” on the civilian’s body, which is likely to be a lethal shot.

Cops in Richmond, California, have to go through firearms training once a month. But Chief Magnus says that even with that much training, the conditions an officer faces — everything from the stress of a confrontation, to the weather and the lighting — make it impractical for an officer to aim a shot somewhere other than the center of the body. “The notion that it’s possible to shoot somebody just to the level that they’re debilitated — to shoot a gun out of somebody’s hand, to shoot them in the leg — that is the stuff of TV and movies. That’s wildly unrealistic.”

Magnus’ department has a good track record when it comes to lethal force — Richmond officers haven’t killed any civilians since 2008. (Officers shot five suspects during that period, but they all survived.) But he says that once an officer has decided to use a gun at all, he’s deciding to use lethal force — and he needs to accept the consequences thereof. Even if the goal isn’t to kill the civilian,  “you have to accept that that is a very real possibility.”

But the question is whether the officer is thinking about questions of responsibility. That’s not something the force continuum teaches — it just talks about what’s authorized, not if there’s a better way to do things. Nolan, the former union official turned criminologist, thinks there’s a second level of questions that department policies don’t ask — leaving it up to the public to make sure they get answered: “Not only was it authorized and justifiable, and do we support it. But was it, under the circumstances, appropriate and necessary and warranted?”

Of course the culture of police militarization is bolstered, even self-perpetuated by the over-abundance of guns in the United States. Police would not have to always assume the worst if the country’s lawmakers were brave enough to pass sensible gun reforms.  But until that occurs, there will continue to be intense pressure on police to make very difficult judgement calls when out on the streets.

As addressed above, it may be time for a culture change in how police administer the use of force so that they can account for the safety of all parties, instead of just assuming every interaction will escalate into a deadly threat.  For these changes to happen, citizens must first raise the issue repeatedly in public forum. No better time than now, as we approach election season, to shine the light on how to improve law enforcement.

For more on body cameras, see Off the Kuff and Hair Balls– the Houston Press Blog.

Houston Equal Rights Ordinance Won’t See 2014 Ballot

After dropping a temporary restraining order, a State District Judge has set the all important court date for the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance.  As a result, Houstonians will not be voting on HERO in 2014.  Here’s the story from Mike Morris of the Houston Chronicle

Opponents of Houston’s equal rights ordinance dropped their request for a temporary injunction Friday that could have triggered a repeal referendum this November.

Now, their lawsuit against the city is scheduled to be heard Jan. 19, 2015, a trial date ordinance opponents called “expedited” and among the reasons they agreed to withdraw the request. For the city, though, the withdrawal marks a victory in what could be a lengthy legal battle.

The injunction sought by the ordinance foes would have forced City Secretary Anna Russell to certify their petition and sent the issue to an emergency city council vote in order to get the repeal referendum on the November ballot. The group of conservative pastors and activists was also asking the city to suspend enforcement of the ordinance, though Mayor Annise Parker had already agreed to do so until a ruling is issued.

The expeditious trial date is welcome by supporters and opponents, because in the case of HERO, all parties want answers as soon as we can get them.  By Parker’s order, the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is still not in effect because of the anticipated legal drama, and the longer we wait to enact the law is the longer that Houstonians have to endure city-sanctioned discrimination.

But at least for now, both sides can plan their actions accordingly, knowing that they do not have to wage an aggressive ballot campaign for this November.  However, there is still a possibility that the signatures could be ruled valid and HERO would then come up for a referendum in 2015… a scenario that many municipal candidates are not excited about.

Many have debated on which year would be best to have a HERO referendum, and depending on the circumstances it could be won or lost in either 2014 or 2015. The 2014 ballot would yield higher turnout than the municipal-only contest next year. But given that it’s solely a City of Houston measure, supporters of HERO are cautious, but confident they could win in any scenario. After all, this is the same electorate that supported Mayor Parker in three mayoral elections (nine if you count back to her Council Member days), even after enacting a similar non discrimination Executive Order in 2010. Any way you see it, Houston voters have shown that they support the principles of equality and fairness, which is unlikely to change.

Off the Kuff and Texpatriate have more.

HERO Opponents File Suit Against City of Houston

Here’s the story from Mike Morris of the Houston Chronicle

Opponents of Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance sued Mayor Annise Parker late Tuesday after city officials rejected a petition the group had submitted hoping to force a repeal referendum in November.

Plaintiff and conservative activist Jared Woodfill said his group is asking a state district judge to declare that City Secretary Anna Russell followed her legal duty and verified a sufficient number of signatures to force a referendum before City Attorney David Feldman illegally inserted himself into the process.

“If he felt there were underlying problems with the petition then he, like us, has the right to file a lawsuit if he doesn’t agree with what the city secretary did,” Woodfill said. “Going in before she’s ever made the decision and influencing her is inappropriate, it’s illegal and we believe the court will agree with us and that folks will have their voices heard in November on this issue.”

Feldman declined to comment until he had seen a copy of the lawsuit, but earlier Tuesday disputed the idea that his involvement crossed any ethical or legal lines.

“The fact is, that given my role as defined by law,  I’m supposed to give advice to city officials, whether they be elected, appointed or just employees,” he said. “That’s part of my role and the role of this department, so I don’t see anything out of the ordinary here in terms of our involvement.”

This move was to be expected, which is why Mayor Parker decided to delay the new ordinance while all of the legal battles are being worked out.  Plaintiffs listed on the lawsuit were Ex-Harris County Republican Party Chairman Jared Woodfill, almost convicted criminal Steven Hotze, Pastor F.N. Williams Sr. and Pastor Max Miller.  Noticeably absent from the plaintiff list was Pastor and Kendall Baker, whom has had his own trouble with the law. Rest assured, it ain’t no “family values” Brady Bunch.

UPDATE:  Be sure to visit Lone Star Q for an excellent post on the lawsuit as well.  Here is some critical information that they have published…

The lawsuit alleges that last Friday, City Secretary Anna Russell determined there were approximately 17,846 valid signatures on the petition, more than the 17,269 needed to qualify for the ballot. However, on Monday, Parker and City Attorney David Feldman held a press conference to announce that the petition contained only 15,249 valid signatures.

Given that there is a significant disagreement between the City Secretary’s numbers from Friday, and the announcement on Monday, this could certainly strengthen the plaintiff’s case in the lawsuit.  Kudos to Lone Star Q for publishing not only this information, but including both the lawsuit and City Secretary’s official memo, dated Friday August 1st.

(Steven Hotze.  photo credit:  Death and Taxes mag