City Hall goings-on: pensions, agendas, and scuttlebutt

Update: Multiple sources confirm this evening that county sheriff Adrian Garcia will enter the race for mayor, possibly within the next month.

Original post (with updates throughout):

 -- To review: The tension surrounding the city of Houston's negotiations with its firefighters over pension obligations culminated with an agreement a couple of weeks ago.  That was viewed as half a loaf by some of the Republicans on Council.  There was a brief tussle between Rep. Sylvester Turner -- who boosted his cred by brokering the deal -- and the Houston Chronicle editorial board over the value and impact of those efforts.

While that was going on, state Rep. Jim Murphy (a Republican from the affluent west side of town) managed to Bigfoot the pact with a legislative counter-proposal that Houston's municipal conservative coalition rallied behind.

Then a week ago, the pension showdown escalated when some of the more impudent members of council -- most of which are not trying to call attention to their mayoral election campaigns, mind you -- used an obscure procedure to call a meeting for last Friday and air their views.

(T)he symbolism of the meeting is more significant than any action that could be taken, given that the group will simply consider registering support for or opposition to the pension deal.

Regardless, Parker's liaison to council, William-Paul Thomas, said he will work against a quorum. Parker had said she would not put the deal to a council vote because it does not call for the expenditure of city funds.

That is what happened: C.O. Bradford, the wheelman in this caper, got overly authoritative and two of the more liberal council members stood up and walked away, denying the rebels their right to vote or send a message or whatever.

Near the end of Friday's meeting, Councilman David Robinson moved to delay the vote to "facilitate broader discussion" and consider the impact of several related bills being filed in Austin. Councilman C.O. Bradford, chairing the meeting, ruled that action out of order because he felt it was important to send lawmakers a message before the deadline to file bills, and a delay would render the vote moot.

Robinson then gathered his papers and left the dais, joined by Councilwoman Ellen Cohen, breaking the quorum needed to vote.

This revealed some agendas, hidden and otherwise.

One: WTF was C.O. Bradford doing running this show?  Is he bidding for political office in 2016, or currying favor with the right-wing again?  Or both?

Two: While "Stone Cold" Steve Costello and Oliver "Twisted" Pennington were out of sight at City Hall last week,  they weren't silent about Murphy's Proposed Law undercutting the city's pension agreement with the firemen.  From Teddy Schleifer's "Horseshoe" this week (which I keep telling you to subscribe to):

Costello and Pennington came out quickly in support of the Murphy bill, with Costello saying he “played a role in crafting this bill.” The Greater Houston Partnership encouraged Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to support the local control bill, calling the compromise agreement “more patchwork.” Read the letter.

Local control is a good thing, especially when Greg Abbott is against it.  So as Ted pointed out...

(Murphy’s bill) would give all cities in Texas the ability to negotiate directly with their pension boards, which has long been an ambition of Mayor Annise Parker.

Parker is now in the awkward position of not actively lobbying for a bill she has sought: “Best of luck,” a Parker spokeswoman said.

The problem here is when you ask Dan Patrick to weigh in on anything, because he's going to hide some rattlesnakes in it somewhere.  Nobody wants Patrick, or Paul Bettencourt for that matter, appointing themselves quasi-mayor of Houston and all else they survey.  Makes your skin crawl, doesn't it?  All they really want to do is undermine Mayor Parker.  That's all this is about, no matter what else gets said or done.  Parker Derangement Syndrome.

The hell with Patrick, Bettencourt, the GHP and Bradford and all of these other conservative poopy heads.  Get elected mayor or pound sand.

-- Pothole King Bill is also jousting with Stone Cold over what he derisively refers to as the rain tax.  Teddy S, once again.

NAME-DROP: King on Stephen Costello to KRIV’s Greg Groogan on drainage fee: “I heard Councilman Costello say on the radio the other day that people just need to be patient for six or seven years and the money will be there, but excuse me if I am skeptical that the money will really be there.” Full interview. 
 
NOT BACKING DOWN: Costello, for his part, forcefully defended the drainage fee and ReBuild Houston at his campaign launch last week. Keep your eyes on this King-Costello battle for the middle.

“Make no mistake: While this was a big step in the right direction, it was also just the start," Costello told supporters. "All you have to do is try to navigate your way through the neighborhood around potholes and daily traffic backups in your own neighborhood to know that this is not good enough." 

King has got to take votes away from Costello to have a chance at beating both he and Pennington to make the runoff.  So yes, watch how they spar with each other.  Only one of those three will be left standing after the first Tuesday in November.  And Pennington's wrapping up the "true conservative" caucus.

-- Via Schleifer and 'Horseshoe' once more: is anybody else a little ashamed by the fact that LVDP -- running for San Antonio mayor -- is fundraising in Houston?  On the other hand, just imagine how much of this outside-the-box money-grubbing you might see if there were real, actual limits on campaign contributions.  Tin-cupping and panhandling worse than at your local Walmart's parking lot.  Bake sales and American flag invoices might do the trick, too.  "Cupcakes for Costello!"  "Buy a churro, support Adrian Garcia!"

At least these guys would be able to show some small donor support.  That is Costello's real problem: he can't find anything to sell in River Oaks that they want to buy for less than $1000.  No support behind that dude except for the very, very rich.  Look at his campaign finance reports.  (This might be the only time I ever write those words.)

With a hard, low spending cap -- one Charles might be able to support -- all those buttons, stickers, pens and pencils, rulers, combs, etc. would cost you a dollar.  Hell, they want to get a $5 'donation' from you now for a bumper sticker and a yard sign, so why not?  If Obama can ask you to chip in three bucks, why can't the candidates who are unable to write themselves a check, or collect 250 large in one night -- or both -- do so?  It would give the non-1% contenders a shot, at least.

Attorney Sean Roberts, another potential candidate, tells the Chronicle: “I expect to make a decision before the end of the month.”

It sure wouldn't restore any grace to our political process, but it's still a better option than letting the wealthy buy them all off.

Texas Republican legislators might get something right

But it's still embarrassing to read this account of the hearing given to the bill in the statehouse committee that would do away with straight-ticket voting.

Texas is one of only 10 states still doing straight-ticket voting but a North Texas legislator is hoping to change that.

At a hearing today, Rep. Ron Simmons (R-Carrollton) told the Elections Committee that doing away with such an option here would lead to a more informed voter and improve turnout in non-partisan ballot measure.

“The purpose of this bill is to increase the number of Republican elected officials thought out the state of Texas,” he halfway joked. “However I do believe the added benefit will be a more educated voter.”

But Glenn Maxey, of the Texas Democratic Party, said such a move could discourage voters.

“People are going to be standing in line for hours and hours because it’s going to take people not 10 minutes to vote but a half hour to do that kind of marking,” he said.

Glen Maxey is a man I used to have much respect for.  But after his shenanigans at the TDP's state convention last June, that all went out the window.  The point he is making here is that it's a tremendous inconvenience for Democratic voters to drag themselves to a polling place now, and this bill will discourage them further.  Horrors.  That's pathetic, but this is even worse.

Bill Fairbrother, of the Texas Republican County Chairman Association, said cost is a concern.

“Think of all the additional machines, clerks, polling places … That instead of being able to click one box to take care of those races, you have to go back and choose on average 25 separate races,” he said.

Perfectly ignorant.  There's no extra cost because there are no extra machines, clerks, or polling places needed.  None whatsoever.  There may be lines of voters waiting in GOP primaries, but not anywhere else, I can assure you.  I've voted early in every election and worked a dozen different polls around the city of Houston on Election Day, sometimes two or three in one day, for ten years now.  Only a few early voters, on weekends typically, at a handful of urban locations have to stand on queue for ten minutes.  (The one exception was the presidential election, primary and general, in 2008.)  At least Maxey's argument -- that it would take people more time to vote -- makes sense.

However, both Maxey and Fairbrother noted that within their parties, there was division as those in more rural areas favored the bill.

Ah.  Some small measure of bipartisan support for something at the Texas Legislature at last.

Meanwhile, independent voters testified in favor of the bill saying that if 40 other states have figured it out, surely Texas could too.

The committee took no action on the bill leaving it pending.  Dallas’ Jason Villalba filed a similar bill to eliminate straight-party voting in the state’s larger counties. 

If eliminating straight-ticket voting helps the GOP, as Rep. Simmons attests (joking or not), can Texas Democrats sue for voter disenfranchisement?  Because theirs are too lazy and/or stupid to mark a ballot 25 times -- or 50 and more in Harris County -- as opposed to once?

I'd hate to hear Chad Dunn have to argue that one before a judge.

Public Integrity Unit pulled away from Travis County DA

And placed in the Texas attorney general's office.  The bill -- SB 10 -- passed out of committee with all Repugs in favor and all Dems opposed.

Voting along party lines, the Senate State Affairs Committee on Monday voted to recommend the full Senate approve a proposal to move the state’s public corruption watchdog out of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office.

For the better part of an hour, Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, defended her bill while Democrats picked it apart and testimony was offered suggesting it would make public corruption much more difficult to prosecute. Somewhat emphatically, Huffman said she’s not carrying the legislation on behalf of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Gov. Greg Abbott or anyone else. This is her bill alone, Huffman said.

As written, the bill aims to move the prosecution of an officeholder to that official’s home county instead of Austin when they are formally accused of abusing their power. Huffman explained that under her revised version of this, the District Attorney in the official’s home county could be removed from a case if there was a potential conflict of interest.

Craig McDonald of Texans for Public Justice interprets it a little differently.

“SB 10 is a politicians dream, a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card for public officials. SB 10 creates a special legal system reserved for politicians only -- a system designed to end corruption prosecutions, not pursue them.

The bill is another attack on local control by big government Republicans. It strips all county district attorneys of their traditional power to prosecute corruption within their own jurisdictions. It transfers that power directly to the Attorney General.

Senator Huffman claims her bill will “restore public confidence” in corruption investigations and then hands those cases to a partisan attorney general, himself under a cloud of corruption allegations. In fact, punishing a corrupt politician under SB 10 requires the unanimous approval of the attorney general, the Texas Rangers, a state judge AND a district or county attorney SB 10 will likely breed more corruption by advertising the fact that there is no functioning deterrent.”

The TXGOP is only doing what the (historically low number of) 2014 voters elected them to do: cement one-party rule in Texas, as conservative as you can stand.

They haven't determined exactly how much we can stand yet, but that's on the docket.

Texas Senate Republicans pass open carry

20-11, a pair of numbers we can get used to seeing much more often.

Licensed Texans would be allowed to openly carry handguns in a shoulder or belt holster – like the Old West – under legislation tentatively approved by the Senate Monday after emotional debate that sharply divided Democrats and Republicans.

The measure by Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, would join Texas with most other states in authorizing open carry of handguns – as long as the person has a state handgun license. Currently about 826,000 Texans have a concealed handgun license, nearly 3 percent of the state’s population.

The bill, approved on a 20-11 straight party-line vote, would be effective on Jan. 1, 2016. Texans can already carry long guns, like rifles, openly.

They called it a debate before the vote, but everybody had their minds made up long ago.  The Republicans, naturally, could not dare vote against it and survive a primary challenge next year.

Regarding concerns that many Texans will be fearful of people openly displaying guns in public places like parks, Estes suggested they should “get help somewhere.”

Senate Democrats tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to soften its impact. Among those were proposals to require annual background checks for license holders, more handgun training for licensees and retention clips on all holsters used to carry handguns. Most amendments were tabled on partisan 20-11 votes.

Democrats also claimed to have the support of the law enforcement community in Texas, which mostly testified in opposition to the bill at an earlier public hearing.

[...]

“Have you thought about the dangers you will expose to the men and woman who make up law enforcement in our state?” asked Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston.

Logic failed.  These are Republicans, after all.

(Sen. Royce) West also pressed Estes to name any law enforcement agencies or leaders who support his open carry proposal. “If none testified in favor, would you still move forward on this bill?” he asked, suggesting there was a good reason marshals and sheriffs in the Old West required cowboys to hang up their guns when coming into town.

The Republican tide on the open carry measure was aided by a change in Senate rules this session that reduced the number of votes needed to bring a bill up for debate. Instead of the previous two-thirds margin that was needed in the past (21 votes), the required margin is now three-fifths, or 19 votes. Republican currently hold 20 seats in the 31-member chamber.

One party rule.  But we knew this session was going to go down like this weeks ago.  One amendment that did pass seemingly will keep the Wild, Wild West off campus.  That bill is to be "debated" tomorrow.

One amendment that was adopted, by Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, exempted college campuses from the open carry measure.

Texas law presently bans carrying concealed weapons while you're at an institution of higher learning, but SB 11 would allow it.  So that means -- once all this shit gets passed -- you'd have to hide your gun and holster once you get to college.  I think.

Then again, maybe the Senate Repubs will resolve any differences they may have between the bills and each other -- because they're the only ones that matter -- in a shootout on the Senate floor.  I think I'll mosey on down to the saloon and have me a shot of red eye to celebrate.  Before the shootin' starts.