Covenant House Texas is a faith-based homeless shelter that serves young people, ages 18-20, in Houston. LGBT clients of Covenant House have repeatedly reported that the staff make it clear that expressing their sexual orientation or gender identity will result in harsher treatment and that clients who are not willing to be in the closet are denied services. (Covenant House's recent treatment of queer youth is documented at www.covhou.com).
In addition to harassment of clients based on sexual orientation Covenant House makes a practice of refusing to house transgender clients unless they agree to dress as and present the gender that appears on their state ID.
Since last summer leaders of the Trans community in Houston, notably Cristan Williams and Josephine Tittsworth, have attempted to work with Covenant House to address these issues. In doing so they have attempted to enlist the help of Councilmember Wanda Adams, in whose district Covenant House lies. CM Adams also happens to be a former employee of Covenant House.
While other council members (most notably Jolanda Jones) have been helpful, CM Adams has consistently denied that there is a problem, been uncommunicative, and failed to attend a meeting she had not only committed to, but requested.
The conflict has reached new levels now that the city's funding of Covenant House has come up for renewal. (Last year Covenant House Texas received $948,119 in government grants, including funds from the City of Houston.) CM Jones initially "tagged" the funding, delaying a vote on it until a later council meeting. Today it was back on the agenda.
Jones spoke briefly saying that she was concerned about the continued funding of "a certain organization that I think has issues with equal treatment of humans", but explained that since the vote that was being taken was for a large block of homeless agency funding, and since there was no way to separate out the portion that would go to that "certain organization" that she was going to support extending the funding so that other agencies could continue their work. (VIDEO - Jones comments start at 1:01)
Adams then spoke in defense of Covenant House (naming it, despite Jones' demure omission of the agencies name), saying " Covenant House has long history of doing great work and making sure that our homeless youth are protected without any... type of prejudices [sic]". She went on to praise the agency's director: Rhonda Robinson "I know that Rhonda works really really close [sic] with the community and making sure that all policies are followed."
Which gets right to the root of the problem. Covenant House does not have a non-discrimination policy. So when they (or their apparent mouthpiece Wanda Adams) say that they are "following all policies" they are telling the truth, but "following all policies" is not the same thing as "treating all people fairly".
Covenant House actually claimed to have a non-discrimination policy during a meeting with Jones on June 11th (a meeting Adams was scheduled to attend but missed). In her response to Adams today Jones explained that her office was informed recently that Covenant House does not, in fact, have a nondiscrimination policy.
What's more, the claim that Covenant House Director Rhonda Robinson works closely with the community is demonstratively false. Robinson has routinely promised to work with the community, but has gone months without following through on basic commitments or communicating in any way. In an August 24th letter CM Jones expressed her frustration that Robinson had not provided her with copies of Covenant House's intake procedures despite promising to nearly two months ago, giving the agency 7 days to follow through on a commitment from July 6th, a commitment that had initially been made on June 11th.
Without an enumerated nondiscrimination policy that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, and without a training program in place designed to teach staff to be sensitive to the needs of queer kids, Covenant House will continue to harass, deny services to and discriminate against LGBT clients. For the time being, it seems, they will continue to do so using nearly a million dollars in public funds.
Adams, whose district includes the historic 'gayborhood' of Montrose (and whose office can be reached at 832-393-3001), was criticized earlier this year for her pointed absence from a vote to renew funding for AIDS hospice Marjo House, earning her the moniker "Absentee Adams".
Today, after her full-throated support of an organization that routinely discriminates against LGBT kids, it seems the only thing worse for queer Houstonians than Wanda Adams leaving a room, might be Wanda Adams staying in it.
A Texpatriate attempting grad school in Chicago
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
HB 415 - Accurate Birth Certificates
HB 415 - By Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) would allow the Texas Bureau of Vital Statistics (BVS) to issue birth certificates which accurately reflect the parents of a child. BVS routinely issues new birth certificates for adopted children which list the adopted parents. Currently under Health and Safety Code Section 192.008(a) BVS is prohibited from listing two men or two women as parents of an adopted child even if they are both the legal parent of the child.
Beyond issues of simple fairness this creates a barrier when parents attempt to enroll their child in school, obtain a visa, access medical records or perform any of the routine day to day task that require parents to legally establish their relationship with their child.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana found in Adar, et al v. Smith that denying parents the right to both be listed as parents in an adoption from another state violates the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately that precedent does not extend to Texas couples who adopt children in Texas.
Anchia filed this legislation last session (81st HB 2080), it received a hearing but was never voted out of the House Public Health Committee.
Beyond issues of simple fairness this creates a barrier when parents attempt to enroll their child in school, obtain a visa, access medical records or perform any of the routine day to day task that require parents to legally establish their relationship with their child.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana found in Adar, et al v. Smith that denying parents the right to both be listed as parents in an adoption from another state violates the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately that precedent does not extend to Texas couples who adopt children in Texas.
Anchia filed this legislation last session (81st HB 2080), it received a hearing but was never voted out of the House Public Health Committee.
Friday, December 10, 2010
UPDATE: Chisum Remains in Speakers Race
UPDATE: Chisum has stated on his facebook page that he has not dropped out of the race:
Frankly it would set a dangerous precedent. The current system of selecting a speaker based on the votes of the whole house insures that the person selected is, generally speaking, to the center of the ideological spectrum of the body. If one party, any party, requires it's members to vote for the party's selected candidate, rather than for the candidate members believe would best protect the priorities of their constituents, it will guarantee the election of a partisan ideologue as Speaker, rather than the statesman (or woman) the House needs to run effectively.
--------------------------------
Original title: Chisum to Drop Out of Speakers Race, Support Paxon
The Ellis Herald reports that notorious bigot Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) will drop out of the race for Speaker of the Texas House and support Ken Paxton (R-McKinney) in his attempt to unseat Speaker Joe Straus.
Chisum, you may remember, is the father of the Texas version of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) and perhaps the most rabid homophobe in the State of Texas (more HERE).
According to the Rules of the Texas House the speaker is elected by the 150 members of the House, from amongst its members, by a simple majority vote. The speaker is responsible for the day to day operations of the House and appoints all committee members and chairs. 'Speaker of the House' is the third most powerful position in Texas Politics, right behind Governor and Lieutenant Governor.
Traditionally the speaker is a member of whatever party has the most members in the House, although that is not required, a speaker from the non-ruling party has never been elected. Starting with the close of the previous legislative session any member of the house may begin to collect "pledges" from other members, promising their votes for speaker.
Chisum declared his intention to run for speaker shortly before the November election. I spoke with one House member (it was a private conversation, so I'm going to leave their name off) who said that Chisum's record on queer issues is part of what prevented them from supporting him: "My Gay constituents would kill me!"
The current Speaker, Joe Straus, was elected by an almost evenly divided house (74 Democrats and 76 Republicans) and with significant Democratic support. He is a moderate who was widely praised for his bipartisan even-handed handling of the affairs of the House. Which is why the far right hates him.
The current House is not nearly so evenly divided (it will probably be 51 Democrats and 99 Republicans - but there is still one race that may face an additional recount and one special election to fill the seat of a member who died shortly after the election). To maintain his speakership Straus will need to collect 76 pledges from members, but those members can be of any party.
One might assume that all 51 Democrats will pledge to Straus, but with a tight two person race it may be tempting for some to pledge to Paxton in exchange for prime committee appointments and preferential treatment for their legislative agenda. That's how the speaker previous to Straus, Tom Craddick, came to power. Several of the vilified "Craddick Ds" who supported him are still serving and may be willing to make a similar deal with the devil this session.
Paxton is affiliated with the Teabaggers, although not the arch-conservative Chisum is, he did vote for the Texas version of DOMA during his first term in the House (so did Speaker Straus). There really haven't been any other "test" bills to make it to the floor since then and since he has, for the most part, served on financial committees so he does not have a committee voting record that can be analyzed to understand where he stands on other queer issues.
That said, Paxton's rhetoric about being a "true" conservative and his strong Teabagger ties would seem to indicate that few, if any, of the legislative priorities of queer Texans would see the light of day in a Paxton House.
General consensus is that Straus has a good chance of hanging on to the speakership, but with 34 freshmen members of the House without a record to base predictions on, it's still anybody's game.
"There is no two ways about it: the Republican House members must caucus and unite behind a single conservative candidate for Speaker. If there is no caucus I will remain a candidate for Speaker when the Legislature meets on January 11, 2011."The "caucus" he's referring to is a proposal being supported by some conservative Republican House members that the Republican members of the House agree to meet by themselves, vote for a Speaker candidate, and agree to all vote for whoever wins that vote. This is very similar to how the Speaker of the United States Congress is selected, but is an unprecedented way to select a Speaker of the Texas House.
Frankly it would set a dangerous precedent. The current system of selecting a speaker based on the votes of the whole house insures that the person selected is, generally speaking, to the center of the ideological spectrum of the body. If one party, any party, requires it's members to vote for the party's selected candidate, rather than for the candidate members believe would best protect the priorities of their constituents, it will guarantee the election of a partisan ideologue as Speaker, rather than the statesman (or woman) the House needs to run effectively.
--------------------------------
Original title: Chisum to Drop Out of Speakers Race, Support Paxon
The Ellis Herald reports that notorious bigot Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) will drop out of the race for Speaker of the Texas House and support Ken Paxton (R-McKinney) in his attempt to unseat Speaker Joe Straus.
Chisum, you may remember, is the father of the Texas version of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) and perhaps the most rabid homophobe in the State of Texas (more HERE).
According to the Rules of the Texas House the speaker is elected by the 150 members of the House, from amongst its members, by a simple majority vote. The speaker is responsible for the day to day operations of the House and appoints all committee members and chairs. 'Speaker of the House' is the third most powerful position in Texas Politics, right behind Governor and Lieutenant Governor.
Traditionally the speaker is a member of whatever party has the most members in the House, although that is not required, a speaker from the non-ruling party has never been elected. Starting with the close of the previous legislative session any member of the house may begin to collect "pledges" from other members, promising their votes for speaker.
Chisum declared his intention to run for speaker shortly before the November election. I spoke with one House member (it was a private conversation, so I'm going to leave their name off) who said that Chisum's record on queer issues is part of what prevented them from supporting him: "My Gay constituents would kill me!"
The current Speaker, Joe Straus, was elected by an almost evenly divided house (74 Democrats and 76 Republicans) and with significant Democratic support. He is a moderate who was widely praised for his bipartisan even-handed handling of the affairs of the House. Which is why the far right hates him.
The current House is not nearly so evenly divided (it will probably be 51 Democrats and 99 Republicans - but there is still one race that may face an additional recount and one special election to fill the seat of a member who died shortly after the election). To maintain his speakership Straus will need to collect 76 pledges from members, but those members can be of any party.
One might assume that all 51 Democrats will pledge to Straus, but with a tight two person race it may be tempting for some to pledge to Paxton in exchange for prime committee appointments and preferential treatment for their legislative agenda. That's how the speaker previous to Straus, Tom Craddick, came to power. Several of the vilified "Craddick Ds" who supported him are still serving and may be willing to make a similar deal with the devil this session.
Paxton is affiliated with the Teabaggers, although not the arch-conservative Chisum is, he did vote for the Texas version of DOMA during his first term in the House (so did Speaker Straus). There really haven't been any other "test" bills to make it to the floor since then and since he has, for the most part, served on financial committees so he does not have a committee voting record that can be analyzed to understand where he stands on other queer issues.
That said, Paxton's rhetoric about being a "true" conservative and his strong Teabagger ties would seem to indicate that few, if any, of the legislative priorities of queer Texans would see the light of day in a Paxton House.
General consensus is that Straus has a good chance of hanging on to the speakership, but with 34 freshmen members of the House without a record to base predictions on, it's still anybody's game.
Monday, December 6, 2010
That Sneaky Sodomy Law
SB 152 by Joan Huffman has the laudable goal of protecting victims of sexual abuse, but an arcane and unenforceable law still on the books in Texas may turn her commendable intentions into a McCarthian nightmare for queer Texans.
SB 152 would allow Texas Judges to admit testimony and evidence of previous sex crimes by defendants accused of sex crimes. The Bill amends a section of code which lists 5 sets of offenses that would be admissible including offenses under Penal Code Chapter 21. Unfortunately for LGBT Texans that Chapter includes this:
Of course any good judge would not permit evidence of "Homosexual Conduct" to be introduced because they would know that any good lawyer would immediately recognize grounds for appeal since the code is unconstitutional. Unfortunately not every defendant gets a good judge, and many defendants do not get a good lawyer.
One need only to look at the rhetoric around California's prop 8 to know that many on the far right already consider LGBT people suspect of child abuse. SB 152 would create an official vehicle in statute to introduce that bias into the courtroom.
I fear that if this bill becomes law someone in a small-town west Texas courtroom will face a line of questioning that begins "are you now, or have you ever been a practicing homosexual?"
Some might argue that anything that can be done to get sex offenders off the streets is a good thing. It's important to recognize, however, that innocent people are, from time to time, brought to trial for crimes they did not commit. One of the foundations of American jurisprudence is that we assume that anyone who is charged with a crime is innocent until proven otherwise. We must therefore also assume that the evidence allowed in court by this bill, if passed, would be used against an innocent person.
The solution of course is simple: remove Penal Code 21.06 from the books. Why do we even still have an unconstitutional law on the books? Because very few lawmakers want to face the charge of being "pro-sodomy" in their next election, and the code can't be removed without approval of the State Legislature.
Last session Rep. Garnet Coleman introduced a bill to repeal Penal Code 21.06 (HB 3026 81R). It didn't even receive a hearing.
There are several other laws already on the books that refer back to Penal Code 21.06, so it's not like SB 152 would create a unique situation, but every time a reference back to the code is created in statute this bit of law becomes more firmly entrenched in the statute. What's more this bill would have been an excellent opportunity to excise the "Homosexual Conduct" law from the books since it was already dealing with that section of code. It's unfortunate that Sen. Huffman lacked the courage, moral fortitude, or knowledge to take advantage of that opportunity.
Until lawmakers get past their cowardice and take the simple, common sense step of removing this unconstitutional law from the books every attempt to strengthen Texas's Sex Crime laws will put honest, hardworking LGBT Texans at risk.
SB 152 would allow Texas Judges to admit testimony and evidence of previous sex crimes by defendants accused of sex crimes. The Bill amends a section of code which lists 5 sets of offenses that would be admissible including offenses under Penal Code Chapter 21. Unfortunately for LGBT Texans that Chapter includes this:
"Sec. 21.06. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."In 2004 the Supreme Court of the United States declared Penal Code 21.06 unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas, but the law has never been removed from the books.
Of course any good judge would not permit evidence of "Homosexual Conduct" to be introduced because they would know that any good lawyer would immediately recognize grounds for appeal since the code is unconstitutional. Unfortunately not every defendant gets a good judge, and many defendants do not get a good lawyer.
One need only to look at the rhetoric around California's prop 8 to know that many on the far right already consider LGBT people suspect of child abuse. SB 152 would create an official vehicle in statute to introduce that bias into the courtroom.
I fear that if this bill becomes law someone in a small-town west Texas courtroom will face a line of questioning that begins "are you now, or have you ever been a practicing homosexual?"
Some might argue that anything that can be done to get sex offenders off the streets is a good thing. It's important to recognize, however, that innocent people are, from time to time, brought to trial for crimes they did not commit. One of the foundations of American jurisprudence is that we assume that anyone who is charged with a crime is innocent until proven otherwise. We must therefore also assume that the evidence allowed in court by this bill, if passed, would be used against an innocent person.
The solution of course is simple: remove Penal Code 21.06 from the books. Why do we even still have an unconstitutional law on the books? Because very few lawmakers want to face the charge of being "pro-sodomy" in their next election, and the code can't be removed without approval of the State Legislature.
Last session Rep. Garnet Coleman introduced a bill to repeal Penal Code 21.06 (HB 3026 81R). It didn't even receive a hearing.
There are several other laws already on the books that refer back to Penal Code 21.06, so it's not like SB 152 would create a unique situation, but every time a reference back to the code is created in statute this bit of law becomes more firmly entrenched in the statute. What's more this bill would have been an excellent opportunity to excise the "Homosexual Conduct" law from the books since it was already dealing with that section of code. It's unfortunate that Sen. Huffman lacked the courage, moral fortitude, or knowledge to take advantage of that opportunity.
Until lawmakers get past their cowardice and take the simple, common sense step of removing this unconstitutional law from the books every attempt to strengthen Texas's Sex Crime laws will put honest, hardworking LGBT Texans at risk.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Wendy Davis Gets Anti-Bullying Legislation Right
SB 245 by Wendy Davis is the most comprehensive, thoughtful, piece of anti-bullying legislation filed this session. The bill is almost identical to HB 224 filed by Mark Strama in the House last month, but corrects one very important omission present in that bill.
Both bills offer a fairly comprehensive approach to fighting bullying. They requires all school districts to create a training program for staff, volunteers who work with students, students and parents designed to teach them to prevent, identify and respond to bullying. They also would allow school administrators to transfer bullies to a different class or campus than their victims if the victim's parents or guardians request it (under current law only the victim may be transferred) and create a uniform definition of bullying in the education code, adding cyberbullying.
Both bills would allow school administrators to address cyberbullying that takes place off campus if the electronic communication is received on campus or at a school event or if it substantially disrupts school operations, and include a requirement that schools report statistics on bullying to the state. It's in the specifics of the reporting requirement that the bills differ.
The House bill requires school districts to report if the cause of the bullying was based on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or disability. The Senate bill has the same requirement, but includes Gender Identity and Expression in it's enumerated list.
Beyond adding a provision that will help transgender kids, the Senate bill is far more useful to Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (and for that matter, Straight) students than the House version. More often than not, when kids are bullied for being queer it's not because of who they are attracted to, but because they are not conforming to other students expectations of how men and women are supposed to behave.
Davis served last session on the Senate Education Committee and is likely to do so again this session. Having a voice on the committee will help her in her efforts to pass this bill.
It's exciting to see this bill in the State Senate. The Texas Senate has historically been reticent to tackle the issue of bullying. Last session only two bills were filed on the topic, neither of which got a hearing (SB 29 (81R) by Zaffirini and SB 1725 (81R) by West) neither of which was as comprehensive as this bill.
It is generally harder to pass a bill in the Senate than in the House. Senate rules require that bills be considered in the order they are filed. Each session a "blocker bill" is filed early on. By general agreement this bill sits at the front of the line and no action is taken on it. It requires 2/3 of the Senate to set aside the rules and consider a bill out of order. With the blocker bill at the front of the line holding everything else up this means that, effectively, a Senator must get 2/3 of her colleagues to agree that voting on a bill is a good idea in order for it to pass.
Since passage in the Senate is a larger hurdle, having a bill that is this strong start on the Senate side gives me hope that we may actually see some real action taken by the legislature this session to fight bullying.
-----------
UPDATE: WFAA in Dallas has a short interview with Davis saying the bill was inspired by Fort Worth City Council Member Joel Burns famous "It Get's Better" speech. Burns was elected to fill the seat Davis held before running for for State Senate.
Thanks to Dallas Voice's Instant Tea Blog for pointing this out.
------------------
UPDATE (03/01/11): Davis has substituted the language on her bill SB 242 to make it a companion of Rep. Strama's HB 224 - the language of the two bills is now identical
Both bills offer a fairly comprehensive approach to fighting bullying. They requires all school districts to create a training program for staff, volunteers who work with students, students and parents designed to teach them to prevent, identify and respond to bullying. They also would allow school administrators to transfer bullies to a different class or campus than their victims if the victim's parents or guardians request it (under current law only the victim may be transferred) and create a uniform definition of bullying in the education code, adding cyberbullying.
Both bills would allow school administrators to address cyberbullying that takes place off campus if the electronic communication is received on campus or at a school event or if it substantially disrupts school operations, and include a requirement that schools report statistics on bullying to the state. It's in the specifics of the reporting requirement that the bills differ.
The House bill requires school districts to report if the cause of the bullying was based on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or disability. The Senate bill has the same requirement, but includes Gender Identity and Expression in it's enumerated list.
Beyond adding a provision that will help transgender kids, the Senate bill is far more useful to Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (and for that matter, Straight) students than the House version. More often than not, when kids are bullied for being queer it's not because of who they are attracted to, but because they are not conforming to other students expectations of how men and women are supposed to behave.
Davis served last session on the Senate Education Committee and is likely to do so again this session. Having a voice on the committee will help her in her efforts to pass this bill.
It's exciting to see this bill in the State Senate. The Texas Senate has historically been reticent to tackle the issue of bullying. Last session only two bills were filed on the topic, neither of which got a hearing (SB 29 (81R) by Zaffirini and SB 1725 (81R) by West) neither of which was as comprehensive as this bill.
It is generally harder to pass a bill in the Senate than in the House. Senate rules require that bills be considered in the order they are filed. Each session a "blocker bill" is filed early on. By general agreement this bill sits at the front of the line and no action is taken on it. It requires 2/3 of the Senate to set aside the rules and consider a bill out of order. With the blocker bill at the front of the line holding everything else up this means that, effectively, a Senator must get 2/3 of her colleagues to agree that voting on a bill is a good idea in order for it to pass.
Since passage in the Senate is a larger hurdle, having a bill that is this strong start on the Senate side gives me hope that we may actually see some real action taken by the legislature this session to fight bullying.
-----------
UPDATE: WFAA in Dallas has a short interview with Davis saying the bill was inspired by Fort Worth City Council Member Joel Burns famous "It Get's Better" speech. Burns was elected to fill the seat Davis held before running for for State Senate.
Thanks to Dallas Voice's Instant Tea Blog for pointing this out.
------------------
UPDATE (03/01/11): Davis has substituted the language on her bill SB 242 to make it a companion of Rep. Strama's HB 224 - the language of the two bills is now identical
Monday, November 29, 2010
Make the Rules Apply to Every Student
SB 66 by Sen. Judith Zaffirini would close an administrative loophole that prevents schools from expelling transfer students that violate the school's code of student conduct. To understand why the loophole exist in the first place let's take a look at how laws are made in Texas.
There are three major sets of laws that govern the State of Texas. The first is the Texas State Constitution. The State Constitution is superseded by federal law, but takes precedence over any other state law. It can only be amended if 2/3 of both the House and Senate agree to a statewide vote and then a majority of Texans vote to approve the amendment.
The second is State Statute. State Statute is superseded by the State Constitution, but takes precedence over Administrative Code. Statute is written by the Texas Legislature and must pass by a majority in both the Texas House and Senate and then be signed (or at least not vetoed) by the governor. All of the House and Senate bills discussed on this website are attempts to amend State Statute.
The third, and the issue that SB 66 is attempting to address, is Administrative Code. The Constitution and Statute contain enough laws to fill multiple bookshelves, but there are enough questions about exactly what some of those laws mean that the various state agencies have to create rules about exactly how to enforce the law. Different agencies go about this in different ways, but almost every state agency has a governing body that sets its administrative code.
In setting the administrative code the agency is supposed to look at the "legislative intent" of the legislature in passing the law (or proposed constitutional amendment) that is being interpreted. This is done by carefully reviewing the language of the law and looking at the hearings and floor debates that took place as the law was being considered.
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) is responsible for creating rules to clarify the Texas Education Code. When the TEA took a look at Education Code Sec 25.036 the rule they created caused a loophole that meant that transfer students can not be expelled, even for severe violations of the school's student code of conduct.
The TEA has determined that the limit of one transfer per year imposed by the statute means that a student, once transferred, can not be removed from their new district. This ties the hands of school administrators making it impossible for them to expel a transfer student, even for egregious violations of the student code of conduct.
(Why would the TEA create such a nonsensical rule? The money local school districts receive from the state is determined, in part, by student enrollment. Every time a student transfers districts the TEA must recalculate the disbursement. It would seem that, rather than do what's right for students, the TEA decided to save themselves some paperwork.)
SB 66 corrects the loophole created by the TEA rule by deleting the word "annually" from the statute and adding a provision specifically allowing the school districts to make compliance with the student code of conduct a provision of the students continued enrollment.
Sen. Zaffirini filed this legislation last session (SB 1445), but interference from the TEA prevented it from getting a hearing.
Being able to move bullies, or their victims, to a new district is a valuable tool - one we need. But the loophole created by the TEA's irresponsible rule removes accountability from the system. SB 66 marks a return to common sense.
There are three major sets of laws that govern the State of Texas. The first is the Texas State Constitution. The State Constitution is superseded by federal law, but takes precedence over any other state law. It can only be amended if 2/3 of both the House and Senate agree to a statewide vote and then a majority of Texans vote to approve the amendment.
The second is State Statute. State Statute is superseded by the State Constitution, but takes precedence over Administrative Code. Statute is written by the Texas Legislature and must pass by a majority in both the Texas House and Senate and then be signed (or at least not vetoed) by the governor. All of the House and Senate bills discussed on this website are attempts to amend State Statute.
The third, and the issue that SB 66 is attempting to address, is Administrative Code. The Constitution and Statute contain enough laws to fill multiple bookshelves, but there are enough questions about exactly what some of those laws mean that the various state agencies have to create rules about exactly how to enforce the law. Different agencies go about this in different ways, but almost every state agency has a governing body that sets its administrative code.
In setting the administrative code the agency is supposed to look at the "legislative intent" of the legislature in passing the law (or proposed constitutional amendment) that is being interpreted. This is done by carefully reviewing the language of the law and looking at the hearings and floor debates that took place as the law was being considered.
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) is responsible for creating rules to clarify the Texas Education Code. When the TEA took a look at Education Code Sec 25.036 the rule they created caused a loophole that meant that transfer students can not be expelled, even for severe violations of the school's student code of conduct.
Education Code Sec. 25.036. TRANSFER OF STUDENT. (a) Any child, other than a high school graduate, who is younger than 21 years of age and eligible for enrollment on September 1 of any school year may transfer annually from the child's school district of residence to another district in this state if both the receiving district and the applicant parent or guardian or person having lawful control of the child jointly approve and timely agree in writing to the transfer. (b) A transfer agreement under this section shall be filed and preserved as a receiving district record for audit purposes of the agency.Seems reasonable right? If a parent wants to transfer their student to a different school district, and everyone involved is agreeable the law lets them do it. This could be used to move a child who has been the subject of bullying to a new school, or to give a child who has fallen in with a bad crowd and started making poor decisions a fresh start, or just make the process of dropping the kids off for school a little easier for a parent who commutes. It's a common sense solution. The problem arises from one word - "annually" - and the TEA's somewhat creative interpretation of it.
The TEA has determined that the limit of one transfer per year imposed by the statute means that a student, once transferred, can not be removed from their new district. This ties the hands of school administrators making it impossible for them to expel a transfer student, even for egregious violations of the student code of conduct.
(Why would the TEA create such a nonsensical rule? The money local school districts receive from the state is determined, in part, by student enrollment. Every time a student transfers districts the TEA must recalculate the disbursement. It would seem that, rather than do what's right for students, the TEA decided to save themselves some paperwork.)
SB 66 corrects the loophole created by the TEA rule by deleting the word "annually" from the statute and adding a provision specifically allowing the school districts to make compliance with the student code of conduct a provision of the students continued enrollment.
Sen. Zaffirini filed this legislation last session (SB 1445), but interference from the TEA prevented it from getting a hearing.
Being able to move bullies, or their victims, to a new district is a valuable tool - one we need. But the loophole created by the TEA's irresponsible rule removes accountability from the system. SB 66 marks a return to common sense.
Friday, November 26, 2010
We ♥ Legislative Brackets
Except for under very limited circumstances the Texas State Constitution does not allow the State Legislature to write laws that only apply to certain counties. Texans, in general, value local control and the framers of the state constitution wanted to keep lawmakers in Austin from meddling in local affairs too much.
Of course the constituents of those lawmakers still expect them to help out with local issues. So what's a lawmaker to do? They could work to pass laws that would address the local issue but would apply to the whole state, but the other state lawmakers may not want to subject their constituents to rules designed for another part of the state. It takes a majority of both houses to pass a law - so the author of a law designed to address a local issue must find a way to write it so that it will not affect anyone else's constituents.
The solution is a "bracket". A bracket is a way of describing the counties to which a law applies. Lawmakers can't write a law that says "this law only applies to county X" but they can write a law that only applies to a county that has certain characteristics.
By creating very narrow requirements a law can be written so that it only applies to one county.
In order to comply with the State Constitution the bracket must be written so that a county can grow out of or into, so you often see population being used in brackets. Other characteristics - such as containing a facility licensed for a space port, or being licensed for a low-level nuclear waste facility - also get used from time to time. Since a license can be obtained or revoked it fits the "grow out of or into" criteria.
See if you can figure out which counties are described by these brackets, taken from bills filed for the 82nd legislature.
SB 105: applies only to "a county that is located wholly or partly above a hydrocarbon-producing geological formation that underlies all or part of two counties: (1) that are adjacent to one another; and (2) each of which has a population of more than 1.4 million."
HB 54 applies only "In a county located on the Texas-Mexico border that has a population of 500,000 or more and is adjacent to two or more counties each of which has a population of 50,000 or more"
HB 107 applies only to "a county: (1) with a population of less than 185,000; and in which two or more municipalities with a population of more than 65,000 are wholly located."
State elected officials tend to give each other a great deal of freedom to deal with local issues. Most of the time if a lawmaker can bracket their legislation in such a way that it only affects their own constituents other officials will not object (not all of the time, of course). It's important, when you see a bracket, to ask yourself why the author wants the law to apply so narrowly. Sometimes brackets can be used to further political vendettas by overriding the decisions of county commissioners or city councils.
If nothing else attempting to decipher a bracket can be a fun education in the geography of Texas.
Of course the constituents of those lawmakers still expect them to help out with local issues. So what's a lawmaker to do? They could work to pass laws that would address the local issue but would apply to the whole state, but the other state lawmakers may not want to subject their constituents to rules designed for another part of the state. It takes a majority of both houses to pass a law - so the author of a law designed to address a local issue must find a way to write it so that it will not affect anyone else's constituents.
The solution is a "bracket". A bracket is a way of describing the counties to which a law applies. Lawmakers can't write a law that says "this law only applies to county X" but they can write a law that only applies to a county that has certain characteristics.
By creating very narrow requirements a law can be written so that it only applies to one county.
In order to comply with the State Constitution the bracket must be written so that a county can grow out of or into, so you often see population being used in brackets. Other characteristics - such as containing a facility licensed for a space port, or being licensed for a low-level nuclear waste facility - also get used from time to time. Since a license can be obtained or revoked it fits the "grow out of or into" criteria.
See if you can figure out which counties are described by these brackets, taken from bills filed for the 82nd legislature.
SB 105: applies only to "a county that is located wholly or partly above a hydrocarbon-producing geological formation that underlies all or part of two counties: (1) that are adjacent to one another; and (2) each of which has a population of more than 1.4 million."
HB 54 applies only "In a county located on the Texas-Mexico border that has a population of 500,000 or more and is adjacent to two or more counties each of which has a population of 50,000 or more"
HB 107 applies only to "a county: (1) with a population of less than 185,000; and in which two or more municipalities with a population of more than 65,000 are wholly located."
State elected officials tend to give each other a great deal of freedom to deal with local issues. Most of the time if a lawmaker can bracket their legislation in such a way that it only affects their own constituents other officials will not object (not all of the time, of course). It's important, when you see a bracket, to ask yourself why the author wants the law to apply so narrowly. Sometimes brackets can be used to further political vendettas by overriding the decisions of county commissioners or city councils.
If nothing else attempting to decipher a bracket can be a fun education in the geography of Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)