EPISD superintendent certified

September 12, 2016

We’ve been asked about the status of the EPISD superintendent’s certification.

According to the district he has been certified.

https://www.episd.org/public_relations/news_detail.php?id=2324

I wonder if I could become a surgeon with the promise that I would earn the necessary qualifications sometime in the next three years.

Could it be that the entire certification process is just a way to keep the process incestuous?  Is he somehow more capable of doing the right thing for the students now that he is certified?  If so why was he allowed to serve before he was educated (or indoctrinated)?

We deserve better

Brutus


Too little, too late

September 9, 2016

The Texas Supreme Court created a loophole in the Texas Public Information Act when it delivered its decision in Boeing v. Paxton last year.  The ruling allowed Texas governments to withhold information if disclosing the information would cause competitive harm.

Our city is leading the charge by refusing to release some emails that the Times has requested.

On second thought

Section 552.301 of the Texas Government Code says:

The government body must ask for the attorney general’s decision and state the exceptions that apply within a reasonable time but not later than the 10th business day after the date of receiving the written request.

The Times requested some information.

The city objected and wrote their required letter to the attorney general citing 25 reasons why they believed they should be able to withhold the information.  They did not mention Boeing v. Paxton.

Last week the city recognized that the court decision would help their argument and sent a second letter to the attorney general.

Time matters

Section 552.303 of the Texas Government Code says:

If a government body does not request an attorney general decision as provided by Section 552.301 and provide the requestor with the information required by Sections 552.301(d) and (e-1) the information requested in writing is presumed to be subject to required public disclosure and must be released unless there is a compelling reason to withhold the information.

The attorney general’s ruling in this situation should be based on the 25 reasons the city offered in its first letter.

Why on earth would the city manager be negotiating via email?

Once again the city wants to be above the law.

We deserve better

Brutus


EPISD funding from the state

August 24, 2016

We received a comment from a regular commenter  the other day that “we have a rigged [funding] system that favors the Dallas-Austin-Houston corridor”.  The comment was about state funding of local issues in general, not just about school district funding.

Looking into the 2016-2017 budgets for the Austin, Dallas, El Paso, and Houston school districts we were quite surprised by the amounts the state provides for each student.

Austin Independent School District projects an enrollment of 82,690 students.  They show total anticipated state funding at $68,994,815.  That comes to $834 per student for the school year.

The Dallas Independent School District projects receipt of $332,186,058 from the state and an enrollment of 159,310 students.  The per student revenue from the state works out to be $2,085.

Our El Paso Independent School District anticipates enrollment of 58,542 students and total state revenue of $309,110,521.  That works out to $5,280 per student.

The Houston Independent School District has been declared property rich by the state and as a result will actually pay money to the state.

What have we missed?

We deserve better

Brutus

 


A long road to justice

August 19, 2016

Recently a 21-year-old man was found not guilty of murder by an El Paso jury.

He had been in jail since August 29, 2013 while he was waiting for trial.

This quote comes from a Times article about the situation:

“It’s not a secret.  Mr. Montoya (one of the prosecutors) said it in his close, ‘I wish we had proof, but we don’t.'”

We deserve better

Brutus


Official oppression?

August 10, 2016

The Times printed an Associated Press article the other day about a Texas county that is suing an individual citizen for complaining about one of their policies.

The citizen has complained to Waller county (near Houston) that they have no right to ban firearms in the entire Waller county courthouse.

Texas law evidently prohibits guns from being carried by citizens into courtrooms and related offices, but not the remainder of the building.  The Texas attorney general agrees that guns cannot be prohibited from an entire courthouse.

That is evidently not the answer that the Waller county district attorney wants.  He has sued the citizen individually.  According to the article he said “he’s simply seeking a ruling by a state judge that the county has the legal right to ban guns from the entire courthouse building”.

The suit seeks $100,000 in damages but the district attorney “promised that the county would not pursue any monetary damages”.

Hooey

The district attorney evidently said that the monetary claim was included as boilerplate language.   If they don’t want the money why did they ask for it?  Could it be another way to try to intimidate the citizen?

A law is passed by the legislature.  The state attorney general was asked to give his opinion about the limits of the law.  He did.  The county did not like the ruling.  A citizen complained.

Now the citizen has been sued by the county for complaining that the county was following neither the state law nor respecting the attorney general’s interpretation of it.

The citizen now has to spend money to defend himself against these thugs.

This distict attorney needs to be corrected.

We deserve better

Brutus