SB 245 Passes Stage Two

The Senate Bill 245, regarding the Child Protective Services Community Action Council (CAC) was heard by the Senate on February 19th at 9:00 a.m. This bill has been said to be put on the back-burner but will now move forward to stage three of the seven stage process. This bill was filed January 24th and passed out of the senate committee February 26th. The next stage will be the senate vote, followed by the house committees, house vote, and governor action before it will become a law.

This bill is currently sponsored primarily by Royce West, a Democrat from District 23. West is supported by two cosponsors, Jane Nelson, R-D12 and Carlos Uresti, D-D19.  

If passed, this bill will benefit the CPS program in Texas and primarily the responsibilities of caseworkers. This bill is attempting to improve the quality of work by caseworkers and balance their responsibilities more effectively. This will improve the work of current caseworkers and avoid the layoffs of workers in the future.

On February 26, 2013 the bill was reported on favorably by the senate without any amendments. And on February 27 the co-author had been authorized.

-Brelle de Groot

Education Budget: A brief history

The education budget has always been an issue in Texas history. Most notably was the budget cut last time the legislature met. The 82nd Legislature cut $4 billion of the education budget. They thought this was a good idea, but in the past two years we have seen dramatic changes occurring across the board. The student to teacher ratio is extremely disproportionate. When the legislature approved the budget, they did  not account for new students coming to the system or how many teachers they would have to cut as a result. This cut was the first major cut to education since World War II.

But there is good news! The Senate Financial Committee panel has just approved a proposed budget to add $1.5 billion dollars to the state's education fund! The rest of the Senate still needs to approve the budget, but if it passes this money would significantly impact education in Texas. The money includes funding for Teach for America, pre-kindergarten programs and Texas' Virtual School Network. The budget does not currently have money allocated for important programs such as early college education programs or a program designed to help students who are falling behind in school.

Ivy Anderson

Four Year Tuition Freeze

Many parents and students are unsure how much money they are actually going to spend on tuition each year. Andrew Roush with the Alcalde stated “Tuition was deregulated by the Legislature in 2003, and has increased by 55 percent in the past decade, while state general revenue funding has decreased.” D-Republican and house higher education committee chair Dan Branch has filed house bill 29 that would make it so state schools have a “tuition freeze” that gives each incoming class the same tuition for each year, presuming an on time graduation.  

Gov. Jerry Brown of California proposed the same freeze in tuition apparently the state's legislative analyst is saying it is a bad idea and is moving to reject the idea.  "While this would help current students, it likely would increase volatility for future students," said Mac Taylor in the SFGate.

Less than 30 percent of students have been graduating within a four year period.  The thought behind the freeze is not only to help families save money but to help students focus more on getting through college in the standard four year time period.

This is Gov. Perry also proposing a four year tuition freeze for state schools.

 

-Shelby Campbell

Texas State Water Plan: A Personal Perspective

Photo from Texas Agriculture Talks

The city isn’t the only party closely following the 2013 Texas legislation and the State Water Plan; there is a larger voice of concern that is often less heard: the farmers.

Mike Barnett, Director of Publications at the Texas Farm Bureau, met with Ross Stromberg, a Texas farmer, and discussed his outlook for farming this spring. According to Barnett, Stromberg’s soil had good moisture and he was grateful for the recent rainfall. However, “He worried though, like so many farmers in Texas are worrying, about prospects for rain this spring. Forecasts aren’t encouraging.” Because Mother Nature hasn’t been on the farmers’ sides the past few years, the future of Texas farmers and agriculture will also be directly affected by the State Water Plan outcome.  (Texas Agriculture Talks)

According to Mike Barnett, this year’s state legislation and the potential funding for the State Water Plan from the Rainy Day Fund are hopeful. However, he claims there are also risks, “Agriculture—with a stellar record of improving efficiency and conservation and doing much more with less over the last two decades—is still the top water user in the state.” He voice’s concern for the future of the state, saying “as water gets more expensive and sources disappear, a clamor could arise to take agriculture’s water—drying up livelihoods, a rich agriculture heritage and ultimately, the food supply” (Your Houston News). 

Mose Buchele, State Impact writer, also discusses concerns of agricultural groups who “worry that their water needs might be sidelined this legislative session” (
One way to allocate fairness between agricultural and municipal budgeting, according to farming and ranching interests, “would be to direct money to conservation technologies for agriculture. Machines that monitor soil moisture and double drip irrigation methods were showcased at the [Texas Ag Water] Forum.” (State Impact)

As the 2013 legislation continues, the debate of funding the State Water Plan is again raised. According to the Amarillo news, “what's being discussed in the Capitol isn't so much whether, but how to fund the plan,” which is hopeful news to farmers (News Channel 10).

-Becka Adkins

Over Before it Started

Over Before it Started

For many No Kill Texas Advocates, the white flag of defeat was raised before the war even began. I had contacted the President/Executive Director of No Kill Texas Advocates, Bett Sundermeyer, and she had told me that the Companion Animal Protection Act (CAPA) had not been filed in the Texas Legislature this year and is extremely unlikely that it will. She did mention to me, however, that several attempts for similar bills have been created and attempted to be filed. Unfortunately, she, too, mentioned that the similar bills received plenty of opposition and would be unlikely to even become filed.

It saddens me to see that the Texas Legislature refuses to see an apparent problem that can be easily fixed. Because of Legislature's lack of interest, I'm going to have to keep reading and hearing stories such as this. Several states have already passed CAPA and many more are filing it in their state legislatures, why can't the great state of Texas do the same?

MPP's M.O.

Marijuana Policy Project's Rob Kampia Speaks on this Present Issue of Legalizing Marijuana in Austin, TX.

(Video Credit: MPP Staff's YouTube channel)

Several organizations have gained notoriety within the news media as of late. One that stands out amongst others involved in the legalizing of the medical marijuana issue is the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP).

MPP was founded in 1995 as a nonprofit organization that--according to their mission statement on their website--seeks to:

Increase public support for non-punitive, non-coercive marijuana policies.

Identify and activate supporters of non-punitive, non-coercive marijuana policies.

Change state laws to reduce or eliminate penalties for the medical and non-medical use of marijuana.

Gain influence in Congress

They also go on to say in their vision statement, "MPP and MPP Foundation envision a nation where marijuana is legally regulated similarly to alcohol, marijuana education is honest and realistic, and treatment for problem marijuana users is non-coercive and geared toward reducing harm."

On MPP's website, they describe a part of their purpose as being "Because MPP believes that the greatest harm associated with marijuana is prison, we focus on removing criminal penalties for marijuana use, with a particular emphasis on making marijuana medically available to seriously ill people who have the approval of their doctors."

With over 32 thousand followers on Twitter, MPP remains active within the social media realm. However, at first glance, it does seem a little one-sided; each tweet contains only basic facts of what is going on with the legalizing of the marijuana issue. MPP is even more active on Facebook, on the other hand, with more than 67,800 "likes." The conversations carried between MPP and its followers on Facebook seem to be more in depth and extensive. Even though it's a "DUH" statement, MPP's posts have a more "conversational" tone.



Here is a link to all of the legislation in Texas currently happening in regards to this issue.

Alyson Morales
Blog post 2

Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx9q-sn_7XI
www.mpp.org

CPRIT fights back

CPRIT is fighting back. According to the Dallas Morning News, "the Travis County district attorney's office ruled Wednesday that a foundation created to raise private dollars for Texas' cancer-fighting agency is not subject to the state open records act." CPRIT's lawyer, David Minton, is planning a case to explain how the foundation is not a governmental body. Wendy Davis is not giving up. She has filed another bill "that would make the CPRIT Foundation subject to the open records act." Davis' argument back in December that "Texans deserve open and transparent stewardship of their hard-earned tax dollars [and CPRIT] is currently plagued by accusations of cronyism, conflicts of interest, insider deals and a lack of transparency to to the public."
Even the Livestrong Foundation is sharing its' concerns. Doug Ulman, the president and chief executive, hopes CPRIT can be restructured because "the individuals who are facing this disease are too important to allow this to derail such a monumental effort." The Amarillo Area Breast Health Coalition, who was helped by a grant from the foundation, believes that the loss of their funds from CPRIT will cripple their program. Cancer research and screenings for patients have been helped greatly by the "nearly 500 grants totaling $836 million." (Source)
Now obviously a great deal of good has been done by the money CPRIT has provided for cancer research and preventative measures, yet it is overshadowed by the allegations of cronyism and misplaced funds. What will become of those who have benefited from the funding? CPRIT's trepidation toward providing open records is a cause of concern - what are they hiding? Or are they in the right by refusing transparency as a private (non-government) foundation?

Avery Ruxer
Post 2