Posts
Proposition 7: "The constitutional amendment authorizing a home-rule municipality to
provide in its charter the procedure to fill a vacancy on its governing
body for which the unexpired term is 12 months or less."
This proposition has received very little attention, and on the surface seems like a good solution: allowing home-rule cities to decide how to fill vacant elected seats by council appointment without the expense of a special election when there is a year or less remaining in the term.
Saving taxpayer money is almost always a desirable goal. Taxpayers sometimes spend thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to hold special elections to fill vacated seats, only to pay that money again a few months later when that seat is up for election.
There may be extenuating circumstances, such as a council member's death, where a tax-saving amendment such as this may be appropriate; however, we should also consider the unintended negative consequences that may result from the passage of this type of charter amendment.
First, a charter amendment giving a city council the ability to appoint their own replacements provides a very real potential for a municipal body to act against the will of the voters. Appointing a replacement from among a council's own colleagues increases the potential for corruption and political cronyism. This may even have the undesirable result of preventing a particular minority group from getting on the council.
Second, a city council may be tempted to abuse the charter amendment by indiscriminately using it to fill vacancies in situations other than extenuating circumstances. Council members who choose not to seek reelection when their term
is up may see this as an opportunity to select a replacement who will perpetuate their brand of politics and preserve the status quo,
without regard for the will of the voters they serve. Currently, a vacancy on a council results in an open seat and an
opportunity for a new set of candidates to run for a seat on equal
footing in the election. If this proposition passes, the reality may be that any council member not
intending to run for reelection will choose to vacate his seat early, in order to give a council-appointed candidate time to run for his seat as the
incumbent. A council-appointed incumbent may be more difficult to
challenge in an election, since he will have the council's support that he "is already doing the job." Open seats in city elections could be a
thing of the past.
Third, twelve months is a long time for an appointee to serve without voter approval. While it appears that the proposition's intention is to give councils the ability to fill a short-term vacancy, it would be preferable and more in line with a contingency situation if the appointed term were for 2 or 3 months.
Finally, spending a few thousand dollars on an election today, may save multi-millions of taxpayer dollars tomorrow. Texas has the 2nd highest municipal debt per capita, behind only New York (Source: Your Money and Local Debt, published Sept 2012 by TX Comptroller Susan Combs). Today, many of our city councils are spending money with abandon, using certificates of obligation (which do not need voter approval) and aggressively pushing for bond money to fund their
elaborate pet spending projects, resulting in hundreds of
millions of dollars in long-term public debt. The small amount of money spent on a city election is a drop in the bucket compared with the multi-millions being spent in bond money. Our local leaders need to be held accountable to the public it serves. Spending a few thousand dollars
on an election seems a small price to pay to preserve the democratic process and ensure that voters are selecting their leaders.
There are times when saving taxpayer money is preferable; saving money to avoid an election should not be one of those times.
Elections are worth it.
Vote "No" on Proposition 7.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Euless Family Harassed By Police
July 15, 2013 – In September 2008, the cities of Bedford and Euless enacted a Juvenile Daytime Curfew ordinance. Their stated reason for needing the curfew was to "keep kids in school," citing state law as "cumbersome," and stating that the curfew "allows an opportunity to immediately address a truancy problem as it occurs; specifically on the first incident of truancy." [Source: Bedford Curfew Ordinance FAQ]
Concerned citizens wrote letters and appeared before the councils to express their concerns about the daytime curfew: that daytime curfews circumvent state law, bypass due process, establish a short-cut to "probable cause," violate a parent's rights to direct the activities of their children, stifle individual freedom, criminalize being outside, can potentially be abused by overzealous officials, and can result in civil rights lawsuits against cities which implement them inappropriately.
Despite citizen outcry (the whole story is chronicled within the pages of this blog), the council and police chiefs from both cities responded with assurances that students who were out in public during school hours who were not truant or committing a crime would not be affected by the ordinance.
That was five years ago.
On May 9, 2013, several homeschool children from the same family were walking together in Euless. They were on their way to their grandmother's house in Bedford, via Pipeline Road; something they did each week when their schoolwork was completed, at their parents' direction.
A little ways into their journey, a Bedford police officer noticed them. The officer crossed to the Euless side of the street, escorted the children to the Bedford side of the street, and asked them where they went to school, as it was a school day. The children explained to the officer that they were home schooled and were on their way to their grandmother's house in Bedford. The Bedford police officer then contacted the Euless Police Department and transferred the children to them, even though the children were not committing any crime and they were not truant.
Although no further action from the police department was necessary, the Bedford police officer detained the children and did not allow them to continue on their way to their grandmother's house where they had been instructed by their parents to go. Additionally, no effort was made to contact the parents or the grandmother.
When the Euless police officers arrived, they took the children back to the family's apartment in Euless, entered the apartment behind the children, and began looking around, asking questions about how the homeschooling was conducted, and demanding to see their curriculum. At one point, one of the officers threatened action by CPS.
When the father contacted the Euless Police Department immediately after the threat, he was told by a corporal that it was the department's standard practice to contact CPS if something "didn't seem right," although she refused to comment what was meant in regard to the incident except to offer the "advice" "to clean up the apartment."
To this day, CPS has not contacted the family, so it appears that the police officer used that threat to harass the family.
Despite the family's attempt to contact the Euless Police Department about the incident, and after repeated requests by the Texas Home School Coalition to Euless Police Chief Michael Brown to investigate this incident, the police chief has refused to do so.
The Euless police chief has asserted that "there had to be more to the interaction than described," and yet he has done nothing. A simple investigation on his part would seem a no-brainer. Instead, he is now insisting that the family contact him a second time before he can do anything.
When the Euless and Bedford City Council first brought up the daytime curfew issue in September of 2008, I was staunchly opposed, for the very reasons illustrated by this incident: police harrassment of children who are out in public with parent permission and who are not committing any crime.
The fact that police entered the home without adult permission or a warrant, curriculum was demanded to be shown and the homeschooling methods were questioned, and that CPS was threatened and used to intimidate the family goes too far.
Here are some questions for Police Chief Michael Brown, the Euless City Council, and HEB-ISD School Board (if you remember, it was the HEB School Board who initiated the request for the daytime curfew ordinance through each city's police chief):
1. Why has this incident, in which a home school family had their home searched by police, asked by them to see curriculum and told that CPS would be called, not been investigated in spite of numerous requests?
2. Does this incident typify what officials mean when they cite the need for daytime curfews for a "zero tolerance" policy?
3. Why would a police chief refuse to investigate this matter?
This incident highlights some disturbing infringements on this family's constitutional rights.
If you are a Euless resident, I urge you to please contact the Euless Police Department and Euless City Council and let them know that you don't appreciate this infringement on this family's rights.
Contacts:
Euless Mayor Mary Lib Saleh: 817-685-1419
City Hall, 201 N. Ector Dr. - City Hall, Euless, Texas 76039
Euless Police Department 817-685-1500
1102 W. Euless Blvd (Hwy. 10) Euless, Texas 76040
Tim Lambert, president of Texas Home School Coalition, has included the correspondence between the Euless Police Chief and himself on the THSC website.
To read the correspondence between THSC and the Euless Police Chief
Concerned citizens wrote letters and appeared before the councils to express their concerns about the daytime curfew: that daytime curfews circumvent state law, bypass due process, establish a short-cut to "probable cause," violate a parent's rights to direct the activities of their children, stifle individual freedom, criminalize being outside, can potentially be abused by overzealous officials, and can result in civil rights lawsuits against cities which implement them inappropriately.
Despite citizen outcry (the whole story is chronicled within the pages of this blog), the council and police chiefs from both cities responded with assurances that students who were out in public during school hours who were not truant or committing a crime would not be affected by the ordinance.
That was five years ago.
On May 9, 2013, several homeschool children from the same family were walking together in Euless. They were on their way to their grandmother's house in Bedford, via Pipeline Road; something they did each week when their schoolwork was completed, at their parents' direction.
A little ways into their journey, a Bedford police officer noticed them. The officer crossed to the Euless side of the street, escorted the children to the Bedford side of the street, and asked them where they went to school, as it was a school day. The children explained to the officer that they were home schooled and were on their way to their grandmother's house in Bedford. The Bedford police officer then contacted the Euless Police Department and transferred the children to them, even though the children were not committing any crime and they were not truant.
Although no further action from the police department was necessary, the Bedford police officer detained the children and did not allow them to continue on their way to their grandmother's house where they had been instructed by their parents to go. Additionally, no effort was made to contact the parents or the grandmother.
When the Euless police officers arrived, they took the children back to the family's apartment in Euless, entered the apartment behind the children, and began looking around, asking questions about how the homeschooling was conducted, and demanding to see their curriculum. At one point, one of the officers threatened action by CPS.
When the father contacted the Euless Police Department immediately after the threat, he was told by a corporal that it was the department's standard practice to contact CPS if something "didn't seem right," although she refused to comment what was meant in regard to the incident except to offer the "advice" "to clean up the apartment."
To this day, CPS has not contacted the family, so it appears that the police officer used that threat to harass the family.
Despite the family's attempt to contact the Euless Police Department about the incident, and after repeated requests by the Texas Home School Coalition to Euless Police Chief Michael Brown to investigate this incident, the police chief has refused to do so.
The Euless police chief has asserted that "there had to be more to the interaction than described," and yet he has done nothing. A simple investigation on his part would seem a no-brainer. Instead, he is now insisting that the family contact him a second time before he can do anything.
When the Euless and Bedford City Council first brought up the daytime curfew issue in September of 2008, I was staunchly opposed, for the very reasons illustrated by this incident: police harrassment of children who are out in public with parent permission and who are not committing any crime.
The fact that police entered the home without adult permission or a warrant, curriculum was demanded to be shown and the homeschooling methods were questioned, and that CPS was threatened and used to intimidate the family goes too far.
Here are some questions for Police Chief Michael Brown, the Euless City Council, and HEB-ISD School Board (if you remember, it was the HEB School Board who initiated the request for the daytime curfew ordinance through each city's police chief):
1. Why has this incident, in which a home school family had their home searched by police, asked by them to see curriculum and told that CPS would be called, not been investigated in spite of numerous requests?
2. Does this incident typify what officials mean when they cite the need for daytime curfews for a "zero tolerance" policy?
3. Why would a police chief refuse to investigate this matter?
This incident highlights some disturbing infringements on this family's constitutional rights.
If you are a Euless resident, I urge you to please contact the Euless Police Department and Euless City Council and let them know that you don't appreciate this infringement on this family's rights.
Contacts:
Euless Mayor Mary Lib Saleh: 817-685-1419
City Hall, 201 N. Ector Dr. - City Hall, Euless, Texas 76039
Euless Police Department 817-685-1500
1102 W. Euless Blvd (Hwy. 10) Euless, Texas 76040
Tim Lambert, president of Texas Home School Coalition, has included the correspondence between the Euless Police Chief and himself on the THSC website.
To read the correspondence between THSC and the Euless Police Chief
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)