A very special treat this week for those who are able to attend the weekly meeting of the Downtown Houston Pachyderm Club. Leif Olson will be the featured speaker and present an update on same-sex marriage litigation in Houston. From the Facebook Event page:
Leif Olson
Leif Olson is a trial and appellate lawyer. He founded his solo law practice after a federal clerkship and ten years with international and boutique trial firms. He is board-certified in Civil Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and has handled many cases of first impression before the Texas and federal courts of appeals.
Leif regularly advocates on behalf of conservative and Republican causes before federal and state courts. Most recently, he is lead appellate counsel in Pidgeon v. Parker, the lawsuit in which a state court blocked Mayor Parker’s executive order that the City of Houston recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of Texas, an order that is barred by the Texas Family Code and the Texas Constitution.
Leif received his economics degree with honors from Trinity University and his law degree from the University of Chicago. He is a regular speaker on appellate law, appellate and trial procedure, legal writing, and legal ethics. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Houston Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society since 2003. He and his wife, Johanna, live in Humble with their four children.
What all of that means is that Leif is a really good guy and a really smart attorney. I’m very much looking forward to hearing his update on this issue.
In case you’ve forgotten, the DHPC meets every Thursday at noon at the Spaghetti Warehouse in Downtown Houston.
Some local officials wonder whether the agreements lead to wasteful spending that lacks transparency. The revenue is not subject to the voter-approved revenue cap that has forced the city to lower its property tax rate and slash budgets. Critics also note that Houston provides no services to most of these suburban areas, whose residents can’t vote in city elections.
“It’s unconstitutional,” Fort Bend County Judge Bob Hebert said. “I thought we fought a war back in the 1700s on ‘taxation without representation.’ ”
After reading the account of an “educational workshop” on the Fort Bend County Public Information Center I filed an open records request seeking notes or minutes taken that would validate the account published on the Public Information Center website.
Take a look in the upper left hand corner of one of the responsive documents:
Yep–no minutes taken to substantiate the meeting recap on the Public Information Center website.
The Fort Bend County Judge need not look to Houston for examples of wasteful spending that lack transparency; he can find it in Fort Bend County, his own back yard.
The City of Jersey Village, Texas published the required legal notice of intent on January 20th—a vote on the passage of an ordinance to issue $8 million in debt will take place March 16th, 2015.
As explained yesterday, according to Texas Local Government Code this is perfectly legal:
“NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Jersey Village, Texas (the “City”) will meet at its regular meeting place at City Hall, Jersey Village, Texas at 7:00 p.m. on the 16th day of March, 2015, which is the time and place tentatively set for the passage of an ordinance and such other action as may be deemed necessary to authorize the issuance of the City’s certificates of obligation in one or more series, payable from ad valorem taxation and a surplus pledge of certain revenues of the water and sewer system of the City, in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $8,000,000, bearing interest at any rate or rates, not to exceed the maximum interest rate now or hereafter authorized by law, as shall be determined within the discretion of the City Council at the time of issuance and maturing over a period of years not to exceed forty (40) years from the date thereof, for the purpose of evidencing the indebtedness of the City to pay all or any part of the contractual obligations to be incurred for the construction of public works and the purchase of materials, supplies, equipment, machinery, buildings, land and rights-of-way for authorized needs and purposes and for the payment of contractual obligations for professional services, to wit: (i) water and wastewater projects, including the acquisition of water and sewer line easements associated with the construction of U.S. 290 in the City and related water and sewer line construction, improvement and repair; and (ii) professional services rendered in connection with the above listed projects.”
According to 2010 census data, the 3.5 square mile municipality has a population of 7,620.
The City Council of the City Nassau Bay will meet at City Hall on March 9th, 2015 to authorize the issuance of $1.6 million in certificates of obligation.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Nassau Bay, Texas (the “City”) will meet at its regular meeting place at City Hall, Nassau Bay, Texas at 7 p.m. on the 9th day of March, 2015, which is the time and place tentatively set for the passage of an ordinance and such other action as may be deemed necessary to authorize the issuance of the City’s certificates of obligation, payable from ad valorem taxation and a limited (in an amount not to exceed $10,000) subordinate pledge of certain revenues of the water and sewer system of the City, in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $1,600,000, bearing interest at any rate or rates, not to exceed the maximum interest rate now or hereafter authorized by law, as shall be determined within the discretion of the City Council at the time of issuance and maturing over a period of years not to exceed forty (40) years from the date thereof…”
Local Government Code Chapter 271, section 271.047 gives purchasing and contracting authority to issue this type of debt obligation without obtaining voter approval.
Sec. 271.047 – AUTHORIZATION OF CERTIFICATES BY ORDINANCE OR ORDER, OTHER PROVISIONS IN CERTIFICATES.
(a) Certificates may be authorized by an ordinance adopted by the governing body of a municipality, or by an order adopted by the governing body of a county after compliance with the quorum requirements prescribed by section 81.006.
Candidates who wish to run for office in the City of Missouri City, Texas May 9th, 2015 municipal elections may file for a place on the ballot beginning 8 a.m. Wednesday January 28th through 5 p.m. Friday February 27th, 2015.
The four single-member City Council District races take place this May. District A City Council member Yolanda Ford, District B City Council member Don Smith, District C City Council member and Mayor Pro-Tem Robin Elackatt and District D City Council member Floyd Emery are up for re-election.
Yolanda Ford was elected to represent the constituents of District A in 2013, beating incumbent Bobby Marshall in a runoff after none of the three candidates drew 50 +1 percent of the vote.
Don Smith served District B from May 2001 through May 2007 and was appointed in May 2010 to represent District B constituents on an interim basis when former District B council member Cynthia Lenton-Gary failed to best Mayor Allen Owen in the mayoral race. Don continued to win reelection since.
One of the hottest issues this election cycle involves the third relocation of the Houston Community College in Missouri City discussed in this October 2014 BJP article. Residents cite the declining enrollment trend of the HCC System as noted in this Preliminary 2014 TACC report and are skeptical of claims the campus relocation to within 2.5 miles of the existing HCC Stafford campus will actually draw the higher enrollment figures projected for the Sienna campus.
That’s my takeaway from the vote taken today by the Texas House after reading the “reports” about the underhanded way in which Speaker Joe Straus handled the passage of the resolution on rules the House will follow this session. Really? Speaker Straus is being “underhanded” on a rules resolution?
Yesterday House Resolution 4 was filed at 8:51am regarding proposed house rule changes for the 84th legislature. We cannot find any example in Texas history where a legislature has been expected to vote on adopting the house rules with such short notice. This looks to be the earliest it has been brought up in a session, and the shortest amount of time a proposed resolution has been available to the members of the legislature. With the Governor’s farewell speech looming over house at 2pm, and with the house floor already set up with chairs in the center aisle for the day’s festivities, it is ridiculous that we should be expected to discuss and debate such an important aspect of the session under these circumstances. We reached out to house leadership and the author of HR4 last night, and requested a postponement of the resolution in order to insure that every member has had ample time to review and understand all implications of the new house rules. I have not received any valid explanation why this must be done today. As of now, they have not agreed to postpone. This Tuesday, I heard in many speeches from house leadership that it was important for Austin not to operate like Washington DC. The bulldog tactics currently being used to ram this resolution through the process, is exactly what one would see from a Nancy Pelosi lead body in our nation’s capitol. As a member elected to represent the constituents of House District 92, I expect that our abilities as representatives would be valued and respected, and that we be given enough time to make wise decisions on such important matters with statewide implications. I call for the postponement of this resolution immediately.
Paragraphs are your friend, Rep. Stickland.
That started tongues wagging in the anti-Straus crowd. Here are a few examples:
We need to pass this to know what’s in it. Sound familiar?
We have to approve the rules to find out what is in them?
Straus expecting representatives to vote before they’ve had a chance to read and contemplate the implications?
“Deja vu all over again.” Mr. Straus et al have caught the DCE (DC Establishment) virus.
As soon as I heard that Straus was re-appointed as speaker by such a huge margin I got the feeling we were in for some trouble.
Too bad these people didn’t take the time to check the facts. Here are the facts about HR4.
Each member was invited to TWO meetings discussing the rules and changes.
The House Research Organization produced a three and a half page summary of the changes. Each member received a copy of the HRO report.
Nineteen House members were prepared enough for the vote as to offer up amendments to HR4, including Rep. Stickland.
The amended version of HR4 passed 139-0.
It took me less than five minutes to read the three and a half pages of changes provided by the HRO. Click here and see how long it takes you.
Did Rep. Stickland attend the meetings about the rules? If so, what is his beef? If not, perhaps the voters in his district need to ask him how dedicated to the job he is.
Twenty four hours is plenty of time to prepare for a vote on a resolution with such minor changes. Oh wait, according to Empower Texans, the perennial Astroturf anti-Straus website, the changes create an “Orwellian” committee! Seems like twenty four hours was plenty of time for one of their lackeys to write that post.
All the noise, all the blustering, and what do we end up with?
HR4 passed 139-0.
Think about that the next time you see one of the anti-Straus folks ranting on Facebook or Twitter.
UPDATE
This comes in from a reader:
During the rules debate Strickland acknowledged he did not attend the working group meetings but did visit with John Smithee on a number of occasions about the rules.
In other words, Rep. Stickland is just bloviating for the sake of bloviating.
