The Llano Ledger
Newsletter Text V15
This Website Is Full. Starting With The December 25, 2000 Newsletter,
All Future Editions Will Be Posted In The Llano Ledger 2, Found By
Clicking http://maxpages.com/llanoledger2.
******************October 25, 1999******************
Amazing how easily our illustrious officials can distort or ignore
reality. Newly appointed LISD Superintendent Jack Patton has apparently
been crowing about a supposed $150,000 savings to taxpayers due to
direct transfer of funds to two property-poor school districts, -- a la
"Robin Hood". Aren't we lucky? Apparently, Mr. Patton is disingenuous,
or simply doesn't get it. ... The only reason this area has been
declared a property-rich school district is because our properties,
along the lakes' chain from Tow to Horseshoe Bay, have been egregiously
overappraised by Chief Appraiser Gary Eldridge, office cronies at his
beck and call, as well as his immediate predecessors.
More pointedly, why are taxpayer funds being wasted to upgrade the high
school tennis courts? $11,295.00 will be spent to resurface and patch
cracks. Another $3,985.00 will be squandered on a windscreen to be
installed on the chain-link fence. -- We wouldn't want our little
darlings to miss a serve to a wind gust, now would we? Can't you hear a
patronizing and patrician "Tennis, anyone?" All joking aside, the
taxpayers are being looted. ... Think standardized test scores will
improve any? What about functional literacy? Indeed, will LISD
graduates be any more attractive to employers? Incredibly, Patton and
his cronies on the School Board aren't finished yet. -- They intend to
loot the taxpayers further and waste additional funds on backboards and
improved lighting. ... The corpulent cash cow knows no bounds.
In other business, LMHS administrator Ernie Parisi has not yet
responded to the snail-mail request for information made under the
Texas Open Records Act. Interesting the proposed Marble Falls facility
as well as the planned closing of the Community Clinic have not
generated positive community reaction, no? What did LMHS expect? While
both may turn out to be brilliant business moves, there is indeed
something unsettling about a quasi-governmental Llano County entity
doing big business in Burnet County.
The examination of the jail booking records continued this past
week. -- Eight hours so far. While not ready to generate statistics
yet, the preliminary impression has remained the same. ... We have an
enormous amount of prisoners housed briefly on relatively minor
charges. We also have a large number of inmates briefly held on writs,
the nature of which continue to be unclear due to the paucity of
information available in the booking records.
Furthermore, it is highly questionable whether officers even had
probable cause to make at least some of the traffic stops to indeed
check for warrants. After all, many of these prisoners received no
traffic citations. In fairness to the Sheriff, a lot more digging will
have to be done, -- particularly in the judicial records. Sadly, our
officers clearly have little to no respect for the Fourth Amendment and
its probable cause requirements. Consequently and worse yet, innocent
citizens continue to be harassed on our highways.
Interestingly, I was not locked this time in the visitor's area. Also,
for the second week in a row I saw no trustys. ... With the continued
substantive drop in prisoners housed at Kerrville over the last 5
months, it's time for the Commissioners to re-examine the supposed need
for a new facility.
As all are quite aware, there's an election November 2 regarding 17
proposed constitutional amendments. Early voting has already begun and
will continue through October 29. Readers can find substantial
information about these propositions at the website of the Texas
Secretary of State. The URL is http://www.sos.state.tx.us/.
Links to other informative sites such as the League of Women Voters
can be found there. The League provides a useful voters' guide on their
site that is also available in hardcopy upon request. As with all
elections, it is extremely important to vote. Constitutional amendments
are particularly important since they affect our lives for years to
come. As a public service, the 17 propositions will be published here,
and briefly discussed with arguments for and against. For in depth
coverage, readers are again urged to access the aforementioned URL.
Proposition 1: "The constitutional amendment to revise the
provisions for the filling of a vacancy in the office of governor or
lieutenant governor." Since the incumbent is currently running for
President, this amendment could take on immediate significance should
Mr. Bush be elected. Certainty of succession to the office of governor
is an argument for this proposition. Others have argued it is
unnecessary and confusing, requiring additional clarification.
Proposition 2: "The constitutional amendment relating to the making
of advances under a reverse mortgage and payment of a reverse
mortgage." Since our county has a large elderly population, this
proposition is critical to many. It makes changes in current reverse
mortgage law. As most of you know, a reverse mortgage is one type of
home equity loan. Proponents argue it allows the elderly to supplement
their income with homestead equity. Opponents have argued the
proposition doesn't go far enough.
Proposition 3: "The constitutional amendment to eliminate duplicative,
executed, obsolete, archaic, and ineffective provisions of the Texas
Constitution." Proponents argue the Constitution will be easier to use.
Opponents argue it should be rewritten.
Proposition 4: "The constitutional amendment to authorize the
legislature to exempt property owned by institutions engaged primarily
in public charitable functions from ad valorem taxation." Proponents
argue this proposition would provide needed clarification allowing
legitimate charities to engage in certain activities without placing
their tax-exempt status in question. Opponents argue entities not 100%
charitable may receive inappropriate exemptions.
Proposition 5: "The constitutional amendment allowing state
employees to receive compensation for serving as a member of a
governing body of a school district, city, town or other local
governmental district." Proponents argue the qualified candidate pool
for these positions would be increased. Opponents argue this
proposition would allow "double-dipping". Additionally, many of these
secondary positions are full-time jobs, practically speaking, and would
detract from a state employee's state job requirements and duties.
Proposition 6: "The constitutional amendment increasing the maximum
size of an urban homestead to 10 acres, prescribing permissible uses of
urban homesteads, and preventing the overburdening of a homestead."
Proponents argue this proposition reinforces homestead protections, and
increases the number of homeowners eligible for home equity loans.
Opponents argue it benefits mainly the wealthy, and would allow
citizens to further abuse bankruptcy statutes.
Proposition 7: "The constitutional amendment authorizing
garnishment of wages for the enforcement of court-ordered spousal
maintenance." Proponents argue this proposition would lead to less
welfare. Opponents argue it could impose onerous alimony systems as
currently in practice in California and elsewhere.
Proposition 8: "The constitutional amendment to provide that the
adjutant general serves at the pleasure of the governor." Proponents
argue the proposition provides the state's military forces better
leadership. Opponents argue it gives the governor too much power.
Proposition 9: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the
legislature to create a judicial compensation commission." Proponents
argue this would allow judicial salaries to be subject to impartial
review. Opponents argue it would create separation of powers issues.
Proposition 10: "The constitutional amendment to provide that the
commissioner of health and human services serves at the pleasure of the
governor." Proponents argue leadership of these agencies would improve.
Opponents argue it would give the governor too much power.
Proposition 11: "The constitutional amendment permitting a
political subdivision to purchase nonassessable property and casualty
insurance from an authorized mutual insurance company in the same
manner that the political subdivision purchases life, health, and
accident insurance." Proponents argue insurance costs would drop for
local governments. Opponents argue local political subdivisions should
not become "owners" of a private company by buying mutual insurance
company policies.
Proposition 12: "The constitutional amendment to authorize the
legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation leased motor vehicles
not held by the lessee primarily to produce income." Proponents argue
this proposition eliminates double taxation on citizens leasing a
vehicle for personal usage. Currently, sales tax as well as property
tax are paid. Opponents argue this proposition benefits the
vehicle-leasing industry by creating a class of personal property
exempt from ad valorem taxes.
Proposition 13: "The constitutional amendment providing for the
issuance of $400 million in general obligation bonds to finance
educational loans to students." Proponents argue these loans improve
the educational level of the workforce, and increase the number of
industries coming to Texas. Opponents argue state bond debt should not
be increased.
Proposition 14: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the
legislature to provide that a state board, commission, or other agency
shall be governed by a board composed of an odd number of three or more
members." Proponents argue this proposition would clarify the
Constitution and prevent ties when voting. Opponents argue it is
important 1/3 of governing entities be chosen every 2 years to ensure
balance and fairness in appointments.
Proposition 15: "The constitutional amendment permitting spouses to
agree to convert separate property to community property." Proponents
argue this proposition would provide tax relief to those making the
conversion. Opponents argue anyone converting separate property could
be subject to unanticipated financial loss, or be manipulated by a
deceptive spouse.
Proposition 16: "The constitutional amendment to provide that certain
counties shall be divided into a specific number of precincts."
Proponents argue the proposition would improve local decision making
flexibility for the precinct number and costs. Opponents argue current
JP's could be overloaded by the passage of this proposition.
Proposition 17: "The constitutional amendment relating to the
investment of the permanent university fund and the distribution from
the permanent university fund to the available university fund."
Proponents argue fund managers would enjoy more flexibility under this
proposition. Opponents argue this proposition could make funding more
susceptible to stock market volatility.
****************************************
Having spent several hours studying these propositions, there is
clearly an egregious need to write all litigation, legislation,
constitutional amendments, etc. in plain English rather than
"legalese". Our illustrious legislators do us no service with their
apparent insistence on the use of language that is unclear, often
confusing, and certainly obfuscating. Regardless, readers are urged to
carefully study these propositions, and above all vote.
Tim Chorney, Publisher
Tim Chorney, Publisher
P.O. Box 997
Buchanan Dam Tx. 78609
llanoledger@mailcity.com
Page Updated Tue Oct 9, 2001 1:34pm EDT