Sleepless in Midland

Browsing the Texas Open Records rulings

The Texas Attorney General's Open Records rulings are on line, and browsing through them provides an educational and entertaining way to spend a rainy Sunday afternoon.

If a governmental body in Texas receives an Open Records request and wishes to withhold the information then it has ten business days within which to request a ruling from the Attorney General. And given the number of rulings, one is tempted to assume that every Open Records request submitted to any governmental body in Texas gets appealed to the AG for a ruling.

Go to the Texas Atty General's website, plug a key word into the search engine, and browse through the rulings for a study of what is being requested and how the Assistant AG's handled it. The reader doesn't get to see the results of the request but merely the ruling on whether or not the government body needs to supply it and the legal basis of the ruling. What follows is a sampling, but not a treatise. Each letter applies only to that particular request, but hopefully, there's some consistency. Here goes.

August 27, 1997 -- The Midland County District Attorney received a request from ABC News 20/20 for: "any and all copies of documents pertaining to the rape and/or sexual assault of civilians by law enforcement officers in the state of Texas." Link-PDF. The AG ruled that some of the info could be withheld and some couldn't. The addendum to this letter provides a list of they type of information from a criminal report that is available to the public. (Was there a 20/20 show utilizing this information? I must have missed it.)

January 29, 2008 -- The Abilene Assistant City Attorney received a request from the Abilene Reporter-News for the release of information regarding a sexual-assault offense report, and the Texas Assistant Attorney General letter ruling states that information tending to identify the sexual assault victim is private and must be withheld. Link-PDF.

March 27, 2008 -- Abilene again. This request was for the release of information regarding a specific undescribed incident apparently involving a police officer. The Assistant Attorney General noted that Abilene is a civil service city under Chapter 143 of the Local Government Code and distinguished personnel files, which are not subject to disclosure, from civil service files which are. See section 143.089(a) for a description of information required to be put in the civil service file, for example, investigatory material in a case resulting in disciplinary action. However, in this case the AAG ruled that the certain information could be withheld because of a pending criminal investigation but basic information must be released. Link- PDF. (See the next letter about a request for police officer personnel files in a non-civil service city.)

May 12, 2008 -- This letter regards a request for personnel files of two Midland police officers. The AAG relied on Government Code Section 552.022 and stated that the city may not withhold performance evaluations, completed reports, and completed investigations excepting certain personal information considered confidential by law, e.g., medical, illness, handicap, financial and criminal history. But another exception applied to certain information related to litigation pended in the federal court case of Ofelia Cano et. al v. the City of Midland, et al. Link. (That lawsuit alleges damages resulting from the violation of several Constitutional Amendments during a traffic stop and subsequent incarceration.)

September 6, 2007 -- This is in regard to a request from Lulu Corona of the Permian Basin League of United Latin American Citizens to the Midland Police Department for information related to allegations of police brutality or harassment between January 1, 1987 and May 31, 2007. The letter from the AAG specifies that certain information may be withheld, specifically, motor vehicle record information, medical records, information obtained from a polygraph examination, and information in regard to common law privacy. The remaining information must be released. Link. (This was a big news item at the time. Maybe the information would cast a bad light on the police department. On the other hand, maybe the public would look at it and decide the police department is doing a good job. But why has this information never been made public?  See next letter.)

September 11, 2007 -- A Midland Reporter-Telegram reporter directed a request to the City of Midland for the following: (1) complaints filed against officers of the Midland Police Department for any kind of harassment; (2) suspects killed in officer-involved shootings; (3) complaints filed against officers of the department for police brutality; and (4) the number of people who have died while in custody of officers from the department. The AAG replied noting that the City's request to the AG was not made within the time required by Gov't Code § 552.301, and therefore there is a presumption that everything is public information unless there is a compelling reason to withhold it. And in this instance other law made confidential information regarding drivers' licenses and vehicle registration. Everything else was to be released. Link. (Did the MR-T publish this? I don't remember it. Hmmm, I wonder what kind of ruling the AAG would provide in response to an open record request to the city for a copy of the information submitted to the MR-T pursuant to that open record request. Or for that matter, perhaps an open records request could be submitted directly to the Midland Reporter-Telegram. After all, it is the "Official Newspaper" of the city of Midland -- it's codified! See chapter 9 in the City Code.)

July 16, 2001 -- Former tv reporter Melissa Hendrix made a request to the Ector County Sheriff for " for records relating to an internal investigation conducted by the West Texas Narcotics Enforcement Task Force on three of its officers." The AAG noted that a ruling was not sought within the statutory time period, and therefore the information would be subject to release without a compelling reason. In this case the compelling reason was that other law enforcement agencies were investigating, and the release of the information might interfere with the prosecution of a crime. Link.

January 22, 2008 -- The Lubbock Police Department received a request for a red light camera video, and the AAG ruled that it must be released as the Transportation Code did not make it confidential. Link.

June 5, 2007 -- Eddie Garcia of CBS 7 made a request to the Midland Police Department for information regarding "an internal affairs investigation involving a department officer and the inappropriate use of a dashboard video camera." (Could this be that infamous video of the overweight man pushing a car while trying to hold up his pants?) The internal investigation file had already been released, and the issue concerned the video. The AAG noted that there was a legitimate public interest in the video because it was created by a department officer using department resources, and it was the subject of a department investigation and therefore it couldn't be withheld because of common law privacy even though it could be embarrassing to the person in the video.  However, the video showed the license plate number of the vehicle which is protected by other statutes. The MPD lacked the capability to block out the plate number on the video, and therefore the video could not be released. Link. (Pssst. You can see the video on Youtube here and here!)

Had enough? This could go on forever, so I'll turn it over to you to do your own searches. Have fun!

When police kill

It appears as there had been a small wake on the front porch.  The photo was taken on Christmas morning, 2007,  in the front of the house where Alfredo Losoya Vela was shot and killed by police a few days earlier.

[The remainder of this entry was revised on 2/23/2008.]

It was an unfortunate event, and it was sad that Mr. Vela died.  A grand jury heard all of the evidence and ruled that the shooting by the police did not warrant any criminal charge against the police officer.

I was very upset about this shooting originally.  It was unfortunate, and I thought it should have been handled differently.  But it's over.  It's done with.   And now it's time for everyone else to get over it and move on.  If this seems unfair remember that life is unfair.  This is one of those things  that everyone is just going to have to live with.   And anyone who might think that retaliation is the appropriate response is sadly misguided.

Boy, I sure can pick 'em

I was glancing at the Late Show Writers' blog and ran across an entry consisting of a top ten list they had pulled off the internet.  They can't actually write one, you see, because they are on strike.  So they simply searched the net and posted any list that said "top ten."  (Note to Dave Letterman: try looking for talent among non union writers.)

Anyway, to the point.  The list they had pulled up was the Top Ten Insurance Fraud Cases - Fiscal Year 2007, and lo and behold, there was the name of a doc whose services I had used in another city.  You can see his name at the link.  I'm not going to mention it here.  This was a doc who poked a tube where the sun don't shine, so perhaps you can imagine which muscle tightened when I saw this.  Here's what the Texas Department of Insurance said about him (name removed):

______, a former doctor from Houston, developed several schemes to defraud health insurers, including billing for services not rendered, unbundling pharmaceutical drugs and selling them at a substantial profit and up-coding. _____ was convicted in federal court on 44 counts of mail fraud and sentenced to serve 135 months in prison for his part in defrauding health insurers of more than $10 million dollars. Prior to his Texas court appearance, _____ was arrested in Florida for setting fire to a $3.2 million dollar house he purchased for his wife. Then while awaiting trial in a Texas jail, ____ attempted to execute a murder-for-hire plot against the federal prosecutor, FBI agent and wife number six. It was unfortunate for _____ who lost another $250,000 after the government forfeited the money he wired to pay for the murder-for-hire plot.  Authorities also seized in excess of $10 million of ____’s assets; those funds will be used to offset the court ordered restitution of $11 million dollars.

Just bend over and relax.  You won't feel a thing.

The war against the separation of church and state

Don McLeroy is the chairman of the Texas State Board of Education.  And a Texas Freedom Network press release, claims Mr. McLeroy is a strong proponent of the "intelligent design" theory, i.e., creationism.

Here's what purports to be a transcript of a talk Don McLeroy gave at a church in 2005 while he was a TSBOE board member but prior to his 2007 appointment to the chairmanship.  Read the whole thing, but Mr. McLeroy's talk appears to be a part of a continuing program designed to teach members of his church congregation how to argue in favor of intelligent design against adherents of Darwinism.

Here's an excerpt in which he complained about the 2003 biology book selection process:

Back in November 2003, we finished about four or five months of adoption process for the high school biology textbooks in Texas. I was there for all the public testimony.

But I want to tell you all the arguments made by all the intelligent design group, all the creationist intelligent design people, I can guarantee the other side heard exactly nothing. They did not hear one single fact, they were not swayed by one argument. It was just amazing. I mean all the, my fellow board members who were really not even the scientists in the group, they were not impressed by any of this. They said, “Oh well, it’s just two opinions. And there were only the four really conservative, orthodox Christians on the board were the only ones who were willing to stand up to the textbooks and say that they don’t present the weaknesses of evolution. Amazing. ...

Mr. McLeroy was a TSBOE board member at the time that talk was supposed to have been given.  And  we should be grateful that it was recorded and posted so that Texas parents can get a glimpse of what he would have their children learn in Texas schools.  Texas voters should certainly take note.

But now it appears there's a gag on public expressions about creationism and Darwinism by board members.  Former board member Chris Comer, aka Chris Castillo-Comer, has made the news with her very public resignation.  "The Texas Education Agency put Chris Comer on 30 days paid administrative leave in late October, resulting in what she described as a forced resignation."  Via USA Today.  And the Austin American Statesman says this:

Agency officials declined to comment, saying it was a personnel issue.

Comer was put on 30 days paid administrative leave shortly after she forwarded an e-mail in late October announcing a presentation being given by Barbara Forrest, author of "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse," a book that says creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Forrest was also a key witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case concerning the introduction of intelligent design in a Pennsylvania school district. Comer sent the e-mail to several individuals and a few online communities, saying, "FYI."

Agency officials cited the e-mail in a memo recommending her termination. They said forwarding the e-mail not only violated a directive for her not to communicate in writing or otherwise with anyone outside the agency regarding an upcoming science curriculum review, "it directly conflicts with her responsibilities as the Director of Science."

The memo adds, "Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral."

And here we thought creationism and intelligent design were no longer going to be taught in school.  See Kitzmiller v. Dover -- the intelligent design case, infra.  Surely the state of Texas will follow the law.  And as for the gag on board members, wouldn't it be better for the public if we knew what beliefs they brought with them to the table?

But one has to wonder about the tactics.  Ms. Comer has made a splash with her noisy resignation.  However, if Governor Perry is inclined to appoint creationists to education board chairmanships and vacant board positions, then she has just handed a board seat to creationists.

In any event, there are enough Sunday schools around to take care of any religious education parents think their children need.  Let's let the Texas kids learn real science in school.

Finally, here's a sobering chart, which if accurate, says the U.S. ranks 33rd on a ranking of 34 countries on public acceptance of evolution.  Hey, we beat Turkey!

Upcoming, Moreno vs. Ector County Independent School District.

Kitzmiller v. Dover -- the intelligent design case

It started with a couple of school board members in Dover, PA, who had strong beliefs that a supreme being created human and all other life on earth and who were disturbed at the references to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in the biology text books.

The result was the U.S. District Court case of Kitzmiller v. Dover [PDF].  And last week NOVA broadcast an excellent show titled Judgment Day, Intelligent Design on Trial on PBS which was a Cliff's Notes version of the issue of whether "intelligent design" was a scientific theory or simply a religious argument, specifically,  "creationism" in disguise.

Creationism had already been tossed out of public schools by the Supreme Court in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard which held that a Louisiana law prohibiting the teaching of evolution unless accompanied by creationism violated the first amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion").  So the issue in Kitzmiller was merely whether or not the school district was attempting to inject creationism into the school curriculum by the requirement that teachers read a prepared statement to the students.

That statement involved Of Pandas and People which was a book proposed as an alternative to evolution, copies of which were given anonymously to the Dover school.  The school board rejected Pandas as a text book, but they reached a compromise by which science teachers were required to read a statement to the ninth grade biology students.   Read the whole statement in the judge's order in Kitzmiller v. Dover [PDF].  The statement basically instructed students that Darwin's theory was not fact, gaps existed in the Darwin's theory, the Intelligent Design theory was an explanation for the origins of life that differed from Darwin's, and Of Pandas and People would be available in the library for interested students.

Darwin's theory is often diagrammed as a tree of life starting with simple life forms at the base evolving into multiple branches representing different life forms.  Of Pandas and People presented the idea that life was created suddenly and at various times for each species.  So instead of a tree, there are straight, vertical, parallel lines.  Furthermore, living beings are so irreducibly complex that they couldn't possibly have evolved from some lower life form according to the ID theory.  Well, it turns out the book had been around awhile, and evidence presented at the Kitzmiller trial showed that previous versions had used the words "creationism" and "creationists," but after Edwards those words were changed to some variation of "intelligent design."  In fact, there was one incident where the word "creationists" was changed to "cdesign proponentsists."

An example of the irreducible complexity given at trial was the bacterial flagellum which has a very unique motor that spins its little tail giving it propulsion.   It's  such a complex little engine and had so many parts that it couldn't operate if any of the parts were not present.  Therefore, it couldn't have evolved from something else, the ID theory goes.

But wait a minute.  There's another tiny little critter called the yersinia pestis which has a thing similar to that engine but lacks some of the parts.  And in that instance the tail serves as an injection device.  So the effort to disprove Darwin's theory failed.

An expert witness provided an amusing example of how some things aren't as irreducibly complex as they might seem.  The ID proponents sometimes use the mousetrap as an example of a device that couldn't function if any of the parts were missing and analogize this to a living creature that couldn't exist without its parts and thus couldn't have evolved.  So the witness came to court one day with a mousetrap as a tie clasp.  Enough parts were missing that it couldn't possibly serve as a mousetrap.  But as the witness said, it worked perfectly, though inelegantly, as a tie clasp.  Score one more for the Darwinists.

But religious dogma is actually quite flexible, albeit slow to adapt.  Originally religions explained gaps in our knowledge of how things worked.  They explained the unexplainable.  For example, the sun, the tide, the stars, etc., were controlled by the gods.   And as scientific explanations became accepted, religion narrowed its focus to those things that still couldn't be explained.  And at this point in time science cannot explain how life originally began.

How did life begin?  Here's what I would tell the Dover ninth graders: We simply aren't smart enough and don't have enough information to know.  And here's a story to go with it.  Each morning I take dog food out of a big bag and place it in a container for the dog to eat.  The dog can see me do that, and in his own mind he may have some explanation for it.  But he doesn't have the brain power or the information to figure out the manufacturing process, the distribution channel, or the retail transaction.  Humans understand this, but the dog may think I'm some sort of god.  So in this regard we are like dogs.  We simply aren't smart enough, and more to the point, we don't yet know enough to explain how life began.  For the creationists it's obvious, God did it.  For the rest of us it's still an unknown.

Darwin's theory has been tested over and over again and provides a logical explanation for natural phenomena.  And creationism?  Well, to believe that you just have to have faith.  And the judge in Kitzmiller wisely decided to let the kiddies learn science first.

Updated 11/20/07:  Joe Hathaway emailed a link to Experts find jawbone of pre-human great ape in Kenya.  Excerpt:

NAIROBI – Researchers unveiled a 10-million-year-old jaw bone on Tuesday they believe belonged to a new species of great ape that could be the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. ...

The species – somewhere between the size of a female gorilla and a female orangutan – may prove to be the 'missing link', the key step that split the evolutionary chains of humans and other primates, Kenyan scientists said.

'Based on this particular discovery, we can comfortably say we are approaching the point at which we can pin down the so-called missing link,' Frederick Manthi, senior research scientist at the National Museums of Kenya, told reporters.

Once life is discovered on Mars or another planet then we will really be in for an educational treat.

Updated 11/21/07:  In a comment, below, Les reminds us of Moreno vs. ECISD which is the ACLU sponsored case in which several Ector County taxpayers are suing the Ector County Independent School District and the district trustees over the decision by the school district trustees to place a Bible course in the school curriculum.  See the original complaint here (PDF).  Something to keep in mind is that, according to the NOVA program,  the Kitzmiller v. Dover plaintiffs' lawyers were awarded a million dollars in fees for which the Dover school district would be liable.

Thought Crimes 2.0 - Sight Crimes

A Texas Attorney General's news release, picked up by local media, tells us that a paramedic from Seminole has been arrested for something that was on his computer: child pornography images.

We are supposed to assume that by possessing such images the possessor has actually caused harm to some child, the theory being that the possessors created the demand which created the supply.  But still, they seem to be shooting somewhat short of the mark.  Perhaps finding the real villains in the picture is just too difficult, so they are taking the easiest route to try to look good to the public.

But here's a quote from the A.G.'s news release that deserves our attention:

Attorney General Abbott has earned a national reputation for aggressively arresting and prosecuting child predators. Since 2003, the Cyber Crimes Unit and Fugitive Unit have arrested more than 600 sex predators. Prosecutors also have obtained more than 70 child pornography convictions.

They arrested 600 and obtained 70 convictions.  Maybe the other 530 are awaiting trial, but taking the numbers as they were given to us, that's less than a 12% conviction rate.  So is the person identified with name and photo in the aforementioned news release going to be one of the 70 or one of the 530?  Real damage to that individual has already been done, so if he's in the 530 where does he go to get his reputation, life savings, job and family back?  Furthermore, if some dork looking at pictures on his computer is a "predator," what is the person called who actually grabs up a kid and commits some heinous act?   "A really, really, really bad predator?"

Imus getting sued by Rutgers basketball player

It had to happen.  ABC News tells us that Kia Vaughn, one of the Rutger's basketball players Don Imus allegedly slandered, is suing the I-man.  (Via Daily gut.)

It was the bigotry of low expectations that people committed when they assumed that those women were so permanently damaged by an insult that their personal and professional lives could never recover.

But Ms. Vaughn is missing the target.  The women on the basketball team were reportedly ignorant of the whole affair until later.   The original broadcast reached a very small audience -- it was the tree falling in the woods with no one around to see it fall.  Another example of that was the caricature of Don Imus shown as a graphic one afternoon on MSNBC which no one but the MSNBC staff and I saw.  See Mischievous MSNBC staffers not finished with Imus.

It was Mr. Imus' detractors who made his remarks famous.  Republication is the same as the original publication, and  MSNBC, which replayed the segment over and over, would seem to be the softer target.  They've already shown a tendency to cave on racially sensitive issues, and if Ms. Vaughn were to so much as look mean in their direction she could probably get her own tv show.

But if this thing ever goes to trial it will be interesting to hear experts tell us just exactly what those phrases, "nappy headed" and "ho," mean this day and age.  Most of us would be hard pressed to come up with contemporary and accurate definitions.  And here's the tough part, how exactly was Ms. Vaughn damaged by all of this?  Her lawyer is telling us that she was accused of being unchaste so that they can allege libel per se and avoid having to prove actual damages, thus transporting us into a bygone era.  Call a woman "unchaste" and the court will go Victorian on your ass.

Here's the original sin on youtube in which it sounds as if Imus was almost trying to compliment the team by telling viewers how tough they were.  Poor old confused Don Imus.  He came of age before the women's movement, and he's probably been beaten over the head so many times with the issue of women being equal  to men that he was punch drunk with belief.  He forgot how delicate women can be.

The Menchaca business continues

Midland, Texas, City Council meeting 7/16/07:

Mayor Canon:  Uh, before we get into this, uh, I tell you what Wes, why don't we go ahead and make a motion.
Councilman Perry:  I'd like to make a motion that we uh rescind that contract.
Mayor Canon:  Do I hear a second?
Female voice:  Second.
Mayor Canon:  Okay, we have a motion and a second that we rescind the contract, or the uh, actually it's not a contract yet, it's an offer...

Watch the MyWestTexas video of the roughly 18 minute meeting here    .

A contract represents a meeting of the minds.  There's an offer,  there's an acceptance, and consideration changes hands.  Under basic contract law an offer can be withdrawn at anytime prior to acceptance.  And that appears to be what happened.

Former Midland City Manager Mr. Menchaca had been offered what many people believed was an overly generous amount of money to leave the job.  And on July 16, 2007, the City Council met, voted, and rescinded the offer.

News roundup:  City Council votes to withdraw $481,000 settlement offer for city manager; and City manager refutes mayor's claim, wants the city to honor earlier agreement.

The Severance Agreement that was offered to him (download it from Stephanie Sparkman) stated that his resignation would be effective at July 31, 2007, at 5:00 pm., and the agreement would become effective on August 1, 2007, at 5:00 pm.   Why the one day gap, I don't know.  However, the Severance Agreement did contain a provision whereby he stipulated that he had been given at least 21 days to consider it.

Although yesterday's meeting was one day shy of  21 full days, he's had plenty of time to consider it.  And in fact he seems to have made subsequent written demands through his attorney, however, those further demands may have been withdrawn just prior to yesterday's meeting.  Hopefully, Ms. Sparkman will make those letters available at her website for historical purposes.

Mr. Menchaca is probably not trying to make excuses for why he didn't accept the offer sooner, but according to the MRT:

Menchaca noted a federal statute designed to protect the rights of employees requires a 21-day waiting period before he could legally sign the city's offer.

Mr. Menchaca is probably reading a little too much into that federal statute.  The Severance Agreement contained a release of any claims he might have had against the city, including a waiver of any claim for age discrimination.  And 29 USC Sec. 626 (f)(1)(F) -- see the Age Discrimination in Employment Act -- requires a minimum of 21 days for someone to consider signing a waiver of any claims he/she might have against an employer for an age discrimination claim.  But, there is nothing in the statute that says or even implies that an employer must keep an offer open for any period of time.  Age discrimination probably wasn't an issue anyway but merely a small piece of the boiler plate language any modern day severance agreement would likey have.

So it boils down to this.  Mr.  Menchaca had ample time within which to accept the offer, but the offer was withdrawn before he got around to accepting it.  So there is no contract.  And there's definitely no meeting of the minds.

El negocio del Menchaca continuo.

Computer repair shops browsing customers' files

[Note:  Don't miss the major update and clarification at the end of this post]

Last week there was a brief news item about a local arrest on kiddie porn charges:

Computer shop tip leads to child porn arrest -- Associated Press

ODESSA, Texas - A tip from a computer repair shop led to the Thursday arrest of an Odessa man on a child pornography charge, police said.

/snip/

Odessa police Sgt. Paul Shepherd said repair workers found images of child pornography on a laptop computer that Hughes brought in for repair.

Source: Star-Telegram.

These type arrests seem to happen ever so often.  And the lesson here is that repair shop employees are browsing through the personal files of their customers' computers.

Now I am definitely not condoning the possession of kiddie porn.  But, I am also not condoning the browsing of someone's computer files.  That's against the law too.  Chapter 33 of the Texas Penal Code contains this:

§ 33.02.  BREACH OF COMPUTER SECURITY.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the owner.

So if a computer owner has any files that he/she wants to keep secure from prying eyes -- tax, financial, personal, etc. -- then it might be a good idea to remove them from the hard drive before taking the computer to the shop, or at the very least, make sure the shop employees know that they do not have the owner's consent to access any of the owner's files.

Major update and clarification! (Added 10/22/2006)
Your attention is directed to the comment from Darrin G. explaining why authorities were called:

As owner of this computer repair facility, I feel it necessary to comment on the circumstances...

Upon powering up the laptop for troubleshooting, the desktop wallpaper was a very young child, completely nude in a suggestive pose. We would not for any reason browse confidential or personal files. I felt a moral obligation to call an investigator.

Hope this answers your questions/concerns.

Thanks for that clarification, Darrin G.  That certainly sheds light on the issue.

Texas Constitutional Amendments - 2005

The Texas Constitution is a monster.  An effort was made to rewrite it during the 70s, but the voters turned it down.  So what we have now is that unwieldy thing with hundreds of amendments.

And this November we are faced with even more proposed amendments.  You can read the Proposed Constitutional Amendments at the Secretary of State's website.  But more importantly, you can also see an Analysis - PDF with pros and cons.

Updated 10/20/05; 5:00 pm:  For more about the effort in the 70's to rewrite the Texas Constitution, see the online Handbook of Texas.  Here's the conclusion:

More than $3 million in appropriations was spent on the convention. After seven months the constitutional convention closed, on July 30, 1974, having failed by three votes (118 for, 62 against, and 1 not voting) to produce a document to submit to the voters. In 1975 the legislature did approve a new constitution in the form of eight amendments approved by the normal amendment process. The Bill of Rights remained unchanged, but the eight amendments went before the voters on November 4, 1975, in a special election. They were all defeated. One legacy of the 1974 constitutional convention was a large body of written material on the Texas constitution.

Ice Picks, no; Corkscrews, yes - Airplane Carry-ons

There probably isn't a comedian alive who hasn't made a joke about nail clippers and TSA inspections.  Of course, airline security against terrorists really shouldn't be a joke.  And the comedians lost some ammo, because it's okay to take nail clippers on a plane.  Yup.  Check out the Transportation Security Administration website.  The list of Permitted and Prohibited Items List in PDF format as of 9-6-2005 seems to show more common sense than the comedians would allow.

Knives and box cutters get the no-no, though.

And there are the civil penalties.  The Civil Sanction Guidelines - PDF says this:

TSA recognizes that most passengers who carry prohibited items do so without any ill intent.  TSA does not impose fines on the vast number of passengers who inadvertently carry prohibited items.  Dealing with any prohibited item, however, adds time to the screening process both for the traveler who brought the item and for other travelers as well.

In other words, they may or may not assess a penalty.  But if they do, it can range from $250 to $10,000.  Oh yeah, the passenger with the pocket knife has to be nice, too.  Among the aggravating factors is the all important attitude of the violator.

New Texas Gun Laws - 2005

The Governor's office makes it so easy.  Here's the online press release listing new gun laws that went into effect 9/1/05.

Jun. 17, 2005 Gov. Perry Signs Bills to Protect Gun Owners' Rights

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today signed legislation aimed at clarifying existing firearm laws, enhancing protections for law-abiding gun owners and reducing barriers for gun ownership.

"The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of every law-abiding citizen of our country," Perry said. "This legislation will clarify existing firearm laws, enhance protections for law abiding gun owners and reduce barriers for gun ownership."

The bills Gov. Perry has signed include:

* House Bill 225 (Driver) which extends the renewal period for a concealed handgun license from four to five years without an increase in renewal fee.  Note: It only applies to licenses obtained new or renewed after 9/1/05.

* House Bill 322 (Hupp) which reduces all fees for a concealed handgun license for military members and veterans by 50 percent and lowers the age from 21 to 18 for members of the military or veterans to obtain a concealed handgun license.

* House Bill 685 (Rose) which exempts military members and veterans from taking the range portion of the concealed handgun licensing process if they had been weapons certified in the military within the past five years prior to application for the license.

* House Bill 1483 (Frost) which will expand methods by which applicants for a concealed handgun license may pay the fees to include personal check, cash, and credit card. Currently only cashiers checks and money orders are accepted.

* House Bill 823 (Keel) which clarifies the current definition of "traveling" as it relates to someone carrying a firearm. Current law is ambiguous and is interpreted differently by courts and law enforcement.   Note:  See Grits for Breakfast and  TSRA for a possible controversy.

* House Bill 1038 (Isett) which reduces the fee for renewal of a canceled handgun permit for senior citizen by 50 percent. The current renewal fee for a senior citizen is $70 for a four-year renewal period and this bill will reduce that fee to $35 for those 60 years of age or older.

All bills become effective Sept. 1, 2005.

(Italicized notes mine.)