A little more amateur government

Abby Rapoport at the the Texas Tribune has a story that illustrates some of the problems with having part-time amateurs running state agencies. In “No Experience Necessary,” Rapoport describes some of the controversies surrounding the State Board of Education’s management of the Permanent School Fund.

The State Board of Education (SBOE) has been facing criticism as some members have rejected the recommendation of staff and experts in putting together curriculum for public school students. In this case the Board is facing scrutiny for putting aside advice from staff in its handling of the Permanent School Fund (PSF). The PSF’s origins go back to 1854 when the new state of Texas set aside $2 million of the $10 million it received from the US for giving up claims to some of the land it had claimed as the Republic of Texas.  The Constitution of 1876 revived the fund and granted the proceeds of the sale of certain public lands to fund.  Since that time monies from the sales and leasing of these public lands have gone into the PSF with the returns on the investment of the funds being made available for use in Texas public schools. The PSF was valued at about $22.6 billion dollars at the end of fiscal 2009.

Tasking the SBOE with management of these funds puts Board members in a challenging position. Of course, the SBOE doesn’t try to directly manage every detail of the fund itself. The Board works with consultants and the staff of the Texas Education Agency. Still, the role of the Board is to supervise these investments. This creates two sets of problems:

1. Asking a set of part-time board members to manage the very different areas of high finance and education curriculum. Would you ask your high school’s principal to manage your principal? Would you ask your stockbroker to decide how the sciences should be taught?
2. Concerns about possible conflicts of interest you might expect when you’ve got that much money on the table.

There is a good case to made for having amateur boards watch over the professional bureaucracies we have in Texas. However, asking citizens to supervise many different functions effectively undermines the ability to supervise any one function. Sometimes, too much supervision results in no supervision. The safety net seems to be stretched a little too far.

So… What are the limits of amateur bureaucracy? Is it better suited for some areas than others.

Railing against federal dollars for political fun and profit

Kate Alexander of the Austin-American Statesman put together a very good story on the politics of spending federal dollars. Currently, we have Democrats controlling federal dollars and Republicans complaining after federal intrusion into state politics. However, the story makes clear that both sides have played this game and that in the 1980s it was Democrats complaining about the strings attached to federal transportation dollars by Ronald Reagan. At the time Texas Senator Chet Edwards railed against federal dollars manipulated by the hands of Republican administration. Now that Democrats are holding the federal dollars, Edwards is complaining much less.

Both parties look hypocritical because they complain about these policies and then turn around and use federal dollars to advance their own agendas. However, it’s not that simple. Consider the dilemma of a conservative Republican freshly elected to Congress in the 1990s. You certainly could always vote in favor of “states rights” and remove any strings from federal dollars. However, what if some of those federal dollars would be spent on abortions? Which is more important to you: protecting the autonomy of state policy or the life of unborn children? What would the voters who elected you favor?

Federal dollars are a constant in state politics. As the story illustrates, federal funds as a share of the Texas budget have been pretty steady over the last decade. Rick Perry is acting as if the role of the federal government has changed dramatically since Obama’s inauguration. However,  the changes are relatively small and reflect a trend found in both Republican and Democratic administrations. The practice of complaining about federal power until federal power is in your own hands goes back to Thomas Jefferson.

We generally label the current status of relation between the federal and state governments as “cooperative federalism.” However, you can certainly make the case that the relationship is much more coercive than cooperative. The folly of the Democrats is denying the pressure the federal dollars put on states to comply. The folly of the Republicans is acting that this is new.

Student don’t relish getting to the section of the course on federalism. However, the sharing of power between federal and state government is (once again) turning into a hot issue in the campaign. As usual, much of the heat disguises reality and lead us away from a productive discussion. As Alexander story make clear, the mixing of federal dollars is important beyond the drama of the current campaign season. Regardless of who is in Washington, we’re going to see federal dollars going into state accounts and voters deserve an intelligent discussion of the tradeoffs.

Failing a pop quiz

Like many Texans, Farouk Shami can not name Texas’ comptroller or attorney general. Admittedly, I’m terrible with names. However, Shami should have been embarrassed when he up blank on the names of both Comptroller Susan Combs and Attorney General Greg Abbott during a meeting with the editorial board of the Austin American-Statesman. According to the Austin-American Statesman, Shami’s campaign pointed out that most Texans can’t name this officials (probably true) and that the meeting with the editorial board was like a police interrogation (probably true–but get used to it). However, most Texans aren’t on the ballot for governor and are not asking to lead the state.

Knowing names is not always the most important thing about politics. However, if you haven’t spent enough time digging through the state’s finances to see Susan Combs’ name or and over again, you’re not doing your homework. Knowing the name is a symptom of a bigger problem. If you haven’t watched the government closely enough to know all the key players–maybe you’re not ready to head the government.

Shami has revealed a weakness. However, Texans have occasionally shown a fondness for political newcomers.

To his credit, Shami isn’t dodging editorial board meetings like Perry.

Accidentally banned

Not the book with "very strong critiques of capitalism and the American system."

The Dallas Morning News has reported that the State Board of Education has (apparently) accidentally removed the wrong book. Apparently, a SBOE member confused Bill Martin Jr. (author of Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? (and several other bear-themed books) with Bill Martin (author of Ethical Marxism: The Categorical Imperative of Liberation). I understand that it’s hard to research every book you want to ban. However, it’s relatively easy to spot the differences between the two and I’m not sure why anyone would think they came from the same author.  Brown Bear weighs in at 32 pages and is richly illustrated by Eric Carle. Ethical Marxism runs 480 pages and doesn’t seem to have any pictures of animals. It took me less than a minute to sort this out.

I have sympathy for the authors in this situation (Bill Martin Jr. passed away a few years ago). There are several Kenneth Colliers and one writes about politics and has a distinctly conspiratorial view of American politics. That’s not me. I occasionally get fan mail for the other Kenneth and now I’m wondering if I’ll end up on someone’s banned list because of his views.

Not a rhyming book about bears, frogs, and other animals.

I’ll leave others to wrangle over the battle between the left and right’s view of political correctness. The broader issue is in government is how our government functions and what the liabilities and advantages of such boards.

Part-time boards like the SBOE are going to make mistakes like this. “Citizen” government means part-time, amateur government. While some voters seem to relish criticizing “experts,” you have to admit that experts wouldn’t confuse these two books.

We’ve also seen conflict of interest and partisanship run wild in the SBOE. This is the dynamic you get when people run under party labels, take campaign funds from special interests, and seek the office to become the political watchdogs for their ideology. By now we’ve learned that the problems can come from members of both parties. When the selection process a partisan battle you’re going to produce a partisan governing process. Does that really benefit anyone?

Should we stop electing the State Board of Education?  One possibility is letting the governor appoint the board. Texans have resisted giving more power to the governor. However, that might be a better option than leaving the choice to an inattentive public in a partisan election.

Expanding the Governor’s Mansion

While Texans are getting ready to watch a debate that may decide who live in the Governor’s Mansion, there’s also a debate on how big the mansion should be.  In an op-ed piece in the Austin American Statesman, Lawerence Oaks and T.R. Fehrenbach (respectively, former executive director and chairman of the THC) rejected the need for an addition:

“We believe the proposed addition not only interrupts the continuum of history that is every Texan’s birthright but is unnecessary to achieve its hazy objective. It should be an honor to be chosen to live in such a grand and historic building that, while it might have some shortcomings, has accommodated every governor of Texas without a monumental change of this scale since its construction in 1856.”

This isn’t the first time an addition to the governor’s mansion has generated controversy. Even before the mansion was completed neighbors complained that the outhouse across from the front gate should be moved to a less visible location. A story in the Austin American Statesman lays out today’s plan and the process behind it.

While the cost of the expansion is small compared to other government spending, the symbolic nature of the Governor’s mansion is much larger. A governor housed in a large mansion doesn’t compliment the idea of small government. It’s hard to call for state agencies to cut their budget by 5% while justifying a 33% increase in space for the Governor.

The process behind the expansion of one of the state’s most visible building is somewhat mysterious. Apparently, the State Preservation Board routinely “approves” projects after they are finished–and they consider this normal because Texas seems to have created a dilemma. The State Preservation Board was created in 1983 to preserve and maintain the Capitol and its grounds. Later, they were given responsibility for the Governor’s Mansion and the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum. Currently, the Board is composed of Governor Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, House Speaker Joe Straus, state Sen. Tommy Williams, State Rep. Charlie Geren, and public member Charlotte Foster of Houston. Ironically, the board has so many important members that scheduling meetings is very difficult. This is creates an almost philosophical paradox: What is the power of a board that is too important to meet?

Governor Perry (the Chair of the Preservation Board), seems anxious to distance himself from the project and has told reporters that he would leave it to the Texas Historical Commission (THC)  to make the right decision. However, the THC (17 members of the public appointed by the Governor) is responsible for approving plans based only on whether it is historically appropriate. Their role is historical preservation and is limited to approving or rejecting a plan submitted to them. That plan is coming from somewhere.

Before 1856, governors shunned the two-story dogtrot that served as Texas’ “President’s House.” Sam Houston refused to live there after the house began pulling apart after a couple of years due to the green wood used to build it and early governors took up lodging in local boarding houses. Since 1856 the mansion has housed governors from Elisha M. Pease to George W. Bush with few complaints.

The Texas Governor's Mansion

There may be ample justification for a two-story, 3,000 square foot expansion of the governor’s mansion beyond its current 9,000 square feet. However, the Governor has to take the lead in making the case. Such an expense would not go unnoticed in a state where legislators are paid $7,200 a year and at a time when many Texans are out of work and losing their homes to foreclosure. Bureaucratic inertia is not going to be enough.

Perry’s distance is odd–even given the nature of the mansion. No one should be more aware of the needs of the governor today and more concerned with the mansion’s future occupants. If Perry doesn’t care enough to speak up why should anyone believe it’s worth their money? It’s clear that Perry doesn’t want to be accused of building a palace as he campaigns for limited government. Still, it is going to be impossible to escape association with the project. Does he think he can blame Obama for this?

——-

UPDATE:  Late in the day on January 15 John Sneed, Executive Director of the State Preservation Board, announced that the expansion plan had been withdrawn.

The health of democracy in Texas

The Texas Tribune continues to show signs of developing into a tremendously valuable resource on Texas politics. Their latest contribution is a data base of candidates of office and some analysis about how much political competition we have in Texas.

In their story Ross Ramsey and Dan Leyendecker report that 89 of the 150 members of the Texas House and 9 of the 16 Texas Senators on the ballot will have no major party competition in the 2010 election. I don’t like limiting a measure of competition to that between parties. I think that facing meaningful competition within party during the primary is another sign of a healthy democracy. There are plenty of places in Texas that are heavily conservative or liberal and a candidate from within the incumbent’s party represents a much more threat than one from another party. Affiliation with a “major” party candidates doesn’t keep you from being a minor candidate.

The cool thing about the Texas Tribune is that they give you the original data if you want to do your own analysis. I counted 47 members of the Texas House facing no competition from other candidates–primary or general election. You can debate over how significant minor party candidates are or how many of those primary election challengers are serious. However, it’s clear that no competitors means no competition and almost one out of three members of the Texas House are not competing.

Another 27 members face only a Libertarian party candidate in the general. While some of my Libertarian friends will not like the implications, but the Libertarian party is neither a major party or serious competition.

So, almost exactly half of the Texas House faces no or minor competition this election. This might make more sense if Texans were happy with their legislature. They’re not, but half of their legislators are waltzing back to Austin on a free pass.

Texans often talk about freedom and democracy. However, it looks like democracy is another case of Texans failing to practice what we preach. While the 2010 election is going to produce some very visible (and very nasty) competition for the governor’s mansion, many other incumbents are going to waltz back into office without competition.

It’s always tempting to blame the politicians and the parties for the lack of competition. However, the truth is that Texas voters are better at complaining about incumbents than supporting challengers.

Greetings from Dallas postcards

A few old postcards from my collection. Neither picture looks like anywhere I’ve ever been in Dallas.

The continuing rural health care problem

The Texas Tribune's map of primary care physicians per county

There are many aspects to the challenges people face with health care. The shortage of health care in rural areas in Texas has been repeatedly discussed but the problem is far from being solved. Emily Ramshaw of the Texas Tribune has done a multi-part series on the health care crisis in rural Texas.  In part 1 of story she points out that 63 Texas counties have no hospitals while 27 counties have no primary care physicians and 16 having only one. [Part 2 of the series looks at emergency care. Part 3 looks at the politics of the solution and part 4 looks at the recruitment of doctors.]

The math is simple. Many areas of the state are losing population while health care is becoming more specialized and expensive. There aren’t enough people in these sparsely populated areas to make a medical practice profitable and to pay for the increasingly expensive technology doctors rely on today. Today, medical care goes to where the people are and the town doctor isn’t going to show up at your front door with his little black bag.

The state has already created some programs to encourage doctors to set up their practices in under-served areas. Legislators from rural areas complain it’s harder to gain more support because  they’re increasingly outnumbered by representatives of urban and suburban areas. However, it would be difficult in any scenario to defend more subsidies for rural health care without running into complaints about socialized medicine.

The rural health care problem is another example of the clash between the traditions of Texas and the state’s future. As much as we relish our rural heritage and the image of the wide-open Texans plains, the wide open spaces of Texas may the worst place to get sick as frontier doctors disappear more quickly than the frontier.

The Cost of Dirt

Dave Montgomery of the Fort-Worth Star Telegram has put together a story on where candidates get the “dirt” on their opponents. Last summer I sat in on a presentation by a couple of firms specializing in “oppo” (opposition research) and was somewhat surprised to find out what a specialized industry it has become.  Firms like Jon Doner & Associates, VR Research, and Stanford Research specialize in providing research into candidates. As the article makes clear, it’s a thriving enterprise.

The opposition research people I’ve heard from adamantly deny that they’re engaged in “dumpster diving” and going through trash cans looking for tidbits that would embarrass a candidate. Even if you don’t have ethical concerns about this kind of snooping, the last thing you want your candidate having to do is defending how they got information. These researchers prefer to go through tax and other public records to see if opponents have paid their taxes, taken trips funded by private interests, or used public funds to pay for personal fun. Sometimes they do take a dive into public records like divorce or other civil proceedings that might be a little too personal for some voters’ tastes. However, most firms claim to stick to the high road and avoid snooping with private detectives.

Many campaigns suggest that one of the first things a campaign does is conduct opposition research on their own candidate. Candidates are surprised to learn which indiscretions can become public and how relatively innocent acts can sound in the hands of a crafty campaign consultant.

It’s not really fair to blame these candidates and oppo research firms for the state of campaigns. However, they only dig up the dirt–voters allow them to make the dirt an issue.

Previewing the 2010 governor’s race

The end of 2009 is a good time to take stock of he 2010 governor’s race which looks a classic Texas political showdown featuring struggle for control of the majority party and a minority party struggling for credibility. Over the last two decades the two parties have swapped roles in this little drama. The names of the parties have changed places but some things have not changed.

At the moment, a lot of people are anxious to declare the race over. This will be big news to those Texans who hadn’t even started looking at the candidates yet. However, numerous “experts” from around the state have decided that they know what voters are going to do. I’m going to give voters a few more weeks. After all, I’m old enough to remember Bill Clements’ surprise victory in 1978 (not that anyone around the Hutchison camp would remember this race) and people telling the Democrats that they shouldn’t even bother to field a presidential candidate in 1992 .

The Republican field

The GOP race has its roots in the 2006 race when Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison decided not to return to Texas to challenge Governor Rick Perry in the Republican primary. KBH offered Perry another undisturbed four years while expecting him to be finished with the governor’s office by 2010. Her early declaration for 2010 made clear that after four years of waiting she was ready to dive in.

There are a lot of restless Republicans in Texas and the struggle for the future of the party will be intense. Many Republicans see the loss of the 2008 presidential election as evidence that the party needs to reach out toward the middle. Others see believe that the party needs to more to the right. The results is that Texas will see a battle for the heart and soul of the GOP. This is going to bring even more attention to the Republican gubernatorial primary.

The polls may not always tell us much about who is going to win the GOP primary. The race is going to be dynamic and turnout will be crucial. It will be hard to predict who is going to show up with the primary. Perry has made a bid to drive a wedge between Kay Bailey Hutchison and the Republican base. Some elements of the base don’t look fondly on Perry’s vision of the Trans Texas Corridor so he will continue to have to work hard to win over many conservatives. The “Tea Party” crowd is neither monolithic or reliably Republican.

Texas Republicans were treated to an early Perry endorsement from Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Palin was sufficiently impressed with her own star power to believe that Texans care about an Alaska governor’s view of Texas to offer up her endorsement a full year in advance. KBH was endorsed by Dick Cheney. That may have given comfort to a few conservatives, but such endorsements are really lost in the very personal battle between KBH and Perry.

Debra Medina may be a factor. I think she’ll be picking up the pieces as Perry and KHB fight. She has three problems: First, everyone’s seems to be competing for the same slice of the GOP. Second, she and her campaign are not as polished as her better-known rivals. Third, she has not been taken seriously by most media. This has to be insulting given the rest of the field. Overall, Medina may have been more consistently conservative and civil than Perry or KBH, but she’s an unknown candidate that has a lot of ground to make up in a race where Perry and KBH are sucking most of the oxygen out of the room.

The Democrats

The Democrat’s chances of winning are slim. They haven’t won state-wide office since 1994. However, the UT/Texas Tribune poll showed Perry leading KBH by 12 points also showed Perry barely leading a generic Democrat. While Perry’s campaign scoffed that their guy does better running against “real people,” the showing reflects a real weakness on Perry’s part that can’t be overlooked.

Bill White’s switch from the US Senate race to the governor’s race was the big news for Democrats this the fall. He immediately become the Democratic frontrunner–not that tough of a chore. He does have a strong base in Houston and he is a smart and hard-working candidate. He knows how to raise money and stay on message. However, covering the basics is not enough for a Texas Democrat now. He’s going to need some way of reaching beyond Democrats state-wide.

Kinky Friedman would have offered up some entertainment while only posing a minor threat. Most Texans had already made up their mind that Kinky wasn’t  serious enough to run the state. Oddly enough, he might have been an asset to the Democrats by (1) getting people to watch the Democratic race and (2) making the other Democrats look more serious by comparison.

Houston hair care executive Farouk Shami (Let the the headline fun begin: “A Candidate to Dye For“) will spend $10 million of his own money and prove that spending doesn’t always win votes. I don’t know much about Shami but I don’t think his style will work with Texas voters. I’ve already seen on-line rants about letting “Muslins” take over Texas. Felix Alvarado is a public school teacher and veteran.

Do the Democrats have a chance of winning? Only if the Republicans become erratic, arrogant, and irrelevant. So… yes. It did not seem possible last summer. Perry’s inherent weakness is that he’s been in office so long. Texans are not comfortable with one person holding power for long.

That covers some of the basics. Now, a little editorializing:

God help us!

KBH tries to make Perry a cartoon

Seriously, what the heck is wrong with politics in this state?

Usually, candidates launch their campaign with excitement, brilliance, and the promise of a new way. Perry and Hutchison are experienced and (had been) been well-liked. Out of the gate… They already act like bitter losers. Is there anything new (except attacks on each other) coming out of these campaigns?

Some of you might remember when Ted Kennedy’s campaign for president fizzled when he seemed unable to give any reason why he wanted to be president. Teddy just seemed to feel that it was his time and he hadn’t thought seriously about why he wanted or deserved the job.  He made Jimmy Carter look positively brilliant for a while in 1980.

Perry and KBH’s campaigns seem to be driven by a four key factors:

1. They don’t like each other.
2. They both feel entitled to the office.
3. They’re not President Obama.
4. They really don’t like each other.

A summary of the Perry-Hutchison debate so far

The sad thing is that both candidates are certainly capable of much better. Both have won state-wide office. Both have demonstrated some real leadership in the past.

Frozen by fear

Both Perry and KBH seem traumatized by the criticism that they received when they went one inch beyond “the base.” They now refuse to say anything that might offend anyone in the base of the party (and this is a base that is easily offended).  His plans were overly ambitious and some of the details weren’t pretty, but I give Perry credit for at least considering a new approach Texas’ transportation problems. The Trans Texas Corridor may have been a too bold and a little careless in some aspects, but it addressed a problem and demonstrated some real vision. Perry looked beyond the next few years and tried to address transportation needs for the coming decades. Now he’s looking only at the 2010 primary and  seems to be hoping that Texans will forget about all about TTC. Senator Hutchison has worked with a variety of people all over Washington (isn’t working with people a good thing for a governor?) and taken on all kinds of problem. Now, faced with some criticism about compromise votes that were too moderate she has retreated into groveling before the GOP base.

Perry does talk about the business climate in Texas. However, he general reverts to attacks on Washington and it will be hard to see what his plan is until he quits blaming Washington for everything. Perry looked especially foolish in the early days of the Obama administration when it was clear to most of us that almost everything he was complaining about in Washington was the product of the Bush administration. Perry needs to show his respect for George W. Bush. He can’t afford Barbara Bush emerging from retirement to give him a lesson in manners.

On the Democratic side, the Democrats aren’t demonstrating any ability to cash in on the Republican’s problems. The constant shuffling of their candidates suggests that they’re more interested in playing for the win than stepping into the roles they’re equipped for. Bill White is undoubtedly the guy to beat and some Democrats are excited by him. However, his  appeal seems limited and many Democrats like him because he’s the best chance to beat Perry. That may fire up the Democrats. It may not fire up independents. Bill White is not as interesting. So far he hasn’t demonstrated any great strengths that will allow him to win the hearts of many Republicans.

Who is to blame?

Blame must always fall on the candidates. However, we shouldn’t overlook the complete failure of the campaign staffs to tell these candidates how silly they look. The campaign offices must be staffed with people who so adore their candidate that they can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t already know why they deserves to be governor. Perry’s campaign has succeeded in making him look like nothing more than an opportunist. KBH’s campaign could best be described as an invisibility cloak–you see the mud splatter on the prissy Malfoy boy’s hair, but you can’t see where it came from (excuse the Harry Potter reference). We enjoy seeing someone with privilege humbled but that doesn’t mean we approve of the mud-slinging.

One general rule of campaigns is that you avoid throwing mud in a three-way race. Perry and KBH should drive Republicans to Medina. Her somewhat understated style might start looking good next to the antics of others and she might look like the  most viable grownup on the ballot. What would conservatives be losing by voting for her? They could wash their hands of Perry/KBH while sticking to their conservative guns. Neither our Governor or Senator has recently shown any leadership that comes from those years of experience they claim. If leading the Texas GOP into the 2010 election only requires spouting conservative rhetoric, why not choose Medina who has been doing that most consistently?

I think that the bad news is that the campaign has brought out the worst in these people. The good news is that they’re unlikely to get worse over the rest of the campaign and whoever wins this race will govern more effectively than they have campaigned.

——-

Update: The Dallas Morning News has summed up the race to come with an article headlined: “Expect low blows, high volume from Perry, Hutchison.” That sounds about right.