lamarcorepublicans.com

Sept. 16, 2011

Lamar County Republicans:

Below (in black font) are the comments and opinions of Dr. Keith Rothra, GOP County Chairman in Gregg County, concerning the 10 proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution. These comments are also posted on the Gregg Co. GOP website.

Please take Keith’s comments at face value, i.e., they are his opinion . They are presented here for your consideration and to give you one man’s view of the proposals. They are not meant to serve as a guideline for your choices when you vote on November 8^th.

John Kruntorad

Chairman

Lamar County Republican Party

Proposition Number 1 (SJR 14)

SJR 14 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to provide the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran with an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the surviving spouse’s residence homestead as long as the surviving spouse has not remarried, the property was the residence homestead of the surviving spouse when the qualifying veteran died, and the property remains the residence homestead of the surviving spouse.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran."
**********************************

Proposition Number 2 (SJR 4)

SJR 4 would amend the constitution to authorize the Texas Water Development Board to issue additional general obligation bonds on a continuing basis for one or more accounts of the Texas Water Development Fund II, with the restriction that the total amount of bonds outstanding at any time does not exceed $6 billion.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $6 billion at any time outstanding.”
***************************************

Proposition Number 3 (SJR 50)

SJR 50 would amend the constitution to authorize the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board or its successors to issue and sell general obligation bonds on a continuing basis for the purpose of financing educational loans for students, subject to certain constitutional restrictions, including a restriction as to the maximum principal amount of bonds outstanding at any one time.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance educational loans to students.”

***********************************************

Proposition Number 4 (HJR 63)
HJR 63 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area within the county, and to pledge increases in ad valorem tax revenues imposed on property in the area by the county for repayment of such bonds or notes. The amendment does not provide independent authority for increasing ad valorem tax rates.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area and to pledge for repayment of the bonds or notes increases in ad valorem taxes imposed by the county on property in the area. The amendment does not provide authority for increasing ad valorem tax rates."

***************************************************

Proposition Number 5 (SJR 26)

SJR 26 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to allow cities and counties to enter into inter-local contracts with other cities and counties without having to assess an ad valorem tax and set aside a specified amount of funds for the payment of costs under the inter-local contract.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to allow cities or counties to enter into inter-local contracts with other cities or counties without the imposition of a tax or the provision of a sinking fund."

********************************************

Proposition Number 6 (HJR 109)

HJR 109 would amend the constitution to increase the amount of principal that is available for withdrawal from the permanent school fund each year and would also clarify certain references to that fund in the constitution. Increased access to the principal of the state public education trust fund would be based upon HJR 109 granting the authority to consider alternative market calculations when determining the amount of principal that is available for distribution to the available school fund. HJR 109 would also provide authority to distribute to the available school fund annual revenue from school fund land or other properties up to $300 million per year.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment clarifying references to the permanent school fund, allowing the General Land Office to distribute revenue from permanent school fund land or other properties to the available school fund to provide additional funding for public education, and providing for an increase in the market value of the permanent school fund for the purpose of allowing increased distributions from the available school fund."
****************************

Proposition Number 7 (SJR 28)

SJR 28 would amend the constitution by adding El Paso County to the list of counties authorized to create conservation and reclamation districts to develop parks and recreational facilities financed by taxes.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities."

*************************************************

Proposition Number 8 (SJR 16)
SJR 16 would amend the constitution by requiring the legislature to provide for taxation of open space land devoted to water stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water-stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity."
***********************************************

Proposition Number 9 (SJR 9)

SJR 9 would amend the constitution to authorize the governor, on the written recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, to grant a pardon, reprieve, or commutation of punishment to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community supervision.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the governor to grant a pardon to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community supervision."

**************************************************

Proposition Number 10 (SJR 37)

SJR 37 would amend the constitution by extending the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain local elected officeholders if they announce candidacy or become candidates for another office from one year to one year and 30 days.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment to change the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain elected county or district officeholders if they become candidates for another office.
***********************************************

On the surface, this seems like a very good idea. As a retired military officer, I am aware of the sacrifices our military have made; not the military member alone, but also their families who maintained the home front.

Under current law, a veteran does qualify for a homestead exemption to property tax. However, when the veteran dies, the exemption dies with him/her. The surviving spouse does not continue to benefit from the exemption. This proposition will extend that exemption protection to the surviving spouse for the rest of his/her life.

The chief drawback to this proposition is that it does not end if the surviving spouse remarries. If the spouse has earned this exemption by maintaining the home while the military member was deployed, should the spouse lose those benefits when they remarry? If the spouse dies, the military member does not lose is/her benefit. Neither should the spouse.
**********************************

This would allow the Texas Water Development Board to issue bonds whenever they feet the need, up to the dollar amount that has been authorized I the past. They will not need further permission to issue bond that will incur greater debt. This could result in an infinite term of debt up to the maximum amount previously allowed.

If the state of Texas needs funds for any of the Texas departments, it is the responsibility of the Texas Legislature to include those needs in the biennial budget. Failure of a department to foresee the need prior to the budget cycle should not be cause to allow indebtedness through bonds that will cost, through interest, even greater amounts.

***********************************************

Similar to Proposition 2 above, this amendment will allow a continuation of an already existing bond limit, but to permit the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THEC) to issue new bonds at the discretion without other approval from the taxpayers who would be obligated by the bonds.

THEC currently offers loans to Texas college students from the proceeds of bonds. These bonds provide the means for higher education for many students who otherwise could not afford college tuition. When the students repay the loans, the repayment is used to repay the bond upon maturity.

This sounds like a reasonable proposition which will promote a well-educated Texas workforce whose higher income will more than return the value of the bonds. However, like the Texas Water Development Board, THEC wants to be able to issue these bonds at their discretion and can potentially keep Texas perennially under the maximum allowable bond debt.

When the economy flattens and the students default on their loans, the taxpayer will be left holding the note on the bonds that financed the loans.

Once again, if the State of Texas wants to provide financial aid to our students, the funds should be made available through the constitutional principal of a balanced budget. The funds should be appropriated in the biennial budget. The students can repay THEC and the taxpayer will not have to pay interest on bonds. THEC budgeting need only be for the amount necessary to replenish the loan fund for another year.
***********************************

This bond measure is not like the others above. This is allowing a local government to make local decisions. The Texas Constitution allows cities and school districts to make these borrowing decisions, but does not accord this authority to the county government. This amendment will correct that omission.

While I am personally opposed to bonds in general, this is a decision that should not be at the state level, but should be left to the voters of the particular county desiring to go that direction. I favor measures that will allow local governments to make local decisions without state or federal interference.

****************************************************.

Current law requires local governments to establish a separate sinking fund if such a contractual agreement extends beyond one year. The law assumes that such a term would necessarily constitute an indebtedness, and therefore requires that 2% of the indebtedness be put aside for the contractual settlement each year.

This amendment allows the counties and cities to enter into long term agreements for local needs without this sinking fund requirement.

Once again, this is empowering local governments to enter into local decisions without state or federal interference.

************************************

The Permanent School Fund (PSF) is funded through several sources, but a primary source is from royalties that the State of Texas receives for their mineral rights on state lands. Other funding comes from leasing state lands. The land is controlled by the General Land Commissioner, but the PSF is managed by the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE).

These funds are placed into a permanent fund that reserves the principle must not be spent, beyond a very small percentage. The income generated from PSF investments are used to bolster the public education budget.

The SBOE manages other assets of the state reserved for education. This amendment will allow the SBOE to add the value of these other assets to the value of the PSF to calculate the percentage that may be used from the PSF principle. This would allow much greater amount to be taken from the PSF principle.

I see this as a shell game perpetrated by the SBOE. This would provide immediate help for the current funding crises facing our schools, but it would deplete the principle of the PSF and deny future budgets the added help from the depleted PSF income. It would be robbing one pocket to fill the other, to the detriment of future education funding.

********************************************************

Once again, this proposition allows local governments to make local decisions without state or federal interference. It is the goal of the Republican ideology of governance at the lowest possible level.

*************************************************

This proposition, and its enabling legislation, creates another tax source or potential loophole. Wetlands, water-stewardship lands, and forest lands can be taxed subject to their estimated production potential. The enabling legislation will create a new branch of government to judge the suitability of land as “water-stewardship” lands.

There is already legislation in place to allow for tax breaks for wetlands and forestlands. This proposition creates a new level of bureaucracy to administer an already existing entity. It is not in keeping with decreasing the bureaucracy.

****************************************

The intent of this proposition is good. The content has problems. There is provision for the Governor to grant pardons to those who have been convicted of a crime. If however, a person is placed on “deferred adjudication,” there is no pardon for the person who successfully completes his probation period and has the charge dropped. Since there is no conviction in a completed deferred adjudication, there is no crime to pardon. However, the person will still have a criminal arrest record for the rest of his/her life.

This will allow the Governor to offer that person a pardon upon recommendation from the Board of Pardons and Paroles. However, it requires the person to wait ten years before he/she can petition for pardon for a crime that they were never convicted of. This leaves ten years of a criminal record that may keep the person from being hired, entering college, etc.

It improves the present situation, but falls short of an ideal goal.
*******************************************************************

The candidate filing deadline to run for public office has been moved forward by one month in order to accommodate mailing absentee ballots to our military members in time to receive them back before the ballot deadline. As a result of this change, the date that a county or district office holder must resign their current office in order to run for a different office would need to be similarly moved back. This proposition would do that.

I am opposed to the whole concept of requiring a candidate to resign their present post if they choose to run for a new one. However, since such a stipulation already exists in the Constitution, and since the filing date has been moved back, this merely adjusts the mandatory resignation date to comply.

*************************************