2015 umw legislative event
DESCRIPTION
The full contents of the binder for the 2015 UMW Legislative Event, January 25-27, 2015.TRANSCRIPT
Texas United Methodist Women’s
Legislative Event
2015
Conference Information
Capitol Information
Advocacy Information
Issues
Homework
Texas United Methodist
Women’sLegislative Event
27th Annual Texas United Methodist Women’s Legislative Event January 25-27, 2015
Holiday Inn Midtown • Austin, Texas
AGENDA Sunday, January 25 .
1:00-1:30pm ORIENTATION Opening Prayer: Betsy Singleton, Rio Texas Conference Texas Impact Staff
1:30-2:45pm REGIONAL BREAKOUTS 3:00-4:00pm WORKSHOPS I • Texas Impact Staff
A. Water: Sam Brannon B. Immigration: Linda Wasserman and Rachel Dodd C. Climate: Yaira Robinson D. Hunger: Kathy Green, Capitol Area Food Bank
4:15-5:15pm WORKSHOPS II • Texas Impact Staff
A. Water: Sam Brannon B. Immigration: Linda Wasserman and Rachel Dodd C. Climate: Yaira Robinson D. Hunger: Kathy Green, Capitol Area Food Bank
6:30-8:30pm DINNER Blessing: Krystal Scott-West, Social Action Coordinator, Texas Conference
Address: Rev. Dr. Cynthia Rigby, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary
9:00-10:00pm YOUNG WOMEN’S RECEPTION
Monday, January 26.
8:30-9:00am PRAISE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Blessing: Rose Watson, Social Action Coordinator, North Texas Conference
9:00-10:00am Education Louis Malfaro, American Federation of Teachers
10:00-10:30am BREAK
10:30-11:30am Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Senator John Whitmire, Texas Senate District 15 Lisa Falkenberg, Houston Chronicle Yannis Banks, Texas NAACP
11:30-11:45 BREAK
11:45-1:00 LUNCH: Voting and Civic Engagement Blessing: Darlene Alfred, Social Action Coordinator, Central Texas Conference Speaker: Joshua Houston, Texas Impact
1:00-2:00pm State Budget and Revenue Dick Lavine and Eva Deluna Castro, Center for Public Policy Priorities
2:00-2:30pm BREAK
2:30-3:30pm Health and Mental Health Dr. Andrew Keller, Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute Sandra Martinez, Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas, Inc. Cover Texas Now! Coalition Partners
3:30-4:30 CONFERENCE CAUCUSES 4:30-6:00pm BREAK 6:00 SILENT AUCTION CLOSES
6:00-7:30pm DINNER Blessing: Mary Helen Garza, Past Social Action Coordinator, Rio Texas Conference Speaker: Bee Moorhead and Beaman Floyd, Texas Impact
7:30pm LOBBY TRAINING
Tuesday, January 27.
7:00-8:15am TRAVEL TO CAPITOL FOR LOBBY VISITS
8:15-8:45am WELCOME Rep. Donna Howard
8:45-11:00am LEGISLATIVE VISITS 11:00am CLOSING SESSION
VISTA Appreciation Ceremony Sending Forth: Cynthia Rives, Chair, Texas UMW Legislative Event Committee
12:00pm OPTIONAL: CAPITOL “BEHIND THE SCENES” TOUR The tour will last about an hour—lunch is on your own when the tour concludes.
2015 Legislative Event Committee
Cynthia Rives Patricia Hutchinson Adrienne Jaramillo Denise Dubois Darlene Alfred Mary Helen Gracia Terry Schoenert Elizabeth Jimenez
Guadalupe Crook Sue Sidney Lois Shaw Lillie Williams Mary Alice Garza Leticia Castaneda Betsy Singleton Susan Harris
Beth Pirtle Rose Watson
Thanks to Our Sponsors! Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas, Inc. • Rose and Bill Watson
SPEAKERS
Rev. Dr. Cynthia Rigby, W.C. Brown Professor of Theology, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Professor Cynthia Rigby joined the faculty of Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary in 1995. An energetic scholar, Dr. Rigby is the author of more than thirty articles and book chapters. She is the author of The Promotion of Social Righteousness (Witherspoon Press, 2010) and is currently completing a book titled Shaping our Faith: A Christian Feminist Theology (Baker Academic, forthcoming). She is co-‐editor (with Beverly Gaventa) of Blessed One:
Protestant Perspectives on Mary (Westminster John Knox Press, 2002) and editor of Power, Powerlessness, and the Divine: New Inquiries in Bible and Theology (Scholars Press, 1997). Dr. Rigby is working on two additional projects, one focused on the doctrines of “sin and salvation” and the other on developing a systematic theology especially for pastors. In 1998 Professor Rigby received her PhD in systematic theology from Princeton Theological Seminary, where she was awarded a doctoral fellowship and the Wildrich Award for Excellence in Homiletics. She earned her MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1989, and her AB, magna cum laude, from Brown University in 1986, where she was received into Phi Beta Kappa. Prior to her appointment to the Austin Seminary faculty in 1995, she was co-‐instructor and visiting lecturer at Princeton Seminary, Princeton University, and New Brunswick Seminary. She served on the ministerial staff of the Community Presbyterian Church of Edison, New Jersey, and the Lawrence Road Presbyterian Church of Lawrenceville, New Jersey. She also spent a year as Pastor of Special Ministries with the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Cagayan d’Oro City, Mindanao. Kathy Green, Senior Director of Advocacy and Public Policy, Capital Area Food Bank of Texas
Kathy Green is Senior Director of Advocacy and Public Policy at the Capital Area Food Bank of Texas (CAFB). In her role at CAFB, Kathy leads the advocacy agenda, and is the primary liaison with elected officials at all levels of government. Prior to her position at the food bank, Kathy was Senior Policy Advisor to Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples. Kathy has worked in governmental affairs for over twenty years as a legislative director, policy analyst, and lobbyist. Additionally, Kathy serves as a member of the Austin/Travis County Sustainable Food Policy Board, the Austin ISD School Health Advisory Council, the Texas PTA Advisory Council, and the Fresh Chefs Society board. She is also a graduate of Leadership Austin. Kathy holds a B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin, and is currently attending Austin Presbyterian Seminary for training as a United Methodist deacon. She and her three children are members of Oak Hill United Methodist Church.
Louis Malfaro, American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Vice President
Louis Malfaro is the secretary-‐treasurer of the Texas AFT. He served as president of Education Austin from 1999-‐2010, and also served as president of the AFT, from 1992-‐1999. Malfaro began working as a bilingual elementary school teacher in 1987. He has served as president of the Austin Central Labor Council (2003-‐2007) and is currently a member of the AFT Teachers program and policy council as well as a member of the AFT organizing committee.
Senator John Whitmire, Texas Senate Senator John Whitmire represents the 15th Senatorial District comprising north Houston and parts of Harris County. He was elected to the Texas Senate in 1982 after serving 10 years in the Texas House of Representatives. With over 30 years of service in the Texas Senate, Senator Whitmire ranks first in seniority and is the "Dean of the Texas Senate." Senator Whitmire serves as Chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and works to bring about needed changes to the adult and juvenile criminal justice systems. He is also a member of the Senate Administration Committee and the Senate Business and Commerce Committee. In
addition, he serves as a member of the Senate Finance Committee where he is committed to finding appropriate solutions for funding the state's many agencies and programs.
Originally from Hillsboro, Texas, Senator Whitmire moved to Houston where he graduated from Waltrip High School. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Houston and attended the Bates College of Law. He was admitted to the Texas State Bar in 1981 and is attorney of counsel to the law firm Locke Lord LLP. Senator Whitmire has two daughters and one grandson. Lisa Falkenberg, Columnist, Houston Chronicle Lisa Falkenberg is the Houston Chronicle’s metro columnist. She writes Wednesdays and Fridays on topics ranging from politics to education to the death penalty. A sixth-‐generation Texan, Lisa is the daughter of a truck driver and a homemaker, born and raised in Seguin, where her interest in reporting was born at the high school newspaper. While studying journalism at the University of Texas, she covered the Texas Legislature for two news bureaus. She joined The Associated Press’ Dallas bureau in 2001, eventually becoming a regional writer covering Dallas and East Texas. She was named Texas AP Writer of the Year in 2004. Falkenberg joined the Houston Chronicle in 2005, first in the Austin bureau, then moving to Houston in 2007 to write the column. She has earned several local and state awards for her column-‐writing, and has been named the Chronicle’s Commentator of the Year. In 2014, Falkenberg was named a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. She lives with her husband and two daughters in the Heights.
Yannis Banks, Legislative Liaison, NAACP Yannis Banks has worked for the Texas NAACP as their Legislative Liaison since 2007. As the Legislative Liaison, Mr. Banks attends meetings & hearings during the Legislative session and advocates for the views of in the African American community on issues like public education, higher education, payday lending, criminal justice, juvenile justice and many more. He is also responsible for the day-‐to-‐day operations of the Texas NAACP which includes managing the website, attending meetings and occasionally speaking for President Bledsoe.
Mr. Banks co-‐hosts two popular radio talk shows: The Forum and The Wakeup Call on KAZI 88.7. He also co-‐hosts two popular music shows: Thank Goodness It’s Funky (TGIF) and The Untapped Show on KAZI 88.7 in Austin, TX. In 2010 he was selected to be chair of the African-‐American Subcommittee for the Travis county Complete Count Committee. It was his job to help ensure that as many African-‐Americans participated in the census as possible.
Dick Lavine, Senior Fiscal Analyst, Center for Public Policy Priorities
Dick Lavine focuses on state and local revenue issues at the Center for Public Policies in Austin. Before coming to the Center in 1994, he was a Senior Researcher at the House Research Organization of the Texas House of Representatives for ten years. He is a Chartered Financial Analyst, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Travis Central Appraisal District, and a member of the Executive Board of AFSCME Texas Retirees, the statewide union local of retired public employees. The Equity Center named him the 2011 Champion for Equity for his work to reform our tax system to ensure it can adequately support public education and other public services. He earned a B.A. in Economics, magna cum laude, from Harvard College in 1969, and a Doctor of Jurisprudence, cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania in 1975.
Eva DeLuna Castro, Senior Fiscal Analyst, Center for Public Policy Priorities
Eva DeLuna Castro joined the Center in 1998. She focuses on state budget issues. Before coming to the Center, she was an Analyst for the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, researching various policy issues related to state revenue and spending. She earned a B.A. in History and Literature, cum laude, from Harvard University in 1988, and a M.A. of Public Affairs from the Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas.
Andrew Keller, PhD, Executive Vice President for Policy and Programs, Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute
Andrew Keller, PhD, is a licensed psychologist with more than 20 years of experience in behavioral health policy. He has particular expertise in health and human services integration, behavioral health financing, managed care systems and purchasing, and implementation of empirically supported practices for adults and children. Andy is a founding partner and senior consultant with TriWest Group, a health systems consulting firm. His work has centered on helping local systems implement evidence-‐based and innovative care, as well as helping local and state governments develop the regulatory and financial framework to support them. Prior to forming TriWest Group, Andy worked in Colorado at the health plan level with a leading Medicaid HMO, and at the provider level with the Mental Health Center of Denver, helping develop care management systems for Denver’s transition to a Medicaid managed care mental health system. Previously, he directed a range of community-‐based programs, including assertive community treatment, adult and child outpatient clinics, school-‐based and early childhood programs, and specialty programs for older adults and Latino communities. Andy is responsible for all behavioral health policy work and all policy deliverables of the Meadows Institute.
Sandra Martinez, Community Affairs & Policy Advisor, Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas (MHM) Sandra joined the Research, Policy, & Planning team at Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas in 2010. Her role is to develop and leverage strategic partnerships and collaborative relationships with stakeholders, community partners, elected officials, and leaders to advance MHM’s healthcare and policy agenda. She works on issues affecting the least served and assists in developing strategies to create healthcare delivery system changes and community and policy initiatives for MHM. Sandra serves as MHM’s policy advisor and primary liaison in developing key public policy and advocacy strategies in the areas of
behavioral health, women’s health, and civic engagement. Sandra received her B.A. in psychology from the University of Texas at Austin and a Master’s degree in Political Science from the University of Texas at San Antonio in Political Science She has worked for over fourteen years in the nonprofit and health and human services sector. Amy Chamberlain, Davis Kaufman LPPC Amy Chamberlain brings more than 10 years of experience with complex policy issues at the state and local levels. Her research, reports and memoranda have been used by policymakers at the local level and in all three branches of state government to inform policy recommendations and plan for how public funds should be allocated. Ms. Chamberlain is also experienced in writing news releases, newsletters, brochures, opinion editorials, talking points and speeches, legislative committee reports, policy position papers, online blogs and other social media content. Her positions in Texas government include Legislative Aide to Senator Rodney Ellis, Senior Researcher for the Texas Judicial Council, Chief of Staff to Representative Jim Pitts, Deputy Assistant to the House Parliamentarian, and most recently, Interim Executive Assistant to Speaker Joe R. Straus. Ms. Chamberlain also spent several years as a Research Analyst with an Austin-‐based consulting firm, where she performed government-‐funded policy research and evaluations relating to public health and transportation. Prior to moving back to her home state of Texas in 1995, Ms. Chamberlain spent two years at a Washington, D.C. think tank developing research and policy recommendations for state elected leaders on the issues of affordable housing, small business, and health care. Ms. Chamberlain received her Bachelor of Science in Journalism from Northwestern University, and her Master of Arts in Public Policy from George Washington University.
1
Texas Impact & Texas Interfaith Center Staff
Bee Moorhead, Executive Director, Texas Impact and Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy
Bee has been director of Texas Impact since 2000, managing every aspect of the organization’s work and answering to a 45-‐member board of directors. The Texas Impact Board is made up of representatives from the state’s many faith communities. Under Bee’s leadership, Texas Impact has moved from fewer than 1,000 members to more than 20,000 members and earned recognition as a national leader in interfaith education and community leadership development. Bee spent
eight years as a senior fiscal policy analyst for former Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, John Sharp. Bee was responsible for the Comptroller’s attention to public policy issues related to health and human services, and she was the chief architect of Family Pathfinders, a unique program linking Texas congregations and civic organizations with families on public assistance. Bee holds a B.A. in Drama from the University of Texas in Austin, and a M.A. of Public Affairs from the Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. Joshua Houston, General Counsel/Director of Government Affairs, Texas Impact
Josh began working with Texas Impact in 2010 where he serves as attorney, performing legislative and regulatory affairs, and is also the in-‐house counsel for Texas Impact’s sister organization, the Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy. After graduating from Texas A&M University with a B.A. in History, Josh received his M.A. of Theological Studies from the Candler School of Theology at Emory University and Doctor of Jurisprudence from the University of Texas School of Law. Before he joined the Texas Impact team, Josh worked in both the 79h and 81st Texas Legislative Sessions. He attends First United Methodist Church in Austin.
Sadia Tirmizi, Membership Director, Texas Impact
Sadia Tirmizi joined Texas Impact as the Membership Director in 2014. She brings with her over twelve years of experience in marketing, fundraising, and nonprofit management, as well as a passion for interfaith work. Sadia received her B.A. in Social Work from the University of Texas, Arlington and a M.A. in Business Administration from the University of Houston at Clear Lake. She is heavily involved with her community and has served on the board of several organizations including Greater
Austin Chapter and Central Texas Musilmaat, a Muslim women’s organization dedicated to community engagement and social justice. Cara Chiodo, Office and Contracts Manager, Texas Impact
Cara Chiodo joined Texas Impact in 2007, and she currently oversees office operations, finances, and grant administration. Cara received her B.A. in World Religious Studies from Loyola University in New Orleans, graduating summa cum laude. Prior to her work with Texas Impact, Cara has worked for many nonprofits including, the Texas Conference of Churches, the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, and the Samaritan Center for Counseling and Pastoral Care.
2
Andrea Earl, Project Director, Community Partner Recruitment Initiative, Texas Impact Andrea joined Texas Impact as an AmericCorps VISTA to assist with the Texas Disaster Recovery Project in April 2010, and currently serves as the Texas Impact Director of the Community Partner Recruitment Initiative. Andrea received her B.A. in Communication Public Relations from Appalachian State University and earned her M.P.A. in Public Administration from Appalachian State University. She has served as
the Research Assistant for the MPA department at Appalachian State, and as a Policy and Advocacy Coordinator for Texas Impact. Scott Atnip, Congregational Outreach Director, Texas Impact Scott Atnip began his work with Texas Impact way back in 2002 as an intern. Since 2013, Scott has served in his current capacity as Congregational Outreach Director to connect the education and advocacy efforts of Texas Impact, the Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy, and the Community Partners Program with people of faith throughout Texas. Scott received his B.A. in Political Science from Sam Houston State University and a M.A. of Public Affairs from the Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. In addition to his work with Texas Impact, Scott is heavily involved in his community and in the United Methodist Church. He was elected as an alternate delegate to General Conference 2012 and has served as a board member for various organization including CASA of Walker County and Walker County Community Development Corporation.
George Oliver, Congregational Outreach Specialist, Texas Impact George Oliver began his work with Texas Impact in 2014 as a Congregational Outreach Specialist. George holds a B.A. in Theater from Sam Houston State University and is a M.A. of Divinity candidate at Andover Newton Theological School in Newton Centre, Massachusetts. He is pursuing ordination in the American Baptist Churches-‐USA, and was the 2012 winner of the Donald A. Wells Preaching Prize. George currently serves in several church capacities including being the Minister of Worship and Arts at Union Baptist Church in Cambridge; and being Founding Director of
Brown University’s Harmonizing Grace Gospel Choir. He also continues to pursue his love of theater as a playwright and director for stage. Linda Wasserman, Congregational Outreach Specialist, Texas Impact Linda Wasserman joined Texas Impact in November 2014 as the Congregational Outreach Specialist for the Rio Grande Valley. In this capacity, Linda recruits faith-‐based organizations to participate in the Community Partners Program, which helps eligible residents apply for Texas benefits. Linda has only recently returned to Texas after spending five years in Monterrey, Mexico as a Catholic pastoral volunteer with Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word. Her work in Mexico centered on a health clinic/community center in an impoverished area of northwest Monterrey. Linda has a M.A. in International Relations from St. Mary’s University in San Antonio and a B.A. in Mass Communications from New Mexico State University. Prior to her work in Mexico, Linda spent thirty years working for the City of San Antonio as well as in television broadcasting. She now resides in McAllen.
3
Yaria A. Robinson, Associate Director, Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy
Yaira Robinson began her work with the Interfaith Center in 2008, and between 2009-‐2012, coordinated Texas Interfaith Power & Light (TXIPL), the environmental program of the Interfaith Center. TXIPL is one of 40 state Interfaith Power and Light programs. Yaira holds a M.A. in Theological Studies from Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. She is a 2012 GreenFaith Fellow, part of a national network of leaders from different faith traditions that are committed to caring for the environment. Yaira has earned four DeRose-‐Hinkhouse awards from the Religion
Communicators Council for materials she's written for the Interfaith Center. She is a Contributing Scholar for State of Formation, an online forum for emerging religious and ethical leaders. In that space, she writes about both her work and her religious journey. Sam Brannon, Outreach and Engagement Specialist, Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy
Sam Brannon joined Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy in July of 2014 as an Outreach and Engagement Specialist. His current project is the Water Captains Program. Sam traveled the world with the U.S. Navy for five years before coming back to his home state of Texas where he attended Texas State University, earning a B.A. in History. After college, Sam felt called to ministry and he graduated from the Lutheran Seminary Program in the Southwest in Austin, Texas in 2005. Sam was ordained a Pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in American in June 2005 and served as a Pastor in several churches both in Oklahoma and Texas before bringing his experiences to the Texas Interfaith Center’s team.
Corinna Whiteaker-‐Lewis, Volunteer Coordinator, Texas Impact
Corinna Whiteaker-‐Lewis joined Texas Impact in March of 2014. In addition to overseeing volunteer activities, Corinna provides administrative support to Texas Impact, the Texas Interfaith Center, and the Community Partner Program Initiative. Before joining Texas Impact, Corinna held the volunteer position of Social Justice Committee Chair with First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin for six years. It was in this role that she first came into contact with the work of Texas Impact and participated in legislative visits in support of Texas Impact’s agenda.
Sean Hennigan, Communications Coordinator, Texas Impact
Sean Hennigan works as the Communications Coordinator for Texas Impact. In this capacity, Sean manages Lege TV, an initiative for encouraging government transparency and accessibility through online video “reporting” and social media engagement. Sean also provides video and audio recording services for numerous Texas Impact events, including advocacy days at the Capitol, educational events, and seven consecutive years of the Methodist Women’s Legislative Event. In addition to audio and video work, Sean also manages Texas Impact’s web presence and provides technical support to staff. Sean received his undergraduate degree in Communications and Religious Studies from Centenary College in 2006 and graduated from the University of Texas in 2011 with a Master of Arts degree in Media Studies.
4
Andy Spaulding, Presbyterian Young Adult Volunteer (YAV), Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy
Andy Spaulding is the Interfaith Center’s newest Young Adult Volunteer (YAV). The YAV program, part of the Presbyterian Church (USA) mission organization, is a one-‐year service opportunity for young adults. Andy is originally from Michigan and graduated from the University of Arkansas with a B.A. in Political Science and Religious Studies. Andy has worked for several nonprofits before coming to the
Interfaith Center, including Re-‐Member, a community outreach initiative on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in southwestern Dakota. Rachel Dodd, Associate Policy Analyst, Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy
Rachel Dodd began her involvement with the Texas Interfaith Center in March of 2014. Her areas of focus with the Interfaith Center since that time primarily deal with family financial security and immigration. Rachel graduated from Austin College with a B.A. in International Relations and a minor in Religious Studies. Since graduating in 2011, Rachel has worked in the nonprofit sector here in Texas and abroad.
Owen Moorhead, Water Captains Intern, Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy
Owen Moorhead is the son of Texas Impact’s fearless leader. He holds a B.S. in Resource & Environmental Studies from Texas State University, and in addition to his work at Texas Impact works for Travis County Transportation and Natural Resources at Mansfield Dam Park. His writing for Texas Impact has been published in the Austin-‐American Statesman, and is responsible for the monthly précis of water-‐related news from around the state.
Beaman Floyd, Contract Lobbyist for Texas Impact
Beaman Floyd is a consultant and lobbyist with more than twenty years of experience in public affairs. He owns his own lobby firm, and has worked on behalf of a variety of clients, among them, property and casualty insurance companies and trade associations, public education associations, parents’ rights groups, local government subdivisions, higher education groups, and religious groups. His activities include legislative strategy and direct lobbying, media relations, grass roots strategy, and academic research. He has been highly involved in several major policy issues in Texas, including property and casualty insurance reform, catastrophe policy, workers’ compensation reform, healthcare, public school finance, and higher education policy. He frequently represents clients in both the print and electronic media, both in Texas and nationally, and is currently working with international officials in emerging democracies to establish ethical lobbying practices. Prior to working in Texas, Mr. Floyd served on the legislative staff of Louisiana House of Representatives with the Legal Division. Floyd is a veteran of the United States Army where he served as an infantryman. Mr. Floyd earned his B.A. with a double major in History and Russian Studies from Louisiana State University. He completed the Honors Core Interdisciplinary Studies Program and was selected to participate in the History Doctoral Proseminar Program sponsored by the American Association of Colleges. He earned an M.A. in Theological Studies with an emphasis in Ethics and Church History at the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.
Was this your first time to attend Legislative Event? Are you a UMW officer? Is so: Conference District Local How satisfied were you with:
Very “Okay” Not Satisfied Satisfied
Registration 5 4 3 2 1 Food 5 4 3 2 1 Accommodations 5 4 3 2 1 Visit to the Capitol 5 4 3 2 1 Issue Speakers 5 4 3 2 1 Overall 5 4 3 2 1
I had a moment of epiphany/”ah-‐ha” moment when: What will you be able to share in your UMW work? What was most helpful to you? What was most satisfying? For those who have come in previous years, how does the Holiday Inn compare to the Double Tree (where the event was held last year) as a meeting space? Any additional comments about the change? What else would you like to hear/do/see at next year’s event? Any other comments (please use back)
27th Annual Legislative Event Texas United Methodist Women
Evaluation
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE/EVENT GUIDELINES Sponsoring Conferences are those who contribute to events
PROGRAM
1. Texas Impact will be responsible for current action speakers involved in governmental affairs. (Committee will suggest areas which they wish to pursue).
2. Planning Team will be responsible for all speakers pertaining to matters of United Methodist Women’s issues.
3. Morning Praise and meal blessings will be the responsibility of a team member, requesting different conferences to participate.
PLANNING TEAM
1. Legislative Event Chairperson will be elected at the January Planning Team meeting to serve no more than two years, consecutively.
2. Members will consist of Legislative Event Chairperson, Social Action Coordinator from each conference, President of the Southwest Texas Conference, Treasurer of Southwest Texas Conference, Registrar, and Local Arrangements Chairperson.
3. Southwest Texas Conference Secretary of Program Resources has the responsibility of ordering and selling literature at the Legislative Event and attending the August meeting.
4. Committee meeting dates: April, early August, and early January
5. Arrangements for the hotel, food, etc. will be the responsibility of the event chairperson with the assistance of the entire committee.
6. Legislative Event Chairperson is responsible for person(s) to prepare and serve breakfast on Tuesday morning of odd numbered years, when the legislature is in session (if committee decides to have a Legislative Breakfast).
REGISTRAR
1. Registrar is responsible for registration of United Methodist Women and will send out confirmation letters. She shall send money to treasurer as received.
2. Registrar will contact the Austin District President for airport shuttle on opening day of meeting.
3. Registrar will ask two or three persons to assist in registration at the meeting if needed.
FINANCIAL
1. Expenses shall be paid for guest speakers, as required, including accommodations, food, and travel (reimbursed at the Rio Texas United Methodist Women rate).
2. Treasurer will keep complete records and supply written reports to all team members.
3. Registration fee to the Event will be paid for the Legislative Event chairperson, Rio Texas Conference president, SWT Conference treasurer, local arrangements chairperson, and Rio Texas Conference secretary of program resources. These persons listed shall pay the administration fee to the Event.
4. Conferences are responsible for expenses of their Social Action Coordinators or representatives to committee meetings and the Event.
5. The Legislative Event registration fee will be determined annually.
6. Sponsoring Conferences will contribute $30.00 per district annually.
7. The membership fee of the Event Chairperson to the Texas Impact Board of Directors will be paid from the Legislative Event Planning Team funds.
8. An annual contribution shall be made to Texas Impact to help defray expenses incurred in coordinating the Event. This amount will be determined annually by the Planning Team.
Revised August 9, 2000 Revised August 16, 2005
United Methodist Women’s Legislative Agenda 2014
There are more than 100,000 members of United Methodist Women in Texas. At their annual legislative conference, UMW members from all seven of Texas’ United Methodist Annual
Conferences adopt a consensus legislative agenda reflecting their priority legislative concerns. United Methodist Women was established in 1865. United Methodist Women place particular
emphasis on issues impacting the well-being of women, children and youth.
For more information about United Methodist Women in Texas or this legislative agenda, contact any of the following UMW Social Action Coordinators:
Darlene Alfred 254-624-4685 [email protected] Lois Shaw 830-257-3980 [email protected] Denise DuBois 979-575-4098 [email protected] Mary Alice Garza 972-596-3534 [email protected] Rose Watson 940-482-6744 [email protected] Beth Weems Pirtle 972-243-7353 [email protected] Betty Smith 505-881-7891 [email protected] Patricia Hutchinson 806-857-3463 [email protected] Mary Helen Gracia 210-764-0522
Texas United Methodist Women affirm the dedication of every member of the Texas Legislature. We thank you for your work in the 83rd legislative session, in particular your work in limiting statewide assessments and exploring alternatives to testing, funding a comprehensive state water plan and your progress on many fronts to improve treatment and outcomes in our state’s criminal justice and mental health systems. We particularly look forward to thanking you for your action in the 84th legislative session on the following issues, which we believe are crucial to our state’s wellbeing:
Medicaid The Legislature should extend Medicaid to adults under 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. We encourage legislators to recognize the financial benefits that would accrue to local governments, medical providers, the Texas economy and Texas taxpayers.
Education The Legislature should affirm its constitutional obligation to provide high quality public education for the benefit of all of its residents. Critical legislative actions include restoring cuts, funding enrollment growth, and increasing teacher compensation to competitive levels. We strongly reaffirm our historic opposition to any movement toward allowing the flow of public money to private schools.
Criminal Justice and Mental Health We call on legislators to guarantee humane treatment for all Texans subject to the state’s criminal justice system, especially the most vulnerable, including women, children and youth. We strongly urge the Legislature to increase access to mental health services, substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, educational opportunities and re-entry programs. We believe sentences should be fair for all regardless of race, gender or ability to pay. We believe legislators have a special duty to prevent wrongful convictions and to protect those in the criminal justice system with mental health concerns and individuals facing execution.
Water We support lawmakers as they continue to address Texas’ long-term water needs. We urge lawmakers to create structures that ensure all stakeholders are included in discussions around the primary principle of fair access to clean water for all Texans. We acknowledge the interaction between water and energy resources and encourage lawmakers to plan comprehensively for our water and energy future.
Predatory Lending The Legislature should build on the foundation of sensible regulation of payday and auto-title lending established in 2011, and eliminate the cycle of debt through strategies such as limiting rollovers, regulating fees and allowing partial payments.
United Methodist Women’s Legislative Agenda 2013
There are more than 100,000 members of United Methodist Women in Texas. At their annual legislative conference, UMW members from all seven of Texas’ United Methodist Annual
Conferences adopt a consensus legislative agenda reflecting their priority legislative concerns. United Methodist Women was established in 1865. United Methodist Women place particular
emphasis on issues impacting the well-being of women, children and youth.
For more information about United Methodist Women in Texas or this legislative agenda, contact any of the following UMW Social Action Coordinators:
Lori Stafford 214-649-2233 [email protected] Judy Wiggins 806-895-4648 [email protected] Frances Curry 432-940-4587 [email protected] Lois Shaw 830-257-3980 [email protected] Denise DuBois 979-575-4098 [email protected] Mary Helen Gracia 210-764-0522 Darlene Alfred 254-624-4685 [email protected] Rose Watson 940-482-6744 [email protected] Beth Weems Pirtle 972-243-7353 [email protected] Mary Alice Garza 972-596-3534 [email protected]
Texas United Methodist Women affirm the dedication of every member of the Texas Legislature. We thank you for your service to our state and we look forward to thanking you for your good work in the 83rd legislative session. We particularly look forward to thanking you for your action on the following issues, which we believe are crucial to our state’s wellbeing:
Water We support lawmakers as they begin to address Texas’ long-term water needs. We urge lawmakers to prioritize our state’s water infrastructure investments around the primary principle of fair access to water for all Texans. We support current proposals to begin funding the water plan. We acknowledge the interaction between water and energy resources and encourage lawmakers to plan comprehensively for our water and energy future. Education The Legislature should affirm its constitutional obligation to provide high quality public education for the benefit all of its citizens. Critical legislative actions include restoring cuts, funding enrollment growth, not allowing the flow of public money to private schools, limiting statewide assessments and exploring alternatives to testing.
Predatory Lending The Legislature should build on the foundation of sensible regulation of payday and auto-title lending established in 2011, and eliminate the cycle of debt through strategies such as limiting rollovers, regulating fees and allowing partial payments.
Medicaid The Legislature should extend Medicaid to adults under 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Criminal Justice and Mental Health We call on legislators to guarantee humane treatment for all Texans caught up in the state’s criminal justice system, especially the most vulnerable, including women, children and youth. We strongly urge the Legislature to increase access to mental health, substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, and re-entry programs for offenders. We are concerned about disproportionately punitive treatment including prolonged administrative segregation, and we urge legislators to reward prudence and wisdom in ticketing, sentencing and incarceration of juveniles.
!
!
!
THE BIG PINK BUILDING Getting Around at the State Capitol
!
!
!
!
Texas Impact People of faith working for justice
John ReaganBuilding
Tom
C. C
lark
Build
ing
Supr
eme
Cou
rt B
ldg.
T.W.C.Building
T.W.C.Annex
Sam HoustonBuilding
Stat
e Li
brar
y&
Arc
hive
sSt
ate
Boar
d of
Insu
ranc
e Bu
ildin
g
CapitolVisitors Center
CAPITOL
Bra
zos
Stre
et
San
Jaci
nto
Stre
et
Bra
zos
Stre
et
Col
orad
o St
reet
Col
orad
o St
reet
12th Street
11th Street
13th Street
14th Street
15th Street
14th Street
2
1
5
10
6
7
8
9
1413
1211
1615
17
18
34
H
H
H
H
H H
H
H H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
HH
H
1. Hood's Brigade 2. Heroes of the Alamo 3. Confederate Soldiers 4. Volunteer Firemen 5. Terry's Texas Rangers
6. Texas Cowboy 7. “The Hiker” 8. 36th Infantry 9. Ten Commandments 10. Tribute to Texas Children
11. Texas Pioneer Woman 12. World War II Veterans 13. Statue of Liberty Replica 14. Pearl Harbor Veterans 15. Korean War Veterans
16. Soldiers of World War I 17. Disabled Veterans 18. Texas Peace Officers
NOTE: The diagram above has been simplified for clarity anddoes not accurately reflect all details of the actual grounds.
NORTHCAPITOL MONUMENT GUIDE
= Historical MarkerH
SPB:dry:GuideMonuments.cdr:09/12/07
CAPITOL
SHB
SIBCAPITOLVISITORSCENTER
GOVERNOR’SMANSION
SIBX
TWCX
TRS
JERDCGGM
EOT
TJR
LIB
CV
C
SCBTCC
JHR TWC
REJ
BOB BULLOCK
TWCX
PDB
TLC
CDO
THC
THC THC
TH
C
THC
WPC
SFA WBT
ERSTexasStateHistoryMuseum
CSB
LBJ
CC
C
VISITORPARKINGGARAGE
WL
ER
AL
CR
EE
K
18th Street
17th Street
15th Street
14th Street
15th Street
16th Street
11th Street
12th Street
13th Street
14th Street
10th Street
Lava
caSt
reet
Lava
caSt
reet
Col
orad
oSt
reet
Col
orad
oSt
reet
Col
orad
oSt
reet
Con
gres
sA
venu
eC
ongr
ess
Ave
nue
Braz
osSt
reet
Braz
osSt
reet
Braz
osSt
reet
Braz
osSt
reet
San
Jaci
nto
Stre
etSa
nJa
cint
oSt
reet
Trin
itySt
reet
Trin
itySt
reet
12th Street
11th Street
10th Street
13th Street
Martin Luther King Blvd.
Waterloo Park
CentennialPark
NORTH
Bus Loading
& Parking
To Hwy. IH-35
To Hwy. IH-35
CAPITOLCOMPLEX
EXTBus
ParkingONLY
Bus Loading
ONLY
Bus Loading
ONLY
CapitolLoading
Dock
JHRLBJLIB
PDBREJ
John H. ReaganLyndon B. JohnsonLorenzo de Zavala State Archives and LibraryPrice Daniel Sr. BuildingRobert E. Johnson
TCCTJRTRSTHC
TSHMTWC
TWCXTLC
WBTWPC
Tom C. ClarkThomas Jefferson RuskTeacher Retirement SystemTexas Historical CommissionBob Bullock Texas State History MuseumTexas Workforce CommissionTexas Workforce Commission AnnexTexas Law CenterWIlliam B. TravisWilliam P. Clements, Jr.
CCCCVC
CDOCSB
DCGEOTERSEXTGMJER
Capitol Complex Child Care CenterCapitol Visitors CenterCapitol District OfficeCentral Services BuildingDewitt C. GreerErnest O. ThompsonEmployee Retirement SystemCapitol Extension (Underground)Governor's MansionJames Earl Rudder
SCBSFASHBSIB
SIBX
Supreme Court BuildingStephen F. AustinSam Houston BuildingState Insurance BuildingState Insurance Building Annex
No VisitorAccess on
Capitol Drives
CAPITOL COMPLEX
© 2002, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD Revised 09-19-02
To Texas State Cemetery
CAPITOL
SAM HOUSTONBUILDING
STA
TE IN
SURA
NC
EBU
ILD
ING
LIBR
ARY
&
ARC
HIV
ES
CAPITOLVISITORSCENTER
SUPR
EME
CO
URT
BUIL
DIN
GTOM C.CLARKBLDG.
PRICEDANIELS
BUILDING
JOHN REAGANBUILDING
CAPITOLPOLICE
SECURITY
T.W.C.BUILDING
TEXASLAW
CENTER
Capitol Station Bus Stop
VisitorParkingGarage
15th Street
14th Street14th
11th Street
Col
orad
oSt
.
Col
orad
oSt
reet
Con
gres
sA
ve.
Braz
osSt
reet
San
Jaci
nto
San
Jaci
nto
St.
12th Street12th
13th Street13th
Loading Dock Entrance
CURB RAMPS
PRIMARYACCESSIBLE ROUTES
Information
AccessibleEntrance
NorthLobby
AccessibleEntrance
T.W.C.ANNEX
➞
capitol accessibility guide
© 2002, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD Revised 04-10-03
NORTH
All Capitol, Capitol Extension and Capitol Visitors Center facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities. For special assistance, contact the Capitol Information and Guide Service at 463-0063, or visit their office in the Capitol, First Floor, South Wing. Watch for oval-shaped signs on the Capitol Grounds which indicateaccessible routes. Vehicles properly displaying an official disabled parking placard or disabled parking license plate may park at any State of Texas controlled parking meter in the Capitol Complex for free at any time. Accessible parking is also available in the Capitol Visitors Parking Garage.
E
GE.4
GS.6GW.15
GW.11
GW.12
GW.16
GW
.18
GW
.6
GW
.2
GW
.17
GW.7GW.5
GW
.4
GW
.8
GS
.5
GS.2GS.3
GS.
8
GE.5
GN.8
GN.12GN.11
GN.9
GN.7
GN.10
GE.7
1E.13
1E.9
1E.12
1E.51E.3
1N.5
1N.91N.7 1N.10
1N.8
1N.12
GN
GW GE
GS
1W 1E
1E.41E.2
1E.6
1E.8
1S.1
1S.3
1S.2
1W.3
1W.14
1W.10 1W.6 1W.4
1W.2
1W.51W.91W.11
1W.15
1E.1
51E
.14
GE.11
GE.6GE.10
GE.12
GE.17
AGRICULTURALMUSEUM
Ground Floor(Basement)
First Floor
SOUTH STEPS
WESTLOBBY
Extension Access
ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE
ACCESSIBILITY
E
E E
E
All facilities are accessibleto persons with disabilities.
For assistance call 463-0063.
INFORMATION & TOURSMonday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm
Saturday 9:30 am - 3:30 pmSunday, Noon - 3:30 pm
Call 463-0063 for more information
EE
EE
North Wing Elevatorsaccess all office floors
of the Capitol andCapitol Extension.
North Wing Elevatorsaccess all office floors
of the Capitol andCapitol Extension.
E
NORTHLOBBY
SOUTHLOBBY
EASTLOBBY
ROTUNDA
ToursBegin Here
GROUNDFLOOR
ROTUNDA
CAPITOL BUILDING GUIDEfloors 1 & ground
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
2E.1
32E
.13
2E.142E.14
2E.162E.16
2E.2
02E
.20
2E.2
22E
.22
2E.2
32E
.23
4N.10
3E.6
3E.8
3E.10
3N.43N.3
3N.5 3N.6
3W.3
3W.1
3S.2
3E.4
3E.3
3E.2
3S.6 3S.5
3S.3
3W.5
3W.7
3W.9
3W.11
3W.1
5
3W.1
7
3E.1
2
3E.1
8
3E.1
6
4N.44N.3
4S.6 4S.5
4S.3
4E.2
4W.1
4S.4
4S.2
4N.9
4N.7 4N.84N.5 4N.6
2E.7
2E.7
2E.2
2E.2
2S.
2S.22
2W2W.7
2W2W.9.9
2W2W.1
3.1
3
2W2W.1
5.1
5
2W.192W.192W2W
.6
2W2W.2.2
9
2W2W.2.2
7
2W2W.2.2
5
2S.
2S.44
2S.
2S.66
2S.2S.11
2E.4
2E.4
2E.6
2E.6
2E.1
02E
.10
2E.9
2E.9
3N
3S
4N
4S
2W2W 2E2E
2S2S
2 N
3W 3E
LEGISLATIVEREFERENCE
LIBRARY2N.3
GOVERNOR'S PUBLICRECEPTION ROOM
SENATE CHAMBER
2E.8
HOUSECHAMBER
2W.5
HOUSECHAMBER
2W.5
Second Floor
Third Floor
Fourth Floor
North Wing Elevatorsaccess all floors
of the Capitol andCapitol Extension
Capitol Extension Access: Take the North Wing elevators to Floor E1 or E2 of theunderground Capitol Extension. Please visit the Capitol Giftshop on Floor E1 for Texasand Capitol mementos and books, as well as mints, medicines, and other sundries.Also located on level E1 are a public cafeteria, an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) and vending machines.
North Wing Elevatorsaccess all floors
of the Capitol andCapitol Extension
HOUSEGALLERY
3W.2
SENATEGALLERY
3E.5
INFORMATION & TOURSMonday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm
Saturday, 9:30 am - 3:30 pmSunday, Noon - 3:30 pm
Call 463-0063 for more information
ACCESSIBILITYAll facilities are accessible
to persons with disabilities.For assistance call 463-0063.
CAPITOL BUILDING GUIDEfloors 2, 3, & 4
SUPREME COURTBUILDINGTUNNEL
JOHN H. REAGANBUILDING TUNNEL
TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION andROBERT E. JOHNSON BUILDING TUNNEL
SAM HOUSTONBUILDING TUNNEL
Engrossing & Enrolling g
CAFETERIA
GIF
TSH
OP
GIF
TSH
OP
Public Welcome!
Enter
PressCorps
HouseMail
SenateMail
LOADING DOCK
TO 13TH ST. & COLORADO ST.
AUDITORIUMSEALCOURT
WM
CE
NTRAL COURT
Open-air R otunda
204
406
306
208
410 402
310
504
302
216
418
318
508
220
206
E1.002
E1.210
215
217
214213
219
003
006
E1.020
E1.024
E1.034
015
E1.012
E1.016
E1.028
E1.036
038
E1.010
E1.014
E1.026
E1.030
032
E1.018
E1.022
011
E1.008Office of the
First Lady&
Governor'sAppointments
102102A
424
324
512 606
702
802
904
704
804
712
812
716710
810
610
320
420
312
412
304
404
212
414
314
506
218
422
322
510 608
708
808
714
814
706
806
E1.908
316
416
308
408
E1.004
HouseAppropriations
SenateFinance
LBB
Senators:E1.600’s through E1.800’s
State Representatives:E1.200’s through E1.500’s
E1.200's
E1.900's
E1.300's E1.800's
E1.400's E1.700's
E1.500's E1.600's
BabyChangingStations
E E
EE
E
E E
E
LIGHT COURT
LIGHT COURT
CE
NTR
AL
GA
LLE
RY
LIGHT COURT
LIGHT COURT
LIGHT COURT
LIGHT COURT
Capitol Extension GuideFloor E1
ExtensionFirst Floor (E1)
ELEVATORS TO CAPITOL NORTH WING
SEALCOURT
ELEVATORS TO CAPITOL NORTH WING
CEN
TRAL COURT
Open -air Rotunda
122
114
160
138
132136
206
154
106
176
178
174
E2.002
E2.180
E2.028
E2.012
E2.036
E2.016
E2.026
E2.010
E2.030
E2.014
E2.022 E2.024
E2.018 E2.020
E2.1018
E2.1016
E2.1014
E2.1012
E2.1010
E2.1006E2.1002
10081001
172166
170
168
164
116 108 102124
118126
128
130
214
422 706
322 802
510 602
210 904
414 714
314 810
506 606
812312
712412
820304
720404
804320
704420
204 908
406 722
306 818
502 610
152144
150146140
148147
156
212 902
418 710
318 806
508 604
208 906 910
410 718402 702
310 814
504 608
816308
716408
808316
708416
302 822
134
110
162
202
158
120 112 104
HouseCommitteeStaff Suites
E2.100'sE2.202 & E2.206
State Representatives OfficesE2.200 through E2.900's
E2.200's
E2.100's
E2.1000's
E2.300's E2.800's
E2.900's
E2.400's E2.700's
E2.500's E2.600's
E E
E E
E E
LIGHT COURT
LIGHT COURT
LIGHT COURT
LIGHT COURT
LIGHT COURT
LIGHT COURT
CEN
TRA
L G
ALL
ERY
142142
ExtensionSecond Floor (E2)
All facilities are accessibleto persons with disabilities.For assistance call 463-0063.
Capitol Extension GuideFloor E2
Legislative Conference
Center Accessibility
CAPITOL COMPLEX OFFICE & PHONE NUMBERS - 84th LEGISLATURE
TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
P.O. Box 2910 Austin, TX 78768-2910
Member Phone No.Room No. Member Room No. Phone No.
463-0744Allen, Alma E1.506
0408Alonzo, Roberto 1N.12
0732Alvarado, Carol E2.808
0746Anchia, Rafael 4N.6
0135Anderson, Charles "Doc" GW.8
0641Anderson, Rodney E1.424
0508Ashby, Trent E2.414
0684Aycock, Jimmie Don E2.708
0650Bell, Jr., Cecil E2.710
0622Blanco, César José E1.218
0727Bohac, Dwayne GS.6
0564Bonnen, Dennis 1W.6
0729Bonnen, Greg E2.504
0464Burkett, Cindy E2.322
0538Burns, DeWayne E2.804
0542Burrows, Dustin E2.820
0486Button, Angie Chen E2.910
0426Canales, Terry E2.816
0690Capriglione, Giovanni E2.714
0592Clardy, Travis E2.314
0524Coleman, Garnet 4N.10
0716Collier, Nicole E2.508
0730Cook, Byron GN.11
0500Craddick, Tom 1W.9
0582Crownover, Myra 1N.10
0696Dale, Tony E2.904
0331Darby, Drew E1.308
0389Davis, Sarah E2.310
0598Davis, Yvonne 4N.9
0662Deshotel, Joe GW.12
0532District 123, P.O. Box 2
0600District 13, P.O. Box 2
0506Dukes, Dawnna 1W.2
0510Dutton, Jr., Harold 3N.5
0722Elkins, Gary 4N.3
0502Faircloth, Wayne E2.812
0694Fallon, Pat E2.604
0714Farias, Joe 4S.4
0309Farney, Marsha E2.606
0620Farrar, Jessica 1N.8
0661Fletcher, Allen GW.4
0880Flynn, Dan GN.7
0534Frank, James E2.304
0676Frullo, John E2.608
0269Galindo, Rick E1.410
0610Geren, Charlie GW.17
0953Giddings, Helen GW.11
0608Goldman, Craig E2.720
0670Gonzales, Larry E2.418
0613González, Mary E1.302
0578Guerra, R.D. "Bobby" E2.818
0416Guillen, Ryan 4S.3
0452Gutierrez, Roland GN.9
0496Harless, Patricia E2.408
0614Hernandez, Ana 4S.2
0462Herrero, Abel GW.6
0631Howard, Donna E1.420
0520Huberty, Dan E2.722
0271Hughes, Bryan 4S.5
0672Hunter, Todd GW.18
0647Isaac, Jason E1.414
0821Israel, Celia E1.406
0586Johnson, Eric E1.204
0412Kacal, Kyle E2.420
0656Keffer, Jim 1W.11
0797Keough, Mark E2.402
0736King, Ken E2.416
0738King, Phil 1N.5
0718King, Susan GN.12
0194King, Tracy GW.7
0682Kleinschmidt, Tim E2.806
0599Klick, Stephanie E2.716
0454Koop, Linda E1.512
0562Krause, Matt E2.212
0602Kuempel, John E2.422
463-0546Landgraf, Brooks E1.312
0646Larson, Lyle E2.406
0186Laubenberg, Jodie 1N.7
0544Leach, Jeff E1.314
0645Longoria, Oscar E1.510
0463Lozano, J. M. E2.908
0606Lucio III, Eddie E1.320
0638Márquez, Marisa E2.822
0530Martinez, Armando 4N.4
0616Martinez Fischer, Trey 1W.3
0708McClendon, Ruth Jones 3S.2
0634Menéndez, José GW.5
0726Metcalf, Will E2.704
0367Meyer, Morgan E1.418
0518Miles, Borris L. E2.718
0325Miller, Doug GN.10
0710Miller, Rick E2.312
0728Moody, Joseph E2.214
0456Morrison, Geanie 1N.9
0704Muñoz, Jr., Sergio E1.508
0514Murphy, Jim E1.408
0536Murr, Andrew E1.412
0668Naishtat, Elliott GW.16
0566Nevárez, Poncho E1.306
0640Oliveira, René 3N.6
0570Otto, John E1.504
0556Paddie, Chris E2.412
0688Parker, Tan E2.602
0734Paul, Dennis E2.814
0460Peña, Gilbert E1.416
0706Phelan, Dade E1.324
0297Phillips, Larry 4N.5
0596Pickett, Joe 1W.5
0470Price, Four E2.610
0698Raney, John E2.706
0558Raymond, Richard Peña 1W.4
0494Reynolds, Ron E2.306
0572Riddle, Debbie 4N.7
0468Rinaldi, Matt E1.422
0674Rodriguez, Eddie 4S.6
0669Rodriguez, Justin E1.212
0740Romero, Jr., Ramon E1.208
0664Rose, Toni E2.302
0356Sanford, Scott E2.210
0584Schaefer, Matt E2.510
0528Schofield, Mike E2.316
0594Shaheen, Matt E1.322
0244Sheets, Kenneth E1.404
0628Sheffield, J.D. E2.320
0478Simmons, Ron E2.712
0750Simpson, David E2.502
0733Smith, Wayne GN.8
0702Smithee, John 1W.10
0458Spitzer, Stuart E1.316
0526Springer, Jr., Drew E2.410
0604Stephenson, Phil E2.906
0522Stickland, Jonathan E1.402
1000Straus, Joe 2W.13
0707Thompson, Ed E2.506
0720Thompson, Senfronia 3S.6
0624Tinderholt, Tony E1.216
0574Turner, Chris E2.318
0484Turner, Scott E1.318
0554Turner, Sylvester GW.15
0692VanDeaver, Gary E1.310
0576Villalba, Jason E2.404
0568Vo, Hubert 4N.8
0924Walle, Armando E1.304
0490White, James E2.204
0630White, Molly E2.702
0652Workman, Paul E2.902
0516Wray, John E1.220
0492Wu, Gene E2.810
0374Zedler, William "Bill" GS.2
0657Zerwas, John E2.308
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR’S OFFICELt. Governor, David Dewhurst – 2E.13 .............................3-0001Acting Chief of Staff, John Opperman ..............................3-0001Legislative Director, Constance Allison .............................3-0001Communications, Andrew Barlow ......................................3-0715Parliamentarian, Karina Davis – 2E.6 .................................3-0248
SENATE OFFICES & PHONE NUMBERSAuditor – 615 SHB .............................................................3-0404Bill Distribution – 190 SHB ...............................................3-0252Calendar – 2E.23 .................................................................3-0060Committee Coordinator – 2E.23 .........................................3-0070Copy Center – E1.710 .........................................................3-0076Enrolling – E1.908 ..............................................................3-0321Human Resources – 625 SHB .............................................3-0400Journal – E1.812 .................................................................3-0050Media Services – 675 SHB .................................................3-0300Payroll – 550 SHB ..............................................................3-0444Porters – E1.102A ...............................................................3-0343Post Office – E1.702 ...........................................................3-0303Publications/Printing – B407 REJ ......................................3-0080Purchasing – 525 SHB ........................................................3-0222Research – 575 SHB ...........................................................3-0087Secretary of the Senate – 2E.22 ..........................................3-0100Sergeant-at-Arms – 2E.10 ...................................................3-0200 Messengers – E1.802 .......................................................3-0205 Messengers – 485 SHB ...................................................3-0210Staff Services – 175 SHB ...................................................3-0430Support Services – 270 SHB...............................................3-0333Travel Coordinator – 2E.23 ................................................3-0773TDD .....................................................................1-800-735-2989Lt. Governor’s Reception Room – 2E.16 ...........................3-0009
OTHER STATE NUMBERSGovernor .............................................................................3-2000Attorney General .................................................................3-2100Comptroller .........................................................................3-4000Texas Facilities Commission ..............................................3-3446Legislative Budget Board – 5th floor, REJ .........................3-1200Legislative Council – REJ 3.131 ........................................3-1155Legislative Reference Library – 2N.3 .................................3-1252Secretary of State – 1E.8 .....................................................3-5701Capitol Cafeteria – E1.001 ..............................................472-5451Capitol Extension Bookstore – E1.006 ...........................475-2167State Preservation Board – 950 SHB ..................................3-5495Housekeeping Maintenance Requests .................................4-7777Information & Guide Service – 1S.2 ..................................3-0063HOUSE PHONE NUMBERSBill Distribution – B324 REJ ..............................................3-1144Chief Clerk – 2W.29 ...........................................................3-0845Committee Services – E2.174 .............................................3-0850Sergeant-at-Arms – 2W.7 ....................................................3-0910Speaker’s Office – 2W.13 ...................................................3-3000SENATE STANDING COMMITTEESAdministration – E1.714 .....................................................3-0350Agriculture, Rural Affairs & Homeland Security – 455 SHB ......................................3-0340Business & Commerce – 370 SHB .....................................3-0365Criminal Justice – 470 SHB ................................................3-0345Economic Development — 340 SHB .................................3-1171Education – 440 SHB ..........................................................3-0355Finance – E1.038 ................................................................3-0370Government Organization – 630 SHB ................................3-1818Health and Human Services – 420 SHB .............................3-0360Higher Education – 320 SHB .............................................3-4788Intergovernmental Relations – 475 SHB ............................3-2527Jurisprudence – 350 SHB ....................................................3-0395Natural Resources – 325 SHB ............................................3-0390Nominations – E1.716 ........................................................3-2084Open Government - 335 SHB .............................................3-7733State Affairs – 380 SHB ......................................................3-0380Transportation – 450 SHB ..................................................3-0067Veteran Affairs & Military Installations – 345 SHB ...........3-2211
THE SENATE OF TEXAS84th Legislature
Austin Mailing Address For Texas Senate:P.O. Box 12068 • Austin, TX 78711-2068
SENATORS PHONE NO. OFFICE NO. ASSISTANT
Bettencourt, Paul ......................................................3-0107 .......................................E1.712 ............................... VA StephensBirdwell, Brian .........................................................3-0122 .......................................E1.706 ............................... Ben StratmannBurton, Konni ..........................................................3-0110 .......................................GE.7 .................................. Art MartinezCampbell, Donna .....................................................3-0125 .......................................3E.8 ................................... Stephanie MatthewsCreighton, Brandon ..................................................3-0104 .......................................E1.606 ............................... Tara GarciaEllis, Rodney ............................................................3-0113 .......................................3E.6 ................................... Brandon DudleyEltife, Kevin .............................................................3-0101 .......................................3E.16 ................................. Cheryl VanekEstes, Craig ..............................................................3-0130 .......................................3E.18 ................................. Noe BarriosFraser, Troy ..............................................................3-0124 .......................................1E.12 ................................. Terri MathisGarcia, Sylvia R. ......................................................3-0106 .......................................3E.12 ................................. Sara GonzalezHall, Bob ..................................................................3-0102 .......................................E1.808 ............................... Amy LaneHancock, Kelly ........................................................3-0109 .......................................1E.9 ................................... Tricia StinsonHinojosa, Juan “Chuy” .............................................3-0120 .......................................3E.10 ................................. Luis MorenoHuffines, Don ...........................................................3-0116 .......................................E1.608 ............................... Matt LangstonHuffman, Joan ..........................................................3-0117 .......................................1E.15 ................................. Amanda JensonKolkhorst, Lois W ....................................................3-0118 .......................................3E.2 ................................... Chris SteinbachLucio, Eddie .............................................................3-0127 .......................................3S.5 ................................... Louie SanchezNelson, Jane .............................................................3-0112 .......................................1E.5 ................................... Dave NelsonNichols, Robert ........................................................3-0103 .......................................E1.704 ............................... Steven AlbrightPerry, Charles ...........................................................3-0128 .......................................E1.810 ............................... Scott HutchinsonRodríguez, José ........................................................3-0129 .......................................E1.610 ............................... Sushma SmithSchwertner, Charles .................................................3-0105 .......................................E1.806 ............................... Tom HollowaySeliger, Kel ...............................................................3-0131 .......................................GE.4 .................................. Ginger AverittTaylor, Larry ............................................................ 3-0111 .......................................GE.5 .................................. Cari ChristmanTaylor, Van ...............................................................3-0108 .......................................E1.708 ............................... Lonnie DietzUresti, Carlos ...........................................................3-0119 .......................................4E.2 ................................... Jason HassayWatson, Kirk ............................................................3-0114 .......................................E1.804 ............................... Sarah HowardWest, Royce .............................................................3-0123 .......................................1E.3 ................................... LaJuana BartonWhitmire, John .........................................................3-0115 .......................................1E.13 ................................. Lara WendlerZaffirini, Judith ........................................................3-0121 .......................................1E.14..................................Sean GriffinDistrict 26 (Van de Putte) .........................................3-0126 .......................................3S.3 ................................... Gilbert Loredo
First Aid Station – E1.214 ................................................3-0313Security Desk – E1.217 .....................................................6-2103Security Desk – SHB .........................................................6-2115
Website address: www.senate.state.tx.us
January 7, 2015
TIMELINE for Lobby Day 7-‐7:15 a.m. Load onto Bus with your schedules & binders in hand
Do you have a bus reservation? IF NOT, please go to the UMW registration desk. If you are driving, do you know how to get where you are going? Your binder contains a page of directions to the Capitol Visitor’s Parking ($2/hr) * The Lobby Visit Resource Person is responsible for bringing the Leave-‐Behind folder for their assigned legislator.
7:30 a.m. Buses DEPART 8:15 a.m. Convene in John H. Reagan Building, Room JHR120 (Northwest of the Capitol in
the Capitol Complex) 8:15-‐8:45am Welcoming Session (in Reagan Building) Representative Donna Howard 9:00-‐11:15 Lobby Visits: Remember to allow a minimum of 15 minutes to clear security prior to
your appointment Visit between 2-‐4 offices (10-‐15 minutes each) and decide if the Resource Person will be responsible for all of the following, or if others want to take a piece of it.
Resource Person’s Responsibilities:
1. Fill out a UMW Business & Contact card to leave with the legislator along with their resource folder
2. Fill out the Legislative Visit Evaluation Forms and drop with Texas Impact staff (1 per office visit is fine)
3. Write a Thank You card after the visit. You can drop off written Thank You notes with Texas Impact staff with legislator’s name clearly written on the envelope
Everyone: é Fill out Event Evaluation Form (pink) é Choose if you also want to write a Legislative Visit Evaluation form or Thank
You card separately Texas Impact staff will be available in Hearing room E2.030
11:00am CLOSING SESSION, E2 Central Court Rotunda (Atrium)* (weather permitting)
VISTA Appreciation Ceremony *Weather permitting. If it is raining, we will have the closing session in Hearing Room E2.030 11:30a.m. to noon Load onto Bus back to hotel If you are having trouble getting back to the bus by noon,
call Terry Schoenert at 512-‐601-‐2800
12:00 pm – 1pm Optional: Capitol “Behind the Scenes” Tour *please RSVP
Directions from the Holiday Inn to the Texas State Capitol Holiday Inn Austin Midtown 6000 Middle Fiskville Rd Austin, TX 78752
1. Head northeast on Middle Fiskville Rd. (directly in front of the hotel) (.5 mi) 2. Sharp right onto E Huntland Dr (141 feet) 3. Turn right onto N I-‐35 frontage road (.1 mi) 4. Merge onto I-‐35 via the ramp on the left to US-‐290 W (3.4 mi)
5. Take exit 235A for 15th St (.5 mi) 6. Turn right onto E 15th St (.5 mi) 7. To the Capitol Visitors Parking Garage:
• Turn left on San Jacinto and drive to blocks • Take a left on E 13th Street (drive less than half a block) • Enter Visitors Parking Garage on the right
The Welcoming Ceremony will be held in the John H. Reagan Building, in Room JHR120
Guide toLegislative
Engagement
As a Texas Impact member, you are in a unique posi6on to lobby and tes6fy on issues and posi6ons that represent consensus social concerns of Texas faith communi6es. Texas Impact retains a staff of registered lobbyists, but it’s very important that our members par6cipate in Texas Impact’s advocacy ac6vi6es because:
1. Credibility: As members of local communi6es, our members can relate to legislators as cons6tuents and neighbors, not just as “hired guns.”
2. Cons-tuency: As leaders in their communi6es and congrega6ons, our members bring their own cons6tuencies and connec6ons into the discussion.
3. Capacity: With an extensive agenda and limited staff, Texas Impact relies on our members to lead our public witness and build rela6onships between the organiza6on and legisla6ve offices.
4. Character: Every individual is different, and that includes elected officials and faith leaders. You may be just the person who can have the produc6ve conversa6on with a par6cular elected official!
This guide is intended to provide Texas Impact members with all the informa6on you need to represent Texas Impact effec6vely in two key ac6vi6es: lobbying/legisla6ve visits and legisla6ve tes6mony.
Your voice makes a difference. Here’s why…
Grassroots lobbying n. large numbers of communications with legislators, usually through the public.
Grasstops lobbying n. communications from prominent individuals, community leaders and key decision makers. The emphasis of grassroots lobbying tends to be
Astroturfing n. a grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them.
Table of Contents
page
1 Represen6ng Texas Impact as a Board Member
2 Legisla6ve Mee6ngs
3 Legisla6ve Tes6mony
4 Common Tips for Successful Ci6zen Lobbying
5 Legisla6ve Visit Evalua6on Form
of quantity, grass tops of quality.
! Texas Impact Guide to Legislative Engagement 1
1. Current board members, in lobbying or tes6fying, may iden6fy themselves as a board member and say they are speaking on behalf of the board if and only if the issue and posi6on being ar6culated is listed as part of Texas Impact’s printed legisla6ve agenda for the current legisla6ve session.
2. Board members may or may not be able to say they are speaking on behalf of their
3. Board members may say they represent their sending organiza6on on Texas Impact’s board.
4. It’s appropriate for board members to characterize themselves as “religious leaders” even if they are not clergy.
5.Impact:
Texas Impact is a statewide interfaith organiza6on established in 1973 by Texas bishops and other religious leaders to be a voice of religious social concern to the Texas Legislature. Texas Impact is a membership organiza6on; our members include individuals and communi6es ranging from local
bodies of Chris6an denomina6ons and regional Jewish and Muslim networks.
Texas Impact is the only statewide interfaith advocacy organiza6on in Texas whose members include Chris6an denomina6onal bodies. We have a network of about 20,000 members, and we reach millions of Texans through our work with our denomina6onal members.
Texas Impact’s board of directors is composed of about 45 members who act as representa6ves of their respec6ve faith communi6es. Our legisla6ve posi6ons are established by unanimous vote of the board.
Represen@ng Texas Impact as a Board Member
Board members should use the following boilerplate language in characterizing Texas
of faith congrega6ons and interfaith groups up to denomina6onal
sending organiza6on, depending on that organiza6on’s policies.
,,
2! Texas Impact Guide to Legislative Engagement
Your legisla6ve mee6ng is “lobbying” if you are advoca6ng a posi6on on a bill or an idea that might become a bill. It’s not lobbying if you are just visi6ng in broad terms about a policy issue. It’s oZen easier to have a focused conversa6on about a specific bill if you already have had an introductory mee6ng so you know the person you are talking to.
It’s important for Texas Impact board members to have introductory mee6ngs with legisla6ve offices, especially before the legisla6ve session begins, so legislators and their staffs understand who we are and what’s on our legisla6ve agenda. It’s also important for board members to meet with offices during the session about specific legisla6on.
The most important step you can take before your mee6ng is to make sure you know why you are having it. Your goals for your mee6ng will be different depending on a number of factors: whether this is an introductory/informa6onal mee6ng or a lobby visit; whether you already know the person you are mee6ng with or not; and what role the person you are mee6ng with plays in the Legislature.
Legisla@ve Mee@ngs
What makes a successful legisla@ve visit?1. You feel empowered and believe that you
achieved your goal for the mee6ng.
2. You feel like you controlled the mee6ng, not that the mee6ng controlled you.
3. You feel like your par6cipa6on added new input into the mix somehow—for example, by showing breadth of support for an issue, by building a rela6onship, by finding new common ground, by expressing Texas Impact’s posi6on in an official way.
4. You feel like you got new informa6on from the mee6ng—for example, about a person, about an issue, about legisla6ve flow, about ac6ons Texas Impact or others need to take.
5. You could have another mee6ng with that same office and make progress from where you finished this mee6ng.
6. Op6onal: You got a photo of yourself and the person you met with!
What are the follow up steps for a lobby visit?
Let Texas Impact staff know how the visit went, submit your evalua6on form and iden6fy tasks for staff, if any, as well as any follow up the person you met with promised you.
Provide any informa6on you said you would provide to the legisla6ve office.
Send a thank you note.
Send an informa6onal note to local or religious publica6ons saying you made your visit, with a photo if possible.
! Texas Impact Guide to Legislative Engagement 3
“Legisla6ve tes6mony” is another opportunity for Texas Impact members to exchange informa6on with legislators and represent the organiza6on, but you will have different goals for your tes6mony than for legisla6ve visits. People oZen leave their legisla6ve tes6mony wondering if it “did any good.” The answer is that public tes6mony is a key part of the legisla6ve process that can’t exist if individuals do not tes6fy, so it almost always is a net posi6ve to present tes6mony. It’s also important to bear in mind that many people hear your legisla6ve tes6mony, not just legislators—tes6mony can func6on as a media opportunity and as a way of informing other organiza6ons about Texas Impact’s posi6ons and priori6es.
Ideally, your legisla6ve tes6mony should not be the first 6me you see legislators. If you visit them before the hearing, or beber yet before the session starts, then you will be familiar to them when you present your tes6mony and they won’t have to expend energy figuring out who you are and what you stand for while they are trying to listen to your tes6mony.
Legisla@ve Tes@mony
What makes successful tes@mony?
1. You delivered your main points in the 6me allobed.
2. You didn’t say anything untrue or that you weren’t sure was true.
3. You r t e s6mony a c cu r a t e l y represented the posi6on of Texas Impact and any other organiza6on you said you were tes6fying for.
4. Your tes6mony added new informa6on to the public record, even if it is just the informa6on that Texas Impact has a posi6on on the issue in ques6on.
What are the follow up steps for tes@mony?
Let Texas Impact staff know how your tes6mony went, submit your evalua6on form, and iden6fy tasks for staff if any.
Provide any informa6on you said you would provide to the commibee you tes6fied before.
Provide an informa6onal note to local or rel igious publica6ons saying you delivered legisla6ve tes6mony, with a photo or link to your tes6mony in the legisla6ve video archives. (Texas Impact staff can help.)
All the Experts Agree: Common Tips for Successful Ci@zen Lobbying
4! Texas Impact Guide to Legislative Engagement
• Dress appropriately to be taken seriously.
• Prac6ce your lobby visit beforehand. The shorter 6me you have for your mee6ng and the more precise your “ask,” the more important this step is.
• Develop no more than three talking points -‐ any more can overwhelm the legislator or staffer with whom you are mee6ng.
• Define your arguments.
• Be five minutes early … and be prepared to wait.
• Start posi6vely—thank the legislator or staffer for mee6ng with you.
• Introduce yourself and iden6fy your hometown.
• Know your agenda and s6ck to it. Don’t get caught in the small talk.
• Listen to the elected official—what you learn about their thinking is extremely important. Ask ques6ons that require specific answers. Elected officials may try to shiZ the conversa6on to a more comfortable topic.
•
Respeciully tell the legislator that you do not know the answer to their ques6on but that you will find out the answer and contact them.
• Don’t inflate your poli6cal clout or threaten not to vote for a member.
• Be respeciul of the legislator’s or staffer’s 6me.
• Humanize and localize the issue -‐ how will it affect the legislator’s cons6tuents?
• Listen to the concerns and arguments presented by the person with whom you are mee6ng.
• Abempt to address these concerns, but stay on message.
• Make sure you tell the legislator or aide what you want her or him to do for you.
• Acknowledge the possible poli6cal risks. Help the official develop bridge-‐building messages that can speak to the majority of their cons6tuents.
• If you hit a wall during the visit and cannot make any headway with the legislator, accept it and politely excuse yourself. AZer the mee6ng, brainstorm crea6ve solu6ons.
• End on a posi6ve note by thanking the legislator or staffer once again for taking the 6me to meet.
• When you get home, send a leber thanking the person for the mee6ng, recapping the discussion and what you were promised.
Bringing Your Networks Into the ProcessAs a Texas Impact member, you are in a posi6on not only to represent Texas Impact to lawmakers and their staffs, but also to bring other members of the public into the legisla6ve advocacy process. Once you are comfortable visi6ng with legisla6ve offices and giving public tes6mony, consider crea6ng opportuni6es for your colleagues and other members of your community to par6cipate. For example:
• Schedule a legisla6ve visit for members of your judicatory’s social jus6ce commibee• Invite local clergy from your community to come with you to the Capitol• Bring ac6ve church members on a lobby field trip• Recruit colleagues to tes6fy on legisla6on Texas Impact staff can offer several kinds of
specific support for your legislative engagement such as providing you with issue materials,
helping you schedule meetings, and accompanying you to the Capitol if you wish.
tTell the ruth! If you don’t have an answer, say so!
,
Legislative Visit Evaluation Form
Date of Visits: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Legislative Of5ice Visited:_______________________________________________________________________
Names of People In the Meeting:_______________________________________________________________
Issues Discussed:________________________________________________________________________________
Speci5ic Requests of the Of5ice if Any:________________________________________________________________________________________________
Any Follow-‐up Promised by You? _____________________________________________________________
Any Follow-‐up Required from Texas Impact staff? ________________________________________
Any Follow-‐up Promised by Legislative staff?______________________________________________
1. What was your goal? (e.g.: introduce Texas Impact to the member; ?ind out the member’s position on an issue; lobby a vote; ask the member to sponsor an amendment)
2. Did you get what you came for? (Usually the answer will be “not exactly, but…”)
Yes No Not sure, and here’s why:
3. What did you learn about the person you talked to? For example:
a.who Texas Impact was before you told them?
b. What level of authority do they have?
c. What issues are of most interest to them?
d. How much do they know about the topic you met on?
4. What did you talk about in the meeting?
! Texas Impact Guide to Legislative Engagement 5
Name: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Are they receptive to Texas Impact (or faith community in general)? Did they know
the
5. Did the person you talked to make any commitments to you that you wish you had in writing?
6. Did they ask for any speci?ic follow up, like statistics? If so, are you able to provide those yourself, or do you need to ask Texas Impact staff to provide them? What timeframe did you give for getting the following up to the of?ice?
7. Did they give you any new information about the topic—for example, did they tell you “that amendment is dead,” or “the Chairman said he would bring that bill up as soon as the ?iscal note gets resolved”?
8. Did the new information create any new deadlines or tasks for Texas Impact?
9. Did you have the information you needed to have a successful visit:
a. On the member Yes No
b. On the issue Yes No
c. On the status of the issue legislatively Yes No
d. On Texas Impact or our position on the issue Yes No
e. Other __________________________________________
10. If no to any of the above, what additional information did you wish you had?
11. Based on your visit, should Texas Impact try to engage the person you met with in any way, and if so what would that engagement be?
6 Texas Impact • 200 East 30th Street, Austin, Texas 78705 • 512.472.3903
www.texasimpact.org
Benefits of using social media: § It’s free. § It allows you to distribute information
quickly to a large network. § It lets you connect directly with people
and organizations and lets people/organization see who’s connected with you!
Social media allows you to:
§ Build awareness § Call for volunteers § Promote Events § Collaborate § And more!
Tips to effectively use social media:
§ Commit the time to keep your social media outlets updated.
§ Don’t be afraid to ask for help in getting started.
§ Explore how other organizations use social media.
§ Twitter is great for exchanging messages with followers or public officials.
§ Go where your audience is. Engage in dialogue with your networks.
How Texas Impact uses social media:
§ Facebook: www.facebook.com/texasimpact
§ Twitter: www.twitter.com/TXImpact § Blog:
http://www.texasinterfaithcenter.org/
Types of Social Media: Blogs Web sites where you can compose and post entries, and let others comment on your posts. Examples: WordPress, Blogger. Microblogging Similar to blogs; updated more frequently, with shorter posts. Ideal for regular updates and cross-‐referencing other microbloggers’ posts. Examples: Twitter, Tumblr. Social networking Sites that virtually link individuals to their friends, colleagues and organizations. Examples: Facebook, LinkedIn. Social bookmarking Specific kind of blogs or news Web sites that let users list links to sites and share them with others. Examples: Pinterest, Digg, Reddit. Video sharing Sites where users can upload and share large video files. Examples: YouTube, Vimeo. Photo sharing Sites where users can upload and share photos. Examples: Flickr, Instagram
Texas Impact’s Social Media Cheat Sheet
Need help getting started in the social media world? Here are some additional resources: § Mashable: Guide for Social Media -‐ www.mashable.com/social-‐media § Twitter Guide Book: www.mashable.com/guidebook/twitter § Facebook Guide Book: www.mashable.com/guidebook/facebook § Texas Interfaith Center Blog Series, “Social Media and You”:
Part 1: http://goo.gl/BZbDux Part 2: http://goo.gl/Ggho9r
What is Social Media? Social media refers to a series of Web-‐based communications tools that let people and groups communicate with one another online through text, pictures, links to other Web sites and more.
Legislative Visit Evaluation Form Your Name: _________________________________________________ Legislative Office Visited: _______________________________________________ Names of People In the Meeting: _____________________________________________________________________________ Issues Discussed: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ _ Specific Requests of the Office if Any: _______________________________________________________________________ Any Follow-‐up Promised by You? ¨No ¨Yes (if Yes, see question 6) Any Follow-‐up Required from Texas Impact staff? ¨No ¨Yes (if yes, see question 6) Any Follow-‐up Promised by Legislative staff? _____________________________________________________________
1. What was your goal? (e.g.: introduce UMW to the member; find out the member’s position on an issue; lobby a vote; ask the member to sponsor an amendment) ______________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Did you get what you came for? (Usually the answer will be “not exactly, but…”)
¨Yes ¨No ¨Not sure, and here’s why: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
3. What did you learn about the person you talked to? For example: a. Are they receptive to UMW (or faith community in general)? Did they know who UMW was before you told them?
b. What level of authority do they have? c. What issues are of most interest to them? d. How much do they know about the topic you met on?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
4. What did you talk about in the meeting?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Did the person you talked to make any commitments to you that you wish you had in writing? _____________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Did they ask for any specific follow up, like statistics? If so, are you able to provide those yourself, or do you need to ask Texas Impact staff to provide them? What timeframe did you give for getting the following up to the office? ______________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Did they give you any new information about the topic—for example, did they tell you “I will support any bills on that issue,” or “the Chairman said he would bring that bill up as soon as the fiscal note gets resolved”? ______________________________________________________________________________________________
8. Did the new information create any new deadlines or tasks for Texas Impact staff? ______________________________________________________________________________________________
9. Did you have the information you needed to have a successful visit: a. On the member ¨Yes ¨No b. On the issue ¨Yes ¨No c. On the status of the issue legislatively ¨Yes ¨No d. On UMW or our position on the issue ¨Yes ¨No e. Other __________________________________________________________________________________
10. If no to any of the above, what additional information did you wish you had?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
11. Based on your visit, should Texas Impact try to engage the person you met with in any way, and if so what would that engagement be?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
UMW Legislative Event: The Caucus Process and the Consensus Agenda
What is the caucus process? The caucus process is the process for establishing a coordinated Texas UMW legislative agenda for the year. After learning about a number of public policy issues at Legislative Event, all the Legislative Event attendees from each annual conference gather and deliberatively establish a list of three priority state-‐level public policy issues that they think UMW units and activities should focus on for the year. The caucus may also choose to identify issues its members strongly feel should not be included in the consensus agenda. After each annual conference caucus establishes its top three priority issues, the Social Action Chairs of all the conferences meet together and create a consensus agenda. The consensus agenda issues are those issues that were most frequently included on the conference priority lists, taking into account any issues where there was significant difference of opinion among conference caucuses and any instances where one conference caucus strongly opposed the inclusion of a particular issue. Why do we do the caucuses? Although each annual conference UMW functions independently within the state, it is helpful for legislators and the public to think in terms of a “Texas UMW” issue agenda. The caucus process provides the opportunity to consolidate the shared concerns of all the individual annual conferences into an agenda that UMWs from all over Texas can share. What is the product? The product of the caucuses is a list of the top priority state-‐level public policy issues shared by UMWs from all of the state’s annual conferences. The issues are laid out in a “one-‐pager” format that includes foundational information about UMW and the organization’s historic concerns. The agenda is issued in a press release that goes to secular and United Methodist media in Texas and nationally. In this way, Legislative Event is highlighted as a unique and important UMW activity within the United Methodist Church. What is the significance of the consensus agenda? The consensus agenda is significant because it represents the shared concerns of UMWs from all over Texas. However, it is also important to understand the limits of the agenda’s significance. It represents the agenda only of Legislative Event participants, who speak to but not for other UMWs. The agenda is not binding on any UMW, whether or not they attended Legislative Event. The agenda is not intended to implicate any individual in a policy position they oppose, but to reflect the most broadly shared concerns of Legislative Event participants.
HAVE FUN!
What do we do with the consensus agenda? UMWs use the consensus agenda in many ways throughout the year. The agenda serves as the basis for lobby visits at Legislative Event and any other lobby visits UMWs make during the legislative session. The agenda also is a tool for educating local units about public policy issues. Local units could use the agenda as a basis for developing projects. A unit could do a service project to help members learn more about one of the issues on the agenda. How can units and districts use the consensus agenda throughout year? UMWs who attend Legislative Event are encouraged to take the agenda back to their local units and present information about the issues. Units may choose to adopt the agenda and lobby on it during the legislative session or use it as a tool to build conversation with elected officials or others in the community. Social Action Chairs could use the agenda as the basis for a social action program. Issues on the agenda would also be good topics for Sunday school classes, Church Women United meetings, or local ecumenical or interfaith gatherings. STEP-BY-STEP
1. The Conference Social Action Chair serves as the chair of the caucus. The Social Action Chair appoints a secretary for the caucus to record the proceedings.
2. The chair should ensure that all caucus participants have the opportunity to speak and be heard, and that no individual dominates the process.
3. The chair should ensure that copies of the Social Principles are available for the caucus’s reference throughout the meeting.
4. The caucus should try to stay within a one-‐hour timeframe. 5. The goal of the caucus is to select its top three priority issues for education and
advocacy during the legislative session and the remainder of the year. 6. The issues should be at the state legislative level—not local or federal issues. 7. The issues do not have to be issues that were discussed earlier at Legislative Event. 8. The issues must be phrased in terms of legislative activity, not goals for direct
action, national change or broad aspirations. EXAMPLES OF INAPPROPRIATELY FRAMED ISSUES:
§ Aspirational: Do a better job educating Texas children. § Direct Action: Volunteer in our local elementary school. § National: Ask Congress to reform No Child Left Behind.
EXAMPLES OF APPROPRIATELY FRAMED ISSUES:
§ Encourage lawmakers to maintain funding for pre-‐kindergarten. § Maintain physical education as a requirement for all public school students.
!
! !Be!a!Water!Captain!!Water!Captains!are!local!members!of!the!faith!community!who!partner!with!state!and!local!leaders!to!make!sure!the!Texas!water!planning!process!works!for!everyone.!In!1997,!the!Texas!legislature!passed!Senate!Bill!1,!dramatically!reorganizing!the!Texas!Water!Development!Board!and!the!way!in!which!water!planning!is!carried!out!in!the!state.!In!contrast!to!the!"topGdown"!approach!implemented!over!the!previous!four!decades,!SB1!established!sixteen!regional!waterGplanning!groups!(RWPGs),!to!recognize!and!account!for!the!disparate!climates,!economies,!and!political!cultures!within!the!state.!
Most!RWPGs!are!organized!along!river!basins!or!watershedsGGfor!example,!regions!G!and!K,!which!comprise!the!Brazos!and!lower!Colorado!river!basins,!respectively.!Each!group!comprises!a!number!of!stakeholders,!from!farmers!and!businesspeople!to!environmental!groups,!who!are!responsible!for!designing!and!implementing!a!water!plan!every!five!years.!This!plan,!which!forecasts!and!prescribes!future!water!use!and!development,!is!implemented!by!a!RWPG!political!subdivision!such!as!a!river!authority!or!groundwater!conservation!district,!which!manages!the!practical!execution!of!the!group's!recommendations.!
Each!group!meets!bimonthly;!these!meetings!are!open!to!public!involvement,!which!allows!the!citizens!in!a!region!to!participate!in!determining!the!future!of!their!water.!This!means!that!citizens!also!have!a!civic!responsibility!to!provide!input!and!ensure!that!they!are!represented!during!the!process.!Unfortunately,!many!Texans!do!not!even!know!which!RWPG!they're!a!part!of,!which!means!they're!unable!to!be!a!part!of!the!process.!
What!region!are!you!from—and!where!is!your!water!coming!from?!!Be a Water Captain! Water Captains are local members of the faith community who partner with state and local leaders to make sure the Texas water planning process works for everyone.!!For!more!information!contact:[email protected]!or!call!(979)!942G0731!!!
!!
!!What’s!the!next+best!thing!this!side!of!Heaven?!!Why!it’s!Texas!of!course!!!And!Texas!has!what!most!western!states!lack:!water,!and!a!lot!of!it!!!But!all!water!has!a!source!and!all!sources!are!finite.!!Thus,!water!planning!is!paramount!to!a!healthy!and!sustainable!future!for!Texas!and!her!people.!!In!1997,!the!Texas!legislature!passed!Senate!Bill!1,!dramatically!reorganizing!the!Texas!Water!Development!Board!and!the!way!in!which!water!planning!is!carried!out!in!the!state.!In!contrast!to!the!"top+down"!approach!implemented!over!the!previous!four!decades,!SB1!established!sixteen!regional!water+planning!groups,!to!recognize!and!account!for!the!disparate!climates,!economies,!and!political!cultures!within!the!state.!!Written!into!the!law!as!bold!as!Texas!herself!is!clear!wording!that!the!public!shall!offer!testimony!to!the!water!groups!and!that!testimony!shall!be!considered!in!the!groups’!deliberations.!!That!spells!an!opportunity!for!the!public!to!get!involved!in!the!most!important!issue!of!the!21st!century.!!Right!now,!energy,!healthcare,!economic!security!are!the!issues!that!folks!are!most!concerned!over.!!But!into!the!next!few!decades,!because!of!population!growth,!economic!growth,!and!climate!change,!water!will!become!the!most!important!issue!in!the!history!of!our!state,!country!and!world.!!Shall!we!plan!for!that!now!or!wait!until!there!is!a!severe)crisis?!!Texas!offers!so!much!to!the!world.!!We!have!incredible!resources,!beautiful!landscapes,!lots!of!great!tasting!locally!grown!food,!wonderful!cities!and!towns,!untold!opportunities,!and!beautiful!people.!!Texas!can!be!a!model!for!the!future!of!the!civilized!world.!A!hundred!years!from!now!as!they!look!out!over!the!beautiful!expanse!of!Texas,!what!will!your!great+grandchildren!say!about!you?!!Be#a#Water#Captain#and#plan#for#the#future#of#Texas#water!#Water!Captains!are!local!members!of!the!faith!community!who!partner!with!state!and!local!leaders!to!make!sure!the!Texas!water!planning!process!works!for!everyone.!!For!more!information!contact:[email protected]!or!call!(979)!942+0731!!
!
Texas Impact was established by Texas religious leaders in 1973 to be a voice in the Texas legislative process for the shared religious social concerns of Texas’ faith communities. Texas Impact is supported by more than two-dozen Christian, Jewish and Muslim denominational bodies, hundreds of local congregations, ministerial alliances and interfaith networks, and thousands of people of faith throughout Texas.
Texas Impact • 200 East 30th Street, Austin, Texas 78705 • www.texasimpact.org • 512.472.3903
Protect Texas Communities by Instituting Provisional Driver’s Permits for
Drivers Ineligible for Licenses
Lawmakers can make Texas roads safer for everyone by providing alternative permits for drivers who are ineligible for state-issued driver’s licenses.
Under current law, applicants for Texas driver’s licenses must show proof of legal status in the United States. This requirement prevents any resident without identification, including undocumented residents, from obtaining drivers’ licenses. They also are ineligible to take driver safety courses. Lack of a license means individuals are either unable to insure their vehicles, or can only purchase expensive, substandard insurance increasing the risk to other drivers of being in an accident involving an uninsured motorist. Texas had 1.6 million uninsured motorists in 2012 according to a recent report by the national Insurance Research Council (IRC). The report estimated that $2.6 billion was paid in the U.S. on 2012 uninsured motorists claims, up 75 percent over the last 10 years. That total represents $14 per insured motorist in 2012. Finally, because licenses and insurance are both requirements for operating a motor vehicle in Texas, drivers without licenses have increased incentive to flee the scene of an accident rather than stopping to render aid, potentially leading to preventable loss of life. Proof of legal status was not required until 2011 in Texas. Prior to that time, applicants for Texas driver’s licenses were not required to show proof of citizenship. In 2013, HB 3206 would have authorized the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to issue a Texas resident driver's permit to a person who, as of the date the permit was issued, had resided in the state for at least one year, and met other conditions. HB 3206 was reported favorably from the House State Affairs Committee late in the legislative session and did not make it through the entire legislative process.
HB 3206 would have established that a Texas resident driver's permit was not valid as proof of the permit holder's identity for any federal purposes. The bill would have required DPS to designate and clearly mark as a Texas resident driver's permit each permit issued; designate and clearly mark as a provisional Texas resident driver's permit each permit issued to a person who is at least 16 years of age but younger than 18 years of age; and include on an issued permit an indication that the permit is not valid proof of identity for any federal purposes. The bill would have established a fee of $150 for applying for a Texas resident driver's license permit. The bill set the expiration of each issued Texas resident driver's permit at two years after the date of issuance. HB 3206 would have imposed proof of insurance conditions on motorists driving with the proposed driver’s permit. The bill would have expanded the conduct that constitutes the offense of driving with an invalid license to include the operation of a motor vehicle on a highway if the person holds a Texas resident driver's permit and is unable to provide evidence of financial responsibility for a vehicle the permit holder is operating. According to the National Immigration Law Center, at least ten states already issue some form of driver’s permit for individuals unable to prove legal status. California adopted legislation that established driver’s licenses for undocumented individuals in 2014 and began issuing the permits in January 2015. The National Immigration Law Center also points out that, while driver’s permit policies are aimed primarily at undocumented immigrants, circumstance leave millions of U.S. citizens without proof of citizenship, including some married women who have no proof of legal status showing their married names.
Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy l 200 East 30th Street l Austin, TX 78705 512.472.3903 l www.texasinterfaith.org l [email protected]
Time to Act: A Guide to 2015 Climate Engagement
Science Updates
• 2014 was the hottest year for the earth on record. –NASA and NOAA
• May, 2014 – National Climate Assessment report released. Shows impacts of climate change in the U.S. by region. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/
U.S. Policy Updates
• Carbon Pollution Standards moving forward: o Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants o Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Power Plants o http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-‐pollution-‐standards
• Ozone Standards: EPA proposed updates to national air quality standards for
ground-‐level ozone, or smog, in November, 2014. o Information about the proposal:
http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/actions.html o Information about January 29, 2015 public hearing in Arlington, TX:
http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/hearings.html
• Methane Standards: EPA announces in January, 2015, that they will develop proposal for methane standards for oil & gas industry. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/20150114fs.pdf
International Updates: The Road to Paris
• November, 2014: U.S.-‐China Climate Agreement announced. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-‐press-‐office/2014/11/11/fact-‐sheet-‐us-‐china-‐joint-‐announcement-‐climate-‐change-‐and-‐clean-‐energy-‐c
• December, 2014: 20th Conference of the Parties (COP 20) talks in Lima, Peru. A
good source of info, opinion, and analysis: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cop-‐20-‐un-‐climate-‐change-‐conference-‐lima
Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy l 200 East 30th Street l Austin, TX 78705 512.472.3903 l www.texasinterfaith.org l [email protected]
• COP 21 – December, 2015 in Paris
o About: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/future/index_en.htm
o OurVoices.net – Organizing a global religious movement for lead-‐up to COP 21 talks in Paris. http://ourvoices.net/Texas-‐IPL
2015 Timeline
• March 31 – Due date for countries to submit their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).
• Spring –
o Expected release of Pope’s Encyclical on Climate Change o Will Congress approve Obama’s request for $3 billion commitment to Green
Climate Fund?
• Summer – EPA issues Final Rules for: o Existing Power Plants in States, Indian Country, and U.S. Territories o Carbon Pollution Standards for New, Modified, and Reconstructed Power
Plants
• June – OurVoices fast for climate
Stay Tuned! It’s an important year for the climate. People of faith can make a difference.
Have questions? Want to be involved? Call our office or e-‐mail Yaira: [email protected]
Texas Impact was established by Texas religious leaders in 1973 to be a voice in the Texas legislative process for the shared religious social concerns of Texas’ faith communities. Texas Impact is supported by more than two-dozen Christian, Jewish and Muslim denominational bodies, hundreds of local congregations, ministerial alliances and interfaith networks, and thousands of people of faith throughout Texas.
Texas Impact • 200 East 30th Street, Austin, Texas 78705 • www.texasimpact.org • 512.472.3903
Promote Health and Recovery by Lifting Restrictions on Food Assistance
Lawmakers should eliminate the lifetime ban on SNAP benefits for individuals convicted of drug felonies.
Texas is one of the last few states still maintaining a lifetime ban on federally funded food assistance for individuals who have been convicted of drug felonies. The restriction is counterproductive to the Legislature’s goals for both criminal justice and social welfare. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program, provides food-purchasing assistance for low- and no-income Americans. SNAP is a federal program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). States partner with the federal government to administer SNAP, with the federal government paying 100 percent of the cost of food and administration. SNAP benefits are distributed in Texas by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC). In FY 2013, SNAP benefits cost $76.4 billion and supplied roughly 47.6 million Americans with an average of $133.08 per month in food assistance. More than 4 million Texans receive SNAP, most of them children, elderly, and individuals with disabilities. In addition to the direct benefit to individuals, every dollar in SNAP assistance results in $1.70 in economic activity. In 2013, SNAP generated $5.6 billion in economic activity in Texas. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act signed by President Clinton in 1996 imposed a lifetime ban for any convicted drug felon to receive SNAP. However, the federal law contained a provision allowing states to opt out of the lifetime ban. The drug felon ban was enacted at a time when Congress and the states favored “tough-on-crime” legislation and harsh penalties for drug-related offenses. Since that time, criminal justice experts
including those in Texas have turned increasing attention to preventing recidivism by providing services and supports for individuals returning to the community after incarceration. As a result, most states have chosen to waive or modify the ban on SNAP for convicted drug felons. Texas is one of only nine states that still have a full ban for drug felons on SNAP. The others are Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Missouri eliminated the ban in 2014. States that have eliminated the ban have cited several concerns:
1. The ban unfairly penalizes children; although children of individuals under the ban can receive SNAP, benefits for the entire household are reduced.
2. The ban impedes successful re-entry and eventual self-sufficiency.
3. The ban impedes recovery for individuals with substance abuse issues.
4. The ban does not save states any money since SNAP is 100 percent federally funded; on the contrary, it reduces profit for food stores and increases demand on nonprofit social services.
Legislative Options Eliminating the ban completely would be the most effective strategy, but some states have modified the ban rather than eliminating it completely. Modifications include: applying the ban only to those convicted of trafficking; lifting the ban for those who have completed substance abuse treatment; lifting the ban for individuals who test negative for drug use at regular intervals; and lifting the ban sometime after a waiting period—for example, allowing the individual to enroll in SNAP two years after completing their sentence.
Court Issues Ruling: A Broken School-Finance System Needs Fixing Now—the Kids Can’t Wait AUGUST 28, 2014 BY TEXAS AFT STAFF
State District Judge John Dietz of Austin today issued a long-awaited final decision in the school-finance case brought against the state by hundreds of school districts. Judge Dietz found overwhelming evidence that the current funding scheme is constitutionally inequitable, inadequate, and in violation of the ban on a statewide property tax.
He noted that the state has raised its standards of required academic achievement while depriving school districts of the resources needed to help students meet those standards. He cited the ongoing effects of deep budget cuts enacted in 2011—including layoffs of teachers and support personnel, inflated class sizes, and the elimination of pre-K expansion grants and extra services for struggling students. Dietz found that the cuts in state aid to districts have been only partially reversed in 2013, leaving annual funding on average some $600 per pupil below levels reached in 2008.
Even without the 2011 cuts, Dietz said, a trend toward systematic underfunding has been evident over the past decade. The districts hit the hardest have been those with the highest concentrations of high-need students—the economically disadvantaged and English Language Learners especially. Overall, Dietz found, credible expert testimony indicated a shortfall in state funding as high as $1,000 per pupil. That would translate into more than $5 billion a year that is needed but not being provided to meet state college-readiness targets.
SCHOOL FINANCE
Texas AFT President Linda Bridges responded to today’s ruling with this statement:
Here’s how this situation looks from the classroom perspective: The kids are worth it, and they shouldn’t have to wait any longer for the state to do what’s right, fix this problem, and fund their education adequately and equitably as required by law.
The Texas Constitution requires the state to provide a free and effective system of public schools for all our children, not just some. The decision by District Judge John Dietz holds that the state system of school finance leaves our schools underfunded, deprives our schoolchildren of equitable access to educational opportunities, and improperly burdens local taxpayers—all in violation of clear constitutional requirements.
State officials should stop trying to defend this indefensible system. Instead of delaying the case as long as possible on appeal, they should face up now to the state’s duty to provide every child with a full opportunity to achieve his or her educational potential.
The timing is right. The state economy is booming, and the state treasury is overflowing with available revenue. Lawmakers have the wallet, if they have the will, to give our students the education they deserve.
State Appeal Schedule in School-Finance Case Would Push Final Ruling Into 2016 JANUARY 8, 2015 BY TEXAS AFT LEAVE A COMMENT
Responding to a district court’s ruling last year that the state system of school funding violates the state constitution, the state of Texas (via the attorney general’s office over which Gov.-elect Greg Abbott still presides) this week has requested a schedule for appellate argument that would push final Texas Supreme Court action into 2016. If the request is granted, some lawmakers are sure to use the pending case as an excuse for continued inaction this year on overdue restoration of funds cut in 2011 and for continued resistance to much-needed funding improvements. But the situation is really not that different from the one we faced in the 2013 session, in which several billion dollars for public schools were restored even though the school-finance lawsuit’s
outcome, then as now, was not final. The use of pending legal action as an excuse for inaction by the legislature was feeble then, and it is feeble now. Legislators need to make increased school funding a priority in the 2015 session, and the funds are available to do it.
National Report Ranks Texas 49th in Per-Pupil Spending, Gives State a D for School Finance and a C- for Student Achievement JANUARY 8, 2015 BY TEXAS AFT 1 COMMENT
The Education Week Research Center’s 2015 “Quality Counts” report puts Texas 49th in the nation for its level of school spending per pupil. The ranking is based on an apples-to-apples comparison among the states that takes regional cost variations into account, so the abysmal ranking is no fluke. This low investment in the state’s youth explains why the overall ranking for Texas on school finance is a letter grade of D. The state’s score for student achievement in grades K-12 was a C-, matching the average across all states.
The Education Week research findings back up what Texas educators—and a state district court—have seen in our under-resourced schools and classrooms: a state system of school funding that does not meet constitutional requirements to ensure equitable and adequate educational opportunity to all students.
First Draft of the State Budget Fails to Use Available Revenue to Restore and Enhance Education Funding JANUARY 19, 2015 BY TEXAS AFT 1 COMMENT
On January 15 the Texas House released a first draft of the state budget that falls short of even a bare-bones level of funding that would maintain current state services. It would take about $102 billion in general revenue to maintain current services, and the
initial House proposal for 2016-2017 comes in about $3 billion below that, at $98.8 billion. For public education, the bill purportedly would cover the cost of enrollment growth, but it would rely heavily on the use of increased local property-tax collections, and it would not add new general revenue to reverse past funding cuts, let alone enhance formula aid for school districts.
One positive provision at least can be noted. This initial version of the budget maintains the state contribution rate for the TRS pension fund at 6.8 percent, the level to which it was increased last session as part of an overall package deal to strengthen the pension fund. Regarding the TRS-Care health plan for retirees, however, the proposal does not include additional state funding needed to keep the program solvent without big premium increases or benefit cuts. Nor does the initial budget draft address the increasingly unaffordable increases in health-insurance costs and erosion of benefits borne by active school employees.
Overall, the proposal leaves $14 billion in general revenue available but as yet untouched, not to mention another $11 billion in the Economic Stabilization Fund reserve. The biggest question of the 2015 session therefore remains as described in stark terms by the late Texas AFT President Linda Bridges just last week, on the eve of the session: Will lawmakers use available funds to address neglected needs or to grant more tax giveaways to special interests?
1
Segregation and school vouchers share a common pedigree
By Louis Malfaro, Texas AFT Secretary-Treasurer
“Education is the new civil rights movement” we are told by latter-day school reformers who promote school choice, vouchers, and erosion of the common neighborhood school as a path to educational opportunity for poor and underserved children.
One wonders what Thurgood Marshall—the late civil rights attorney and eventual U.S. Supreme Court justice—would have had to say about this inverted notion of civil rights, in which the state, in lieu of providing a high-quality education to all students in every neighborhood, turns education into a commodity for parents and students who are expected to shop around town to find a school.
Marshall successfully advocated an end to legal segregation in public schools and won a unanimous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that separate schools, even supposing they might have substantially equal resources, are inherently unequal if they remain segregated by race.
As the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision turns 60 this year, it is important to reflect on the promise (yet to be realized universally) of public education where students of all backgrounds have access to high-quality, integrated public schools. It is likewise important to recall how those who opposed school equality and desegregation used school choice, tuition grants, and vouchers to undermine the goals of Brown in an attempt to maintain a system of separate schools.
In the wake of Brown v. Board of Education, many states and cities, particularly in the South, adopted “freedom of choice” policies that allowed students to remain in segregated schools. Later, when the court required school desegregation, “segregation academies” sprung up to allow white students to attend these private schools with public tuition grants or vouchers. The earliest impetus
VOUCHERS
2
for publicly funded school choice was a desire to maintain separate and unequal systems of schooling for children from different backgrounds and circumstances. The unwillingness to provide and maintain high-quality schools for all students remains an abiding motivation for voucher and choice advocates.
Vouchers have been the bedrock of the radical right-wing education agenda for decades. They serve the dual purpose of privatizing what has historically been the function of the state (a constitutionally mandated duty in most states, including Texas) and of providing tax dollars for religious, segregated, and private institutions of education. Vouchers also extend the ideological fetish for markets into the education arena. And voucher backers make the facile argument that no attention need be paid to teacher preparation, curriculum, student needs, or any of the myriad factors that determine educational attainment; the invisible hand of the market will bring improved educational outcomes.
Despite their history as a tool for denying poor and minority student’s access to high-quality education, vouchers and school choice are now being touted as a way of furthering the civil rights of poor and historically underserved students. Do vouchers do what their supports claim they will do? Do they reduce the achievement gap between rich and poor, black and white? Do they further the cause of integrated schools? The answer to each of these questions is “NO.”
In Milwaukee, where a large private school voucher program has been in place for nearly 25 years, research has determined that vouchers have not improved educational outcomes for students who attend private schools on a voucher or in the public schools of the city. In fact, Milwaukee compares with Alabama and Mississippi on NAEP scores. Wisconsin, which underfunds the schools in Milwaukee where two-thirds of the state’s African American students live, has one of the largest achievement gaps between black and white students of any state. The story is much the same in Cleveland, Washington, D.C., and other places where large-scale voucher programs have been introduced. A review of all existing vouchers studies conducted in 2009 found no evidence that vouchers produce achievement gains for affected students, nor do they drive improvements in neighborhood schools through competition (market forces).
The Cleveland voucher program, which provides public dollars for students to attend religious schools (over 90 percent of voucher recipients in that city attend sectarian schools), was found to be constitutional by a narrow 5-to-4 margin of the Supreme Court. The court ruled on this technical point: since the voucher money went to parents who then paid the private, religious school, the
3
program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits public support for religious institutions.
The NAACP staged a demonstration on the steps of the Supreme Court against the Cleveland voucher program as the court heard the case. Public education is not a new civil right—it is a right we have been working for decades to make available to all America’s children. It is an essential institution in our nation’s promise to provide equality of opportunity and ensure economic and social mobility are available to all children. The only way to fulfill that promise to all children is through a system of high-quality, free public schools accessible to all students regardless of income, background, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, nationality, race, language, or disability. John Dewey summed it up pretty well: “What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy.”
Coalition for Public Schools Blasts First Voucher Bill of the 2015 Session JANUARY 7, 2015 BY TEXAS AFT
Sen. Donna Campbell, a San Antonio Republican, has pre-filed the first private-school voucher bill of the 2015 session, SB 276. Sen. Campbell timed the pre-filing of her bill to coincide with issuance of a pro-voucher report by a pro-voucher advocacy group in Austin. Her bill was greeted with a hard-hitting critique by the Coalition for Public Schools, in which Texas AFT and more than 30 other community, education, and labor organizations united in support of neighborhood public schools. Here is the Coalition for Public Schools press release in full:
A proposed new private school voucher scheme, a so-called “taxpayer savings grant,” represents a massive tax-giveaway that would drain hundreds of millions of dollars each year from neighborhood public schools to subsidize tuition at private and religious schools, mostly benefiting wealthy families.
Charles Luke, coordinator for the Coalition for Public Schools, notes several major flaws to Sen. Donna Campbell’s voucher scheme, Senate Bill 276.
4
“Senator Campbell’s proposal would pose yet another threat to the education of 5.1 million Texas children who attend our local neighborhood schools,” Luke said. “We’ve seen this kind of creative math before, and the state of Texas simply cannot afford to fund two separate school systems: one for the vast majority of Texas children and another for those students granted state funding to attend a private, for-profit school that is not accountable to the taxpayers for how they use our tax dollars.”
Among the flaws in Sen. Campbell’s proposed voucher scheme:
• First, the scheme is modeled after previous bills that analysts have shown would end up funneling more state dollars to educate a student at a private school than a student attending a public school.
• Second, the proposed legislation explicitly exempts private schools that accept the voucher dollars from state education accountability regulations, financial and academic, that public schools must meet. That would leave private schools unaccountable to the taxpayers providing the funds.
• Third, the students most likely to benefit from this voucher scheme are those from wealthy families that can afford to pay the difference between the value of the voucher and the actual cost of tuition at a private or religious school. That contradicts claims that this voucher scheme would close achievement gaps between low-income and wealthy families.
The Legislature has yet to make up the massive funding cuts to public schools passed in 2011. This proposed voucher scheme would make it even harder for public schools to cover that funding shortfall.
“This bill is just another voucher scam that cuts funds that public schools need to educate the vast majority of Texas students while creating a parallel taxpayer-funded system for unaccountable private schools,” Luke said. “The promised ‘savings’ come at the expense of kids left behind in public schools with even less funding than they had before.”
The Case Against Private School Vouchers More than 50 years have passed since Milton Friedman first proposed private school vouchers as a public policy. During that time, proponents have spent hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to convince a skeptical public and lawmakers of the concept’s efficacy, and yet, five decades later, vouchers still remain controversial, unproven and unpopular. Opposition to vouchers emanates from constitutional and democratic concerns, as well as from practical and policy-‐related flaws, including many of those listed below. Ø Either you’re for accountability or you’re not —Vouchers eliminate public accountability. Vouchers channel tax dollars into private schools that do not face state-‐approved academic standards, do not make budgets public, do not adhere to open meetings and records laws, do not publicly report on student achievement, and do not face the public accountability requirements contained in state and federal laws, including special education laws. They also do not have to accept all students. Ø Vouchers divert critical dollars and commitment from public schools—Vouchers divert attention, commitment and dollars from public schools to pay private school tuition for a few students, including many who already attend private school. A dollar spent on a tuition voucher is a dollar drained from public education. Even proposals that purportedly create a “new” funding stream to pay for vouchers miss the mark: if new public money is available for education it should be invested in strengthening the schools that educate the vast majority of our students and are accountable to all taxpayers – our public schools. Ø Vouchers are no way to raise student achievement for all—Despite built-‐in screening advantages for private schools, a GAO report to Congress on the Cleveland and Milwaukee voucher programs noted that the most credible research found “little or no difference in voucher and public school students’ performance.” The federal evaluation of the Washington, D.C. voucher experiment discovered the same two years running. Ø Vouchers waste taxpayer money—Vouchers force taxpayers to support two school systems: one public and one private, the latter of which is not accountable to all the taxpayers supporting it. Existing private school students usually are eligible to receive vouchers, creating a new cost to taxpayers. Ø Vouchers leave behind many students, including those with the greatest needs— Vouchers leave behind many disadvantaged students because private schools may not accept them or do not offer the special services they need. Ø Vouchers give choices to private schools, not parents—Private schools decide if they want to accept vouchers, and then how many students they want to admit. And even if a voucher student does gain acceptance into a private school, the school can later reject him or her for numerous reasons. Ø Vouchers remain publicly unpopular—Utah voters, in 2007, overwhelmingly voted to repeal a state voucher program by a margin of 62 percent to 38 percent. This marked the 11th time in 11 referenda over the past 30 years that voters have decisively rejected specific voucher or tuition tax credit proposals.
GRAND JURIES ____________________________________________________
About Grand Juries: • A grand jury consists of twelve people whose job is to review criminal complaints and
decide if there is sufficient evidence to issue an indictment. The standard of proof for an indictment is probable cause.
• Grand jurors in Texas are most often selected through the Key Man system, which is used in only one other state: California. District judges appoint three to five people to serve as grand jury commissioners, requiring each to select a handful of people willing to serve. Judges pick grand jurors from that pool. The majority of counties in Texas uses this system including the higher populated counties.
• Houston has an application process where people have to fill out a form & have it notarized in order to be considered to be on a Grand Jury.
• The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the key man system but warned that it is "highly subjective" and "susceptible of abuse."
• "Many jurors are drawn from those persons who are considered pillars of the community and retirees," John Stride, a senior appellate attorney for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, wrote in an article for the organization in spring of 2012. "Many of these may have strong ties with law enforcement officers ... (and are therefore) more likely to buy into whatever the judge, prosecutor or officers say."
• There is another option. State law gives judges another choice in how they seat grand juries. It permits them to select grand jurors from 20 to 125 randomly chosen people from the county's pool for regular jury duty. (Appears to do a better job of getting diverse jury that is representative of the community)
What you can do: o If you live in Harris County, go out & get registered to participate on Grand Juries. The
website where you can get the form is http://www.justex.net/grandjuryinfo/faq.aspx o Reach out to the judges in your community and find out what system they use to pick
grand juries. If they use “Key Man” let them know of your interest to be a Grand Jury Commissioner or talk to them about using the system that randomly chose people from the regular jury duty pool.
o Serve on juries in your community when available.
Provided by the Texas NACCP
Reproduced with permission of the author and the Houston Chronicle. Not to be reproduced without written permission, in accordance with international copyright law.
Four-‐Part Series Published in the Houston Chronicle LISA FALKENBERG (07/16/2014) Part I: A disturbing glimpse into the shrouded world of the Texas grand jury system
"Sir, I don't know anything else," the young mother of three told a Harris County prosecutor on an April morning in 2003. But the prosecutor, Dan Rizzo, didn't believe her. And neither did the Harris County grand jury listening to her testimony.
They seemed convinced that Ericka Jean Dockery's boyfriend of six months, Alfred Dewayne Brown, had murdered veteran Houston police officer Charles R. Clark during a three-‐man burglary of a check-‐cashing place, and they didn't seem to be willing to believe Dockery's testimony that he was at her house the morning of the murder.
"If we find out that you're not telling the truth, we're coming after you," one grand juror tells Dockery.
"You won't be able to get a job flipping burgers," says another. Dockery tells the group that if she believed Brown actually killed people, she'd turn him in herself: "If
he did it, he deserves to get whatever is coming to him. Truly," she says. In May, I reported that a land-‐line phone record supporting Brown's contention that he called
Dockery that morning from her apartment phone had mysteriously turned up in a homicide detective's garage, more than seven years after he was convicted and sentenced to death. The Harris County District Attorney's Office maintained Rizzo, now retired, must have inadvertently lost the record, and agreed to a new trial. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals inexplicably has sat on the case for more than a year.
Initially, Dockery's story meshed with Brown's. She told grand jurors he was indeed asleep on her couch at the early morning hour when prosecutors believed he was scouting venues. Dockery also confirmed the land-‐line call to her workplace -‐ made at the same time prosecutors placed Brown at an apartment complex with suspects, changing clothes and watching TV news coverage of the crime.
Neither the prosecutor nor the grand jury would take Dockery's "truth" for an answer. The young woman, a home health aide who made Subway sandwiches by night, had no attorney. No
experience dealing with authorities. No criminal history aside from traffic tickets. She caved. At Brown's capital murder trial in October 2005, Dockery was a key prosecution witness,
helping seal her boyfriend's death sentence by telling the court that when she asked him if he did it, he had confessed, saying, " 'I was there. I was there.' "
How she got from one point to another would be hard to imagine. But thanks to a formerly confidential document in Brown's court file, we don't have to imagine.
In a rare, disturbing glimpse into the shrouded world of the Texas grand jury system, we can read with our own eyes the beginnings of the young woman's tortured evolution.
Appellate attorneys were so outraged by a 146-‐page transcript of Dockery's testimony before the 208th Harris County grand jury on April 21, 2003, that they entered it into the public record for judges to review.
In it, grand jurors don't just inquire. They interrogate. They intimidate. They appear to abandon their duty to serve as a check on overzealous government prosecution and instead join the team.
"Unbelievable," veteran criminal defense attorney Pat McCann said after I asked him to read the document. "When she went in there, Mr. Brown had an alibi. When they were finished browbeating her with her children, he didn't. That's the single biggest misuse and abuse of the grand jury system I have ever seen."
Reproduced with permission of the author and the Houston Chronicle. Not to be reproduced without written permission, in accordance with international copyright law.
Rizzo and Lynn Hardaway with the DA's office declined comment, citing a state law that keeps grand jury proceedings secret.
At first, the fact that Dockery seemed to be "a good, nice, hard-‐working lady," in the words of one grand juror, gave her credibility with the group. But jurors soon seized on her vulnerabilities and fear.
"Hey, Dan," the foreman calls to the prosecutor. "What are the punishments for perjury and aggravated perjury?"
"It's up to 10 years," Rizzo responds. "In prison. OK," the foreman says. "Oh no," says another grand juror as if on cue, echoing other commentary that reads at times like a
Greek chorus. "I'm just trying to answer all your questions to the best of my ability," Dockery says. A bit later, a female juror asks pointedly: "What are you protecting him from?" "I'm not protecting him from anything. No ma'am. I wouldn't dare do that," Dockery eventually
responds. As Rizzo and the grand jurors parse Dockery's every word and challenge each statement, she complains they're confusing her.
"No, we're not confusing you," a grand juror says. "We just want to find out the truth." Although Dockery says repeatedly that she knew it was Brown on her couch that morning, the
foreman tries to get her to subscribe to an implausible theory that it was somebody else on her couch. She doesn't budge. The group takes a break -‐ one of several. When the grand jury returns, the foreman says the members are not convinced by Dockery's story
and "wanted to express our concern" for her children if she doesn't come clean. "That's why we're really pulling this testimony," the foreman tells her. The foreman adds that if the evidence shows she's perjuring herself "then you know the kids are
going to be taken by Child Protective Services, and you're going to the penitentiary and you won't see your kids for a long time."
'Think about your kids' Rizzo goes on to accuse Dockery of misleading the grand jury. Then, after being told again and again
to think about her children, Dockery changes her story a bit. She says Brown was not at the house when she left for work.
"No, no, no," she finally blurts out. "One minute, Ericka," a grand juror says a bit later, apparently sensing an opportunity. "He wasn't in
the house when you put your kids on the bus either, was (he)?" "I'm trying to remember," she says. "Think about your kids, darling," a grand juror says. "I'm trying to remember," Dockery says. "That's what we're concerned about here, is your kids," the foreman says. "He was not at the house," a grand juror urges. "We're as much concerned about your kids as you are," the foreman says. "So, tell the truth." "He was not in the house when you put your kids on the bus, was he?" a grand juror says. "Tell the truth, girl." "Yes," Dockery says finally. "He was there."
Reproduced with permission of the author and the Houston Chronicle. Not to be reproduced without written permission, in accordance with international copyright law.
A bit later, Dockery acquiesces on that point, saying that Brown was not in her house earlier that morning, either.
There's a long break. Whatever happened during that time must have been profound. Dockery comes back in and tells yet another, completely different, story -‐ that she left her house far earlier than she'd said previously, to rekindle a relationship with an old lover, and therefore doesn't know what time Brown left.
Rizzo, his patience seemingly wearing thin, suggests again he doesn't believe her story. "I think that you're up to your neck involved in this deal," he says.
He is intent on getting Dockery to admit she made a call to one of the suspects, as he says records show.
"I never called. I never called," she says. "Girl, you just made a big mistake," a grand juror says. One of them advises her to get an attorney. "We're done," Rizzo announces. And although Dockery had never been implicated in the crime, a grand juror closes out Dockery's
testimony by leveling the harshest, most intimidating allegation yet. "I think she was with him at the check cashing place." Months later, Dockery found herself in jail charged with perjury for allegedly lying about what time
she last saw Brown the day of the murder and whether she called another suspect. She faced bail she couldn't pay and, apparently, one cruel choice -‐ stay locked up away from her children, or tell them what they wanted to hear. LISA FALKENBERG (07/17/2014) Part II: Mother of 3 pressured into changing story, but jailed anyway
For 120 days, Ericka Dockery sat in a Harris County jail cell on Baker Street, a place she would later
describe as hellish, "nasty," full of fights, "unclean women," and a world away from the most important part of her life -‐ her three children.
Dockery had a choice: Stay locked up, or tell authorities the story they wanted to hear so they could prosecute her boyfriend for capital murder.
Nearly seven weeks in, Dockery chose the latter. On Oct. 9, 2003, she dictated a jailhouse letter, a desperate plea to state district Judge Mark Kent
Ellis, asking him to consider her children, then ages 11, 8 and 6, and vowing to be "a productive mother and citizen if allowed to go home."
"The time here without them is almost unbearable," she wrote in the letter, obtained from Alfred Dewayne Brown's court file.
As I recounted in Thursday's column, Dockery was a home health aide who had worked nights making Subway sandwiches when she found herself charged with three counts of felony aggravated perjury -‐ allegedly for lying to grand jurors after they pressured her to change her story in a 2003 cop-‐killing case.
Dockery had testified to the grand jury that her then-‐boyfriend, Brown, was at her apartment when prosecutors believed he was with guys he knew from the neighborhood, scouting venues for a burglary that would lead to the murder of Houston police officer Charles R. Clark.
Dockery also testified that Brown made a landline call to her workplace around the time of the crime, a contention that would have supported his alibi but was never supported with evidence at trial. It wasn't
Reproduced with permission of the author and the Houston Chronicle. Not to be reproduced without written permission, in accordance with international copyright law.
until more than seven years after Brown's 2005 conviction and death sentence that a phone record documenting the landline call turned up in a detective's garage. Last year, the judge agreed to a new trial, but the state's highest criminal court has been dallying for over a year on whether to allow it.
Back in 2003, the lead Harris County prosecutor, Dan Rizzo, believed early on that Brown was the murderer, and the grand jury apparently agreed. A transcript of the secret proceedings details how the group intimidated Dockery into changing her story by threatening to take away her children and send her to prison.
She did change her story, but Rizzo saw to it that she was charged with perjury anyway -‐ perhaps to compel her cooperation, perhaps to help discredit her with the jury if she ever tried to defend Brown again.
Another grand jury indicted her, in part for testifying that the last time she saw Brown on the morning of the murder was 8:30 a.m., when she later said it was 6:50 a.m. And in part for denying she had made a phone call to another of the murder suspects when phone records showed that she had.
Why Dockery would deny making the phone call to an acquaintance of her boyfriend's, if in fact she did, is still a mystery to me. She may have lied out of fear, or perhaps she forgot the call or didn't realize she had miss-‐dialed. Whatever the reason, it gave Rizzo rope to bind her.
Bail was set at $5,000 for each count and wasn't lowered, even though Dockery wasn't much of a flight risk -‐ she had local ties, a steady job, and no criminal record beyond traffic tickets and children.
Dockery couldn't pay it. So, she appealed to Judge Ellis, and confessed her guilt of aggravated perjury. "At the time I appeared in front of the grand jury I answered their questions to the best of my belief
and knowledge," Dockery wrote, adding that she didn't know at the time that Brown was not at her apartment. "He (Brown) asked me to lie and tell anyone who asked that he was in fact at my home when in fact he was not."
She claimed that Brown's brother had threatened to kill her and her children if she gave any statement conflicting with Brown's.
"Out of fear for the safety of my children, I remained silent," she wrote the judge. She gave details about the crime that she said she had gleaned from others, and reiterated her plea
for leniency. "Again your honor, I just want to say that I am guilty of aggravated perjury and of loving my children
more than anything else in the world and would do whatever necessary to protective (sic) them and keep them safe from harm," she wrote.
"Whatever necessary" apparently meant cooperating with the prosecutors and becoming their key witness.
Among conditions of Dockery's release from jail, she agreed to a 10 p.m. curfew, drug testing twice a month and to wear an ankle monitor. The last one made sure she stuck around. But it wasn't enough.
To make sure she stuck to her story, Dockery was required to call a homicide detective once a week. Two criminal defense attorneys told me they'd never heard of such a thing. Rizzo, the prosecutor,
defended the requirement for a witness who was expected to give important testimony at trial. "That's fairly typical for someone we're not sure is going to be there, to just keep in contact so you
don't have to go looking for them again," he said, adding that he believed the calls to the homicide detective came only after Dockery gave a sworn statement on her version of events.
Randall Ayers, who was Dockery's court-‐appointed defense attorney at the time, said the intent of the provision was clear, but it was one to which his client readily agreed.
"Obviously, I think their goal was to keep her under their thumb," Ayers said. "Of course I was concerned but there's nothing I could really do. The judge required it. It was just how it was."
Reproduced with permission of the author and the Houston Chronicle. Not to be reproduced without written permission, in accordance with international copyright law.
She testified at Brown's capital murder trial in October 2005 that, once, when she asked if he had done it, he told her "I was there. I was there."
It was the first time Dockery had ever mentioned that statement, according to Brown's appeal. After Brown's conviction and death sentence, Dockery tried to get on with her life. In November
2005, she was granted two years community supervision. And in 2007, Judge Ellis ended her supervision early and she avoided a conviction through deferred adjudication.
Years later, when an investigator for Brown's appellate attorneys came knocking on her door, hoping she would help lead them to the truth, Dockery turned the woman away and ordered her off the lawn.
Then one day they sent someone else, a capital murder exoneree who had survived his own tortured journey through the criminal justice system.
"Look, sister," Anthony Graves told her before she could close the door. "I just want to tell you what happened to me."
And she let him in. LISA FALKENBERG (07/23/2014) Part III: Anthony Graves helps open a painful door to the past, and perhaps the truth
For years, Dockery had eluded appellate attorneys for death row inmate Alfred Dewayne Brown who
wanted to question her about why she went from bolstering her ex-‐boyfriend's alibi to testifying against him at his 2005 cop-‐killing trial.
When the legal team did find her, she wouldn't talk. So, an investigator reached out to Graves, who had only one year earlier been freed after 18 years behind bars following a wrongful 1994 conviction for the murder of a Somerville grandmother, her daughter and four children.
Graves agreed to help when he learned that the capital murder case bore a similarity to his own: Graves' strongest alibi witnesses, Yolanda Mathis, a friend with whom he'd stayed up talking the night of the murders, refused to testify after being threatened with a capital murder charge by authorities as well.
In an interview in May, Graves said he shared his story with Dockery one day in August 2011 after the then-‐36-‐year-‐old mother of three let him and an investigator into her living room. "The next thing I know, she was telling us everything," Graves said.
He said Dockery recounted how she'd been threatened into testifying against Brown, how she'd been jailed away from her three children on perjury charges after being accused of lying to a grand jury, how upon her release she was forced to wear an ankle monitor.
In previous columns, I reported how Dockery initially backed up her ex-‐boyfriend's claim that he'd been at her apartment around the time Brown was accused of murdering
Houston Police Officer Charles R. Clark during a three-‐man robbery of a check-‐cashing place. She testified he made a land line call from the apartment to Dockery at her workplace, which should have bolstered his alibi.
But a phone record documenting that land line call was never revealed at trial, even though Harris County lead prosecutor Dan Rizzo had obtained it. It only surfaced seven years later in a homicide detective's garage. The discovery led the Harris County District Attorney's Office and trial Judge Mark Kent Ellis to quickly agree to a new trial, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has yet to rule more than a year later, leaving Brown marking time on death row.
Reproduced with permission of the author and the Houston Chronicle. Not to be reproduced without written permission, in accordance with international copyright law.
"When I asked her 'was Alfred Brown innocent,'" Graves recalled, "she told me about the phone call. She told me he didn't do anything."
That was quite a different story than the last one Dockery had told at Brown's trial, when she testified that Brown confessed to being at the murder scene. As I've reported, her trial testimony came only after Dockery went before a grand jury that threatened to take her children and lock her up if she didn't change her story.
Graves said Dockery's experience happens all too often among witnesses who can't afford attorneys, have little experience with the criminal justice system, and are easily intimidated by authorities who wield great power. He said his Graves Foundation is looking at ways to help raise money to provide key witnesses with legal representation in certain cases.
"I just think it's so important," Graves said. "That's a major breakdown. They don't have to go and threaten the suspect anymore. They go to the witnesses." Graves' visit apparently made an impression on Dockery. She later agreed to meet with Brown's appellate attorneys and to give a sworn statement recanting much of her key trial testimony.
In the November 2011 statement, Dockery says Brown never told her to lie to the grand jury and he never confessed he was at the crime scene.
"Dewayne always denied his involvement in the offense," Dockery states. Dockery says she specifically remembers Brown's call to her workplace around the time of the murder, and that the caller ID showed it was coming from her home. Then Dockery levels serious accusations against Rizzo, the former assistant district attorney, accusing him of intimidating her off-‐the-‐record in a room alone during the grand jury session.
"Rizzo told me that he did not believe me, that I was not a good person, that he was going to take my children away by calling Child Protective Services, and that I was going to go to jail for a long time," she says. "I felt very threatened by ADA Rizzo throughout this whole case."
She says Rizzo threatened her by saying that he was going to make her a "co-‐defendant in the murder case, and I would never see my children again. At that moment, I was very scared and threatened by Mr. Rizzo. These threats are why I gave the testimony I did."
Rizzo, who is now retired, adamantly denies Dockery's claims, saying he was firm and zealous only within the bounds of the law. "I don't know why she recanted," said Rizzo, who still believes Brown is guilty. "The things she said about me were not true. They were the farthest thing from the truth. I was offended by those things."
I asked Rizzo about others who have since recanted testimony fingering Brown, including an alleged accomplice who also was convicted of capital murder and two women who said they felt pressured into their statements. One of them basically accused Rizzo of putting words in her mouth. "Recanting happens," he said. "It happens for a lot of reasons."
Lynn Hardaway, chief of the DA's post-‐conviction writs division, who also believes Brown is guilty, speculates that Dockery may be acting on residual feelings for Brown and says that sometimes in death cases witnesses recant to help the inmate avoid execution. "She has told several different stories," Hardaway says of Dockery, "but what I ultimately believe is what she testified at trial."
Dockery hasn't responded to my attempts to reach her. But I have to wonder why a hard-‐working mother with no criminal record beyond traffic tickets who seems to have wanted desperately to move on with her life would now vouch for a convicted cop-‐killer if she didn't really believe he was innocent. Randall Ayers, the appointed attorney who defended Dockery in the perjury cases, was similarly perplexed when attorneys notified him of Dockery's recantation.
Reproduced with permission of the author and the Houston Chronicle. Not to be reproduced without written permission, in accordance with international copyright law.
"I was like 'Really?'" Ayers said. "I told the defense attorney and the prosecutor both 'Wow, I'm really surprised' because, you know, when it was all said and done, she had a new guy in her life ... and she was moving away somewhere, and I thought, well, good for her, she's moving on."
But maybe, just maybe, there's no moving on from the truth. Maybe it has a way of finding you. LISA FALKENBERG (07/24/2014) Part IV: Cop was foreman of grand jury in cop-‐killing
We can't hear his voice as he browbeats the mother of three within the secret confines of the grand jury room. We can't see his face as he dogs her to stop supporting her boyfriend's alibi in a cop-‐killing case.
But we know when the grand jury foreman is talking. We know because the 146-‐page transcript notes it in all capital letters. And we know by his words. He's the one who calls out to the Harris County prosecutor with the familiarity of a guy asking a buddy to pass a beer, "Hey Dan, what are the punishments for perjury and aggravated perjury?"
He's the one who tells the 27-‐year-‐old witness, Ericka Dockery, that if she perjures herself, "then you know the kids are going to be taken by Child Protective Services, and you're going to the penitentiary and you won't see your kids for a long time."
He's the one who tries to get Dockery to subscribe to the implausible theory that it was someone else -‐ not her boyfriend, Alfred Dewayne Brown -‐ sleeping on her couch just before the murder at a check cashing store, even though she insisted again and again she knew it was Brown by his build, his tennis shoes, and the color of the shirt she bought him.
Understandably, the cold-‐blooded murder of a police officer rouses strong emotions. Dockery was questioned only 18 days after veteran Houston Police Officer Charles R. Clark was gunned down in April of 2003 trying to stop a three-‐man burglary at a check-‐cashing store. Clark was 45, on the brink of retirement, and married. Officers had worked throughout the night to hunt down his killer. The loss was fresh.But if the foreman seems a little too passionate to be impartial, a little too invested to fairly lead a grand jury investigating an officer's murder, maybe it's because he was. The foreman, records reveal, was himself a veteran Houston police officer.
Records obtained through a Texas Public Information Act request show that Senior Police Officer James Koteras, sworn in in July of 1972, led an investigation into the death of his own colleague. A confidential grand jury record released by state district Judge Denise Collins shows that Koteras identified his occupation in 2003 as "Retired-‐Houston Police Officer." But police and city payroll records and officials confirm that Koteras was an active-‐duty officer in HPD's auto theft division until his retirement in March 2008.
Technically, Koteras is still on the city payroll today, receiving compensation for time he accrued as an officer. The date discrepancy is not necessarily Koteras' fault, as his occupation may have been updated in a subsequent grand jury service. Regardless, Dockery didn't stand a chance against a deck that stacked.
The blatant conflict is stunning even in a county known for its cozy, pick-‐a-‐pal grand jury system stocked with police-‐ and prosecution-‐friendly elites. Any naïve notion that the grand jury would act as a check on overzealous prosecution withered when Koteras failed to recuse himself.
Reproduced with permission of the author and the Houston Chronicle. Not to be reproduced without written permission, in accordance with international copyright law.
"I would personally recuse myself," HPD Chief Charles McClelland said Thursday when I asked what he'd do in a similar situation, "because of just the air or the perception of what the community may feel. But that's me personally."
Judge Collins, who impaneled the grand jury, seems as disturbed as anybody at reports of the harshness with which grand jurors interrogated Dockery. "It's terrible, it's terrible," the judge told me. "That shouldn't have happened. I hope that was an aberration. No, grand jurors do not work for the state."
Still, she stands by her decision to appoint a law enforcement officer to the body, noting that she also appoints defense attorneys as well.
"I just don't think you should just eliminate people because of what they do," she said. "They're a citizen as well."
I don't disagree with her on that. And I also don't blame her for Koteras' role in Brown's case. The judge had no direct oversight over which cases he handled or how he handled them. She isn't the one who assigned a grand jury led by a cop to a cop-‐killing case.
That was the decision of Dan Rizzo, former Harris County assistant district attorney who served as lead prosecutor. His choice of Koteras "would scream conflict of interest to nearly all reasonable people," says University of Houston law professor David R. Dow. "The DA's office is full of reasonable people. So the only logical conclusion is that they just didn't care about this conflict."
When I asked Rizzo about the conflict he drew a blank."It's one of those things that I just don't remember," he said. But he added: "That alone would not cause me to say a grand jury was not an objective grand jury." Rizzo, now retired, was a seasoned prosecutor in 2003. He had easy access to the same type of form I obtained in which Koteras listed his occupation. He had to have known about the conflict. And in truth, he would have welcomed the advantage.
Not that he needed it over a group of largely black suspects from a bad part of town. Dockery worked as a home health aide and made Subway sandwiches at night. She had no one to advise her with the grand jury. Lawyers aren't allowed inside, but she didn't even have one waiting in the hall.
Rizzo's selection of Koteras' grand jury worked out well for his case. After the group threatened Dockery, she changed her story. She was charged with perjury anyway for good measure, locked up away from her children until she agreed to become the prosecution's key witness against Brown.
Her testimony helped seal Brown's conviction and death sentence in 2005. That could have been the end of the story if a phone record supporting Brown's alibi that he was at Dockery's apartment around the time of the murder hadn't surfaced last year in a homicide detective's garage. The district attorney's office and the trial judge quickly agreed to a new trial, but the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals has yet to rule on the case more than a year later.
Koteras has not responded to my attempts to reach him. I haven't been able to ask him why he didn't simply recuse himself from the proceeding and allow the rest of the quorum to hear Brown's case.
Three other grand jurors who served on the 2003 panel said their faded memories didn't recall any undue pressure on Dockery, or any perceived bias from the police officer acting as foreman.
"We talked about it and all," grand juror MaryAnna Montalbano said about Koteras' occupation. "If it affected him and he served any way, that's not good." But she didn't recall him acting unfairly. Another grand juror, Richard Alan Ogle, who teaches writing at UH-‐Downtown, said having a police officer on a grand jury "probably does influence some cases." But whether it had an impact on this one, he couldn't remember. Ogle remembered feeling that Dockery's testimony "didn't sound right" and that "her body language, the way she talked, some inconsistencies in what she said" raised suspicions.
Most telling, though, was my interview with grand juror Randy Russell, a recent president of the 100 Club, the nonprofit that helps support dependents of peace officers and firefighters who die in the line of duty. When I started describing the case to jog his memory, Russell insisted I had the wrong guy. "It
Reproduced with permission of the author and the Houston Chronicle. Not to be reproduced without written permission, in accordance with international copyright law.
definitely wasn't me. And I'll tell you why," he said. "We had an HPD sergeant (sic) who was the foreman of our panel and we did not hear any cases involving police officers."
I read him the names of the other grand jurors, including Koteras', and it all started coming back. He then assured me that, despite the fact that an officer was at the helm, the panel was independent and "it wasn't a rubber stamp kind of thing." Still, one thing continued to stump him. "I don't know why we heard that case," he said.
I don't know why, either. But I have an idea. And the reason wasn't justice. It was the farthest thing from it.
In addition to intimidation, threats and imprisonment, a grand jury led by a cop was another powerful weapon for a prosecutor determined to get justice for a fallen officer.
But it was a blunt instrument used against a person who couldn't fight back.
TEXAS VS.USACIVIC LIFE IN AMERICA
USATexasKey: Ranking in top half of states Ranking in bottom half of states
All rankings reflect where Texas residents rank among residents in the 50 states and Washington, DC
Political Action, 2011 21
Electoral Participation, 2010 2
Texas residents are ranked 42nd for voter registration42nd
Texas residents are ranked 51st for voter turnout51st
Texas residents are ranked 49th for contacting elected officials
Texas residents are ranked 44th for discussing politics a few times a week or more
44th49th
Express Opinions about Political or Community
Issues on the Internet
7%
8%
Contact ElectedOfficials
12 %9%
Discuss Politics withFamily or Friends
26% 29%TXTX
USUS
TXUS
USA46%
65%
TEXAS36%62% Registered
Voted
Read the full report atwww.txcivichealth.org
2011 Current Population Survey (CPS) November Civic Engagement Supplement, according to analysis provided by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University
SOURCES
2
2010 CPS November Voting/Registration Supplement, according to analysis provided by CIRCLE2
1
2011 CPS September Volunteering Supplement, according to analysis provided by CIRCLE3
3
Percentage of Texas residents who donated $25 or more to charitable causes
38%39%
1
TX US
Participation in any group or organization
Participation in Formal/Informal Volunteering, 2011
Texas residents are ranked 42nd for volunteering.
3
25%TEXAS
27%
USA
42nd
%
USATEXAS
47% 52
2011 CPS September Volunteering Supplement, according to Volunteering and Civic Life in America website (www.volunteeringinamerica.gov)
4
4Where Texans Volunteer
27%
40%
25%
RELIGIOUS
EDUCATIONAL14%SOCIAL SERVICES
5% Civic
6% Health
4% Other
3% Unknown
3% Sports/Arts
Legend
A Few Times a Week or More Often
43% 44%
Talk to Neighbors
Social Connectedness, 2011 1
Trust most or all of thepeople in your neighborhood
%
50%57%TX US TX US
79%78%TX US
See or Hear from Friends or Family, Whether In-Person or Not
Exchange Favors With Neighbors
TX US15% 14%
16th
Texas Impact was established by Texas religious leaders in 1973 to be a voice in the Texas legislative process for the shared religious social concerns of Texas’ faith communities. Texas Impact is supported by more than two-dozen Christian, Jewish and Muslim denominational bodies, hundreds of local congregations, ministerial alliances and interfaith networks, and thousands of people of faith throughout Texas.
Texas Impact • 200 East 30th Street, Austin, Texas 78705 • www.texasimpact.org • 512.472.3903
Support Proposals to Enact Reporting Requirements on Politically Active 501(c)(4) Organizations
Lawmakers should enact reporting requirements for politically active 501(c)(4) organizations and other
organizations that do not meet the definition of a political action committee
501(c)(4) social welfare organizations are nonprofits that historically have played a very limited role in campaign finance. Following the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, however, increasing numbers of 501(c)(4) organizations are engaging in electoral politics. Failing to require robust disclosure of contributors for these organizations threatens to undermine the Legislature’s goals for transparency in Texas’ electoral process.
An organization’s tax-exempt status does not just impact the deduction its donors can take on federal taxes; it also impacts the ways the organization can attempt to influence policy and politics. On the most restrictive end of the spectrum are 501(c)(3) public charities, which have no involvement in elections and are allowed to spend only very limited funds on lobbying. On the other end of the spectrum are 527 political action committees (PACs) that are formed primarily to influence elections through direct spending and campaign contributions.
501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations are more complicated; while they don’t make contributions to candidates directly, they can influence elections by creating and distributing information supporting or opposing specific candidates.
Unlike PACs, 501(c)(4) organizations do not have to disclose their donor lists—and unlike 501(c)(3) donors, c4 donors can’t claim a tax deduction for their contribution, so they don’t have to report themselves. Thus, those contributions are kept “in the dark.” Voters can find themselves subjected to large volumes of positive or negative information about a particular candidate, with no way of learning what interests are funding the production of the information.
During the 2012 election cycle, 501(c)(4) organizations spent more than $300 million nationally to influence the outcomes of political campaigns. While this amount
represented a small fraction of the more than $7 billion in total spent on the elections by candidates and organizations, the 2012 election was the first presidential election since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision establishing federal policy that 501(c)(4) organizations can spend money on electoral activities without disclosing their donors.
In Texas, Citizens United has led to a rapid increase in 501(c)(4) political activity: according to the Texas Ethics Commission, the number of non-PAC direct campaign expenditure reports has risen from 28 in 2010 to 95 in 2014. In 2014, campaign spending by those 95 groups exceeded $1 million, when just before 2010 there had been none.
Legislative History
In 2013, Texas lawmakers approved regulation of dark money through SB 346, but then-Governor Perry vetoed the measure. SB 346 would have imposed new reporting requirements on certain persons who do not meet the definition of a political committee. Groups falling into this category (1) do not meet the definition of a political committee, (2) accept political contributions, (3) make one or more political expenditures that in aggregate exceed $25,000 during a calendar year.
The bill sought to impose disclosure requirements on politically active organizations, asking them to disclose all their political contributions accepted and all political expenditures made in that calendar year. The bill limited disclosure of donors only if their contribution exceeded $1,000.
January 9, 2015
7020 Easy Wind Drive, Suite 200 • Austin, TX • T 512.320.0222 • F 512.320.0227 • CPPP.org
Cheat Sheet for the Texas Revenue Estimate By Eva DeLuna Castro
On January 12, new Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar will issue the revenue estimate for the 2016-‐17 budget cycle, as well as update legislators on 2014-‐15 state revenue collections.
Perenially missing from the early stages of the official process is a clear understanding of the funding needed just to deal with growth in the number of public school or college students, publicly funded health care and pension beneficiaries, prison and jail inmates, and other major drivers of the Texas budget. Nor does the Legislative Budget Board calculate new funding needed to fully cover higher costs such as rising prescription drug prices, hospital charges, or highway construction materials.
But by examining state agencies’ budget requests and other budget documents for the 2016-‐17 biennium , it’s possible to estimate the minimum amount of General Revenue – a net increase of $6 billion (or 6 percent more) – needed to fund a "current services" budget that at least keeps up with population-‐driven and cost growth.
The Texas budget will need additional General Revenue to resolve the school finance issues currently in the courts, as well as to implement any new policies proposed by legislators or state officials.
$34 $33
$13 $14
$30 $33
$8 $10
$6
$6 $3
$4
$-‐
$25
$50
$75
$100
2014-‐15: $95 Billion 2016-‐17: $101 Billion
General Revenue in 2014-‐15 Texas Budget, and 2016-‐17 Current Services Needs
Other General Revenue-‐funded programs
Dept. of Criminal Jus`ce
TRS, ERS, & other state employee/ teacher benefits
Health and Human Services
Higher Educa`on
Texas Educa`on Agency
The Texas Education Agency accounts for just over one-‐third of General Revenue spending. In the next budget cycle, the education agency is asking for $1.1 billion less in General Revenue than it currently receives, because rising property tax collections are expected to reduce the amount of state aid to local school districts.
Health and human services agencies combined are almost another third of General Revenue spending, and many of these dollars bring additional federal matching funds for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, foster care, and other social services. The consolidated HHS proposal requests almost $3.4 billion more in General Revenue, roughly half to cover Medicaid and other growth in demand for services, and the other half for medical cost increases.
Higher education is another major part of the General Revenue budget. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board recommends almost $1.1 billion more in funding along with about $200 million more to maintain state financial aid programs.
Finally, the Employees Retirement System and Teacher Retirement System combined have requested $1.8 billion more in General Revenue to address funding needs for state employee pension and health plans and for TRS-‐Care (health insurance for retired school employees).
Adding these and additional "current services" items for criminal justice and other areas of state spending to current spending of $95 billion yields $101 billion in General Revenue as a "bare bones" current services proposal for the 2016-‐17 budget cycle. This funding level would not undo the cuts in state services that remain from the 2011 session. Nor does this funding level include the many "exceptional items" that state agencies requested but which would either improve state services or address long-‐neglected issues such as capital repairs or purchases.
Many of the "exceptional items" agencies have carefully requested are for the investments that will build a Texas where everyone is healthy, well-‐educated and financially secure. To remain competitive, lawmakers should make investments today to make Texas the best state for hard-‐working people and their families.
For More Information, please contact:
Eva DeLuna Castro Dick Lavine Investing In Texas Program Director Senior Fiscal Analyst [email protected] [email protected] 512.823.2861 512.823.2860
About CPPP The Center for Public Policy Priorities is an independent public policy organization that uses research, analysis and advocacy to promote solutions that enable Texans of all backgrounds to reach their full potential. Learn more at CPPP.org.
Join us across the Web Twitter: @CPPP_TX Facebook: Facebook.com/bettertexas
Center for Public Policy Priorities - Dick Lavine [email protected] 1/23/15
For more recent information, visit www.cppp.org 1
Where Does the State Get Its Money?
Source 2016-17 revenue (in $billions)
Percent of total revenue
Tax collections 109.0 49% Federal income 72.9 33% Licenses, fees, fines 16.8 8% Lottery 3.8 2% Interest, land income 7.3 3% Other 11.1 5%
What Taxes Does the State Rely On? Tax 2016-17 revenue
(in $billions) Percent of total tax
revenue
Sales tax 61.5 56% Motor vehicle sales 10.1 9% Franchise (“margins”) 9.6 9% Motor fuels 7.0 6% Oil 5.7 5% Insurance 4.3 4% Natural gas 3.2 3% Tobacco 2.6 2% Alcohol 2.4 2% Hotel, utility, other 2.5 2%
Proposal: End Gasoline Tax “Diversion”
• Texas Constitution requires ¼ of motor fuels tax to go Available School Fund ($810 million in 2014)
• Remaining ¾ is sent to State Highway Fund ($2.4 billion in 2014)
Center for Public Policy Priorities - Dick Lavine [email protected] 1/23/15
For more recent information, visit www.cppp.org 2
Proposal: End Gasoline Tax “Diversion”
• Highway Fund is to be used for “acquiring rights-of-way, constructing, maintaining, and policing such public roadways, and for the administration of such laws as may be prescribed by the Legislature pertaining to the supervision of traffic and safety on such roads”
Proposal: End Gasoline Tax “Diversion”
So Legislature uses $800 million from Highway Fund to fund
• DPS - $475 million • Dept of Motor Vehicles - $49 million • Related activities
Proposal: End Gasoline Tax “Diversion”
• Argument for: Gasoline tax should be used only to build and maintain roads
• But: To continue funding DPS etc, must use General Revenue that is currently funding other services
Proposal: Use Motor Vehicles Sale Tax for Highways
• Argument for: Motor vehicle sales tax is paid by car buyers, so should be used to build and maintain roads
• But: How to fund services that are now paid for with General Revenue from motor vehicle sales tax
9 23 2014
1
Check the box that applies:
I want to sign on as a supporter of the CTN 2015 legislative agenda
I want to sign on as a supporter of the CTN 2015 legislative agenda, AND be listed as a CTN member
organization (coalition members will be listed on the CTN website as members)
Organization Name: _____________________________________________________
Contact Person: Name ____________________ Title ____________________
Phone number _____________ Email ___________________
2015 Legislative Agenda
Toward the goal of expanding health coverage to more Texans, the Cover Texas Now Coalition supports the
following policy strategies and initiatives:
1. Improve the health and well-being of Texans by ensuring access to affordable health care coverage.
Leverage federal healthcare funds to ensure low-wage Texans have options for affordable
healthcare coverage.
Implement 12-month eligibility for children on Medicaid.
Eliminate CHIP waiting periods.
2. Ensure that all Texans have ready access to the robust information, application/enrollment systems, and
consumer assistance they need to gain, use and maintain quality health insurance.
Verify Texas has a diverse, stable, sufficient corps of paid and volunteer assisters to maximize
Texans’ participation in available health insurance programs.
Verify that the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) eligibility system is fully
interoperable with the Health Insurance Marketplace and able to provide “No Wrong Door”
access for Texans.
Encourage HHSC, the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) and other state agencies to increase
access and maximize resources by building consumer assistance partnerships with local
communities and community-based organizations.
Enhance HHSC’s capability to provide consumer assistance and ombudsmen services to the
increasing share of the Medicaid population receiving services through managed care.
3. Strengthen health coverage consumer protections by improving access to needed information on health
plan features, ensuring adequate networks, and stopping surprise medical bills.
9 23 2014
2
Verify that provider networks in Medicaid, CHIP and private insurance are adequate to meet the
needs of Texans
Verify that consumers can readily get needed information upfront to make informed choices when they shop for and use health insurance.
Stop surprise medical bills stemming from care that, unbeknown to the consumer, is from a provider not covered by their insurance.
1. Improve the health and well-being of Texans by expanding access to affordable health care coverage
a) Accept federal healthcare funds to ensure low-wage Texans have options for affordable healthcare coverage.
Cover Texas Now supports expanding coverage to ensure that low-income Texans have access to affordable healthcare coverage. Currently, there are more than one million Texans who are in the Texas “Coverage Gap.” They do not qualify for the current Medicaid option for adults which provides coverage only to parents up to 19% of the FPL ($313 a month for a family of 3) and make too little to receive financial assistance in the Marketplace. Texans in the Coverage Gap include 66,000 veterans and their spouses, Texans living with a mental illness or disability, as well as those working retail, construction, child care, hospitality, health care, or food service. The Coverage Gap hurts working families most since the federal poverty level for a family is calculated using family size. A working mom with one child may be under the poverty level and in the Gap, while her single co-worker who makes the same income, gets substantial financial assistance in attaining coverage through the Marketplace. The coalition supports closing the Coverage Gap, which can be done through a variety of methods. The Coverage Gap can be closed by expanding traditional Medicaid. It can also be closed by negotiating with the federal government to develop a custom-built, private-coverage solution for our state, something that many conservative states have successfully negotiated. Whatever path Texas chooses, the federal government will pay 90 percent or more of the cost of closing the Gap. Former state demographer Billy Hamilton and leading economist Ray Perryman have modeled that closing the Coverage Gap will pay for itself due to the significant federal match, off-setting the cost of current healthcare programs that would no longer be needed, and through the increased revenue generated from taxes on healthcare premiums. Additional benefits to closing the coverage gap include the creation of 200,000 - 300,000 jobs over the next the next 10 years; reducing property tax pressure and lowering insurance premiums for businesses and taxpayers. Because of the Coverage Gap, an estimated 9,000 Texans are expected to die prematurely each year; more employers will pay a federal penalty for failure to provide insurance to their employees, which could reach $399 million per year; and Texas cities and counties will pay over $4 billion in annual cost for uncompensated care. Those wishing to close the Gap include supporters and opponents of the Affordable Care Act. The Texas Association of Business, local chambers of commerce, economists, hospitals, doctors, county officials, churches, state legislators, and taxpayers all support closing the gap.
b) Implement 12 -month eligibility for children on Medicaid.
9 23 2014
3
The coalition supports implementing 12 months of continuous eligibility for children in Medicaid, as we have for CHIP and most other state programs. This recognized national best practice is the single most effective step our state can take to reach the more than 500,000 remaining uninsured children who are eligible for Medicaid and CHIP but, not yet enrolled. Children continue to fall through the cracks with six month eligibility and workload is doubled for the state. Twenty three states have adopted 12 month continuous eligibility since it has been well document in significantly reducing the number of uninsured children. In 2009, HHSC estimated that 12-month continuous coverage could have cut Texas’ child uninsured rate by half.
c) Eliminate CHIP Waiting Periods.
In a world where children at all income levels have access to healthcare coverage it no longer makes sense to maintain the CHIP waiting period. Waiting periods were originally developed to help prevent individuals dropping their employer-based healthcare coverage to get their children onto CHIP. If a child today was subject to the 90 day CHIP waiting period, they would be eligible for Marketplace coverage for those 90 days and then be transferred back to CHIP, likely experiencing gaps in coverage along the way. This creates an added level of coordination between the Marketplace and CHIP and is not an efficient use of state and federal resources. Additionally, any gap in coverage created by a waiting period or the administrative process to transfer children between different coverage options can be harmful to child health and development, particularly for very young children. Given the complexity of transitioning children between coverage options, it is virtually impossible to ensure that they will not face a gap in coverage.
2. Ensure that all Texans have ready access to the robust information, application/enrollment systems, and consumer assistance they need to gain, use and maintain quality health insurance.
a) Ensure Texas has a diverse, stable, sufficient corps of paid and volunteer assisters to maximize Texans’
participation in available health insurance programs.
Research indicates that a majority of Americans, including Texans, prefer or require in-person assistance to apply for and enroll in health insurance. Types of assisters include licensed health insurance agents, public employees, health and social service professionals, community-based volunteers, community-based social workers and others. Lawmakers should affirm the important role assisters play in our state’s health insurance system, and ensure that all assisters receive the support they need to perform their work.
b) Verify that the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) eligibility system is fully interoperable with
the Health Insurance Marketplace and able to provide “No Wrong Door” access for Texans.
As Texas families apply for health care coverage through two different portals – HHSC and the federal Marketplace – we must ensure that they encounter user-friendly eligibility systems that are accurate and timely in the determination of coverage for various family members. This will require effective information exchanges and communication between the state’s Health and Human Services Commission, which administers CHIP and Medicaid, and the federal Marketplace, which administers private coverage for 734,000 Texans. Often families will have children on Medicaid and CHIP and parents in the Marketplace, making the interaction between HHSC and the Marketplace important to Texas families.
9 23 2014
4
c) Encourage HHSC, the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) and other state agencies to increase access
and maximize resources by building consumer information and assistance partnerships with local communities and community-based organizations.
Getting all 26 million Texans the health insurance information and assistance they need is a big job! State agencies can extend their reach and make sure messages are appropriately tailored for a variety of audiences by partnering with local nonprofits and communities. For example, HHSC’s Community Partner Program provides access to application assistance through local faith and community-based Community Partners. TDI can build on past work with community-based organizations to educate more Texans on how insurance works. Lawmakers can encourage state agencies to develop networks of partners to ensure information and assistance are accessible statewide.
d) Enhance HHSC’s capability to provide consumer assistance and ombudsmen services to the increasing
share of the Medicaid population receiving services through managed care.
Over the last 20 years enrollment in Texas Medicaid managed care has expanded from serving less than 3% of Medicaid clients in state fiscal year 1994, to serving about 85% of Medicaid clients in 2014, and planned future managed care expansions will increase that share. HHSC’s Medicaid Managed Care Helpline and ombudsmen have been instrumental in assisting individuals with navigating the health care system, understanding Medicaid coverage and resolving problems with access to care. However, the number of staff serving in this capacity has not increased commensurate with the expanded population in managed care. In order to ensure Texas Medicaid managed care enrollees have access to the full array of entitled services and fully understand their benefit they must have sufficient support from an independent public advocate. The coalition supports implementing Medicaid managed care ombudsman best practices with localized assistance, adequate staffing, independence, and consistency in reporting and analysis of complaint data.
3. Strengthen health coverage consumer protections by improving access to needed information on health plan features, ensuring adequate networks, and stopping surprise medical bills.
a) Verify that provider networks in Medicaid, CHIP and private insurance are adequate to meet the needs of
Texans. The coalition supports ensuring the adequacy of networks so they meet the needs of Texans who are healthy, as well as those who require highly specialized care, by:
Ensuring that HHSC and TDI can adequately review and enforce network adequacy standards, and
Strengthening standards for inclusion of “essential community providers” with expertise in serving low-income and underserved populations.
b) Verify that consumers can readily get needed information upfront to make informed choices when they
shop for and use health insurance.
9 23 2014
5
Consumers report difficultly getting accurate information on which providers are in network, and in some cases, choosing a plan based on network information that turns out to be inaccurate. Insurers and providers are both parties to network contracts, and it is reasonable to expect that they can accurately relay information about network status to consumers, including participation in plans sold in the Health Insurance Marketplace. Consumers are not party to network contracts, yet they are the ones who ultimately suffer financial or health harm when they receive misinformation about a provider’s network status with an insurer.
Insurers commonly offer multiple provider networks, formularies, and cost-sharing levels. It should be clear from marketing materials and insurer websites which provider network, formulary, and cost-sharing levels apply to specific plans, so consumers are not in a position where they could guess incorrectly or misinterpret information causing them to choose plans that do not meet their needs.
c) Stop surprise medical bills stemming from care that, unbeknown to a consumer, is from a provider not covered by their insurance.
Even diligent consumers who ask all of the right questions can unexpectedly end up getting care outside of their insurer’s network, which can cost a consumer hundreds or thousands of dollars more than in-network benefits. This can happen, for example, in an emergency and other scenarios when consumers have no reasonable choice in which providers treat them. Unexpected out-of-network care can lead to large, surprise medical bills, often called “balance bills,” because the consumer is asked to pay the balance of what insurance doesn’t pay. Texas should stop unexpected balance bills and ensure consumers aren’t the ones who pay the price when insurance companies and out-of-network providers can’t agree on fair rates. We can do this by directing providers and insurers to take their billing disputes to mediation and removing the consumer from the endless billing tug-of-war.
We are better citizens when we appreciate the challenges our local
leaders face. We are better advocates when we can use personal
experience to share community needs with elected officials. We are better neighbors when we understand the lives our sisters and brothers live.
As people of faith, we should know our local community.
Know Your CommunityTreasure Hunt
How does public policy come to life in your community? Many of the programs and services that exist in local communities are there as a response to public policy. Your local governments perform many social service functions because the law requires it.
How do members of your community work together to meet each other’s needs?Local charities help carry out those functions...and often, they step in where laws do not meet all the needs in the community.
How can you find out the best answer when someone asks you for help?Learning the policy context for outreach and service programs helps you be a more effective volunteer or leader.
What’s the “treasure” in this treasure hunt?
We’re inviting you to go on a treasure hunt in your local community...and we want YOU to tell US what the treasure is!
On your treasure hunt, we predict you will discover information about your community that you never knew before. You might meet people who do jobs you think are important, or learn new ways to help members of your community who need you. You could learn more about the natural resources in your area and how to protect them, and you might decide to work to strengthen certain services in your community.
2
InstructionsThe Know Your Community Treasure Hunt is a series of challenges. You can do the treasure hunt by yourself, but it’s more fun in a group—like a religious education class, ministry team, women’s group, or even your choir! The treasure hunt is suitable for youth and adults.
• For each challenge, you will do a little background research on an issue in your community. Most if not all of these issues are common in all communities across the U.S. This research mostly relies on information you can find online easily.
• After you do your research, you (and your group if you have one) will take a field trip to meet people in your community who work in that issue area and see the relevant facilities or programs operating in your community.
• Document what you did using the forms provided at the back of this handbook or on the Treasure Hunt website (www.texasimpact.org/treasurehunt). Finish all twelve challenges in a single year to receive a prize from Texas Impact!
The Challenges
Public Transportation Employment
Homelessness
Health Care
Mental Health
Food Assistance
Environment
Affordable Housing
Criminal Justice
Education Local Leaders
Utility Assistance
3
Knowing the answers to the following types of employment-related questions can help you identify issues far beyond the economic sustainability of your community—the types of jobs available can also impact community members’ physical and mental health. Who are the major employers in your community? Are there lots of locally-owned businesses and industries in your area, or are most businesses part of larger corporations headquartered elsewhere? What types of jobs are available in your community (for example, low-paying service jobs, or high-skilled technology jobs)? What is the unemployment rate? The answers to these questions can shed light about the jobs—or lack thereof—available in your community and help you better understand what services are most needed and appropriate in your local area.
We are all connected to the environment through the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Protecting the health of our local environment is directly connected to protecting the health of our local families—especially children and the elderly. At the same time, the ways our lives and communities are structured (for example: urban sprawl, electricity generated by burning fossil-fuels, and a consumer-based economy) depend upon industries that have environmental impacts.
Challenge 1: Employment
Assignment (Send us the information you find, plus a picture of yourself at your local job office):
1. Find out what the local unemployment rate of your community is.
2. Visit your local workforce development board (information can be found at http://www.twc.state.tx.us/dirs/wdas/directory-offices-services.html) and schedule a time to meet with a staff person who can help you determine the top three most pressing employment needs in your community.
Challenge 2: Environment
Assignment (Send us the information you find, plus a picture of yourself at one of the locations you identify in #2):
1. Find out what the major source of environmental pollution is in your community and its related health impacts, if any.
2. On a map, locate the following: a. Where your water comes from (probably a river or reservoir) b. Where your water is treated c. Where your electricity comes from (probably a power plant) d. Where your trash goes after it gets picked up
4
One in every 27 adults in Texas is in prison or on probation/parole. Understanding how or why people become involved in the criminal justice system and what happens once they are can paint a complex picture that encompasses a variety of issues such as mental health, poverty, education, and racial disparity.
Assignment (Send us the information you find, plus a picture of the visitor pass from the local jail):
1. Schedule a tour of your local jail and speak to jail staff about the trends and issues they encounter on a daily basis.
2. Visit a local reentry program or halfway house and speak to individuals returning home after incarceration to learn more about their personal stories and the barriers they may be facing in coming back to their communities.
Having safe, reliable shelter is essential for all families, but many are not able to access quality, affordable housing. The U.S. government classifies affordable housing as housing that is 30% or less of family income.
Assignment (Send us the information you find):
1. If in a family of four, both parents are working 30 hours per week earning the federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour), or one parent works full-time and the other roughly half-time, then that family would be designated as “poor” under current federal guidelines. The 2014 Federal Poverty Guidelines set the poverty line for a family of four at $23,850 per year. For this family of four making roughly $21,500 per year, try to find quality, affordable housing in your community.
2. Learn about the process for applying for public housing options in your community and make recommendations for the example family of four.
When we think of homelessness, we tend to think of a person huddled under blankets sleeping on the steps of a church. It is important to recognize that alongside this more visible form of homelessness, there are many other individuals and families experiencing homelessness that we do not see. Learning more about the stories of these people can help us understand more about the needs, strengths, and weaknesses in our communities.
Assignment (Send us the information you find, plus a brief reflection on your service experience):
1. Visit a local homeless shelter and find out more about what the homeless population looks like in your community and what services are available for them.
2. Serve a meal at your local soup kitchen and listen to the story of at least one person who is homeless.
Challenge 3: Criminal Justice
Challenge 4: Affordable Housing
Challenge 5: Homelessness
5
Quality public education can be a great equalizing force in our society. Local communities have a large impact on both school performance and future opportunities for children. They operate schools, implement and enforce state laws and policies, develop and implement their own educational policies, hire and supervise professional teaching staff, and raise money to pay for schools (usually through property taxes plus special bond issues).
Assignment (Send us the information you find, plus a picture of the visiting pass from the school and the agenda from the school board meeting):
1. Visit a low-performing school in your district and schedule a time to meet with the school nurse or school counselor. Find out about the top needs and problems facing the school and the children in the school.
2. Attend a school board meeting and identify who the education decision makers are in your community.
While most news coverage focuses on policy issues of state and national significance, local leaders shape many of the decisions that impact us on a daily basis, and some local leaders will go on to become state or national figures. It is important to build relationships with local elected officials, both to impact short-term local legislation and to prepare for the possibility of their becoming state or national elected officials.
Assignment (Send us the information you find, plus pictures of the Council agenda and of you with the Mayor or a member of the City Council):
1. Find a local issue to study and identify who the local leaders are that can influence or make decisions on that issue.
2. Learn the names of all your local City Council members and attend a local City Council meeting.
Regardless of whether a family is working or not, money can be tight and families might not be able to cover the cost of utilities. Often families who are trying to keep the lights on or the heat running will turn to congregations for help.
Assignment (Send us the information you find and some comments about how easy or difficult it was to find this information):
1. In some communities, multiple groups or agencies might offer utility assistance. If your community has a 2-1-1 help line (or visit http://www.211.org), call or go online to see what sources of help they say are available in your area. Are there other sources of assistance?
2. Find out, as best you can, all the places where families could go in your community for utility assistance and how much money is available. Is it easy to find this information, or did you have to call multiple people or offices? Is there often a shortfall between the amount of money that’s available and the need?
Challenge 6: Education
Challenge 7: Local Leaders
Challenge 8: Utility Assistance
6
Many families in Texas are unable to afford their own personal transportation and rely on public transportation. Public transportation has the added benefit of being good for the environment. How would your community rate in terms of public transportation?
Assignment (Send us the information you find, plus a picture of yourself using public transportation if it is available in your community):
1. Identify all local forms of public transportation.
2. Select an address or intersection from a low-income neighborhood in your community and plan out how you would get from there to the nearest grocery store or doctor’s office and back. How long would it take you? Are there different schedules for different days of the week? Report back on any perceived shortcomings (access for low-income families, distance to grocery stores, schools, benefits offices, etc.)
Mental health conditions affect everyone: grandparents, children, neighbors, community leaders, and the people with whom we worship. An estimated fifty percent of all people will meet the criteria for a diagnosable mental health condition at some point within their lifetime. In 2009, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) gave Texas’ mental health services a “D” grade and the Texas Department of State Health Services acknowledged that Texas’ mentally ill population was not receiving adequate mental health care. Texas ranks 50th among U.S. states in mental health expenditures per capita. Texas also ranks far below the national average in the number of mental health professionals per 100,000 residents.
Assignment (Send us the information you find):
1. Find out what mental health services are available in your community for low-income individuals without health insurance.
2. Visit your local law enforcement agency and ask them about their approach in dealing with the individuals they encounter who have a mental illness.
Challenge 9: Public Transportation
Challenge 10: Mental Health
7
Only half of Texans eligible for food assistance are receiving it, causing the state of Texas to leave almost $4 billion in federal SNAP benefits unused each year. These are dollars that low-income families in your community could be using to improve their quality of life and lessen the strain on local food pantries, and would have a positive economic impact on your local community while helping those who need it most.
Assignment (Send us the information you find plus a short reflection on how your community might better be able to help families who qualify for food programs):
1. Identify how much your county is leaving on the table in SNAP benefits by viewing the Texas Hunger Initiative’s report Hunger by the Numbers: Blueprint for Ending Hunger in Texas (https://bearspace.baylor.edu/Tariq_Thowfeek/public/blueprint.pdf )
2. Identify which grocery stores in your community accept SNAP benefits by using the USDA’s SNAP Retailer Locator (www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailerlocator). Where are they located in relation to families who might need help? Are there farmers’ markets in your community that accept SNAP benefits? (Find out here: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SNAP-FM-0114.xlsx) Where are they located in relation to families who might need help? Take a picture at one of the grocery stores or farmers’ markets.
There are about one million Texans who qualify for benefit programs administered by the state such as Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP and TANF, but who are not enrolled. Many of these low-income Texas families are living in your community. It could be that they do not know that they are eligible, or they might not know how to sign up. Texas Impact is working with the other members of the Community Partner Recruitment Initiative to recruit faith-based organizations to help make it easier for low-income families to sign up for benefit programs online. This is particularly important for low-income families who are not computer-proficient or do not have easy access to the Internet.
Assignment (Send us the information you find plus a picture of yourself at a location where community members can go to apply for state benefits):
1. Report on the following. If you were not able to use the internet to apply for Medicaid or CHIP, where would you go in your community to sign up? Are there long lines or extended office hours? Do any communities of faith help provide these services through the Community Partner Program? Think about how your congregation could participate in programs to help people apply for benefits.
2. Visit with a staff member or volunteer at the location where you would send someone to apply for these benefits. Consider contacting Texas Impact about sending members of the Community Partner Recruitment Initiative team to your community to visit with groups who might like to help.
Challenge 11: Food Assistance
Challenge 12: Health Care
8
Helpful Hints• Consider the possibility of working on this project with other congregations in your community or partnering
with your congregation’s youth group to complete the assignments.
• Report back to your congregation and to us about what you learn. There are several ways for you to communicate your findings, such as writing a blog post or article for the newsletter, giving a brief presentation during a worship service or religious education class, or creating resource materials for your faith community that contain information about local services.
• If you get stuck, need additional information, or would like a Texas Impact staff member to give a presentation on one of these issue areas, please contact Scott Atnip at [email protected] or 512-472-3903.
• Make it FUN!
All-Purpose Script (suitable for phone, email or snail-mail):
Hi, my name is ____________________________. This year I’m participating in a leadership program where I am learning about community needs and resources here in [YOUR TOWN].
I would like to schedule a time for a brief conversation with you or someone from your office to talk about [THE POLICY AREA] in our community. I know you are busy and I want to be respectful of your time. I am hoping for about 15 minutes of your time, and I would be happy to come to your office or the location of your choice.
Please let me know when might be a convenient time for us to talk, or how to go about setting up an appointment with someone else from your office.
I appreciate your work on behalf of our community, and I look forward to hearing more about what you do. Thanks for your attention!
Sincerely,
YOU!
9
Reporting FormFor each challenge, complete this form and send it to Texas Impact via email ([email protected]), fax (512-473-2707), or snail mail (200 East 30th Street, Austin, Texas 78705). You can also report online at www.texasimpact.org/treasurehunt. Feel free to use extra pages if you want to! Questions? Call us at 512-472-3903.
Name of Treasure-Hunter This can include your name as well as the name of your group if you have one and the names of other members of your group if they want to be included.
Name of Challenge
Tell us about your research. Was it easy to find the information you needed? If you are working in a group, did one person do most of the work or did you divide it up? Were the questions we suggested the right ones for your community? What else do you think is important to mention?
Tell us about your field trip. Was it easy to find the right person to talk to? Were you welcome to visit the facility or attend the meeting? Did you feel awkward? Are you glad you went? What else do you think is important to mention?
Know Your Community Treasure Hunt
10
Treasure Hunt Reporting Form page 2
Tell us about your conclusions. Were you satisfied with what you learned? Are you satisfied with how your community is handling needs in this challenge area? Did you see opportunities to strengthen local services? If so, can you see ways that you or your congregation could help with that? Did you learn of new activities you or your group might like to participate in? What else do you think is important to mention?
Tell us about your next steps. Do you or your group plan to follow up on this challenge area? Do you plan to do more challenges? Do you need any support or resources from Texas Impact or other groups to help you move forward? Do you have any suggestions for other individuals or groups who take on this challenge? What else do you think is important to mention?
Tell us about you. Please share as much information as you deem relevant about you and/or your group.
Congregation/Faith Community
Address
Email (you, a group leader or other contact)
Phone
Do you have a current mission, outreach or service focus? If so, what is it?
Are you interested in learning more about Texas Impact?
Are there particular issue areas you are interested in learning more about?
Are you interested in learning more about policy advocacy?
What else do you think we should know? 11
Texas Impact was established by Texas religious leaders in 1973 to be a voice in the Texas legislative process for the shared religious social concerns of Texas’ faith communities. Texas Impact is supported by more than two-dozen Christian, Jewish and Muslim denominational bodies, as well as hundreds of local congregations, ministerial alliances and interfaith networks, and thousands of people of faith throughout Texas.
TexasImpact•200East30thStreet•Austin,Texas78705•512-472-3903•www.texasimpact.org
Texas Impact • 200 East 30th Street • Austin, Texas 78705 • 512-472-3903 • www. texasimpact.org
Good public policy depends on quality relationships. You’ve met with your legislator. You wonder how effective the visit was. Now what? You can’t change Texas on your own—that’s not how democracy works. Neither can your legislator. Public policy is a collaborative process. Your individual effectiveness depends upon the level of credibility, trust, and friendship with your legislator. Most legislators serve out of a sense of responsibility to public service, and a desire to make their community a better place. However, legislators often get treated like commodities. Constituents forget they are “real people” from their community with families, jobs, and personal lives. Building effective legislative relationships means more than just knowing where a lawmaker stands on the issues. It means seeing yourself as a diplomatic liaison from the faith community—a kind of “ambassador”—who cares about their legislator personally, and understands the challenges they face as public servants. Ambassadors work constructively to help their legislator represent their shared community. Ambassadors don’t just call a legislator when they want something. They send a personal note; find common ground; pass on important information about policy or the district; show the district staff special appreciation; and pray for the legislator and their family.
That’s why Texas Impact seeks 362 “Ambassadors,” two in each of the 181 legislative districts in the Texas Legislature, committed to developing a “cell
phone number relationship” with their state legislator.
. Sign Up to be an Ambassador at Project362.org. . Ambassadors receive special support from Texas Impact to help build legislative relationships. Here’s some of what you can find on the website:
• Biographical information on your elected official • District-specific information on your community • Information on candidates during both the primary and general elections • Networking with other ambassadors of faith across Texas • Insider information from the Texas Impact lobby team during the legislative session
Interested in a deeper level of policy engagement?
If you think being an Ambassador is for you, sign up at Project362.org!
FOR MORE INFORMATION Email: [email protected] Call: 512-472-3903 Sign Up: project362.org
Public Education: Filling in the Blanks What is the address for the Texas Education Agency website?
www.tea.state.tx.us Where is my school district’s headquarters? _______________________________________ Who is the superintendent? ____________________________________________________ What is the superintendent’s email address? _______________________________________ What is my district’s website address?_______________________________________
TEA/Texas Schools/General Information/District Directory (AskTED)/Quick District Lookup
Who is on my school board? ___________________________________________________ When are board meetings? __________________________________________________
See individual district’s website
How many students are in my district? _______________________________________ What percentage are African American______%, Hispanic______%, White______%, or other ethnicities_____%? What percentage are economically disadvantaged? _______%
TEA/Reports & Data/Snapshot (Located under School District Data)/Snapshot 2013/District Detail Search/Enter school district information
What percentage of my district’s students passed the STAAR tests? ______% What was the average SAT score of students in my district? ______
In Snapshot 2013 district detail – STAAR, College Admissions How many teachers are there in the district? ______ What is their average salary? $_________ How many students are there per teacher, on average? ______ What percentage of teachers have five or fewer years of experience? ______
In Snapshot 2013 district detail – Staff, Teachers
Texas Impact January 2015
Public Education: Filling in the Blanks What is my district’s tax rate? ______ What is my district’s total revenue per student? $_________ What percentage of my district’s revenue comes from the state? From local property taxes? From the federal government? ______%
In Snapshot 2013 district detail – Taxes and Actual Revenue Where can I find detailed information on the academic performance of students in my district, subdivided by grade, test, ethnicity, economic status, etc?
TEA/Reports & Data/T.A.P.R (located under School Performance)/2013-14 T.A.P.R/District Report (located on top left)
Where can I find detailed information on the academic performance of students in a specific campus in my district?
See above, but choose campus on the page 2013-14 Texas Academic Performance Report
Where can I find, in one place, the average SAT scores for students on all campuses in my district?
TEA/Reports & Data/College Admissions & Testing (located under Student Data)/District Data/SAT district-level data (.pdf)/Find your district
Where do I find information on the dropout rate in my district? Can I get this information broken down by race/ethnicity, economic status, and gender?
TEA/Reports & Data/Accountability Research (found under School Performance)/2012-13 Annual Dropout Rates/Data Search District
Then choose “view table by race/ethnicity, economic status, and gender”
Where can I find information on the dropout rate of a specific campus in my district? Can I get this information broken down by race/ethnicity, economic status, and gender?
At page Class of 2013 four-rate rates, choose data search by campus, then view table by race/ethnicity, economic status, and gender
Where can I find even more detailed information about how much school district is funded?
TEA/Finance & Grants/State Funding Research & Data (found under State Funding)/School District Aid Report: Summary of Finances/Select Summary of Finances from the dropdown menu/select school year/enter district name
Texas Impact January 2015
Now It’s Your Turn… Make it Count!
See you in 2016!
You learned a lot in Austin—but now what are you going to do about it? Here are some ideas to help you get the most out of your experience, for you and for your
community:
Make a Presentation: • Present the Community Partner Program to your congregation or group, or help schedule a Better
Neighbors event in your community. (Scott) • Present your 2015 Legislative Agenda to your congregation or group.
Make a Commitment: • Sign up for the Water Captains team in your region. (Sam) • Sign up for Project 362 at www.project362.org. (Josh)
Make Some Noise: • Collect Cover Texas Now postcards—you can order more kits or print the cards from Texas Impact’s
website. Remember to mail all postcards to Texas Impact so we can deliver them to lawmakers together. (Cara)
• Plan an “in-district lobby day”—schedule a meeting with your lawmaker or their staff in their district office for your group. Tell your local newspaper about your meeting and send them a digital photo when it’s over. Don’t forget to fill out a Legislative Visit Evaluation and send it to Texas Impact! (Sean)
Make New Friends: • Join the weekly Alliance for a Clean Texas activist call and find out what environmental advocates
are focusing on this week. (Yaira) • Attend a public meeting in your community that you wouldn’t typically attend. Introduce yourself and
follow up with people you meet.
Make a Plan: • Enlist friends and start checking off items in the “Know Your Community Treasure Hunt.” • Form a “faithful citizenship” or “souls to the polls” task force and start planning now to help
encourage great participation in the 2016 primary and general elections. (Bee)
Make Us Work! Build the Network: join Texas Impact, invite friends, and ask your church to join (Sadia)
HHSC Community Partner Program ChecklistOrganizations can use the following checklist as a guide to becoming a Community Partner and satisfying all of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) requirements for initial participation in the program.
Checklist for Partnership Levels I and II
Additional Items for Partnership Level II
Fill out the non-binding online interest form at http://tinyurl.com/CPPInterest.
If approved for the Community Partner Program, organizations will receive a nonfinancial Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) from HHSC.
Complete, sign, and return a copy of the MOU to HHSC by mail.
Assign a Site Manager who will be the point of contact for the organization.
The Site Manager completes 3 online training modules: HHSC Benefit ProgramsHIPAA Rights and ResponsibilitiesApplication Assistance Login and Computer setup
Site Manager completes, signs and returns (by mail) a Computer Use Agreement requesting a Site Manager account.
Site Manager completes, signs and returns (by mail) a Computer Use Agreement requesting a Community Partner organization account for use on one or more computers that applicants and clients will use to access YourTexasBenefits.com.
Site Manager ensures completion of certification requirements for each navigator.
Site Manager certifies each navigator and registers each certification with HHSC online.
Site Manager completes, signs and returns (by mail) a Computer Use Agreement requesting a login for each certified case assistance navigator.
For Community Partners with Case Assistance navigators:
If the organization is not already in the 2-1-1 Texas system, it may be required to submit two letters of recommendation to HHSC. HHSC will provide specific instructions if this is required.
Assistance Site Implementation Suggestions
There are many different ways Community Partners can provide application assistance through YourTexasBenefits.com. Each organization should determine the method(s) that works best for them. Listed below are examples of how organizations can implement the program.
By Appointment OnlyOrganizations can provide clients the opportunity to schedule specific times with staff or volunteer navigators to attain assistance with the application process. This approach can help staff or volunteers incorporate application assistance into their existing activities.
Computer Lab or KioskOrganizations that have computer labs for public use can combine self-service and application assistance options. Individuals can use the computers to access and use YourTexasBenefits.com. Organizations can also provide staff or volunteers to supervise the computer labs and be available to provide application assistance as needed.
During Set HoursOrganizations can establish certain set hours each week in which staff or volunteers are available to provide application assistance through YourTexasBenefits.com. These hours can be advertised to clients through Texas 2-1-1 if the organizations choose to make them available.Examples: Food Pantry, After School Programs, ESL Classes
Community Events At Community Events, organizations can arrange for staff or volunteers with laptops to have special booths where they can provide online application assistance for attendees. Because of the public nature of the event, steps will need to be taken to ensure privacy for the applicants such that confidentiality is maintained.Examples: Kindergarten Roundup, Clothing and Toy Drives, Festivals and Fairs
He shall judge between many peoples,
and shall arbitrate between strong nations far away;
they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more;
but they shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees,
and no one shall make them afraid;
for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken.
Micah 4: 3-4