Last night was the last executive committee meeting of 2006 of the Harris County GOP. Paul Bettancourt presented a very in depth analysis of the 2006 November election results and compared Harris County’s results with the rest of the state and drew some conclusions as to why things happened as they did. I am going to be contacting his office this morning and try to get a link to his PowerPoint analysis. I’ll update this post with a link when I get that. The gist of his analysis basically boils down to this. Only 7% of the voters in Harris County are swing voters as compared to 13% in Dallas, the remainder are locked up solid with either the Republican or Democrat parties. Therefore any “disturbance in the force” will potentially have a very large impact on the outcome since only a relative few voters must shift allegiance or stay home to throw a monkey wrench into things. That makes Harris County even MORE susceptible to a rout than Dallas. The only reason we did not have a rout is because the Harris County GOP Precinct chairs as well as the party busted our humps to get the job done.
Additionally despite our work, Republican turn-out was down significantly over 2002. This was measured by looking at races that are the historical high water marks such as Gregg Abbott or Anne Galik from 2002 vs 2004. From polling data this appears to be attributable to both a perception of corruption, as well as our elected officials flip-flopping and moving to the left and abandoning the base. Both are issues we must address this coming year. We must get our elected officials back on the reservation and herded in the right direction or find replacements that will do so, and we must work to eliminate and replace the corrupt ones with true conservatives. The biggest impact was in the down ballot areas for our conservative judgeships. While we did not loose a single county wide seat, all the margins of victory were squeezed. We did loose one race, but it was not a county wide one. The race for 2008 begins now. Every candidate that will be running in 2008 must start early and run hard and long. And they must remember to dance with who brought them to the party to begin with.
On the resolution to censure Rick Perry, parliamentarian infighters managed to get the quorum busted before it came up for a vote. Bill Borden Pct Chair 0215, had been agitating all night about eliminating any calls for a appraisal cap in both the County and the State platforms. He would consistently try to amend resolutions to that effect as they came up for votes but he was roundly defeated on at least three occasions. However he put forth another resolution of his own, that had verbiage that was a back door call for the removal of appraisal caps. He even insinuated that nobody else in the room was competent to even discuss property tax relief, which did not go over terribly well with the members in attendance. When Clint Moore, Pct 110 called for a vote on whether his resolution was declared out of order because it conflicted with resolutions that had already been passed that evening, The vote was clear that the majority present considered the resolution out of order, but his supporters forced a head count to show that we no longer had a quorum, ending debate on the resolution before it was defeated which it was clearly destined for. This ended the meeting before the rest of the resolutions were called for a vote.
Clint Moore additionally put forth resolutions regarding the awful choice of Mel Martinez for RNC chair, (passed overwhelmingly), as well as a legislative agenda to be proud of that included a 3% cap, repeal of HB3 as well as the old franchise tax, reduction in spending to balance the state budget after the removal of those two taxes, passage of a abortion trigger law, building a 2000 mile border wall and all possible means to stop illegal immigration, passage of “Jessica’s law”, English as the official state language, Photo Id requirements to vote, and stripping the Travis county DA of all campaign ethics and public integrity functions. This also passed overwhelmingly although Borden tried hard again to remove the 3% cap. He additiionally proposed a resolution to remove the blocker rule which also passed.
On the Whole, Clint Moore was the “Belle of the Ball” so to speak last night and his efforts should be commended.
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
70 Responses to “Postcards from the edge of reason….”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
Who is Bill Borden? And who died and put him in charge?
Parlimentarian tricks in lieu of real progress make me sick!
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/jpgs/vi-vomit.jpg
impeach gov rick perry now!!
i told you folks he lies.
next election we get the infamous drewhurst.
thats who the pacs and lobby want - we will not be able to fight this i do not believe.
Sounds like a RINO hunt is in order in Pct. 0215.
Thanks to all that attended.
DJ, did you make it? Like to hear your reflections.
Bill Borden is precinct chair of PCT 215 which is ironically right next door to the HCC campus in which we meet. You can look him up here:
http://www.harriscountygop.com/site/PageServer?pagename=precinctchairs
He is apparently a commercial real estate developer and feels he is the expert on property taxes.
Geez faster! I just had breakfast!
Good for Clint! Now we just need to recruit him to be part of the GTRH (Great Texas Rino Hunt). Too bad he’s not in my district. Mike Jackson and John Davis need conservative primary opponents really bad.
Additionally I will mention I met GOPBob there, and found him to be a good guy to have in your corner. He helped me immensely in rewriting my resolution. I was looking for PhilM, who was supposed to be there as well but I never found him.
#4 shannon no i did not even know it was going on.
my phone and internet was down - i think there was a problem on macedonia rd hut. no phones no nothing.
Dennis:
I second a RINO hunt on Mike Jackson, as I am in his district as well.
Prior to the next election, LST ought to put up a “wanted” bulletin board like they have at the post offices. This board will have all of the top RINOs in the state. Then, we can put an “X” over the pictures as we replace them with true conservatives. Just having their picture posted for “target practice” may make a few of them “tow” the line (that’s for you, SouthTrag!). Of course, the Dems turned Rep will still be Dems at heart and will not change, but perhaps the Reps moving left will return to their roots.
I have a newspaper clipping in my folder where Mike Jackson is actually quoted as saying people don’t really mind paying higher taxes!
I do think we need to start very early identifying potentials for what would basically become a conservative slate - with a “contact with Texas” to show how they’re going to turn this train around.
bweldon for the Texas House!!!
Out of curiosity, what have Mike Jackson or John Davis done that would cause them to lose their conservative status? I too live in their districts and haven’t noticed anything like that.
They supported the Perry/Sharp business tax. Jackson actually voted against it, but only after caving in on allowing the bill to come up for a vote in the first place. The idea of cutting spending seems pretty foreign to them. Davis wants credit for cutting spending in the previous session (when the constitution forced them to), but thinks we’re too stupid to know that spending increased 20% in the last session.
I talked to Mike about that and after a long explanation, I still wasn’t real thrilled that he let it go to the floor. But can we have it both ways? I mean, be against the rose bush bill and use it at the same time? I don’t know. But I think that on the whole, Mike has done a well above average job. He is no RINO. Neither is Davis, IMHO.
#16
Jackson played a shell game with his vote. If he was really against passing the bill he should have never voted to suspend the Rosebush rule. His vote to suspend it was in effect a yes vote for the franchise tax. He pulled a John Kerry. He voted for it before he voted against it, and he voted against it only after it was too late to stop it from passing. His complete lack of integrity was chickenspit politics at its worst.
#13, Shannon, If I can swing it I’ll do it but they will not like me up there… Nor will some of these sanctimonious precienct chairs…
Shannon
I was there. I left at 9:00. I see I missed some good stuff. I left when I realized the Perry resolution was not going to happen.
IMHO the entire show is a sham.
I find the voter ID resolution silly without paper trails. IMHO having paper trails should have been addressed. Electronic voting with no paper trail is no system at all. Its a slap in our faces.
I did see many people I know from my Constitution class, CFIR was there and a few MM.
I needed to see first hand the game being played.
I left with a hollow feeling though.
In the defense of Bill B. If you dont cap the everything from rates to spending you have done nothing. Atleast that was what I thought he was trying to say. If that is what he was saying everything that took place on that matter is window dressing.
BTW, My old precint chair was not there.
dowjones
You need to pay better attention.
They have been talking about this for over a week.
I will definitely be going to the next meeting here in Burnet.
Bill was certainly passionate, and he may well have had a point, but it was difficult for me to see how he would be able to address the constant rise in property taxes without a cap. Maybe I am not competent to understand the intricacies, but I am a but fan of the “keep it simple stupid” form of regulation. If you have to have a degree in economics to understand something that affects that many people, I can’t possibly see how people will be willing to vote for it.
Uh, fat fingers, that should be “BIG fan….”
Rorschach
You seem to be very up on the issue. I will have to take your word for it. I think Bill should have gotten it on paper and hadnded a flyer out for everyone involved.
I did have one other question. The removed the Travis County DAs of all campaign ethics and public integrity functions. I am assuming this is to keep politics out of it?
If so could the AG not act in the same manner? It would seem more logical to put in several courts so to speak or am I all wet?
#1 - You mean you don’t know the great Bill Borden, professional parliamentary gadfly, self-appointed expert on all things tax related, and holder of 129 positions of fiduciary trust in the Republican Party for the last 63 years? Given the importance that guy extends to himself, I am shocked you could call yourself a Harris County Republican and not know him. Utterly shocked.
In fairness, Bill means well. And he’s been with the party forever and worked hard to get republicans elected. But good intentions don’t excuse bad behavior, and unfortunately he has a very cantankerous disposition when it comes to executive comittee resolutions. His stunt last night is not unusual for him - he does it at almost every single meeting, and it always ends up harming more legitimate resolutions that are later on the agenda because he pulls stupid stunts like quorum calls when his many attempts to strip out appraisal caps get voted down. It’s sad in a way, because Bill is fairly conservative and he would probably agree with many of the resolutions he kills with his parliamentary stunts. He seems not to realize the benefit of other resolutions for the reason that he didn’t think of them first.
I saw Bill try the same stunts on property taxes at the state GOP convention 4 years ago before the platform committee, even going head to head with Paul Bettencourt (and, of course, he insisted he was the only person qualified on appraisal caps - not even Paul had the “expertise” to talk about it). He got resoundly defeated then too. But he simply doesn’t know when to throw in the towell on it. Instead of accepting the will of the majority and trying again next time, he tries to use parliamentary tactics to slip the thing that just got defeated back onto some other resolution. And when that gets defeated too he tries it again on another. And on another…until everybody gets sick of hearing it and calls it quits, breaking the quorum.
The only way to deal with somebody like that is to politely thank him for the first resolution, point out that it lost, and then call him out for being disruptive to the other business of the party. So precinct chairs out there - keep that in mind for the next meeting. Somebody needs to call him out after the first vote, and shame him into quietly retreating until the next meeting. Otherwise he’ll keep pushing the same stuff all night.
Rorschach - sorry I missed the meeting last night (officially, i’m not a pct. chairman though). I’ll put the next one on my calendar though. We can get it pushed thru then.
I was at the meeting last night until the very end. The issue of quorum was pushed by Clint Moore at the end. We lost quorum well before that anyway by my observations. The Chairman did his best to keep the meeting going. With so many committee reports that the meeting was long and with Bettancourts presentation when the Chairman thanked him and the chairman for thier hard work people got the impression things were over. Furthermore we had a ton of resolutions to pass. People unfortunately do not want to stay around longer than 1.5 hours for a meeting.
As far as Bill Borden goes, I know the man. He is far from a RINO. HE sees the inequities in the whole appraisal system that the average person would never see. Both on the residential and commercial side of things. His fear is that there are certain groups who are supporting Appraisal caps ( I.E. Teacher union) are doing so to see the whole appraisal funding system collapse thus opening a back door to an income tax!! that is what Bill Borden is trying to prevent!!!! That does not sound like a RINO!!!
Mr. Borden was consistant and opposed the cap in two of the resolution not three. His own resolution did not prevent a cap on appraisals as some may lead you to think. I asked him point blank if it did. And he said it did not preclude appraisal caps. It was a reolution that took aim at the areas he believed would be more effective and more comprehensive that just a cap.
This all reminds of why I’m an independent,
#25-Mr Borden did not call for a Quorum call that was I believe Mr. Moore did.
Mr. Borden did not pull any stunts that killed any resolutions last night or in the past years. Mr. Borden to my knowledge in the last 4 years has never called for a quorum count. There have been others who have done such stunts because they did not like a resolution or two but it has not been Mr. Borden
He stood up on the first resolution on the issue and tried to amend it. He did speak at length on it. That was the only time he did that. He did not use any type of manuvering over and over on the issue. He was consistant in he belief and tried to amend the issue which is his right. If you were at the meeting, you would see that he is not alone in his belief. There were a large number of precinct chairs and quite a few well respected chairs as well who were voting with Mr. Borden. Each time the issue came up with Mr. Borden, The Chair, Mr. Woodfill, could not deterimine from a voice vote who was the majority.
The only parlinmentary manuever pulled was when Mr. Moore objected to the consideration of the resolution by Mr. Borden saying that it was inconsistant with previous resolutions. Mr. Moore feared that Mr. Bordens resolution would preclude an apparaisal cap when it clearly did not!!!
I will point out we already have caps on spending that the lege is making noises of busting. appraisal caps force taxing entities to come out and actually raise the rates if they feel they need more money instead of doing it through the back door. and when they raise the rates they have to do it publicly and with a vote of the electorate. At that point they have to EXPLAIN why they need the money. if they can make a rational explanation and convince people it really is needed, then so be it. it is the same logic as tying the lege’s retirement benefits to the pay of judges and then giving judges a raise.
#28 TexasBob– Amen brother.
Unfortunately, It seems pretty easy to get the people on board for spending.
We just got a GRAND library here in Austin that is not needed nor necessary.
I will have to trust you on this as I am not an expert but there does seem to be plenty of wiggle room.
Tektite, I have the resolution here in front of me. It does not matter what Bill MEANT when he wrote it, the words mean what they mean. he used the word inequities in the resolution. That word can be construed to mean a number of things, including being used to challenge any caps involved since they are by their very nature limiting the growth of the appraised value.
#29 - Regarding who called the quorum, I wasn’t there & based my comments on what was described in the initial post. Even you seem unsure about exactly who called it, so barring clarification I’ll withhold further comment on that.
Regarding Borden though, to say that he never pulls parliamentary stunts is flat out erroneous. Borden thrives on parliamentary stunts, and is quite skilled at carrying them through. I’ve watched him do it at dozens of exec. comm. meetings before. Without consulting records of past meetings, I cannot say for certain who made the quorum call each time but Borden has certainly benefitted from them before and supported their ends. I can say with certainty that he has used other parliamentary stunts to block debate on resolutions that he did not personally approve of. Many a time, he has moved to refer or commit a resolution to a HCRP committee for supposed consideration at a future meeting (since future meetings are often 4 months away and since those committees don’t regularly do resolutions, this move essentially kills whatever was being proposed). He particularly likes to propose rules of debate to resolutions, unfriendly amendments and amendments to amendments, and tabling motions that are all intended to stop something he doesn’t want from proceeding. He has also moved to adjourn when resolutions were still in line, knowing that the committee was tired and ready to go home and would thus support it.
#29 - One more thing. Borden has been beating the anti-appraisal caps drum for years. He has never been able to muster anything even remotely close to a majority on this issue. An undisclosed “large number” in the minority is still a minority, and Borden has never gotten anything else on that issue. When he keeps pressing it well beyond his initial defeat, it becomes a distraction tactic and harms other resolutions that are later on the agenda.
Yet he brings up the caps at every opportunity he can, and at times can be VERY insulting and derogatory toward cap proponents for simply disagreeing with him about it. Borden goes beyond the realm of civil discourse some times and insults the intelligence and qualifications of people who have a different opinion on appraisal caps. I am inclined to believe what Rorschach describes from last night, because I’ve seen Borden do this too. I am also inclined to believe what Rorschach describes about the word “inequality” in the 3rd resolution. Borden is smart to his credit, and he does not mix words on things like this. He probably thought he was being clever by slipping it through. But he isn’t the only clever person in the room, which is why Moore caught it.
None of this matters. Our legislature and governor will ignore any resolutions and the entire party platform. Look at last year’s platform - All of it was ignored by the Repubicans in office. What is the point?
#36 you got that right - remember the primary resolutions? where did they go - in the trash.
dowjones
#37
Yes, we the great unwashed masses just have to be told what is good for us; for only the government can spend our money in the correct way to the betterment of all. /sarc
And we are too stupid/ignorant to understand how property taxes work as well.
#33 So you want inequities in appraisal system???? That is what you are saying by opposing the inclusion of that word. Only a politician would “construed to mean …..any caps involved since they are by their very nature limiting the growth of the appraised value.” That in itself is ludicrious.
Bill Borden has pointed out what the inequities are in the system. The cap issue does not even address that issue. If these inequities are not addressed, then lower caps will be used as grounds to sneak in a incometx system. Is that what you want?
FYI, we already got inequities even with the 10% cap!!! And with your tortured definition the reason exists to remove the current cap.
tektite, what I am saying is that no matter what system you have inequities will be part of it. There is no truly “fair” system because everyone’s definition of fair is different. What is fair to me may not be fair to the single mother living in a 60K house in Northline Terrace, or a family living in a million dollar house in The Woodlands or a commercial real estate developer with a strip center near Meyerland. Everybody’s definition of fairness and circumstances are different. The trick is to try to “even out” the inequities as much as possible. The fact that the property tax system is a tax on unrealized capital gains is an inequity itself since my house may go down in value before i sell it, what it MIGHT sell for TODAY has no bearing on what it will sell for at some point in the future. I don’t pay taxes on what my stocks would sell for today, I only pay when I sell them. why should real estate be different than a stock?
lets just get rid of property taxes and go to sales taxes for school tax. you spend you pay.
I think #40 amply demonstrates Tektite’s real issue here.
It’s not whether Borden’s usual parliamentary antics (and yes, they are a recurring behavior for him at exec comm meetings) were responsible for delaying the Perry resolution and others. Rather, Tektite is simply one of the dedicated minority of precinct chairs who backs Borden’s drum beating on the appraisal cap thing.
Tektite - if you want to keep pushing that issue in the legislature or wherever, fine. But please be honest with yourself about its lack of prospects within the Republican Party base. The issue has already been decided in favor of caps thanks to the leadership of people like Bettencourt and the Harris County delegation, which has always been the driving force for caps legislation. You’ve lost the issue before the local party, and I simply don’t see any prospects of that changing for a long time.
Complaining about it won’t change that. Nor will offering resolution after resolution after resolution at every single executive committee meeting, no matter how many times they’ve been defeated before. As I noted before, Borden has been beating the anti-cap drum since 2002 and has yet to score so much as a single victory in changing the HCRP’s mind. Again I don’t care if he and you and anybody else want to keep fighting it elsewhere, but you’ve got to recognize that you’ve been soundly defeated at HCRP and last night only reaffirms that.
It’s gotten to the point that Borden’s anti appraisal caps crusade is distracting away from more important things the party can and should be doing. Even if he did not intend to defeat the Perry resolution and others, his move had that effect because it consumed so much time simply re-defeating the same stuff he’s been trying for years. Each of those three votes to block Bill’s motions could’ve been a vote on 3 separate resolutions that actually had merit and a chance of passing. Instead everyone went home without even getting to half the resolutions on the agenda.
Textite
You are AGAINST a cap of any kind to property tax appraisals? Maybe you can afford to have your appraisals increased 10, 20, 30 or 50% every year, but I cannot. Sorry, I would rather have an income tax. My income doesn’t increase 10-50% a year. The real solution is to get rid of property taxes altogether and put in place a 1% sales tax. The 1% sales tax would be more than what the government takes in in property taxes. Let everyone living here pay taxes, not just homeowners.
#34 and 35
It was Clint Moore raising of Quroum that ultimately ended the meeting. There was another who was trying before him but was not recognized by the Chair.
I never ever said that Bill does not use Parlimentary rules. I have said that he has not call for a quorum count as others have in the past four years. The use of the motions you have outlined is every persons right to do so under Roberts Rules of Order. Even Clint Moore objected to the Question before the body last night.
To request a resolution be submitted to committiee does not kill a resolution. It is the committee that it goes to responsibility to work on it. The fact that it may not come out of committee is not Bill’s Fault.
He has not ever called for tabling a resolution which in itself is out of order if used to kill a motion. He has as I said prosed to refered the issue to a committee.
So what if he makes amendments (FYI no amendment is actually friendly). That is his right to do so. To propose limits on debates, that is his right to do so. Every thing listed still has to have at least a majority approval to make happpen!!! Please do not fain outrage at motions Bill makes. These motions he has made are not considered dilatory motions/actions.
Fact remains that his supporters are growing. Last night showed that your assessment of “remotely close” of a majority is wrong. To say we voted on it once and that is it is ridiculous. He and his supporters have every right to speak up when the issue of appraisal caps comes up. After the initial opposition and debate on caps was raised, subsequent opposition was not a distraction.
If you want resolutions to be considered with out quorum calls, then talk to the Chair. The speeches by elected officals the long committee reports contribute to people tiring and leaving before all the resolutions are presented. Set standing rules to limit debate so that more time is available for other resolutions. Require all resoliutions to be presented in adavnce and published so that the author does not have to read all the whereases and be it resolved.
I was at the meeting, Bill was not trying to slip anything by. His resolution was not some lone ranger effort. As I mentioned I point blank asked him if his resolution was trying to preclude caps. He answer was no. His resolution was a broad issue resolution on the whole system.
True on the issue of caps he was testy. He admitted that he was and should not have been. Yet even after explaining how the caps are being abused and why they will not work, many people at the meeting think that lower the cap things will be great.
Moore caught nothing. He and Bill were just in a pissing match. Do not get me wrong, I respect Clint Moore. It is just he was reading too much into it.
You know, this is probably going to cause the fabric of space-time to rip, but I have to wonder if we might ultimately be better off doing away with both sales and property taxes and franchise taxes and go to a straight income tax. or do away with property taxes and franchise taxes and go 100% sales tax. either would be a more equitable system than what we have now, at least until the Dims start whining about how rich people should pay a higher rate than poor people, you know since they can’t help being poor and all. They are victims of society Yada Yada. Yeah right.
#46 appraisal districts costs go away with that.
like i said you spend you pay its fair. seniors are protected because they cant spend much.
the republicans will lose in 2008 if they do not solve this by then. just like the national elections were lost - they didnt solve anything and spent more - not a republican way of doing biz. just my 2 pennies.
Tekite: You said “Mr. Borden did not pull any stunts that killed any resolutions last night or in the past years.” Not simply quorum calls, but all parliamentary stunts. My point is he uses parliamentary stunts to kill valid resolutions all the time.
Your defense about Bill’s tendency to refer matters to committee is ludicrous in its protestations of innocence. Yes, a good committee chairman would take up the resolution and present it again in 4 months. But the simple fact is that they don’t do that, and Borden knows they don’t do that. He uses this weakness of the committee system against the resolution itself. Sending something to one of the committees is the equivalent of a death sentence on the resolution. Nobody honestly believes otherwise, Bill Borden included. It’s the equivalent of what the U.S. House does when they vote to table a bill. Technically all they’re doing is placing the bill on the table where it could be reconsidered at a future date, but in reality everyone knows that to table a bill is to block it from consideration. Same goes when they send a bill to a committee with a chairman who they know will sit on it. It’s all a trick for the person who makes the motion to wash his hands of culpability for killing the thing, even though that’s exactly what he’s doing.
If he knows that the committee isn’t going to do anything on a resolution, then why would he move to send it there if not to kill it? The answer of course is obvious regardless of your protestations otherwise and your attempts to blame the committees (which do NOT typically come to the Exec. Comm. saying “please send us this resolution that we’re eager to work on” - instead they get resolutions that they don’t want to do anything with handed to them, and unsurprisingly they don’t do anythign with them). Being intentionally obstructive then feigning innocence about it is contemptable.
You are correct that parliamentary moves are within his rights, as with any member. Nobody disputes that. What I do contend though is that Borden and a handful of other self appointed parliamentarians on the Executive Committee regularly abuse this right for ends that are NOT constructive or in the general interest of the HCRP.
The appraisal cap thing is a perfect example. He knows he’s going to lose on that issue. You know he’s going to lose. How he could not know is beyond me, as he has been resoundly defeated on that issue dozens of times over the last four YEARS. It gets to the point that continuing to push for it only serves to obstruct other business being conducted by the party. It’s the exact same strategy the Democrats have used for the last 5 years in the House and Senate whenever the GOP had a major bill it was pushing - they offer dozens of amendments, competing proposals, resolutions that they know are going to fail (i.e. Murtha’s stunts over troop deployment), and other obstructionist tactics designed to delay legitimate business and draw out the process.
The bottom line is that Borden once again accomplished nothing last night beyond pissing off a bunch of people and distracting attention and time away from more important resolutions that they never got to. If you disagree, then please tell me exactly what Borden (or you) has to show for his stunts last night. Absolutely nothing. He got defeated across the board, just like he’s been resoundly defeated time and time again for the last 4 years.
#45 - one more thing.
“Require all resoliutions to be presented in adavnce and published so that the author does not have to read all the whereases and be it resolved.”
FWIW, the Perry resolution WAS presented to HCRP in advance. So were others that they did not get to. It’s the parliamentary pissing matches that take all the time. If they didn’t have to vote on all sorts of amendments that people like you and Borden scratch down on the back of a napkin they might be able to actually get to the resolutions from people who took the time to submit them in advance. That’s what I mean when I say that his parliamentary antics are a disservice to the party - they consume valuable time with absolutely nothing to show for it, and more important things get knocked off the agenda.
I agree with #3: dowjones25k. Perry is a lying SOB and that steaming pile of crap need to be recalled. This level of deception brings me to conclude that this man [to use the word lightly] cannot be trusted.
#44 I am for a lower cap. I just do not like the way Mr. Bordern is being portrayed as some RINO. Listen to his points and you will see that a lower cap is prehaps not the solutions. I believe it is a begining. He believes that instead of wasting energy on that issue we would be better off on addressing the whole system od property appraisals.
#40, “Only a politician would “construed to mean …..any caps involved since they are by their very nature limiting the growth of the appraised value.”
Are we not talking about instructions to politicians after all? Like making wishes to a Dijinn or deals with the devil, They will twist your words in any way they feel they need to to arrive at their own ends. The only hope is to give them no outs, or none that will be completely detrimental to the cause.
#48 and #49 To put it simply, he has not been pulling “stunts to kill resolutions all the time”.
I have been attending the Exec meetings for the past four years. On an issue that perhaps has controversy or needs further study refering it to committee is an appropriate matter. Remember to refer to a committee, you need a MAJORITY of the members approval to do so! When in the committee, if the author of the resolution believes in his resolution he will hound the committee and the Chairman Woodfill to make progress. The author if he believes the committee is not working can have the resolution discharged from the committee. On those issues it is up to the Chairman to see that the committees are doing their assigned task! The author of the resolution can also see to it a specific due date is set.
IF you contend that everyone knows that this kills the resolution then why does a Majority vote for it? Committees are regularly coming up with resolutions to voted upon. It is not the weakness on the committee, it is the failure of the author to amend the motion to set a date, press the Chairman for progress and the Executive Body as a whole for not requiring action. Sorry pal, you can not lay this on Bill. You better start pointing fingers at the majority who sent it there.
Apparently if it gores your ox it is an abuse but if it protects your rights as a minority its okay. Remember that ROR not only establishes rules on how to have a meeting but protects the minority and individuals rights as well. IF the Chairman believes that someone is abusing the rules, the CHAIRMAN can ignore their requests!
Regardless of how you or I feel about appraisal caps, Bill has every RIGHT to say his peace and make amendments. His objection to the caps is not obstructing business nor was it the cause for the other resolution from being considered.
What did Bill Accomplish? He demonstrated he has a lot more support for his position then apprently you realize. His debate on the amendment highlight several points that the majority of people are not aware of. Perhaps if you were there you would understand that as well. The only people who were “pissed off” are the same ones who want to hurry through everything as usual. Furthermore it doe not matter if he has been at this for 2 years, 4 years or 10 years. Perhaps at somepoint he will succeed. And that is is his right to do so!
On your comment in #49 There were no parlimentary pissing matches. If you think what occured last night was a parlimentary pissing match wasting a lot of time; clearly you have not seen a real parlimentary fight. We lost quorum well before the resolution Bill offered on the Property TAx system reform. I will state again the longest delays, out side of Bettancourts presentation, were the reading of each resolution. If they are printed in adavnce for everyone, then there is no need to read it unless there was a need for any changes before presentation. Secondly if the acknowledgement of elected officials were eliminated, time would be saved. Fianlly, if we had a true 50% quorum, then we probably would not have lost the 25% quroum as early as we did.
Furthermore of all the resolutions that were up for consideration the Perry resolution would truly have been a waste of time. It is reolutions like that that truly are a disservice to the party
All this talk makes me think two things.
1) This anonymous posting thing has a big down side. People like Tektite, for example, come out of nowhere and defend someone. Who it seems to be an obstructionist. Who is Tektite? What is his/hers agenda? How is he/she really related to the person in question. Not like being in person where you know who it is and their history (good or bad). And they can get multiple accounts so when they “burn” one they can move to another. That’s happened before here.
2) This pissing match and other stuff like this make me want to tell Mr. Borden personally how unattractive he is making the Republican party look to me and how, amongst other reasons, I want to vote for someone without an “R” by their name.
This is also making me wonder if this pile of crap that calls itself the Republican party capable of being reformed. I’m sure many in the party think it is working just fine. “Don’t miss with our little kingdom.” While our nation is not doing well, thanks!
#52 That is why the whole system need to be reformed. As it stands thee are inequities. If a politician wants to call reduced revenue and “inequity” then we call them on it and kick their butt out of office.
Just because we pass a resolution and send on the the Politicians does not mean that we should not be exercising oversite over their activities and if and when they float dtupid statements about revenue and such they are called on it immediately.
Textite
I agree that we would be better to address the whole issue, but in the meantime, we have property appraisals increasing annually at least at 10%. No caps would mean that the government could tax you beyond the 10% cap as is set today. You seem to be arguing for both — lower caps and no caps. Very, very cornfusing! I understand the spending cap, but the legislature is going beyond that to spend more, thus, the taxes need to be raised. I’m no economist, but I don’t think I need to be one to understand this situation.
Rorschach: At least you tried! Kuddo’s to you , and keep up the good work! Trying is better than doing nothing. My hats off to you, sir!
#53 - Only 4 years makes you a newcomer, buddy, so don’t even begin to lecture people you don’t know about what counts as a parliamentary pissing match. That means you joined circa 2002, mid term for the current administration in which there have been a minimal number of truly “big” parliamentary fights. I’ve gone to Exec Comm meetings for over a decade, have seen HCRP under three different chairmen, and have witnessed dozens of debates and parliamentary fights there. I can remember them voting on judicial vacancy nominees for Governor George W. Bush back when Rick Perry was Ag Commissioner. And I remember Bill Borden’s activities at several meetings. He pulls parliamentary stunts all the time, some of them downright petty and stupid. So before you appoint yourself the lone witness to Exec. Comm. happenings, keep in mind that there are other people who have seen it, and most of them have been around for much longer than you have.
The majority requirement for referral is irrelevant to the fact that its an obstructionist tactic. While Borden knows full well that the committees won’t do anything with it, most exec. comm. members don’t. They think that when somebody in the leadership says “perhaps the committee on blah should take a look at this,” the committee will actually look at it. But it simply doesn’t happen, and anybody who pays attention to the committees will tell you that its as good as dead once there if they’re being honest, Borden included. If he knows that sending something to committee kills it and still CHOOSES to send it there anyway, he’s culpable for that regardless of what you may think the committee’s duty may be.
The motion is all about controlling what gets voted on - if you force them to vote on sending it to a committee, it helps block a vote on whether or not the resolution should pass simply by erecting another hurdle and altering the order of its consideration. It’s a great parliamentary tactic - I’ll openly admit that. But it’s also a parliamentary tactic whose only real purpose is to delay and obstruct something. So yes, I can and will lay the culpability for obstruction on Borden every single time he engages in that tactic, or any other member of the Exec Comm. who behaves similarly.
Once again - and I think I’ve been pretty clear about this, which leads me to wonder why you’re having so much difficulty comprehending it - the RIGHT to engage in parliamentary tactics is not in and of itself an EXCUSE to be willfully obnoxious and obstructive to the proceedings of meeting after meeting after meeting. And I frankly don’t care if he thinks he’ll finally succeed the 73rd time he presents the same stupid resolution, only to see it lose like the 72 times before. It still wastes everybody’s time and means the Exec Comm. doesn’t get to vote on other things that actually have a chance of passing.
…and thus the true colors are revealed. Far from being a waste of time, the Perry censure resolution was probably the ONLY thing on the table last night with potential to gain ANY significant notice outside of the people who were in attendence there. It would show that the party base is unhappy with Perry and send him a message on why, plus generate some negative press coverage for him after lying to the voters before election day.
If you want to talk about wastes of time look to any number of the anti-appraisal cap resolutions. Even if it passed, do you honestly think so much as a single legislator would give a rat’s behind about it? Do you honestly think anybody reads those things outside of the people in attendence? The HCRP Exec. Comm. could pass a resolution declaring war on Guatemala and nobody would notice or care.
BUT if they reprimanded one of our own Republican officials for selling out his party and lying to us, people would start to take notice. Why? Because that’s newsworthy. Playing Pretend Legislature with your beloved anti-appraisal cap resolution isn’t.
So far there has not been anyone else posting as an eyewitness. I have been involved with the Executive committee longer than four years. I have seen some of the “fights that go on” and still they are tame in comparison to ones I have seen. You call them stunts when it suits you. But have someone other than Bill Borden “pull” something (i.e. Clint Moore) its no big deal.
Majority requirement irrelevant??? You must be joking! You say that if the majority votes down Bill Borden then he should stay quiet but yet when the MAJORITY wants to refer it to committee that is irrelevant? You are off your rocker!! Most Executive Committee members are not noobs as you would portray them. Nobody forces anyone to vote. The author can always speak up and state their feelings that this is some nefarious attempt to kill their resolution. The majority can either agree with them and vote it down or refer it to committee. The author has every chance to attach instruction to referred back out of committee. They understand that a committee may or may not report back on a resolution sent to committee. Do you really think that the SD chairs would lead their PCT chairman otherwise? The one ultimately culpable is the Chairman of the HRP. It is his duty to oversee the committees. Also the author has a responsibility to Sheppard their resolution from start to end even if it is in a committee. Whether or not you like it is not relevant. It is part of the order of parliamentary procedures. It is only a delay tactic if the author and the HCRP Chair allow it to be. Obstruction would be refusing it to even come up for debate. I have yet to see any resolution that is brought forth not receive debate on it before someone refers it to committee. Period End of Story!
Yes you have been clear. If you do not like it then it is a parliamentary stunt. When it suits you for the majority to speak it is gospel but when it does not suit you then you declare it irrelevant or say the majority does not know any better. You have clearly laid out that the authors of the resolution bear no responsibility once they introduce the item and that the HCRP chairman has no duties either.
Like I have told people before; if you do not like how things happen in a meeting then read and read the by-laws and read Roberts Rules of Order over and over. Then you have equip yourself to overcome any obstacle that may be put forth. Until that time do not come whining to me when things do not work out.
Please shed light on all the resolutions in recent time that have not passed as a result of Bill Borden and his opposition to appraisal caps. Also you seem to forget, that if you want change in a party, you must consistently work for it. That is through being willing to stand up and speak out at every opportunity. It is also educating people on the issue. If you had been there you would have seen that Mr. Borden is gaining support on his position and it is coming from long time party supporters as well.
as far as the censure resolution….Please…..it was nothing more than a political stunt (you know your favorite word). The only person who would have noticed is that hack at the chronicle Rick Casey. Perry’s based voted for him and he won!!! Now if you are referring to all the other potential supporters that he lost to other candidates he already knows where they stand via the elections.
IF that is your attitude about resolutions then why worry about them being in committee or even if they get considered. You said it yourself that “Even if it passed, do you honestly think so much as a single legislator would give a rat’s behind about it? Do you honestly think anybody reads those things outside of the people in attendence?”
#56, No I am not arguing both. I personally favor the 3% cap. I see what Bill Borden is getting at though. I am defending him here because there are those who are making inaccurate statemnts about the meeting last night and him personally.
#54 said
1. All this talk makes me think two things.
1) This anonymous posting thing has a big down side. People like Tektite, for example, come out of nowhere and defend someone. Who it seems to be an obstructionist. Who is Tektite? What is his/hers agenda? How is he/she really related to the person in question. Not like being in person where you know who it is and their history (good or bad). And they can get multiple accounts so when they “burn” one they can move to another. That’s happened before here.
Tektite said
Who are you and what is your agenda????
I read LST often but rarely speak. When I do, it is because I have the time and because it is on a subject that I believe needs to be addressed.
First of I am not related Mr. Borden. I am a PCT Chairman as he is and has dealings with the Republican Party. I am defending him because the original articles as well as some of the posters have given a false image of the events and actions of Mr. Borden
#54 said
2) This pissing match and other stuff like this make me want to tell Mr. Borden personally how unattractive he is making the Republican party look to me and how, amongst other reasons, I want to vote for someone without an “R” by their name.
Tektite said
You have no clue as to what occurred. If you truly want to know what is going on then come to the meetings and see first hand. I will even introduce you to him.
#54 said
This is also making me wonder if this pile of crap that calls itself the Republican party capable of being reformed. I’m sure many in the party think it is working just fine. “Don’t miss with our little kingdom.” While our nation is not doing well, thanks!
Tektite said
It is working fine here in Harris County. Sure there is plenty room for improvement. If you want to change something you must get involved and work for it. If you believe in the ideals of the party then you must do what you can to work towards those ideal.
Tektite:
Since you’re obviously quite partisan in your defense of Borden and your support for his appraisal cap things, I’ll only make a couple of additional observations.
1. You are NOT the only eyewitness here even though you like to pretend to be. As I understand it, Rorschach was an eyewitness as well. Though I was not there, I have since spoken to two additional people who were there and both have agreed with my assessment of Borden’s antics.
2. I never suggested that Borden was the only person who pulled parliamentary stunts. Others do it as well, and must be faulted accordingly. What I did say, and what I will again reiterate is that in watching the Executive Committee on a regular basis for the last decade Bill Borden is one of the worst offenders when it comes to parliamentary stunts. Others come through that give him a run for his money on some nights, but Borden has been doing it for as long as I can remember.
3. Yes. The majority requirement is irrelevant to the fact that a committee referral is a parliamentary stunt. The entire purpose of the stunt is to prevent or delay a vote on the resolution itself by altering the question that’s being voted on. If your parliamentary move changes the question to anything other than the resolution itself, then it is NECESSARILY preventing or delaying a vote on that resolution. He who controls the choices also controls the outcome. To deny that, as you do, and feign innocence when it occurs, demonstrates either (a) a profound failure to understand the basic principles of parliamentary strategy, or (b) a fundamental dishonesty in your portrayal of the motives of those you apparently support. I’ll let you choose which one it is.
4. Your protests regarding committee inaction amount to little more than a longwinded whine to the tone of “It’s not my fault I buried it in committee, because they’re the ones who aren’t acting on it.” Aside from avoiding the obvious fact that it is ONLY in committee because you moved to put it there, such a principle is absurd on its face because it begs the question of WHY. Why would you or Borden or anyone else move to put something in a committee that you know isn’t going to do anything with it? There is only one logical explanation, and that is an intent to kill it.
5. You are absolutely correct that the Perry resolution was a “political stunt” (different from parliamentary stunt, BTW). And it was a political stunt that needed to be done because it has a message that needs to be delivered to Rick Perry. Even if only Casey noticed, that’s still 1 more notice than your appraisal caps thing would’ve gotten, or anything else they discussed last night. Since you’re still a relative newbie to HCRP happenings, you probably don’t figured out what kind of resolutions get noticed and what kinds don’t. If you look back for the last decade the ones that get noticed all pertain to the HCRP itself. Nobody gives a flip when HCRP takes a position on illegal immigration, or the UN, or appraisal caps, or ANWR drilling, or the war in Iraq. Not a single person outside the committee itself even reads those things. So when do resolutions get read and get attention? Here are a couple of the ones that got genuine news coverage in the last 10 years or so:
- HCRP endorsement of an HISD bond program in 1998
- HCRP endorsements of a Houston city council slate in ‘99 and ‘01 (something that had never been done before)
- HCRP resolutions endorsing positions on the budget and rail referenda in 2001 and 2003
- HCRP resolution establishing the “Reagan Day” dinner after Ronald Reagan died
- HCRP resolution condemning HB 3 in the legislature
Notice something? None of those have anything to do with the HCRP taking an “issue position” on appraisal caps or any other issue that isn’t immediately connected to an election. In fact almost all pertain to elections, and the main exception - HB-3 - was a strong expression of discontent with something the legislature did. The Perry resolution sought to do something similar, and out of all the stuff considered last night when Borden et al were playing Pretend Legislature, it was the ONLY one that had a chance of getting any coverage or attention outside of the HCRP….which begs the question, why do people like you expend so much time and energy pushing meaningless resolutions on garbage that nobody even pays attention to? Sadly I suspect a large part of the answer to that question has to do with ego, which is something else your little friend isn’t exactly known to have a deficit of.
#56 - The poster you’re talking with seems to have a very skewed view of Borden, with every indication suggesting it has more to do with personal friendship and less with any accurate assessment of what he does.
Including that poster and Rorschach here, I have read or spoken to 4 different people who were at that meeting last night. Out of those four, that poster is the ONLY one who has a favorable view of what Borden did. He is also the ONLY one who seems to think Borden’s anti-appraisal cap resolutions are gaining steam among anybody. Based on my own attendence at several dozen exec comm meetings going back a decade, I can also say that the description of Borden’s behavior last night given by Rorschach and the other 2 people I talked to is much closer to the Borden I have seen in the past than anything he describes. Anyway, just my 2 cents.
#16 bigjolly -
“Most people don’t mind paying higher taxes” - Sen. Mike Jackson.
In my opinion, nothing spells “RINO” like a statement like that from someone running under the Republican banner.
#65…
“Most people don’t mind paying higher taxes”
- Sen. Mike Jackson
Who did he ask about this? That is an insult to those of us who obviously DO MIND.
vlou -
Why do you presume he would actually ask if anybody cared?
He’s just another one of the “elites” that think they know what is best for the rest of us “working stiffs” that are actually paying the bill.
Sorry I couldn’t join this discussion earlier.
Talking about time-killers at Exec Comm meetings, no one mentioned that at the opening of our meeting, when SSG-SSG had the honor of leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance, she chose to make a speech before starting her simple duty. Hey Shelley, all of us already know how great you are and all the problems you solved in just one short stint in Congress.
It was Clint Moore who called for quorum for the sole purpose of ending the meeting, we had more business to do and I was very much against him taking that action. I have no problem with Bill Borden wanting to bring up the issues he did, I want the same respect to be heard when I rise. (FYI, the vote against Borden’s resolution was razor-close.)
It’s a shame that after only 90 minutes, you have pct chairs start to leave. My opinion is that we meet as a body only 4 times a year. If you can’t set aside the time for us to conduct our business, maybe you shouldn’t be a pct chair. It’s really not that much to ask. I understand that for one reason or another some cannot, that’s fine, but a majority can’t? I have a problem with that, not to mention that less than half even showed up in the first place.
And when you kill a meeting with unfinished business, there’ll be that much more next time. Hopefully, the unfinished business will be resubmitted.
Pleased to meet you in person Rorschach.
I wrote an email Mike Jackson requesting that he oppose HB3. Three issues I raised were that 1) physicians, like my wife, that are paid through insurance contracts have no way to recoup their payment of the business tax by passing it on to their customers; 2) as a service business, the business tax taxes–because they are not excluded for a business–my finance payments for my computers and equipment and my federal corporate income tax payments; 3) HB3 did little if anything to address tax appraisal creep, and stopping runaway gov. spending. Mr. Jackson’s only reply was a letter explaining how many people were misinterpreting HB3 and provided a copy of the quick calculation sheet to help determine how the HB3 tax will effect me.
I then sent a second letter by email indicating that he did not address the issues I raised in my first email. I took the time to explain them again. This time, I got back a letter telling me that I was misinterpreting the business tax and stating that it would solve Texas school funding problems.
He needs to go!!!
Maybe one of the unsuccesful Republican candidates for Glenda Dawson’s seat can run in the next primary against Jackson. We know what we’ve got with him - a business tax supporter - read - increased taxes - translation - RINO.
I’m ready to try somebody else.