The Dallas Morning News. June 6, 2016.
Trump’s attack on Judge Curiel breathtaking in its vileness
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is littered with more insults and disrespect than anyone can count. Now he’s added a racist assault on a member of the federal judiciary to his hit list. Has he no respect for anyone or institution?
Trump’s latest target is U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the presiding judge over two of the three Trump University lawsuits that accuse the billionaire’s business venture of defrauding students. Last week, Trump ranted and tweeted that Curiel is “Mexican” and is biased in the court proceedings. Why? Trump claims the judge opposes his plan to build a wall on the border between Mexico and the United States and is a “hater.”
No evidence exists of any of these vile accusations. But that hasn’t slowed Trump’s hair-trigger tongue. Given his status as the presumptive GOP nominee, these comments undeservedly trash the integrity of a federal judge, threaten the independence of the judiciary and reveal, once again, the smallness of the man who could become president.
Judge Curiel was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants who arrived with elementary school educations. He is as American as Trump, who is the grandson of immigrants. Suggesting that Curiel is biased because of his heritage insults any minority who has pursued the American Dream to laudable accomplishments.
Curiel’s parents gave him an opportunity at the American Dream, as did Trump’s ancestors. Are we to assume that any judge is unfit to judge someone of another background? For the sake of the judicial system, the answer had better be “no.”
Some Republicans who back the party’s presumptive nominee are shocked by Trump’s behavior. No less a Trump supporter than former Speaker Newt Gingrich called the comments inexcusable and labeled them among the worst mistakes of Trump’s campaign - and that’s saying something.
Sadly, others, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, offered weak-kneed responses that prioritize politics over principle. On “Meet the Press,” McConnell said he disagreed with Trump’s comments but favored party unity behind Trump. In his op-ed in The Washington Post, Gonzales defended Trump’s right to question whether a judge is biased.
That misses the point. Trump crossed a line when he questioned Curiel’s judgment based on his ethnicity and threatened to do something about the judge when he becomes president. Such actions are indefensible and should have been denounced without equivocation.
Trump continues to pick vile fights with anybody who doesn’t look like him - women, Mexican-Americans, even the Pope. The very future of the GOP - not to mention personal reputations - are at stake each time Republican leaders tolerate his foul behavior.
___
San Antonio Express-News. June 5, 2016.
No excuse for Clinton’s flouting of email rules
Now we wait for the other shoe to drop in Hillary Clinton’s evolving email scandal.
The first shoe, a State Department inspector general report, was brutal in its assessment of Clinton’s willful disregard of email policies. Her use of private email and a private server may, at best, have fostered secrecy, hiding records from the public. At worst, it threatened U.S. security through data hacks and the potential for blackmail. But here’s the kicker: She knew of those risks.
The second shoe the public awaits is an FBI investigation into whether Clinton’s email practice was unlawful. With the presidential election in full gear, and Clinton the likely Democratic Party nominee, the FBI’s findings can’t come soon enough.
The inspector general’s review covered the practices of five secretaries of state, going all the way back to Madeleine Albright. Clinton wasn’t alone in her use of private email. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell regularly used private email, investigators found. The rules around such practices were very fluid throughout the years, but by the time Clinton became secretary of state, they were fairly established. There is no excuse for her disregard of policy.
To that point, there were numerous memos about the proper use of email and handling of electronic documents at the State Department during Clinton’s tenure, which she then ignored. These included using approved secured methods for the handling of sensitive information.
If messages needed to be relayed outside of State’s network, employees were supposed to contact an information specialist for assistance. There is no record Clinton did this.
She was also warned about the possibility of private email being hacked for blackmail, but that did not prompt Clinton to change her practices. Along these lines, Clinton’s private server had to be shut down in 2011 due to a likely hack attack - a private server that the State Department would not have approved if she had asked for permission.
She also ignored an internal program to archive messages, and staffers shielded her use of private email. Perhaps most damningly, when two IT staffers raised concerns about her private email, their supervisor told them to “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”
On the contrary, given the risks, someone at the State Department should have spoken to Clinton about her private server.
When Clinton left the State Department in 2013, she should have surrendered all federal records (she also should have been archiving them appropriately throughout her tenure).
But she didn’t until nearly two years had passed, and that was only after pressure from Republicans in Congress. Investigators also discovered that four of Clinton’s immediate staff extensively used personal email.
Finally, it’s particularly troubling that Clinton refused to do an interview with the inspector general’s investigators when other secretaries of states did. This only enhances the perception that she is untrustworthy and closed off to the public.
All of this reflects incredibly poor judgment, but it does not address the lingering question of whether Clinton’s email practices violated the law. That’s the next shoe to drop. The FBI investigation will answer this question - and the sooner, the better, for voters.
It’s a dark cloud to hang over a presidential election.
___
Longview News-Journal. May 31, 2016.
Attacks on tea party leader show dangers from the fringe
JoAnn Fleming, executive director of the Tyler-based tea party powerhouse organization Grassroots America-We The People, sent a remarkable email to followers last week complaining about harsh political attacks being launched against her.
That itself might not be so surprising, given that Fleming is always outspoken and thus somewhat a target as head of the tea party group.
No, what made us - and Fleming - do a double-take is that the verbal bombs being thrown against her were coming from those inside her organization.
She reported being called a “Saul Alinsky acolyte.” She said she was told she was “going to hell” and accused of being “inaccurate and petty.”
Being referred to as an Alinsky follower probably hurt the worst, because that would be a full turncoat to the cause. It also is the most laughable.
But words hurt and Fleming was shocked (shocked!) that such behavior was taking place within her group.
And what do you suppose brought about such a miasma?
All it took was for Fleming to lead her group to do the right thing.
We are referring to the decision by the organization’s board of directors to withdraw its endorsement of Mary Lou Bruner to be the Republican nominee to the State Board of Education from this area.
Bruner nearly won the nomination outright in the March party primaries, with Keven Ellis of Lufkin barely earning enough votes to make it to the second round.
That’s when real questions began to arise about some of Bruner’s bizarre beliefs, which included that the Democratic Party was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and others even more bizarre. We can’t help noting Bruner would have a fun time with Donald Trump, who seems to believe Ted Cruz’s father is to blame.
More than that, however, Grassroots America became concerned that some of what Bruner was saying was, uh, a bit less than truthful or accurate. Her public prevarications included the preposterous notion that more than 50 percent of children enrolled in Texas public schools are in a special education program. That and other inaccurate statements were made before a group of superintendents meeting in Kilgore who immediately called her out.
Rightly, Fleming’s organization said it took a second look after news reports about that meeting. It found Bruner wanting and the endorsement was withdrawn. That probably played a role in Ellis’ wide runoff victory, but most thoughtful East Texas Republicans had long before determined Bruner was the wrong candidate to represent them.
For that, Fleming is suffering all sorts of calumny from members.
And this surprises her?
Over-the-top tactics have always been a part of her group’s playbook. There’s nothing new there. Of course, the words usually are directed at moderates or liberals (though there are few of the latter in East Texas).
Now, Fleming is learning firsthand that once the weaponry of personal destruction is used, it becomes the tool of choice.
Having said that, we would suppose most members of Grassroots America agreed with the decision to back away from Bruner, who threatened to be an embarrassment to our region and harm our state. The situation is a reminder that within any group staked across the political spectrum, some fringe believers will join in and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Having seen its tactics of choice directed at its own leader, perhaps we will see a kinder, more gentler tea party from Tyler in the future - though it is not likely much will change.
___
Corpus Christi Caller-Times. June 4, 2016.
Abbott, Hegar took the high, lonely road
Policing one’s own is a rarity in politics and governing. It’s a duty shirked regularly by otherwise-principled people in power who keep their own houses in order but ignore the miscreant behaviors of others for fear of retaliation or out of party loyalty.
Last week, Gov. Greg Abbott and Comptroller Glenn Hegar did that rare thing. They took principled action to stop the widespread unprincipled practice of using emergency leave as severance pay or hush money for departing state employees. They issued a directive to stop the practice until the Legislature addresses the issue - which the Legislature already is preparing to do.
Emergency leave is meant for actual emergencies such as an unexpected injury or illness suffered by the employee or a family member, or a death in the family. The envisioned duration for emergency leave is a few days or sometimes weeks - not the several months that the abusers of emergency leave have provided to people who left their jobs or were forced out.
Abbott, Hegar and lawmakers wouldn’t have known to act had the Dallas Morning News not exposed the practice. Every Texan who has paid a sales tax should appreciate the role of the Morning News, Houston Chronicle and Austin American-Statesman in exposing various aspects of this scandal.
Abbott and Hegar were in a unique position to act, not only because of the authority of their respective offices, but also because- so far as we know - they’re not among the abusers of the system. The news organizations didn’t dig up anything on them, there is no reason to suspect them and their worst political enemies probably would describe them as straight arrows.
Most noteworthy among the abusers of the system is Attorney General Ken Paxton. By virtue of the office he holds, Paxton should be the first to know and let everyone else know the proper and improper uses of emergency leave. Other departments discovered by the Morning News to have used emergency leave as severance or hush money include Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Child Protective Services, the Water Development Board, the Teachers Retirement System and Parks & Wildlife.
The General Land Office under Commissioners George P. Bush and predecessor Jerry Patterson found another back-door severance device, according to the American-Statesman. Instead of emergency leave, the GLO just filed false time sheets, according to the Statesman. A GLO spokesman actually defended the practice as a protection against costly employment lawsuits. Another way to protect against lawsuits is to follow good professional management practices.
It may be politics as usual to fire competent employees for no good reason other than to give their jobs to one’s friends and campaign staff, like Bush did wholesale. But personnel management-wise, it stinks and Texas taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for its consequences.
In addition to Abbott and Hegar, House Speaker Joe Straus deserves recognition for ordering the House to look into emergency leave practices that “appear contrary to the intent of the law.”
Abbott and Hegar didn’t scold Paxton or any other transgressors. They just recognized their responsibility to police their own and fulfilled it, knowing that it can be risky. The more likely, safer course would have been to shrug and say their powers are limited and wait for the Legislature.
Texans have a personnel management tool at their disposal. It’s called voting. They should remember who abused the system and who took corrective action.
___
Fort Worth Star-Telegram. June 6, 2016.
Severance pay: Our money spent, but why?
Some of Texas’ top officials must be mistaken about public employees.
Our state employees work solely for the people of Texas under our state laws.
They are not personal servants for agency heads to hire, dismiss or pay off at a whim.
The rules for hiring, paying and dismissing state employees, and the budgets for paying them, are set solely by the Texas Legislature. They are not set by elected agency heads randomly doling out public dollars.
Some of these points seem lost on those elected officials who have yet to join Gov. Greg Abbott’s call for Texas to stop giving extended paid leave or severance pay to departed workers.
State law does not allow severance pay at all.
Instead, Attorney General Ken Paxton, Land Commissioner George P. Bush and Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller have used a creative version of emergency leave or administrative leave to extend payments for departed workers, keeping them on the payroll for weeks after they leave the public workplace.
The practice came to light in April, when The Dallas Morning News reported that Paxton continued to pay former assistant Chip Roy more than $4,000 per week even after Roy left to go to work for a Ted Cruz PAC.
Paxton’s former communications director, Allison Castle, was given several weeks’ paid leave upon her departure and replaced with a former pastor from Paxton’s church, The News reported.
Paxton’s personnel chief told the Texas Tribune that state law allows agency heads to grant emergency leave for “good cause.” But Castle told the Texas Tribune that she was offered the money as part of a compensation package to leave.
The Houston Chronicle has reported that Bush’s agency paid nearly $1 million to departing employees.
In a significant break with Paxton, his predecessor, Abbott has directed agency heads under his supervision not to use paid leave “for the purposes of severance or settlement” when employees leave. Comptroller Glenn Hegar co-signed Abbott’s letter.
In the Legislature, Speaker Joe Straus has ordered the House ethics committee to review the practice, writing: “The public should have confidence that state agencies are being cautious with taxpayer dollars.” Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound), who leads the Senate finance committee, has also promised to tighten rules.
It’s just too easy to hire and dismiss public employees with little explanation if an agency head can simply dole out salary money meant for other purposes.
It is disappointing to see elected officials spending public money this way, but heartening to see the governor and lawmakers pursuing a review.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.