Recent editorials from Texas newspapers

Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Texas newspapers:

Houston Chronicle. May 6, 2017

“Let’s see if the wetback can swim.”

With those words, Officer Terry Denson tossed Joe Campos Torres into Buffalo Bayou. His drowned body was found three days later on May 8, 1977 - 40 years ago this month.

The killing of Torres - a Hispanic veteran arrested at an East End bar - was the spark that set off a series of protests, firings and reforms that eventually transformed the Houston Police Department into the modern crime-fighting institution that we know today.

At the time, the department was enmeshed in a series of police brutality scandals covered by Texas Monthly in an article titled, ” New Gang In Town: What Happens When Cops Run Wild?”

Killings, planted evidence and a federal discrimination lawsuit all provided the fuel that Torres’ death set ablaze at an event known as the Moody Park Riot. Consider it our city’s version of the Ferguson protests.

The conflicts could have kept escalating were it not for Houston’s new police chief, Harry Caldwell, who was hired a few months after the riot.

Though he served in that role for less than three years, Caldwell instituted key reforms that still exist today, such as HPD’s first internal affairs department, HPD’s first formal manual and the first liaisons to minority communities. In just a few short years, relationships between HPD and Houston’s Hispanic community had improved to such a degree that Caldwell even commended a local police critic during a LULAC convention, who in turn praised the chief for his efforts. That sort of exchange previously would have been unimaginable.

It goes to show how those moments of crisis and scandal within our public institutions become important opportunities for forward-looking leaders. The Department of Justice is supposed to fill that leadership role at a national level. Unfortunately, Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has made it clear he has no interest in putting federal pressure on local police departments that need reform. Every passing month seems to bring news of some officer killing an unarmed young man - we’re still mourning the death of 15-year-old Jordan Edwards in Balch Springs, a Dallas suburb.

Last month, members of Congress visited our city to learn about HPD’s successful community programs. Houstonians should take pride in knowing that a once-troubled department is now a model for the nation. We can only hope that the next congressional delegation brings along Sessions so that he, too, can learn the story of Joe Campos Torres and Chief Caldwell.

___

Corpus Christi Caller-Times. May 8, 2017

Congratulations to Joe McComb for his victory in the special election for mayor. Avoiding a runoff in an eight-candidate race is quite an accomplishment. We expect steady, principled, cost-conscious leadership from him. And that’s not so much our challenge to him as our expression of confidence based on the reputation he has built since the early 1980s as a councilman and county commissioner.

We’re pleased that McComb can know the thrill of being mayor of the city where he was born, a childhood dream that only a few native children fulfill, including his strongest challenger, Nelda Martinez. Our former mayor did much to prepare McComb for success - first by running, then by conceding quickly and graciously.

By running, Martinez gave voters a real choice - a responsible choice - and an opportunity to make a real statement with their vote. They had rejected her in November after two terms, but unprepared, ill-suited novice Dan McQueen, the only other choice on the ballot, was not a responsible alternative. McQueen’s resignation after only five weeks set up a much better opportunity for voters. Had Martinez sat out, electing McComb might have meant only settling for him. Instead voters invested strongly in him.

When the early vote showed McComb with more than 52 percent - enough to win outright if the margin held - Martinez got the message. Her early concession was both an expression of respect for the voters’ will and a strong vote of confidence in McComb. It was a show of leadership in defeat, putting the city’s best interests ahead of her own. It will help McComb.

Residents have been angry, mainly about last year’s series of water-boil notices and the poor condition of streets. They blamed Martinez and want action from McComb. He knows that’s why he won and what they want. Our advice is to be up front with residents about what they reasonably can expect him and the council to accomplish, and about their role. The to-do list takes money, the city’s residents are the main source of it and McComb needs to be forthright and forceful in reminding them. His challenge, and it’s a big one, is to set a path of real long-term progress rather than find a politically expedient price point that staves off the voters until the next election.

Shorter-term, the council needs to move quickly and transparently to appoint someone to take McComb’s place as an at-large council member. Rumors flew during the election about a choice already having been made if McComb won. The best way to put those rumors to rest is to do the winnowing, interviewing and discussion in the open - similar to how at-large Councilman Michael Hunter was appointed after Lillian Riojas resigned, only more so. In the two appointments previous to Hunter, council members did everything behind closed doors except vote on the appointee. It was legal but the bare minimum of open government.

McComb will have an abbreviated term but a lot can be accomplished. He doesn’t need to have the boundaries of strong-manager city government explained to him. He knows and respects the process and the staff. When we endorsed Martinez, we said McComb would make a good mayor. We meant it. Saturday night after the polls closed but before the votes were counted, the Buc Days Illuminated Night Parade began with McComb riding in the procession and third-place finisher Larry White working the parade route as one of the Bucaraders. The message we take from that is that McComb is in the driver’s seat and we all are ready to move forward together.

___

Fort Worth Star-Telegram. May 8, 2017

This is a great time for the Texas Legislature to talk about improving the state’s $10.2 billion rainy day fund - and the House has kicked off the discussion in spectacular fashion.

By a vote of 139-0, House members approved a plan by Comptroller Glenn Hegar and Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake.

House Bill 855 would give Hegar and his successors freedom to invest part of the fund to earn more money.

The 1988 constitutional amendment that created the fund required a very conservative investment strategy, one that Hegar has compared to “burying the money in a hole on the Capitol lawn.”

Projections put the fund at almost $12 billion when the next budget cycle ends in 2019. So it’s high time to talk about a better investment strategy.

Hegar and Capriglione have good ideas. There’s plenty of time to consider HB 855 in the Senate before the session ends May 29.

Still, good ideas may not be the best ideas. Senators should study HB 855 very carefully.

The bill would split the fund into two parts, a stabilization account to mirror the current fund with a conservative investment strategy, and a “Texas legacy” account structured as an endowment with a “prudent investor” growth strategy.

Were the changes in effect today, the stabilization account would be required to hold about $7.5 billion.

The rest of the $10.2 billion balance would be in the Texas legacy account, where investment returns would be reserved for long-term state needs such as paying down debts, reducing pension liabilities and maintaining state buildings.

Part of what makes this a good time to have this discussion is that the House has proposed spending $2.5 billion from the rainy day fund to close a gap in the 2018-19 state budget. The Senate has balked at that.

If the revisions were in effect today, how would that affect the budget dispute?

Hegar and Capriglione say lawmakers could still tap the stabilization account for budget needs. But that would leave the stabilization fund short or reduce the amount going to the Texas legacy endowment.

Fixing the rainy day fund must not mean restricting how lawmakers use it.

___

San Antonio Express-News. May 8, 2017

Yes, the system is broken and reform is needed. But rushing ahead with privatization of foster care has the potential to make a bad system worse. The danger here is the rush to help could hurt children whose case needs might not match with a contractor’s performance measures.

Yet, the debate in the Texas Legislature isn’t whether to embrace privatization, but how quickly. House legislation from Wichita Falls Republican James Frank delays the transfer of case management to contractors by at least a year. It requires a lead contractor to prove it has successfully placed all new and existing foster kids in a region before assuming case management duties.

The Senate legislation from Georgetown Republican Charles Schwertner would simultaneously transfer foster care placement and case management to private contractors.

In general, lawmakers should be cautious about privatization. These are vulnerable children whose cases should be handled with care. Child advocates have expressed legitimate concern that contracts with private entities - even if they are nonprofits - create potential conflicts.

Sometimes what is best for a child might run counter to the performance measures in a contract. Or as Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin, has said, “We want kids to go home, except when we don’t. We want kids to go with relatives, except when we don’t.”

Proponents of privatization point to the benefits of having one entity handle placements and case management, as well as success with a pilot program in the Fort Worth area. But that good work included case managers with the state’s Child Protective Services. And as The Dallas Morning News has reported, the lead contractor in the Fort Worth pilot program has had to tap its own endowment for $6 million because the state hasn’t provided adequate funding.

The state only recently boosted pay for CPS workers in an effort to reduce turnover and improve case management. Factor in potential higher pay for kinship foster placements, and the state could see marked improvement in care.

Both the House and Senate bills call for the use of predictive analytics to prioritize resources, as well as more immediate scheduling of medical exams under Medicaid. And both embrace privatization.

Better that privatization be studied more altogether, but the House’s slower approach to privatization is superior.

___

The Dallas Morning News. May 8, 2017

This newspaper has argued for years that Texas should not welcome or encourage illegal immigration. So we can understand why the “sanctuary city” bill that Gov. Greg Abbott recently signed into law sounds reasonable to so many. Why shouldn’t law enforcement officers be able to ask people if they’re violating a law?

Here’s why this piece of legislation is a disaster that threatens to do more harm than good: It encourages unfair treatment of millions of law-abiding American citizens. And instead of rooting out illegal activity, it could make the state a haven for more.

It’s disappointing that Abbott signed Senate Bill 4 into Texas law. Enforcing immigration law is a federal responsibility; local and state agencies should not be doing that job.

The law, which goes into effect Sept. 1, bans cities, counties and universities from prohibiting their local law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status and enforcing immigration law. Those who violate the ban pay a hefty price - up to $25,000 for each day they are in violation.

It also allows police officers to ask about a person’s immigration status during any legal detention, including routine traffic stops.

What’s so wrong with asking people for their papers to find out if they’re legal or not?

For starters, it invites racial profiling. Abbott assured critics that this would not be the case: “Most of the people coming across the border in Texas are not from Mexico, they’re from around the entire globe. So this has nothing whatsoever to do with those who are Hispanics.” Forgive our skepticism; the reality is that this bill opens the door for widespread abuse.

This law also threatens to make communities less safe: If you are an unauthorized immigrant who is the victim of a crime, would you feel comfortable reporting it to local law enforcement, knowing you risk deportation as a result? Criminals will bank on this fear and prey on this population, with virtual immunity. Driving victims to the shadows hurts the public safety of an entire community - creating an actual sanctuary for the lawless.

You didn’t hear about such unintended consequences of this look-tough bill from our governor. Abbott declared SB 4 an emergency in January; he signed it into law Facebook Live to show as many folks as possible, he said, that he meant business on keeping Texans safe.

What he didn’t mention were the dire consequences of a law that discriminates but doesn’t provide real solutions. Instead of quick-fix, show-off regulations, we need a balanced approach to comprehensive immigration reform. This is a federal problem that needs a federal solution: border security and guest-worker programs and a clear path to legal immigration.

This law is assured to face legal challenges. Parts of Arizona’s “papers, please” legislation was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

While it’s on Texas’ books, we urge local law enforcement officials to develop clear guidelines, and to exercise restraint and human decency. We don’t want to become a state that preys on people who might look like immigrants, or encourages crime against the unprotected. We’re better than that.