The Texas Tribune today posted a story saying that in an exclusive interview, University of Texas System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa contradicted published reports questioning the job security of UT-Austin President Bill Powers.

As the author of those published reports, I wish to reiterate to readers that TEXAS MONTHLY has a highly credible source for its reporting, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity.

I would also point out to readers that on the very day that the Tribune published its story about the interview with Chancellor Cigarroa, the Statesman is reporting the following statement(s) by Perry:

Asked about reports that he and University of Texas President William Powers are at odds over Powers’ support of a tuition increase, Perry acknowledged that “I just happen to think that David (Dewhurst) and I are on the right side of the equation.

“There’s no frustration,” he said. “Bill Powers is on the wrong side of that issue.”

This episode is far from over.

From politicalwire.com:

Former Bush pollster Jan van Lohuizen warns Republicans in a new memo they are increasingly on the wrong side of the gay marriage issue:

“The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.”

Van Lohuizen oversaw the anti gay-marriage campaign in Ohio for Bush in 2004, the difference-maker in that election. Republicans are in danger of being left behind on this issue, as they are in danger of being left behind on immigration. Texas is particularly susceptible to lagging behind the curve on both issues.

The race to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison in the United States Senate has not produced any stars. Some national conservative publications ballyhooed Ted Cruz, but ultimately his boomlet was a ripple, not a wave.

The only candidate who advanced himself politically (other than Dewhurst, the likely winner) is Tom Leppert. He has one foot in the business community and one foot in politics, as a former CEO of a major company and a former mayor of Dallas. After more than decade of an unloved politician as governor, Texas may be ready for a businessman. Leppert could emerge as a formidable challenger to Rick Perry, if the governor is serious about running again in 2014, which I doubt.

Leppert ran a solid race for Senate and adopted the role of a centrist conservative. I think a business message in a state whose budget and state services are in shambles would go far in the next election. Leppert has no obvious negatives, except his service on the Washington Mutual  board of directors during the mortgage crisis.

The case against Leppert is that mayors have had a difficult time transitioning to statewide politics, the most recent examples being Bill White, Ron Kirk, and Kirk Watson, but Leppert is in a different position, having had a year of free exposure to the public in the Senate race, as well as exposure on his own media spots. Perry’s numbers have bounced back somewhat from his failed presidential race, so he is no pushover, and the state’s economy seems to be in full recovery mode, for which he will take credit. Greg Abbott is a likely rival if Perry doesn’t run, and he will inherit Perry’s supporters on the far right. But Leppert can position himself to be the new, improved version of Bill Clements, a Dallas businessman who can restore common sense to state government. The sooner the better.

The Texas Conservatives Fund PAC, an independent expenditure group, polled in the Senate race recently. May 1-7, 800 Republican primary voters, MOE +/- 3.5%.

Here were the results:

Dewhurst 57%

Cruz 16%

Leppert 12%

James 4%

Undecided 11%

Positive/Negative

Cruz 30/22

Leppert 30/7

James 25/18

The Indiana Senate race is not a proxy for the Texas Senate race. The Club for Growth, which says it is going to spend $1M against the Dew, is the fool that is soon going to be parted from its money.

This was the statement released by the chancellor’s office earlier today. Last night I reported that Dr. Cigarroa had been asked to fire Powers. Obviously there is a conflict here, but it is not surprising given the tension that exists between the board of regents and the office of the president and the delicate nature of this issue. That said, my source is highly credible and, subsequent to the chancellor’s statement, continued to stand behind the information. It is worth noting that the office of the president did not deny the report, but simply declined to comment on the matter.

It is an open secret that some of the regents would like to get rid of Powers. I have another highly placed source in the Texas higher ed community who emailed me last night about Powers’ potential firing, and the message read, “It’s not a question of if, but when.” This is a moving target, and I am trying to get the latest information. I have placed calls to Representative Branch and Senator Zaffirini, the co-chairs of the oversight committee, but have not received a response from either.

Regardless, events have been set in motion. The UT faculty council will meet on Monday to consider the ramifications of the tuition freeze and Powers’ future. The notice of the meeting read:

As you know, President Powers proposed a modest tuition increase for the next two years that fell within the guidelines that the Regents had established early on.  Yet he was pressured to withdraw the proposal, and when, unlike the President at Texas A&M, he refused because he thought it was crucial to the life of the institution to maintain educational quality to the extent he could, the proposal was nonetheless rejected.  Now rumors abound that his job is in jeopardy because he didn’t do as he was told.

At its regular meeting this coming Monday at 2:15pm in Main 212, the Faculty Council will consider a resolution I have drafted in support of the President and his administrative team.  I think that a strong show of support from the campus community would be invaluable at this time, so I hope that every faculty member, student, and staff person who can make the meeting will be there.  Please come if you possibly can and urge your colleagues to do so as well.

UT AUSTIN FACULTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT BILL POWERS

Recognizing the extraordinary efforts exerted by UT Austin President Bill Powers and his administrative team in support of the recent proposal for a modest, well-documented, and crucial tuition increase, the Faculty Council strongly commends them for seeking to protect and enhance the quality of our students’ education and the value of their degrees, as well as the research and public service achievements of the faculty.  The fact that the Regents ultimately rejected the proposal diminishes neither the campus’s need for such financial support nor the efforts made to attain it.

Alan W. Friedman
Chair, Faculty Council 2011-12

It is well known that a major source of friction between Powers and the regents is a report he wrote to the UT community on May 3. Writing under the title “Tower Talk,” Powers lamented certain actions of the regents, while praising others that paved the way for a new medical school associated with UT-Austin.

The battle was over a proposed two-year tuition freeze at UT, supported by Governor Perry. Powers had sought a tuition increase. As was widely known, Governor Perry favored a two-year tuition freeze at UT, you may have now heard, today the UT Board of Regents took actions that will have profound effects on our university. The board did approve small increases for graduate and out of state students, but it did not approve the administration’s request for a general tuition increase.

After acknowledging the small increases, Powers wrote, “Nevertheless, I’m disappointed to report that the Board declined to adopt our tuition recommendation. Instead it voted to freeze undergraduate tuition at its current level for Texas residents at UT Austin for the next two years….”

This language, critical of the board, could  cause more friction with the regents. There is some speculation that it could be read as insubordination, thereby giving regents a justification for dismissing Powers, although Powers’ tone is hardly incindiary.

Powers went on to write about the hardships that the tuition freeze would cause:

“Our university is supported financially by four pillars: state funding, tuition, research grants, and philanthropy. State support in constant dollars per UT student has fallen for more than a quarter century. With a multi-year tuition freeze, the second pillar of our funding structure effectively will be cut each year by the rate of inflation. While we appreciate [another small allocation approved by the regents], it will provide less than half of the increase we had planned for. Moreover, a one-time allocation, however much it might mitigate short-term problems, cannot substitute for stable, recurring, sustainable funding needed to support long-term efforts aimed at student success.

“This action inevitably will affect our ability to teach our students and make new discoveries. Our tuition proposal, which was unanimously recommended by the students on UT’s Tuition Policy Advisory Committee, was dedicated to fund initiatives to enhance student success, improve four-year graduation rates, and increase scholarships.

“As we prepare for next year’s budget, I will work with faculty, students, staff, and our administrative leadership to address how we use our resources to protect the quality of education here at UT.

“The University of Texas has pursued excellence and has steadily grown stronger for 129 years. I am committed to protecting the quality of a UT education for Texans, for our children, and for our grandchildren.”

A source tells me that UT president Bill Powers may be in danger of losing his job as a result of his opposition to Governor Perry’s insistence on a tuition freeze. After the Perry-appointed regents approved the freeze, Powers expressed strong opposition to the decision, stating, “I am disappointed that our very thoughtful proposal, every penny of which would have gone to students’ success which itself will keep the cost of higher education down, was not adopted.”

I do not have an official confirmation, but I was told that the situation is fluid and may be happening as I write. My understanding, based on what a source with knowledge of the proceedings has conveyed, is that Regents’ chairman Gene Powell asked Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa to recommend that Powers be fired. Cigarroa refused. The next step will likely be a special meeting of the board to take action. I have no indication that notice of the meeting has been posted.

I will continue to make attempts to confirm this report. If it is accurate, the impact on the university’s reputation could be devastating. UT will have to undertake the search for a new president at a time when top-grade candidates will be unlikely to be attracted to a position that is subject to political pressure.

I wouldn’t put too much stock in this poll, which was commissioned by Conservative Republicans of Texas, a group headed by a prominent social conservative Dr. Steven Hotze. The Dewhurst camp’s fingerprints are all over it. The Houston Chronicle points out that the polling firm (Dresner, Wickers, Barber, Sanders) has previously done polling for Dewhurst, and that Wickers is a former consultant for Dewhurst. That said, the results seem plausible:

Dewhurst 51%

Cruz 16%

Leppert 7%

James 2%

I think it is reasonable to believe that Dewhurst has a shot to win this race without a runoff. If there is a runoff, all bets are off. The voters in the runoff will be hardcore conservatives.

Tagged: david dewhurst, texas polls

I was stunned to read the e-mail exchange between Dan Patrick and John Carona in the Quorum Report’s “Daily Buzz” section, in which Patrick accuses Carona of spreading “rumors and untruths” about him and his wife and the state of their marriage. In a later e-mail, Patrick writes, “I can assure you I have first hand knowledge that my statement is correct about Senator Carona spreading the lie about our separation and possible divorce.” I do not question what Senator Patrick says, but I will say, as a writer, that such comments often have the opposite effect of what was intended, weakening a point rather than strengthening it, in a “he doth protest too much” sense.

Carona responded:

Dan, I would have replied sooner, but I just returned home after a weekend away with my wife and kids. The email which you blasted to our colleagues and then provided to the media is false and you would have known that had you called or emailed before sending it.

I think Carona has a point. My mother taught me, “Never send a ‘mad’ letter without putting it in a drawer overnight.”

The wisest piece of correspondence in this entire episode was sent by Senator Judith Zaffirini:

Dan:

Your email is the first that I have heard about this issue. I’ve talked to several senators recently, including Senator Carona, and the subject never came up. I only wish you had contacted him when you heard about it, giving him the opportunity to respond.

I simply cannot imagine Senator Carona ever spreading any rumors about anyone. Your email judges him and assumes that all of us will too–on the basis of an anonymous accusation. I know him well enough to know that he says what he means and means what he says–and isn’t shy about it. He also believes in (and practices) face-to-face interaction, not backstabbing.

My questions follow: (1) Who said this to you? Given your earlier email, we have a right to know. (2) Why didn’t you contact Senator Carona instead of accusing him before the entire Senate?

* * * *

Zaffirini asks a good question: Why not contact Senator Carona? This is a regrettable incident. One can only imagine how Bullock would have reacted. (Or maybe not, since he knew everything that was going on anyway.) In the end, this is a private matter that should have remained private.

The poll’s findings:

41% of conservatives do not regard Romney as a conservative; only 5% regard him as very conservative

43% of liberals do not regard Obama as a liberal; only 8% of liberals regard him as very liberal

These findings suggest that both candidates may face an enthusiasm gap.

My own view is very much in line with these findings. I don’t think Romney is a “real” conservative, nor do I think Obama is a “real” liberal, although I think Obama is closer to being a “real” liberal than Romney is to being a “real” conservative.

The Economist sums it up:

Moderates are as likely to rate Obama a liberal (44% of moderates label Obama a liberal) as liberals are, and moderates are more likely to rate Romney a conservative (54%) than are conservatives.  In each case, it is the ideologues in the opposite camp who are more likely to put the “very” label on the other camp’s favorite:  30% of liberals say Romney is very conservative, and a whopping 70% of conservatives label Obama very liberal.

So after all, it seems it takes one to call one’s opposite number an extreme member of that other ideological tribe—it takes one who is not one to know one who is in the extreme.

I will be on vacation this week and will not be posting while I’m on the road. I will see you back here next week.