Let the speculation begin
Committee appointments will be the first real test of the Straus speakership. How many of the 149 members can he satisfy? Here are some of the problems he will face:
—Straus has said that there will be no retaliation against Craddick loyalists. Good luck in keeping that promise. The ABCs are going to want to send some folks to the penalty box. (A theoretical question: Should we still refer to the ABCs by that designation, if “C” is no longer a factor? We can’t refer to them as “insurgents” any more, either, since they are now insiders.) It is a lot easier to handle committee assignments when you start with an enemies’ list. You can consign 25 to 30 members to oblivion. In Craddick’s case, the number was much higher, since most Democrats were excluded from major committees unless they were protected by seniority.
—Will seniority apply to Appropriations? Craddick revoked seniority on the committee because the panel he inherited from Laney was Democrat-heavy. Straus inherits a Republican-heavy committee. One of the things the Democrats are going to want from a Straus speakership is fair representation on major committees. To achieve that on Appropriations, Straus is going to have to follow Craddick’s lead and do away with seniority on Appropriations so that Gallego and Coleman can return to the panel. But he also needs to retain some of the experienced hands who know the budget.
—Can he satisfy the ambitions of the former ABCs? Those who were Craddick chairs (Pitts, Keffer, Solomons, Cook, Eissler) may want more prominent positions; those who weren’t (Geren, Kuempel, McCall, Merritt, Jones) will want a gavel or more.
The big prizes are Appropriations, Calendars, and Ways & Means. I’ll say who I think the leading contenders are—or, more to the point, ought to be, for these and other committees. This is not a complete list; I have tried to pick those committees that have the most impact on public policy. I have made certain assumptions: (1) The individual ABCs will get whatever they want, subject to internal conflicts within the group; (2) Early pledgers to Straus will do better than late pledgers when it comes to chairmanships; (3) Democrats will get the chairmanships of second-tier committees that are important to their party (e.g., Elections, Environmental Regulation, Higher Ed); (4) Returning chairs who performed at a high level will be retained; (5) Some returning chairs are headed for the penalty box.
Speaker pro tem: Senfronia Thompson
Appropriations: Pitts (chair in 2005) or Branch, with Keffer as a dark horse. Eiland as vice-chair would be in position to secure funding for the University of Texas Medical Branch.
Calendars: Geren. He has emerged as Straus’s go-to guy. He is clearly going to be a major player this session, if not at Calendars, then in another high-profile position.
Ways & Means: McCall. The word is that Keffer’s interests are said to lie elsewhere. Oliveira, who chaired the committee in the Laney years, could end up here. If Straus does not merge Local Ways & Means with the main committee, another chairmanship is available.
Public Education: The Eissler/Hochberg pairing is too good to break up.
Elections: Joaquin Castro or Trey Martinez-Fischer. This is one of the committees that the Democrats really want to control. Anchia, a veteran of the Voter I.D. battle with penalty-box-bound Leo Berman, is the obvious choice, but his skills could be put to better use elsewhere. Because of Dallas’s concerns with coal plants, I have him as a possibility for Environmental Reg; other contenders there could be Menendez and Strama. Castro or Martinez-Fischer could provide a decent burial for the Voter I.D. bill.
Insurance: This is a big year for insurance issues. The department has just been through Sunset review, and there is considerable displeasure with the agency’s regulation of the industry (or lack thereof), especially on the D side of the aisle. Smithee has chaired the committee forever, with a high level of confidence from members, but insurance is Straus’s profession and he will have his own priorities. If Straus decides to make a change, Eiland (a coastal legislator who has concerns about windstorm insurance) and Taylor (ditto) are possibilities.
Public Health: Jodie Laubenberg inherited the chairmanship when Dianne Delisi resigned from the House. She is unlikely to get the job on a permanent basis. A health care lobbyist tells me that Veronica Gonzales has the inside track. Garnet Coleman and Vicki Truitt are other contenders.
Culture, Recreation, and Tourism: Current chair Hilderbran should keep the position, unless Kuempel wants it. If he does, scratch penalty box candidate Sid Miller at Agriculture and Livestock and pencil in Hilderbran.
Environmental Regulation: Dennis Bonnen has been a controversial chairman; two years ago he bottled up a host of clear air bills, promising a comprehensive bill in 2009. I doubt that he will get that opportunity. I would not be surprised to see Kuempel, a member of the committee, move up to chairman, although this change in leadership may not produce a change in philosophy. If Kuempel doesn’t want it, Straus, who is pretty green himself (no pun about inexperience intended), could turn to a green Democrat such as Anchia or Menendez or Strama. As is the case with Elections, Environmental Reg is one of the committees the D’s would dearly love to control.
Energy Resources: Rick Hardcastle is the chairman, but if Tommy Merritt wants it, he gets it.
Economic Development: Joe Deshotel was chairman last session. His vice-chairman was Joe Straus. I’m betting Deshotel stays.
Business and Industry: Helen Giddings is the current chairman. This will be a test of whether the Craddick D’s get punished or not. If the answer is yes, Gary Elkins, the vice-chair and an on-again, off-again ABC over the years, and an early Straus pledge, is a likely candidate.
Criminal Jurisprudence: As was the case with Giddings, Pena is a former Craddick D whose fate will be closely watched. The committee mangled Jessica’s Law last session and Debbie Riddle had to be rescued on the floor. Dunnam could do a bang-up job as chairman, but he may prefer to be an ordinary member on more important committees.
Transportation: The chairmanship was left vacant by Krusee’s retirement. If Straus wants change at TxDOT (hear! hear!), he should install Joe Pickett as chairman. Pickett was an early and prescient critic of TxDOT, and he is one of the three most knowledgeable members in the House on transportation issues. But Straus’s chief of staff, Clyde Alexander, a former Transportation chairman, was close to TxDOT, and Joe Krier, husband of Straus transition team member, was an advocate for transportation issues. I’m afraid Pickett won’t make the cut (shame! shame!) and a TxDOT apologist will get the job. Wayne Smith, a veteran of the moratorium wars of 2007, may be the choice.
Higher Education: Patrick Rose. Holdover chair Geanie Morrison, who passed tuition deregulation in 2003, won’t make the cut. Rose, who has served on the committee, is from Hays County (Texas State), which makes him neutral in the rivalries involving UT, A&M, and Texas Tech. This is an important committee for Democrats because of the Top Ten Percent rule, which UT wants to see revised.
Corrections: Jerry Madden was a great chairman in 2007. He should stay.
Regulated Industries: Burt Solomons. It remains to be seen whether this will remain a separate committee or whether Straus will bring it back into State Affairs. I would prefer to see State Affairs reconstituted as it used to be, with some of the best members in the Legislature handling some of the most difficult issues. Chairman Phil King is surely headed for the penalty box, so the position will be vacant. Solomons had to deal with regulatory issues on Sunset, which led to a tussle with King. Sylvester Turner would be an equally fine choice, if the Democrats are not bent on punishing former Craddick D’s.
Human Resources: Naishtat may regain the chairmanship he lost when the R’s took over.
Pensions & Investments: John Otto. He can count. However, Straus may want Vicki Truitt to remain as chair. This could be a very important position because of the vulnerability of the two big pension funds to the economic crisis. If Straus (or Truitt) want to make a switch, Otto can figure out what is going on.
Licensing and Administrative Procedure: ABK (Anybody but Kino, including Delwin Jones).
Financial Institutions: If Otto doesn’t go to Pensions & Investments, this is another good landing place for somebody who can count.
Civil Practices: Cook did a great job as chairman last session and should stay, if that is what he wants to do.
Natural Resources: Hamilton is the current chairman. I don’t like to see East Texas members heading this committee. They’re rural, and they have excess water, and they don’t want to share it with the cities. Gallego and Gattis are current members, and either could handle it, but I assume each would prefer to be on Appropriations. West Texas always has major water issues, and this may be the perfect spot for Keffer.
These are all the chairmanships that I am going address. I don’t care who chairs Juvenile Justice or General Investigating.
I have left some big names on the sidelines. Gallego could handle any of several committees—Natural Resources, for one—but I assume he would rather be on Appropriations. The same assumption applies to Coleman, Gattis, and Kolkhorst.
The good news is that there is plenty of talent in the House, if the speaker’s primary interest lies in deploying talent rather than settling scores.
Tagged: abc’s, appropriations, Brian McCall, calendars, Charlie Geren, committee appointments, dan branch, dan gattis, jim pitts, joaquin castro, jodie laubenberg, john smithee, pete gallego, Rob eissler, scott hochberg, senfronia thompson, speaker joe straus, trey martinez-fischer, ways & means.
Benevolus says:
Approps – Branch is better substantive choice, Pitts better political choice. We’re in an economic crisis folks. Go with Branch.
Calendars – Was Geren, then Solomons, now McCall. McCall it is.
House Admin – Geren
Transportation – Pickett or Deshotel
Insurance – Smithee or Eiland
Civil Practices gets disbanded
Regulated Industries gets carved up between telecom and electricity, some to State Affairs some to another committee. Solomons gets one of these committees.
Local Ways & Means – Otto
Public Ed – Eissler/Hochberg dynamic duo
Human Services – Rose stays
Elections – Anchia
Judiciary – Veronica Gonzalez
Government Reform – Strama
State Affairs – Byron Cook
Higher Ed – Eiland (Rose or McCall as backups)
General Investigating & Ethics – Gattis, Hartnett, or Phillips
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 19th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Where’s Keffer?
Reply »
Plain Spoken says:
Keffer has to be somewhere but he has proved rather spineless so many don’t care if he gets a chairmanship or not. He still thinks he should be Speaker.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 9:00 am
He and 148 other members.
Reply »
anonymustardgreenismyfavoritecolor says:
Rose to Higher Ed would be interesting because his district is also probably a good example of the suburban folks who think the Top 10% is costing their kid (no one else’s though).
I think Straus’ comment about the Speakership rotating o some basis is interesting. Could be that Geren opts for House Admin looking at Speaker’s race down the road.
Pitts is a nice guy, but he was an atrocious chairman. How much of that you want to attribute to Craddick undermining him as chair is up to you.
I’m with Burka. Put State Affairs back together.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Pitts did lose his committee in 05, and his conferees, and he also didn’t tell Craddick what he was doing in conference. He’s a risk.
Reply »
Paul Burka's Mustache Reply:
January 21st, 2009 at 9:56 am
Funny, that didn’t keep you from naming him to your ten best list that year.
Reply »
anonymustardgreenismyfavoritecolor says:
You could call the ABCs something equally accurate, alcoholics.
Reply »
hall monitor Reply:
January 19th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Does anyone besides me find anonymustardgreenismyfavoritecolor to be obnoxious? This retorical question does not require an answer.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 19th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Better that than some of the philandering Pharisees we have seen on the other side.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 12:06 am
This is the kind of personal slur that I have asked commenters to avoid. Please respect the rules I have tried to establish for the blog.
Reply »
tucker max Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
and your point is?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Don’t forget the WD-40s – Ritter goes to Natural Resourses, Hopson (R.Ph.) gets Public Health, McReynolds gets Higher Ed or a seat back on Approps, Homer gets CRT and Rose keeps Human Services.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 12:08 am
This is more than the WD-40s deserve. They are good members, but they represent a very small percentage of the Democratic caucus.
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Right-o, and Ritter was a hideously early Laney flake to Craddick. He’s complely untrustworthy. The other WD-40s are good guys, good and able representatives, perhaps not Chairmen material.
Reply »
House Watcher says:
Larry Taylor would be a disaster as Chair of Insurance. He owns an insurance company. Please, please, please, we don’t need him and his self-interests and his special interests running that hen house. Let me just write a bigger damn check to my insurance company right now.
I agree that Senfronia will be Speaker pro tem. I’ve heard buzz about that for weeks.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 19th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
The alternative is naming a trial lawyer as Chair of Insurance (Eiland) as was Smithee previously? With the trial lawyers in charge and to quote you, let me just write an even bigger check to my insurance company because of the impact of increased litigation resulting from the trial lawyers!
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 12:09 am
I don’t worry too much about Taylor. Straus is going to keep a close eye on whoever the chairman is, because that is his profession.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 10:34 am
hum….I seem to recall another speaker acting similarly toward committees and chairman at times. Gotta love that change.
Reply »
jim says:
Yeah, what Serious Journalist cares about juvenile justice?
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Right, or General Investigating. I’ll be sure to forward that memo to Pete Gallego.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
What’s your point, Prom Queen? If you’re suggesting that I wasn’t aware that Gallego chaired General Investigating during the Laney speakership, of course I was. Nevertheless, it is a minor committee, as is Juvenile Justice. Gallego was chair because he was an important member who, as the result of years of service on Appropriations, had not had the opportunity to chair a committee, and Laney felt he deserved to be at the chairmen’s meetings. If this were football, I’d penalize you 5 yards for delay of game.
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
And your point is? Last refuge of journalists – sports metaphors. Committees are as insignificant as the speaker and the chairman himself makes them. Tiles alone don’t mean much.
anonymustardgreenismyfavoritecolor says:
rhetorical
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I don’t know about the lobbyist that told you about Gonzales for Public Health, I don’t think that’s likely to happen, but I’ll say this. As much as I’d love to see Coleman at Public Health (to a lesser extent Gonzales) and Naishtat at Human Services, it ain’t gonna happen for both of them. Straus needs to put a Republican as chair for one of those, the bureacrats at HHSC are already flipping out over a Coleman/Naishtat chair, both would shake the establishment too much.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Oh, that would be a terrible shame if the bureaucrats at HHSC would flip out over Coleman or Gonzales or Naishtat. That sounds to me like a pretty good argument for appointing one of them. It’s time to restore some legislative oversight over HHSC instead of defaulting to the governor’s office.
Reply »
Watching the Musical Chairs says:
To anonymous at 11:50:
The really cool deal here is that there is a lot of R an D talent with interest in Public Health AND Human Services. Under Speaker Straus, their talent is likely to be utilized an REALIZED.
It’s a solid win for the state. Former Representative Alexander will help sort this out.
Reply »
anonymouse1 says:
speaking of disasters, house watcher’s understanding (to be charitable) of larry taylor is a disaster to the truth.
taylor does not own an insurance company. he owns an insurance agency. that means he sells business TO employers and individuals, TO consumers. like most good agents, his interest is in keeping rates as low as possible so people can afford the stuff (and buy more) and companies solvent so they can pay claims promptly and not go bankrupt.
anyone who confuses agents WITH insurance companies, who thinks agents ARE insurance companies, reveals a sad lack of understanding of the real world.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
January 21st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Anonymous1, what you’re seeing would be wonderful — if it were even remotely true. Anyone who thinks that insurance agents are not completely in bed with the insurance companies is completely out of touch with the real world. That’s like saying pharmaceutical reps only care about the people taking their drugs, not the manufacturers.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I worry about Keffer as head of NR. I haven’t seen him get very involved in water/natural resources issues. If knowledgeable committee members get appointed with him, they may run him over a bit. I would rather see someone like Gattis there whose district has both a growing urban/suburban area as well as a rural area.
Reply »
K says:
Paul,
Attribute this to my youngness (2003 was the first session I knew), but I know of no other State Affairs Committee than the one the hard-righters use to push through so-called “social issue” bills like ones that pertain to abortion or the lesbian and gay community (I consider them “Constitutional issues,” but I don’t determine the press’ language). I remember the stem cell bill coming through State Affairs, which seems like it should have gone through Public Health. Will State Affairs no longer be a fast track for issues that are only hot-button on either side of the political spectrum (and only pleasing to one side)?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
To K –
Craddick had served on State Affairs. Its jurisdiction included both the social issues and the big regulatory issues (electric and telephone companies), and I am sure he had his fill of grappling with the regulatory agencies for hours, only to have to spend the remainder of the night hearing testimony over abortion and immigration. He probably split the committee’s work as a favor to its members. However, State Affairs was traditionally the proving ground for major legislation (and a killing field as well), and its membership usually included some of the best members of the House. I could make an argument for keeping it apart, but I think it is important to have one committee with general responsibilities and strong members to deal with them.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Pitts has the advantage of knowing all the ins and outs of the appropriations process. That’s a tremendous resource going into the session with the House otherwise handicapped on an information level compared to the Senate.
Also don’t forget that Straus has some other significant candy to hand out–e.g., membership on the LBB.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
The same case could be made for Branch, although he was never chairman.
Reply »
SETX says:
Ritter for Natural Resources would be welcomed by his constituents, but is it likely that he would replace Hamiliton, a GOP’er from the same part of the state? What would that accomplish for Straus?
Ritter’s leadership should not go to waste. If not Natural Resources, then where?
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Ritter = leadership? Perish the thought.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
NO EAST TEXAN SHOULD BE CHAIRMAN OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
If Pitts gets Appropriations does that mean Marshall Kenderdine goes back to work for him?
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
January 21st, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Thanks for commenting, Marshall.
Reply »
Kevin says:
What is Warren Chisum going to do? Is he going to spend the most time in the pently box or do you think he will have any influence this session?
Reply »
paulburka says:
Re Chisum –
He has a lot of detractors on the left, and he ran into trouble last session by carrying a bunch of silly bills that a chairman of appropriations shouldn’t touch, but he is a cunning adversary and he has always been pretty straightforward with the opposition (Dunnam, for example.) I think it would be a mistake to put him in the penalty box. You definitely want him inside the tent pissing out instead of outside the tent pissing in. And he did help Straus enormously with his “slip” that Craddick only had 53 votes. I bet that was an exact count.
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Chisum knew exactly what the hell he was doing the whole time. Day by day, minute by minute. His reward will be lack of penalty, pardon the sports metaphor.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I’m sure he knew what he was doing when he said Craddick had 53 votes. I don’t think he showed good judgment when he ran with silly bills, including vendor bills, and kept getting beat on the floor. No chairman of Appropriations should allow himself to suffer defeat.
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Oh of course, by the “whole time” I meant the last month. The whole time of Chisum has been generally goofy and erratic. But he knew exactly what he was doing when the plug was being pulled/he was pulling the plug on Craddick and Smithee.
Nor should any chair of Ways and Means allow themselves to be defeated on the House floor. Why do they keep doing that?
larry says:
Why is Delwin Jones a risk on Licensing and Administration?
Reply »
pundit's point says:
To anonymustardgreenismyfavoritecolor:
I would be interested in further clarification of your statement “Pitts was an atrocious chairman of Appropriations.” Would you be specific with your allegation? What did Pitts do that was atrocious?
Reply »
The Game says:
If Pitts was such a bad Appropriations chairman, why did he make the “10 Best” list that year?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Here is the “10 Best” writeup for Pitts in 2005:
AS WAS ONCE SAID of Theodore Roosevelt, he struck the note that the chorus awaited. In the wake of the partisan warfare that decimated House traditions in 2003, the first year of Republican rule, members on both sides of the aisle yearned for a more benign approach to lawmaking. When Pitts, the successor to vanquished bully Talmadge Heflin as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, promised to oversee the writing of a bipartisan state budget—and made good on his pledge—he doused the fires of political payback that had consumed the Capitol last session.
His chief asset was an aw-shucks personality that made him one of the guys, rather than some august personage. He spoke with a nasal twang that wrung two syllables out of words like “ten” and could get downright corny, as when he opened debate on the budget bill Goldilocks-style: “Some Texans will think we’re not spending enough. Some Texans will think we’re spending too much. The Appropriations Committee believes that this budget is juuuust right.” And it was: The draconian budget cuts of 2003 were reversed, and 94 cents out of every dollar spent went to the state’s three top priorities: education, health, and public safety.
Pitts’s job wasn’t easy. Even in the last days of the session, final approval of the budget was imperiled by an unholy coalition of fiscal conservatives with no heart and Democrats with no stake in the process. But personality occasionally trumps partisanship and ideology, and enough members wanted to see Pitts succeed that the budget passed easily. Afterward, a colleague rose to give the chairman a public tribute: “He can tell you, as he has done me, to go to hell in such a way that you look forward to the trip.”
Some of Pitts’ colleagues on the committee felt that Pitts was not an effective chairman in conference committee, and also that he ran some plays that weren’t called by Craddick. That said, the writeup speaks for itself.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Paul, I’m left confused by your comments. I represented a few clients before Appropriations and Finance in 2005, and I certainly wasn’t left with this impression by Pitts or any of the House conferees. If anything, I felt like he was often hamstrung by decisions that had to be made by Craddick, not the other way around. I wasn’t always happy with the answer I received, but I didn’t get the impression you’re presenting.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 21st, 2009 at 10:51 am
Craddick didn’t trust Pitts. He thought Pitts was trying to do things in conference that he (Craddick) didn’t want done. You can argue about whether Pitts should have been more loyal or Craddick should have allowed Pitts more leeway; in any case, there was some dissension on the conference committee. Remember, this was 2005, and Craddick was at the zenith of his power. This is one of the reasons why Pitts ran for speaker in 2007.
Anonymous says:
Paul, I like Branch, think he is a good legislator. But there are things Pitts learned as HAC chair that only a member in that position (or a tiny handful of others) can have learned. I’ll just leave it at that….
Reply »
anonymustardgreenismyfavoritecolor says:
I will be specific in my allegation if I am allowed to be, but that’s up to Burka. I’m not sure what the rules are.
The Game, thank you for the laugh whether it was intentional or not. .
Reply »
ausowl says:
Who gets the DFPS/Eldorado mess? HHS Committee?
Reply »
Plain Spoken says:
Paul – are you getting the sense you’re flat wrong on your assertions regarding Pitts? He was fine until Craddick got in the way.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
You are on major illegal drugs if you think Straus can afford to appoint a partisan Democrat like Martinez-Fischer or Casto as head of the Electrions Committee.
He would have a mutiny from Republicans in San Antonio he is not prepared for.
Fortunately, Cyndi Krier knows better is Straus does not.
Reply »
Anon says:
Seriously? Merritt gets a chairmanship?? Will he be flashing the Victory sign at his committee meetings like he was doing behind Speaker Straus at his swearing in??
Reply »
elpaso person says:
Please, please Mr. Sraus pick Joe Pickett for Transportation. He has done a remarkable job of understanding how poorly managed TxDOT has been for the last 20 years! It’s a money pit!
Reply »