Best and Worst Legislators forum
Readers are invited to comment and/or submit questions about the Ten Best and Ten Worst selections, as well as Honorable Mention and special awards. The full article is here.
I suppose it may seem strange for me to request, after putting these folks on the Ten Worst list, that readers refrain from inappropriate personal remarks about members of the Legislature, but … please don’t cross the line into gratuitous slander.
Tagged: best ten, best worst, legislators, texas monthly.
Anonymous says:
Since you’d no sooner put a freshman on ten best, you should refrain from putting freshmen on ten worst or calling them furniture. You yourself said good committee assignments tend to lead to better performance (in your eyes). Freshmen typically get the worst assignments. It kind of smacks of you trying to justify a preconceived notion about those members.
Reply »
paulburka says:
Fletcher had to be on the Worst list. Bad business dealings, leading to an investigation, and a bad bill, leading to a rare use of a motion to reconsider and table. As for furniture, we used to divide the list into “new” furniture and “used” furniture. We dropped that nomenclature. It’s probably not appropriate.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 3:07 am
Well, if investigations by law enforcement is a standard, where’s Terry Hodge?
As for the bad bill…. well, let’s say it was in good company. The fact is, the bill was drafted by leg council lawyers, and made it through the committee process, as well as Calendars, both of which are supposed to vet bills to separate the wheat from the chaff.
This is not meant to be a defense of Allen Fletcher; rather, just making the point, again, that freshman deserve one session to learn the ropes before they’re deemed furniture.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Investigations alone will not get you on the Ten Worst list. I thought Terri Hodge was effective on the microphone, and she passed a bill that will give TDCJ the ability to suspend good time. Currently it can only forfeit good time. This is a good management tool. And she managed to contain her temper.
Reply »
anonymous Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 9:54 am
The freshmen are the ones that usually get bills to the floor that probably would not get there for a more senior member. The committees try to help them pass something and it is not unusual for them to run into trouble on the floor. That happened several times this session.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Allen Fletcher was a disaster of biblical proportions. Top 2-3 worst. He won’t see another term. Next?
Reply »
Ware Wendell says:
So, it’s wrong to hijack a session for purely partisan reasons (Williams), but it’s also wrong to resist such a wrongheaded power play (Dunnam)?
The correct response the abuse would be what? To just sit idly by and take it? To let thousands of people lose their franchise in order to satisfy the process police?
Your selections smack of a false equivalency.
There are a couple of areas where you draw a line in the sand. Some refer to them as principles (while others apparently find that notion quaint).
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 11:20 am
I regard both Williams and Dunnam as personal friends. I respect them for their abilities and accomplishments over the years. Each has been a Ten Best legislator in the past. But the Ten Worst list was created to record what they did. Each of them blew up the session, Williams in the Senate, Dunnam in the House. Each of them established horrible precedents that will cause trouble in the future. Williams told Patti and me that the effects of Voter ID did not linger. But clearly they did. Even in the last hours of the session, the partisan animosity in the Senate was palpable.
Evan, Patti, and I believe that our readers expect their elected officials to address the state’s problems, not to squabble over politics. We think most Texans feel that way. Others are free to use their own criteria for who is a Best or a Worst. We have published ours.
One should ask, Was there any alternative to what Dunnam did? Of course there was. This was a 74-74 House. The Democrats could have fought the bill on the floor. They might have defeated it. They might have been able to send it to conference and kill it there. They might have been able to defeat the vote to adopt the conference committee report.
I reject the argument that there was a false equivalency. Wendell’s argument is that abuse must be met by whatever means necessary. It is the old argument that the end justifies the means. But there was more going on than a debate over the Voter ID bill. This was very clear in Jason Embree’s story about the chub-a-thon, and for that matter, to anyone watching the debate. Many Democrats did not approve of the tactics. They voted with their feet, by staying away from the microphone. Some wanted their labors of the session to bear fruit. Some did not like the process of hijacking the local calendar.
Dunnam did kill voter ID. But here is the real equivalency issue: Was it worth it? Was it worth wiping out everything Democrats achieved during the session? Was it worth dividing the Democratic caucus — and contributing to the increased unity of the Republican caucus, to the Democrats’ detriment? Was it worth doing all this considering the likelihood that there will be a special session over the Sunset bills before the next regular session in which Voter ID may be added to the call, and there will be nothing the Democrats can do to stop it unless they employ the means that were always within their disposal, which is to defeat the bill.
Reply »
el_longhorn says:
I don’t get the furniture list at all. Some are obvious – Edwards and Quintanilla. But how do you put two freshmen as furniture? And yet you criticize Gutierrez for being too involved?
And Farias as furniture again? (You also put him as furniture when he was a freshman!) He passed quite a few bills, including an important veterans’ bill. The man brings his lunchbucket to work everyday and pushes the issues that he and his constituents are focused on – veterans’ issues, education issues. He is quiet, but that doesn’t make him furniture.
Ortiz as furniture? He is the go-to guy on virtually every local Corpus Christi issue and was heavily involved in economic development issues, red light cameras, open records, needle exchange, and windstorm. I just don’t get that one at all.
McCall as ten best? I like McCall, but shouldn’t he shoulder some of the blame for the Calendars blow up? Even assuming the chubbing never happened, the House was never going to get through even most of major state! Voter ID would’ve been debated Saturday and Sunday, then TDI would have taken up Monday and may have gone into Tuesday. Reality is that the failure to schedule any major bills in April (combined with the late committee appointments) pretty much guaranteed the death of anything that got scheduled for the last week to pass out House bills.
Same for Senfronia, another member I like. The local and consent “committee approved amendment” thing was a disaster and forced everybody to treat the L&C calendar just like the General Calendar. She is a good member, a good Democrat, and a force on the mic, but what were her accomplishments this session? This was a lifetime achievement award.
Finally, (and I hate to criticize all these members that I like), but it remains to be seen what effect Eissler’s school accountability bill will have – it is not at all clear that it will have any effect, at least not according to most of the education folks I spoke with. And if this was a great session for public education, we should thank Obama and the billions in federal dollars that he rained down on the state of Texas!!
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Ditto to all of El Longhorn’s comments at 10:03. (And no, I’m not El Longhorn.)
I also think you gotta have Hochberg on there, and I might substitute Van de Puttee for Watson as the effective pragmatic liberal Senator.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I told Evan we ought to do Eissler and Hochberg as a unit, that you can’t separate them. He said that we have a Ten Best list, not an Eleven Best list.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Re Van de Putte vs. Watson — I’m not sure that any Democrat was very effective in the Senate. It seemed to me that Van de Putte mostly postured (but arguably that is the duty of the caucus chair) while Watson actually negotiated some concessions on TDI Sunset.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Lots of interesting and thoughtful points in el Longhorn’s comment:
(1) Furniture. First of all, the freshman issue. We used to divide furniture into “New Furniture” and “Used Furniture.” We have never given freshmen immunity from the Furniture list — or the Worst list, for that matter. The way I do the Furniture list is to go through the list and pick out those that seem to me to have been the least engaged on the floor. Then I check with other members. For example, el Longhorn says that Ortiz was involved in windstorm. As it happens, that is one of the things I checked. I was told no, he wasn’t, that Hunter handled matters for the Corpus Christi area.
(2) Farias. We followed Public Ed very closely, and Farias was one of the least active members. He passed four bills, all of them on Local & Consent. Part of the definition of Furniture is that it is a term for the least consequential members. I don’t think that this record automatically excludes him from being Furniture, but I grant you, it’s a close call.
(3) Ortiz, Jr. As it happens, I checked on Ortiz’s involvement in windstorm with people in the know. The answer was what I already knew to be the case, that Hunter carried the ball for the Corpus area. Ortiz did pass two bills on General State, one raising the number of enterprise projects for counties larger than 250,000, which includes Nueces. You could argue that passing two bills on General State means he’s not Furniture. Another close call.
(4) McCall. Do you really think it would have been better to load the calendar up front with Major State bills? I think it would have made the logjam form earlier, never to be broken up. Fewer bills would have passed.
(5) Senfronia’s place on the Ten Best list was absolutely not a “lifetime achievement” award. With the main calendars choked by the late start, everyone wanted their bills to go to Local. Senfronia was like the Sherlock Holmes tale of the dog that didn’t bark in the night: her importance is what DIDN’T happen. She knows which bills can create mischief and she kept them off the local calendar. Members know that she respects the process too much to allow mischief to occur. Put Charlie Howard back at Local and see how you like the result.
Eissler — el Longhorn is right, that the governor and the Senate did their best to eviscerate his efforts to make the accountability system more humane. Still, it’s a step in the right direction, and the way government works is that once the direction is established, it is usually continued.
Reply »
Cow Droppings Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Kleinschmidt took Giddings apart on the back mic. on entergy. No need to confuse a generally quiet disposition as ineffective. Maybe he was picking his battles. You will see the error of your choice in future sessions. But perhaps you would like to see his district go D.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
It makes no difference to me how his district votes. It is none of Texas Monthly’s business how many Democrats or how many Republicans are in the House. I have previously stated my desire for the Democratic party become more competitive at the statewide level, not because I want the D’s to take over, but because I hope they can provide checks and balances for the excesses of the Republicans.
Anonymous Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Kleinschmidt waltzed to the back mic with an air of smug an arrogance and approached Giddings like a five year old. I don’t really care for the woman but showing the members respect is a big sign of legislative maturity and kleinschmidt revealed he had none. Why do you think he was given the “best frosh” award from the Caucus. they think he’s in trouble and needs something to bring back home.
el_longhorn Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Of course Hunter took the lead on windstorm, he was on the INSURANCE COMMITTEE!! How is a member supposed to be “involved in windstorm” if they are not on the relevant committee and the bill never actually made it to the floor to be amended or debated? The only people that got to be involved in windstorm this session were those folks on the Insurance Committee
By the way, Ortiz filed two bills dealing with windstorm issues, HB 4347 and 4348. how many bills did the coastal members who were not on Insurance file?
Ortiz does NOT belong on furniture. It’s not even a close call.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
So it’s gonna be obvious that I have a conservative bias here…
But Wayne Christian was prepared, civil, and statesman-like the entire session from both the front and back mic. He behaved exactly like you say you want members to behave, but his political views are too right-wing for you, so you put him on the worst list. Doesn’t seem right. You’re not one of the “worst” for believing differently than you, are you? Isn’t it about how you conduct yourself and how you behave within the body?
Debbie Riddle did absolutely nothing to deserve landing on the worst list. You just needed someone to round it out, obviously. She was mostly quiet this session and didn’t throw any bombs. But she did get someone’s name wrong from the back mic and everyone made fun of her. Obviously, that makes her one of the top ten worst in your book. I remember junior high working that way as well.
And finally, Fletcher was an absolute joke this session and deserves to be called out for not doing his homework. What no one has figured out or mentioned, however, about Rose’s line of questioning that led to that debacle is that Rose was wrong. Fletcher’s bill removed that provision from the Transportation Code because it’s ALREADY in the penal code. It was duplicative, and that’s why it was removed in the first place. Fletcher and his staff should have known it and it should have been an easy deflection, so I’m not exactly defending him for screwing that up. But it doesn’t change the fact that Rose and the ones that piled on were all being careless themselves, and they killed what was probably a pretty good piece of legislation because no one else took the time to understand it either.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Riddle is so bad that her name alone has become synonymous with incompetency inside the Capitol.
Rose/Dunnam/Strama/Leibowitz/Chisum were correct on Fletcher’s bill. The provision removed about using SOMEONE ELSE’s ID was duplicated in the penal code. The provision removed about using A FAKE OR ALTERED ID was NOT. Don’t post a Fletcheresque post, which is defined as carelessly posting without doing your homework. Or go to law school.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
It’s true, I didn’t go to law school, but I’ve known enough people who did to know it doesn’t mean you know jack about the law. Like everyone else on this blog, however, I’ve been writing laws long enough to know what it says.
Penal Code Section 37.10 is Tampering With Government Record, and it says a person commits an offense if he makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it be taken as a genuine governmental record. It says the same thing about someone who makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity.
Since I didn’t go to law school, can you explain to me why this section doesn’t cover the same thing that TTC 521.451(a)(1) does?
Reply »
Prince Royal says:
A civil person that gets his buddy to amend legislation to personally benefit himself is a bad legislator, even if he says “please” and “thank you.”
Burka et al gave you an example of what helped foster a chasm between Riddle and the other members. Frankly, sometimes the right joke and the right moment can alleviate major tension (I remember Cavazos doing that in the late 80s or early 90s). The joke itself is not what gets them on the list but is is emblematic of how they were perceived.
In the same fashion, a moment like that can convey that you do not care about other members–you don’t care to know them, learn their names, or cultivate a relationship. Perhaps that is what Riddle did.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Okay, so if some members like to talk bad about you and make fun of you, you’re one of the ten worst out of 181 members? I don’t get it. Since when is this based on the opinions of other legislators?
I guess your first paragraph refers to Christian, but I didn’t see anything in the List about him amending legislation to benefit himself personally. I just saw that he’s on the list for having political ideals that the authors think are too far to the right. If he constantly misbehaved on the floor, that would make sense. But he was always fair and well behaved. Doesn’t mean he has to be on the Best list, but putting him on the Worst list because you don’t share his constituents world view is petty.
Which is the main flaw with having a “Worst” list to begin with. These guys are elected to come to Austin and behave in a certain way. If you don’t, then the voters find someone who will. There’s some merit in differentiating between the 181 members as to who does their job the “best,” but deciding someone is the worst because they vote their district is to say “I don’t like people who think like this.”
A representative democracy is always going to produce members that appease the most vocal of their electorate, and those people are usually going to be pretty outspoken and passionate. And in a state that’s so big as to capture El Paso, Lubbock, Orange, and Austin all together, then things are going to be messy. You can give someone points for navigating it successfully and make a “Best” list out of it, but if you take points away and make them the “Worst” then you’re just saying that part of the state is the “Worst” as well.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
No one gets on the Ten Worst list because they vote their district. We started looking at Christian when he proposed an amendment #1 to the appropriations bill, which was to zero out the funding for the Public Integrity Unit and transfer the money and the functions to the attorney general, a partisan elected official. He filed a bill providing that any member accused of a violation of ethics laws would be tried in his home county. You might as well repeal the ethics laws. The laws are lax enough as it is. Anyone who tries to create more loopholes is going to be looked at seriously for the Ten Worst list.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 10:36 am
“…zero out the funding for the Public Integrity Unit and transfer the money and the functions to the attorney general, a partisan elected official.”
Paul, regardless of your personal stance on this long-argued policy point, are you implying that the Travis County DA is not a partisan elected official?
Brown Bess says:
I think Jim Pits taking the radical and rare step of going to a committee hearing and speaking against Vicki Truitt’s good-faith efforts to reign-in the Midlothian cement plants should have been mentioned.
Yeah, they’re in his district, but no one else I spoke with could remember the last time that had happened, even under similar circumstances. You could tell Truitt was genuinely shocked and appalled, and her closing on the bills was one of the most somber and dramatic moments of this Lege. The guy is Appropriations Chair for gosh sakes. Complete and embarrassing overkill on behalf of the Lobby.
Reply »
linda says:
Thank you for putting Troy Fraser on the worst list.
He has belonged there since the day he was elected.
Too bad no one will run against him in that strangely configured district. I’ve never watched “The Simpsons” but I think the word “duh” belongs to Fraser.
Reply »
Prince Royal says:
Anon, that is not what I said about Riddle. What I read from Kilday/Burka is that the moment on the floor is representative of why she is one of the worst. She doesn’t bother to get to know other members and their issues, but expects people to fall in line and support hers.
I don’t think there is anyone suggesting a member should not VOTE their districts. But it is votes that will get you unelected, not BEHAVIOR. One of the ways that constituents find out about that behavior is the best and worst list. (It used to be the ONLY way people found out.)
I think there are a lot of ways that the list could become more objective, but the work that they do is pretty impressive. These are two columnists who talk to hundreds of members, staff, lobbyists, state employees, media, and constituents over 140 days. They then get to compress all of it into a few pages in a magazine.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
On the Christian thing, Paul and Pat says he’s on the worst list because he filed right-wing bills. I don’t know any other impression you can get from it. They even say the whole problem is the bills he filed: “But there is harm: These litmus-test issues stir up ideological constituencies and fracture the GOP.” How can you defend putting someone on the Worst list for filing bills their constituents want to see?
And we must be talking past each other on the behavior issue. My interpretation has always been it is not your legislation but your behavior Paul and co downgrade you for. But in this case, his behavior was exemplary, but his legislation offended them. So he’s on the Worst list. Even though that’s what his constituents want. Doesn’t that make him one of the Best? If he’s filing incendiary legislation but able to keep his head and conduct himself with dignity?
And on the Riddle thing, I think that’s a pretty broad rationalization you’re making there. Riddle makes a mistake on the back mic, one that other members have made (mistaken identity became a running joke this session, because so many members did it), but in her case it is indicative of the fact that she somehow lives in a vacuum and is a hypocrite? I think you’re giving them too much credit in their writing. It’s not nearly that nuanced. They have never liked Riddle, and in the past she made it easy by being so high-profile. This session she actually ran a great subcommittee that everyone complimented (overheard in the cafeteria and Cloak Room most often was “Say, Riddle is actually doing a good job!”) and didn’t produce too many quotes for the press. The two things she did do that everyone latched on to was the back mic gaffe and the Pope comment, which was actually absolutely TRUE btw. And that makes her one of the Worst legislators.
She’s on the Worst list because they have to find someone to put on the list and she’s easy to make fun of. I subscribe to TM, I read this Blog often, and I like Paul and Pat very much for their opinions. But I don’t think this list is rocket science. It’s their opinions, and I don’t think they’ve ever claimed it represents anything else but what they think in their own heads.
Reply »
Prince Royal Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I know “everyone” did not compliment her work because even I heard criticisms from conservatives the few times I set foot in the capital this year. But I do not doubt that you encountered those who were impressed that she was not performing as poorly as in years past.
But given how poor this session was, I believe you had to earn your way onto the list–no one is a standing member of either list. I agree that is is what is in their two heads, but only after they have talked to that slew of people.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Riddle called Anchia “Strama.” Then when Anchia said he was Menendez, Riddle called him “Menendez” and apologized saying she “knows the difference.” This kind of thing comes from Riddle ALL THE TIME in closed door meetings, caucus, committee, floor talks. Everybody knows the stories. She’s a walking legislative carnival.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Debbie Riddle would not have made the Ten Worst list for saying that the shield law gave journalists more rights than the pope. (I didn’t even follow that bill. I didn’t care if it passed or not.) Nor would she have made the Worst list for the comic episode on the floor. These events are filler–things that are descriptive of a personality. What gets someone on the Ten Worst list is that they do public harm. Debbie Riddle reduced funding for programs that are working to reduce prison population. By doing so, they alleviate the need to build expensive new prisons. Members who are stakeholders in this debate–Sylvester Turner and Jerry Madden–had to offer floor amendments to undo what she did. She opposed them. She tried to table their amendments. The House voted against her and with the respected senior members. I interviewed both Turner and Madden about this.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Fair enough. So, if it were proved that you were wrong about her decreasing funds for diversion programs and that you were wrong that DPS didn’t request the cars, would you print a retraction and admit you made a mistake?
The Other Guy says:
I think your lists are becoming pretty irrelevant. You had a good run though.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
“Becoming” irrelevant? You mean, “continue to be irrelevant,” right?
Reply »
El Chuco says:
I hate to quibble, but there’s no way Norma Chavez should have been on the dishonorable mention list — she, more than almost anyone, belongs on the WORST list.
Let’s look at her session’s accomplishments:
- getting into an embarrassing text messaging war with a freshman that made Norma look like a petty fifth grader (”U R not my friend” – seriously?!);
- doing her best, which ain’t that good, to kill a local ethics bill only because the bill wasn’t brought to her;
- getting called out by the local media for trying to kill said bill, proceeded by weak backpeddling;
- declaring her own Tigua gambling bill dead to the press before anyone else, effectively sealing its fate (not that Perry or Dewhurst would have let it go anywhere); and
- continuing her reign the queen of hard-to-get-along-with.
Oh, but she did graduate from UT after attending classes in Austin using her legislator’s per diem to pay her way … as opposed to going to UTEP there in El Paso. So hurray.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
We considered putting Norma on the Ten Worst list. I guess that is obvious since she was a Dishonorable Mention. Brandi Grissom’s story about the feud could have served as the indictment. But Norma did no public harm, other than embarrass herself. It was just bad behavior. That by itself is not enough to make the Ten Worst list. Besides, it was obvious to all that Marquez in one session surpassed Chavez in legislative output and respect of her peers.
As for attending UT-Austin, what’s wrong with that? I’m for anyone trying to better themselves. Chavez could hardly attend UTEP during a session. Every legislator gets per diem. I don’t see that it makes much difference how they use it.
Reply »
dickbird says:
Me thinks that the ones calling the lists “irrelevant” are the ones that ended up on the “worst” list. You won’t find someone named “best” bitching about any aspect of it.
I think it is enlightening, and this year it was right on target. The only thing I can bitch about is the fact that they should have added more “worst” slots this year. They left off Sid Miller and Fraser should have been on there twice.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Sid probably could have been on the Dishonorable Mention list last session for taking the Confederate Monument bill to the floor. I’m glad we didn’t do it, because I have since learned that he wanted to pull the bill down, but Craddick told him to keep going. Why would he have been on the list this year? So he and Burt Solomons got in a brawl over points of order. So what? Burt should have scrubbed his bills, and he should have known better to pick a fight with a guy like Sid who won’t let go of the stick. As for Fraser, we didn’t need to put him on the list twice. He’ll find a way to make it again next session.
Reply »
paulburka says:
Floozikins –
I have had to remove your comments on several occasions. I made a specific request that those who wish to post comments should not engage in gratuitous slander (”partisan piglet”). I am going to ask Eileen to block you.
Reply »
Floozikins Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 8:25 am
You’ll miss me.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
No, we won’t.
Reply »
Blah says:
Part of the problem is that there’s no transparent metric for evaluating members, so Paul and Co. use their personal yardsticks. Nothing wrong with that, but no one should be advancing this list as scientific or accountable by any means.
If I had to guess at some methodology used, it’s how partisan you were and if you addressed certain statewide issues Paul or TM thought were important. Carona and Deuell for pushing back on their own party–you’re on the good list. Christian, Dunnam, Raymond for being too partisan–you’re on the bad list. And so on.
In fact, the whole list reminds me of the old Will Ferrell SNL skit about the Axis of Evil list. Google it to see what I mean, and for a good laugh.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Here is my “transparent metric” for evaluating members. I believe that a Best and Worst list would exist in the collective minds of the Capitol community if Texas Monthly had never published a single issue. It is our job to pull that list out of the ether, by being at the Capitol (or watching on television) every day, by interviewing members, staff, and lobbyists, and by trying to apply the standards that members use to judge each other to what I observe and learn. I worked in the Senate, and I think I have an idea of what those standards are. That’s the closest I can get to explaining our methodology. To give an example, I thought Hegar was 100% in the wrong to go around Carona and get signatures on a TxDOT conference committee report without telling him. That is not the way senators are supposed to treat each other.
Reply »
Blah Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Thanks for clarifying, Paul.
It would be interesting to experiment with some actual metrics, like figuring out a “Furniture by the numbers” by bills passed in major state, filed, etc. Just an idea.
I do get the sense from talking to some members and staffs that they were not interviewed for the lists…and just got an out-of-the-blue “give us a headshot” call at the end of session.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul Burka bias revealed:
(1) Dunnam on the “Worst List” because he didn’t play the game the way Burka thinks it should be played.
(2) Betty Brown NOT on the “Worst List” (just dishonorable mention) for making what was the most bigoted, obnoxious comment of the session [and essentially forcing the Elections Committee to vote out the Senate version of Voter ID]. On the comments for your solicitation for Best/Worst, Paul, she was WAY at the top for worst, but you had already made up your mind not to put her there (because of one comment). But that was not the only reason to put her on the list — and at the same time, it was ENOUGH in and of itself because of the lack of awareness and sensibility she revealed in herself.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
(1) Dunnam — If Dunnam’s caucus was thrilled with his strategy and unified in support of it, then I might agree with Anonymous. But it wasn’t, and I don’t.
(2) Betty Brown — I repeat what I have written, above: We don’t put people on the Worst list for a single stupid comment. That’s what dishonorable mention is for. Some may criticize her for pushing her version of the Voter ID bill (the Indiana law), but remember, she wanted to amend it to a Frank Corte bill earlier in the session, and the Speaker persuaded her that this was not the right time, that she would get another chance to offer it. (It would have been ruled non-germane.) Well, she didn’t get another chance. She had every right to fight for her version of the bill. Did this force the Elections Committee to vote out the Senate version? I don’t think so. Brown’s version didn’t have the votes, and so the Senate version, which was less onerous than Brown’s, became the bill.
Reply »
JudgeRoy says:
Good call on Isett. According to him and the way he acts, he’s the smartest person in the room, he doesn’t listen, he’s got a corner on all truth. Too much of an idealogue. He deserves what he got.
Having read TM for 30 years, I’d say there’s one thing that happens every two years when this list is released: just like the sun rises in the east and sets in the west: those on the worst list piss and moan and rag about this “liberal” magazine.
Reply »
Blue says:
How can you NOT have Hochberg on the list??? He was far more important and effective this session than either Watson (what a joke) or Senofria. He basically wrote the entire budget for education by himself from the ground up then rolled the Senate in conference. Villareal did a great job–but he was the student at the feet of the master this session.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
I have previously answered this question. I agree that Hochberg was worthy of Ten Best. I wrote about him in the Eissler writeup. I told Evan that they should be treated as a unit, and he said, “This is a Ten Best list, not an Eleven Best list.” He’s the boss.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman says:
The article mistakenly says that Duncan has been a member of the Legislature since 1996. NOT TRUE. Duncan has been a member of the Legislature since January 1993.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Why are some of you commenting that the TM list is not “scientific”; that it is “flawed”?
It is an opinion piece, people. It’s like two kids sitting under a tree deciding on who should be on the all-star team this summer. Some of it is based on stats and some on personal preferences.
However, when major newspapers publish local people who made the TM list, like the Star Telegram did this morning, it should be conceived as being important and significant … which we all know it has been for years.
Reply »
TRCC or Treat says:
If McClendon persuaded the homebuilders to abandon the TRCC, then that’s a surprise to a lot of consumer advocates who got no cooperation from her office during session regarding their concerns about TRCC.
It also probably comes as a complete shock to Tom Archer of Homeowners of Texas who thinks he destroyed TRCC all by himself. Dude has a Jesus complex and probably does not appreciate having McClendon beatified without him being consulted.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Nice name.
Deshotel gets credit for telling the builders that the bill would have strong pro-consumer provisions or there would be no bill. McClendon wanted to continue the regulatory model, with pro-consumer provisions. She wrote the bill the way she wanted, but the builders decided that they would rather have no bill than a pro-consumer bill.
Reply »
Im just saying Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Hum…….that doesnt make sense Paul. The bill was absolutely HORRIBLE when it went to the House. It was an absolutely incredible pile of dog poo and did very little for the consumer.
The bill that went to the senate was a total disaster after 17 amendments were tacked on. These amendment pretty much killed the bill.
The only amendment the builders go on was to reduce the warranty. That was it.
Deshotel voted right along with Ritter and McClendon.
I think they got out played.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Well, the TRCC was one of the worst things the Legislature has done in my time around here, and it’s dead, so somebody has to get some of the credit, and McClendon is as close as anybody.-
TRCC or Treat Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Probably credit for killing TRCC should go to those legislators who tacked on House amendments that were so unfriendly to builders. My remembrance is that Leibowitz, Farrar, Maldonado, Thompson, Dunnam and Coleman carried that water. There was no way McClenden and Deshotel were happy about those amendments to their “Save the Builder’s Commission” sunset bill – or Hegar on the Senate side. And certainly, the builders could not have been pleased.
Im just saying Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 9:06 am
I agree with TRCC or Treat. Leibowitz, Farrar, Maldonado, Thompson, Dunnam and Coleman were the ones to make that bill unworkable.
McClendon was carrying the water for the builders. She did NOTHING but help the builders until the bill came out of the house then she gave up.
ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO HER, DESOTEL, AND RITTER. NONE.
Give credit to the consumer organizations across Texas who have worked hard over the years to keep this in the eye of the media.
Hum….maybe Texas monthly should write about this “Case study in Corruption”?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Allen Vaught. Do nothing rep–except for one non-creative, “duh” bill concerning child seats. But maybe doing nothing is better than screwing up?
Reply »
Education Guru says:
Blue, Hochberg did help on Education funding but he showed he was not capable of running a committee. By the end of his subcommittee work everyone was walking around with glazed eyes thinking about the time that was wasted. Shapiro did conference report and Hochberg was pushed to side. He probably is also one of the members who likes to sit alone, because he’s use to it.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 12:15 am
I don’t know who actually did the conference committee report. I’m sure Shapiro had a hand in it, but when it comes to knowing school finance, she can’t hold her own with him.
Reply »
Blue says:
That’s simply not true Ed Guru. Hochberg was given Craddick’s budget and refused to accept its assumptions so he built Article 3 from the ground up. The reason that Hochberg and Villareal were able to increase TEXAS Grants far above the Senate was partly because of the money that exercise freed up.
Yes, the subcommittee had to work–but that was in no way wasted time.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I went to several subcommittee meetings. Hochberg did debate with himself on occasion. That should in no way detract from what he accomplished. Much of his efforts were spent in trying to persuade TEA representatives that the data the agency collects should be mined to determine best practices and what works. He pulled back the curtain on TEA so that everyone understood that TEA collects mountains of data but does nothing useful with it.
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
I’ve never seen anyone defeated simply because they ended up among TM’s worst or furniture. In fact, I’ve seen it help some members who capitalized on it to rail against the mag’s conservative/liberal bias to show they’re a real liberal/conservative.
In the end, people are defeated for actually doing the things that are mentioned — or not mentioned — in the write-ups. So if you made worst or furniture, quit worrying about Texas Monthly. Start thinking about explaining what you did.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Back you b.s. up, Jeffery. Just who is it you’ve seen helped by a thumbs down by TM? Who used it as campaign fodder and was helped by it?
You are right about one thing – those with the marks on their foreheads should start trying to figure out how to explain their actions. However, there are those like Fraser that don’t have to worry about it. His constituents are either brain dead or aren’t paying one bit of attention to what is happening in Austin.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Jeff is right. The article doesn’t determine the outcome of elections. Nor is that its purpose. Members generally get beat for one of two reasons. One is that they don’t handle their business back home. The other is that their districts change. Texas Monthly does not give permission to members who wish to use material from the Best and Worst legislators article in their campaigns.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
I think that any committee chair who sets up a public hearing and allows Big anyone… like insurance, utilities, transportation, communications and others … to be heard first, before individual consumers and consumer advocacy groups, should be automatically on the “worst” list.
These large companies, along with the individuals on the committee, should have to listen to the consumers’ concerns first, and then give the Big’s a chance to respond in front of the committee to those concerns.
Too often the Big’s go first and address a full house, and at the end, when the consumers and consumer advocates are allowed to address the committee, many, if not most, of the reps/senators and Big’s have left the committee chambers. The public is speaking to a few clerks and a lot of empty chairs at the front of the room.
It makes me wonder just who these elected guys/gals are working for; the average joe or the Big’s.
I know the answer that will be given …but to use an old adage …actions speak louder than words.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
they’re working for whoever fills their campaign coffers, silly.
Reply »
Im just saying says:
State Representative John Davis of Houston should be the King of Furniture. He is the Whiz. And nobody beats him at doing nothing for his constituents.
His area got devestated by hurricane Ike and insurance companies are dropping people like flys or raising rates so high they want to be dropped.
What did Davis do for them? NOTHING. I cant think of a thing he did.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Davis was very active on Public Health. He passed a number of bills. He had a bill die on General State that would have exempted marinas suffering damage from Hurricane Ike from the sales tax. He’s a pretty quiet guy, but Furniture he is not.
Reply »
Im just saying Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Give me a break. I live in his district and cant name a thing he has done for us.
Having a bill and passing a bill is two different things. His only accomplishment I can remember is renaming NASA Rd 1 to NASA Parkway.
Wow.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Davis had a bill on General State that would have exempted marinas damaged by the hurricane from paying sales and use tax on boat slip rentals.
Reply »
Hill Country says:
Where does Rep. Hilderbran fit on the list of Furniture candidates? He’s a 21-year Republican member w/o a chair (although he was one of the first R’s to jump on the Straus bandwagon) and seems to lack any legislative agenda of his own while doing little more than voting with the majority.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Hilderbran was a major player in the Top 10% negotiations, along with Villarreal and Castro.
Reply »
Im just saying says:
Hilder Who?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 12:13 am
Are you just now finding out that Hildebran is really Hilderbran? I didn’t know it before this session either.
Reply »
anon says:
How does Leibowitz (D- Plaintiff’s Bar) get a pass from the ten worst? He had to be up for consideration just based on his attitude and behavior on the floor. The guy walks to the back mic and kills the Sunset safety net bill, all but guaranteeing a special session and voter ID.
Reply »
Phillip Martin says:
Paul, I’m going to ask an obviously selfish question:
Rep. Coleman? By all accounts he took his Chairmanship at County Affairs and did excellent work with it. He continued to nail Public Health stuff. He was one of the few Democrats that spoke out against the voter ID chubathon (from Embry’s story). He ran the Legislative Study Group excellently — in fact, it was his reports on State Schools and expanding Top Tier education that helped spark those major measures. He was fighting for CHIP expansion until the final moments. And these are just the public things that are obvious…
Just curious — and again, for obviously selfish reasons.
Reply »
Shoulda says:
Paul,
I think you should consider introducing a new category for officials that file bills to help their personal business or investments:
Eiland
Gattis
West
Hopson
Van de Putte
Reply »
Alfred says:
Look, Dunnam is whatever the House or Democratic Party needs him to be. He can take it. They’ll hate him for it, but that’s the point of being a the Democratic Caucus Chair, he can be the outcast. He can make the choice that no one else can make, the right choice.
You’ll hunt him. You’ll condemn him. Set the dogs on him. Because that’s what needs to happen.
Reply »
Just a question says:
What exactly is a “Schnookie”? I’m not familiar with the term and am missing the implied honor / dishonor for Roland Gutierrez. Could someone help me out?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
If this was a more scientific exercise, which we’ve established is not the case, Barbara Mallory Carraway would certainly be on the furniture list.
Reply »
anon says:
I’m with Phillip on this one too. I wouldn’t say he was a lock like Eiland, but thought he was pretty close. Particularly because he was a perfect case study of how the change in House leadership actually resulted in talented members contributing to public policy rather than focusing on how to damage the other side.
Reply »
NATIVE Central Texan says:
Paul–
I am curious as to how Maldonado avoided both Worst lists and the furniture list. She represents one of the fastest growing areas in the country and she did absolutely nothing. I’m curious what was said about her in your meetings with Evan and Patti as you crafted your lists.
After the lackluster session she had along with her many head-scratching statements you gotta think she’s in real trouble in 2010. Her 800 vote margin from 2008 vanishes quickly with Obama off the ballot and if the GOP doesn’t run another crappy candidate..
Reply »
texun Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 11:21 am
As Paul has said on numerous occasions, including this one, freshman legislators rarely have a big hand in significant legislation.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Maldonado never came up. I heard that her staff came mostly from her campaign. That is always a mistake. Gattis tried to co-author a memorial resolution and was given the cold shoulder. (She may have relented. I don’t know the end of the tale.)
Reply »
Texas Democrat says:
It appears that State Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Houston) is weighing a third bid for Houston Mayor this fall, with his power and influencing waning very fast in the Legislature this year, it’s looking more and more likely that Turner will jump into the mayor’s race.
Reply »
Belle says:
Mr B, am very interested in a response about Coleman. I had him on my personal Best 10 for just the reasons cited by Philip. Also, Eltife deserved at least an Hon Mention. His stint on the dais made Dewhurst look so bad in comparison. He put the state, specifically the unemployed, ahead of Repub ideology (not to mention Perry and TAB) and came close to getting the UI bill passed had he gotten any cooperation from the House.
As for the worst list, you are right on.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I hear there is a going away party for Milton Rister today at TLC. The members who encouraged his departure deserve some type of honorable mention.
Reply »
paulburka says:
Coleman was under consideration for a Best or Honorable Mention until the very end. Didn’t quite make the cut. He had a great session, but he didn’t win the big one.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
“The big one” being…
You saluted Sen. Averitt for the CHIP buy-in program. That was a proposal Rep. Coleman crafted worked on last session, and won support from the House Republicans from this session. CHIP expansion not passing is hardly his fault; the Rick Casey story laid out how Dewhurst could have pulled it out of Ogden’s committee instead of tacking it onto Pierson’s bill, but they wanted to punish the D’s for voter ID.
You saluted Rep. Branch for the top tier programs. Rep. Coleman joint-authored the legislation — in May 2008, LSG put out a report about the need for top tier universities. The DMN editorialized in support of it two weeks later. UT-Austin was initially very, very wary about it — but by July 24, 2008, UT President Powers agreed that we needed more top tier schools. Here’s the documentation of all of that.
County Affairs is one of those small yet contentious committees — and Rep. Coleman did a great job with it (thereby, a “process” success you enjoy).
He passed HB 2963 — with Senator Dan Patrick — to improve health care for the indigent. In fact, he works across the aisle as well as any other member, while still remaining a vocal spokesperson for Democrats.
Again — I’m certainly biased. I worked for him in ‘07, and have done lots of work for him since. But I just don’t see how he gets left off of everything. You want to talk about talent and hard work — Rep. Coleman has that in spades.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Phillip –
The CHIP bill didn’t pass. I can’t change that. Averitt lost his place on the list for the same reason. What I thought Garnet did best was deal with not getting the Public Health chairmanship, then mentoring Kolkhorst through the issues. There were a few things he did that I didn’t admire–a three page written motion to adopt the UI stimulus funds was overkill; he tried to extend an emergency response program for Midland statewide at a cost of some $38 million, and I was told it was a gambit to kill a program in Craddick’s district–but he did a lot of good things, including stay away from the microphone more than usual.
Reply »
texun says:
I just love lists of the best and worst anything! They tend to spark lively discourse, as the TM list has done again.
I might have a circle of unusually uninformed friends, but I have found over the years that many of them know little more about a session than they garner from TM’s list. Its impact is probably considerable and statewide.
As to making the list conform to ordeal by data: we’ve all seen data manipulated and massaged so as to produce outcomes that were a priori, highly judgmental, so let’s just accept the TM lists for what they are: informed (if not always acceptable) judgments.
I still believe that the logjamb in the House should be credited to the Republicans for prioritizing the voter id bill. Dunnam did what he had to do, under the circumstances.
Reply »
the bigeasy 2000 says:
I strongly suspect the heavy lean towards Rs over Ds in the ten best is the result of having only 10 to consider. Coleman and Anchia were very good.
Your reason for including Y Davis on the worst list does not fully credit the Dallas Representative accomplishments or her ability to understand how the game is played with regards to Kolhorst. Many other Chairs did the same thing this session as well as sessions of the past.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I have a question. How is it that Tan Parker’s bill, which would have handed Luminant and Reliant/NRG, millions in tax abatements for building new nuclear power plants gets killed, yet Phil Kings clean coal bill, which gives massive tax abatements to these same two gorillas, gets passed?
Both were filed under the pretext of getting new companies into Texas to build new nuclear and clean coal power plants, yet these two giants are already here and would have built the facilities without added incentive.
Luminant is part of FutureGen Alliance that was formed in 2005 with the sole purpose of promoting and building clean coal plants with subterrainian C02 storage. Luminant knows that coal is very plentiful and very cheap, and since they can sell whatever is produced with coal at the same price as that produced with the much higher costing natural gas, they would have been building these new plants even if they hadn’t received the free gift from King, and the others who allowed his bill through the system.
I think that King continues to be a money maker for the utility folks and should be on the absolute “worst list”.
If I have skewed thinking, please let me know.
Reply »
Ronna Randall says:
Mr. Burka,
Do you even look to see what legislation a representative has filed or passed before putting them on the furniture list? Your response to El Longhorn above seems to imply that you don’t.
Farias filed close to 40 bills (many of them more substantive than you give credit for), passed at least 5, and sponsored 5 Senate bills as well.
Fred Brown passed 6 bills, and sponsored 4 Senate bills now on their way to the governor.
Meanwhile, Barbara Mallory Caraway filed only 6 bills, and passed NONE. She did not sponsor a single senate bill.
How do you explain leaving her off the list (for the second session in a row, last session she filed two and passed 0)? Why does she get a pass?
You say you look to see who has participated in floor debate. But shouldn’t a review of legislation passed be an essential part of determining which members are “least consequential”? Not doing so seems incredibly sloppy.
Reply »
el_longhorn Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Ronna Randall,
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Mallory Caraway certainly could have been Furniture. Sometimes a member can be so obscure that she slips through the net.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Fred Brown has been here for six terms. What has he ever accomplished? I watched Appropriations a lot. He was hardly ever there, and he hardly ever spoke when he was there. I don’t care how many bills he passed. There has to be a sliding scale that takes into account the inverse relationship between accomplishments and seniority.
Reply »
Kimmy says:
The accountability bill was one of the worst pieces of education policy we’ve passed in a dozen years. I am hopeful we’re going to correct that mess in the next session and get back on track with the rest of the country.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Get on track how? By holding kids back a grade level because they fail a standardized test by a point or two? I sat on a campus advisory committee and saw parents cry because a child had passed every section at one time or another but never all at the same time.
Reply »
Calculatin' Coke says:
Paul, You should ask Hochberg whether he supported the accountability bill he ‘joint authored’ and signed. Leaving out Shapiro was a major oversight. She was there on issue after issue: economic development, transportation, technology, appropriations, education. In a state without visionary statewide leadership, she kept pushing state government to get creative, innovative, flexible and accountable.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul you made this statement earlier about norma CHavez:
“As for attending UT-Austin, what’s wrong with that? I’m for anyone trying to better themselves. Chavez could hardly attend UTEP during a session. Every legislator gets per diem. I don’t see that it makes much difference how they use it.”
What’s wrong with it is that she was sitting in class over at UT when she should have been sitting in the Appropriations Committee.
Chavez was sitting in class when she should ahve been voting, both in 2007 and 2009.
Go check her class schedule at UT and look at how many votes she actually missed on the floor – it’s a classic case of ghost voting.
You cannot tell us you see nothing wrong with that – and you cannot tell us that per diem was meant for that.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
This is an issue between Norma Chavez and her constituents.
Reply »
anonymous says:
anon @ 8:20 am,
Leibowitz killed the Sunset Safety bill because he didn’t think TXDOT and Workers Comp should wait until 2013. He accomplished his mission in HCR 291 since they moved those two agencies back up to 2011. It’s not his fault the Senate didn’t pass the HCR.
For all his rabble rousing from the back mike, he also attached the amendments onto the TRCC sunset bill that Ned Munoz of the Texas Builders said doomed the agency. He also passed the TV Takeback bill and the amendment that abolished the Trans-Texas Corridor.
Reply »
Blue says:
Paul, you should be upset by the district and the teachers that failed those children, not the tests. TAKS is not a high standard and students should be able to meet it. Unfortunately, the education establishment is far more interested in protecting their industry rather than educating kids. The gutting of accountability will only allow students to graduate without the knowledge they need to succeed in further education.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 9th, 2009 at 3:00 am
We need to measure student performance, but the current accountability system has perverse incentives. It rewards teaching to the test and shunting at-risk students out of the educational mainstream. (A Rice University study found that schools with high test scores also had high dropout rates.) Students who are denied promotion are extremely likely to end up dropping out of school. We have not figured out how to educate at-risk students. Charter schools like KIPP have had great success, but their template — more hours in the school day and more days in the school week — is difficult to duplicate in normal public schools.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 9th, 2009 at 9:37 am
What does the term “dumming down” mean to you? If we dumbdown, will more students stay in school and graduate? Yes. If we dumbdown, will we insure that the smartest and brightest become all that they can be. No.
What’s wrong with the Japanese model? I believe that they test at various stages and then segregate them depending on apptitude and performance. One group goes on to study math and science, others business, others fine arts, and still others are taught trades.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
When I was in high school debate, the topic was, Resolved, that the United States should adopt the British system of education. We did pretty well, but I was never comfortable with the affirmative side. This is America, and we do not want the government to determine the course of children’s lives.
Anonymous Reply:
June 9th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
In many cases, Paul, I think this would do young people a favor and, for some, make their studies more palatable.
I took calculus, trig and hated every minute of it. Today, I use a little algegbra and geometry when piddling around the house. All that other stuff was a waste.
The bandaids we are putting on the education process are not working. We need a radical departure from the current system.
anon says:
Leibowitz voted against the resolution.
Reply »
Kimmy says:
I have to agree with Blue…
We needed to shore up the intervention side of the equation and start using data to drive policy and interventions. We need to stop making education policy in this state by throwing crap against the wall and waiting to see what sticks.
While other states finally have recognized that testing can be used as a useful diagnostic tool (umm… wasn’t that the thought we had when we created the system?)… we totally got caught up in the punitive side of the equation.
As Blue has said, the bottom line is that we have defined what kids are supposed to know. If we believe it… really believe it… then we need to make sure kids master that content… That means better interventions. That means online formative testing. That means better teacher training… That does not mean more “outs” for school districts.
Reply »
anon says:
Kimmy,
Perhaps you missed Burka’s earlier post. Parents crying should determine educational standards, not stupid things live “evidence”. You are a monster.
Reply »
Kimmy says:
Anon…
If we had created an accountability system that was more transparent… a system in which parents understood what their kids were learning and why… Maybe fewer of them would be crying.
Just a thought.
Reply »
Please says:
I have a big problem with Chris Harris on the furniture list. He battled serious health problems all session and I think it’s wrong to put him there.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 9th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I rely on Patti for the Senate. She said Harris and Lucio. I saw nothing to indicate to the contrary.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 9th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I have been pounding on Chris Harris for several years now, but cut him some slack this session for two reasons… his bout with the bad stuff that was going around that was hard to get rid of and knocked many off their feet for a month of so, and the fact that he was the one that spoke up and squashed Tan Parker’s bill which was written like a tax abatement to draw new business into Texas, but was really a giveaway to Luminant and Reliant. This move saved the taxpayers hundreds of millions and is worthy of praise. Thank you, Sen. Harris.
Reply »
Blue says:
Paul, if the test is a good test, an accurate assessment device of what knowledge needs to be learned and retained than teaching to the test is a GOOD thing! Do you have any criticisms with, say, pilot training programs teaching to FAA flight standards?
If the test isn’t good, fix the test. But don’t buy the teacher union bloviating about “teaching to the test.”
Reply »
Ronna Randall says:
Paul,
Thanks for admitting that Caraway “slipped through the net.” I wonder how many others slipped through.
But you did not answer my question.
Do you look to see what legislation a representative has filed or passed before putting them on the furniture list?
It’s not a difficult question. The phrasing of your response to El Longhorn above suggests that you didn’t check to see what legislation Ortiz had passed until long AFTER the furniture list had been published. Then you went back and called it a “close call”. Same with Farias.
Re: Fred Brown. You say “I don’t care how many bills he passed.” Ok, so you don’t care about quantity. What about substance? Did you check what bills he passed before putting him on the list?
Reply »
paulburka says:
Fred Brown
Is seldom around.
Furniture is not about bill lists. It is about, for want of a better term, consequentialness and participation.
Reply »
Ronna Randall says:
You don’t seem to want to answer a yes or no question, but I’ll take that as a no.
And I’m astounded that you think you can judge a member’s consequentialness and participation in a legislative body without even looking at a member’s legislation.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul, Farias as furniture is just plain laziness on your part. The man may be quiet, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t effective. There were plenty of other members that were more deserving.
Reply »