Comment on a colleague’s work #2 : Occupation license - friend to repeat DWI offenders

My colleague Aaron recently wrote a blog on “Occupation license – friend to repeat DWI offenders.” In the blog he pointed a case of Jeffrey Heath Dunn who was convicted of drunk driving three times, but was able to drive with an “occupational license”. Aaron wrote that the judges should apply tougher restrictions when approving an occupation license so that people with two or more DWI conviction stay out of the road.

    

One of the laws passed in 2001 tried to insure that a driver who is suspected of drunk driving and refuses to take a breath test will lose his or her license for 180 days. If a person fails a breath test, his or her license gets suspended for 90 days.[1] The law was passed so that the person with DWI stay out of road. But that purpose was weakened when the lawmakers decided to allow those with suspended licenses to get an occupational license.

To get an occupational license, the DWI suspect hires a lawyer who presents the application in front of a judge. The DWI suspect provides proof of insurance to the judge, and pays about $500 in administrative fees, and he or she is back to the road.  

The Statesman and KVUE report found that the request for occupation license almost always gets approved - often with little questioning - allowing suspects to drive wherever they want in some cases.[2] Some judges say, “They generally conduct no formal review of the facts concerning the drunken driving arrest before signing off on an occupational license request. And they acknowledge that they almost never require the drunken driving suspects to appear in court to question them under oath about their driving needs, nor do they necessarily require proof of employment.”[3] It is alarming how easy a person with DWI conviction can get back to the road.

Steven Wolens, a former state representative from Dallas who worked to strengthen DWI laws said, “The provisional license takes the teeth out of it. It only leaves the law with some gums.”[4]

John Bradley, a Williamson County's District Attorney said, "We continue to see people with four, five, six, as many as 10 DWI's still driving with perhaps an occupations drivers license or, in many cases, with no license at all".[5]

Some of the facts that I read in statesman.com says:[6]

1)      According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Texas leads the nation in drunken driving fatalities.

2)      Texas reported that the state’s 2009 total alcohol-related fatalities outpaced California, which has the nation’s largest population.

Given these facts, I agree with Aaron regarding tougher rules for occupation license. I believe Texas should implement tough requirements for the occupation license. When a person drives a vehicle while intoxicated, he is not only putting his life in danger, but also putting lives of several other innocent people in danger. Texas should let people with habitual alcohol problem know that they should not drive while intoxicated, and if they do they will have to go through consequences of not being able to drive for next several months.

Some people argue that you could lose your drivers license not because you were convicted of DWI but because you got stopped by a police officer and he could tell that you had been drinking too much.[7] So they think people should be allowed to drive until convicted. They argue that people have to go to job; they have to drop their kids to school etc. I think they are right, but I think it should apply to the person who has never been convicted before. If the person has been convicted before and he is caught again, then we simply cannot afford to put him back on wheel. The risk is too high, so it is appropriate to suspend their driving license. The main goal is saving life rather than punishment.

(Note: I posted this article as a comment in Aaron’s blog. It says, "Your comment will be visible after approval.")

---

[1] http://www.kens5.com/news/Texas-law-putting-DWI-suspects-back-on-the-road-108534369.html

[2] http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/value-of-suspending-licenses-in-dwi-arrests-questioned-1047999.html

[3] http://www.statesman.com/opinion/drink-then-drive-just-dont-1070395.html

[4] http://www.kens5.com/news/Texas-law-putting-DWI-suspects-back-on-the-road-108534369.html

[5] http://www.kens5.com/news/Texas-law-putting-DWI-suspects-back-on-the-road-108534369.html

[6] http://www.statesman.com/opinion/drink-then-drive-just-dont-1070395.html

[7] http://www.kens5.com/news/Texas-law-putting-DWI-suspects-back-on-the-road-108534369.html

Common standards for K-12

On July 24, 2009 President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced $4.35 billion program that was designed to spur reforms in state and local district K-12 program. The program is known as Race to the Top. One of the stated goals of the program is to help students out compete workers around the world. Race to the Top prompted 48 states to adopt common standards for K-12.  One of the states that did not apply is Texas.

In explaining why Texas would not be applying for Race to the top funding, Governor Rick Perry stated, "we would be foolish and irresponsible to place our children’s future in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and special interest groups thousands of miles away in Washington." I do not know who is foolish and irresponsible, but I think common standards for every state is not a bad idea. Race to the top may have several strings attached to it, but I am only focusing in one goal “common standards for K-12”.

In a 21st century world, we have to prepare students to succeed in school, in college, in workplace and to compete in the global economy. Once the K-12 is complete, a student from Texas has to compete with a student from Idaho, New York, California, and Florida etc. Similarly a student from USA has to compete with a student from England, China, and India etc. If eventually students have to compete with students from other states, why not have a common standard. As for a competition with students from other countries, USA itself has to implement high standards for K-12.

Education is not something that should vary state by state. What is good for students of USA cannot be bad for students of Texas. If 48 other states and their educational board have agreed to common standards in education, then it cannot be as bad as what Governor Rick Perry thinks it to be. It is possible that 1 head may be smarter than 48 other heads working together, but still probability is 48 heads working together will win most of the time.

Some arguments that I found against common standards are:

·        “Texas would have to spend an estimated $3 billion – $2 billion to purchase new textbooks and $1 billion to redesign our state tests”.

·        “Education is a state issue, with power in Texas delegated to the Texas Legislature and the State Board of Education”.

·        “Washington, D.C. wants more control over schools”.

Some facts that I found in Texas Where We Stand: Education says:

• Texas is #49 in verbal SAT scores in the nation (493) and #46 in average math SAT scores (502).

·        Texas is #36 in the nation in high school graduation rates (68%).

     Given these arguments and facts, I see that common standards for K-12 will do more good than harm to Texans in long term.

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_Top

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/14146/

http://biggovernment.com/bdterry/2010/01/15/texas-is-right-to-quit-the-race-for-the-top-education-program/

http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/wwstand/wws0512ed/

Comment on a colleague’s work #1 : Blog Stage Five

     My colleague Scott Cameron recently stated that “the annexation of Pflugerville into Austin Community College district is a goal we should all set in the elections to come”.

     I think Scott is absolutely right; everyone will have opportunity to get benefit from the proposal. Already one-third of Pflugerville ISD exists in the Austin Community College District (ACCD), and it receives a much lower in-district tuition rate. Based on some data, already more than 50 percent of Pflugerville ISD graduates who enter higher education go through ACCD. Similarly more than 50 percent of adults in the area who start college start at ACCD. The tuition fee for out-of-district is $150 per credit hour, and $42 for in-district. As Scott pointed the savings of annexation can be, on average, up to $6,000 or more on a two year program. The money saved on tuition may be good for economy of community. Scott found that there are some children who are moving to within Austin city limits to attend the community college after graduation. I think it is not good for community to loose its members due to affordability of community college.

Some residents who do not have college going kids may resist why they should pay more taxes. But they need to understand that a community college is a best way to increase community education that will eventually impact economic prosperity of a community. Even if there is no child who may go to college, the resident herself/himself can take classes in affordable manner. The affordable college would be a good way of retooling skills sets in this tough economic time. The more educated a community is, the higher individual’s earnings are. That will increase business in community, which will bring more tax, and the money can be reinvested into community’s economy.

     Even though tax will increase, a strong community college will be an investment in economic growth. It will have direct impact on the economic well-being of a community. ACCD will offer higher education to the people who are financially and/or academically not able to go to a four-year institution. So I think Pflugerville should join ACCD and get in-district tuition fee. If a strong community college like ACCD is available in the community, it benefits the entire community. It can provide substantial economic benefits to individual students, local communities and the state as a whole.  According to study done by Texas Comptroller office, for every dollar invested in colleges, the community sees a return over $5. Another thing to note is if Pflugerville gets in-district more people may move to the city which will bring more money to the city.

      Bastrop, Elgin, McDade, San Marcos, Hays, Buda, Kyle area are getting (got) chance to decide whether to be annexed or not. Now Pflugerville residents should get a chance to vote on the issue.
References:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/acc-ready-for-next-growth-spurt-183009.html?cxtype=rss_news_36716

http://www.austincc.edu/ehs/pdf/GeneralUpdates10-4-05.pdf

http://pflugervillepflag.com/2010/04/15/community-shows-interest-in-acc-nothing-in-the-works/

http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/highered05/

Education fund, U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett and Gov. Rick Perry

How would $830 million in education aid help Texas?

 The federal aid is part of a $10 billion education jobs package approved by Congress in August. It could be used multiple ways to benefit students and teachers.

Is being rejected for education aid good for Texas?

No, if we apply for something, it is never good to be rejected. Recently the federal government rejected Texas’ request for $830 million in education aid.

What happened?

The main reason for rejection is two Texans who claim they are working for Texans. Governor Rick Perry of Texas could not meet the conditions engineered by Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin. One Texan engineered a condition and another Texan did not meet the condition. Still both claim that they are working for Texans.

      

            Rep. Lloyd Doggett added a condition that only applies to Texas. The condition was that the state has to maintain its share of education funding at the same level for three years. Doggett says "It is about ensuring that the federal spending we already have is used for the purpose for which it is intended – in this case strengthening public education." None of the other states had to meet this condition, but Representative of Texas himself added this condition for Texas. 

            The Republican Governor Rick Perry did not take any action to meet the condition put forth. He says, “Complying with the provisions would violate the Texas Constitution.” “The governor cannot appropriate money nor obligate a future Legislature to a certain level of education spending”.

            So one elected official of state, Rep. Doggett says he added the clause to prevent the state officials from diverting the federal aid to other purposes. And another elected official, Governor Perry says complying with the provisions would violate the Texas Constitution. I have two questions. If Governor Perry cannot comply with out violating Constitution, why Rep. Doggett added such a condition? If Doggett can add such a condition, why Governor Perry cannot meet the condition? How two politicians, who think they are smart, bring this to Texas? I guess one of them, or both of them are working for their own hidden agenda (not for people who elected them). I see the only looser in this case are the voters who put them in office.  I am surprised why they were not able to sit together and figure out a way to bring $830 million to Texas. Once the money is in Texas they can compromise so people will benefit. And if they are not able to come to agreement, the money can be saved as reserve. Texas getting some money is better than not getting any. 

References:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/09/09/2455986/feds-reject-texas-application.html 
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/feds-reject-texas-request-for-830m-for-schools-905789.html

http://lubbockonline.com/texas/2010-07-03/us-house-democrats-add-caveat-texas-schools-funds

Critique of a blog: Vehicle searches yield few weapons at U.S.-Mexico border

Border cities in Mexico side have faced increase in deadly violence involving high powered weapons.  There is a belief that people involved in various gangs are importing weapons to Mexico from USA. In Texas Fred's Blog, Fred Witzell has written a blog on: Vehicle searches yield few weapons at U.S.-Mexico border. The blogger writes why the search is yielding few weapons and what should be done.

Texas Fred’s Blog is a conservative blog. The direct intended audience for this commentary is right leaning audience. Witzell, according to himself is a Conservative, highly opinionated blogger. My research on him did not bring much information about him. The only reference I found for him is his own blog and his linkedin page. According to his linkedin page he is currently Communications Director at The Rowlett Texas Tea Party. He is also owner, write and editor of The TexasFred Blog. After reading his blog and with my limited knowledge about him, I do not find him much credible on this topic.

The blogger boldly writes that “The U.S. military and ALL of our Intelligence agencies are fully and thoroughly infiltrated.” And he blames Liberals for this.

First he does not refer any documents that point Intelligence agencies being thoroughly infiltrated. Second he blindly blames liberals i.e. the ones who have opposite political view than his. He writes, “Police departments are infiltrated. Governments themselves are also infiltrated and in many case, fully complicit in ALL of these actions, on both sides of the border, drugs and guns.” During my limited research I found several articles about infiltration in Mexican side, but I did not find much that involved US intelligence. The blogger did not point to any solid evidence; his only evidence is search yielding few weapons.

In the original article the director of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Steven Stavinoha says, “Federal authorities have been hampered by staffing limitations, spotty intelligence and gun smugglers who alter their operations to elude capture.”  In another article Mexico says, U.S. Must Stop Gun Trade at border. The blogger did not try to address any of these arguments.

Finally the blogger suggest that if US wants to win war against weapons and drugs, US must give up being politically correct and use any means available.

Based on the facts mentioned above I do agree that US should do more to fight against weapons and drugs. But I do not agree that all of our Intelligence agencies are fully and thoroughly infiltrated.

Reference:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/28/world/main4835694.shtml?tag=topHome;topStories

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-09-30-weapons-mexico-border_N.htm?csp=15

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/20/nation/na-arms-smuggling20

http://www.linkedin.com/in/texasfred

Critique : System in Texas has not done enough to support teachers

Behind every successful student there is a teacher and parent. Students spend half of their day in school. So doing enough to support and help teachers stay in school is one of the major tasks in education system. In Austin American Statesman’s commentary section Bill Ratliff and John Fitzpatrick have put together a commentary, System in Texas has not done enough to support teachers. The commentators’ believe the education system has not done enough to support our current and future teacher corps.

The direct intended audience for this commentary is general public. But I think it also wants people in government and education system to listen. Ratliff, a former Texas lieutenant governor, is chairman of the Raise Your Hand Texas advisory board. Fitzpatrick is the executive director of the Texas High School Project. It is clear that both of the authors are associated with organizations directly associated with students’ success. I think since the authors are working to increase student achievement they are credible in this topic.

The authors state that, According to the State Board for Educator Certification, 30 percent of our new teachers leave the profession within their first five years. They also state that, School districts spend thousands of dollars recruiting, hiring and training teachers, many of whom leave within a few years because of lack of preparation and support.

When I researched on teacher retention rate I found that the authors are right. And I agree with authors that it takes several thousands of dollars to train teachers, and if the teachers leave it will be a huge loss of budget as well as resources. Some of the facts that I found are: Texas teachers have lower increases in pay over time compared to other occupations. Around two-dozen school districts in Texas use stipends to pay teachers. One prominent study projects a shortfall of 5,200 secondary math teachers by 2012.

Based on the facts mentioned above I agree with the commentators that we must do more to support teachers so they stay in school for several years. I believe that retaining high quality teacher increases student achievement.

Reference:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/research/pdfs/prr6.pdf
http://www.tsbvi.edu/course/chapter1/section3.1.html

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/persprep/qualityteachers/retention.htm
http://amarillo.com/stories/1999/11/13/tex_teachers.shtml

Texas needs three answers to budget problem

The state of Texas is about to face a budget crisis. It is projected that the budget deficit will be around $21 billion. Even though budget is one of the most important documents, Governor Rick Perry and Bill White have not been clear about how they plan to tackle this crisis.

The editorial points out that only a sense of shared responsibility will balance the budget. That involves spending cuts, tax adjustments and tapping the Rainy Day Fund. It says this third-third-third strategy is the most equitable approach. Democrats may say that we can do this without spending cuts. Republicans may suggest that we can do this only with spending cuts. But both points of view alone will not be sufficient. Best solution would be to cut some spending with out gutting education and health funds, close some exemptions to the sales tax, and tap some funds from the Rainy Day Fund.

I think this article is worth reading because the budget is an important document that determines how much money will be available for our education, law enforcement, fire protection and several other services. Most important it determines how much money we will pay in taxes and fees.