Special Protections

     I am no longer staggered when hearing about judges, officers, or politicians receiving special benefits. Texas has rules set in place (or added) that grant state officials the ability to slip through the cracks with a simple slap on the wrist as punishment. Is it okay for our State’s leaders to have various avenues available that prevent them from being held accountable?

     In a previously written blog, “Texas General AttorneyReceives ‘Special Protections,’” I examined our “politically-connected” General Attorney, Ken Paxton and the protections he entertained from the guidelines set by the state bar. Ken Paxton has multiple grievances filed against him, all being rejected by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC). Those who look into Paxton’s case would agree with many, that he deserves to be incarcerated.

     In addition, every two years Texas holds it’s legislative sessions for 140 days and during that time period; legislators are exempt from being arrested while travelling to or from a legislative meeting. Exceptions are treason, felony, or breach of the peace. Nevertheless, our officials can commit any misdemeanor and not be immediately tried for their actions. If legislators are allowed special protections for 140 days, is it not fair that everyone be given the same protections? Once more, this is another condition for our state leaders to not be held accountable.

     Naturally, it does not help that the same legislators who receive special benefits, are the ones who pass our bills into law. An important aspect of being a leader is to actually lead, not bully. Lead by example and accept the proper consequences for your actions. Before long, young adults will notice the arrangements made by our Texas legislators and influence them to follow in their footsteps. We the people of Texas, own the right to vote for those who represent us. Let us continue to engage in our community and change what lies ahead.

Texas Open Carry

Even in Texas, the right to carry a firearm is a touchy subject. House Bill 910 was signed into law on June 3^rd, 2016, and took effect January 1^st, 2016. The bill does not require the holder to obtain a separate license to carry a firearm openly. However, that does not mean an individual can have a firearm in plain view. The firearm must be carried in a shoulder or belt holster.

I agree with TexasFlower that the individual should have the right to choose whether to carry or not, but the law does state guidelines where one can openly carry. A license holder regardless of whether the firearm is holstered does not permit open carry on any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage or other parking area on an institution of higher education, or private institution of higher education.

The second amendment states that the individual posses the right to bear arms. Although, many cases have been brought to the Supreme Court changing the criteria for this right.

No matter what happens in the future, individuals will continue to feel uncomfortable when seeing a firearm in public and many will continue to fight for the right to defend themselves, when, and if the time comes. As the individual has the right to posses a firearm, an individual should have the right to deny an individual of entering their establishment.

The best way to prevent the worst from happening is to have addition training, which is not, required in House Bill 910. Only those with extensive training should be granted the right of open carry.

We Need a Lower Number for Top 10% Rule

As a college student that is planning to transfer into a major four-year university, I want to know my chances at enrollment before applying. My goal is to attend UT-Austin, but with the Top Ten Percent Rule in affect, my acceptance rate is looking fairly low. Even with a 4.0 GPA, it is highly probable that I will not be accepted because of the Top Ten Rule.

Originally, the law was enacted in 1997 to help Texas public colleges create a more diverse student body. Meaning the minority schools would receive equal representation. Although recent studies have shown that the Top Ten Rule has increased minority population on campuses, the student population doesn’t match the demographics of Texas. The law has good intentions, but for somebody like me, the consequences are damaging to my academic endeavors.

Next fall, 75 percent of the incoming students will be students admitted by the Top Ten Rule. That leaves a small 25 percent for everyone else. UT has recently altered the rule, now only admitting the top 7 percent but still, the opportunity for admission for those not in the top 7 percent are still minimal.

In one case, a student was denied admission at UT but was accepted to Stanford, which is college that many would suggest is harder to enroll at. How is that possible? This happened because UT had already met its cap of students admitted by the law. If a student attends a highly competitive high school but falls in the top 11 percent, and another student is in the top 10 percent at a less competitive school, the student in the top ten will be accepted. Not fair if you ask me.

I propose that the number be lowered. If this law only admitted the top 5 percent we would still see equal representation of the minority schools and a higher acceptance rate for students looking to transfer from a community college.

           
           There is no doubt that a student with exceptional high school credentials should be granted superior benefits. However, there are students that equally or more qualified, that are not being accepted ever since the Top Ten Percent Rule was enacted. 

Texas General Attorney receives "special protections"

March 14th 2016, Ty Clevenger, a Texas Attorney, posted an article about his grievances toward Attorney General Ken Paxton. Clevenger attempts to inform his readers about the “special protections” Paxton benefited from being a Texas Official. He targets the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) due to their dismissal of complaints filed against Ken Paxton.

Clevenger continues, declaring his grievances against Paxton “had far less to do with Mr. Paxton than the state bar itself.” On numerous occasions, Clevenger has observed several “politically-connected” lawyers, that have committed crimes be protected by the state bar.

            The complaint filed by Clevenger was dismissed because the criminal case was still pending. To back up his argument, he refers to a Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure, stating there is nothing that prevents OCDC from prosecuting an attorney with a pending charge. This wasn’t the first time Paxton received “special protection.”

            A previous grievance filed by Erica Gammill against Paxton had also been rejected “because that grievance supposedly failed to state a disciplinary violation.” Mind you, Paxton had already admitted to being guilty of the charges against him.

            After being found guilty, Clevenger re-filed Mrs. Gammill’s grievance along with Paxton’s indictment. Once again, the complaint was rejected by OCDC because the case was still pending. Basically, if a grievance is filed before an indictment, it is dismissed on the ground of failing to state a violation. If you file after an indictment, it is dismissed because the case is ongoing.

            Clevenger concludes saying the Texas state bar needed to be “gutted and reorganized from top to bottom.” He makes one last reference to another rejected grievance by the OCDC for no apparent reason. 

            Clevenger is right and he has sufficient evidence to prove his logic. Politically connected officials are given extra benefits. It is too difficult to file a complaint against a state official. Officials should be held accountable for their actions and be treated no differently; based on the position they hold. Government guidelines are too easily interpreted and only favor those with the resources to take action. This is a serious issue and frustrates me beyond belief. These people are supposedly our leaders, but in reality a leader is accountable and accepts the consequences of his wrongdoing. Mr. Paxton, you are not a leader.

To Carry Or Not To Carry?

On February 17th, 2016, The Editorial Board of The Fort Worth Star Telegram posted an article about a new law that allows students on public universities in Texas to carry a concealed weapon on campus. On August 1st, 2016, this new law will go into effect for four-year public universities. An Editorial article is basically a majority opinion of the newspaper’s editors and business managers on an issue.

 We do not know much about the author(s) of this article so the credibility is limited in that sense. What we can analyze is the argument that is being made. 

The Editorial Board references Physicist Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize winner and professor at UT Austin. Weinberg claims he will ban guns from his classroom and even goes as far to say he may retire instead of facing the university administration. The article also mentions other UT professors who have formed a group called Gun Free UT, whom has hired lawyers to investigate a possible lawsuit. The evidence given indicates that the Editorial Board is clearly against the new rule and efforts are being made in protest. 

The author(s) briefly states that some proponents say students will feel safer because they can defend themselves. Quickly after, the author(s) state in return that faculty members fear an armed student who receives a failing grade poses a threat in the classrooms. Parents and students that read the article could potentially change their decision to attend UT Austin, which will lead to the loss of top recruits. 

In effort to persuade the reader in opposition of the law, the author(s) identifies UT Austin’s President, Gregory Fenves. Fenves is described negatively by saying he will sit back and wait to see what happens. Then, he will address the issues as they arise. What the author(s) fail to note is the reasons for enacting the bill. 

School shootings have become an epidemic and now the students feel unsafe on college campuses. At least Texas legislators are discussing the problematic situation and are making modifications. College student deaths are in no way an easy problem to solve and disputing views could lead to an even worse outcome. Texas has a long history with guns and I am optimistic that our leaders with straighten out the kinks in Senate Bill 11.

Zika Virus in Travis County

A Texas Tribune article was posted on February 4th, 2016 informing Texas to be aware of a virus and it's dangers. Travis County has encountered its first case of the Zika Virus. A 50-year-old man, who travelled to Colombia, contracted the virus. Dallas County has also confirmed its first sexually transmitted case of the virus, which is also the first confirmed case in the continental U.S. TEXAS IS UNDER ATTACK!! Researchers are suggesting that the virus is linked to microcephaly, a condition that causes children to be born will small brains and skulls. There are also mosquitoes in Texas that are carrying the virus but mosquito activity is low due to the cold weather. Jeffery Taylor, senior epidemiologist at the Austin/Travis County Public Health and Human Services Department is saying mosquito movement will be closely monitored in the coming months. As the warm weather approaches, be sure to wear your mosquito protectant!

First Blog!

Hello!