15 August 2007
It's going to rain!!!!
The tropical storm is about to hit the Gulf Coast, and local TV news stations are excitedly gearing up their "team coverage" of the event.
It's probably going to rain in Houston!
There's really not much more to say -- but the TV news folks are, of course.
If you see any particularly entertaining weather-related antics on your favorite TV news broadcast, please feel free to post them in the forum.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/15/07 10:24 PM |
It's always fun when the Editorial LiveJournalists tackle the globe
Today, in an editorial advocating universal healthcare, the Editorial LiveJournalists discovered a new country:
It is no wonder that in 41 nations — including Japan, most of Europe, and Jordon — citizens can expect to live longer than the average American. Part of Americans' morbidity has nothing to do with access to medical care and everything to do with their diets of empty calories and sedentary lives.
I have an advanced degree in international relations, but I had not heard of this Jordon until today. Of course, I had also not heard of the new treaty discovered by the Editorial LiveJournalists a while back either. Reading the Chron editorial page is certainly informative!
Hat tip to Matt Bramanti for spotting this new country earlier.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/15/07 11:30 AM |
14 August 2007
Council committee considers park set-aside proposal
The Chronicle's Mike Snyder reports that the City of Houston may soon enact legislation requiring developers either to set aside park space or pay the city significant fees:
A draft ordinance reviewed by a City Council committee Monday would require a developer who built 100 houses to provide 2.6 acres for park space or pay an $80,000 fee.
The ordinance, which city officials hope to have in place by Oct. 1, would be one of the most significant new regulatory requirements in years for Houston's politically powerful development industry. Leaders of single-family home and apartment development organizations said they supported the measure in principle but were concerned about some details.
A sidebar provides more details:
LAW'S HIGHLIGHTS
• The requirement: Developers of single-family or multi-family residential developments would have to provide land for park space or pay a fee.
• Park formula: 10 acres times number of housing units times 2.6 average household size, divided by 1,000. That means a developer building a project with 100 units would have to set aside 2.6 acres of space.
• Fee formula: $800 per housing unit.
• Goal: 10 acres of parks per 1,000 new residents as Houston grows.
• Not affected: Commercial development projects; areas in Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Lest anyone be concerned these requirements are unfair to developers, the architect of the ordinance says that's not true:
Andy Icken, a deputy public works director assigned by Mayor Bill White to help develop the measure, said its formula for determining land or fees required is consistent with those in other Houston-area cities that have park set-aside laws.
Its intent, Icken said, is to ensure that as Houston's population grows, it provides 10 acres of parks for each 1,000 additional residents, which is far short of the 25.5 acres per 1,000 residents recommended by the National Parks and Recreation Association.
In other words, the legislation is not as draconian (or green, depending on your perspective) as it might be.
The debate over this (rushed?) ordinance could prove to be interesting.
BLOGVERSATION: Lose an Eye, It's a Sport.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/14/07 10:35 PM |
It's time for more METRO service adjustments!
Laurence Simon notes that METRO is promising another round of "service adjustments" on August 26, 2007.
This latest round of "service adjustments" doesn't look as if it will get METRO much closer to fulfilling the promise it made to voters in the 2003 referendum to boost bus service by 50%. A different page brags about the hours METRO is adding to the system but doesn't mention the hours being cut in the latest round of "service adjustments."
But hey, it's METRO. Promises made to voters really don't matter all that much when there is utopia to be constructed.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/14/07 09:33 PM |
13 August 2007
Way to serve the community, Metro!
Last week, the Memorial Examiner ran a story about how the Spring Branch Family Development Center was given the cold shoulder by Metro, after being promised four years ago that the taxpayer-funded transit agency would expand bus service in the Spring Branch area:
Barnes has been lobbyingMetro to expand bus service in Spring Branch since the Family Development Center opened in 2001 and came close to success when Metro announced four years ago that it would inaugurate a north-south line on Bingle-Voss-Hilcroft that would run from south of Richmond to near U. S. 290 in Spring Branch.
The route was supposed to open in August 2003 but Metro’s leadership changed, and the new line was scuttled. The executive who supported it was reassigned.
As the story notes, the center was on the receiving end of a large charitable donation that enabled it to provide its own transit service for those in need, in spite of Metro's unwillingness to follow through on a promise:
For just $10 a month, Spring Branch residents who have no means of transportation can get portal-to-portal service to area medical clinics, markets and social service offices on a 14-passenger bus purchased by the Spring Branch Family Development Center with funds donated by an anonymous benefactor.
Recall that Metro doesn't like bus routes to have a more than $6 per-rider subsidy, but doesn't mind the almost $25 per-rider subsidy light rail requires.
You might also find it interesting that Metro's sales tax allocation for August was more than $46 million.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/13/07 07:39 PM |
12 August 2007
Klineberg: A mature Houston is a Houston that embraces planning
Today's Outlook section runs an op-ed by Rice University's Stephen Klineberg about how his annual Houston Area Survey shows that experts and residents agree that the health of Houston's future depends on higher taxes and urban planning:
The emerging consensus is echoed by the goals articulated in the Greater Houston Partnership's "2005-2015 Strategic Plan," in speeches by Mayor Bill White, and in virtually all the communitywide envisioning efforts undertaken in recent years. Just about everyone now recognizes that if Houston's prosperity is to be sustained in the 21st century economy, we will need to make far more substantial public and private investments both in the region's aesthetic and environmental qualities, and in education and other forms of "human capital."
Part of what makes this consensus so impressive is how different it is from Houston's traditional conception of the "good business climate." The city was built almost entirely by developer decisions, by a business community seeking above all else to maximize its short-term, firm-level profits. As Robert Fisher, then a professor of social work at the University of Houston observed in 1990, "the ideological thrust in Houston in the 20th century has been anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-planning, anti-taxes, anti-anything that seemed to represent, in fact or fantasy, an expansion of the public sector or a limitation on the economic prerogatives and activities of the city's business community." Houston has benefited tremendously from the vision and generosity of the civic and business leaders who built this city, but today's challenges call for a decisive maturation of such a narrowly conceived "pro-business" agenda.
Did you catch that? Klineberg says the "pro-business" agenda, which has made Houston as successful and wonderful as it is today, is immature. The mature agenda is the urban planner's vision, which, according to Klineberg, is what Houston needs now, along with substantial public investments -- taxes! And to back up his assertion, he cites the results of his 2007 Houston Area Survey:
• By 59 percent to 36 percent, area residents said they were in favor of "raising taxes to make major improvements in the Houston area's quality of life, such as pollution control and park improvements."
• Fifty-four percent said that the best way to spend the region's transportation dollars would be "to improve rail and buses." Only 37 percent called for more spending "to expand existing highways."
• When asked about the impact of an additional million residents on the area's living conditions, fully 50 percent said that such growth would make things worse. Just 20 percent thought conditions would improve.
• The concerns about unfettered growth translate into strong support for some form of planning: 70 percent agreed that, "We need better land-use planning to guide development in the Houston area." Only 22 percent believed instead that, "People or businesses should be free to build wherever they want."
• Finally, among all area residents in this famously "unplanned city," 83 percent were strongly or somewhat in favor of "creating a general plan to guide Houston's future growth." Just 11 percent were opposed.
Just like the previous post, something's missing from this piece -- a link to the actual survey! As we know from experience, anyone can make a poll say what they want it to say, just by framing the questions a certain way. So how did Klineberg pose the questions?
Well, we can visit the Houston Area Survey website and see previous years' questions (2007's don't seem to be included in all categories) to get an idea of how the questions were framed. Take for example, taxes. Klineberg says 59 percent support increasing taxes in order to fund quality of life improvements. This looks to be one of the categories where 2007's questions aren't listed (if I overlooked where the question is, please let me know), but on this page we can see what tax-type questions were asked in previous years, along with the results. Last year, this question was asked:
In today's economy, local government may be faced with the choice of either increasing taxes or reducing services. Would you personally be willing to pay higher taxes in order to maintain the current level of public services, or would you prefer to reduce the level of services in order to avoid a tax increase? If that were the only choice, which would you prefer: raise taxes or reduce services?
That's fairly loaded. The results (of 765 asked) were 53 percent in favor of raising taxes, and 36 percent in favor of reducing services.
Not included was the suggestion that the city could reprioritize some of the fluff that is in every budget -- you know, kind of like we all have to do with our personal finances. Most of us can't walk up to our boss and demand a raise just because the finances are a little tight.
As an aside, I love this question asked in previous years:
Agree/Disagree: Houston city government has plenty of tax money to pay for all the needed services.
The last time this question was asked was in 1997. The results? Sixty-three percent agreed that the city had plenty of tax money to pay for all needed services. It hasn't been asked since!
The point here is it would have been helpful if Klineberg and the Chronicle had included a link to this year's questions and methodology, instead of just expecting (hoping for?) readers to accept Klineberg's interpretation of the results. Isn't that one of the great benefits of having these things on the web?
BLOGVERSATION: Lose an Eye, It's a Sport.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/12/07 03:16 PM |
Where's the rest of the story?
There's something missing from today's Chronicle story about "dozens of lawmakers" who have failed properly to report credit card expenses charged to their campaigns:
The Texas Ethics Commission has fined three legislators in the last year for failing to properly disclose credit card expenses charged to their campaigns, but a Houston Chronicle review has found that dozens of other lawmakers have done the same without being sanctioned.
Texas legislators slapped down the plastic to charge more than $1 million in political expenses since January 2005, but failed to disclose who actually received the bulk of the money, nearly $900,000, the analysis shows.
The Chronicle's review of ethics commission records between Jan. 1, 2005, and June 30 found few complying with a 1981 law that requires disclosure of the person or company that receives a credit card payment and the purpose of the expense.
As several Chron.com commenters also noticed, what's missing is the actual report, so we can see who the "dozens of lawmakers" are. Named in the story are eight legislators, four Republicans and four Democrats, but nowhere in the body of the story, on the sidebar, or even in the Texas Politics blog is there a link to the Chron's analysis.
Two Houston representatives are named in the Chron's story: Rep. Rick Noriega and Rep. Garnet Coleman. Rep. Coleman blamed his lack of compliance on his 72-year-old mother's inability to understand the electronic filing software (maybe he needs an accountant?), while a consultant for Rep. Noriega said half the charges occurred while Noriega's wife was serving in his stead when he was in Afghanistan, and that Noriega himself discovered the lack of compliance and amended his filings.
Now, when will the Chron post the full analysis? Sunshine is always a good thing when it comes to government.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/12/07 02:01 PM |
Mayor White excels at getting pro bono legal representation for city
This City Hall blog post by Matt Stiles about Mayor White's response to a lawsuit aimed at the city's tougher smoking ban, included information that a law firm will represent the city pro bono. That led to today's story by Stiles about the mayor's ability to get free legal representation for many of the city's legal battles:
The mayor, a former civil litigator, has recruited some of Houston's most skilled — and expensive — lawyers to fight the city's legal battles. White isn't the only Houston mayor to ask lawyers for favors, but he's clearly taken the practice to a new level.
In recent years, he has persuaded top firms to take on chemical companies, coal-fired power plants and nuisance nightclubs. The lawyers say they do it for several reasons: interest in the issues, civic responsibility and their relationships with White.
"I think he's got people at half the law firms in town doing it. I mean, it's hysterical," said Jim Moriarty, a local lawyer who has taken on several high-profile projects in recent years at no charge, including negotiating a $2.5 million settlement with a trash-hauling contractor accused of overbilling the city.
"You know, I laugh when he calls, because I know it's just one more job I have to do," Moriarty said in jest, adding that being asked to do the work is an honor.
"Said in jest," of course, but there undoubtedly is an expectation that these law firms will help out when the mayor asks.
On the sidebar, Stiles has included some of the issues/mayoral pet projects that have relied upon such representation:
• Smoking ban: Kathy Patrick of Gibbs & Bruns is defending the revised ordinance, which bans smoking in most public places starting next month, from a recent federal court challenge.
• Trash: Jim Moriarty of Moriarty & Associates got a one-time city contractor, Republic Waste Services, to pay for an audit and $2.5 million settlement in 2006 after allegations that some of its employees were overbilling the city.
• Revenue cap: Scott Atlas of Weil, Gotshal & Manges has defended a lawsuit over a ballot measure, passed by voters in 2004, that capped city revenues. The case is on appeal.
• Environment: David Berg of Berg & Androphy negotiated a deal with Texas Petrochemicals. The company agreed to reduce carcinogenic emissions and upgrade its facilities.
• Coal plants: Stephen Susman of Susman Godfrey prepared an administrative challenge on behalf of Houston and a coalition of other Texas cities that opposed a plan to build numerous new coal-fired power plants.
• Nuisance nightclubs: Allan Van Fleet of Greenberg Traurig represented the city in a lawsuit seeking to close down three clubs on Richmond near South Gessner that city officials said were magnets for crime.
• Illegal signs: Lance Lubell of Heard, Robins, Cloud & Lubell filed a lawsuit against a sign company that installed billboards in violation of a city ordinance.
BLOGVERSATION: Sit, Ubu, Sit, Houston's Clear Thinkers.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/12/07 10:37 AM |
11 August 2007
Can The Woodlands be world-class without light rail?
Remember how The Woodlands began a trolley service around its downtown area? Well, officials are pretty excited about it (via the Chron):
The new, free transportation system for The Woodlands Town Center officially was dedicated Tuesday in a ceremony attended by 75 community leaders.
The new trolley system, which serves The Woodlands Waterway, Lake Robbins Drive and The Woodlands Mall, is averaging about 800 to 1,000 riders a week, a number that is expected to double within the next month as more people discover its use as a lunchtime shuttle and for other activities, said Lyle Nelson, assistant general manager of The District, the public transportation agency which is operating the trolley system through a contract with TCID.
The service started July 4.
"This is a momentous occasion for The Woodlands Town Center," said Nelda Luce Blair, chairwoman of The Town Center Improvement District. "It is more than just a fun ride. It is important because it is great for downtown."
The trolley is expected to remain free for passengers for the first three years, and TCID is studying whether to extend the line to other areas, particularly within the downtown area, said Frank Robinson, president of TCID. Robinson said there have already been requests by residents to extend the trolley services to the village centers around The Woodlands.
"Since we announced the trolley, the interest has been peaking," Robinson said. "We are seeing if it can't be duplicated within the residential areas to bring people into downtown."
Of course, as Metro officials would tell these people, The Woodlands isn't thinking big enough. What's needed is light rail, especially considering the continuing growth all around the Town Center area (also via the Chron):
The Woodlands Development Co. held a topping out ceremony for its newest offering in the downtown district Thursday, a 13-story building that will feature office space, retail stores and restaurants.
Three more buildings also are on the drawing boards for Town Center, ranging in size from six to nine stories. The Woodlands Development Co. plans to build two more office buildings near Woodloch Forest and Lake Robbins Drive, and U.S. Oncology announced plans for an eight-story corporate headquarters on Woodlands Parkway at Woodloch Forest Drive.
"It's downtown," said Alex Sutton, co-president of The Woodlands Development Co. "You associate high-rise buildings with downtown."
The new building in Town Center is 24 Waterway Avenue, which marks the first step for the prestigious Waterway Square area, an urban park that will feature a fountain and a pavilion.
"It offers a prestigious address and a wonderful environment," Sutton said. "People can look right down on Waterway Square."
[snip]
This is the largest building constructed by The Woodlands Development Co. on speculation without predetermined tenants, and most of the space has been committed or leased, Sutton said.
"Leasing is very strong," Sutton said.
With office vacancy in Town Center approaching zero, The Woodlands Development Co. is planning to build more — and larger buildings — in the downtown area.
"We are doing really, really well," said Dan Leverett, vice president of commercial for The Woodlands Development Co. "We still are having about 100 percent occupancy."
Remember when state Sen. John Whitmire complained that The Woodlands wasn't giving enough to Houston in return for a no-annexation promise?
"The Woodlands would be nothing but a deer lease if it weren't for the city of Houston," he said. "Residents of The Woodlands enjoy the golden goose of Houston. They get the benefits of working here during the day and then going back to their comfortable, homogenous, bedroom communities at night."
We can put that nonsense to rest, since the "golden goose" benefits clearly go both ways now. Long gone are the days when most Woodlands residents had to drive to downtown Houston for work. These days, how many Houstonians are commuting to the Woodlands? Northbound I-45 isn't empty in the mornings, you know!
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/11/07 02:09 PM |
10 August 2007
"Urban planner" laments lack of opposition to highway 290 expansion
KHOU-11's Jeremy Desel reports that public comment sessions on the proposed highway 290 expansion have produced very little in the way of public comment/opposition:
The planned expansion of State Highway 290 could impact hundreds of homes and businesses the displacement list is long more questions than answers.
"Just rumor from what I've heard from people. Just rumors. And their is many different stories,” said [business owner Stan] Campbell.
The problem is the public comment period for the project ended Wednesday. And the deadline passed with little outcry from those potentially affected.
[snip]
Not what urban planner David Crossley of the Gulf Coast Institute was looking for.
"It not only surprises me it surprises me a lot and it saddens me too,” Crossley said.
That's the same "urban planner David Crossley" who's been a strong advocate for running rail down Richmond (no matter what folks who live/work/drive along Richmond have to say during public comment!) and whose Gulf Coast Institute has also worked for METRO to "study" the matter.
Interestingly, the same groups that lament the apparent lack of opposition to the highway 290 tend to favor METRO running roughshod over folks who live/work/drive along Richmond and who oppose losing traffic capacity, property, and green space to dangerous, ill-conceived at-grade rail. Funny how that works.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/10/07 10:00 PM |
Isn't it time for The Plagiarist to get back to work?
Back on March 4, Chronicle columnist Rick Casey announced he was about to take a sabbatical:
WHEN I began writing this column two newspapers ago, I was 40 years old, had never worked for anyone more than two years and was living in my eighth city.
Now, seemingly suddenly, it's 20 years later.
Obviously, something needs to be done.
No, I'm not moving or quitting. I'm having too much fun for that.
But I am taking a sabbatical. For the next five months, I intend to relax, read and reflect without being within two days of a deadline.
It's been just over five months now, but there's still no sign of The Plagiarist.
Surprisingly, we find ourselves missing the guy just a little bit, if only because of LiveJournal-like hair-fare such as today's effort from Lisa Falkenberg.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/10/07 07:43 AM |
09 August 2007
Breaking news: Editorial LiveJournalists in favor of Richmond line
You're surprised, no doubt, that the Chron's editorial board has decided that the study compiled by Metro staff and consultants should be the final say in the University Line debate.
So, there you go. No more discussion needed. The higher-ups at the Chronicle find Metro's study convincing, and anyone with a dissenting opinion should just shut up.
PREVIOUSLY: Houston Chronicle "Rail Memo" Mirror
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/09/07 08:13 AM |
08 August 2007
Metro's public comment meetings
We all know Metro has no direct accountability to the public that funds it, so it's interesting to read a couple of anecdotes about how Metro handles those pesky public comment times.
Recall last week this KHOU-11 story about residents protesting Metro's plan to run the East End rail line down MLK. Metro's David Wolff complained that there's already been plenty of public input, and no more is needed:
“We can’t just wiggle around every time somebody shows up. This process went on for six years like I said we had 140 meetings. At some point you have to make a decision, and stick with it,” said Metro Board Chairman David Wolff.
But look at what happened when a Richmond property owner went to meetings where the University Line was up for discussion:
For 30 years, Francisco Valle has owned one block in Richmond, but now new rail could be coming.
That could affect all four of Valle’s properties.
In fact, he says three of them could be taken in full, “That is what they always emphasized in every meeting. Not to worry about it. It is not going to effect anything. It will only be a few feet from the front. That’s all it’s gonna take.”
In all 13 homes and about one dozen businesses would be lost on the Richmond option.
Were similar soothing reassurances given at the East End meetings? Probably. But all Metro has to do is say it has held these meetings, and its obligation is done. Metro can spin or dismiss any concerns affected residents and property owners might present.
Which is why Metro is pressing forward with the Richmond route, even though that wasn't on the 2003 ballot. It's what Metro and its supporters have wanted all along.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/08/07 08:20 PM |
07 August 2007
HPD crime lab analyst suspended for failing to secure (drug) evidence
KHOU-11 reports that there are new problems at the HPD Crime Lab:
There are more problems for the Houston Police Department crime lab. A criminalist for the troubled crime lab was suspended last week, accused of not properly securing evidence.
James K. Carpenter, who hired on at the crime lab about five years ago, worked in the controlled substance section of the crime lab. That is the section of the lab that analyzes, among other things, narcotics taken in as evidence.
Investigators would not specify what protocols Carpenter is accused of violating, but a department press statement said he was relieved of duty after he refused to give a formal statement and submit to a drug test.
Lab director Irma Rios said all of the cases Carpenter worked on in the last six months would be reviewed. That is about 200 narcotics cases HPD said.
It doesn't take much reading between the lines to conclude that Carpenter may have violated protocols by consuming the evidence rather than securing it.
The timing couldn't be worse for a crime lab trying to win back public confidence after recent scandals.
ADDITIONAL COVERAGE: Chronicle.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/07/07 11:54 PM |
METRO spokesperson compares stray-current problem to graffiti
METRO spokesperson Raequel Roberts, who once tried to downplay her organization's ongoing light-rail stray-current issues with references to a nine-volt battery, has become even more entertaining on the topic. Here's a recent comment to KTRH-740 reporter Bill O'Neal:
“We consider the system safe; we consider it [stray current] a non-issue at this point," Roberts said. "You might as well ask taggers if graffiti can make a bridge fall down.”
Unfortunately, it's not a non-issue, as stakeholders such as the Medical Center discovered after spending their own money to research the matter.
Nor does it require a Ph.D. in physics to understand that stray current can cause structural damage by corroding metal.
If Ms. Roberts does not understand the science of stray-current leakage and the potential problems it poses, she and METRO would be better served if she simply defers such questions to experts instead of making a fool of herself with comparisons to nine-volt batteries and graffiti taggers.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/07/07 11:40 PM |
Editorial LiveJournalists oppose Bolsover sale
Today, the Editorial LiveJournalists came out against the sale of a block of Bolsover street to a developer:
In the coming days City Council members should consider the following arguments, many voiced by nearby residents, against the sale....
They go on to list several arguments, but omit two big reasons that have come up over and over in the local print coverage of the issue: The assumptions behind two appraisals that seem to undervalue the land in question, and the lack of transparency in the process. We noted both in this earlier post.
Maybe the Editorial LiveJournalists don't read the Examiner newspapers. Or the neighborhood section of their own newspaper.
It's not at all clear (from this editorial or anything else that's been printed) that the proposed sale of Bolsover is a "bad thing." However, if the sale is deemed a good idea by city leaders, we'd like those leaders to be at least as diligent in getting full value for city property as Mayor White was when he squeezed the caretakers of retarded children for millions of dollars by threatening to void their valid lease.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/07/07 10:19 PM |
06 August 2007
The sacrifice needed to make room for the University rail line
KHOU-11 has the first look at what the University Line DEIS report says and it's not pretty:
For 30 years, Francisco Valle has owned one block in Richmond, but now new rail could be coming.
That could affect all four of Valle’s properties.
In fact, he says three of them could be taken in full, “That is what they always emphasized in every meeting. Not to worry about it. It is not going to effect anything. It will only be a few feet from the front. That’s all it’s gonna take.”
In all 13 homes and about one dozen businesses would be lost on the Richmond option.
About 24 homes and one dozen businesses would be lost on the Westpark option and another 10 to 14 homes, depending on the alignment, of the University of Houston section of the line.
Take the area around Richmond and Montrose as an example.
In either option the buildings between Roseland and Stanford are affected.
About four buildings would be completely taken and five more partially affected.
Other buildings also affected as the line continues down Richmond.
If the Westpark option is chosen, the impact turns with the line adding all of the buildings on the west side of Montrose to those completely taken.
Oh, and:
There is a 45 day comment period which ends September 17.
Comment can also be made in person at any of the three public hearings scheduled.
Right. The only comments that will matter to Metro are the ones are in favor of its preferred alignment. Will the CTC stand up for property owners? Don't hold your breath!
Just remember, when a government agency takes private property for mass transit, that's good. When a government agency takes private property for expanding highways, that's bad.
And all this for a boondoggle that will do nothing to reduce congestion. But a rail line down the middle of a street should add to it!
BLOGVERSATION: HouStoned, Lose an Eye, It's a Sport.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/06/07 07:49 PM |
05 August 2007
Editorial LiveJournalists tackle higher ed: Part two
On Saturday, the Editorial LiveJournalists offered their insight on academic governance to TSU.
Today, the Editorial LiveJournalists moved on to UH, presenting their candidate for UH's open position of chancellor/president:
With the unexpected resignation of Jay Gouge in March to take the helm of his alma mater, Auburn University, the University of Houston again finds itself in search of a leader who can chart the course of the four-campus system.
The outcome of UH's headhunting could decide whether the city's flagship of public higher education achieves ambitious goals or stagnates in mediocrity. With UH aspiring to the status of a top-tier Texas research campus, portents point in both directions.
[snip]
Members of the search committee have been issued guidelines. Mostly predictable, these call for a person with vision and leadership skills, political savvy and fund-raising expertise, a respected educator with integrity, common sense and a sense of humor.
The guidelines do not put a premium on a leader with Texas or Houston roots, despite UH's chronic problems amassing support in local communities and competing with other state universities in Austin for state dollars. A UH rival, Texas Tech, chose a former Texas politician from that area, Kent Hance, as its top executive.
[Search committee head Leroy] Hermes says a person with homegrown credentials, Houston connections and the savvy to run an academic institution would be the ideal candidate. Unfortunately, he said, "the likelihood of our being able to find that person is pretty far-fetched."
UH's main campus has had only one woman or minority as president in its 80-year history in the person of Marguerite Barnett, an African-American whose tenure was cut short by a fatal brain tumor. Hermes said no preference is being given to gender or minority status, and he has notified members of the search committee that he would remove anyone who used those categories as criteria for the selection.
That shouldn't be a problem, because the Chronicle's editorial board, which includes four UH alumni, thinks the best qualified potential candidate is a University of Houston graduate, as well as the highest ranking federal education official. She is Margaret Spellings, the Bush administration's secretary of education and the architect of the president's No Child Left Behind Act. She also helped to make the landmark public school reforms in Texas during the Bush governorship.
Apparently, the four UH alumni among the Editorial LiveJournalists are so plugged in to the goings on at their alma mater that they got the name of former chancellor Jay Gogue wrong in a Sunday editorial. That's impressive.
Unfortunately, much of the Chronicle's coverage of UH has failed to appreciate the impact of Gogue in his short time heading up the University of Houston (although most, but not all, of the Chron's reporting has at least managed to get his name right). Under Gogue -- someone not from the Houston area, we might add -- the university developed and published its detailed Master Plan, highlighting a vision to upgrade the institution from one regarded even by many here in town as a second-tier commuter school to one of the nation's premier urban research institutions (replete with a significant campus residential community).
Dr. Gogue seemed committed to implementing that vision, which is why his departure for Auburn (his alma mater) was so untimely.
Rather than recommend any single candidate to the UH Board of Regents, we would suggest to them that they and Dr. Gogue were on exactly the right track with the UH Master Plan. Their priority should be continuing to fill in the details of the UH Master Plan, and to find a highly qualified candidate who will commit to implementing that plan, and possesses the appropriate skills to do so. That leader could be a local person (perhaps even Margaret Spellings) with political skills, but it might just as well be a visionary outsider with proven academic-governance skills -- like Dr. Gogue -- who is willing to see UH as it might be, instead of as it always has been.
We hope that the search committee, under the capable leadership of Leroy Hermes, gets this important decision right. As the Editorial LiveJournalists rightly point out, it comes at a critical time for UH.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/05/07 02:54 PM |
Editorial LiveJournalists tackle higher ed: Part one
Last week, the Chronicle posted two stories by Matthew Tresaugue reporting that Texas Southern's board of regents was agitating to replace current interim president General J. Timothy Boddie with another interim president drawn from the board of regents.
Oddly, no substantive reason for the proposed change was forthcoming in either story. Rather, the stories just offered praise of General Boddie accompanied by vague assertions that another interim president would do a better job.
Here are the purported reasons for change in the first story:
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, a Houston Democrat, praised Boddie for getting "the tools" the university needs to move forward but said someone else should finish the job.
"The baton needs to be passed," said Coleman, whose district includes the campus. "This is a different stage, and there is a need for someone to prepare the way for a permanent president."
The next interim president, he said, must hire a strong chief academic officer, restore the confidence of students and their parents, and dig the university out of a financial hole created by the unauthorized construction of two new parking garages.
Actually, an informed and involved board of regents (NOT the interim president) should make that hiring decision and provide guidance. That's how university governance usually works.
"General Boddie restored some credibility, but we need a different set of skills now," Bledsoe said. "We need to give the new (permanent) president every chance to excel, and so we have to do some heavy lifting first."
If General Boddie has done a good job restoring credibility, why not let him remain as the interim president while the board of regents conducts a search for a president who meets criteria set by the regents? Again, that's how university governance usually works.
Here is a dissenting view in the same story:
"It's not just unwise, but stupid to trade one interim for another," [Rev. Bill] Lawson said. "It sends a sign of internal conflict. It's best for the university to maintain constancy until a permanent replacement can be found. Right now TSU is very vulnerable."
Boddie's military-style leadership may have rubbed some people the wrong way, Lawson said, but he viewed it as firm.
"General Boddie was brought in to stabilize the school," Lawson said. "He's done that. ... I don't know what else it could be, but politics."
By all accounts, General Boddie has been a fine interim president. If he has somehow failed to fulfill the vision of the board of regents, however, then that should be part of the discussion. Absent that, it just looks like more parochial bickering at TSU, which is exactly what the university does not need.
Tresaugue's second story from last week offers no more enlightenment as to why (some) regents want to push Boddie out:
[Regents chair Glenn] Lewis has praised the performance of Boddie, a retired Air Force brigadier general who has led the chronically troubled university for nine months. But Lewis said a different set of skills may be needed to move the university forward now that Boddie has addressed the immediate problems exposed by the spending scandal that led to the ouster and indictment of former President Priscilla Slade.
Boddie came to campus "in an emergency situation, when the university needed stability," Lewis said. "Now we want to take a few more steps toward a permanent presidency."
How is appointing another interim president (with the learning curve that entails) a step toward a permanent presidency? Wouldn't it be more of a step for the regents to lay out a vision for TSU and its next president, and to put their search for a new leader in high gear, instead of simply booting an interim president they praise and replacing him with one of their own?
From the outside, it looks more of the parochial politicking and bickering that has hurt TSU over the years, as Rev. Lawson suggested in the first story.
Unsurprisingly, the Chronicle's Editorial LiveJournalists found all of the vague, unsubstantiated assertions about booting General Boddie entirely convincing. From their Saturday editorial on the topic:
Actually, there are several sound reasons for new leadership at this time. The most important is that a change in management could place Texas Southern University on a path toward solutions to its chronic mismanagement and low graduation rate. With its house in order, it could build a reputation that would attract top students and faculty.
People familiar with TSU's problems are careful to point out that no failure on Boddie's part initiated discussion of replacing him. "He did an excellent job in a tough situation," said state Rep. Garnet Coleman, whose district includes the university. "Now it's time to clear the decks and get TSU ready for someone else (to fill the seat permanently)."
[snip]
A search committee developed a list of 12 candidates for the post. Of those, sources say, at least a handful are well-qualified people who might make a good fit for the university's top job. Had TSU not been operating under its cloud of scandal, that pool of qualified candidates undoubtedly would have been larger. Apparently, enough stakeholders believe the candidate pool is too shallow and that it would be better to take time to attract more applicants.
And that's where a new and impressive interim president could make the crucial difference. An effective interim would be a person who, as Coleman put it, could "clear the decks" — of the taint of scandal and the perception that many faculty members and administrators long ago should have been shown the door.
An "effective interim?" It looks as if this one wasn't proofed very carefully. Nor does it seem that the matter at hand was considered very carefully. If General Boddie has done an excellent job on an interim basis, then why does he need to be replaced with another "interim" (as the Editorial LiveJournalists put it), an "interim" who would serve the university best by focusing on his current job as chair of the regents (i.e. crafting the regents' vision for TSU and finding the right permanent president to execute that vision).
If someone can point to any solid reasons that General Boddie shouldn't continue to serve as interim president while a search is conducted for his permanent replacement, it would be great if those became part of the conversation about TSU's future. But the vague assertions from people who want to dump him -- which apparently include the Editorial Board of the area's newspaper of record -- thus far haven't been convincing.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/05/07 02:43 PM |
04 August 2007
Will Metro save the trees along MLK?
Last week Kevin Whited noted this KHOU-11 story on the displeasure of some residents with Metro's plan to run BRT/light rail down MLK:
The trees so carefully placed along the MLK median could soon give way to trains.
Metro’s plan to improve mobility calls for new lanes in the center of MLK, first for new guided buses, and eventually for light rail.
Dee Simon is having none of it. “We’re not willing to see our boulevard, named after one of our heroes, torn up. Look at the damage light rail construction has caused downtown, and it still hasn’t recovered.”
[snip]
Simon says she’ll fight on, to preserve the tree-lined MLK.
Does Metro plan on saving the trees that line MLK? UH is currently relocating 25 big oak trees that are in the way of a housing project, according to the Chron's East End/Third Ward Community News section.
Metro needs to do the same.
MORE: UT recently moved 16 oak trees, as part of the Memorial Stadium expansion project. See, Metro, it can be done!
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/04/07 09:29 AM |
[Previous 20 Entries] [Next 20 Entries]