Editor:

The Oct.25 Letter to the Editor, “Charter violates state code,” references a resident’s statement, made at the Oct.16 Charter Education Forum, that “the proposed charter contained an obvious violation of the Texas Election Code pertaining to collecting signatures on petitions.”

This alleged “obvious violation” is not a fact but merely the opinion of a resident who clearly opposes the proposed home rule charter, as evidenced by her “Vote No on Home Rule” signs placed throughout Windcrest.

The letter further alleges that the charter commission’s attorney “agreed that there probably was a direct violation.” This statement is also not factual and is not what the attorney said. The attorney stated there have been previous Texas Election Code-related court cases and challenges to petition procedures that have contained affidavits of circulator and validity of petition signatures provisions.

The proposed charter’s petition procedures do not contain these provisions, as defined in the Texas Election Code, and the procedures are distinct enough that they are not the same as those that have been challenged in the courts.

The proposed charter petition requirements are checks and balances to ensure that petitions will be processed correctly and fairly. Therefore, and again, there is no “direct” or “clear violation of the law” as the Oct. 25 letter suggests. If someone believes, however, that the procedures are a violation of what previous court cases have ruled, (s)he could legally contest or challenge them.

Let’s get— and keep— the facts straight!

Don Myles
Windcrest resident,
Moderator, charter educational forum

Not too easy, not too hard

Editor:

Pam Dodson’s Oct. 25 Letter to the Editor, “Question home rule ‘control’” is disingenuous, if not deceptive.

She opines that the proposed home rule charter “… makes initiative, referendum and recall extremely difficult …” with an initiative or referendum petition requiring 20 percent, and a recall petition needing 25 percent of registered voter signatures.

The Texas Municipal League’s “Texas HRC,” 1994, has data regarding petition signature requirements for 230 Texas HRCs. The principal author, Terrell Blodgett, is a nationally recognized expert on HRCs. He recommends that petition signature requirements should “… not be too easy, but not too hard.” He also recommends that recall requirements should be higher, because recall reverses a decision of the voters.

A statistical analysis of Texas HRC data reveals that the signature requirements range from 3 percent to 51 percent, with a mean (average) of 20 percent and 25 percent, respectively, of registered voters. The Windcrest HRC Commission chose the “middle ground” for the signature requirements — not too easy, but not too hard.

Dodson goes on to repeat the scare tactic that, under the HRC, the city could annex a surrounding area without citizen input. She fails to mention: the city already has such power; the HRC does not provide the city with any new annexation authority, and; the HRC provides that the city must follow Texas state law where the citizens are actively involved in the process.

I solidly commend passage of our city’s HRC by a “YES” vote on Nov. 6.

Jim Tremblay
Windcrest resident

Charter education still needed

Editor:

I want to express my appreciation to Edmond Ortiz for his excellent article of Oct. 25, titled, “Windcrest continues charter education efforts.” It was thorough and accurate, and the interviews were well done.

However, I do want to comment on the letters to the editor by Sil Crim and Pam Dodson in the same edition. No, Mr. Crim, there is no “obvious violation” regarding signature collection in the proposed charter. There is a provision in the proposed charter for which the Texas Election Code is unclear, as stated several times by our attorney, and in order to get a clear ruling on the matter, it may well be that it will have to be challenged in court at some time in the future.

There is an enormous difference between “obvious violation” and “unclear.”

With respect to Ms. Dodson’s view that the city would enter into binding agreements and implement the annexation process prior to knowing the outcome of a mandated citywide election in clear violation of the law, I can say only that you are dead wrong.

To both of these Windcrest residents, I offer the Home Rule Charter Commission’s heartfelt apologies. Unfor-tunately, we were not able to provide the education you clearly require.

Donna Ridenour
Windcrest resident

Board members should resign

Editor:

The incredibly inappropriate events surrounding the selection of a Judson School District superintendent are a disgrace to the community.

There is only one race, the human race. The examples we are trying to teach our children about diversity, tolerance and acceptance are obviously not the values embraced by this school board.

As a taxpayer and a parent of a child in the district, I’m sick and tired of hearing about the dysfunctional school board, and believe they should all resign their positions. A special election should be held and we can get some people on the board that can put the children first and not their personal allegiances.

If you can’t agree on one of the two internal candidates, eliminate both of them and move on to the other candidates. As I understand it, the day-to-day duties are already being done by one of them.

I believe that Dr.Ed Lyman’s resignation was not because he wanted a smaller school district, he knew what he was coming to when he took the job. I believe he got tired of trying to work with this school board.

The parents, children and community deserve better.

Signed
George A. Holmes

Charter misinformation

Editor:

The more (mis)information I get from the Windcrest Charter Commission and the Windcrest city administration regarding annexation, no term limits and additional complexity of city government, the less certain I am that the choice of “home rule” is a wise and financially thought-out commitment.

I am being told that in our “bedroom” community of Windcrest we need more protection, rules and guidance in the way we conduct business and maintain our homes and property. We have been told that we are in danger of becoming slums because some of us do not care about the appearance of our property and we need a few laws for control. I moved here because Windcrest jumps out at you as being a community that has pride in itself.

We were told that all the new administrative activities planned would be at no additional costs. When asked, we were told that there had been no actual financial impact study done to verify that fact.

I have not seen anything written in the proposed charter that would provide us, the residents of Windcrest, anything in the way of needed improvement in our community.

All I have found is the prospect of a more powerful and less answerable city government. Under the current format the administration was somehow able to commit, I believe, more than $250,000 on a still dubious, speculative venture. What is next?

Please vote in this critical election and make the results a true expression of the feelings of the Windcrest community.

Gregory Surfas
Windcrest resident

Bush wrong in SCHIP veto

Editor:

Shame on you, President Bush, for vetoing the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP).

Texas has about 1.4 million uninsured kids, highest rate of uninsured children in the nation. SCHIP helps working-class families whose income is too high to qualify them for Medicaid but who don’t make enough money to afford health insurance for their children.

Children’s health care is not some radical left wing idea. Ten years ago, conservative Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch and liberal Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy worked together to start SCHIP. Today, over 70 percent of Americans support the most recent SCHIP legislation, including 61 percent of Republicans.

For the cost of what we spend in 37 days in Iraq, we could provide health care for 10 million children for one year. Bush said he vetoed this bill simply to remain relevant. Ten million children are not irrelevant, Mr. Bush. It’s time to do what’s right for America’s children.

Candace Flenniken King
Schertz resident

Following Judson’s follies

Editor:

Though having left San Antonio in 2003, I still read the Herald online each week to find out “Whazzup!”

I greatly enjoyed the editorial about the Judson School District board of trustees a couple weeks back. Probably like many of you, it’s times like these when I wish I was a betting person. By betting on who would respond to that editorial, we could have made some real money.

After reading the response from a former board member, an impression remained that the editorial and his response were like comparing apples and spinach, because they didn’t really seem to share anything in common.

It was a great editorial and I eagerly look forward to the next one on Judson. I’ll bet many of you are so psychic that you can determine the subject!

Go Rockets!
David K. Wall
Mt Pleasant, Texas resident