Author: mopress

We’re with Justice Brister in the early part of his dissent, when he
complains that the decision of the
Texas Supreme Court is too attentive to the arguments of rich
districts, and not attentive enough to the concerns of the poor.
"The constitutional guarantee invoked here requires an efficient system
of public schools; it cannot be used to demand more funding for an
inefficient system."

In the name of ‘efficiency,’ several school districts again
ask the Texas courts to close the Texas public schools unless the Texas
Legislature increases funding. Over the last two decades, we have been
asked to do this every two or three years, and have generally complied.
The Court goes too far by doing so again today. First, the Court finds
school districts are forced to tax at the highest possible rate only
because some of them do. Second, though only five percent of the
State=s school districts claim a single statute is unconstitutional,
the Court enjoins the State from distributing any money under the
current Texas school financing system, an order that applies to every
school district in Texas. Thus, because some districts get too little
state money, all districts may get none. It is hard to see how this
will help Texas school children.

Yet the Court also does not go far enough. By failing to
demand an ‘efficient system’ as the Texas Constitution requires, or to
demand standing and proof as Texas law requires, this case once again
focuses on short-term funding rather than long-term solutions.

Of course, the true goal of this litigation is to put pressure
on the Texas Legislature. We demanded legislative changes by holding
the Texas school-finance system unconstitutional in Edgewood I,
Edgewood II, and Edgewood III; we warned that we might do so again soon
in Edgewood IV and West Orange-Cove I. The Court fulfills that threat
today. But there is no end in sight; if the past is any indication, the
new funding will not last long, and public education will not change
much. Before we bequeath Edgewood VIII, IX, and X to our grandchildren,
we should consider whether we might do more by doing less. As the Court
fails to do so today, I respectfully dissent.

Having said this, Justice Brister then goes in a direction that is
troubling to the concept of public education. He would prefer to see
privatization, because the only way to an efficient anything is through
‘competition’. This is the kind of pressure he would put on the
legislature. "No one asked whether it might be efficient to transfer students across district lines, or transfer funds to private providers that could meet their needs better." So we see this dissent actually comes down to the right of
the opinion, not the left. Oh, Texas!

Here is the bottom line paragraph from today’s judgment from the Texas Supreme Court:

We now hold, as did the district court, that local ad
valorem taxes have become a state property tax in violation of article
VIII, section 1-e, as we warned ten years ago they inevitably would,
absent a change in course, which has not happened. Although the
districts have offered evidence of deficiencies in the public school
finance system, we conclude that those deficiencies do not amount to a
violation of article VII, section 1. We remain convinced, however, as
we were sixteen years ago, that defects in the structure of the public
school finance system expose the system to constitutional
challenge. Pouring more money into the system may forestall those
challenges, but
only for a time. They will repeat until the system is overhauled.

This means that the lawsuit initiated by ‘rich districts’ (the West
Orange Cove plaintiffs) has succeeded. They can tax and spend at higher
rates.

In the short run, the court is ruling against further claims
by intervenors from ‘poor districts’ (Edgewood and Alvarado plaintiffs)
that the funding of Texas schools is otherwise unconstitutional because
of alleged inequality and poor overall performance. But the court warns
that this short term ruling may be quite short term indeed if state
policy makers read this ruling as a vote of confidence.  Oooh.  Bet that’ll scare them into action!–gm

Note: the following article is true to the headline, because we (um, that’s just me mainly) contributed to the misdirection.  As it turns out, the Statesman reporter was dead correct.  The Austin Chief of Police did find fault with the officer’s use of force, ruling that if she had time to reposition herself before shooting Rocha, then she had time to check his hands to see if in fact he was holding a tazer.  See the full report in our downloads section.  And apologies to the Statesman.  Sometimes I should be a little more careful (as if you need to be told!)–gm

IndyMedia Austin

By Greg Moses

I wish the Austin American-Statesman would be a little more careful.

In today’s top story, an internal affairs
report from the Austin Police Department is said to have cleared the
officer who shot Daniel Rocha this past June. Says the Statesman,
the internal police review concluded that, "officer Julie Schroeder had
reason to think she was protecting herself and a sergeant when she shot
Rocha during a struggle June 9 in Southeast Austin." Yet, says
the paper, "Their conclusions contrast with those of Knee, the police
monitor and a citizens review panel, all of whom found that Schroeder
didn’t have to shoot Rocha. Knee fired Schroeder on Friday."

The problem with the paper’s intro is that it assumes the Chief and the
internal review panel are considering the very same issue, but that is
not likely to be the case. For the Chief to fire officer Schroeder on the basis of her use of
force, he would have to find something not found by the Travis County
Grand Jury who exonerated Schroeder from criminal charges earlier this
year. While it is possible that the Chief is taking this bold
route, I don’t think it’s very likely.

What’s more probable is that Knee’s decision is based on other issues of internal policy, besides use-of-force guidelines.

For instance, the Statesman in an earlier report on the recommendations
made by a ‘citizens panel’ to fire officer Schroeder, said:

It’s unclear what evidence the citizens panel reviewed
before making its decision or which policies they think the officers
violated. However, police officials said shortly after the shooting
that Schroeder and Doyle violated policy by not operating their patrol
car cameras during the incident. Doyle did not have a tape in his
camera; Schroeder has said she thought hers was functioning when it was
not.

These remarks suggest, as if the reporter doesn’t know for sure, that
violations of videotape policy might be the first place to look for
viable reasons to fire officer Schroeder and to discipline officer
Doyle.

If we follow this line of inquiry, then we would look to officer
Schroeder’s overall behavior as a police professional. The
so-called traffic stop on June 9 was an action completely under officer
Schroeder’s command and control, because it was in the context of an
undercover surveillance operation that officer Schroeder made the stop;
but a careful reading of affidavits about that night’s activities
suggest that officer Schroeder acted precipitously when she ordered the
traffic stop at that time and location.

Consider, for example the following statement by officer Doyle:

I had the mic in my hand and was preparing to advise over
the radio that the vehicle was turning right onto Pleasant Valley and
that I did not have a traffic violation yet. Before I could get out on
the radio I saw Officer Shroeder and officer Borton turning from south
bound Pleasant Valley to west bound Quick Silver. They pulled sort of
diagonally and to the front of the White SUV, but did not block the
vehicle. I believe officer Schroeder was driving and I noticed that the
Red and Blue emergency lights were activated. I knew we were on our
channel and that I need to switch to Frank radio to advise we were
making a traffic stop. I was also trying to get my emergency lights
activated.

In Doyle’s account of the traffic stop, we find him placed in a
position where he must now react to an impulsive traffic-stop maneuver
on the part of officer Schroeder. And from a police procedure point of
view, this was officer Schroeder’s grave mistake. She placed her
cohorts in the totally unnecessary position of having to scramble in
reaction to HER leadership during a surveillance operation that she was
directing. Here’s how Schroeder’s car partner officer Borton describes the setup:

I believe Officer Shroeder put our unit into reverse, onto
S. Pleasant Valley and decided to initiate a stop on the vehicle as it
stopped at the stop sign. Our emergency lights were activated and I
believe I advised Sgt. Doyle on channel 6B.

Quite consistent with officer Doyle’s account, Schroeder threw her
partners into a reactive operation when she impulsively called the
stop. As the plain reading of both affidavits suggests, the first
sign that officer Schroeder gave to her partners of an impending stop
was to throw her own car into reverse. If this is the picture
that chief Knee put together for himself, then he would have reason to
question officer Schroeder’s judgment as a police professional.
In other words, the question for Knee would not be ‘was officer
Schroeder justified in pulling the trigger’ but ‘did officer Schroeder
need to get herself in that position in the first place’.

In other words, if officer Schroeder did not have to shoot Daniel Rocha
on the night of June 9, 2005, it was because she did not have to put
herself in that position in the first place.

All I know is what I read, but to me the concern over officer
Schroeder’s professionalism seems a more likely concern on the part of
the Chief. If indeed this is the way things are going, we shall want to
ask some serious questions about the response of the police union to
Knee’s decision in this case. But at this point, from a citizen’s point
of view, we are only so far dealing with hypothetical logic.

NOTES:

—-Statesman Nov. 22, 2005

Austin police internal affairs detectives investigating the fatal
shooting of Daniel Rocha found that the officer who shot him did not
violate department policy on using lethal force, according to documents
released Monday.

In a 39-page summary sent to Police Chief Stan Knee in September,
investigators said officer Julie Schroeder had reason to think she was
protecting herself and a sergeant when she shot Rocha during a struggle
June 9 in Southeast Austin.

Their conclusions contrast with those of Knee, the police monitor and a
citizens review panel, all of whom found that Schroeder didn’t have to
shoot Rocha. Knee fired Schroeder on Friday.

–source:

Internal review: Rocha shooting broke no rules
Officer had reason to believe she and sergeant were in danger during struggle, report says. Tuesday, November 22, 2005

—————

—-Statesman Nov. 16, 2005

It’s unclear what evidence the citizens panel reviewed before making
its decision or which policies they think the officers violated.
However, police officials said shortly after the shooting that
Schroeder and Doyle violated policy by not operating their patrol car
cameras during the incident. Doyle did not have a tape in his camera;
Schroeder has said she thought hers was functioning when it was not.

–source:

Sources: Citizens group wants officer in Rocha shooting fired
Police union demands that city manager investigate who leaked panel’s decision.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, November 16, 2005

————

In a stunning piece of reporting by Lise Olsen, the Houston Chronicle
reports that the August 24, 1993 execution of Ruben Cantu punished the
wrong man for the 1984 robbery-killing of a Mexican immigrant.

[Nov. 21, 2005, 9:13AM, CANTU CASE: DEATH AND DOUBT
Executed man’s co-defendant says years of guilt have led him to try to
clear his friend’s name Silence vow blamed for ultimate penalty]
For California’s effort to execute Tookie Williams, see Phil Gasper’s blog.

The death penalty is barbaric, period. Stop killing in cold blood.–gm