Author: mopress

Editorial
By Greg Moses

The term mainstream keeps coming up as an aspiration for Democratic Party strategists, and this worries me.

For one thing, mainstream to me screams status quo, and how are we ever going to get anywhere with an aspiration like that?

For another thing, if I go to the party website for Texas Democrats, I find mainstream on one page and grassroots on another. And I want to know, how can you do both at the same time?

Grassroots sounds okay to me. It means that you’re looking to the rising aspirations of people who have not yet come to full power. It means that you’re trying to affect if not revolutionize the mainstream. It means, in the words of Amy Goodman, who spoke in Austin yesterday that you are going where the silence is in order to hear what the future needs to be.

By comparison, mainstream is quite a defensive slogan. It tends to increase pressure to NOT listen to new and troubling voices.

Or to put it another way, Martin Luther King, Jr. talked about the difference between a thermometer and a thermostat. Mainstream is a thermometer measurement. It tells you the temperature of the political climate as it exists. Grassroots on the other hand is a thermostat concept, because when you get into it, you start wanting to change the temperature.

So, to Texas Democrats, a word of encouragement: drop the mainstream language.

Danny Glover last night at the benefit for the Texas Civil Rights Project whispered the famous Langston Hughes line: “America was never America to me.” It was a profound reminder that “mainstream” has never been mainstream for so many worthy voices.

If I try to imagine the motivation behind the clinging to mainstream, the best motivation seems to come from a fear of losing the so-called culture wars, of being left (yes left) with the smaller faction of votes whenever the “wedge” issues get pounded on: issues like gay marriage, pot smoking, affirmative action, reproductive rights for women.

But the best answer to this fear was suggested a couple of weeks ago by Damu Smith of Black Voices for Peace when he addressed a peace conference in Dallas. He said if your program is comprehensive enough and is really aggressive on all matters of jobs and justice, then the wedge issues won’t kill you. I’m putting my own words to his message here, but he seemed to suggest that Democrats were vulnerable to wedge issues only because they were so weak on everything else: war, jobs, rights, whatever.

So Democrats have pieces of the answer already in their language and history. Grassroots, civil rights, housing, wages, women’s reproductive rights, workers’ organizing rights, full and fair education, rights to speech and assembly. It would be great if we could add to this list Peace.

Democrats could do worse than follow the general outlines of an American dream articulated by King (and wonderfully revived last night in a performance by Felix Justice). Fight racism, poverty, and war. Work on empowerment politically, economically, and ideologically. Apologize NOT for your attempt to make America BE America. And who knows, someday we might have a mainstream we can live with.

Meanwhile, the focus on mainstream is damaging needed attention to grassroots. How many words have been devoted by official Democratic channels to the bad voter bill introduced by Kaufman County’s Betty Brown? Well, I’m happy to report that the party channels seem to be working very well in this instance. Now compare that to the number of words that official party people have uttered in recognition of Kaufman County Commissioner candidate Brenda Denson Prince, who is STILL fighting her fair election contest, and you’ll find in the word-count difference the tragedy of a mainstream party trying to survive without its grassroots.

Or take another example from the Heflin-Vo contest. How many grassroots Democrat voters were harassed by Republican attorneys in this race? Again, let me applaud any support that the official party mechanisms have thrown toward newly elected state rep Hubert Vo. But let me also wonder out loud, where is the matching concern for the grassroots voters that made Vo’s victory possible?

The mainstream strategy expresses and encourages a politics that will surely wither the aspirations of grassroots values as it ignores the struggles of ordinary Democrats who seek empowerment through voting and elections. So it is PAINFUL for me to watch Democrat officaldom (officialdumb?) holler “Mainstream!” and whisper “grassroots.” Surely, this is a hollow strategy that will collapse under the weight of its own pretensions.

If the leadership of Howard Dean means anything here, then the so-called grassroots movement among Texas Democrats will not prove to be just another mainstream shelter for a wanna-be status quo. But when I look at the recent experience of Houston voters or one Kaufman County candidate, I am NOT encouraged by what I see.

---

Notes:

First posted Sunday, Feb. 20, 2005.

Greg Wythe considers and rejects the argument at GregsOpinion.

In short, even a good thermostat has to compare itself to a thermometer reading in order to measure progress. To do otherwise, is to seek out reform for the sake of reform alone – a chaotic proposition at best. A grassroots without a tether cord to reality is not a true grassroots movement so much as a loose cannon.

Wythe’s response seems to join in spirit with two brief comments posted at Democratic Underground that want to minimize the diff between mainstream and grassroots, as if “grassroots” posed a threat of some kind. These responses prove that any assertion of grassroots urgency will have difficulty even among self-described progressive Democrats. I should not be surprised by this, I know. But I am surprised. I had imagined that “progressive” included a vigorous “grassroots” commitment. Now I have to ask, what does progressive mean, anyway?

While Wythe’s response announces a disagreement, in fact it affirms a main assumption: that a thermostat or a grassroots movement aims to change the existing temperature or status quo. Yet the prospect of such change seems to make Wythe nervous. Again, I have to figure out why a self-described “progressive” thinks that “grassroots” reform cannot be reality based. For me “grassroots” reform is where emerging realities are born. Perhaps this is what makes me a self-described “lefty.”

On the other hand, SoniaS at DU says there is a self-described grassroots movement in the Democratic Party:

We’ve all heard that saying “if ain’t broke don’t fix it”. Well that’s the m.o. around the party still, but at least they are now willing to try. The grassroots committee is completely brand new. They just set that up at the last SDEC meeting in January. The SDEC simply wouldn’t give up on that. Supposedly it had been proposed for many years but never approved. I think the success of the Dean organization finally woke them up. And I mean success, in terms of the Democracy for Texas growing, the Progressive Populist Caucus growing, and what happened with Travis getting bluer etc.

Sonia’s reply indicates that “grassroots” is a term that has finally achieved practical value in 2005. We’ll see what comes out of the Saturday meeting of the Progressive Populist Caucus.

Aside from the philosophical debate, two specific questions remain: will Democratic officaldom respond to the needs of either Brenda Denson Prince or the Democratic voters who were harassed in Houston? Maybe “grassroots” is not the best way to describe what’s being ignored here.

Editorial
By Greg Moses

In a failed editorial on Sunday, I noted that Democratic officialdom was ignoring two things: the ongoing effort by Brenda Denson Prince to win election to Kaufman County Commissioner, and the harassment of Houston voters by Republican attorneys during the Heflin-Vo election contest.

The editorial failed, because it attempted to name the ignored topics under a general heading: “grassroots.” Since the Texas Democratic Party website makes use of the “grassroots” term, I thought the label would help to rally interest not only toward Prince and the Houston voters, but to a general will of some kind. But I was wrong about this. “Grassroots” turns out to be a pretty useless word. For some, it is no different than mainstream, for others it raises fears of loose cannons. I have learned that “grassroots” is a poor term to use when attempting to mobilize “progressive” Democrats.

So let’s forget the general terms and stick to the facts. Democratic officialdom has NOT publicly responded to the harassment of Democratic voters in Houston or to the ongoing struggle of Brenda Denson Prince in Kaufman County. These are just the facts. The official website of the party says many things, but nothing about Prince or the harassment of Houston voters.

By Greg Moses
Texas Civil Rights Review

Indymedia Austin / NorthTexas

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund is ready to take its school funding case to the Texas Supreme Court says attorney David Hinojosa. But MALDEF is worried that the legislature is once again failing to meet several school-funding standards already set by the courts.

On Friday the Supreme Court announced that it would take probable jurisdiction of the school funding case, setting a hundred-day calendar for pre-hearing briefs. MALDEF had resisted moving the case to the Supreme Court until an Austin trial court strengthened its ruling on funding equity, but now Hinojosa says MALDEF is not expecting to hear anything more from the lower court.

“We’re ready to go forward,” said Hinojosa when contacted by telephone at his San Antonio office. “We feel we have precedent to support our case, and if the court will apply the facts to that precedent, it will rule in our favor and in favor of the children of Texas.”

Meanwhile, Hinojosa says that the legislature is trying to answer “constitutional questions with political answers” and is therefore missing an opportunity to directly address solutions that are needed.

“MALDEF would be more than pleased to assist any of these legislators to craft a finance plan that will make it possible to never, never file another lawsuit,” says Hinojosa. But he doesn’t see such a plan in the works yet.

“It seems simple to put 100 percent of Texas students inside a single equitable system that offers equitable and adequate funding for everyone,” said Hinojosa Tuesday evening. “But the legislature is answering constitutional questions with political answers, and that’s where the problems occur.”

Hinojosa says the school funding plan now being considered by the legislature would increase the total percentage of students included in a fair system. But the smaller percentage of students left out will result in more dramatic disparities between the richest and poorest districts.

“The equity gap will grow,” says Hinojosa, “giving some students so much more of an advantage. Yet these are public schools we’re talking about.”

“The legislative plan is lacking in many elements,” says Hinojosa. “It is not addressing root problems identified by the trial court, especially when it comes to the inadequacy of state funding for students who are bilingual or economically disadvantaged.”

“And this plan doesn’t even include facilities, which are grossly inadequate and grossly inefficient,” added Hinojosa. “The plan fulfills a legacy in the legislature of failing to fulfill the educational needs of the children of Texas.”

Part One of final argument by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in the 2004 Texas school funding trial. Delivered on Sept. 15 by attorney David Hinojosa in the District Court of Judge John Dietz.

Your Honor, if it please the Court, “lost opportunities” are two simple and yet profound words to describe why our clients, the Edgewood intervenors, appear once again in court.

Lost opportunities for our clients to provide a quality education to each and every child in their district because of the inequity in funding between property poor and property rich districts.

Lost opportunities for our clients to provide a quality education to each and every limited English proficiency child in their district because of the insufficient weight and allotment provided for bilingual education.

Lost opportunities for our clients to provide a quality education to each and every poor child in their districts because of the insufficient weight and allotment provided for compensatory education.

Lost opportunities for our clients to provide a quality education to each and every child in their districts because of the inequitable and insufficient funding for facilities, forcing our districts to place their children in overcrowded, deteriorating and unsafe facilities.

And all of these lost opportunities lead to the most glaring, the most disheartening opportunities lost, and those are for our Texas children.

Lost opportunities for our children to succeed in school, to make the most of their abilities, and to learn in facilities that are safe and not overcrowded, ultimately lost opportunities to fully participate in the social, economic and educational opportunities that present themselves now and those that await them in the future.

Our clients ask for nothing more and our children deserve nothing less. And what our children deserve is exactly what our Constitution guarantees.

Is it too much to ask our great state of Texas for equal access, meaningful opportunities for each and every child, whether they’re rich or poor, black, white, Hispanic or whatever other race or ethnicity, whether the children live in Alamo Heights or in west side San Antonio, in Edgewood, in the downtown suburban district of Highland Park, or the
little town in the Valley known as Edcouch-Elsa.

Each and every child has a constitutional right to access meaningful opportunities. Yet the State defendants, whom we entrust to deliver these opportunities to our children are the very same ones who deny our children.

Your Honor, I would like to introduce some of our clients who were able to join us in court today, representatives of the Edgewood intervenors. And I would ask them to stand at this time.

I would also like to acknowledge our team of lawyers and staff who are present today. I won’t go through the names, because there’s kind of a long list here today.

And I would like to also acknowledge our attorneys from Meta, Jennie and Roger from Boston, who came down and joined us, and Leticia from UNLV, who aren’t present today but who committed their time and energy in our fight for justice, as well our intern, one of which we have here today, who continued to help even after their internship had expired.

So is the notion of equal access to meaning opportunities for each and every child simply an ambitious, unattainable goal? Well, if it is labeled as such, there can be no explanation for it, because our Constitution does not allow for it.

So how are they denying children access to opportunities? Now, that question was answered in this case, at least by a preponderance of the evidence. And I would submit to you that the evidence most likely even climbed the hurdles of being clear and convincing, without even needing to, of course, as our designated focus districts, who represented all of the 22 Edgewood intervenors, as agreed upon by the State, have exhibited.

How has the current system caused our children to lose opportunities because of the inequity in funding between the property poor and property rich districts?

Well, it’s by allowing the average property rich district, the Chapter 41 district, to be provided with more than at least $1009 per WADA, weighted average daily attendance — as we found out, which is slightly more than just one child — $1009 more than the average property poor district, that is, the Chapter 42 district. And how can that be?

All of the research, every single opinion offered in this case — save for one, and that was of an expert offered and paid for by the State, all of those opinions and the evidence offered in this case point to the fact that children in property poor districts should
receive more resources in order to bring them up to a level playing field.

The tax payers in the districts, both Chapter 41 and Chapter 42 districts, are paying the same tax rate, yet the average property rich district manages to take home at least $1009 more per WADA than the property poor district.

What this amounts to is $20,000 for a classroom of 20, at least $600,000 more for a campus of 600, and at least 5 million more for a district of 5,000 students.

All of that money going to property wealthy districts, those children who are lucky enough to live in that district’s boundaries, for those who live on the right side of tracks even in this day and age, to access $5 million more of opportunity to succeed in life.

And for those unlucky children living on the other side of the tracks, this gross disparity amounts $5 million of lost opportunities to succeed in life, even though the parents of those children are making the same tax efforts, paying the same tax rates as the parents who live on the other side.

And the evidence showed that $1009 of WADA difference resulted from a number of provisions. Those provisions include the hold harmless provisions that were promised to the Court in 1995 to be phased, but were instead phased in, phased up and written permanently into law.

They include the compensatory education set-asides, where a Chapter 41 district gets the full benefit of .2 weight for compensatory funds, while the property poor district must set aside 10 percent of their compensatory ed funds and therefore receive what amounts to only .18 weight for the property poor district.

It includes the Available School Fund allotment that operates with an effective bonus for Chapter districts but is lumped into the State aid received by Chapter districts.

It includes discounts on recapture, wherein Chapter 41 districts can benefit from entering into early agreements, agreements that they must enter into anyway, and they receive either 4 to 5 percent benefits on selecting one of the two recapture methods.

The Tier 2 guaranteed yield cap in which property poor districts are guaranteed up to an equalized wealth level of $271,400, but the wealthy district are able to take advantage of a wealth level of $305,000.

The Tier 1 guaranteed basic allotment gap.

Once again, the property poor districts are equalized for a basic allotment of up to 295,000 per WADA. Property wealthy districts are able to take advantage of a wealth level of 305,000.

Also the facility funding gap, in which property poor districts must tax at substantially higher rates to raise funds to pay for the same amount of bonds simply because of the substantially lower tax base, coupled with the limitations on State funding and the absence of recapture from the facility funding.

But the $1009 gap, that doesn’t tell the entire story. What was commonly referred to as $600 gap found by the 1995 Supreme Court in Edgewood IV has actually grown to $1670 per WADA.

Dr. Cortez used the same analysis performed by then State defendants’ witness, Lynn Moak. And in that analysis, it showed a projected gap in revenue of $631, when comparing the 5 percent of students in the wealthiest districts versus

the five percent of students in the
poorest districts.

Dr. Cortez’ analysis, undisputed analysis compared the 5 percent, once again. And the evidence shows that the equity gap has grown to almost 300 percent higher than the projected $600 gap back in 1995.

For classroom of 20 students, this translates to over 33,000 more for the children in the wealthiest districts. For a campus with 600, $4 million more, and for a district of 5,000 students, this translates to more than $8.3 million dollars for the children fortunate enough to be able to live in and attend the public schools in the wealthiest districts.

Even with similar tax efforts by the parents in each of the respective districts, the wealthy districts have access to over $8 million for their children.

The Honorable Paul Colbert also analyzed the equity gap looking at what is referred to as the actual gap. And he depicted a gap in favor of Chapter 41 districts in the amount of of $1,716 up to $1,868 per WADA in favor of the rich districts.

His alternative analysis confirms Dr. Cortez’ analysis. And even when you look at the State’s own witness, Dr. Joe Wisnoski, even after he manipulated the figures used by the Honorable Mr. Colbert, he offered evidence of an equity gap existing between an average of $929, but looking at maintenance and operations only — he didn’t even touch facilities in that analysis — in favor of wealthy districts over the poor.

He said nothing to discount the gap by Dr. Cortez. The State did not touch Dr. Cortez’ analysis or even attempt to address the analysis, even though it was the same analysis used by Mr. Moak for the State in 1995 and adopted by our Texas Supreme Court.

What does this equity gap mean to our property poor districts? It means that, despite similar tax efforts between taxpayers in the rich and poor districts, the wealthy districts are able to generate substantially more revenue, and greater revenue translates into greater opportunity for the children in the property rich districts.

The wealthy districts are better able to hire, recruit, train, develop and retain quality teachers. They’re able to hire more specialized support staff, including counselors, curriculum specialists.

They’re able to offer a broader and more rigorous curriculum, and even to provide far better opportunities to their students to achieve their potential and to fully participate in the social, economic and educational opportunities of our state and nation.

I am not saying that they’re able to provide what is required by our Constitution because of that equity gap. They just have more in their efforts to reach toward the meaningful opportunities.

So 15 years after Edgewood I was announced, proclaiming justice for property poor districts, the Edgewood intervenors stand before you once again because the equity gap still exists and, in fact, has grown to unconstitutional proportions. And who suffers? Who loses out on opportunities to succeed and to escape poverty?

It is our children who attend the public schools in the property poor school districts, such as those of the Edgewood intervenors, and at no choosing of their own, oftentimes at no choosing of their parents.