Disruption or Texas Tax Revolt??? (3/13 tax hearing transcript)

This is an excerpt from the transcript typed up by Kathy Haigler on the hearing and emailed out last night. It seems to be from a clearer tape recording than the one I had yesterday when I typed up a partial transcript.

As best as I can tell, Mrs. Haigler's transcript accurately reflects the tape, which you can verify at http://www.house.state.tx.us/fx/av/committee78/30313p48.ram

For those who have not seen this yet, this is the incident that has been the source of all the controversy on the radio and was reported on in the Houston Chronicle article here: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/03/legislature/1817971

Greetings - I got us a thread!

THREAD! we don't need no stink'in thread!

I am on my way to Kansas to off Flyer as we speak .....

Jimt - as promised, my response:

The Houstonians were there at 8:00 AM, having been informed this was the time for consideration of the bill, and when witnesses would speak.

The Houstonians arrived there at 8 AM because that is the time that the hearing notice was posted in compliance with state law. You may find this notice here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/schedule/2003/C3852003031308001.HTM

In order to testify before a committee, you must register as a witness at the hearing's noted time. Committee hearings often take up several bills during a day, as was the case with this one. As a result, your bill isn't always the first one, nor is it always the last one. The only guarantee is that if you signed in as a witness, you will be called. That happened in this hearing to all who remained.

Based upon what the committee minutes indicate, they opened their hearing at 8:00 AM, as was on the notice, and continued to 9:55 AM, when they recessed for floor votes and, presumably, lunch. It is my understanding that the Houston group had in fact planned for a lunch event and used this time to hold it.

The committee returned at 12:00 and immediately took up Rep. Wong's bill - the property tax bill. Three of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Wong, Bohac, and Howard, spoke for an hour and 11 minutes in favor of it starting at noon.

Upon their completion, the chairman called in two officials from the Texas comptroller's office to outline the fiscal note to the committee, which is required by law to be attached to any bill with an fiscal impact. They spoke for another 18 minutes.

The chairman then called a representative of the Harris County Government who Rep. Wong had requested to address its impact - if you look at the transcript you can even see the point where Rep. Wong informed the Chairman that she had a list of people she wanted to testify. He spoke for another 38 minutes. When all that was concluded, it was 2:13 PM

The Chairman then allowed a few witnesses to speak, broken down between 3 against the bill and 3 neutral speakers. They occupied a combined total of 22 minutes time, only 15 minutes of which came from witnesses opposed to the bill.

Then, at 2:39 PM, Mr. Dan Patrick Goeb stood up and threw his fit, gathered the Houston group together, and marched out of the committee room. That is the indisputable fact of the committee record.

So yes, the group had been there since 8:00 AM. Of the period between 8AM and 2:39 PM, a breakdown of the Houston group's time spent is as follows:

1 hour, 55 minutes - waiting while the committee called the roll, opened the session, and addressed another bill.

2 hours, 5 minutes - attending a prearranged lunch program

1 hour, 11 minutes - listening to their own representatives who were sponsoring the bill advocate it before the committee.

18 minutes - listening to the Texas Comptroller's office present the statutorily required fiscal note of the bill to the committee

38 minutes - listening to a Harris County government official testify on the bill's fiscal impact on Harris County per the request of the bill's sponsor.

7 minutes - listening to neutral witnesses who had signed up to testify on the bill.

15 minutes - listening to opposition witnesses who had signed up to testify on the bill.

At that point, and after only 15 minutes of opposition testimony, Dan Patrick Goeb stood up in the middle of the committee hearing, began berating Chairman Hill and Rep. Hegar, then stormed out with his group.

By 3 PM, no one from the Houston group had been allowed to speak in favor of the bill.

Considering that the Houston group stormed out of there at 2:39 PM after only 15 minutes of testimony in opposition to it, it is no surprise that they had not spoken at 3PM. Heck, they LEFT THE MEETING on their own decision 20 minutes prior to that time!

The Chronicle article puts it this way: The Houstonians did not get a chance to speak on the bill because the committee took testimony from business representatives, lobbyists and governments officials first.

The Chronicle is being misleading in that statement. Of those "government officials," three were the BILL'S SPONSORS and those three took up almost 1/2 of the time between noon and Dan Patrick Goeb's outburst. Two more were from the comptroller's office to provide testimony on the bill's fiscal note. A fiscal note is REQUIRED BY LAW for all bills with a fiscal impact. The final government official, from Harris County, provided testimony AT THE SPONSOR'S REQUEST. That took them to 2:13 pm. 22 minutes later after only a small list of both neutral and opposition witnesses, Dan Patrick Goeb stormed out of the meeting. The only reason those people did not get to testify is the fact that they wouldn't wait through 22 minutes of testimony other than their own.

"There had not been one witness called in favor of the bill. To me that's not necessarily a balanced debate," Bettencourt said.

While Paul Bettencourt is certainly a strong leader on this bill, that is an inaccurate statement. In fact, prior to 2:39 PM there had been 3 WITNESSES in favor of the bill - the bill's three sponsors - who advocated it for one hour and eleven minutes straight

Mr. Bettencourt, who, unlike others from Houston, knows how committee hearings work, stayed around and got to testify himself for over an hour in favor later in the day.

Fred Hill's spin on this meeting is interesting, as is the nice letter from one "GOP" member who called the Houston group "rude, crude rednecks".

The quote, per the letter Dan Patrick Goeb has linked to from his website, refers to their behavior in the following:

"They acted like po-dunk uncouth rednecks with absolutely no decorum or respect"

Though this description involves name-calling of its own, I invite you to follow the link I posted above to the recording of the hearing and use the slide bar to forward to the 2:39 mark. Listen for yourself and, putting any political leanings aside, tell me if you honestly think what you hear is in any way civil, restrained, polite, proper, or within the committee's procedures. I venture to say, though I would not use the terms that the author of that letter did, that her description of the event was much more accurate than anything the Chronicle offered.

I heard a Hill defender on KSEV whining about maintaining decorum (although she called it "decor") as though nothing was more important than that. That a Republican representative rudely stiffed a large group of taxpayers didn't bother her at all.

Exactly how did he "stiff" them? By allowing 15 MINUTES of opposition witnesses to speak on the bill? By allowing the bill's sponsors to advocate it for an hour and ten minutes to the applause of the Houston group? By letting the Comptroller's office answer questions about their fiscal analysis of the bill that they are required to attach to the bill by law?

I've been to a few railroaded public "hearings" myself, and can understand why after waiting from 8 AM to 3 PM and not being allowed to speak, the Houston group got a little testy.

I too have testified extensively at hearings before. I have waited hours to do so, left for austin early in the morning to do so, and remained at those hearings till after 7 PM at night before they concluded. That is the way Austin works in any hearing. Yes, it is boring and frustrating, but it is also a fact of life. In fact, it is disingenuous to describe the entirity of that time as "waiting" when in fact 1 hour and ten minutes was spent listening to their own reps present and advocate their bill and another 2 hours and five minutes of it was spent at a pre-arranged lunch event that the Houston group's organizers held for the people on the buses!

This issue isn't going to go away. It's going to get louder.

Nor should it go away. It needs to be addressed and property taxes need to be fixed.

Mr. Hill's opponents are going to find an amazing level of support from Houstonians, if he doesn't have the common sense and common courtesy to let taxpayers speak.

Exactly how, in any way, did Hill "not let them speak?" When they were charging out of the room, he even told them to stay around and they would be called shortly! The record reflects this. Only a few minutes after they stormed out at 3:30 PM, Hill called a witness to speak against the bill. From 3:40 forward to almost 7 that night, the committee did nothing but hear from people opposed to the bill. Those who had left were called by name. The ONLY reason they did not get to speak is the fact that they stormed out of their at Dan Patrick Goeb's urging at 2:39 PM - they voluntarily excluded themselves from the process and therefore have only themselves to blame.

This is an excerpt from the transcript typed up by Kathy Haigler...

Ah, the lovely lady who calls Houstonians "rude, crude rednecks" and other condescending names.

The one who called in on KSEV and was so concerned about the "decor" (decorum) the Houstonians breached - while ignoring what Obergruppenfueher Hill had done.

Facts are facts. They were there at 8:00 AM, 100 folks who made a special effort to come. They were NEVER called on until after it was past the scheduled time for them to leave.

Yes, Dan Patrick can be a smarmy jerk. Yes, he can be over mouthy. Yes, sometimes he ticks me off even when I agree with his position.

All those are meaningless. What counts is they way our people were treated. Hill ENGINEERED it so they had no chance to speak. He knew in advance when they'd be arriving, and he knew in advance when they had to leave. He insured their voices would not be heard.

Kathy Haigler is a woman with an agenda. After her foul slurs on the Houstonians, she's got about as much credibility with me as Bill Clinton.

I have no intention of listening to 7 hours of drivel to find out what I already know.

Hill shafted us.

You must think I have no knowledge of bureaucrats and politicos and the games they play.

The irrefutable facts in the case are:
1) Hill knew these people were coming in advance.
2) Hill told them to be there at 8 AM.
3) Hill sets the agenda.
4) Hill opposes the bill - he has said so.
5) Hill did not call on them until after he KNEW they had to leave.
6) The Houstonians were pissed, and showed it.
7) Kathy Haigler wrote an extremely nasty letter, sent to many people, giving her own biased view of the injury to the "decor", and containing condescending slurs on the Houstonians.

There's no more to be said. You can dress it up with "transcripts", timetables, whatever you want. The committee was insufferably rude to my friends and neighbors, and that ain't gonna fly. No BS "agenda", no "opening greetings" crapola - they sat there for 7 hours until they had to leave, without being called on.

Hill and Haigler shame all Republicans. RINOs of the worst sort. Bill and Hillary types, motivated by desire for power, condescending to all not thought in their "class".

Screw 'em. And we will.

Ah, the lovely lady who calls Houstonians "rude, crude rednecks" and other condescending names.

In defense of Mrs. Haigler based on actually reading her letter (which is linked to off of Dan Patrick's website), she did not randomly call Houstonians "rude, crude rednecks." She wrote of the people who stormed out of the meeting that "They acted like po-dunk uncouth rednecks with absolutely no decorum or respect." Though, again, I do not approve of this choice of language, I must note that, having listened to the audio file of the event itself, the way they acted was not in any way civil, polite, or reasonable.

The one who called in on KSEV and was so concerned about the "decor" (decorum) the Houstonians breached - while ignoring what Obergruppenfueher Hill had done.

Exactly what did Hill do that was so terrible? Allowing the sponsors of the bill to advocate it amid cheers from the audience for over an hour? Allow a mere 15 minutes of testimony from the bill's opponents?

Facts are facts. They were there at 8:00 AM, 100 folks who made a special effort to come.

Facts are indeed facts, and they were there at 8 because those were the rules of the game. I've gone to Austin before as well to meet a certain time and sign up to testify, then waited for hours before they got to me. I presented a plan at last years redistricting board hearings - that meeting did not conclude until after 7PM that night. No, I did not like waiting around until 7, but that was how it worked and that is what I had to do. If you want to participate in a committee hearing, you have to go by the committee procedures. Taking your ball and going home when they don't call you at the exact moment you desire to be called simply doesn't work and simply isn't an excuse.

They were NEVER called on until after it was past the scheduled time for them to leave.

So the 2:39 outburst by Goeb was "scheduled?"

Yes, Dan Patrick can be a smarmy jerk. Yes, he can be over mouthy. Yes, sometimes he ticks me off even when I agree with his position.All those are meaningless.

It is not meaningless when his behavior was the thing that sparked the people to storm out of there!

What counts is they way our people were treated. Hill ENGINEERED it so they had no chance to speak. He knew in advance when they'd be arriving, and he knew in advance when they had to leave. He insured their voices would not be heard.

And exactly how did Fred Hill come up with this conspiracy?

Kathy Haigler is a woman with an agenda.

Whether she is or is not is a matter of your belief. But that is not the issue - the issue is the conduct of that hearing.

After her foul slurs on the Houstonians

She perhaps used improper language, but slurs on Houstonians? No. As the record clearly indicates, her terms were used to DESCRIBE THE BEHAVIOR OF SPECIFICALLY THOSE WHO MADE FOOLS OF THEMSELVES BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. She did not make a blanket attack on all Houstonians, nor were her comments directed at anyone but those who behaved with great incivility before that committee.

she's got about as much credibility with me as Bill Clinton.

Why, because she called a group of screaming and incivil individuals "rednecks?"

I have no intention of listening to 7 hours of drivel to find out what I already know.

You do not need to listen to 7 hours of anything. You need only open the file, drag the slide bar over to 2:39 PM, and hit play.

You must think I have no knowledge of bureaucrats and politicos and the games they play.

I do not know what knowledge you may or may not have of the process, but if you make posts that are not based on the facts of how the committee hearing occured, I will respond with corrections.

The irrefutable facts in the case are:

Let's look at them then.

1) Hill knew these people were coming in advance.

That is fine. Hundreds of such bus trips occur every session, and reps. often know they are coming.

2) Hill told them to be there at 8 AM.

Hill was required by law to tell them that time because that is the time when the hearing notice was posted. If they wanted to be witnesses, they had to abide by that notice. You may see it yourself here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/schedule/2003/C3852003031308001.HTM

3) Hill sets the agenda.

Yes.

4) Hill opposes the bill - he has said so.

Quote me where.

5) Hill did not call on them until after he KNEW they had to leave.

So you are saying that Hill KNEW Dan Patrick Goeb was going to stand up at 2:39 PM and tell everybody to storm out of the meeting?

6) The Houstonians were pissed, and showed it.

That is fine, but it is no justification for causing a scene.

7) Kathy Haigler wrote an extremely nasty letter, sent to many people, giving her own biased view of the injury to the "decor", and containing condescending slurs on the Houstonians.

That is a half-truth. Kathy Haigler wrote a letter about what she claims to have witnessed herself as a part of the Houston group there to testify FOR the bill. The "slurs" she used were specifically a description of the behavior of those who acted the way they did, NOT of Houstonians in generals. As for her being biased, she is certainly no more so than Dan Patrick Goeb, who has been accusing her of such yet was every bit as much of a participant in the incident if not more so.

There's no more to be said.

There is when you are presenting factually inaccurate accounts of the event, and that is currently the case.

You can dress it up with "transcripts", timetables, whatever you want.

In other words, you cannot dispute the facts of those transcripts, timetables, records, notices of the hearing, and official documents pertaining to that hearing, so instead you dismiss them as "dressing up" the event. In reality, those records are the strongest evidence of exactly what happened at the event. Unlike your biased account, Dan Patrick Goeb's biased account, Kathy Haigler's biased account, or my biased account, the word-for-word transcript of what happened speaks for itself and accurately portrays what occured at 2:39 PM and before it.

The committee was insufferably rude to my friends and neighbors, and that ain't gonna fly.

I listened to the tape and Hill remained perfectly calm throughout the whole thing. The only people acting rude and raising their voices were Dan Patrick Goeb and others in the group.

I listened to the tape and Hill remained perfectly calm throughout the whole thing. The only people acting rude and raising their voices were Dan Patrick Goeb and others in the group.

Undoubtedly Hill remained calm. He was getting his way.

Yes, Patrick was rude. After seven hours of waiting and seeing delaying tactic after delaying tactic successfully muzzle the Houston group.

I listened to Kathy Haigler for over an hour on the radio. She did not make a remotely favorable impression. She wants to defend the way Hill acted? Fine. "Decor" really is much more important than substance.

Hill went so far as to move the meeting to a larger room, knowing the group was coming. Are you saying it was necessary to insure no Houstonian got to speak between 8 and 3? He jimmied the agenda. I know how to play these games, and playing games is what he was doing. He was ticked and chose the snide, childish, condescending method of rigging the game to insure no opponent from the large group got to speak.

Hill had said in conversations with other legislators that he "didn't favor" the bill. I do not have quotes, these were private conversations, not newspaper or TV interviews.

Others have said they can't stand listening to Dan Patrick's show because of his attitude. Frankly, I agree and have for a long time. His supposed "talking over callers" isn't nearly as prevalent as his simply talking WITHOUT callers, where he's apparently reveling in his own voice and infallible opinions. Anybody who'd write a book and title it "The Second Most Important Book You'll Ever Read" has to be the First Most Inflated Ego You'll Ever Meet.

That said, there's no excuse for what Hill did. You can put a pig in an evening dress and slather it with makeup, but it's still a pig.

Kathy Haigler truly PRO the bill? A concerned Houstonian worried about her neighbors? Puh-leeeze.

Haigler and Hill are political lepers. Anything they touch in the future is going to rot. There's oodles of us pissed at them, we vote and we contribute, and they've Dixie Chicked themselves.

Pardon the interruption, but is Wong's bill a good one, or just another leg bandaid on a problem that needs to be Prop thirteened?

Oh yeah...we can't do that here in Texas.

Cheers, and thanks for showing up for us.

They were NEVER called on until after it was past the scheduled time for them to leave.

I don't understand this. Why were they scheduled to leave in the middle of the afternoon? Committee meetings very often run on into the evening, yet the "scheduled time for them to leave" was 3:00 in the afternoon? That doesn't make any sense.

Pardon the interruption, but is Wong's bill a good one, or just another leg bandaid on a problem that needs to be Prop thirteened?

It's only a start. There are several versions floating around. Hers caps the rate of yearly increase in assessed value at 5%, other variants are bills saying 3% and 1%.

We need to do more to keep the greedy governments' hands out of our pockets. This is only a stopgap. What really needs to be done is to CUT SPENDING.

But this bill is much better than getting shafted at a yearly rate of increase of 10% !

I don't understand this. Why were they scheduled to leave in the middle of the afternoon? Committee meetings very often run on into the evening, yet the "scheduled time for them to leave" was 3:00 in the afternoon? That doesn't make any sense.

Sandy, they were 100 people in a couple of chartered busses. They'd been up since 3AM so they could be sure to be there by 8AM. It's at least 3 more hours coming back home. So they'd have been on the go from 3AM to minimum 6PM and probably 7PM to 8PM after they drove home from the bus stop.

Still sound unreasonable?

Yes. When you journey to the capital to testify at a committee hearing, don't plan on being home until after midnight. Sheesh, these people left the hearing before a normal working day was even done. 9-10PM, that's the time to start getting annoyed, not in the middle of the day when there's no indication that the hearing is even close to being finished. These folks blew it.

It's certainly an outstanding way to insure regular folks won't be testifying at committee hearings, I must say.

So they should have planned essentially on two or three days, showing up at 8AM and staying until 10PM?

I find it hard to believe that the man who controls the agenda couldn't have extended a bit of courtesy and gotten them out of the way. There would be no controversy if he had. It was an unusual event and should have been handled as such. The group was given to expect that by being there at 8AM they would be heard. Obviously this was disingenuous.

Yes. When you journey to the capital to testify at a committee hearing, don't plan on being home until after midnight. Sheesh, these people left the hearing before a normal working day was even done. 9-10PM, that's the time to start getting annoyed, not in the middle of the day when there's no indication that the hearing is even close to being finished. These folks blew it.

Sandy, whichever side of this argument you are on, Hill called all the people who live in Austin first, knowing full well the Houston group would leave. I believe if they had all stayed he would not have called them until the next day, to be damn sure they were gone. The legislature plays this game all the time, though I had great hopes the Republicans would not.

Let us also be honest that Dan can be a pain, but GOPc has a long standing problem with him that goes much deeper than this discussion.

FYI ping.........

The group was given to expect that by being there at 8AM they would be heard. Obviously this was disingenuous.

Good observation. Now just who may have given them that impression? Certainly doesn't sound like Hill did. I too have been to gov hearings and had to sit forever before I could speak. It gets irritating, you're tired, you're hungry, and your temper is short by the time you're called to speak.

From what I've seen here (I can't listen to the audio due to some mysterious glitch on my computer), it would appear Dan has bought into his own PR - thinking they'd greet him with open arms because he's some celebrity. I'm sure he receives VIP treatment when he's local, but in Austin he's basically just another schmuck. Seems like he blew his top because people didn't jump fast enough. Throw in a group of tired/hungry/edgy citizens following his lead, and you have a semi-riot on your hands.

Poor, poor wittoo Danny Patwick got his wittoo feuwins hurt and tru a tempoo tantwum.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

He thinks that because he has his own radio program, he should be given special privileges in the real world. He thinks that because he can get away with being rude to callers to his radio program, that gives him carte blanche to be rude to anyone who doesn't agree with him, anywhere.

If we should eventually get the property tax bill passed, it will be because of people like the few normal, decent people who stayed and, when they were given the floor, politely made their points. But if that happens, you can bet that that arrogant, loudmouth, Patrick will be on the radio beating his own chest and taking credit for it.

I find being on the same side as Patrick, almost as disheartening as being on the same side as Pat Buchanan. In fact, in some ways, it's even worse, since I don't think that even Buchanan would ever throw a tantrum like Patrick did (of course, I could be wrong about Buchanan).

So they should have planned essentially on two or three days

Knowing that a hearing might take 12 hours, plan accordingly. Take a car; it's quicker. Drive up the night before and get a good night's sleep. Whatever it takes. And never expect a committee hearing to be over by 3 in the afternoon; that's just nuts. Bottom line, this trip was poorly planned. If they'd've stayed, they'd've been heard.