The Canadian Record (Canadian, Tex.), Vol. 115, No. 28, Ed. 1 Thursday, July 14, 2005 Page: 2 of 24
twenty four pages : ill. ; page 13.5 x 11.33 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THURSDAY 14 JULY 2005
THE CANADIAN RECORD
(^(UtudciUi,
RECORD
EST. 1893
INCORPORATED FEBRUARY 1938
SEN EZZELL
Editor & Publisher 1948-1993
NANCY EZZELL Publisher
LAURIE EZZELL BROWN Editor
editor@canadianrecard.cam
OLIVIA SIMS, HOLLY HENDERSON
Advertising
advertising@canadianrecard.cam
alivia@canadianrecard.cam
CATHY RICKETTS News/features
news@canadianrecord.cam
JENNY KLEIN News
jenny@canadianrecord.cam
MARY SMITHEE Office Manager
mary@canadianrecord.com
DESIGN & PRODUCTION
Laurie Ezzell Brown
Cathy Ricketts
PHOTOGRAPHY
Laurie Ezzell Brown
Cathy Ricketts, Jenny Klein
USPS 087-960
PO Box 898, Canadian, TX 79014
Phone: 806.323.6461 or 5321
Fax: 806.323-5738
Periodicals postage paid at the
Post Office in Canadian (Hemphill
County), Texas. Published weekly
in Canadian by Nancy M. Ezzell
POSTMASTER: Send address
changes to The Canadian Record,
PO Box 898, Canadian, TX 79014
SUBSCRIPTION RATES:
S25/S30/S3 5 Annually
State Capital
Highlights
By Mike Cox
TEXAS PRESS ASSOCIATION
AUSTIN—-With less than 10 days remain-
ing in the 30-day special session, state law-
makers continued their trudge toward pas-
gage of a property tax relief bill with school
funding waiting in the on-deck circle.
The full Senate met Sunday to consider
hundreds of pages of amendments to its ver-
sion of House Bill 3, property tax reform. At
3:15 a.m. on July 11, senators emerged with
20 amendments. Their version will have to
be reconciled with the House version, by a
Senate-House conference committee.
Both House and Senate aim to pay for
the proposed property tax cuts by expand-
ing sales and business taxes, but it remains
to be seen if the two bodies can agree on the
mix and the method.
Briefly, the Senate version lowers prop-
erty taxes to $1.30 per $100 valuation in
2006 and $1.25 in 2007, while the House
version, which passed by a single vote, caps
the rate at $1.23 and $1.12, respectively. The
Senate voted to increase the sales and use
tax one half-cent to 6.75 percent, but the
House voted for a full-cent increase to 7.25
percent—the highest in the nation.
The House version spreads more of
the tax to Texans whose annual income is
less than $100,000 and more than $15,000.
Of course, raising taxes in Texas is still
frowned upon. To assure public knowledge
of those responsible for any increase instate
taxes, Rep. David Leibowitz planned to at^
tach a floor amendment to HB 3 on second
reading.
However, a House rale requiring all
amendments to be revenue-neutral forced
Leibowitz, D-San Antonio, to withdraw the
amendment. Leibowitz's amendment would
have (1) required the House to post on its
Web site a notice showing how each mem-
ber voted; (2) required the governor to own
up by posting a notice that he had signed the
legislation; and (3) required the governor
to really own up by publishing paid quar-
ter-page notices in statewide and regional
newspapers—since most Texans still reach
for a newspaper.
Even without a big, honking public no-
tice, Grover Norquist, director of the Wash-
ington, D.C.-based Americans for Tax Re-
form, is sure to get wind of any tax increase
and who is responsible. His organization
finds candidates to run against incumbent
GOP lawmakers who either refuse to sign
its no-new-taxes pledge or break their
pledge by voting in favor of a tax increase.
Austin-based Center for Public Pol-
icy Priorities could not be farther from
Norquist's group on the tax issue. The pro-
gressive think tank repeatedly has urged
the Legislature to recognize a State income
tax as a way to improve school funding, less-
en the property tax burden on homeowners,
provide better health care for children and
needy adults, and boost the quality and cov-
erage of child protective services.
Just whose job is it, anyway?
The Texas Supreme Court heard argu-
ments in the state's appeal of a district court
ruling that declared the current school fi-
nance system unconstitutional. If the high
court upholds the lower court ruling, the
Legislature will be required to rebuild the
school finance system to meet constitutional
standards by Oct. 1. If the lower court rul-
ing is overturned, the Legislature could
stand pat with the current system, which
was devised by the courts.
Texas Constitution Article 7 Section 1
says: "A general diffusion of knowledge be-
ing essential to the preservation of the lib-
erties and rights of the people, it shall be the
duty of the Legislature of the State to estab-
lish and make suitable provision for the sup-
port and maintenance of an efficient system
of public free schools." In arguments before
the court, lawyers representing more than
300 school districts said the constitution
requires the state to give all Texas school-
children equal access to education and it is
up to the judicial branch to enforce the con-
stitution. Lawyers from the Texas attorney
general's office argued that the wording
means Texans must abide by a school fi-
nance formula devised by the Legislature,
not the judiciary.
A ruling may take weeks. And any prog-
ress on school finance by the Legislature
during the special session runs the risk of
being deemed unconstitutional.
So, special interest groups and all three
branches of government could find them-
selves back at their drawing boards in the
fall. School districts may find themselves
relying, as usual, mainly on their own re-
sources, plus stop-gap funding meted out at
the governor's discretion.
Eminent domain added to call
The Fifth Amendment says "nor shall
private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation." During its just-
ended term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that homeowners could lose their residenc-
es when the state has a compelling interest
in taking private property for public use.
To address this ruling on the state level,
Gov. Perry added eminent domain as an is-
sue for the Legislature to consider in the
first called session.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
They had the right, but
was it the right thing to do?
I WAS BORN IN CANADIAN. So was my mother. So was my grand-
father. And despite the faet that I moved away 13 years ago, I still call
Canadian my hometown. Those years away allowed me to leave behind
bad memories and enabled me to focus on the good ones. And so, when
I decided to return to Canadian and be married in my hometown, I felt
it was the right decision. That feeling remained until less than three
weeks before the wedding when I received an unfortunate, but obvi-
ously much-needed reminder of why I left so many years ago.
My new husband, Nathan, is Buddhist. When my father originally
asked the Presbyterian pastor, John Duncan, about using the gazebo
at Purcell and Sixth, he did not hide my fiance's religion. The pastor
stated that it would be no problem to allow our wedding to take place
there, primarily because although we would be using churchproperty,
we did not want to marry inside the church. So with the sort of "hand
shake" agreement that occurs in so many small towns, the minister
stated that we were welcome to use the gazebo for our nuptials.
Plans were made. Invitations were sent.
Less than three weeks before the blessed event, we received word that
the Presbyterian session at the F irst Presbyterian Church had unani-
mously voted not to allow us to use the property. My famiy was told,
unoficially, that the fact that I was marrying a Buddhist influenced
the decision. It didn't matter that it was still going to be a Christian
ceremony. Officially, it was because the church needed it for another
event.
No event took place that evening at the gazebo.
Now, those who have experienced the planning stages of a wedding
know that a change of location—especially right before the event—is
difficult, to say the least. I had hoped for news that it was needed for
an important figure in the Presbyterian Church (USA) who was mak-
ing a surprise visit, to be informed that it was closed for renovation, to
be told that it couldn't be helped. I had hoped for an apology. Mostly, I
had hoped for something that would make this news sting less. Alas,
nothing.
In faet, when I contacted the Executive Presbyter in Lubbock to in-
vestigate the decision, I was told that the session had complete control
over who could and could not use the property. I was told that they
have every right to say no to us just because Nathan is a Buddhist.
They had the right to do it, but was it the right thing to do?
Could we have really been rebuffed because Nathan was a Buddhist?
I know Canadian is small, but aren't we in the 21st century? I would
hope that even a small town church would act in a Christian manner, to
a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jehovah's Witness, or otherwise. Surely
the leaders of a Christian church, and the leaders of the greater com-
munity, would not make such a narrow and intolerant choice?
I don't know, and I wasn't offered an explanation for the decision. Na-
than wasn't asked to explain what led him to his beliefs. We were not
asked what would take place during the Ceremony. The church didn't
ask us to have a Presbyterian minister perform the ceremony. So the
question still lingers: why?
I did not send this letter until the wedding passed, partly because I
knew that the church would rectify the situation, and partly because
the best that could come of these events would be a community that
would take a step back and look around.
How did this reflect upon Canadian? Would you have ever known
about this behavior had I not written this letter? Is this the way you, as
a community, want to be seen? More importantly, do you want this to
be the accepted behavior in your church or your community, known or
unknown? I hope the answer will be no.
SARA P. (CROUCH) SCHMIDT, Kerry i lie
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Brown, Laurie Ezzell. The Canadian Record (Canadian, Tex.), Vol. 115, No. 28, Ed. 1 Thursday, July 14, 2005, newspaper, July 14, 2005; Canadian, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth220689/m1/2/: accessed May 3, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Hemphill County Library.