Moore County Journal

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune: Read More

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

The Texas Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill Thursday that would allow college athletes in the state to be paid for the use of their name, image and likeness, as dozens of states across the country consider similar legislation.

Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, who authored the bill, said allowing athletes to enter into these contracts would maintain recruiting competition for universities in the state as they wait for the NCAA or the federal government to approve national rules governing the issue.

“It is time for Texas to decide if we are or are not okay with sitting on the sidelines as other states around the country show that they value and respect college athletes from the state of Texas,” Creighton said on the Senate floor.

Some other lawmakers begrudgingly supported the bill, claiming the change would negatively impact college athletics which should be played “for the love of the game” rather than compensation which some feared would have negative consequences on collegiate athletics.

The proposal would not allow student athletes to be compensated for playing a university sport, it would only lift a ban on allowing student athletes to be paid by outside parties. Currently, students who accept money for their stature as college athletes could lose eligibility to play in the NCAA.

College athletes, under the legislation, would also be allowed to also hire an agent to represent them. It also requires athletes to take a financial literacy workshop during their first and third years. Student athletes would still be barred from entering into contracts with particular industries, including alcohol, tobacco products, casino gambling, a firearm the student athlete can’t legally purchase, or a “sexually oriented” business.

Creighton called on the federal government to adopt a nationwide system regarding the issue, which the NCAA has also supported over individual legislation by states. At least seven states have passed similar legislation since California first passed a law in 2019. The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard opening arguments in the case NCAA vs Alston over the issue.

Some senators who supported the bill argued college athletes deserve to benefit financially.

“The biggest winner in this needs to be all of the student athletes,” said Sen. José Menéndez, D-San Antonio. “We gain entertainment. Universities gain revenue, and they need to share in that because of their hard work.”

The bill now heads to the Texas House for consideration. If passed, the law will go in effect Sept. 1.

Mississippi and Florida have both passed legislation that will go in effect as early as July 1, though the NCAA could sue and file an injunction to stop these payments without the federal government’s official ruling. This week, Alabama also passed similar legislation. Colorado, Michigan, Nebraska and New Jersey have also passed similar legislation. A federal ruling would render all state laws moot.

The NCAA Board of Governors had voted to allow players to be paid for their name or likeness in October 2019, but the Division I Council postponed a vote on specific rules in January as they continued discussions with the federal government over rules.

Experts say most athletes would not see a huge financial windfall from the changes, except for star football or basketball players.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune: Read More

The Texas House on Thursday is slated to consider its two-year, $246 billion budget proposal in what could be the chamber’s most animated debate yet this legislative session.

House members have filed nearly 240 proposed tweaks to the massive spending plan and are expected to spend hours taking votes on controversial issues ranging from Medicaid expansion to border security.

Another potential point of contention: What to do with tens of billions of dollars in federal funding for coronavirus relief.

The House gavels in at 10 a.m. We’ll update this page throughout the day. And we’re also providing a livestream of the debate.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune: Read More

_{Editor’s note: If you’d like an email notice whenever we publish Ross Ramsey’s column, click here.}

_{If you would like to listen to the column, just click on the play button below.}

(Audio unavailable. Click here to listen on texastribune.org.)

A lot of the money available to the Texas Legislature for programs and services isn’t part of the state budget yet. It’s not even part of the debate.

As the Texas House begins debate on its version of the quarter-trillion-dollar spending blueprint for the next two years, billions of dollars of federal Medicaid money are in limbo, and Washington D.C., is waiting to see what Austin plans to do with programs that are jointly financed by the state and the feds.

At the same time, the state government hasn’t decided how to use the $38.6 billion in federal COVID-19 relief money sent our way by the Trump and Biden administrations.

The budgets under consideration by the Legislature are in the $250 billion range — about as high as they’ve ever been. But they don’t include billions that are likely to be spent here, one way or another, over the next two years.

Texas is one of a dozen states that has not expanded its Medicaid program since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, back when Rick Perry was governor and Barack Obama was president. The federal incentives have been sweetened on a program that already offered about $9 in federal money for every $1 spent by the state. One big current incentive would give Texas a more generous federal match on its current Medicaid spending if the state opts for Medicaid expansion.

Texas conservatives have held their ground, resisting an expansion they say would eventually raise taxes, create new entitlements and comes with federal requirements they can’t abide. Bills have been filed every session, including some by Republicans, without any change. There’s a new effort bubbling in the House this session. Expansion supporters say their legislation, still awaiting a committee hearing, has the support of more than half of the 150 members of the House — most of the Democrats and enough of the Republicans to have a majority. Expect that stalled legislation to appear in the form of an amendment to the state budget when it comes up.

If it passes, it could add more than $5 billion to state health care programs and services every year.

Another Medicaid program is in doubt. Last week, the Biden administration rescinded changes to the state’s “1115 waiver” — a federal funding agreement that would have extended the safety net for some of the state’s uninsured residents. That program covers uncompensated care in hospitals in Texas.

That funding won’t stop until the end of September 2022, so there’s time for the state to negotiate. But the administration’s move raised the stakes in a running back-and-forth between the state, which has pushed for compensation for hospitals while resisting Medicaid expansion, and a federal government that is trying to get Texas and other holdouts to cover more of their uninsured residents with expansion.

One way to analyze it: The Trump administration granted a 10-year 1115 waiver at the end of Donald Trump’s term; the Biden administration included those “sweeteners” in their COVID-19 relief bills that would improve the federal match in existing Medicaid plans. And when that didn’t work, they rescinded the waiver.

The 1115 waiver extension gave the state some room to work, removing pressure to expand Medicaid. Without that, talk of expansion has increased. It started coming from some new voices, too: A huge chunk of the Medicaid money coming into Texas — money in that 1115 waiver — comes in as supplemental payments to compensate hospitals around Texas without first making a stop in Austin. It’s not on the state’s books, but it’s critical to the state’s health care economy.

Now it’s time for the state to finish up work on the two-year budget that runs through August 2023, and Medicaid funding is up in the air.

But that’s not the only thing fluttering around. The federal aid coming out of various pandemic relief bills includes $16.7 billion for the state, $11 billion for local city and county governments, and $17.9 billion for public and higher education, according to the state comptroller. Most of that, and other money in the relief bills, would flow through the state government — a total of $38.6 billion.

Like the Medicaid money, that’s not folded into the state budget yet, either. That’s especially true of that $16.7 billion intended for state use. If it’s not in the budget, the Legislature might be leaving it for the governor to spend, without their advice and consent.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune: Read More

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Next fall, University of Texas at Austin students who play on the football team or watch in the stands can choose whether to sing the “The Eyes of Texas” at the end of the game.

But members of the Longhorn Band will be required to perform the university’s embattled alma mater, according to a press release posted on the Butler School of Music website Wednesday.

The university also announced it is creating a separate, not-yet-named university marching band whose members do not need to play the song to participate. It’s the latest development in a debate over the university’s alma mater that has deeply divided students and alumni.

“We need to celebrate and nurture what makes UT special, and the Longhorn Band is one of those great organizations that shape our campus culture, elevate school spirit and provide amazing opportunities for our students,” UT-Austin President Jay Hartzell said in the release, which also stated that Hartzell approved the plan. “Our multi-million-dollar commitment over the next five years will support the Longhorn Band in restoring — and even going beyond — its former glory, while also providing strong support for our entire portfolio of university bands.”

Both students in the Longhorn Band and the newly created university band will receive $1,000 scholarships on top of merit scholarships that will continue to be awarded. Section leaders in all bands will receive a minimum $2,500 scholarship.

According to the release, which was first reported by The Daily Texan, the new approach was born out of ongoing financial issues and concerns with “The Eyes of Texas,” which ramped up in earnest last June in the wake of the death of George Floyd, a Black man murdered by a white Minneapolis police officer. Black students and athletes called on the school to stop playing the song, citing that it originally debuted at a campus minstrel show where performers likely wore blackface.

Last July, President Hartzell said the song would remain, but the university would organize a taskforce to study its history. That entity’s report, which was released last month, found the song was not “overtly racist,” but did premiere at a minstrel show where students likely wore blackface and performed skits that perpetuated racist stereotypes of Black people.

Band members had previously refused to play the song at events due to its history and origins. Before the football game against Baylor University in October, the band said it would not perform the alma mater because a survey revealed they did not have “necessary instrumentation” to play the song. At the time, Hartzell said the band was never expected to play the song live at the football game due to COVID-19 precautions.

But emails show UT-Austin administrators had started to assess the band member’s temperature about the controversy in mid-June. Band director Scott Hanna provided an open-ended prompt to gauge members’ feelings of the song in June, according to an email Doug Dempster, dean of the college of fine arts, sent Hartzell.

“Remember, the clock is ticking down to fall ceremonial occasions and/or football games and we’re either going to have to play/sing the Eyes or not,” Dempster wrote to Hartzell.

According to emails obtained by the Texas Tribune, the debate over the song had also sparked anger and frustration among hundreds of donors and alumni who emailed President Hartzell pleading with him to keep the song. Dozens of donors mobilized to keep the song and others threatened to pull funding.

Those emails also show the song caused internal conflict between administrators in the Butler School of Music.

After athletic officials said football players would not have to stay on the field for the song after games, Mary Ellen Poole, director of the Butler School of Music, told band members that if students did not have to sing the song, “our students deserve the same consideration.” Poole wrote to students that band members would not have to play the song and would not be penalized if they chose to opt out.

“After meeting with student leadership of the Longhorn Band and the Butler School, I can confirm that they as leaders are uncomfortable with continuing to feature ‘The Eyes of Texas’ as a representation of their values,” Poole said. “I encourage each ensemble to decide for itself what its position will be on future performances of the song.”

Dean of the Fine Arts School, Doug Dempster, forwarded that email to Hartzell with an apology.

“Mary Ellen sent this out without advance warning or notice,” Dempster wrote. “Never consulted with me about it. Were you aware of this?Of course, no one has ever imagined ‘penalizing’ students who might refuse to play the Eyes. But this is a clear push from a department chair and a push against your decision as president, Jay. I’m sorry.”

Poole nor Dempster responded to email requests for comment or answered questions clarifying how the specific situation was resolved. In October, Dempster said in a statement on the university’s website that no one ever suggested penalizing students who don’t perform the song.

“However, conversations about students electing individually what songs they will and won’t perform have challenged the unity and viability of the Longhorn Band,” he said.

“Longhorn Band students and faculty are in the middle of a university-wide and national reexamination of values and cultural symbols. A range of well-informed convictions on this issue need to be considered respectfully as conscientious and honorable. But given the long-standing traditions and mission of a university spirit band, this disagreement needs to be resolved before the Longhorn Band can return to public performance.”

UT-Austin spokesperson J.B. Bird said the release published Wednesday represents the university’s views and did not answer emailed questions.

UT-Austin has multiple university bands besides the Longhorn Band and the Longhorn Pep Band, which performs at basketball and volleyball games. University bands include concert bands and ensembles. There could be opportunities for the Longhorn Band and the university bands to perform together.

Disclosure: Baylor University and University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune: Read More

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

After former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murdering George Floyd, the Associated Press reported that high-profile civil rights attorney Ben Crump wants to redirect national attention to the 2019 death of Pamela Turner, a Black Texas woman killed by a Baytown police officer.

“If you was outraged when you saw the video of George Floyd got killed by the police, then you should be equally outraged when you see the video of how they killed Pam Turner, an unarmed Black woman laying down on her back that he shot in the face, in the chest and in the stomach,” Crump said Tuesday, according to the AP.

Turner’s death was partially captured on video by a bystander. Crump is representing Turner’s family in a federal lawsuit filed earlier this year against officer Juan Delacruz, the city of Baytown and the managers of the apartment complex where the shooting took place. The trial is set to begin on May 25, exactly one year after Floyd’s murder.

According to a 2019 KHOU video, Baytown Lt. Steve Dorris said that Delacruz confronted Turner, 44, in the parking lot of an apartment complex where they both lived. Delacruz tased Turner, and the two began to struggle, Dorris said. The Baytown Police Department alleges that Turner then seized the Taser and attempted to deploy it on Delacruz, who then shot her five times.

Delacruz was not responding to a police call, according to the police department, but was patrolling the apartment complex when he spotted Turner, who he knew from “prior dealings” had outstanding arrest warrants, according to the police department.

The New York Times reported that Dorris could not confirm whether Turner actually tased Delacruz, and lawyers for her family allege that Turner would not have been able to manually reload the taser in order to use it in the altercation.

“Our officer was tased, and you have to understand what a Taser is. It’s a weapon designed to incapacitate people. The question is: ‘Was the officer in fear for his life?’ I think a logical person would say yes,” Dorris said to Click2Houston.

A grand jury indicted Delacruz for one count of aggravated assault by a public servant in September 2020, over a year after the shooting, according to Associated Press. Kim Ogg, the Harris County district attorney, said at the time that her office would be moving forward with prosecution.

Attorneys for Delacruz have alleged that the shooting was self defense.

Turner’s family alleges that the woman, who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, was suffering from a mental health crisis at the time.

Crump said he hoped Chauvin’s conviction would be a precedent for other cases of police shootings and stated he would hold a march for justice for Black women, including Turner and Breonna Taylor, an emergency medical worker who was shot and killed by Louisville police officers last March. Her mother, Tamika Palmer, joined Turner’s family at the press conference announcing their lawsuit earlier this year.

Chelsea Rubin, Turner’s daughter, told The 19th that she hoped the lawsuit would bring her family closure over her mother’s death.

“It’s been two years coming up since my mom’s death,” she said. “I’m not trying to wait anymore.”

Disclosure: New York Times has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune: Read More

When a neighbor’s dog nipped her hand near the fingernail last winter, Trish W. put off going to the doctor because it didn’t seem worth the dent it would put in her already tight budget.

It wasn’t until her hand swelled to the point where her finger nearly burst that she finally gave in.

The doctor told Trish, a 33-year-old from Canyon Lake who has a genetic blood disorder that hinders her ability to fight bacteria, that she’d narrowly escaped deadly sepsis and that she could have lost her hand. The hospital kept her overnight to be sure. She later received a $2,000 bill that she couldn’t afford.

“Of course as a single mother, you’re thinking, ‘Oh, my God, I might not leave this hospital,’” said Trish, who asked that her last name not be used in order to protect her family’s privacy. “‘This could be the last time I see my kid.’ And that’s terrifying.”

It’s a scenario she might have avoided with a Medicaid card, but her pay as a certified nursing assistant, which she said can reach $1,700 “on a good month,” means she makes too much to qualify under Texas eligibility rules — but not enough to buy her own insurance.

“I fall right in that gap,” said Trish, who lives in an RV with her 12-year-old son.

Texas lawmakers have been presented with billions of dollars in federal incentives this year to join 38 other states in expanding the state-run Medicaid program to adults like Trish who earn up to 138% of the federal poverty level.

That’s about $1,500 per month for an individual, or $3,000 a month for a family of four. Currently the threshold in Texas is about $200 per month for a family of two, or about $300 per month for a family of four.

Among several bills filed in the conservative Texas Legislature is a Medicaid expansion plan with bipartisan support that is similar to those adopted in some Republican-led states.

Nine House Republicans and all 67 House Democrats have publicly signed on to House Bill 3871, which would give it enough votes to pass the 150-member chamber. Although none of the proposals have gotten a hearing this session, Medicaid expansion is expected to be introduced in some form as a floor amendment Thursday when the House debates the state budget.

First introduced as part of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act in 2010, the requirement to expand eligibility for Medicaid was fiercely resisted by Republican-led states, including Texas, on the argument that it was fiscally unsustainable and, equally importantly, expanded an entitlement program when the goal should be to make people less dependent on the government.

Since then, however, all but 12 states have expanded their Medicaid programs.

Texas, meanwhile, has relied on a federal funding agreement, known as the 1115 waiver, that was first approved in 2011 as a means to help hospitals care for uninsured people until the states expanded their Medicaid programs under the ACA. Then the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states couldn’t be required to expand Medicaid.

In the years after, Texas leaders fought to keep the waiver — which doesn’t provide comprehensive health care coverage, drug coverage or other services covered by Medicaid — while resisting expanding Medicaid.

The new federal incentives, combined with news last week that Texas may lose its 1115 funding after October 2022, bring a new pitch to the decadelong debate over adding more than a million people to the Medicaid rolls in Texas.

“The time to do this is now,” said state Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Carrollton, the author of House Bill 3871. “The deal on the table that the [federal] government offered to us is, in my opinion, irresponsible not to accept.”

Conservative lawmakers are weighing their historic opposition to Medicaid expansion against the potential of billions in federal incentives coming to Texas during a tight budget cycle.

“There is a bipartisan desire to see the cost of health care decrease. The unsustainable increase in prices, whether at the hospital, the doctor, or in health insurance premiums hits all Texans,” GOP state Rep. James Frank, chair of the House Human Services Committee, said in emailed comments to the Tribune. “But there is also concern that when Medicaid expands, that adds pressure to the private insurance market to make up the difference in reimbursements. Hence, expansion is a hidden tax on those who have private insurance, driving up the cost of care for everyone.”

Medicaid expansion in Texas

Some 4.2 million people — including more than 3 million children — are on Medicaid in Texas. The rest of the recipients are people with disabilities, pregnant women and parents living below 14% of the federal poverty level. Adults with no disabilities or dependent children don’t qualify for Medicaid, and the vast majority of children on Medicaid have parents who do not qualify.

Texas has the highest rate of uninsured residents in the nation.

If Texas expanded Medicaid, the federal government would bump its reimbursement to the state from 62% of Medicaid expenditures to 67% — and it would pay 90% of the costs for the estimated 1.4 million adults who would become newly eligible for the program.

A recent report by Texas A&M University and sponsored by the Episcopal Health Foundation showed that an estimated 954,000 newly eligible adults would likely enroll, bringing $5.41 billion in federal matching dollars to pay for them each year. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a health care research organization, estimates that about 75% of the newly eligible would be people of color.

Economists predict that expansion in Texas would be an economic driver, increasing health-related spending, decreasing uncompensated care spending by local governments and raising productivity with a healthier workforce.

“It’s really critical at this point that Texas be looking at solutions for our worst-in-the-country insurance rates,” said Anne Dunkelberg, who oversees health care policy for Every Texan, a public policy group.

But state leaders and many Texas conservative groups have so far chosen to decline the expansion.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s and Gov. Greg Abbott’s offices did not respond to requests for comment, but both have opposed expanding Medicaid in the past. In January, House Speaker Dade Phelan expressed doubt that Medicaid expansion would happen this session.

Among other arguments, opponents say it would crowd out current Medicaid patients who are already getting a low quality of care due to the limited number of physicians who accept Medicaid patients because of low reimbursements.

“I think it’s unfortunate to put a price on the heads of those that are most vulnerable,” said David Balat, director of the Right on Healthcare initiative at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation. “We’re talking about people that are not getting the greatest of care, stand to get worse care and we’re saying we should probably just take the money anyway. That’s unconscionable.”

“We exist, and we matter”

The Medicaid legislation getting the most attention in the Legislature this session are companion bills filed by Johnson in the House and state Sen. Nathan Johnson, D-Dallas, modeled after programs in conservative states like Ohio and Indiana.

The identical bills offer incentives for recipients to achieve self-sufficiency and independence through health savings accounts, employment assistance and healthy behavior rewards, rather than cultivating an attitude of state dependency, said Nathan Johnson, whose Senate Bill 118 is awaiting a committee hearing. The legislation would also increase provider reimbursements to encourage physicians to accept more Medicaid patients.

Medicaid expansion would also potentially generate hundreds of thousands of jobs and bring in billions in additional tax revenue to the state and to local governments, according to a recent analysis by The Perryman Group, an economic research firm in Waco.

“I’ve got to ask my colleagues, ‘How much are you willing to reject, in order to not provide health care to people for free? In order to not have people healthy enough to go to work?” Nathan Johnson said. “There’s a narrative that says, ‘We created the Medicaid program to help the truly vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled, the children. We’ve taken care of everything. Everybody else, you’re on your own.’ And that just refuses to look at reality.”

Better reimbursements for doctors and the personal responsibility incentives are the two biggest reasons why House Republican Rep. Steve Allison, a San Antonio freshman and co-author of House Bill 3871, said he signed on to the legislation after years of skepticism.

“In the past, we just talked about expanding coverage and didn’t talk about care. I’ve always been stuck on care,” he said. “The incentives, too, are so important. … I think that’s what’s starting to move some of the Republicans, because that’s been a legitimate concern in the past. That we’re just further promoting welfare.”

But first it needs to reach the House floor. Frank, a Wichita Falls Republican, said he has not decided whether to allow a hearing on the House bill.

“I remain convinced that there are better ways for Texas to improve access and affordability of health care for all Texans than Medicaid expansion,” Frank said, adding that he worries Medicaid expansion could drain the state budget over time and lead to fewer private employers offering health benefits to workers.

Earlier this month, Phelan, Frank and other House members from both parties championed a set of bills called “Healthy Families, Healthy Texas” that Frank said would improve quality of care and health care access “for all 29 million people in the state.”

They include measures to reduce the cost of some prescription drugs for uninsured people, make it easier for children on Medicaid to continue coverage during income verification processes, require transparency in medical billing, expand availability of telehealth and broadband services, and increase insurance plan options through small businesses, agricultural nonprofits and associations, among others.

They also supported a bill expanding Medicaid coverage for new mothers to 12 months after the birth of a child, up from the current two months.

In Canyon Lake, what the politicians do at the Capitol could have a big impact on Trish, whose son inherited the same blood disorder and does have Medicaid coverage. If they expand Medicaid, she could stop having to make the difficult choice between paying for her own health care or putting food on the table and keeping the lights on.

“It’s not like we’re going to go see a doctor every chance we get,” she said. “It’s just to have that card in your back pocket to go get a physical or see a doctor if there’s an emergency. It means a lot to people like us. We exist, and we matter, and we don’t deserve to be treated like trash on the bottom of someone’s feet.”

Disclosure: Texas A&M University, Episcopal Health Foundation, Every Texan and the Texas Public Policy Foundation have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune: Read More

When the twin crises of the pandemic and the winter storm hit Texas, not all communities were hit equally. As The Texas Tribune has reported, Black and Hispanic Texans were disproportionately devastated by COVID-19, unemployment and the power outage.

That discrepancy underscores why it’s critical for The Texas Tribune to have a staff that reflects the diversity of Texas, where Hispanics are on track to be the state’s largest population group this year. Journalists from different backgrounds — which includes race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age and socioeconomic class — bring different ideas about how to approach a story and what is newsworthy in the first place. As newsrooms across the country have faced a racial reckoning this past year, we have rededicated ourselves to diversifying the Texas Tribune team.

We’re making progress. Since we overhauled our hiring practices in mid-2018, more than half of the employees we’ve hired have been people of color. By the end of 2020, 37% of our staff members were people of color, compared to 33% in 2019 and 30% in 2018. Fifty-nine percent of Texans are people of color.

We still have work to do. At the end of last year, 62% of our staffers were white, compared to 41% of Texans. Twenty percent of employees at The Texas Tribune were Hispanic; 40% of the state’s population is Hispanic. Seven percent of our employees were Black, compared to 12% of Texans. Seven percent of our employees were Asian, compared to 5% percent of Texans.

Of our 24-person management team, 38% were people of color. Of the staffers who report and edit the news, 45% were people of color.

It’s essential that we collect accurate data about our staff demographics. That’s why last year we modified how we ask our employees for this information. We added a Middle Eastern and North African category even though the U.S. Census does not include this option. Three percent of our employees identified as Middle Eastern or North African.

We’re also asking our employees which languages they speak, and we’re especially interested in hiring people who speak Spanish. Nineteen percent of our employees speak Spanish, compared to about 29% of Texans.

Since we asked our employees for this information in late 2020, we have said goodbye to several staff members and welcomed others to our team. As we fill open positions, we’re continuing to improve our hiring practices with a goal of diversifying our staff. We collect confidential applicant demographic data, and we require that candidates from historically underrepresented groups are included in the interview stage of every job. We’re investing more in recruitment efforts, advertising with professional associations that promote diversity and participating in job fairs at historically Black universities. We’ve boosted our presence at conferences designed for journalists of color, with a goal of forming relationships for current and future job openings. We’re posting jobs publicly and widely. Hiring committees — cross-departmental panels meant to ensure that a variety of perspectives are at the table — evaluate our candidates.

All of these are tactics in service of the overall goal of ensuring that our newsroom is representative of the audiences we want our journalism to serve. We have an additional goal of ensuring the people we feature in our journalism also reflect the diversity of the state.

Our new source diversity project helps us achieve that. We’re now asking the people we interview — and the people who speak at Texas Tribune events — to share their race, ethnicity and gender to help us understand whose voices we are highlighting. The project, which we piloted last year with significant contributions from our student fellows, launched in our newsroom in March. We’ll use the data we collect to identify coverage and sourcing gaps and to ensure accountability around correcting any imbalances.

We’re not the only newsroom tracking the demographics of our sources; our project was inspired by the BBC’s 50:50 project, and we’re keeping an eye on efforts underway at organizations like Chalkbeat and KUT.

The launch of our source diversity project was almost derailed first by the pandemic and then by the winter storm. We pushed forward despite the demands of these emergencies because we believe that even in a crisis — especially in a crisis — our sources must reflect our state. The events of this past year did not affect all Texans in the same way, and it is our job to include all the voices necessary to tell that story.

Grayson Norwood contributed to this story.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune: Read More

More than a month after Gov. Greg Abbott lifted nearly all of the state’s coronavirus safety restrictions, small business owners have had to balance the safety of their workforce with economic interests. Rattled by the pandemic’s affect on sales and concerned for their employees’ financial security, some small businesses struggled to continue requiring masks.

Many establishments in Austin are taking a piecemeal approach. Masks are now optional at Central Texas Gun Works. Larger event spaces, like Empire Control Room, continue to enforce strict capacity and mask wearing rules. And owners with close ties to their customers, like those at Rise Kickbox, say they trust their members are safe when they show up for a workout.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune: Read More

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Like Republicans across the country, Texas lawmakers are pushing to enact sweeping changes to state voting laws, including new restrictions on how and when voters can cast ballots.

At the forefront of that campaign is Senate Bill 7, a legislative priority for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick that has already passed the Senate and awaits action in the House. The wide-ranging legislation touches almost the entire voting process, taking particular aim at narrowing the latitude local officials have to control voting. It clamps down on early voting rules and hours, restricts how voters can receive applications to vote by mail and regulates the distribution of polling places in diverse, urban counties.

The original bill has already changed in significant ways — revised to eliminate a provision that would have required some voters to provide proof of a disability to vote by mail. But the 38-page bill would still institute an expansive set of changes and new regulations governing Texas elections.

Below is our analysis of the most significant portions of the legislation, with some added context to help Texans understand some of its key provisions.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune: Read More

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Texas lawmakers and activists portrayed Tuesday’s guilty verdict in America’s most closely watched trial of a white police officer in a generation as a step toward justice — but said there is more work ahead to reform police behavior and the criminal justice system.

Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murdering George Floyd, a Black man, for putting his knee on the man’s neck for several minutes. Jurors found Chauvin, guilty of all three charges he faced: second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.

Floyd’s murder sparked nationwide Black Lives Matter protests across the U.S. and in Texas during the summer and prompted renewed calls for police reform. And Texas police departments garnered criticism for their use of force during those protests. Before this year’s legislative session began, the Texas Legislative Black Caucus unveiled the George Floyd Act that would ban chokeholds and limit police use of force in an effort to protect Texans from police brutality.

Members of the caucus celebrated Chauvin’s conviction by pumping their fists and hugging during a Facebook Live stream. Many state legislators, including multiple caucus members, responded to the verdict with public calls to pass the caucus’ police reform bill, or House Bill 88, which was left pending in committee in March following a debate over a provision that would remove police officers’ legal shield against civil lawsuits.

“A just verdict, but this is only one step, and it can never bring George Floyd back,” state Rep. Sheryl Cole, D-Austin, wrote on Twitter. “Now we must pass the George Floyd Act and other reforms so that we never have to do this again.”

Before moving to Minneapolis, Floyd, a 46-year-old, was a resident of Houston’s Third Ward, a historically Black neighborhood. Texans across the state, including Floyd’s friends, family and residents of the Third Ward, had varied responses to the verdict, including sighs of relief or applause, according to The Houston Chronicle.

During a press conference, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner called for reflection, and he said he and the Houston Police Department would be announcing police reforms next week. He said reform is a constant process that also includes investing in underserved communities, like the Third Ward, in a “real and tangible way.”

“Justice has been served,” Turner said. “The Floyd family has waited for almost a year for this verdict, but I will quickly say that they will experience the loss of their loved one, George, for the rest of their lives.”

At least two white former Texas police officers have been convicted for killing Black people in recent years. In 2018, Roy Oliver was sentenced to 15 years in prison for fatally shooting 15-year-old Jordan Edwards, though Texas’ highest criminal court plans to review that conviction. In 2019, Amber Guyger was sentenced to 10 years in prison for killing 26-year-old Botham Jean in Dallas.

Christopher Taylor faces a first-degree murder charge for fatally shooting Michael Ramos in Austin last year. And Shaun Lucas faces a murder charge for killing Jonathan Price in Wolfe City in October.

Multiple U.S. Congress members representing Texans also shared their responses to the verdict, with some calling for the U.S. Senate to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. The federal bill, which passed the U.S House in March, would ban the use of chokeholds and no-knock warrants and set other national standards for police conduct.

Some of the Congressional representatives also made calls for reform and noted that a verdict wouldn’t bring Floyd back to his family. U.S. Rep. Colin Allred, D-Dallas, tweeted that the verdict was “a step toward justice” for Floyd, his family and the people who have called for justice for victims of police violence and encouraged people to remain dedicated to police reform.

“This verdict is not justice — it’s accountability. Justice is George Floyd still being alive today, raising his children and spending time with his family,” U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas, said on Twitter. “I hope that they can find peace knowing that his life inspired a generation, sparked a movement, and changed the world.”

Republican U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn did not respond to a request for comment about the verdict.

Many activists in the state said they were grateful for the verdict, and others stressed that a verdict will not eliminate racism in the U.S. Chas Moore, the executive director and founder of Austin Justice Coalition, said he was relieved, but there are still much needed changes, including reimagining the role of police and expanding the definition of public safety to include neighborhoods with access to lighting, education and healthy food.

“I hope this verdict sends a message that, you know, there are going to be some changes in policing,” Moore said. “I want to see a change in police culture, to where we can limit or completely cancel the George Floyds, the Breonna Taylors, the Sandra Blands, the Daunte Wrights, and the Mike Ramos. I really hope this serves as a catalyst for culture change amongst law enforcement departments around the country.”

Disclosure: Facebook has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.