Cleveland Advocate (Cleveland, Tex.), Vol. 74, No. 43, Ed. 1 Wednesday, October 23, 1991 Page: 4 of 52
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Cleveland Area Newspaper Collection and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Austin Memorial Library.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
ge 4A, CLEVELAND ADVOCATE, Wednesday, October 23,1991
Editorial & Commentary
Viewpoint
Will you vote in the Nov. 5 election?
' ■
tvf
iptt# #
Wg‘
**.#
it.
» -1
“Yes. I think it is important
for everyone to vote.” -
Becky Lowe, Shepherd
“No. I don't vote. I don't get
into politics.” - Paula
Johnson, Cleveland
“No. I didn't register to
vote.” - Deonna Tosh,
Humble
“Yes. I believe this is to be
an important election.” -
Sue Smith, Highlands
v
“No. I haven't considered it “No. I haven't kept up with
because I didn't know the election.” - Buddy
anything about it.” - Kathy Mitchell, Beaumont
Norwood, Cleveland
roposed amendments explained
y MARK STILES
tate Representative
The freedom to choose is the capstone
f a democracy. On Nov. 5, Texans will
ace 13 choices - some familiar, some not
about how they are governed. The issued
as varied as enterprise zones and the
ottery. But the choices are nonetheless im-
ortant to the future of Texas.
In an effort to help inform voters about
se issues, I am presenting a five-part se-
ies summarizing the pros and cons of each
onstitutional amendment in the order it
ppears on the ballot. Much of this infor-
‘ ation comes from the non-partisan House
esearch Organization and the Texas Leg-
si ative Council.
Part Three deals with broadening the in-
vestment authority of public retirement
ystems, changing how new bond debt is
approved and authorizing clear titles for
certain public school fund land.
Proposition 7 (by Sen. John Leedom,
R-Dallas; and Rep. Nolan Robnett, R-Lub-
bock): “The constitutional amendment to
allow the board of trustees of a statewide
public retirement system to invest funds of
the system in a manner that the board con-
iders prudent.”
* This amendment would remove the pro-
vision limiting retirement system invest-
ments to securities that trustees consider
prudent. The proposal would allow direct
investing in real estate or any other manner
trustees deem prudent. A 1980 attorney
general’s opinion allows systems to invest
in mortgage certificates, for example, but
pot real property.
The Constitution also applies the
“prudent person rule” to retirement system
assets along with the securities limitation.
That means trustees may not make specu-
lative investments but must use the same
judgment, under prevailing circumstances,
as would a person “of ordinary prudence,
intelligence and discretion” regarding in-
come and safety. The proposed amendment
(eaves the prudent person rule intact.
Although the Legislature may further
restrict investment authority, heretofore it
has exceeded the constitutional limits only
for a select few funds, but not the teachers’
or employees’ primary funds.
The state's retirement systems currently
jbiold more than $20 billion in assets. The
largest system, serving teachers, held $26.5
^billion as of Aug. 31.
Pros: Proposition 7 would allow greater
investment flexibility and diversification,
increasing returns and providing balance
protecting agaiast downturns in stocks and
bonds. The Permanent School Fund and the
Permanent University Fund operate under
similar authority, governed only by the
prudent person rule, with no adverse ef-
fects.
Real estate is a solid long-term invest-
ment well-suited to pension plans. Real
property already comprises 10 percent of
the Teacher Retirement System's current
assets. This proposal would allow system
trustees to select only the best deals for
their large cash reserves. The State Peasion
Review Board has recommended the
change in policy.
Cons: State pension funds should not be
invested in risky real estate deals, which
recently bankrupted many financial institu-
tions, or in such unstable ventures as lim-
ited partnerships, futures and commodities
trading and oil and gas exploration. Rely-
ing solely on the prudent person rule leaves
trustees too much discretion unless the
Legislature otherwise intervenes.
Investment managers should not be al-
lowed to speculate with state retirees' sav-
ings. The Teacher Retirement System al-
ready owns too much real estate as a result
of foreclosures on bad mortgage loans. Di-
rect real estate investments are more risky
because there is less protection against
losses from a decline in property values.
Proposition 8 (by Sen. John Montford,
D-Lubbock, and Rep. Bruce Gibson, D-
Godley): “ The constitutional amendment
authorizing the voters of this state to con-
sider debt questions in the form of ballot
propositions that must clearly describe the
amounts, purposes and sources of payment
of the debt only after approval of the
propositions by a two-thirds vote of each
hose of the legislature.”
The state borrows money primarily by
selling bonds to investors who are repaid
with interest. Most debt is prohibited by the
Constitution, so it must be amended before
issuance of general obligation bonds be-
cause they, unlike revenue bonds, obligate
the state's fiill faith and credit.
The state's bonded indebtedness was
$7.7 billion as of May 31 - about $3 billion
in general obligation bonds and $4.7 billion
in revenue bonds. The statutory debt limit
is five percent of the three-year average
amount of undesignated general revenue.
Debt service payments currently total about
1 percent of the average amount.
This proposal would replace constitu-
tional amendments authorizing new debt
with propositions enacted in tire same way
- by two-thirds votes of each house meet-
ing in regular or special session followed
by majority approval in a state-wide elec-
tion. Propositions would specify the
amounts, purposes and repayment sources
of the debts. Amounts could not be ex-
ceeded or renewed unless so stated in the
proposition.
Pros: Voters would have more infor-
mation about the debt they are incurring
while retaining control over it. Currently,
amendment proposals only state the pur-
pose of the debt, which can mislead or con-
fuse voters.
It is unnecessary to clutter the Constitu-
tion with detailed, redundant bond provi-
sions each time the state needs to borrow
money. As long as statutory debt limits re-
main intact, a constitutional bond debt cap
is not needed.
Cons: Disclosing more information
about state debt does not require scrapping
the constitutional amendment process;
adopting clearer ballot language would suf-
fice. Incurring new dept is important
enough to be recorded permanently.
If debt is to be authorized by proposi-
tion, a cap should be placed in the Consti-
tution as a restraint. Setting a ceiling by
statute could be evaded simply by changing
the law; a constitutional cap would require
voter approval.
Proposition 9 (by Sen. Bill Sims, D-
San Angelo, and Rep. Edmund Kuempel,
R-Seguin): “The constitutional amendment
authorizing the commissioner of the Gen-
eral Land Office to issue patents for certain
public free school fund land held in good
faith under color of state title for at least 50
years.”
In 1990, all Texas land not having
original state title, not granted to individu-
als or otherwise dedicated reverted to the
School Land Fund. But because some legal
requirements went unmet, a few longtime
landholders belatedly learned their land
belongs to the state. They must buy it back
to obtain valid titles, called “land patents.”
In response to an attorney general's
opinion, the Legislature proposed and vot-
ers approved a constitutional amendment in
1981 allowing the land office to issue land
patents for such owners who met certain
criteria. The amendment expired Jan. 1,
1990.
In 1989 the Legislature enacted an ex-
tension of the amendment for late filers,
but the attorney general ruled the law un-
constitutional.
Proposition 9 would make clear titles
available to landowners who have held
recorded deeds and paid all taxes for at
least 50 years and who can prove they ac-
quired the land without knowing of the title
defects. Denials by the School Land Board
could be appealed in state district court.
The proposal reserves state mineral
rights and exempts beach land, submerged
land, islands, land involved in boundary
disputes or declared in court to belong to
the state.
Pros: This would temporarily revive a
means to correct an inequity affecting a
handful of landowners. They could gain
clear title, and the state would lose no land.
Strict criteria would prevent undeserving
applicant from taking advantage of the
program, which would expire Jan. 1, 1993.
Land officials plan to settle this issue once
and for all.
Cons: The state should not give away
land or keep on changing the Constitution
just to benefit a few people with title prob-
lems. This problem should be handled by
statute. The criteria are too rigid and would
exclude others in similar situations. The
previous amendment did not allow enough
time for landowners to discover and rem-
edy their problems.
Next week: tax exemptions for non-
profit water corporations, the lottery, colo-
nias water development bonds and college
student loan bonds.
Congressman supports tax credit
By CHARLES WILSON
U.S. Congressman
I have never claimed to be a technology
wizard. Many of the new developments in
office equipment and home appliances
have me stumped. I am clinging to my old-
fashioned one-line, no tricks telephone
with a survivalist's grip.
However, I am also quick to acknowl-
edge that cutting-edge American tech-
nology has always been the foundation for
a vital U.S. industrial economy, export
strength and standard of living. Research
and Development - or “R&D” is the cor-
nerstone of high-tech success.
As we look toward the 21st century,
however, the U.S. is running the risk of
losing that leadership position. Business
and trade news is filled with reports that
America’s technological and economic
status is slipping in comparison to interna-
tional competitors. The best way to face
this competition is bead-on, with energized
research and development efforts in irxlus-
,fry-
>• The research community cannot meet
•'this challenge without backing, though.
The government needs to do its part. The
threat we face is that we will forfeit the
future as a result of fiscal constraints today.
Belt-tightening is the budget byword; nev-
ertheless, taking the long view sometimes
means investing in something now that will
help us tomorrow. Making the temporary
R&D tax credit permanent falls into that
category.
Boosting research and development will
have that “investment in the future” divi-
dend we are all looking for: better jobs, ed-
ucation, and a stronger economy.
Congress does realize how vital a
healthy science and technology enterprise
is to this country. We've addressed the is-
sue in many ways: by enacting legislation
to allow joint government and industry re-
search efforts, by supporting emerging
technologies and by easing antitrust re-
strictions where they handicapped research
collaboration between companies. But
these efforts are only patchwork without
creating a public policy environment that
encourages research.
Stimulating research and development is
not something that only benefits big indus-
try. In 1989 R&D spending in Texas to-
taled $5.7 million. The ripple effect this
kind of investment has on a region is easy
to identify in academic development that
attracts new business.
It has been estimated that renewal of the
R&D tax credit pending before Congress
could increase research spending by $25.7
million over the next four years. Making
the credit permanent would extend that
benefit even further. What has been a
temporary incentive for industry has
proven its value over the past decade by
providing companies with motivation to
expand research and development pro-
grams.
This is not a controversial issue in
Washington. Making the research and de-
velopment tax credit permanent has been a
popular idea for years. Even so, there is a
risk that the R&D credit issue will remain
in limbo, and expire at the end of this year.
As a member of Congressional com-
mittees focused on the defense of the
United States, this concerns me from a na-
tional security standpoint, in addition to the
economic concerns. Keeping our technol-
ogy edge sharp is vital, for today and into
the next century.
THE
COLD
m
IWSSI®
if
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Reader appreciates polidfe
Dear Editor,
I am not one to write newspapers, con-
gressmen, etc. but I have read many a letter
complaining about one thing or another. I
would like to write to express my appreci-
ation in the Cleveland Police Department.
They didn’t save my life, or catch a
felon in our midst. They reacted promptly
and rationally to a complaint I made.
I was turning off of FM 2518 on to
Highway 105. A man driving a white sub-
urban ran the four way stop, almost hitting
me broadside in my Honda with my four
children. After pulling out of the gravel, I
tried to get close enough to catch the li-
cense number.
I followed the man to Cleveland, which
was where I was heading any way. At a
COMMENTARY
stop light in front of Brookshire Bros., I g<
out of my car and told him what he ha
done. He said he was aware of what he ha
done, was totally rude and never once o
fered any kind of apology.
I went straight to the police departmei
and reported the entire incident. They ver
easily could have given me many excuse
not to help me — Out of their jurisdictior
He’s probably long gone, There's nothin
we can do...for a few examples. But instead
they took down all the information an
jumped in their car to find him.
I don't know if any thing was(|^
found, but I do appreciate the effort oiWt
Officers who helped me.
Sincerely
Terri Bern
New system is in use
By KAY BAILEY HUTCHINSON
State Treasurer
To help speed up the delivery of child
support payments to Texas children, the
State Treasury, in conjunction with other
slate and local governmental agencies, has
expanded its use of the Electronic Funds
Transfer System (EFT).
This new process electronically deposits
wages garnished to pay child support
directly into the state treasury, reducing
mail and processing activity and resulting
in delivery to families in a fraction of the
time, sometimes cutting the number of
days from 10 to three or four.
The city of Dallas is the first major
Texas employer to take advantage of this
new program. I am hopeful that other
Texas employers will follow suit by
contacting the Texas Treasury Department
on how to use this new technology.
With EFT, child support staff no longer
must spend endless hours opening
envelopes, numbering and posting checks
and other processing procedures. Op^of
the immediate benefits to employers MPjie
reduction in calls from parents asftmg
about the status of their child support
payment checks.
This Is a classic example of how new
technology can be used by the state to
benefit people who need expedited
services. But the real winners of the
program are the children who need these
payments as quickly as possible.
For more information on the EFT
program, call the Texas Treasury at 512-
463-5976. Or write the Texas Treasury,
P.O. Box 12608, Capitol Station, Austin,
Texas, 78711, or call 512-463-5976.
Cleveland Advocate
Vol. 74 No. 43
“Serving the Cleveland area since 1917”
DIANA COLE . .Gen. Mgr./Ad Director
JERREL FERGUSON Managing Editor
Fredia Cox........Circ./Bus.Off
Telephone: (713)592-2626
Fax:(713)592-2629
The Cleveland Advocate (USPS 117560)
is a member of Gulf Coast Newspapers Inc.,
which serves Grimes, Harris, Liberty, Mont-
gomery, Waller and San Jacinto counties.
Published Wednesdays at 106 W. Hanson,
Cleveland, Texas 77327. Second class
postage paid at the Cleveland post office. An-
nual subscription: $18. Postmaster: please
send address of undelivered copies to the
Cleveland Advocate, P.O. Box 1628, Cleve-
land, Texas 77327.
EDITORIAL AND LETTER POLICIES
Deadline is 5 p.m. Friday. The Advocate
reserves the right to edit items submitted for
style and space needs. Birth, birthday, wed-
ding, anniversary and engagement items
must be timely.
Letters are welcome but brevity is impor-
tant. The editor reserves the right to edit let-
ters to meet space restrictions, or to avoid
obscenity, libel or invasion of privacy. Initials
will be used on reasonable request. All letters
must have written signatures and include ad-
dresses and phone numbers.
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.
Matching Search Results
View four places within this issue that match your search.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.
Ferguson, Jerrel. Cleveland Advocate (Cleveland, Tex.), Vol. 74, No. 43, Ed. 1 Wednesday, October 23, 1991, newspaper, October 23, 1991; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth871612/m1/4/?q=Lamar+University: accessed July 9, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Austin Memorial Library.