Perry bizarrely still claiming 60% drop in border crime

The Austin Statesman on it's "Truth-O-Meter" page, which fact checks statements by politicians in Texas political races, gave Gov. Rick Perry a "Pants on Fire" rating for saying that crime dropped 60% along the border because of his much-ballyhooed pork-barrel grants (with tough sounding names like "Operation Linebacker" and "Operation Wrangler") to Sheriffs. After parsing through the laughably thin sourcing for the statistic then comparing it to real world crime data, the paper summed up:

Perry's claim that his border security efforts have led to a 60 percent drop in crime doesn't hold water. The calculation he touts doesn't consider crimes committed in cities and towns where most border residents live. It also compared two calendar quarters rather than weighing years' worth of data.

Crime may have temporarily subsided in some rural areas of the border region.

However, it's not clear how much of any decline can be traced to the state's investment in security.

We rate Perry's sweeping statement based on an unreasonable manipulation of crime statistics -- the second instance of his administration touting questionable border crime numbers -- as Pants on Fire.

The big flaw in the number: It only includes unincorporated areas, and only for a four-month period! Louie Gilot at the El Paso Times so thoroughly debunked these bizarre calculations at the time that I'm almost surprised his campaign trotted them out so brazenly, much less had the Governor say the words himself as recently as March 10.

Maybe the next step should be a survey of border mayors to determine if they believe Perry's crime-drop claims? IMO that money was thrown down a pork-laden sinkhole.

Pants on fire, indeed.

See related Grits posts:

• Governor claimed phony drop in border crime, experts say
• Did Operation Linebacker achieve its goals? If not, why not?
• Gov. Perry wants his own version of Clinton's COPS program ... to fight Los Zetas?
• Border pork wrong priority for federal stimulus funds
• Gravy train continues for Operation Linebacker
• More detail on Operation Wrangler
• DPS and Governor's border operations don't coordinate, at all
• Sheriffs privatizing border web cams
• Elected Sheriff receiving Governor's border security funds worked for Gulf cartel

Border pork wrong priority for federal stimulus funds

I'm disappointed to learn of plans to spend federal "stimulus" money on Governor Perry's pet border-security pork program instead of on tactics that actually boost the economy.

Brandi Grissom at the Texas Tribune reports that the Department of Public Safety has outspent its budget - and was prepared to slash grant funds to Border Sheriffs, which are used to pay for equipment and overtime - but now they may plug the gap with federal stimulus funds, which is a tad ironic considering the Governor's criticisms of the policy. Reports Grissom:

The Texas Department of Public Safety is planning to use federal stimulus dollars that Gov. Rick Perry begrudgingly accepted from Washington to plug a hole in the border security budget.

The decision follows a mandate by Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, and House Speaker Joe Straus that state agencies chop 5 percent out of their bottom lines to meet an anticipated state budget shortfall. For the Department of Public Safety, which is already struggling financially, the cut ordered last month will mean a $14.6 million hit, and border security funds could take the brunt. The agency is proposing to cut $10.3 million in border security grants to local law enforcement, according to an internal e-mail from DPS director Steve McCraw obtained by the Tribune. "I'm not happy that the efforts on the border might be reduced because of this, but that’s part of operating a state agency," says Texas Public Safety Commission Chairman Allan Polunsky. "Sometimes you have to make hard decisions that are going to be problematic somewhere."

That hole in border funds, though, could be plugged with $16 million in federal stimulus funds that Perry had already planned to dole out to local agencies for border security operations. Perry groused about taking the $15 billion in stimulus funds that Washington sent to Texas last year and said the money should only be spent on one-time expenditures. Since 2006, Texas has dedicated more than $200 million to border security operations. ...

DPS was already $27.5 million in the hole in January, according to McCraw’s e-mail to agency staff earlier this week. He said DPS has been using money from unfilled jobs to keep the agency running. With the mandatory cuts coming on top of the shortfall, the agency will slice funds from several programs, but the largest chunk will come from the $21.9 mllion set aside for grants to border law enforcement agencies over a two-year period. DPS has proposed cutting nearly half that amount. “This would reduce overtime to local law enforcement about 43%,” McCraw wrote. He added that Perry’s office planned to give local departments $16 million for border operations.

I've argued before that spending "stimulus" money on law enforcement grants is counterproductive, and that goes double when the state is paying overtime for local Sheriff's deputies, which should normally be paid for out of county coffers. There's no evidence overtime spending has contributed significantly to public safety, as Grissom reported back when she was with the El Paso Times.

In any event, "stimulus" money shouldn't be spent on pure enforcement because the economic multiplier effect is so low. A deputy may have more money in his pocket for overtime, but everyone they arrest then costs the system money in areas that aren't federally subsidized - county jails, local court dockets, state prisons, etc.. And when the end result of an arrest is incarceration, it takes a consumer out of circulation instead of enhancing their contribution to the economy. That may at times be a worthwhile public safety goal, but it's the opposite of stimulating economic growth.

If stimulus grants are going to be spent on criminal justice projects, they should be focused on things that promote instead of deter economic growth. That includes programs that supervise offenders (read: consumers) outside of prison and preferably keep them gainfully employed. Job training and reentry services would also fit the bill.

Bottom line: "stimulus" money should go to programs that encourage offenders to reconnect with the economy - to remain in the community, supervised, earning and spending money, even paying taxes - instead of sitting in prison or jail living 100% on the taxpayers' dime. Otherwise, such grants can produce more costs than benefits for the economy.

Elected Sheriff receiving Governor's border security funds allegedly worked for Gulf Cartel

Yet another elected Texas Sheriff has been ousted on corruption charges, this time Starr County Reymundo Guerra who was allegedly helping the Gulf Cartel smuggle drugs through his county. He resiged today.

Guerra joins former Brownsville Sheriff Conrado Cantu and several sheriffs caught up in commissary-related bribery schemes in the annals of disgraced, corrupt elected law enforcement officials lately hounded out of office. Reported the Brownsville Herald ("Starr Sheriff indicted in Gulf Cartel case," Oct. 14):

Guerra's imminent arrest had been telegraphed for weeks - ever since FBI agents searched his home and office in Rio Grande City on Sept. 4. Court documents later linked the raids to an ongoing probe into a smuggling ring led by Jose Carlos Hinojosa, 31, of Roma.

U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey touted the investigation later that month as one piece of a nationwide crackdown on Gulf Cartel operatives and their associates that had resulted in more than 175 arrests

So far, 14 men and women - mostly from Starr County and the Mexican city of Miguel Alemán - have been indicted in the Hinojosa case.

But despite the chatter that surrounded the sheriff, his fate remained unclear until the FBI returned to his office Tuesday morning and placed him under arrest.

"I'm shocked that this happened, because every indication that I had was that the sheriff's department was running smoothly, the best way I have seen in a long time,"

Sheriff Guerra was one of the members of the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition that lobbied Gov. Rick Perry and the Legislature to pony up more than $100 million in "Operation Linebacker" block grants to be distributed equally among the Sheriffs to use as they saw fit. We already knew the initiative wasn't being coordinated with other law enforcement efforts on the border. Now it appears some of that grant money was directly under control of a crooked cop working for the Gulf cartel. Ouch!

The Lege should cut their losses and decline to reauthorize those block grants in the 81st session - who knows what's happening with that money, but we know it wasn't doing much good toward reducing smuggling in Starr County!

National Guard corruption highlights border security challenges

Two of the National Guard troops deployed in 2006 by Gov. Perry as part of Operation Linebacker have been convicted of helping smuggle illegal immigrants across the border, further evidence that it's the checkpoints, not the empty spaces in between, serving as primary entry points for illegal smugglers. Another National Guardsman was arrested recently in Fort Worth smuggling drugs when he bragged to an informant how he eluded police.

So it appears the National Guard troops sent by the governor to "secure" the border have proven as subject to corruption as every other border enforcement agency. I continue to believe this cross-border trade can only exist because of official corruption on both sides of the border.

You hear folks say we must "secure the border first," but I think that's premature. Eliminate official corruption first and rationalize immigration laws, then you might be able to have a serious discussion about improving safety at the border.

Fusion Centers in Texas: "What we have here is a failure to communicate"

One product of the 80th Texas Legislature was giving after-the-fact approval in HB 13 (amended at the end of session into SB 11) to Governor Perry's 2005 decision to consolidate intelligence gathering in "fusion centers," which are new intelligence gathering bureaucracies controlled by his political appointees instead of law enforcement personnel.

A new report from the Congressional Research Service explores state "Fusion Centers" in more detail than anywhere else I've seen, so I thought I'd pull a few highlights that jumped out at me from the lengthy study. (For those with a detailed interest, CRS also referenced a 104-page manual called "Fusion Center Guidelines" published by the US Department of Justice in August 2006 about a year after Texas' created its first center.)

Fusion centers' stated purpose is to prevent terrorism and crime through intelligence gathering. But the CRS report says in practice they don't prevent crime, but typically only react to events:

research indicates that while fusion centers want to become more proactive, many continue to follow a reactive model. Most fusion centers respond to incoming requests, suspicious activity reports, and/or finished information/intelligence products. This approach largely relies on data points or analysis that are already identified as potentially problematic. As mentioned above, it could be argued that this approach will only identify unsophisticated criminals and terrorists.

Indeed, right now, says CRS, it's "unclear if a single fusion center has successfully adopted a truly proactive prevention approach to information analysis and sharing." This will require a law enforcement culture change, says CRS, that has not occurred yet, "Moving from a 'need to know' rule to a 'responsibility to share'" mentality.

I'm still not sure what constitutes a Fusion Center in Texas. The map in Appendix B of the report lists two Texas sites - one in Austin (the Texas Security Analysis and Alert Center) and one in Collin County (North Central Texas Fusion Center). In addition, though, this spring it was revealed Texas also has 11 "joint operational intelligence centers" that I know very little about, nor do I understand the relation between those and the two Fusion Centers listed in the report. (Anybody with more knowledge about the relationship there, fill me in, please, in the comments or by email.) All told, different states have created about 40 nationwide, according to CRS, each with separate structures, rules and focus.

In any event, from the outset, CRS acknowledges in the report summary there's a good chance Fusion Centers are a reactive and unwise approach:

There are several risks to the fusion center concept — including potential privacy and civil liberties violations, and the possible inability of fusion centers to demonstrate utility in the absence of future terrorist attacks, particularly during periods of relative state fiscal austerity.

I'd add several more risks to that list, starting with potentially disrupting existing information flows and relationships, agreements and protocols established among public safety personnel over years of working together, particularly regarding natural disasters but also in criminal investigations. In Texas, for example, the Governor's "joint operational intelligence centers" don't communicate with state law enforcement regarding narcotics interdiction at the Texas-Mexico Border. That makes you wonder how "joint" these centers really are in Texas, and how "intelligent"?

In the MSM this spring, nearly all discussion of Texas' Fusion Centers spoke in now-familiar terms of sharing intelligence to prevent terrorist attacks, crime, etc.. But the devil is in the details, and the CRS forthrightly articulated some of the

hazards associated with creating fusion centers without the requisite philosophical and organizational changes necessary within the intelligence and law enforcement communities to sustain the work of the centers.

That's CLEARLY what's happened in Texas. Governor Perry and the 78th (2003) Legislature created a new entity now headed by Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw, who spearheaded creating Texas' fusion centers. He's butted heads frequently with the Department of Public Safety, and used grant funds distributed by the Governor to undermine DPS and muscle them out of their traditional intelligence role. In other words, by creating a fusion center the Governor launched a classic, still ongoing government turf battle. If you care about actual, on the ground homeland security, though, it's potentially one with real-world consequences.

I thought CRS raised another interesting and valid concern. Creating a fusion center is an action politicians can take to say the did something on the topic. But "if fusion center development occurs devoid of a more fundamental transformation, is any real progress made? Is the country any safer or more prepared with fusion centers or have we created a false sense of security?"

Good question! Speaking only of Texas, from what I've seen creating these competing agencies then snubbing DPS probably harmed security more than enhanced it, wasting time and resources on bureaucratic infighting instead of pursuing law enforcement goals, and missing potential opportunities. As the prison warden said to Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

The CRS report also questioned whether problems with data accuracy at fusion centers might lead to misdirected law enforcement resources or even civil rights violations. A footnote declared:

Some might argue that the entire concept for fusion centers, particularly those aspects involving the incorporation of private sector data that may not be accurate or based on any criminal predicate is fundamentally flawed. If there is little legal recourse for citizens to challenge information related to them that resides in commercially available databases, and such information is included in fusion center operations, privacy rights and civil liberties could be undermined.

Another criticism of fusion centers has been the secrecy and lack of public scrutiny surrounding their creation and management. CRS quoted national ACLU declaring, “We’re setting up essentially a domestic intelligence agency, and we’re doing it without having a full debate about the risks to privacy and civil liberties.” It's hard to argue with that.

Even some fusion center supporters recognized the potential civil liberties risks: "An official from a fusion center that advocated a proactive approach to civil liberties-related outreach warned colleagues of the dangers of civil liberties abuses, saying, 'even the perception of abuse associated with a single center, will be devastating for us all.'”

Most of the report offers a range of options for how to proceed regarding Fusion Centers, and I won't wade through all that speculative prose here. But anyone interested in a federal perspective and an exhaustive literature analysis on these "fusion centers" should definitely see the rest of the CRS report.

UPDATE: See a much more detailed and thorough account of the CRS report from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and a good, shorter summary overview from the blog Homeland Stupidity.

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead: Why HB 13 Died and Why it Doesn't Matter

Governor Perry's homeland security bill, HB 13, died today on a point of order called by Rep. Lon Burnam. For you non-parliamentarians in the crowd, that means it's DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD.

Fine by me - the House led by Rep. Jessica Farrar made the bill barely tolerable, but the Senate loaded the thing up like a Christmas tree and at this point I'm just as happy to see it go. Given the alternatives, no bill at all is as good an outcome as any. (See previews of its demise from Kuff, Brandi Grissom, and the Texas Observer.)

So thanks, Lon - you get an extra gold star for that one.

What will the bill's death mean in the real world? As far as I can tell, not much.

The Governor already had authority to accept federal homeland security grants, so that doesn't change (his homeland security director Steve McCraw is the agent who receives and distributes those funds), and he certainly has authority to delegate that task to DPS or whomever he chooses. But this does mean a couple of things offhand:

1. A provision in current law (which would have been deleted in the Senate version of HB 13) limits the Governor's authority over the TDEX database and he may have to pull his thumbs out of the criminal intelligence pie anyway.

2. The Governor will still not be accountable to anyone for how he spends the $100 million given him by legislative budget writers for border security. But then, HB 13 would have only ratified his authority, not restricted it. This is a wash - no change from the status quo.

3. Because there is no accountability or oversight, it will be up to the media and nonprofit watchdogs to use open records to study how the governor spends pork barrel money legislators gave him. This will be a labor intensive task, one I hope the MSM will undertake with the same zeal they've covered the border during the election season.

If the Governor wanted to avoid the rightful criticism he faced over ham-handed political appointees mismanaging law enforcement resources like TDEX, he should transfer grant making authority to DPS. They in turn should be charged with funding projects that implement the state's existing, overall border security strategy, not just dole out pork like candy to border politicians with little regard for improving public safety.

Sen. Carona could still revive the bill with a 4/5 vote by stripping off all the Senate amendments, but at this point I hope the thing just dies. Better for now to monitor what the Governor does with his new border pork and start anew to rein in the whole mess 18 months from now.

See prior Grits coverage:

• The case of the missing data
• Don't Do It! Perry moves to consolidate intelligence gathering in the Governor's office
• The Governor's Great Border Security Power Grab
• Border chiefs dislike Governor's homeland security bill
• Swinford's line in the sand on HB 13 makes no sense
• Farrar: HB 13 won't secure border, risks political interference with law enforcement
• Most states don't run homeland security money through the Governor
• How David Swinford's bad day made HB 13 a better bill
• No Chairman Swinford, they're not Byrne grants

Texas Criminal Justice News Roundup

Just a quick tour around the web revealed several interesting items that may interest Grits readers:

Blame and Innocence
Via Burnt Orange Report, the San Antonio Express News editorialized yesterday that House Criminal Jurisprudence Chairman Aaron Peña is responsible for the death of Sen. Rodney Ellis' SB 263 creating an "Innocence Commission" in Texas, and a columnist lamented the bill's passing. My own editorials about Peña's role in the bill's death drew quite a set of heated responses, see here and here. As partial recompense for this ignominious lapse, I'd like to see Peña's committee address innocence topics in an interim study to show they aren't COMPLETELY inured to the plight of innocent people languishing in Texas prisons.

'Feel-good' legislation ignores real border security needs
The McAllen police chief entirely summed up my opinion of so-called "border security" legislation (HB 13) that's nearing passage in Austin ("Police chief urges sheriffs to remember city departments," McAllen Monitor, May 23):

McAllen Police Chief Victor Rodriguez slammed state and federal legislators during a speech given before the quarterly meeting of the Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition, held this week in Pharr.

He accused lawmakers of ignoring the needs of the region’s municipal police departments and of passing “feel-good legislation” that allows them to wash their hands of the nation’s border security problems.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

When Life Means Life
Meet Harvey Stewart, Texas' longest serving inmate.

When Tuff on Crime is Tuff on Coffers
The Cameron County Jail is a money pit.

TYC's New Gender Segregation
The Texas Youth Commission will begin segregating students by gender at TYC units, reports the Austin Statesman. Like most reforms announced by the agency since it was taken over by a conservator, I can't think of one problem this solves that would have helped prevent any of the abuses that have come to light in the last few months. (Readers, correct me in the comments if you disagree.) Once again, it appears to me TYC administrators hope the Lege and the public will confuse activity with achievement - sadly, that's probably a good bet.

Chaplaincy Explored
The Houston Chronicle ran an interesting article exploring the TDJC Chaplains program. Said a Muslim chaplain, "Many of these men are going to go back to their communities, and they need to return as an asset, not a liability," he said. "So we talk about family life, citizenship responsibilities, social life, being drug free, etcetera." I also thought this item was interesting about a prison ministry group that's going to help rehab the chapel at the Wynne Unit in Huntsville.

What CrimLaw Blogs Do You Read?
I meant to link to this earlier, but Jamie Spencer at the Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer has asked readers to suggest criminal law blogs in a variety of topics. If you have any input on the subject, let him know.

No, Chairman Swinford, they're not Byrne grants!

Chairman David Swinford was dead wrong to tell the Texas House that new federal money contemplated in HB 13 would go through the Edward Byrne grant program. That money is spent through the Governor's Criminal Justice Division, not Homeland Security, for drug war and law enforcement purposes and, he's correct, the Governor spent some of it last year on border security.

But Rep. Culberson's bill creates a new grant program that's separate from the Byrne grant program, in a different section of the federal code. Culberson's legislation would allow the US Attorney General to give grants directly to county sheriffs, bypassing the Governor's office.

Swinford based his analysis on a letter from Congressman Culberson which correctly mentions that Gov. Perry gave Byrne grant money to border sheriffs last year. (Of course, Culberson claimed credit.) But the letter said Culberson intends for new money to come through "first responder grants" being contemplated by the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee. (I've got a copy of the letter but I'm having trouble uploading it.)

Chairman Swinford's a good guy, but he doesn't understand his own bill.

UPDATE: Efforts to move homeland security functions to DPS failed, though some new restrictions were placed on the so-called Fusion Center. HB 13 overwhelmingly passed around 8:40 after 2.5 hours of debate, though it seems to me like a pyrrhic victory, one based on misunderstanding and pork barrel politics more than any identifiable security strategy.

I would say something about my hometown representative Leo Berman's rabid spiel about "illegal aliens" after the bill was finished, but it left me pretty much speechless. Thankfully his nativist views are clearly in the minority in the House.

MORE: Vince liveblogged the HB 13 debate and also comments on Leo Berman's personal privilege speech. The Texas Observer blog has more on Berman's Beef and says the truth was AWOL in the HB 13 debate. (Actually I think the truth was excused by the chair to attend to pressing business in the district.) Kuff has another press release on HB 13 from Jessica Farrar, one of only a handful of no votes on the bill. Just to have said it, the state of Texas owes Jessica Farrar and her staff, particularly the lovely and talented Lillian Ortiz, a debt of gratitude - I don't like HB 13 as written, but with members like Berman running around squawking about "aliens" causing leprosy and plague (no ... really!), it would be a much worse bill if Farrar hadn't stepped up to the plate and taken a major league cut at it.

Most states don't run homeland security money through Governor

UPDATE

The Texas House of Representatives will consider the Governor's homeland security bill HB 13 again today, and a key issue facing the body will be amendments to remove policing and intelligence gathering powers from the Governor's office and place them in the Texas Department of Public Safety. (See Grits' coverage of last week's floor debate.)

HB 13's sponsor David Swinford claimed having the Governor oversee these funds was required by federal statute, but as I reported over the weekend, that's not true. It turns out grant money would be given directly to counties from the US Attorney General and would not pass through the Governor at all!

Indeed, Rep. Rick Noriega's office compiled an analysis of where these functions have been placed in all 50 states that staff will distribute to House members. Bottom line, here's an overview of where various states have placed homeland security powers:

Governor: 12
Department of Public Safety: 15
Adjutant General: 5
Independent Agency: 11
Other: 6

So other states don't have HB 13's structure, and there is no federal statute or even pending legislation in Congress that would require such funds to pass through the Governor's office. Given Chairman Swinford's misreading of the proposed federal law and his misunderstanding with Congressman Culberson (who did not draft his federal legislation to mirror Swinford's bill), I hope he backs off these unnecessary and increasingly inexplicable demands.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, at Quorum Report's Daily Buzz, thanks to Harvey Kronberg for the shout out regarding Sunday's Grits post on HB 13 and federal funding. Here's what Harvey took from it:

BLOG RAISES GOOD QUESTION: WHY KILL HB13 RATHER THAN MOVE FUNCTIONS AND FEDERAL FUNDING TO DPS?

Recently drafted congressional bill (HR 4437) includes no requirement that funding go through governor's office.

One of the biggest issues standing in the way of passage of HB13 is whether or not the Governor's Office should control operations and dollars rather than a non-political law enforcement agency such as DPS.

Durng the intense debate on HB13last Thursday, Chairman Swinford referred to federal funding commitments that must be routed through the Governor's office. From the front mike, he told Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) he would not give up the millions of dollars in federal funds promised by Congressman John Culberson (R-Houston) who sits on the Appropriations Homeland Security subcommittee in D.C. He added that he could not control federal requirements for the distribtution of funds.

Over the weekend, Scott Henson at Grits for Breakfast pointed out that the federal legislation had just been drafted and included no requirement of gubernatorial control. Henson also questioned what stroke Culberson had to make such commitments now that he is a member of the minority party.

You can read the entire post here.

NUTHER UPDATE: At the Texas Observer blog, Jake Bernstein has more on this with a title I'm kicking myself for not having come up with myself: Don't Cry For Me, David Swinford. The House is late getting back from lunch as I update this (and they STILL, God help us, haven't finished the no-smoking bill), but sometime this afternoon perhaps we'll hear them hum a few bars.

Swinford's line in the sand on HB 13 makes no sense

So since when does Congressman John Culberson get a vote in the Texas House of Representatives when he can't even get his bills passed in Washington?

House State Affairs Chairman David Swinford has said he'd rather kill HB 13, the Governor's homeland security bill, than move police powers to the Department of Public Safety away from the Governor's control. In both the committee hearings and on the floor the other day Swinford referenced a deal he made with Congressman John Culberson that he intended to honor. According to the El Paso Times:

Swinford said moving control of border security money out of Perry's office could jeopardize a deal he has made with Texas congressmen to get border sheriffs more federal money. "I will kill the bill before I go back on my word," he said.

That struck me as odd, and the chair has said it more than once - he'd rather kill his own bill than move this out of Gov. Perry's control!

What sort of deal could this be, I wondered? Why would John Culberson have so much say so over whether Texas gets money or not or whether a state agency is under the Governor or under an independent board?

I asked around and it turns out Chairman Swinford distributed correspondence between himself and Culberson from April declaring that the legislation that supposedly will get Texas this money hadn't even been filed in Congress yet! A press release from a coalition of Southwestern Border Sheriffs dated May 2 declared:

Congressmen Culberson, Cuellar and Rodriguez are co sponsoring a bill that will address border crime issues. The bill is in the draft stage at this time.

Moreover, when it was filed in 2005, the bill failed. Think about that: In 2005 Culberson's party was in the majority in Congress and he couldn't get this bill passed. Now he's in the minority. Why does Chairman Swinford or anyone else think the bill has a better chance now?

A better question: Should the Texas Legislature base its decisions about who provides oversight to the homeland security office based on John Culberson's dicta? Besides, it doesn't sound like Congressman Culberson is having much luck securing the money. Govexec.com wrote on April 24:

Cuellar said he is working with Reps. John Culberson, R-Texas, and Ciro Rodriguez, D-Texas, on a bill that would authorize $100 million for local law enforcement.

He said the bill will be filed as early as this week, and will be debated by the Homeland Security Committee. In the short term, however, the lawmakers are pressing the Homeland Security Department to find "several million dollars" that can be sent now.

"[The department] said that any money that's on the table right now ... they will work with us to try to expedite it as soon as possible down to local law enforcement," Cuellar said. "We're going to push them real hard."

Cuellar added that the House Homeland Security Border Subcommittee plans to debate a major border security bill in May. "We're trying to find not only the long-term solution but also the short-term solutions," he said.

"We want the president to look at comprehensive immigration reform, and we're going to try to get him to help us get as many Republicans on board as we can because we can't pass it with just Democrats," Cuellar said.

Some Republicans have refused to support such a bill because they believe it would give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said lawmakers are having "constructive discussions" on a bill but have yet to reach any agreements.

So there are no agreements on the bill yet, and certainly not on any new pot of money. The legislation was apparently filed last week, though - it's HR 4437, a massive 256 page bill (pdf) which contains a provision buried deep within it creating a grant program for county sheriffs. Contrary to Chairman Swinford's representations, the bill does not require the Governor's office to control anything. In fact, it delegates all such rulemaking and decisions about grant parameters to the US Attorney General's office, which is authorized to give grants directly to counties. The governor isn't mentioned anywhere at all in the Sheriffs grants (see p. 149-153).

What's going on here? I don't understand it myself, but I don't see any statutory or policy reason for Chairman Swinford to draw the line in the sand where he has. If he'd rather kill the bill than take power from the governor, the reason must be something besides Culberson's legislation, which almost certainly will not pass and which didn't even exist when HB 13 was filed.

How David Swinford's Bad Day Made HB 13 A Better Bill

After I called it the Governor's Great Homeland Security Power Grab this morning, the debate over HB 13 was as bizarre today as it was long and pointless (since the bill was pulled down after four hours on a point of order).

Then again, in a real sense it wasn't pointless at all. The Texas House openly rebelled against having another bad bill thrust down its throat by the leadership - in this case the Governor and Speaker Craddick. It was really quite a sight to behold.

I was sorry for David Swinford, the Chair of the State Affairs Commitee and bill sponsor, who had a really bad day. He nearly cried at the front mike as he pulled the bill down, and also later in the committee hearing afterward where he bitterly told a lobbyist for the ACLU that if the bill went down it was her fault!

On that score, I felt like Hunter Thompson when Richard Nixon's enemies list was published and he wasn't on it - I was kicking that bill, sir, before it was down! How about spreading your disapprobation a little more generously?! ;) I would think the Texas Observer would get some of the "blame," too, not to mention Jessica Farrar - she did an admirable job insisting on greater accountability in the bill.

The truth is, Mr. Swinford should be blaming Speaker Tom Craddick, if anybody, for his bill's meltdown tonight on the House floor. After sustaining a point of order four hours into the debate, the Speaker ordered Swinford to move for suspension of "all necessary rules" with a 2/3 vote to ignore the point of order and simply take back up where they left off!

For those not versed in Insider Baseball at the Texas capitol, the motion was quite unusual. Without strict rules, the 150-person House would quickly devolve into chaos, as it nearly did this afternoon. Swinford looked unhappy even asking for such an extraordinary indulgence and acknowledged (when it clearly wasn't going to fly) that he probably wouldn't usually support such a move either. If such a thing were possible it would have been done in 1997 when Arlene Wohlgemuth took down an entire day's House calendar with a single point of order. It didn't occur to anyone then, and it didn't fly today.

The Speaker was also to blame IMO, because Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer raised a similar point of order when the bill was first laid out that probably should have been sustained. The bill analysis, he noted, claimed the legislation changed a section of the code that does not and has never existed. But the Speaker, doing his best Texas Court of Criminal Appeals imitation, declared it was harmless error. Later Martinez-Fischer and Abel Herrero, after scouring the bill for hours, found additional points of order that made the case against the bill overwhelming. But the Speaker could have just honored the rules in the first place and saved everyone a lot of heartache.

Swinford actually told members as he pulled it down and re-referred it to committee that HB 13 was "not my bill"! If not, then whoever gave it to him asked him to carry a heavy, ultimately untenable load. Next time that person asks, he should decline.

That said, if Swinford takes the amendments that were offered on the floor and the other fixes proposed by the bill's critics (and he said he planned to), it will be a much better bill that deserves passage. They took away the homeland security director's law enforcement duties, including access to the controversial TDEX database, and ensconced it firmly in the Department of Public Safety. The Governor's no-oversight appointment of the homeland security director Steve McCraw, who picked a fight with the wrong Lt. Colonel, became a Senate confirmed appointee re-upped every two years. Tommy Merritt was in the process of amending the bill to have a board of four to seven members (it was up in the air) when the bill went down for the night.

During the debate it came out that the state expects up to $400 million in federal grant funds to pass through the homeland security department in the next biennium in addittion to the $100 million allocated in the House budget. If that awesome figure is even close to accurate, the agency will benefit greatly from the extra structure and accountability the House amendments will provide, and border security will only improve - even if it gave David Swinford a really bad day.

MORE: Kuff rounds up the reaction to yesterday's floor action.

HB 13: The Governor's Great Border Security Power Grab

The Governor's big homeland security bill, HB 13 by Swinford, heads to the House floor today and if I had my druthers they'd shoot the sucker down.

The legislation places many law enforcement and intelligence gathering functions under the purview of the Governor's office, opening the door to all sorts of problems with both the functionality and credibility of border security operations. That's especially problematic since, under the rubric of homeland security, the Governor's office created a massive, Big Brother-esque database. After its creation, nobody could say who was in charge of the database, who was in it, or even what happened to the data after it was given to a private defense contractor.

Rep. Jessica Farrar has issued a press release, reprinted by Kuff here, which details problems with the bill more substantively. Though it's improved since the original filed version, it's still a piece of unnecessary junk - basically a power grab by the Governor - and Farrar's release ably demonstrates how and why.

In addition, chiefs of police on the border have come out in opposition to the bill. How much extra security do you think the bill will provide when even police chiefs don't like it?

There's one thing I find particularly odd about all this. Rep. Farrar and the bill language itself say the legislation would "create" the Texas Fusion Center, which is a massive, secretive, centralized intelligence gathering operation that analyzes info from all levels of law enforcement.

Not only is that redundant with the Department of Public Safety's criminal intelligence division, the "Fusion Center" as I understand it is already in operation - apparently without legal authority. I say that because when the Lege in 2005 removed restrictions on law enforcement's use of fingerprints from the driver license database, Gov. Perry's Texas Fusion Center immediately took the data and gave it to the feds to run against unnamed criminal and terrorism databases.

So this bill won't create the Fusion Center, it will only give cover to Gov. Perry for initiating such projects (like the TDEX database) without legislative authority or approval. The Texas House should send a message to the Governor that he cannot operate above the law and should cease politicizing public safety and border security.

MORE: The Texas Observer has three excellent posts about HB 13 on its blog this morning, see here, here, and here.

See prior, related Grits coverage:

• The Case of the Missing Data
• DPS: Open criminal case data given to Northrop Grunman, never given back
• Don't do it! Perry moves to consolidate intelligence gathering in Governor's office
• Farrar: HB 13 won't secure border, risks letting political concerns interfere with law enforcement

Border police chiefs dislike Governor's homeland security bill

Police chiefs on the border don't like the Governor's homeland security bill, HB 13 by Swinford, AT ALL. Kuff has their letter and details.

See related Grits coverage:

• The Case of the Missing Data
• DPS: Open criminal case data given to Northrop Grunman, never given back
• Don't do it! Perry moves to consolidate intelligence gathering in Governor's office
• Farrar: HB 13 won't secure border, risks letting political concerns interfere with law enforcement

Farrar: HB 13 won't secure border, risks letting political concerns interfere with law enforcement

Legislation passed out of the House State Affairs Committee last week puts too much power in the Governor's hands and improperly orders local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws, said Rep. Jessica Farrar today in a press release. Shevoted against HB 13 when it came out of committee and today called on Chairman David Swinford, the House sponsor, to amend the bill on the floor. Said the release:

Chief among Rep. Farrar’s concerns is that HB 13 creates a State Office of Homeland Security that is placed under the Office of the Governor. "This means that the State Office of Homeland Security is neither a law enforcement agency, nor is it overseen by a law enforcement agency. It is overseen by a political office despite the fact that HB 13 tasks the State Office of Homeland Security with activities that have traditionally been developed, administered, and executed by law enforcement agencies," she stated.

One of the most pressing aspects of this overall concern for Rep. Farrar involves the Texas Data Exchange (TDEx). While HB 13 places TDEx under the Texas Rangers, the Governor's Office of Emergency Management is charged with project management of TDEx. "This means that the Governor’s State Office of Homeland Security continues to have access to and control over the administration of TDEx," she said. In addition, Rep. Farrar noted that the Texas Rangers are already charged with investigating capital murder, helping local law enforcement, investigating official wrongdoing, and overseeing the current Texas Youth Commission investigation with the 112 officers they currently have, and this is where their focus should remain.

Since the Texas Rangers have no experience in administering, developing, or implementing any kind of database, she believes adding this to their list of things to do puts an unfair burden on them. "We have to ask if this is this in the best interest of both TDEx and the Texas Rangers, and I believe the answer is no. The Criminal Law Enforcement Division of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) is charged with maintaining and administering DPS databases. Therefore, TDEx would most naturally be accommodated there, " said Rep. Farrar.

Language in HB 13 requires that local and state law enforcement officers enforce the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act even though Chairman Swinford has repeatedly stated that he did not intend this legislation to force local and state law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws. The language on immigration laws in HB 13 contradicts his statements and supposed intent.

Along with the concern regarding the enforcement of federal immigration law, Rep. Farrar points out that the bill creates a Border Security Council that is charged with deciding how to disburse funds for border security activities. It consists of the director of the State Office of Homeland Security, the public safety director of DPS, and the executive director of the Texas Border Sheriffs' Coalition, which means that the director of the State Office of Homeland Security and the executive director of the Texas Border Sheriffs' Coalition could easily outvote the public safety director of DPS despite the fact that DPS is the state law enforcement arm of the council. In addition, the Border Security Council is charged with implementing performance measures and auditing the programs administered by the State Office of Homeland Security.

The result is that the Governor’s State Office of Homeland Security, which is the entity that administers the border security programs, and the border sheriffs, which are the entities that receive and use the funds for border security programs, decide where the money goes as well as what are and are not adequate results. In other words, says Rep. Farrar, "the same entities receiving the funds for border security are responsible for monitoring and auditing themselves. This is an obvious conflict of interest, and it does not compensate for the fact that a political office will have control over where the money goes and how it is used. I know of no other state-funded agency or body that does not have a second or third party checking in to make sure they are operating appropriately."

Rep. Farrar has repeatedly voiced her concerns regarding the border security programs that the Governor's Office of Homeland Security has already been in charge of. She has called into question their methods of measuring the success of their own operations. "I have seen the reports they use, and they leave a great deal to be desired. No one has been able to fully explain to me how they calculate their statistics, and other law enforcement officials have shared with me that they also question the validity of their so-called success rates. That makes me worry that we are spending a great deal of money on programs that are not going to have a significant and sustained effect on border crime" she said.

Along with the creation of the Border Security Council, HB 13 focuses solely on providing assistance to border sheriffs. "Municipal police forces have been virtually shut out of the programs that so far have been administered by the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security, even though they are charged with the protection of the majority of residents on the Texas border. Municipal police chiefs have voiced their concern to me that they are not included in either the decision-making process involved with these programs in HB 13, nor have they been included in the border security projects that have so far been executed," stated Rep. Farrar.

See prior Grits coverage:

• Don't do it! Perry moves to consolidate intelligence gathering in the Governor's office
• DPS: Open criminal case data given to Northrop Grunman, never received back

Where is press coverage on these big stories?

Since I've been tracking criminal justice topics at the Lege so closely, I thought I'd mention several recent stories covered here on Grits that I'm surprised haven't resulted in significant headlines around the state:

1. Senate backs more prisons: Earlier this year, if state leadership even mentioned the possibility of new prison building it made headlines. Then the Texas Youth Commission scandal came and knocked the issue off reporters' radar screen. When the Senate Finance Committee three weeks ago approved construction of three new prisons, not one newspaper in the state reported it as its own story, though it was mentioned in passing this week when the Senate passed its full budget. The House budget does not contain new prison funding, so this contentious issue must be decided in conference committee.

(UPDATE: The Houston Chronicle finally picked up the story about new prisons up on 4/15.)

2. New TYC Executive Director may have covered up a sex scandal: Gov. Rick Perry appointed then-TDCJ #2 man Ed Owens, whose wife is chair of the Board of Pardons and Parole, to run the Texas Youth Commission. But last year the state settled a lawsuit (amount sealed, but supposedly in the mid-six figures) that alleged in part that Owens covered up allegations of sexual harassment and abuse by a high-level subordinate. There was a lawsuit filed and settled containing allegations of a coverup by TYC's new chief that are thematically similar to those that caused the last ED to resign - why hasn't this been covered?

3. Governor Perry's border initiative doesn't coordinate with Texas' major drug enforcement efforts: The Texas Observer's coverage this week focused new attention on the Governor's homeland security machinations, but to me the biggest revelations about Texas border security operations this spring have so far been ignored by the press. In recent testimony, a DPS Narcotics division commander revealed that Governor Perry's much-ballyhooed Operations Linebacker/Rio Grande/Wrangler did not coordinate or share information with DPS Narcotics, do not participate in anti-drug agreements with Mexican law enforcement, and don't utilize federal "deconfliction" centers to make sure their efforts didn't harm other investigations. Asked about eleven new "joint operational intelligence centers" the Governor says are managing Texas' border surge, DPS Narcotics says they "didn't have anything to do" with them, even though DPS is the state's primary drug enforcement agency. Despite the Governor's management of border operations increasingly resembling the Keystone Kops, the House approved $100 million (in GR) and the Senate approved $54 million (only $10 million GR).

I would have thought each of these stories deserved press attention, but so far the MSM has been silent, particularly on the last two topics. What gives? Am I missing something, or don't these stories deserve broader media play?

DPS: Open criminal case data given to Northrop Grunman, never received back

A critical exchange occurred this afternoon at the House State Affairs Committee regarding Chairman David Swinford's beleaguered HB 13 (most of the day's speakers came out against it - Grits discussed the bill here). Following up on Jake Bernstein's Texas Observer story about "The Governor's Database," which was a big subject of discussion for most of the day, Rep. Rick Noriega asked Kent Mayer, the Chief of DPS' Criminal Law Enforcement Division, point blank:

Did DPS hand over data about open investigations to a private company (Northrop Grunman)?

"Yes" was the answer.

Noriega then asked whether Mayer knew if information given to Northrop Grunman was either destroyed or received back by the agency?

"No sir," came the answer, not to his knowledge.

That's an important revelation, since the Observer reported that Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw, who authorized the contract on behalf of the Governor's Division of Emergency Management,

insists that the data DPS gave Northrop Grumman were eventually returned. Extensive public records requests have not revealed any documentation to that effect.

What's more, McCraw told the committee earlier in the day that only information from closed cases was given to the company. That wasn't true. So Noriega successfully nailed down two key claims by the Governor's Homeland Security Director that appear demonstrably false - the information DID include open criminal case information, and DPS has NOT received either the data back nor evidence that it was destroyed.

UPDATE: See related MSM and blog coverage:

• Houston Chronicle: Got a ticket? You might be in Perry's terror database
• Dallas News: Perry aide has data on Texans
• Austin Statesman: Lawmakers concerned about governor's database, who has oversight
• Fort Worth Star Telegram: Database prompts reaction
• Amarillo Globe-News: David Swinford's really bad day
  
• In the Pink Texas: Kentucky Fried Surveillance
• Texas Politics: Email campaign backs Governor's border power grab
  
• Capitol Annex: In Nixonian twist, Governor's administration supervising massive illegal database
• Somervell County Salon: Wake up Texans, our civil right are being threatened
  
• Musings: Rick Perry Knows Too Much About You
• Dvorak Uncensored: The Governor's Database
• Off the Kuff: Big Governor is watching you
  
• Isghamachine: Governor Perry, Dataminer
• Texas Observer blog: TDEX Exposed
• Wired blog: A Texas "TIA"?
  

Don't Do It!! Perry moves to consolidate intelligence gathering in Governor's office

Another major Gubernatorial power grab lies waiting in the wings related to border enforcement in the form of HB 13 by Swinford, which will be heard in the House State Affairs Committee this morning at 8 a.m.. It's the only bill on the agenda.

Jake Bernstein at the Texas Observer has excellent coverage of the Governor's efforts to consolidate information, databases, and ultimately power over key law enforcement functions in his office away from its traditional home in the Department of Public Safety. Reports Bernstein ("The Governor's Database," April 20):

What is most striking, and disturbing, about the database is that it is not being run by the state’s highest law enforcement agency—the Texas Department of Public Safety. Instead, control of TDEx, and the power to decide who can use it, resides in the governor’s office.

That gives Perry, his staff, future governors, and their staffs potential access to a trove of sensitive data on everything from ongoing criminal investigations to police incident reports and even traffic stops. In their zeal to assemble TDEx, Perry and his homeland security director, Steve McCraw, have plunged ahead with minimal oversight from law enforcement agencies, and even DPS is skittish about the direction the project has taken.

Jake's article is a must-read. He focuses particularly (as does Capitol Annex in this post) on the Nixonian-type accumulation of raw intelligence data under the auspices of a politician instead of law enforcement professionals:

“Criminal intelligence data should be in the hands of a professional law enforcement agency that has distance from the political pressures on elected officials,” says Rebecca Bernhardt, immigration, border and national security policy director for the Texas ACLU. “How can we be sure that we will never have a governor who will misuse this power?”

Rather than take a serious look at these issues, the Texas Legislature seems intent on giving Perry even more power. The governor is pushing an appropriation of $100 million for border and homeland security. Presumably, some of that money would be used for TDEx. House State Affairs Chairman David Swinford, a Dumas Republican, is offering House Bill 13, “relating to homeland security issues.” The bill is scheduled for hearing on Friday, April 13. Leading up to the hearing, the bill’s content was a bit of a moving target. Two days before the hearing, there already had been two committee substitutes, with the possibility of a third on the way.

As noted yesterday, the House approved the Governor's $100 million request, but the Senate only approved $54 million, just $10 million of which would come from General Revenue.

We've already seen that Governor Perry's efforts to consolidate intelligence gathering under Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw have taken on a Keystone Kops flavor. As I mentioned recently,

I mentioned that I spoke to Patrick O'Burke about drug task forces earlier today - he's the Deputy Commander of DPS' Narcotics division. While I had him on the phone, I asked O'Burke about the Governor's joint operational intelligence centers that were announced earlier this year. Much to my surprise, he told me DPS Narcotics "didn't have anything to do" with any of that.

Understandably the deputy commander didn't feel comfortable baring his soul to an unemployed blogger, but he said he'd addressed these issues last Wednesday at a joint hearing of the State Affairs and Border & International Security Committees. So I went to look, and indeed he gave his "Border Threat Briefing" as the very last invited speaker on quite a long agenda.

Here's the link to an audio file of the committee hearing. O'Burke's testimony begins at the 9:34:45 mark (yes, the hearing lasted more than 10 hours!). Interesting stuff, and worth a listen for anyone who cares about the border or the drug war.

The most shocking news came at the end of his testimony in response to questioning, I couldn't tell by whom. There is no coordination at all between DPS and the Governor's Border Security Operations Center, O'Burke replied in response to a query. He said DPS' Narcotics division didn't know about some of the Governor's proposals until after they were operational. He knew nothing, he said, about any of their training, protocols, or after-operation procedures, and said he wasn't even aware if there were any - to his knowledge the sheriffs, he said, mostly "do whatever they want." ...

DPS is the state's primary statewide drug trafficking enforcement agency, and if they're not dialed in then the operation is neither very "joint" nor "intelligent." If they're not coordinating with DPS Narcotics, if they're not working with federal "deconfliction" centers, if they're not party to intelligence from secret agreements with the Mexican government, then these "joint operational intelligence centers" aren't really in the drug enforcement game on the border - that's just a fact.

Before the Lege sinks $100 million into the Governor's plan, perhaps they ought to consider making sure the money already sunk into border enforcement was spent wisely.

So the Governor's border operations have spent tens of millions of dollars without coordinating with key agencies. The Senate Criminal Justice Committee studied the program during the interim and recommended that:

Future grants to border operations should be made through a fiscally accountable state agency. The method of distribution did not account for population size, department size, or crime rates. There was no measure for success or failure built into the program, and an alarming lack of stipulations for use of the money.

What does that tell you about the wisdom of consolidating operations in the Governor's office?

HB 13 has changed since the filed version, but I obtained a copy yesterday evening of what I believe to be the latest committee substitute. The most egregious portion by far would place the Department of Public Safety's "criminal intelligence division" under the purview of the Governor's office and the Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw. According to a fact sheet on the bill prepared by the ACLU:

HB 13 formally changes the focus of the Office of Homeland Security from emergency planning and preparedness to intelligence gathering. HB 13 would eliminate the Texas Infrastructure Protection Communications Center and create a new entity called the “Texas Fusion Center” that does not have a limited or even clearly defined purpose. Texans deserve to know what information is being collected by the “Texas Fusion Center” and for what purposes.

What's the Texas Fusion Center? I don't know a lot about it, but I first heard of the entity after Texas removed restrictions on law enforcement's use of fingerprint and biometric data from Texas' civilian drivers license database. The data was handed over lock stock and barrel to the Fusion Center, which proceeded to start matching the data with unnamed federal databases that no one had ever mentioned in debates at the Legislature over eliminating constraints on using Texans personal information. As I wrote at the time:

So Texas has not only removed restrictions on police using drivers' fingerprints, now the state will routinely vet them through federal databases nobody ever mentioned before. That's almost the definition of a slippery slope. (Before HB 2337 passed, drivers' fingerprints in Texas were considered private, personal data only accessible with a court order.)

I honestly can't imagine a worse idea from a pure accountability perspective that putting the state's intelligence apparatus under the Governor. It's just inappropriate bordering on corrupt to give the state's executive that power - the kind of thing you expect from the East German Stasi, not liberty-loving Texans.

Criminal intelligence is the division that manages wiretaps statewide, even for local departments (though legislation moving this session aims to change that). They gather intelligence from a wide variety of sources, but much of the raw intelligence contains faulty information or at least unverified data of questionable veracity.

Such information should not be in the hands of a political appointee like McCraw, but of the career law enforcement officers who've managed those functions for Texas since the division was first established 75 years ago or so as a sort of "red squad" to root out Communists. Despite that ignominious history, the agency has professionalized greatly in recent decades and remains IMO the best location for Texas' criminal intelligence functions. I trust DPS more than I do the Governor's political operatives to respect the law and the public's privacy.

Remember, even if you like this Governor, you probably won't like the next one, or the one after that. Keeping this power separated from the executive's direct control is an important check and balance on abuse of power by ANY governor, and there's no compelling argument I've heard as to why they should be removed now. The Legislature should reject or neuter this bill - as it stands HB 13 is a recipe for abuse.

CPPP tells a tale of two prison budgets

The Center for Public Policy Priorities has published a side by side analysis (pdf) of the Texas House and Senate budgets, and I thought I'd point out what's going on with the criminal justice budgets.

For prisons, treatment and diversion programs, the nonprofit reports, the House would spend "$4.5 billion [in] All Funds. Rehabilitation/diversion proposal (TDCJ Rider 83) includes $154 million in General Revenue increases for substance abuse and mental health treatment, probation, parole, and prison chaplains."

The Senate would spend "$4.6 billion [in] All Funds. TDCJ Rider 85: $201 million for rehabilitation/diversion. Also: issue remaining Proposition 8 bonds ($283 million), of which $233 million would be used to build three 1,330-bed prisons.

So two things stand out to me - one, by CPPP's analysis the Senate would actually spend $47 million more on rehab programs than the House. Second, as I've reported previously, the Senate would build three new prisons. Once constructed these units would cost more than $100 million annually for operations and debt service, but those costs aren't included in this biennium.

Give me my druthers and I'd take the Senate's recommendation on rehab funds and the House recommendation on new prison building. But then, that's why God created conference committees.

Another interesting difference in the two budgets arises in the area of Gov. Perry's border security funding. The House would give the program a whopping $100 million from the General Revenue fund (GR), while the Senate budgeted just $54 million for the program, only $10 million of which comes from GR.

I don't think they should spend any new money on the Governor's current failed program - a different border security strategy entirely is required. Gov. Perry's various operations failed to reduce crime, didn't coordinate with established Texas drug enforcement, and according to the Senate Criminal Justice Committee there "was no measure for success or failure built into the program, and an alarming lack of stipulations for use of the money."

On both corrections and border spending, all the major questions will be resolved in conference committee. These two budgets really just set the terms of debate as starting points for those decisionmakers.

DPS and Governor's border operations don't coordinate, at all

The Governor's Operation Linebacker/Rio Grande/Wrangler/etc. hasn't been coordinating efforts funded under the program with the Department of Public Safety Narcotics division, a DPS official told legislators last week.

I mentioned that I spoke to Patrick O'Burke about drug task forces earlier today - he's the Deputy Commander of DPS' Narcotics division. While I had him on the phone, I asked O'Burke about the Governor's joint operational intelligence centers that were announced earlier this year. Much to my surprise, he told me DPS Narcotics "didn't have anything to do" with any of that.

Understandably the deputy commander didn't feel comfortable baring his soul to an unemployed blogger, but he said he'd addressed these issues last Wednesday at a joint hearing of the State Affairs and Border & International Security Committees. So I went to look, and indeed he gave his "Border Threat Briefing" as the very last invited speaker on quite a long agenda.

Here's the link to an audio file of the committee hearing. O'Burke's testimony begins at the 9:34:45 mark (yes, the hearing lasted more than 10 hours!). Interesting stuff, and worth a listen for anyone who cares about the border or the drug war.

The most shocking news came at the end of his testimony in response to questioning, I couldn't tell by whom. There is no coordination at all between DPS and the Governor's Border Security Operations Center, O'Burke replied in response to a query. He said DPS' Narcotics division didn't know about some of the Governor's proposals until after they were operational. He knew nothing, he said, about any of their training, protocols, or after-operation procedures, and said he wasn't even aware if there were any - to his knowledge the sheriffs, he said, mostly "do whatever they want."

Uh ... accountability, anyone?

Anyway, back to the drug war, three major Mexican cartels operate along the Texas-Mexico border, said O'Burke - the Juarez, Gulf, and Sinaloa (or Alliance) cartels. The Sinaloa and Gulf cartels are feuding over Nuevo Laredo and I-35, he said, garnering that corridor a recent high profile. But other parts of the border actually account for greater traffic, he noted, particularly the Webb/Hidalgo County area.

(Grits' aside: Some observers have speculated that the real Gulf/Sinaloa battle is happening in preparation for a new network of highways connecting the Pacific Coast to commercial trade networks being constructed in central Mexico that will boost I-35's importance in the next few years.)

In 2005, said O'Burke, DPS entered into several cooperative agreements, some of them secret, with Mexican officials to analyze and coordinate border and narcotics enforcement on both sides of the river. Better intelligence as a result of these efforts had led to more effective targeting of investigative resources, he said, citing the statistic I mentioned this morning that their agency's narcotics arrests declined 40% while seizures doubled.

Even so, he said, with improved intelligence DPS now estimates that law enforcement seizes less than 10% of the drugs smuggled across the border. He said narcotics agents previously "hoped" they interdicted 10%, but they now know that's not true. Improved surveillance techniques by cartels (coupled, this blogger would add, the assistance of corrupt officers and government agents) makes high profile surge tactics like those sponsored by the Governor's various border operations of "limited" use.

Interdiction, he said, is most useful to collect intelligence, as a "window" into the cartels. But "dismantling and disrupting" the leadership was the goal, he said. The cartels considered losses to interdiction part of the "cost of doing business," he said.

Instead, O'Burke said it was a better tactic to target organizational structures. Working with DEA, DPS identified 12 "gatekeepers" for the cartels along the southwest border, 9 of which are in border towns on both sides of the Rio Grande. These are among the Texas Priority Organization Targets (T-POTs) identified by DPS for focusing their limited enforcement resources. But apparently they haven't talked to anyone at the Governor's "joint operational intelligence centers" about any of it!

I'm pretty close to saying I called this one. When the Governor's plan was announced I wrote:

My first question: If they're "joint," why are there 11 of them? How will these 11 distinct entities be coordinated, or are we setting ourselves up for more turf battles down the line?

And doesn't "joint operational intelligence center" sound like made up bureaucratese? That doesn't tell me who will be calling the shots on a day to day basis, or what are these guard troops' rules of engagement on the border. More to learn to understand what's really going on here.

That seems to be what's happening. DPS is the state's primary statewide drug trafficking enforcement agency, and if they're not dialed in then the operation is neither very "joint" nor "intelligent." If they're not coordinating with DPS Narcotics, if they're not working with federal "deconfliction" centers, if they're not party to intelligence from secret agreements with the Mexican government, then these "joint operational intelligence centers" aren't really in the drug enforcement game on the border - that's just a fact.

Before the Lege sinks $100 million into the Governor's plan, perhaps they ought to consider making sure the money already sunk into border enforcement was spent wisely. I always considered that money pure election-year pork, and O'Burke's testimony confirms that Operations Wrangler/Rio Grande/Linebacker weren't ever integrated into the state's ongoing drug fighting strategies.

Those were the highlights, but the rest of O'Burke's testimony is full of remarkable stuff. I'd encourage anyone interested in what's going on at the front lines of Texas' drug war to give it a listen.

What is the Sheriff's Association Lege Agenda?

The Odessa American reports today that Midland Sheriff Gary Painter was in Austin lobbying on behalf the Sheriffs Association this week. Here's the agenda they were promoting:

Members of the Sheriff’s Association of Texas discussed varying issues with their respective senators and representatives about bills they consider important, including issues of:

• Blue Warrant inmates in Texas county jails.
• Funding for MHMR, TDCJ and mental health services and the mental health patients impact on county jails.
• Methamphetamine manufacture, dealing and abuse.
• Texas Border Security.
• The abolishment or elimination of county elected offices.
• Annual pay supplement for deputy sheriffs and sheriffs and a minimum entry pay for peace officers.

Painter spoke to Sen. Kel Seliger specifically about the Blue Warrant inmates in Texas county jails. “It’s about being able to allow parolees kept for technical issues to bond out of the county jail. The county jail is being used as a sanction facility until they have their hearing, which could be from three to six months,” he said.

Looking at that list, for starters I wonder how much more damage the Sheriffs hope to do on the methamphetamine front? If they're not there to promote drug courts and treatment, IMO they're almost certainly pushing to make things worse. Clearly they don't know what they're doing on that score, or their big War on Sniffles last session would have worked.

I'm with 'em on the mental health issue, and they have a new ally in Advocacy Inc., too. I hope they get the beds they need to treat mentally ill defendants who've been declared incompetent to stand trial.

Regular readers know all they want on borders security is money, and that what's been spent so far had no effect on crime. They haven't spent what they've gotten already accountably, while I've argued that the money should be spent first to combat the mounting wave of law enforcement corruption on the border.

Finally, I've always laughed when counties complain about blue warrants as an "unfunded mandate" to the counties. That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Let me respond, "Pot, meet kettle. I think you'll have a lot in common!"

For starters, the state must accept these blue warrant prisoners within 45 days after they are "paper ready," and the last I heard the average wait time was less than three weeks. But that ignores the bigger hypocrisy: The funding of Texas' criminal justice system - and I suppose in most states - is really a giant unfunded mandate in the other direction, from cities and counties to state government via the prison system.

Cops and sheriffs who work for municipalities and counties make the arresting decisions, county prosecutors decide what to charge, and locally elected judges (and in rare instances, juries) are ultimately responsible sentencing. All those are local government actors. But the cost of incarceration is borne by the state. So local prosecutors who are super aggressive on lower level charges like John Bradley in Williamson County or Chuck Rosenthal in Harris actually cost the state a disproportionate amount compared to other counties, as do hang-em-high judges seeking to prove their "tuffness" as credentials for higher office.

Make me philosopher king and I'd require each county to repay the state for at least a portion of the cost for everyone it elects to imprison. (The magnitude of that imagined debt dwarfs the petty issue of blue warrants by a country mile.) Right now local taxpayers are artificially insulated from the decisions of local criminal justice officials, so prosecutors and judges can be "tuff" in their campaigns and in the courtroom without ever being held accountable for the fiscal consequences.

That's a fantasy, and would require reworking the state constitution to accomplish. But just contemplating such a pay as you go arrangement shows what a small issue blue warrants are in the scheme of things, and how hollow the Sheriffs' cries of injustice sound on the matter.

There are things the Legislature could do to reduce county jail overcrowding that would help far more than anything they could possibly accomplish on blue warrants, if they had the gumption. More on that topic perhaps soon.