The Board of Directors of the Greater Fort Bend Economic Development Council passed a resolution today expressing their unanimous support for the Fort Bend ISD Bond Election that has been called for November 6, 2007.

As one of the fastest growing counties in the United States, Fort Bend County is now home to over 500,000 residents. The Fort Bend ISD currently serves approximately 69,000 students, and enrollment is projected to grow to 75,000 over the next three years. The proposed bond is a positive step towards meeting the challenges posed by such fast growth.

The $428 million bond referendum, if approved, will be used to renovate and improve existing schools and facilities, improve technology, build much needed new campuses, secure land for future school sites, purchase more buses, and enhance the security of schools across the district.

Economic excellence is a guiding principle for the Greater Fort Bend Economic Development Council who works closely with companies who are considering relocating to Fort Bend County. Excellent public schools are a critical part of the decision-making process for these companies. “Schools are like magnets, good schools attract and bad schools repel”, commented Herb Appel, CEO of the Greater Fort Bend Economic Development Council.

Appel, along with four other members of the Council, served on the Bond Steering Committee which was comprised of community members and Fort Bend ISD staff. They performed an extensive review and evaluation of the capital needs of Fort Bend ISD. Upon completion of that work, a positive recommendation was made to the Board of Directors that the Council and its members support the passage of the bond referendum.

We have an extremely important election coming up early in November. Most of the issues involve amendments to the State Constitution. These amendments read like a convention of constitutional lawyers talking “in tongues” to other constitutional lawyers.

Dive in and study them on your own. The STAR has nothing to add to the understanding of this convoluted verbiage.

BUT, the next to the last issue on the ballot is important to all of us. It seeks approval to issue $428 million in bonds for our schools.

We support this if for the simple reason that our kids, our community, and we need it.

Anyway you cut it; our schools are the engine of our community’s growth.

“What kind of schools do you have?” is one of the first questions asked by large corporations and people moving into our area. Just look at the statistics and you understand the importance of our good schools.

Fort Bend Independent School District is, and has been for many years, one of the fastest growing districts in the state. In 1992, FBISD was the 40th largest district in the state. Today it is ranked as being the 7th largest with a 2008 enrollment of 69,000 expected.

Conservative estimates of the district’s growth in student population to 75,500 for 2010 and 88,000 students by 2015.

Numbers alone don’t tell the story of quality and excellence. For the current school year, FBISD had 72 National Merit Semi-finalists. Just for comparison, look at some of the big Houston area school districts: Cypress-Fairbanks ISD—43, Spring Branch ISD –29, Clear Creek ISD—43 and Conroe (including The Wo0odlands) ISD-35, Katy ISD-41..

FBISD 2007 graduates received more than $25 million in academic and athletic college scholarships.

The current growth rate of some 2,300 students per year puts an enormous strain on the district’s schools AND demands new schools be built.

The Bond referendum calls for the construction of eight new campuses in the district—that includes four new elementary schools, two middle schools and one high school plus an alternative learning center and to purchase land for future schools.

These new campuses will account for some $252.7 million.

Renovations for existing campuses, new safety and security for campus safety, new technology equipment and upgrades comes to some $164.1 million. Transportation, including new buses to accommodate our growth and replacement of old equipment will cost another $11.2 million.

Our kids need what the bonds will buy, and for our property owners it means value.

Don’t forget to vote FOR the FBISD bond referendum on Nov. 6, 2007.

On Wednesday, the President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors delivered its report containing six recommendations to fundamentally alter our nation’s military health care system and benefits management systems for our returning troops.

I applaud the Commission’s recommendation to strengthen support for military families, recruit more focused and talented medical professionals, improve prevention and treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Treatment of mental trauma has been shamefully ignored, and I am proud that this Congress has already recognized the problem and taken the initiative to address it by passing bills providing record funding for PTSD and TBI. Our nation’s servicemen and women deserve only the best.

I welcome these recommendations, but I regret that they are only coming now, nearly six years into our war on terror, and only after the Washington Post exposÈ on the conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Even now, the White House chose not to take immediate action to implement the recommendations. This Administration has often been wont to convene a bi-partisan Commission, praise their efforts and then promptly ignore their recommendations. If this report is ignored as well, it will be apparent that the Administration’s priorities do not lie with our nation’s brave soldiers.

The 109th Congress has also abdicated its responsibility to provide oversight and ensure that our servicemen and women receive proper treatment. The 110th Congress however, has already taken swift action. I am proud that our new majority has restored focus where it belongs – on care and coverage for our nation’s servicemen and women and their families. The House passed the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007, which improves the management of medical care and quality of life for troops receiving outpatient care. I am also proud to have voted for increased funding for veterans in need, and an unprecedented $6.7 billion dollar increase for the Veteran’s Administration (VA). We were voted into office to replace a do-nothing Congress and oversee an apathetic administration, and we will not sit idly by while our veterans are treated as second class citizens.

As the nation with the greatest military in the history of the world, it is embarrassing that veterans and their families wait for months or even years for their benefits, and then have to wage yet another fight to keep them. There is no excuse for neglecting our brave men and women. Our troops show extraordinary dedication by risking their lives to defend our freedoms. Their government owes them nothing less when they return.

Although we are not going to make endorsement in all races, we feel there are some primary races which will be decisive in the general election, either by virtue of the candidates we chose to run against the other political parties, or that will be decided in the primary with no general election opponent.

County Clerk Dianne Wilson--is an excellent elected official and a staunch defender of the public’s right to know. She almost single-handedly brought Fort Bend County record keeping into the 21st century and has been a statewide leader in her field. The county has benefitted from her involvement in the state associations as Wilson has kept up with technology and brought those ideas home to Fort Bend.

Her opponent, on the other hand, has lived in Fort Bend for 17 months, has never been involved in local activities, either political or charitable, and has little on her resume to recommend her for this job. Her original message has been to keep records off the internet, a platform she has since recanted, but which shows she has little knowledge of the job. Her other message has been one of attacks on Wilson.

Gary Gillen--is an outstanding Republican advocate and has spent much of his time and his own money to help Republican candidates, some even from other states. He is organized and a small business man. He is an inclusive candidate without a narrow ideological agenda who will continue the “big tent” concept that has dominated Eric Thode’s tenure.

I have worked with both of his opponents who are disorganized and ineffectual. They are beholden to small interest groups who will advance a religious ideological agenda that has no place in politics.

Tony Dale--One position on the ballot receives very little notice and usually doesn’t engender much controversy or campaign contributions which allow a lot of advertising. That may be why is has such a low profile.

However, the State Board of Education consists of 15 elected members, and they oversee the public education system of Texas. Fort Bend County is in District 10 and a local woman is in the race. But this local woman has accepted a $10,000 campaign contribution from the wife of James Leininger, a conservative activist and school voucher proponent.

Tony Dale has children in Texas public schools while his opponent home-schools her children, although Dale believes in letting home schoolers continue their success.

We agree with Tony Dale when he says, “If you want to serve in public policy for four million Texans in public schools, it probably helps to have your kids in public schools.”

His opponent believes in teaching intelligent design, while Tony Dale believes until the law is changed that should be taught at home and at church.

Tom Campbell-Although I like Pat Baig and am more philosophically aligned with her moderate agenda, I believe that unless we elect Tom Campbell as our U.S. Congressman, then Congressional District 22 will fall to Democrat Nick Lampson in November.

Tom Campbell is a conservative Republican who previously served in the administration of George Bush (41). He is an honest man and husband (28 years), and father (six plus two foster children). He’s never run for office before but felt compelled after seeing what Tom DeLay did as a congressman from his district.

A college graduate with a law degree, he is committed to conservative values, including limited, transparent and honest government.

Tom DeLay is the poster boy for lobbying stranglehold on the laws of our land. His actions are being used to oust Republican office holders all across the country and a total shake-up in contribution rules. He has been admonished by the Republican-controlled House ethics committee an unprecedented four times, and has changed his story several times about his relationship with disgraced lobbyists Jack Abramoff. Reelecting him would make Fort Bend County the laughing stock of the United States.

The ethical lapses of Tom DeLay are too numerous to mention in this space but they include siccing the IRS on a nonprofit group that questioned him, changing the Republican rules about the majority leader having to step down if indicted, and even using the Homeland Security to track some fleeing Democrats.

Why are politicians allowed to accept PAC, lobbyist or any special interest money?

Those bozo’s (no offense to clowns) in congress passed that stupid campaign finance reform law - McCain-Feingold - (supposedly President Bush only signed it because he and other Republicans just knew it would be ruled unconstitutional) when all they had to do was outlaw any PAC or lobbyist campaign contributions.

The only money they should be allowed to accept is from individuals from their district (congressmen) or state (senators) or the entire US (president). No businesses, lobbyist, PAC, unions or any special interests of any kind should be allowed to pad politicians campaign coffers.

Why should this company or that company or this political action committee or that one be allowed to give them money? They (a PAC) can’t vote for them so there is no logical reason to allow it. Lobbyists and PACs would NOT be outlawed. They could still exist and even raise money and they can even lobby all they want - they just couldn’t give that money to any candidate - period (or employ any politician’s relative or family member????).

If they want to push their special interest - let them. If they want to run ads - I of course have no problem with that (I run a newspaper and like selling ads). They could run ads in districts and maybe the constituents would tell their representative to take this action or that. If local PAC ads don’t influence constituents to “take up the PAC’s cause” then it must not be important to the constituents.

This would stop the power of incumbency in its tracks. But, those bozos will never pass this since there is obviously an incestuous relationship between lobbyists and any politician as long as voters don’t demand them to do so. I would like you to give me one good reason why voters shouldn’t demand this ( Michael@FortBendStar.com ). It is time for we the people to take back our government. If we have to elect some single issue candidates, so be it. The Congressmen that we have been electing appear only to be interested in getting re-elected.

By the way, I think this would be fine for state and local law as well (precincts, county, city council districts, etc). And if they don’t know for sure that a campaign contribution came from someone in their “contribution universe,” they had better not take the contribution. I think there would be a lot of returned contribution checks in this scenario.

Michael Fredrickson

Fort Bend Star General Manager

Tom DeLay has been attacked by leftist Democrats for years, and he has always come out smelling like a rose. Now, a partisan district attorney has convinced a grand jury to indict DeLay on a charge that apparently was not even a law at the time it was alleged.

This partisan district attorney has an extensive record of political prosecution of Republicans and Democrats alike, but only those that are adversaries of his political friends.

By the way, I don’t think I have voted for DeLay in the general election in the past 10 years (but never for the Democrat either) but always voted for his opponent in the Republican primary (see term limits below).

When I hear an indictment of “conspiracy” my first reaction is..."oh my gosh, that’s horrible," but when these allegations are explained in media reports I think, "so what is the big deal?" I hate to be cynical and say "every politician does it" but every allegation/accusation seems politically motivated... asked the FFA to find some airplane... took a $70,000 trip to England... played golf at St. Andrews in Scotland paid for by ????

The reason I know it is a partisan witch hunt is that the very same Democrats that are alleging illegalities are the same Dems that defended Tom Foley, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neal and Dan (I’m not a crook) Rostenkowski. Don’t forget, only after the Republicans finally took control of the House of Representative did they make some of these shenanigans illegal/unethical, etc. When the Democrat Party ran the show, it was no holds barred.

I am sick and tired of this and so is “middle” America (apathy, low voter turnout, etc.) and I have a solution. First, repeal any and all campaign contribution laws except one - every contribution must be made with a check and each check is photocopied onto the disclosure form and posted within 24 hours on a single federal government web site listing every federal politician (state politicians on state government site, county, city, etc). This check must be traceable to an individual with a full address, union, corporation, etc. No other laws are needed except full and immediate disclosure.

This will stop the Democrat Party and the Republican Party from these partisan witch hunts and then politicians can get back to defeating each other at the ballot box. By the way, an election every two or six years is NOT term limits and in some cases not even a fair election.

This Friday, September 16, 200 citizens of Fort Bend County will appear in my courtroom as a result of a jury summons. The sad fact however, is that none of them will be chosen as jurors Friday. You see, everyone of these men and women could have been selected as jurors, but each one of them, for one reason or another, failed to appear on August 30, the day they were needed.

Over the past two weeks, the Fort Bend County District Clerk and I have been coordinating a Contempt of Court Docket, scheduled so that each of the 200 who failed to timely show up for jury duty in August will be personally served with notice by the Fort Bend County Sheriff to show up on Friday. Each of them face a potential fine from $100 to $1,000.

Why should all this extra time and energy have to be used to get good people to do what most of them already know they are supposed to do? Maybe some of them, not many I hope, feel like one man who appeared on one of the first juries I impaneled as a brand new judge in 1981. “I don’t want to be here, because my time is just going to be wasted.” True, not every trial is started and finished in 60 minutes with four commercial breaks and a sneak peek at next week’s episode. But that is the way our system works.

The truth is most district court cases are finished within one week from the day they start. Jurors can rest assured that if they are called to serve as jurors in my court for a case like a Scott Peterson or a Michael Jackson, it won’t be a secret. The good news is that cases like those are very few and far between (and, of course, neither of those guys live in Fort Bend County). Or maybe some feel, “I can’t afford to take time away from my job.” I wonder if that is the same person who would read the business section of the local newspaper and complain about - pick one: the high jury verdict of the week, the “guilty” person who walked away free, or the last big corporation which snookered its own shareholders? I would say to any of those complaints, “Don’t grumble about the meal unless you are willing to do some of the cooking.”

Which brings me to “Juror Number 9”. On that same August 30, when 337 citizens of this county chose to ignore their Jury Summons, I did empanel a jury to hear a civil lawsuit. In the overall scheme of things, it was not a major case. It probably should have even been tried in a lower court. To the people on both sides of the lawsuit, however, it mattered a lot.

One of the 12 jurors who sat through the two days of trial was Juror Number 9. What made her remarkable to me was not that she had some great philosophical background or that she brought some extraordinary insight into the claims of the lawsuit. Those are admirable traits to be sure, but are not usually necessary to transform an ordinary citizen into a remarkable juror.

What made Juror Number 9 remarkable to me was the fact that she did not even have to be there. You see, while there is an unqualified exemption for any person with a child under the age of 10 years, my experience over the last 24 years as a presiding judge has taught me that most attorneys are generally willing to let a young housewife with two pre-teen children leave the jury panel. Particularly so when the judge makes it known the trial will last each evening well past the dinner hour.

Juror Number 9 did not make that request and she took her place along with 11 others, each willing to spend whatever time was necessary to see that justice was done. Did she, and all the others, believe jury duty is important? You bet they did.

The case was resolved in court after several years of unsuccessful mediation because these jurors, including Juror Number 9, were willing to participate in the process. None of them were there for the $30 per day we pay our jurors in Fort Bend County (soon to go to $40.00 per day). None came for the free lunches, because we don’t buy them lunch. And I guarantee that none came because of the excitement of that particular trial. They came because it was the right thing to do.

This Friday, I hope I find a roomful of people who really do understand the importance of jury service. I hope that each of them understands that today thousands of our young men and women are placing their own lives in harm’s way to bring the freedoms we too often take for granted to people on the other side of the world. I believe that most of those who appear before me on Friday will recognize the mistake they made on August 30 and will welcome a chance to correct it.

For those few who do not want to be bothered with the time it takes to serve when called for jury service, or who think of a Jury Summons as just another piece of junk mail to be thrown in the trash, I have just one thing to say, “Bring your checkbook.”

Thomas R. Culver, III

Judge, 240th Judicial District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Congratulations are in order. Sugar Land planners, politicians and city managers have turned Sugar Land into a sales tax cash cow. Now, it is time for the city of Sugar Land to eliminate city property taxes. Stafford did this years ago and they manage to pay for their city services with sales taxes and user fees.

Since we cannot get relief from the lobbyist-controlled Texas Legislature, it is time for us to draw the line with our city politicians (especially those professing to be fiscal conservatives) and tell them to budget without property taxes - NOT a cap or freeze - complete elimination.

If Stafford can do it then why can’t Sugar Land do it also? According to the state of Texas website and the city of Sugar Land, the city collected $29.3 million in the last fiscal year. If Sugar Land would not waste our hard-earned dollars on ridiculous luxuries like those street lights running down the middle of Hwy 90-A, I’m sure there will be plenty of money to budget from sales taxes and user fees. By the way, how much did the city have to pay TxDOT for those Crown Royal logos on our freeway bridges?

I am a resident of and love Sugar Land and I think Sugar Land is a great place to live. I just want the people we elect to city office to be as frugal with my tax money as I am in my household budget.

Sugar Land overtaxed taxpayer

Michael Fredrickson

Old FBISD trustees whine...
(should have been last week's headline)

After reading Barbara Fulenwider’s article last week about the new board members delay in getting sworn-in and so many of the remaining board members whining about not being able to thank outgoing members, I thought to myself they could very easily put that on the agenda for a future meeting. Then, after reading quote after quote from remaining board members about how great these former board members were, I realized the board won’t have to do that. They have already done it in the pages of this newspaper.

Board members should not have to be thanked for serving on the board for 10 and 12 years BECAUSE NO BOARD MEMBER SHOULD BE SERVING 10 OR 12 YEARS! Do we need term limits for these boards? Are there no qualified parents out there to serve the community and try to improve FBISD’s low state rating?

Why don’t we make (via the ballot box, nonbinding resolutions, etc.) every county/city official that seeks ANY office serve at least two terms on the school board?

Heck, if they can’t get elected to the school board then maybe they’re not qualified for any other political office. We could hold them accountable for improving that system first before we let them “advance” to a higher office.

My mom, Beverly Carter, goes to the swearing-in ceremony at the Fort Bend County Courthouse on January 1 after the general election. She goes to take pictures for this newspaper. At that ceremony I don’t think they kiss-up to any of the outgoing officeholders. I wonder under what circumstances they would delay that ceremony?

Random House Webster’s College Dictionary’s first definition of patron is... a person who is a customer, client, guest, esp. a regular one of a store, hotel or the like. Where do all these board members, etc. get off to referring to me as a patron? I’m not a customer, volunteer supporter or a patron, I am a taxpayer and the school board better not forget that.

FBISD overtaxed taxpayer and Dulles Middle School student

parent Michael Fredrickson