KTBB News, Weather, Talk

DALLAS – The Dallas Morning News reports the nonprofit group that runs the State Fair of Texas says it has no plans to drop a new policy banning most people from bringing in guns after Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit to block its enforcement. Karissa Condoianis, a spokesperson for the nonprofit State Fair of Texas, which has the same name as the annual event, said Friday the group believes a stricter firearms policy is still the right call for everyone attending the Fair Park-based event. The fair begins in four weeks. “As a private, not-for-profit organization leasing Fair Park for our annual State Fair, we believe we have the right to make this decision and maintain that it is the correct decision to protect the safety of our patrons,” Condoianis said in a statement. Paxton announced Thursday he filed a lawsuit against the nonprofit group, the city of Dallas and interim city manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert. The lawsuit asserts the policy change violates the rights of lawful gun owners and state law. The attorney general argued the State Fair doesn’t have the authority to ban weapons from the city-owned Fair Park.

The state fair announced on Aug. 8 that it would increase security and only allow elected, appointed or employed peace officers to carry firearms into Fair Park. The fair previously allowed attendees with a valid handgun license to bring a gun as long as it was concealed. State law doesn’t require Texans to have a permit to carry a firearm in a public place. The policy change came after a man shot three people at the state fair last year. The lawsuit was filed two weeks after Paxton sent a letter to Tolbert threatening legal action unless the city forced the fair to drop its new gun policy. In a statement, city officials noted Thursday they had no involvement in the fair’s policies and operations. Fair organizers have pointed out that other large annual events around the state — such as the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, the San Antonio Livestock Show and Rodeo Austin — have similar firearm restrictions. The State Fair of Texas runs from Sept. 27 through Oct. 20.

FORT BEND COUNTY – Fort Bend Independent School District’s top 25 earners collected base salaries totaling almost $5 million in the 2023-24 school year, according to staffing data from the Texas Education Agency and the Houston Chronicle. Two superintendents occupied the top-paid spots for the 80,000-student district last school year: Christie Whitbeck, who served as superintendent for the first half of the 2023-24 school year until her sudden departure from the district in December 2023, and her successor, Marcell Smith, who took over in January 2024. Smith’s starting base salary of $410,000 exceeded Whitbeck’s salary at the time of her departure by over $30,000. The move to the Fort Bend ISD was a lucrative one for Smith, who previously served as superintendent of 12,000-student Duncanville ISD in Dallas County until December 2023.

Smith’s move gave him a 5% base pay increase from his $392,000 salary at Duncanville ISD. However, base salary isn’t the only pay Smith will receive as superintendent at Fort Bend ISD. Benefits built into his contract show a retention supplement of $50,000 per year paid by the district into a retirement plan in July of each year, as well supplemental retirement contributions distributed during each of the district’s 24 pay periods totaling $30,000 per school year. In all, Smith’s total pay will top $500,000 a year. Even without the supplemental pay, Smith’s salary places him at No. 7 on the list of highest-paid superintendents in the state in the 2023-24 school year. Cypress-Fairbanks ISD superintendent Mark Henry earned the highest salary of any Texas superintendent that year, making almost $537,000 at the time of his retirement in December 2023, after 12 and a half years leading the district. The Houston Chronicle analysis of Fort Bend’s peer districts in the state – those with 50,000 to 100,000 students enrolled in the 2023-24 school year– found that the average superintendent base salary was about $354,000 last year.

AUSTIN – KUT reports that the State Board of Education will hold public hearings this month over a proposed curriculum for Texas public schools that includes Christian-based religious references in K-5 education. The proposal faced some criticism from the public since it was unveiled by the Texas Education Agency in May. The plan includes a financial incentive of at least $40 per student for school districts that adopt the proposed curriculum. The proposal has also raised eyebrows for people like Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee and lead organizer of Christians Against Christian Nationalism, who said she’s spent the weeks leading up to the hearings informing people about the proposed curriculum. “You know, as a Christian, I do not think it is the job of the state to impart any religion, including my own,” Tyler said. “I believe that religious organizations and families are the place where religion should be taught and do not trust the government to be furthering any religion, including my own.”

Christian references are tucked into lessons for each grade from kindergarten to fifth grade. The references range from the Biblical stories of King David and King Solomon for kindergarteners, to learning about the Last Supper and Bible verses in fifth grade. Tyler said she was also concerned for public school students who were not Christian or came from a different religious background. “Those children have a right to go to school without their family’s choices, when it comes to religion, being interfered with,” she said. The SBOE will vote on the final proposed curriculum in November. Until then, North Texas school districts are not set on whether they will implement it or not. Both the Denton and Fort Worth school districts are waiting to weigh in on the proposed materials. Dr. Camille Rodriguez, Fort Worth ISD board president, wrote in a statement that the decision to implement the materials would ultimately rest with the Board of Trustees. “At this time, it would be premature to speculate on the district’s stance or actions regarding these materials until the board has had the opportunity to thoroughly review and deliberate on them,” she said.

FORT WORTH – The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that families who built their small farms around riding their horses, raising cattle and holding family fish fries in rural Johnson County face an uncertain future because of what they’re finding in the pasture or stock tank: dead or deformed cattle, horses and fish. The past two years have been a “nightmare” for the family farmers, and they point to “forever chemicals” found in fertilizer made from sewage as the reason. The five farmers who live outside of Grandview — James Farmer, Robin Alessi, Patsy Schultz, and Karen and Tony Coleman — have been embroiled in a complex legal battle with the EPA and fertilizer manufacturer Synagro Technologies Inc. and its Texas subsidiary since February, when they filed a lawsuit against Synagro in Circuit Court of Baltimore County and one against the EPA in Washington.

Synagro contracts with Fort Worth to manage the city’s biosolids program, which involves separating solids in the sewage treatment process and recycling the waste into granulate fertilizer. After the sludge is treated in Fort Worth, it is sent to farms in Johnson, Hill and Wise counties, including one that neighbors the farmers’ properties. Synagro contracts with more than 1,000 municipal waste treatment facilities and uses the biosolids to manufacture Synagro Granulite Fertilizer, according to court documents. Biosolids are used instead of commercial fertilizer across the world, but Maine and Connecticut have banned them over concerns about the forever chemicals, and Michigan has placed limits on them. Forever chemicals, also known as PFAS, are man-made synthetic chemicals used in a range of products, including carpet, clothing and nonstick cookware. They don’t break down, and they accumulate in the human body and in the environment.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A decision on whether to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug in the U.S. won’t come until after the November presidential election, a timeline that raises the chances it could be a potent political issue in the closely contested race.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration last week set a hearing date to take comment on the proposed historic change in federal drug policy for Dec. 2.

The hearing date means a final decision could well come in the next administration. While it’s possible it could precede the end of President Joe Biden’s term, issuing it before Inauguration Day “would be pretty expedited,” said cannabis lawyer Brian Vicente.

That could put a new spotlight on the presidential candidates’ positions on marijuana. Vice President Kamala Harris has backed decriminalizing the drug and said it’s “absurd” to have it in the DEA’s Schedule I category alongside heroin and LSD. The Democratic nominee’s position has shifted over the years; she once oversaw the enforcement of cannabis laws and opposed legalized recreational use for adults in California while running for attorney general in 2010.

Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, signaled support for a Florida legalization measure on Saturday, following earlier comments that he increasingly agrees that people shouldn’t be jailed for the drug now legal in multiple states, “whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing.”

During his run for president in 2016, Trump said that he backed medical marijuana and that pot should be left up to the states. But during his first term, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions lifted an Obama-era policy that kept federal authorities from cracking down on the pot trade in states where the drug is legal.

Trump’s campaign didn’t immediately respond to a query about his position on rescheduling the drug.

The Justice Department proposed reclassifying it in May, saying the change would recognize marijuana’s medical uses and acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation’s most dangerous drugs. The proposal, which would not legalize marijuana for recreational use, came after a call for review from Biden, who has called the change “monumental.”

The DEA has said it doesn’t yet have a position on whether to go through with the change, stating in a memo that it would keep weighing the issue as the federal rulemaking process plays out.

The new classification would be the most significant shift in U.S. drug policy in 50 years and could be a potent political issue, especially with younger voters. But it faces opposition from groups such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

Its president, Kevin Sabet, argues there isn’t enough data to move cannabis to the less-dangerous Schedule III category, alongside ketamine and some anabolic steroids. The DEA’s move to hold the hearing is “a huge win in our fight to have this decision guided by medical science, not politics,” he said in a statement, adding that 18 states’ attorneys general are backing his opposition.

The hearing sparked some consternation among pot industry players, though little surprise about the DEA decision to hold one.

“While the result ultimately may be better, I think we’re so used to seeing delays that it’s just a little disappointing,” said Stephen Abraham, chief financial officer at The Blinc Group, supplier of cartridges and other hardware used in pot vapes. “Every time you slow down or hold resources from the legal market, it’s to the benefit of the illicit market.”

The proposal, which was signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland rather than DEA Administrator Anne Milgram, followed a recommendation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Federal drug policy has lagged behind that of many states in recent years, with 38 having already legalized medical marijuana and 24 legalizing its recreational use.

Lawmakers from both major political parties have pushed for the change as marijuana has become increasingly decriminalized and accepted. A Gallup poll last year found 70% of adults support legalization, the highest level yet recorded by the polling firm and more than double the roughly three in 10 who backed it in 2000.

The marijuana industry has also grown quickly, and state-licensed pot companies are keen on rescheduling partly because it could enable them to take federal business-expense tax deductions that aren’t available to enterprises involved in “trafficking” any Schedule I or II drug. For some of Vicente’s clients, the change would effectively reduce the tax rate from 75% to 25%.

Some legalization advocates also hope rescheduling could help persuade Congress to pass legislation aimed at opening banks’ doors to cannabis companies. Currently, the drug’s legal status means many federally regulated banks are reluctant to lend to such businesses, or sometimes even provide checking or other basic services.

Rescheduling could also make it easier to research marijuana, since it’s difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies on Schedule I substances. Some medical marijuana patient advocates fear that the discussion has already become deeply politicized and that the focus on rescheduling’s potential effect on the industry has shifted attention from the people who could benefit.

“It was our hope that we could finally take the next step and create the national medical cannabis program that we need,” said Steph Sherer, founder and president of Americans for Safe Access. The organization advocates for putting cannabis in a drug category all its own and for creating a medical cannabis office within DHS.

The immediate effect of rescheduling on the nation’s criminal justice system, though, would likely be more muted, since federal prosecutions for simple possession have been fairly rare in recent years.