KTBB News, Weather, Talk

HOUSTON (AP) – For decades, the Texas prison system’s guiding philosophy has shifted back and forth between punishment and rehabilitation depending on the political climate and how high crime rates are.

During the tough-on-crime era of the 1980s, Texas built more prisons and took a punitive approach to crime. But a class-action lawsuit resulted in a judge finding that the conditions of confinement violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling required the state to reduce overcrowding and improve prisoner rehabilitation and recreational programs.

In 1989, the Legislature passed a comprehensive criminal justice bill that expanded the state agency’s responsibility to include administering rehabilitation programs and reintegrating former felons back into society.

The 1989 legislation created the modern-day Texas Department of Criminal Justice by merging the Department of Corrections, the Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Texas Adult Probation Commission.

In the 2006 sunset commission’s review of TDCJ, the agency found that TDCJ needed more significant investment from the state to improve recidivism rates and effectively rehabilitate former felons. The following year, the state invested $241 million on rehabilitation and diversion programs instead of spending money on additional prison beds. As a result, recidivism rates fell by more than 6%.

“You go through different cycles,” said Marc Levin, chief policy counsel on the Council on Criminal Justice. “(Gov.) Ann Richards put in all these substance abuse facilities because drug treatment was a big priority. Then there was a change in attitudes and in 2003 there was a recession, so money was cut for treatment.”

Levin said that in recent years, there has been bipartisan support for rehabilitation. And the nationwide labor shortage following the COVID-19 pandemic makes former inmates an attractive talent pool as well.

At Bartlett, employers will come in for job fairs, and inmates will also participate in job interviews through Zoom. The state partners with about 1,110 employers who are open to hiring former felons.

“The idea is to pilot these programs, see what is working, how do we fix it and expand it to other units,” Hernandez said.

Preparing for reentry

On the day of their release from Bartlett, inmates will don a new suit to mark the beginning of a new chapter in their lives. They’ll ring a liberty bell in front of their fellow inmates before they step out of the prison.

To make the transition easier, inmates will serve as peer educators, offer additional support, helping their fellow inmates learn communication skills that they will need in any workplace.

Field ministers will offer emotional and spiritual support to inmates and help them reconnect with their values.

“One of the greatest things I heard when I got here was hope,” said Michael Thorne, an inmate who also serves as a field minister. “The church here is named Chapel of Hope to help others prepare for their exit.”

Michele Deitch, a senior lecturer at University of Texas at Austin’s School of Law and LBJ School, said that creating more comfortable living conditions has been found to decrease violence and improve employee retention.

“I really hope the change in mindset will reverberate throughout the agency,” Deitch said. “It’s something that will achieve better public safety outcomes and personal outcomes for people who are incarcerated.”

TDCJ officials said they will also look to hire former inmates to work for the agency. Several inmates in Bartlett said they would like to return upon their release. Ayala said he hopes to return to prison as a case manager.

“I’ve been in here almost half my life,” Ayala said. “I know the potential that’s behind these walls. A lot of people don’t know how to reach that potential.”

DALLAS – KERA reports that Texas public health officials say they’re used to setting the record straight about vaccinations and other scientifically sound treatments – but some are bracing for even more challenges under President-elect Donald Trump’s picks for top cabinet posts. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, has raised alarms for policy experts across the country. More recently, Trump announced Dr. Mehmet Oz as his head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Terri Burke, who leads The Immunization Partnership, said under Kennedy, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration could lose funding; health and immunization guidance for school districts could weaken; and misinformation — already widespread after the pandemic — could worsen.

“All of this could have a chilling effect on innovation and development,” she said during a Texas Vaccine Policy Symposium last month. “Will vaccine manufacturers want to produce vaccines if the market is smaller? Will academic institutions approach vaccine research and development in a challenging climate?” Much remains unclear about how Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s plans for the Health and Human Services secretary post will play out. Kennedy, who has repeated baseless claims that vaccines cause autism and other false information, has teased a plan called “Make America Healthy Again.” The plan’s central goal is to eliminate chronic disease. He previously told NPR that federal health authorities under his leadership would not “take vaccines away from anybody.” He also expressed doubt in existing vaccine safety research.

HOUSTON – The :Houston Chronicle reports that twenty-three years after Enron declared bankruptcy, the infamous Houston-based energy company appears to be making a return. A group representing itself as Enron, which became the center of a corporate scandal Dec. 2, 2001, following revelations of gross financial misconduct, has recently emerged in the Houston area. The company erected a billboard heralding Enron’s supposed return, took out a full-page ad in Monday’s print edition of the Houston Chronicle and has posted a statement on X promising a new leaf and a bright future for the company.

“Enron Corporation today announced its relaunch as a company dedicated to solving the global energy crisis,” the statement read. “With a bold new vision, Enron will leverage cutting-edge technology, human ingenuity and the spirit of adaptation to address the critical challenges of energy sustainability, accessibility and affordability.” Reconciliation is a major focus of Enron’s alleged revamp — so much so, the “R” in Enron now stands for “repentant,” according to the company’s newly-launched website. Enron Corporation denied the Chronicle’s request for an interview, but documents filed with the U.S. Patents and Trademark Office indicate the College Company, an Arkansas-based LLC that described itself on LinkedIn as “a multi-facet parent company which creates and operates clothing brands in the United States,” currently holds the rights to the multi-colored “E Enron” trademark seen on the billboard and Monday news release. According to trademark documents, in June the company granted the rights to the “E Enron” trademark to the Enron Corporation for $1. An individual named Charles Gaydos, who identified as the owner of the College Company and the CEO of Enron Corporation, signed on behalf of both entities. The College Company did not respond to the Chronicle’s request for comment. The College Company also owns several trademarks related to a popular gag-conspiracy theory called Birds Aren’t Real. The gag became popular among Gen Z users on social media around 2020, and claimed birds are not animals but government-controlled drones sent to spy on U.S. citizens. Trademark documents indicate the College Company owns the rights to the Birds Aren’t Real brand for use on stickers, apparel and “promoting public awareness.” What kind of business is the new Enron? Although the company’s messaging appears to allude to a return to the energy sector, the exact nature of Enron’s new business remains unclear. The company’s Monday news release and website are loaded with vague promises including “solving the energy crisis,” but little has been made public regarding the operational nuts and bolts.

HOUSTON – Houston Public Media report that President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to slap 25% tariffs on all imports from Mexico and Canada as soon as he takes office, as well as an extra 10% fee on all imports from China – the latter coming on top of tariffs Trump instituted on China in his first term and which were maintained by President Joe Biden. Those tariffs could have serious consequences for the Texas economy and for the Houston area specifically. “The impact would be quick, sudden, and sure, with inflation raging across the economy over the first several months,” said economist Ed Hirs, energy fellow at the University of Houston. Hirs said the prices of Mexican imports would spiral everywhere from the produce departments of grocery stores to automobile dealerships. Then, there’s the 4 million barrels of crude oil per day imported from Canada.

“Generally, we count on that to run many of our refineries in the United States,” Hirs said, “and that would lead to an immediate increase in the price of gasoline and diesel. It would also lead to a price increase in crude oil in West Texas as well.” Mexico, Canada and China collectively accounted for more than 43% of Texas’ total exports of goods last year, or roughly $192 billion. Even that understates the dependence of Texas on those three countries, because it doesn’t include exports of services or foreign direct investment. Hirs said if Mexico, Canada and China respond with tariffs of their own, or by reducing their purchases of U.S. imports, it would send the U.S. into a deep recession. He pointed to how China responded to the first round of Trump tariffs. “We saw China retaliate in the first Trump years by refusing to buy U.S. grains, and as a result, it was devastation across the farm belt,” Hirs said. “Farmers lost their homes, lost their fields, lost their properties. Some lost their lives.” Much of that agricultural trade with China moves through the Port of Houston.

DOVER, Del. (AP) — A Delaware judge has reaffirmed her ruling that Tesla must revoke Elon Musk’s multibillion-dollar pay package

Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick on Monday denied a request by attorneys for Musk and Tesla’s corporate directors to vacate her ruling earlier this year requiring the company to rescind the unprecedented pay package.

McCormick also rejected an equally unprecedented and massive fee request by plaintiff attorneys, who argued that they were entitled to legal fees in the form of Tesla stock valued at more than $5 billion. The judge said the attorneys were entitled to a fee award of $345 million.

The rulings came in a lawsuit filed by a Tesla stockholder who challenged Musk’s 2018 compensation package.

McCormick concluded in January that Musk engineered the landmark pay package in sham negotiations with directors who were not independent. The compensation package initially carried a potential maximum value of about $56 billion, but that sum has fluctuated over the years based on Tesla’s stock price.

Following the original court ruling, Tesla shareholders met in June and ratified Musk’s 2018 pay package for a second time, again by an overwhelming margin.

Defense attorneys then argued that the second vote makes clear that Tesla shareholders, with full knowledge of the flaws in the 2018 process that McCormick pointed out, were adamant that Musk is entitled to the pay package. They asked the judge to vacate her order directing Tesla to rescind the pay package.

McCormick, who seemed skeptical of the defense arguments during an August hearing, said in Monday’s ruling that those arguments were fatally flawed.

“The large and talented group of defense firms got creative with the ratification argument, but their unprecedented theories go against multiple strains of settled law,” McCormick wrote in a 103-page opinion.

The judge noted, among other things, that a stockholder vote standing alone cannot ratify a conflicted-controller transaction.

“Even if a stockholder vote could have a ratifying effect, it could not do so here due to multiple, material misstatements in the proxy statement,” she added.

Musk expressed his disagreement with the ruling in a post on X, the social media platform he owns. “Shareholders should control company votes, not judges,” he wrote.

Meanwhile, McCormick found that the $5.6 billion fee request by the shareholder’s attorneys, which at one time approached $7 billion based on Tesla’s trading price, went too far.

“In a case about excessive compensation, that was a bold ask,” McCormick wrote.

Attorneys for the Tesla shareholder argue that their work resulted in the “massive” benefit of returning shares to Tesla that otherwise would have gone to Musk and diluted the stock held by other Tesla investors. They value that benefit at $51.4 billion, using the difference between the stock price at the time of McCormick’s January ruling and the strike price of some 304 million stock options granted to Musk.

While finding that the methodology used to calculate the fee request was sound, the judge noted that the Delaware’s Supreme Court has noted that fee award guidelines “must yield to the greater policy concern of preventing windfalls to counsel.”

“The fee award here must yield in this way, because $5.6 billion is a windfall no matter the methodology used to justify it,” McCormick wrote. A fee award of $345 million, she said, was “an appropriate sum to reward a total victory.”

The fee award amounts to almost exactly half the current record $688 million in legal fees awarded in 2008 in litigation stemming from the collapse of Enron.