House Bill No. 1363
This bill was aimed at lightening penalties for prostitution. The bill was proposed by Dallas state Representative Eric Johnson and would have seen to it that penalties for certain prostitution offences were reduced. It would have assisted the court in distinguishing between the offenses of prostitution and soliciting the services of a prostitute. The bill meant that once offenders successfully completed a prostitution prevention program, their criminal charges would be dropped provided that both the judge and prosecutor were agreeable. Currently, after offenders complete the diversion program, their conviction stands and only a nondisclosure order is placed in their record. As much as no one outside of law enforcement will know about it, their conviction stands (Texas Legislature Online).
The reason why Governor Abbott vetoed this bill was due to the fact that, according to him, reducing penalties for willful repeat offenders was neither in the best interest of the people of Texas nor the offender. He stated that Bill 825 was better placed to address the difference between prostitution and the solicitation of services from a prostitute (Governor).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Two, being with prostitution should not even be illegal for as long as the person soliciting for the services and the one offering the services are adults. Prostitution is the oldest career since time immemorial. However, in regards to this bill, since prostitution is all ready considered a crime, it is only fair that the charges be dropped as the act of prostitution does not endanger anyone’s livelihood and should not be comparable to other harmful crimes. On the account of these aforementioned reasons, I find the governor’s decision here quite agreeable.
State Bill No. 1032
This bill was passed with the aim of making it easier for state employees to work from home. The bill was proposed by Celia Israel with the purpose of easing congestion through allowing state employees to telecommute and accommodating programs. Currently, the law gives no leeway to state supervisors who would want to let their employees work from home. State employees have to be permitted by their heads of departments in the event that need for telecommuting arises. If the bill had been passed, agency directors would have been allowed to put in place policies for employees who can perform their duties remotely (Texas Legislature Online).
The Governor stated that, the current law allows for state employees to maintain work schedules that are flexible enough to permit them to work from home for as long as the head of their state agency issues a written approval to them. He stated that the policy is accommodative for the employees who need it while at the same time exercising management controls that reduce the chances of these privileges being abused. Governor Abbott vetoed the bill as he stated that it would make it possible for an employee’s supervisor, as opposed to the agency head, to allow them to have flexible schedules and work from home. According to him, this would result in minimized accountability, variable application and high chances of misuse. He stated that the provisions concerning overtime and compensatory time accrued outside of the office would be an issue. This is because record keeping and general management would be an issue for employees working overtime outside the office (Governor).
I disagree with the Governor’s decision as this is a digital era and telecommuting is a modern way of getting work accomplished regardless of one’s location. The state should simply find a modern and digital way around the overtime and compensatory time instead of using this as an excuse to lock out telecommuting.
Senate Bill No. 496
This bill was passed in order to make it a requirement for the commissioner of education to make certain that the funding provided to cater for attending an Optional Flexible School Day Program was established on the same basis as the requirements of the instructional hour of the regular program. This as opposed to the full-time student process which to be considered a full day of attendance, demands for six hours of student contact time. This bill would get rid of the discrepancies brought about by the way the attendance for students in the Optional Flexible School Day Program is computed. This program would be profitable as it would provide a flexible schedule to assist students who need it as a result of different influencing factors. Such factors include; dropping out of school, involvement in work study programs and internships, and dual enrolment. The elimination of discrepancies brought about by funding would incentivize districts to provide more accommodative schedules where traditional school hours are not suitable for all students.
Governor Abbott’s reason for vetoing this bill was that unforeseen and unjustifiable problems would occur if school districts were allowed to make major changes on the school calendar without the approval of the Texas Education agency. He however stated that currently, a school district is able to make an application to the Texas Education Agency in requisition of permission to offer flexible school day program for the district’s at-risk students (Governor, n.d).
I do not agree with the Governor’s decision because traditional school hours are not ideal for every student due to various unavoidable circumstances. The computation of contact hours for the flexible program is done in minutes and three hundred and sixty minutes or six hours of funding make a day, under the TEA rules. Students in regular school day programs only need four hours contact time to qualify for funding. Allowing the flex-time students 240 minutes of contact time with same funding for regular time students only seems fair and justifiable (Texas Legislature Online).
References
Governor, O. O. (n.d.). Legislative Session. Retrieved March 14, 2017, from http://gov.texas.gov/news/bills
Texas Legislature Online - Website Error. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2017, from http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Reports/Report.aspx?LegSess=84R&ID=vetoedbygov %28Links
