UHV-TAMU Switcheroo — Herein Lies the Rub
Based on my recent blog, entitled "Did the City pay VEDC to lobby for a UHV ouster?", one might infer that I oppose TAMU taking over UHV, but it's just not that simple. In the blog, I address the permeating suspicions of others that the City may have secretly (mis)appropriated $100,000 to the VEDC for the purposes of lobbying the Texas Legislature to support Morrison's bill. These suspicions became much more plausible when the UHV-TAMU portion of the rumor proved true. This morning's revelation that the City Council framed the approval of a VSTDC budget amendment in the context of H.B.2556 ("...in light of the public filing of House Bill 2556..."—p.55), plausibility has sharply turned to probability. Whatever the case, I simply want to make it clear my concerns are only for the uprightness of my elected/appointed government, not for the banner that hangs over our local university.
When I considered the sum of the aggressive words & deeds of those appointed/anointed to Morrison’s own Crossroads Commission on Education over the past year—which by this account seats the Mayor and several other VEDC members—such a subversive act doesn't seem so far-fetched. We've seen some bold language coming from that camp that indicates no holds are barred. This doesn't mean the suspected, potentially illegal/unethical act in question was done with malicious intent, but it would seem haste was made and the people's perpetual contract that demands lawful, open, deliberate governance was likely skirted.
In short, I don't want this rumor to be true because I want Morrison's legislation to be measured on its own merits—not based on extraneous factors like lined pockets, undue influence, or backlash from a TOMA violation. My demands are simple: accountability, transparency and legality. If the following legal opinion is valid, under what circumstances is this action acceptable?