It took 2 hours. See my post “The Poison Pill” in which I predicted that within a few hours, Rep Stan Gerdes would tell you that he banned Dem Chairs, but he wouldn’t tell you “the rest of the story”. And, that’s exactly what he did.
He did not tell you about Permanent Standing Committees and the other Dem-favorable provisions of these Rules. He did not tell you he voted to shut off all debate, to not allow any amendments, shutting off representation of the people. Rep Lowe stated “I am disgusted that the process of fair debate was eliminated in an effort to concede power to the minority party.” Rep Gerdes voted “yes” to eliminate debate in an effort to concede power to the minority party. (See page 116 of the 1/23/25 Journal. See also Rep Pierson’s relevant comments on why he voted “no” on page 118 of the 1/23/25 Journal.)
Gerdes did not tell you that he knew of this strategy when he voted against the GOP Caucus choice, violating the rules of the Caucus. Yet he did. And, he did not tell you what he’ll get in return for his votes. A chairmanship of one of these subcommittees? Again, we’re watching and time will tell.
Here’s the text message his consultants sent just 2 hours after adjournment.
Don’t believe Stan Gerdes sent this text. He did not. His consultants did.
Don’t be duped or played. Consultants who are given access to (and often design) elected official communications put out these texts and social media posts.
This morning at 4AM while most of us were sleeping, including many of our TX House Reps, the 232 page Texas House Rules bill dropped. That’s right, 4AM. I’m writing this at 4PM the same day and that package was adopted by the Texas House just an hour ago. No amendments were allowed.
Exactly as predicted, it allows chairs of committees to only come from the majority party. So, yes, Dem Chairs aren’t allowed. But all vice chairs must be from the minority party. And, much more benefiting Democrats is in the rules.
These rules create twelve “Permanent Standing Subcommittees” (a new category of subcommittee) to which the Speaker shall appoint chairs (of either party), may refer bills, will choose members. These committees will hold separate meetings from the committee to which they report…. In other words, through these rules, subcommittees have been permanently established that will, in essence, act as full committees.
Clearly, “Permanent Standing Subcommittees” have been established to circumvent the rules, especially that rule requiring chairs from the majority party. And, should a new Speaker be appointed, that Speaker is not allowed to change the make-up of the committees appointed by the prior Speaker during this entire session.
🚨Rep @brianeharrison and I explain the betrayal of Texas voters that just happened as RINOs joined the Dems to silence conservatives and give the Democrats more power than they’ve ever had in the recent history of the state of Texas!!!
This is the first of things Democrats will get for their votes putting Dustin Burrows in the Speaker’s position, the majority of votes that put him there by the way.
What else will Speaker Burrows give away during this session to the renegade Republicans who thwarted GOP voters, our platform, our legislative priorities and their own rules? He’ll give away “Permanent Standing Subcommittee” chairmanships to those who joined with Democrats to keep the Austin Swamp in power.
We’re watching and wondering. I’m wondering how long it’s going to take Stan Gerdes’ consultants to post on his Social Media that he voted to ban Dem chairs. Probably a few hours…. But, I’ll bet he doesn’t tell you about Permanent Standing Committees, and the other Dem-favorable provisions of these Rules. I’ll bet he doesn’t tell you he voted to not allow any amendments or to shut off all debate. We’ll see.
I’m sure each of us has an idea of what we think it means to be a mayor. I always thought the mayor ran the city, determined policy, crafted the budget, hired and fired. Basically, I thought the mayor was the executive in charge.
But, guess what? That’s not always the case. The city’s form of government determines who’s in charge, who hires and fires, who creates budgets, who adopts budgets, who authorizes spending, who negotiates contracts and more.
I was mayor under a “Strong Mayor / Weak Council” form of government.The City of Bastrop has a “Weak Mayor” because the form of government is “Council – Manager”. Broad powers are vested in the elected City Council and the City Manager, an unelected bureaucrat. The mayor has little to no authority.
COMPARE THE POWERS OF A STRONG MAYOR VERSUS A WEAK MAYOR
The powers of the mayor in a Strong Mayor / Weak Council community are as follows:
MAYOR : Exercises executive power of the municipality, appoints department heads with Council approval. Removes department heads subject to Council disapproval by 2/3 of all members. Prepares budget. Has veto over ordinances subject to override by 2/3 of all members of Council.
Mayor exercises executive power of the municipality. Up to 10 departments under Mayor’s direction. Business Administrator assists Mayor in budget preparation and administers purchasing and personnel systems. By ordinance, Business Administrator may supervise administration of departments, subject to Mayor’s direction.
COUNCIL : Exercises legislative power of municipality, approves appointment of department heads. Disapproves removal of department heads by 2/3 vote of all members. Overrides Mayor’s veto by 2/3 of all members.
Council sets its meeting dates and times. For a limited number of boards, commissions and committees, Council has ‘advice and consent’ authority. Council can appoint subcommittees of its members, but not inclusive of citizens.
The City of Bastrop operates under a “Council – Manager” form of government.The mayor is a “weak mayor”. Few of the powers listed in a “strong mayor” form of government is applicable to a “weak mayor” form.
As you can see from the list below, taken directly from the City of Bastrop Charter, the mayor in Bastrop has little to no authority over anything in the City. While the mayor is a member of the City Council, the mayor has no vote except in a tie and has no veto authority.
COUNCIL: enacts local legislation, adopt budgets, determine policies, appoints the City Attorney and the Judge of the Municipal Court. The Council shall also appoint the City Manager, who shall execute the laws and administer the government of the City.*
The Council shall have the power by ordinance to fix the boundary limits of the City.*
All powers of the City and the determination of all matters of policy shall be vested in the City Council.*
(1) remove from any office or position of employment in the City government, any officer or employee or member of any board or commission, unless that person reports to the City Manager or is employed in one of the City departments under the direction of the City Manager; (2) establish, consolidate or abolish administrative departments; (3) adopt the budget of the City; (4) authorize the issuance of bonds; (5) provide for such additional boards and commissions, not otherwise provided for in this Charter, as may be deemed necessary, and appoint the members of all such boards and commissions. Such boards and commissions shall have all powers and duties now or hereafter conferred and created by this Charter, by City ordinance or by law; (6) adopt and modify the zoning plan and the building code of the City; (7) adopt and modify the official map of the City; (8) regulate, license and fix the charges or fares made by any person, firm or corporation owning, operating or controlling any vehicle of any character used for the carrying of passengers for hire on the public streets and alleys of the City; (9) provide for the establishment and designations of fire limits and prescribe the kind and character of buildings or structures or improvements to be erected therein, and provide for the erection of fireproof buildings within said limits, and provide for condemnation of dangerous structures or buildings or dilapidated buildings, or buildings calculated to increase the fire hazard and prescribe the manner of their removal or destruction within said limits; (10) adopt, modify and carry out plans for improvement and redevelopment of any area of the City which may have been destroyed in whole or part by disaster; (11) adopt, modify and carry out plans for the clearance of slums and the rehabilitation of blighted areas; (12) fix the salaries and compensation of the City officers and employees; (13) provide for a sanitary sewer and water system and require property owners to connect with such sewer system, and provide for penalties for failure to make sanitary sewer connections; (14) provide for garbage disposal, and set fees and charges therefor, and provide penalties for failure to pay such fees and charges; (15) exercise exclusive dominion, control and jurisdiction in, upon, over and under the public streets, avenues, sidewalks, alleys, highways, boulevards and public grounds of the City and provide for the improvement of same; (16) compromise and settle any and all claims and lawsuits of every kind and character in favor of or against the City.*
So what can the mayor do in the City of Bastrop, you ask? Not much.
MAYOR: The Mayor shall preside over the meetings of the Council*
The Mayor shall appoint members to all City boards and commissions, subject to confirmation by the Council.*
The Mayor shall also be recognized as the chief presiding officer of the City.*
The Mayor shall also be recognized as the head of the City by all courts for the purpose of serving civil processes, by the Governor for the purpose of enforcing military law and for all ceremonial purposes.*
That’s it. That’s all the Mayor of the City of Bastrop can do. And, once the Council, as this Council did, takes away the Mayor’s office, requires Council approval for the Mayor to represent the City at various functions, what’s left?
All that’s left is the right to preside over Council meetings. The mayor doesn’t even determine the agenda.
So, the Mayor sits on the dais while the various Council members criticize, interrogate, accuse and otherwise take pot-shots at the duly-elected Mayor of the City. All that angst for $150 per month.
I’ve wondered for a long time why Lyle Nelson would want to be Mayor in a Council-Manager form of government. In all honesty, I don’t know why anyone would want to be mayor in these conditions. To me, this is a dangerous form of government with far too much power handed to an employee: the City Manager. (More on that in another blog post.)
With basically no authority, Lyle Nelson has had to sit on the dais and suffer the vitriole of three angry and vindictive Council people. I salute him for holding out this long, for trying to calm the flames and do the business of the City, but to no avail. I fully support Lyle Nelson’s resignation.
[All items with an * following are taken directly from the City of Bastrop Charter.]
I’m off to the Texas Capitol tomorrow (Tuesday) for the very important vote for TX Speaker of the House. Will Democrats with a few Republican votes pick our Speaker when EVERY statewide position is in Republican hands, the TX Senate has a Republican majority, and oh yeah, the TX House has a Republican majority (88 / 62)?
Yes they will because of a few power-grabbing Republicans who won’t follow the rules (my Rep included), who would rather throw their lot in with Democrats than to support the GOP Caucus choice, who would rather slap those Republicans who supported them with time and money, who would rather get in bed with lobbyists than support their Republican voters.
I hate getting up early but will do so tomorrow at 5:45 AM in order to get the bus at 8AM. This is very, very important to the Great State of Texas, and to the United States as a whole. So goes Texas, so goes the Nation.
(Apologies for a very lengthy blog post. The issue is complex.)
I’ve always said that politics is the world’s largest chess game. Anyone good at it has to think multiple moves ahead and has to analyze a variety of actions that could be taken by others. And, it requires understanding the law, policies and rules.
It’s the strategy of politics that I find incredibly fascinating.
Let’s take, for example, the issue of “No Dem Chairs”. The grassroots have been trying to stop Texas House Speakers from handing committee gavels to the Democrats for several sessions. Why would a Republican Speaker do that? After all, Republicans have a sizable majority.
Remember the old “smoke filled room”? Well, the only difference is that today there’s no smoke. Smoking not allowed. But the deals still are cut and not in public. Some deals are to bring members to a certain side of an issue. Some deals are to put opponents in an untenable position: damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Some deals are a win-win. Some deals are a win-lose.
Think about the last CR in Washington. You know, that 1500 page spending bill that caused voters to go nuts. A laundry list of added spending was slipped in, hoping voters wouldn’t notice. A day later, it was 116 pages with things like Congressional salary increases removed. People were still unhappy and calling their legislators. A day later, after significant negotiations, it was finally passed.
On December 7, the Texas House Republican Caucus met to select its candidate for House Speaker. There were two candidates: David Cook & Dustin Burrows.
There are rules about what percentage of the caucus a candidate must receive on each ballot: 75% on ballots 1 and 2; 60% on ballot 3. No one got 75% on the first two ballots and then 26 members of the Caucus walked out, including Bastrop County’s HD17 Rep Stan Gerdes. David Cook won on the third ballot.
“Cook clinched the GOP endorsement 48-14 during the voting’s third round, but over a dozen Burrow loyalists abstained from the vote by walking out of the chamber. While caucus rules mandate that all 88 House Republicans support the party’s nominee during January’s official speaker vote — support that would push Cook well over the 76 vote threshold to secure the Speaker seat — Burrows has maintained that a pieced-together coalition of rogue Republicans and Democrats will be enough to ensure his victory.”
Speaker Candidate David Cook has agreed to “No Dem Chairs”. Speaker Candidate Dustin Burrows has not. He says he’ll leave it to the entire House.
It’s important to know that the Speaker appoints the committee chairs. Thus Speaker of the Texas House is a very powerful position. And, as such, putting the issue of “No Dem Chairs” to the entire House, in my opinion, is abdicating the Speaker’s most important responsibility for the success or failure of GOP Legislative Priorities.
The formal vote for Speaker is on January 14, day one of the 89th Texas Legislative Session. Republican House members are expected to vote for the Caucus choice. Those are the rules. If all Republican legislators stick together and follow the rules, that would give David Cook the win. A David Cook Speakership would give grassroots Republicans the win. “No Dem Chairs” would finally be a reality in Texas.
But not so fast……
Remember those 26 “walk-outs”? If they break Party caucus rules and don’t vote for David Cook, Dustin Burrows (who has probably by now negotiated all or a majority of Democrat votes) will likely be the Texas House Speaker. The GOP/Dem split is 88/62. It takes 76 votes to become Speaker.
Simple math: 76-62=14 So if 14 Republicans vote with all the Democrats, Burrows is Speaker. Which 14 Republicans bill break the rules? Will Bastrop County’s HD17 Rep Stan Gerdes be one of them?
Let’s say Burrows wins. When he takes the gavel, how will he put his opponents in their place? How will he show his power to those in the Republican Caucus who didn’t vote for him. Ahhhh…… the Rules Packages.
The day after the vote for Speaker, when all the grassroots Republicans have gone home, the Texas House will vote on both Housekeeping and Permanent Rules packages.
Rules are critical to the function of the Texas House and they are extensive. In 2023, the House Rules, HB4 and amendments, were 199+ pages…. a lot of items with which to negotiate. Plenty of places for “poison pills”.
What is a “poison pill”? A “poison pill” strategy is used in business to prevent a hostile takeover. In politics, it’s used to force opponents into a no-win voting dilemma.
This happens when opponents of a bill put something in it that makes it impossible for supporters of the main topic of that same bill, to vote for it. The bill could contain language that supporters have wanted for years. So what do they do? Vote for that which they’ve worked so hard to accomplish and, in the process, vote for something they adamantly oppose? (This is exactly why conservative Republicans in Washington are pushing so hard for “one subject” bills.)
No matter how they vote, their opponents will use it against them. They’ll be accused of voting against the very thing they’ve worked hard for. Or, they’ll be accused of voting for the thing they adamantly oppose. (So much for not using public resources for political purposes. See Chess Move #5.)
This happens all the time in politics. It’s a common strategy to get items, unfavorable to the majority, passed by the minority. Stick the unacceptable thing into a bill the majority desperately wants passed. Think Ukraine funding.
So, back to the Burrows Permanent Rules Package.
It may contain language that, if passed, will result in “No Dem Chairs”. But it may also contain “poison pill” language that is unacceptable to most conservative Republicans.
Chess move #4 forces members in support of “No Dem Chairs” to vote for the “poison pill” as well. Dems get what they were promised in the non-smoke filled room and Republicans get “No Dem Chairs”.
OR, conservative Republicans vote against the “poison pill” and in the process, also kill the “No Dem Chairs” provision.
From my experience, when that happens, most of the public won’t understand and will just hear (or see in campaign literature) how Rep So-and-so voted against “No Dem Chairs”. And, those members who put Burrows in as Speaker will claim they voted for “No Dem Chairs” but alas, conservative Republicans killed it.
In the 2023 Legislative Session, Dade Phelan was elected Texas House Speaker. After multiple attempts to get “No Dem Chairs” included in the Rules package, it was killed through procedural moves. The premise used to kill “No Dem Chairs” was that having chairs from one political party would violate a rule they had just adopted stating that House resources could not be used for political purposes. (FYI, this was a new Housekeeping rule in 2023 leading one to wonder if it was added for just this purpose.)
Proposed rule: “If, at the time the speaker announces the membership of committees, the members of one political party constitute a majority of the membership of the house, the speaker shall designate a member of that party to serve as chair of each committee.”
Result: The above Amendment to the rules (House Journal, January 11, 2023 page 139) was killed by a point of order that stated “The Housekeeping Resolution adopted by the House earlier today codified the constitutional rule that House resources may be used only for public purposes and may not be used for political purposes.”
They said that ensuring a Committee Chair was from the majority party was the same as using “House resources […] for political purposes.” Odd, the United States Congress operates with the chair of each committee from the majority party and they have a similar, very stringent rule about using public resources for political purposes.
the next chess move
Bastrop County’s HD17 Rep Stan Gerdes was one of the 26 who walked out of the Republican Caucus. He refuses to publicly state his support for David Cook or answer whether he’ll break the Caucus rules and vote for Burrows. He has, though, posted on Facebook on January 5, “I’ll be voting to ban Dem chairs.”
If that’s the case, it would seem he plans to break Caucus rules. (Shame on him.) And, then, knowing what happened in 2023, he can confidently vote for “No Dem Chairs” while watch it go down in flames. One week from now, we’ll know his next move.
Politics is not for the faint-of-heart. Anyone who has run for office, or served in office, knows that. We’re all very opinionated and most of us, passionately so. Those who don’t agree with their representatives often come out with guns blazing (not literally, just verbally). It’s just the way it is. The elected official can engage in the gun-fire with nasty retorts, or step back and invite discussion. What the elected official cannot be is thin-skinned and defensive.
Sadly, our current House member, Stan Gerdes, has demonstrated that he is both thin-skinned and defensive. In 2022, he was asked at multiple GOP meetings whether he supported Dems as committee chairs in the Texas House. Notwithstanding Republicans being strongly in the majority, he supported Dem chairs (video at 6:13). Those of us who worked hard to get Republicans elected felt betrayed. And, we told him so.
In 2024, we’ve again said “No Dem Chairs” and once again, he is supporting a House Speaker who lost the Republican Caucus vote and who will appoint Dem chairs.
Republican committee chairs are critical to passing TexasGOP legislative priority bills. This is important enough that the TexasGOP sent a mailer to Bastrop County Republicans asking them to call Gerdes’ office and “tell him to oppose Dustin Burrows and support the Texas House GOP Caucus Nominee David Cook!”
Then, the Bastrop County GOP passed a resolution calling “on Representative Stan Gerdes to publicly commit to supporting the Texas House Republican Caucus nominee in accordance with the Caucus vote and with the Republican Party of Texas Platform”. Seems reasonable.
That resolution also explained that:
“A vote against the Texas House Republican Caucus nominee shall be considered a censurable act”; and
“subversive tactics such as denying a quorum or participating (sic) in absenteeism that causes a quorum to come into question […] shall be considered a censurable act”; and
“a vote for a House Speaker secret floor ballot vote, will be interpreted as an attempt to hide a vote with Democrats who want Democrat Chairs […] and shall be considered a censurable act”; and
“a vote […] for any other candidate who has not pledged publicly, prior to the floor vote, to comply with the Legislative Priorities of “No Democrat Chairs” shall constitute a censurable act.”
Stan Gerdes was not censured. The elected Republican precinct chairs simply expressed their opinions and what they expected from their Republican House member.
Precinct chairs are elected to be the voice of the Republican Party. Gerdes was elected to represent House District 17. These are very different constituencies.
Gerdes can stick to his position supporting Democrat chairs and do what he believes is in the best interest of his constituents. But, as with every decision an elected official makes, there are consequences to those decisions. And, the Bastrop County Republican Party has made clear what those consequences will be. Seems reasonable.
Rather than throw verbal bombs on Facebook at Republican Party leadership, a mature, seasoned elected official would either invite precinct chairs to a meeting or personally call each one, building bridges. He would not whine because he wasn’t invited to the meeting where the resolution was passed. He would not call candidates who ran against him three years ago “vengeful”. He wouldn’t worry about a candidate that spent under $20,000 in a campaign cycle when he, himself, spent over half a million. He would not call the Republican Chair a liar. He would not send threatening texts. He would not make unfounded accusations and name-call publicly on social media.
I sure as heck hope this isn’t the way he treats his fellow legislators when they disagree with him. And, if, as I hear repeatedly, Stan Gerdes wants to run for Congress or some other higher office, he needs to get thicker skin. He needs to immediately start building bridges not burning them down.
HD-17 House member Stan Gerdes has been a constant supporter of former House Speaker Dade Phelan and now his think-alike Dustin Burrows. Both either got, or are attempting to get, elected as House Speaker by courting a majority Democrat vote.
Republicans will control the Texas House with 88 of 150 members. Last session, the Paxton-impeachers (including Gerdes) and those who worked to stall Republican legislative priorities had the Speakership. The Phelan Speakership was obtained with Democrat votes in a House with a similar party split: 86R, 64D.
Burrows, with Gerdes support, seeks to do the same thing in 2025. If he can get those 64 Dems to back him, he only needs 12 Republicans to win the Speakership. But, by rule, Republicans are committed to vote for the Caucus choice. If they don’t, what a slap to Republicans who worked hard for them.
Don’t believe any text messages or comments saying Burrows does not support Democrat chairs. He says he’ll support the members making the rules. But if a majority of Dems vote for him as speaker, they will also vote for rules that give them chairmanships. So, Burrows can waffle all he wants in his commentary about rules, but the bottom line is that if we get a speaker elected with more Democrat votes than Republican votes, we’ll have Dem chairs, thwarting the will of Republicans across Texas.
Gerdes appeared in all the lists of supporting votes for Dade Phelan until Phelan dropped out. (His mentor, Rick Perry, was hired as an advisor to Dade Phelan in September.) Then Gerdes’ name appeared in all the support lists for replacement Dustin Burrows. Gerdes was one of the “walk-outs” on December 7 when Burrows didn’t win the Republican caucus vote to be the next speaker. He has yet to state his support for the choice of the Republican caucus: David Cook.
Rumor has it that Gerdes (with Perry support) is eyeing higher office.
Congressman Michael Cloud co-signed a letter stating “We urge you to stand with the Texas House Republican Majority and support the Texas House Republican Caucus nominee for Speaker.”
Gov Abbott (who endorsed Gerdes for re-election based on his pro-school choice vote) recently posted on X “I worked this entire year to elect conservative candidates who will pass conservative laws, including school choice. To achieve that goal we need a Texas House Speaker chosen by a majority of Republicans in accordance with the Republican Caucus Rules.”
TexasGOP Chairman Abraham George has called for all House Republicans to support the choice of the Caucus. And, on Saturday, the Bastrop County CEC will meet to decide if they’ll sign on to a letter urging House Republicans to support the will of the Caucus, a letter already signed by over 100 GOP Chairs.
So, does Gerdes heed the advice of conservative Michael Cloud and support the will of the Republican caucus and Republican voters, or does he support Democrat chairs? Does Gerdes heed the advice of Gov Abbott and support the will of the Republican caucus and Republican voters, or does he support Democrat chairs? Does Gerdes support the voices of his constituents and the GOP, or does he support Democrats in power? Will Gerdes stay loyal to Perry and those who join with Democrats to thwart the will of Republican voters?
It seems Stan Gerdes has put himself between a rock and a hard place. We’ll see where his loyalty lies on January 14.
I’m off to the Texas Capitol tomorrow (Tuesday) for the very important vote for TX Speaker of the House. Will Democrats with a few Republican votes pick our Speaker when EVERY statewide position is in Republican hands, the TX Senate has a Republican majority, and oh yeah, the TX House has a Republican majority (88 / 62)?
I’ve always said that politics is the world’s largest chess game. Anyone good at it has to think multiple moves ahead and has to analyze a variety of actions that could be taken by others. And, it requires understanding the law, policies and rules.
Let’s say Burrows wins. When he takes the gavel, how will he put his opponents in their place? How will he show his power to those in the Republican Caucus who didn’t vote for him. Ahhhh…… the Rules Packages.
Bastrop County’s HD17 Rep Stan Gerdes was one of the 26 who walked out of the Republican Caucus. He refuses to publicly state his support for David Cook or answer whether he’ll break the Caucus rules and vote for Burrows. He has, though, posted on Facebook on January 5, “I’ll be voting to ban Dem chairs.”