San Antonio Toll Party  
 
Take Action
Toll Glossary
Non-toll Alternatives
Most Current Post

 

Hutchison delivers! Peters letter settles federal highway funding threats

Hooray! We’ve been asking for Senator Hutchison to intervene and call off the dogs at the Federal Highway Administration (called in by the Governor’s boy, House Transportation Committee Chair Mike Krusee), and she delivered! Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters concedes in a letter that HB 1892, the toll moratorium, DOES NOT jeopardize Texas’ federal highway funds. Senator Hutchison introduced an amendment to prevent the tolling of interstates in 2005 and has spoken out against this toll proliferation ever since. We simply sent Senator Hutchison the LAW, and that sure helps provide some convincing moral clarity on what’s been going on to help Ms. Peters see the light…TxDOT, the Governor, and the Federal Highway Administration have been illegally lobbying against state legislation.

§ 556.006. LEGISLATIVE LOBBYING. (a) A state agency may
not use appropriated money to attempt to influence the passage or
defeat of a legislative measure.
(b) This section does not prohibit a state officer or
employee from using state resources to provide public information
or to provide information responsive to a request.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1035, § 86, eff. June 19,
1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1498, § 1, eff. Sept.
1, 1999.

AND….

§ 556.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) “Appropriated money” means money appropriated by
the legislature through the General Appropriations Act or other
law.
(2) “State agency” means:
(A) a department, commission, board, office, or
other agency in the executive branch of state government, created
under the constitution or a statute, with statewide authority;
(B) a university system or an institution of
higher education as defined by Section 61.003, Education Code; or
(C) the supreme court, the court of criminal
appeals, another entity in the judicial branch of state government
with statewide authority, or a court of appeals.
(3) “State employee” means an individual who is
employed by a state agency. The term does not include an elected
official or an individual appointed to office by the governor or
another officer.
(4) “State officer” means an individual appointed to
office by the governor or another officer.

Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.
Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1498, § 1, eff. Sept. 1,
1999.

___________________________________

§ 39.02. ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY. (a) A public
servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or
with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or
knowingly:
(1) violates a law relating to the public servant’s
office or employment; or
(2) misuses government property, services, personnel,
or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has
come into the public servant’s custody or possession by virtue of
the public servant’s office or employment.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A
misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the use of
the thing misused is less than $20;
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the value of the use of
the thing misused is $20 or more but less than $500 ;
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the use of
the thing misused is $500 or more but less than $1,500;
(4) a state jail felony if the value of the use of the
thing misused is $1,500 or more but less than $20,000;
(5) a felony of the third degree if the value of the
use of the thing misused is $20,000 or more but less than $100,000;
(6) a felony of the second degree if the value of the
use of the thing misused is $100,000 or more but less than $200,000;
or
(7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the
use of the thing misused is $200,000 or more.
(d) A discount or award given for travel, such as frequent
flyer miles, rental car or hotel discounts, or food coupons, are not
things of value belonging to the government for purposes of this
section due to the administrative difficulty and cost involved in
recapturing the discount or award for a governmental entity.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3241, ch. 558, § 7, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983. Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 39.01 and
amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

2 Responses to “Hutchison delivers! Peters letter settles federal highway funding threats”

  1. Patricia A. Jones Says:

    Over the past several months, I have sent the following to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison numerous times. Perhaps it helped in some small way to sway her over to “our side”.
    PETITION TO NATIONAL LEGISLATURES
    WHEREAS, the very existence of the Unites States of American is extremely threatened by groups such as the council on Foreign Relations and their sub groups operating as a shadow government through decades of both Democratic and Republican administrations, and WHEREAS, they hope to dismantle our nationhood through elimination of our borders, construction of NAFTA superhighways including in Mexico, merging the USA into a regional government with Canada and Mexico, setting up the “Amero” currency, and merging all our law enforcement and personal I. D. Data through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to create the North American Union (NAU), THEREFORE we ask you to sponsor State Laws against all aforementioned “soft laws” ideas, and federally, co-sponsored HCR40 & HCR22 by U. S. Representative Goode, and to pass laws disallowing presidents or there assignees to create such by any means. (Then the person signs at the bottom…you get the idea.
    Perhaps my letters to her containing this National Petition have helped in some small degree. Hooray for our Senator Hutchison!!

  2. Maria Maldonado Says:

    The FHWA is not governed by these laws. And if Texas law violates USC 23, and that may ultimately be considered by US courts. At the very least, allowing a bidder access to another proposal with the option of beating the offer is highly unethical in both private and public purchasing. If the NTTA proposal is accepted, FHWA will not be able to participate in State Highway 121 and all federal funding for the project will need to be returned.

    Local control (in this case)=Collin, Tarrant, and Dallas county officials working to raid the revenues of a road which will have most of its revenue produced in Denton County. Denton County local officials are unanimously behind having a toll road and having the Cintra fund it.

Leave a Reply


Fatal error: Call to undefined function jsspamblock_doform() in /home/antitoll/public_html/post/wp-content/themes/tollParty/comments.php on line 100