January 19, 2021 – Second Reading Podcast

[0:00:00 Speaker 0] welcome to the second reading podcast from the University of Texas at Austin. The Republicans were in the Democratic Party because there was only one party. So I tell people on a regular basis there is still a land of opportunity in America. It’s called Texas. The problem is these departures from the Constitution. They have become the norm. At what point must a female senator raised her hand or her voice to be recognized over the male colleagues in the room on Welcome Back to the second reading podcast for the week of January, the 18th 2021. I’m Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin, and today I’m very happy to welcome is my guest, Lauren McGee, who is an investigative reporter for The Dallas Morning News. Laurence written extensively about Texas government in politics for the News and before that, the Houston Chronicle has been a guest on the podcast before. An earlier incarnations on always very generous with her time with us, including, I was digging out Lauren a panel, I think, with you and Ty Love and a couple other folks from like three or four years ago, I think, but welcome.

[0:01:17 Speaker 1] Oh, well, thanks. I was trying to think of the last time I was actually on the show, and it just feels like another world. So,

[0:01:24 Speaker 0] yeah, we’re actually all together in the studio, right? You know, we’ve not done yet in this incarnation of the podcast, but be that as it may, we’ve gotten you here and much appreciated. I want to start by talking about a story that you wrote right before the holiday weekend. That seems to me to have a lot of interesting implications that I’m not seeing picked up on the ether. And it picked up on and in the ether, the twitterverse or whatever we want to think about, even though I think it it was pretty interesting. And on Friday, you published the story in the morning news about it coming to light that Mark S. Scott, the interim medical director for Austin Public Health, had pushed for lawmakers in the Legislature to receive vaccinations through on Austin area provider to ascension. So it seems to me this is very, very pregnant with implications. Um, so why don’t you tell us about the facts of that story? so we can talk about it a little bit.

[0:02:24 Speaker 1] Sure. So I heard earlier in the week that, uh, Dr Ascot, like you mentioned, had created this back channel vaccination program through Ascension Seaton, a local hospital system here in Austin. And, uh, you know, the people that are eligible to receive vaccines under state guidelines. Right now, it’s pretty limited group, you know, health care workers, nursing home residents, people who are over 65 65 or older, that kind of thing. And Doctor s Scott feels very strongly that all lawmakers should be vaccinated, regardless of whether they follow into any of those categories because they’re coming Austin, which is his backyard. And, you know, some of them aren’t wearing masks. Some of them haven’t been vaccinated. They’re sitting for hours on end next to each other in inside and small rooms. And he said, you know, he was really concerned that the legislative session was going to be a super spreader event for not just often but the region, which he feels responsible for. So he didn’t get, um he didn’t get the state to include lawmakers as a special eligible groups. So he said he just decided to kind of do it, do it on his own, um, and set up this this separate channel. But, you know, until I published a story, there were even lawmakers and, you know, elected officials who are not aware that it was being done.

[0:03:59 Speaker 0] So So So say a little more about that based on least what you could find out. I mean, how did he convey this? And you know what? What’s going on? That there’s so many people didn’t know.

[0:04:09 Speaker 1] Okay, s o. I didn’t get a lot of answers to how this was communicated to lawmakers. It sounds like it kind of happened through the grapevine. More or less. Um, after doctor s. Scott didn’t get the state to kind of sign on to. Actually, the lawmakers. He had already talked with the Texas House Democratic caucus about it. A t least their staff and the news had kind of trickled out to lawmakers that he, um but he had wanted to do this through those communications. So some folks, it seems like, signed up for it just because they got they heard about a via word of mouth. Um, and you know that news was shared with members of you know now, Speaker David Feeling staff. I know some senators got vaccinated, so the news trickled its way from the House chamber to the Senate chamber. But in terms of official communications ascension Seaton will not tell me whether they sent out a notice or communicated in any Broadway with lawmakers. Um, and I know that at least one lawmaker over on the house side Waas informing his colleagues that they could go get this done kind of like a on an ad hoc basis. A swell, But it sounds like mostly word of mouth, unless a sentencing was doing something they haven’t told me about yet, Which is

[0:05:29 Speaker 0] possible. So So what’s your sense of of what kind of uptake they got? You know, the story suggested that some people have declined. Some legislators had declined, right?

[0:05:41 Speaker 1] That’s right. I talked to at least I talked to three lawmakers who declined the offer. All were House Democrats, um, on the younger side, and they declined because they said, you know, we’re not eligible, and even if we are to higher risk being in the house chamber with our colleagues, we just don’t feel right doing this. What? You know, skipping the line in front of more vulnerable people. Um, doctor s Scott thinks he said he knows of at least 10 to 15 people. Or was it time to 10 people? I’m forgetting my my own numbers now. Ah, small number of legislators that he is aware of who have taken advantage of his offer. But he said, you know, Ascension Satan is likely vaccinating others on his request. He just doesn’t know how many. Um, he did say that the people he’s aware of who have gotten vaccinated through this channel, some are eligible currently under state guidelines. Some are not. And there are Democrats and Republicans and members of both the House and the Senate. He said So this isn’t just, you know, uh, something that was limited toe one chamber of the other toe, one party or the other?

[0:06:54 Speaker 0] Well, there was a twist on that. I mean, there, you know, there are many twists on this, but as you were reporting this and I I think the reporting was you. You were able to include this, but I’m not sure if it was an update, as you were putting the story together, it was announced that at least one member who had been in attendance, you know, the first couple of days of Legislature, state, rep, desk hotel, had actually tested positive.

[0:07:21 Speaker 1] That’s right. And the Texas Tribune broke that news, Um, as I was finishing my reporting. So it was kind of, you know, case in point for Doctor S Scott’s argument that this thing could run rampant throughout the halls of the Legislature if we don’t do something about it Funny enough, I, um I covered the first day opening day of the legislative session, and I probably only came face to face with maybe four or five lawmakers and one of them happened to be, Did she tell?

[0:07:51 Speaker 0] So now I am in. So I’m in self

[0:07:55 Speaker 1] isolation and have been, um, since he announced, you know, that he tested positive, and I’m awaiting my 2nd and 3rd covert test results before I go back out into the world in any way. But, you know, it’s just it’s a it’s case in point that, you know, if you do the kind of spider charts off of one person, especially someone like a lawmaker, it it can really. It really accelerates at a quick, very

[0:08:21 Speaker 0] quick pace. Well, it does raise other questions. Do you Do you know, for him based on the reporting that you’ve done and I talking to Doctor S Scott did Did they Does the supply toe legislative staff. Was that a consideration?

[0:08:36 Speaker 1] Definitely. Yeah. Doctor s. Scott said ideally, if he had his way, he would convince the state to vaccinate everyone in the Capitol building. Um, all staff support staff, administrative staff, you know, janitorial staff. He thinks it’s He thinks it’s pretty imperative that if if these folks have a constitutional duty to show up that you know, the state covers them with vaccines in terms of who has been vaccinated through Doctor s Scots kind of back channel. He said he made it clear to the folks that reached out to him that he wanted certain key staff to also feel feel that they could take him up on his offer. I’m not sure whether any staffers actually happened action and through that process, but he said, You know, in a very limited way, If there’s, you know, your chief of staff or something like that, then he wants those individuals to be to be vaccinated thio through his process. But you know, it’s funny. I got a call from a lawmaker over the weekend who was saying Who does not think the doctor Ascot is is going about this in the right way? Because it’s an unofficial back channel that, you know, it seems to put lawmakers as a group on the pedestal. And he said, Well, this particular lawmakers said, Well, you know, where do you draw the line? If if, um, the spouses of lawmakers are going to be in Austin and in the capital on a regular basis, are they also going to vaccinate spouses? Are they going to vaccinate Children? Are they gonna vaccinate? You know, members of the press. So you know his argument? Waas How do you decide who deserves this and when, which is, you know, a discussion we’re having statewide now, you know, with such limited supply, how do you make that tough call of who is more deserving of a lifesaving vaccine?

[0:10:32 Speaker 0] Yeah, I mean, I think there’s I mean, I’m fascinated by the dynamic at work here. I mean, some legislators air clearly cautious about the possibility of appearing to get preferential treatment and and it seems to me worried about the backlash of that. You know, on the other hand, it feels to me like the context of the Legislature’s passive role in response to the pandemic thus far compared to the executive branch plays, you know, a really, really significant role here. You were mentioning the doctor s. Scott mentioned the legislators constitutional obligation Thio show up and to be there. And it seems to me that you know, you could go even a step further in saying that. You know, that puts them in kind of a unique class. That is, You know, aside from the other various groupings, particularly given the way that government is organized in Texas, that if you’ve got, you know, a legislature that can only be here for 140 it’s supposed to be here for 100 and 40 days, you know, certainly could be called into special session etcetera, but that you know, they have a role to play being the co equal branch of government and from their perspective, one could make the argument put it that way. I think that they should take. They should be willing to take a little bit of political backlash and explain the fact that they and if it comes to their families, their families need to be vaccinated. I mean, look, we’re not talking about tens of thousands of vaccines, right? I don’t know. Tomorrow line,

[0:12:09 Speaker 1] right? Well, Eddie Rodriguez, who was the lawmaker I mentioned before who had passed along this message that the vaccine is available to some of his colleagues? Um, he went on the record with me, and I appreciate that because I reached out to several other lawmakers who I had heard through the grapevine had received the vaccine, and then no one called me back except for him. And he did make that argument. He did say, although he says he falls into the eligible category one b category that he thinks that there’s a continuity of government argument to be made, that we have seen how important it is to have a safe Capitol building, whether it is national or state capital, where people can come and go as as safely as humanly possible in this day and age. And we’re not gonna have that without widespread vaccinations of lawmakers and their staffs. So he made that argument very strongly and kind of held the burden of that argument on his shoulders along with Doctor s Scott. But, you know, then he, you know, was directly, uh, in contradiction to three of his fellow Democrats in the house. Who said you know, this This we’re not. If we get this, maybe we will get sick, But it won’t be as bad as grandma on my in my district. Who needs this more? So it’s an interesting It’s an interesting issue because you can see you can easily see everyone’s sincere concern. Um, but you’re right there. People that just don’t want Thio They don’t wanna talk or go on the record about their involvement. And that could be frustrating, given it their public officials.

[0:14:01 Speaker 0] And did you get I mean, did you get much in the way? I mean, you know, not not without you having to give anything up, that you would trust you to not do that or, you know, I don’t need even say that, but I’m curious whether you got much on the record response. You’ve talked mainly about Democrats from Republicans who are in a somewhat different mean subject to some similar dynamics, but also have some other dynamics at play as well,

[0:14:24 Speaker 1] Right? I did get a response from both, uh, day feeling and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick’s office is about this bond. They were similar responses. They were You know, we think we should be following the state guidelines, and whoever is eligible under the state guidelines should be the ones who have who have access. It wasn’t a direct rebuke of Doctor S Scott or lawmakers who chose to kind of circumvent the state guidelines, but, you know, a veiled a veiled statement on that, at least, you know. So they did weigh in from those offices. I did not get a response from from Governor at it.

[0:15:06 Speaker 0] Sure. Well, you know, I’ll be interested to see you know, whether this you know how this plays out, whether there is more uptake, whether there’s, you know, an attempt to just move on or whether there’s an attempt to formalize the policy. You have any feel for that?

[0:15:23 Speaker 1] Eso I followed up this morning. Um, the big actor whose voice is missing in this story is the Department of State Health Services. Um, you know our health, Our state health department. They have not responded to any of my emails. They haven’t responded to any of my calls. And, you know, they’re the ones that can change the guidelines to include lawmakers or, you know, continue to exclude them. So the fact that they are not weighing in is significant. It also, you know, I have questions about whether, you know, can Doctor s copy penalized for this? I mean, can ascension seton face any kind of penalty? I don’t know. And I would think that the state health Department might be the ones who would be able to provide some answer to that. And yet they they’ve kind of gone dark on this whole thing. So, um, I guess Doctor s Scott made some comment about it this morning at the commissioner’s court meeting. I haven’t I haven’t been able to watch the video yet, but he addressed this morning, so I’m interested to see what he has to say about whether he continues Thio. He plans to continue to offer this. He told me last week that he will unless the state takes, you know, different action.

[0:16:41 Speaker 0] Yeah. I mean, you raise an interesting point. I mean, this gets us into another very familiar area of conflict and, well, we just call it an area of conflict between state authority. And you know, the ability of the localities and local health officials to make their own judgments about what works best in their regions when it comes to fighting the pandemic, among other things.

[0:17:05 Speaker 1] Right? I mean, and this it’s a lot of this is wonky political stuff. And who could do what When and the state versus local, like you said. But at the end of the day, it people are struggling to get this vaccine. Um, people that are eligible for the vaccine are struggling to get it. And so it’s a story that affects everybody. Everyone has a feeling on it, whether they they love the idea, they hate it. Um, and I think it’s gonna be interesting to see what state officials decide whether they decide to just go dark and continue not toe address this and kind of what it happened behind the scene or if they, you know, actually make a decision and take a stand on it one way or the other.

[0:17:49 Speaker 0] You know, I mean, I could be misreading you because we’re, you know, just over the, you know, recording over the Internet. But you sound you said a little bit empathetic to the lawmakers concerns. And you know where where the hot spots might be here for them.

[0:18:05 Speaker 1] I mean, I’m a reporter, so I don’t have any feelings about anything at any

[0:18:09 Speaker 0] time. Uh, I

[0:18:13 Speaker 1] think one as a reporter. It’s frustrating when, um when people just aren’t responding. And when a state agency who has the power thio make these decisions isn’t responding, it could be frustrating. So it’s like if they if they came out and said We don’t think this is a good idea, it would be one thing. But the fact that they’re not answering questions about it at all or haven’t at this point, I think is more maybe What is it? Creating the emotion in my voice there, You know someone has toe. Someone has to make a decision on these things, right? And if the news is out there, then why not say yes? We will vaccinate them or no, we will continue along the path that we have set. I don’t see the point in remaining silent.

[0:19:02 Speaker 0] I’m gonna I’m gonna ask you to make one more judgment call that you can punt on. But eyes it your impression that that the people that the principles involved thought that this would not become publicly known.

[0:19:20 Speaker 1] I don’t know. I really I wish I could make a call on that. Um, I asked Dr Ascot because he was very up front with me when I

[0:19:29 Speaker 0] e

[0:19:30 Speaker 1] mean, they put me on the phone with him. He had a light, a long conversation with him, and he was really making his argument very strongly. And he has publicly said, Ah, lot that he thinks this should be about priority. But I asked him why. If this is such a priority, why hasn’t why didn’t he make it public? Why didn’t he, like issue of P S? A. That said, lawmakers come get your vaccines. And he said, Well, you know, we just don’t have the supply. We only have one or two extra a day, one or two extra shots a day, you know, in these vials where there might be extra doses. And to me, that just raises more questions. Who gets those two shops you know, how are they communicating it? What? You know, what’s the triage method here? And I didn’t get responses to that. So, um, it’s not clear to me that it’s just not clear to me what the strategy was here. I think it might have been that the news kind of got out there in December after S. Scott believed he might have had a shot at the state making this an official policy. And then the cat was out of the bag and he thought, Well, if people want to get the vaccine, sure, I’m not going to close the door on them, But I’m also

[0:20:40 Speaker 0] not gonna

[0:20:41 Speaker 1] make this public thing. That’s my best guess. But

[0:20:44 Speaker 0] we can’t be sure which is, you know, which is. You know, you can see how it would evolve that in that way, even if it isn’t really what one doesn’t seem like the best way for that to evolve. But so it goes. Well, I hope you’ll continue to report on that and we’ll look forward to hearing more about that is you follow the story. I wanna I wanna then switch gears to another story that you did recently with one of your colleagues, I think, with Alan Morris and eyes on, ah, storyline that you’ve been following for some time. And that’s the story you did on Thea ups and downs of Attorney General, uh, Ken Paxton’s fundraising efforts at the end of 2020. So tell us what you found there.

[0:21:28 Speaker 1] Um, so on Friday was the deadline for getting information about how much money, uh, certain elected officials raised at the end of the year. And, um, we were kind of Ali, and I were kind of surprised to see that Ken Paxton, who has been a big fundraiser in past years, really the fell far below his other peers. Um, at the end of last year, we reported that, you know, he brought in, um, trying to see what the totals here were, but something like $300,000 and let me make sure I’m getting that right. Yeah, 305,000. Um, and this is compared Thio, Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick who brought in million’s and, you know, the speaker of the Texas House brought in billions. And so the fact that Paxton Onley brought in that amount was surprising, Um, but was even more surprising is he was really struggling to fundraise, um, up until November in November, He actually only raised 75 bucks the whole month. And then he, um you know, he files this, uh, challenge to Joe Biden’s election win and key battleground states. And all of a sudden he got a shot in the arm when it came to fundraising. So you could definitely see an influx of cash come in after he filed the Supreme Court Challenge. And that seemed to be That was interesting to us, obviously. But still, it didn’t bump him up Thio toe where his His colleagues have been in fundraising. So kind of, you know, it raised the question for us about why has his fundraising dropped off? And you know, his wife, who is a state senator out out front, raised him so that that’s notable. You know that the attorney general of the state is out fund raised by a state senator,

[0:23:29 Speaker 0] So I assume that you’re, you know, theory journal question You asked, having followed Paxton Siris of legal and and ethical troubles that, you know, your your initial thought was probably that that was having an impact. I mean, yeah,

[0:23:47 Speaker 1] maybe. I mean, well, we never truly know what the you know. The cause and effect is on these things,

[0:23:53 Speaker 0] right? But when

[0:23:54 Speaker 1] there’s such when there’s such a such a drop off, um, at a particular time and it makes you wonder and, you know, if if the listeners aren’t aware, You know, October and November, early November, which were terrible fundraising months, Um, for Paxton were when he when the news broke that, you know, his top employees were accusing him of very serious crimes, bribery, abuse of office. And, you know, we broke the news of the Dallas morning News that he was also allegedly having a next ra marital affair with a woman who he secured employment with with this individual that he was supposedly abusing his office, uh, forward to help. So it was a bad month for him, news wise, And it was a bad month for him, fundraising wise. So, you know, you can you can make your own conclusions there if you will, but it was a particularly bad, um, and so, you know, we put that

[0:24:52 Speaker 0] info out there, you know, and you know, all hypothesize since you so that you won’t have Thio incomparable Uriel system. But, I mean, it’s also I’m

[0:25:02 Speaker 1] not,

[0:25:03 Speaker 0] you know, it does seem to me that the larger frame here also, then when you look at the uptick in fundraising, another feature you know another element in your story was that there was an increase in out of state funds the composition about a state funds in this fund raising. And it does seem to me that, you know, this fits in with the characterization that you know that the attorney general’s efforts toe weigh in on the national stage with supporting the president’s challenge of the elections of the results of the electoral college or questioning of them. You know, the fact that the attorney General actually was ah, speaker at one of the rallies prior to the insurrection at the Capitol? Now he’s not at the insurrection, but he was there at the rally and spoke beforehand. Um, you know that that the move towards the national towards national politics was a way of shoring up his position, and I think this all seems to fit that kind of a narrative and and and it raises a question that, you know, I you know and again this is speculative, but it’s not tied to any of your direct reporting, so maybe you’ll be willing to speculate a little bit more. But you know, it does raise the question of what Republican politics in Texas politics look like in the era after Trump’s exit from the White House and and with and with Democrats now in unitary control the government, you you’ve covered the Legislature for a long time. You’ve covered it, you know, through presidents of different parties. You know, I’m wondering if you’re if you’re thinking about how the national, the shift in the national context, and and us now all living in a in a kind of post trump world, I mean that not just that Trump has gone from the White House, but that Trump has had an impact on politics that we’re looking to see. I mean, if you expect that to play out, and if you expect that to have an impact on what we see in the next few months,

[0:27:10 Speaker 1] I think you know who’s in. The White House always has an impact, especially in a state like Texas. You know I covered the Legislature in Louisiana before here, and they felt like, you know, when I was there, At least they had a little bit more of an independent streak in them. You know, Louisiana, Louisiana and politicians don’t necessarily think they’re gonna be the next president. Um, but Texas politicians dio and so I feel like there’s a much more direct link between what’s going on the national stage. What’s going on on the stage in Texas and the way that they reacted, who’s in the White House is really shapes the day to day, you know, even press releases that make it into your inbox. You know, when it was Obama, it was Ken Paxton is doing every day the federal government over an X Y and Z under Trump. You know, he sued so that Trump could kind of signal to the Trump administration’s what policies and rules to overturn. And it was, you know, an interesting shift in the dynamic. Um, I think what everyone is watching is just how much the trump years bleed into how the Republican Party continues to comport itself going forward. But in terms of how Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton and our lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, act on a daily basis under a new Biden administration. I think it’s going to be a lot of what we saw under the Obama years. It’s going to be more reactionary if there’s probably going to be more more lawsuits filed by Texas against the federal government. More governmental spending here on that issue because they have a nad verse Eri now. So, um and well, if if Trump remains strong in the Republican Party, then though you know tax and will probably continue to align himself with that side of the party. But we’ll have to see

[0:29:06 Speaker 0] Yeah, my sense is that, you know, I mean that the trump effect, whether he remains a viable active political force or it’s just, you know, the continuing force of example of his example. You know, we’ll continue to fuel a kind of combativeness, and I think they’ll be, you know, some. You know, some of the genies can’t be put back in the bottle in terms of political style, and, you know, Trump is demonstrated that you can you can violate norms and you can move. You know what the bounds of what are acceptable and and get away with it. And I think I mean, you know, ideologically in terms of the politics and the policy. I mean, in many ways, you know, Texas was ahead of Trump, As I you know, is as I see Immigration moving back to the you can already see signs of immigration is gonna move back to the front and center for Republicans. If you you know, if you look at, you know, CNN and MSNBC right now, what you’re seeing or news about, you know, threats to the to the inauguration. If you switch into Fox and one American news, it’s about, um, you know, new refugee caravans and and the coming socialism. And I think we’re going to Seymour of that here. Um and you know, it all has political value. And, as you say, changes when depending on who changes in the White House in the last couple minutes, I want to go back to one sort of on the ground thing. And, you know, you mentioned that in your reporting you were likely exposed to somebody who was who had tested positive for co vid. Tell us you know what you expect to be different in what? The adjustments you’re gonna have to make our is. You go about reporting this session in the pandemic and in, you know, the new rules and the, you know, the you know, where the rules applying where they don’t apply and regulating access to the legislature. You know, What’s that looking like to you?

[0:31:05 Speaker 1] Uh, sure. It’s really different. I mean, um, the public access, the press access, it’s gonna be so different this year. Lawmakers say they want to keep it open as open as possible. But even on day one, it was It was radically changed. The press was up in the house and the Senate. The press was up in the rafters. Really? Um, cordoned off from legislators. And as a reporter, I love covering session. It’s not everyone’s bag, but I really love it. And the whole reason you love it is because you get you have immediate access to elected officials. You’re on the floor with them. You’re talking to them, you’re just building report building sources. And that’s really not going to be possible this year like it has in past years. I think the thing that I will you know the one thing I probably will editorialize on this call, for better or worse, is, um, I am I am concerned about committee hearing access for the public and the press. Um, there’s, you know, a concern about people sitting in these small hearing rooms, and I understand that. But not allowing press access at all to certain hearings is really concerning to me, um, and doing it under the guise of a public health reason. I just I wish there was a better way to do that. I don’t have I don’t have a solution, but I think just wholesale, um, you know, keeping out the public or keeping out the press doesn’t seem like the right answer. So one of my jobs in the next however many days left we have 133 or 132 days, um is to be keeping an eye on how much access the public has, how much access the press has and how that compares to how much access the lobby has. And, you know, high money donors and people that can host parties after hours that the rest of us aren’t invited. Thio, that’s a question and the concern that that, you know, I think everyone in in the press corps should be focusing on.

[0:33:20 Speaker 0] Yeah, well, that seems like a worthwhile enterprise. And we will look forward to that reporting. Lauren McGee. Thanks for being here. It much appreciated, Uh, good luck on getting your tests back and having them be negative. And we look forward to having you back.

[0:33:38 Speaker 1] Great. Thanks so much for having me. And, uh, yeah, way.

[0:33:44 Speaker 0] Will eso thanks to Lauren McGee, thanks to our staff and liberal arts development studio in the College of Liberal Arts at UT Austin, I’m Jim Henson, and we’ll be back next week with another second reading Podcast Be well and have a good week. Second, reading Podcast is a production of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin.