Last Friday, with the end of the world looming, my wife asked me what I wanted for breakfast.

“Eggs,” I said. “Not egg whites or Egg Beaters. Sunnyside up. Toast with real butter. Grits with butter and salt. And a little red-eye gravy. Bacon. Lots of bacon. About a pound of bacon.”

It seemed an opportune moment to forget my heart attack diet. After all, with the world ending by 6 p.m. the next day, what harm could a little bacon do? I wasn’t the only one thinking like that, either.

Readers of our discussion forums came up with all kinds of reactions to the end-of-the-world story. Here are a few of the ones that made me smile:

“Guess I’ll wait until Sunday to mow the lawn.”

“Would you please what-a-size my final burger?”

“My house note is due on Monday. WINNING!” (Didn’t know Charlie Sheen reads the forums.)

“Why are there no good Jonestown jokes? The punch line’s too long.”

“Don’t buy any green bananas!”

“People are telling jokes like there’s no tomorrow.”

So, what about you? If you believed — really believed — the world might end in 24 hours, how would you fill those last 24 hours? Just curious.

For those who are keeping score, The Daily News ran an unscientific poll on the issue of paid parking on the Seawall between April 23 and roughly April 30. Once again, the results were surprisingly close to the outcome of the actual voting.

A total of 545 respondents cast a ballot in the pre-election poll. Of that number, 57.5 percent said they planned to vote “yes” for paid parking on the Seawall, and 42.5 percent said “no.”

When the actual votes were finally tallied Saturday, May 14, 61 percent of the voters cast a “yes” vote and 39 percent voted “no.”

These polls are definitely not scientific, nor do we claim they are statistically valid. They are no more than a straw poll among readers or our Internet edition. We are able to weed out multiple votes by one reader, but other than that there are few controls. We conduct the polls mainly because some readers have asked us to, and they nearly always make for interesting reading.

In spite of the unscientific nature of these polls, however, they have been correct in predicting the winner in every election on which we’ve done a poll — with one exception.

For example, when Galveston voted last fall on construction of a new high school football stadium, the Internet poll was correct in predicting the stadium would fail, and it was less than 2 percentage points off the actual vote.

The only time an online poll has incorrectly predicted the winner was when County Judge Mark Henry defeated long-time County Judge James D. Yarbrough in Last November’s voting.

What do you think of these polls? Should we continue them?

Every year about this time, people write weighty speeches for graduates. The message, more often than not, is high minded, profound and profoundly boring.

So, instead of writing about meeting the challenges of tomorrow with clear eyes and courage, I thought it might be a good thing to tell graduates a few things they really, truly need to know. Things like:

• Never buy the most expensive house on the street.

• If you’re a man speaking to a woman, never ever comment upon her pregnancy unless you actually see the baby emerging into the world at that moment. (I stole this from someone, but I can’t remember who.)

• There’s really only one answer when your wife asks, “Do these shorts make my butt look big?”

• On appliances that cost less than $1,000, never buy the long-term service warranty. Yeah, yeah, yeah ... I know other people will advise you differently. I think I’m right on this one, though.

Now it’s your turn. If you could impart a single piece of undeniable and rarely mentioned wisdom to a young person, what would it be? This may make a column for the paper, by the way. Please help.

Last month, I published a column about my 20th wedding anniversary. Suzanne Little of Galveston called the week after the column ran to say she liked it and thought “we” ought to do something in the paper that was a bit deeper.

What she had in mind was the big issue — making marriage last.

You’ll be reading much more about this in the next couple of weeks, but meantime, answer this: In an age when marriage seems imperiled, how do successful couples make it?

According to statistics from earlier in this decade, only about 20 percent of Americans today are married. If you are under 45 and planning to marry, you’ve got about a 50-50 chance that your marriage will fail. The average length of time before a first divorce occurs is seven to 10 years.

Interestingly, Time Magazine accepts the 50 percent failure rate, but reported back in 2006, “At the time of a couple’s wedding, there are factors already present that can raise the odds of divorce to as high as 70 percent or lower it to as low as 20 percent.”

Making marriage succeed is worth it. Statistically, married couples are healthier, happier, richer, and they live longer than single people.

Here’s a bit of what I’ve learned so far from people who have been married 40-plus years:

1. Don’t start down the road of marriage unless you’re committed to make it last forever. Absolute, unswerving commitment and trust seem the essential ingredients.

2. Most people I talked to admitted to a quick feeling of attraction to the person they married. If it wasn’t instant, it was nearly so.

“The first thing I noticed about Peggy,” said Benny Holland of Galveston, “was that she was a really pretty girl, and I liked that, of course! It takes a while to understand it’s more than that, and that she’s much more than a pretty girl.”

The Hollands started dating when Peggy was in eighth grade and Benny was in ninth. They’re still together.

All the couples agreed that attraction, the driving force that brings people together, is very different from love, and not as lasting.

“Love when it’s real gets stronger with time, not weaker,” Seal Grief said.

3. Sharing faith and moral values, if not sharing a specific religion, seem important to all these couples.

4. It’s important to laugh together, and it’s important for even couples who have been married for decades to keep romance alive — to make time to be alone, to share intimacy that may include sex but goes beyond it.

The question is how do you — not some theoretical general “you,” but you, the fallible human being – make love and marriage last? I really want to know your answer.

One of my subjects gave a four-word answer I like a lot: “Pray first; act second.”

What’s the answer for you?

As Congress moves towards a national health care plan, an idea begins to crystallize. If we all share the cost of health care, then we all have an altruistic as well as a financial interest in creating a healthier nation.

So, things that used to be none of the government’s business, and ours, now will be. It must be so. Here’s a suggestion (and, like all my suggestions, I am completely serious):

We should tax people for being fat.

Example: Charge all Americans $50 for every pound by which they exceed the government-established BMI (Body Mass Index). You could pop down to the county health department for your annual weigh-in on St. Patrick’s Day and pay the tax on April 15 with your income tax.

This thought occurred while reading an article in the Wall Street Journal Tuesday. It reported, among other things:

Americans are getting fatter all the time. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the cost of treating obesity-related diseases “may have soared as high as $147 billion in 2008,” more than doubling in a decade.

The average American is 23 pounds overweight. At $50 per pound times 300 million Americans, that comes to a total of $345 billion a year unless, of course, I got lost in the zeroes, which is entirely possible. That’s a bit more than one-third of the 10-year cost of ObamaCare right there.

Thomas Frieden, who is Obama’s pick to head the CDC, made a speech in Washington last week and said the scary facts on fat indicate “the urgent need for deeper interventions in society.” Yes, those really were his words. That’s bureaucrat-speak for “we want to do a whole bunch more meddling in your personal life.”

Frieden suggests a national campaign to end obesity with goals to eliminate transfats and dramatically tax products like sugary soft drinks. Police beware: donuts may soon cost $5 each instead of 60 cents (no icing, no sprinkles).

Skip the half measures, I say, and tax fat people directly, right now. It’s clean, it’s simple and its’ cost effective. It’s the only idea that would tax the fat cats in Congress proportionally more than other Americans. The fat tax would make Americans more beautiful and healthy, and it would by itself pay the enormous cost of national health care. Voila!

Of course, I’m kidding. I don’t really think the government should tax fat people.

But I didn’t make up Thomas Frieden of the CDC, and I don’t think he’s kidding. And if you think that nationalized health care is the end of government intervention in your daily life … well, you better start stockpiling Cokes and cream-filled donuts.

Here’s why I think the late, great campaign for a hospital district no longer has a pulse:

• The county’s decision to propose the district on a countywide basis is understandable politically. That decision makes it much less likely voters will elect to create a hospital taxing district. Middle class, Republican voters north of FM 517 don’t think they need UTMB and will be a very, very tough sell.

• Bad management of UTMB by the UT system has left a sour taste in the mouths of many. After thousands of ill-conceived lay-offs, round upon round of wasteful consultants’ studies, interminable delays in getting the hospital running after Hurricane Ike and just plain bad patient service, the institution has squandered much goodwill. Many people are simply mad at UT and UTMB.

• Right or wrong, many voters believe the hospital district would provide a financial tool for providing hospital care — at the expense of taxpayers — for thousands of patients who are in the country illegally and who don’t pay taxes.

• The effort to create a hospital district already has created some active opposition but not much active support. Frankly, it has no champion; no one’s fighting for it. The city of Galveston has done little or nothing to promote the idea. Galveston County Judge Jim Yarbrough is its leading spokesman, but he’s leading the charge pretty gingerly. Yarbrough often has said the issue is one that could cost him his job this November. (I doubt that, honestly, but there’s no doubt it’s unpopular in the north county.) UTMB itself has mounted no strong, visible campaign for the hospital district.

• The finances are unfavorable. The city of Galveston, for instance, is faced with plummeting property tax values. It may impose a tax rate increase of over 12 percent this fall. Other cities around the county may be forced to adopt tax rate increases, too. Because of higher taxes, lower home values and the general effects of a lingering recession, voters will be wary of a brand new taxing entity and the higher taxes that go with it.

All in all, it just does not look like the stars are aligned for approval of a hospital district. What do you think? Will a countywide hospital district pass this November?

If you agree the idea’s in trouble, is there any way to save it?

On the first Sunday after Jan. 1, The Daily News will publish a list of 101 things to love about Galveston County. We do it every year, updating the list to remove favorites that have faded away, adding new things that have arrived to replace them.

An associated tradition is to allow you, our readers, to play this game along with us.

This year, in the wake of Hurricane Ike, we think this exercise is especially important. Tell us what you’re grateful for — that enduring thing or things that make life in our county worth fighting to preserve. As 2009 approaches, many people face challenges and difficult choices; it will help us all to share what makes this home of ours special.

You won’t get credit, and you won’t be paid, but you will have the satisfaction of participating in this annual dialogue.

It’s easy to make a contribution. Post your comments below or mail your suggestion to Dolph Tillotson, Publisher, The Daily News, P.O. Box 628, Galveston, TX 77553. You also can e-mail suggestions to dolph.tillotson(at)galvnews.com.

Deadline for submitting nominations is Friday.

I attended the Galveston City Council candidate forum Thursday morning, and here's what I thought: If you are concerned that today's city council is anti-business and anti-development, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

I listened in dismay as candidate after candidate blandly and blindly endorsed the notion of arbitrary restrictions on building height, spoke in favor of more taxes and dissed a lot of the development now going on in Galveston.

District 6 candidate Karen Mahoney, for instance, said she didn't know anyone in Galveston that favored the Marquette Development project on Galveston's west end. Uh, Karen, you were speaking before the Galveston Chamber of Commerce. Its board endorsed the project unanimously.

Darkness is about to descend on the thriving building trades in Galveston. Project on the boards now may never come to fruition. The economy, and the coming city council, surely will see to that.

It’s been about a week since our paper ran an editorial that said federal district Judge Samuel B. Kent should resign or face impeachment proceedings in the U.S. Congress.

I wrote the editorial, and it said the judge had severely undermined confidence in the courts in three ways: an official reprimand for sexual harassment; charges of favoritism in his court; charges of judicial bullying in his court.

So, you ask, what’s been the reaction to that editorial?

1. Judge Kent and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals have made no comment. That’s not surprising. Kent and the 5th Circuit have been steadfastly silent since last May when the controversy surrounding Kent began. That is true despite repeated efforts to get the judge and others to address the issues.

2. The National Organization of Women (NOW) has said Kent, if he committed sexual harassment, should face impeachment proceedings. So have several in Congress.

3. Letters to the editor have been running about 50-50, with some for the judge and some against.

There was one guest column that ran under the headline: “Kent deserves his day in court.” The author said the paper and others should avoid rushing to judgment and that the judge deserved the same innocent-until-proven-guilty treatment as anyone else.

There’s an obvious problem with that line of reasoning.

Kent faces no public accountability whatsoever. The federal judiciary’s rules are rigged to protect the privacy federal judges, who are virtually never punished for misdeeds. The judge has been reprimanded, but apparently his only punishment is four months off with full pay (nearly $14,000 per month).

We wrote the editorial precisely because there will be no day in court for Judge Kent and no public accountability. The judge can’t explain what he did, and those accusing him also won’t have an opportunity to air their side.

We understand judges need protection from frivolous charges that could themselves undermine the courts. But our view is that once a judge’s actions result in a reprimand or temporary removal from the bench, as Kent’s have, the public deserves to know a great deal more than it knows in this case.

What do you think?

The Galveston County Commissioners Court was set last week to vote quietly and with little fanfare NOT to allow split payments on property taxes. That was the way it was supposed to work, until advocates of the change spotted the agenda item and raised a small crowd to protest.

Commissioners delayed the vote, and the issue remains unsettled, though few at this point expect the county will allow split payments.

Before 2003, the county allowed property taxpayers to make their payments in two installments. But after that year, it changed directions and required one annual payment.

Now, Judge Jim Yarbrough is saying changing back will cost the county a lot of money. This would require the county actually to spend some time thinking about its budget and perhaps (oh Lord, say it isn't so) cutting a few costs.

How terribly inconvenient.

Of course, the same could be said for homeowners and taxpayers in the county.

Private business and homeowners will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential earnings on money handed over to the county early. Some may have to borrow the money (some already do) to pay taxes. Some may have to figure out ways to economize and cut costs to make the payments demanded by the county on time.

That's terribly inconvenient for taxpayers who own the courthouse and pay the commissioners' salaries.

The change proposed was standard operating procedure up to 2003. It should be once again. We keep wondering when Galveston County's overburdened and abused taxpayers will conclude they've simply had enough?

Is America ready for a trophy wife in the White House? I read that question last Sunday morning in The New York Times. It ran with a story about potential Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson. The story included several photos of Thompson and his wife.

Mrs. Thompson by all accounts, even that of the cynical NYT writer, is an accomplished woman. She has worked in the U.S. Senate. She has served as spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee. She is, again by all accounts, a devoted wife and mother to the Thompsons’ young daughter.

She is also a stunningly attractive blonde who is 24 years younger than her husband; hence, the Times’ blatantly sexist question.

“Wow,” I said to my stunningly attractive blonde wife (14 years younger than me), “take a look at this.”

I showed her the picture of Mrs. Thompson, whose name is Jeri, in a glittering gown with a plunging neckline. My wife, whose name is Teri, said, “She looks very nice. So what’s the point?”

“Well, uh, I’m not sure, really.”

So I read on. I found that Mrs. Thompson and the possible candidate met some 20 years after Thompson divorced his first wife. Nonetheless, the union was the topic of a long newspaper story, and by Tuesday morning the a.m. talk shows were chewing on it.

Democrats tell the story this way. Jeri Thompson wangled a do-nothing job in the Senate where she waited, as Scarlett’s Mammy would say, “jes’ like a spider,” for a man to stumble into her web. Then she worked her spell upon him, thereby removing another affluent, overweight middle-aged man from the pool of potential mates for middle-aged, overweight divorcees trying desperately to put two children through college on secretarial wages.

Some Democrats speculated this woman might be an aerobics instructor or, at the very least, an aerobics student.

Republicans tell the story differently. Jeri Thompson had a job in the U.S. Senate, working as a scullery maid for an unnamed Senatorial dominatrix from either New York or California. One evening while busing tables in the Senate cafeteria during a nasty filibuster over cotton tariffs, Jeri met Prince Fred, but had to flee in order to be home by midnight. In her haste, she dropped a glass slipper. The rest is history.

They became a Washington Power Couple. He was a powerful senator, then a highly paid lobbyist — slick, avuncular, an actor, even. And Jeri was (is) intelligent, witty and beautiful. The term “trophy,” used in a non-sexist and non-pejorative sense, is not too great a stretch.

I tried explaining all this to Teri (my wife, not Fred Thompson’s) and finally came to this conclusion about the point of The New York Times story: There was no point.

The only pertinent question seemed to be whether a 64-year-old man and a 40-year-old woman should love one another and provide a good home for their daughter. And most Americans, I’m betting, will say, “Why not?”

So that’s what I told Teri. The Times story was a plain example of prejudice and a vain attempt to gin up a fuss for poor Fred Thompson and his young wife, who has the terrible misfortune of being quite a looker. If she’d been the ugly stepsister, would The Times have done a story?

Teri nodded, said thank you very much and headed off to teach her aerobics class. And you know what? As she turned and walked away from me in her Lycra tights, I thought, “Damn, she looks good.”

Hey, I’m not sure the word “bliss” applies, but my iPhone is working, and, in general, I’m very pleased with it.

AT&T finally got me registered about 12 hours after I started that process. It happened in the dark of night when I wasn’t looking, but by last Tuesday morning, I had my iPhone working, and my observations so far are as follows:

I’m having fun showing it off. At a Chamber of Commerce committee meeting Thursday, we ended by having everybody gather around and watch as I demonstrated. It’s so cool to be on the cutting edge, and the iPhone really does put on quite a show.

Technologically, it’s a marvel, and people typically ooh and aah while watching it perform.

Some people have criticized the telephone functions of the iPhone, but I think it’s the best mobile phone of the five I’ve owned since the dawn of the cellular revolution. It’s functional. Its tone is clear as a bell. It does many things more quickly and easily than any portable phone I know (conferencing, set-up, etc.)

As an iPod, it’s better than my last-generation iPod Nano. Sound quality from the tiny headset is excellent.

Its email functions are seamless and very, very effective. Any dummy (me) will find it easy to retrieve and scan email on the iPhone.

Photos and photo editing on the iPhone are way cool. For example, shooting and attaching photos to the contact list is a snap. Maybe that sounds silly and useless, but if you’re like me (dependent on reading glasses), it’s nice to have the caller’s photo pop up on the phone’s screen when it rings.

I’ve heard lots of criticisms of the AT&T Edge networking system (iPhone’s default sytem), but I actually think that works pretty well, too. It’s readily available almost everywhere. While its speed seems slower than my office Wi-Fi network, it’s pretty darned quick.

There are some things about the iPhone that are not ideal. To mention a few:

• Like everyone else, I have trouble typing on that tiny, highly sensitive keyboard. I’m learning to do it better, but I think the same rule applies here that applied to Blackberries — most people will find it hard to type a long reply to an email. A sentence or two is manageable (barely), but a longer reply is very difficult.

• The iPhone responds to fingertip commands only. Consequently, the glass face of the machine is always smeared with finger-grease. For a neat freak like me, this can be disconcerting. (Tip: Don’t answer the phone while eating fried chicken.) The suede screen wiping cloth provided in the box is useless.

• The iPhone web browsing functions really are a step forward for hand held devices, but they still are not ideal. Folks, if you’re used to browsing the web on a crystal clear 24-inch flat screen monitor as I am, iPhone will disappoint. However, it’s better than any other hand-held phone I know of.

Bottom line: iPhone may not be perfect, but it’s the best thing out there. I wouldn’t go back to any other phone I know about.

What about you? What do you think?

I was one of 50 or 60 people who lined up last Friday at the AT&T Wireless store in Galveston on Seawall Boulevard. Yes, I walked away Friday evening with my brand new Apple iPhone. I was proud and happy and the first kid on my block to own one.

As it turns out, getting the phone is a lot easier than activating it. As of Monday at 3 p.m., I have this to say: Apple will wind up regretting deeply its decision to wed AT&T for introduction of its groundbreaking new phone.

Here’s my sad tale:

First, I couldn’t activate the phone through my existing AT&T account because my account, unlike most, is a business account paid for by The Daily News. Somebody in the AT&T/Apple hierarchy decided that they would not activate phones on business accounts.

Here’s how the AP described the problems Monday afternoon:

“Without activation, not even the phone's alarm clock works, leading some unhappy customers to joke that their inactive iPhones are little more than expensive paperweights. (My 8-gig version cost $600.) Customers with corporate accounts might also experience delays because AT&T needs authorization from the telecommunications manager at their company to switch them to an individual account, AT&T officials said.”

On Monday, I headed back to the local AT&T store and signed up for a personal account, planning to kill my existing business account after activating my new iPhone.

When I attempted to activate the phone on my brand new personal account, I got a message that said, “Your activation takes added time to complete.” The message said I’d get an email when that was done.

So I waited. And waited.

Finally, about six hours later, I called the AT&T service number and got a very nice young man on the phone. I told him I was having trouble.

“No problem,” he told me confidently, “I can help.”

He sounded like he was smiling and believed what he was saying. So he walked me through the steps right up to the time I got the original message about taking added time to complete. I got the same message again.

“There you are,” he said. “Be patient. They’ll send you an email when your activation is complete.”

“Well, yes, but they told me that six hours ago. How patient should I be?”

“Very patient. They sold all these iPhones last Friday, you see, and everybody’s trying to get activated at once. We’ve just got one server handling all that traffic.”

This seemed hard to believe.

“But, but, but …” Admittedly, I was a bit flabbergasted. Finally, I said, “Look, I know this isn’t your fault, but let me ask you – don’t you think that somebody at AT&T or Apple would have anticipated when they sold several million of these that several million of us might want to activate them all at once?”

The nice young man laughed.

“Yes,” he said, sounding a little surprised, “I guess you might think that.”

“Do you have any idea how long I might have to wait to get activated?”

“Well, right now they’re telling us from 24 to 48 hours. Don’t worry, though. They’ll send you an email.”

“OK,” I said, thoroughly whipped. “I guess I’ll just wait.”

“Is there anything else I can help you with,” he said.

“You haven’t helped me with anything yet,” I said. He laughed again, which was much better than weeping or cursing. And that was that, for now.

I’m still waiting.

What about you? Let’s hear your iPhone story, good or bad. Maybe you can cheer me up by telling me how much you love your new phone.

I may be the only man in America to say this, but I really liked the way HBO’s genius David Chase ended the Mafia series, The Sopranos.

The last scene showed the Soprano family — Tony, Carmella, Meadow and A.J. — ensconced in a diner, munching on onion rings while all around them menace lurked. Then the screen went black. No gunshots were fired, and there was no clue what happened next.

So, why did I like this non-ending ending?

First, I just plain loved this show. I got hooked in its first season on Tony’s supremely evil mother, played by Nancy Marchand. She moved the other characters right up to murdering one another by indirection, by passive aggressive carping, by never actually doing anything overt. The writing was brilliant, and Ma Soprano was a character right out of Shakespeare.

Second, I liked the ending’s lack of resolution, and I think it was completely in keeping with the seven-year run of the series. Over and over, story lines ended in mystery or ambiguity.

Remember when Paulie and Christopher spent one episode chasing a wounded Russian hoodlum through the wilds of New Jersey? It was great TV, and it ended without telling anything about the fate of the Russian, who may or may not have been shot in the head.

The unresolved, deliberately ambiguous story line was a Sopranos tradition. The series was like life that way.

Finally, because it was ambiguous, the ending let us write our own ending. Here’s what my mind conjured up:

We see in the final scene that the family is together, and the four of them love one another in spite of the insanity of their lives. Yet they are surrounded, and will always be, by the sinister, lurking potential for violence that inevitably follows the choices they make.

And they definitely will not walk away from “this thing of ours.” They probably couldn’t if they wanted to, but they don’t want to. They like the material things that come with their life, and, in truth, they like the danger. This is who they are. Even Meadow, the “good” child, doesn’t want to wind up being “just another suburban doctor.”

I don’t think anyone got whacked in the restaurant, but they might be tomorrow, or the next day. That’s the nature of their lives, and that’s the point of the ending, at least to me.

I’m really going to miss the Sopranos.

But what did you think?

I got a call recently from the spouse of one member of the Galveston Independent School District board. The complaint was two-fold.

In a headline in that day’s paper, above a column by a critic of the GISD board, we used the word “ignorant.” And, this person said, I myself had referred to the board members as “stupid.” Why, my friend asked, make the debate about Galveston’s schools so nasty and personal?

My first reaction was sympathy. I know several members of GISD’s board and like them as individuals. They’re doing a tough job for no reward other than the self-satisfaction that comes from public service. On the other hand, members of the board (and newspaper publishers) can expect to be called all kinds of names.

Actually, I never called members of the GISD board stupid as individuals, but what I did write is this:

“There are many things the board may choose to do that are legal but are stupid and wrong. The new policy on closed sessions is both those things — stupid and wrong.”

I was writing about a specific decision. That decision was to change previous board policy in order to facilitate closed-door sessions that bar the tax-paying public. Upon reflection, I think “stupid and wrong” are relatively mild ways to describe that new policy.

GISD recently published the agenda for its April 18 meeting. The bottom one-fourth of the ad contained what sounds like boilerplate language beginning with: “There may be a closed session in accordance with Government Code Section 5551.001 …”

That verbiage now is published with each agenda, and it sounds pretty innocuous.

Stripping away the legal language, however, what it really says to you and me as owners of the school system and taxpayers is: “We reserve the right to close this meeting at our convenience any time we choose, and the public be damned.”

It’s a new policy. We protested loudly when the school board adopted it. I suppose members of the board felt that, in time, we’d get used to the notion and back off. But, every time I read one of GISD’s agendas, it’s like waving a red flag in my face.

A growing segment of the public in Galveston is angry and frustrated with GISD because of its high-handedness. The policy to close meetings without notice is a good example of what frustrates many people.

Often, when school officials are confronted with questions about this kind of overweening, prideful behavior, they respond: “Well, our lawyers said we could do it this way.”

That’s a lousy answer and it shows disrespect for the public. And, yes, the policy really is stupid and wrong. I’m going to keep on saying so as long as I run the newspaper. I won’t forget it and the issue isn’t going to go away.

Dolph Tillotson is president and publisher of The Daily News.

Beach Party Weekend has come and gone in Galveston, and business leaders and city officials are again wondering what to do about the event.

Observations:

• No. 1: Conventional wisdom seems to be that Beach Party Weekend is shrinking, and if we’re patient it will eventually die of attrition.

I don’t believe that.

On Saturday afternoon of the event, my wife and I rode bikes from 45th Street to 14th Street on Seawall Boulevard. We did the same thing last year. My eyes tell me BPW this year drew as many people as last, maybe more.

• No. 2: Here is what we saw: tens of thousands of people; much traffic congestion; many scantily clad women; lots of tricked out cars playing loud music; much open drinking; illegally parked cars; some lewd behavior (for example, women sticking their rear ends out of car windows and shaking them vigorously).

We saw surprisingly few law-enforcement personnel — too few, if you ask me. In the event of a serious incident or violence, not enough police could have gotten to the scene quickly enough to do much good.

• No. 3: Business on Seawall Boulevard was dead — too many people, too much traffic congestion.

We rode our bikes to the Mosquito Café for supper, and a few other hardy souls were there. Downtown Galveston — on a prime weekend for tourism — was dead.

• No. 4: As disruptive events go, Beach Party Weekend still comes in second.

Mardi Gras is numero uno. Like BPW, it features much rowdiness, drunkenness and lewd behavior. Police tell me that Mardi Gras is worse than BPW in terms of crime and danger.

So, what do we do about these huge events that cruise along powered by their own unstoppable momentum? I think the answer to both is the same: First, don’t promote them. Second, enforce the laws. In particular, the city should enforce its ordinances against consuming alcohol on the streets.

We should use all media to tell people in advance we plan to enforce the drinking laws, and then bring in enough force to do it. I agree that would be a difficult undertaking, especially at first.

However, not doing it has gotten us where we are — encumbered by several major events we can’t control and that do more harm than good. That has led to major business losses, hundreds of fights and even several deaths through the years, at least at Mardi Gras.

For what, I ask? It’s time to enforce the laws. I don’t think it would take more than one or two non-alcoholic events to either change the nature of these monsters or end them altogether.

What do you think?

What do radical Muslim clerics and the Texas Republican Party’s leaders have in common? Well, they both apparently believe that it is the proper role of government to enforce private morality — as defined by them, of course.

Two examples came up this week in the Texas Legislature.

First, Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, has introduced a new law that seeks to force people into pre-marital counseling whether they want it or not by doubling the fee for a marriage license to those who refuse counseling. The bill also reportedly would require enforced crisis classes for marriages in trouble.

Other bills introduced by conservative Republicans would increase the mandatory waiting period for divorces from 60 days to up to two years.

Meanwhile, up at the governor’s mansion, Rick Perry has come out in favor of a bill guaranteeing children the right to express religious beliefs at school. Never mind that they already have that right under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Sponsors including Perry say that the bill would not lead to organized school prayer nor would it expand the influence of religion in public schools. The bill only codifies “the legal battles that have already occurred,” one supporter said.

So, one wonders, why pass a meaningless bill?

Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, offers this analysis, which seems about right: “What this bill mostly does is give politicians something easy to keep their (conservative) base happy.”

After all, who’s going to vote against religious freedom for little kiddies? Hey, passing this pro-religion law is a lot easier than passing meaningful tax relief or workable education reform or halting the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars of Texans’ money to out-of-state gambling casinos.

Back in the good old days, conservatives believed in low taxes, personal freedom and minimal government intrusion into the private lives of law-abiding citizens. I’m finding, as I grow older, that there is no political party that represents me. None at all.

MSNBC did the right thing, if belatedly, in firing Don Imus.

The cable network announced Wednesday evening that it would cancel its simulcast of Imus’ radio program. That’s after first announcing they would just suspend the simulcast for two weeks. Oops, wrong call!

Imus is the shock-jock radio host who got himself in hot water this week for calling members of the Rutgers University women’s basketball team “nappy headed hos.”

Of course, there’s a double standard at work here. Jesse Jackson can call New York City “hymie town” and get away with it. Rappers can work racism and sexism liberally into their lyrics, and giant American corporations still distribute their work.

I don’t like that double standard either; I really wish the world were a fairer place.

But still, Imus deserved to be canned for the following four reasons:

His ratings were lousy, and he’s just not funny. Imus apologized for his dumb remark, and partly excused it by saying he was “joking.” Joking? What’s funny about calling a 19-year-old college sophomore a “nappy headed ho?” Nobody much listened to his show, and one reason is that he’s boring.

Imus’ racist remark was egregious, and one reason it seems that way is he’s done it before and often, but in slightly less controversial circumstances. Racism and sexism have been stables of his patter, and it’s remarkable that MSNBC seemed shocked by the latest example. Of course, the network was being disingenuous.

Many of his advertisers were voting against him, too, by canceling their ads. In the world of the media, that’s truly the kiss of death.

But the final kicker for me is and was this very basic question: If you were the father or mother of one of the young women on the basketball team, how would you feel about this idiot calling your daughter a “nappy headed ho?” Honestly, I’d want to do a lot more than fire the jackass.

I believe in free speech. Imus should be free to say whatever he wants. But free speech isn’t exactly free — it has consequences, and it often comes at a high price. Just ask the Dixie Chicks.

So, what do you think?

Shortly after the Texas Department of Transportation erected that weird, wavy wall along the south side of the new Galveston Island Causeway, The Daily News began to be inundated with calls. In general, people were perplexed, mystified and generally upset about the wall. They called it ugly names.

I held my fire.

“Give it some time,” I said to myself. “The wall’s new. Don’t indulge in a knee-jerk reaction to the thing. Maybe it’ll grow on you.”

Well, some months have passed, and I have come to the conclusion the wall is an abomination, and it really should be removed and replaced with something lower, less distracting and more (much more) aesthetically pleasing.

My wife will not let me drive in the south lane of the Causeway. The wavy wall drives her nuts, makes her nervous. Laura Elder of our staff says it makes her a little seasick. I have heard from many, many people that the horrible thing blocks the view — one of Galveston’s best.

As for me, I think it’s just plain distracting. My eye wants to watch the beautiful view and the oncoming traffic. However, my eye for some reason is drawn inexorably to that simulated wave action on my right as I cross from mainland to island.

One more problem: I have a hard time avoiding the darned wall. The reason is that I drive pretty close to the posted 50 mph speed limit on the Causeway. No one else does, of course, so in order to avoid being rammed from the rear and run over by motorist going 75, I drive in the far-right lane. That causes my wife to complain. It’s a no-win situation.

The wall is awful. My conclusion after trying to get used to it is that I won’t. It’s just got to go. Period. What do you think? Maybe if enough of us whine and moan about this, TxDOT will do something about it.

Were you surprised that the University of Texas on Friday released a list of four finalists for the post of president at Galveston’s University of Texas Medical Branch? Such openness is not standard operating procedure.

Here’s how that process works. If no one knows the information, UT refuses to release it. Once the information is irretrievably in the public domain, UT releases it to everyone. That’s what happened in this case.

Our reporters asked early last week for a list of the finalists. The rumor already had begun to circulate that the field had been narrowed to four, one of whom was Dr. Courtney M. Townsend, head of UTMB’s department of surgery. So we sought a list of the nominees, and UT refused to release it.

Like good reporters, we began pumping sources for the information. By Friday morning we had all but one, and before lunch we had all four. So our reporter, Laura Elder, called UT for comment on the names we secured (all of which turned out to be accurate).

Once it was apparent we had all four names, including fairly complete biographies, UT released the information to all media — thereby blowing the scoop we were hoping for.

One more bit of “insider” information. Townsend is the nearly unanimous choice of people at UTMB and in Galveston. There is an unsubtle campaign now being waged to convince UT’s regents that Townsend’s local connections trump whatever is in the resumes of the three non-local candidates (from UCLA, Emory in Atlanta and Johns Hopkins in Baltimore).

Local luminaries like Bobby Moody and George Mitchell (major donors) are being drafted to write letters on Townsend’s behalf. The college’s basic science and departmental chairs have written. Politicians are weighing in with personal visits and calls.

The x-factor in this process is what role Dr. Kenneth Shine will play. Shine is the regents’ executive VP for medical colleges, and he is rumored to have professional relationships with two or more of the non-local candidates. Shine also is the architect of recent controversial changes at UTMB, and he is widely disliked on campus. Selection of someone viewed as his protégé (hatchet man?) would be viewed by most in Galveston as a very bad thing indeed.

If you want to post a note commenting on the UTMB presidency, this blog is good place to do that. You can be sure comments here will be read in Austin.

There is no magic solution for the mess in Iraq. Surely, America must work out the withdrawal of most of its armed forces at some point.

However, the notion of announcing in advance that we’ll withdraw all forces by a date certain (March 31, 2008, according to the Democratic majority in the Senate) just seems wrong. It seems like surrender to the savages now terrorizing Iraq.

The message to the enemy surely is this: Keep killing one another, and soon we’ll be gone so that you can kill one another with an even greater vengeance.

At the very least, it seems to me that the 50 Democrats and a few Republicans who voted last week in favor of the date-certain retreat from Iraq should be forced to sit down across a table somewhere with the men and women now fighting in Iraq. The Democrats seem certain they know the right answers for Iraq. I’d like to see that certainty tested in a chat with the people most affected by the decisions to run away from Iraq.

In my imagination, I see Sen. Hillary Clinton explaining her position to a battle hardened American soldier.

“So,” my soldier says, “the 3,000 of us who died for a cause we believed in actually died for a mistake? Is that your position? And now you believe we should just walk away from these people we’ve been trying to protect and leave them at the mercy of the terrorists?

“And if we abandon Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan to the enemy, do you think the terrorists be content with just that?”

It’s a conversation that will never happen. But it should.

Harold Dutton is a Democratic state representative from Houston. He’s famous — well, maybe just a little — in Galveston as the lawyer for ousted Galveston City Councilman Mark Hoskins.

Hoskins ran for and was elected to Galveston City Council in spite of being convicted of selling cocaine, a felony. The courts later said Hoskins could not serve and he was removed from office, but still is working the angles to get back his elective post.

It was Dutton who argued in court that Hoskins should be allowed to seek office and hold it, in spite of his conviction. Dutton then said he would appeal Hoskins’ ouster, but no appeal was filed in a timely manner, so that won’t happen either.

Now, Dutton has filed in the Legislature a proposed new law that would allow convicted felons to hold office, to vote and to serve on juries. In other words, Dutton apparently thinks that once you’ve done your time, penalties for breaking the law should end forever.

Here’s the irony: Dutton is chairman of the House juvenile justice committee.

“AUSTIN — Two Houston lawmakers are leading an effort to build consensus for a formal apology and acknowledgment of slavery in Texas history, as part of a movement among Southern states considering official expressions of regret.

“Although state Sen. Rodney Ellis and Rep. Senfronia Thompson had been weighing the drive for some time, they redoubled their efforts after this week's bitter debate over Confederate statues on state property.”

– Houston Chronicle, March 24

Here’s a question: Why is it important for Americans today to apologize for slavery that ended more than 140 years ago? Don’t misunderstand me. I realize slavery was an abomination. No doubt about that. But no American alive today owned slaves. For the vast majority of Americans, no one in their families owned slaves.

And even for that small minority of Americans descended from slave owners, what good does it do today to offer an apology?

That act won’t give anyone a job or an education or a better home or a life of greater opportunity. Yet Texas’s Legislature is considering such an apology and that follows what appears to be a trend of Southern states formally saying “I’m sorry” a century and a half too late.

I don’t get it, and I’d really like to understand. Why is this an issue today?

I’ve been a regular email user for 14 years or so, and I think that this new, instant, ubiquitous means of communication is dragging us all into saying things too quickly and to too many people. It’s not good.

People feel free to say almost anything in an email. They call me names, curse me and question my integrity. Sometimes, I pick up the phone and call these people. It often turns out they’re pretty nice when speaking to me directly.

Ah, but they’re the same person, you say. Not really.

Here’s what I believe happens. Someone gets up in the morning and drinks three strong cups of coffee. Maybe something in that day’s paper really got under their skin. Or, worse, their paper was late or thrown in a watery ditch.

In the old days, they might have written a letter on a piece of paper with a pen or pencil. Or they might have picked up the phone to call me (yep, I’m listed), perhaps first talking to my sweet wife, after which no man can remain truly angry.

But these days, angry and jazzed on caffeine, they march over to the computer, pound out a snarling message and, like pulling the trigger on a gun, hit the send button. Bang!

The person speaking in that email is what my Lutheran forbears would call “natural man” — a poor and miserable sinner, according to the ancient liturgy, someone unredeemed and without grace.

In such moments, the devil speaks, not the man or woman writing the email. I’m not immune. Recently, I wrote a too-sharp email to one of my colleagues at the paper. I thought, not long after pushing the send button, “You dummy (I said to me), this is a man you both like and respect, and you’ve just sent him a message that may insult him. You jackass, you.”

I apologized quickly, but down deep I knew the devil had me for a moment.

Here’s my question for you: How can we defeat the devil in the machine? How can we save the world from emails sent too quickly?

Here’s a fact, and the only thing I understand about it is that I don’t understand it: Nobody really seems to care about local tax increases.

It’s odd. I hear people moaning in conversation about higher taxes. However, when presented with an opportunity to act, most people stay home and watch Law and Order re-runs.

The most recent example was Tuesday’s tax rollback vote in Texas City, which would have reduced the property tax rate by 3 cents per $100 of assessed value. Given organized opposition to the rollback, I wasn’t surprised that it failed (57-43 percent).

What surprised me was the lack of interest. There were people who were passionate on both sides, but not many. Only 2,897 bothered to vote, less than 11 percent of Texas City’s 27,000 voters. Think of that. Only about one in 10 voters cared enough to express an opinion.

Maybe that shouldn’t surprise anyone. Cities, school boards, community colleges and the county hold tax hearings each fall. If taxes go up, and they nearly always do, people gripe. But do they go and speak directly to the men and woman who vote on taxes? Very rarely.

I’ve been scratching my head over this for several years. The county’s appraised property values and taxes have soared. Why don’t people demand more of government? Are they satisfied, lazy, or do they believe higher taxes are inevitable, and they are powerless to cause change?

What’s your opinion? I’m really curious.

If you live in Galveston, chances are you’ve got an opinion about the Galveston Independent School District and its plans to re-align public schools.

The recommendation to merge Weis Middle School into Central Middle School has proved especially controversial — causing scores of emails to fly across the community among concerned parents and board members. These messages included concerns, debate of the issue, criticism of the school board and suggestions for making the proposed changes work best.

We believe this ongoing discussion deserves a wider audience, so we invite readers to offer their comments on the changes here in the blogs.

Do you have a take on the change? Do you have a recommendation for the future? Do you want to comment on some wise or foolish comment in a letter to the editor on the subject? Here’s your forum. All you have to do is click on the word “comment” above and give us some basic identifying information. Then add your comments.

Blogs like this one are designed expressly for this purpose — to be a forum to discuss, debate, education and inform. But they don’t work if people don’t use them.

Maybe things are getting better at UTMB.

I’ve been critical of the Galveston Island medical monopoly for poor patient service — long waits for service and appointments followed by long waits once you’re in the office. Everyone’s heard the stories. Most of us have experienced them.

Last Thursday, I was to have lunch with two UTMB people. They wanted to talk about my perceptions of the university. Coincidentally, I needed my annual check-up at the dermatologist. So, as a small experiment, I called to make an appointment with Dr. Sharon Raimer at UTMB.

Instead of calling Dr. Raimer’s office directly, I worked the normal appointment-making route — I called the main UTMB information number and said I need to make an appointment with my dermatologist.

Guess what?

Within five minutes, after some minimal questions to identify me, the young woman on the other end of the phone offered me an appointment just one week from the day I called. Actually, I was too busy to make it that day, but we made the appointment for a couple of weeks down the road. I don’t see how the process could have been handled better.

Here’s my point: Most of us don’t hesitate to speak up when the medical branch fails to perform up to our expectations. We should take note when things work well.

At lunch that day, I asked my friends from UTMB about the incident. They both acknowledged that appointment times and the process for making appointments has been an ongoing problem, and the university is working on improvement. One good experience is only that — one experience, but it’s a good sign.

“It’s going to take us some time to work out all the bugs,” one told me. “But we’re aware of it. We’re working on it, and we think we’re starting to make progress.”

I’m curious. What’s your recent experience?

How do you feel about the general state of patient care at UTMB, Galveston’s only real source of long-term medical care? Are things getting better there?

In case you’ve missed it, a number of parents whose children attend public schools in Galveston are angry.

They are angry over the recent decision to close and re-align schools. Even more, they are angry that the school board appeared to disregard public input on the re-alignment plan.

In fact, as a story in today’s Daily News indicates, many already are considering pulling students out of public schools and trying private education, in spite of the higher cost and in spite of having to continue to pay taxes to support public schools their children no longer will attend.

That’s a major issue because declines in enrollment are at the root of many problems faced by the Galveston Independent School District.

Parents’ anger bubbles up in lots of ways, some of them as direct as a smack in the kisser. GISD board member Kelly Chambers sent a note to some parents this week asking them to participate in planning for a new magnet school, set to open in Fall 2008.

Here’s what one parent wrote back:

“After completely disregarding our opinions on the reconfiguration of the district, how could you possibly expect any of us to give you any time or effort?

“You completely disregarded the recommendations of two boards filled with parents and teachers, and, except for the outcry from Scott, completely disregarded the parents from the entire Island, not just the west end as you would like to pigeon-hole us.

“And then to decide that you will go into Executive Session at any point for any reason during a meeting just shows a complete disdain for the public you serve.  Only out of our concern for our children would I think any one would ever work with this board again.”

Ouch.

About five years ago — at least two bond issues ago — it was obvious that GISD should close Austin Middle School. In fact, in the bond issue package considered then, the strategy was to make overall improvements in the schools and close Austin.

Austin was losing enrollment. There was no reason to believe that decline would not continue for some time into the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, it was an old, dilapidated building, and maintaining the facility would be expensive. Everyone knew it and acknowledge that.

I served on the bond issue committee that made that highly unpopular recommendation.

That’s when Elizabeth Beeton and a group of community activists entered the scene, and the idea of closing Austin got whipped badly. Supporters fought for keeping Austin open — ostensibly to benefit Galveston kids, but the real issue was neighborhood integrity for the East End. People confused what was good for their real estate investments with what was good for education.

That bond issue was beaten badly, a suit was filed, and a court order later preserved Austin. It stands today, and it will continue to stand. The school board has spent millions fixing it up for very few students.

Ironically, the school system now faces an even worse financial crisis than it faced five years ago. The big issue is the same — dwindling student enrollment, which has escalated, not slowed.

The board recently elected to close Alamo School and to permanently close San Jacinto, to re-align several other schools. The issue is “settled” by the school board, but many, many parents still are angry at both what was done and how it was done.

But wait, what school has the most “excess capacity” in the district? Excess capacity is the relationship between classroom space available and the actual number of students.

The most excess capacity is at Austin Middle School, which has only 391 students for 600 places. That means the school when it re-opens after renovation will be about 65 percent utilized, and the enrollment is likely to continue to decline.

By contrast, Scott and Alamo elementary schools — both considered for closure ahead of Austin — operated at 80 and 82 percent capacity, respectively.

If you look at the numbers in the aggregate, they are about the same. The city’s three middle schools operate overall at about 65 percent capacity. The elementary schools are at about 83 percent capacity.

The interesting thing about all this to me is that we told you this would happen. Nobody listened, but we told you.

The people of Galveston County must find ways to exert more influence at the University at Texas Medical Branch, to make sure the voices of local people are at least heard as decisions that affect all of us are made.

What, I wonder, would cause people in Galveston County to become really concerned and to take action about the problems at the University of Texas Medical Branch?

I don’t know the answer to that question. I wish I did, because everyone I know agrees that UTMB is at a crossroads. What happens in the next two years will dramatically affect health care and the economy of Galveston County for many decades to come.

How many of the 12,000 employees will keep their jobs? Will the 750-bed John Sealy Hospital shrink to 200 beds? What happens will determine the level of care available – whether we’ll still be able to get sophisticated surgery there or will be forced to go elsewhere.

And what happens over the next 24 months will most dramatically affect the quality and quantity of health care available to the poor and uninsured.

Yet I don’t perceive widespread concern. I certainly don’t perceive any inclination on the part of elected officials and other leaders to demand more of a role in determining how the institution functions.

To recap UTMB’s situation, it has lost money for a number of years. Last summer, it began implementing cost cuts outlined in the Navigant efficiency study. In October, UTMB’s president announced he is resigning, and a search began for his replacement.

Today, the institution still is losing money. It faces a difficult fight in the legislature for more funding that is desperately needed. It is seeking new leadership, but meanwhile many UTMB personnel are seeking work elsewhere because of the school’s uncertain future.

UTMB simply must build its base of paying, insured customers, but how to do that is problematic, to say the least, and perhaps impossible. It’s extraordinarily difficult to build a paying client base while cutting staff, cutting services and losing key personnel.

Example: My cardiologist is leaving UTMB. I now must decide whether to depend upon someone I don’t know to tinker with my heart or go to Houston for care from a nationally renowned specialist.

UTMB is doing some after-care customer research. I visited a clinic recently, and they sent me a form asking for my opinion of the treatment. It was good. What the questionnaire did not ask was this: Did you have to go around the UTMB appointment system to get timely treatment? Yes. Do you believe that the standard mechanisms for patient appointments, communications and referrals just don’t work? Yes, I do believe that.

Our main provider of health care seems, more and more, to be broken or in danger of failure. It’s alarming, yet few are alarmed.

In addition to UTMB personnel, local citizen representatives should serve on every important policy-making body at UTMB.

No one likes more taxes, but another answer may ultimately be a local taxing district to help fund the hospital and to help give local health care consumers a say in its management.

UTMB cannot thrive without an effective partnership with the people it serves. I don’t think that exists today, and it must, or we’re all in trouble.

I got a letter in January from Pastor Richard Sumner of Texas City. He was writing to cancel his subscription over the gay marriage controversy, which broke out in November when The Daily News published a story about gay marriage. Pastor Sumner he took the opportunity of his cancellation dress me down for what he sees as my sins as a publisher.

His basic point was that we were screening out all the thoughtful, articulate letters condemning gay marriage and running on those that made sense and agreed with my personal point of view on the matter. He assumes we are doing this to further something called “the gay agenda” and the creep of liberalism. That’s not true, and I thought you might be interested in my response to him.

Dear Pastor Sumner:

Thank you very much for your past business, and we’ll surely miss you as a customer. I wanted to respond personally to several of the points in your letter to me:

I have not written anything about the issue of gay marriage since Nov. 26 and would be just as happy if others quit writing about it, too. That does not constitute “continually” defending my position (as you assert). While you and I may disagree on the issue, I’m certainly not trying to force my personal opinion on you or anyone else.

Since November, the published viewpoints you object to have been written by people not on our staff – readers who have opinions and wish to express them. We don’t discriminate in publication of one viewpoint over another.

You indicate that I “refuse to allow” all but the ignorant an opportunity to publish views that are different from mine. That’s not true. I don’t even see the letters before they’re published (that’s not my job). I’d personally be just as happy to publish an articulate and thoughtful argument opposing my personal views. In fact, we have published a few.

Why don’t you write such an argument yourself? I’ll be glad to publish it. Keep the length reasonable (about 600 words), and take your best shot. Send your contribution directly to me, and I’ll make sure we publish it as long as it meets our normal criteria for letters and guest columns.

Our county’s liberals certainly don’t share your belief that we never publish conservative views. For example, we often argue against big government and high taxes, and we endorsed President Bush and argued for the invasion of Iraq. You and I probably don’t disagree on everything – actually, just a few things.

I hope to hear from you soon. And, if you’d like to discuss this or any issue with me, my cell phone number is 409-771-0382. My direct line at the office is 409-683-5219. We may end agreeing to disagree, but I’d welcome an opportunity for dialogue.

Respectfully,

Dolph Tillotson

(He has not called or written.)

On Jan. 24, our paper carried a story outlining four recommendations from a GISD committee on which Galveston public schools to close in order to save money next year.

On the editorial page the same day, we ran a guest column from Susan Lynch, who chairs the committee, saying the district may be acting precipitously — moving too quickly and ignoring big issues like educational quality. She recommended doing nothing, at least for now.

On the editorial page the next day, we ran a guest column from Beau Rawlins, a member of the committee who disagreed with Lynch.However, he wrote later to say he changed his mind and felt the school board managed the outcome.

The public is even more confused than members of the committee, and for good reason. The Daily News reluctantly endorsed the idea of school closure as a financial necessity. But GISD — its board and its staff — have not made supporting their decisions easy for any of us.

Galveston’s parents, students and taxpayers ought to be extremely leery of just about any significant change suggested by the current school administration and board. Neither the board nor the current administration has earned the public’s trust — yet.

Just about every time I believe GISD and its board have learned the lesson of public accountability and openness, they prove me wrong.

Not long after Lynn Cleveland became superintendent, she and several board members came to visit editors at the newspaper. They hoped, they said, to enlist our support in reporting all the good news about the system.

“We want to be completely open,” someone said. “We’ll give you all the information you want.”

“OK,” I said, “tell me the names of the other two finalists for the superintendent’s job you just filled.”

Long silence. Well, they said, anything but that. Their position was that the law did not require such openness in the way a new superintendent came into office.

I told them the law didn’t REQUIRE openness but allowed it. In order to recover from the debacle of the previous administration’s failures — firing, lawsuits, bidding scandals — the board should be more open and should never, ever hide behind the law.

It was a message that apparently fell on deaf ears. The board still operates behind closed doors when it can. Just last week, it announced it no longer would announce closed-door sessions in advance. That’s one more slap in the face of parents and taxpayers.

Recently, the board announced what we at the newspaper believed to be an illegal closed-door session. We threatened to sue, and the board backed off and canceled the meeting. It was an argument we never should have had to make.

By ignoring the basic tenets of openness, the GISD board and administration have put us — and many taxpayers — in a position of automatically mistrusting just about everything they say.

What do you think? I’d like to hear from others in the community on this issue.

Some members of the Galveston Independent School District board are on record saying the school board must work hard, after many missteps in recent years, to restore public trust.

So far, however, the current board’s record in that regard couldn’t be worse. Its recent decision to cease announcing closed meetings in advance is the latest — and perhaps the worst — example of this board’s disregard for openness.

This follows the decision to close Alamo Elementary School and re-align a number of other schools. Many observers, including some who served on so-called public input committees, believe the process was a sham designed to mask the board’s disinterest in taxpayer sentiment.

The board’s new decision on handling its agenda maximizes the potential for secret discussions. That runs disastrously counter to the notion of building public trust.

The new policy is that GISD no longer will announce which portions of its agenda will be held in executive session. The board routinely will affix the entire open meetings law to its agendas, so members may call upon any of the allowable exceptions to open meetings whenever they choose.

This will have three practical results, and all of them undermine public trust in GISD.

First, it’s obvious the board’s desire is to meet secretly with more freedom than in the past. While the open meetings law allows for some justifiable exceptions, board discretion plays a major role in each decision to close a meeting. It’s clear the board wants more freedom to slam doors in the face of the public.

Second, interested citizens may go to board meetings to hear a specific discussion only to find — perhaps after hours of waiting — that the part of the meeting in which they have an interest will be closed. Will that encourage parents to become active, involved participants? No, it’s certain to create more distrust, apathy and frustration on the part of parents and taxpayers.

Third, the new policy will make it impossible for public watchdogs in the media to discuss and debate in advance the board’s decisions to close a meeting. This is very important. Such discussions will occur only after the damage of a closed meeting has already occurred.

The Daily News recently challenged one of the announced closed meetings and threatened to sue to keep the meeting open. GISD responded by canceling the meeting without admitting it had done anything wrong. Shortly thereafter, it released its decision to no longer announce closed sessions in advance.

When questioned about this new policy, most members of the board defended it with the shallowest and weakest of arguments: They think it’s legal.

First, we’re not sure the policy is legal, and we may choose to challenge its legality. We are evaluating that now. Even if legal technically, the policy flies in the face of the clear intent of the public meeting law.

Second, there are many things the board may chose to do that are legal but are stupid and wrong. The new policy on closed sessions is both those things — stupid and wrong.

Thinking members of the GISD board should instruct the administration to abandon this policy and adhere to the traditional method of calling closed meetings. Continuing down the announced course is no way to build public trust and confidence. In fact, it is certain to do the opposite.

On Monday night, I drove over to Ball High School to listen as more than 100 parents of GISD students gathered and talked about closing one or more of Galveston’s schools.

There was passion and rhetoric. I also heard enough thoughtful, practical questions to become convinced — again — that GISD may be acting too quickly if it decides tonight to close any schools.

At a break in the meeting, I chatted with board member Andy Mytelka. I asked him if the questions and the apparent lack of solid answers caused him concern.

“I’ve asked a bunch of those same questions myself,” Mytelka said. To some, there were answers, to others, no.

What kind of questions? Here are just a few of them:

1. What are the specific cost savings to come from closing each school?

Surely, the impact wouldn’t be the same for each. But the only information about cost savings is that no matter which school closes, there will be savings from about 50 teaching and staff positions. Further, there would be no teacher terminations. The school system would count on attrition to produce the needed savings.

That doesn’t provide much hard information upon which to make a choice.

2. Has GISD really thought about the impact on the schools it does not close?

For example, will there be enough classroom space to accommodate all students and still maintain an acceptable student-teacher ratio? Would the city in a year face the specter of temporary, trailer-style classrooms at the consolidated schools?

3. How will school closures and the increased amount of busing impact education and attendance, and what will the increased transportation costs do to the savings from closing a school or two?

4. What about the most basic question of all — enrollment? We know it’s going down, but GISD’s estimates have fluctuated and are today uncertain. It is the decline in enrollment that is at the root of the problem, so shouldn’t we be more certain about the numbers?

As one speaker put it, there was a lot of passion in the audience Monday night, but a decision so important should be based on more than passion. It should be based on logic and on solid numbers.

“So far, you haven’t given us the numbers to make a good judgment,” the speaker said. The crowd applauded loudly.

Another issue came inevitably out of hibernation Monday night. That is the issue of race and class. The schools slated for closure are all in central or east Galveston. None are in the more affluent west end of the island. Interestingly, that makes no one happy — east, central or west.

East end parents feel that poorer minority communities are being singled out, and school closures there will hurt their kids, hurt their neighborhoods and worsen the slow, economic decline around those schools.

Meanwhile, parents of kids on the west end fear over-crowding and other problems in schools their children attend. They do not believe the proposed changes will improve education for anyone, and they quite likely are right.

These parents all are justifiably concerned about their children and their educations, and they are justifiably concerned about the neighborhoods where their families live.

Having said all that, GISD has to make a difficult decision that is likely to please no one. The coming financial difficulty is real. We should sympathize with the plight of board members who have taken on a hard job and one that comes without compensation. Who would want to trade places with them now?

Still, I think if I were on that board, I’d vote to do nothing at the present moment. The financial crisis the schools face is in the future, not immediate. There should be more work to analyze the situation and to find a solution — no matter how unpopular — that at least is clearly recommended by hard numbers and facts.

That’s not the case now. In the absence of a real crisis, the school board should take a bit more time to think this thing through.

The office of Texas Attorney Gen. Greg Abbott has ruled with us once again on an open meeting issue – and as a result absolutely nothing will happen.

Secret, closed meetings will go on in Galveston County. That’s because the county district attorney’s office apparently does not think secret meetings of public bodies are a high priority.

The La Marque Independent School District board nearly one year ago held an illegal closed meeting. We complained about it, and the board went ahead and did it anyway. Then we lodged a complaint with the local D.A., who kicked it up to the state attorney general’s office.

That office — finally, 11 months later — said, “Yeah, you’re right, the meeting was a violation of the Texas open meetings law.”

What happens next? The answer, according to Galveston County D.A. Kurt Sistrunk’s office, is nothing. No charges will be filed. No trial will be held. No fine will be levied. LMISD board members who participated in the illegal meeting will not go to jail or experience even a mild slap on the wrist.

State law allows for such punishment, but punishment is virtually never meted out. That’s true all over the state of Texas.

In this case, Sistrunk told The Daily News the school board had an affirmative defense in that it was acting upon advice from its attorney. Violations, in order to be punishable, must be “willful.” Which means, if you want to violate the law with impunity, all you have to do is get your lawyer to say it’s OK.

Sistrunk sent out a letter to public officials last month warning that violations of the law are “subject to criminal prosecutions which could result in fines up to $500 and or incarceration up to six months.” We will believe the district attorney means that the very first time he prosecutes someone for violating the law. Not before.

The open meeting law has been on the books for 40 years, but in all that time, after thousands upon thousands of illegal closed meetings all over Texas, only one lonely public official ever spent an hour in jail for violating the law.

The Galveston County D.A.’s office has been especially disappointing on this point. Over the years, going back to when Mike Guarino held the post, complaints about violations of open meeting laws fell on ears that may not have been deaf but were indifferent and obviously annoyed that we bothered them.

Once several years ago when we complained about an illegal closed meeting, Guarino and his cohorts called us on the carpet to harangue us about our public objections after they did nothing about the violation.

When I asked, Guarino said no one from the DA’s office had personally spoken to anyone on the board about its closed meeting, which started the fuss in the first place. But the DA took the trouble to call our editor, a reporter or two and me down to the courthouse to chastise us over our trouble-making ways.

It made me mad. It still makes me mad that no one at the courthouse seems to give a damn about closed meetings.

You’d only have to fine one public official one time in order for others to begin taking the law more seriously. Is that too much to ask?

Yes, apparently so.

The columnist Molly Ivins died of breast cancer last week at the age of 62. That's too young to die, which is to say it’s a bit too close to my own age for comfort.

Apparently her friends and loved ones are legion and miss her prodigiously. In the days following her passing, politicians about whom she said the most terrible things all offered condolences and praise and said what a “character” she was. Very PC. No one had the guts to say what many no doubt thought: Good riddance!

Molly Ivins’ liberal commentary ran in our paper for many years. We started running the column after I arrived in Galveston in 1987, but I think the person who brought the column to our paper was Kathy Thomas (then our managing editor), not me.

Here’s the truth — I never liked Molly Ivins’ column, and unlike a lot of people, I wasn’t charmed by her personality, either. I thought the column was predictable, its content shallow, its jibes facile and the writing sloppy.

Molly came across as a crusty, down-home Texas country girl — a little rough around the edges, but with a heart of gold and a glass of amber whiskey always at her side. What she was in reality was the product of Houston’s ritzy River Oaks and an upper-middle-class upbringing. Her father was a comfortable Republican lawyer, and she went to upper crust schools (Smith College).

I saw her pose as a workingman’s heroine as being mainly that — a pose — also a lifelong rejection of her parents and her upbringing. It’s a phase most of us go through and grow out of. Not Molly. That makes for good theater or a good novel, but it’s a hell of a thing on which to hang a political philosophy.

I heard Ivins speak in person several times and found myself asking often, "What’d she say?" The problem was that she worked so hard at speaking in that affected, cornball Texan accent it was often difficult to understand the English words she used.

Conservatives hated her predictable liberalism in the same way liberals hate Rush Limbaugh. Former County Judge Ray Holbrook often was rendered apoplectic by Molly’s ramblings. I kept reminding him that even leftist kooks deserve a spokesman. He and many others never seemed satisfied with that.

So, Molly Ivins is dead, and I’m wondering who will step up to become the voice of the left in Texas? It’s a thankless and lonely job. Very lonely.

This is a selection of responses from readers following on November’s story in The Daily News about gay marriage. All these items came to us as personal letters or anonymous submissions, which we never publisher in print.

However, I think the reaction is interesting, and maybe other readers will, too. Here goes:

“Thank God I don’t live in Texas. You’re surprised at the reaction? Your state has more bigots per square mile than any in the nation.”

“It never ceases to amaze me that gay men and women are often considered terrorists when we preach nothing but acceptance, love and peace. Yet you have these radical Christians spewing such hate.”

“We have a lot to answer for because we don’t do what God has so clearly told use we should do – ‘Love one another.’ We have a Bill of Rights that gives us freedom of speech. That same document gives us the right to worship God in any way we choose. Ain’t America great!”

“As a Christian, I am embarrassed and sickened by those who claim to speak for me and the many others who work to bring about an open and affirming church.”

“I believe that most mainstream Americans are loving and tolerant and that this particular vein of hatred only exists in a small, very vocal minority. If we show mainstream America what is being said in the name of religion and family values, I don’t think they’ll stand for it for one second.”

“Years from now, I feel most Americans will look back and say, ‘What was the big deal about two people who love each other?’ This happened with inter-racial couples. It will happen with gay couples as well.”

“I have been in a domestic partnership for 31 years. We have raised and nourished two beautiful daughters who have always faced discrimination and ignorance when it came to ‘their dads.’ We know what family values are; we talk the talk and walk the walk.’”

“The next time some hate-filled idiot criticizes you and your paper, take solace in the fact that they at least read a newspaper. And remember this letter from a reader who admires your courage even if you have to take the road less traveled.”

“As a Christian, I leave the judging to God. That’s His job. Your job is to report and you did it.”

“It’s amazing how this hatred is rationalized by quoting the Bible. These are the same people or descendants of those who used the Bible to justify hatred of Negroes, Jews and people of other religions.”

“Life is good and smart and can be trusted. To see hate without a mask could be a good thing. Is hate itself a mask? Wonder how Mel Gibson and Michael Richards would answer that.”

“All you or anyone who writes about these volatile issues can do is hope that with continual logic, surely man will recognize his inhumanity to man. Have hope.”

“I have saved the story for my 18-month-old grandson to see that there were decent people around when he asks why we treated gay and lesbians like we did. He can see the beginnings of change, and see how good and brave people acted.”

So, what do you think?