| Subject: Fwd: HB 2466 |
| From: "Meghan Ashford-Grooms" <mashford-grooms@statesman.com> |
| Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:28:33 -0500 |
| To: Meghan Ashford-Grooms <mashford-grooms@statesman.com> |
| Subject: | HB 2466 |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:34:20 -0500 |
| From: | Peter Winckler |
| To: | Meghan Ashford-Grooms <mashford-grooms@statesman.com> |
Pete
Pete
Winckler
Senator
Glenn Hegar's Office
________________________________________________
> 1) Without section 4, does HB 2466
give TEA (or individual schools and
> districts) and DPS the ability to set
up a system in which a student's
> driver's license is revoked after he
or she drops out of school?
>
No,
the language authorizing DPS to revoke the driver license of a
student absent for a given number of days was removed by
Senator Hegar's amendment.
> 2) Or was the amendment removing
section 4 supposed to stop such a
> system from being put into place?
The
amendment removing section 4 was intended to do exactly
that--remove the authority for DPS to revoke or deny issuance
of a driver license of a student absent from school for a
given number of days. The senator had this to say about it:
"HB 2466 was well intentioned. Without question, far too many
young Texans fail to complete high school. Dissuading this
shortsighted decision is an admirable goal, but in doing so we
must be very careful to guard against unintended consequences,
especially because we are dealing with minors, for whom the
two year gap between legislative sessions is a very
significant length of time (half of a normal high school
term). I strongly believe HB 2466 would have brought such
unintended consequences. Allowing a parent to authorize DPS
to revoke their child's license by providing notice that the
child has missed school for ten consecutive days ignores the
reality that many young Texans unfortunately face the
challenge of strained parent/child relationships, or worse,
are completely estranged from one or both parents. Allowing
an estranged parent such control was obviously not the intent,
but is unquestionably a possibility under the language my
amendment removed. That scenario is just one of the many
pragmatic flaws I saw under the bill that could unfairly and
severely impact a young Texan and not accomplish the goal of
keeping them in school. I have not heard of any effort by
either TEA or DPS to implement a revocation process similar to
that outlined in the bill, but would be very interested to
hear of any such push and would, without hesitation,
strenuously oppose such action. In Texas, especially in rural
areas like much of my senate district, revocation of a driver
license would represent a de facto ban on travel, which is an
untenable situation in many the many households where a child
has no choice but to drive themselves to school, work, or
elsewhere in attending to household duties. To be clear, far
too many young Texans fail to complete their schooling, but in
working to combat this problem, it is imperative that we
recognize that innumerable considerations exist and that
setting up a system in which "x" number of missed school days
can lead to a student's driver license being revoked is a
dangerous approach that simply does not account for the great
variety of circumstances Texas youth face."