Conroe, March 2 – Precinct 3 County Commissioner James Noack showed leadership on the County Commissioners Court by abstaining from supporting County Judge Craig Doyal’s school finance resolution, which Doyal admitted “doesn’t endorse any specific legislation.” It appears that Doyal just seems to be parroting just about everything Noack does at the previous meeting in a desperate effort to take credit for Noack’s accomplishments.
Doyal mentioned the idea of offering a school finance resolution during the February 14, 2017, Commissioners Court meeting when Doyal voted against a 20% homestead exemption as a measure to provide some relief to local taxpayers. Doyal mentioned twice during the meeting that Montgomery County government taxes are a smaller portion of total ad valorem taxes than are school taxes. Similarly, Doyal’s “chief of staff” jim fredricks argued during the County budget hearings in 2016 that citizens should not focus on reducing County government spending but should instead put all of their attention on the budget of the Conroe Independent School District.
Therefore, Doyal’s desperate attempt to divert attention away from the massive spending increases in the County government, which Doyal and his allies Commissioners Mike Meador and Charlie Riley have caused, was no surprise. What was a surprise, however, was that Doyal admitted that his resolution for which he wasted approximately 10 minutes of the Commissioners Court’s time had no specific proposal whatsoever. Doyal clumsily stated, My goal in offering this resolution is to look at the way to address school finance which is a heavy burden…by my resolution doesn’t endorse any specific legislation.” Doyal called for “meaningful tax relief” but did not offer one suggestion how such tax relief could occur.
Instead, when Noack offered a homestead exemption, Doyal opposed the proposal but then tried to take credit for it after the County Commissioners Court passed a 10% homestead exemption (rather than the 20% exemption Noack and Commissioner Jim Clark sought). When Noack introduced some innovative proposals to save the County approximately $7 million in interest on its bond debt, Doyal took credit for Noack’s suggestions. Similarly, after numerous citizens called for substantial reductions in property taxes, Doyal agreed to a tiny one-quarter of a penny rate reduction, and Noack convinced the Commissioners Court to pass a full one-cent rate reduction in the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget, Doyal took credit for that proposal as well! Amazingly, Doyal has called his recent proposals to increase County government spending a form of “fiscal conservatism.”
After Doyal spent several minutes reading every word of his meaningless resolution to waste the time of everyone in the Commissioners Courtroom who was there to try to conduct real work, none of the Commissioners Court members discussed the resolution at all, because the resolution was virtually incomprehensible. After the other four members of the Commissioners Court voted for Doyal’s strange proffer like lemmings running off of a cliff, Noack revealed that he was the one person on the Commissioners Court who actually understood what was happening: absolutely nothing! Noack abstained from the vote, thereby refusing Doyal’s attempt at “agitation and propaganda.”
It’s a shame that Doyal didn’t spend all of the time his “chief of staff” jim fredricks wasted drafting the resolution instead on going through several lines of the Montgomery County Budget to seek to reduce the wasteful spending within the County government for which Doyal has usurped all management and control from the County Commissioners Court.
Doyal’s explanation of his school finance resolution is reminiscent of one of the most famous lines in British comedy when Sir Humphrey Appleby (played by Nigel Hawthorne), a bureaucrat in the political comedy “Yes, Minister,” provided the following detailed explanation to his boss, the Minister of Administrative Affairs:
“Well Minister, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn’t very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage.”