Introduction
The Texas executive order RP67 entails a decision by Rick Perry the Texas governor to change the structure of the Higher Education funding. The governor aims at developing a funding program that will reward students and institutional outcomes that are in line with the expectations of the state. He lays a structure that will oversee the success of the project. The committee will have one public member who is appointed by the governor, the presiding officer of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, and the commissioner of higher education (Perry 01). The governor will be the general overseer of the project.
The governor acts according to the executive powers given to him by the constitution. Being the leader of the state, he has the mandate of administering the programs as well as operations of state government. It means he has the power to extend services directly to the people. Among the services that the governor is allowed to administer directly include medical care for the poor, supervision of the provision of services by local government like education (Perry 01). Also, the executive branch should provide support for responsibilities such as purchasing, personnel, as well as budgeting.
The action by the governor on the higher education funding is according to the powers bestowed to him by the constitution. However, he oversteps in his decision since his role according to the constitution is supervision of the extension of the services. In this case, he undertakes the process of administering the funding program (Perry 01). As a supervisor, he needed approval of the proposal by his subordinates but there seems to be no consultation regarding the matter within the executive.
The action by the governor shows the superiority of the executive branch over the rest of the arms of the government. There is the proper indication of the superiority when the governor takes the action without the knowledge of the rest of the arms. He fails to recognize the input of the rest of the arms of state government. The arm seems to control decisions in the state since none of the other arms questions the governor’s action.
Through the powers of the executive, the governor is supposed to give budget to the legislature who will in return approve it if it meets the necessary conditions. In this case, Rick Perry goes ahead to prepare a budget that is not controlled by the legislature (Perry 01). He uses his power to administer the execution of his proposal.
Effect on other arms of the government
It is the duty of the arms to respect the duties or roles of each other. There is no arm of the government that supersedes the other. Therefore, the executive gets it all wrong by ignoring the powers or duties of the rest of the arms of the government. As an executive, it should show respect to the legislature, which is the body in charge of making laws for the government. At no point should the arm of the government ignore the role of the law in defining the eligibility of certain decisions.
Effect to the legislature
The level of disrespect that the executive accords the legislature is immeasurable. It shows a high level of inconsideration of the duties of the arm. One of the duties of the legislature is formation of laws that should govern the state. It is also responsible for executing the laws provided by the nation (Combs 01).Therefore, there is no law that should become effective in the state without the assent of the arm of government.
However, the Texas governor ignores the role of the legislature in defining reasonable governance for the state. He refines the funding program to suit his goal without the consideration of the input of the legislature (Perry 01). The action is humiliating for the law-making arm of the government.
Also, it is the role of the legislature to pass budgets related to any expense by the government (Combs 01). Budget is a useful tool for planning as it decides how many will be allocated to various activities and the extensive functions that the money is to undertake.
The governor denies the legislature the role to evaluate the budget and make necessary changes. The legislature being the law-making body of the land has to ensure the budget is to a set standard and does not misuse the public funds (Combs 01). In this case, the governor denies the public trust on the funding program since it does not seem transparent following the ignorance of the contribution of the legislature. It is hard to determine if the amount of money spent by the governor was the right amount, or there could be corruption.
The ignorance of the legislature is also evident through the inconsideration of the previous funds that had been appropriated to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board by the 80th Texas Legislature in a regular session of 2007 (Perry 01). The governor ignores the effectiveness of the appropriation that had been executed by the legislature.
Also, the governor forms the committee that will oversee the use of the higher education funding program contrary to the previous actions and against his duties. The legislature is responsible for such activities and must undertake them in the limelight. The 80th Texas Legislature passed H.C.R. No 159 requiring the governor, Lieutenant Governor, and speaker of the House of Representatives in creating a select commission to control higher education (Perry 01). However, he governor abuses the executive and constitutional powers to act without the knowledge of the rest of the rest of the stakeholders.
The action of acting alone ignoring the role of the legislature tarnishes the name of the executive. The executive seems nontransparent to the public. The actions of any executive leader may define the status of the whole arm (Combs 01). Following the poor action by the governor, the executive may seem totally irresponsible with possible allegations of corruption. It is hard to define to the public why the governor ignored the role of the rest of the arms of the government in executing the higher education funding program.
The effects to the judiciary
The action may affect the judiciary in various ways. The first may be through execution of unnecessary pressure. Texas recognizes the governor as the court of the last resort in issues concerning planning for the state (Combs 01). Therefore, his decisions would have a direct impact to the arm of government.
It was extremely hard for the judiciary to reverse the action by the governor since it recognizes his efforts and his power over the arm (Combs 01). There is no way the judiciary could have changed or stopped his action. Therefore, the governor overshadows the power of the judiciary. The suppression presents the judiciary as an inferior body compared to the executive. It shows the executive can oppress the judiciary on any decision.
Conclusion
The action of the governor, who is the representative of the executive in the state, puts the other arms of the government at stake. He ignores the law-making role of the legislature in execution of his action. He does not spare the judiciary as he uses his court of the last resort role to employ a higher education funding. His action reduces the view of the public on the responsibilities of the legislature and the judiciary in the hands of the executive.
Works Cited
Combs, Susan. "Texas State Government at a Glance." State Finance. Texas Transparency. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. <http://www.texastransparency.org/State_Finance/Texas_Government.php>.Top of Form
Perry, Rick. "Office of the Governor Rick Perry - [Executive Order] RP67 – Relating to the Task Force on Higher Education Incentive Funding." Office of the Governor Rick Perry - [Executive Order] RP67 – Relating to the Task Force on Higher Education Incentive Funding. Office of the Governor, Texas, 25 Jan. 2008. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
