Yearly Archives: 2018

By Aubrey Burgess

The Hyde Senate bill number 55 is about human trafficking. The bill would protect someone forced into human trafficking when they are under 18 who breaks free when they are over 18, from being charged as a prostitute. The bill reflects the principle that he or she continues to be a victim. This bill would provide victims a better escape from their traffickers. The bill as amended also abolishes the age limit on the definition of human trafficking, so at any age if someone is trafficked they will not be accused of prostitution.

Two amendments to the bill were not passed. One was made to protect the victims that are illegal immigrants from being deported for 12 months, but after realizing that 12 months was not a long enough period the amendment writer asked the people to vote against his amendment. The second failed amendment would have raised the fine for the perpetrators.

“The bill is not to charge the people who have forced the victims into human trafficking but to protect the victim,” said the bill’s sponsor and presenter, Catherine Wismar, an 11th grader at Vista ridge High School. “One of the main problems was discerning between prostitution and human trafficking and I had a little bit of an issue trying to convince people that I wasn’t necessarily about legalizing prostitution; it was more so about protecting the people who have been human trafficked.”

Taylor Alice was for this bill saying, “We don’t have any personal experience. … Anyone who is forced to do something should not be prosecuted for it. …You can claim to be forced into human trafficking without evidence.” Another person who was for this bill is Kevin Way who believes that “there should be no age limit for trafficking,” and that this bill will solve that issue.

“The fines on this bill are absolutely dismal…Even if the fines were doubled they are absolutely dismal,” said Zachary Myer. “Also the bill writer has found no way of finding the difference between human trafficking and prostitution so a prostitute could claim to have been trafficked.”

“Coerced prostitution is one of the primary forms of exploitation that trafficked women and girls are subjected to in the developed world. Legalized prostitution allows traffickers to hide victims in plain sight as consenting sex workers. Legal or decriminalized pandering makes a portion of a sex trafficking victims venture legitimate. In recent decades, several countries have changed their policies and laws on prostitution. Because there is a positive correlation between commercial sex work, human trafficking and organized crime”, says the Huffington Post.

The bill passed after 30 minutes of arguments. “I think it went really well. I think that there was a lot of good debate about it and I am happy that it did get passed,” says Wismar.

By Christina van Waasbergen

Today the Farabee Senate unanimously passed a bill requiring doctors to inform their patients that they are paid by a pharmaceutical company to prescribe a certain drug. The Farabee House will now vote on this bill.

Andrew Lupton, a senior from Highland Park High School, argued in favor of the bill. He believes that it will help make sure patients get the drug that is best for them.

“Currently drug companies are able to have much too large of an influence over new prescriptions that patients are given.” Lupton said. “They are able to influence doctors to give patients a prescription that may not be the most effective or effective at all for them. This is effectively allowing the private sector to interfere with the well-being of Texas citizens.”

Nicole Bruner, a home-schooled junior from the Richardson delegation, argued against the bill. She said that she supported the bill overall, and that she spoke against it “mainly as a devil’s advocate” in order to point out the flaws in the bill. She believes that the government should go after drug companies, not doctors.

“The medical practitioners are the ones we’re supposed to be able to trust.” Bruner said. “The better way to enforce accountability

By Briana Taylor

Delegates participating in Appellate court debated their cases at the US Federal Courthouse this afternoon, marking the final day of the 2018 YMCA Youth and Government State Conference. The courthouse, a fairly recent installment on W 5th Street, is home to several court rooms, all of which are occupied on a normal basis for actual appeals cases. Delegates were able to debate a case in an authentic courtroom, a rare opportunity that not many of their peers get to experience.

This year, delegates are debating the case of “Age Before Beauty,” a case in which James O’Callahan, a loyal and well-rated employee, believes he has been wrongly fired from the Four C’s Company, and that he has been discriminated against because of his age. Although the case is the same for for District, County, and Appellate Courts, delegates of the Appellate Court are only concerned with appealing the verdict of the previous courts.

Representing the Four C’s Company were delegates Elleyah Trevino and Jessica De Leora from the Sam Houston delegation. On the opposing counsel representing Mr. O’Callahan were Daniel Baldizon and Evan Miller, members of the Creekview delegation. O’Callahan filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Four C’s company, stating that he was fired because of his age and that he was more than capable of completing his job effectively. In the initial case, the court had ruled in favor of O’Callahan, ordering that he be presented with his originally sought after reliefs and damages. However, the Four C’s Company appealed to the court, their representatives stating that the evidence presented was “insufficient,” and that certain affidavits “could not have been submitted as evidence.”

O’Callahan’s representatives based their argument on the four elements of a “Prima Facie” case. In this type of case, there are four requirements that must be met: 1) he was discharged; 2) he was qualified for his position; 3) he was within the protected class; and 4) he was replaced by someone outside of the protected class or younger. Delegates Baldizon and Miller were able to offer sufficient evidence for each of these four points, solidifying their argument, and proving that O’Callahan was wrongfully terminated.

Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of Mr. O’Callahan, as the evidence presented was enough to support the claim that O’Callahan had in fact been discriminated against, and that he was wrongfully terminated by the Four C’s Company. Mr. O’Callahan’s reliefs and damages will be paid in full as reparations for the ordeal.

By: Keely Smith

Adelaide Zink and Graham Wolfe of Christian Life Preparatory School debated Kennedy Onic and Sebastian Caballes of Duncanville High School in the age discrimination case of O’Callahan v. Continental Catering Consolidated Company. The judge ruled in favor of the company, represented by Onic and Caballes.

James O’Callahan a 56-year-old employee was recently relieved of his duties at Continental Catering Consolidated Catering Company (4C’s). Due to his age, O’Callan sued for wrongful termination citing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

Onic argued that O’Callahan’s termination was not solely based on his age.

“Mr. O’Callahan’s standards and performance doesn’t show his commitment to the company, ultimately suggesting that he was fired due to lack of performance,” Onic said.

Caballes noted that “age can affect performance, as it has in O’Callahan’s situation.”

Caballes argued that Edward Williams, O’Callahan’s supervisor at 4C’s,  was not misusing power, but rather “delegating power,” as president of the company.

In the rebuttal, Zink argued that it was age discrimination because “Williams said that it’s obvious you are too old when O’Callahan said he played 18 holes of golf,” as well as when he said the “company needed some young blood.”

“There is direct evidence of age discrimination here,” Zinc said.

Wolfe took the floor. He claimed there was “a genuine issue of material fact” with this case, as he went on to explain Zink’s examples in further detail.

He brought up a previously unmentioned point that “[O’Callahan] has quite the track record, receiving a $37,000 bonus” in just one year.

Wolfe explained to the judge that “all of these statements clearly pass the [Brown v. CSC Logic, inc. precedent],” which ruled in favor of the defendant, CSC Logic, in 1996.

By Caden Ziegler

On the final day of the Youth and Government Conference, some trial court teams moved from hotel courtrooms to the Heman Marion Sweatt Travis County Courthouse in downtown Austin.You can use this link to know more.

According to the Travis County Archives, the courthouse was “designed in the ‘Moderne’ style by Page Bros. Architects, and built by H.E. Wattinger Contractors, the 1931 Courthouse broke with the classical design elements of the past.”

It was a symmetrical building with bronze entrance doors on each of the four sides and high ceilings from https://www.konnectbuilding.com.au/ which gave us extended space and good ventilation. And moreover when you try to search for the best roof services you will get redirected here.

“The building was completed in 1931, only to outgrow its size, requiring renovations in both 1958 and 1962,” said Andrew Weber, web producer at KUT News in “A History of Travis County’s Aging Courthouses.”

The building has had to close several entrances and take down the high ceilings during renovations in order to acclimate to the exponential growth of Austin in the middle of the 1900’s.

In 2005, the building was dedicated to Heman Marion Sweatt, a civil-rights activist from the 1940’s. At a young age, Sweatt was a member of the Houston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), according to “A History of Travis County’s Aging Courthouse.”

Sweatt participated in voter-registration drives in the 1940’s, before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. This act removes all legal barriers put in place by state and local government that could potentially prohibit people from voting on “account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” as the 15th Amendment states. Sweatt also became involved in the issue of segregation in his workplace, the post office.

“Sweatt challenged these practices in his capacity as local secretary of the National Alliance of Postal Employees,” said Richard Allen Burns, a writer from the Texas State Historical Association.

While being helped with legal documentation by an attorney, Sweatt became interested in law and applied to the University of Texas at Austin’s law school.

“Sweatt not only sought admission but also agreed to serve as the NAACP’s plaintiff if he was rejected on the basis of race,” said Burns.

Theophilus S. Painter, UT President in 1946, went to the Attorney General with Sweatt’s transcript, and obtained a ruling that upheld the states segregatory policies. Sweatt sued Painter and the District Court, and the presiding judge gave the state six months to create a course of equal legal instruction. After a course was created, Sweatt refused to attend a college that was inferior to UT and eventually brought the case to the Supreme Court.

“The court concluded that black law students were not offered substantial quality in educational opportunities and that Sweatt could therefore not receive an equal education in a separate law school. Surrounded by photographers, Sweatt registered at the UT School of Law on September 19, 1950,” said Burns.

Though he did not finish law school at UT, his actions made the university one of the first higher education schools in the south to be integrated. For his actions and achievements, the courthouse, a symbol of truth and justice, was dedicated to him 23 years after his death in 1982.

By: Willow Dalehite

The VIP Luncheon at the Capitol on Friday hosted a variety of potential and current donors, volunteers, and sponsors from school districts statewide. Chessie Reese, State Representative Brooks Landgraf, and District Judge Robert Pitman were interviewed in a discussion panel about their experiences in Texas Youth & Government.

Reese is currently a Plan II Honors student at the University of Texas at Austin, and is additionally majoring in Political Science. Her motivations for continuing with Youth & Government changed throughout her time in the program. “Initially I liked winning awards … but of course that quickly became a minor reason to stay in the program,” she said. “After you realize you’re good at something, it’s a matter of contributing to it, improving it and being improved by the structure of a program as good as this one.”

“I was so struck by how much more informed I was becoming about important issues, how passionate I was becoming about civic engagement, [and] how great it was to meet people from all over the state that I otherwise would have never interacted with and had such different views than me,” Reese said. “I’m so grateful now, not for the trophies and medals … but for the friendships and the connections that we made through this program, and … the values that this program instilled upon my character.”

Representative Landgraf, a graduate of Texas A&M, described the Youth & Government experience as liberating. “I learned early on that this is the first thing that nobody’s really forcing me to do … it was intellectually stimulating, it was rigorous, [and] it was one of the first experiences of my life [when] I realized that you get out of this activity what you put into it,” Landgraf said. “The more I would invest my time and interest in it, the more it was rewarding for me.”

The conference gives students an opportunity to experience the reality of serving the public through participation in government. Judge Pitman, a graduate of Abilene Christian University and the University of Texas School of Law, reflected on this aspect of his time in Youth & Government. “When you grow up and you hear what it must be like to be a lawyer or a state representative … it’s one thing to hear about it and to read about it, but it’s another thing to step on the floor in the House of Representatives and feel what it’s like to sit in the chair …  to walk into a courtroom and for that moment to pretend like you’re a lawyer, or to sit on the bench and think, ‘Wow, this is what it must feel like to judge’ … That experience is something you cannot get anywhere else.”

By Gloria Ogunlade

To strangers onlooking this year’s Youth and Government (YAG) State Conference, it would seem to be very clear that YG delegates are young men and women with a purpose. One thing, though, may be unclear or difficult for an onlooker to determine: the dress code.

Youth and Government’s guidelines for business professional dress code include no denim, no midriffs or shoulders showing, proper footwear, and skirts that are no more than 3 inches above the knee for ladies. A majority of delegates at this year’s conference fit that category of business professional attire. However, with the definition of “uniform” being that everyone looks alike, with some students bending the protocol, it can be hard to really say what is right, wrong, fair and unfair when it comes to clothing.

When there are variations in student attire, it usually stems from variations in instruction. If all students are told the YG protocol but not all follow it, there is only one thing left to be questioned: advisor leniency.

“If I see a student out of dress code, I stop them and give them a fix so they can go up to their room and change. I try to do so as respectfully as I can,” director Jenna Struble said.

YAG teaches delegates not only how to speak in a political world, but also how to carry oneself in a professional setting. But like any good student, delegates must be taught first in order to follow rules.

“Students not abiding by the dress code says to me that there is some lack of supervision,” advisor Diane Williams said. “I think it starts with the advisors not adhering to the dress code that we’ve been provided. But it also kind of lowers the expectations and standards that have been sent to us by the YAG organization.”

Most adults have had real world experiences with following guidelines, whether or not it applies to dress regulations.

“It is good that students dress professionally because they are in a business place studying legislature,” State Capitol employee Marilena said. “But in life, it is definitely possible to break rules or at least go around them.”

Although some students slightly tweak appropriate clothing, is not always the intention of the student to appear unprofessional and many can relate to the feeling of just needing some a break sometimes.

“Sometimes when House and Senate get going for two or three hours or you’re running around, you just want to take your jacket off, but you can do it in the restroom or do it outside to always be respectful of the floor,” delegate Taylor Enslin said.

Many advisors agreed that students should still be able to convey their personality and sense of style while not breaking or bending any rules. Expression has never been an issue when it comes to YAG conferences.

“From seeing great floral blazers, to great ties, to great accessories I think there are still great ways to be expressive but within dress code,” Struble said. “Skirt length does not determine a person’s character but we dress to reflect real courtrooms and real House and Senate.”

By Caden Ziegler

Behind every courtroom door, there is a man or woman dressed in a large black robe wielding a wooden gavel. Deliberating over arguments and evidence presented by attorney’s, they sit atop a platform with the US flag on their right. Not much is different from that this year for the Youth and Government Justices, now that they are in the actual US Federal Courthouse.

The role of a justice has not only been a crucial part of the conferences but also important to the individuals. Allowing delegates to experience the courtroom in a way that is different than most people are able to within the judicial section.   

“It’s been great to be in the Federal Courthouse and the teams are all very good this year, so there is lots of good questioning and discussion going on,” said William Cerny, fourth-time attendee and senior at Highland Park high school. “I did two years as an appellate attorney, then last year I did justicing for appellate… this is my second year justicing. I joined appellate because they allowed me to do a team of two, and that’s what drew me in.”

There were also many new judges at this years conference with similar stories. They had started out as an attorney but ended up in the judge’s bench.

One of such justices was Echo Nattinger, from the Northwest Homeschool delegation. “I went to the district conference in November of last year, this is my first time ever competing in anything like this. This is my first time in a really innovative club,” said Nattinger.

“Funny story, I was trained to be an attorney because there was another person in our time that wanted to be in appellate, so we were going to be an attorney team. That person dropped out, so I had to start training as a judge all by myself.”

“Some of the paperwork that have our scripts… use terminology that we don’t use anymore, so we have to revise it. It’s made some of the rulings a little complicated. Thankfully nothing catastrophic has happened yet.”

Though she admits it was stressful, Nattinger said it gave her “a different perspective on the case as well, because

By Johnathan Sheridan

During the voting processes, students claim they are looking deep into the candidate outside of simply their qualifications and experience. However, most adults felt otherwise stating voting was mostly determined by loyalty to their delegation. 

“I’m looking on how you can persuade me into believing you’re worthy of Governor,” said Jasmine Olives, Midland delegation.

Maddy Helton from the Dallas Delegation agreed that she looked for substance in a candidate.

“I’ll vote for a person based how they are as a person,” Helton said.

Adults from numerous delegations, who asked to remain anonymous, claimed the elections were mostly a “popularity contest” determined on the size of delegations.

Dallas and Fort Worth have shared Governor positions for nine out of the last ten years. They are the largest delegations at the Texas Youth and Government State Conferences.

By Christina van Waasbergen

Today the Farabee Senate voted to approve a bill that removes the exemption for the mandatory vaccination of school students in the case of religious or moral opposition. The Farabee House later voted against the bill. The bill mandated that students, regardless of religious objection, must provide proof of vaccination to attend Texas public schools. The bill still allowed private and charter schools to make their own decisions regarding vaccination and did not remove the exemption for students who are not able to be vaccinated due to a medical condition.

Emily Baker, a senior from Keller High School who authored the bill, believes that it would help keep students healthy.

“My bill seeks to make sure that our students are safe, that we are keeping intact herd immunity by having as many kids vaccinated as possible,” Baker said. “If there is a child that cannot have a vaccine due to medical reasons, they need to be protected, and by all of us being protected, we’re in turn protecting the most vulnerable members of our society.”

However, Griffin Smith, a junior from Dripping Springs High School who argued against the bill, believes that it violates religious liberty.

“I was against [the bill] because it destroyed people’s First Amendment rights,” Smith said. He believes that all children have a right to public education and that some students do not have the option to attend a private school or be home-schooled. “I think that education is a right.” Smith said. “Though public schools have many issues with them they are the only education we have that anyone can get. Banning people from public schools is not okay.”

Smith also thinks that vaccines are ineffective. “The real reason that we have immunities is by actually experiencing the disease.” Smith said. “Vaccines have a weak or dead strain, but that only gives you partial immunity.”