Unless something has happened since 5:40 p.m., when I left the county commissioners' court, the injunction has not been lifted.

Only two of the five members of the commissioners court showed up. There was not a quorum. The injunction allowed the county commissioners to cancel the burn ban if it wished.

Since there was no quorum, the commission could not act.

I believe the lack of a quorum was a deliberate "cover your 6-o'clock" effort by commissioners who wanted to be on record as opposing Bonfire should sparks get out of control and do damage.

I'll go over my notes and post a more detailed report in about an hour.

dual ag, kbtx has just reported at 6:05 (whooop) that the injunction was lifted!

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/1988762.html

quote:

---

Injunction Stands Against Bonfire
Updated: 5:55 PM Nov 18, 2005
KBTX Staff


An injunction preventing Saturday night's off-campus bonfire will stand.

County commissioners were meeting at five o'clock Friday to decide whether the burn could happen.

Judge J. D. Langley granted an injunction Friday morning prohibiting the burning of bonfire out at Hot Rod Hill. The county is under a burn ban, and Langley says the bonfire is not an exception to that ban.

Since so much time, money and effort has gone into the building of the stack, Langley will allow county commissioners to decide if they want to make an exception.

But at Friday evening's meeting only county judge Randy Sims and one other commissioner were present and therefore a decision could not be made because there was no quorum.

---

is that the judge's? a commisionner's? or dualag's?

If the fire is lit tomorrow, it will still be in violation of the burn ban. The court said they cannot stop anyone from starting the fire, but it will still be a violation of the law.

*******it......they reported it being lifted after 5:55.......

i am now absolutely confused.....kbtx is wierd

they are more interested in rushing a story to air during a newscast than updating their website. Be patient, we'll find out shortly what is going on.

The KBTX website now says:

quote:

---

Injunction Lifted
An injunction preventing Saturday night's off-campus bonfire has been lifted. Late Friday evening, Judge J.D. Langley lifted the injuction he issued earlier in the day prohibiting the burning of an off-campus bonfire at Hot Rod Hill.

---

If the injunction by the judge is not lifted, then people could face serious contempt of court charges.

If he lifts the injunction but the court does not change the law, then they could face a fine for breaking the law but would not be in contempt of court.

Words do not do justice to how upset I am about this.

I will donate my sparse funds to ANY serious candidate running against these people in future elections.

Aggies never quit and Aggies don't forget.

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/1988762.html

IT HAS BEEN LIFTED BIOTCHES

It appears you are correct, that is, if KBTX's reporting is correct.

When I left Judge Sims' courtroom (the county commissioners court), he was declaring that the burn ban remained in effect. It couldn't be lifted because there wasn't a quorum.

However, I did not go over to the other judge's courtroom.

I question the jurisdiction of Langley's Court to issue the injunction. Why did you need an injunction to prohibit behavior that was already banned in the Order, with the stated penalty of $500.00?? The burn ban was in effect. It's like a judge hitting you with an injunction against speeding. Sorry, your honor, we already have a law covering that.

The Court can not impose it's own burn ban penalty without usurping its limited powers in the judicial branch.

Theres a difference between lifting the burn ban and lifting the injuction of Douchebag vs. ASB, Inc.

Judge Sims told me he issued the request for injunction. He said he did so based on a KBDI (Kingsley Burke Drout Index) of approximately 670.

He said he acted today only because he hoped to have rain during the past few weeks that would have made the burn ban not necessary.

Then, when three of the five commissioners did not show up, the burn ban remains technically in effect but it appears Judge Langley has removed the threat of heavier sanctions by lifting the injunction.

The fine is up to 500 or not to exceed 500. one or the other. Point is that who ever lights the fire could theoreticaly pay only 1 dollar.

Analogy, unfortunately Chapter 352.081, (g) of the Texas Local Government Code -- the chapter/section that outlines burn bans -- states:

quote:

---

Any person is entitled to injunctive relief to prevent the violation or threatened violation of a prohibition or restriction established by an order adopted under this section.

---

So -- again unfortunately -- this issue is under the court's jurisdiction.

[This message has been edited by dantheman03 (edited 11/18/2005 6:43p).]

AnalogyAg:

The injunction stiffens the penalty for violation the ban.

If there is no injunction, the worse thing that happens is fine. With the injunction, there is a violation of a court order, a comtempt, and the penalty is much stiffer. Think Judith Miller going to jail for an indefinite period.

[This message has been edited by Burdizzo (edited 11/18/2005 6:54p).]

DualAG, you've been foe of Student Bonfire for some time. I do assume that your tireless work today was meant in our favor, and for that I offer a sincere thanks.

Wrong and right.

I have never been a "foe" of student bonfire. I have been a tireless advocate of restoring Aggie Bonfire to campus. I have defended Bonfire Coalition (and its student affiliate, BCS) to the hilt because I know the principal founders of both organizations and I know where their hearts lie.

In the past, my experience with UP/SB seems to have revealed an attitude that says: "If you're not with us 100%, you're against us." I don't think in such black-and-white terms. I'm a shades-of-grey person.

In the past, it seems to me that some UP/SB leaders have issued some rather strident public statements that I thought reflected badly upon the maturity of Aggies who wanted to keep the tradition alive. I especially objected to criticisms of Dr. Gates in the newspaper.

However, beginning a couple of years ago during a conversation I had with WillD, your professional engineer, I began to detect a determination on your part to do things right.

From Day 1 of UP, I give you credit for stressing safety and getting rid of the alcohol and hazing negatives. I think that you folks have matured a lot as an organization and now there seems to be less hostility coming from your camp--directed to those of us who would like to see Bonfire return by other means.

Today's hyjinks by the Commissioners Court cemented my belief that you guys are trying to do things right. I had a good conversation with Wayne Brown this evening.

Therefore, for the first time, I plan to take my family out to Student Bonfire. You'll also get a small check from me in a week or two.

I still want to see Bonfire return to campus and supervised by the university. But in the interim, I'm solidly in your camp.


[This message has been edited by DualAG (edited 11/18/2005 8:12p).]

Burdizzo- correct, the injunction would stiffen the penalty, which is why I said they were usurping their power. BUT, as dantheman pointed out, there was legislative authority for the Court to act. Unfortunately.

By the way, Dual, nice post.

[This message has been edited by AnalogyAg (edited 11/18/2005 7:25p).]

Dual, I hope your experience is positive and memorable.

Thank you for your support and maybe I'll get to shake your hand.

It's appreciated.

I think I agree with Dual's last post.

I'm as red ass as they come, but (especially in light of what happened 6 years ago) the #1 issue with all future Bonfires should be safety. If this means no alcohol, no hazing, no rituals, no notes taken on Big Chief tablets and no 24-hour push, then so be it.

Obviously, it won't be like Bonfire was for 80+ years...but that's OK. Aggies, in general, are resistant to change. However, in this instance I believe that the more change, the better. Anything we can do to save 12 lives and 27 injuries is A-OK in my book.

You youngsters keep up the good work. Many of us Old Ags are very proud of your efforts. Be sure to be smart, be sure to be safe and be sure to be respectful of those that don't always agree with you. I assure you that your organization will be taken much more seriously if you do those things.

Best of luck tomorrow night...






Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it. - Proverbs 22:6, NIV

Dual, that is what I have seen when I attended--growth and added maturity each year.

I think almost all of the Student Bonfire people--and I am not a member so I can only surmise--want a meaningful Bonfire back on campus.

I have pretty much given up on that happening in my lifetime--but for these kids it just may. IF so, a safely maintained off campus tradition I believe will seamlessly move back onto campus.

K - Are you going to make it tomorrow?

Dual, thanks for the update. I may miss this one--no sitter no driving companion--but if things fall together at even the last moment I will be there.

It is a special moment in time.

Don't go for what Bonfire WAS--go for what Student Bonfire IS.