MATTHEW SCORNS DEMOCRACY: GIVE CESAR HIS DUE

By Juan Montoya

One is loath to contradict a priest on issues pertaining to faith or a religious question. It is generally understood that on matters relating to the saving of souls and the spirit, the clergy is within its rightful purview.
Likewise, when it comes to matters of public policy and the exercise of the democratic process, the church is also expected to respect the right of the people to elect its own representatives.
The religious/secular divide has been one that the church has adamantly established and defended to protect its realm. Non-Catholics, for example, would never meddle in the election of a new pope. That's as it should be. God forbid that anyone – Catholic or not – should publicly criticize the college of cardinals for their choice of their leader. No one would deny the church the right to vigorously reject that criticism and exert control over its rightful domain.
That's why it was extremely disappointing to some of us when we read a letter posted in the local daily where UTB-TSC employee and local priest Rev. Armand Matthew chided local voters for their selection of college board trustees after the UT System arrogantly chose to exercise its option to terminate the partnership agreement with TSC after the plan they tried to ramrod down their throats was correctly rejected.
Let's hope that the good reverend was not merely demonstrating his advanced dotage at the ripe age of 88.
He should know better than to violate the threshold of the constitutional separation of church and state. This is not  step that should be taken lightly by the good padre, and one that should be politely, but strenuously resisted by those of us who cast our votes for the winning candidates in the last district election.
The majority of Rene Torres, Trey Mendes, Kiko Rendon and Adela Garza – despite Matthew's disapproval – are good trustees who have resisted being bamboozled by his employer.
We can but speculate on the motives behind the priest's letter of reproach against the people's choices. But whatever they may have been, Matthew should be made aware that it is not his place to intrude into the democratic process and counsel the electorate on its choice of political representation.
How does the rejection of the UT System's partnership agreement and the system's subsequent announcement that it was not going to give the TSC trustees time to put together an alternate suddenly become a matter for the church and/or its representatives to publicly comment on the caliber of the representatives we elect to these board?
Matthew would do well to heed some advise himself: You are paid to encourage and teach kids to vote, not to tell them whom to vote for.
What's next? Will he discourage kids to vote in support of a pro-choice candidate? By opening that door, it places us on a very slippery road that we should avoid at all costs. And should the very taxpayers that fund his salary put up with his criticism of their leaders?
Can we – non-Catholics and the public at large – question the church on its selection of a pope linked to Nazi German? Or worse, question the church hierarchy which has turned a blind eye to horrific pedophile abuse by its clergy, including some well-publicized cases involving local priests?
Do you see how quickly this could deteriorate into a squalid tit-for-tat with no constructive end to it?
The Rev. Matthew may well have been socially progressive and active in civic affairs that were beneficial to the local community and for that we should be grateful. In many cases, were it not for the impetus of the church, many worthwhile public policies may not have had the support to become reality.
Yet, in the majority of these civic activities they may have become reality because the public has funded and subsidized their implementation. Valley Interfaith and other faith-based groups often come before the public bodies demanding funding for one project or another (VIDA, for instance), but it is rare to see the church's coffers opened up to ante up some of the costs. Think of it more as an unfunded spiritual mandate.
In the case of the UT System-TSC partnership, Matthew was one of the supplicants to the board who predicted dire consequences if the trustees did not accept the agreement drafted by UTB-TSC president Juliet Garcia and her minions to pressure the trustees to adopt the plan "or else."
The trustees, in our view, wanted answers to questions that had not been answered and disagreed saying that they would draft one of their own that would in turn be presented to the UT System regents.

One of these was: With the fabulously rich oil-and-gas subsidized UT System welshing on paying more than $11 million in rent to TSC under the existing agreement, how could the trustees believe that it will honor any new agreement in proposes?

Another question is: How can the trustees who were elected to represent the interests of the district taxpayers hand over all the real estate and assets (bank deposits and inventory) to the UT System and at the same time agree that they will be agreeable to a merely advisory role in the management of the new entity created by the agreement?

Thirdly, and related to the previous question: How can these trustees hand over the district and its assets that have been funded over the last 75 years by local taxpayers and accept the fact that the district will serve only to remain as a taxing entity with the ability to incur debt that they will have to repay for years to come?

Fourthly: Given the current UTB-TSC track record of retaining less than 50 percent of its freshmen class, a dismal 16 percent graduation rate over six years, and having imposed the highest costs in tuition and student fees in the entire state, what can we expect any change for the better if we voluntarily relinquish any say so in the administration of our community college?
With all due respect Fr. Matthew, what you are asking us to do is to give a leap of faith in return for a vague promise of an academic nirvana to come.
It was probably flattering to you personally to have the college administration regale you with praise and recognition of your life's work with a bash full of pomp and circumstance. Undoubtedly, it was well deserved.

But lest someone think that your views may have been skewered by the warm relationship between you and the institution in question (your employer), it might be a wise move to take a step back and survey your growingly untenable position.

Our elected representatives are performing their fiduciary responsibilities to us admirably by demanding answers to these questions and we will support them. If the institution and the UT System choose instead to threaten the dissolution of the partnership with prophesies of dire consequences because they ask what in our view are decidedly appropriate questions on the agreement, they have our unwavering support. 

We will not allow you, Juliet, the UT Regents, or even Benedict, to attempt to cower them into accepting an agreement that will be detrimental to our community or to our district, its students, and our taxpayers simply because you deem us unworthy or unable to exercise our constitutional right to choose whoever we want to represent us.