Caps? Why bother?

Why even bother with caps on spending?

A spokesperson “… described the caps as non-binding.” “It’s not limitation on authority: it’s an estimate that we use to keep tabs on things.” “It’s not anything that you ring the fire alarm and say, ‘Oh my god. …’”  (“Mayor urges checks on balances,” DRC, March 25)

Why does it take the Denton Record-Chronicle to point out that a city contract “capped payments in the case at $35,000?”  And that the “… billable costs surpassed $75,000 last June?” Reportedly, the contract was not amended until February, when by that time the bills had exceeded $190,000. Is this the stewardship Denton deserves?

In keeping with the subject of caps: “Tuition and fees will increase an average of 5 percent to 13 percent next year … exceeding a promised cap of nearly 5 percent, UT System regents decided Wednesday.” (“Tuition rates set by UT regents exceed cap at most campuses,” The Dallas Morning News, March 27)

“Tuition and fees have risen more than 40 percent on average since 2003. …”  “And there are many costs beyond tuition and fees that keep rising.” “Even when it comes to textbooks, it feels like a slap in the face to students.”

Larry Jambor,

Denton

Mulroy’s generosity

In Thursday’s Denton Record-Chronicle, Bill Keith intimated that Joe Mulroy does not contribute to the community [Letters, April 10]. I would like to correct that misconception.

A few years ago, when I was director of development (fundraiser) for Denton County Friends of the Family, the agency’s trailer was stolen. We used this trailer to pick up donations for our thrift store, a major source of revenue for the agency.

The Record-Chronicle ran a story on our loss.

Before 8 a.m. on the day the story ran, my phone rang. It was Mr. Mulroy telling me he would buy us a new trailer — no small expenditure. This was not the only time Mr. Mulroy contributed to the agency. In fact, he was quite generous during the years I worked there.

I have heard from others of many contributions Mr. Mulroy has made to the community, so to say he is not generous is a mistake.

Kit King,

Denton

Oil: ‘old’ versus ‘new’

A recent letter to the editor was labeled, “Old oil” [Letters, April 7]. Let’s explain how the truth was misinterpreted.

In the early 1970s, the oil industry was operating under regulations formulated by a new government agency called the De­partment of Energy. OPEC was pulling our chain at the time, and the DOE, in an attempt to delay the increase in the price of U.S.-produced oil, laid out rules for what they called “new” oil and “old” oil.

There never had been such a designation before, nor has there been since, but at that time we oil producers (I have been one for over 40 years) had to live with it along with our royalty owners.

I can assure that the oil company operating granddad’s lease was receiving the same price for his operator’s share as was granddad for his royalty interest. And he was probably feverishly working over his wells (as was I) in order to qualify that particular lease for the “new” price.

“New” oil and “old” oil pricing has been dead for decades since the death of DOE price controls.

Believe me or not, but I’ve been there, done that. And then, as now, we all got the same price.

Mike Rummell,

Denton