TexasCHLforum.com

KBCraig wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:...anyone smart enough to follow the link will be smart enough to get the point.

Apparently I'm the stupid exception, because linking to another thread does not make your point.

LOL...your definitely not stupid. Read each thread starting with the link I posted above. Everyone can form their own thoughts about it and how it relates to what I have been saying. There is no point in deflecting further from the topic at hand other than to create an arguement about the proper way to direct folks to another related topic.

KBCraig wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Just so everyone knows I am not just being paranoid.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... &sk=t&sd=a

You might want to actually elaborate and explain, rather than just linking to a thread that ends with you linking to another thread.

I don't think you're being paranoid. I think you're seriously misjudging the number of state reps being called, and how many of them actually, effectively, interject themselves into the process.

I think that every time you see someone say they're calling or writing their state rep, you think they automatically jump to the head of the line in front of you. There's really no evidence to support that. If anything, we've seen that state reps are useful for getting people off of the bottom of the pile and back to their rightful place in the line, not jumping to the front of the line.

On the link...anyone smart enough to follow the link will be smart enough to get the point. This is not a case of someone getting pulled back to their rightful place either. You know that too...so I guess I didn't need to mention it.

Just so everyone knows I am not just being paranoid.


http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... &sk=t&sd=a

AggieBonz02 wrote:I do believe I am on record as advocating and recommending it, rather than criticizing it. In fact, I even advocate and recommend YOU doing it. You and I are in the same boat - date wise. As soon as they get one of ours, likely the other will come.

Best of luck.

I am hoping I am not far off. At least I know they are working it now. Somehow it makes the wait more tolerable. Good luck to you also.

Oldgringo wrote:After 160 +/- days of waiting, I have no doubt whatsover but that the hard copy letter to Ms. Jan Coffey and e-mails to the Gov, Lt. Gov and our State Senator helped free Mrs. Oldgringo's CHL. In fact, the Gov's office e-mailed a letter they had sent to the boss of DPS. A couple of days after receiving the e-mail, our State Senator's office called the house and told Mrs. Oldgringo that her license was approved and 'shur nuff', it was.

Elected officials are elected to serve their constituents - not the other way around!

And in your case..I think George Bush should have gotten involved. That was a horrible situation. The situation with Old Mrs Gringo was one of a person who should have been at the front of the line getting shoved to the back. I don't know how you maintained your cool through all that. It was actually beginning to look like somebody down there had it in for you folks. Your situation is not the same as a person with 61 days under his belt getting pulled ahead of folks with 90 to 120 days behind them.

Again...to be clear. The situation that is happening now is that there are a select few who have been pulled ahead of others(with much longer wait times under their belts) due to complaining to their State rep. Some here seem to feel this is a good policy...I think it stinks.

AggieBonz02 wrote:Joining in something that you are criticizing. Hipocracy abounds!

I apologize for offending you, rocks. It's time to go home.

Take care and God's (and DPS's) speed to everyone.

Gig 'em.

Criticizing someone for doing something you condoned. Yep...Hypocrisy abounds!

LOL...it is you who doesn't seem to know how Government works. I do appreciate your innocence.

Oh and one more time. I never said I hold it against the CB's for using this taactic. I even said I am thinking about utilizing myself. I said...I DON'T THINK IT IS RIGHT FOR THE DPS TO PULL SOMEONE TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE BECAUSE A STATE REP. ASK FOR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. I ALSO SAID THAT THEY DON'T LIKE IT EITHER BUT HAVE NO CHOICE AT THIS POINT.

AggieBonz02 wrote:You keep saying you're getting the information "straight from the horse's mouth" yet you seem as surprised as the rest of us that "they can't seem to get their lies straight."

Is that some sort of attempt to call me a liar? Believe what you want. I have nothing to gain by making an issue of this practice.

KBCraig wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Regardless of how you want to interpret what a line is (geeze...it brings to mind the Bill Clinton days), it is still WRONG to stop working someones application so someone with pull can be taken care of first.

It is even more wrong to NOT stop working on a recently-received application, in order to start processing someone whose packet has been sitting there 60 days without even being input into the system.

I agree. That isn't the situation at all. The situation is moving folks ahead of the line due to pull. The situation is not moving folks to the rear of the line. Why is this so hard for a few of you to understand?

It doesn't matter. Here it is everyone. Write your State Rep and get moved ahead of folks who have been waiting in line longer than you. There...it's out there. You folks can twist it up all you want now.

KBCraig wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

KBCraig wrote:The problem with the "cutting in line" view is that there is no line. Applications are not ordered and sequenced; they're piled, and workers pull from a pile in no particular order. Just this week, someone reported speaking with Simone, and this was confirmed: the new and temporary workers don't always pull applications in the right order.

That is incorrect. They do work the applications in the order they are received. It may not be an exact science, but the attempt to stay somewhat in order is made.

An "attempt" to stay "somewhat in order" is not nearly the same thing as working applications in the order they are received. Anecdotal evidence makes it very clear that applications received on the same day can have vastly different starting times.

See this recent report:

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 5&p=190648

Rub N Smoke wrote:Ok, so I called just now and guess who answered the phone.... Thats right Simone did. Although she had the same standard "Your not in the system yet" answer, she did seem nice... When I questioned why people are getting approved before me and they took the class after me her answer seemed truthful but really suprised me she said [color=red"We have alot of new people inputing the information and some of them are pulling from the wrong stacks."[/color] I kind of figured that was happening so the answer didnt suprise me but, her basically confirming it did for some reason...

Regardless of how you want to interpret what a line is (geeze...it brings to mind the Bill Clinton days), it is still WRONG to stop working someones application so someone with pull can be taken care of first. I don't know if you fellers think it is OK for them to show preferential treatment or if you don't believe it is happening. I got it straight from the horses mouth my friend. There are applications being pulled out of the pile due to certain State reps contacting the offices of the DPS...and they do report on the phone that this practice is causing some of the applications to be delayed additional time. Now paint all the grey you want on it, but that is what is going on.

The funny part is that if they had written 120 days in that book instead of 60, nobody would be upset right now. Including me.

I don't see how the DPS can gear up in advance for a sudden increase of 30% in workload. They hired temps to do the dirty work, hopefully speeding up the process.
If the rate of applications stays at 30% increase, they can make some temps full time. If it drops back to previous levels, they can let some temps go. They can't gear up with full time career employees for a temporary situation. Not unless we are willing to pay additional money so we can have State employees sitting around waiting for the next rush. It stinks and I have cried about it as much as the next guy, but in reality, I think they are doing about all they can. Hopefully someone down there is making sure the process is running as efficiently as possible.

HerbM wrote:
Apparently there is no line anyway, but that does not change a thing except make the whining about line jumpers even more shrill so you might wish to think about who you call a cry baby.

That is incorrect. They do work the applications in the order they are received. It may not be an exact science, but the attempt to stay somewhat in order is made. The "pile" is stacked in the order the applications are received.



OK...now I am done...

seamusTX wrote:I think this might be a good time to agree that everyone made their point and further comments are


- Jim

LOL...I agree. This is my last post on this thread.

KBCraig wrote:The problem with the "cutting in line" view is that there is no line. Applications are not ordered and sequenced; they're piled, and workers pull from a pile in no particular order. Just this week, someone reported speaking with Simone, and this was confirmed: the new and temporary workers don't always pull applications in the right order.

That is incorrect. They do work the applications in the order they are received. It may not be an exact science, but the attempt to stay somewhat in order is made. The "pile" is stacked in the order the applications are received.

If there was no attempt to stay in some sort of order...there would be many applications never make it to the top of the "pile". Pulling (special request) applications out of the pile does slow down the process. I got this info first hand. Which is why I am so irritated.