Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564118",
    "label": "Transcripts - 01/13/1972, 01/20/1972, 02/08/1972",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564118"
}

{
    "id": "118564118",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564118",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 01/13/1972, 01/20/1972, 02/08/1972",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564118",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Press Conference Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-012-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-012-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-012-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564118",
    "naId": 118564118,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-012-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "0ae45b3bf172873c",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual\ncollections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -\n01/13/1972, 01/20/1972, 02/08/1972\nBox: P03\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\ninventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at:\[email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\na\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD JANUARY 13, 1972\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor'spress conference is\nfurnished to themembers of the Capitol Press corps for their conven-\nience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly\nas possible after the conference, no correctinns are made and there\nis no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no0o\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: We have visitors back there, Stanford\nUniversity Journalism class. Welcome, glad to have you in here.\nSo everybody be on your -- be on your manners now.\nQ\nGovernor, today Jack Hatton, the Director of the -- Chief,\nrather, of the Division of Safety, said he was going to resign.\nHe's been in your office previous to this announcement. Does this\nconstitute an admission on your part that charges an act of incompetency\nby the division or does it mean something else?\nA\nNo, it doesn't constitute that at all. He has offered to\nresign. I have asked that the Director of that division to completely\ninvestigate this situation because very obviously, and this incidentally\nhas been a concern -- a particular concern of mine for sometime.\nI have always and because of association with some labor leaders,\nhave -- have always wanted to make sure that we are doing what we are\nsupposed to do to protect the safety of workers in those industries\nwhere there are hazards. And so I have asked for this complete\ninvestigation to find out and to make sure that we are doing all that\ncan be done to protect the workers and to uphold the safety standards\nthat must be upheld.\nQ\nAre you then not accepting Mr. Hatton's resignation?\nthe\nA\nI'm going to wait for/results of the Director's investigation.\nQ\nGovernor, whatodo you say his status will be before you get\nthe results?\nA\nWhat's that?\nQ\nWhat will Mr. Hatton's status be before you get the results\nof the investigation?\nA\nWell, I think his status is exactly what it is at present.\nHe has, and I think he's been very proper and shown his good faith\nin offering to resign. This will be up to the Division Director in\nthe caryying on of this investigation.\nQ\nIf it does come out of the hearing it is suggested it is\nproper for him to offerhhis resignation --\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nWhat is it that's come out of the hearing that suggests that\nit is proper for him to offer his resignation? He merely said he\nwas doing it because the committee was concerned.\nIs that sufficient\ngrounds to resign?\nA\nI think -- I think that was -- must have been in his mind\nthat it was.\nQ\nGovernor, in your mind --\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nIs that sufficient in your mind for him to offer his resigna-\ntion?\nA\nWell, I have told the action I'm taking, I've asked the\nDirector for an ineestigation.\nQ\nHe hasn't actually resigned, has he?\nA\nNo, he has offered to resign.\n0\nDid you ask for the regignation?\nA\nNo.\n2\nAre you surprised, Governor, with the testimony that's come\nout of the last two days of hearings?\nA\nWell, yes, if this should -- if it should be upheld that\nthere hasn't been a very aggressive pursuit of this problem and the\nenforcing of safety regulations, you bet, I'd be disturbed. This is\na very important state function.\nQ\nGovernor --\nQ\nGovernor, isn't Mr. Hatton's status at the time -- at the\npresent of a man who is accused of being considerably more sympathetic\nto employers than employees? Is he going to remain in charge of that\nIndustrial safety)\ndepartment until the investigation is completed?\nA\nWell, I think there is -- these are things you should take\nup with the division directly, talking about something that has only\njust occurred.\nQ\nWhat happens to the running of the department until the\ninvestigation is completed? It still has to functinn. If the man\nwith that cloud over him is allowed to continue, isn't there going to\nbe a lack of confidence in the department by employees throughout the\nstate?\n-2-\nA Well, I hope not. And I can't tell you anything different than\nI have told you, that I have asked for an investigation by the\ndivision Director and I would assume that he will do whatever admini-\nstratively is necessary under the circumstances.\nQ\nGovernor, one of the things that developed during the hearing\nwas that when you took office in 167 there was 305 employees. There\nare now 286. For example, one man has to cover 9 northern California\ncounties. It was.also pointed out that in 1970 there were 100,000\nsafety violations, 750 deaths and only five prosecutions for safety\nviolations. And that your proposed budget for the coming fiscal year\ncuts their manpower down by another 23 people. Would you be receptive\nto boosting their manpower?\nA\nThat will depend in the outcome of the investigation, but\nI think an explanation is due with regard to the cut of 23 in the\npresent budget. That has nothing to do with the manpower regarding\nsafety investigations. You'll also see a cut of some $300,000.\n$320 odd thousand dollars. This has nothing to do with theprogram.\nAs a matter of fact, the program for safety investigations, the\nnumber envisaged in the present budget, is increased. But there has\nbeen for the last two years a federally funded project, a study of\nstate and federal relationships and regulations in this field, and the\n23 personnel and the $300,000 some thousand dollar cut is the fact\nthat they have completed that particular project. It had -- never\ndid have anything to do with the ongoing work of the department.\nQ\nGovernor, were you aware of some directive from your admini-\nstration that the men intthe field were to discontinue the practice\nof recommending or not recommending prosecution?\nA\nNo, I know of no such thing.\n8\nGovernor, what --\nD\nTwenty men asked for prosecution and they said they were turned\n(Industrial Relations)\ndown by the head of the department. Did they ever get to you?\nA\nNo. Certainly I wouldn't have turned that down.\nQ\nGovernor, what prompted you to decide to have the administration\ninvestigate it? Was it the testimony that came out at this hearing\nor had you decided previously to that to look into it?\nA\nNo, it was this -- this present testimony. As I say, this,\nthough, is -- in every budget in all of the priorities that we have to\nset, I have always personally taken interest in this particular field.\nI used to -- before they wore hard hats I used to work at that kind of\n-3-\nwork myself. I'm .d of sensitive to it. I ...10W the hazards that\nare present.\nQ\nGovernor, Mr. Hatton tettified that he asked for six more safety\nengineers and was not only turned down, but had his staff reduced.\nIsn't that in conflict with what you just said?\nA\nThat is not in conflict with the 23 men that you are talking\nabout.\nNow, whatever changes may have been made in the working staff\nand the budgets, I'd have to check on that. But the project that\nwe are talking about that shows in this budget as an outright reduction\nof the personnel, is the personnel that was assigned and they&dsbeen\nworking on this special two-year project which has been completed.\n0\nGovernor, do you feel it is proper to appoint an industry\nman to enforce state safety laws against industry?\nA\nWell, --\nPAUL BECK: He is a safety engineer, Governor.\nA\nHe's a safety engineer. How do you answer such a question\nwithout implying that everyone automatically has a conflict of inter-\nest then depending on whatever his particular line of employment had\nbeen in government. I would think you'd come to a point where no\none could serve in government. No, it was a safety engineer.\nQ\nYou referred several times to the director of the division.\nWho do you mean by that?\nED MEESE: Director of the department, Governor.\nA\nThe Director of the department.\no\nGovernor, when do you expect the study to -- study of the\nresults to come out? How long will the study take?\nA\nI don't know. Have we set a schedule on it?\nED MEESE: Very short time, Governor. He doesn't anticipate\na lengthy investigation.\nA\nYou didn't hear the answer, the answer was that a lengthy\nhearing or investigation is not anticipated. It will be very shortly.\nQ\nGovernor, I'm wondering how you see the work of the department\nand one of your people said in answer to a question this morning that --\nin the testimony, \"I'm trying not to take sides aanagement or labor.\nI'm neutral.\" Now, in regard to that aspect of It, do you see your\npeople as being on the side of labor or a neutral position or what?\nA\nWell, I think as far as favoring either side it is neutrality\nbased on the fact of fairness and what is -- what is the exact situation\nand what the proper and fair decision should be.\n8\nGovernor, do you have any reason to suspect the\nof\n-4-\nthis hearing conduc'\nby the Democratic floor\nder of the Assembly?\nA\nI'm trying very hard not to become paranoid.\nQ\nAre you suceeding?\n(Laughter)\n0\nAre you succeeding?\nA\nSometimes all by myself in the shower I have some worries.\n8\nSpeaking of becoming paranoid, you've been accused quite a bit\nlately from within your ownparty of being \"liberal\".\nUROC is\ntalking about the other night, you appeared with a bunch of conservatives\nand you were the liberal, you and Mr. Luce (phonetics) certainly among\nthem. You are not thinking of redoing the Democratic party, are you?\nA\nNot in a million years, no. No, I haven't. And I don't know\njust where that should come from, or why anyone should raise that idea.\nI even noticed that some of you fellows are getting a little schizophrenic\nwith the present budget, you don't quite know whether to find I'm\ngenerous or I'm still back to the Old Scrooge that I was. Let me\njust put your mind to rest. If you really analyze the budget and\nwhere the increases are you'll find we are still cutting, squeezing\nand trimming wherever possible.\no\nGovernor, in your administration's review of the division of\nIndustrial Safety, what specific things will you be looking at?\nA\nWell, I think the whole operation. And whether any of the\nsyspicions that have been raised in this present hearing are justified.\nThe idea is are we properly insuring that companies in those lines of\nwork are meeting the safety requirements, that men are not being asked\nto do things in violation of the -- all the safety standards and rules.\nAnd that -- where there are violations that proper actionsibebeingntaken.\nQ\nIf it is determined that what the committee says is true would\nyou anticipate any kind of shakeup within the division or department?\nAs far as replacing the top echedon.\nA\nWe will do whatever has to be done. If there is anything\nwrong we will do whatever has to bedone to make the department perform\nits function.\nQ\nWill you accept the resignation, of course?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nWould you accept that resignation, of course?\nA\nYou are getting into the hypothetical now. We are having an\ninvestigation. I've told you we will do whatever has to be done and\nwe will do it.\n-5-\nQ\nMr. -- Governor Reagan, isn't there a danger of having the fox\ncheck up on the chickens there? Mr. Hearn is going to really be\ninvestigating himself, isn't he? He's the boss of that operation.\nA\nNo, any more than I would be -- I've asked for an investigation.\nI'm the man that is finally, ultimately responsible. All comes back\nto me, as thehead of the government. And so you can fix the blame\nwherever you want to fix it, if something hasn't been done.\nD\nGovernor, to get back to this liberal business. UROC claims\nyou are too liberal and they want to put another ticket in the field\nagainst yours. Are you still going to support Mr. Nixon?\nA\nYes, I'm going --\nQ\nWhat is your answer to UROC and other right-wing, the\nRepublican party?\nA\nWell, UROC has taken a position with which I'm in complete\ndisagreement. I don't believe they have taken it on a sound analysis\nof the facts, and yet I think it is the same old thing of when you've\nasked me about the Ripon society. If the party has got a big enough\numbrella to keep these people in, nobody has insisted it just be an\nautomatic rubber stamp.\n8\nGovernor, you said you are going to continue to cut, trim\nand squeeze. Mr. Hatton said at one point if this division had more\nmoney they would do the job more effectively. Is one of the possi-\nbilities you are going to investigate the possibility that your budget\n(Ind. Safety)\nhas had an adverse effect on that division and made it harder to do\nits job?\nA\nI think this would be something we have to look at. We\ndo our best to assign priorities within the framework of the money we\nhave. Mr. Hatton is not alone suggesting he could do better if he\nhad more money. Charles Hitch says the university could do better if\nit had moremmongy. Wilson Riles, I'm sure, would believe that he\ncould do better, the Department of Education, if they had more money,\nbut you chose a department and I will find the department head that\nwill tell you he could do better if he had more money. But, as I\nsay, we do our utmost and we spend many, many long hours in planning\nthe budget with department heads, with cabinet secretaries in assigning\nthe priorities and we have referred mainly to the departments themselves\nthe selection of what they believe is the highest priority in perform-\ning their particular function.\n-6-\nQ\nIs it con able that as a result of investigation you'd\nask for more money for the division and more staff?\nA\nAnything is conceivable as a result of the investigation.\nQ\nIs that one of the possibilities that you have in mind?\nA\nI don't think that the thing that has prompted this investi-\ngation is an indication of one that there wasn't the manpower. There\nseems to have been raised the question of whether the manpower availe\nable was doing what it should do and that's what we are going to try\nand find out.\n0\nGovernor, does it come -- does it come as kind of an embarrass-\nment to you that this whole thing comes out as a revelation by the\nlegislature and public testimony rather than by the administration\nitself?\nA\nNo, I -- I don't feel it is that. I think you do your\nutmost and I think we have got a very fine record and I think the\nefficiency in almost every department of government has been that\nhighest level that I can remember in California over the last few years.\nYou can't bat a thousand per cent, of course. Here and there there's\nalways room for improvement and there are always things that can be\ndone that aren't being done. There'a always a constant battle within\ngovernment to get departments that have been there for a number of\nyears to get them to break out of old fixed habits and accept some new\nway of doing something. There is a built-in inertia on the part of\nthe permanent structure of government. You battle it all the time.\nSo you do your best, and you -- when someone brings up something\nwhere they haven't F- or where there is the possibility that they\nhaven't met their -- their goals or the requirements of their job,\nwell then you get in and do what you can to change that.\nQ\nGovernor, have you been aware of discontent on the part of\nlabor over some period of time that the division of industrial safety\nhas not been performing at least to the efficiengy that labor thinks\nis necessary. Has labor communicated with you any discontent?\nA\nNo, labor communicates with me on a number of things, as\nwitness some of the fine improvements in labor legislation that's\nbeen put through this year. And this -- this along with others is\nof great interest to them. This is a high priority, particularly\nin the building trades and construction work.\n8\nHow have you responded to their particular complaints on\nsafety before?\n-7-\nA\nAs I have said, I have always in each budget year, when\nwe come to the priorities, I have always made sure that they know my\ninterest in those departments inthis particular facet and I have made\nsure that -- and been assured that we have what is necessary to do the\njob.\n0\nGovernor --\nQ\nGovernor, Alan Post said today that the additional 65 million\nyou put into public education is not really new money, but something\nthat's absorbed by slippage. Would you dascribe this to your cut,\nsqueeze and trim?\nA\nNo, you know -- you know, this is very hard and I hope I\ncan be respectful in this, in suggesting that Mr. Post has practiced\nsome rather exotic new math in this. Now, slippage -- for him to\nsuggest that 65 million dollars additional money is wiped out by\nslippage is to completely misinterpret what slippage is. Slippage\nis merely the factor of when without raising the tax rate the assessed\nvalue of the real estate in the district goes up by reasonsof new\nbuildings, new office buildings, new industrial plants or new homes.\nAnd so the assessed value, the tax base, has been increased. Then\nthe state cuts its contribution to the schools by a comparable amount.\nNow for him to suggest that slippage has increased the local revenues\nfor schools by 65 million dollars and therefore our adding 65 million\ndollars somehow is a wash and we come out even, is just ridiculous.\nWhat it means is that the -- the contribution from property taxes to\nschools has gone up 65 million. They have got 65 million dollars\nmore. Now, if we did nothing that would be a wash. Because then\nwe cut by 65 million. But when we add by 65 million, they are\ngetting a net -- when we increase by 65 million, they are getting quite\na net increase in financial support for schools.\n8\nGovernor, his use of the term \"slippage\" had to do with the\nrationbetween the state contribution and the local contribution.\nHe's saying that that will not make up for -- that will not be enough\nthere will still be animincrease in property taxes, a net increase, that\nyou would have to contribute more, the State, in order to keep the ratio\nthe same as it is this year.\nA\nWell, you are speaking of the percentage ratio between state\ncontributions --\nQ\nRight, the state contribution will be less in the next year\nthan it is this year.\n-8-\nA\nThis has been one of the great problems in this so-called\narriving at a formula of some sharing between state and local school\ndistricts. And the funding of it. When they go up with theirs\nand we increase ours to the place where this year we are budgeting\n645 million dollars more for schools than when we started five years\nago, and to suggest that percentagewise we are contributing less, this\nwould indicate that the schools have had quite an increase in money.\nYou can come up and say, \"o. K., we are going to pay fifty per cent\nof the cost of schools.' Now *- well in the very next year at the local\nlevel they increase their contribution, they can always put you back\nto less than fifty per cent unless you are willing to simply guarantee\nin advance, sight unseen and with no control, that you will match them\ndollar for dollar, whatever they decide to put up for their schools.\nAnd that can't be done.\nNow, again, the truth of the matter is we get into the kind of new\nmath such as we have had -- we have had a few examples of it in the last\nweek or so where some one choses what part of the state contribution\nthey will consider as being our contribution to education. But they\nleave out a few items. This year we have added in the budget that\nwill begin in July -- we have added 222 million dollars in support\nof schools. But because about 115 of that is for our contribution\nto the teachers' retirement plan, they just ignore that, they pretend\nthat we are not doing it.\n8\nGovernor, in your own budget you ignore that. Your own\nbudget says there is a 35 per cent -- approximately 35 per cent\ncontribution to schools.\nPAUL BECK: No, that's only in the apportionment, doesn't\nfigure in any other amounts.\nA\nWe have a fund called the school apportionment in the formula\nthat is set out and that consistently is used by people, and this is\nwhere the confusion comes in. Many people accept that that is the\ntotal contributinn of the state to education. But that does not\ncount these other things.\nQ\nGovernor, Alan Post says your Finance Department hasunddere\nestimated revenues by about 90 million dollars. Have you a comment?\nA\nYes. I think the simple comment is that just a year ago\nAlan Post said that we had underestimated the needs of government by\n750 millimdollars, just to balance the budget.\nAnd SO now we have\n-9-\nbalanced the budget and we are going to come out with a surplus and\nwe didn't increase taxes 750mmillinn dollars, and I would suggest\nthat, again respectfully, that Mr. Post has looked at some estimates\nand when you have to base, as you do, your -- your budget on estimates\nyou can lean one way or the other. You do your best to get all the\ninput that you can and this state for about a quarter of a century\nnow addepended on a panel of economic experts from business, from\nthe campuses, from industry and the banks here in the state, and\nusually we come out very accurate. Last year we had the situation\nof an unusual economic slump and we had to re-adjust several times\ndownward on our -- on our revenues. But back over the years you'll\nfind that these estimates have been about one -- one andaa half per\ncent of being accurate and there they are made more than ayear in\nadvance, which I think is a pretty good record. We happen to chose\nto err on the conservative side. We believe that if someone tells\nus that we might possibly get a hundred million dollars more, we'd\nrather wait and find out to our happynsurprise that we got the\nhundred million dollars more, than to budget on that basis and then as\nwe had to in this last year, had to keep coming in and saying no,\nre-estimate downward, we are not going to have that much money.\n8\nGovernor, your budgetecalls for a 20 per cent further reduc-\ntion in number of patients in the state mental hospitals. Do you\nplan to close any additional state mental hospitals in the coming\nyear?\nA\nI don't think there is any question but that some hospitals\nwill have parts of them, sections of them closed. And the possibility\nremains of additional hospitals actually totally being closed.\nThis is due to the success of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, the\ntreatment of the mentally ill at the local health care level which\nwe subsidized by 90 per cent, not the original 75 per cent, which\nincidentally had never been attained prior to this administration.\nQ\nH W about the call from some of the legislators for a\nmoratorium on further closures until they can be sure that the patients\nare receiving adequate treatment at the local level?\nA\nWell, we are not going to do anything foolishly and I don't\nthink we have done it hastily or foolishly, but I think in contrast\nagain to the doom criers who couldn't wait to see what the outcome\nof the new program is going to be, we have, I think, the foremost\nprogram for treatment of the mentally ill in the United States, if not\n-10-\nthe world, and we have people coming from all our the world to see\nhow it is working and the success of it is to be found in this decline.\nWe didntt set goals in advance of how many people we were going to\nput out of the hospitals. We didn't know. It has just turned out\nthat way, that the program is so successful that we are down in these\nfive years from more than 26,000 patients to at thepresent about 9800\nand we believe at the end of the year it will be done to about 7,000.\nQ\nIs Mendocino State Hospital among those considered for closure?\nA\nI couldn't give you any names, I haven't actually checked\nin which will have parts of them closed or which might be looked at\nfor closing entirely.\nQ\nThat was my question.\nQ\nGovernor, while parts of your capital outlay budget for the\nuniversity of California is based on funds of the medical\nas\na bond act, which has not been passed, not it's been indicated by Mr.\nOrr that you are not in sympathy with the 240 million dollar amount\nin the bond act. How much would you like to see cut before you support\nthis bond act?\nA\nI'd rather not give you an exact figure because there had\nbeen a joint study going on with the university, our own finance people\nand involving some members of the legislature with regard to reducing\nthe amount on that bond issue downward. And I'd rather not speculate\non what the number is, but I think very shortly it will be made public\nand that there will be a request for lowering the amount of money.\nAnd I think it will make it more possible to pass the bond act and\nit won't set back the university in its plans whatsoever, because they\ncan't spend all of 1b for several years anyway.\nQ\nSo you do anticipate supporting the bond act?\nA\nOh, yes. Yes, I think -- there is no question about the need\nfor going ahead and completing some of the medical school facilities\nat the university.\n(appointments to )\n8\nGovernor, did you know that of all state board and commissions\nonly eight per cent are made up of women, 8 per cent of the members were\nwomen, whereas the majority of the substantial part of the population\nis women. What are you going to do about it?\nA\nWell, the first thing I'm going to do about it, thanks to you\nhaving to bring this matter up, is explain it to my wife when I get home.\nBut I think we have -- we very consciously tried and I think we have\nbeen pretty successful in appointing women. Maybe we have dealt more\non higher and more visible positions and haven't realized this about\nthe -- about the commissions. But we will take a look.\nOf course some of the commissions are bound in by statutory\nrequirements. Some of the commissions we don't have the total\nappointing power. So let me look. I hadn't figured out that per-\ncentage.\nQ\nGovernor, I don't believe anybody has asked you about CSEA's\nproposed initiative which would limit your and the legislature's power\nto set state's employee's salaries. How do you look toward this\nissue?\nA\nWell, I'm in disagreement with it. I think it would be\nan administrative nightmare. The budget by the constitution is the\nGovernor's responsibility, to submit a budget for the administration\nof state government. And then to take completely out of his hands\nsuch a gigantic thing as the state payroll and to make it such that\nthe legislature would have to mobilize a two-thirds vote to alter\nthis decision, that would be handed down by the Personnel Board, I\njust don't think it would work administratively. I think the system\nwe have is the proper system.\n8\nWould you actively campaign against it?\nA\nYes, I -- I don't think -- when you say that you have to\nrecognize that in any election year you can't stick your head out\nthe window without being asked how you feel about the various issues,\nand I'd have to say I disagree.\nQ\nGovernor, just what do you plan to do in the way of campaign-\ning for President Nixon this year? Will you be speaking out of state\nvery much?\nA\nWell, I've been approached about this, and my -- it is\nagreed with Washington, with the White House and myself that my first\nresponsibility is going to be here, within the state of California.\nBut where possible and where I can without jeopardizing anything going\non in Califirmnia, assist out of state, I will do SO.\nQ\nWill you actively campaign against Congressman McCloskey and\nCongressman Ashbrook in the primary?\nA\nIn a sense I have to here because if either one of them or\nboth of them, under our law, be:12 the primary, they have to run a\ndelegation and that would be a delegation in opposition to the delega-\ntion which I would be leading pledged to the President. So obviously\nwe'd be campaigning against each other.\nQ\nWould you do it in other states?\nA\nWell, I don't have any plans for that now, no.\n-12-\n0\nHave you talked to Congressman Ashbrook about whether he will\ncome into California? Do youthink he could serve any purpose by\nsoming in?\nA\nI didn't have much of a chance after that broadcast the other\nday for any conversation. I had to run and catch a plane. I only\ngot there a few minutes before we went on. So I don't know. I\noverheard some conversation and I don't think he's reached any decision\nas to whether -- I donit think he's reached any decision beyond New\nHampshire and Florida, to my knowledge.\na\nBy that you mean you would not welcome him in California?\nA\nWell, John's been a friend of mine for a number of years.\nHe even came out here on a few fund raisers in '66. I'd welcome\nhim here if he wanted a vacation. I'd welcome him here in any\ncircumstances except runningsagainst me.\n(Laughter)\nQ\nYou say you've been cutting, squeezing and trimming the\nbudget.\nWhat particular areas do you think you've done the best\ncutting in in the new budget?\nA\nThis is one of the things that I hope was revealed by the\nseparation of the budget into two sections, is the fact that the actual\noperations of state government where we have had administrative control,\nby that I mean where I can appoint the department heads, where we\ncan oversee this -- I think if you look at that section you will find\nthat it has over the years stayed within the limits of our normal\nincrease in revenues and has been held down to where some departments --\nwell, you only need to look at the employees' situation, that there are\nfewer employees today than there were five years ago, and I think this\nhas been the evidence. I might say that one paper recently, which\neditorialized that I separated the budget into two sections as a\nkind of flimflammery, was a little stupid. Because I don't see where\nyou are trying to flimflam someone when you are trying tommake it\nmore plain where the money is being spent so that it can be better\nunderstood by the people.\nQ\nGovernor, on another subject --\nQ\nCan I -- I want to ask one. Governor, the Democrats point\nout that -- that in two of the areas that you talk about raising money\nfor schools -- well, in saving Medi-Cal and in welfare, that these\nare in the local assistance budget and you and the legislature do\nindeed have control and direct the spending in those programs. How\n-13-\ncan you -- I mean how can you separate that -- them distinctly from\nthe rest of the budget?\nA\nLook, when we said we separated in two sections this whole\nidea came to me a few years ago from the idea of our approach to\nproperty tax reform. Because it was very apparent that if you had a\nshift from a locally administered tax to state administered and\ncollected taxes of say, in the vininity of a billion dollars, in the\ntax reform program, that you would suddenly -- the people would be\nfaced with a state budget, if there was no explanation, that went\nup a billion dollars in one year. When in reality it was a bidlion\ndollars you were simply collecting and giving back to the taxpayer.\nFor example, the 46 million dollars this year for senior citizens\nproperty tax relif. This is 46 million dollars we are giving to the\npeople by way of their -- through their local government. This shows\nas a 46million dollar increase or million dollar increaselir our\nbudget. And so I felt the need of having people be able to look.\nThere is no intent on our part to pretend that all of the local\nassistance is just totally giving back block grants to local government.\nNot at all. For example, in that -- in dividing the budget there was\nno way to sort this out. Mental health is in that part of the budget\nbecause now of the emphasis on the local health care centers. On\nthe other hand, though, we have -- we do not administer those. Nor\ndo we administer welfare. It is administered at the local level.\nMental health programs are administered at the local level. From\nthere on the control and supervision is in the hands of local govern-\nment entities and the people who pay the taxes should be able to\nfocus their attention on whichever governmental body is responsible\nfor that money. It is also true in the divided budget that there are\nsome parts of that first section of the budget that I think the people\nshould cheer and be happy if it increases, because it is -- in truth\nmoney going to them. For example, the regright now there is some --\nwell, about half a billion dollars in the budget which was not even a\nbudget item four years ago. That is the property tax relief directly\nto the citizens. Now that is a half a billion dollars that we have\nto show as an -- as an expense even though it is money given back to\nthe taxpayer. And I think that it's been proven in just this one\nexample already that it is easier to understand the budget. First\ntime I've understood it myself.\n-14-\nSQUIRE:\nAny more questions?\nQ\nGovernor, another subject. Last not you appeared\nat Friar's Club with Joe Namath. Can I ask you, Governor, did you\nvolunteer for that assignment or were you approached?\nA\nWhat's this, the -- the charity dinner the other night, the\nFriar's Club?\n8\nWere you approached on that?\nA\nYes, I was asked if I would appear on the dais and I was a\nmember of the Friar's Club. I've been on the daiz at many of them and\nI agreed.\nQ\nSecondly, Governor, is he the kind of man that you would\nlike to see Skipper amulate? Is Joe Namath the kind of man --\nA\nLet me answer that in this way. The only thing I really know\nabout Joe Namath, because I never met him until we sat beside each\nother on the air, and that was hardly a get acquainted session -- the\nonly thing I could tell you about Joe Namath that I know, is that\nhe's been an able and certainly courageous football player and a\nfine leader for his team. I'd like to see my son play football.\nIn that send I'd like to see him emulate him, except that I'ththink\nhe think twice about tackling somebody with an intercepted pass on the\nsideline.\n(Laughter)\no0o\n-15-\n1/20\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD JANUARY 20, 1972\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their con-\nvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly\nas possible after the conference, no corrections are made and there\nis no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, good morning. And that's the extent of the\nopening statement.\nQ.\nGovernor, can you respond to Congressman Hosmer's criticism\nof your tactics -- tactics of you and your staff during the reappor-\ntionment hearings.\nA.\nYes, I intend to answer Craig's letter. I think he was here\nfor two days, I think he just didn't understand the situation and really\nunderstand what was going on as well as those of us who have been\ndealing with this for about a year. That's about all there is to it.\nQ.\nGovernor, on a change of subject, please. Can you be more\nspecific at this time than you were in the State of the State address\non what you would like to see in terms of no fault insurance.\nA.\nWell, I don't know whether I could bemore specific or not\nexcept to say that we are in the midst of a study, more than in the\nusual political sense of a study, we are in the midst of a study of\nof what would be the best for the people of California. There are\na number of states that have instituted so-called fio fautt insurance.\nAnd there are many varieties of this. There is an extent to which\nyou can go. Some of them have been very unsatisfactory in those\nstates. We have been reviewing all of these, looking for the pitfalls\nand what we are looking for is one that with the proper mpdifications\nwill give the best protection for the people of California, meet the\nproblem. of the courts that are filled with these kind of cases, reduce\nthe cost to the people of California and at the same time preserve the\nright of the individual where he has suffered damage beyond just his\nmedical bills, to not be denied as some of these plans do deny the\nindividual the right to go into court add seek redress by way of a\nlawsuit.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you expect your studies to be finished in time\nto perhaps present your conclusions to this session\nA.\nOh, yes, very definitely, we are -- they are proceeding\nright on schedule and very shortly we will be dealing with them.\nThere are a number of proposals up there.\nQ.\nGovernor, as a general rule do you believe that legislation\nought to contain language that would mandate lower premiums if the costs\ndo go down significantly?\nA.\nWell, John, you are -- you are getting into some field that\nI haven't even considered as yet to what would be done. I'm -- I\njust can't answer you. I would think that is certainly a considera-\ntion.\nQ.\nGovernor -- Governor, a new subject.\nQ.\nNo, same subject.\nA.\nSame subject.\nQ.\nGovernor, are you endorsing then the concept of no fault\ninsurance?\nA.\nI'm endorsing the concept, yes.\nQ.\nGovernor, last year --\na.\nDo you expect that you will be endorsing a specific no fault\nprogram as your own legislation this year?\nA.\nWell, if that's necessary. If what we finally, as a result\nof our studies, decide as so totally different from proposals now before\nthe legislature, thenwwe will throw ours in the hopper with them.\nc.\nGovernor, last year the Senate Judiciary Committee killed the\nFenton bill on no fault and this year the committee has just returned\nfrom a trip to Massachusetts and several eastern jurisdictions. Will\nyou consult with members of the Committee as to what they uncovered\nin those jurisdictions?\nA.\nOh, yes, the people of ours -- and we have our Insurance\nCommissioner in this, yes, and they will have -- these will be in\ndiscussion and communication.\nQ.\nNew subject.\nQ.\nSame thing. Does this mean you will definitely introduce\na no fault bill this year of some sort?\nA.\nWell, again, as I said, it depends. We don't know the all --\nthe nature of all of the bills that are being proposed upstairs yet.\nIf our own determination should be that something up theremeets the\nneeds, obviously we'd simply support that. If they don't, and if\nwe have some proposals too far different, unless someone wants to\n-2-\nalter their legislation, then we have to propose our own.\nNow,\nsomebody wants to change the subject.\nQ.\nI still have another question.\nA.\nSame one.\nQ.\nMassachusetts has its plan for about two years now.\nWhen\ndid you decide to make a study and who is making the study?\nA.\nWell, we have been interested in this -- we are interested\nin the last session in seeing what was going on. Massachusetts\nwas\ndoing it, and we knew that there was a case to watch. All I can\nsay is we have -- we have been interested in this and I think there\nhave been enough tests in the country to know that the concept does\nhave merit.\nQ.\nGovernor, in the President's State of the Union address\nthis morning he said later this year he was going to introduce some\nrevolutionary proposals in terms of property tax reform add school\nfinancing. Do you have any idea what that might be and if so does\nitempre or less concur with your thoughts in the matter?\nA.\nWell, yes, I only have an idea in the broad sense that what\nhe is considering is direct, you might call it, block grants by way\nof the states to be passed on to local school districts to substitute\nfor school revenues that are now coming -- substitute in part for\nschool revenues that are coming from the property tax and yet as he\nehmpansized, to make absolutely sure that this purse string does not\nextend back to Washington and give the federal government any chance\nto impose its dictates on the local school districts. He wants local\nschool boards to control education as they traditionally have, but\nhe wants these block grants funneled through the states.\nQ.\nDo you support the idea of federal aid in that form?\nA.\nYes. As long as that purse string -- as I said, does not go\nback and give into those -- you know, there are -- there's quite a\ngroup in this country of people and many in the educational field, for\na long time who are so enthralled with the idea of bigness and\ncentralized authority that they really want a nationalized school\nsystem. They think we have outgrown the present concept. I\ndon't\nhappen to agree.\nQ.\nGovernor Reagan, because of the extraordinary costs in the\nAngela Dvais trial you signed a Bill that the State would pick up the\ncost of the prosecution. Now that she's run out of money will the\n-3-\nState pick up the cost of her defense?\nA.\nWell, for one thing, I think this whole thing that is going\non over there is just part of the reason why people have a growing\ndisgust with the clogging of the courts. The accused has the right\nto an immediate trial. Well, I think society has the right to an\nimmediate trial and I think a great many people, including myself, are\ngetting impatient with this whole dragged out process. Now, every\naccused who does not have the means to provide legal defense is\nprovided by the Court with a legal defender -- public defender and\nshe has the same right as any other citizen, but no one has ever\nbeen given the right to chose their own lawyers and build a defense\nand send the bill to the taxpayers. Now, if she wants to throw\nherself on the mercy of the court for a public defender, that's her\nright and she can do it. But it is utterly ridiculous, this idea\nthat she should be able to hire a battery of lawyers and carry on\nas she has and then send the bill to the taxpayers.\nQ.\nGovernor, on another subject. The State Director of Mental\nHygiene admitted that there has been a lack of statewide standards\nand supervision and a lack of statewide licensing procedures in the\nshift to local treatment of the mentally ill in line with the C.S.E.A.\nreport. What are your feelings on this?\nA.\nWell, I think we have taken some steps in some legislation\nwith regard to homes or dwelling places that might be used because\nof some of the -- we have them for our own state institutions. But\nfor some of the tragedies that we have had, for example with fire in\nsome nursing homes that are not under our supervision, but outside\nof that again you get into the area of local authority, local\nautonomy and so far I'm not sure that there has been developed any --\nany need for this. The local mental health care clinics which are\nsubsidized by the state have been doing an excellent job and this\nwhole furor that has been raised indicating or trying to charge that\nwe are forcing people out of the hospitals in order for the local\ngovernment to take them over is just ridiculous and backward. The --\nour state mental institutions -- mental hospitals are declining in\npopulation because of the success under the Lanterman-Petris-Short\nAct of this local care. Now, the theory back of that act is that\nthe mentally 111 can be cured just the same as the physically ill\ncan be cured. And we are not going back to the decades that began to\n-4-\nend just a few: years ago when the mentally ill were put in places called\nhospitals but which were really warehouses and they were going to\nbe stored there for the rest of their lives. And it has been a\nteemendous success, and I can understand the concern of those who are\nraising the charges because they fear maybe a loss of employment,\nbut if you will look at the record so far as the population in the\nhospitals decline we have done everything we can to eetrain and you\nare stepping up these programs to seek employment for these people and\nto not just go into mass layoffs. As the treatment goes on at the\nlocal level the people that have previously been employed by the state\nare finding careers in these outpatient clinics.\nQ.\nYou do not agree that some of these former state hospital\npatients are ending up in flop houses or jail cells?\nA.\nI do not and if there is something that calls for -- a\nstate standard set in this way, then I am -- I have every confidence\nthat Dr. Stubblebine over there will recommend that and we will\nproceed to ask for it.\nQ.\nGovernor, that's -- that's exactly what Dr. Stubblebine says\nis that major problem of the local LPS Act.\nA.\nWell, then we will find a solution to it. But again you are --\nyou are again in the area of how far do you want the state to go to\nbe big brother to local government as far as dictating the way\nthey are going to run their affairs, and I pledged -- when I came\ninto this office I pledgad to try and restore some of the autonomy\nthat had been seized by the state.\nQ.\nGovernor, Mr. Brown, the Secretary of State, says that he's\ndiscovered a federal audit which indicates waste and mismanagement,\naccording to him, on the part of Medi-Cal -- Medicare carriers.\nHe claims that they are making duplicate payments and paying lobbyists\nand trips for executives, this kind of thing, with federal funds.\nDo you have any knowledge that there is any similar kind of problem\nwith the administration of Medi0Cal by the same carriers or other\ncarriers?\nA.\nNo, he's -- again, he's talking about a federal program and\nsomething that's been found by federal auditors and he just confirms\nwhat I've said before. The farther up you go into echelons of\ngovernment the more extravagant government gets, the more inefficient\nit gets and I've had the same criticism of a great many federal\nprograms, if you'll just check back on the transcriptoof these press\nconferences.\nQ.\nAre you pretty sure then there is no similar kind of thing\ngoing on at the state level?\nA.\nNo, I will say this, wherever government is concerned there\nis no way to totally eliminate the sins of bureaucracy. It is a\nconstant watch, wwe are constantly on guard and yet no matter how\nwell you do that job you always are going to be able to find the\nkind of inafficiencies that creep in where government is concerned.\nAll I can tell you is that I don't know of any government body that\nhas been more concerned with this or more on the watch, or has\neliminated more of them than this administration and we are going to\nkeep on trying.\nQ.\nAre you increasing your watchfulness or planning an investi-\ngation or anything as a result of what Mr. Brown has revealed?\nA.\nIf you will take this up with Medi-Cal and Dr. Brian, I\nthink you'll probably -- most alert where this is concerned is Dr.\nBrian and his department.\nQ.\nIn other words, you are satisfied?\nA.\nI'll never be satisfied but I am satisfied that we are doing\nour utmost and no one has been able to do any better. Young lady\nand then you.\nQ.\nYou first.\nQ.\nO. K.\nGovernor, apparently --\nA.\nOh, all right, I'll start with you and then come down to\nthe lady and come with you.\nQ.\nI didn't see who you were looking at. Apparently a bill\nallowing 18 year olds to vote has created quite a financial crisis in\nthe community college system and may reduce their income by about\n40 billion dollars this year. What can or should be done about that?\nA.\nWhy, some of our young people are going to discover the pain\nof growing up. No, this is a technicality brought about by the present\nrules with regard to -- to the state funding on -- on the average daily\nattendance basis. The schools by now technically calling the aged\n18, these young people, adults. We didn't recognize this in the\nbudget, the money is in there, in the budget, and I think it is just\na case of finding a technical answer to à technicality that came about\nthrough the decision to make them adults.\nQ.\nCould I go back to a previous subject?\nA.\nSure.\nQ.\nO. K. Douyou see the closing of all mental institutions\nin the future and st make them outpatient cl. Lics, like?\nA.\nDo we see the closing of all mental institutions on this --\nin this Lanterman-Petris-Short Act? I don't know the answer to that\nas yet. There -- we do know that there, of course, are going to be\npatients requiring permanent custodial care. Now, whether that is\ngoing to wind up as better -- in a reduced amount of our state hospi-\ntals or whether we could even go farther and extend and have this in\nthe neighborhood or in local institutions doing the same thing,\nsmaller institutions, under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, I really\ndon't know. I think it is going to depend when we get down to that\npoint and find out what is the -- the ratio. And then maybe we\nwould be better off to continue to subsidize this at a local level,\nhave them that much closer to home for visits, but there is no question\nbut that you can't treat all of them in outpatient clinics. There\nwill have to be custodial care for a certain percentage.\nQ.\nBefore you let anybody off of the hospital staff, do you send\ninvestigators or some people down there to investigate the situation\nor people just fired because they have a lack of --\nA.\nWell, this -- and I have brdered this very much and I repeated\nthe order very often that we -- we have an obligation to the good\nemployees of this state and the people who find themselves in one of\nthese transition places, where perhaps a job is disappearing. So\nfar we have been able to handle this without layoffs to any great\nextent because we have been;-first of all attrition, people are just\nnaturally coming to retirement age or leaving state service, there\nis a percentage that do this every year. We then transfer wherever\npossible people employed by the state to other positions in state\ngovernment, and we are adding, as I said, training, to move people who\nwant to be in this line of work, psych-technicians, in the local health\ncare clinics where they will carry on the same work they are doing now,\nbut for a different employer. And I've issued the order that wherever\npossible we want to minimize any threat or any problem for the -- for\nthe employee. And we were not just sending out blue slips and getting\nrid of them.\nQ.\nGovernor, Assemblyman Brown has released a report alleging\nthe failure of the WIN program. Do you have any comment about that?\nA.\nWell, the WIN program is a program in which California has been\nparticipating more successfully within the framework of the program\nthan any other state in the union. We have utilized more training\nslots. We have had more or a greater percentage of our people parti-\ncipating than are unemployed than any other state. We have secured\nmore higher percentage of employment than any other state, but I\ncannot deny the faults of the WIN program. I was sorry when it\ncame about. There was no way that we couldn't cooperate, it was the\nonly game in town. But it has the same built-in faults as so many of\nthe federal manpower programs do. It is not the way to get at it.\nIt is inefficient, it is extravagatly for the good that it does.\nif\nAnd again I have to say that/the federal government would more on a\nblock grant basis -- would predetermine goals, turn things of this\nkind over for state administration, I think we could do a better job.\na.\nGovernor, when Miss King reported that you hadn't paid state\nincome taxes for two years the state responded by having an investiga-\ntion by the state C.I. and I., and the State Attorney General's office\nto find out where she got the information. Now, at Sacramento State\nthe article published by the college Republicans has reported what\nthey believe to be excerpts from welfare recipient files. And if\nso that's an apparent violation of law. Do you believe the state\nshould pursue that with equal vigor to find out where she got the\ninformation?\nA.\nYes, although I haven't seen that article, I don't know any-\nthing about it. If there has been a violation of the confidentiality\nrequirement, which iswwhat she is suggesting, but I'd have to see\nthe article to see whether somebody has just done what we ourselves\ndid and what many of your own newspapers did, finding out without\nnames the manner in which people could cheat on welfare. That is\nnot a violation of the confidentiality requirements, so I just don't\nknow what she is complaining about.\nQ.\nGovernor, are you pleased so far with the performance of\nChief Justice Donald Wright?\nA.\nWell, I voiced some criticisms to the Court in general, I\nhaven't boiled it down to picking out one man or the other.\nMy\nlatest criticism was of the most recent decision, but I'm not going\nto comment on individuals on the court.\na.\nGovernor, on the same subject. Do you -- you were critical\nof the court and said it didn't fulfill its responsibility. What did\n(reapportionment)\nyou see as the Court's responsibility in that case?\nA.\nWell, I think you had an indication of that from some of\nthe legislative leaders -- leaders themselves in response to that\ncourt decision, when they finally stated -- and a great many other\nlegislators have joined them in stating that there is a basic conflict\nof interest in asking the legislature to reapportion itself. And that\nwe have had gerrymanders through the years. We have had an attempted\none in this session after 11 months and hundreds of thousands of dollars\nof expense. And we still don't have a -- a reapportionment that is\nbasically fair to the people, and it seemed to me the court had an\nopportunity to face up to the problem not only for this one but for\nthe one that will come ten years from now, finding a method that will\ndo away with this conflict of interest and a method that will be\nhandled on a basis of what is fair to the voters, fair to the citizensy.\nNow, wait a minute.\nQ.\nWouldntt that -- excuse me, wouldn't that constitute legisla-\nting on the part of the court which you've been so critical of in\nother cases?\nA.\nI didn't say the court would do it, I said the court could\nhave made a decision that would have recognized this problem.\nQ.\nGovernor, have you any comment on the Speaker's suggestion\nthat the legislature should wait until after the November election to\nbegin reapportioning again.\nA.\nYes, we have had one year session and to do that I could\nsee what that would mean, that would mean they would recess at\nsometime or other and then reconvene after the election, we'd have\nanother one year session. They have had a year already and I think\nthat is just ridiculous and I think it would lead to the same kind\nof foot dragging and hassling that we have had in the past. Now\nit's been handed to them, I wish they'd get at it and get it done.\nQ.\nGovernor, on the reapportionment issue, is your position\nbasically the same as it was during the last session, that you wanted\nto see Republicans fairly treated before you'll approve a bill or\nhave you changed your position in any way?\nA\nWell, it is more than that. I want -- I want to see an\napportionment that comes out with -- with districts that make sense,\nthat have a community of interests, that is based on the -- were\nordered to base it on the one man, one vote, idea of equal in popula-\ntion. I want to see an end to the situation where as of now the\nsmallest population districts in the state are all Democrat, and\nall of the Republicans are crammed into as few districts as they could\npossibly make them, but I'll tell you what I'd go for and it wouldn't\nhave anything to do with Republicans or Democrats. There is only one\n-9-\nway to honestly do reapportionment, to feed into the computer all\nof the factors except political registration; that should not be a part\nof it. We are based on an -- equality in numbers in each district,\ncommunity of interest, those factors where the people are, what their\ncommunities are -- feed it in, come out with the answer and have a\nreapportionment that is fair to the voter.\nQ.\nGovernor, can you comment on why there was a Republican\nabsence of this particular position all during 1970 when it looked\nlike Republicans were going to do the reapportionment?\nA.\nNo. If you will look at the first Assembly plan that was\nbrought out by Assemblyman Lewis, I think you will find that this\ncame pretty close.\nQ.\nI know, I mean in 1970, where was the call for this kind\nof approach to reapportionment? When Republicans dominated the\nlegislature.\nA.\nOh, you weren't listening to my campaign speeches.\nI\ndon't blame you, but you weren't listening.\n(Laughter)\nA.\nI said this over and over again. I said that here was a\nchance with the majority or with the -- in this time here was a chance\nfor all of us to get down together and to solve this problem and not\nhave what we had intthe past, and I recognized the fact that the\nRepublisans had done it and then the Democrats had done it when it\nwas their turn, that we had this chance to make it fair. I said\nit over and over again.\nQ.\nGovernor --\nA.\nYou fellows don't print those things.\nQ.\nThe court didn't -- the court didn't rule on the issue of\nthe way the reapportionment was done, the bills were done, and\npresumably when that reapportionment goes back to the court, as it\nprobably would if it is appealed, would you -- would you be willing\nthen to petition the Court to -- for an order to find some other way\nof having reapportionment done and what way would you suggest that it\nbe done? Who would do it?\nA.\nWell, the funny thing is I suppose it could be done by the\nlegislature if maybe we approached it from a how instead of a who.\nIt doesn't make much difference who does it, if you would set some\nrequirements now in this computer age of the factors that would be\n-10-\nconsidered. And if you don't consider politica factors, then it\ndoesn't make much difference who does it. But I haven't -- I haven't\nthought -- I don't have to recommend to you a specific plan as to who\nshould do it.\nQ.\nGovernor, though, in considering common interest, which seems\nto be your prime concern, of registration, isn't political party\naffiliation the most common interest that people have when they vote\nand go to the polls?\nA. No, not necessarily. When you are talking about state representa-\ntion you have counties, you have cities, you have small towns. You\nhave particular problems to the farmer, you have particular problems\nin the urban areas. You have large minority communities that in\nsome instances, a few, are big enough to constitute a district them-\nselves. These are the kind of interests that -- that people look\nto their carticular representative for an answer to their problems.\nThese are not statewide problems in many instances. Now, if you\ncome in and in order to parcel out on a political basis, people of\na certain registration to as many legislative districts as you can,\nto try and insure a majority of your party, then you divide up as\nwe saw in this last gerrymander areas like the Santa Clara County\ndown here, and San Jose, where they had slices of pie coming in for\nfive and six districts. Now, what this means is that you take\nthis community and you divide its people up to such an extent that\nthey do not constitute enough of a force or a body in any one man's\ndistrict to where they can get attention to their particular problem.\nThey are not that important in the -- in his -- in his vote total.\nAnd this is why a community -- we want to have somebody when we really\nhave a problem, we can pick up the phone and we know who to call, who\nwould be our voice in this -- a community oftthis kind.\nQ.\nGovernor, when you asked last week for an investigation of\nthe Division of Industrial Safety, did you contemplate that it would\nbe a public type investigation, with witnesses called to -- -- or were\nyou thinking in terms of closed investigation within the department?\nA.\nNo, the -- Mr. Hearn has gotten all the transcripts, of\ncourse, of the hearings so far. All that's been presented. Now\nall of this, whatever other evidence that they can gather themselves --\nMonday is going to be turned over to the Advisory Council on\nIndustrial Safety which is made up of representatives of labor,\nmanagement, public citizens and this group is going to be asked to\n-11-\nevaluate all that's been brought out and all the evidence that can be\nbrought in to find at what the situation really is. Now, whatever\ncourse they chose to take or whether they chose to have additional\nhearings or not, that's up to them.\nQ.\nIn other words, Mr. Hearn is not in charge of the investiga-\ntion and its ultimate ruling.\nA.\nNo, no. no.\nQ.\nGovernor Reagan, I understand President Nixon is going to\npropose a value added tax or almost like a national sales tax to take\nthe place of local property tax in financing schools. Now, since you\ndon't like big government getting into the act, how do you feel about\nthat?\nA.\nWell, I know that we considered the value added tax in\nCalifornia incsome of our tax reforms. Some foreign countries,\nEurope, Western Europe, particularly, uselit. We gave up at the\nstate level because we recognized if you are going to have such a\ntax it has to be national, otherwise you make one state -- the\nbusinesses in one state non-competitive with other states that don't\nhave it. Many -- many economists advocate this as a tax that is\nreally geared to our type of economy. I haven't been able to\nfind much fault with the tax as a tax. The thing that I think\nwould have to be watched very carefully is the manner in which the --\nif this was used specifically for education, the manner in which the\nmoney would be redistributed so that again you would not have the\nfederal control over the schools. Now, there are ways that this can\nbe done. The government can act as a tax collector and sharethe\nmoney with local government without having strings on it. California\ndoes it. We collect a portion of the sales tax -- we -- or we collect\nall the sales tax and we give back a portion to local governments,\nshare it with them. We do the same thing with the cigarette tax and\nthese are different than where we mandate, as in mental health, a\nprogram on local government and then supply the money. Obviously\nyou have to have -- you can't just supply the money for this mandated\nprogram and then not pay any attention if they decide to use it to\nbuild roads. So you have certain controls to that extent. But I\nwould say that there are ways that the federal government can act\nas an efficient tax collector and just parcel.cut the money on a\npredetermined formula. Hands off, I didn't say this is for education\nto keep them from having control of the local schools.\nQ.\nOn the same subject, on such a tax collecting feature, is it\n-12-\nyour idea that tax should be returned to -- for instance, California\non a dollar for dollar basis or should they spread it among the states,\nfor example, who don't turn in as much tax as we do?\nA.\nThat isn't as important either, because in our own state\non the returning of the sales tax, if we simply returned the portion\nto where the sales tax was collected, then we would create an inequity\nalso because you take the rural areas out around some of our great\nmetropolitan centers, and the people in those rural areas do a great\ndeal of their buying by going to the city to buy. And therefore they\nare paying their tax in that city, but they are out here in this other\narea providing the schools. So we have a formula whereby we try to\nbalance this up on a population basis and I would think the same thing\nwould apply to the federal government.\nQ.\nGovernor, apparently there is some sort of a story that\nSkipper or somebody had some free allergy shots. Would you explain\nwhat that's all about for the record.\nA.\nWhy, yes, there's -- my old friends out at Sac. State,\nRosemary again, have been very busy about this. Very simple explana-\ntion. Nancy came here bringing her own serum from her allergy doctor\nin Los Angeles because she had some allergies and was taking shots.\nDr. Cutler drops by once a week on his way from his own work, stops\noff at the house and injects her serum in these allergy shots. More\nrecently the Skipper is taking allergy shots, so once every two weeks\nhe sticks him in the arm also. Now, when we didn't receive a bill for\nDr. Cutler for doing this, Dr. Cutler very kindly said he enjoyed\nstopping by. It waa no problem for him and that he would like to do\nthis on his own, as he said, to put it as his contribution. And\nthat is the extent of the so-called free medical care. He has never\ntreated me. He has never treated our daughter who doesn't -- doesn't\neven live here, she's been away at school all the time we have been\nhere. He gives no other medical care whatsoever. That is his\ncontribution.\nQ.\nIs he strictly --\nQ.\nWhat serum was Skipper getting?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nWhose serum was Skipper getting?\nA.\nI don't know whether this is -- I think this is his own also.\nI know it is all there in the icebox.\nQ.\nGovernor, he's strictly a private physician, he's not part of\n-13-\nany public --\nA.\nNo, he's strictly a private physician.\nSQUIRE:\nAny more questions?\nQ.\nYes, Miss King says that the idea is that you've had the\nmedical care for longer than two years and that ia applies to more\nthan just Mrs. Reagan and Skipper, but also you. Are you saying\ncategorically that that's not true?\nA.\nI just said it. I say that categorically that absolutely\nis not true. He stops by once a week and once a week he gives one\nshot and the other week he gives two shots, with our serum. And\nsometimes and I'm lucky enough to get home early and catch him, we\nsit around and gossip a little bit and I tell him what you fellows\nare like in a press conference, things that he'd have no way of knowing\nabout.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\nQ.\nHow did you meet him?\nA.\nThrough a mutual friend.\noOo\n-14-\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD FEBRUARY 8, 1972\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and\nthere is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Good morning.\nKerry\nQ.\nGovernor when you asked Cary Mulligan to resign from the Water\nResources Control Board, you said that there was no acceptable compro-\nmise between a man's public duties and his outside interest. Yet\nMr. Dibble of that same boaridadisclosed that he had had such outside\nduties and you did not ask him to resign. Could you explain that.\nA. Yes. It was our feeling that as I said at the time there was\nKerry\na mistake in judgment that Cary Mulligan represented the interests\nof a company in trying to secure business even though that business\nwas out of this state. We have asked for this entire review we know\nthat when you have commission type government as we have with so many\ncommissions in California, you select men from their expertise and\nnaturally they come from areas of business in the private sector that\ndeal with those same problems. Now, Mr. Dibble has reported -- and\nbefore this incident is -- and now since the attention given to this\nin our request, has gone back and had a discussion with Secretary\nLivermore on this and this owning of a business. There has been no\ninstance in which, in any way, he has sought to benefit or his business\nbenefit from his presence on the commission, but he himself has\nvolunteered and is going to dispose of h$s business just so there\nwill be even no suspicion of wrongdoing. And Secretary Livermore\nis convinced that there has been no conflict of interest.\nQ. Would you have asked Mr. Dibble to dispose of his interest in\nthat business if he hadn't done it himself?\nA. Well, there was no case of not disclosing it. It was known\nand he has -- he himself, as I say, has brought this up in regard to\nthis last instance, so there is no -- the Secretary is convinced\nthere is no conflict of interest at all.\n-1-\nQ. Well, Governor, but how could there be a conflict of interest\nwith Mr. Mulligan and you said that any -- anything is unacceptable\nand there will not be a conflict with Mr. Dibble when he worked for\nagencies over which his board has ultimate control? What's the\ndistinction?\nA. Well, the distinction is that there was never any instance in\nwhich his private ownership of this in any way conflicted with his\nduties on the commission. There was a difference between that and\nthe commissioner actually engaged in representing such a concern.\nQ. Mr. Mulligan has denied --\nA. What?\nQ. Mr. Mulligan has denied any outside interests in consulting --\nA. Well, Mr. Mulligan, when he first reported to our staff and to\nSecretary Livermore, admitted that he had represented in Honolulu\nthis company, at their request, and in my view this is a mistake in\njudgment.\nQ. Which company, Governor?\nA. What?\nQ. Which company?\nA. I don't know the name of the company.\nQ. Did he indicate whether he's getting paid for that, Governor?\nA. No, I don't know whether he was getting paid or not.\nQ. But this is the company that everybody's been talking about from\nLos Angeles?\nA. I think that there is a very great difference between a man\nperhaps serving in state government, and some other government\nrepresentative in some places calling and asking for an opinion on\nsomeone who is doing business with California, and how do we engoy\ngetting along with them and someone going -- going and initiating\nthe discussion in an attempt to convince another government agency\nthat they should buy the services of this company.\nQ. Governor, even if Mr. Dibble received no benefit, don't you\nthink it would he an influence on a regional board that's under Mr.\nDibble's board when Dibble's firm represents someone coming before\nthem?\nA. Well --\nQ. Does this have any influence?\nA. I wasn't involved in the talks that he has had with Secretary\nL, vermore and I suggest that you ask him about it because the\nSecretary and I have every confidence in him. And the iob he's\ndone.\nHe's fully convinced that there has never been and is no\nconflict of interest.\nQ.\nAnd you see no problem with that situation?\nA.\nNo, I do not.\nQ.\nGovernor, Mr. Dibble says that both you and Norman Livermore knew\nwhen he was appointed that he had this firm.\nA. Well, that's right.\nQ.\nWhy at this point five years later now, should he be -- is it a\ngood idea for him to divest himself of this?\nA.\nNo, this is his own idea, in doing this, because he says under\nthe circumstances, what's happened, he recognizes the need to not even\nallow any appearance of shadow of anything that might be misconstrued\nas apparently it is being misconstrued. And so he's -- he's taken\nthis step. But at that time there wasnno feeling on our part what\nwe were asking him to do and what he was involved in constituted\nany conflict of interest.\nQ. Governor, Mr. Dibble apparently has worked for agencies that\nare ultimately controlled by a board that he serves on. But you say\nthere is no conflict of interest. Now, does that mean that as a\ngeneral rule it isnot necessarily a conflict in your mind if a man\nworks for private companies that are ultimately controlled by the\nstate board that he represents?as long as he doesn't make any overt\nefforts to benefit by them?\nA. I think you are asking for a broad ruling here that is governed\nby common sense. And I would suggest that you direct your questions\nto Mr. Livermore who has all the facts, who is looking into this\ncompletely, thoroughly.\nQ. Your policy as far as conflict of interest is concerned in\nsituations like this in your administration, not specifically --\nA. What can I say other than that we have probably an administration\nthat has exerted more care in this regard than any administration that\nI've known sf since I lived in California; that we have had very few\ninstances where there has even been the appearance of any wrongdoing.\nWe lean over backward as Mr. Dibble is leaning over backmard right now\non his own initiative, to do this. And you have to be governed by\nthat. And by common sense.\nQ.\nDoesn't this point up what Mr. Mulligan said that the conflict\nof interest rules are unclear and they have been a source of great\ncontroversy, he said?\n-3-\nA. Well, there's been very little trouble with hundreds and hundreds\nof people serving on commissions and boards in California. Very\nfew of them have had any such great difficulty in working out their --\ntheir problem.\nQ.\nGovernor, Lieutenant Governor Reinecke has suggested that to close\none gap on that subject it might be a good idea for appointees to file\nperiodic financial statements with the Governor's office to find out\nthat they have acquired any conflict of interest after appointment.\nA.\nThis makes a very good -- this is a very good suggestion.\nQ. You would support that?\nA. This is why -- this is why we ourselves ask for a complete\nreview all over again with all the commissioners to make sure that\nthere are no misunderstandings. To make sure that there are -- as\nI say, not even any appearances or possibilities of conflict and\nyes, this could be a pretty good idea to do this periodically.\nQ. Governor, do you think theser reports should be made public or\nwould they just be for your office?\nA. Well, we have very few things that we don't make public.\nI\ndon't see any reason, we have never tried to withhold anything that's\nof public interest.\nQ. Governor, about your review. The agency has conducted it.\nHow deep into the structure have they gone and what reports have you\ngotten back from them?\nA.\nWell, again, for these details I think you'd have to ask Secretary\nLivermore.\nQ. New subject.\nA.\nAll right.\nQ. Governor, several days have gone by since you described Judge\nGallagher's conduct as judicial misconduct. Do you still stand by\nthat and if so are you planning to ask the judicial council to\ninvestigate his qualifications to hold office since judicial misconduct\nis a reason for misqualification.\nA. Yes, and may I say right now sometimes as laymen you use terms\nthat we don't realize have an actual technical connection in -- in\nlegal jargon. so that was not a proper term to use, should not have\nbeen used. We have challenged Judge Gallagher again, a peremptory\nchallenge to which we are entitled simply because we do not believe\nthat -- we just don't believe that -- that there is a total lack of\nbias when it comes to decisions regarding welfare and what we are\n-4-\ntrying to do.\nAi 00 two cases have been check d from his court.\nQ. Governor --\nQ. New subject, Governor.\nQ.\nNo, same subject.\nGovernor, what purpose does it serve for you\nto use such harsh public statements against the Judge?\nA. Well, the -- the service that I think was done in this instance\nwas, first of all, the fact that a case was brought, we knew nothing\nabout it, we were granted no hearing nor were we informed that such\na thing had been brought. A stop ruling has handed down and four\ndays later we were informed that the ruling had been handed down,\nwithout ever any chance. Now, normal procedure is that a judge\ngetting a case of that kind informs us, gives us or gives whoever is\non the other end of the case, has ten days for hearings and then\nmakes a ruling. And none of this was done. And this was the end\nof a long succession of cases of this kind. Incidentally, we have\nnever been able to find that the corporation bringing the case\nbefore the -- before the Judge has ever been recorded as a California\ncorporation. So there were a number of irregularities in this.\nQ. Governor, we have ancaue intSonoma County of a lady who\napparently has something like $200,000 in property, yet was on\nwelfare. Do you think this points up the need for a little more\nmuscle in these welfare reform acts?\nA.\nNo, as a matter of fact, that was an example, if you'd asked\nthe right Questions, that I was going to use to point out that up\nuntil a short time ago I'm quite sure that this caserwouldn't have been\nbrought to light. But this -- this shows that there is a better\ncheck going on of eligibility now. This woman's been on welfare for\nthree years, and this is the type of thing that is happening that's\nreducing the welfare rolls and saving us hundreds and millions of\ndollars now as there is a whole new attitude throughout the state in\nwelfare. Now, it is kind of hard for some of the welfare professionals\nto accept this new attitude, but it is an attitude that says they\nmust truly be eligible and then the law will be followed instead of\nsaying our job is to maximize and give as much as we can to as many\nas we can on the slightest pretext.\nQ.\nGovernor, back to Judge Gallagher for a minute. Do you then plan\nto disqualify him on all future cases? There are probably a number\nof them coming up.\nA.\nWe intend to challenge on any of the cases he is involved in\nwelfare.\n-5-\n8.\nGovernor, new\nbject.\nWhat is your re\non to Harry Bridges'\nthreat of a worldwide shipping tieup? (dack strike)\nA. Well, I don't know whether it was just a -- an idle boast, but\ncertainly it was not statesmanlike in leading to a solution of the\npresent problem. And probably it focuses a little attention on\nwhat's wrong lately in labor disputes of this kind that can drag on\nand victimize so many people. That's -- I don't know whether -- first\nof all, he could do it or not. But if he could do it, it would be\na form of blackmail. And if he tried it, I don't think this country\nshould hold still for it.\nQ.\nDo you think Congress is still dragging their feet on it?\nA.\nWell, they haven't exactly -- haven't made their move into the\nmome stretch and they don't seem to be turning on any heat.\nI\nknow I think that Congress would like nothing better than to get out\nhaving to handle this situation. And there again I think is a little\nlack of statesmanship, I think it should be handled and should be\nhandled right now, notonly for this particular instance, but they\nshould take action to see that this can't happen in the future.\na.\nGovernor, change of subject, Governor.\nA.\nAll right.\nQ.\nCan you give us your view and your opinion of the principal\noffice deduction of California based insurance companies?\nA.\nYes, this -- I suppose this is the matter brought up by Operation\nLoophole or Project Loophole or whatever they call themselves and I\nthink they ought to do a little -- take a little deeper look and look\nat moresthan one side of what it is they are trying to find. The --\nfor many years back as we know California offered a property tax\ninducement to induce home officesu3f insurance companies to settle\nin California. Not only to this -- does this produce a great deal\nof employment but the headquarter's in our state, those peoplesho\nhave a great investment capital and over the years California's always\nhad been a little short of domestic investment capital, we have to\nturn to the outside for such capital. But I think if they would look\na little closer they would also find that there is another side to\nthis. The insurance companies are perfectly willing to change this\nexemptionnand for very good reason. They are prefectly willing to\ngo under the same tax laws that govern all the other corporations\nbecause if they did they'd cut the taxes about in half. Right now\nthey are paying a higher percentage of tax regarding their -- with\nregard to their profit dollar than are other corporations and\nbusinesses in California, and somebody better think twice before they\nif they are so interested in how much money State is getting or\nthe local government is getting, they'd better think twice before\nthey just make a precipitant move and find out that they -- well,\nthe Watson amendment, I think, reveals this, that the insurance\ncompanies would come out quite a bit better off under his program than\nthey are now. As a matter of fact, I think it is up around $125\nmillion dollars and Project Loophole is talking about $12 million.\nQ. Governor, cauld you explain why it is that if they were to\nhave different laws the insuranze companies would be paying more taxes?\nA. Well, yes, because in return for this they are paying a gross\npremiums tax, which isodifferent than the regular corporation profit\ntax, and if they were put on a basis of -- of just like any other\ncorporation, -- we got into this with our own tax reform. This\nwas of much concern to us as it was to Project Loophole, and if in\ntax reform there was something needed to close a gap and to make\ntaxes more equitable, we wanted to do it. The truth of the matter\nis if you made it more equitable the insurance companies stand to\ngain.\nQ.\nGovernor, isn't the fact that they have built all these sky-\nscrapers within the last four or five years indicate that there\nis some incentive in this law tor-- some real tax break for them?\nA. Well, I know that they are very willing to -- to come up with\nthe tax beform.\nQ. Governor Reagan, can we go back to the dock strike for a moment.\nI'm a little confused about when you want the federal government to\nintervene. I know you don't want them to intervene on welfare or\nschools or the environment. Why do you want them to intervene on this\nparticular issue?\nA. Well, as I said, sometime ago, and it doesn't come easy for me\nto suggest government interference with labor and management, I was\nin labor too long and I know when I was doing it I didn't want\ngovernment sticking its nose in. But I think we have to recognize\nthat there are certain areas of our economy now in which too many\nother people are penalized by a labor dispute that drags on this way,\npeople who don't have a voice at the bargaining table and as I\nillustrated, I think, once before, in here, you have a factory\nmanufacturing a product, and a strike is a test of economic strength\nbetween the workers and the management. And they -- the management\nchooses to be closed down rather than to give into a demand and\nthen it is a test to see who can stay out the longest, the workers\nor the factory close down while other people do the business.\nThat's a little di\nent than an industry of\nkind where a local\neconomy such as our agricultural economy. say they are unable to\ntransport itssproduct to the markets, it is.álmost up against a\nmonopoly situation and so these people are penalized for millions --\nbillions of dollars of loss and over on a dispute that's going on\nbetween the management and the one union and I think in these cases\nthere has to be worked out -- we have to face the need to work out\nsome machinery that can resolve an impasse. I don't know, I don't\nmean that you get in there at the first, they can go into their\nnegotiating and it is only when they reach an impasse and find that\nthey can't settle it then I think there should be a machinery\nestablished before you have a breakdown of economy. Now this has\nalready cost California about a billion and a half dollars, and not\nthe shipping industry or not the workers. The workers themselves\nhave lost millions and millions of dollars in lost salary, but I'm\ntalking sabout the actual economy, the agricultural economy and others\nindustries in California, that have just stood by and in some instances\nwe now know that they have lost their markets permamently.\nQ. Governor, the country now can be brought to a standstill by\na railroad strike, an airplane strike a telephone strike, because\nit is -- well, it's really become so small. Would you then suggest\nthis kind of bargaining for every industry?\nA. Well -- no, but there is precedent in the railroad strike.\nThis is one similar to the shipping strike and if you will recall\ntwice in recent years Congress has moved to end such strikes and to\nreopen the railroads. So there is a precedent, the only dfferente\nhere it isn't the railroads, it is ships.\nQ.\nGovernor, Senator Richardson says that he's going to ask that\nMnc Procunier resign as director, because he feels that the work\nfurlough program and other programs have been mismanaged and also\nbecause he says that Mr. Procunier has prevented accurate information\nabout the department from getting to you, and getting to your office.\nCould you tell us whether you still have confidence in Mr. Procunier?\nA. Well, and I'm sorry that the Senator has moved so precipitantly\non this, he could have found out that we have been engaged in a study\nof this -- this entire subject for sometime. And our -- and involved\nin the study is Mr. Procunier helping in the study. Some years ago,\nas you know, we moved to the subsidy of local probation, and as a\npart of prison rehabilitation, and apparently this has been -- we have\nbeen most successful in rehabilitation in California, and this has\n-8-\nbeen the reason W\nmany other states are\nr\ng here to look\nat our correctional system and why we have reduced the number of\nprisoners. But we have been concerned lest in our zealousness or the\nzealousness of those people who are planning this rehabilitation\nsystem that perhaps not enough attention has been paid to whether we\nare causing crime or increasing crime in the outside through this.\nAnd there have been three unfortunate incidents recently out of about\n20,000 where men-- remember, a man that is released on a work furlough\nis a man who has already had a date set for parole and we started\nsometime ago a study to find out about this, to find out whathis\nhappening to offenders. We have -- we have had a great reduction\nin the recidivism rate but now we want to find out is that a true\nreduction or are perhaps the courts reacting in such a way that these\nmen are not being sent back and thus this has contributed to the\nlowering of that rate, but that they have actually violated their\nparole and continued on probation. All of this has to be studied\nand it is of the greatest interest in the world to us, but I don't\nthink the action you could just suddenly say someone's at fault\nhere and throw this man out and everything will be all right. We\nwant to find out if the system is working.\nQ.\nYou doubt whether he would be replaced as a result of the study?\nA.\nWell, he is involved in the study right now.\nQ.\nGovernor, on another subject.\nQ. Wait a minute, same subject. Hold it. Right now, following\nthis pness conference the State Senator is going to ask for the --\nthat you fire the Director of Corrections. What's your answer to\nthat, Governor?\nA.\nThey are going to ask what?\nQ.\nGoing to ask that you fire the Director of Correctines.\nA.\nWe are going to continue with our study.\nQ.\nGovernor, does Mr. Procunier's penal programs reflect your\nthinking on penology, and the work furloughs and the other programs?\nA. Yes. THAS a matter of fact, I think that -- as I say, let's\nnot throw the baby out with the bath water. California has become\na model in correctional systems for the whole nation. And we have\nhad great success. It was under Mr. Procunier in the first month\nthat I was in office that I asked him to study and if possible\nimplement something that had long been dear to my heart which was the\nmarttal visit -- the family visit plan. Now this has proven tre-\nmendously successful. Even the most hard-bitten long-time guards in\n-9-\nour prisons, after\nSan Quentin thing, wer\nnimous in their\nrequest that nothing be done to -- to interfere with that particular\nprogram. It is not instituted in all our prisons. No, I think\nhe -- you have to recognize that 90 per cent of everybody who goes\nto prison is going to be returned to society, eventually. And the\njob is to return them not as criminals or wore criminals but to try\nto do something about them and this has been the approach. We are\nnot a soft-on-crime administration, as you all well know. But now\nwe want to find out if, sa I say, in the working of this program\nif somebody has had a bline side and they have been eyeing only\nthe rehabilitation success and not tying it into the need to lower\nthe crime rate.\nQ. Does Mr. Procunier's future as Director of the department then\nrest on the findings of those -- of that study?\nA. Well, not just Mr. Procunier alone, let's say the whole system --\nand what we are trying to do rests on this, what steps will be\nnecessary, depending on what we find.\nQ. Can you tell us whether you're pleased with Mr. Procunier's\nperformance today.\nA. Well, I -- yes, I have to tell you that when -- when the whole\nrest of the country is demanding prison reform for another reason and\nare complaining about congested and overcrowded prisons and conditions\nthat are leading to making criminals out of prisoners, and so forth,\nfor California to be held up nationwide as it is as an example\nwhere we have single cell occupancy in every one of our prisons, things\nof this kind, I have to say yes, we have apparently been very success-\nful.\nQ. Governor, areyyou convinced now that President Nixon has\ncommitted his welfare program or do you think he's still waivering\non that?\nA. The President expressed to me his belief that he'd like to see\nit tried on an experimental basis and I can't quarrel with that.\nWe are asking for the right to try some experiments ourselves. I\nthink that there ought to be a number of alternatives that are tried\nin this country, fairly tried, fairly judged, because the President\nis still committed to the idea that the welfare as we have known it\nin this country has been a failure. In California we think we have\nresolved the failure pretty well and are on our way to proving some\npoints ourselves.\nQ.\nGovernor, have you had any discussions with the President at all\n-10-\non the possibilities of your taking a diploma+ post sometime in the\nfuture?\nA.\nNo. Talking about something coming out of thin air, an old\ncloth, or whatever chiche you want to use, I've read some of those\ncolumn items about what my future might be. Number one, Mrs. Reagan\ndoes not want to be a diplomat's wife and I don't want to be a diplo-\nmat or am ambassador and neither one of us could conceive of livings\nany place but in California. And there's never been any discussion,\nnone whatsoever, no such thing has ever been broached or suggested\nto me or even talked about in my presence.\nQ.\nDoes that mean you won't be in Washington as a Senator?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nDoes that mean you would not like to live in Washington as a\nSenator?\nA.\nNow I've told you before, without being coy, I'm not going to\nclose my options as to whether I want to continue in public life or\nnot in some capacity, but I've always thought you serve in Washington\nrepresenting a stabe, you are still a resident and spend a great deal\nof time in that state.\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nGovernor, I have a two-part question which are a result of Alan\nPost's report to the Legislature on the budget. He mentioned that\nin your budget address that there was something like 19 or 20 million\ndollars in additional money to support local community mental health\nprograms resulting from the success in transferring patients from\ninstitutional care in state hospitals. Mr. Post says that he finds\nno new money in your budget that in fact all the money inyour budget\nis the money that's always been there or has been transferred from\nother departments. And he further says that in view of this and\nthout additional funding that he has serious doubts that local\ncommunity health programs, especially in southern California, can\nadequately carefor patients released from hospitals. The second\npoint 1sm he said that apparently the state hopes to realize as\nGeneral Fund savings all of the 14.6 million dollars resulting from\nhospital closures, and that if this is the case the $15 per patient\nday rebate which the counties pick up for not putting a patient in\na state hospital will not be adequately funded. So my question is\nwould you --\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nWould you approve an augmentation of this -- of this matter if\nit is found that the money is not there, the new money is not there?\nA. I've had some differences before with Mr. Post and I recognize\nthat he has one Jo. the budget after it comes 00 him. We have\nfound him in error in a number of cases before. I do know that we\nare speaking more commental health than we have ever spent. We are\nspending more per patient than we have ever spent and it is true that a\ngreat deal of the money for the subsidy-- the increased subsidy we\npassed of the local mental health care cliniss, which are tremendoysly\nsuccessful as we know, comes from the fact that it costs less to take\ncare of a patient there than it does to institutionalize them in our\nhospitals. And since we have dropped firom 26,500 to about 9800\nand expect by the end of the next year to be down to 7,000, I think\nthat this very possibly is where he may be wrong and where the money\nis coming from, that's going to make this possible. We -- again,\nevery time we transfer one from a hospital or reduce by -- a\nhospital patient and increase at the local level, we make a gain.\nQ. I understand that, but he says that there is no new money to\nsupport the lesser -- the less expensive community mental health\nprograms to take care of the new patient that they will be absorbing.\nSopedid you say if the money is not there you think it is there,\nbut if it is not there would support an augmentation?\nA. Yes, because I'm positive it is there. Because there is no --\nno intention on our part to stop this very successful program and\nhere again, like the prison situation, this program has made us again\nthe -- the envy of the nation and many states are coming here and\nlearning from us and instituting the same kind of programs or promising\nto in their own states.\nQ. Governor, now that you had an opportunity to look at the Finance\nDepartment's audit review of the Division of Industrial Safety, can\nyou react now to the request that you call for Mr. Hearn's resignation,\ntoo?\nA. No, as a matter of fact, we haven't -- all we saw, and the thing\nthat was released the other day, I'm sorry there seems to be some\nconfusion, about it -- that was just an audit finding with some\ninterviews with as many employees that could be reached literally\nover ane week-end, and it did indicate there was a lack of communica-\ntion and a morale problem in one division, construction division.\nMany other divisions, no problem whatsoever. But now reports are\ndue -- as a matter of fact, a report is due today from the Task Force\nCommittee and there will be a meeting of that committee this afternoon\nwith all of this information that has been brought in on this. So\nthe -- the investigation is in no way concluded. It is still going\nQ. Governor, in Mr. Orr's report did he make any mention of the\nillegal use of state owned automobiles by division employees?\nA. No, and I -- I'm aware of that particularccharge, too, Let me\njust say this, and about that whenever it's brought to our attention,\nthis is -- has been an ongoing problem, I guess, with government as\nlong as there's been an automobile. And it has been of particular\nconcern to us to this administration with our cut, squeeze and trim\nphilosophy. We found there was -- there was a great laxity, a\ngreat looseness that had been guift into government when we came here\nabout the use of state-owned automobiles and it is an omgoing thing.\nIt is one of those things that you can't just slap down a rule and\nsay it once and think that that cures the problem. We are constantly\nmonitoring and constantly checking and constantly finding that as soon\nas you turn your back a laxness creeps in. Thereaare certain\nemployees that are officially given the right to take their cars\nhome because in the nature of their work they take -- they take off\nfrom their home to go to their duties. And yet out of this\nthen grows this report that they are using the cars for other things\nand we find that many times a carelessness does creep in, but all I\ncan tell you is again, I don't know of any administration that works\nharder on this but we are aware after five years that you are going\nto have to keep working on it, you are going to have to keep watching\nit every second.\nQ. Governor, Secretary Ralph Kleps (phonetics), the Executive\nSecretary of the Judicial Council charged that your administration\nneglected the needs of the judiciary. 1 In fact, he stated that last\nyear your administration chopped $850,000 from the budget for cost of\nliving increases for judges. He also indicated that the judiciary\nmight be compelled to file legal action to force your administration\nto put this back in the budget for this year. What would be your\nresponses to such an action?\nA. I can't think of a bunch that's better able to file a legal\naction than a bunch of judges, but I think Verne Orr expressed it yes-\nterday to the committee up there. I just believe that a majority of\nthe judges would feel very self-conscious taking a raise at a time\nwhen no other state employees were given one.\nQ.\nGovernor, have you given up in building a new Governor's mansion?\nA. No. No, no, sir.\nQ. You haven't asked for money for 16 in this year's budget.\n-13-\nA.\nWell, I tell\nI have some ideas abou'\nis and of going\nforward with it because now that at least it can be perfectly clear\nthat if you start it tomorrow I won't get to live in it, I figure I'm\nthe guy that after 32 years of political hassling, backbiting, and\nsnarling and fighting over this issue, maybe the one thing I can leave\nto the State of California is a decent place for the governors to\nlive. Now some private citizens donated 14 acres of ground out there\non the banks of the American River, it is a beautiful piece of\nproperty, it was donated specifically to be used only for that\npurpose, and I am going to do my best before I leave to see that\nthat 14 acres is utilized and a residence is built that is befitting\nthe State of California.\nQ. Any more questions?\nQ.\nJust this is a followup, does this mean you will ask the\nLegislature for the money to build the mansion and -- in one of the\nyears before you leave?\nA. Don't ask me -- don't ask me to tip off where I can see the\nmoney coming from, but --\nQ.\nAre you indicating private sources then?\nA. Oh, no, no, no, but I have an idea. And we will see if we\ncan't come up with that money, at least to start it. Now I do know\nthis, there are private sources -- when I say private, organizational\nsources in the state that are very interested in helping and in\ncontributing when it comes to the whole thing, regarding landscaping\nand furnishing and so forth. And they have been working all this\ntime. And as you well know, it was brought up just in time for the\n'70 campaign, those people have made contributions of quite valuable\nantiques and things to the State. Again, earmarked for eventual\nuse in a Governor's -- in the Governor's residence. And I just have\nmade up my mind thattthat's -- that's a goal of mine. I have a\ndream and my dream is that this is the reason it's never happened\nbefore -- is that a bunch of snide partisan-thinking politicians get\ninto the act and try to point out that each governor is trying to do\nsomething for himself. So for 32 years we haven't been able to get\none. Now they can't accuse me of that, because I've made it plain\nI won't be here after 1974. And as I say, we can have the -- this\nis the only way it is going to be done, if somebody gets the thing\nbuilt for someone else.\nQ. Governor, what if the next Governor doesn't want to live out there?\n(Laughter)\nA. Why then he can do what I did. He can rent himself a house and\nbe accused of cheating because he's paying his own rent.\nQ. You said you won't be here in 174. Earlier you said you wouldn't\nwant to close off any options.\nA. I closed this one off. Everyone knows that, that I believe the\nGovernor should be limited to two terms. I'd like to see that put\nin the Constitution.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor."
}