Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564126
label
Transcripts - 07/26/1972, 09/07/1972, 09/21/1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564126
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 07/26/1972, 09/07/1972, 09/21/1972
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Press Conference Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564126
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9257e3f55ac889a6
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual
collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -
07/26/1972, 09/07/1972, 09/21/1972
Box: P03
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at:
[email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
7/26
ELD JULY 26, 1972
Reported by
Kenneth D. Hadsell, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their con-
venience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the anference, no corrections are made
and there isno guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
00
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release #434)
O.
Governor, have you delivered essentially this mesaage to the
Senate?
A.
To Senator Collier. To Senator Collier?
O.
Yes.
A.
I don't know what the direction has been. I think that he has
gotten the idea and the message that this is the way we feel about
it.
O.
You haven't talked to him personally though?
A.
No.
O.
Governor, in the light of the recent comment made by Senator
Eagleton --
O.
Can we stay on this subject, please?
A. All right. We'll stay on this subject then we'll come back
to you.First change of subject he's up for bat.
O.
Governor, it's reported that the oil lobbyists and insurance
lobbyists and other big business lobbyists have been working in
behalf of bills.
What will be the normal low tax payer's
response to that?
A. Well, I think if we're just going to take the "tack" that
everytime something comes up you look around and see who is for it
and decide you're on the opposite side, or if you're not a member
of the group the is for it, that's wrong. I think perhaps maybe they
are right because they know it's a good bill; they know this is
inevitable and there has been complaint from some of these same
groups and other groups in the past on various facets of our attempts
of tax reform. Maybe they too will realize that the Watson Amendment
will produce a certain amount of chaos fiscally in the state and they
would like to see the situation resolved.
O.
Do you think a tax bill can be good for big business and also
good for the average home owner?
-1-
A. Yes, I do.
a matter of fact, I don't hink any tax bill is
good. If it isn't fairly distributed over all of the -- all of the
tax-paying groups. I think to -- this is what has been wrong in the
past; too many tax bills passed by trying to find out which goose
squawk
you can pluck with the least amount of sqwack.
O. Governor, if the Senate Finance kills the bill today and the
Legislature goes into recess, what will you do?
A. Well, we haven't had a strategy meeting on that. Obviously,
I have some alternatives that will be open to me, including special
sessions; but I haven't made a decision. I'm -- I'm just trying
to be confident here that the Senate Finance Committee is going
to put this on the floor and let the Legislative process go forward.
Q. Are there any circumstances under which you can find yourself
supporting the Watson Amendment?
A. So far every study we've made of it reveals that it would
exact a great penalty on the people of California and it would be
very difficult for me to find a way -- obviously it's not going
to change mw. It's not going to be amended in any way. It's
there on the ballot.
O. Governor, outside of calling a sepcial session, what other r
alternatives will you have?
A. Well, there are other considerations we can do with regard to
tax problems, butthe re isn't very much we can do about relieving
the home owner by way of the property tax other than this bill.
There are some problems of school finance and so forth we have to
consider, whether a special session or whether to come back when
ever they come back from their recess. But I just have to tell you
that we haven't sat down and made a decision. We've been working
very hard in cooperation with the Legislative leadership on the
progress of this bill, and in the Committee: and we just haven't
made contengency plans.
O. Governor, if the Legislature gets away from here without
approving this tax bill or one like it, what is the chance of the
passage of the Watson Amendment?
A. I think if they approve it, I think they are going to be
once again people who have said - -
O. Senator Collier's objection is that you can't justify a one-
cent sales tax increase when you have a two hundred eighty million
dollar surplus.
A. Well, I think Senator Collier has ignored the fact that we
that we have comm :ed as much of the on-goin surplus as we can
now identify We have committed that to this program, that that
is part of the resources that are going to fund this program as
the on-going surplus. And we have made additional provision for
the commission of further surplus if it is identified. Some of
us believe that there is going to be more surplus even thean we've
seen so far. But he's ignoring the fact that this is already
committed; this is in helping finance this bill.
Q.
Why would the administration want the education bill and tax
bill put together as one?
A. Well, there was a period, I know, a few years ago when we
thought they were separate matters and could be treated separately.
In the negotiations down through the years and in our attempt to
get tax reform, we have discontinued. And this was further
heightened by the Serrano decision that they belong together; we
couldn't separate them. We were going to deal with the principal
tax funding situation, the property tax, that we might as well
deal with it in the single package.
O. Governor, one of the reasns the County supervisors object to
your bill is this taxing or expenditure limitation. Why is it that
you feel you can't or the people can't trust local government to
keep taxes down, but you do insist local government is the only
one that can be trusted to protect the inviornment -- talking about
the Costline bill? Isn't there an inconsistency there?
A. No, I don't think there is at all. I think we're talking
about two different matters and the fact is that we did lower
property -- the home owner's tax by virtue of a state-wide tax. We
made available the seven-hundred-fifty dollar exemption and all we
succeeded in doing was subsidizing local government to the tune of
about a half million dollars because in less than eighteen months
they raised the property tax back up to and above the level at
which we had offered to reduction. And they're continuing to get
the subsidy from the State, and we just didn't feel that we could
go back again to the people and ask them to accept raises in
general taxation with the promise of a property tax relief off sett-
ing this. And then, see, that property tax really wipped -out
and they would have the new taxes on top of it.
Q. So, Governor, you're saying then you do not trust county
supervisors in local government, do you not, to raise taxes?
A. Well, it's not only county supervisors. They may be taking this
-3-
on personally. The main property tax reduction is going to
occur in the school tax. But property taxes are levied against
cities, county school districts and hundreds of special districts
throughout the State. And it's not a single thing where a Board
of Supervisors decides to raise the property tax or not. Some
counties, I think, are well administered, very economically and
sufficient. Others, I think, have shown tendencies, as government
does, to let bureaucracy get out of hand and don't agree and
increase and we just feel in this instance the State is attempting
to relieve a local tax by substituting a state-wide tax. And if
we're going to do this and impose this tax on the people, we think
in this case we have a right to say to the people we are then also
toing toinsist that there be a provision that other agencies of
government that we can't control are going to turn right around
and raise that reduced tax back up to the place where you're now
getting a tax increase.
O. Governor, what business is that of the State if that's local
government's responsibility and if the people don't like it they
can just kick the rascals out?
A. Well, some how they don't seem to do that; do they?
O. Well, again what business is it of the State?
A. Well, the business of the State, I would think, is that the
State already has a revenue sharing position with regard to local
government. We collect state-wide taxes which are then
redistributed. It's a matter of fact the bulk of the increases
in the State budget are increases in the amount of money we return
to local government. Now, if they would all run their governments
as efficiently as we have run the State in the last few years, it
wouldn't be a problem at all.
O. Governor, could we go back to the surplus problem with
Senator Collier? According to the legislature analysis of the
bill from the Posts Office that came out this morning, the balance
is a hundred-forty -million in the first year, a hundred-twenty in
the second. That seems a good deal less than the surplus you've
been hearing.
A. The surplus you've been he aring about is adding a two-year
surplus. It is anticipating that at the end of the next fiscal
year you'll have the surplus of this fiscal year plus the surplus
that delivered in the last fiscal years. Now the surplus in the
last fiscal year,w lave to recognize, is a k: of one-time
windfall. You cannot up government's on-going expenses on to the
level of a two-year surplus without the third year winding up
finding you need an increase in taxes. Now, we have identified
as much conservatively as we think we can of what will be on-going
surplus. We believe there is more. We will know in the near future.
We will have further estimates that will identify if there is more,
and we have therefore committed already as much on-going surplus
as we feel we can absolutely identify. We have further stated
that additional on-going surplus over and above that will be
committed to this program in one way or the other.
O. Just not to belabor it forever, but the first year, I gather,
is a hundred-forty-one million. Why is it that low ehn the surplus
at least in the first year is so much larger because of the two-
year span?
A. Well, I don't know - - in the hearing that is going on right
up stairs now, I think that has been increased somewhat, that
figure we have increased the amount of identified surplus so that
it is closer to two hundred million, the present figure.
O. Can we go to the other topic now, Governor?
A. Yes.
Q. Governor, we're all anxious to hear your response to this.
How do you assess the Democratic ticket following the revelation
of Senator Eagleton concerning his medical history?
A. Oh, I think the only comments that have been made so far are
the proper comments -- and that is no comment. I don't think this
is an issue in a campaign. I think we have a philosophical differ-
ence with the candidates on the other side that the campaign
should be waged on those philosophical differences, and I don't think
anyone should campaign on the personal problems of any individual.
O. Would you agree with the Senator that he should have informed
Mr. McGovern, prior to his selection, of his background?
A. That's a problem of his conscious. If they work that out,
that's all right with them. But I don't think any Republican I
know will campaign on this or even make any reference to it.
Q. How do you think the voters will view it?
A. They will let you know in November.
O. If you feel -- perhaps you don't -- but if you feel that one
think you should consider about a twice Presidential candidate is
his filnooe to be President, how could you ignore what has
-5-
transpired in the past day or so?
A. This is a decision for each voter to make, as I say. Maybe
this is the difference between the two parties' campaign. I just
do not anticipate that any Republicans are going to make any effort
to campaign on this issue.
O. But as a politician, Governor, would you consider that to be
a handicap or liability?
A. Well, you're forgetting that I'm acitizen politician. Well,
as a citizen politician, I've already made my decision as to how
I'm going to vote in November.
O. Governor, wouldn't it be possible that one of the other
reasons for Republicans doing that is that President Nixon, at
one time, prior to being a Presidential candidate in '68 also
sought medical treatment and therefore the health of every politician
would then have to be subject to public scrutiny?
A. Well, this man has very honestly come forward and given you
the statement of the facts. No, what President Nixon did wasn't
any treatment; President Nixon, believing in the 1968 campaign,
had a complete physical examination and there seemed to be some
talk about, again, just what you brought up. There was some
press talk, as I recall, in 1968 about the right of the people to
know all the facts about a man aspiring to that position, and
President Nixon did the unprecedented, authorized his doctor to
let anyone who wanted to know the complete results of his physical
examination.
Q.
But he did have psycotherapy?
A. Who?
O. President Nixon. He did have some psycotherapy?
A. No. I've never heard of any such think. There was an
attempt to protray this abouta 1964 candidate, a Republican
candidate, that was invented out of cold cloth, but, as I say,
maybe the two parties have a different approach to campaigns.
Q. Isn't there a stigma you just remove as to race, religion --
it's just a stigma that really has no basis?
(Eaglaton)
A. I thought the Senator did his best yesterday. He frankly
recounted the whole experience and was upheld by the Presidential
candidate on his side, and I would think that that closes the
issue.
O.
Governor Reagan, do you feel there are any great unresolved
-6-
issues at the Republican National Convention?
A. Well, there probably will have to be a brief period in which
we exercise the ghosts that are still lingering in the hall there,
but other than that, I don't know what it would be.
O. Would you kindly elaborate on that? I'm sure we all would
be --
A.
What?
Q.
Can I ask just which ghosts?
A.
Oh, No, no, I just meant the ghost of the previous convention
which seemed to be one of unusual interest this year. You wanted
me to comment on it. I would say that the difference was that the
1972 Democratic Convention differed from the 1968 Democratic Con-
vention in that this time the demonstrators were inside the Hall.
O. Governor, the Congress has sent to the California Legislature
the equal rights amendment and the California Legislature, so far,
hasn't had a chance to vote on that. Do you think that should be
something that is brought to a vote of the entire Legislature?
A. Well, now, wait a minute. I'm a little - - you change
subjects too fast. Now, what are we talking about?
MR. MEESE: The equal rights for women amendment.
A. Oh. What is the situation with it now?
O. Well, it's still in Senate Rules Committee and it's not being
allowed to come out to the Senate.
A. Well, I would like to see it come out. I would like to. I
think it should come out.
Q.
It shoul d come out when?
A. What?
O. When?
A. While the Legislature is in session. I don't see the Legis-
lative process take its course.
O.
Governor, Senator Cranston said the documents have come into his
possession which allege that the State is miss-spending and miss-
using State and Federal funds: the State's Office of Economic
Opportunity particularly is doing this; they've been doing it by
investigating the CRLA in Vista and crediting the State officials
and local officials who have been doing this investigating as
part of the State's in-kind contribution to the program, which is
against the Federal regulations. Have you been looking into this
and apprised of this?
A. I know this 3 just been brought up and 1 think the question
Mr. Hawkins has already answered that it has the appearance of a
partisan attack, political attack; but I have confidence in GAO and
have nothing to hide. And that's GAO's function, to investigate
fiscal affairs of government. So we welcome them.
Q. Besides asking you about the forthcoming election, what were
the questions that leaders of foreign governments had during your
tour and what were the questions they asked you to bring back to
President Nixon? Perhaps U.S. military presence in Europe, what-
ever.
A. Well, let me speak in some broad terms because while I have
spoken with the President by phone, I still have a meeting to have
with him. The general purpose of my mission was to reassure
European leaders and through them the people in European countries,
particularly NATO, European Alliance, that the President, because
of his recent visit to Peking and to Moscow, was not charting a
unilateral course for the United States and that he has no plans
for reducing our forces in Europe or lessing his interest, that,
if anything, it was stronger; he believed the success of the
Russian trip was due to the strength of the NATO Alliance and that
he wanted and hoped for a broadening and further unification of
Western Europe and that the United States intended to fulfill all
its committments and maintain its forces as an ally. And I found
that this message was well received in those countries. There had
been concern. Sometimes not among the leaders, but they felt the
concern among their people; and, granted this is a mess and that
could be conveyed through normal diplomatic changes in there was
no question but to send a personal embassary does give it an
impact that gets wider acceptance and makes it more emphatic. Now
this was the message I carried to him for him and I also pointed
out in some countries that this was inseparatable from some of our
economic problems, that if they set out in concert to make the
United States -- or put the United States in a position where
economically we found it's impossible to maintain our treaty
obligations, then we would all be suffering and this would be
catastrophic. One of the messages that I could bring back very
happily to the President was in every country the leaders of every
country made it so plain to me that in theiropinion this was the
first president in many years of the United States that they believed
-8-
had a complete understanding of the world situation and was
embarked on a course that really, definitely was leading toward the
hope for peace. And I've never heard such expressions of confi-
dence as they added, and I came home with an assurance that NATO
and the European Alliance -- that this is a very solid force. And
as we've seen in the last few weeks -- and I'll say I think the
next few months it is expanding and it is increasing in size and
in depth.
Q. Governor, why hasn't your Health Care plan received a committee
hearing and moved to the Legislature?
A. I don't know. You'll have to ask the Legislators that. You're
speaking about the catastrophic insurance? Well, my own feeling
is I've tried to make this public. I've tried to make the people
aware of it. Evidently either the people don't feel the need for
it enough to put pressure on their own legislative representatives
or the Legislature just has decided against it. I know that
philosophically much of the leadership on the other side is commit-
ted to a much broader plan that could -- I use the term socialized
medicine, but we go further into that area. And we've made this
offer. I think it filled a need and filled it fairly and in the
most economical way possible for the people of California. But
the people are going to have to make themselves heard now.
O.
Governor, did you work for it?
A. Yes, I have.
O.
What did you do?
A. Well, in my public audiences and in speeches I've made through-
out the State I've tried and in television appearances to publicize
this. I've even made a speech that centered on this as pretty
much a theme. And we, of course, have done our work with our
own legislators.
O. That's what I mean. Have you prodded the Legislature into doing
it?
A. Yes. And here it sits. I would like to see it pass. I think
that we have a plain and simple case. We have a case of about ten-
thousand people a year in the average who suffer either catastrophic
illness or accidents that extend over a period of years the averages
to the cost to the individual twenty-five thousand dollars a year.
Now sometimes that cost goes as high as a hundred thousand dollars
a year. The average is twenty-five. We read these cases -- we
-9-
read the most recent -- a man in a nearby community holding a
garage sale trying to pay off a thirtyseven thousand dollar bill;
but the bills are continuing because the child still has the illness
for which he's being treated. This insurance, as I say, thirty-
six dollars a year coveringan entire family against this kind of
catastrophy regardless of the number of people in the family. I
just don't think there is anyone that could provide a better
solution.
Q. Governor, when do you expect to review and take action on your
task force report on smog?
A. I'm meeting with them -- I don't know about taking action,
but Friday I'm meeting with the task force.
O. Governor, returning to your goodwill trip for a minuted, you
tied our stationed troops overseas with trade. Do you feel some
concern and does the administration feel some concern about the
expansion of the European trading block this week?
A. We know there is going to be some temporary dislocation and
he knows that, certainly. But what would be concern is if our
allies, banked together, would suddenly start using this as an
economic club to unfairly compete us out of the market. I don't
think this country has ever had any concern if it's a fair trade
deal. But beyond that, no, I don't think that there is great
concern. The President says that he believes that the expansion,
the enlargement of the common market, in the end result must benefit
all of US.
O. (Inaudible) -- confer with you before he ordered the State
schools for the blind in Berkely --
A. What's that?
O. Did Wilson Riles check with you before he ordered the State
schools for the blind and deaf closed as a fire hazzard?
A. Now Iwas away. Let me inquire here whether there was any
communication on that, although that certainly comes under his
jurisdiction.
MR. MEESE: I'm not sure there was contact, although there was
notification. But it was done on the basis of the fire marshall
report, I understand.
Q. Governor; back on my question a moment ago on the alleged miss-
(OEO)
use of Federal funds, were you saying that public officials' time
was not used to count toward the State's in-kind contribution?
-10-
A. I would -- No, I would think this would be a proper question
for Mr. Hawkins. I know that in our -- in our dealings with the
Federal Government I can't identify which programs permit and which
do not permit that. There are some in which the State's contribu-
tion is in-kind. And he could answer that; I couldn't.
Q. Governor, on the same subject, one of the allegations in a
Federal OEO briefing it might mean that it is in violation of
your State-Federal agreement; State OEO was still sending analysts
out in an investigative role, largely at Mr. Meese's insistence.
Now could you or Mr. Meese respond to that?
A. Again, this was --?
Q. Sending OEO community project analysts out to investigate
in Los Angeles, Alameda County and elsewhere.
A. Well, since the Governor has the responsibility for approving
or vetoing any of these OEO projects from the very first. There is
no question but that we have been carrying out that responsibility
and not just rubber-stamping"OEC Project"; and the result has been
a savings of millions of dollars to the tax payers because we have
found innumerable cases of misuse of public funds and projects that
were not worth the money that was being spent on them;and I've
had no compunction about vetoing them, as you well know, in all that
time. Now if this is what is become of this partisan political
effort, which, incidently, the request that GAO was signed by our
two Democratic Senators and the Democratic caucus of our congressman.
There were no Republicans that asked for this investigation. If this
is what is become of it, then I'll stand on our record because I
think we've pitted off a great many programs that were nothing
but stealing the public money.
Q. The point was the Federal guidelines provided a staff investi-
gation
MR. MEESE: Governor, could we make it clear that there has been
no authority or request by the Govern'r's Office to do anything that
would violate either the grant conditions or the Federal regulations.
A.
There boys, the fellow stands before you; he needs a lawyer.
O. Mr. Meese, do you send CPS's to --
MR. MEESE: I'll talk to you later. I'm not sure of your question.
O. Governor, there are talks that the prison guards are threaten-
ing to strike. In Tennessee last week the governor had a prison
guard strike on his hands; he closed the prison and sacked the
-11
guards. Would you onsider such an action if u were faced with
a similar position?
A. No. In California the law does not -- the law does not
recognize the right of public employees to strike. Nor do I.
SQUIRE : Any other questions? Thank you, Governor.
O. One more here, Governor. This is regarding a story that came
out of San Francisco yesterday. It's from a so-called movement
within the pharmaceutical corporation called Operation Fair-Shake
and they claim that for the past several months Department of Health
Care Services forced pharmacists in California to use cheap, sub-
standard and improperly tested drugs and are placing the blame on
you --to save money. And at the same time they claim they are
endangering the lives of Medi-Cal and drug patients. These drugs
involve care for patients under epilepsy, heart ailments and asthma.
A. Well, I challenge that charge and even welcome any investigation
they want to make on that. Dr. Brian would be the man to answer
those questions. But you will find that every provision in Medi-
Cal that we have contains the escape clause that on a doctor's
recommendation any exceptions can be made for the health of a
patient and there is no case that I know of that Medi-Cal regulations
have been responsible for the lack of treatment or the death or
serious illness of any patient. And I would suggest that you take
this up with Dr. Brian because I think he might be able to give you
some information that would put an entirely different aspect on it.
SQUIRE: Thank you again, Governor.
o0o
-12-
9/7
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD SEPTEMBER 7, 1972
Reporter by
Beverly D. Toms, CSR.
(This rough transcript of the Governor's Press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and
there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Well good afternoon. Nothing in
the line of an opening statement, so --
O.
Governor, I got a call from my grandmother in Springfied,
Missouri yesterday and she said you are going to her state sometime
next week. Do you plan --
A.
Yes. You what?
(Laughter)
O.
Are you going to Missouri next week?
A.
Yes.
O.
We don't know about it.
A.
oh, you mean the schedule hasn't caught up with you, I
just found -- I'm just about two or three days ahead of my
schedule mysel f. I think I'm due there Monday. It is in connection
with a national campaign, the Committee to Re-elect the President.
c.
Are you just going to Missouri or are you going --
A.
On this trip just to -- to that one stop there.
O.
Governor, how interesting would you find the Secretary of
State's job?
A.
I don't think that it would be possible to find another
job as interesting as this one.
O.
Then you put no credibility in Rona Barrett's story that
you are interested?
A.
I absolutely do not. Or any of the -- of the other specu-
lations about Ambassadorships or anything else. There has never
been one word of conversation about them. They are invented totally
out of hole cloth. I don't know how they started unless just after
the unusual rains we have been having, like mushrooms they grew, but
there is no truth in them whatsoever.
O.
Governor, since the legislature recessed have you given any
-1-
more thought to tax reform or what specifically you propose doing
with surplus in the State budget.
A.
Well, tomorrow if you happen to be covering the fact that
I'll be speaking to the Host Breakfast, I'll make at least some
tentative statement about that tomorrow in my remarks.
Q.
You don't want to say anything now?
A.
I better wait till tomorrow.
O.
Governor, back on the politics, are you going to stay neu-
tral in the Republican Governorship primary in 1974 among what
appears to be a growing list of possibilities?
A.
I haven't made any decision other than theone about my
own personal participation, non-candidacy about '74. And I haven't
gone beyond what I'm -- upon '72 in the election and I'm not going
to comment on any election other than the '72 election. There is
too much talk, I think right now, on the part of people who are
speculating all theway from '74 to '76, and I think that those of
BS who want to see the Presedent re-elected, I think, should concentrate
on 172.
O.
Governor, I wonder what kind of attention you'll be paying
to campaigning for Republicans running for the State Senate and the
Assembly.
A.
Oh, I'm going to do everything that I can. As a matter
of fact, my schedule for the rest of thatmonth and for October is --
is very heavy with appearances in support of our candidates.
O.
Governor, on another subject. Our paper reported this
week that Dr. Haagen-Smit of the State Air Resources Board is
at the same time a paid consultant to the Los Angeles Pollution
Control District, which the State Board supervises in some respect.
Are you possibly looking into some possible conflict of interest
in this situation?
A.
Well, this was news to us also. He's a very distinguished
man, he's known, of course, as theman who discovered smog. And I
think he has served all of California very well and put us out in
front of thenation in this fight. But, yes, of necessity, and since
this information came to light, I have asked Secretary Livermore to
look into this.
O.
Governor, does this indicate some breakdown in your
review -- your administration's review of possible conflists of
-2-
of interest that you announced some months ago?
A.
No, I don't think it does at all. We have gone forward
with the study, it is a very knotty problem. Obviously we do
everything we can with regard to appointees to see that there is no
outright conflict of interest. In our study of this we have run
into the situation that where a state has as many advisory boards and
commissions and so forth as we have, there are many instances where
there is -- anyone could try and draw a parallel and say, doesn't
this constitute a conflict of interest, on the part of one of
these individuals, and their utmost integrity, and it would be
almost impossible to find people to do some of these jobs if you --
if you carried this to the nth degree. And there come certain
points where you simply have to rely on your belief in the integrity
of the individual. There are other intances, of course, and these are
the ones that we are -- we are studying right now, as to insure
that even inadvertently there cannot be the kind of outright conflict
of interest where an individual, as I say, inadvertently with no
thought of this suddenly finds that he has come face to face with what
could be his own personal interest. And we are doing our best --
best on it.
Q.
Are you looking in other cases, Governor? You mentioned
other cases.
A.
No, we are looking at the whole -- the whole spectrum and the
whole philosophy and to try - trying to find where can you put down
the -- hard and fast dividing line.
Q.
Governor, has your administration made any changes in this
area since the Terry Mulligan case of earlier this year, where I think
you were looking into it then in order to expose more easily - so
you would know when something happened.
A.
Well, we have asked all of our department heads and all
of our agency secretaries toreview their departments, their agencies,
with this in mind, and thus be able to bring before us any possibility
or potential that before had - had not been considered or that we
didn't -- that didn't appear to be a conflict of interest, just to
insure that -- that there isn't some -- some case where this potential
exists.
a.
Do you know -- is there a requirement now that your
officers -- or appoint officers have to file an annual statement of
their annual holdings?
-3-
A.
I'd ask Ed to explain exactly what all they do state.
ED MEESE:
Well, they do file a statement of any
possible or potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Haagen-Smit did
file such a statement with us at the time that he was appointed to
his -- the previous board which is a predecessor to the Air Resources
Board, and there was no problem at that time because it was just a
very part-time board, and so there was no conflict. But, if you
remember, on the first of July of this year the whole nature and
composition of the Air Resources Board changed and Dr. Haagen-Smit's
relationship to that board changed now becoming a more extensive
part-time employee of the State, and so on the basis of that change
in the board, not any chagge of Dr. Haagen-Smit's situation, that that
relationship between the Air Resources Board and the Los Angeles
Board has to be reviewed and that's what's going no now.
O.
Just to pin it down further, is there an existing require-
ment now in your administration, let's say every year or so, an
appointed official has to file a^statement?
ED MEESE: That's correct.
O.
of his -- or bring it up to date every year?
ED MEESE: Well, or periodically, I'm not sure it is
every year, but periodically.
O.
Was Dr. Haagen-Smit's statement looked over when it came
time to re-appoint the board and pick the new members?
ED MEESE: I'm not sure whether it was or not at that time.
But it was updated since that time and that's what -- what this drew
attention.
Q.
Governor, Senator McGovern made a swing through Southern
California apparently for the purpose of trying to persuade workers
in defense related industries that their jobs would be preserved
under a McGovern administration. I wonder what your reaction is
to that.
A.
Well, maybe he's going to ask them to work as volunteers.
I don't know, you can cut defense 30 million dollars or 30 billion
dollars and still have the aerospace industry or how you can be
opposed to the B-1 program, and how you can be opposed to the
space shuttle and much of the rest of the space program and still
insist that aerospace jobs are going to be guaranteed. I have heard
some of the same kind of fuzzy remarks for which he has beame distin-
guished so far in the campaibn about, "Well, maybe the aerospace indus-
tries can make somet Lng else. I think that t. people in the
aerospace industry and the workers who depend on those jobs for a
living deserve somethigg more specific than that, and I think that
specific answers have been very much lacking on the part of the
Senator in the campaign so far.
O.
Is this thekind of rhetoric that he is going to have to
put forward to with California?
A.
Well, I have -- I have heard and seen it reported in the
news, some of the rhetoric that he's putting forth, and while he's
continued to refer to the need for talking issues in the campaign
it still seems as if the issues are: the last things he wants to
discuss.
O.
Governor, do you think it is a personal rebuff to you if
McGovern wins California?
A.
Would there be what?
Q.
A personal rebuff to you if McGoverno wins California,
can you save it for the President, in other words.
A.
Oh, you do everything you can. I have never believed
that one person elects another. What I am more concerned about
than that is that with President McGovern in the White House, what
would happen to a great many of the progressive moves and the gains that
wehave made in California that I think would go out the window.
O.
Governor, doyou see the endorsement of candidate McGovern
by the I.A.M. the other day as a sign that maybe he '11 be pulling
over more union support than was anticipated?
A.
Oh, the polls have indicated that a reasonable split within
union membership and I was a little surprised that they still hadn't
done it. Maybe the convention just hadn't ratified -- I had been
under the impression when I spoke to them that they had already
endorsed him at least to the national level of the union. Now
it is possible that my misunderstanding was -- was over the fact
that maybe the national leadership did, but maybe that was a
recommendation to the convention which had to be ratified.
Q.
Governor, of your assessment of legislative campaigns thus
far, do you think there is a chance the Republicans may take over
either house of the legislature and if so, what Democratic members
might be in trouble, as far as your assessment is concerned.
A.
I couldn't pick out any exact names, I just know in our own
view there is a good chance -- we believe there is an excellent
chance to get a margin -- a slim margin in the Senate. But we
12-1 ... have Sexe of the Finant cendidaten for the
for the Assembly that we have had in many years. And because there
are so many open races where there are no incumbencies due to men
running for other office or leaving, that we think we have a good
fighting chance there. of course, it is an uphill fight. It is
an uphill fight because the districts that were ordered reapportioned
have not been reapportioned and there is no question but that this
state is apportioned now in what is a pro-democratic gerrymander.
The evidence of that is the fact that statewide the people of
California for the last two elections have in a majority voted for --
at the statewide level have voted for -- for Republicans.
But when
broken down into districts, the gerrymander takes over and we
findourselves with a Democratic majority.
O.
Mr. Finch recently referred to an agreement among
potential Republican candicates for statewide office that - for some
sort of moratorium pending of General Election. My question is,
did you help spur that agreement and just what is it?
A.
Well, yes, there was wothing more than a meeting back
when the first talk of putting a campaign together began and I took
advantage of Attorney General Mitchell's being out here then, who
was the Director of the campaign, and we called in a number of our
people and all of our constitutional officers for a meeting with him
and we -- all of us resolved that anyone who was anything in terms
of putting together a campaign organization for '74 would withhold
any action on that until after the '72 election.
O.
On that same subject, governor, having worked with
Lieutenant Governor Reinecke for as long as you have, can you foresee
a situation wher e you wouldn't support his bid for the governorship?
A.
No, I can't. I have full confidence in Lieutenant
Governor Reinecke, I would have full confidence in his ability to
run this state as Governor.
O.
So in that sense if he were opposed by Mr. Finch or Mr.
Flournoy, you would be supporting the Lieutenant Governor?
A.
Now, you are -- I'm telling you what I think of the
Lieutenant Governor's potential as a -- as a governor, and my
confidence that I have in him. You are now bringing up two and a
half years in advance, what is going to happen with regard to a
primary, and a basic election, and I have told you I'm not going to --
I'm not going to express myself on that issue now.
-6-
O.
Would you have the same confidence in Mr. Flournoy and Mr.
Finch to run the state?
A.
If I answered your question I'd be answering his question.
Q.
Well, you did answer it regarding Mr. Reinecke, You did --
you did express a principle regarding Mr. Reinecke's capacity to hold
the office of governor.
A.
Well --
C.
You did go that far. Can you also express the same --
are you refusing to express the same confidence in these other two?
A.
No, as a matter of fact, let me put it this way, I'll
broaden it, then let me say this, that of the Republicans who have
been suggested for Governor of the State of California, I have the
utmost confidence in any one of them to do a better job than anyone
that has been suggested on the other side.
(Laughter)
Q.
And how about among them? How about among them, just
among the Republicans?
A.
Oh, now, we will just let them stand there as a sterling
group.
Q.
You consider them equal?
A.
What?
Q.
You consider them equal?
(Laughter)
A.
I consider them all sterling candidates.
O.
Does that include Philip Watson?
A.
What?
O.
Does that include Philip Watson?
A.
I don't know -- I don't evenknow what party he belongs to
or I didn't know that he was a candidate for anything except as an
advocate -- a surrogate for his initiative.
Q.
Govemor, have there been any violations of that agreement
that you know of?
A.
Not that I know of. It was voluntary" on the part of every-
one and everyone was most enthused about it, and believed it should
be done, and I know of no violations.
Q.
Can I go to another topic? Governor, it was recently
disclosed that the architect for the new state mansion is also the
architect of your Pacific Palisades home. This brings up two
points. One of possible favortism in his appointment and number
two, where will be the voice -- a more wider voice in building this
thing rather than just one single architect laying out the --
A.
I think we can clear that issue up also. Mr. Stevenson
had been elected by the group of citizens who wase raising money and
who at one time had contemplated building a home on private sub-
scriptions and donating it to the state, and as a result he had become
familiar with the studies that had gone before at the state level
as to the needs of such a residence.
When the property and such
tentative plans as he had made for the committee was donated or all
of these things were donated to the state, the property on the
American River, this now became a completely a state problem.
And Mr. Stevenson has not been hired as the architect for the
residence but because of the experience that he'd had with that
committee, the State architect on his own and with no word from me
whatsoever hired him only on a limited consulting basis right now for
the preliminary studies thatmust be put together, what must be
included in such a residence to meet all of the state requirements.
And Mr. Stevenson himself has taken himself out of the running for
any consideration as the actual architect of the residence.
O.
Is that a new development because the state architect
didn't tell me that a month ago or less.
A.
Well --
O.
He said he was in line, he said he thought Stevenson would
be in line.
A.
I'm quite sure he did consider himself --- he's a fine
architect and he had, as I say, this previous experience and I'm
sure the State architect believed he was in line, but this is an
indication that no decision had been made about the final architect. It
Mr. Stevenson himself, when this news broke, who made it plain and
said, "Let's get one thing straight," he said for his pwn personal
reasons he just did not want to be considered for that -- for that
task.
Q.
Governor, back on the legislative races. One of the most
threatened is Senator Marks of the Republican legislators. Senator
Marks has never been known as an administration vote in the Senate.
Are you going to campaign for him in San Francisco, and if so what
kind of asset do you think it's be to have a Democrat in San Francisco?
A.
That's going to be up to the Senator, and his own campaign.
people. You know what Harry Truman once said, "Tell me how I can
help, stay away or come into your district." And I feel the same
way.
I'll do what -- what will bethe most helpful to any candidate.
I realize that Sen. or Marks has a district th
-- in which his-
constituency is largely of the other party.
Q.
You think he's worth saving, though, as far as the
administration --
A.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have been cooperating with
him right now in a numberof ways on this, as well as with all the
other legislators.
Q.
Such as what, how have you been cooperating?
A.
Well, the matter of contacting people, people that might
be useful to him in the campaign and so forth.
O.
You've been helping him then, in other words?
A.
As much as I can, yes.
a
Has he asked you to come in and campaign actively,
personally, in the city?
A.
No, but I haven't had any contact with him recently.
I'vejust returned yesterday from my -- my first day here -- back
here. But, as I say, whichever thing will be helpful.
Q.
Governor, do you believethe Republican National Campaign
has any moral, if not legal, obligation to disclose the source of
that disputed $10 million dollars contributed before the April --
A.
I'miglad you asked that question. You know, the plain
truth is, and I don't know why more people haven't made this plain,
the committee actually cannot reveal the source of those contribu-
tions. The law -- the law became effective April 7 with regard
to the new reporting procedures. And anyone who wanted to
contribute to a political party, and believe me there were numbers
who contributed to both parties, and to a number of the Democratic
candidates who chose to contribute beforeApril 7, they did so under
the protection that they could contribute anonymously. And the
only person now who legally and mar ally can reveal that information
is theindividual who made the contribution. The committee has no
right to make that information known.
O.
They areprohibited? They are prohibited from doing so?
A.
Yes, the individual who wanted to contribute anonymously was
within the law up until April 7 in doing so. And now there is two
parts to a contract. You'd be breaking a contract with an individual
who gave you a contribution if you said, "I'm going to blow the
whistle and say that you gave me the money."
Q.
Butyou say that would be a legal break rather than a moral
-9-
break?
A.
I think it is both. I don't believe --
O.
Are you saying --
A.
I don't believe legally that the committee has a right to
unilaterally decide to reveal this information with regard to
individuals who were within the law in making contributions prior to
April 7.
Q.
Well, is it your feeling' then that the -- if the campaign
did disclose the source of those funds that they would leave themselves
open to some kind of legal action?
A.
I would think that they -- they very possibly could, if
anyone wanted to do it. I would think also that the -- the only
way they could do it is if the individuals came in and volunteered
their consent. But, as I have said, this is -- this is not a one-
sided deal at all. There are -- there have been big -- as a matter
of fact, while the opposition had to divide its fat cats up among
more candidates because of the wide open primary, that the Democrats
were having, I think that you will find, and you will find
historically that the Democrats received more large contributions and
their contributions come from a smaller group of people than the
Republicans traditionally do; that the Republicans have always lead
them in the number of small contributors and have always been behind
in the number of -- well, what's called the big contributors from
$500 up. And you will -- you will also find if you want to go
back that traditionally the Democrats outspend the Republicans in
campaigns.
O.
Governor, would you like to see public financing of
campaigns?
A.
No, I wouldn't like to see it. I think -- I think we really
we
get ourselves in a hole if ** get into theidea of funding on a
compulsory basis, and one of the things that's been overlooked a
great deal with regard to contributions is that this is a part of the
democratic process. Once you make it public, where do you set
the standard at, anyone who wants to declare himself candidate and
who can't-absolutely cannot get any public support whatsoever for his
candidacy, but can enforce the taxpayers subsidizing his run at the
office because his campaigns are publicly financed. When I say
it is part of the democratic process, I think the fact that an
individual is able to get support and that people are willing to help
-10-
finance a campaign 3 evidence of -- of a pers 's, you might say,
eligibility to run, that he already has something of a following.
O.
What do you do about a situation like in New York where
Governor Rockéfeller finances practically his entire campaign?
Rockefeller put up five or six million dollars a couple years ago.
A.
I Know, what are you going to do about any candidate ---
Norton Simon put up all the money for his own campaign too here
in California.
Q.
What do you do aboutit?
A.
Here again as long as this - as long as this is known
certainly you can't say that there is a -- there is a conflict of
interest on the part of the individual for backing himself. He's -
he isn't beholdi ing to someone.
Q.
Isn't this unfair to, say, a person who is not wealthy
who wants to run for the same office? He hasn't got that same
backing.
A.
I know.
2.
A wealthy person has.
A.
We have always had that problem, but what's going to
be the -- what's going to be the -- what's going to be the
answer to it.
Q.
Do you have one?
A.
No, I don't. You can't say to someone that he can't
support his own campaign.
O.
Governor, on the Watergate incident, do you think the
committee to Re-elect the President has to accept some responsibility
for that in view of the fact that the very least it was financed
by their - in some way by their contributions - by contributions?
A.
Well, here's a matter that's before a Grand Jury right
now to be decided. I don't know what is proper to comment. I
thought that Attorney General Mitchell's statement the other day with
regard to the same question was absolutely correct, when someone
said, "Well, as the Director of the campaign weren't you the General,
weren't you responsible for the troops?" And I think he was
correct when he said, "No." "Not to the extent that when someone
without any authority and without anyone's knowledge goes ahead and
does something on his own that turns out to be a violation, whether
ethically or legally. You can't be held responsible for that.
I think this is probably --- if people would ever try to understand
it, this is a problem that faces both an office holder and the
-11-
candidate. You liv with the knowledge that n matter how
careful you try to get in the selecting of people that you are
the victim. If some place along the line someone goes wrong and
you go to sleep with this every night, you wake up with it in the
morning, and the knowledge all you can do is say, "I have done
everything I can humanly do to make sure this will not happen,"
and in the selecting of people the rules you lay down and so forth.
And I think the same thing is true, you -- in a campaign, even worse
than among appointees in office, you know that in the emotion of
a campaign there are people and they are all worked up and they
think they have your best interests at heart, and they are going
to go out and do something. And you pick up the paper one day
andread aboutit, and you stand there and what you say cannot be
repeated or printed. But -- and yet at the same timg you kn ow
that the individual really - really did it with love in his heart
and thought he was doing something great and noble for you.
Q.
But you think that was the case --
O.
One follow-up question on that. Doesn't the high
officials have to accept responsibility because they don't have
sufficient controls over the money to allow $114,000 to be diverted
in that respect, now that's more than just some underling -- I mean
if you have a system that permits that to happen, don't you have
to --
A.
Well, now, wait a minute, you are -- now you are getting
into details that I don't know about, and I think all of this will
come out and I - I think that it is preposterous to think that
responsible people at the higher levels and that the candidate
himself, even if you could believe that they lack the ethics to do
something of this kind, that they lack the political savy to do
something ofthis kind, give them credit for being more intelligent
than doing such a thing.
VOICE: Any other questions? Thank you, Governor.
000
-12-
9/21
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD SEPTEMBER 21, 1972
Reporter by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly
as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and there
is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, good morning. Other than that,
that's the total extent of my opening statement.
Q.
Governor, inconnection with the present discussion about
the initiative process and the fact that there apparently have been some
irregularities, would you favor an investigation and possibly changing the
regulations as they regard professional collectors of signatures.
A.
Well, I don't know, perhaps the Legislature should investi-
gate the entire matter of the initiativeprocess, not just professional
collectors, but perhaps they also ought to investigate why the
Secretary of State, who has the ultimate responsibility for validating
these signatures and ruling :that they are legal, why he suddenly now
after validating all of the se and approving them has discovered what
he claims are evidences of fraud. It seems to me that the whole
fuss smacks very much of politics, and almost as if it is designed
to arouse public opinion one way or the other with regard to just
some of the initiatives. Now, we know that in every initiative
process, in the signing of petitions, there are many signatures
that are invalid. They are either incorrect as to address or they
have done something wrong, they have signed outside their own precinct
or their own district. I suppose there are evidences of fraud or
forgery many times, and the idea is everyone who ever circulates a
petition knows that he's supposed to get a lot more names than are
actually required, because many will be invalidated. Now if, after
having approved these the Secretary of State has evidence that some
of the signatures are invalid and were not caught, it seems to me
the process is for them to recall those petitions, go through and again
glean out the names of those that are fraudulent signatures. And
then if there are enough to reduce the petition below the required
amount, why the answer is obvious, it is not on the ballot.
If
there aren't enough to reduce -- to reduce it below that level then
I don't know why the -- the petition should be denied.
O.
Governor, ou have some control over at, don't you?
Couldn't you suggest a bigger budget for the Secretary of State then so
that he could do this at an appropriate time rather than after the
fact?
A.
Well, the Secretary of State's budget problem seems to be
with the legislature and as you well know, what the legislature takes
out I cannot put back.
O.
Are you urging, though, that the Secretary of State be
given additional funds?
A.
Right now I'm urging that the Secretary of State find out why
he found all of these petitions able to be validated. As a matter
of fact, on the one, the death penalty initiative, which he has seen fit
to include in his charging professional firms with fraud, there were
no professional firms involved. If there is ever an issue on the
initiative, on the ballot that was pure democracy, itwas this one.
There were no funds to speak of. A little money was raised toward
the end to hire some girls to help in the -- in the typing at the
office and the precincting, but there was no professional firm.
This was circulated by citizens as volunteers.
o
Governor, are you suggesting that the Secretary of State
is using his office to influencepeople or to take a certain position
on an issue? On certain initiatives, to defeat it, is that it, or to--
A.
I think that my earlier words could be interpreted that
there is the possibility that this was meant to influence voters
rather than to --
Q.
Governor, there are two points there, one is forged signa-
tures and the other is fraudulently obtained signatures.
A.
Yes.
O.
Apparently the fraud involves in selling -- the Attorney
General's statement with a card. Now, how could the Attorney --
how could the Secretary of State have any control over that kind of
practice?
A.
Well, he has a few complaints. He calls it mass --
evidence of massive fraud and then he says he has some 2,000 complaints.
Well, most of these petitions came in with -- in some intances
hundreds of thousands of names more than were required. The death
penalty initiative came in with a half million more signatures than
were required. Now, should virtually a million people be deprived
of their right, if only 2,000 of the million at most -- and certainly
there's been no charge that it applied to that particular initiative --
that if 2,000 of the signatures were fraudulently obtained by someone
being over-anxious or over-eager in his solicitation, it seems to me
that this is a reversal of a democratic process to suddenly say
that the efforts of all the million people and the willingness to
sign is to be invalidated because a few thousand people have
complained now that they want -- that they either didn't understand
or they were not given the information they needed to properly
sign or not sign the -- the initiative.
O.
You don't think that might just be the iceberg, the 2,000
complaints.
A.
Well, I'll tell you, you take one or two of those initiatives
and you throw it out on the basis of what he says are a couple of
thousand complaints, and you may just find out that the iceberg is
a raging fire because I have a hunch a lot of people would be awful
made.
O.
Governor, why do you say or why in your opinion is looking
for violations of the law smacking of politics?
A.
Because I think this should have takenplace before
these were validated. That's one of the processes of his office.
Q.
Well, isn't that sort of ministerial thing, really, in his
point, isn't that -- the checking done at the local level, they
don't send it themselves up to Sacramento.
A.
He has the ultimate responsibility, he could send them
back to local governments and tell them to go over them again.
Q.
Governor, when I talked to the Secretary of State's
office they said that they do not receive a petition, they only
receive numbers from the counties, and that the counties are the
ones that are repponsible for checking the validity of the signa-
tures.
A.
All right, then he has received complaints and I think they
should be referred back before this.
Q.
Rr to the Attorney General?
A.
What?
O.
or referred to the Attorney General since there seems --
A.
I'll turn you over to my lawyers on that as towhich would
be the best course to follow.
O.
New subject.
Q.
Just one more. Governor, aboutyour political statement.
Do you believe that the Secretary of State is using this initiative
business to further his own political ambitions?
A.
Oh, look, don't know whether I shou get into that or
not. All I can say is that when you walk down the halls any more
you really have to be careful not to bump into a candidate.
O.
Governor, do you favor Prop. 22?
A.
What?
O.
Do you favor Prop. 22?
A.
Proposition 22.
That's the farm -- yes, I do.
Q.
Why?
A.
What?
O.
Why?
A.
Because I believe that the very basis of organizing of
workers for representation depends on the workers themselves being
allowed the right to vote and theright to vote by secret ballot so that
there is no possibility of intimidation or coercion. And this is
the very heart of that particular issue. And I think also because
Proposition 22 reminds you that laws today are being broken,
laws against secondary boycott and I think that this is in no way
as its opponents have tried to portray it -- this is in no way an
attack on organized labor. Indeed, I think it is a protection
for the worker himself, and gives him the right to determine whether
he wants to organize and what kind or organization or which organiza-
tion he would like to have represent him.
O.
Governor, what laws are being broken?
A.
Laws against secondary boycott, I think have been.
O.
Specifically federal law? Does that apply to agricultural
production?
ED MEESE: This would put agriculture in the same
position as other labor relations, and prohibit the second ary boycott
as it now is prohibited in normal labor union activity. Agriculture
was specifically exempted from the National Labor Relations Act and
this is why you have this anomaly.
O.
Didn't you say laws are being broken now?
A.
Well, now, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not as careful about
my phraseology. The idea of a secondary boycott is illegal due tc
a technicality. Secondary boycott has been employed for quite
sometime now in the labor dispute that's going on here in agriculture.
I should have put out between the moral issue and the exact legal
issue, but you see, that's what you getwhen you don't have a lawyer
standing up here.
-4-
O.
Governor, on the death penalty initialive again, am I
right in thinking that sometime back we asked you whether you signed
a petition and you weren't sure, you sort of thought you had, but
your wife was trying to get you to sign one, now that is the right one,
the death penalty.
A.
That was theone.
O.
So I'm wondering did you sign and may you be somebody
that's maybe signed up a couple of times?
A.
No, no, I -- I don't think you could find my signature
on there twice.
O.
Did you sign it?
A.
Yes.
O.
Governor, what has happened to your investigation of Dr.
Haagen-Smit and the possible conflict of interest?
A.
Well, we found out that Dr. -- first, there had been a
great exaggeration over the amount of the consulting fees that he
has received at the county level. We also discovered that there
was not a conflict of interest in any way until July 1. In other
words, there was no invasion up until this point. And July 1st, the
part-time position of Dr. Haagen-Smit became the full-time position
with the re-organization of the State Smog Control Board. And
this has been called to his attention. Dr. Haagen-Smit with the
concurrence of the county has severed his connection with the
county, in this regard, and has preferred to stay and believes he could
do more good just with the State Board. And so there is no --
thelissue is closed, therereally was no faulton anyone's part. He
was simply doing prior to this everything he could in every direction
to help in the fight against smog.
O.
On the proposition again, on 18, the anti-sanity or
censorship, which side you are on, have you taken a position on
that or what is your position on it? This is the so-called Harmer
initiative.
A.
Well, now, let me try and -- let me try and count them up
because we have bren -- we have started in cabinet here.
ED MEESE: This is one in which you are still seeking
some legal information on some of the promisions.
A.
Yes, there are some points in this, that's right.
Q.
As to possible sonstitutionality?
ED MEESE: No, just to clarify the exact legal meaning.
Q.
To save time, Governor, why don't you tell us what
-5-
propositions you S. ned and what initiatives y- signed and
which ones you refused to sign, if any.
A.
Well, there are an awful lot of them that nobody ever
presented to me, but since one of the petitions was being circulated
out of my own home, I wound up signing that one.
Q.
Was that the only one?
A.
I don't recall whether someplace along the line I came to any
others or not. Sometimes when you are out and at a meeting or place
where you are speaking, someone will come up with a petition and you
will sign it. I actually can't recall this particular year with
all of these whether there were any of those instances or not. They
all kind of blend together.
a
Do you recall being asked to sign any and declining?
A.
No, I don't.
Q.
Not even the marijuana initiative?
A.
I don't think anyone ever put one of them in front of me.
Q.
You have never been on the Capitol Mall.
(Laughter)
Q.
Governor, should the issue come before the Board of
Regents, can you conceive of any circumstances where you might vote
for the restoration of Angela Duvis' job?
A.
No, you are asking my personal opinion. No, I think the -
the reasons why she was not rehired when she came to the end of her
contract, I think are as valid now as they were then.
Q.
Do you expect that subject to come up at the meeting
tomorrow?
A.
Well, it is on the agenda for the Regents meeting tomorrow
for the Executive Session, yes.
O.
Has she formally petitioned for reconsideration?
A.
I don't know. All I know --
O.
Why would it come up?
A.
It is on the agenda because I understand that -- the
department down there has proposed her name for hiring as a member
of the faculty in that department.
Q.
Governor, the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee was
in Sacramento the other day and mentioned that Senator McGovern had
never proposed giving $1,000 to every person in the country. Would
you comment on that?
A.
Well, I hope that the Vice-Presidential candidate isn't
-6-
standing a thousan per cent behind that posi. on, because I think
it's been recorded in the press already or reported in the press
that on May 27, a two-hour press conference was held and -- by staff
members of Senator McGovern at which time a brochur e was presented that
was entitled "Senator McGovern's Minimum Income Proposal." And
this was the one that spelled out the $1,000 prpposal. And I just
think that -- well, of course, Sergeant Shriver hasn't been a Vice-
Presidential candidate very long so maybe he missed out on some of
the earlier things that took place.
Q.
On pledges, are you close to having your legislation
prepared to make some tax rebates when the legislature comes back?
A.
No, we are still waiting for definite figures on what the
surplus will amount to.
Q.
Governor, are you talking with the legislative leadership
about the possibility of doing anything at all on tax reform?
A.
About what?
¿
Tax reform. When the legislature comes back, is there any
talk at all about doing --
A.
Well, they have been absent --- I don't know whether there
have been some meetings herewith staff or not. They have been away
and we haven't had - I have not participated in any formal meetings
with the legislature on this. We know that in a sense, technically,
the matter of the same tax reform bill that was defeated is -- is
still alive when the legislature comes back in November, we would
still prefer to give tax relief to the people by way of -- of the
property tax on their homes. But, as I said the other day, publicly,
if thatproves to be impossible, when we know the exact figures of
the surplus, then I'm going to ask for a tax reduction at the State
level to give this money back or in a sense not -- we are not
talking about giving back, what we are talking about is to ensure that
the people of California are not paying more for government than
government needs.
O.
Governor, that would sort of cut off the schools, wouldn't
it, if you -- because the tax -- the tax reform plan had this major
school financing then in addition to property tax relief. So
if
you have nothing and then yoy give all this money back, you have
nothing for the schools, is that right?
A.
We are not ignoring the -- the problem of school funding
and the necessity for school equalizing. And we have -- Mr. Riles
-7-
and I have talked about this problem.
We
recognize
that,
and
this certainly will be in consideration in determining what is a sur-
plus, whatiis available to -- to do this. I will say this, I
still stand firm with what we had in our -- in our property tax
relief program, that for anyone to suggest that we just simply
increase more money to the schools and in the same old formula that is
not working now is an injustice to the people and is not going to
cure the problems of education. We have done that year after year
until we are now giving a billion aid in state aid to the schools and
over these same several years no one can point to a single improve-
ment in the quality of education in return for that money. But I
think all of us are agreed in government that there -- that there
is a school financing problem that must be solved but not by just
increasing the amounts of money that we give in these. mandated
programs in this very intricate formula.
O.
Governor, with prospects of tax reform being somewhat bleak
now, isyour administration going to prepare a school finance measure
that would -- that would try to meet theproblems raised in the
Serrano decision?
A.
Well, we recognize that this is a -- this is something
that has to be solved. There is no question that there are school
districts that are definitely hardship districts, that must be brought
up and that there is no way to bring them up by way of the property
tax. And we are determined to deal with that problem.
C.
Do you have a legislative program in January to attack
that problem, this initiative has to be dealt with?
A.
Well, if this issue is not resolved in the tag end of
the session that is late to be held or going to be held in November,
yes, we will make proposals.
O.
It seemed to me when the legislatureclosed that you were
much firmer that you said you were giving up really on tax reform
this year, as far as the legislature was concerned, and you were
going to ask for tax refund. Now you seem to be saying that maybe
people are talking again about tax reform.
A.
Oh, no, I don't -- I don't recall ever making a statement
that I haven't -- don't -- have said that I would prefer -
Q.
Right.
A.
-- this tax reform to solve the property tax which is
inequitable. And of course everything that we are saying here
about reducing taxes and everything else is academic unless the
people turn down th Vatson initiative which "
not only absorb
all the money that is in sight, but which will impose a heavy tax
burden on the people, and be very disruptive, I think, of the entire
tax structure.
Q.
Governor, what is your position on the proposition that
the legislature has placed on the ballot for a two-year session and
other changes in legislative procedures?
A.
I'm happy to say that that's one we haven't cometo yet.
O.
You are going to stay neutral on that? Will you stay
neutral on that?
A.
Well, I think there is some -- I think this has to be a
consideration. I've always tried to stay out of -- violating the
separation of powers. I keep hoping that the fellows upstairs will
some day catch on and they will stay out of violating the separation
of powers.
Q.
Did you support Prop. A and 1A in 1966, didn't you?
A.
I wasn't a Governor then.
d
As a voter youstill are going to have a chance to vote
in this, in the privacy of this.
A.
How I may vote, that's my own business how I'm going to
vote.
Q.
Do you wish now you hadn't supported Prop. 1A in '66?
A.
Don't tempt me.
(Laughter)
A.
You know what I have always said. I try to avoid angering
the mother alligator until I've crossed the river.
Q.
Mother alligator?
A.
What?
Q.
Who is that, the mother alligator?
(Laughter)
A.
As a matter of fact, in my mind it is a kind of a collective
term.
VOICE: Thank you, Governor.
000
-9-
propositions you S. ned and what initiatives you signed and
which ones you refused to sign, if any.
A.
Well, there are an awful lot of them that nobody ever
presented to me, but since one of the petitions was being circulated
out of my own home, I wound up signing that one.
Q.
Was that the only one?
A.
I don't recall whether someplace along the line I came to any
others or not. Sometimes when you are out and at a meeting or place
where you are speaking, someone will come up with a petition and you
will sign it. I actually can't recall this particular year with
all of these whether there were any of those instances or not. They
all kind of blend together.
a
Do you recall being asked to sign any and declining?
A.
No, I don't.
Q.
Not even the marijuana initiative?
A.
I don't think anyone ever put one of them in front of me.
Q.
You have never been on the Capitol Mall.
(Laughter)
Q.
Governor, should the issue come before the Board of
Regents, can you conceive of any circumstances where you might vote
for the restoration of Angela Davis' job?
A,
No, you are asking my personal opinion. No, I think the -
the reasons why she was not rehired when she came to the end of her
contract, I think are as valid now as they were then.
Q.
Do you expect that subject to come up at the meeting
tomorwow?
A.
Well, it is on the agenda for the Regents meeting tomorrow
for the Executive Session, yes.
Q.
Has she formally petitioned for reconsideration?
A.
I don't know. All I know --
O.
Why would it come up?
A.
It is on the agenda because I understand that -- the
department down there has proposed her name for hiring as a member
of the faculty in that department.
Q.
Governor, the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee was
in Sacramento the other day and mentioned that Senator McGovern had
never proposed giving $1,000 to every person in the country. Would
you comment on that?
A.
Well, I hope that the Vice-Presidential candidate isn't
-6-
standing a thousar. per cent behind that position, because I think
it's been recorded in the press already or reported in the press
that on May 27, a two-hour press conference was held and -- by staff
members of Senator McGovern at which time a brochur e was presented that
was entitled "Senator McGovern's Minimum Income Proposal."
And
this was the one that spelled out the $1,000 prpposal. And I
just
think that -- well, of course, Sergeant Shriver hasn't been a Vice-
Presidential candidate very long so maybe he missed out on some of
the earlier things that took place.
Q.
On pledges, are you close to having your legislation
prepared to make some tax rebates when the legislature comes back?
A.
No, we are still waiting for definite figures on what the
surplus will amount to.
Q.
Governor, are you talking with the legislative leadership
about the possibility of doing anything at all on tax reform?
A.
About what?
Q.
Tax reform. When the legislature comes back, is there any
talk at all about doing --
A.
Well, they have been absent -- I don't know whether there
have been some meetings herewith staff or not. They have been away
and we haven't had -- I have not participated in any formal meetings
with the legislature on this. Ve know that in a sense, technically,
the matter of the same tax reform bill that was defeated is - is
still alive when the legislature comes back in November, we would
still prefer to give tax relief to the people by way of - of the
property tax on their homes. But, as I said the other day, publicly,
if thatproves to be impossible, when we know the exact figures of
the surplus, then I'm going to ask for a tax reduction at the State
level to give this money back or in a sense not -- we are not
talking about giving back, what we are talking about is to ensure that
the people of California are not paying more for government than
government needs.
Q.
Governor, that would sort of cut off the schools, wouldn't
it, if you -- because the tax -- the tax reform plan had this major
school financing then in addition to property tax relief. So
if
you have nothing and then yoy give all this money back, you have
nothing for the schools, is that right?
A.
We are not ignoring the -- the problem of school funding
and the necessity for school equalizing. And we have
--
Mr.
Riles
-7-
and I have talked about this problem.
We recognize that, and
this certainly will be in consideration in determining what is a sur-
plus, whatiis available to -- to do this. I will say this, I
still stand firm with what we had in our -- in our property tax
relief program, that for anyone to suggest that we just simply
increase more money to the schools and in the same old formula that is
not working now is an injustice to the people and is not going to
cure the problems of education. We have done that year after year
until we are now giving a billion aid in state aid to the schools and
over these same several years no one can point to a single improve-
ment in the quality of education in return for that money. But I
think all of us are agreed in government that there -- that there
is a school financing problem that must be solved but not by just
increasing the amounts of money that we give in these. mandated
programs in this very intricate formula.
Q.
Governor, with prospects of tax reform being somewhat bleak
now, isyour administration going to prepare a school finance measure
that would -- that would try to meet theproblems raised in the
Serrano decision?
A.
Well, we recognize that this is a -- this is something
that has to be solued. There is no question that there are school
districts that are definitely hardship districts, that must be brought
up and that there is no way to bring them up by way of the property
tax.
And we are determined to deal with that problem.
c
Do you have a legislative program in January to attack
that problem, this initiative has to be dealt with?
A.
Well, if this issue is not resolved in the tag end of
the session that is late to be held or going to be held in November,
yes, we will make proposals.
Q.
It seemed to me when the legislatureclosed that you were
much firmer that you said you were giving up really on tax reform
this year, as far as the legislature was concerned, and you were
going to ask for tax refund. Now you seem to be saying that maybe
people are talking again about tax reform.
A.
Oh, no, I don't -- I don't recall ever making a statement
that I haven't --- don't -- have said that I would prefer --
Q.
Right.
A.
-- this tax reform to solve the property tax which is
inequitable. And of course everything that we are saying here
about reducing taxes and everything else is academic unless the
people turn down t'
Watson initiative which V
1 not only absorb
all the money that is in sight, but which will impose a heavy tax
burden on the people, and be very disruptive, I think, of the entire
tax structure.
O.
Governor, what is your position on the proposition that
the legislature has placed on the ballot for a two-year session and
other changes in legislative procedures?
A.
I'm happy to say that that's one we haven't cometo yet.
Q.
You are going to stay neutral on that? Will you stay
neutral on that?
A.
Well, I think there is some - I think this has to be a
consideration. I've always tried to stay out of -- violating the
separation of powers. I keep hoping that the fellows upstairs will
some day catch on and they will stay out of violating the separation
of powers.
O.
Did you support Prop. A and 1A in 1966, didn't you?
A.
I wasn't a Governor then.
o
As a voter youstill are going to have a chance to vote
in this, in the privacy of this.
A.
How I may vote, that's my own business how I'm going to
vote.
Q.
Do you wish now you hadn't supported Prop. 1A in '66?
A.
Don't tempt me.
(Laughter)
A.
You know what I have always said. I try to avoid angering
the mother alligator until I've crossed the river.
Q.
Mother alligator?
A.
What?
Q.
Who is that, the mother alligator?
(Laughter)
A.
As a matter of fact, in my mind it is a kind of 3 collective
term.
VOICE: Thank you, Governor.
o00
-9-