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
118564322
label
Press Releases - 01/20/1972-01/31/1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564322
contentType
document
title
Press Releases - 01/20/1972-01/31/1972
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Press Releases
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564322
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
7e7259dfeb352c7b
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 Releases -
01/20/1972-01/31/1972
Box: P13
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
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
RELEASE: Imm. diate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-20-72
#30
Governor Ronald Reagan today appointed San Jose attorney George
W. Bonney to the Santa Clara Judicial District Municipal Court.
Bonney, 49, a Republican, will receive an annual salary of $32,273.
He succeeds Judge John Dutton, who has retired.
A partner in the San Jose firm of Rankin, Oneal, Center, Luckhardt,
Bonney, Marlais, Lund and Hinshaw since 1967, Bonney has practiced law
in the San Jose area since 1962.
He is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin and earned his law
degree from the University's law school.
Bonney is a member of the Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission
and is active in the American Bar Association, the State Bar of California
the Santa Clara County Bar Association, the Santa Clara County Trial
Lawyers Association and the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern
California.
He and his wife, Kerminette, have three children. The family lives
in Saratoga.
#####
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
RELEASE: I. ediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-20-72
#31
Governor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Ralph A. Nissen, a
Williams rancher and state agricultural leader, as chairman of the
California Exposition and Fair Executive Committee.
The governor also reappointed Woodrow A. Miller and named
Robert R. Gallaway of Sacramento to four-year terms on the committee.
Nissen, a member of the committee since 1968, has served as
chairman since 1969. His address is P.O. Box 216, Williams.
Miller, a Colton honey company owner and a consultant to three
federal Secretaries of Agriculture, has served on the committee since
1967. He lives at 185 Laurel Street, Colton.
Gallaway, vice president of a Sacramento real estate and insurance
company, will succeed Orval L. Bane of Reedley, who did not seek
reappointment.
Gallaway lives at 1040 45th Street, Sacramento.
All three appointees are Republicans.
Executive committee members receive necessary expenses.
#######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
MEMO TO THE
ESS
Sacramento, California
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
1-20-72
Remarks by the governor at the L.A.
County Campaign Round-up Kickoff on
Saturday, January 22, will be delivered
at the Los Angeles Police Academy, 1800
Academy Road, Los Angeles, instead of
the Biltmore Hotel.
# # #
EJG
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN(
MEMO TO THE P
SS
Sacramento, California
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
1-21-72
#32
GOVERNOR'S SCHEDULE
January 24, 1972
through
January 30, 1972
Monday, January 24
Evening
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Annual Dinner, Senator Hotel. (Speech)
Overnight - Sacramento
Tuesday, January 25
11:30 a.m.
Picture with American Legion Auxiliary Poppy
Chairman, Governor's Office.
11:40 a.m.
Presentation of Awards to "VFW Voice of
Democracy Contest" winners, Governor's
Office
Overnight - Los Angeles
Wednesday, January 26
10:00 a.m.
Press Conference with young journalists from
San Gabriel Valley at Pasadena Star News,
525 East Colorado Boulevard
Trustees Meeting
Overnight - Sacramento
Thursday, January 27
Office Appointments
Overnight - Sacramento
Friday, January 28
11:55 a.m.
YMCA Model Legislature, Room 4202, State
Capitol. (Remarks - O&A)
Overnight - Los Angeles
Saturday, January 29
No Appointments Scheduled
Overnight - Los Angeles
Sunday, January 30
No Appointments Scheduled
Overnight - Sacramento
# # #
PB
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: 1 ediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-24-72
#33
Governor Ronald Reagan today hailed President Nixon's program for
building a number of huge new Veterans' Administration hospitals in
California. "The efforts President Nixon is making to substantially
expand and improve our VA hospitals in California demonstrate his
continuing concern for the medical care and treatment needs of the many
veterans who live in our state, " the governor said.
The President's budget submitted to Congress today, allocates
$48.8 million for the construction of a new VA hospital at Wadsworth in
Los Angeles, $33.5 million for a new VA facility at Loma Linda and
$19.4 million for a new VA hospital in San Francisco.
The governor said that the Nixon administration also is requesting
$9.9 million for the construction of additional VA nursing home care
facilities in Southern California.
He said another Veterans' Administration hospital in San Diego,
built at a cost of $38.5 million, will officially be dedicated March 15,
1972.
"In addition to better meeting the medical needs of California
veterans, these projects will provide new jobs and help breathe new life
into the state's economy," the governor said.
Nationally, the President's fiscal 1973 VA hospital construction
program request is the largest of its kind in 21 years, the governor
added.
The new VA hospital at Wadsworth will replace an existing facility.
President Nixon announced his decision to build the new Loma Linda
VA hospital last August, It will replace the San Fernando Veterans'
Administration hospital which was damaged in the 1971 earthquake.
# # #
EJG
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-24-72
#34
Governor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointments of
Maurice J. Dahlem and George E. Kinsey to four-year terms on the board
of the California Museum of Science and Industry.
Dahlem, an executive of a national accounting firm and a Los
Angeles civic leader, has served on the board since 1970. He lives at
2141 La Mesa Drive, Santa Monica.
Kinsey, a retired Los Angeles businessman, has served on the board
since 1956. He lives at 450 North Rossmore, Los Angeles.
Both men are Republicans.
Board members are entitled to necessary expenses.
#####
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: ediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-24-72
#35
Governor Ronald Reagan today appointed Earl Gagosian, San Diego
business leader, and landscape architects Kenneth K. Kammeyer of Corona
and John Vogley of Oakland to the State Board of Landscape Architects
in the Department of Consumer Affairs.
Gagosian, President and chairman of the board of Royal Inns of
America, will represent the public on the board while Kammeyer and Vogley
will represent architects.
Gagosian, 48, who worked his way up as a laborer for a motel chain,
to found Royal Inns of America, lives at 9776 La Jolla Farms, La Jolla
with his wife Kay and their two children.
Kammeyer, who heads his own landscape architectural firm in Corona,
is a former Corona Park Commissioner, a past president of the California
Association of Landscape Contractors, a Fellow of the American Institute
of Park Executives and is a former assistant professor of ornamental
horticulture at California State Polytechnic College. His home is at
4020 Garretson Street, Corona.
Vogley, who operates his own firm at Pier 7, San Francisco, is a
member of the American Society of Landscape Architects and has served as
an assistant professor and lecturer in landscape architecture at the
University of California at Berkeley. He lives at 2130 Mountain
Boulevard, Oakland.
All three appointees are Republicans.
Board members serve four-year terms and are paid $25 per diem while
on official duty.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE:
nediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-24-72
#36
Governor Ronald Reagan today named John P. Starkey, president of a
San Diego mortgage company, to fill an unexpired term on the State Park
and Recreation Commission and reappointed commissioners Lowell W. Berry
of Oakland and Mrs. Clarice E. Gilchrist of Piedmont to four-year terms.
Starkey, a San Diego civic leader, will fill the unexpired term of
Daniel D. Villanueva who has resigned. The term ends in January, 1973.
Starkey lives at 3115 McCall Street, San Diego.
Berry, a retired Oakland businessman and civic leader, has served
on the commission since 1969. He lives at 5401 Broadway Terrace,
Oakland,
Mrs. Gilchrist, who lives at 25 Sea View Avenue, Piedmont, with her
husband Guy, has served on the commission since 1968. Her late husband,
Joseph R. Knowland waschairman of the commission from 1956 to 1960.
All three are Republicans. Their appointments are subject to
Senate confirmation.
Commissioners receive necessary expenses,
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-24-72
#37
Governor Ronald Reagan today appointed Edward H. Gauer of San
Francisco and reappointed George N. Keyston of San Mateo, to four-year
terms on the board of the 1A District Agricultural Association (Cow
Palace).
Gauer, a San Francisco civic leader and board chairman emeritus of
Roos/Atkins, will succeed Walter T. Rodman of Woodside who has resigned.
Gauer lives at 2761 Scott Street, San Francisco.
Keyston, a Burlingame businessman, has served on the board since
1968. He lives at 441 Edgewood Road, San Mateo.
Both men are Republicans.
Board members are entitled to necessary expenses.
#######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN.
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-24-72
#38
Governor Ronald Reagan today named Mrs. Thaya M. Enloe of
121 South Oregon Street, Dorris, to fill an unexpired term on the
board of the 10A District Agricultural Association (Tulelake-Butte
Valley Fair).
Mrs. Enloe, a secretary of the Butte Valley High School, will
succeed Robert T. Ryan of Dorris, who has resigned. His term ends
in January, 1974.
Mrs. Enloe is a Republican.
Board members receive necessary expenses.
#####
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-24-72
#39
Governor Ronald Reagan today announced he has asked for the
resignation of Kerry Mulligan, chairman of the California Water
Resources Control Board, because Mulligan has engaged in certain outside
activities which are "incompatible with the responsibilities of an
executive official of state government."
The governor took the action when he learned that Mulligan has
served as a consultant for a private engineering firm which has sought
contracts with public agencies outside California.
"Such a business relationship is incompatible with the
responsibilities of an executive official of state government, " the
governor said. "It is the policy of this administration that the
professional activities of such officials shall be limited to the
public duties and responsibilities of their office, Any compromise is
unacceptable, " he added.
The governor's action was taken irrespective of any allegations
or evidence which may have been the basis for the issuance of warrants
yesterday by Honolulu officials for Mulligan's arrest.
"I sincerely hope the criminal allegations themselves are untrue.
In any event, I believe the action I have taken is necessary and
proper," Governor Reagan said.
######
EJG
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Sacramento, California
MEMO TO THE PRESS
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-25-72
January 25, 1972
Attributed to Governor's Office spokesman:
Before anyone is appointed to public office by the governor,
their outside activities are thoroughly discussed with them to
determine whether or not those activities might conceivably
conflict with the appointee's responsibility and duty to protect
the public interest. In addition, all appointees are required to
divest themselves of any direct or indirect interest which might
conflict with their official duties.
The clear intention and direct implication of these precautions
are expected to be sufficiently explicit to prevent the appointees
from subsequently engaging in such activities.
However, after five years in office, the governor today
directed each Agency Secretary to once more go over the subject
of outside activities and possible conflict of interest with each
individual appointee in their agency.
In addition, he has directed Agriculture and Services Agency
Secretary Earl Coke to meet with representatives of the State Personnel
Board to review the current regulations governing outside activities
of all state employees.
State Department of is Lial Welfare
#6-72
Sacramento, California
Contact: John A. Svahn
January 25, 1972
445-2077
State Social Welfare Director Robert B. Carleson today announced
the sharpest yearly December drop in California's welfare caseload in
thirty years down 71,700 persons from December of 1970.
He said there were 2,189,480 on the state's welfare rolls in
December, 1970, compared to only 2,117,732 persons receiving welfare
last month, the most dramatic reduction since December of 1941 when
America's involvement in World ar II shrunk California's welfare rolls
by 200,000 under the December, 1940 level.
Carleson, in a year-end review of the welfare picture in the state,
said last month's total welfare caseload held virtually steady---only
665 recipients more than the November caseload figure of 2,117,067. He
called the increase "infinitesimal," since it amounts to only three ten
thousandths of one percent of the total number of persons on welfare in
California.
Carleson also noted that the total cost of welfare in California
went down by $1,121,798 between November and December from $163,187,200
in November to $162,064,402 in December.
"We had anticipated this type of leveling off during the peak
winter months,' he said. "Nevertheless, the ever-so-slight augmentation
is infinitesimal when one recalls that the number of Californians on
welfare increased by some 60,000 persons between November and December
of 1970 just a year ago."
Carleson credited Governor Reagan's far-reaching welfare reform
program- especially the administrative reforms which were implemented
by his department during the year---with having enabled the state to
bring welfare back under control during the last nine months of 1971.
He noted that until the reforms were put into effect, California's
welfare caseload was increasing at the staggering rate of 50,000 a month.
"Had welfare gone unreformed in California," " he said, "State Social
Welfare Department projections show that there would now be nearly one
half million (495,000) more persons on our welfare rolls than there
actually are. The cost of the increase in caseload would have amounted
to an additional $120 million burden on the taxpayers, he added.
Carleson said the cumulative drop in the number of recipients on
welfare since March totals 176,000 largest yearly drop in postwar
history in California.
He said, "1971 will go down in history as the year California
in
the face of tough odds and dire predictions that it couldn't be done
brought welfare back under control, without throwing in the towel and
tossing the problem in the lap of the federal bureaucracy. A massive
and costly federally controlled program is not the solution to the
welfare problem. Reform can and must be accomplished at the state level,
and our reforms are pointing the way, Carleson said.
#####
State of California
Human Relations Agency
unagement Information Systems
January 18, 1972
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE CASELOADS AND EXPENDITURES
December 1971
Recipients
Payments
Program
Dec. p/
Nov.
Dec.
Dec. p/
Nov.
Dec.
1971
1971
1970
1971
1971
1970
Grand total
2,117,732
2,117,067
2,189,480
$162,064,402
$163,187,200
$159,759,311
Cash grant recipients
2,062,131
2,059,181
2,088,495
158,373,081
159,391,917
154,504,085
General home relief
55,601
57,886
100,985
3,691,321
3,795,283
5,255,226
CASH GRANT PROGRAMS
Average monthly payments
:
AGED PERSONS (OAS)
315,286
315,462
321,713
$110.74
$105.95
$115.27
BLIND PERSONS (AB/APSB)
13,820
13,940
13,949
155.83
151.70
160.64
DISABLED PERSONS (ATD)
190,778
191,441
184,889
132.15
129.33
131.81
-
FAMILIES WITH
DEPENDENT CHILDREN
Family groups (AFDC-FG) b/
children
907,721
908,874
888,064
84.10
87.32
78.53
cases
386,465
386,983
363,989
197.52
205.08
191.60
total persons
1,273,241
1,273,253
1,238,422
59.95
62.33
56.31
Unemployed cases (AFDC-U)
children
141,683
139,780
179,142
82.85
89.37
78.27
cases
50,766
50,131
61,193
231.24
249.20
229.14
total persons
235,490
231,916
295,628
49.85
53.87
47.43
Boarding Homes and
Institutions (AFDC-BHI):
children
33,516
33,169
33,894
184.10
178.44
155.50
GENERAL HOME RELIEF
Total persons
55,601
57,886
100,985
$ 66.39
$ 65.56
$ 52.04
Family cases
2,459
2,336
14,492
86.911
80.65
70.95
Persons in family cases
7,491
7,353
51,069
28.53
25.62
20.13
One-person cases
48,110
50,533
49,916
72.28
71.38
84.68
Unemployed in labor force (%)
6.1
5.9
7.1
XXX
XXX
XXX
(Seasonally adjusted)
(6.1)
(6.2)
(7.2)
XXX
XXX
XXX
Civilian population (excluding
military)
20,117,000
20,091,800
19,833,500
XXX
XXX
XXX
al Cash grant averages for adult aids computed from "net" person counts.
b/ Excludes U cases.
Preliminary.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO..
RELEASE: Inmediate
Sacramento, California
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
1-25-72
#40
Governor Ronald Reagan today announced that 15,000 California
motorists with clean driving records have been rewarded with one-year
extensions of their drivers licenses, and offered further extensions
if they continue to drive safely.
Another 15,000 who recently had accidents or traffic convictions
have been offered drivers license extensions if they show clean driving
records in the future.
"This good driver incentive plan" the governor said "may
drastically alter the concept that all drivers--good or bad--should
have their licenses renewed at standard intervals.
"If our pilot program with these 30,000 drivers works out as
expected, the Department of Motor Vehicles will be able to devote less
time to motorists who drive safely year after year, and concentrate
more thoroughly on the small percentage of problem drivers.
"Each year approximately 75 percent of California's driving
population is not involved in an accident or convicted of a moving
traffic violation. Presently, there is no program in effect which
gives recognition to the drivers who maintain these good records year
after year."
Last year the California Legislature passed a resolution, authored
by Senator Tom Carrell, which asked DMV to "conduct a study of a safe
driving incentive plan under which the drivers license expiration date
for drivers with clear driving records would be extended without any
examination." The study will be a part of the Inter-Agency Highway
Safety Program funded by the Federal Highway Administration.
Acting on the resolution, DMV randomly selected from its files
15,000 motorists whose preceding one year records showed no accidents
and no traffic convictions. Each was mailed a congratulatory letter
and a certificate extending his driver's license for one year. Each
letter also offered additional extensions to those who maintained clear
records.
Another 15,000 letters were sent to selected motorists whose
driving records were less than perfect. These letters offer each
driver a one-year driver's license extension provided no reportable
accidents or convictions enter his statewide record for a year.
"There is a good chance that the state can adopt a 'Good Driver
Incentive Program' permanently, assuming that the selected motorists
perform as expected," said DMV Director Robert C. Cozens.
The "Good Driver Certificate" is designed for the driver to carry
with his driver's license. Law enforcement officers have been alerted
to the fact that the certificate is a valid extension of the matching
driver's license.
The legislature has asked for a report on the effectiveness of
the incentive plan by early 1974.
# # #
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: ediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-27-72
#41
The following letter was received by the governor's office today
from Jack Hatton, Chief of the Division of Industrial Safety.
"Dear Governor Reagan:
"On January 13, 1972, an announcement was made at the hearing held
in Sacramento by the Assembly Select Committee on Industrial Safety,
Jack R. Fenton, Chairman, that I had informed your office of my offer
to resign as Chief of the Division of Industrial Safety. At that time
the Divsion's operations were being severely criticized. Immediately
prior to my announcement, I was called to your office and the Division's
position at the hearing was discussed in a meeting attended by Earl Coke,
William C. Hern and myself. As a result of the discussion, a decision
was made that I proceed to make the announcement.
"Since the time of my appointment, almost five years ago, it has been
a privilege and a real source of satisfaction to work in an administrative
capacity with this fine Division, which has an enviable nation-wide
reputation. Within its ranks are some of the most capable safety
engineers in the land.
"Since assuming this important post, I have tried to be ever mindful
of the responsibilities of the job in preventing injuries to workmen
within this vast state of some 400,000 places of employment and over
8 million employees. Because of the combined efforts of management,
labor and government, assisted by the Division's staff, it is a pleasure
to report to you that during your administration California's annual
industrial disabling injury rates have made new all-time lows. Further-
more, we are glad to report that the Division and the Industrial Safety
Board have revised or adopted a record number of safety orders and
regulations during your administration. During 1970, as a result of the
efforts of the Division's field engineers, more than 275,000 unsafe
conditions were corrected within the state's industrial establishments.
These, Governor, are accomplishments we can all be proud of.
"I would also like to tell you that many members of the Division's
supervisory people and many of the field engineers as well as myself
are not in agreement with the charges made against the Division during
the recent hearings.
"Unfortunately, prior to the hearing neither the Division supervisory
staff nor I were made aware by the Assembly Committee of the specific
cases that were to be discussed. As a consequence, the Division's
supervisory people did not have an opportunity to review the files and
familiarize themselves with the facts. Some of the ten or twelve cases
discussed were several years old and could not be remembered in detail
since the Division conducts some 135,000 inspections per year. Hence,
some answers to specific questions posed by Committee members had to be
"I do not recall" or "I can't remember." Such responses were branded
by the Committee as being evasive, which was not the case at all. The
hearing would have been more fair and objective had the Assembly Committee
advised the Division administration of the specific cases that were to be
discussed.
"However, in the final analysis, it is important that the Division's
operations continue to be successful and that it receive the support it
is entitled to. It is for this reason, Governor Reagan, that I restate
my offer to resign, if by so doing the Division will be helped.
Sincerely,
Jack Hatton,
Chief, Industrial Safety Division."
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
RELEASE:
Imr
liate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-27-72
#42
Governor Ronald Reagan today announced he has accepted the
resignation of Jack F. Hatton as chief of the Division of Industrial
Safety in the Department of Industrial Relations.
The governor said he is asking Roy a. Bell, chief of the Division
of Industrial Accidents during the past five years, to take over Hatton's
duties as chief of the Division of Industrial Safety for the time being.
In his letter accepting Hatton's resignation, Governor Reagan said
the administration has "been planning some management realignment of
the Department of Industrial Relations ever since the budget discussions
last fall.
"I accept your offer to resign so that the reorganization can begin
immediately," the governor said.
Here is the text of Governor Reagan's letter to Hatton:
"I appreciate your letter of this date, explaining the circumstances
surrounding your offer to resign.
"As you know, we have been planning some management realignment of
the Department of Industrial Relations ever since the budget discussions
last fall. As submitted to the legislature, the final budget provides
for this realignment to be implemented beginning July 1.
"Under the circumstances, however, I feel we should begin the
management realignment immediately so no more time will be lost. The
necessary changes in the budget for the current year will be requested
from the legislature when the current reviews are completed.
"Therefore, I accept your offer to resign so that the reorganization
can begin immediately.
"Thank you for your services and best wishes in the future, the
governor said.
The two divisions Bell will direct deal specifically with industrial
safety. The Division of Industrial Accidents adjudicates claims following
industrial injuries. The Division of Industrial Safety emphasizes
accident prevention, by adopting, inspecting and enforcing safety
procedures.
Bell, 60, was head of all safety, workmen's compensation and medical
programs for Hughes Aircraft Company from 1952 until he was named by the
governor as chief of the Industrial Accident Division in January, 1967.
- 1 -
#42
He was west coast manager for the National Management Association
from 1947-52.
He taught safety administration classes part time at Cal Tech's
Institute of Industrial Relations from 1962-65. He has been active in
National Safety Council affairs for the past 19 years and is a former
chairman of the Aerospace Safety Committee of the Aerospace Industry.
He resides in Foster City.
Hatton, 64, was chief safety engineer for the Lockheed-California
Company before joining the administration in 1967.
######
EJG
OFFICE OF THE GOVE OR
RELEASE:
Immediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-27-72
#43
The following message from Governor Ronald Reagan today was
delivered to members of the California Congressional Delegation in
Washington, D.C.
"Urgency of reopening West Coast ports is vital to economic well
being of California's agriculture, industry and labor. Urge your support
of immediate hearings on HJ Resolution 1025 which is needed to terminate
the immediate strike and to overcome interruptions of future foreign
trade.
"Export of California's agricultural products exceeds $550 million
annually. Direct losses from 1971 West Coast dock strike approximated
$23.8 million to California agriculture. Resumption of dock strike
indicates agricultural export losses in direct costs will exceed $2
million weekly.
"Continuation of strike will result in permanent loss of agricultural
and industrial foreign markets, as well as incalculable losses to
California labor force. In addition are indirect marketing costs which
substantially add to total loss.
"Domestic market prices are depressed from additional supplies which
normally flow into foreign markets. Likewise, California is dependent
upon imported materials used in production and processing.
"Please counter any efforts detected to delay or obstruct rapid
passage of this bill. All Californians need it as soon as possible."
#####
EJG
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: ...mediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-28-72
#44
Governor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Clare W. Jones of Fresno
and Ira J. Chrisman of Visalia to the California Water Commission,
subject to Senate confirmation.
Jones, a Firebaugh rancher, has served on the commission since
1968 and Chrisman, a Visalia cattleman, has been a commissioner since
1960.
Jones lives at 1045 West San Ramon Avenue, Fresno. He is a
Republican.
Chrisman, a Democrat, lives at 1300 Westcott Street, Visalia.
Commissioners serve four-year terms and are paid necessary expenses
and $50 per day while on official duty. Their salaries may not exceed
$2,000 in any one fiscal year.
#####
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: In ediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-28-72
#45
Governor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Robert E. Herdman, a
Solvang rancher, to a four-year term on the California Highway
Commission, subject to Senate confirmation.
Herdman, who lives at 753 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang, has served
on the commission since 1968. He is a Republican.
Commissioners receive necessary expenses.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: In adiate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-28-72
#46
Governor Ronald Reagan today named West Orange County Municipal
Judge Lloyd E. Blanpied, Jr., to the Orange County Superior Court.
Judge Blanpied, 48, will receive an annual salary of $35,080.
He succeeds Judge Howard Cameron, who has retired.
Appointed to the West Orange County Judicial District Municipal
Court by Governor Reagan in 1969, Judge Blanpied previously practiced
law in the Los Angeles area for 18 years.
He has been active in Orange County civic, legal and youth
organizations and has served as a trustee of the Newport-Mesa Unified
School District.
A native of Los Angeles, Judge Blanpied is a graduate of the
University of California at Los Angeles and earned his law degree from
Stanford University.
He and his wife Orrilla have two children. The family home is
at Newport Beach.
Judge Blanpied is a Republican.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: In adiate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-28-72
#47
Downey Municipal Judge William E. McGinley was appointed to the
Los Angeles County Superior Court today by Governor Ronald Reagan.
Judge McGinly, 45, a Republican, succeeds Judge H. Burton Noble,
who has retired. He will receive an annual salary of $35,080.
Named to the Downey Judicial District Municipal Court by Governor
Reagan in 1969, Judge McGinley previously served as a Los Angeles
County Deputy District Attorney for 16 years.
He is a native of Los Angeles and earned his law degree from the
University of Southern California.
He and his wife Margaret have two children. The family home is
in La Mirada.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: I ediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-28-72
#48
Governor Ronald Reagan today announced he has asked State Finance
Director Verne Orr to seek immediate approval from the Federal Pay
Board of state employee merit salary increases which were frozen during
President Nixon's Phase I wage and price freeze.
State employee merit salary adjustments which fell due during the
freeze---August 15 through November 13--could not be paid, by order of
the Federal Cost of Living Council. However, the increases have been
paid since the end of Phase I.
The governor's action, if approved, would enable the state to pay
retroactively merit salary adjustments which have not yet been provided
for the Phase I period.
Orr noted that the state has, for many years, granted merit salary
increases for deserving employees. Most state positions are in steps
and employees are entitled to five percent merit advances until the
top step of each position is reached, providing that satisfactory
improved skill within the position has been demonstrated.
Concerning merit salary increases, the Phase I freeze affected only
those employees at less than the top step whose employment anniversary
date fell between August 15 and November 13, Orr said.
#####
EJG
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
RELEASE: Im diate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-28-72
#49
Governor Ronald Reagan today urged the legislature to memorialize
Congress to settle the west coast dock strike immediately.
The governor also sent a telegram to Senator Alan Cranston urging
him to "push" legislation to settle the dock strike now.
"I am shocked at news reports quoting you as saying that dock strike
settlement legislation can be deferred for a month, " the governor's
telegram said.
The wire to Cranston also said:
"This stike is costing all Californians millions of dollars every
day in agricultural and industrial export business, as well as
hamstringing those dependent upon imports.
"I am increasingly concerned with what seems to be your unconcern
for job providers in agriculture, business and industry. But I urge you
to consider the plight of all working Californians, particularly those
whose jobs are directly and perhaps permanently being adversely affected.
For their sake, if for no other reason, please reconsider your position
and push this legislation with all possible speed.
"Your constituents cannot afford further delay, " the governor's
wire concluded.
/President
In another message, to Assembly Speaker Bob Moretti and Senate
Pro Tem James R. Mills, the governor said:
"All Californians are being severely hurt by the prolonged dock
strike. I have met separately with both parties to the dispute, but
could not persuade either of them.
"I asked the President to request congressional relief. He has
done SO.
"Senator Packwood and Congressman Quie have introduced companion
resolutions designed to settle the dispute immediately. I have asked all
of our Congressmen to support these resolutions.
"I urge you to memorialize the Congress as soon as possible, by
whatever joint, non-partisan action would be most effective, that the dock
strike is of vital concern to all of us, and its immediate settlement by
congressional resolution is our only hope for relief regardless of
whether or not the strike negotiations resume."
######
EJG
OFFICE OF THE GOVER
R
MEMO TO THE RESS
Sacramento, California
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
1-28-72
#50
GOVERNOR'S SCHEDULE
January 31, 1972
through
February 6, 1972
Monday, January 31
Depart for Washington, D.C.
Overnight - Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, February 1
10:00 a.m.
Testimony before Senate Finance Committee re
H.R. 1, Room 222, New Senate Office Building
Evening
Dinner at The White House
Overnight - Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, February 2
Return to Los Angeles
7:30 p.m.
National Association of Professional Educators' ,
Dinner - Palladium. (Speech)
Overnight - Sacramento
Thursday, February 3
No public appointments scheduled
Overnight - Los Angeles
Friday, February 4
10:00 a.m.
PRESS CONFERENCE - Century Plaza Hotel
2:30 p.m.
Taping of KNBC's "News Conference", NBC
Studios, Burbank
Evening
California Newspaper Publishers Association
Annual Dinner, Century Plaza Hotel. (Remarks
and 0 & A)
Overnight - Los Angeles
Saturday, February 5
7:30 p.m.
California Young Republicans' Convention,
Sheraton Palace Hotel, San Francisco
Overnight - Sacramento
Sunday, February 6
No appointments scheduled
Overnight - Sacramento
# # #
PB
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: 1 ediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-28-72
#51
Governor Ronald Reagan today issued the following statement:
"Yesterday our representatives in Paris submitted an offer for
settlement of the tragically long war in Vietnam, an offer unique in the
annals of international relations. Under its terms there is no victor,
no vanquished, no vengeance, no retribution. The killing stops, men
return to their homes and this nation turns its great capacity for
building to restoration of all the wartorn lands of Southeast Asia
ally and enemy alike.
"Those to whom this offer was made have heard the terms but they
listen for something else. They listen to hear if the people of America
affirm that offer. If instead there is only the discordant babble
they have heard for so long then young men will go on fighting and dying.
"The American people must make themselves heard if they truly want
peace.
"In this day of modern and instant communications, the opinions of
the American people in every village and city are constantly monitored
by Hanoi. It is time for Hanoi to hear what the majority of the American
people truly think, rather than listening to individual, self-appointed
spokesmen.
"I therefore urge the people of California to show the way. We can
do this by speaking through our various organizations, beginning with
our political parties and including churches, service clubs, unions,
schools, trade associations and governmental bodies at city, county and
state level.
"Let resolutions be passed urging North Vietnam to join in the
proposed program for permanent peace in Southeast Asia. Let them know
our nation is united behind this unselfish proposal. I am asking the
Senate and the Assembly to pass such resolutions."
#####
EJG
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: Im. diate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-28-72
#52
Governor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of Los
Angeles Municipal Court Judge Robert C. Nye to the Los Angeles County
Superior Court.
Judge Nye, 51, a Republican, will receive an annual salary of
$35,080. He succeeds Judge Beach Vasey, who has retired.
Appointed to the Los Angeles Judicial District Municipal Court in
1971 by Governor Reagan, Judge Nye had previously served for three years
as a Los Angeles County Superior Court Commissioner.
He was also in the private practice of law in the Los Angeles area
for 15 years and served for five years as a prosecutor in the Los Angeles
City Attorney's office.
A native of Los Angeles, Judge Nye is a graduate of Loyola University
and earned his law degree from the University.
His home is in Los Angeles.
#####
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
RELEASE:
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
7 A.M.
TUESDAY,
445-4571
1-31-72
February 1, 1972
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE.
#53
Governor Ronald Reagan today made the following statement before
the Senate Finance Committee in Washington, D.C.
(Also attached is additional material which the governor presented
to the committee).
"Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity
to testify here today---particularly since I have never before had this
privilege and honor---and also because I consider the welfare problem
the gravest domestic issue our Nation faces.
"Two years ago welfare was out of control nationally and California
was no exception. At that time HR 16311, and later HR 1, were presented
as a solution to the problem. One of its authors responded publicly to a
critical question by answering that 'it's better than sitting on our hands
and doing nothing.'
"I share the President's desire to reform welfare and certainly
share his belief that there should be a restoration of the work ethic.
However, as you are aware, I have had some very serious reservations
about several of the approaches to welfare reform embodied in HR 1.
"In August 1970 I presented to this Committee a statement regarding
the version of HR 16311 which was pending before your Committee. Many
of the provisions of that bill to which I objected in my statement are
in HR 1.
"My remarks today will concentrate on 6 areas of major concern I
have with HR 1 and with the need for federal action in achieving real
welfare reform. I believe that:
1. States are better equipped than the federal government to
administer effective welfare reforms if they are given broad authority
to utilize administrative and policy discretion.
2. A system of a guaranteed income, whatever it may be called,
would not be an effective reform of welfare, but would tend to create an
even greater human problem.
3. A limit should be set on the gross income a family can receive
and still remain eligible for welfare benefits.
- 1 -
#53
4.
For all those who are employable, a requirement be adopted
that work in the community be performed as a condition of eligibility for
welfare benefits without additional compensation.
5. The greatest single problem in welfare today is the breakdown
of family responsibility. Strong provision should be made to insure
maximum support from responsible absent parents.
6. A simplified system of pensions should be established for the
needy aged, blind, and the totally and permanently disabled.
"In August of 1970 the size and cost of welfare had grown into a
monster which was devouring many of California's programs and was failing
to meet the needs of those who, through no fault of their own, have
nowhere else to turn but to government for subsistence. We didn't just
become aware of this problem in 1970 but our earlier efforts to deal with
it weren't too successful; perhaps because we relied on professional
welfare experts to propose solutions and all too often they were more
familiar with what they were sure they could not do, so the situation
became worse instead of better. Finally, to avert a fiscal and human
disaster, I asked several members of my administration, who had proven
themselves in other state administrative posts, to form a task force and
to devote full time for as long as it took to see if and how real reform
of welfare could be developed and implemented. They expanded their task
force to include experienced attorneys and other management and fiscal
experts from the private sector. These men and women served on a
volunteer basis for four months reviewing federal laws, state laws, and
federal and state regulations. They interviewed over 700 people involved
in administering welfare in California at all levels, and developed
proposals and ideas for a realistic and humane reform of welfare.
"In early March of 1971, not quite a year ago, we presented the
legislature with the most comprehensive proposal for welfare reform ever
attempted in California and perhaps the nation. All in all, there were
over 70 major points involving administrative, regulatory, and legislative
changes.
"We had already gone ahead in January with those changes we could
make administratively and we continued through the spring and summer until
the legislature finally agreed to most of the statutory changes we'd
asked for, plus others which were negotiated,
- 2 -
#53
"It should be pointed out that we weren't exactly exploring
uncharted land. Our task force findings had led to the conclusion that
the basic original structure of the welfare system was sound. It was
based on a concept of aid to the needy aged, the blind and disabled and
to children deprived of parental support. Able-bodied adults were
expected to support themselves, their children and their aged parents
to the extent of their capabilities. The system was meant to be
administered by the states and counties with the federal government
sharing the cost.
"But we had also learned that, almost from the start, this basic
structure had been undermined, sometimes by federal or state law, but
more often by regulations, state and federal. Regulations drawn up by
the federal agency administering welfare reflected the philosophy of the
permanent employees rather than an interpretation of the law. Thus the
original legislative intent was often distorted.
"Back in January when we began, there were plenty of experts telling
us that no state could reform welfare; that the statutory, regulatory
and administrative constraints were too many and too inflexible. Figures
now indicate that they were wrong.
"According to HEW, national welfare and Medicaid costs combined
increased last year by 27 percent. In California, we estimate an increase
in welfare and Medicaid costs of only 5.9 percent next year. And that
doesn't tell the full story of what has happened and is still happening
because of our reforms. We suspect we may be playing it too safe.
"For several years up until last April, California's case load
increased more than 40,000 persons per month. This held true even when
the economy was booming and we had full employment. Our projections
were that by this last December we would have added another 495,000 to
the rolls. Not only did this not happen, but in December we had 176,000
fewer welfare recipients than we had in March, 1971. In that nine month
period we have reduced spending, federal, state and local, by more than
$120,000,000 below what it would have been without the reform. Though
the December figure increased by a few hundred recipients, it was 60,000
less than the increase in December of 1970, and the lowest December
increase in 30 years.
- 3 -
#53
"Because of these savings, we have achieved one of our primary
goals---we have been able to increase the grants to the truly needy.
An AFDC family of four, to cite an example, receiving $221 last spring
now receives $280 a month. A cost of living increase was granted in
December to the aged, blind and disabled. In the current fiscal year,
we will spend $338,000,000 less in federal, state and county funds than
would have been necessary without the reform. In our 72-73 budget I
mentioned a moment ago, we are asking for $708,000,000 less than would
have been required without reform.
"Let me stress once again---the important thing is we didn't find
any new magic formula. We simply overhauled the present structurally
sound welfare system. We insured adequate aid to the aged, the blind,
the disabled, and children who are deprived of parental support and
reduced aid to the non-needy with realistic work incentives so that
funds could be redirected to the truly needy. Our program requires
employable recipients to accept work if offered, and that if jobs are
not available, to work in the community in order to remain eligible.
Absent fathers are now legally indebted to the county for benefits paid
to their families with a provision for wage attachments and property
liens, if necessary. Fiscal incentives are provided to help counties
trace absent fathers.
"But maybe most important is the fact that the California plan
retains most of the administration and responsibility for an effective
and efficient welfare program at the level closest to those who benefit
and those who must pay the bill.
"Members of our task force found that with provision for reasonable
administrative discretion, combined with fiscal responsibility and
discipline, the most effective administrative efforts in California
were those carried on in the medium and smaller sized counties. We
retained the concept of state supervision and county administration of
welfare on a partnership basis.
"In spite of our reforms, many of the greatest loopholes which still
permit abuse, inhibit effective state action, and which have led to a
loss of public confidence, remain in federal law and federal regulations--
mainly regulation. We see a fiscal and administrative disaster if the
administration of the welfare system is centralized here in Washington
as proposed in HR 1. As you've already heard, HEW claims that HR 1
would save California $234,000,000. Actually, it would increase our
costs by nearly $100,000,000.
- 4 -
#53
"We are presently being challenged in court on nine of our eighty-
four changes on the grounds that we are in violation of federal law.
Regardless of the outcome, we believe we are not in violation of
Congressional intent before it was reinterpreted in regulations.
"To get back to the matter of HR 1, I respectfully urge this
Committee to eliminate the proposal to provide welfare benefits to intact
families with employed fathers. I am not unaware of nor insensitive to
the plight of the low earner but I believe relief to those families can
be provided in the form of Social Security and income tax exemptions.
It doesn't seem right to reduce a man's take-home pay with taxes and then
send him a government dole which robs him of the feeling of accomplishment
and dignity which comes from providing for his family by his own efforts.
By the same token, we feel that the able-bodied recipient should be given
the maximum opportunity to support his family by doing work in his
community which will benefit the community. At the same time it develops
and maintains his ability to perform effectively in a regular job when
it becomes available. We don't suggest this in any punitive way nor are
we advocating useless make-work chores. Not only will the individual
benefit from participating in useful work, but those who foot the bill
will be more apt to approve if they see community services being
performed. If I could anticipate a possible question concerning the
usefulness of such a community work force let me just mention one of the
many possibilities. The Los Angeles school system reported last week
that vandalism was costing that one city alone $50,000,000 a year. Night
watchmen might change that.
"I was pleased to see that the Talmadge Amendment to the tax bill
was adopted by Congress and signed into law by the President. Most of
the features of the Talmadge Amendment parallel very closely the
"separation of employables" portion of our California welfare reform
program. However, many of the so-called work incentives in the present
system, and in HR 1 as passed by the House of Representatives, continue
to insure aid to the non-needy, and able-bodied adults are not required
to work in the community.
"We recommend that a realistic and absolute ceiling be placed on the
income that a family may have and still be eligible for welfare. The
experts tell us on one hand (and I believe them) that all but a few
welfare recipients would prefer to work if work or jobs were available.
- 5 -
#53
Yet, on the other hand, they tell us that we cannot expect someone to be
willing to take a job or go to work if his welfare grant is significantly
diminished. These expert opinions obviously are in conflict. I propose
a combination of work incentives including a mandatory work requirement
and, in the case of a mother-headed family, reasonable child care expenses
and a portion of her income could be exempted until she has stabilized
her work situation. However, an absolute ceiling on the gross income
a family may receive and still be eligible for welfare should be set at
150 percent of the standard of need. The proposed limitation of work
related expenses contained in HR 1 should be retained.
"We believe that the present grant sharing ratio between the state
and the federal government should be retained. However, since
eligibility of 85 percent of the caseload is due to an absent father,
real fiscal relief can be provided the states by helping them solve the
problem. We propose that the federal government adopt a plan similar to
California's which would finance the effort to locate absent fathers and
enforce compliance with child-support laws. The best source of funds
would be to permit the states or counties to retain 100 percent of the
federal share of grants recovered through collections from absent fathers
and through efforts of fraud control units.
"I support the concept of a simplified system of pensions for the
needy aged, blind, and totally and permanently disabled. Sums of money
spent on costly and complicated eligibility and grant determination systems
for these categories would be better spent in increasing benefits to these
people, many of whom have provided adequately for themselves during their
productive and working days, but who have found that inflation has wiped
out the fruits of their past accomplishments.
"The effectiveness of the states' and counties' administration of
welfare has come under heavy criticism and attack. Perhaps in a number of
instances this may be justified. However, it is almost impossible to
hold a state accountable for effective administrative practices and
policies under the present straight jacket of federal statutes, court
interpretations, regulations, and abuses of administrative discretion.
Give the states the broadest authority to administer the system with proper
goals and objectives and then hold us accountable for our effectiveness
in meeting these goals and objectives. Senator Curtis' approach in S-2037
to severely constrain the power of federal administrators and return
authority to the states is definitely going in the right direction.
- 6 -
#53
"I am submitting at this time to you a more detailed listing of
amendments that we would offer to HR 1 and urge your favorable
consideration of them. They are the product of our experience with an
actual reform program that is succeeding in California, they are not
theory. I believe that we have demonstrated in California that a
responsible approach to reform of the present welfare system is possible
and that given tools, discretion, and adequate financial assistance,
states and counties are in the best position to provide a welfare system
patterned to meet the real needs of those in America who, through no
fault of their own, have nowhere else to turn but to government.
"What California has done--other states can do.
"Welfare needs a purpose to provide for the needy of course
but more than that, to salvage these our fellow citizens, to make them
self-sustaining and as quickly as possible, independent of welfare.
There has been something terribly wrong with a program that grows ever
larger even when prosperity for everyone else is increasing.
"We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave
welfare, not by how many more are added.
"Thank you."
#####
EJG
- 7 -
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO
TESTIMONY BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
BEFORE THE SENATE FINANCE
COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 1, 1972
PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION
The following legislative proposals for the U.S. Congress set forth problems
in current federal law and proposed changes as related to public assistance.
No attempt has been undertaken in this listing to deal directly or exclusively
with those proposals found in HR-1.
The proposals pertain specifically to the following issues:
1. State option for administration.
2. Relief to low-income families
3. Overall limit for AFDC family income.
4. 30 and 1/3 disregard in AFDC.
5. Work-related expenses.
6. Community work program.
7. Employables program.
8. Sanctions imposed for refusal to work or train.
9. Fiscal incentives for efficient management.
10. Increased federal reimbursement for child support activities.
11. District Attorney costs in enforcing family support.
lla. Recipient's failure to cooperate with law enforcement agencies.
11b. Federal participation in costs of District Attorney welfare fraud
investigation and collection.
12. Aliens on welfare.
13. Fair hearings.
14. The 18- to 21-year-old adult.
15. Modification of statewideness requirement of social services.
16. Vendor payments of non-recurring items of special need in AFDC.
17. Simplified eligibility.
18. Denial of AFDC where there is a continuing child-parent relationship
with non-related adult.
19. Wage attachment for federal employees.
20. Dependents for military personnel on welfare.
21. Deny aid to strikers.
22. Marital and community property resources.
23. Confidentiality.
1
STATE OPTION FOR ADMINISTRATION
OBJECTIVE: To provide for a free, unimpeded choice by each State as to whether
it wishes to provide for administration of public assistance programs by the
State, designated local governmental units, or by the Federal government.
DESCRIPTION: The federal statutes should be amended to provide the state
options as to the method of administration desired, without variable incentives
connected with the choices.
PROBLEM: Most recent proposals for federal statute changes include strong fiscal
incentives - or disincentives - in connection with various options as to which
governmental unit should administer the welfare programs. These extraneous
influences prevent an objective consideration of which level of government in a
particular state can provide the best and most efficient governmental service.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: California experience with local governmental units
indicate that there are a number which are experienced, trained, with good
management leadership, which could assume full responsibility for administration
and do a better job than either the State or Federal governments. On the other
hand some counties may not be well-equipped for the job and should not administer
a program which could be better done by State agencies.
2
RELIEF TO LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
OBJECTIVE: To improve the financial status of fully employed low-income
families.
DESCRIPTION: Exempt low-income families from the federal and state income
tax (including withholding) and provide them a rebate of their social security
taxes, including the employer's contribution thereto.
PROBLEM: Many fully employed families work for compensation which is insuffi-
cient to meet their minimum needs. This becomes more severe as the size of
the family increases. Because they are fully employed, they are ineligible
for the AFDC programs. Rather than create a new category of welfare recipients,
it is proposed that the situation of such low-income families be improved by
providing automatic exemptions from state and federal income taxes and an
automatic rebate of social security taxes including the employer's contri-
bution thereto. The solution concerning these families is to provide a better
return for their efforts through such exemptions and rebates rather than place
them on public relief unrelated to their work efforts and productivity.
3
OVERALL LIMIT ON AFDC FAMILY INCOME
OBJECTIVE: Establish reasonable fiscal controls, and limit eligibility
to truly needy families according to a standard which can be accepted
by the nonwelfare wage earner and taxpayer.
DESCRIPTION: In determining "eligibility" (as differentiated from
"amount of aid paid") apply a gross income limitation of 150% of the
state's standard of need. Anyone whose gross income exceeds 150% of
the need standard is not eligible and does not need "work incentives."
If gross income is less than 150% of need, then the various exemptions
and work incentives are applied to determine how much the aid payment
should be.
PROBLEM: Earned income exemptions are available to recipients once
they become eligible for welfare. Thus, families already on public
assistance end up remaining on welfare, even after the breadwinner
secures well-paid employment. This occurs because the first $30 and
1/3 of any additional income plus all work-related expenses are exempted
in determining continued welfare eligibility and size of the cash grant
allowed. To correct this, an absolute limit should be placed on the
amount of gross spendable income a family may have and still remain on
public assistance. This limit should be 150% of the "needs standard"
as set by state regulations. This will require an amendment to Social
Security Act Section 402(a) (8) in order to place a realistic ceiling
on the amount of income a recipient may receive and still remain eligible
for welfare.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: In one agricultural California county a survey
showed 95 AFDC families with gross earned income ranging from $500
to $1,344 per month, yet continuing eligible for public assistance
3
(Continued)
-2-
because of the various income exemptions. A more expanded five-county
survey showed 84% of AFDC working families had income ranging from $401 -
$1,334.41. California has requested a federal demonstration project in
order to apply and evaluate the 150% policy, which was incorporated in
the California Welfare Reform Act of 1971.
4
30-1/3 INCOME DISREGARD IN AFDC
OBJECTIVE: To modify the income disregard provision in AFDC.
DESCRIPTION: Modify the $30 and 1/3 of the income disregard provision to
base the computations on net earnings after deductions rather than gross
earnings as is now required. Incorporate the $30 into a standardized work
related expense.
PROBLEM: Section 402(a) (8) of the Social Security Act allows the exemption
each month of the first $30 and 1/3 of the remaining gross earned income of
an AFDC recipient in determining continued welfare eligibility and the amount
of the grant. This law has been interpreted by federal regulations as requiring
this deduction to be made from "gross" income instead of from "net" income
(after deduction of mandatory withhold items, work related and child care
expenses). This interpretation is one of the factors in the "high income"
welfare cases which keeps people in the caseload long after earnings exceed
actual need. Section 402(a) (8) should be amended to expressly require this
earned income deduction to be made from "net" income rather than "gross" income.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: Based on California grant standards utilizing the $30
and 1/3 exemptions from gross income there results a possible continuation on
grant status (mother and 3 children) until the gross income exceeds $1,500 per
month. This is by no definition a needv family. This interpretation was one
of the direct causes of a 7-county suit challenging state welfare regulations
last year. In common with other states, California has no administrative
discretion with respect to the application of AFDC earnings exemptions without
risking the withdrawal of federal financial participation in California's AFDC
program. We find it impossible to defend to irate taxpayers a computational
system which awards grants at these income levels.
5
WORK-RELATED EXPENSES
OBJECTIVE: Establish a reasonable fiscal control and simplify administrative
processes.
DESCRIPTION: Provide a flat standard allowance of $50 to cover reasonable costs
of employment, plus reasonable and necessary standard amounts for child care where
applicable. Such allowances would be automatically allowed for earned income
recipients.
PROBLEM: Social Security Act, Section 402(a) (7) and federal regulations allow
an AFDC recipient to deduct hundreds of dollars of work-related expenses from gross
income in determining eligibility for public assistance. A policy of allowing all
alleged costs of employment on an "as paid" basis requires an inordinate amount of
administrative time and excessive paperwork and, often, extensive verification
procedures. In addition, these become extra "exemptions" on top of the 30 and 1/3
incentives already provided. Thus, the large amounts provided on an "open ended"
basis contribute to the number of very high income cases that also receive a public
assistance grant. Federal law should provide a reasonable standard allowance for
this type of deduction, plus an allowance for child care.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: In the Welfare Reform Act of 1971 California established
a flat standard allowance of $50 to cover reasonable costs of employment. In
addition, there was a provision to cover reasonable and necessary amounts for child
care. This standard was implemented for a short period. It has been challenged
in the courts and temporarily enjoined as being in violation of the Federal law.
The injunction was issued on the basis that Federal law did not allow a standard
for work-related expenses.
5 (Cont'd)
- 2 -
During the period that it was in effect, the standard significantly simplified
the administration of eligibility and grant calculation.
6
COMMUNITY WORK PROGRAMS
OBJECTIVE: To establish a community work requirement for those recipients
who are not working full time or participating in a work or training program.
DESCRIPTION: To require employable AFDC recipients not working full time or
participating in a work or training program, to work in essential community
improvement projects as a condition of receiving welfare; thus offering the
recipient an opportunity to develop a pattern of work experience and a personal
work history that may assist him in securing and holding a private or public
sector job. Participation will not be required in excess of the amount of
the grant. In-kind necessary work expenses shall be provided.
PROBLEM: Federal regulations have been interpreted as prohibiting federal
financial participation in aid payments made to AFDC recipients who are
required by state law to participate in a community work experience program,
unless the program is part of the WIN program or administered under the
Economic Opportunity Act. Title IV of the Social Security Act should be
amended to expressly require federal financial participation in aid payments
to recipients participating in such programs.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: California, by action of the Legislature, has designed
a demonstration community work experience program. President Nixon, in August
of 1971 said he wanted to see put into effect the kind of broad-based demon-
stration project we envisage. We are presently awaiting HEW approval of the
details of our request for the project.
7
EMPLOYABLES PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE: To place employable AFDC recipients into self-sustaining employ-
ment under a program which combines welfare social services and employment
services by distinguishing between employable and unemployable applicants and
providing them with extensive job-seeking assistance.
DESCRIPTION: Provide a single organizational structure under the overall
direction of the state employment and manpower agency to resolve the special
requirements of employable welfare recipients; maximize communication between
welfare and employment services; and provide services required by the Social
Security Act, to provide a full range of services stressing job information,
placement, development, training and search.
PROBLEM: This program entails the cooperative effort of several agencies, e.g.,
the state welfare department, the county welfare departments, and the state
employment and manpower department, with the latter agency administering
services to certain AFDC recipients with emphasis placed on the furtherance
of Section 402(a)(14) and (15) of the Social Security Act. It is difficult to
promulgate such programs without securing waivers to the single-state agency
requirements. Legislation to ease implementation would prove most valuable
and helpful to the furtherance of such programs.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: Nine months of an active "employables program" has
brought about significant results. In Ventura County, California's first
"employables" county, approximately 40 percent of the employable recipients
registered with the employables unit left the rolls as a result of efforts
of the unit.
8
SANCTIONS IMPOSED FOR REFUSAL TO WORK OR TRAIN
OBJECTIVE: To establish clear sanctions for failure without good cause to search
for and accept employment or to participate in work and training programs
after certification (referral) to WIN.
DESCRIPTION: Provide for clear, easy-to-administer sanctions for refusal to
search for and accept employment or participate in work and training programs
after certification to WIN.
PROBLEM: Federal law fails to provide effective sanctions for employable
AFDC recipients who refuse, without good cause, to accept or participate in
employment or training programs after certification to WIN. The present
sanction which requires a 60-day counseling program without the loss of
public assistance benefits for the offending individual, does not effectively
dissuade such refusals.
Social Security Act, Sections 402 and 433 should be amended to expand the
sanctions so that acceptance and participation in job search, work and training
is thereby encouraged. Legislation should provide that a range of sanctions
could be imposed by the states including removal from public assistance for
a period of up to one year.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: In light of intensive WIN employment services, the
60-day counseling period does not significantly increase the number of
recipients returning to WIN after a sanctionable act. In addition, the 60-day
period makes administration of sanctions inefficient, costly and provides
an additional opportunity for an unwilling recipient to avoid work and train-
ing. Such a recipient may voluntarily return to WIN after 59 days and sub-
sequently refuse training only to start another 60-day period of counseling.
9
FISCAL INCENTIVES FOR EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT
OBJECTIVE: Federal matching formulae providing incentives toward attainment of
certain goals, previously limited to assistance or service aspects, should be
extended to provide for attaining a goal of simplified and more efficient
management.
DESCRIPTION: Amend existing federal law, and build into any new law which
authorizes supplemental assistance programs by states, provision for higher
federal reimbursements in relation to decreasing administrative costs caused
by demonstrable work simplification and simplified adminstration.
PROBLEM: At no time has the federal government established incentives or
methods to evaluate management practices, nor to provide federal fiscal
incentives for more efficient management and desirable work simplifications.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: California is convinced that a major part of the
problem in the growing maze of red tape and bureaucracy, and the faltering
delivery systems of assistance and services, is due to lack of attention
to basic management techniques and failure to recruit trained management
specialists into a field dominated by professionally trained social workers
with little understanding or background in management.
10
Increased Federal Reimbursement for Child Support Activities
Objective:
To increase local effort and incentive for child support
through increased federal reimbursement.
Description:
Too many familes are on welfare because of the failure
of parents, usually the absent father, to contribute
to the support of the children.
Problem:
Where a parent is capable of supporting his children,
but refuses to do so, his support obligation should be
enforced. The taxpayer should not be forced to make up
for the capable parent's unwillingness to provide
adequately for his own offspring.
Increased absent parent support activity at the county and
state level is necessary. At present, federal law (Section
403(a)(3) of the Social Security Act) allows federal
reimbursement of 50% of state costs in establishing
paternity of AFDC children, locating absent parents, and
collecting support from them (Section 402 (a) (17), (18),
(21), (22). No federal participation 18 available for
"preventive welfare" where the collection effort removes
the family from the welfare rolls or prevents the family
from ever needing welfare.
10
(Continued)
2
California Experience: In order to increase local collection efforts,
California has developed the Support Enforcement
Incentive Fund (W&IC Section 15200.1). This fund
returns to the counties 75% of the nonfederal
collections from absent parents which actually reduce
the welfare grant to the families. Since its
implementation on October 1, 1971, a number of
counties in California are actually showing a
profit on their county collection efforts.
California's plan will definitely result in increased
efforts, but more is necessary.
1.
The Federal Government should give the states
and counties a bonus to spur collection efforts.
A federal support enforcement incentive should
be created to allow the state or local jurisdiction
to retain money saved by its collection efforts--
that is the 50% federal participation in the
welfare grants.
2.
The Federal Government should ease up participation
restrictions on child support activities and accord
the same priority as the items listed in Section
402(a)(3)(A).
Obviously, it will never be possible to collect child support
from 100% of absent fathers; some may be unemployed, deceased,
unknown, or in prison. But certainly, with greatly improved
enforcement and financial incentives, the percentage of
10
(Continued)
3
absent fathers contributing to the support of their own
children can be significantly increased and future
negligence deterred. Every dollar that is raised through
this source reduces the need for more taxes to pay for
welfare.
11
DISTRICT ATTORNEY COSTS IN ENFORCING FAMILY SUPPORT
OBJECTIVE: To allow full costs of law enforcement agencies in enforcing
family support.
DESCRIPTION: Amend federal law to clarify the intent of Congress so that the
restrictions in federal regulations which limit federal reimbursement of local
law enforcement agencies.
PROBLEM: The Social Security Amendments of 1967 (PL 90-248) included
provisions requiring welfare agencies to enter into cooperative arrangements
with courts and law enforcement officials in relation to obtaining public
assistance child support. These provisions included authorization for
federal financial participation in the costs incurred as a consequence of
such cooperative arrangements. Despite the fact that the Statute (402 (a) (18)
Social Security Act) makes no mention of a required level of operation
before federal sharing becomes available, federal regulations (45 CFR 220.61
(f) (4) (v)) limit federal sharing to costs above the level of activity in
effect prior to the enactment of the regulation. DHEW based their
"maintenance of effort" provision on their reading of congressional intent
as expressed in the Ways and Means Committee Report on H.R. 12080, particularly
the following:
"The Committee expects that this expenditure of federal funds will
result in increased effort to enforce the laws against desertion
and nonsupport. The Committee also expects of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare extreme diligence in working out
the implementation of this provision to protect the federal funds
and to assure maximum benefit from the money expended."
11 (Cont'd)
-2-
A similar restriction does not exist if the activity is performed by the
welfare agency. There is a need for a clear expression of congressional
intent that there will be federal reimbursement for all expenditures by
the district attorney and other law enforcement agencies in obtaining
absent parent child support. Such amendments would be made in Social
Security Act Sections 402(a) (17) (A) and 402 (a) (18).
lla
RECIPIENT'S FAILURE TO COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
OBJECTIVE: To simplify, and make effective, a procedure to secure child support
due from an absent father without applying penalties against the children of a
mother unwilling or unable to cooperate with law enforcement officers in locating
the absent parent to secure support.
PROBLEM: Federal legislation is needed to provide for an alternative to remove
a recipient of AFDC from the welfare rolls for failure to cooperate with the
District Attorney in locating or naming an absent parent.
SOLUTION: California has provided an alternative means of requiring cooperation.
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11350 makes the grant paid to the family
of an absent parent a debt owed to the county by such parent, limited only by
his ability to pay at the time of creation of the debt. Because the debt is
owed to the county, it may sue in its own name for recovery, and when necessary,
subpoena the recipient as a witness to answer such questions.
RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should adopt the "debt to the government"
concept in all cases where welfare is paid because of a person's failure to
support where he is liable for support. To avoid constitutional problems, the
amount of the debt should be limited by the ability to pay of the debtor at the
time the debt arises.
11b
FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN COSTS OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY WELFARE FRAUD
INVESTIGATION AND COLLECTION
OBJECTIVE: To provide greater federal incentives and fiscal support to law
enforcement agencies such as the district attorney for prosecuting fraud,
recovering funds fraudulantly obtained, and related legal actions in connection
with applicants and/or recipients of public assistance.
PROBLEM: Presently there is no federal matching of funds for district attorney
costs incurred in prosecuting welfare fraud and recovering money fraudulantly
taken. Prosecution of fraud involves the same steps as recovery of child
support intake, law enforcement and collections. The collection activities
return federal money and consequently reduce the burden on taxpayers. The real
key is preventing the fraud from occurring.
RECOMMENDATION
1. The Federal Government should allow reimbursement of state costs of fraud
prosecutions in the same priority as the items listed in Section 402 (a)(3)(A)
of the Social Security Act.
2. A Fraud Prevention Incentive Fund should be established that would return to
the counties any federal money collected in fraud prosecutions. The fund should
not be based on convictions, but should reflect actual funds collected.
3. The Federal Statutory approach should not be based on convictions but on actual
funds lost due to fraud. HEW suggests that fraud exists in only 1% of the cases
based on convictions. However an actual case evaluation study done in California
during 1970 proved that fraud exists in at least 15% of the cases.
12
ALIENS ON WELFARE
OBJECTIVE: The support of citizens of other countries shall be a fiscal
obligation of the federal government.
DESCRIPTION: The federal government should assume full fiscal responsibility
for any welfare payments made to aliens. Federal government controls entry and
should finance the welfare benefits granted to aliens. Amendment of the various
public assistance programs is needed to produce this result.
PROBLEM: The control of the entry of aliens into the United States is the
responsibility of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. The
states have no effective means of regulating the number of aliens who either
legally or illegally gain entry. Because the federal government controls
their entry, the federal government should be required to fully finance welfare
benefits for any alien who becomes dependent upon public assistance. States should
not be required to support citizens of another country, when the state and county
governments have no effective voice in determining admission standards. Federal
legislation will be required to have the federal government assume full fiscal
responsibility for any welfare payments made to aliens who reside in
California.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: Some 107,269 illegal aliens, alone, were apprehended in
California during the 1969-70 fiscal year. This accounts for one-third to one-
half the national total. Many aliens find they can receive more in one month
on public welfare than they can by working for a year in their native country.
Also, the intrusion of aliens not on welfare into the labor pool tends to lower
the wage scale for farm labor generally and reduces the number of jobs which might
-2-
12 (Cont'd)
normally be available to welfare recipients and others with low incomes. The net
result is that many United States citizens, who are potentially self-supporting,
must seek welfare aid because they cannot compete for available unskilled
employment with aliens.
13
FAIR HEARINGS
OBJECTIVE: To simplify administrative procedures leading to more prompt
decisions on legitimate appeals and fair hearings.
DESCRIPTION: Amend the appropriate sections of the Social Security Act,
to provide for an evidentiary hearing by a local welfare agency as a
required preliminary to a hearing conducted by the state agency. Include
the specific criteria which determines under which circumstances it is
proper to continue aid payments pending a decision in an appealed case.
PROBLEM: Present regulatory provisions lead to gross abuse of the appeal
process, and improperly waste exorbitant amounts of federal, state, and
county, money being paid to ineligible recipients. Specific Congressional
direction, which protects the rights of applicants and recipients yet elim-
inates the complex procedural problems which prevail, is badly needed. At
the present time, a public assistance applicant or recipient may request a
full fair hearing by a state referee after the occurrence of any county
action with which he disagrees. Many of these problems could be settled
without a formal fair hearing at the state level. To correct this situa-
tion, it would be necessary to amend the fair hearing requirements in each
of the Public Assistance Titles to permit states to meet these requirements
through a two-step hearing process the first of which could be less than a
full-blown fair hearing but would meet the test of an evidentiary hearing
in accordance with the Goldberg decision.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: Legal aid and federally funded poverty lawyers a-
long with California WRO have deliberately jammed the appeal process in
California with thousands of requests for fair hearings. The result has
-2-
13 (Cont'd)
has been to continue payments to literally thousands of potentially in-
eligible persons whose cases are tied up in the backlog.
14
THE 18- TO 21-YEAR-OLD ADULT
OBJECTIVE: Limit the AFDC program to legally defined children.
DESCRIPTION: Provide that in states where adulthood is recognized at the age
of 18, such young adults may not be considered dependent children for purposes
of the AFDC program, notwithstanding their relationship to an educational or
training program.
PROBLEM: At the present time federal law permits persons between the ages of
18 and 21 to be defined by states as a dependent child for AFDC purposes.
Federal law recently granted voting rights to persons 18 years of age and
above. States are beginning to recognize this age as the legal age of adult-
hood, providing the rights, privileges, and responsibilities enjoyed by those
persons who, in the past, were 21 years of age and older. The Aid to Families
with Dependent Children program is a program for children. The limited resources
available for this program should be limited to those persons who have been
defined legally as children in order to maximize protection and benefits. If
it is found desirable to provide assistance to young adults who wish to receive
further education or training, provision of such assistance should be handled
through educational and manpower programs where a wide variety of opportunities
could be reviewed and utilized, including loans, work training, work education,
and other adult oriented programs.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: The California State Legislature in late 1971 adopted
the statute recognizing the age 18 instead of the age 21 as the age of adult-
hood. Virtually all California statutes including those governing welfare have
been changed to read age 18 instead of age 21. Therefore, when this law becomes
effective March 4, 1972, persons over the age of 18 will no longer be eligible
for AFDC assistance as a dependent child.
15
MODIFY STATEWIDENESS REQUIREMENTS OF SOCIAL SERVICES
OBJECTIVE: Expressly recognize the wide variation within a state as to the
needs for social services, and the resources available within communities to
meet such needs. To enable better allocation of tax resources, the concept
of "statewideness" must be altered to permit greater flexibility in estab-
lishing and providing social services in the areas of greatest need.
DESCRIPTION: Amend the Social Security Act to clearly permit a state to
provide social services in such counties, areas, or districts, as the states
or counties deem necessary.
PROBLEM: The statewideness concept has some validity when applied to assis-
tance payments financed by two or three levels of government, and where it is
realistically possible to provide uniform statewide application of require-
ments.
Decreeing a statewide requirement and standards for a variety of services
requiring a high degree of education and training, is an exercise in futility
because of the great variation in local attitudes, the actual need for the
services, the trained personnel, the availability of housing, cultural interests,
and all of the same problems which prevent extending adequate health care into
every area of a state. Allocation of limited resources to areas of greatest
need, or where the most productive use of services would occur, would better
serve the taxpayer and recipient alike.
16
VENDOR PAYMENTS FOR NON-RECURRING ITEMS
OF SPECIAL NEED IN AFDC
OBJECTIVE: To assure that placement of destroyed or stolen household appliances
essential to decent and healthful living can be provided promptly in the most
efficient method.
DESCRIPTION: Amend the Social Security Act to provide appropriate exceptions
to the "money payment" principle.
PROBLEM: Situations often arise when a relatively large one time expenditure is
necessary for such essential items as 8. refrigerator or washing machine. At
present because of matching requirements, grant limitations, and the money payment
requirement, recipients are almost always forced into a purchase arrangement
covering several months at high interest rates.
It would be more efficient and better for the recipient if the money payment
principle were waived in these situations and the agency permitted to pay a
vendor directly for the full cost, with such cost reported on claims as an
assistance payment eligible for federal matching.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: California has found that requiring the money to be
paid directly to the recipient involves extensive accounting and case control
procedures, red tape, and unnecessary paper work thereby increasing costs
while at the same time causing needless expenditures by the recipient. This
could all be avoided through authorizing appropriate exceptions to the money
payment requirements.
17
SIMPLIFIED ELIGIBILITY
OBJECTIVE: To achieve reliability of determinations of eligibility and
establish more control over that process.
DESCRIPTION: The requirements in the various titles governing "proper and
efficient administration" should be revised so as to make the use of "simplified
methods" in determining eligibility optional rather than mandatory with the
states.
PROBLEM: Social Security Act Section 2 (a) (5) (A) (old age assistance and
medical assistance for the aged); Title 4, Section 402 (a) (5) (A) (aid and
services to needy families with children and child welfare services); Title 10,
Section 1002 (a) (5) (A) (Aid to the Blind); and Title 14, Section 1402 (a) (5) (A)
(aid to the permanently and totally disabled) of the Social Security Act each
provide in part that:
"A state plan for (categorical aid stated) must
provide such methods of administration as are found by
the secretary to be necessary for the proper and efficient
operation of the plan,
"
The secretary has implemented these sections in part to provide for a declaration
process by which the states would be required to accept the statements of
applicants or recipients as conclusive in determining eligibility. The potential
for mistakes and misrepresentations in such a system is obvious and has been
documented in a report recently released by the secretary.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: A Grand Jury report of one county's experience with
this system is replete with incidents revealing the abuses and consequent loss
of public confidence and funds as a result of this method. One woman with no
children was able to obtain AFDC in five different offices in that county.
18
DENIAL OF AFDC WHERE THERE IS A CONTINUING CHILD-PARENT
REIATIONSHIP WITH NONRELATED ADULT
OBJECTIVE: Prevent aid going to a child on the basis of his being deprived
of support or care because of the continuing absence of a parent when the
child has in fact a continuing parent-child relationship with a non-related
adult including a step-parent.
DESCRIPTION: Permit a state to deny aid to a child where the child is living
in a parent-child relationship with a nonrelative adult, e.g., child whose
father/mother has deserted and where child is living with his father/mother
and his/her unmarried partner (MARS).
PROBLEM: Section 406 of the Social Security Act currently provides that a
child who is deprived of the presence of one parent is a "dependent child"
for AFDC purposes; notwithstanding the fact that another person who is not
a relative of the child has taken over the role of parent and provides the
care and support normally provided by the absent parent or relative.
Proposed changes in 406 would provide that when a nonrelated adult assumes
the role of parent the child shall not be considered deprived nor a
"dependent child" within the federal definition.
19
WAGE ATTACHMENT FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
OBJECTIVE: To allow attachment of wages of federal employees including the
military.
DESCRIPTION: Remove current restrictions in federal law which prevent attachments
and garnishments of the wages of federal employees (including the armed services)
to increase the collection of absent parent child support funds and thereby reduce
public assistance support.
PROBLEM: The doctrine of sovereign immunity effectively precludes local government
from attachment, garnishment, execution and wage assignments against wages of
federal employees, retired federal employees and members of the military.
Individuals employed by the federal government are thus provided a shelter not
enjoyed by employees of other organizational entities.
In California, the problem of collecting child support payments from federal
employees and members of the military is particularly acute because of the
many military installations and the large number of federal employees.
The nature of the nonsupporting parents' employment should not be a barrier to
enforcing his basic moral and legal obligation to support his children. Federal
legislation is needed to correct this inequity.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: Federal employees are exempt from wage attachments even
though they are no longer so poorly paid they need such an exemption. In
addition to the large military population in California, there are also large
numbers of divorced fathers with child support obligations working for the
federal government. Again, since their wages are untouchable, there are larger
numbers that could be expected who refuse to acknowledge the court order or pay
support. They legally cannot be touched now even though we know who and where
they are and that their wage is adequate to make ordered payments.
20
DEPENDENTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL ON WELFARE
OBJECTIVE: Eliminate the inefficient and inappropriate inclusion of
families of military personnel among those eligible for public assistance
payments.
DESCRIPTION: Require through appropriate Congressional action that the
needs of all bona fide dependents of military personnel are handled through
the Department of Defense or other designated federal agency. This would
not preclude, if an assistance payment is needed, for the federal agency
to contract with a state or local governmental public welfare agency to
provide appropriate service and investigative facilities in selected cases.
PROBLEM: Present federal regulations are so loosely drawn that thousands
of dependents of military personnel are eligible for public assistance,
forcing state and local tax payers to subsidize what is essentially a
federal problem, and imposing unnecessary and duplicative administrative
efforts by two or more difficult agencies.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: California is facing court challenges to its posi-
tion denying aid to families of service men. Plaintiffs allege, under the
Social Security Act, that children of military personnel who are absent
from the family are "deprived of parental support" by reason of the "ab-
sence from the home" of the father. Thus what was intended as a provision
to help families deserted by the principal breadwinner is being subverted
because of lack of specifity in the federal requirements.
21
DENY AID TO STRIKERS
OBJECTIVE: To eliminate the use of public assistance as a "strike fund" by
unions.
DESCRIPTION: States should be directed to deny aid to strikers. Any persons
subsequently unemployed because of a lock-out by an employer should not be denied
aid.
PROBLEM: In considering the resources available, a labor union includes the
funds from public assistance sources. This substantially bolsters the financial
ability of the union and its ability to prolong a strike. The effect is to place
the public assistance agency on one side of a management labor dispute. We
believe this is unsound public policy. It further causes a conflict in that
unemployment insurance benefits are not payable to a striker, but public assistance
is. Two agencies of government look at the same individual and simultaneously
declare him to be employed and unemployed concurrently.
Current federal law is entirely silent on this matter, and as presently interpreted
does not preclude a state from having an approved plan which denied aid to strikers.
However, this issue has recently been raised through litigation in a state that
does deny aid to strikers.
A clear statement of public policy in this regard is required of the Congress in
order to support this principle and avoid litigation. For this reason a new
clause should be added to Part A of Title IV, Social Security Act that would
require as a condition for plan approval the denial of aid to strikers.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: The first day of a strike finds an immediate surge in
applications for both public assistance and food stamps at the adjacent welfare
offices. The strikers have been well briefed by the union staff as to application,
21 (Cont'd)
-2-
how, when, and where to apply; how much to expect, and when. The case loads
continue to increase during the strike period until all eligibles are on the
public assistance rolls. At the end of the strike, the reverse is not true.
Because of income exemptions, work expense deductions, etc., many of the lower
income persons remain on the welfare rolls indefinitely.
22
MARITAL AND COMMUNITY PROPERTY RESOURCES
OBJECTIVE: Denial of AFDC Where There Are Sufficient Resources to Meet the
Needs of Recipients Due to the Income of a Non-Adoptive Stepparent. Require
a stepparent to be responsible for the support of all the children in his
marital community.
DESCRIPTION: Allow a state to consider the income of a non-adoptive step-
parent in determining eligibility for and the amount of grants of AFDC to the
non-adopted stepchildren.
PROBLEM: Current federal regulations provide that a state, in determining
eligibility and the amount of the grant, may consider only the income of the
child's natural or adoptive parent absent actual proven contributions by a
stepparent (except stepparents' income may be considered in states where step-
parents have a general legal obligation to support their non-adopted step-
children); not withstanding the reality that, in a family which includes a
stepparent, all the income of adult family members is generally used to support
all the family members.
Proposed changes would provide:
a) that in family groups living together, income of the spouse is considered
available for his spouse. Since federal regulations require that income
of a natural parent be considered available to children, 45 CFR Sec. 233.90(a),
it would then follow that the income of a spouse would be considered
available to all the family's children for eligibility and grant deter-
mination.
b) that, where natural parents have vested interest in the [right to manage
and control of] income of their spouses, that portion vested in/under the
22 (Cont'd)
-2-
management and control of] the natural parent could be considered available
to that parent's children for eligibility and grant determination.
23
CONFIDENTIALITY
OBJECTIVE: Broaden availability of public assistance records to other public
agencies for any legitimate public purpose.
DESCRIPTION: Legislation is needed to provide that such records are avail-
able to all public authorities for any legitimate public purpose, and to
eliminate impediments to cross-checking with state and federal tax authorities.
To accomplish this Social Security Act Sections 2(a)(7), 402(a)(9), 1402(a)(9),
and 1602(a)(7) would have to be amended.
PROBLEM: The current federal law on confidentiality, by restricting the use
or disclosure of information concerning applicants and recipients only to
purposes directly connected with the administration of public assistance
impedes proper control and safeguards in the administration of public assis-
tance.
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: This has resulted in recipients receiving aid in more
than one county at a single time and in more than one state at the same time.
Further, the inability to cross-check with the Internal Revenue Service has
prohibited a realistic check of the income earned by welfare recipients.
Addendum No. 2 - Testimony by Governor Ronald Reagan Before
The Senate Finance Committee February 1, 1972
H.R. 1 Analysis - Oppose
The following provisions are those major provi-
sions in H.R. 1 which are opposed by California.
Included in this package are suggestions for
amendment. There are other less significant
provisions which may also be opposed to by
California but which have not been included in
this analysis.
OPPOSE
FEATURE
POSITION AND AMENDMENTS
1.
Federalization
Under the present system the Federal Government
Welfare reform can best be accomplished within the present
reimburses State for a percentage of the costs of
structure of shared Federal/State responsibilities.
aid payments and the cost of administering such
payments. States are assured of this federal
Federalization of the payments programs will mean the creation
financial participation so long as they meet the
of a greatly enlarged federal bureaucracy, inherently less able
statutory requirements of the public assistance
to meet the needs of the people than the current State/Federal
statutes.
partnership. The difficulty in administering the present welfare
system at the state level is due in large part to complex and
Under H.R. 1, the State/Federal balance would be
contradictory federal regulations and to the constant
destroyed, and there would be no federal financial
"reinterpretation" of those regulations by HEW staff members, but
reimbursement to States for any public assistance
at least now there is a check-and-balance system resulting from
payments. Instead, the Federal Government would
the fiscal sharing of states with the Federal Government, and in
directly administer federal benefit programs to
California of county sharing as well. This sharing of fiscal
families, and to aged, blind, and disabled persons.
responsibility and its implicit sharing of program responsibility
The Federal Government would pay the total cost of
has been the deciding incentive to welfare reform in California.
such programs including costs of administration.
In addition to creating a massive federal bureaucracy, H.R. l
States, such as California, would be virtually
forces states like California, that have attempted to administer
required to make supplemental aid payments, but
equitable welfare programs, to turn their programs and their
would face greatly increased costs unless they
money over to the Federal Government. While there is a "technical"
agree to federal administration of the State's
choice as to whether or not a given state manages its own
program.
supplemental program, realistically there is no choice, since
self-management will cause greatly increased costs to any state.
Specifically:
The Federal Government is practicing fiscal blackmail to require the
states to relinquish their responsibilities and their control.
a. The bill provides that State or local assist-
A system conceived in such deceit cannot be in the interests of
ance regularly received by persons covered by
the people--either taxpayers or recipients.
the federal benefit programs would be
considered as "income" in computing the federal
benefit unless such assistance is provided
under an agreement with HEW.
OPPOSE, Page 2
FEATURE
POSITION AND AMENDMENTS
Federalization (continued)
b. If a State elects to administer its State
Proposal 1. State option for administration
supplemental programs, it would not be covered
by the "hold-harmless" provisions of the bill
Proposal 9. Federal fiscal incentive for efficient operation
designed to protect States against future increase
in welfare costs.
C. Under amendments to the current law which would be
effective upon enactment of H.R. 1, the Secretary
of HEW could:
- Require retroactive payments from the State to
recipients affected by the State's failure to
make payments in accord with federal dictates.
- Prescribe administrative methods for correcting
a State's noncompliance with federal requirements.
- Request U.S. Attorney General to bring suit
against the State to force compliance in
addition to or instead of withholding federal
reimbursement.
d. The bill contains a virtual mandate on States with
present levels above the new federal benefit levels
to maintain present payment levels plus the bonus
value of food stamps.
2. Guaranteed Welfare Income
The bill creates a national welfare system with
It is commonly understood that a government guaranteed
guaranteed income. It assures that every family with
income, not based upon individual productivity, is a giant
income below a certain amount will receive a govern-
step toward a welfare state, with its inherent loss of
ment payment sufficient to bring its income up to that
individual identity and pride. Some argue this is not a
amount.
"guaranteed income" because employable family members must
cooperate with work and training requirements. This argument
is fallacious, since family income would be reduced only by
OPPOSE, Page 3
FEATURE
POSITION AND AMENDMENTS
2. Guaranteed Welfare Income (continued)
the uncooperative member's share. In the words of
Daniel P. Moynihan, the bill provides a minimum income to
every family "united or not, working or not, deserving or
not". There should be a minimum national standard to support
those unable to take care of themselves, but not a government-
guaranteed income to all families.
Proposal 2. Relief to low income families
3. Income and Property Disregards
Employed families would be allowed to deduct from
This feature continues the inequities of the present system
their annual earnings at least the first $720,
in which welfare families can earn over $1000 gross income in
"reasonable" costs of child care, and 1/3 of the
California and still receive the same welfare payment as the
balance of earnings, before the amount of the welfare
family with no income. A limit on gross income should be set
benefit is determined.
above which a family would not be eligible for welfare.
Aged, blind, or disabled individuals or families could
This limit is too high and should be set at a figure
have up to $1,500 in cash or other liquid assets to
more consistent with emergency needs, taking into account
meet emergencies and still be eligible to receive
the availability of free medical and other services.
benefits.
Consideration should be given to the method we have proposed
in California under which recipients with special needs are
required to "spend down" a proportion of their allowable
emergency resources before any allowance for special needs
is made.
The bill provides that the value of a home "as deemed
It would be desirable to give the Secretary discretion to
reasonable by the Secretary" is to be excluded in
recognize regional differences in property values. However,
determing countable resources subject to the statutory
we believe that Congress should establish some limits on the
limit.
Secretary's discretion in order to prevent legal and political
pressure to establish unreasonably high limits.
Proposal 3. Overall limit for AFDC family income
Proposal 4. 30 and 1/3 disregard in AFDC
Proposal 5. Work-related expenses
OPPOSE, Page 4
FEATURE
POSITION AND AMENDMENTS
4. Inadequate Work Program & Sanctions
The bill would to all intents and purposes federalize
These provisions should be revised to require the recipient
the administration of welfare manpower training and
to actively seek realistic job opportunities, especially
employment programs and thus further reduce the role
through the private sector. In addition, provisions should
of the States. Even more importantly the manpower
be added under which employable recipients who are not in
programs which make up the Opportunities for Families'
work or training would be referred to public agencies for the
Program are in the last analysis little more than a
performance of public service activities with no additional
continuation of the WIN-type activities which, after
remuneration other than their welfare benefits. California
almost five years, have proven to be ineffective in
has by action of the Legislature created such a program and
relation to its cost.
we are currently negotiating with HEW for a demonstration
project that would allow us to implement this program.
If an employable family member fails to register for
Since aid in only a slightly reduced amount would be
work or refuses to take work or training, the only
continued for the family, we believe that this is a weak and
penalty the bill provides is his removal from the
ineffective sanction against those who would abuse the system.
grant.
The bill should provide a range of sanctions including the
ultimate sanction of the denial of aid to the entire family
for a period of up to one year.
Proposal 6. Community work program
Proposal 7. Employables program
Proposal 8. Sanctions imposed for refusal to work or train
5. Social Services Pressure
The service implication of the Act is that all services
enumerated should be made available. In California, which
H.R. 1 defines the social services program in almost
has a comprehensive services program based upon federal
exactly the same terms as present law, but at the
guidelines, the practical effect of H.R. 1 will be to force
same time imposes a ceiling on federal expenditures
continuation of an overabundant set of services even if
for state service programs.
federal money is not available to help pay the bill.
Proposal 15. Modification of statewideness requirement of
social services
OPPO B. Page 5
FEATURE
POSITION AND AMENDMENTS
6.
Secretarial Discretion
H.R. 1 gives broad discretionary powers to the
The Secretary of HEW is subject to many pressures from
Secretary of HEW to establish policies governing
groups of recipients and others who benefit from the
the federal benefit system and, therefore, the
welfare system. In any welfare legislation the Secretary's
supplemental programs of the states.
discretion should be as limited and clear as possible.
Limitless discretion, particularly when it can severely
affect state budgeting, will result in continuation of the
present "leap frogging" of benefits as the Secretary,
influenced strongly by his firmly entrenched and bureaucratic
staff, tries to satisfy one pressure group after another.
Addendum No. 3 - Testimony by Governor Ronald Reagan Before
The Senate Finance Committee February 1, 1972
H.R. I Analysis - Support
The following provisions are those major provi-
sions in H.R. 1 which are supported by California.
Included in this package are suggestions for
amendment. There are other less significant
provisions which may also be supported by
California but which have not been included in this
analysis.
SUPPORT
(with amendments as noted)
FEATURE & POSITION
AMENDMENTS
1. Work Requirement in Family Programs
Proposal 6. Community work program
Proposal 7. Employables program
We support the general thrust of the pro-
Proposal 8. Sanctions imposed for refusal to work or train
visions in this bill which would require all
employable persons to register for work and
to accept work or training. At the same time
we welcome recent enactment of (Talmadge Amend-
ments) Public Law 92-223. The work requirements
in HR 1 should be amended in accordance with
this new law. Additional amendments will be
necessary to put teeth into the work require-
ment.
P. Quarterly Accounting System in the Family
We support the provisions under which a quarter-
ly accounting system would be used for deter-
mining benefits, taking into account estimated
income for the current quarter and actual in-
come for the three preceeding quarters. This
provision would effectively prevent abuses of
the system by those who earn a significant
amount of money during a short period of time,
when their annual income would be more than
sufficient to meet their needs. We urge that
this provision be retained.
Control and Prevention of Improper Payments
We are in complete support of the expressions of
Proposal 17. Simplified methods
determination by the Ways and Means Committee in
their report on HR 1 that these welfare benefit
programs must be tightly administered with every
effort made to prevent and control improper pay-
ments. In particular, we are glad that the
SUPPORT, page
FEATURE & POSITION
AMENDMENTS
3. Control and Prevention of Improper Payments Cont'd
Administration is determined that no simple
"declaration method" will be used, and that
instead the essential facts in each case
would be verified to the extent needed. In
addition, we support the provisions under which
families failing to make timely reports on their
circumstances would be penalized by a reduction
in their benefit.
4. Enforcement of Parental Obligations
We support and want to strengthen the pro-
Proposal 10. Increased federal reimbursement for child
visions for enforcement of the obligation
support activities.
which parents have to support their own
Proposal
11. District Attorney costs in enforcing family
children. State and local agencies' enforcement
support
will be strengthened when the deserting parent
realizes that by his failure to support he is
incurring a debt to the government, which would
be subtracted from income tax refunds and social
security payments. The provision making it a
federal crime to cross State lines to avoid child
support will likewise strengthen the hands of
the States in this regard. We also support the
provision under which the income of a step-
father or stepmother would be considered in
eligibility and benefit determination in exactly
the same way as the income of a natural parent.
We believe, however, that increased fiscal in-
centives to the States also are necessary.
5. Child Care
We support the provisions designed to assure
adequate child care facilities to meet the needs
of welfare mothers who go into work or training.
We believe that the full federal funding of child
care provided by the Department of Labor for those
in the Opportunities for Families Program will
help ease the fiscal burden on the States.
SUPPORT, page 3
FEATURE & POSITION
AMENDMENTS
5. Child Care Continued
We note that the Department of HEW would be
responsible for setting child care standards.
We hope that Congress, either through statute
or expression of intent, would assure that
these standards are realistic, practicable and
broad enough to accommodate a wide range of
alternatives in providing child care. The
present Federal Interagency Day Care Standards
are rigid and unnecessarily expensive, and do
not consider the satisfaction of the mother as
a prerequisite to adequate child care.
6. Vocational Rehabilitation Services
We support the provisions for a greatly ex-
panded use of the vocational rehabilitation
services available through State Vocational
Rehabilitation agencies with the additional
costs to be borne by the Federal Government.
These programs have been among the best in
California, with demonstrable results and
measurable cost benefits.
7. Social Services Ceiling
We support the principle involved in the
The costs of required State and local activities relating
shift from an open-end reimbursement system,
to determining paternity of needy children, locating
to a closed-end allotment system for the
absent parents and obtaining child support from them
federal support of social services. We
should be excluded from the closed-end allotment, in
believe this will encourage more effective
addition to the costs of child care and family planning
management and administration of these pro-
as provided in the bill. These State activities will
grams, and think that the allocation formula
be of direct fiscal benefit to the federal government
the bill provides is fair and equitable,
since collections will reduce expenditures for federal
benefits.
SUPPORT, page 4
FEATURE & POSITION
AMENDMENTS
7. Social Services Ceiling Continued
We do not, however, feel that the Federal
Government should, through law or regula-
tion, specify services to be provided at
their present level of detail. Service
decisions must be made and results measured
at a local level, since "social services"
are essentially individual efforts of profes-
sionals (doctors, lawyers, social workers,
teachers) for and with individual welfare
recipients.
8. Durational Residency Requirement
We support the provisions which would permit
States to impose a durational residency re-
quirement as a condition of eligibility for
State supplementary payment, and which would
require the Federal Government to observe such
requirement with respect to any State supple-
mentary payment program they administer on
behalf of the State.
State of California
Department of Social Welfare
Human Relations Agency
January 28, 1972
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE CASELOADS AND EXPENDITURES
March 1971 - December 1971
Aid Recipients
Payments
Program
March
Dec.
1971
1971
Diff.
Grand total.
2,293,577
2,117,732
-175,845
Cash grant recipients
2,190,428
2,062,131
-128,297
General home relief
103,149
55,601
and 47,548
Averaged/
AGED PERSONS
Cash grant recipients
323,642
315,286
- 8,356
BLIND PERSONS (AB/APSB)
Cash grant recipients
14,065
13,820
- 245
DISABLED PERSONS
Cash grant recipients
189,754
190,778
+ 1,024
FAMILIES WITH
DEPENDENT CHILDREN
Cash grant recipients:
Family groups:b/
children
cases
total persons
1,285,466
1,273,241
- 12,225
Unemployed cases:
children
cases
total persons
342,763
235,490
-107,273
Boarding Homes and
Institutions:
children
34,738
33,516
- 1,222
GENERAL HOME RELIEF
Total persons
103,149
55,601
- 47,548
Family cases
Persons in family cases
One-person cases
Unemployed in labor force (%)
(Seasonally adjusted)
Civilian population (excluding
military)
a/ Cash grant averages for adult aids computed from "net" person counts.
b/ Excludes U cases.
p/ Preliminary.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO!
RELEASE: Im diate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-31-72
#54
Governor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of Santa
Maria attorney Robert L. Trapp, Sr., to the Santa Barbara County
Superior Court.
Trapp, 56, a Republican, will receive an annual salary of $35,080.
He succeeds Judge Morris Stephan who has retired.
A partner in the firm of Trapp and Kirk, Trapp has practiced law
in Southern California since 1945 and has served as a Deputy County
Counsel for the County of Los Angeles.
He is a graduate of and earned his law degree from the University
of Southern California.
Trapp is a member of the State Bar of California, the Santa
Barbara County Bar Association and the Santa Maria-Lompoc Valley Bar
Association.
He and his wife Mildred have two children. The family home is in
Santa Maria.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Im' diate
Sacramento, Californ
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-31-72
#55
Governor Ronald Reagan today appointed Marvin J. Cassadu
a Gridley farmer, to a four-year term on the board of the Third
District Agricultural Association (Silver Dollar Fair at Chico).
Cassady, a Republican, lives at Route 3, Box 3505, Gridley. He
succeeds the late Joseph N. Richardson of Chico on the board.
Board members receive necessary expenses.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, Californ
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-31-72
#56
Governor Ronald Reagan today named Polly A. Wyant of San Francisco
and Mrs. Norine R. Helder of La Mesa and reappointed Donald H. Oliphant,
Sr., of Walnut Creek to four-year terms on the State Board of
Cosmetology in the Department of Consumer Affairs.
Miss Wyant, a San Francisco court reporter, will represent the
public on the board. She lives at 82A Macondray Lane, San Francisco.
She is a Republican.
Miss Wyant will fill the position now held by Mrs. Helder, who in
turn will succeed Steve Couroso of Riverside, whose term has expired,
as representative of owners and operators on the board.
Mrs. Helder, who operates a San Diego hair styling salon with her
husband Paul, lives at 4565 Shade Road, La Mesa. She is a Republican.
Oliphant, owner and operator of a Concord beauty college, has served
on the board since 1968, representing owners and operators. He lives
at 44 Winfield Lane, Walnut Creek. He is a Republican.
Members of the board receive $25 per diem while on official duty.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOI
RELEASE: Imm iate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-31-72
#57
Governor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Emmett C. Woodward of
Sacramento to a four-year term on the Hearing Aid Dispensers Examining
Committee in Department of Consumer Affairs.
Woodward, operator of Woodward Hearing Aid Centers, will represent
hearing aid dispensers on the board. He was named to the board in 1971.
Woodward, a Democrat, lives at 4919 Cameron Ranch Drive, Sacramento.
Members of the committee receive per diem and necessary expenses.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOF
RELEASE: Imme late
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-31-72
#58
Dr. John H. Woolsey, Santa Rosa veterinarian, was reappointed to
a four-year term on the Board of Examiners in Veterinary Medicine today
by Governor Ronald Reagan.
Dr. Woolsey, who lives at 716 High Street, Sebastopol, has served
on the board, which operates in the Department of Consumer Affairs,
since 1968. He is a Republican.
Board members are paid $25 per diem while on official duty.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, Californi
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-31-72
#59
Governor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Julius P. Hammer, a
San Francisco bank official, to a four-year term on the Teachers'
Retirement Board, subject to Senate confirmation.
Hammer, an officer of Wells Fargo Bank, has served on the board,
representing bank officials, since 1964. He lives at 1101 Green Street,
San Francisco. He is a Republican.
Members of the board receive expenses.
#####
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Im ediate
Sacramento, Californi
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
1-31-72
#60
Governor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Chester L. Chesholm of
Salinas and Mrs. June C. Duran of Pebble Beach, to four-year terms on
the board of the Seventh District Agricultural Association (Monterey
County Fair).
Chesholm, a retired farmer and dairyman, has served on the board
since 1968. He lives at 11 Los Laureles, Salinas. He is a Republican.
Mrs. Duran, Assistant Vice President of the California Test Bureau,
Division of McGraw-Hill Book Company in Monterey, has also served on
the board since 1968. Her address is Box 23, Pebble Beach. She is a
Republican.
Board members receive necessary expenses.
######
WAS