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
118564144
label
Transcripts - 04/04/1974, 04/16/1974, 04/23/1974, 05/01/1974
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564144
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 04/04/1974, 04/16/1974, 04/23/1974, 05/01/1974
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Press Conference Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564144
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
38fa1a405a3de0a5
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual
collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -
04/04/1974, 04/16/1974, 04/23/1974, 05/01/1974
Box: P04
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
4/4
NEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD APRIL 4, 1974
Reported by:
Beverly D. Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's news conference
is provided to the members of the Capitol News Corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible, there are no corrections made and there is no
guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
o0o
..
GOVERNOR REAGAN: I have an opening statement. Good
morning.
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release No. 216)
GOVERNOR REAGAN: These are going to be the authors and
I'm very appreciative of their authoring the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: Let me just say mechanically as soon
(repenue- expenditure restraint)
as I leave this room the billes, the three bills and the constitutional
amendment will be introduced this morning, so it is not a matter of
we are going to do it right now. The only other happy thought I
wanted to express to you, Governor, and I mean it, and I don't think
this has been said, in the last seven yeas because you weren't leaving
office, but in the generation of politicians no governor other than
you have left office without leaving a legacy of losses. And I
mean that, sir. These bills, hopefully, put the constraints into
the law books to help future governors and legislators carry on
that tradition, and I thank you for your effort, sir.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Thank you very much.
or
Another subject? Another subject?
GOVERNOR REAGAN. No, John would -- go ahead.
the
SEMA TOR STULL: I was just going to comment that bills
will be introduced at the Senate today.
ASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: Thank you, Governor.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Thank you both very much.
Q
Governor, in 1969 you picked Mr. Reinecke to be the No. 2
man instate government.
A
That's right.
0
And we was subsequently elected in 1970. But in 1969 you
picked him.
Veah
Q
Do you still feel that he's qualified to be the No. 2 man
in California state government?
A
I see nothing to indicate that he isn't, nor did the people.
Because they elected him by an over --- re-elected him by an over-
whelming majority in the 1970 election.
0
Governor, this -- this is a question that addresses itself
to your perception of the political consequences of the indictments
and does not ask for whether the man is guilty or innocent. What
impact in your own personal view, as an astute politician, doyou think
these indictments will have on the Lieutenant Governor's candidacy?
A
Well, I - I have no way of judging that. I think it is
an unprecedented situation. I have no way - I think abl of us have
to be reminded of what I said yesterday, anditis about the only
statement that I can make now under the dircumstances, that an indict-
ment is an accusation only and there must be the presumption of
innocence, on anyone so indicted or accused, unless and until proven
guil ty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
C
Yes, but, Governor, beyond the presumption of innocence,
though, there is a political question there. Whether he's --
A
Yes, and I said, I have no way ofjudging that. I really
don't.
O
Don't you have any feelings You haven't chalked up the
kinds of votes that you have over the years and attracted the kind
of support that you have without having some kind of political
acumen. I'm just wondering what your personal feeling is about
the impact on his candidacy and evenon the Republican party by these
charges.
A
Well, again, there is no way to answer this. Your own
news services and the television news last night made it very
evident that the speaking engagement subsequent to announcement of
the indictments, there was no questioning the enthusiasm of the people
present in his behalf. So I don't know how you are going to judge
this.
O
Have you had a conference with the Lieutenant Governor
since this happened?
A
No.
Q
Do you phan one?
A
Unless he requests it, no.
-2-
Q
Have you talked to him?
A
What? Yes, I called him to expressomy sympathy for what
had taken place.
Q
Anohher subject. Do you think Patty Hearst is a member
of the SLA?
A
I think that what Mr. and Mrs. Hearst said last night
was the absolutely correct thing to say and I hope it will be repeated
very many times. I think that first of all Patty Hearst, reagrdless
of the stat ement made, is not in any way constrained by law from
being able to move where she wants to. If she is free as has been -
as was stated in that tape, and I think that Mr. and Mrs. Hearst are
absolutely correct in saying that until she walks in the door and
tells them personally that she is a member of the SLA, commen sense
then dictates that you have to accept that she is still being held
prisoner, by the SLA. If she is not there is no reason in the world
why she cannot come and make this statement inperson and walk back
out the door as her parents said she could.
o
Governor, what should be the role of law enforcement at this
particular point, with this new dilemma?
A
I think the role of law enforcement is exactly what has
been stated already by law enforcement authorities. As far as they
are concerned she is the victim of a kidnapping.
Q
Can whe walk into the door, thought, without being subject
to perhaps prosecution or being part of an extortion plot?
A
The only thing I know is I've read a statement that -
by law enforcement that no, she is not wanted for anything. She
was very obviously carried out . Her first plea on tape in her --
her own voice was asking to be rescued and saved. Now we are being
asked to believe that she has made a statement of her own free will
that she no longer feels that way and that she has decided to join
those who kidnapped her. But, as I say, until she says that in
person, I think it would be folly to believe that -- that she made
this of her own free will.
Anybody else?
Q
Can I ask you something else?
A
Yeah.
0
Your appointment yesterday of Pat Gamon, Gayman as Directof of the
Consumer Affairs marks the first woman appointment you made as a
department head during the seven years of your administration.
Why
did you wait so long?
-3-
A
Well, it is just those male chauvinists that surround me.
No, no --
(Laughter)
A
-- we have made a great many appointments
There have been
a great many women appointed to positions and we forget sometimes
that while in one area such as department heads it's just fallen
that way, that ours is a commission form of government and if you
check on the very many commissions that have a very important place
in -- in California state government, we have made a great many
appointments of women and have done our best to increase the number who
are judges, also, in California. So we think that she's eminently
qual ified to do this and this was a good appointment. As a matter
of fact, my only concern was who we are going to get to take her
place in what she's been doing.
Q
Governor, doyou envision her as merely presiding over these
various boards and commissions over there, or do you envision her as an
active consumer advocate?
A
I view her as doing the job in thephilosophy that should be
done and that is that the consumer -- consumer agency there or
department is set up to protect the consumer from those who would
take unfair advantage of them, from whose who would cheat. At the
same time I think that that department has to recognize and help
the people to understand that the overwhelming majority of people
who are doing-thia business are honest and above board. And there-
fore there will be not only the cheats, but there will be legitimate
cases of error or mistake and many of those are corrected, frequently
by the department.
O
Governor, on another subject, doyou believe the state
Regional Water Quality Control Boards are doing an adequate job of
enforcing regulations designed to prevent pollution of San Francisco
Bay?
A
Yes, I do. I recognize in view of what took place in the
recent strike the concern, but the concern must be much longer ranged
than that with San Francisco. It has a pervasive pollution problem.
Now we have already committed $560 million dollars in State and
federal funds to update the sewage treatment in that one area, and
we expect to spend another 750 million. We have committed two billion
dollars already statewide to this problem across the state. And we
need another two billion. And that's why I'll get in a plug for
Proposition 2 why it was placed onthe ballot, the Clean Water Bond
Act that will be or the ballot in June, and t' will be the most
effective thing that we can do to take care of this problem. Now,
the San Francisco Regional Board has initiated 25 court cases
in connection with San Francisco Bay. They have won 11, The
remaining are at various stages of preparation and litigation and
we are currently reviewing and have been for sometime all the waste
discharges 6ver there, setting tighter requirements and that task will
be finished by the end of this year. We did play a vital role in
reopening the sewage treatment plans that were shut down. By law
there are obviously certain restrictions on what the state can do
in invading local autonomy, but where this approach to health problem
we were menitoring the water to the bay, bacteria count, and the
possibility of a health menace. We then sent people over there
during the strike to tell the governmental leaders in San Francisco
that the state was going to quarantine every foot of beach in the
area around the bay. We also were seeking personnel -- this is
not easy, you can't just put anyone in a plant of that kind without
running a very great risk of damaging the machinery and thus creating
more of a pollution problem during the weeks and months of repair.
We sent -- we were scouting throughout the entire country and with
the help of EPA in Washington to find technicians who could go in and
reopen that plant or those sewage plants. Now, let me give a little
lecture here for just one added second. San Francisco has a problem
that could cost billions and billions of dollars to totally alleviate
this condition. It has - and I guess itis about the only city
we know in California that has single sewer pipes to handle both
runoff water from the streets and rooftops and so for th as well as
sewage. And every time it rains more thana few tenths of an
inch in San Francisco you have raw sewage going into the bay, because
disposal
it is going -- accompanied by that water the sewage/plants can't
handle it. The total answer to the problem would be tearing up
every street in San Francisco and addinganother sewer pipe to
handle just street runoff as separate from sewage. They -- right
now are exploring the idea of some great underground cesspools that
would temporarily hold this intime of tain, hold sewage and then
have it later be pumped through the plants. Whether these are going 1.
to be effective or not, I'm not an engineer, and they are still under
study, I don't know. But it is a very difficult problem and it
is a problem that must be met because I think we are all agreed
that we cannot go onevery time it rains --- someone said in San
Francisco once that everv time it rains even the droppings of the
elephants in the zou wind up in the bay.
Now
0
Governor, another subject.
A
Yes.
Q
Recent incident, the Department of Veterans Affairs
involved the disclosure of details of individual loan files to
the public by employee or employees. Do you have any comments on that?
A
Well, yes, we are having it investigated and have asked
for an investigation of that. I don't know the results yet.
I
just have to say philosophically I am opposed with government being
more and more involved ain more and more individuals lives and
sometimes unnecessarily so, but many times necessarily so, with some
of our social programs. I am very concerned, Ithink most people are.
We will takevery presaution to ensure the confidentiality of records
that government holds.
0
Would you favor a law that would make it a misdemeanor for
an employee in that department to make publ: ic details of veteran's
files? Now they have, of course, additional boan files, the medical
and military records of veterans.
A
Yeah. I'll go beyond that, I'll say that I favor -- I
favor whatever action is necessary, not only in that department but in
others, to ensure this confidentiality.
Q
Now, one other point, Governor, conversely, doyou think
that a veteran has -- should have the right toreview his own personal
file, loan file, in that department?
A
Well, I certainly would think so, yes.
Q
It is not the case now?
A
Well, -- then we will see if we can't get it corrected.
a
Can -- Governor, a couple of years ago an appointee of
yours was involved in a situation in Honolulu. You wasted no time
asking for his resignation and yet he was only accused in that
situation also. Now Lieutenant Governor Reinecke is indicted and
he's presumed innocent until proven guilty and yet there seems to
be a lack of consistency.
A
No, I don't think there is a lack of consistency. In
one case we are talking about an appointee of mine, and we are talk-
ing about a situation that, as I explained at the time, that there
was bad judgment involved regardless of guilt or innocence. That
there was bad judgment in his even being there under the circumstances
that he was there, and that in those cases and where our appointments
Ne bette to capit etten. offerd the
appearance of wro ing. But in this other se, you are talking
about a man who was elected as a constitutional officer. He's not
an appointee of anyone and therefore he makes any determination that
is made about his tenure of office.
0
But - I realize that he's a separate elected officer,
but isn't the point the same for best serving the public interest
in a question like this?
A
Well, no, I don think so. Because the other one involved
a man in whi ch the question concerned his judgment with regard to
the task that he was presently performing. It wasn't as if he had
been arrested for speeding or drunk driving or something of the kind,
and therefore you had a case outside the job that he was performing.
But his misgudgment involved the work that he was doing in the area
of conflict of interest.
Well, governor, if Mr. Reinecke says that he went to
Washington to help -- help California and do -- do things that were
right for the state in his role as Lieutenant Governor, to get that
convention in San Diego --
A
That's right, he had - he was in charge of seeing if we
could not bring the convention to California.
O
Don't you have the appearance of misconduct here in the
performance of his job, as in the case of Mr. Mulligan
?
A
No, I don't think so.
O
Governor, did he ever tell you about his conversations
with Mr. Mitchell?
A
No.
Q
Did you ever discuss it?
A
What?
Q
Did you ever discuss with him the probability of the
$400,000 ITT underwriting with its hotels in San Diego for the
convention?
A
When the Sheraton Hotel madethat proposal, which was not
an offer of a contribution, it was an offer to underwrite that amount
if they couldn't raise it, if the Citizen's Bi-Partisan committe that
was trying to get the convention to San Diggo and which was willing
to raise a million and a half dollars -- that was more than any city
in the United States had proposed raising to lure a convention there.
At that time, very frankly, when the news broke that the Sheraton
Hotels , who had a new hotel opening and were going to coincide
their opening with the convention, were willing to do this, I very
-7-
frankly -- and I happen to know that this is of many, and others
didn't even know it was a subsidiary of any other group -- I just
all my life have known the name Sheraton Hotels and just assumed it
was a hotel doing this. As a matter of fact, the same hotel chain
pent a million dollars on their own for their opening of a hotel
in Honolulu, and subsequent to this time, as I understand it, they
did not come forward with $400,000, but long before there was any --
any involvement or news of any kind it is my understanding that the
Republican National Committee, which was the one who would make this
decision as to where the convention would be, they rejected that
contribution or that offer of underwriting as being too out of line from
one contributor.
0
Well -- that wasn't the question. The question was, did
you share communications with him regarding his discussions about
the whole thing?
A
No.
2
You never talked to him about it?
A
No, since then he's talked and he's expressed to me his belief
in his innocence, as he has stated publicly, the same things,
Q
Presuming that the Lieutenant Governor will be on trial,
which he says he wants during the late spring, early summer, and
fall months, is that going to preclude you from leaving the state
because he will be on trial? Do whatever political things or
governmental things you might undertake?
A
No, because under the law if -- if he isnot here in the
state then the line of succession falls to the President Pro Tem
of the Senate, who has on a number of occasions taken on that assign-
ment and done very well.
Q
You are confident in his abilities to carry on?
A
Yes.
0
Would you favor Lieutenant Governor Reineck's call to bring
the trial in here to California rather than Washington
A
Well, now, I can't comment on things of that kind. The
idea of the defendant wanting to -- a change of venue, that goes with
what is best for his own defense or what he feels and again with
this now before the law, I think I reached the limit of what I can
comment on this case.
Q
Governor, what's your reaction to the Assembly Revenue
and Taxation Committee investigating President Nixon's question of
-8-
whether he owes state taxes or not?
A
Well, if the legislative committee is legitimately seeking
an answer to this, I'm certainly -- certainly they are entitled to
any information that they want to ask for. The situation, however,
has been misstated, I think, by the Speaker of the Assembly. That
nothing is being done. Now, thenormal process is that the --
the Tax Franchise Board asks Martin Huff whether he is pursuing this ra
matter whenever a question is raised about someone's taxes. And he
is pursuing the matter and said that he was going forward with a
review of this case. Now, I think this should also bring up the
very fact of what this situation is add why it came before the Tax
Franchise Board in the first place. It is not unique. Here in
California on the basis of rulings handed down by the Board of
Equaliziation sometime ago, the custom was established that when
an individual with residence in California maintained that residence
for voting purposes, but his position, his duty, or his work required
him to be absent from the state on a more or less permanent basis
for at least three years, that he then was not a resddent for tax
purposes and that has applied to other individuals. And this is the
basis for the non-payment of state income taxes, and -- by the
President. And incidentally, I think the Speaker of the Assembly
might be interested to know that the Board of Equalization for some-
time has been predominantly Democratic, so you could hardly
inject partisanship into those rulings.
O
Governor, Senator Moscone has criticized you for nbt
spending the money to -- that was put in the budget to air condition
Pacific State Hospital. Is that true? And if so, why not?
And what's being done about it?
A
No, it is my understanding that air conditioning is being
carried on and is going forward at Pacific.
ED MEESE: Cpnstruction of it is.
A
Yes. The construction is going forward.
Q
Governor, let me interrrupt you there, it was disclosed
yesterday that the contract has not even been let yet for that
project, even though the money has been in the budget for almost a
year now. Is your office going to intervene and attempt to
expedite the situation?
A
I'd like to find out why it has --
ED MEESE: You have already asked the question.
A
The question has been asked.
O
Do vou intend to support Earl Brian for Republican nomination
for Senate?
A
I intend to be neutral in all Republican contested primar-
ies.
0
Governor, the Senate Rules Committee has held up the confir-
mation of Dr. Stubblebine as Director of the Office of Aging. Are
y ou going to pursue that at all?
A
Yes, I hope that this is not just political fun and games
going on up there, on the part of the Senate Rules Committee. We
asked Dr. Stubblebine to take on this assignment, believing in his
expertise and that he could in the reorganization going on in that
department make a great contribution. And this is the same Dr.
Stubblebine who has already been approved by the same Rules Committee
previously for Directof of the Department of Health.
Q
The committee, though, doesn't think he's qualified for
this particular job.
A
Well, we think he is and as I say, 'm very concerned that
there are some games being played politically up there by the Rules
Committee, and I intend to find out from thePPresident Pro Tem if
that is SO. I have spoken to him once already on rumors that
were coming down that such games were going to be played and he gave
me his pledge that he would not permit such a thing.
Governor, I think two more counties were taken off the
gas plan yesterday, I think.
A
Yes.
o
What does that say about the availability of gas in
California?
A
Well, it is exactly -- the availability is exactly what we
have stated. And we reluctantly, as you know, made that
emergency provision available to counties to halt what we said was
panic buying. And unjustified panic buying. Now, the counties -
in those particular counties have evievidently believe that panic
buying is over and the people have arealized the availability of
gasoline, the amount that we have, and I hope they haven't been
precipitant but I'm delighted this is justified and look forward to
removing more. We, as you know, regretted having to -- to follow
such a plan in the first place. We said that it was unaecessary if
people would simply not be panicked. And so the counties are
making that decision. And --
Q
There is no more gas, but people would just stop panic
buying?
0
Governo I believe there's two po .ons open in the
DistrictCourt of Appeal at the present time. Do you have any
will
indication when you/fill those positions?
A
No, we are reviewing candidates right now and hopefully make
a decision as soon as possible.
0
Governor, back to Dr. Stubblebine for a moment, what was
the price that was asked - the cost of approving him? You are
suggesting that there was a quid pro quo offer?
A
Oh, no. No, just -- there were rumors that had come
d ownsfairs that because this was my last year that there might be
difficulty in getting any appointments to any approved -
Q
Have you started to notice a lame duck syndrome among the
legislature about this Stubblebine thing?
A
This is becoming more --- this is the only area in which
I'd had that concern.
Q
Governor, our sports desk is interested since you are
a Man of the Year in Washington Touchdown Club, do you think too
much free enterprise is ruining the national football league?
(Laughter)
A
Well, I don't know -- no, I dontt think too much free
enterprise is ruining ft, but it is like in any other going business,
sometimes the prosperity of those in the business attract others
until they finally satiate the market or they overproduce and
then there is a leveling off. Now, whether -- whether we can stand
another league and whether it - there is a market for it or not,
only time will tell. But it goes on in every business and including
the sports business. Now, I understand that major league baseball
is talking about a possible third league, but this is -- I don't --
I think you just have to wait andsee. Are there that many customers
and having been in show business also I worry sometimes if some of
them recognize the danger of overexposure.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
OOO
-11-
ORIGIN' IL
NOON & PRATT
1
2
3
4
5
PRESS CONFERENCE HELD BY
GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
6
at
7
Greater L. A. Press Club
8
600 North Vermont
Los Angeles, California
9
10
Commencing at 11:00 A.M.,
Tuesday, April 16, 1974
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Reported by:
26
V. Allison Webster, C.S.R.
2
NOON & PRATT
1
Proceedings of Press Conference
2
3
THE GOVERNOR: Ladies and gentlemen, I have no
4
opening statement of any kind.
5
QUESTION: Governor, would you comment on the latest
6
development in the Patty Hearst case in San Francisco,
7
the bank robbery yesterday.
8
THE GOVERNOR: Well, I don't think there is any
9
comment other than what has been said already by others
10
about this. I still don't think that there is conclusive
11
proof that she is not under coercion, and the answer must
12
be her safe return before we will know.
13
QUESTION: Governor, the law enforcement agencies have
14
been operating on the assumption that she is not a
15
participant. Do you think there is any reason to change
16
their approach because she may be a participant?
17
THE GOVERNOR: Well, this is what I meant about agreeing
18
with the statements that have been made already, where they
19
still say now they would like her as a material witness,
20
but they have reason to doubt -- or to question - whether
21
she is actually operating as a free agent as a member of the
22
group.
23
QUESTION: Governor, do you think that the law enforce-
24
ment agencies are doing their job properly in that these
25
people are able to go up and down the streets, like, for
26
instance, going to the bank yesterday?
3
NOON & PRATT
1
THE GOVERNOR: Well, this is the first time, to my
2
knowledge, that they have actually appeared. One of the
3
problems up until this time has been that that inner group,
4
some of those individuals who were identified through the
5
photos yesterday as being there, had been completely out of
6
sight. There was just no clue or ability to follow or
7
know their whereabouts.
8
I think that Attorney General Younger yesterday in
9
his statement said it all. It was a brand-new experience,
10
and I think everything is done; that now as he said when you
11
look in hindsight that it could have been handled better,
12
and I think among the things that - Well, I remember I
13
remarked about some things of this kind at the beginning
14
about those people who accepted the food. As he made clear
15
now in looking at hindsight this was participating, further-
16
ing the felony, and would not be allowed in the future. But
17
we have nothing to go on. It was a brand-new experience
18
for everyone.
19
I think this is something -- I think there are
20
other things that we have to study now as to how to take
21
any possible advantage or profit out of kidnapping. For
22
example, I think we should study very seriously the idea of
23
making it a criminal offense for anyone to attempt to
24
ransom a kidnap victim.
25
QUESTION: Is it now time that we change our approach
26
in this case, or law enforcement change their approach?
4
NOON & PRATT
1
THE GOVERNOR: Well, I wouldn't be qualified to answer
2
that because I don't know exactly what the policy has been.
3
I know that everyone has been dedicated to one end: To
4
getting her safe return. And I think that is still the
5
mission. But I don't feel that I can comment on what
6
specifically law enforcement should now do, and even if I
7
had awareness of it, I don't think it would be wise for me
8
to comment on it.
9
QUESTION: As Governor, are you going to urge law
10
enforcement agencies to be more aggressive now in light of
11
recent developments?
12
THE GOVERNOR: Well, I haven't had an opportunity to
13
meet with the Attorney General since he made that statement.
14
And, again, as I say, this is actually within the jurisdiction
15
of local law enforcement, not the State.
16
QUESTION: Governor, do you want to make it a crime
17
to attempt to ransom an individual?
18
THE GOVERNOR: I said this is something to study. You
19
see, you can't expect -
20
QUESTION: But this is short of kidnapping -
21
THE GOVERNOR: No. You can't expect the family, of
22
course, of a kidnap victim, you can't criticize them for
23
wanting to do everything they can to get back the member of
24
their family. Therefore, maybe the law must take a place,
25
or a part, in taking profit out of kidnapping. And, as I
26
have said, I think it is something to study, and I really
5
NOON & PRATT
1
mean something to study. I do not have a fixed point on
2
this, myself, as yet, is whether we should make any attempt
3
to ransom, take it out of the family's -
4
QUESTION: Well, how does this separate from kidnapping?
5
That is what I don't understand.
6
THE GOVERNOR: No. You would take it out of the hands
7
of the family, and the kidnappers, themselves, if this should
8
prove practical, would realize that there was no percentage
9
in kidnapping a victim for ransom because no one would be
10
allowed to offer a ransom.
11
QUESTION: Oh, I see. You mean the parent who offered
12
ransom -
13
THE GOVERNOR: That is right; make it a criminal
14
penalty to attempt to ransom.
15
QUESTION: Governor, how do you feel about the federal
(Hearst)
16
role, the FBI's role in this case? Were they also
17
snookered? Did they do the proper thing?
18
THE GOVERNOR: I have no way of knowing. I certainly
19
wouldn't criticize. I think that law enforcement is doing
20
everything they can, and they were totally without the
21
knowledge of her whereabouts; still are, for that matter.
22
QUESTION: Governor, let's face it. We have got a
23
gang that can go right to downtown San Francisco and rob a
24
bank with a kidnapped hostage and get away with it. Doesn't
25
this signify anything to you about what law enforcement is
26
doing?
6
NOON & PRATT
1
THE GOVERNOR: Well, it signifies that crime has been
2
a problem for a long time, and we have been trying to deal
3
with the problem of crime for a long time. We have made
4
some progress. We, ourselves, at the State level have
5
stiffened our backs quite a bit with regard to parole and
6
probation.
7
We have, at the same time, not given up on our
8
efforts to rehabilitate those that we think can be
9
rehabilitated, but there is no question that crime has been
10
the number one problem for a great many years in this
11
country. I think that part of the responsibility for the
12
spread of crime has been an aura and an attitude of
13
permissiveness back through recent years. I think our own
14
recommendations that are getting no place in the State
15
Legislature, and should, such as the Exclusionary Rule
16
that we would like to see changed, I think it is time for
17
a lot of people to review their thinking about crime and
18
to recognize that the first responsibility of government
19
is to protect the law-abiding and not to protect the criminal
20
from society. I have been saying that over and over again.
21
I would like to point out that most anticrime
22
measures that are introduced here at our State level, from
23
my own experience, die in committee. There is a great
24
reluctance on the part of certainly the majority party in
25
the Legislature to do anything to stiffen our attitude
26
toward crime.
7
NOON & PRATT
1
QUESTION: Governor, what is your response to Mayor
2
Alioto's comment that San Francisco is going to eliminate
3
the S.L.A. in six months?
4
THE GOVERNOR: Well, I think it is a worthy goal. I
5
am all for it.
6
QUESTION: Governor, could I change the subject? The
7
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted this morning
8
to ask you to rescind the odd-even gas rationing in Los
9
Angeles County. Have you been informed of that yet? If
10
so, what is your response?
11
THE GOVERNOR: Well, I didn't know they voted; I knew
12
they were going to vote. My response is one of, "Fine."
13
There is no question we instituted that plan at the request
14
of counties on an emergency basis because of the panic
15
buying. We did it almost reluctantly, because we felt that
16
the panic buying was unjustified, no reason for it.
17
Evidently, the plan has proven successful. There are only
18
two counties left that have not rescinded it, and, as far
19
as I know, in the counties that rescinded it earlier that
20
asked us to remove the emergency regulations, that it has
21
not fallen back to the panic buying.
22
My only concern at the beginning when the first
23
county asked to lift it was to make sure that they knew and
24
were sure in their minds that we had passed the emergency.
25
But, actually, I think it has been one of the swiftest and
26
best working emergency measures that has been adopted in this
8
NOON & PRATT
State in the several years that I have been Governor.
1
QUESTION: Governor, do you think the emergency is over?
2
3
THE GOVERNOR: Well, that is what we will find out. It,
of course, can be reinstituted if we should revert to panic
4
5
buying, but I don't think we will. I think that the people
now have realized that there is gasoline there. At the
6
same time, I hope they realize that we still have to have
7
8
our conservation measures. We still are limited in supply
9
of gasoline. There is no question that we can suddenly
rush out and do everything that we always used to do. If
10
people will remember that, then there is no reason to have
11
12
any marketing plan of this kind, if they will use common
sense.
13
14
QUESTION: Governor, do you have any idea when you
15
will act officially to end the plan in Los Angeles?
16
THE GOVERNOR: Well, whatever their request is;
17
immediately.
18
QUESTION: They said they would like to have it back
19
tomorrow, is that possible?
20
THE GOVERNOR: I don't have anyone here from our Energy
21
Council, but I don't see any reason why we can't. If they
22
administer it, yes, if that is when they want it lifted,
that is when it will be lifted.
23
24
QUESTION: Governor, do you think that local, state
25
and federal law officials, officers, kind of took a soft
26
approach because the girl involved was Patricia Hearst?
9
NOON & PRATT
1
Do you think they would have moved more vigorously if it
2
had been somebody else? Yet two people were shot in San
3
Francisco yesterday; the point has been raised here that
4
maybe this is the beginning of more of this.
5
THE GOVERNOR: Well, you have had quite a number shot
6
there, and, apparently, it is the same -
7
QUESTION: Not by this gang, though, if I might point
8
out.
9
THE GOVERNOR: No. I don't think that what you are
10
saying, that the Hearst girl made any difference. I think
11
if you will look back on all of our kidnapping cases, you
12
will find out that law enforcement's first consideration
13
has been the safety of the victim, and they have acceded
14
to family's demands. In this instance, one of the things
15
that was a first time that gave us, I am sure, law
16
enforcement problems they don't normally have - Normally
17
when the ransom demand is made, you have, for the first
18
time, the possibility of a connection that would lead you
19
to the kidnappers. But when, in this instance, the ransom
20
demand was totally removed from any connection with them,
21
they said, "No, you just go feed some other people, we
22
don't care who they are, you go feed them, that is our
23
ransom," there was not set up that possible connection
24
where you could trace a ransom to the kidnappers, and thus
25
hopefully free the victim. This is what I think the
26
Attorney General meant when he remarked about this being
10
NOON & PRATT
1
"a first time," that no one had ever had any experience
2
with anything of this kind.
3
But I don't think there was anything different
4
in their attitude toward acceding to the family's wishes
5
about making efforts to get the victim back safely.
(Patty Hearst)
6
QUESTION: Let us say, Governor, that she is involved
7
in some way in this caper. Do you think that she should be
8
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
9
THE GOVERNOR: Well, I think the law enforcement has
10
already made that plain. The United States Attorney said,
11
I think it was the other day, wasn't it, they said, "Yes,
12
if the evidence indicates that she actually was participating
13
of her own free will, then she would be charged like anyone
14
else." But he said that there is evidence to indicate that
15
that is not the case. But until they have more evidence
16
they are going to seek her as a material witness.
17
QUESTION: Governor, on your earlier comment, the
18
Attorney General's statement, that anyone who cooperates,
19
such as the food-give-away program, should perhaps be
20
punished in the future. What would be your assessment of
21
the role of the news media in all of this, and how it would
22
apply to such a law?
23
THE GOVERNOR: Well, I think - I am not a lawyer,
24
and I would want to see what the legalities of this were,
25
but I think the Attorney General made the point that the
26
news media also had allowed itself to be used as a go-between
11
NOON & PRATT
1
in the transmitting of the demands of the kidnappers, and
2
that again looking back in hindsight, he said that these
3
were all things that now if you had to do over again would
4
be done differently.
5
QUESTION: Governor, you said local law enforcement
6
agencies are handling this situation at the moment, but
7
doesn't San Francisco fall under your jurisdiction?
8
THE GOVERNOR: Well, all of the State falls under State
9
jurisdiction for those areas that are protected by the State
10
and that have not been left to local authority. Now the
11
State, for example, can enter any community on certain
12
emergency bases, but usually when the community asks for
13
the declaration of emergency, just as in the gasoline plan
14
that we were just talking about, but the State does not
15
interfere with local law enforcement, no more than the State
16
interferes with the autonomy of a local school board except
17
upon request, or if there should be a disaster of such
18
proportions that the State automatically declares it an
19
emergency.
20
QUESTION: Governor, could you turn your hat around
21
and become a politician for a moment. A number of candidates
22
for Congress are being given advice on how they should
23
campaign. Can you give us the benefit of your thinking,
24
if you were going to advise a Congressional candidate, what
25
would you tell them about how to handle the Nixon Administra-
26
tion?
12
NOON & PRATT
THE GOVERNOR: Well, the only thing that I know, I
1
have been making a public statement, as you know, in several
2
addresses that I have made to Republican gatherings, and I
3
made it plain that I don't think anyone can endorse or should
4
endorse Watergate, the related incidents. It was an illegal
5
act, but it is now before the courts, and I think that is
6
where it should be settled.
7
8
I think in the meantime every one of us should
assume that those involved are innocent unless and until
9
10
proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Now, as to whether any outside figure in government,
11
12
that is the President or anyone else, can be helpful to
a candidate, that is a decision each candidate has to make
13
for himself. We have had one here in the State recently.
14
15
We won a Congressional race, Bob Lagomarsino, and Bob made
16
a very conscious strategy decision that he wasn't going to
17
ask any outsider to come in, even including the Governor,
18
and he campaigned on his own, strictly on his own, and he
19
won the race.
20
Now, in 1966, if you remember, I did the same
21
thing in my race. When the candidate on the other side
22
was bringing in everybody, the tourist traffic, if you
23
didn't get out of the way, would almost trample you coming
24
from the East. And I said, "No," and campaigned without
25
asking anyone for help. That, at the time, proved to be
26
a successful strategy, at least contributed to success.
13
NOON & PRATT
1
Whether you would always do that or not, that I don't know.
2
QUESTION: That is what I am wondering, what is your
3
thinking today?
4
THE GOVERNOR: Well, beyond the opening remarks that
5
I made, I don't think you can make a blanket statement.
6
QUESTION: Well, would you identify with Mr. Nixon,
7
and particularly a member of the House is going to have
8
to deal with the situation, should he commit himself?
9
THE GOVERNOR: Well, no, because, in the first place,
10
I think that too many Congressmen have already committed
11
themselves to the place that if they were really a jury
12
in any other kind of legal case, they would have long since
13
been disqualified. First of all, a committee has not as
14
yet declared that they have found that there was an
15
impeachable offense, and yet you have the spectacle of
16
some Democratic Congressmen announcing already that they
17
found him guilty, but they can't tell you of what, because
18
the committee has not yet reported out what they think is
19
an impeachable offense. I think that the proper answer,
20
and again if I may refer to Congressman Lagomarsino, he
21
said as a Congressman if this came before him, he would then
22
make his decision based on the evidence as it was presented
23
to him.
24
QUESTION: Governor, getting back to the odd-even plan
25
in the use of gasoline, do you think that by lifting all
26
of these plans in the different counties in the State of
14
NOON & PRATT
California that motorists are going to go back on the
1
gasoline binge and lose all thought of conserving gasoline?
2
THE GOVERNOR: Well, they won't do it for very long
3
before they find out that there isn't that much gasoline.
4
But if you will remember when we instituted it, we pointed
5
out how much gasoline there was, that the average motorist
6
was only going to have to reduce about one mile out of five
7
of unnecessary driving, probably even less than that if
8
he observed the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit, and that then
9
there would be plenty of gasoline if we did this.
10
But the people were topping off gas tanks, they
11
12
were lining up at the oil stations, it was pure panic
13
buying. And we kept emphasizing that we had as much gas
14
every time they were doing this as they had the month
15
before when they weren't doing this. So, finally, we
16
instituted this plan at the request of the counties. We
17
announced, "Here is a plan. If any county wants to declare
18
an emergency situation, we will then invoke this as an
19
emergency measure." Eight counties did SO. And what we
20
had said before was proven correct, that this slowing down
21
of calming of the panic, they found they could buy on
22
alternate days and get gasoline, the lines disappeared
23
and everyone seemed to be getting along fine, and they
24
could have even without the plan. So, now the counties
25
have said that they believe that this has passed and that
26
the people will observe it.
15
NOON & PRATT
1
I do think that all of us, and I think that I
2
could be so presumptuous as to suggest that the media has
3
a responsibility in this, too, I think that is to keep
4
pointing out that there is nothing that has happened that
5
means we do not have to keep conserving all forms of energy.
6
QUESTION: Governor, people are driving a lot faster
7
on the freeways even though the 55-mile-an-hour speed
8
limit is still in effect. Do you think it should be lifted?
9
THE GOVERNOR: Well, not according to the mail we
10
have been receiving, the response from people in California.
11
I was very surprised to find that there seems to be a great
12
and overwhelming sentiment for retaining it, and not just
13
as a conservation measure, a great many people have found
14
out that they can talk to each other in an automobile when
15
they are not doing 75 miles an hour. And I said the other
16
day that 55 miles an hour might bring back conversation.
17
But also the safety factor has impressed a great many
18
people; there are about a hundred people a month alive in
19
California because of the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit who
20
wouldn't be alive today. Maybe when the time comes that
21
it is no longer necessary as a conservation measure, we
22
may find the driving public has a different idea. Now
23
maybe there are modifications, maybe we should retain the
24
speed limit simply as a safety factor in the metropolitan
25
areas on the freeways, but maybe on the long stretches
26
where you get out on the highway driving from here to San
16
NOON & PRATT
1
Francisco or Fresno someplace, maybe it might be possible
2
there to ease it.
3
QUESTION: Haven't you been getting some pressure
4
from Highway Commissioner Walter PUdinsky to raise the
5
speed limit saying that he is having a great deal of
6
difficulty enforcing the 55?
7
THE GOVERNOR: Well, Walt answered some questions one
8
day, and he expressed some of the natural frustrations
9
of the Highway Patrolman giving tickets to save gas when
10
in the past they have given tickets with the knowledge that
11
it is a life-saving measure. At the time we didn't have
12
all the knowledge that we have now about the safety factor
13
and the saving of lives, so I haven't talked to Walt lately
14
about it. As I say, I think it should be retained for a
15
while.
16
QUESTION: Governor, does he now feel that it is a
17
safety measure?
18
THE GOVERNOR: I haven't had a chance to talk to him,
19
so I don't know.
20
QUESTION: But he has your information now, doesn't he?
21
THE GOVERNOR: Yes. As a matter of fact, we have
22
theirs; they are the ones we depend on.
23
QUESTION: Following up on an earlier question, two
24
innocent people were shot in San Francisco yesterday. Can
25
you foresee a time when the safe return of Patty Hearst
26
might not be the top priority? Again I ask the question,
17
NOON & PRATT
1
do you think that there should be a change of strategy?
2
THE GOVERNOR: I am not ducking that. I just have no
3
way in which I can comment on what has been the strategy,
4
SO I couldn't say as to whether there should be with regard
5
to law enforcement efforts to apprehend the kidnappers,
6
the S.L.A. and to get her return. I am, and properly so,
7
not that well-versed on what strategy they have been
8
following.
9
QUESTION: Well, how about situations like yesterday,
10
how many situations like yesterday can we -
11
THE GOVERNOR: Well, we don't even want one. But
12
when they kidnapped her, they did the same thing, the wild
13
just shooting in general directions, and it was just a
14
miracle that there weren't people hit in that particular
15
episode. What we have to face, and I am sure law enforcement
16
is well aware of this, is that it is well and good for a
17
few people if they want to, like this gang, to refer to
18
themselves in kind of a romatic atmosphere as being
19
revolutionaries, they are common crooks and everything that
20
can be done to apprehend them and to get them off of the
21
streets and protect the citizens should be done, and I
22
just have to have the confidence that law enforcement has
23
been operating on that basis up until now.
24
But as I said before, with no connection between the
25
ransom demand and the kidnappers, my understanding is that
26
they were totally out of sight, that every effort was being
18
NOON & PRATT
1
made to try and locate them, and they have not been
2
located. Now, who knows, maybe having come out in the open
- Now, you know law enforcement can make mistakes, but
3
4
the fellows you are looking for cannot make one.
5
QUESTION: Can we have innocent people being shot
6
like they were in San Francisco?
7
THE GOVERNOR: No, and you have two young fellows
who --
8
9
QUESTION: At some point, then, the strategy must
10
be changed.
11
THE GOVERNOR: Well, as I said before, you are asking
12
me to comment on something which I don't know what strategy
13
is being used.
14
QUESTION: Well, whatever strategy is being used wasn't
15
working.
16
THE GOVERNOR: I just watched a television show last
17
night after I got home, in which the sheriff in a small
18
California town was trying to track down a homicidal maniac.
19
QUESTION: How did that end, by the way?
20
THE GOVERNOR: Well, I will tell you. It ended with
21
the sheriff, he was doing exactly right and everything he
22
could do, but the townspeople had lost patience, and they
23
wanted to go out with bands of vigilantes and do something,
24
and they didn't know what they were doing. And I think
25
the same thing, the inference that some wrong strategy
26
has been followed by law enforcement cannot be based on fact,
19
NOON & PRATT
1
because we don't know the strategy, and properly we don't
2
know it. Law enforcement doesn't go out and advertise
3
with communiques and bulletins exactly what they are doing
4
to try and apprehend the criminals, because they don't
5
want the criminals - they figure they read papers, too.
6
So, we know that within the State of California,
7
our law enforcement, our police force -- I think this is
8
true of this city right here - is probably as effective
9
and more effective than you can find anyplace in the world.
10
I think we have the finest law enforcement in California,
11
by and large -
12
QUESTION: What has to happen before the Governor of
13
California becomes personally involved in the San Francisco
14
situation?
15
THE GOVERNOR: Now what has to happen, you say?
16
QUESTION: Before the Governor of California becomes
17
personally involved.
18
THE GOVERNOR: Well, the Governor of California is
19
personally involved to the extent that my office permits
20
and the prerogatives of my office permit, which is at the
21
moment standing by in liaison with these people, ready to
22
do anything if there is anything we can do to help at the
23
request of law enforcement. Beyond that, there is no
24
way or proviso in which the Governor can go in and grandstand
25
and say to the police, "Go out and find those crooks," when
26
the police are bending every effort to do SO.
20
NOON & PRATT
1
QUESTION: In other words, as Governor there is very
2
little you can do at this point?
3
THE GOVERNOR: At this point, except to let them know
that all of the facilities of State law enforcement are
4
5
there at their command if they can be of help in any way,
6
and I know that there is a liaison that is going on.
7
But, again, I respect the fact that the greatest
8
law of security is the need to know, and that no one of
9
us, even the Governor of California, should be given
10
information that he does not need to have with regard to
11
the strategy that is being pursued.
12
QUESTION: Well, Governor, if you were in charge of
13
the investigation, what would you do?
14
THE GOVERNOR: I am not a policeman. I don't have
15
their expertise and their training, and if I were in charge
16
of the investigation I would turn to the best authorities
17
in law enforcement and say, "What do I do now?" Again,
18
there isn't any way to answer specifically on the things
19
that you are asking. There isn't any way for me to speak
20
even of what I might know without endangering --
21
QUESTION: Do you know something?
22
THE GOVERNOR: What?
23
QUESTION: Do you know something?
24
THE GOVERNOR: As I said, we are in liaison with local
25
law enforcement to the extent that if there is anything
26
we can do to help we want to help. Obviously, it is
21
NOON & PRATT
1
possible I have been told some things that someone else
2
hasn't been told.
3
QUESTION: Governor, I think what bothers us down here
4
is we have been told that San Francisco is a city pretty
5
frightened with a guy that has shot up 17 people; now you
6
have got the S.L.A. evidently running around, and I think,
7
if I might put it on the line, what is being done to make
8
San Francisco a safe city again? That is the way I get it,
9
so that is the question, if you would like to comment.
10
THE GOVERNOR: I can only tell you that I think everything
11
is being done that law enforcement can do. If you mention
12
the other case of the killers who have been walking around
13
the streets shooting people down just with no connection,
14
again you have a situation there that is unprecedented
15
virtually. Normally in a murder you start with the suspects
16
of the relationships and who could have a motive. You now
17
have in this wave of revolutionary fervor that is going on
18
around the world and we have seen it in a number of other
19
countries and it is finally here, as it inevitably had to
20
come here, you have seen the spectacle of people shot down
21
for absolutely no reason, no knowledge, when I am sure
22
the person shooting them has never seen them before, doesn't
23
know them, and there is a very difficult law enforcement
24
problem. If someone just wants to pull a gun and shoot
25
someone and take cover, and there is no way to tie them in
26
in any way, all the normal investigative procedures of
22
NOON & PRATT
1
finding out who knew him, who were his enemies, who had
2
a reason to profit by his dying or his death, those are
3
out the window. You just have somebody who has got a
4
gun and is willing to shoot anyone if he finds himself alone
5
on the street with them. You know that a great effort,
6
the so-called "Zebra Squad" is working on this.
7
QUESTION: Let me say we ought to have you here at
8
the Press Club here in Los Angeles more often.
9
THE GOVERNOR: Thank you, very much.
10
(Whereupon, at 11:35 A.M., the conference
11
was terminated.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
NOON & PRATT
23
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
)
SS.
2
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
3
4
I, V. Allison Webster, a Certified Shorthand
5
Reporter and Notary Public within and for the County of
6
Los Angeles and State of California, do hereby certify:
7
That the foregoing proceedings was taken before
8
me at the time and place herein set forth, and were taken down
9
by me in shorthand and thereafter transcribed into type-
10
writing under my direction and supervision;
11
That the foregoing 22 pages contain a true and
12
correct transcription of my shorthand notes so taken.
13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed
14
my name and affixed my seal this 16th day of April, 1974.
15
16
17
OFFICIAL SEAL
VICTORIA L. WEBSTER
18
NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Notary Public in and for the
19
My Commission Expires Dec. 4, 1976
County of Los Angeles, State
of California
20
(V. ALLISON WEBSTER)
21
22
23
24
25
26
NEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD APRIL 23, 1974
o00
Reported by:
Beverly D. Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's news conference is
furnished to the members of the Capitol Press Corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible, no corrections are made and the re is no guaranty
of absolute accuracy.)
oOo
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Good morning. Who's first.
o
Governor, ifyou are asked by the Lieutenant Governor to
testify in his behalf in Washington, will you?
(Watergate)
A
Well, I haven't been asked and I know nothing more than
that story that appeared in the paper, and I'll abide by the law
if I'm ask ed or subpoenaed or whatever has to be done.
o
You will abide by the law if you are subpoenaed, but what
if there -- if the Lieutenant Governor just merely asks you to come
back, would you?
A
Well, I think that I would, yes. As I say, whatever is
right to do.
O
Governor, yesterday the California State Employees Associa-
tion asked you to sign a letter agreeing to arbitration of a dispute
over wages and benefits. Would you agree to arbitration?
A
No, I don't believe that we have theright to do such a thing
in the dealings with public employees. Now, we have been meeting
with them regularly and I think they have given a quite distorted
position in regard to this situation. In the present budget there
was almost a quarter of a billion dollars put in for increases and
benefits for tle state employees. Now, that nearly quarter of a
billion dollars will be in thecoming budget with another 127 million
on top of it. And we took the recommendations of the Personnel
Board completely and accepted them without any change last year, in
putting that money in. But for them to propose arbitration, they
work for the people and the refore in dealing with them the elected
representatives of the people must be the last word other than the
people themselves. And for the elected representatives to delegate
-1-
their responsibility
someone else not chosen
the voters is
to put in one -- in some arbitrator's hands the right to make a
settlement that could result in -- in imposing a tax increase on the
people.
Q
Do you think there is a very serious possibility of a
general strike of state employees?
A
I hope not. I have a great faith in the public employees
of this state. I think we have the highest level, and as I have said
it many times, the finest employees of any state in the union. And
I would hope that most of them would be more responsibile than that.
Frankly, I don't think they have been given a true picture by the
hierarchy, the leadership of the CSEA.
a
If a strike should take place, Governor, what do you do?
A
Strikes are illegal on the part of public officials.
I would uphold the law.
O
New subject, Governor. Outside of a composite sketch that the
SLA or -- pardon me, the San Francisco Police Department has of this
so-called Zebra killer, the stop and search technique, the tacties
being used by the Police Department has produced nothing up to date.
Do you stilb feel that the tactics should continue in light of the
growing opposition in the community that this type of tactics makes
racism?
A
Well, I don't and can&t put myself as an authority on law
enforcement or police tacties, or what you use and what is an
almost unprecedented situation. I think the people - the bulk of
the people in San Francisco have been remarkably patient with this.
At the same time, I think that there is a great responsibility
placed on law enforcement that they should use restraint and not
abuse this - this program or what theymare attempting to do. But
as to its effectiveness or whether it is going to help in the
situation, that's a decision for law enforcement to make.
a
New topic.
A
I couldn't make it.
Q
New
question. I'd like to go back to the previous one,
the public employees. You said you'd uphold the law, just how
would you do that?
A
Well, the law is that at the end of five days of an
unexcused absence, you assume that theindividual no longer is employed.
-2-
O
And what would you do?
A
And you seek a replacement.
Q
That would be sort of hard to do, wouldn't it, if you had
a hundred thousand state employees go out on strike?
A
Well, maybe we might find out how few people you coûld
get along with, running the state.
O
Several questions, if I may, on your campaign.
SQUIRE? Wait a minute, are you all done on that subject?
0
Governor, is there any room within your administration's
bargaining position in regard to the Personnel Board recommendations
on salaries, or is that a fixed proposal?
A
Look, we don't have the Personnel Board's recommendation as
yet.
And as I say, the figures that are being thrown around
by the CSEA leadership are absolutely false and distorted. They
would have the people believe that they are talking about something
of 190 million dollar request and that we are talking only 80 million
dolhars, and as I said, we went almost a quarter of a billion dollars
in the present year. Now, the money that we could not give to the
empl oyees because of the rulmng by the Wage and Price Commission in
Washington has been held in a fund and now that a decision has been
handed down they are going to get that additional money. Now, once you
institue that, that means that that same quarter of a billion dollars
is in the budget for the coming year, but on top of that, what it
amounts to is the employees of California will be getting over the
two-year period a nineteen per cent raise and that is quite different
than the figures that are being bandied about by this little group
over at the headquarters of CSEA.
Q
When the Water Department struck, isnt' it the case that
your administration then bargained with the striking workers?
A
No, no, as a matter of fact they came back in. We told
them of the five-day thing, and they came back in at the end of the
five days. And we did negotiate because we were aware ourselves --
Q
Excuse me, you say you did negotiate?
A
Yes, we were aware ourselves that the -- that that was one
of the departments that we had discovered was far below comparable
scale outside or in other branches of government. Now, we have since
then have had an on-going study of the whole state, all state
empl oyees to find out where we stood with regard to the law that says
-3-
their --- their salari
and their prerequisites
it be comparable
to the outside. And we found in some areas we were much closer or
even above, and inother areas we were much below. S₀ what we have
been trying to do with salary scales is now bring this picture up.
This means that in some instances where someone was already above
scale they weren't going to get the inrease that another department
might get where there was a great differential.
ED MEESE:
Govemor, could I correct a misinterpretation.
We did not negotiate during the strike or when the employees struck.
The understanding was that no negotiations would be held until they
went back to work, then there was -
A
That's what I meant, I think that within the five day thing --
maybe I'm wrong, then I thought it was thefive days and they went
back to work.
0
They went back to work.
A
That's what I was intending to say, we did not negotiate
while they were out.
0
Several questions, if I may, on your campaign reform
tactics. One, if you move the primary date from June to September
would you also have a separate presidential primary in presidential
years or would you thereby force - since the conventions are
normally in July and August, would you also be forcing the presiden-
tial election to be conducted much later as well, because you can't
very well have a convention without a California del egation.
A
Well, as a matter of fact, when I made the presentation
to the Better Business Bureau in San Jose, I brought up that very
instance of what could happen. And I said, "Since California has
taken the lead in a number of other things that have bhen been -
other states have follewed suit, and even the national government
has -- has followed suit, that it would be our hope that they waild --
that the entire - the national elections would also change to fit this
pattern because this is obviously where the greatest cost lies in -
in campaigning and where the problem is just asgreat as it is here." "
So it is our hope that we could show the way.
Q
You could force the way, couldn't you, pretty well?
A
Well, maybe if California is that powerful.
Q
Well, Governor, have you any criticism of the fact that
prior to World War II the presidential primary was held in July --
June, and the state primary was held in August?
A
I wasn't awareof that.
-4-
Q
I didn't think so.
O
Have you taken a position on Prop. 9, Governor?
Q
Can I continue to --
Q
Have you taken a position on Prop. 9?
A
Marty, let me finish my question.
a
It is related.
A
No, we have -- we have not had a complete study of that
although I'm familiar with enough of it to know that our concern
with Drop. 9 Thashto do with the fact that we have already passed
legislation having to do with conflict of interest, andfull discl osure.
And in both instances, Proposition 9 would take us back to less
protection in both those fields than we presently have. It would
supercede the present laws. There are some other things that we
think are wrong and we believe that the package we are presenting
will accomplish -- we have no quarrel with the goal and the aim of
Proposition 9, and this is why we have had a task force for several
months that has finally come forth with this progfam thatwe are
recommending. We think this program is better than Proposition 9.
It doesn't contain some of the defects and in some instances achieves
the same things and even in some we think a little stronger.
Ω
Will you take a definite position before the primary on
Prop. 9 or leave it at that?
A
We have not, as you know we always sit down with the
propositions and go through all of them and abide by that decision
based on cabinet studies, and we haven't had that yet.
in
Q
Now, you have also suggested/this package that no one
but organizations == I'm sorry, that only individuals would be
allowed to contribute, not organizations, with the exception of the
party, and their charter groups. Could, under your proposal,
could parties receive contributions from corporations or labor unions?
Would they then become funds?
A
No, no, but the -- but a partycould receive contributions
from individ uals as individual members and then use that money in
the -- in support of campaigns of party candidates.
Q
Will that be spelled out in the bill, that the corporation
that no groups may contribute to parties as well as toindividuals?
A
Yes, this will be spelled out, the drafting is going
forward now. Yes, we didn't want to interfere with the party
structure, that's part of our two-party system here.
-5-
Q
And the the 3 point, in two of the dif rent bills one
would bar lobbyists and the other would bar judges from contributing
to campaigns. Is there any -- in your mind any question of the
constitutionality of that -- those provisions? Both Lieutenant
Governor Reinecke and Controller Flournoy suggested that it may be
unconstitutional. An infringement upon the First Amendment, of
freedomes, to prevent anyone from contributing as an individual to
any campaign.
A
Well, we just happen to believe that the judge falls into
a particular position of -- where he is supposed to be above all
partisanship and above all bias and he has torun as a non-partisan
and therefore we thought we would limit him to campaign contributions
that would involve only his own campaign when he had to run.
Q
Any particular judge?
A
What?
a
Any particular judge?
A
No.
Q
That's not the moral
A
Any and all judges that have to run, asthey do.
O
And on lobbyists, what's the reasoning there? Doesn't a
bebbyist have the right --
A
Because we don't think that the lobbyist is contributing
his own money in the preset system that he's contributing in behalf of
his clients, so this would be organization giving again.
Q
Governor, what's your realistic appraisal of the chances
that your program will get to thelegislature? The Speaker
yesterday told us that the proposal was self-serving and he didn't
like it.
A
Yes. I read the Speaker's position on that. And of
course I can understand his concern because now that we have full
disclosure the bulk of his contributions in his own campaign
apparently comes from lobbyists, corporations and labor unions, and
to suggest that it is self-serving in anyway is a little yard to
swallow. Now, you ladies and gentlemen, now with the full
disclosure laws have full access to all the facts and all you have
to do is take a look at where the contributions come from for any of
the candidates and you can stand on those figures. This implication
that he made that the old stereotype image that the Republicans are
all rich people and the Democrats are all poor people is not borne'
-6-
out by the facts. And the plain facts are that as far back as
25 years, which is about asfar back, I guess, as there is an account-
ing of any kind, the Republican party has outdone the Democratic party
by a great distance in the amount of contributions, the percentage
of their contributions that come from small donors. As a matte r of
fact, the figure is about five to one, andto suggest that we are
the party of the powerful and the rich ignores the fact that we are
outnumbered about twenty to one in the entertainment world, which is
well known for its affluence and its high pay scales. We areout-
numbered in the executive offices of the advertising industry. In
the publishing field. In Wall Street bankers, by the other side.
The opposition has its affluent people also and right now
we are having a primary campaign in which the three leading
Democractic candidates have received contributions that are more
than double what has been contributed to the campaigns of the two
leading Republican candidates, plus which the latest reporting
shows that some very hefty and healthy corporate gifts found their
way into Democractic candidates' hands. S₀ he's just blowing
smoke and talking aampaign talk when he tries to point out theyewill
be benefited. I'm quite sure he objects to our plan because of
the limitation on lobbyists and corporation and labor organization
gifts. But I would give one last plus, what is more out of line
with our democractic system than the pronouncement by the CSEA,
a hi erarchy, that they were going to have a half a million dollars,
$500,000, to buy a governor candidate. They didn't use the term
"buy, but they said exactly the same thing, that they would give
to that candidate that would do the most for them. No, that is
hardly my definition of democracy.
Q
Governor, wasn't that also -- that wasn't accepted at the
CSEA convention, though, was it?
A
Well
Idon't
know. If you kn OW something I don't know,
I don't know whether they --
O
I understand that that proposal was rejected.
A
Then that restores my faith or amplifies my faith that I
expressed earlier in the employees themselves, but the announcement
was made by this organization which incidentally is one of the two
top spending lobbying organizations in Sacrmento. The California
Teachers' Association and CSEA spend more in mobbying than any other
group.
-7-
O
Excuse me, how soon after a California September primary
would you recommend that the national conventions be held?
A
Oh, I think it could be held very quickly. I think it
could be scheduled to follow in a -- certainly by the middle of
September, easily within a week.
Q
Governor, excuse me, I don't think you finished answering
my question. In view of the Speaker's opposition, what chances,
realistically, do you think your pgraom has in the legislature getting
to your desk?
A
Well, he's going to have a problem with that. Bedause
he - he's also quite opposed to Proposition 9.
Q
He's in support --
A
Oh, he does support Proposition 9. Well, then at least
hess beche's then against both of the proposals there, but I think
he's going to find a great many legislators that don't want Proposie
tion 9 and so they are going to -- be faced with some choices.
Q
Governor, is your package of reforms that you are going
to present then - - should we construe that as an effort to offset
Proposition 9?
A
No, as I say, this is theresult of a task force that's been
wrking for sever al months and we think we have a better package,
we believe that, and I would think that the Speaker would agree with
this, that we believe that the normal legislative process is a proper
place to settle this.
I
Governor, you didn't say anything about financial disclo-
sure in your package, and I wanted to ask you, is ther any chance
of you voluntarily filing the documents required by the Moscone
Bill pending the Supreme Court decision on that or not?
A
I haven't given any thought to that. Until this -- until
the decision is made about this.
Q
There are some officials who are filing voluntarily
despite the legal uncertainty of the Moscone Bill, and --
A
Well, I haven't given it any thought andI certainly had
no hesitation about doing it if -- ifthe law was upheld and if the
law was endorsed. I was naturally going to doit.
Q
If you file one, would that be an indication that you are
running for something?
A
Well, now, you have given me a reason for not filing one,
Squire.
-8-
O
Governor, did you pay a State income tax last year?
A
Yeah.
Q
Governor, on another subject. An initiative drive has
started to authorize up to one thousand off-track betting
type
places in California, plus Nevada gambling in the Riverside County
desert area. And I wondered what your position on those type of
proposals was.
A
No, this was the first I've heard of that. I know that
the problem, and I've given thought before to it, to the idea of off-
track betting. I think that the -- there are some patterns through-
out the world that have been studied. I think it would --
certainly have to be in such a way as to protect the track. I know
that the -- in New York off-track betting has created some very great
problems because the track, to myunderstanding, does not share and
the off-track betting has cut in very much to the place that you
wonder if the tracks can continue to support racing. And offer
racing. But I haven't had an opportunity to study the other-- the
idea of loosening up on gambling.
Q
Do you have any thoughts about bringing about Nevada type
gambling, the slot machine and so forth, to California
A
Well, as I say, I normally don't, and won't comment on
legislation that may be pending until it amounts to something. My
first reaction is one that I'd have to wonder whether we were
benefiting. the State of California or not.
Q
Governor, doyou think that twomonths would be enough time
for you or any other possible presidential candidate, just using you
hypothetically, to mount an effective -- tonot only organize a
campaign, fbutito mountdercampaign for the presidency of the United
States? Two months? Less than two months?
A
Seven weeks.
Q
You really think --
A
Seven weeks, you are talking about the general campaign.
But you are also talking about the -- or you must take into considera-
tion the fact that what would be done nationwide, we are taliing
about national primaries. We are not talking about -- but I mean
this is general talk of something.
There are now scores of primaries
throughout the nation, obviously long, where the general election
gets under way, the people of the United States have been wel 1
exposed to all the candidates. I think in the 1972 campaign
select a candidate,
think all of us have to 2
it
that
most
people in the country were expressing their weariness with the whole
atmosphere of campaigning along before we ever got to the general
election. Now, a country like England, they have three weeks total
for campaigning. I know ours is aibigger country and I certainly don it
suggest that we adopt the British pattern here of three weeks, but
I believe that seven weeks, particularly since you would come right
the heels of the momentum of the primaries - one of the things that --
from my own experience, and my own two campaigns, that I saw and
that adds to the cost, is that you have a primary and it is over in
June, early in June, and then thepretically youdon't start campaigning
until Labor Day. S₀ the general campaign really gets under way at
that time. But what happens is you -- you just -- you stay alive
during all those months fromJune to September, you have to keep
your headquarters and your organization and so forth going, so the
expenses go on. And while this may be a lull in the campaigning
it still goes on and goes on. And then on Labor Day everybody pre-
tends they are starting their campaign.
Q
But, Governor, the normal presidential election, you know
what happens is that -- the one who is the victor then tries to pull
together the other people and find positions for them in his campaign
and create some sort of unity. How are you going to be able to do
that in the short span of seven weeks?
A
Well, I think it could be done. I just think the cam-
paigns are too long, I think the people are telling us they are too
long. I think they tell us they get tired of it, they are weary of
it.
YOu hear that long before the campaign time, a great deal of
the effort is wasted, that people no longer pay any attention. They
tune out the ads when they come on T. V. and they don't read the
brochures. I think that a concentrated campaign coming right on
the heels of the momentum of the primary --
SQUIRE: Any more questions?
A
could be adequate.
SQUIRE: Thank you. Governor.
000
-10-
1/5
NEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
Held May 1, 1974
Reported By:
Beverly D. Toms
(This rough transcript of the Governor's news conference is
furnished to the members of the Capitol Press Corps. for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press corps
as rapidly as possible, no corrections are made and there is no
guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
GOMERNOR REAGAN: Well, ladies and gentlemen, if you are
ready, when the particular subject of this press conference is over
I will at the close of it have an announcement on a different subject
to make that Ithink you are interested in, also. But right now
intimidate
in case you think I'm simply trying to intimate you by outnumbering
you here, I would like to introduce that here on the platform we have
from the League of California cities, Don Wyle, the Mayor of Woodland.
(Whereupon Governor Reagan introduced the representatives
present from the League of California Cities, the County Supervisors
Association of California, the California Taxpayers' Association and
the California State Chamber of Commerce.)
The statement that I have to make will follow then with
a little presentation of explanation and then a statement from
the Senator, and take your questions. My statement is --
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Release No. 269.)
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Now, before the questions, Roger
Magyar
MacDow (phonetic), will you open the envelope, please. Here are
just a few things. It will be Senate Bill 2133, authored by Randolph
local
Collier, and covers public employees except school district and
transit district employees and designated management supervisory or
confidential employees. Now, the reason for leaving out school and
transit district employees -- and transit, they are taken care of by
present law. And wehave been meeting with the school boards
associations and they themselves are pursuing because of differences
between that sector of the public employees and regular other public
employees, they have legislation that they themselves are working on
to cover their particular problem. It creates a public employee
relations board to administer the act, to assist in resolving proced-
ural disputes or eliminating unfair practices and to ensure all
parties, employers and employees, add the public, they receive their
rights under the la
It specifies management esponsibilities which
must be assumed and administered by elected representatives.
It
outlines the issues that are subject to necgiations. It guarantees
employees the right to be represented by negotiating units, but it does
not require union membership. It requires employers to recognize and
negotiate with certified employee units.
And torohibits employer
lockouts as well as employee strikes. It provides for mediation
and fact-finding to resolve impasses. And allows continuation of
Civil Service and merit advancements to prevent management or a
union spoil system. Now, that is a brief rundown of what was in the
opening statement, what will be in the legislation and now I'd like
to present the author of the bill, Senator Randy Collier.
SENATOR COLLIER: Thank you, Governor, and gehtlemen --
ladies and gentlemen. I want to say ever since Calvin Coolidge
called out the militia to stop thestrike between -- of the policemen
and the firemen it's been brought to my notice - maybe that's too long
ago for some of you, but I long felt that the -- for the public
interest that the policemen and the firemen and other public
employees did not have the right of strike. The introduction of
the collective negotiations act for public employment is a proposed
response to those in local government who are requesting the procedure
be established to permit employees to organize an approach to
collective negotiations. This matter has been before the legislature
ever since I've been here. In recent years it has come to the fore-
front and this is an attempt to carry it on and see if we can start
out by bringing the local employees of cities and the counties and
some districts into a system in negotiation. The word "negotiation",
I believe, is important to understand because public employees
service society and receive their pay through the power of taxation,
not through the private business approach of supply and demand.
Because the power of the tax is absolute, it is necessary that
the people select representatives who are responsible for taxation,
not delegate the power to tax to an arbitration board, but stand
accountable for tax impacts.
As with any legislation which may be
offered in the area of collective bargaining, the bill does not
necessarily satisfy all the interested parties, but I believe does
provide for an organized approach to solve a major issue and will
relieve the local taxpayer of a vexing problem that's confronted
them for years.
GOVERNOR
REAGAN: Now, ladies and gentlemen, these -- the
-2-
presence of all these people is because we have beenworking with
all of these who are present here on this for quite sometime, and to
find an answer to the problem that issbecoming more of a problem just
even
in recent months, and/the last few years. So alb of us have been
working together on this add your questions can be directed to any
one of us here, whatever questions you may have.
0
Governor, why are teachers, transit employees and stat e
workers not included in the legislation?
A
Well, first, as I -- well, it was very brief explanation there
Transit employees are covered by existing law. The tachers, as I
said before, we have been meeting just as we have met with these
groups -- we have been meeting with theschool boards association, with
educators on this subject, and they -- there are very definite
differences that would make trying to put them all into one bill
extremely complicated, so they are working with Senator Rodda on a
piece of legislation in the hopes of coming up with something that
will achieve the same ends that we have -- we think areachieved in
this. The state employees, of course here we have a more complex
problem and one that also is covered by our state law. We have
presentby the State Personnel Board that is in existence constitue
tionally. We have the --- a relationship with the various individual
departments. We don't have the same centralized control as we do
at the local level, and here again, to try to put the state problems
into this -- a bill of this kind, it would become too complicated
and too complex. I don't think it would be good --good legislation.
Now we have been meeting and working with the employees organizations
here in the state to eliminate problems they have or where they
believe there has been inability to express grievances or - or get
a fair hearing on them, and I think we have made great strides in
that.
0
Governor, there seems to be a complete absence of
employee groups in this group that's here. Did they have any --
any participation in drafting this legislation?
A
Well, the peoplewho are here on the platform and who have
been dealing with them have =ercertainly labor's position is well
known on this, and they have been dealing with them and know the
problems. We also know that those groups have -- or numbers of them
have taken the position, some of their organizations, that they do
-3-
believe in the right to strike. And so there is a basic difference
there.
a
Governor, the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of
the Assembly say they are behind the concept of collective bargaïning
as opposed to what Senator Collier said, the collective negotiation
procedure of this bill. Givenothose political facts, do you think
this bill is really going anywhere this year?
A
I certainly do and I hope that itegoes some place because
I think it is a reasonable and responsible bill to resolve a problem
that is extremely costly to the people of this state, the people
of various local communities.
0
Governor, tb provides for mediation and fact-finding, but no
arbitration. Couldn't this really perpétuate what you have now?
A
Well, now, this comes down to what I've said before about
arbitration. I don't believe that the elected representatives of the
people can turn to some other appointed individual and that that
individual then can make a decision that is the basic responsibility
our
of the elected representatives. Our source of/employees are the
people, and the only way that I could seethe arbitration of the
ultimate kind could ever be legal or could be morally right where
public employees is concerned, is if you turn to the people themselves
for referendum. They are the ultimate authority. I don't think
that any one of us who are elected by the people have a right to
designate our responsibility to someone who is not beholding to the
voters. The individual who could make that arbitration decision
could very -- you would be giving into his or her hands, literally,
the right to raise taxes.
2
Then under this bill would your elected local officials
still have the final say in --
A
They must.
Q
-- making a decision?
A
Yes.
They have to. That's what they were elected for.
0
Governor, who appoints the five board members?
A
The Governor, approved by the legislature.
0
How long arethe terms?
A
How long are the terms?
VOICE: Five years.
A
Five years.
-4-
0
The Stat Board could not impose an kind of settlement
on the local agency on these issues?
VOICE: That's correct.
O
So it has no real auth ority other than as a persuasize
body?
VOICE: Unit determination..
A
Anybody want to explain that? I have not seen the details
of the legislation as written as yet, it is in the Legislative
Council's office.
MR. BENNINGHOVEN: In response to that question, the
board will resolve disputes among unions, jurisdictional disputes on
unit determination. They also have -- will have the authority
to conduct secret elections. They will have the authority to rule
on unfair labor practices, but to themselves on a local
decision on
agencies, they do not have that authority, they
cannot go in there on their own motion, they have to come in on the
request of one of the parties.
C
Governor, does the bill specifically prohibit strikes by
public employees, or does it leave it as it is now?
A
No, it specifically prohibits strikes.
Right now we are
we think that strikes are illegal, but it is by case law, it is by
court decisions. This now will actually make it law that they are
prohibited.
O
Will the passing of this bill make it easier for local
government or the state to crack down on strikers? Would it mean --
would it mean that it is much more dangerous for public employees
to go out on strike?
A
No, quite the contrary, and we have a pretty classic
example. A Los Angeles County happens to have a rather sophisticated
procedure for employee and employer relations right now that is
very similar to this bill. They support this because this bill will
strengthen and make their system even better. But we see the
example, they have come to the verge of a strike in Los Angeles
County and because they have a procedure similar to this, there is
no strike. But by contrast with San Francisco, where there is no
such thing, we had the strike and wehad all the resultant trobbles
from it.
O
I have one -- one other questions. You said that it
provides -- it outlaws a lockout by the part of the employer. Does
this affect the provision where -- there is a provision that if there
is - strike that the emplovee is terminated after fivo days cimilar.'
to the state situation.
A
Well, now, this is state law. I'll have to ask again
here what the --- provisions or --
VOICE: No specific.
A
There is no lockout, but of course in the ultimate, if you
come to an outright impasse where workers refuse to come to work
and there is no further procedure, why, this would be the ultimate
I guess, that local government could -- could go to, is simply re-
cruit and hire new employees.
O
I wonder if someone could go into the subjects that would
be open to negotiation, you said it was outlined --
What are some of them? What are they?
A
Well, some of the specific things, who would like to --
MR. BENNINGHOVEN:
The bill has a public mandate right
section which limits the negotiations to those items that affect
directly the employee, salaries, working conditions, but does not go
to negotiating on items that can be negotiated under the existing
law, like the number of men in a fire truck or levels of
service, or whether service should be contracted out. These are
management decisions and they are excepted from the negotiation
process, so it is limited to economic issues, working conditions and
those that affect the employee directly.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Any other questions?
VOICE: Thank you, Governor.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: No other questions?
ED MEESE: Let's go on to the other --
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Yes, I have just one other announcement
that I wanted to make. It doesn't have to do with this and I'll
impose on our friends here for just one second, but I know it has
been of great interest to you and interest here in the Capitol,
and there have been many questions and there have also been rumors
and stories based on rumors, up until now. And I am very happy to tell
you now that I have asked Senator Fred Marler to accept appointment
to the Superior Court here in Sacramento and he's agreed to do SO.
And I'm very happy and I think he is, too. And that's it. I'
thank all of you.
O
Governor, just a little bit more on that -- excuse me,
but what about a special election for Senator Marler's seat?
-6-
A
Well, th -- Senator Marler -- also the appointment that
he will be accepting will not come up for a while yet, because
it will be to replace one of the Superior Court justices who is
moving to the Appellate Court. So we don't know exactly as to the
date. I'm hopeful that maybe a special election won't be
required because his district no longer exists due to reapportionment
and we might find ourselves having a special election for somebody
to hold office for three weeks, and I don't think any of us want to
go through that.
Governor, why did you rule him out of the Appellate Court
opening
A
It wasn't a case of ruling him out on that. A great many
names were reviewed for that particular post. And I never go
into details about why, except that as you know wehave had a process or
for appointments. We have never violated the process and it's been
one that has taken the appointment of judges out of politics and
I think for the first time in California. And this is theway it
turned out.
Q
Is there any reason youappointed Senator Cologne to the
Appellate Court judgeship and not Senator Marler?
A
No, the situation was different at that time and the
people in that particular area who were being reviewed for that - he
turned out to be the man for the job.
O
What about reports you've been under pressure from the
state and local bars to eenfine the Appellate appointments to judges
with trial experience, is that your --
A
I don't know that I've beenunder pressure. We have
certainly been cooperating with -- as a matter of fact, they have
been cooperating with us at my request for seven and a half years
now, We have sought out the council of the bar and the local --
the local bar in the areas where judges are to be appointed. We
have taken their recommendations for this. And there is no --
no change in that procedure.
o
You don't feel you are under any more pressure to appoint
a trial judge for an Appellate spot than you have beenbefore?
A
No, no. Incidentally, let me get back to the other
subject here just once and say that all of us up here appreciate
very much the fact that the Dean of the Senate is handling this
legislation. It was a happy wedding because we have known his views
and these people here knew of his views, and it was their hope that he
would carry such legislation. Mine, also. So we are a happy
family gathering, and if you finished with your que stions we will
leave.
VOICE:
Thank
Governor
5/2
NEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD MAY 2, 1974
Reported by:
Beverly D. Toms, CSR
(This rugh transcript of the Governor's news conference
is for the convenience of the Capitol Press Corps, only. Because
of the need to get the transcript to the Press Corps as rapidly as
possible, no corrections are made and there is no guaranty of absol-
ute accuracy.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN: You have lost about seven minutes of
your press conference time by the Girl Scouts out there -- or the
Campfire Girls out there.
Q
Did you buy any cookies, though?
A
What?
0
Did you buy any cookies?
A
No, they were too busy doing other things to get around
to that.
I had a jellybean, though.
Well, all right.
O
Gobernor, do you think the voters will vote yes on
Prop. 9?
A
Well, I wish the voters before they make up their minds
on: Proposition 9, would look at exactly what it would do and look
at thectegislation thatdwe now have before the legislature. I
believe that we have presented a more effective plan. I'm concerned
about some facets of Prop. 9. I'm also concerned with the fact
that two of the things already passed by the legislature would be
weakened by Proposition 9.
O
Then you are against it, are you?
A
What?
0
Then you are against it?
A
Well, I was just being critical of portions of it here,
but I believe that the legislation -- I think/thellegislation that
has been presented would do a more effective job of reform
than Prop. 9.
0
How would Prop. 9 weaken those two bills that were
passed by the legislature ?
A
Well, they are in the areas of disclosure and as I under-
stand, a conflict of interest. It isn't just as effective as
has already been adopted.
Covernor when are your bills
Counse,
MR. ORR: They are in the council.
Counsel
A
Yes, the Legislative Council now, dotting all the i's on
it.
0
That doesn't answer the question. When are the bills going
in, though?
Counsel
A
Well, I can't answer for the Legislative Council. There
are certain things that have to be done, that's the legislative
process up there, before they can then go out to the legislature,
and he has them to make sure that all -- as I say, the t's are
crossed and the i's are dorted and so forth, and now it is in their
mill, not mine.
Q
Governor, do you think your difficulty with Senate
Republicans are resolved now and your appointees are going to go
through have you had conversations about that?
A
I never thought that 1 had any difficulties with the Senate
Republicans.
Well, they seem to --
A
So far we have gotten along just fine. A great many --
not only Republicans, but Democrats, I know what you are referring
to, over these weeks have come to me with endorsements and high
recommendations for their colleague, Senator Marler, and they found
no disagreement as far as I'm concerned. I think as highly of
him as they do, and I think that they are uniformly pleased at
what has happened.
0
Governor, Mayor Alioto says he feels what he terms a
concerted drive by state, local and federal officials, is necessary
to make sure there are not more Zebra suspects at large elsewhere
in the state. But the State Attorney General says his office is
merely conducting a coordinating supportive role. Do you feel
there shoul d be a much more intensive state investigation into this?
A
Well, I think the Attorney General is doing all that --
that needs to be done from the state line, and I think there is
complete coordination. As a matter of fact, the Mayor himsel f has
most -- has stated that he is in touch and is seeking and taking
advice from the Attorney General. And I think he's -- there is a
full investigation going forward.
Q
Shouldn't the state be taking the lead in this, though,
rather than simply waiting for local agencies to take the lead?
-2-
A
Well, I don't think that we are waiting for anyone.
I think the state investigative procedure is going forward.
Q
Governod, you know of any evidence at all that there is
a connection between the murders an San Francisco and othe rs that
are supposed to be taking place?
A
No, I do not, and Idon't know that anyone actually has
evidence to that effect. I think this is - this is one of the
areas that is being investigated.
C
Governor, there are repeated indications that allegedly
police agencies knew anywhere from three to seven months ago of the
alleged existence of a statewide or nationwide conspiracy in this
case.
A
Well, as a matte r of fact, when you say an alleged
compsiracy, not only the police agencies knew it, the public knew
it.
There was a story carried in the news several months ago
that there were reports and it did not say whether confirmed or whether
there was evidence to substantiate them, but that there were
reports that there was a cult type of thing in which the killing
was part of an initiation, and then since that time there has been
very little mentioned about that.
Q
Andyou don't think it would have been appropriate for
law enforcement officers to move in or in any way control the
groups at that point?
A
Well, I don't know what law enforcement was doing at that
point, from then on. I have to assume that if they had such a
report that they must have been checking it out.
Q
Do you feel there should be, perhaps, some sort of
legislative investigation?
A
No, I think it is in the hands of the proper authorities.
I doubt if the legislature could -- has the facilities to come up
with this kind of criminal study or investigation.
O
Another subject. Have you had an opportunity to read any
of the transcripts that the President has transmitted to the House
Committee?
A
Only those that have appeared in the paper. I have made
a request for the full transcript.
Q
What was your reaction to -- how did it strike -- did it
strike you the way the President hopes it will -- it will strike
the people? Did his feelings come through?
-3-
A
I have , say that I was struck by e -- what appears
to be a difference between now some of the interpretations of those
and the verbatim transcript, the first verbatim section that was
printed and read verbatim. I notice that some commentators have left
out mention of things that were in that, and I think that -- I would
hope that everyone would try -- I know 1200 pages is a -- that's a lot
of reading, and yet I don't think anyone can make any judgment
until they have read the entire 1200 pages, the verbatim stanscript,
and not the interpretations of them.
2
What about your personal reaction? Were you surprised
by anything that you read there?
A
No, I was - I was quite conscious of -- and aware of one
thing in that first transcript that seems to have been ignored,
as I say, a great deal by those who are interpreting them now.
And that was the flat statement by Dean to the President, when he
said, "Mr. President, I am -- I know from my conversation that
you were not aware of these things."
o
That was the March 21?
A
Yes.
o
Governor -- change of subject. You say you have
high regard for Senator Marler. Why were you not willing to appoint
him to the Appellate bench? What were your reasons for not appoint-
ing him?
A
Well, I don't think that I should go into the reasons
of why someone was appointed a judge or someone is not appointed
a judge. We follow the sameprocess that we followed on all
the appointments, so far. And it is a -- it is a screening
process and it is an attempt to get those that come to us with the
ratings of all the various groups that we go through in the
screening. And we settled upon two fine Superior Court judges,
trial judges here in -- in Sacramento. And this, of course, does
have a bearing, while we have appointed to the Appellate ourt
sometimes directly from the field of law, and not from -- from the
trial court, the overwhelming majority that I have appointed have
been from the trial court.
O
Are you indicating that local bar - local persons inthe
bar in Sacramento for some reason didn't choose to find Senator
Marler acceptable?
-4-
A
No, I'm not saying that at all.
We have used the same
process and as I have said, I think that Senator Marler is highly
qualified or he wouldn't have been considered in the first place.
And I think he'll make a fine judge.
Q
Governor, in that connection, the Commission on
Judicial Appointments apparently has yet to act on your nomination
of John Vukasin. Are they leaving him to twist in the wind?
It's two weeks.
A
I don't know, I know that this is in the process and
that's all I know.
Q
Governor, on another subject.
Ω
Well, wait a minute, what about the State Bar's finding
that he's unqualified?
A
Well, I am in total disagreement with the State Bar and
I understand that the State Bar's vote on whether to even involve
itself, which is a highly unusual thing for them to do, was eight
to seven, which hardly sounds like a great uprising of the legal
profession. And, as I say, I am in disagreement with them. I
have known John Vukasin for more than ten years, served closely with
him now, and had him here where there was great opportunity to view
him, and I think he is excellently qualified.
0
Do you think it is improper for the State Bar --
they started a policy with that appointment to rate the Appellate
Court -- your nominations of the Governor.
A
Well, all I can say is it was an unusual thing for them
to do and I'm quite surious myself as to their motives.
a
One other thing on the Marler appointment, you said yes-
terday that in appointing Senator Marler to the Superio r Court you
followed the same procedures.
A
That's right.
0
That you usually follow. Now, did you in fact submit that
nomination to the local bar and to your local screening committee?
A
To all of the committees except in this instance, because
technically his residence is in the county from which he is elected,
I screened this with the bar that was associated with him there
and knew him as a lawyer in that area. Now, it is true he is
being appointed to a -- a bench here in Sacramento, but he has,
to all intents and purposes, physically been a resident of this
area and intended when he left the Senate to make Sacramento his
home, but in our process the bar that would be queried about
him would be the -- his peers in his area where he was a lawyer
among lawyers. And that -- well, it was the same process, the
regular process. There was the difference here that he is being
appointed living in -- technically in one county and appointed to
the bench in this county. So we didn't check withthis bar
locally here, we checked with the local bar in his home.
Q
Governor, I believe you criticized Governor Brown for
making political appointments to the courts. Isn't this a politi-
cal appointment?
A
No, I think the -- if the only way that you can say
this is a political appointment is the fact that a man holds a
public office to which he was elected, but -- let me again state
something, and I will challenge anyone, and you can make reference
to the bar or anyone in the legal profession in the State of
California, I am the first Governor to my knowledge who has ever
voluntarily given up his right to personally choose judges. And
have submitted all applications to a process in whi ch we get the
Bar
rating of the bar from the State/Board to the -- to their peers
in their own area, and to laymen and the judiciary, and this has
been well known in the legal profession and many comments have been
made about this process. We have never made an exception to it.
In all of these some 600 appointments I have made so far. I hope --
I promised in '66 that I would take the appointment of judges out
of politics; I have done that.
Ω
What about the widespread speculation for months that
because Senator Marler lost his seat he would therefore be appointed
to a judgeship?
A
Well, speculation, it could come from the very fact
that Senator Marler, like many other people, aspired to the bench,
and looked to this as eventuaoly a career that he wanted. And
obviously his friends knew this. And so they kept talking.
I think he's -- well, he's the second legislator that has been
appointed to the bench, but when I meant the taking of - of
judgeships out of politics, I have said this publicly before and
you might as well know it, that if I did not havethe system that
we have had and if I had not followed this totally, there have
been a number of instances in which I could have been more success-
ful in things that I was trying to do if I had been willing to
-6-
appoint judges on nother basis.
a
Governor, do you feel that your appointment of Justice
Richardson here in Sacramento, after his campaign involved that
attorney in 1970, gave the appearance of impropriety, whether it
was improper or not?
A
Well, if it did someone was awful suspicious, because
all you have to do is talk to his colleagues and talk to all the
people in the legal profession and fellow judges, and you will find
that he is held in the highest esteem.
Q
Governor, on that same topic you have called for a law
to prohibit campaign contributions by judges. By the check of
your 1970 campaign reports it indicates that you yourself --
your campaign accepted contributions from several judges.
A
Well, that's right, and the first I knew about it is
when I heard this, because I didn't pay any attention to who was
contributing or who wasn't in my -- in my campaign. But I think
the difference, and what has brought thi about now is the feeling
on the part of people that there is a need for a review of the whole
campaign procedures. I do think that there is a difference between
an individual judge making a contribution and the incident that
brought this into prominence or into the spotlight of a judge
having a fund which he administered and made contributions from,
but which was collected from other people. And there is no way
to block such a thing without just making the blanket rule and
therefore in our campaign reforms we proposed the blanket rule
even though it does infringe on the individual rights of a judge.
o
Couldn't youmake that distinction in law, just prohibit
judicial giving?
If that's how you feel about it.
A
Well, maybe in the legislative process someone will
discuss that and see if that will meet the problem.
O
Dn you feel that the jurists who made contributions
should be investigated, for example, by the Commission on Judicial
Qualifications, or do you think that your legislation should be a
starting point so that persons areput on notice in the future that
this type of thing is clearly improper?
A
Well, the judiciary has its own methods of p@licing its
profession and whatever they feel should be done with regard to
any case, that's up to them. But as far as I'm concerned, this
is the starting point.
-7-
O
Governor, on a different subject. In 1971, when it was
disclosed you paid no state income tax, you said the reason for this
was business reverses. You were asked thesame question two weeks
ago in Davis, and this is the answer you gave, and I quote, "There
was one year out of my entire life in which I had no state tax
obligation, income tax obligation. I did not have any tax
shelters. I did not have any gimmicks or devices. Now so --
also legitimate deductions which accounted for my not having a
tax:bbligation with property taxes on property that Inheld that
amounted to almost half my total salary as Governor. Now those
are legitimate deductions." How come you shifted your explanation
for this question? How do yourreconcile that difference?
A
That isn't a shift of the explanation, the exphanation
is still true. If I mentioned those, because there had been,
as you know, other questions that were being asked about so-called
loopholes, and I have been discussing the subject -- did discuss
the subject of what constitutes a loophole, interest on mortgages
and so forth.
o
Governor, why didn't you say "business reverses"?
A
What?
Q
Why didn't you give the answer of "business reverses"
that you gave us in '71?
A
Well, if you take the figures that I gave just there,
I used as an example of other taxes that I paid which were
deductible.
O
You didn't say anything about property taxes in 1971,
you said business reverses.
A
oh, no, I told you in 1971 that three things alone
accounted for the - for a greater share or portion of my salary as
Governor. And it was that, charitable contributions and medical
expenses, all three of which are legitimate deductions, but the other
story is true, what I was saying about no tax gimmicks. And I
said it in 1971, also, because a number of you seemed to speculate
that because I still owned some cattle that that was a tax shelter.
And if you will remember, some of you went far afield in writing
about that. Now, the truth of the matter was part of my income
came from the few cattle that I owned, they were a plus, not a
minus. So that could hardly be construed a tax shelter. What
I'm saying is that the conversation and the talk that everyone who
-8-
takes deductions r it have some kind of fancy helter over here
that involves some kind of finagling to avoid taxes. I had
nothing of that kind. I had straight -- I had straight deductions
of losses of expenses, such as other taxes and so forth. That
brought me to the point where I had no tax:obligation because I
had no income over and above that vtaxable income above that.
There is a great difference between saying I was involved in --
let's say some kind of investment that was designed to get me out
of paying taxes, and therefore I eliminated my tax burden.
I didn't have anything of that kind. I still -- what?
Q
That's all right, I just want to check, has there been
any change in your status of your land down there in Riverside?
A
No.
Q
Governor, the Highway Patrol Commissioner said a few
days ago, I believe, that he could make a hundred thousand arrests
for speeders a day if he had the people to do it. With this 55
mile per hour speed limit do we have a situation sort of like
prohibition, people just -- it being a law the people simply
aren't going to obey, and if so have you given any thought to
maybe raising the speed limit?
A
Well, it is a very funny thing, about this, and this
assumption that everyone is simply violating it. First of all,
55 miles an hour, in all of the polls, seems to have become very
popular with the people. As a matter of fact, one of the
Democratic Assemblymen upstairs has found out that about three-
fourths of his constituents in and answer to a news letter, now favor
55 miles an hour and not just to save gas. I think this -- I
think where there is -- first of all, I think we are in a little
dangérous period of laxity right now, where the people have
decided because they are getting gas and they are not lined up
at the gas stations that the crisis is over and it is not, and
it will be right back again if people do relax and that goes for
not only driving automobiles, but it goes for turning on lights
and turning up the themmostat or the coolers or whatever' they do.
We still are in a period of energy shortage. And I think
psychologically the worst thing in the world will be to suggest
to people that they can start going fast. What we have discussed,
and it would require legislation, is that when we can for certainty
-9-
say that we do not need thegas shortage or the gas savings that we
are getting from the lower speed limit, that we should very seriously
discuss maintaining the 55 speed limit in the urban areas, on the
freeways within the urban areas. But then we recognize the
problem of those people that have got 400 miles to go out there
on a less heavily traveled freeway, like 5 up through the valley,
and go back to having an in-town and an out-of-town speed limit.
This, I think, could make a great deal of sense, because we have
learned something else in our urban freeways. Wehave learned
that the average travel time at 55 is better, if anything, than
the average travel time when you were allowed to go 70. That the
stop and go from 70 to traffic jam-ups on the freeways, has been
eliminated and at 55 we have a steady flow of traffic in the urban
freeway areas, and we have learned this and it is very possible
that we -- when we can relax because of no longer a need to save
gasoline, that we may find that we want to maintain that within
the cities and it will even be more efficient.
o
But, Governor, what would you do about cars who are going
through the L. A. Metropolitan area, heading for Sacramento?
How do youthink they should be going 55 - 65 miles an hour?
A
No, just thesame as if there wasn't a freeway, you know,
when you drove up on the regular highways, and then went through the
towns, instead of around them. Before freeways started going
around then, when you came to a town therewas a sign that said
the speed limit is -- and you slowed down to that, and when you got
to the other side of town there was a sign that said, "Resume
speed," or "Speed Limit now 65," or whatever it was. Well, the
same thing would apply to the freeways. As you reached a certain
point, say you were taking the San Diego freeway through Los
Angeles, you'd reach a point and there would be a sign that now
said, "The speed limit is 55." On the other edge of town you'd
come to a point in which there would be a sign that says, "Now it
is 65."
Ω
Governor, the president of the Union Oil Company last
week said it was immoral and unconscionable for the state to try
and maximize its revenues from Tidelands 011 and is very critical
of you and Houston Flournoy for trying to do that. Can you
respond to that?
A
Well, actually this is in the hands of the Land Commission
and not the Governor's office, on this. But I can understand
what he was saying, and don't think that it wasn't a problem.
They sit, those who are incharge of this, and the price of oil
has gone up. Now, the taxpayers of the state of Cal ifo rnda own
a share of -- of Tidelands oil, which they can take in cash or
they can take in oil. Now, do they have a right to say to the
taxpayers of California, "We are going to continue taking that at --
at the lower price when everyone else is now getting a higher price
for them, or are they not behobding to the people enough that
they have to get the best price for the state owned oil that they
can get? These Tidelands funds are used for a number of things
involved in education and capital construction, and -- this was the
problem they faced. What would have been the criticism if it had :
been learned that they were taking $2.50 a barrel and they could get
$7.
O
Governor, statistics of the motor vehicles now have
disclosed that there are more people moving out of California into
Oregon and other neighborhng states than there are moving into
California from these states. Do you have any comment?
A
No, I haven't seenthose figures, but seven years ago when
I became Governor, I said to all of our departments, start reviewing
all of the plans, those departments that had plans, for future
growth because it was myown belief that as a state reaches a certain
size and becomes urbanized as California has, that the things that
were luring the great in-migration, go away. That we had our
great in-migration when we seemed to be a rural state with great
opportunities and -- and a new and growing state, but we are --
I don't know whether anyone realizes this, California is one of
the most urganized states in the nation. We have our great stretches
of open country, but the bulk of our population is living on two
per cent of the land, three great metropolitan -- or four, you
might say, metropolitan areas in the state, and what has been
happening is this decline in the pattern, that people that -- the
general migration has always been toward the less developed state.
It is no surprise. I don't think we are going to lose growth.
As a matter of fact, our figures all show that there is still going
to be growth in California at our size from our own birth rate
alone. But unless something very unusual happens, I think
California has passed through that stage of -- of just terrific
-11-
in-migration. The -- I'm cautious when I say that because ff
you look at the history of California, it's been like a heart
beat.
It's pulsed when we had the great in-migration, then it
levels off, then it starts all over again. And I'm as selfish
as all the other Californians, I hope that a lot of people don't
find out how wonderful it is to live in California.
Q
Do you think Tom McCall might have some comment on that?
A
Well, I don't know just exactly what is happening --
SQUIRE: Any more questions?
A
- in the state up there.
0
Do you think -- just one quick -- doyou think it is
desirable to try and stem the out-migration from California and
if so, what can be done?
A
Well, I think you do your utmost to maintain a base
climate in California that is conducive to providing jobs for our
people. And you do yourbest to make -- to give California a
high quality of life. And you might be interested to know that
in a recent national study that was made, based on where to live
and based on quality of life, California came out Number One in
that, that the finest, the highest quality of living is to be found
in the state of California, of any of the fifty states.
Q
Governor, one last question, if I may, on this Zebra case,
without getting into the guilt or innocence of the individuals
under arrest, what's your reaction to this allegation of a statewide
or nationwide conspiracy of this type?
A
Well, I just think that anything like this has to be
explored and investigated and that's why investigative procedures
are going forward. You can't just ignore this. I don't care
if it is -- where you hear it or what kind of a report it is that
opens this subject up, it has to be looked at.
2
Do you find this very disturbing to you?
A
Well, I think the whole thing is disturbing. I think
this and the guerilla type activity that now seems to have come
to the United States is disturbing.
0
Governor, one more last one question.
(Laughter)
A
After him you got one more last one there.
that John Dean lied to the -- to the Senate watergate Committee,
from what you have read?
A
Well, Bill, I'd rather -- I'd rather wait until I've
had an opportunity to read more than just the few -- we have only
had those transcripts or they have only been released 48 hours.
And there isn't anyone in that committee or any place else that
could read the 1200 pages in this time that they have had them.
And I think that before we start making comments on this or anything
of that kind you have to see what's in all of them. And once
again, as I said in behalf of the President, and I'll say in behalf
of John Dean, everyone has a right to be presumed innocent until
he's proven guilty.
SQUIRE:
Thank you, Governor
000
-13-