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
118564146
label
Transcripts - 05/07/1974, 05/14/1974, 06/11/1974, 06/18/1974, 06/25/1974
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564146
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 05/07/1974, 05/14/1974, 06/11/1974, 06/18/1974, 06/25/1974
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
118564146
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
89f3b87a09e7127b
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 -
05/07/1974, 05/14/1974, 06/11/1974, 06/18/1974,
06/25/1974
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
5/7
NEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR ROWALD REAGAN
HELD MAY 7, 1974
Reported by:
Beverly D. Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's Press Conference
is for the convenience of the News Corps. 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
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Class will come to order. Good morning.
No opening statement.
Q
Governor, can you give us a clarification on what your
dminisaration plans are relative to the opening on a limited basis of
rograms for the mentally ill at Agnews and Patton State Hospitals?
Andy Robertson announced thatethey would be opened and now he's saying
that maybe they won't be opened.
A
Well, I don't know abouthis, but I know that the way in
which
hiclw this was hailed or announced, I think, gave a wrong impression to
the public about hospitals being closed being opened. These hospitals
are open and have not been closed. This is a change within the
hospitals of wings as -- with regard to -- to those patients who do
require more or less long-term or even permanet custodial care. Now,
obviously as the patients come in and out of the hospitals after
diagnosis and brief treatment and then go back to the community health
care centers, it is a little bit like the situation with the prisons,
that we are getting a different mix. Those that are left in the
hospitals are -- are those of the long-term custodial care nature.
And so there will be changes within the hospitals of that kind. This
was not a reopening of something. Well, technically it might have been
reopening of a ward that hasn't been used because of the increase in
that particular type of -- the propprtion of that type of patient.
Q
Well --
A
No, there is no great drastic change in policy or anything
at all. This is -- this is just regular administration of the problems
as they fluctuate.
Q
Governor, you are correct, that both hospitals have had
programs for the mentally retarded. But their programs for the mentally
-1-
ill were phased out. Now, the question now is Robertson oorrect when
he says that the programs for the mentally ill on a limited basis will
be reopened at these two hospitals or will they not?
A
Well, yes, these are -- as I sààd before, as we get the
hange in the balance of the patients, yes, there will be wings that
will change probably, so others that will decline some place. There
is no way in advance to know that, but the -- what I'm suggesting is
that the original idea made itseem as if we were going back and reopen-
ing closed hospitals and the whole change of policy isn't -- it just
eflects the flux that we have in the type of patients.
or
Yes, I understand that, Governor, just bear with me just a
moment, please.
A
Yes.
Q
But will the programs at these particular hospitals be
reapened for the mentally ill?
A
Well, now, my last understanding was that they would be,
that they were going to be.
VERNE ORR: It is my understanding, too, but I didn't
understand they had been completely phased out at both hospitals.
Q
Programs for the mentally ill were.
VERNE ORR: All right, I didn't understand that.
IC
Governor, have you had a chance to read the rest of the
transcript yet?
A
No, but I'm - I'm working at it. I'm reading the -
I nope to get a copy which will be easier reading because the print
is very fine, but I'm reading the verbatim transcript that has been
printed in one of our newspapers in California, and obviously I haven't
had the time to get very deep in it.
Q
Both Senator Scott and William Randolph Hearst have had
(Nixon)
some rather harsh comments after reading portions of those transcripts.
What -- do you have any thoughts along that line as you reflect on it?
A
Well, as I said the other day, I'm going to redd them.
I'm not going to read someone else's interpretation of them or make
any statements on the interpretation of them. I'm going to read them.
Now, maybe they had more time to read than I have. I haven't gotten
that far.
10
What do you think of what you've read so far, Governor?
A
Well, I haven't read deep enough. As I said before, I think
we were asked to look at the whole transcript, the whole body of
evidence, and that's what I intend to do, rather an just making a
ugigment on what portion I've read.
Or
Well, have you seen any evidence at all yet, Governor, of
what Hugh Scott called shabby, disgusting, immoral behavior on the part
of those who took part in those conversations?
A
Well, again, I'd rather comment when I have read the entire
transcript.
Q
You sound like you don't want to say anything about them,
Governor. Are you hedging or don't want to get involved in this?
A
No, I'm not. No, I think I have a right to read this
mtire transcript. It was presented as a body of evidence on this
subject.
I'm going to try to read it.
Q
Another subject. Yesterday Senator Moscone presented us
with a petition signed by 17 Democratic Senators saying they oppose
any deathbed appointments on your part. Do you think it would be a
good idea to hold off on these or do you plan to go ahead with the
appointments you still have to make?
Well, I think Senator Moscone better do some reviewing about
the whole governmental structure and the whole idea of how appointments
are made. First of all, the -- perhaps the Senator would like to have
us go back to the spoils system in which we clean house and throw
everybody out every new election and start over again. I don't think
he means that and I don't think he would want that if he stops to think
about it. But what he is suggesting is that the balance that is part
of law and part of theconstitution of California, and in statute form,
is all wrong. Now we have a number of appointments that are pleasure
appointments of the Governor. These the Governor can appoint who
he wants and who he believes for certain jobs to help him, department
heads and SO forth, in the running of the Executive Branch. And those
being pleasure appointments, those end when his term ends, and the next
Governor has the same privilege. But there are also a number of term
appointments to ensure continuity of government. These are term
appointem in which the Governor appoints someone for a specified term
and this is to ensure that in those areas, and this is, as I say,
covered by the statutes and by the Constitution, that we have overlap
and a Governor inherits people in those positions who have experience,
who are appointed by other governors before him. When their term
expires, then it is his turn and it keeps one governor from -- from
totally dominating all the appointments in all the governmental
-3-
positions. And if the Senator thinks that's wrong, then I would
suggest that the Senator take it up in the legislature, not in the
manner he has, but in -- in the proposals to change the law in this
regard. But for him to suggest that I not make appointments at this
time, we have appointments, -- term appointments expiring constantly.
And we have the better part of a year to go. Now, some of those are
commissions and they are agencies that handle thousands of cases that
need resolving on an on-going basis. Is he suggesting that I leave
those positions vacant and that government grind to a halt in those
areas for nine months until we wait to see -- until we wait and see
who is going to be the next Governor? But if it is only because
I have chosen not to run and he suggests, as I read his article,
that somehow the fact that I am not running again is repudiation by
the voters of everything I propose doing, well, when did that begin?
The day after I was elected for this second term? I'd made it
plain before I was even elected that I would not run for a third term.
When did I become a lame duck? Should term appointments or should
my. appointments be fore three years -- was I elected for three years
or three and a half years or two years? Seems to me that they told
me when I was elected it was for four years and to perform the
functions of this office for four years until I cease being
Governor.
o
Didn't you complain in '66 about former Governor Brown's
A
No, there's the kind of thing that I propose - - and I
told the President Pro Tem. of the Senate that I will not do. That --
the real death bed appointments, and yes, this did take place by a
Governor who had been rejected at the polls who had been defeated
and who between his -- the election and the inauguration of the new
governor literally created vacancies and filled spots with death
bed appointments hastily in that period to leave his imprint on the
next administration and forestall legitimate appointments, and I have
had a meeting with the President Pro Tem ofthe Senate and have told
him I have no intention of doing that and will do nohhing of that kind.
And I have asked for the same consideration from the Senate, that
they view my appointments as they are supposed to, as to whether the
individuals are compentent and that's the wayI intend to do it.
Q
Governor, do you make -- excuse me, do you make any of
these appointments with the idea of keeping your philosophy here after
-4-
January? Is that - does that play into your ( sideration at all?
A
Well, obviously I must make the appointments when I've
made them for the last seven and a half years, and continue to make
them, on the basis of my beliefs in government and what I promised
the people I would try to do, and a philosophy which evidently they
@proved because they elected me. But I certainly am not now going to
try and guess who is going to be the next Governor and make an appoint-
ment on the basis of who do I think he'll like. Because I don't know
who is going to be the next Governor.
Q
Governor, will there be some sort of a cut-off date when you
will not make any more appointments? How do you decide when it is
death bed appointment and when it isn't?
A
Well, as I say, I think the period between an election
and the inauguration, that shows who is going to be the next
Governor, I think presents anentirely different case.
In the
instance of the outgoing Governor, seven and a half years ago, yes,
he did his utmost to use that period between his projection at the
polls and my inauguration to load up government with as many
appointees of his own choosing as he could. And I am not going to
do that.
I would think --
Q
Governor --
A
I would think that I would take into consideration in that
period who the next Governor is --
2
Would you go so far as to consult with the next Governor,
whoever he may be?
A
It is going to depend who he is.
(Laughter)
Q
Governor, are you saying you'll make no appointments
from election time until the end of your term?
A
No, I can't promise that, Squire, because I don't know
what the situation is. There might be a retirement, a death, a
someone leaving government that would leave a vacancy there in one of
these areas, as I have said, where they have on-going cases, hearing
cases, every day, problems every day, that must be solved, and
that I would have to fill the job.
0
Well, wouldn't it depend to some extent, at least, on the
nature of the position that's open and the urgency of the appoint-
ment, necessity of filling the appointment?
-5-
A
Jack you said it better than I could. That's it. If you
all write that down, that's it.
Ω
Now, one question I wanted to ask, as long as we are at
it
(Laughter)
10
--- I notice that -- that Moscone singled out Pat Gaymen
as one of the appointments. Now, is that not a pleasure appointment
and will that not end with the end of your administration?
A
That is a pleasure appointment, yes.
Q
Well, then --
A
Therefore I have every right to put someone in there to ad-
minister that job.
Q
The situation seven and a half years ago that irritated
you most was the judges, wasn't it -- that not the case? Was that
necessarily so?
A
Well, there did seem to be an undue haste right down to
New Year's Lve to load them up.
0
Governor, on that same general subject, would it have been
easier for you to set up the kind of an administration that you wanted
the people elected you to do, had you had the privilege of making
all the -- in other words, had you had a clean slate to start from?
A
Well, this goes back now Tom to the two -- to the spoils
system and the justification for it. The rationalization for it.
by those who supported that until the time that Civil Service came
along and we changed it. Sure, every man thinks that, all right,
you've elected me and let me have my team. But down through the
years we worked out a body of law and custom that recognizes two
factors. One, yes, there are certain areas where anyone who holds
this office must be allowed the right to the pleasure appointment to
aid him in doingtthe things that the voters have evidently approved
that he said he was going to do. But the same body of law and
legislative study down through the years has recognized that there
is an onggoing theme to government and that there must be this over-
lap in many areas. For example, the Board of Regents is one.
Here we have had the system of even making the appointments so long
that no single Governor could dominate them, because in this state
more than any other state in the Union, the wisdom of those who
-6-
framed our constitution and the beginning of this government, they
decided that higher education should not be subject to political
whims. So they have put into the constitution protections for the
administering of the university that removes it farther from politi-
cal control than any educational system in the United States, and this
extended to the Regents. But there are other departments the same
way, that you don't suddenly have the affairs of government handled
by a body of people who are totally new to their job and inexperienced
their
with no one in/own ranks to turn to for guidance. This is the
reason for the term appointment and every Governor is going to inberit
some from the previous Governor. And every Governor is going to have
ttime during his administration to appoint his own.
Q
Well, on that subject, Governor, in retrospect, do you
(Regents)
think the 16-year term is proper, adequate, too long?
A
Well, I myself have suggested that possibly sixteen is
too long. Frankly, the figure that I had always settled on is that
twelve would be more suitable. I'll tell you, it may not sound like
much, the four-year difference. But what I have found with 16 is
it certainly worked so far and down through the years and created
one of the greatest phblic unversity systems in the world. So we
must have been doing something right for this last hundred years.
And this waspart of it. But what I found with the 16, just even that
four year difference was sometimes you would come to the expiration
of a term and you'd have someone in mind that you thought was -- with
their experience could contribute great service, but then you had to
reckon with their age, and you look down the line sixteen years and
said, "Can I justify a reappointment of this individual for sixteen
more years?" And, as you know, even in my own term, there have been
instances in this where you had a vacancy in which you could appoint
someone for a shorter term because the vacancy came in the middle of
someone's term or in the latter part of it, and he only had a few
years to go, but I believe that twelve -- I really hate to go much
less than twelve, because again you could come to the point that a
single Governor in two terms could really dominate a board.
Q
Governor, on another subject, last week in announcing
the withdrawal of Mr. Vukasin's nomination for the Appellate Court you
damed the failure of the commission to approve him on, unfortunately
certain people who for their own purposes have generated unwarranted
controversy over the nomination of John Vukasin. Could you specify
who these people you were referring to are?
A
Well, all I can say is that there were certain individuals
who appeared before the board and made a case in protest of the
appointment of a man that I think was highly qualified. And a man
with whom I'd had longer personal contact than anyone else that I've
ever appointed to -- or nominated for a judicial post. And very
frankly, I think those individuals who appeared -- as I said in our
last meeting, I have for seven and a half years worked very hard to
take political influence out of the appointment of judges, and I think
the individuals who appeared were injecting their politics as a
substitute for the politics that I myself had been eliminating.
Q
Is there: any particular reason that you don't submit your
Appellate Court nominations do the State Bar as you do your trial
court appointments for their evaluation?
A
Well, the fact that they have to go through a screening
process afterward. We do have a process, it is not the formalized
committee structure that we have with trial court judges, and in
appointments, but we do go through an extremely careful screening
nvolving members of the Bar and the judiciary and, as I say, this
is a different thing. There is then a three-man commission that
must -- must ratify these. So, no, we did not -- we do not
submit them to the same formalized thing we do with trial judges.
Q
Governor, do you support the Bar's proposal to expand the
membership of that commission to include public members?
A
I think that the Bar Board has certain ambitions to
substitute itself as the selector of judges and I think there are some
dangers in that because in the area of conflict of interest, you then
have those who would practice before the bar demanding the right to
choose the judges that--before whom they will appear and practice.
Q
Was it your information, Governor, that -- that this
commission would not have approved Mr. Vukasin and that's why it was
withdrawn?
A
I don't know, he was never asked to appear before the
commission, they never heard him. They hever had any presentation
from him in reply to any of the things that were said by those who
appeared before them, and the long delay -- he chose to ask that his
name be withdrawn.
Q
You didn't have any firm knowledge that he would have been
rejected?
-8-
A
No. I think it is a shame. I think the state has been
deprived of the services of a man who could have filled the job very
well.
0
Who are these individuals? Could you mention their name?
A
Well, there were organizational groups that didn't
particularly have anything to do with the law. There were some
representatives of the State Bar and there were some political figures
who appeared before the commission.
Q
Isn't that the purpose of having a public hearing, to ---
A
Well, the public hearing never consisted ofhearing the other
side.
Q
I assume the other side was made by your appointment and
letting out his qualifications.
A
I think if charges are made by some people who -- there
ought to be some who come -- who speak on the other side, and I think
the man himself should be heard responding as do what's been said about
him.
10
Did he ask to be heard?
A
What?
2
Did he ask to be heard?
A
I don't know. I don't know.
Q
What about the fact he was rejected by the U. S. Senate
for a federal court post.
A
He was not.
Q
Not confirmed?
A
No, he was never -- there was never done -- he was never
nominated. There's been some galk of that. He was never nominated.
Q
Governor, you are saying that undue controversy -- are you
(Vukasin)
saying that there was no legitimate question as to the man's
competency that could be viewed by the commission?
A
Had there been a question as to his competency, I never
would have nominated him.
0
Is this going to affect any -- your future nominations to
the Appellate Court while you are in office?
A
I'm going to continue using the same procedures that I've
used before.
Q
Do you think you'll nominate anyone without trial court
experience?
-9-
A
Well, predominantly they have trial court experience,
but this does not foreclose someone who you believe is qualified from
being nominated and I'm not a lawyer myself, but I've had many men
I respected inthe Bar telling me that trial court experience is not
necessarily a requirement. That these are two such totally
practices -- different practices of the judicial process that I've
had many men say that sometimes the most brilliant of trial court
lawyers orajudges is not necessarily the best selection for the
Appellate bench.
Q
Governor, what's the difficulty that you had in getting the
confirmation for Mr. Vukasin? Did it have any bearing on your decs-
sion not to nominate Senator Marler for District Court of Appeals
position?
A
No.
or
No bearing at all?
A
No.
2
Governor, are you charging that the State Bar is
essentially making a concerted effort to remove the authority to a
appoint judges from the possibly Governor --
A
Well, that question was about a specific piece of legisla-
tion that I understand that they are -- they are supporting, which
would change the entire process and more or less remove the -- the
selection from the hands of the Governor, whoever he may be, in the
future. And I haven't seen the legislation as yet and haven't had
a meeting on it, but I expressed a concern already from that -- for
that process that I would have --
Q
Governor, on another subject?
A
Yes.
or
Governor, could you agree with Senator Harmer's remarks
relative to the Leeutenant Governor withdrawing from the gubernatorial
race in which he was quoted in the Times as saying that any logical
person has to conclude that the party cannot be asked to nominate
a person who can be convicted of a felony.
A
Well, I know that Senator Harmer was speaking as a long-
time associate and friend of the Lieutenant Governor. And felt
that way himself. I can't comment on -- on that because here again
we get into this area of me and my neutrality before the primary.
So I just won't comment on it.
-10-
K
What's yourpersonal opinion, Governor?
(Laughter)
A
My personal opinion, -- my personal opinion is I'm going
to be neutral.
Q
Governor, it appears right now that -- that Reinecke is
not going to be able to have his trial before the primary. Do you
think this finishes his -- his campaign?
A
I don't know. I understand that this is still -- that
this is involved with the request for change of vanue, and -- and that
he still hopes for an earlier trial. It is my understanding that
the date that has been announced as later on was not a pronounced
date, but was simply in the event it cannot be held earlier, was
tagging an open date on the calendar, so I don't know anything more
than that.
2
Governor, would you campaign for him if he won the primary
and were later convicted? What would you do?
A
Would I campaign for him if he won the primary?
Q
What would you suggest the party do if he was convicted
prior to the campaign?
A
Now you are getting me into something that I --- I don't
know if there is any body of law as to what happens ---- I'm not going
to answer that because I think there is too many "if's" in that as
to what --
Q
Do you have any strategy planned as to what might happen?
A
When I say this about conviction, you've got to recognize
that I'm sure there would be then an appellate process. It is a
totally hypothetical thing, and I have no answer for you.
2
Governor, do you think it is fair to ask Republican voters
to nominate a man who may be convicted of a felony after he's
nominated?
A
Well, that would be.
Q
Hypothetically, Governor.
(Laughter)
A
Again, there is no way that I can answer this, without
injecting myself into a campaign that is now going on in which I
said I would not inject myself.
SQUIRE: Any more questions?
-11-
Q
Governor, have you taken a position yet on Prop. 5?
A
Proposition 5?
Q
The gas tax for rapid transit.
A
Oh, no, we haven't had our meeting on any of the proposi-
tions yet, at the -- in the cabinet session.
Q
You've given an inclination on some of the other proposi-
tions, what is your personal inclination at this point on that -- that
general subject?
A
Well, this is the one that I think is permissive, isn't it,
that this would permit local governments to use a portion of their
share of the gasoline revenues for something else other than repair
of streets? I just think that the people ought to be aware that
under this they may be laying thenselves open then to - another
local tax or some potholes in the street.
But
this
is
the
--
the
funding for the maintenance of local streets, county roads and so
forth is taken from their share of the gasoline tax. If you are now
going to spread that over something else, rapid transit or whatever,
the people must be -- know that they are making a conscious decision
affecting their own -- their own roads and their own streets and
highways.
SQUIRE:
Thank you, Governor.
000
-12-
/
5/14
NEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD MAY 14, 1974
Reported By:
Beverly D. Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Press corps only for their
convenience. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly
as possible, no corrections are made and there is no guaranty of
absolute accuracy.)
o00
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, good morning. Yes.
o
Governor, Senator Marks said that he asked you yesterday
the
to intervene regarding/Soledad convict whose son was dying at U. C.
Med. Center. Did you ask Director Procunier to let him visit his son?
A
Well, the whole story on that is I did not learn, nor did any
of us learn until late yesterday afternoon about this request of this
entere situation. We immediately got in touch with Ray Procunier
to look into this and to see what could be done. When I got home
ast night, about 8:30, I had a call or a message to call Milton
Marks. I called Milton Marks and this is what it was about. He
vas interested in this and I was able to tell him at the time that
ve were already on this matter and we would know very shortly -- hear
back from Ray Procunier. During the course of the evening the boy's
ondition worsened, SO instead 6f waiting until this morning, as of
11:00 o'clock last night the action was taken and the man has been
there and visited his son.
the
Q
So you did ask/Director after you found out the facts
to let the father --
A
Oh, we did that -- we did that the minute that we -- the
minute we heard it we told him and Ray Procunier took the action
within the -- within the department and reported back to us that
he was taken to the hospital last night.
O
Well, did Mr. Procunier do this at your request? You
say, "we told him. "
A
We simply told him to get into this and report back.
This is -- this type of situation, it is not as -- as urgent as
this particular one, but similar types of situations arise all the
time. After all, you've got 21,000 men in institutions. It is a
-1-
matter that is handled administratively within the system and when
the -- this was brought to our attention late yesterday afternoon,
we immediately through Jim Jenkins, the Cabinet Secretary in that --
in whose area comes corrections, we went through him. He relayed
this to Ray Procunier. Ray Procunier got on it and reported back that
he was, again, to make sure the entire situation was as it had been
presented and -- that's the way it turned out. He made the decision
and informed us that the man had already been released. When he
found out in checking the -- all the details, found out that the boy's
condition had worsened and the time was of the essence, he took the
action at 11:00 o'clock last night.
or
Another subject, Governor.
A
What?
Q
Have you finished reading the White House transcripts?
A
No. I'm still at them and I was set back this week-end
when I thought I would have time to make a bigger dent in them by
forced reading regarding some of our own problems.
or
How far along were you, Governor?
A
Oh, I don't know. I'm way into April exme place.
a
Have youfinished the March 21 tape?
A
Yes.
Q
What do you think so far about what you have read?
A
Well, very little change since the last time we spoke.
As far as I have gone. Apparently the -- the questions that were
called for in the original demand have been answered, as I think many
have agreed. That he did not have knowledge -- the President did
not have kowledge of Watergate in advance and was not a party to the
cover-up.
2
Do you surmise that from reading the transcript, Governor,
or are you -- are you reassured of that after reading as much of the
transcript as you have read?
A
Well, the statements in those earlier meetings, I think
there were statements there that made it rather plain that that was
true, and others have also reported that in the media, in regard to
those. But I would rather not get into commenting on specifics
as far as I went. I said that I felt they all should be readi all
the way through, so you have got the whole picture, and I'm going to
continue to do that.
=2-
Q
Have you lked within say the last ) weeks with either
the President or Vice President Ford?
A
NO.
Q
Governor, you mentioned that from your reading so far it
ndicated the President had no knowledge of the Watergate break-in
itself in advance and he was not a party to the cover-up. Were you
in any way disturbed by the March 21 tape in which it could be
interpreted as suggesting that the President wanted to pay off --
Howard Hunt to keep him from talking? Does that disturb you, that
scenario?
A
Well, as I recall from reading that, and then as I say, I
don't want to comment on these things piecemeal. As I understand
the matter came up there that Howard Hunt was threateming the
revelation of national security matters to which he was privy, where
the others weren't because of his revious connection with C.I.A.
This presented an unusual problem that had to be dealt with. But
subsequently, as you go on, you -- there was statements that indicated
that the President was definitely against blackmail or against a pay-
df for -- for any clemency idea. And again, as I say, I'm notgoing
to
I
Where do you find that, Governor?
A
What?
Q
Where did you find that? I mean what part of the
language of the March 21 tape makes you --
A
Oh, this goes on beyond the 21st, then at subsequent
meetings where this is further discussed, this same matter, but
again, look, I'm -- I said I'm going to read them all and I'm going
to read them all, and I'm not going to comment until I've gone
through and find what it says in the last chapter.
of
Governor, the President's guilt or innocence aside at
this point, were you disturbed by the general nature or tenure of the
discussions?
A
Well, there were -- here again, this whole matter is now,
and I associate myself with the leadership of the Congress as of this
morning, as of yesterday. They have made what I think is the proper
point. The constitutional process is going forward. All of this
would now be considered by the Congress. And I think this is what
should happen and I hope for as early a settlement or a solution as is
-3-
is possible by the Congress of this matter. This is the process that
should be followed. If there is an impeachable offense, or
impeachable conduct, that this is the obligation oftthe Congress to
find it and take action accordingly.
2
Governor, you mentioned --
ro
-- did take that same position, Governor, but felt free
to comment about the sort of conversations that took place as revealed
by the transcripts. Now you look -- occupy a certain position of
moral leadership in the state, if not in the country. Don't you feel
an obligation to comment --
A
I think I also have -- in that same context, have an obliga-
tion with regard to a legal process just as I stood here before you
rany times and refused to give an opinion on a matter that was before
the courts. And this is now in a legal process.
Q
How about your fellow Republicans who have come at --
how do you feel about them who have called it shabby --
A
Every individual has got a right to take his own position
on this.
10
Governor, in reading these transcripts, which obviously
were never -- the President or the people in the White House never
thought they'd be released, have you had reason to rethink the way
you conduct your own conversations in your office?
(Laughter)
0
To maybe hold backa little bit or -
A
Well, no, we don't tape.
Q
Have you checked the jellybean jar?
A
No, we -- we don' t tape. Obviously every one has his
own way of doing business and maybe mine would have been different.
Q
Governor --
A
As someone else has done.
Q
I wonder if you could tell us, please, your own reactions.
Obviously we - - as members of the press are quite interested in
what you think about the transcripts and the entire Watergate thing.
You are being asked questions constantly. I'm told that some of
your own advisers are suggesting that you put more daylight between
yourself and the President. I wonder if you could tell us what your
reaction is to this. How you feel.
A
Well, I've had -- I think a pretty consistent position and
-4-
I'm going to stay with it. No one condones Watergate. I
don't. I think it was illegal, it was immoral and incredibly
stupid.
The perpetrators, the actual perpetrators were arrested at
the time. They have had their day in court. They have been found
guilty. They have been sentenced. NOW the question is were there
dhers involved who had escaped trial. Indictments have been brought
down so that some are in the legal process before the courts and
therefore I don't think any comment should be given now. The other
rqcess involving the President is the impeachment process the
constitution calls for, and it is now in effect going forward.
And
if an impeachable offense is -- it is determined in that process that
an impeachable offense has been committed, and then if it is later de-
termined by the Congress that there is guilt in that impeachable offense
then the process will -- will be completed and action will be taken.
If innocence is found, also that will be determined and I have for
a long time held out that this is hecourse to follow. That I -
when I said I associated myself with the Democractic leadership
to those who have been talking resignation, I don't think
resignation would solve anything. It will leave everything unresolved.
And in quoting the Democratic leadership of the Congress, they have
said it would attribute to more misunderständing and polarization of
the people and do nothing to restore the confidence of the people
in their government.
2
Governor, how do you view that rise in clamor for
regisnation
A
You'll have to ask them.
a
I mean how do you feel -- how do you view the fact that
there does seem to be an increase in the types and diversity of people
calling for resignation?
A
Well, as I say, you are going to have to ask each
individual about this. I've made it plain and if we were talking about
a President of the other party, I'm opposed in principal and philosophy
to the idea that a President can be forced out of office over --
simply by accusation or indictment. And there is a constitutional
process that our government provides for this, and it is now in
operation. Now, if somebody had exerted some power to halt this and
not utilize that process, then we would have a reason for real concern.
But the process is going forward.
-5-
Q
Governor, do you have any reaction to last night's field
poll hat shows Hugh Flournoy ahead of the Lieutenant Governor.
A
Well, again, I think this is just a reflection of the
troubles at the moment that the Lieutenant Governor has, and I can't
comment on that because, again, any kind of a comment and I erode
my position of neutrality in the primary.
0
You say reflection of his troubles. You mean voters
are reacting seemingly in their preference?
A
Well, I assume that this is what has caused this -- this
thing in the polls recently. And I think it was to be expected, and
I'm quite sure it is no surprise to the Lieutenant Governor.
Q
Are you still holding, Governor, to the -- to what you've
aid previously, that the Lieutenant Governor should remain in the
primary race or have you changed your opinion,'on that?
A
Well, again, I can't comment on that.
Q
Governor, yesterday the Legislative Analyst recommended
pay raises for state employees in excess of eight per cent -- that
the State Personnel Board has recommended. Do you think he made
ample justification for that suggestiond:
A
Well, I don't think that he's had time to go into this
as exhaustively as thePersonnel Board. After all, incour system
here we get back to the processes again under the law, we have a
Personnel Board and a very competent and experienced large staff
that is to deal with these problems. I don't know exactly upon' what
the legislative analyst based his percentage. You know, if he was
leaving out fringe benefits then we are virtually in line with each
other, because the Personnel Board, if you add in the fringe benefit
package to the pay raise that was recommended, it comes out to
better than eight per cent and comes out -- just about the equivalent
of what the legislative analyst was proposing.
2
Governor, have you or your adminsstration or the party
fficials been reviewing the law to find out what actionwould have to
be taken in case the Lieutenant Governor is found guilty? As far as
his nomination and his candidacy.
A
Well, all I know is that if -- if you lose a candidate
after
ftera the primary the State Central Committee under the law chooses
the candidate then for the party.
1-
If he's found -- if he's resigned -- if he's convicted --
-6-
would he leave the ticket if he's convicted?
A
No, I've had no conversation about that.
o
Would you expect him to? Do you believe he'd leave?
A
Well, let me put it this way, I would.
Q
Governor, are you ready to accept any other energy control
compromise bill than the one you already worked out with Assemblyman
Warren?
In other words, if the Republicans today in the Senate --
Senator Biddle was to offer some amendments on that bill, are you ready
to take that bill in the form he would like it or only in the way you
ant it?
A
Oh, no, we are not a hard and fast -- this bill is now a
ompromise in which I'm quite sure the author of the bill doesn't
have all the things he wanted in ot or he'd have put them in it in the
first place. We obviously in compromising him haven't gotten all
the things we would like to have gotten. No, this is what the
legislative process is all about. We will go forward and we will
look at it when it comes down. If they have succeeded in making
additional amendments --
Q
-- some of you- forces to talk to Republicans, I understand,
to try to hold them in line with this bill.
A
No, not that I know of.
ED
MEESE: We have stated our position to them.
A
We have just stated our position that we have worked and
negotiated out a compromise and agree with the author nn the basis
if
of that compromise we can sign the bill.
low,/additional amendments
are made, those will just have to be looked at as in any other
piece of legislation when it comes down.
Q
Well, the two major things are the loss of local control
here and the -- the minimum standards on appliances. Would you be
willing to give up either one of those or -- those are the two
Biddle amendments.
A
Well, the appliances was not something that we were
particularly happy about ourselves.
Q
Do you consider --
A
As I say, no one gets everything that they want in a
compromise of this kind.
Q
Do you consider the local government preemption necessary
for the operation of the bill?
A
Well, in this particular thing the local governments
themselves believe tuat the only way we could get powerplant siting
was on a statewide basis.
Q
Isn't CSAC opposed to it?
A
Well, I don't know whether they are, but I don't think on
that point --
ED MEESE: Not on that basis.
A
Not on that basis. I know they have had to -- they have
had some points in there that they object to as everyone does.
But
we haven't -- we found very view few that are over-all against it.
The
main point is, and what we were trying to get, and what we've been
a
trying to get for several years, is/powerplant siting bill so
we can build powerplants in California. Right now it is impossible
to build a powerplant. And one of these days we are going to --
we are going to be faced with the brownouts and the blackouts that
they have had in the east, because we have not kept pace with our
rowth. If you remember, it was - I guess it's been almost a couple
of years ago that Los Angeles maintained an office in the east where
they tried to help industries locate in California, and has closed
that office because the power situation in California was such
that they no longer could -- there was no point in trying to encourage
an industry to come to California. They couldn't guarantee them
power.
Q
Can we actively take that to mean that you would give up
the appliance provisions but not the local government preemption?
A
Well, then you are getting into what's the very heart of
the bill that all of us want, which is powerplant siting. In other
words, if you take out the siting of powerplants you've taken out
the main reason for the bill.
On some other subject, Governor. In your -- in your amend-
ments yesterday to the budget bill you are proposing to add $30
million more to the capitol restoration fund on top of the $40 million
already appropriated now. They haven't even touched the original
$40 million dollars.
A
The legislature hasn't decided yet what they are going to
do yet.
Q
Why the urgency to add another $30 million?
A
Well, because what we have is an additional amount of
Tidelands oil revenues over and above what had been anticipated due
-8-
to to the energy situation. Now, customarily we have used the
Tideland oil as capital funds and therefore for capital construction.
And I don't mean that in the sense of this capitol, I mean in building
rojects. One-time expenditures. Using one capital asset for
another.
So with this additional money, what we took upstairs was
a laundry list of projects in which we earmarked and we felt this
money should be used on a priority basis. And 42 -- the original
42 prior to this additional money was enough to get started, but not
enough to complete the things that have to be done here, including
the -- what I think is the number one priority, which is the restora-
tion of the old wing of the capitol here, the main capitol building,
and so this was one of the --- one of the items was to add an addi-
tional $30 million to the $42 million for Sacramento Capitol
construction.
Q
Governor, doesn't that $30 million bring it back up to
about the figure that Senator Collier had originally, about a year
ago -- I think he originally had about $80 million.
A
No, we have not earmarked this -- this is just earmarked
for constmnction here in the capitol. Now, many of you have already
been writing about the fact that theren's been an increase in rental
space by government here in Sacramento, that more buildings are
needed. There is now $72 million in the fund for construction here
and the use of that will be subject to open hearings and determination
then by the legislature in public -- after public hearings. The
public is aware of how it will be used, as to whether it will be
used for new buildings, for this building or what it will be used
for.
Q
Are you suggesting that money could be used for some non-
gislative building in the Capitol area?
A
That's going to be up to them after the hearings.
Right at the moment they are the ones who seem to have put forth
the first and most prominent claim that they need additional space.
But again there's been no resolution on that because there's been
no resolution as to what's going to be done here in this building
or whether they would move some -- say the Executive Branch out of this
wilding and suddenly you find yourself tagged for an executive
building instead of a legislative building. so that's going to
result from the hearings and the legislative process.
-9"
Q
Do you have any personal idea whether they should just
build a separate executive building? Do you have any thoughts on
that, whether they should separate the two branches intwo two
different buildings?
A
Well, I -- whichever. If that is what would follow
restoring the old Capitol to use, that wouldn't bother me a bit.
Because my top priority, I feel that the top priority is to restore
and make usable again the old Capitol.
Now,
if
that
:
if
that
could meet the legislature's needs, then by moving the Execntive
Branch out, that would be one of the things to be determined by the
legislature.
OF
Have you decided how you are going to vote on Prop. 9
yet?
A
No, as a matter of fact we are having meetings in a few
days.
We will have for you our decision on all of the -- of the
propositions.
Q
Governor, another subject, sometime ago Mr. Livermore
was sent to make an investigation of the reorganization of the
Division of Forestry and the firing in the State Forestry.
Has
there been any report made on that or anything?
A
No, they are continuing to work on that matter, and we
should be having a report shortly on that.
Q
Governor, could we go back just for a minute to the
Lieutenant Governor. In all your past statements you've been very
supportive of him and defending his integrity and so on. Yet today
when I asked you whether you felt he still should remain in the
race you said you wouldn't comment on that. Does that indicate
some sort of a change in your attitude?
A
No, you were talking about -- I thought you were talking
about in the context of after the primary, and if, were the nominee.
Q
I mean right now.
A
Oh, no, I have said before, I can't comment. This is
a decision that he has made; I can understand that decision.
And
as far as supportive is concerned, nothing has happened to change my
mind about his integrity. I've never found him anything but a man of
integrity.
SQUIRE: Any more questions?
0
Just one more, one other subject.
Governor, you had said
-10-
in the past when you were opposed to lowering the voting age to
18, thatyou didn't like the idea of politics coming on the campus.
Is that correct, did you say something along that line?
A
Yes.
Q
Why last week did you sign a bill which permits Deputy
Registrars to go on high school campuses four weeks of the year?
A
Well, because this is a permissive bill. But also
because the matter is now changed, the 18 year old are voters.
Q
The bill says Registrar -- "Deputy Registrars of Voters
shall be allowed to register students and school personnel in the
high school campus the last two weeks in April and last two weeks in
September."
A
Yes, but what --- well, maybe permissive is the wrong word
to use for it. What I meant was they shall be allowed. This
doesn't mean that we passed a bill that ordered Registrars of Voters
for separate two-week. periods to go on the campus and sit there and
register. It means that they -- if they want to come on in these
periods that the Principal of the school cannot arbitrarily rule they
can't -- they can't go on the campus.
But this is part of what
follows. The 18 year olds are now citizens able to vote.
What
I
was talking about was that all of these things would then become
matters and problems. I don't think that registering voters is
necessarily the kind of politics I had in mind. I had in mind the
actual campaigning and its taking place on all the campuses, and
I'm quite sure is going to stepoup as time goes on.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
000
-11-
NEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD JUNE 11, 1974
Reported By:
Beverly D. Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's news conference
is for the convenience of the Capitol press corps. only. Because of
the need to get it to the press corps. as rapidly as possible, no
corrections are made anothere is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.
o00
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Wel, good morning -- almost. or still.
NO opening statement. Go ahead.
Thank you, Governor.
Can't think - well, thank you, gentlemen.
(WATERGATE)
Q
Well, yave you finished reading the transcripts yet?
(Laughter)
A
No, about two-thirds of the way.
or
Next.
What do you think?
A
What? Haven't any change in my position on them.
Governor, the Evans-Hovack column this morning, there is
line following an interview with youiin which he says, "The Peggan
inner circle flinches -- flinches over Reagan's refusal to find any
fault with the battled President."
A
I think my position has been very clear and I think they
are stretching it a little bit when they suggest anything of the kind.
I have said and I repeat, it is now before a judicial process and
everyone should be presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.
And I'm willing to be patient and wait for the judicial process to --
Q
Governor, for a newcomer around here, who are your inner
circle, by the way?
A
I don't know. just who they had in mind myself. I don't
think really there is an inner circle, but I think that Evans and
Novack have always claimed some unidentifiable source close to the
governor. But I -- I don't really believe they have got one.
Q
You say the President's plight is a -- a judicial matter,
but it is a political matter, too, and I think that's the question
we'd like you to comment on, is the political impact of the President's
problems on the party and --
-1-
(WATERGATE)
A
Well, I think if you are talking -- no, I dorit think
there is any change in that.
The political impact that I'm concerned
about is whether the Congress in carrying out the constitutional
process with regard to this will be non=partisan as they should be
or whether partisan politics is going to be involved in any decision
they make. And so far some Congressman, I think, have been most
blatant in their statements that even before there is any identifica-
tion of an impeachable offense, they have publicly voted guilty.
Q
But other -
A
They certainly would not be qualified to become jurors
in any court case.
or
Other Congressmen who havenot committed themselves are
trying to determine what their constituents feel is better for the
health of the country. Do you have a feeling about what is better
for the health of the country?
A
That's none of their business, actually. Their business
is, is there or is there not an inpeachable offense that has been
committed. And when they startgoing off into other directions to find
out how should we act on this, they have only one responsibility, that
is to determine whether there has been such an offense.
or
Are you saying --
Q
But aren't those some of the same Congressmen who say they
feel they need more tapes from the White House to determine if there
indeed was an impeachable offense?
A
Well, the question there to be resolved is whether they
are just going on a f-shing expedition because SO far they haven't
been able to find an impeachable offense. And the White House
position is that they have made available everything that is perti-
nent to this case.
Q
Governor, are you saying that you are afraid that perhaps
the President cannot receive a fair trial, so to speak?
A
No, I expressed a hope that he would. I said when
:
when this was brought into the field of the political impact, that
I hope the Congress would raise above partisan politics and perform
their constitutional duty as it was -- as it is called for in the
constitution.
Q
Do you have a gut feeling that this might not take place,
though?
-2-
A
I'm not go. g to speculate on what my eelings might be.
Q
Well, Governor, from reading two-thirds of the transcripts
are you at all concerned about any 6f the language used in there,
moral tone set fortthe presidency, like Billy Graham was?
A
Well, I've already answered that before, I said that I
think yes, that any of as who are in high position, itis ajolt --
jarring to the people to -- when they find that perhaps someone in
high office uses the same language that they use, and I'm quite --
and it is regrettable.
Q
Do youuse that kind of language in your office?
A
What?
Do you use that kind of language?
(Lagghter)
I'm not going to say.
0
From that we can assume ---
-- find the language disturbing?
A
Well, I found great reassurance in the number of references
and statements in there that indicated -- made it very evident that
ne aid not have previous knowledge, which seemed to be the principal
point involved in hearing tapes to begin with.
X
When you say --
Q
On another subject.
The House of Representatives is
voteng on a federal land use bill that would give monies to cities
and urban areas if the cities pass certain laws that Congress would
like restricting urban sprawl, etcetera. What is your feeling about
that kind of bill? It could bring a lot 6f money to California.
A
Well, we are -- our administration is very concerned about
the Udall Bill, particularly, which seems to be the one under discussion
in Washington at the moment.
We believe that using federal funds
and using them first as bait and then later as a club, that this
bill could go a long way toward taking away rights that we believe
belong to local and state government, putting them in the hands of
the federal government, and I think it was best expressed by various
panel members at the Governor's Conference in Seattle. One Senator
and one Congressman held to the point that Congress had no such
intent, that Congress did not mean to dictate to states or local
government. But another Congressman, Congressman Wright from Texas,
made it very plain the thing that I myself have been trying to point
out, ne made it very plain that in many of these programs we would
-3-
have to understand that Congressal intent was very often distorted
by the agencies that were entrusted with the enforcement of these
Congressional programs. And that it was these permanent employees of
government that could come in and demand that their interpretation
be accepted by the local and state government and he expressed the
helplessness of Congress to do anything about this. Now, this was
done openly in an open meeting at the Governor's Conference. And I
find myself in total agreement because we have had experience after
experience in state government with a variety of government agencies.
Congress passes a measure and I am completely willing to believe in
their intent, but then there is that little line in there that says
that the agency entrusted with the enforcement of this shall make such
regulations as are necessary to enforce it. And they take off and
gradually distort in the regulations which they spawned what was
quite
Congressional intent. I'm/sure that the Congressmen are sincere
when they say that the Udall bill simply suggests anddoes not require,
for example, what is an environmental consideration. But then the
agent from the Bureau comes out later and all he has to say is,
we disagree with your interpretation of this, or your evaluation
of this environmental factor. And he seeks to impose his evaluation
and if you don't accept his evaluation then they shut off the money
and that's the way the system has been working for a dong time.
Governor, how come it seems that other governors at that
(land)
conference seemed to be more disposed toward the federal plan and
you seemed to be isolated by yourself? In other words, Governor
McCall saying how inaction in California during your administration
is the reason that the federal government is now moving.
A
Well, Governor McCall and I have differed on a number of
things and Governor McCall sometimes speaks before he considers how
the words are going to sound put together. Because in this particular
instance the Environmental Protection Agency has publicly stated
in Washington that California leads the nation and including the
national government in the steps that we have taken in the entire area
of the environment so far. So for Governor McCall -- and'I did call
him on that when he suggested that we weren't doing anything, and
that's why people from California wanted to live in Oregon -- I haven't
checked on the figures to see how many Oregonians are moving to
California. I imagine there are some. Maybe we will have to check
particular
up on that/figure.
Q
Do you think it is 18,000 a year?
A
But I wasn't isolated. As a matter of fact I was sitting
very close to a couple of Democratic Governors who are totally on my
side.
Q
Who are they?
A
Well, I -- since they spoke to me, and I didn't tape the
conversation, I'm not going to reveal it, but I think you will find
if you want to take a poll of them that there are a great many
Democractic governors as well as several other Republican governors
who are not in favor of this invasion of state's rights.
OF
On another subject. Governor, what reasons do you see
behind the low voter turnout by Republicans in the primary and
how much of a liability you think that will be for Mr. Flournoy if
it continues in November.
A
Well, I hope we won't have a continuation of that now that
we are actually into the general election and the major contest between
the two parties. Some will interpret it as disaffection with Water-
gate. Some will say there was just a general apathy. Whatever
it is, we are going to have to overcome it and get the people to the
polls. Because I don't think there is anything worse than -- no
misdeed of a government official is any worse than a voter who doesn't
vote.
o
Mr. Flournoy and Mr. Brown were hesitant to blame a low
turnout on Watergate. Are you saying just the opposite, you think --
A
No, I say some will interpret it that way; some will just
say it was just voter apathy, that the race didn't happen to strike
any sparks. I don't think that we had the -- maybe this is a part
of it, also, I don't think we had the emotionalism and the bitterness
in our gubernatorial primary that the other party had and that always
brings out more people when you have more factions contesting each
other.
Q
Governor, do you mind elaborating a little bit on that state-
ment, that no misdeed of a public official is worse than a voter
who doesn't vote? I mean there are some misdeeds that are criminal
but it is not a crime to not vote.
A
Well, all right, I know --- and I suppose what I was doing
was paraphrasing the-words of Will Rogers. And maybe I'd better
-5-
stick with his words instead of paraphrasing them, towards the --
Will Rogers said once that the people in government are no better
and no worse than the people who send them there. But they are
better than the people who don't vote. I guess that's what I was
meaning to say.
2
Do you agree with Ralph Hader that there ought to be a
law, to make everybody vote?
A
No, but then disagreeing with Ralph Nader doesn't come ex-
actly as a shock to you, does it?
0
Governor, how active will you be for Hugh Flournoy in the
fall? Are you going to speak or campaign or has he talked to you
about that?
A
Yes, my first priority of course is the job that I have
here. The second priority is to campaign for any candidates in
California where I can be helpful. And that will be determined
by their plans and their strategy, and Hugh has already expressed
a hope that I will be actively campaigning for him.
Q
Do you think the President's presence in California might
be helpful to Mr. Flournoy?
A
I don't know, that's going - as I have said before, I'm
not a good one to ask about that because I was always one who
believed that we shouldn't have outside tourists coming in on our
side, and I never did in two campaigns so -- but that - - I can't
make that decision for other candidates.
Q
Governor, there is a story in the paper yesterday about
your presence at that Governor's Conference, and said you looked
every bit your 63 years. How do you react to that?
(Laughter)
A
Well, I've never pretended that I don't. I have never
pretended about my age or -- all right, I'm 63 years old. I feel
fine. Still do most of the things that I have done throughout my
adult life, and maybe the individual, I think I have in mind who that
was, maybe the individual that said that in his column was just
engaged in some -- indulging in some wishful thinking.
Q
Governor, on your political life, in November you proposed
Prop. 1, and that was defeated, and in this last election, the major
politmeal proposition was 9, and you opposed it; the voters approved
it. Is it true perhaps --Joseph Kraft (phonetics) says today that
-6-
"Reaganism in Califor. .a has had it."
A
Well, I wouldn't say so since that was the only one I
missed on. I also endorsed -- well, there was one other one that --
and one that didn't pass. I endorsed eight measures, seven of them
passed. I campaigned actively for one that we were concerned about
that passed. The bond issue. Butas to Proposition 9, I was not
opposed to Proposition 9, as I made it clear many, many times, as to the
intent. I thought that there were technical difficulties with it
and I thought it was not strong enough and therfore I introduced a
program that I believe would add strength to anything that Propesition
9 does. Now, those measures are coming up for voting in the legisla-
ture. I hope they are passed. I think that they will close loopholes
that still exist in spite of Proposition 9. And I think that they
will make the electionlaws more realistic and all of the things
that we are trying to do or that are contained in the intent of
Proposition 9 can be better carried out if the eight points that I
proposed are passed.
2
Low do you account, though, for the people's refusal to
follow your leadership now, the key proposals like 1 and 9?
And before you perhaps could carry, you know, the voters?
A
Well, you pick out one issue. I think it réflects the
feeling of the people. I did not actively campaign on that issue.
When asked questions I stated my --- my opinion of it. My disapproval.
On the other hand, I did campaign for an issue that passed. Now,
which people did I have influence with and which didn't I? What?
Q
One was not the controversial issue, like 9 was.
A
Well, I think that's your interpretation. There -- with
Proposition 9. there was no controversy about the intent of it except
the standpoint of some people who thought their political activities
were going to be curbed, such as the leadership of organized labor.
But I'm sure they are going to be against the points that I've
recommended where I said I don't think they should be allowed to
contribute, nor should corporations be allowed to contribute.
Q
Governor, do you -- have you had any campaign advise for
Mr. Flournoy, one, and two, does Hugh -
A
What?
Q
Does Hugh stand any chance of getting the support of
organized labor in the general election? Perhaps because of his
stand on 9?
-7-
A
Well, I don't know, I think -- I think that you have to,
and I always ddd myself in my own campaigns, differentiated between
the hierarchy of organized labor and the rank and file. And very
frankly, I have thought for many years, even back to when I myself
was alabor union official, that the hierarchy of labor has very
often differed from the rank and file as to what it advocates.
And I do not believe that the hierarchy controls the vote of labor.
I think that the average working man goes into those polls and votes
his conscience.
Q
Governor, in view of some past differences between you and --
you and Hugh Flournoy, how confident are you that he would carry out
the policies that you would favor if he is elected Governor?
A
Oh, I don't think thereiis any basic philosophical differ-
ence between Hugh and myself. I'm quite sure that like any individual
who becomes Governor, there are going to be points in which he'll
do something different than I would have done it, but no one's asking
that any candidate be a rubber stamp. But I have every confidence
that he and I are in basic agreement on philosophy. On the ideas
of the -- well, heahimself has expressed it. throughout the primary
ampaign, he expressed his agreement with the philosophy of our
administration. And with the success we have had in bringing about
efficiencies and beonomies in government, and he - he spoke in
quite approving terms of what we have done. But I think the contest
between the two, between Hugh Flournoy and his opponent is going to
be a contest not based, I hope, that -- that Jerry Brown will quit
running against me, he's been doing that so far. Because I think
the contest -- what the people have to choose is which man offers
the best possibility of leadership for California; which has the most
maturity; which has the experience; which man has the judgment and
the philosophy of the two men, because there is, I think, a wide gap
in their two philosophies and if the people carefully assess this
I think that Hugh Flournoy will be the next Governor of California.
SQUIRE: Any more questions?
2
Just one other one, what about -- can you comment on the
fact that Earl Brian was defeated so overwhèlmingly by a chief critic
of your administration, Richardson?
A
Well, I think we. had a name value there. I just don't
think that Earl was able to get the resources to make his name as
widely known as the Senator's name is. Actually, philosophically
there is little to choose between them, they are both certainly very
solid conservative citizens.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor,
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD JUNE 18, 1974
Transcribed by: Governor's Press Office (RAS)
(This rough transcript of the Governor's Press Conference is furnished
to the members of the Capitol Press Corps for their convenience only.
Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as possible after
the conference, no corrections are made and there is no guarantee of
absolute accuracy.)
-0-
(Whereupon the Governor read Press Release #338)
O
Governor, don't you think they're going to be a little reluctant
to support you since you put these bills in in opposition to Proposi-
tion 9 when they wanted your support?
A
Well, my only opposition to Proposition 9 was because I thought
that the legislation, including this that I had introduced, had met
some of the requirements of Proposition 9 and actually was stronger
in some instances than Proposition 9. And I made this very plain
that I had no quarrel with the purpose of 9; I felt that in some
instances it was badly written. And these would all strengthen and add
to Proposition 9 which is now the law of California the people passed
it. And some of the legislators who perhaps didn't take as much of a
position one way or the other, as I did in Proposition 9, now in a
committee have apparently killed or attempted to kill these bills.
These are not in conflict with 9; they'll only add to it.
Q
Governor, what do you expect them to do about these bills
in
other states, or what? In Congress, or what?
A
No, I thought that since they're lobbying groups and have had no
hesitancy about lobbying here in the Capitol, that they might try to
influence legislators to give these bills a better hearing.
&
That committee did pass one of your bills out, the one to restrict
judges in making
A
Yes, that's right. They are two that are still active upstairs.
O
Which two are those?
A
Well, that's the one about judges and
Voice: Setting the primary date cutting that down the length
between the two.
A
No, no. That's the one that was killed.
0
The reading act.
A
What? That's right. The reading. It's the idea of making the
issues, the initiatives on the ballot more readable, more understandable
to the people. That's right. I had a memory lapse there,
-1-
or
Governor, you mentioned, of course, there are a lot of empty seats
here, and now that the Speaker has mentioned that he will step down by
the end of this month, do you have any parting comments for him?
A
No, I didn't know what action had been taken. I haven't heard
what's happening upstairs. I just was referring that I'm quite sure
that the many of you were concerned with that upstairs and what's
going on. What has happened?
Or
That statement where he said he would step down by the end of the
month.
A
Oh, the statement last week where he said he would step down.
Well, I had just assumed earlier in the campaign he would step down,
win or lose, after the primary, whatever the decision, and I didn't
know that he had set any particular time other than that he would do
that. So my own information from some of the legislators was that
that would take place today.
Ω
Governor, how do you assess Assemblyman Moretti's performance as
speaker, now that he's leaving?
A
Oh, no, I'm not going to cross the
they assess my performance
all the time; I'm not going to
0
Well, you've got quid pro quo here.
A
No, that's their affair up there, and how they run their shop I'll
leave to them. If I had a voice in selecting speakers, I might have
made different decisions in several instances in the past. (Laughter)
Of
Governor, are you satisfied with the operation of your pre-paid
health plan program- Medi-Cal?
A
Yes, and I think that some of the things that have been said are
not based on an actual understanding of the facts or what is going on.
And I recognize it is a new program, it's a new experiment, it's an
effort to try and provide medical care in a way that's more fair, not
only to the people, but to the taxpayers who have to
to the patients,
in
there
but to the taxpayers. Obviously,/any new program they going to be
there are
bugs; going to be people attracted to it who had to be headed
off, weed it out. We found that there were additional rules that had
to be passed. But it is going forward and it is providing care.
O
Do you think it was proper for three doctors to be able to sell
their interest in a pre-paid health plan to a fourth doctor?
-2-
A
The instance this has been written about and that we have
investigated is one simply of a doctor buying into an existing plan
was
that/permitted to operate
Q
People who were in it when he got there all left when he bought
in. Isn't that a change of (inaudible)
A
I don't know whether all left or not. But I know that there's
no regulation or no rule against buying into one. There is a rule
against someone simply, like buying a liquor license, buying a pre-paid
plan over which we would have no control, no approval, as to who does
this. But I think any questions about this, I would suggest that
someone go to Dr. Mayer and find out how the program is working,
because very frankly, I am in disagreement on the basis of everything
I've been able to learn with the things that have been written about
this plan.
0
Do you think it was proper to appoint Mr. Manzano back in 1972
as a consumer representative on the Hospital Commission when he was in
the health care business?
A
Well, this whole plan
the whole matter of him was taken up with
the Attorney General, and several months ago, the Attorney General ruled
that he had found no conflict of interest whatsoever. He has never
directly contacted or contracted with the state since he left state
service. He has been a sub-contractor to others who are doing business
with the state.
O
I didn't mean that. I meant his service on the Hospital Commission.
You appointed him as a member of the Hospital Commission as a consumer
representative on the commission at the time that he was in that
business. Do you think that was proper to do? That was not the
subject of an Attorney General's opinion to my knowledge.
A
Well, I would have to look into the details of what you're talking
about, because we have thoroughly investigated this and found no
wrongdoing whatsoever.
O
Governor, the Northern California area is being considered as a
possible site to locate nuclear power plants. What is your feeling on
where they should be located and would you have any reservations in
living next door to one?
A
Well, now this is one of the reasons we signed the Warren bill.
This is not a site that has been picked at all. It's an area in which
there is interest by PG&E in a nuclear plant, and they're only in the
preliminary stages of looking at the whole area, and before they ever
get around to picking a site, this legislation we passed, the commission
will be in operation and that's what it was passed for. There will be
a commission to take their case to and find out whether they meet all
(nualear)
the requirements and whether they can get approval of that site.
or
Would you have any reservations living next door to one?
A
No, I think it would be presumptuous of me now without even knowing
what site they have in mind, just a general area or location. This
is what the Commission was appointed for and why we signed the
legislation.
O
Governor, have you met with Mr. Flournoy since the primary to
discuss what your role in the campaign might be.
A
No, we haven't been able to get together as yet, but I'm sure we
will be. There's been communication back and forth between
Q
Governor, some of your appointees are being held up by the Rules
Committee. Are you doing to withdraw some of those names? Balking
about recommending.
A
No, as a matter of fact, the logjam seems to be breaking somewhat.
The holding up of Mr. Sigg's appointment, I have no intention of with-
drawing that. This is a man that was once approved by this same Senate
group and I think this is just more of Senator Moscone's politics and
the kind that he's been trying to play. Mr. Sigg did a fine job and
he is a good appointee. And I hope that he will be confirmed because
I don't think there is any reason
O
what about your appointees to the Board of Education. Are you
going to withdraw them or let them stand.
A
No, I haven't gotten a late count on the exact status of all of
the appointees, but the Senate, the Rules Committee is supposed to make
its confirmations based on whether the individual is qualified not
on whether they disagree in their philosophy with my philosophy, or
the philosophy of the individual. And this is the basis on which
Senator Moscone wants to put these approvals or disapprovals. And I
think that's a violation of what the Senate is supposed to do.
2
At the same time, they didn't do anything on your nominee for
Consumer Affairs director. In fact, I think it was at her request
they did not have a hearing.
A
Well, this is a pleasure appointment, not a term appointment as
the other one. And she's going to continue to serve.
-4-
&
What's your reaction to complaints by consumer groups that she
has very little qualifications for the job?
A
Well, I don't know just what makes a consumer group, unless it's
self-announced, and I don't think that picketing a supermarket neces-
arily makes you an expert on consumer affairs; I happen to know the
young lady's background; I happen to know the experience that she's
had. This is an administrative position; she has any number of experts
in various consumer fields serving under her, and I picked her because
I believed that she would do a good job. And I think that she has been
doing one and will do a good job in that department.
O
Governor, there was a report recently that citizens in the
San Francisco and Oakland area are among the top three or four tax-
paying groups in the country federal, state and local. I think
they're third or fourth, with New York being first. Is there anything
the state can do to alleviate that burden on those several million
people down there?
A
Well
O
Something like $1,300 a year per person.
A
Well, I tried to do something with a thing called Proposition 1,
and couldn't get it past the vested interests.
Q
How do you assess the Speaker now?
A
Huh?
Q
How do you assess the Speaker now with regard to
A
I probably was on the wrong side on that and I made my feelings
very plain that his principal arguments against this in most of the
commercial advertising that was taken out were not based on fact.
They were less than accurate. In fact they were distortions of the
also
actual situation. But I would/point out that the claims were made
that the legislature could exercise control over government spending
and over taxes, and we have introduced some measures in the legislature,
or had introduced, that would have given them tools to do this and
they've shown exactly how much they meant in their previous arguments,
because those, too, were killed in the first committee where they were
heard.
Q
So the answer is, nothing can be done to alleviate that tax burden
on the people of San Francisco-Oakland, as far as the state is
concerned?
-5-
A
Well, they can't be paying any higher state taxes than anyone else
is paying unless they have higher incomes than anyone else, because our
taxes go up progressively. I don't know exactly what the situation is
that makes them different than all Californians. But the truth is, all
Californians-- citizens in this country--are paying too much in
taxes, paying too much for government. And the only way you can do
been
this is the thing we've/trying to do for eight years, and I think have
been relatively successful, and that is to hold down the cost of
govermment government spending. And I think my own vetoes are an
indication of what government spending would be if some others had had
their way. But, yes, the tax burden now for the average family in
America federal, state and local--is in excess of $5,000 a year. And
I think the only reason why the people aren't rebelling against this,
including yourselves, is that polls reveal that the overwhelming
majority of citizens when asked to estimate how much they pay for
government, they estimate around a third or less of what their actual
tax burden is. That's because gov ments down through the years have
been successful in hiding so many of the taxes that the people aren't
aware they are paying them. And the only way you're going to reduce
this is to reduce the cost of government.
a
Governor, how do you explain the lack of controversy surrounding
the state budget this year, and are you looking forward to signing the
size of that budget into law?
A
Well, I'll wait to see what the conference committee does. It's
true, there doesn't seem to be the move to add the excessive amounts
that there have been in the past. Now possibly that's because it's an
election year.
Q
Are you looking forward to signing that size budget into law,
though?
A
Well, I always feel pain on any budget that I sign because I can
always wish that all of them were less. On the other hand, I don't
think the increase in this budget has been excessive considering the
present rate of inflation and considering the fact that we knowingly
added over a billion dollars to the budget when we took that burden off
the homeowners and transferred a local tax to the state level. Most
people have ignored this. A great many people are not paying any
attention and they're not being reminded enough that that was a tax
shift--Senate Bill 90--and that the state removed from the back of
a
the homeowners and the renters more than/billion dollars in costs
-6-
knowing that we were adding over a billion dollars to the state budget.
Now the fact that we're giving this money back to local government to
subsidize a tax cut in the property tax still has to show as an expense
in the budget.
Q
Why did you oppose Robbins' movie industry bill?
A
I don't know whether we took a position on that or not.
Voice: I think we did, but I'm not prepared to say at the moment,
Governor.
Voice: Governor, we would like to see the bill amended. We're not all
that opposed to the bill. Right now, we are working on amendments, and
we think it's going to be worked out.
A
You caught me a little by surprise, because, frankly, if there's
anything the state can do to stimulate a return and a keeping of the
industry here in California, we'd like to do it.
O
Governor, the State Board of Forestry, in a special meeting
yesterday, passed a resolution urging you to approve $5,000,000 that's
been put into the budget already by the legislature for, to keep the
summer forest fighters at the same level they are now; they need the
extra money to allow for federal increases in the minimum wage and
overtime, and so forth.
Voice: That's an issue that's going to come up in the Cabinet in the
near future.
O
Have you met with Senator Richardson; do you plan to campaign
f or him, and have you been asked to campaign outside the state for
any candidates, and do you have any plans?
A
Oh, yes. The, my priorities in the following order--the first
priority is to continue to be governor of California and do the things
that have to be done here. The second priority is, campaigning in the
state for our own candidates, and I certainly intend to support and
campaign for all of them, that is if all ask me want help; and the
third priority is to do what I can without interfering with these two
out of state. And these requests come through the Congressional
Campaign Committee through the governor's committee with regard to
states where there are gubernatorial elections, and there will be some
trips out of state in the fall.
Q
What requests have you had so far?
A
Well, far more than I can answer, because you could be out of
state all the time if you answered all of them. But we're trying to
put together some limited trips that will take the highest priority
items, and here we've left that to the Congressional Committee and to
the Governor's Association as to which they believe are the highest
priority. Because we can't answer all the requests.
0
Governor, whatever happened to your plan to propose to the legis-
lature reform of county government? I think you had Lieutenant Governor
Reinecke heading that for awhile.
A
Well
did
O
You had a big study, and what/that produce?
A
Well, the studies and the material have come in. I haven't seen
them as yet from the task force. From what I've heard, and we haven't
been able to get at it, I'm not sure that we got the type of thing
really that we were looking for. Perhaps there were too many people,
and maybe legitimately, found reasons why streamlining couldn't be
done to the extent that we'd hoped it possibly could. But this is
being reviewed and studied now in our shop--all the material that came
in from the task force.
Q
But it is rather late to do any thing legislatively, isn't it? I
put
mean it's too late to/bills in for your administration.
A
Yes, but we knew that we were kind of late when we got under way
with this had to wait on a task force. But we'll have the study and
whatever recommendations we feel should be made, why we'll see if they
can't be introduced whether we're here or not.
O
Would it be correct to assume that you won't press for anything
while you're here then?
A
I don't know. I don't know just what the status is and how far
they've gone in summing this up.
O
Any more questions?
Thank you, governor.
# # #
-8-
6/25
NEWS COMPERENCE DF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD JUNE 25, 1974
Reported By:
Leverly D. Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's news conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol News Corps. for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the news corps.
as quickly as possible, no corrections are made and there is no
guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Good morning all.
Q
Any openers? No open -- you have no statement this
mrning?
NO opening statement, no.
Q
Governor --
A
of course I can dream one up if that will stimulate any
interest.
Governor, if they don't get the budget to you till the end
of the week, can you meet the deadline by Sunday?
A
Yes, I think with the new open idea of the conference
committee we are keepingtrack as best we can of what is going on
up there. So that we can make decisions as we go along. It isn't
the easiest thing in the world, and I don't know -- they moved it up
from June 30 to June 15, and they are still not"any faster than they
were. Maybe we ought to move it up to January and it may possibly
add another 24 hours to the tine we have.
of
Do you believe there is going to be much difference
what
between what they come out with this year with/your final version
will be?
A
Well, that I can't answer, because while]. our people
in the Finance Department are watching this, and all, we haven't
had the meetings that we will have to have on the key points as to
where the differences lie, and what we are going to do.
Q
Does it appear to you that there's been any unnecessary
footdragging as far as the conference committee meeting only once
every two or three days?
Well, I think there was -- I think there was a little
-1-
slowdown there for $ while, while they settled d certain administra-
tive measure up there in the Assembly.
That interfered somewhat with
the progress they weremaking.
Q
Did -- it hasn't picked up much this week, though, have
they, since then?
A
Well, I don't know what the schedule's been. Vern, do you?
VERN ORR: The question was?
or
Yes, well, whether they are meeting often enough.
VERI ORR: Well, they are starting today. I have every
C onfidence thatit will be down by Friday.
That only gives us Friday, Saturday and Sunday. As the
Governor says, we have been keeping track.
Q
Governor, for many years, including the previous administra-
tion of Pat Brown, there had been the -- the legislature has
approved funds for a new state office building in San Jose.
In
each -- each governor, Governor brown and yourself, have each year
olue-pencilled the item out of the budget.
Now they are putting
in $100,000 this time for working drawings. Have you any idea of
what you are going to do about that?
A
Well, I don't know what the -- this is one we have had
no meeting on this.
VERN ORR: We will be making a recommendation to you
with the other recommendations.
IC
Do you have any idea -- what's it going to be, Vern?
(Laughter)
VERN ORR: How about Sunday night. Larry, it is like
this --
K
Someone's got to ask a provincial question.
of
Governor, you have offered rewards for the apprehension
of the attackers of law officers. Yesterday spokesmen for the
administration opposed two bills that would offer rewards for the
apprehension of kidnappers. What's the rationale or the difference
there?
A
Well, now, here again I'm going to have to have some help
on this.
VERN ORR: I'm not familiar with that legislation.
A
I'm not either.
VERN ORR: I think they were -- but I'm sorry, Governor,
I don't personally know what the bills are, I'll have to study them.
Q
Finance and Corrections, I believe, both spoke in opposi-
tion to the bills.
How do you feel about the idea of the governor offering
rewards for kidnappers?
A
Well, this I'd like to study into where it stops. The
rewards that we have offered, of course, are in a particular area
and they have been offered in those cases where something is needed,
where the case seems to be at a standstill with no clues, no evidence
and this is why we have done that as an aid to law enforcement.
NOW, whether the state should go on just getting into the business
of offering rewards for every crime committed, I don't know. But
we will take a look.
O
Governor, it's been almost two months since you withdrew
the nomination of Robert Vukasin for the Appellate Court bench.
Now, why has it taken so long for you to submit an alternative
nomination?
A
We have nominated --
LD MEESE: We have not, Governor. There are several
people under consideration now in the selection.
A
I knew we had nominated two. That's richt, you are right.
Q
Is there any -- is perhaps there a possibility you are
keeping that open for a retiring member of your staff?
A
No, there is no chance of that. We are going through
the same process we do, of very careful screening, to the best of
our ability and we just don't have the name. I was confused there
a minute with the two we have already nominated from here in
Sacramento.
10
Governor, it is my understanding that the work on the air
conditioning of Pacific State Hospital was budge ted more than a year
a go and now still has not gotten under way, and in fact the money
in the budget now is not going to be sufficient to meet the project.
Can you offer any explanation as to why the work hasn't started
and also do you intend to try to augment this year's budget -- this
next year's budget so the work can be completed?
A
Well, I asked for a status report on that earlier when
there was some question quite early in the year about difficulties
they were running into from General Services. I don't have an
update on that.
-3-
VER. ORR: I can give you a slight update on that,
Governor. In the first place, Pacific State is a very sprawled
out hospital. It isn't a unified hospital like some of the more
recent ones, and air conditioning is very difficult, requires a lot
of plans. Secondarily, it required a complete update of the
electrical system. And the whole electrical system had to be
rejuvenated. Third, as far as the money is concerned, Mr. Landerman
called me yesterday. I think it is his present intention to put
an augmentation in the budget for the amount necessary for Pacific
State.
or
Does that also include Agnew s?
VERN ORR: He didn't talk about Agnews he talked only
about Pacific State.
A
Barlier when I asked for the update from General Services
I'd learned that the difficulties that they ran into with the age
of the buildings, and the type, and the electrical system, that
there was more engineering that had to be done preparing for air
conditioning than they had anticipated.
Q
The budgeting, as I understand it, from talking to people
in the Department of Health yesterday, was about fifty per cent off.
Which seems like a pretty wide variance.
A
Well, as I say, I think this could -- this could partially
be explained by the construction and the change in the electrical
system that had not been anticipated when they started, and as they
started they came to a halt because air conditioning could not be
installed until this other engineering work was done.
ED MEESE: There was one other factor, and that is they
had to especially fabricate the air conditioning equipment because
it had to be installed in an existing building as opposed to putting
it in when the building is being built.
K
Governor, back to the budget hearing, for a moment, I think
you said earlier that thefact that they were having open hearings
this year made it a little easier for you to keep up with what was
going on. Is that right? What difference -- is there any
difference in their having open meetings?
A
Oh, yes, because previously -- as a matter ff fact, I
don't know whether it was one or two years before this, the last two
years, that our finance people were not even allowed in the room
-4-
and this had been
maybe it was longer than Lnat, Vern, but
formerly there used to be that a representative of finance could sit
in so that we could keep up. And then a couple of years ago suddenly
they shut the door on that and we had no knowledge of what was going
on in the conference committee until they handed us the package.
And then we really had round-the-clock meetings with the cabinet and
all and having to go through this whole operation of the budget.
Now with this open meeting, now we have representatives up there
Eserving and keeping track of all the agreements that are made.
or
Governor --
Q
Governor, do you ever get the feeling that they are -- they
are deliberately pushing you to the deadline soyou don't have time
to study the budget as carefully?
A
I get the feeling but then I keep saying, "Please, don't
be paranoid." But they -- the budget, if you go back over the whole
seven and a half years, there's only been one year in which the budget
came down on time and it came down as the virtually as it had been
sent up and I didn't have to blue pencil anything out of it, it
could be signed exactly as gone up. It was just one out of eight
budgets and -- yes, sometimes it is hard not to be a little suspicious.
Q
DO. you anticipate signing a budget significantly larger
than the one you submitted, adding in the augmentations?
A
No, I don't think SO. No. I'm glad you added, "adding
in the augmentations."
Governor, how are things going with that project called
"The History of the Reagan Administration"? Is that still -- are
you still putting that together?
A
I guess SO. Whatever that - whateverthat is. We have
been compiling a record here to have at our own hands, what we have --
what has been accomplished and what the exact status of state
government is. The state of the State compared to what it was, but
I don't think that's actually anyone setting out to do a history
of -- of the --
Q
Governor --
A
-- administration.
0
Will you let the press read some galley proofs, maybe,
before you --
ED MEESE: We are not publishing as yet.
-5-
A
We are no. publishing anything, no.
Q
What is it actually going to be?
What?
Q
What is it actually going to be?
A
Well, we'd like to have for ourselves, we'd like to have
a score on what's -- what's been accomplished. And we'd like to
be able to see how much did we achieve of the -- of our goals, the
things that we set out to do. And frankly, I think we achieved a
great many of them.
Or
That will not be published or disseminated in any way?
A
Oh, I don't know that there is any intent to keep it a
secret or anything, but it is not set out, as you indicated, or by
using the term "history" that we are compiling something we are
then going to publish. No, I don't think there will be any secret
about it.
ED MLESE: Two things, Governor. I think we'll make
all this information fully available add hope that it will be printed
as widely as possible, when this --- and you can study it to their
heart's content. Secondly, this is a part of a detailed operation
transition to turn over to the next administration, which is for the
first time been provided for in the budget, some funds for the
incoming governor to be actually on board here with his team and
a part of that will be briefings on what the state of the State is,
so that this is being readied for that also.
Q
Governor, do you have any reaction to the reports of
the John Birch Society's intention to publish an article on Senator
Cranston's communist affiliation?
A
No, I think this is what you have to expect in eampaign
season.
Q
Governor, are you going to do any traveling in other
states during the recess, politically?
Q
Can we get back to that a second?
A
Well, no, no, I'll be -- I'll be here and recessing
myself a little.
Q
On that same question again, you said this is what you have
to expect in a campaign season.
A
Yeah.
0
Can you explain that?
-6-
A
Well, I t nk that there are various ,roups and
organizations and individuals in addition to campaign organizations
that get -- when someone is up for re-election or new candidates,
that dig into the record and some of them go beyond what maybe most
of us would consider the legitimate record for campaign purposes.
Q
Do you consider that beyond the legitimate record?
A
Well, I wouldn't do it myself.
Q
Why not?
A
Huh?
2
Why not?
A
Well, because I -- I think you campaign on the basis of
a mam's doing the job, whether you think that that is -- whether
ne's handled thejob properly and whether someone can do it better
or you'd do it differently. It's going back in quite ancient history.
0
Governor, in the past several days there's been articles
published about the generous pensions granted to both legislators and
constitutional offers, including yourself. Did you think these
pensions are overly generous? Would you recommend any changes
in the degree that they are given?
A
Well, I'm not going to have much of a chance at that,
and since the present system came into being before I got here, I've
never given it much thought. As a matter of fact, I was just kind
of interested myself to learn what the pension was. I hadn't
known.
Q
Governor, are you -- do you favor legislation to increase
the salaries next year of state constitutional officers, including
governor? Senator Carpenter's bill.
A
I haven't looked at that very much. And to tell you the
truth, I have to -- I know that there is -- are some problems of
compaction and this goes for department heads and so forth. We
have been having that studied. We are running into a place where
we are -- everyone is leveling off at a certain position. On the
other hand, in the climate today, and with the problems of inflation
today, I personally would be hesitant to recommend any such a thing.
0
You would have to sign the bill, though, if it passes
the legislature.
A
I know, and I don't comment on what I'll do about legisla-
tion. And since it doesn't involve me at all, I'll have to see what
-0-
their reasoning is, and why. But I do think I think that this
is a time for all of us to begin looking at every little thing that
might contribute inflationary-wise, and even if it is just -- if it
is just adding to the climate of inflation, I doubt if half a dozen
constitutional officers are going to have:a great impact on inflation
with regard to either raising or lowering their income. But I do
think that there -- it can have an effect that has to be weighed on
the whole atmosphere.
Q
Governor, as a matter of fact, it would affect you because
the salary of the governor goes up to $€0,000, and that would increase
your - automatically increase your pension.
A
You know something, then maybe I'd have to let'it become
law without my signature if they sent it down here, to avoid a
conflict of interest. Let me --- let me just say one thing in behalf
of Senator Carpenter, and what's being suggested up there. I know
that there is -- it is very tempting for all of you to comment on
scales of this kind in government. But I think it would be also
interesting for you to find out where does California rank in that
because @àlifornia has been pretty puritan and pretty straight-laced.
And California's state salaries in comparison to people in comparable
jobs outside of government and within government, finds that
California is pretty far down the scale, as a major state. You
find mayors that are higher paid, you find within our own state,
as I have said many times, the top 133 job salary classifications
are in higher education, not in state government. The Police Chiefs
in some of our own cities are paid higher than anyone in state
government. I think the state has been pretty reasonable when
you look at the entire salary scale, about the top leve of salaries.
Q
Governor, do you -- don't you have any opinion at all
on whether the retirement benefits are justified?
A
Well, I thought I slipped by that one pretty easy a few
minutes
ago
here.
Why are you bringing it back up again?
(Laughter)
A
I don't know, I said I just found out myself what it was.
I think perhaps if you are going to review that, and this is
something we have tried to do with general state salaries here
over the last two years, by having a consultant firm study the
entire structure to see where we stand in government, and maybe
that whole thing -- everything from fringe benefits to pensions and
-8-
all should come up for this kind of a review.
Q
Governor, specifically do you think it is proper for, like
a legislator, to be able to immediately start collecting his pension
if he leaves in a reapportionment year, regardless of what age he
is, as long as he served more than four years?
A
Well, that measure was passed, of course, as you know,
because of reapportionment, and the sort of sudden death thing that
could happen, and does happen to legislators in that. I think that --
I think that could be looked into. As you know, I try to avoid
commenting on their shop up there. But it makes for some strange
situations, yes.
Q
Governor, do you anticipate any change in relationship
between your administration and the Assembly since they will now
have a new speaker?
A
Well, as far as we are concerned, we shall do our utmost
to work with them as we have with all the others, and I feel that
we can get along. I have no illusions about the fact that there
will be partisan differences.
There have been, and very frankly
I think that we have gone farther than the legislature has to bridge
those partisan differences. I know that some of you have commented
to the contrary and seem to think that, well, we were injecting
partisanship. I don't agree. I think that much of what we have
tried to do has been hung up many times on pure partisanship.
Q
Governor, do you think you can get along better with C
McCarthy than you have or you think you did with Moretti?
A
Well, we managed to compromise out some pretty godd things
when Moretti was the Speaker. It took a long time and it took
some public opinion to kind of bring him around, but the compromise
that we finamly were able to work out after five years on property
tax reform, the compromise on the welfare réforms, we didn't get
all we wanted, but finally we got them and we started from a point
in which they wouldn't even allow us to present the welfare reforms
to them.
Q
Governor, several months ago Mr. Waldon, I think, indicated
àn an interview, that one of the goals in the last year of your
administration would be to eliminate as many rules, regulations and
so on on business as possible. Regulations that you or he felt
impeded growth and so on. What, if anything, have you done in
that regard so far?
-9-
A
Well, we have been working on that.
He
started
--
it
was
more than a year ago with a seminar on this in which everyone con-
cerned with regulations -- we held a meeting to point out that these
regulations were supposed to benefit the public and that sometimes
we get into the area of just regulating for regulation-sake. And
I've been very critical of the federal government on this very
matter. The federal government has regulations that it is
absolutely impossible for the average business person today to know
what is in the regulations, or to observe them. I doubt if there
is any business today that can find out whether it is in compliance
with the thousands and thousands of regulations.
Q
What --
A
And here in the state --- we said, "Why should we be guilty
if we are of the same thing." Government is responsible for
a blizzard of paperwork. Now we have made some gains already.
We have reduced the -- it may not sound like much, we have reduced
the total volume of paperwork in state government three per cent.
And as I say, that doesn't sound like much. But it amounts to some
millions of dollars in cost in handling. It also amounts to 4500
figure cabinets we didn't have to buy, and 24,000 feet of stomage
space that we didn't have to provide. So --
Q
What kind of regulations are you attempting to eliminate?
Can you give some specific examples of things you are --
A
NO, but I think we could get some material like that
together for you. They are the -- they are the harrassing nit-
picking kind of things in which you say these regulations don't
protect anyone, they simply provide government with information
that government probably doesn't need. And I don't think, as I
say, we are not nearly as guilty as the federal government is of
this. I've given figures before. The small businessmen in
this country, particularly, they aren't the ones -- they don't
have the great computers and they don't have the staffs of account-
ants and so forthrtölkeep them straight. And they devote 130
million man hours a year to doing government paperwork. And that
adds a cost to the products we buy from 30 to 50 million or billion
dollars each year. And this is just at the federal level. so
we are just trying to do our part here and see if we can reduce it
at the state level. I think there is room for a lot of things of
that kind. If we do it, I think the time has come for a study of
-10-
our taxing -- our 1..come tax structure to see ir we can't, as I have
said before, find a way to ride piggyback. I know the people
turned that down at one time, but I think we ought to take a second
look because it is getting increasingly difficult for the citizen even
to figure out how much he owes government. I've used in several
addresses recently to business groups the fact that the -- the line,
"It takes more intelligence to figure out your income tax than it
does to earn the income."
Q
Governor, how far into the future do you see the need to
maintain the 55 mile an hour speed limit?
A
Well, we are expecting a report. I just notied the other
day where Walter Pudinsky of our Highway Patrol, they are doing a
study on this. I'll be very interested in seeing it. He has already
announced that -- their discovery that the speed limit and the
reduction in driving, both, must share in the savings in life, in
the reduction in accidents that we have had. But he does admit that
the lower speed limit has had an effect. Now, I think, however,
that before we talk about it here on the theoretical basis we have
got to recognize that it is still required by Washington, the reduced
speed limit, for energy conservation. And here again, I'd like
to make a reminder and I think all of you could do a public service
if you -- if you reminded people of this, the fact that we have
cured the long lines at the oil stations and things seem to be running
smooth should not blind us to the fact that there still is a short-
age. And if we don't watch out, if we go right back to our old
bad habits, all at once, we are going to be back in the long lines
at the gas stations again. And therefore I would aay that the
first priority on considering lowering the speed limit at all or
changing the speed limit at all would be with regard to its_effect
on the energy shoraage. And once past that, then I think we have
had enough experience, as I say the study is being made to see if
there isn't a compromise where some highways, perhaps, should
permanently -- some of our freeways, retain It because of the
saving of life and reduction of accidents. And I know that some
of the general thinking now is, and it's been my own thinking, that
maybe in our metropolitan areas, on the freeways, perhaps it should
be retained. It doesn't make all that much difference in the
speed of travel, but it does make a great difference in accidents,
but permit it. for the lesser traveled freeways, super-highways, that
-11-
get out for cross- untry trips where people i driving several
hundred miles a day.
SQUIRE: Any more questions?
Q
-- gas still justifies keeping the --
A
What?
Q
Do you think the supply of gasoline in California still
155 mi speed limit/
Justifies keeping (it) on?
A
Oh, yes. Yes. This -- we have got to realize that the
Arab boycott did not create the energy shortage, it just brought
it to a peak at a moment when we were trying to inform the people
there was an energy shorage.
Long before we ever thought
the
Arabs were going to shut off the oil we had all of the sources where
we could get oil, from abroad, how much we could depend on from the
Arabs, how much we could depend on here, what was the potential
if we did more drilling.
And we still came up that in the next
few years we are going to -- we are not going to be able to do the
things we are doing unless additional sources or new types of energy
are found. So all the problems we had during the boycott are still
with us. The Arabs just eased it up a little bit and driving down
the road not having to wait we tend to forget that we are using
energy. An increase -- the increase in the use of energy is grater
than the increase to keep pace with energy supply.
Q
Governor, most of the oil companies involved in Alaska's
north slope area have refused to say that they will not ship oil to
Japan from Alaska. Do you think it is justified for them to ship
oil to Japan from that Alaska north slope area?
A
Well, I don't know what the rationale is there.
I am
quite sure that if we tried to retain everything for ourselves that
we would find for an importing country, I think we would find that
we ourselves would be boycotted again and we are still not
even
with Alaska, not producing enough for our own needs.
2
Governor, on another subject. The Assembly last week
passed a constitutional amendment supported by the State Bar and
the Judicial Countil which will change the commission which must
approve the Governor's Appellate Court appointments, and would
enlarge it to include legislators and bar representatives and general
public, and provide for confidential hearings on the Governor's
nominations. Do you approve of that? What's your reaction?
-12-
A
Are we t. king about judicial appoin ents?
0
Appellate.
A
Appellate.
ED MEESE:.
I think this is an issue that's still under
consideration.
A
Right, they have presented the information to us as to
what it is they are advocating and we ourselves have not round-tabled
this in the cabinet as yet. We are studying it.
2
Governor --
SQUIRE:
Thank you, Governor.
000
-13-