Louisiana: The State We're In; Reporter's Show

Production funding for this program was provided in part through contributions to Louisianians for Educational Television. Louisiana the state we're in. This week LP B reviews the legislative session with host Beth George and our guest panel of Capitol correspondents. Good evening I'm Beth George this is Louisiana the state where in the 1978 session the Louisiana legislature is over. And according to many it was one of the dullest on record with whether this was true or not it was certainly a long playing record lasting for some 85 days. And many of the songs heard were simply rewrites of some old familiar favorites. Pay raises for officials community property mass transit Coastal Zone Management sex

education but the most recurring theme spending some 3.7 billion dollars was conducted in orchestrated by the governor to see whether the legislative record will be a hit with the voters. We have with us tonight some very astute critics. Bill Lynch of The New on state side I'm John Hill of the Shreveport Times in Monroe morning world. And Bob Courtney of WB are Zee TV in Baton Rouge. We heard a lot about this being a dull session but was it really a dull session substantively or was it just that it was boring and there were no fiery speeches in a lot up to say you know it's just a matter of relativity. Several legislatures ago we had the teachers march on the Capitol demanding pay raises of course I got everybody excited that went on for several weeks. And we have big issues like right to work which brought all the the labor people down and they marched on the Capitol and gave everybody things to write about. This year there were no really dramatic issues. Other than things like there were some abortion legislation

multi banking brought all bankers that they didn't exactly march on the capital. They were there in force and made themselves well-known. I'd have to say when you compare one that kind of session to another that you'd have to say this was a dull session. I'm not so sure it's bad I think the public can stand. And in fact the public could probably stand no session it off. So. Just the past not say it was kind of weak Bob. I think it was probably a dull session from our standpoint more than than from what was really done at the Capitol because I think this time for the first time in a number of years if you go back and look when they had right to work or when the teacher pay raise issue was discussed it's very hard to remember what else was done in that particular legislative session. It's almost like that was the only issue but there were a number of issues this time that I thought. Were interesting and you know you had equal management which is supposedly a step in the right direction toward women's rights. You had Coastal Zone Management the first use

tax and things like that that that could have some very substantial impact on down the line. The thing that was dull about it as far as I was concerned is you didn't have the people marching on the Capitol you didn't have the fiery speeches from the podium and and things like that so in that case it was dull but as far as the issues were concerned and what was done I don't think it was I mean what you're saying is Claude Duvall speeches were not. Well sometimes we tend to ignore. Or maybe we've heard a lot of the same speeches before. I've heard Deval before there so many of the issues that we did have are a repeat from past years in the same action was taking on the dad dual office holding prohibition the code of ethics revision of the Constitution mandates the legislature to enact a code of ethics for state and local officials but the legislature is defeated every year since the Constitution went into effect in 1974 and has sex education although it got further than it did before it still ultimately kept

dying every day. Every attempt in the same arguments against signing signed speeches there are so many people say the same things about a particular bill that you could just sit there at your typewriter almost figure out what will outlast your script do you think it's perhaps showing them another thing that is that the interim committees are working. Maybe we've heard all the issues because in the interim between sessions they've had a lot of them out such as equal management. I think that's true to a certain standpoint a lot of these issues now with the interim committee system. Are dealt with all year long and if you cover the capital on a regular basis you tend to kind of get overkill you hear it more and more and more and then when the session starts up it's sort of an old issue that they're discussing it as John said some of these things have been around for a number of years anyway. John touched on something that I think is significant and that is looking back at session. There were a number of things that were not done that were significant and he talked about some of the sort of so-called big government pieces of legislation. Bill why do you think the

carbon tax dual office holding things like that did not succeed I guess because good government has not arrived yet. Basically you know really it's my perspective whether the dual office holding bill is proposed of the ethics code as opposed to the same as good government. I think the Bills were a reasonable step toward improving government. Obviously the brain cast did not. They were the primary people who rather than the legislature as a whole they were the primary people who led to the defeat of this type legislation. The authors you know represent the Bruno and Carlo they pushed as hard and hard as they could and they had generally overwhelming support from the House and the support faded in the Senate and the administration you must know was against the new code of ethics and worked on the floor to help kill it. So it never really got off the ground.

But in the Senate let's talk about that particular issue because I thought their arguments against it were pretty good. The bill as proposed would have prohibited a someone who is a principal in a school or from running from it for the local police jury and a lot of my people up in north Louisiana rule areas are very much opposed to that joint wasn't just new to Senator Roberts Barmouth Oakridge joined in Against that we have a situation where there's a man who is a school board assistant principal who is. Excuse me is a school board employee a supervisor in the school system is on the police during washed up parish. If the people who washed up perish in his that man's district know he is an employee of the school board and still want to elect him to the police jury should that be prohibited. Well if it is a matter of perspective and obviously your perspective differs from mine. All of us can be right. I think not a lot of times if the difference between Certainly in your New Orleans perspective certainly differ in legislating.

Oh sure and but it's like John says really there are situations where somebody gets hurt in a dual office holding band that really do office holding and dual employment. It was a combination and some people would tend to lose jobs I think the overall thrust of the legislation though is designed to prevent people from gaining too much power in the dual employment area. The argument is that people who really can't effectively work two jobs 35 hours of leaves the threshold can't really work 70 hours two jobs and be on the state payroll. I think there's a belief among people that that some people are deadheads on the payroll when they hold two jobs in New Orleans. The city uses the libraries they use and teachers and. People and double capacities and I found it to work very well and they were really upset over the employment aspects. But they finally were ready to get into the Senate and certain we all

know that was the body in which this sort of legislation died. It seems that the Senate once again exercised a lot of authority over certain pieces of legislation nowhere did we see it more evidently than in the big appropriations bill. Bob it seemed like business as usual once again with the way we handled the money this year in session. Well it was the same as as I've seen in the last couple of years. The house messes around with the appropriations bill for about three quarters of the session. Fighting over what's going to happen it goes to the Senate and the administration usually gets its will when that's the way the bill comes out and I found it ironic we had a press conference the governor had a press conference just a couple of days before the Senate Finance Committee was going to take final action on the appropriations bill and the governor said there's no way you know that there are some sort of plan that new monies will be found but as in years past. Revenue estimates went up and the budget became balanced again almost wasn't a shiny million dollars they found

it certainly not a secret everyone seems to be aware of that's the way it's going to take place every year. The house the house represents Bruno made a suggestion that maybe next year what the House ought to take the bill out of the Appropriations Committee pass it send it to the Senate let them monkey around with it and then when it comes back to the house and then they started with they're going to finance committee certainly the governor did exercise authority over appropriation bill do you think that the governor is going to be able to hold on to his control sayo over the Senate in sessions to come. So you talk about I think I do I think yes you know I was talking to some senators who were observing his his hold on his power and he's down from the strength that he had it for in his first term. But he still has control he's not down. He's down to maybe about 75 percent of his original power was their observation I tend to agree with him I don't think it's going to fall next year when he doesn't control the House but the

Senate is just sort of just going to push all the buttons generally and work his will he. Probably won't lose much there in the house. There is too much politics in the house. You know the election coming up. Several prospect of candidates for various offices and trying to work their own way and establish a little independence and I clean out. I think the governor's always going to try to hold onto his power because you know we all love to speculate on what he's going to do when he gets out of office and more and more recently he's been joking around and talking about coming back and running for governor is coming at us. And at the Farm Bureau convention last week he told members of the Farm Bureau that that's precisely what he wants to do. You want to come back and be governor in four years. And so for that reason I think he's going to try not to be a regular lame duck governor. I think he's going to try to keep hold and get

done what he wants done. Listen governors come and go though we certainly have lobbyists who remain around session after session. As always we saw them lying there and talking to various legislators. Do you think that that lobbyists as they claim really do serve a useful function or are they strictly in it for their own. And I think they serve a very useful function that is representing special interest groups. I think it's that simple that's what they're there for. They're there for the oil industry or the electrical industry or the labor or business whatever. That's who they're there to represent and I think that's what they do and they do it quite well. There was legislation proposed it was going to make lobbyist reveal what they stand on certain legislation that ever had to change what I think was really astounded at the size of the opposition in the house. I thought obvious between the bill probably should have died in the Senate because I think in the heart of the Senate was against the bill but for the because the press was there and writing stories about it they were just in the end result too scared

I guess to defeat it but when I went to the house something like 70 to 30 wasn't even close. And. Just it was well interesting. But I think in the beginning the lobbyists were afraid to lobby that particular piece of legislation that you know which way to go or they would it appear a committee to try to lobby against it and I don't understand that. I can say where the bill was badly drawn from the very outset it was it was written so to speak in the Senate committee it had been introduced in one form and sent to us go working with other members of that Senate committee literally wrote the bill in committee and it was rewritten again on the Senate floor to some extent then rewritten again in the in the House committee and you know when a House committee was in the process of voting on a piece of legislation Frank. Nearly killed of it because there was some language in it which he said it was patently unconstitutional and he couldn't clear conscience. But then they agreed to work that I was out on the

floor became one of the side. It's interesting you talk about good government legislation. I said there are people who would label the lobbyist a financial disclosure bill. Good government legislation and the Senate passes that out and sends it over the house of the house looks bad for you if you're voting it down I think it was a sort of sneaky little thing because it usually works the other way as it did with dual office holding and and and and do a lot longer in ethics law and they sort of forget all that. That's really really the size of it and that is a good government piece of legislation and it's just like campaign practices. You the public probably ought to know. Where the lobbyists are spending the money and how they're spending their money and I don't think anybody really gets all excited about lobbyist they can legislate toys to dinner even for $35 or more. I think it's the fish and chips and the hunting trips and the other special things like soft clubs and things like that just as this or that that's the thing the public if public knew about

it this wouldn't happen. I would say to the public. Basically the general public is not as concerned with issues such as that as they are with pieces of legislation that will affect them in their every day life and I think community property we alluded to that earlier that piece of legislation the old head and master concept in Louisiana will probably be a piece of legislation that will at some point in time touch nearly everyone's lives. Were you surprised John that it passed fairly easily. No I really wasn't not I'm out of work they've done on that and the pressure from women's groups for equal rights and they've always the legislature's been saying well we're going to rewrite the headmaster statute and I think that's probably the most significant thing this legislature did because they overturned the oh two hundred year law which the husband had absolute total financial control over all the property in a marriage even a wife's paycheck doesn't go into effect until 1980. Maybe there's hope for some male chauvinists him.

I think there will be some refining of that later on probably at the Law Institute and these people will look over this and then there may be you know some things that need changing. Do you think that legislators were responding at all to any pressure of the EROEI. Oh I think so I think so I think it was sort of. A deal was cut. You know we were all put with the IRA this year because we killed it so many times but will go ahead and look at this and pass it and take the pressure off there because with that legislation the pressure for already in Louisiana I think is substantially last because Louisiana now is saying you are a type state. Well at least you have a wife having an equal voice and management of community property which you didn't have before and that was one of the proponents biggest arguments for fastening our eyes. Ridiculous community property loss that we had. If having some women put pressure on the legislature to do something about community property laws we see another kind of pressure coming down that the legislature seems to be responding to and that

is certainly a direction is from Washington this session we saw a package of bills passed concerning Coastal Zone Management hazardous waste disposal that were a direct result of what Washington wanted Louisiana to do do you think that that is a trend. Well I think it's very interesting that all of these things are are more or less environmentally related. And the legislature had no choice they either had to adopt a law that fit federal regulations or the U.S. government was going to come in here and take it over and the legislature is most reluctant to do anything that would hurt any industry again as the lignite strip mining Bill had to do that in that area they had to rewrite the Louisiana law to conform with federal rigid federal standards and they just didn't want to do it saying Coastal Zone Management think you can call this a trend. It seems to me that this is long been the state's attitude and abdication of its its responsibilities and its rights when it went to refuses to legislate in

areas like this. Now just harkens back to the days of the desegregation of the state never were that. And if the stated act that it probably would have had force down the things it has been forced down. About everything that's happened in the federal state always seems to always say well we're not the feds. Of course coastal zone has been argued what three years at least. And there's money of the last year and last year they had the opportunity to pass the same bill that they passed this year and they passed something else. We never passed the bill that passed this year and it's a different story. We seem to be sending a message to Washington over the rest of the country this session also and that was the first use tax it seems like Louisianians have been jealously eyeing all of that mineral resources in federal waters off Louisiana's coast and they've been trying to devise some fashion to get more money into Louisiana by taxing someone. Do you think that this was an idea whose time had come.

I don't think you know the first use tax or the concept has been kicked around for years and there's been a bill similar to that that were introduced years ago and never got anywhere. I think that what it what has finally happened is the legislature is becoming very conscious of what's happening in Washington and what is happening with federal energy policies and I think that that was the mood this time. Let's go ahead and passes let's see what happens and I think it was sort of a message to Washington to wake up and we're going to we're going to take care of ourselves down there. Yes I'll sell another message a message to him that yes we can raise one hundred seventy million dollars in new revenue for the state if it clears the way to work without having to raise state taxes on individuals here which I think at this point and at this time raising state taxes would be fatal certainly of Proposition 13 on the heels of that you're right. I just don't think that they did kill a bill to cut state income taxes. That was well a good place.

To cut that by the way was a bill that I think would have cost the state 11 million dollars in lost revenues by changing the tax tables and and Governor Edwards said we couldn't afford it. Oh I like the argument that just to get it put up and we shouldn't be mucking around with the tables. I think though that Louisianians will see on a ballot certainly as a result of all this for a few stacks that first attempt to amend the new constitution. Do you think that that is significant in that before the governor had always said we should not amend the Constitution if once you amended one time are you going to see more and more constitutional amendments in future. So if you have a break the ice is gone then you'll see them gradually pick up the document isn't meant to be a rigid document is if it's going to live at all. Just like the federal constitution is going to live at all it's got to be prepared to amend that to changing times.

John you did a series of articles during the middle of the session talking about all the pay raises the legislators were giving to various and sundry officials. How do you think that's going to fare with people back home we already talked about them not getting a tax break I don't think it's going to cut too well as they say and nor the Sienna the indications from the letters to the editors and phone ins to the newspaper and everything I think the voters are a little bit upset about it some of the races are really astronomical percentages some of them wore weren't that high but for instance the assessor's got six thousand dollars a year. That's an awful lot of money. I'm sure I'd like want to race like 20 percent average 20 percent race that I wouldn't mind having a 20 percent raise like that school board members part time jobs. Now I wonder if you run for school board time and you are elected for six years with pay raise you can earn forty three thousand two hundred dollars for that part time public service and I just don't think that is going to set too well I don't think the people are going to buy the argument that was asked a number of times of the administration how can you give

these people pay raises and you can't give state employees and teachers further pay raises the argument is the funds are different. These are local funds that are paying they should pay raises. I don't think the people can accept that it's all tax money. Oh you think it all comes from the same people. OK and I just don't think they're going to be able to buy at all you know federal funds right. It's not our money this is federal politically speaking and the legislators sort of are more or less had to give these people some tax raises and I really handed them out to the courthouse getting the shaft. The clerics would deliver core it's people who are politically so are supposed to be politically powerful back home judges got a percent increase in elections coming up next year. You think they did that Bennion anticipation of their own election exactly. Looks like you really think that's a bad idea. Well I will make a judgement on whether it's a bad idea I think though that with it coming the way it

did at the time it did when everyone's conscious of where that money is going. A Exactly right the position of Proposition 13 and the interesting thing is that legislators got boxed in without really realizing it that assessors pay rates below the $6000 and then as additions to the 600 dollars an increase in their personal expense allowance on top of that you know that when racing through right to very beginning the session before many of those legislators realize that right coming along right behind them with the bills for everybody else and they were locked in they had they assessed as well how can you if you're a politician and you're going to go back in your home and you're going to run for re-election how can you cite your Clarke the shaft and all these other people back there I can't vote for your far right and I can turn right back around. But you gave the assessor a $6000 raise and they're going to be any repercussions from these raises I think it that perhaps there may be repercussions down the line from some money and legislature also put in that was for mass transit in all the urban areas. Do you think that this is just the first step in a long road down long road from which we do

not know the end we don't know where we're going in the state. Picking up the tab from these trains it would be very difficult. Once a government any government agency gets into a giveaway program to get out. I can't recall any giveaway program that that terminated Can you think Exactly. I think that the state is in the business of aiding the cities with their mass transit. We have federal revenue sharing with state revenue sharing this is just another way of helping them it's not really the cities it's New Orleans isn't that right. Well all of the city is in bad shape most of the money is going to go to New Orleans almost 90 percent of it but you know the other cities will be getting some good shot in the arm. The bill is basically for New Orleans was it not. So if you took if you took mass transit out of New Orleans and try to build roads in the place of what the transit system provides I think you know you'd have those second thoughts. Take a person like Joel Cooper from Mansfield. If anybody should be against public

transit it's a guy like Joe Cooper for massive public transit there. But here's a guy who's come to recognize that there are other people in this they've been in the rural areas and people who depend on transit to move around in our area of Baton Rouge where I live we don't have any any public transit and everybody has to go by car. But nonetheless the people in Baton Rouge who depend on a transit system can't afford cars usually and they have to have a way of getting around and if you want that transit system out what happens. Well you've got to you've got to supply some means of people getting to and from one place to the other. You agree then with the governor and in the scenes. Yes I agree on something. The government's a good argument there. You know these people do depend on it and if you raise the fares that hurts the low income you know there's an argument for the program but I just don't think it's ever going to end.

I think that the legislators showed that they were not interested in building another Superdome they certainly didn't want the state taking over the New Orleans airport. Well obviously sad the South think rather than vote against the airport issue. You have to stop and think that this was merely a bill which would set up a procedure to explore the possibility of the city selling the airport to the state. Really really was nothing final about it because I've had to come back to the legislature in the future. I think more than anything else it was probably a slap at Representative Marcy. A lot of people resented Marston's lackadaisical attitude in the in the legislature and I feel certain that had he not handled a bill on the last night. Let somebody else handle a bill that probably would have passed that it had already been through both houses and it was back for concurrency. I don't know about that now you know we we. Does an awful lot for New

Orleans is we were handed them out the mass transit age about 6. You know they're going to get about 4 1/2 and 5 million of that. Well the government legislature they've given the audience the money. We're about to go out we're going to give him some help on this proposed 1984 World's Fair down there and I just thought that maybe the rest of the people in the states of New Orleans we've done an awful lot for you guys you know. So listen we're not going to buy a gentleman I think reporters to reflect in differences and I think perhaps see that in the legislature those that are from New Orleans know they're from rural areas don't always agree on certain things nor do reporters and I think that we'll have to wait to discuss some of these other topics such as sex education we really didn't get into maybe some other another session we'll get into that. Perhaps I think one of the interesting things just for reporters and your animal is the fact that there was not a hectic closing night as we had a tradition in the past I think everyone gets used to having some colorful copy for the next day so we'll have to and perhaps a

dull session that maybe we did handle some substantive issues and maybe maybe we've seen the last of the Louisiana Hayride least for this time period. I thank you for joining us this week on the state we're in and next week we're going to talk about something other than politics when we take a visit to this Arts Festival in Baton Rouge. Until then I'm Beth George. Good evening. The proceeding was an LBB production. Production funding for this program was provided in part through contributions to Louisianians for Educational Television.