Louisiana: The State We're In; 540

[Beeps] Production funding for Louisiana: The State We're In is made possible in part by grants from Kaiser Aluminum, Southern Research Company Incorporated and by the Zigler Foundation. Good evening, I'm Beth George. Welcome to this edition of Louisiana: The State We're In. All is quiet in the halls and chambers of the state capitol. The 1982 legislative session is over.

And this week we'll examine what took place during the frantic final hours, how the Governor's plans fared and what Capitol reporters are saying and writing about the session. But first a report on last week's Open Line question. If the report card is in on the '82 session, the final results are still out on the political fate of Senate president Michael O'Keefe. O'Keefe was convicted in federal court during the final weeks of the session, but he returned to preside as president of the Senate during its final days. The senator's colleagues put no pressure on him to resign, but across the state, there were numerous editorials calling for O'Keefe to step down. We asked you: Do you think Senator O'Keefe should resign as president of the Senate? Here are the results. On Friday, 182 of you said "yes" and 39 said "no." On Saturday when our program is aired in New Orleans only, 77 said "yes" and 100 said "no." And finally, during our replay on Sunday across the state, there was a dramatic reversal. Forty-nine said "yes" and 345 said "no." We do not presume to indicate this is any sort of scientific sampling but, with close

to 800 phone calls, it's clear that many of you have an interest in this issue. Certainly one of the biggest issues of this legislative session just passed was a reform of the state's workmen's compensation law. From the first day of the session to the dramatic final moments, this issue created some pressure-packed politics. Robyn Ekings was there on the last night of the session as the final fate of the bill was decided. The scene outside the House and Senate chambers late Monday night resembled the chaos that follows disaster. For business and industry lobbyists seeking a quiet corner under the glare of television lights, the end was near for their number one piece of legislation. We were done in by our former friends. Actually the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and other business interested in their own bill Monday night after a House-Senate conference committee failed to give them what they wanted. That action didn't set too well with some of the legislators who'd worked with business to get a workmen's compensation reform plan approved. But I would suggest to you that, that what we reached in this, in this conference

committee had a good bit of good things in it. Neither side could have been very satisfied with it, fully satisfied with it, but I think it would've been an improvement in the right direction. And I'm very, very sorry that both sides on this issue, especially the side that I was representing, went out and actively killed this bill. LABI president Ed Steimel placed the blame on a legislator. Senator Sydney Nelson's responsible for, for killing the bill. What do you think motivated him to do that? Who do you think was behind that move? I suppose he was carrying water for the trial lawyers. This is a trial lawyer bill and he was a trial lawyer. Apparently he was carrying water for them. We had a bill that he acknowledged was a tremendous expansion in benefits for the workers and it would save some money for employers and maybe permit us to go back to bring some labor-intensive industry in this state. And I told him, I said, you're loading the bill up with greed too much more stuff that we can't handle at this point. And if you don't stop it, you're going to kill it. He ended up going ahead and putting it on and paid no attention to

it. So we have no bill. Shreveport Senator Sydney Nelson, traditionally a business ally, had angered Steimel by getting the Senate to approve several changes in the business reform plan, changes that were supported by labor and trial lawyers. Both those groups successfully blocked business's workmen's compensation reform efforts last year. Business maintained Senator Nelson's changes would drive up employer coverage costs instead of cutting them. Senator Nelson argued the additions were needed to protect employee benefits. Last weekend the House rejected the Senate amendments to the bill, sending the measure to a conference committee. The naming of committee members, however, charged with the task of reaching a compromise didn't come until late Monday night and that meeting lasted only minutes. Negotiations between all sides to attempt to reach an agreement filled the hours before that. Business, labor and trial lawyers huddled with House and Senate leaders and potential conference committee members in nearly every corner of the Capitol. The eventual conference committee meeting found nearly everyone looking

unhappy. Bill author Representative Mike Thompson told committee members that that was a sign of a good compromise. Under the circumstances, I'm sufficiently aggrieved by the fact that there's a tort remedy to be sufficiently dissatisfied to be able to say that this is a compromise that perhaps nobody wants but perhaps everybody can live with better than the present law which we now have. But business wasn't sure it liked what it heard. The compromise included one thing it didn't want: an option to allow an employer to be sued if his carelessness caused the death of a worker. A frantic conference among business interests followed outside the House and Senate chambers. By the time Representative Thompson was pleading with House members to accept the compromise, business had mobilized its forces to kill the bill. The swiftness of the vote to reject the compromise and the confused signals angered some House members. Even Ed Steimel admitted the business coalition who had backed reform was not sure the measure

should have been killed. I had, I had some constituencies who favored going ahead and accepting the conference committee report, thinking that it's better than what we have. But they were in the minority and decidedly and I happen to represent a far-ranging group of people, industry and business, and farmers and so on and some of those constituencies felt one way, another felt another way. But the great majority felt that the conference committee report was bad so we took that position. The question of whether or not business gave up on a compromise that was nearly all what it started out asking for is now the topic of debate at the Capitol. Ed Steimel says failure of workmen's compensation reform efforts this year will put heat on those who killed the business bill next year, in an election year. And for now at least Steimel maintains that his forces really weren't the ones who killed the bill. There's a certain tension that builds over the course of an 85-day legislative session. Sometimes tempers are

frayed and legislators and lobbyists alike are exhausted and exasperated on that final night. But the session must be taken as a whole, and this week we go back to day one: the Governor's address to the joint session. David Young examines how well Dave Treen's plans for the session panned out. Governor Dave Treen kicked off the 1982 regular session April the 19th by outlining to members of the House and Senate what he hoped to accomplish during the upcoming 85 days. We have a plan in my judgment that is highly beneficial to the people of Louisiana. And I've called it the coastal wetlands environmental levy. The rationale, the rationale for this program is that the production of minerals, oil and gas specifically, on the Outer Continental Shelf and in the wetlands of Louisiana has impacted our state demonstrably and directly. So our plan is that we will levy on the

transportation of gas and oil through the wetlands, a modest levy in my opinion. We would also like, and I'm going to propose again, an inmate labor law that will permit us to give these people who will come back to our communities when their sentences are over, some chance for gainful employment, and, at the same time, permit us to save some money on the light construction projects that we have on our prison grounds. I am also proposing mandatory jail sentences for persons convicted of driving while intoxicated. No one, no one has the right to get behind the wheel of an automobile or a truck while intoxicated and put at risk our lives, the lives of our family or any citizen of the state of Louisiana. Our workmen's compensation rates do need to be addressed in order that they can be made competitive and I

believe that they can without harming the wage earner, the injured worker in our state. Indeed I believe that one of the proposals that I have seen would actually improve the lot of the injured worker. We need to remove obstacles to the expansion of construction work on state projects. That means in my judgment the repeal of an anachronism called the prevailing wage law. If we work together, we will not fail. Four million people, more than four million people, are looking to us. They're counting on us to make their lives better. They have that right. And that's why we're here. Thank you. (applause) All things considered, Governor Treen had little to smile about when the days were done. The House

easily killed his proposed CWEL tax, prevailing wage floundered amidst cries of lacking Treen administration support, the inmate labor bill passed the House but was killed not once, not twice, but on three tries by the Senate, and the Workmen's Comp reform was killed by a mass of confusion. Dave Treen was able to sign tough new DWI laws and he passed a so-called glass pockets bill aimed at former Governor Edwin Edwards, mandating disclosure of revenue sources for the governor and gubernatorial candidates. At a news conference Tuesday, Governor Treen put the best face possible on the 1982 regular session. Well, I think that the executive branch and the legislature, by and large, worked together well. I don't think that you can, in the political process, determine whether the success or failure just on the basis of what happens at any given time. If you're making an allusion to CWEL, which you probably are, I think that is the kind of major

measure that one has to persist in over a period of time. I'm not happy that it went down, by any means, but I think when we look at the entire situation and the attitude of many in the Legislature, many people in the state, that we are a state of great abundance. It's not true that getting 58 votes for that measure, I think, was a significant step in the right direction. So I don't count that as a failure. In other areas, I think we worked together pretty well and I would, I would count the session really as a success overall. I think that in politics it's not only what you're successful in doing, but it's, it's what you try to do that's important. But the 1982 session of the Louisiana Legislature may go down as a session that will be remembered more

for the legislation that failed rather than passed. As the dust settles, we'll try to sift through some of the major issues with three capitol correspondents: Joan Duffy with United Press International, John Hill with Gannett News Service and David Young of Louisiana Public Broadcasting. Well, Joan, on reviewing the Governor's opening remarks, we heard him talk about a coastal wetlands environmental levy. We heard him talk about workmen's compensation reform, inmate labor. All those are issues that did not succeed in this session. What is the initial impression? Why was this that sort of a session? I think the reason why a lot of those things failed was because of the lobbying coalitions, particularly on the tax, the $450 million tax issue. A lobbyist told me that had only the oil and gas interests coalesced on that issue and fought it, that there was no way Treen could lose, that the tax would have passed it. It was a way to test the waters, to see if Louisiana could reap some benefits from that offshore

oil and gas. But because the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry joined against the tax, they're so well organized and they're so proficient at what they do, that it went down to defeat. It seems that this was a session that a number of groups coalesced to defeat legislation really rather than pass legislation. It was a very defensive session. I had one LABI lobbyist say, who described it as exactly that, that was the most defensive session they ever recall. And you did have wild coalitions going, going together. Well, you say wild but I mean it's you usually don't see the contractors and labor unions together. But they joined together over their economic interests, their common economic interests, in defeating the inmate labor bill which would have allowed the Governor to use inmates in prison construction projects. It would take away jobs from contractors and union members, they said, so of course they joined hands. Another strange coalition too is that on the, on the oil and gas tax, labor didn't take

a stand at all. It was probably as close as they could come to joining forces with a Republican governor. They couldn't do so publicly or, if they did, there would be... Labor lobbyists had the easiest job all session. All they had to do was sit back and watch Governor Treen's constituents fighting over all of these issues. Except for the inmate labor. I think one of the things that I've heard a number of people remarked and, David, I think we've talked about this was that the Governor devoted a great deal of his time to passing this oil and gas transportation tax, CWEL. Do you think that affected him in the rest of the session? I think it could have, you know. I think that the Governor could have organized his priorities better throughout the whole session, if he had a number of bills that he wanted to pass. Certainly the CWEL debate diverted attention from the workmen's comp situation which was a last-minute proposition and a lot more forethought could have gone into the session possibly, to organize a bill so that it would come up one at a time, know what the priorities

are and the confusion could have been averted to some degree. I think that tax issue also diverted attention of the business lobbyists because they decided to fight it. It took their attention away from the early groundwork that would, would be needed if they were going to get worker's comp through which, of course, they didn't. Well, what did pass the session? What of significance did pass? The DWI legislation. Some of it did pass. The budgets got passed. You know, I suppose we should be grateful for that or they'd all be back in town in two weeks later and I'm really tired and I don't want them back, you know. The financial disclosure for governors and candidates for governor also passed. That, that's going to be an interesting bill. That's an interesting bill because that was clearly a Treen-Edwards campaign issue in the 1983. The governor wanted to run against Edwin Edwards. There's no question about it and the Senate voting to give the governor that issue, I thought was really very interesting. What was that issue specifically now? It requires governors and gubernatorial candidates to make public details of their private financial affairs

and dealings. Their net worth, their debts, their sources of income -- much more specific and much more detailed than any reporting requirements we've had on the books previously. Little bit of assets and liabilities there. Give us a clearer picture of our governor's financial interests. Where the money comes from. Certainly in the waning moments of the session, we we if if there's a pattern that's similar in a lot of sessions and that is, and we've said this before, I guess, work expands to fill the allotted time and you always no matter how long the session you come down to the last day, the last night and, as the clock approaches 12:00, once again they were dealing with one of the major issues of the session: workmen's compensation. What was that like, Joan, what happened? Why do you end up at a point like that? Well, first of all, very little of that went on on the floor of the House or the Senate. Most of it was sitting out in the lobby and seeing who was going up in the elevator and what floor they were getting off at and who was talking to whom and where people were gathering,

back and forth. You could watch the flow of the movements around the Capitol and see the negotiating chain, I call it, chain of communication that was underway with the governor in the middle of the sides. It was fascinating to watch but they were very, very closed. They're very tight-lipped and very secretive and I found it a bit offensive at times. I agree. It was so closed door, so secretive. It was a very sensitive issue. And I understand that there has to be some private negotiating and that sort of stuff, but I really think they went underground much, much too much. Well, they were trying to work out a compromise but, David, as I understand, some people couldn't decide -- even the principal parties -- whether it was a compromise worthy of accepting or not, even to the end. Well, that's true. It was very interesting to note, as you said, it went down to the final hour after the conference committee, I think, got out of session about 11 o'clock with one hour left to go. The both groups labor on one side, LABI on the

other, got together and all the special interests within that one group. I mean LABI represents a lot of different types of business interest. Some of the groups would have liked to accept the compromise. Some of the, some of them would not. And it got to a point where I heard them say, look, it's on the House floor. We've got 15 seconds to make a decision. 15 seconds. It was one of the most fascinating meetings. Very dramatic, very dramatic. I think that one of the lawyers, I don't quite know which one it was, was going through and telling them that they had some things in the bill that they could live with, but they didn't know how it would be interpreted once the legislation was passed or signed by the Governor. So they had to make a quick decision. They decided to quick, to kill it. They took the pads, stacks of pads, ran out into the both sides of the House floor in the lobbying areas and started signing notes and sending them out to kill it. Well in that meeting if you'll remember, the lobbyist for the oil field contractors and the construction industry immediately said, we've got to kill this. We can't live with that provision allowing lawsuits in case of a death of an employee. But businesses that

don't have a high rate of deaths on the job thought it was great, because they wouldn't have the lawsuit problem. Sure. And another thing that we need to remember on workers' comp, too. It wasn't just a labor-industry fight. It was the trial lawyers that caused most of the problems. They were the ones that came in with the provision that if you are hurt on the job and you collect workers' compensation the trial lawyers wanted you also to have a right to go into court and sue for damages. And in the event of negligence, if you can prove negligence on the part of your employer, and it was this double dipping type of thing -- Deliberate failure -- dual remedy is what the lawyers were calling it, that got the business community so upset. So it was more business and trial lawyers more than labor. In the end, it was the lawyers splitting hairs over individual words in the compromise that did it in. Very specifically. And you know lawyers well enough, I mean, they argue over everything and they were still, you know, couching and wondering what to do, you know.

Do you think in retrospect now, after all the last-minute heated debates and arguments whatever, that you're going to come down after the session and a number of people will say we should have accepted the compromise? Are you hearing that? They already have. Most of the chairmen of the House committees have said that yesterday. House Speaker John Hainkel, of course, said that the business interests made a horrendous, horrendous mistake. Representative Kevin Reilly, who's one of the biggest businessmen in the state of Louisiana, said that it was a grave error not to accept the compromise. To add to that, I think the Governor hinted at a news conference after the session that possibly business should have taken a real close look at the compromise, adding that they may never get such an acceptable bill again. But now Ed Steimel said one thing after. I asked him about this, after I had all of these conservative, many Republican business-oriented legislators saying it was a good compromise. They should have accepted it. I talked with him and he said I can't say they wouldn't have accepted it, but

there we were at the 11th hour. It was the Super Bowl in the last few seconds and either you're going to kick the field goal and tie or you're going to run for the two points and win. Exactly. And they didn't have the time to decided. But, now wait, they had been in on all of the negotiations privately all through the weekend so it was hardly a big surprise to them as to what was in the compromise. They weren't seeing it for the first time or looking at specific words on paper maybe. But Ed Steimel and his lobbying group had a constituency that was split. True. He had members who could not live with the bill and members who wanted the bill, and he had to decide which way he was going to go. And he hesitated to check with some people before making the decision. There may be another game, of course, in the future, right around the corner and that is visions of a special session coming up. Is there anything in your mind you understand that there will be a special session or do you think there is any doubt on that? I think there is doubt. The Governor has said he's not going to call a special session unless he is sure that he has a chance to pass a tax whether it be CWEL, son of

CWEL, clone of CWEL, cousin of CWEL, changing the severance tax on natural gas, whatever plan comes out and there are several other tax proposals that are being whispered about that could surface in the aftermath of CWEL. But I think he's going...he says he won't start testing the waters until August, but people are already being questioned. And I think a lot of it will depend on what he does with the capital outlay budget, the construction plan for the state. If he decides to take his red pencil and slash it to the bone, which he says is all we can afford, then that will put pressure on the legislators back home to come back to Baton Rouge, pass a tax, get the money and get their roads and bridges built. And certainly when the Legislature comes back in special session, we have had presiding over the Senate, one of the two bodies of the legislature, Michael O'Keefe who has been convicted. There seems to be that there there was some concern during the session of, how do you respond? What do you do with him as president of the Senate? There were any number of editorials, I know, in your papers, in the papers that you write for, calling for him to step down as

Senate president. Do you think you're going to see more of that? I think whatever happens with Michael O'Keefe and his future in the Senate, it'll take place in secret. It'll be quiet. It will be private. And whatever is is finally concluded by the senators, whether Senator O'Keefe remains as the presiding officer, whether he steps down from his post, whether he steps down temporarily or whether he resigns outright from the Senate, I think will be decided behind closed doors and when it is revealed it will be orchestrated and it will be clean and neat and proper as the Senate usually likes to think they operate. That's Mr. O'Keefe's style; he's the master of bringing people together in secrecy and working out their differences and on the Senate floor everything just done. Cut and dried. And at the same time when he makes this announcement there will more than likely be also a replacement. I agree that yes. It'll will be cut and dry. Boom, boom, done. But I think you do get the impression certainly in the latter days when president pro tempore Sammy Nunez suggested that he thought, and Senator O'Keefe had said himself, that he thought if he would damage the Senate or he would

not suffer any of the, I guess, plague of having to embarrass them or himself. He's not going to do that. One of the senators from North Louisiana, a good friend of the Treen administration, has no close, not politically aligned with Michael O'Keefe at all, said when the proper time comes, Mr. Michael O'Keefe will do the honorable thing. He will not embarrass the Senate. And I suppose the senator is hoping that there will be an overturning of that earlier conviction. That's what he's holding on to so he can point to something. I think that this session is going to be analyzed a lot in the future????. Do you think it was an unusual session? I do, it was. I thought it was the most fascinating session I've seen in the eight years that I've been covering sessions. I really did. I thought it was just... It was boring on the floors of the House and Senate, but behind the scenes it was just marvelous. It was wonderful. The lobbying efforts that were going on were just the most interesting, and they were very visible this year. You know I really enjoyed the session.

Well, it became almost who was interviewed more, the lobbyists or the legislators, about the bills? You know you make an interesting point. To which we'll have to address at another time because we are out of time. I thank all of you for being with us this evening. We'll be back again next week with a special program, a program in which we talk about scientific creationism, a controversial issue in the last session and an issue that will be coming up in legal battles in Louisiana in the future. We hope you'll join us then. I'm Beth George. Good night. Made possible in part by grants from Kaiser Aluminum,

Southern Research Company Incorporated, and by the Zigler Foundation.