Jim Cooper's Orange County; Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy

Jim Cooper's Orange County interview with Leo McCarthy record date eleven twenty one eighty three late one twenty eight thirty eight. Lieutenant governor Leo McCarthy Democrat they had nearly completed the first year of his four year term as the number two executive in the state government. His election with Republican Governor George Deukmejian is only the third time in the state's history that the two highest elective offices have been filled with members of opposing parties philosophically Leo McCarthy differed sharply with the governor on many solutions for the state's problems ranging from education crime water and transportation to the need to improve health care and social services particularly among its older citizens. I'm Jim Cooper and I'll talk to him today about his vision for California's future. Leo McCarthy served 18 years of elective service prior to election as lieutenant governor.

He served two terms as a supervisor in San Francisco before election in 1968 to the assembly he held a powerful post of speaker of the Assembly for six years. He had been outspoken on issues of education aging reapportionment the environment and the need to improve the state's climate for business and industry. As lieutenant governor he presides over the state Senate is chairman of the Economic Development Commission and a member of the state lands commission commission on the California the UC Board of Regents and the board of the state university system He's also chair of the little Hoover Commission's task force on nursing home regulation. Well Governor you just returned from a trip to China a 10 day trip to China which I understand was purely on your own financing but a little you did some state business. Can you share with us briefly how this might be important to California as you mentioned I chair the Economic Development Commission. And I want to find out just what potential there was for California in both Hong Kong and in China for investment monies flowing back into California. Of course the Chinese

authorities had in mind California trying to export some of our world renowned technology and trying to invest in some of the things they're trying to do too which is OK as long as California investment there creates jobs and profits here in our state. I found the potential enormous. California now of course does a tremendous amount of trade with Japan with Taiwan and with Hong Kong. A lot of the in the trade with Hong Kong is really with with the People's Republic of China putting trade through Hong Kong. But I think the potential in the 1 billion people. China by itself is enormous for many business men here that look promising for their follow up for developing the economic outlook of California. Well I think so I think that people have to appreciate that trade has gone from six billion dollars 20 years ago to sixty two billion dollars last year. Right now we're in a trade deficit of course we're importing a good deal more than we're

exporting California in that respect is like the nation. So I think we have to be imaginative and aggressive and figure out where we can get markets overseas. To export California produced goods. And I think that market is in China as well as elsewhere in Asia. I think it ties in with some questions I'd like to ask you about priorities. Your vision of priorities affecting the whole scenario of Californias quality of life scenario affecting 25 people 25 million people. If you had a name in a few sentences the three or four top priorities that this government the state government has to deal with. What would they be. First priority stable sustained economic growth in the state of California like that. Our country is now in a new kind of international competition. Other nations are much stronger economically than they used to be they have resources like oil like rare minerals that we need for our an industrial economy very badly. So California has to get a

sense of itself as if you will an international trading partner and an international economic competitor. And that means that the political in the business leadership of the state have to form a working partnership in a way that we never have before in California right now. We're just a group of fiefdoms in this state and sometimes even an adversarial role between the private sector and the business sector. I think that almost adversary that's right that they're not always going to be in agreement on things but they must be in agreement. They must have a collective will in trying to sell the assets of California so that we can make the pylon Arjen for business and labor and other interest groups to even divide up. That was the first one. What would you say the second education without it without any doubt. We have really declined in our support for the public school system kindergarten through the 12 grade the results show in national test competition we're somewhere in the middle of the 50 states in the union. We think of ourselves as the

first state in America. We're not in education. We now even see signs that our commitment to the University of California in the state university and college system is beginning to fly. We're losing a lot of faculty members because our salaries are lower than competing campuses outside our state and we're allowing our equipment in our plant to deteriorate in a way that is destructive to the quality of education in our college campuses So education's a second big problem. What would you say would be three. Three I think is the whole. Require that the whole condition of living the quality of life in the state and that includes men out there and our health care that means the availability of of housing that that means whether or not we protect the critical assets of nature that we have here. And I see the coastline and other parts of beautiful California as economic assets not just as environmental interests. I think we if we

understand sensibly that we have to relate those enormous scenic assets as part of what makes California unique. We'll see that's a part of our economic future. So retaining the quality of life in the state I think is is the next critical issue. Let's talk a little bit. About the economy and here we have a state with 25 million people but 1 million of them are out of work we still have a 8.4 percent unemployment as we are doing this program a very uncomfortable status certainly and one that can't very well be accepted be there by the government sector or by the private sector and the status quo not with a million people out of work. What would you do what would you like to see done more than than the administration doing now. Well determining what we can control is essential first we know now that the U.S. and California are part of the international economic condition if you have a lot of recessions and depressions going on in other countries. That's going to affect our own economic health because we're more and more closely linked to those other countries. And we

also understand that the federal government will control the economy of California very largely the larger the federal budget the greater the deficit the higher interest rates are going to go and that affects our construction industry and small businesses but there are things California can do. We can position ourselves much more aggressively for international trade. We can fight to stay as the number one state in high technology and we lost the M C C group recently where they went to Texas and that was a major failure. I think we can much more aggressively enhance the chance for small business to survive they have a poor record in this state. First five years. Only 1 out of 10 small businesses survives. We can pass legislation and enact administrative actions to enhance all of these areas of the economy. What about this matter of edgy the economy when it comes into conflict with the environment for example in the economy one good example is the

push for many of the private oil industry people along with the administration of the United States to engage in offshore oil drilling along California. And yet both senators Senator Cranston Senator Pete Wilson are calling for a moratorium on that. Do you find yourself in that dialogue. I find myself in this position. World oil prices have gone down. They're staying low. There appears to be a much better supplier of oil than there was a few years ago all pack has weakened its stranglehold on Western nations has loosened considerably. I would think that where there is strong evidence of plentiful offshore oil deposits we would want to know that but not necessarily go drill and extract this early and until we have evidence that there's a national energy crisis in America I don't think there's need to do that. I think people along the California coastline will understand they have to make the sacrifice necessary they have to run some risks of environmental damage and maybe some reduction

in some of the economies that exist on the coast like like tourism. Commercial fishing but they don't want to have extensive offshore oil drilling until they see that there is evidence of that national energy crisis they want better long term planning than exists now. We see a direct clash of the Coastal Commission wants to see a moratorium doesn't want the offshore oil drilling and yet the state lands commission of which you're a member seems to want to encourage some offshore oil drilling what about these these clashes that occur within state government. Well I think that the the role of the state Coastal Commission ought to be respected by the state lands commission of which I am a member. I think we're talking about an accommodation here. We already have extensive oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast. The question is how well. Working with local government authorities in Santa Barbara and other coastal counties. We tried to figure out what sort of planning consolidation of physical plant and other things to minimize. The disruption to the environment then to the other existing economies like tourism that you have

along the California coast. There are some that would go ahead and and drill anywhere and build any sort of physical plant up and down the coast I don't think that's proper. I think we need to do very careful planning have oil companies consolidate their physical development where we permit offshore oil drilling to occur. The administration out of the Interior Department is trying to exclude California from any deliberations about where to drill in the body about the execution of leases. The interior minister. Yes Federal Ministry. The U.S. Interior Department the U.S. administration has now got litigation going to try and exclude California from having any voice at all saying it's grabbing at that as a writer. That's right. Where do you find yourself in that very diametrically opposed to what the federal administration is doing when James Watt was secretary of the interior of course he was very aggressively for allowing oil drilling anywhere along any of the three U.S. coasts whether was Pacific Atlantic or Gulf Coast.

Now I don't know what the new secretary of the interior just confirmed is going to do. Bill Clark of California that remains to be seen but the posture of the federal government in the past has just been to recklessly go ahead with any sort of oil drilling without any sensitive consideration for how the people who live along the coast feel about this. And I frankly the government of California state governor California and I find that people whether they're Democrats or Republicans moderates conservatives liberals have pretty much the same feeling along the California coast they want any oil drilling to be undertaken with the utmost care and they disagree with the federal latitude on this subject. The governor as you know had been having a sharp clash with the speaker Mr. Brown and Democrats over for example the education in general but for example the community college system over the legislation for the one hundred eight point five billion dollars a million dollars rather. One hundred eight million dollars. And the governor has said that he will accept more funding for community colleges if fees go with it. The

speaker has said the fees and fees will not go with it if they want the money in other words the speaker and the Democrats as you know in the legislature have drawn a line and said you can have the money but you can't have the fee the governor said we want the fees and then I'll give you the money. What do you find yourself in that what appears to be a terrible impasse and which the victims are the one hundred six community colleges up and down the state of California. Well I think the first thing your viewers ought to know is that the the clash. On the community college fees came at the end of the legislative session in August after many months of bitter deep disagreement between the governor and the legislature on a variety of issues. Frankly Jim I have never seen in my 14 years in Sacramento the level of anger between a governor and a legislature as exists today and I think you have to view the community college fees as the run of the steps. After a dozen areas of major disagreement that's rather historic and proportions frankly by the time they got to the

end of the session there was so much rancor the bitterness you know when if you would have had agreement on a Mother's Day resolution. Now there is some substantive disagreement on whether this should be a fee increase or not but we're not even asking the right question. The question we should ask about community colleges and there are one hundred and seven to your campuses in this state called Community Colleges. What is their mission. Because it's changed considerably since the master plan for education was enacted in 1961. We're talking about $100 fee instead of asking what are we going to do for the 1.3 million full time and part time students that go to these community colleges and we kind of those cutbacks one hundred sixty six thousand of them at a restaurant away at a knock at the door of these colleges and be turned away. That's right hundred sixty six. That's right. And we're talking about young adults that we've encouraged to improve themselves to get a better education so that they can contribute something to our economy for the public and for their own families. So we have in effect close the door to many people who are

seeking to better themselves with schooling. Where do you find yourself on the battle of fees or no fees. Well I think that the answer has to come with with the fee issue related to what else the governor's going to do in general funding for community colleges. I would want the governor to ask what is the mission of the community colleges what do we want the community colleges to do in relation to the University of California system and the California State University and College system. Now I could sign off on a hundred dollar fee increase but I would want a clear sense from the governor. As to whether he's going to be supportive of some of the important things the community colleges are doing in the state and I also want to know that that's it. That hundred dollar level is going to be it I want to add in forcible way to limit it to the hundred dollars so that four or five years from now we don't find it's six or seven hundred dollars I think of the unhappy metaphor of the Chinese saying that when elephants fight the grass gets trampled in this case the grass being the 1.3 million

students ends up going to because of this this impasse. Speaker Brown is proposed an idea that the fee issue should be put to the voters and that the way it should be resolved and then both the governor and the and the speakers the Democrats live by whatever that elective decision is would you go along with that or do you think that the white right when it's I haven't spoken to Speaker Brown about that suggestion that I'm frankly generally inclined to think that the people elected governor in a legislature and a lieutenant governor to make these decisions and I would rather see the decision made in Sacramento that's particularly true because of what I said a moment ago. We are very foolishly narrowing the discussion of community colleges to this hundred dollar student fee increase. We've got to be asking about all three major segments of higher education and what are their missions. How will the people get their best money. But how do we intensely commit to the meaning of education and building leadership for the future of this state. I had another colorful metaphor that you used. You said that my greatest fear is that Sacramento

is going to be a car a coliseum in which the four segments of education are going to be battling as gladiators competing for the scraps of education that's right and that's what 12 of course and then community colleges you see and the California state universities that you differed with the governor pretty sharply on this business of imposition of fees and raising fee the minute in other words make it more difficult for students to get their educate That's right. I don't want to I don't I don't want your margin that I want your viewers to understand why under dollar feed doesn't sound like anything unreasonable or at the state system you know wealthy. That's right the University of California has now increased by 90 percent its student fees. Over the last two years and California State University System U.S. has nine campuses California State University has 19 campuses. They have greatly increased their student fees What is that all mean. Well it means this. That students that come from low and moderate income families especially if they have

three or four kids that want to go to college are precluded from doing so. Mind you even if they're academically deserving even if they have worked in in high school in their earn their way they may come from an income situation where they simply can't afford to go to college and we don't have sufficient student assistance loan programs to make sure that all those deserving young adults can go to college in this state. How would you try to exert your influence toward making it easier for. Mr. and Mrs. young Californian to obtain higher learning. I believe in more scholarship money I believe in more money available for student loan the systems and loans that can be collected after they graduate if you will not like some of the federal experience I believe in collecting the loans. But we've got to make those programs available. Otherwise we're going to lose a lot of smart talented people that are not going to have access to our colleges. Do you favor the 1 1 billion dollars at the state university system is asking

along with a 30 percent increase in fees for the some of the administrators. For example the state university presidents do you go along with. I do support President David Gardner's budget proposals for the University of California. I've been visiting all the U.S. campuses so far I've been to six I've got several more to go to where I meet with faculty and student groups and administration leadership at each campus. I'm finding out the names of faculty that we're losing to other states colleges. I'm finding out what part of our equipment in our plant is deteriorating so as to lower the quality of education. I don't think the public wants the University of California to become a second rate university. Do you see a direct tie in from what we were talking about earlier between California's economic status and its ability with turnout is to build what are still those you know absolutely no question about it that what business investors look at when they come into our state is is there a qualified labor pool. And that means that many levels of technical competence managerial competence and unless we keep

producing a qualified labor pool that means high school graduates as well as college graduates we're not going to attract business to invest in California. From your vantage point here in Sacramento Do you have a very gloomy picture of this gladiator metaphor that you use. The gladiators being all of the four levels of education fighting for the scraps of education. Or do you see a turnaround in that attitude toward perhaps. More giving the climate for education in the coming year. I think the public. Is focusing on education right. We've had the president's commission on education and that commission led by David Gardner last in 1981 said this nation is at risk. That there's a tide of rising mediocrity in education. I think the California public will pay the bill if they see the results if they see our test scores are competitive up among the higher states. If they get a sense that everybody is pulling their weight and we're getting a good product out of the education system I think

California taxpayers are willing to pay the bill. It takes the political leadership of the state the governor and myself the legislative leaders to lay this all out before the taxpayers of the state and let them participate in the decision of just how much they want to invest in education. In view of this acrimony this bitterness that you talk about between the governor's office and the Democrats who are control of both houses do you feel it's realistic to expect some kind of accommodation to be reached in this coming year. I can't give you the answer to that Jim I just don't know frankly. I have never seen so much acrimony in California. The people decided November of 82 that we were going to have a Republican governor. Democrats on the other CA's Sushil offices and a legislature that was 60 percent Democratic. I don't think the people intended to vote for a four year stalemate. I think that means that all sides have to accommodate have to give and take. This is not intended to paralyze state government off the last year. I don't think there was

much accommodation at least that my fellow Democrat in the United States wouldn't be here today or perhaps it's fair to say there's a rigidity on both sides is that a fair statement Well that's certainly the case now after many years of of many months of disagreement. I phoned some moderate Democrats in the legislature people who don't call names and they don't lose temper don't do silly things I said. What is this about the governor and the legislature their response to me was look we don't feel is any two way communication. We understand that the governor has a perfect right to prevail in a number of his viewpoints but we think we were elected to and this must be a matter of give and take. They think on the budget on the education the school finance bill in the early months and on other matters that the governor is too rigid in his viewpoint Now this is all a subjective point of view on my side and when you have a lot of the governors who are going all I'm trying to avoid criticizing the governor frankly I don't want to play the game my curve did with Jerry Brown. I want to work with the governor and with the legislature and my fellow Democrats in the

legislature to try to get some useful things done for the public. Let me ask a question that touches again on this political battling that's going on and it's certainly a relevant question because the governor has now indicated he will lead a crusade to get a petition to turn over reapportionment to an impartial the so-called impartial Commission calling for this to be become and issue to issue in the November election. That is to say next November or year from now. What is your position on that would you comment on that. Well I regret that the governor is doing it because the the discord between this governor and the legislature right now is very bad and proposing yet another for the fourth year in a row. Another battle on reapportionment by proposing that we create a report from that commission to draw those legislative lines just in flames. The existing difficult situation so we we've got this we're fanning the flames of discord now until November 1984 when the governor intends to put this

initiative on the ballot. But be that as it may and looking at the proposal itself I think it's a bad mistake. What are the government. I'm going to oppose it. I'm going to. And you know something I think the voters are going to vote no on the governor's proposed reapportionment commission for a couple reasons one they're tired of commissions they know state government has too many commissions right now that don't end up doing an awful lot. But secondly the governor proposes using appellate court justices of this state as the real deciders on the most partisan of all political issues. The drawing of legislative district lines. Now that's crazy. If we're worried about politicizing the court system of this state and that's an accusation often hurled at courts in this state. Ryan earthward we inject them into the middle of the reapportionment system. It doesn't make any sense. Would you openly battle the plan of a going forward. I'm going to see if the governor finally does propose this plan if he does I will campaign against it.

Let me move to another area because you've been involved in a taskforce on long term care nursing care and that gets to California as a segment of its population which are senior citizens a lot of senior citizens. Could you comment we have a few minutes left I'd like to hear what you have found out and your close involvement with long term care for some of them or invest you know Jim. It was 1972 when I was still in the legislature that I held a series of hearings across the state looking at conditions in nursing homes what we found was appalling. We found many proprietary nursing homes of course cut corners to maximize their profit margin. And in doing so put vulnerable elderly residents of those nursing homes in a much worse and position we found an awful lot of abuse and neglect. Now at the request of the Little Hoover Commission of the state I headed an advisory committee at the beginning of this year to do another review. We were making a series of recommendations. We don't think conditions have improved all that

much in nursing homes in the state. And the the conditions have to do with a tougher inspection system higher fines preventing Medicare recipients to be forced out of nursing homes because they run out of private funds. And in a much tougher stance against an industry that still in very large part is cutting corners to the disadvantage of 100000 elderly Californians that are in those nursing homes. You've got three years left in this office. Certainly a long time to go but have you thought about your political future after that people are wondering what what is Leo McCarthy thinking about. I think it's a little too too early for me to be thinking about that I want to say I'm still floating on clouds. Oh I received four million votes in the election last year when I became lieutenant governor that's being given that kind of support for this office in California is a tremendous compliment to me I feel very good about where I am. Frankly I'm going to try to perform well in this job I'm avoiding entering into abusive

caustic exchanges with Governor Dick May-June even though we're of the opposite parties I'm going to try to differ with him in a dignified way. And then we'll see what the future holds I think that the public will give me a sense of whether I've earned the right to aspire to some other office. A few seconds left do you see some sunshine ahead 1084 with them with a look ahead. Do you see some sunshine but there's a combination we're talking about. Not no not right now I don't I think the human beings in this process have to unwind I think you have to appreciate we're in a shared governance situation and there must be some give and take some honest compromise that useful to that public out there. All right on that note we're going to move along. Thank you very much Mr. McCarthy for talking with us. This has been a special broadcast for public television with the old human heart the lieutenant governor of the state of California. I'm Jim Cooper. Thanks for being with us.