Page 13


Connally’s Riders Austin “None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be expended for architectural fees without the advance written approval of the Governor after obtaining the advice of the Legislative Budget Board.” That brief proviso, occupying just three lines of the 276th page of the appropriations law governing Texas government and education for the next two years, gives Governor John Connally a veto over the selection of architects for all state and educational construction requiring their services. Architects are allowed up to six percent of the total costs of state construction. A University of Tekas regent, John Redditt of Longview, resigned last December charging that Connally’s Democratic national committeeman from Texas, U.T. regent Frank Erwin, had said Connally regarded architectural fees as “valuable gifts” to be awarded to political friends. Connally denied he so regarded them. A Republican architect in El Paso who had been awarded a college building contract had not been approved by Connally, and the board had given the contract to someone else. Although the provision of the new spending law already quoted covers all architectural fees that will be paid by state ar -encies, special hospitals and schools, and colleges and universities, anyone with the time to peruse the law can also find scattered through its 381 pages other specific prohibitions against architects being approved without the governor’s permission. For instance, the law provides $9 million for the 1966-’67 building program for state hopsitals and special schools, including a 400-bed facility for the Confederate to provide 40 Oadditional beds at Lufkin school for the mentally retarded at Lubthat none of this money can be spent “for the payment of architectural fees or services without the prior written approval by the Governor of the architect or architects selected . . . and of the amount or rate of compensation to be paid for such architectural services.” The prison system is provided $4 million for construction the next two years, specifically including “architectural fees,” and a rider says none of this $4 million can be spent without “approval of the Governor.” Such language appears to give Connally a veto not only of the prison system’s architectural fees, but of all its building appropriations. The Texas Highway Department, which constructs and operates many administrative buildings, is bound by a similar, rider in the new state spending law, to wit: that “no building, regardless of type, containing more than ten thoustructed without prior approval of the Governor.” A two-story addition to the PanhandlePlains Historical Museum is to be construced for $300,000, but, says the law, not unless “the architectural plans, specifications, and estimates of cost . . . shall have the prior approval of the Governor after the advice of the Legislative Budget Board.” Under “special provisions relating only to state agencies of higher education,” one finds that any individual building construc Austin The House of Representatives, in a surprisingly emphatic mood created in part by conservatives Wallace Miller of Houston and Gene Hendryx of Alpine, said No to lie detectors last week. The Senate had passed, and a House committee approved, Sen. Ralph Hall’s bill to license operators of polygraphs, but the House had become sharply hostile by the time the bill came to debate late last week. Rep. Rayford Price, Frankston, the House sponsor, made a presentation reviewing his points published in last issue’s report on this subject. Then Miller stepped forward with his amendment to provide that no one may request or suggest that prospective employee take a lie detector test or make such a test a condition of continued employment. His language tracked that of the Alaska law. Miller said the tests should not be used for any purposes except law enforcement. “I don’t think something as unreliable as this should be used to take a person’s livelihood away,” he said. “If we pass this bill, it will be the first move to make a lie detector test mandatory for every prospective employee.” From the back mike Hendryx asked . Miller, “Are you aware that some Texas companies, in addition to requiring you to take tests, not only ask you about yourself but ask you about your fellow employees, too?” Miller had heard that. -“Did you know,” Hendryx said angrily, “that some people who refuse to answer these questions and act as spies are fired, and they can’t even get unemployment compensation?” Miller told the House, “If you would like to take on of these [tests] and talk about your family life, your sex life, then vote to table my amendment.” The House voted, to the contrary, not to table Miller’s amendment, 72-63. tion projects costing more than $25,000, other than classroom, library, and laboratory building projects, “shall be approved by the Governor after seeking the advice of the Legislative Budget Board.” Other new institutions for which the 1966-’67 money bill provides funds include a museum building at Washington State Park, “including architectural fees” \($800,tarded at Corpus Christi, “including archiThe law also includes the standard provision that none of the moneys appropriated for the judiciary, special hospitals and schools, prisons, the executive branch, prisons, or education, “regardless of their source or character, shall be used for influencing the outcome of any election, or the passage or defeat of any legislative measure.” This was a shock to Price, since one prime purpose behind the bill is the licensing of operators of polygraph machines in commercial employment work. Price made a point of order that Miller’s amendment Wasn’t germane, and Rep. Grainger Mcllhany, Wheeler, who was in the chair, agreed, killing Miller’s amendment. Rep. an amendment to require present polygraph operators to pass the bill’s licensing standards. Price had refused to take out the “grandfather clause” in committee; new, struggling against a tide, he accepted the Cory amendment. Price, referring to testimony before the House committee from the Zale’s Jewelry personnel manager, said, “The jewelry store requests all employees to take polygraph tests and finds they are clean as a whistle. This is good for the employees.” Rep. Bob, Eckhardt of Houston, speaking against, made his by now almost standard speech against bills creating licensing authorities made up of persons drawn from the field that is to be licensed. “We are again letting the possum guard the chicken house,” he said. “If we really want to regulate polygraph examiners, we ought to put it under the Department of Public Safety or some other such agency instead of putting it in the hands of people who have a direct interest in limiting competition.” \(The board to license the operators under the Hall-Price bill would be comThe House then voted not to pass the bill, 74 to 47. One would ordinarily say this killed it, but Price did not give up, and the effect of his parliamentary manuevering was to leave the vote open to reconsideration before the legislature adjourns at the end of the month. May 28, 1965 7 Lie Test Bill Waylaid