ustxtxb_obs_1969_03_07_50_00008-00000_000.pdf

,+.411woloe 414itikow,powee ,segiWA.A.,..,. 0,44400 4446Pillwoom!” ,4***”.47; tim passages that are shared in the Hart report and Mrs. McCrocklin’s thesis might be overlooked. The next day Cliff Wilkie, a UT-Austin student, said, in a guest column on the editorial page of the university’s Daily Texan, that the questions before the university were not those stated by Whaley; rather, Wilkie wrote, “The question is: does ‘Dr.’ McCrocklin . . . have any integrity?” NOT UNEXPECTEDLY, leaders of the challenge to McCrocklin’s dissertation were unimpressed with his explanation. William C. Pool, one of the ten faculty members who have led faculty efforts to satisfy the questions about McCrocklin’s explanation is “completely unsatisfactory to the academic community.” Allan Butcher, another of the “faculty ten,” told AP reporter Robert Heard; “Virtually every scrap of the Hart report is in the dissertation. He left out a paragraph here and there, but most of it is there. And THE LEGISLATURE nowhere in the text of the preface is the report credited. I’m writing my dissertation myself,” Butcher said. “What I ought to do is get a government document and tear off the coversheet.” The leader of student opposition, John Pfeffer, a graduate student from Bellevue, sought to see McCrocklin the day after the president’s public appearances. Encountering McCrocklin in a school corridor he asked if he could talk to McCrocklin. Pfeffer says when he identified himself to McCrocklin, the president said, “I do not wish to see you at all.” Pfeffer said, “We wanted to question Dr. McCrocklin about his statement because it was vague and the students feel its purpose was to mislead the public in general. The statement contained a series of halftruths.” Pfeffer says later that day he was called at home by Floyd Martine, SWT dean of students, who, Pfeffer says, told him he could see McCrocklin only in the company of either Martine or James B. Hobbs, McCrocklin’s assistant. The Detroit News, for whom Colonel Heinl reports, said last week that McCrocklin has been notified thatsubject to any convincing rebuttal he might makehis dissertation “represents a clear case of plagiarism.” The News adds that if the full graduate faculty ratifies the committee decision, steps might be taken to strip McCrocklin of his doctoral degree. UT President Hackerman has denied that there is at this point consideration of such a drastic step. But Hackerman has acknowledged that the hearings committee is proceeding. McCrocklin in his statement last week said he would be prepared to meet with the committee soon, that “very little time will be needed for me to be ready to accept [Hackerman’s] invitation.” The next regular meeting of the graduate faculty will be April 8. A report on the situation will be presented at that time, but it is not certain at this point that the question will be ready at that time for the faculty to vote. G.O. Off and Crawling Austin Almost two months old,’ the Sixty-first Legislature is just beginning to take itself seriously. Precious few bills have been passed, but hundreds of ambitious measures have been introduced and a few have even been heard before House and Senate committees. Following is a rather haphazard attempt to summarize some of the issues legislators are confronting this session. At a Masonic dinner in Austin last month, Governor Smith propounded a theory of taxation. “Responsibility for the taxer means weighing all factors in the scales of justice and equity, withholding no essential public service by withholding the money to pay for it, but avoiding the equivalent folly of wasteful spending and the cardinal error of uneven taxation,” he said. “There needs to be a certain willingness, on the part of all of us, to make a certain sacrifice for our government which in a different way also means all of us [both emphases his.] ” When it came time for the governor to propose a tax program, however, “all of us” turned out to be the consumers. He recommended no taxes on business. “I don’t see an oil production tax, a gas tax, or a tax on excessive profits by corporations. All I see is more sales tax, broadening the sales tax,” liberal Sen. A. R. Schwartz of Galveston grumbled. “He’s sure got the lobby happy,” Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes commented. 8 March 7, 1969 Even conservative House Speaker Gus Mutscher allowed as how he had hoped to see a “better balance” between consumer and business taxes. The governor recommended a $5.9 billion spending bill, $318 million higher than the Legislative Budget Board proposal. Almost 90% of the extra funds is for educational expenses. Smith designed a $148.8 million tax program bringing liquor and beer under the 3% state sales tax \($40 including equipment rentals under the sales services \(just which services as yet unspeciTo balance his spending and taxing proposals, Smith also recommended two measures which appear to have almost no chance of passing the Legislature. The governor’s plan for a $10 surcharge on each moving traffic violation to raise $38.5 million in revenue was met with almost unanimous opposition. His endorsement of a proposal by Rep. Don Cavness, Austin, to divert an estimated $72 million from the permanent school fund to general revenue use is believed by many legislators to be unconstitutional. The Cavness plan would release income from leases, rentals, bonuses, and 721/2% of royalties from state lands which under the state constitution are allocated to the permanent school fund. Cavness argues that the state is losing money through inflation by holding onto the $788 million fund. State Land Commsr. Jerry Sadler, who administers the fund, believes that the plan is unconstitu tional, and he has asked Atty. Gen. Craw ford Martin for an opinion on the matter. THE SUNDAY after the governor presented his budget message, the state’s newspapers were full of columns condemning his plan. A number of Capitol correspondents accused Smith of abdicating his duty to present a workable tax program. They said he simply was going through the motions, leaving the agonizing business of coming up with a tax plan to legislators. The reporters pointed out that Governors Shivers, Daniel, and Connally, all conservatives, at least had introduced token taxes on business, but Smith had not. “Smith’s tax proposals are a corporate lobbyist’s dream,” one correspondent complained. It could have been worse. The governor is reported to have been planning to recommend removing the sales tax exemption on groceries until his aides convinced him that it would be a disastrous political move. For the most part, liberals in the House and Senate condemned Smith’s tax plan while congratulating him on his proposals to increase spending for education. An exception was Sen. Chet Brooks of Pasadena, a member of the liberal camp, who said Smith has “a very reasonable tax plan.” If a tax on business is to be passed this session, it probably will be at the insistence of the Senate, which is about evenly divided among liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Sen. Bill Moore, the con