STATEMENT OF OWNERSOW, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCUIATION \(Act or October 23, 1963; Section 4369. Publisher: File two copies of Ihi form with ‘nee podwaster. I. Date of Fiabg: Sept. 30, 1969. 2.TOW of Poblicalios: The Tema Otwonor. 3.Fnureency of law: Fortnightly. 4.Lomb. of know. office of 504 West 24111 St., Mono, T ode foamy. Tout 73705. 5.504 Wed 24111 St., Rustic., Theis County. Tome 73705. 6.Names and addremes of publisher. editor. .0d managing editor: PoblIsher prove and None. 7.Owner \(If owned by a corporation, lb name and address must be stated and sho immediateiy thereunder the wow sod addremes of slockhoklos owning or holding 1 percent at fame of total wmen’ of stack. If not emoted by corporation, the sows and oddments of the iodinieloal meows woo be ttbren. If owned by partuership or olher unincorporeted firm, As wow sad address, as well os Mat of each lodrndoel meet be W. 310 54., AMMO. Tears 75705. IL Room boodholden, wortgadems, and .oh security Redden soothe or hoIdlas percent or mono or total swam of bowie, sFortnee, at Win securities \(I\( dewe ear 0 0419 9.’For ceospletksa by. ceseitisatioea setbacks:I to load at specie’ rata \(Faction nets. efol d=:e, 10. Extant and ts. of SW* Woe Nearest Editryt Date A.Total Mo..copics piloted \(ael weenies 10,048 9.600 B.Paid chrulatiott I. Wks through drakes aid owlets. Nowt rookes, sad wont. sales 766 2. Mail roducriptflos 0,275 C.Total paid circelelices 9.041 or other ;WOWS 1.029 151 E. Total didrUnstion 10.070 9.157 P. Office use, leflover, owwwooted. spoiled after priming 375 443 G. Toot \(moo of 1 awl Fshoteki equal en pros not thown 10.44$ 9.600 I …Rik Ibui IN Mulumeelt mode by me Wow are comma and comptete. MD Form 3526. May 1963 Signed: Greg Oleb 400 0,106 0.906 Recall Election in Beaumont Beaumont The right and the super-right are battling for control of Beaumont’s city government. At present, an ultra-conservative contingent holds a tenuous 3-2 control of the city council. In an attempt to break that control, a coalition of voters with little in common except political beliefs to the left of George Wallace, have forced an election to recall Councilman Dale Hager, the leader of the majority faction. To hear Dr. Hager tell it, if Beaumont voters boot him out of office Nov. 1, the blame or credit will rest with “the Establishment.” Hager specifically has the Enterprise and Journal, and the city’s largest bank, First Security National, as being behind-the-scene leaders of the recall drive. The newspaper and the bank are part of the conservative Democratic hierarchy which traditionally has ruled the city. Hager points out that he and his compadres on the council did not endear themselves to First Security when they transferred city funds to another bank. But if these two corporate giants were responsible for the recall drive, it would seem that constant pleas for financial aid issued by leaders of the recall movement would not be necessary. Many of the 9,000 persons who signed the petitions seeking Hager’s removal might argue with claims that they are members of the establishment. Liberals, moderates, and The writer is on the staff of the Beaumont newspaper. 8 The Texas Observer conservatives all have found reason to differ with Hager’s brand of Wallaceite politics. THE RECALL MOVEMENT is well organized. Its leaders seem to have been able to cut across party lines for support. They probably learned from the mistakes of a group that attempted to recall all three of the men who make up the council majority. The earlier recall effort was led by the widely-respected United Citizens for Law Enforcement and Kim McMurray was endorsed by the North Beaumont Republican Women’s Club, as well as the leader of the area McCarthy campaign, attorney Robert Briggs. But, despite its apparent bi-partisan nature, the first recall attempt never really brought Hager’s critics together in an effective movement. This time the efforts jelled. The leaders of the present drive are three former members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission, whose resigations July 29 came on the heels of the council’s refusal, by a 3-2 vote, consider a minimum housing code which council had asked drawn up. Such 3-2 votes have been commonplace during recent months, but it wasn’t that way in May of 1968 when the present council was elected. Selected on the same Republican ticket with Hager were Gene Fears, Richard Seale and Ken . Ritter. Conservative Democrat James D. McNicholas was elected mayor running on a different slate. Since that election, however, Ritter has changed his thinking so radically that he is now the most vocal critic of the three-man majority. The three recall leaders architect DeWayne TeVault, lumberman C. L. Sherman, and accountant Walter Magee had expressed displeasure with the council’s stalling on the housing code \(which is similar to the one now being McNicholas repeatedly urged the code’s passage, but Hager and his cronies claimed the code would be “the first step” toward urban renewal, which is a nasty word in this labor-oriented but very conservative city. Beaumont voters have turned thumbs down on urban renewal twice, by heavy majorities. When TeVault, Sherman, and Magee quit their commission posts, they announced the next day they would seek Hager’s recall because of his “domination” of council and his “purge” of city employes. Since the present council has been in office, the city has lost two city managers, two city attorneys, one chief finance officer, one traffic engineer, and one chief accountant, not to mention many other lower echelon employes. An attempt by the Hager bloc to oust Police Chief Willie Bauer failed miserably when public opinion showed city residents were overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the chief. THE LATEST EXAMPLE of Hager’s “nerve” came when council voted, three to two, as usual, not to call the recall election, even though some 9,000 names had been certified by the city clerk on the petitions. Hager’s vote in this case was the deciding one, as it was when council authorized an appeal of a district court ruling ordering the election called. An appeals court later ruled Hager had voted illegally in matters involving himself. The excuse used by the Hager bloc was a legal technicality recall leaders had not actually filed an affadavit when they obtained the petitions, but the document filed was very similar. Besides, the Hager crew said, the courts should decide the recall issue. The recall leaders countered that they did not have succifient funds to obtain a lawyer and the legal oversight was due to their lack of experience in such matters. Had “the Establishment” been behind the movement, it would seem that the cost of a lawyer would not have been prohibitive. The council finally set the election date after the 9th Court of Civil Appeals backed up 60th District Court Judge Gordon Gary’s order to call the vote. The council set the Nov. 1 date on Sept. 30, seven hours before members could have been jailed for contempt of court. Henry Pressler, an unsuccessful candidate for Jack Brooks’ seat in Congress last year as a Republican-for-Wallace, cosigned an appeal with Hager during the legal maneuvering against the recall election. Also cosigning the bond, and thus showing his support for Hager, was Dr. Charles Walker, county . GOP chairman, who, like Hager, is identified with the ultraconservative John Birch Society branch of the party. Dr. Walker and Hager’s wife, as delegates to the 1968 GOP national convention, refused to cast votes for Richard Nixon, instead staying with’ Ronald Reagan all the way. Despite Dr. Walker’s apparent support of Hager, not all of the county’s Republicans are pleased with his maverick conservatism. It’s anybody’s guess as to whether voters will turn him out of office Nov. I. He has shaken up the traditional power structure of the city, and he has made numerous enemies. But anything goes in an area where last year at this time there was a profusion of automobiles carrying campaign stickers for both George Wallace and Don Yarborough.