ustxtxb_obs_1972_02_18_50_00015-00000_000.pdf

Page 7

by

enaissance nil & Lio Grande, c alustin Serbing fine food and buffet lunches from 11 a. m. ondatj -aturdag reakfast! Nuftet c tgle! midnight 1:30 a. m. Ariba u & \(aturtiag Quickest lunch! in talon c liontrag -Ariting uffet The gutting of the rules Now, we are not trying to force anything down anyone’s throat. John Brunson during the Jan. 29 meeting of the SDEC rules subcommittee Gaaggh. Agh. Agh. Quiet response from a distinguished observer Austin Actually, there was no forcing needed. The Orr faction presented an alternate set of party “reform” rules at the last minute that slid through the subcommittee slicker’n a Frank Sharp banking bill. The 12 new members Orr had added after the original subcommittee came up with the Anderson rules provided a comfortable margin for the Brunson rules. The Brunson rules came in like a blue norther. Until a few days before the subcommittee meeting, those not privy to the plot assumed the conservatives would try to amend the Anderson rules. But new rules were drawn during the week before the subcommittee meeting by Brunson, an extremely conservative Houston lawyer who is a Briscoe man, and Robert W. lawyer, both of whom are close to Roy Orr. Had they come into that meeting and simply presented their rules on their own authority, the Anderson forces most likely could have convinced the majority of the subcommittee that the Brunson rules just did not comply with the Fraser Commission guidelines. Alas for that tactic, Brunson and Smith brought with them a letter from U.S. Rep. Donald Fraser saying that the Brunson rules were indeed in compliance. The realization that the Brunson rules had actually been approved by the Fraser Commission, on which most everyone had counted to see that a decent set of rules was installed, knocked the wind clean out of the Anderson forces. They promptly began suspecting, if not accusing, the Fraser Commission of having acted in bad faith. The Fraser people then got up on their collective high horse and put it out that they resented being made the heavy in the piece. According to Fraser himself, “We had a visit from several of the new members of the committee this last week and they presented some alternative rules which our staff went over very carefully. We then sent a further telegram to Ms. Patman in response to her question as to which set of rules most fully complied with the recommendations of the Commission. Of course those which she supported did because they included a provision for proportional voting.” The meeting between the Fraser Commission staff and the Brunson-Smith people was arranged by Lloyd Hackler, administrative assistant to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen. The Brunson-Smith people worked out of Bentsen’s office while they were in Washington. After the Anderson forces got a good look at the Brunson rules, the excrement started flying all over and Hackler became quite defensive. He told Houston liberals that Bentsen had been out of the city when the meetings took place, that the use of the office had been offered as a normal courtesy and that the same would have been done for the Anderson forces, had they appeared in D.C. BENTSEN HIMSELF, in his statesman role, told The Houston Post that he is prepared to step in and try to resolve the differences between the factions. He also said he was totally opposed to the unit rule, which was brave of him it’s been out for three and a half years now and that he was anxious to see young people, minorities and women properly represented on the Texas delegation. Privately, Bentsen’s attitude, as reported by members of both factions, is that he doesn’t want to get involved. Preston Smith, who has been a stalwart for the Anderson rules throughout, issued a strong statement expressing his disappointment that the Anderson rules had not been adopted. He said it would be “tragic” if the party adopted rules that denied full participation in the party to any segment of the population. Smith also called on fellow Democratic officials a challenge to Barnes to endorse the Anderson rules. Barnes in turn wound up on the defensive, denying that he had ever endorsed the Brunson rules. He was quoted saying different things in different papers on the subject. At one point, he seemed close toan outright endorsement of the Anderson rules, but has not made one so far. The Brunson rules are in truth a little grim. To take only the highlights: as far as delegate selection is concerned, the Brunson rules offer winner-take-all at the precinct conventions \(51 percent of the convention elects 100 percent of the county conventions \(51 percent of the convention elects 100 percent of the the Brunson rules as originally written provided that senatorial district caucuses nominate 75 percent of the delegates, who would then be elected by the convention as a whole. The Fraser Commission said that was flatly out of line with their guidelines and so the Brunson rules were amended to read that 75 percent of the delegates be elected by senatorial district caucuses. The remaining 25 percent of the delegates are to be at-large, nominated by the committee on delegates and then elected by the convention as a whole. The committee on delegates, like all the other convention committees, is to be comprised of one representative elected from each of the 31 senatorial districts and six members appointed by the chairman of the convention. The chairman of each committee is to be additionally appointed by the chairman of the convention. THE BRUNSON RULES give a phenomenal amount of power to the chairman of the SDEC, more, in fact, than has been his lot in the past. One of the provisions of the Anderson rules said that the state convention was to be the supreme February 18, 1972 15