Page 13


EDITOR CO-EDITOR ASSOCIATE EDITOR EDITOR AT LARGE REVIEW EDITOR Kaye Northcott Molly Ivins John Ferguson Ronnie Dugger Steve Barthelme Vol. LXV, No. 11 June 15, 1973 Incorporating the State . Observer and the East Texas Democrat, which in turn incorporated the Austin ForumAdvocate. Editorial and Business Offices: The Texas Observer, 600 W. 7th St., Austin, Texas 78701. Telephone 477-0746. 7,42101,Y, paying for it with his money and that left from his speakership campaign. However, a week after the party Sam Kinch, Jr., of the Dallas Morning News disclosed that lobbyists had in fact paid part of the bill for the ‘ party. It seems that the five members who handled the arrangements at least $4,700 of the total tab of $6,000 to $8,000.. And they raised money from the “third House.” “Purely voluntary,” said the speaker and his lieutenants, pointing out that in the past lobbyists have been assigned their “fair share” for such festivities and have been expected to ante up. Daniel did not help himself by promising to make public a list of the donors to the party and then failing to produce it before the end of the session. Another much-awaited list of names has yet to materialize: the “list of participants” in the “cruel scheme” to gut HB 2. Daniel promised to name names in a statement released a week before sine die. Some observers feel that Daniel has shown a tendency to shoot from the hip, being quick to fire off charges about threats to “his” bills. On the other hand, it’s an effective political ploy to cast those who oppose your bills as pawns of the vile lobby. Daniel’s running battle with Bill Hobby has consisted mostly of releases along these lines \(answered, of course, by THE ETHICS bill, HB 1, was intended all along to be a cornerstone for Daniel’s reform package. Its Career got as checkered as a career can be, with the Agnich amendment and HB 1522 \(a thrown in by the House, not to mention Herring’s hammerlock on the bill in his committee and Hobby’s convening and then ignoring his Citizens Conference. Eventually, though, the Senate passed a version of HB 1, drafted rather sloppily in Hobby’s office, thus clearing the way for a conference committee to adjust what were some pretty obvious differences. \(There was at least a technical chance that the House would accept the Senate changes, but once the fearsome Jim Nugent got warmed up to move for rejection of the complete substitute calling it a “mewing pussycat,” a “whimpering echo” and “pablum” to boot one got the feeling his Whereas the House version of the bill covered both elected and appointed officials, as well as certain employees, the Senate contented itself with regulating elected officers and the secretary of state. The financial statement required by the Senate draft did not include the value of income, loans or property \(nothing worth Nor did it include gifts. There were no standards of conduct in the draft, though it repealed the present law with its guidelines for , probity. No penalties were provided for violation of the “prohibited acts” section. The prohibited acts were misuse of official information, carrying out official transactions with a business entity in which the covered . official had a substantial representing, for compensation, another person before a state agency except in certain cases. The House version included ,those proscriptions, but also would have forbidden a covered official’s working for an agency which licensed or regulated a business in which he had a substantial interest \(unless the agency were the as well as prohibiting him from receiving compensation for his official duties from any source other than the state. Enforcement of the provisions of the Senate version was another sore spot with the House. The ethics commission was ruled out; complaints would be filed with the secretary of state, the attorney general or a district attorney. Any of those officials could obtain a court order to compel filing if a covered . official failed to make his financial disclosure. Failure to file would also be grounds for removal from office \(or from the ballot, in the case of a statement would carry a misdemeanor perjury penalty. When Daniel saw what the Senate had wrought, he fired off a letter to Atty. Gen. John Hill , asking for an opinion on the constitutionality of certain provisions and on the interpretation of others. Hill responded with an 11-page advisory letter which opined that the Senate”s attempted disqualification of officers or candidates who fail to file disclosure forms was unconstitutional. He also pointed out that candidates for elective office would be required to file only the candidate’s disclosure form and no later report. In response to another of Daniel’s questions, Hill advised that the Senate’s failure to define “public office” and “civil position of trust” would bring almost all state employees under the bill. At the same time, Hill wrote another letter to Daniel and to Hobby, summarizing his earlier opinion on the House version of the bill and reiterating that it had no serious constitutional The Texas Observer Publishing Co. Ronnie Dugger, Publisher A window to the South A journal of free voices THE TEXAS OBSERVER Contributing Editors: Winston Bode, Bill Brammer, Gary Cartwright, Sue Horn Estes, Joe Frantz, Larry Goodwyn, Bill Hamilton, Bill Helmer, Dave Hickey, Franklin Jones, Lyman Jones, Larry L. King, Georgia Earnest Klipple, Larry Lee, Al Melinger, Robert L. Montgomery, Willie Morris, Bill Porterfield, James Presley, Charles Ramsdell, 1973 Buck Ramsey, John Rogers, Mary Beth Rogers, Roger Shattuck, Edwin Shrake, Dan Strawn, John P. Sullivan, Tom Sutherland. We will serve no group or party but will hew hard to the truth as we find it and the right as, we see it. We are dedicated to the whole truth, to human values above all interests, to the rights of man as the foundation of democracy; we will take orders from none but our own conscience, and never will we overlook or misrepresent the truth to serve the interests of the powerful or’ cater to the ignoble in the human spirit.. _ The editor has exclusive control over the editorial policies and contents of the Observer. None of the other people who are associated with the enterprise shares this responsibility with her. Writers are responsible for their own work, but not for anything they have not themselves written, and in publishing them the editor does not necessarily imply that she agrees with them, because this is a journal of free voices. BUSINESS STAFF Erne _st G. Boardman Jr. Joe Espinosa Jr. C. R. Olofson David Sharpe The Observer is published by Texas Observer Publishing Co., biweekly from Austin, Texas. Entered as second-class matter April 26, 1937, at the Post Office at Austin, Texas, under the Act of March 3, 1879. Second class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Single copy, 25c. One year, _ $7.00; two years, $13.00; three years. $18.00; plus, for Texas addresses, 5% sales taxi Foreign, except APO/FPO, 50c additional per year. Airmail, bulk orders, and group rates on request. Microfilmed by Microfilming Corporation of America, 21 Harristown Road, Glen Rock, N.J. 07452. Change of Address: Please give old and new address, including zip codes, and allow two weeks. Postmaster: Send form 3579 to Texas Observer, 600 W. 7th St., Austin, Texas 78701.