Page 16


Since 1866 The Place in Austin GOOD FOOD GOOD BEER 1607 San Jacinto 477-4171 Alowswee sillily 11011s1 the head” of college administrators. Rep. Wilson Foreman of Austin said such a provision would just cause a lot of confusion in future legislatures. Rep. Larry Bales of Austin, who happens to be running for Jake Pickle’s congressional seat, said he used to be anti-PUF but had had a change of heart \(Rep. Ray Hutchison remarked, “I think the regents have you in adoption of the Washington amendment came down to an 82-82 dead heat. Daniel declined to vote, letting the amendment die. \(He explained later that he didn’t want to exacerbate the divisions among delegates and, besides, Rep. Kay Bailey of Houston had pushed her button the wrong way and would have moved for reconsideration, anyway. Approximately 81 delegates were WITH THAT debate as prelude, no one expected the hassle over Section 10 to make perfect sense. For the next two days, the votes wavered and wobbled. Opponents of the committee report sought three different kinds of limitations on the fund: a ceiling on the amount dedicated, a ceiling on the amount of bonded debt that colleges would be allowed to incur and some reservation of authority for the Legislature to oversee allocation and spending of the money. ‘A comprehensive alternative was introduced several times by Reps. Neil Caldwell and Ray Hutchison: it would have established the fund without guaranteeing an amount, provided funding from general revenue or continuation of the present 10q-per-$100 valuation state ad valorem tax, and allowed the Legislature broad discretion in disbursing the money. On one go-round, the amendment was tabled by two votes. When Caldwell tried again, it seemed for a few minutes that he had succeeded: a motion to table failed 74-83. But the amendment was sunk, 86-72, by a barrage of charges that it was “nothing but a tax bill in the Constitution.” \(Several of the speakers misrepresented the ad valorem tax provision as “absolutely unlimited.” Caldwell tried to point out that the amendment authorized the tax only until the Legislature `.`diminished or abolished” it, but no argument is stronger than a legislator’s fear of writing a tax bill. The misrepresentation did nothing to encourage Uncertainty over the fund was thus at its height when Mattox introduced his amendment. Even then, it was an appeal by Rep. Lynn Nabers of Brownwood constitutional purism comes from the strangest places to “let the Legislature set the priorities for spending” that most influenced the delegates. And then, at last, the convention reached its absolute tie. There was nowhere to go except to compromise. Caldwell and Hutchison met that night with Dan Kubiak, who chaired the education committee, and Sen. Jack Hightower, who carried the committee’s Section 10 on the floor, to write a way out of the impasse. They came up with a SHEAF guaranteeing $41 million \(the rather than requiring, future Legislatures to increase it. Their compromise also allowed legislative control over allocation of the fund. Mattox made a last-ditch effort on behalf of purity, thumping a borrowed Bible and comparing himself to the prophet who married a prostitute and “just kept preaching to her. Well I’m gonna keep preaching to you.” The delegates turned him down, 107-55. The fund hassle and its resolution \(compromising over the details of statutory language in the constitution while the continue to haunt the convention. The delegates moved from Section 10 to Section 11, which would have established the College Coordinating Board. They voted one day to leave the board in. The next day, they voted to delete it. The board was left with its statutory status, charged with overseeing higher education but bereft of the specific authority or the clout to oppose either colleges or their legislative partisans. And, as the Observer was going to press, the convention was locked in a wrangle over creating a third dedicated fund. This one would support the Texas State Technical Institute, a vocational training’ complex. Junior colleges were reportedly trying to get cut in on the fund. Failing that, they may even seek a fourth fund. None of this helps alleviate the pessimism of people who are still hoping for a constitution that would improve on the bulky 1876 document. As the moment when the constitution will need to win 121 legislative votes and a majority of votes in the November election draws nearer, they wonder how the necessary compromise will look. There is always the possibility that the necessity for compromise, and the passage of time and rancor, will change legislators’ minds about a number of issues. The history of the CRC suggests such a view: the commission members were always thinking better of one action or another, amending their draft over and over. But there is an equal possibility that delegates will seek to pile up 121 votes by including dedicated funds, or equivalent provisions, to placate 121 interests. The time for motions to reconsider earlier votes has not yet arrived. Hold your breath. J.F. Personal Service Quality Insurance ALICE ANDERSON AGENCY INSURANCE & REAL ESTATE 808A E. 46th, Austin, Texas 465-6577 March 15, 1974 1 We are interested in publishing 1 books on Texas, etc. If you have I a manuscript, please write a short we will advise you at once if we I are interested in looking at the I manuscript. FUTURA PRESS Phone 512/4427836 I 1714 SOUTH CONGRESS I I P.O. BOX 3485 AUSTIN, TEXAS I Im o somemosommosommenweememensoll A MOTOR HOTEL OF DISTINCTION Executive suites \(with kitchen3 large swimming pools; Function Rooms and Conference space; Private Club and lounge for guests; Airport and Limousine Service; Di rectly across from ASTRODOME ASTROWORLD minutes from downtown 8330 South Main Street HOUSTON, TEXAS