|
N388 CONFERENCE
GOVERNO FARRIS BRXAHT
DECEMBER 13, 1962
NEVSMEN PARTIOIBAQINO: Robert . Delaney ORLANDO SENTINEL~STAR2
James Oillespy, UNITED mass mmnrxonni; Jerry Monk, JOHN a. ram
sagaszazmemnm
PRESS; Ray Starr, HERB; Stan Tarilton, FLORIDA BROADCAST saws; Geo e
um,m; Martin Waldron, 81'. PETERSBURO ems-rum
GOVERNOR: Good morning.
R. STARR: Would you rather be in Florida?
mason: Right. The warmest place east of the Mississippi. (laughter)
DELANEY: What goes on in reapportionment?
GOVERHOR: I do hear it's gone down below 52 this morning, though.
MORRIS: Is that on the Senate Worship? (laughter)
DELANZY: Or the house?
GOVERNOR: There is nothing new on reapportionment as or this morning
different from what I have previously said.
DELANEY: were you accurately reported, Governor, as saying day before
yesterday that you would have some statement in the next day or two?
GOVERNOR: Yes. I am expecting a report from the President or the
Senate and the Speaker-or the House on some inquiries which they
were making relative to possibilities in the reapportionmant field.
I hope to receive that report today, as a matter or fact, and on the
basis or it will probably make certain, perhaps final, decisions in
this field.
B. STARR: By final, do you mean either so or no?
OOVERHOR: Yes.
HOOK: Do you still consider any commitment you might have made to
larger counties Just before this last special session?
OOVEROB: Say that again. Any commitment I ever made is --
HOOK: You might have made. The secret meetings that you had here
Just before the Legislature, which was Sunday night?
GOVERNOR: Yes. Anything that I said I still stand by. I dont know
to what you refer. Let me say this with regard to -o you know you
can talk to a man and tell him: "I am going to Tampa this afternoon,"
and than you change your mind and decide not to go to Tampa, but
he says you are committed to so to Tampa. Hell, now, you might
not have made your statement in that context, so when you Just say,
-10-
GOVERNOR: Yes. From Smokey hollow on around inside the railroad
south to the area now oeoupied by the baseball and reotbnll field.
Centennial Field, and there in another field Just soroee the street
tree it. I would hope that we could acquire the entire property.
D. StARR: How big is that, Governor?
common: 1 don't know, but it is u lot or land and it would be
compact and very workable unit.
mm: In that within the original bounds of what was called the
Capitol Center?
GOVERNOR: I.think not. I think it was not all.
Won: 'ould it be preterahle to expanding northward in that
slightly blighted buoinese erea.north or the present capitol Center?
GOVERNOR: It would.be 3 lot less expeneive.
D. STARR: In there anything down there now? I on not too familiar
with it.
GOVERNOR: Yes. there'is. The County Jail in in that area. the
Blood Bank in in the area, the gee plant. power transformers. perks.
DELhHEY: The County health Department in all in there.
D. STARR: Do people lite there?
GOVERNOR: Yea. In Smokey Hollow there is a good-deal or housing.
THURSTON: That's a good word for it.
WALDRONx How are you going to finance this?
GOVERNOR: It depends upon propooele now being made. There ere
lots of News to finance it.
DELANBY: Could I ask one more question about reapportionment: have
you heard any ouggeetiono from any membero or the Legislature of
taking this matter of reepportionment into the state courte?
GOVERROU: No. I don't believe I have.
IIIANEY: Do you think it might be a good idea?
GOVERNOR: To do what? what will you do when you.teke it there'
DELhEY: Fell. I have heard two different propoeelo: One to
enJoin the payment of eelnriee since the Legislature has been called
"null, void and proopeetively inoperative, and another to ask the
etete court to reepportion alone there hen been an apparent deadlock
reached by the Legieletnre itself.
GOVERNOR: Well. I on really loot in the middle of thie Jungle --
anything in possible.
-11.
kLKREY: Do you think it would be better to heve this done, if it's
going to be done, by the state court rather than the federal court?
GOVKRHOR: Well that's sort of like asking you which arm do you
went out off. (laughter) I might rather have my left arm out off,
but really I would rather you didn't do it at all.
DELABEY} are you right handed.or left handed?
GOVERDR: That's right. I think in this case I am right handed.
and I would any that would be cutting of the left arm.
NORRIS: Hell, in a situation or this kind it the Attorney-General
the state's lawyer? Does he have the sole responsibility of
pursuing this matter? Does he have a client who might give him
some suggestions for what to do?
GOVERNOR: "or course again we are in an area we have never been in.
He is the adviser to the Cabinet, he is the man to whom we are
accustomed to looking for decisions on legal matters. There is a
line between policy and legal decisions -- legal in the technical
tense he has undoubted authority and responsibility in a legal
or technical sense. or course, he can also make policy'deoioions.
However. when he makes those policy decisions it seems to me that
he makes them as an individual elected official and not representing
the total of the utnte authority.
mounts: M I understand it. he has said he would not appeal
whatever the Federal Court at Miami does, and I wondered if he wan
speaking simply on an individual or whether he was roeponding to
the direction or hie-clients?
'OOVZRNOR: well I believe, and I have not discussed this with him -
hut from what I understand, I believe he is speaking for himself.
I know of no such advice that has been given to him by membera or
the cabinet or officials of the Legiclature.
DILANEY: You Here speaking a while ago about hareh alternatives --
I would still like to pursue that point or if you were confronted
with the harah alternative of the court doing it, do you think the
state court might be better equipped"
GOVERNOR: I said I thought that would be like cutting oft my left
hand. and I am right handed.
-12-
Wm: 30 you would prefer that 1r you had to make a choice?
(laughter) I am trying to get you pinned a little better.
GOVERNOR: That's about-as far as I can go. I don't want to
suggest that I would prefer it. It might hurt less that way, than
the other way.
Are there further Quentions? Thank you, gentlemen.
SEVERAL: Thank you, Governor.
-2-
had 1 made any commitment -- any constituent 1 made as such I stand by.
Moon: wan, since it wasnt mesa public I didn't know. I didnt
have enough to pin you down.
comma: wan, that's good. (laughter)
TRORSTON: Governor, you said before the last special session that
you would not look kindly on a statutory change in the constitutional
apportionment fermuls. Do you still feel that way?
OOVBRROR: I still feel that way. The circumstances surrounding the
respportionment situation have considerably changed. At the time I
spoke it was possible to reform the apportionment provisions in two
ways: one was by constitutional amendment and one was by statute.
under those circumstances, I was firm in insisting upon the
constitutional amendment method. The passage of time has eliminated
that method. It is no longer possible to reapportion by constitutional
amendment prior to the legislative session. The choice now has
become one between having the Legislature do it at all by any method
-- and the only method left is statute -- and having the court do it.
As betueen those harsh alternatives, I prefer the statutory method
by the Legislature.
TRURSTONc If the statutory process were to produce an answer that
you regard as still unfair, do you feel that this method is subject
to your veto?
GOVERNOR: Yes, it is.
HALDROH: Nell, Governor, will you make a public statement sometime
today on your decision from the report from Mr. Horne and Mr.
Carraway?
GOVERNOR: If I do get the report and it is a final report - it may
be that they will say they haven't quite completed -- and therefore
I'll still not be able to reach a conclusion. .But I would expect
to do so.
R. STARR: Governor, from the statements that were issued after
your meeting with Mr. Horne and Hr. Carraway the other day, it would
seem that the problem is more in the House than it is in the Senate.
Is this true?
GOVERNOR: No. I would say not.
DELAN823 Is the opposite true?
GOVERNOR: No.
-3~
hELANEY: Mar 0: a problem in the House?
GOVERNOR: No. I think there are problems in raapportionment in both
houses.
DELAEEY: Governor, you speak about this statutory reapportionment.
Are you talking now about reapportionment within the confines of
28 senatorial districts?
GOVEROR: That is a possibility. I am not limiting myself to that.
As I View the 38 senatorial proposal, it is subject to the same defect,
and or course, is subject to the some advantages as any other
statutory figure. The existing order says that our preaent
constitutional and statutory provisions are prospectively inoperative
or at least are invidiously discriminatory. That, of course, applies
to the 38 provision, as well as any other.
HELANEY: Well, what provision would be made under this approach for
the people to either reject or approve this?
GOVERHOR: They cannot do this before April. There is no way for it
to be done.
DELANEY: Will they be able to do it after April?
GOVERNOR: I Would presume that -~ I would hope that it could be
done after April.
DELANEY: In other words, would it be accompanied with a consti-
tutional amendment passed by 3/5ths rather than B/Rths?
GOVERNOR: Frankly, this is what I am trying to get -- a statute and
a constitution which are identical in their terms, the one to meet
the emergency situation we face because of the necessity of having
a valid Legislature on the one hand, and on the other to provide an
opportunity for the people to speak at the general election in 196R.
DELhNEY¢ In other words, your statute would hinge upon ultimate
approval by the people?
GOVERNOR: Correct.
VALDBON: You have had a.good bit or experience in the House. Do
you think that a large delegation would be effective?
-£-
Again it depends upon personalities. but assuming that you don't
-heve unusual personalities but Just the type of personalities you
would normally expect in a Legislature -- and or.oouree there are
always some unusual oneo I would not think that a large delegation
would be more effective for a particular county than a amall one.
In a way it might be less effective. How ydu would have the benefit
of more wind: working on state-wide problems, but I don't think
per ae numbers will bring to counties the benefits that they feel
will be derived.
VALDRON: Well, an ll-men delegation from a county, euoh as
Hilleborough. which has local laws, could you foresee instances or
complete chaos"
GOVERNOR: well, I can foresee instances of complete disagreement.
wnLnnon: Thet'o what I meant.
'BOVERNOR: Yea. I can think or many 6-5 situations, not only on
looal legislation but on general legislation, but if this refleote
the voice of the people then this is what it ought to he.
MORRIS: well, might not the larger delegations cause an entirely
new approach to local legislation?
GOVERNOR: Quite conceivably. There might be a larger or greater
tendency to delegate to the counties in some form or other the local
responsibilities because of the imprectioebllity or large delegations:
acting repidly on local propooele. It was alnaye=my experience that
even in those counties which had hearings large counties that in
which had legislative beeringe before a session. there were always
things coming up in great numbers during the session which must he
considered by the local delegation.
DELhNEY: Have you noticed a trend. Governor.1n legislative thinking
away from increasing the House by a oubetantiel number-end toward
keeping the House smell, Just recently?
GOVERNOR: Well. the House very definitely would prefer to do that.
yes, that is true.
mm: why do you think this?
GOVERNOR: Oh. there is e fear that lhh or 100 or 135 is not a
prnctical number to Operate. Actually, we have 95, on far as we
today are concerned, virtually by accident. I am not afraid of 1uu
-5-
n- homered m: 95. I think there may be a problem in the
specific countica where we have ten or eleven peraona, but lhh
people in my Judgment can work together as well as 95.
HELANEY: Have you not heard from some or the members an expression
or tear that the people don't want more members or the Legislature?
GOVERNOR: Oh, yea, I've heard that.
UBLNEY: Do you think there is.any validity to that?
GOVERHOR: Yet, it is quite conceivable to me that a number of people
voted against the last propocal not because it save them too little
but because it gave them too much. And when you combine the too
littlera, the too hunters and the don't knowcrs you get a pretty
good group or people. (laughter)
THDSTON: Governor, have you had any reports from down the state
in the winter crop areas?
OVERHOR: no. I have been trying to get them this morning, but I
do not have as yet.
THURSEON: no you have anything at all that you can tell us about
what the N30 referred to this morning as a dioaatcr situation in
portions or the south?
OOVENDR: No. I.wouid say that that would have to be speculation
at thin time. Although, or course, the indicationa are significant.
its too early for me to reach such a conclusion.
MORRIS: Deco it not mean that you will have to take an even harder
look at the new budget: o- budget proposala?
GOVERNOR: Yes, it does. It in true that Florida's revenues by and
large are not based upon its agricultural procuctivity -- that is,
lorida's government revenues are not based very largely upon
agricultural activity. .But the economic welfare or its people,
which is a direct and immediate concern of the government, is
significantly affected.
TBTON: "111 you attempt a revised estimate or the state's income
over the next biennium in light or this week's weather?
GOVERNOR: Continually in the estimates we make we consider
significant factors and this may he one of them.
WALDRON: Hell, actually, the budget hearings that you are under
going now are more in the line of reports to you and the cabinet
-6.
than anything else aren't they?
GOVERNOR: Correct. After we have heard these reports, then we will
try to reach come general policy for an approach to consideration.
WALDRON: Governor. have you ever taken a position on the 75-25 on
the Minimum Foundation?
GOVERNOR: I did at the last ccceion, yes.
VKLDBON: I didn't recall -- what was that?
GOVERNOR: It never came to me for any kind or action. I felt at
the time that we ought not to do it. I have been considering its
possibility for the next session. it we were to put in for the next
biennium the 75-25 proposal the state could as a result or that
proposal look forward to spending oVer the biennium an additional
$41 million.
HALDRO: That was the point I wanted to raise -- this would
increase the state's share some do million?
OOVERHOR: That in correct.
WALDRGN: which would mean a complete revision or the tax structure
in order to take care of it?
GOVERNOR: It could. When you say a complete revision, it means you
would have to get some more money.
"WON: The: in what I mean.
GOVERNOR: Yes. sir. I have oomething on the otatuc of the plans
for reorganization of our Nationcl Guard which you might be
interested in. Since the proposal was received from the Secretary
or the Army on December h, we have been analyzing it in the light
or its cuitnbility to the State or Florida for both-its state and
its federal mission. HcJor General Kenry w. McMillan, the Adjutant
General, has Just returned from Uachington where he conferred on the
plan with officials in the Pentagon on well as with other Adjutanto
General on certain details of the plan. As you know the Governors'
Conference advisory Committee on the National Guard. headed by
Governor Vondiver of Georgia has also been giving active study to
the problems involved. Governor vendiver and his committee are
considering the proposal from the standpoint of the ctional Guard
throughout the entire country. The recommendation that his committee
might make, therefore, might have some effect on the position that
.7.
1 would take as regards the plan- tor the Florida National Guard. I
intend to he in touch with then in the next ten Gaye and after that
will make a decision as to the acceptability of the preposals for
the Florida National Guard. The plan as presented by the Pentagon
or the Department of Defence would eliminate from Florida all
elemento of the Slat Infantry Division, which in one or the four
diViaione being eliminated from the National Guard troop basis in
the nation. The u8th Armored Division would go entirely to the
State of Georgia, which means that we would give up our part of
that Pine division. There would also be eliminated certain other
non-division units. We would get in return a divisional operational
headquarters and an infantry brigade, an well as groups and
battalions composed of infantry, artillery, engineers. anti-aircraft
artillery. special Corona, ordinance, signal. medical. army aviation
and other type units. Many of these units would be or the come type
which we presently have and therefore, would call for no change in
organisation, arms and equipment at the local or company level.
HOwcver. there would be come changes in order to give no the proper
mix of combat and support type elements to make the Florida National
Guard self contained and oelt-oufticient. which would improve our
situation from the otandpoint of training and administration.
Strengthwioe the new proposal in about the name as we now have in
our Army National Guard ~ approximately 7.500. I would hope that
we would be able to send our own Florida National Guard to sUMMer
field training altogether at one time and place. Thin would he
a great advantage to us. There is nothing in the plan which would
call for elimination of our National Guard in any community where
we now have a unit. and we will thuo have a need for our presently
existing racilitiea. There will be available to you here a list or
units included in the proposal which I received from the oecretary.
When the matter is settled upon and agreed as to the troop list
tor the Elorida National Guard, it will be the function of the
addutant general working with our key commanders throughout the
state. to decide upon the geographical location and allocation to
communities or the various units.
R; STRRR: I take it from your otatenent. Governor, that you think
this is a good swap?
.8-
GOVERNOR: For Florida it leaves us with a very workable single
adminietrative organization without depriving any community of
tooilitiee end troop components it now has. Before we were divided
into two divisions commends owitohed book and forth from one
ototo to another -- we worked with Georgia. with South Carolina -
thio may we would be a little better organized and entirely within
Florida. however. we take the position that the national Guard
rituation is a national problem and we are interested not in Just
getting good unite for Florida, although that is our primary
concern, but trying to see to it that the total national Guard
picture io one consistent with what we feel ought to be.
winner": no the stator have any kind or veto power under this
reorganisation?
GOVEHROR: I don't know.
BELaY: Well has it been in the federal courts?
GOVERNOR: No.
R. STARR: If they did, Governor. where would this veto power come
from?
GOVBRHOB: Nell, we don't have to do it it we don't want to. We
don't have to have a national Guard in Florida it we don't wont to.
R. STKRR: In other words. it would be up to each state?
GOVERNOR: I on euro that's true. Let me Just say that there has
been no thought or suggestion or on attempted veto. Thin ie on
ooedemio dioouooion you are engaged in at the mounnt.
*WALDRON: There has been some fussing from Alabama and Georgia
about the make-up of their guard unite.
GOVERSDR: I connect that there will be in a number of stator
around the notion.
OKLAHEY: Yesterday the Budget Connieeion heard e request for I
believe, $80 thousand dollars, for renovating the Capitol corridors
and lowering the oeilinsn. In light of the latent report on the
condition or the Capitol building. do you think thet would be a wine
expenditure?
GOVERNOR: I have been working with city and county ofrioielo and
with the other members or the Cabinet. to see 1: we can't achieve
acquisition or a great area or lend here-in the Capitol Center,
which would solve our expansion problem for many years to come. If
.9-
that is successful on terms that we can live with, I anticipate there
in a possibility that we will begin construction or buildings which
will permit us within the next two years. at least to lay the
foundation for the reconstruction of the central portion of the
Capitol. If this be done then. or course, the renovation indicated
would not'be wise. I! that is not successful. I think we ought to
sertusly consider the suggested renovation of the type outlined
by 8r. Garland. the Arts Commissioner.
DELAHEY: Haven't we put hundreds or thousands of dollars into
piecemeal renovation and rehabilitation in this Capitol building
over the last ten years?
GOVERNOR: Right. Most of it, however, is at one end or the other.
Ihich would not as I understand.it, or as I propose, be affected.
GILLESPÂ¥: You anticipate that if you can get additional land to
build buildings on that you would put the peeple in the middle part
or the Capitol building in them so you can rebuild it, is that what
you mean?
GOVERNOR: ight. what I would like to do....
DBLnNBY: then it would be rebuilt on this same site?
GOVERHOR: "hat I would.like to do in to get the large area that
we are contemplating and initially start out with the construction
of a new Read Departmznt building. Sell the present Road Department
building to some other agency or the government. It ought to be
available 3 couple or years from now, or a little loos than that,
move the personnel in that portion or the Capitol affected by the
reconstruction program into the existing Head Department building;
rebuild the center or the Capitol, move the people back, and about
that time we will need the existing load Department building for
additional office space. This use the general scheme that I had in
mind.
TURSTON: Governor, do you contemplate the construction or a
legislative building separate from the Capitol?
GOVERNOR: That was not involved one way or the other in the plan
that I outlined.
raunsrou: Could you give us an idea or what area of the city is
under consideration?
|
