Really, where it started, I think, was the total controls that the
speaker had. That was one of the things that we were starting out
against. If you weren't on the team, if you didn't vote, regardless of
what your constituency might be, if you didn't go along with the team,
you were just ostracized. It didn't matter what the merit of your
legislation was, you couldn't get started. And then, of course, early in
the term, so far as I was concerned, I could see conflict of interests
everyplace you turned. Because there was a kind of climate up there that
if you didn't exploit your public office, you really weren't with it,
you were sort of a square. For example, the things that you were hearing
about were appearing before agencies of your clients and so on, on down
the line. Investing in companies that might have something going on, all
that type of thing. There wasn't even
Page 2 criticism of
it. I remember that on the floor of the house, a legislator telling me
how much a group in a big city here had turned over to the speaker, who
didn't have any "serious" opposition, as a campaign fund. These were all
campaign funds for people that didn't have opposition, to speak of. It
is all this stuff that you read about, but you just saw it firsthand
there. So, it was a multi-faceted thing. It wasn't in the beginnings of
it, but the impetus for it came out of the so-called "Sharpstown Banking
Bills" and the disclosures made by the SEC about a year and a half after
their passage. And you know, you can look back and say, "Oh, it looks
all cut and dried and this was the reform session of the legislature,"
but it didn't start out that way, that is all hindsight. You look at one
thing. I know that we were working for rules changes. For example, such
things as that the conference committee on appropriations would have to
use the guidelines of what came out of the house and senate bill, rather
than going outside those guidelines, which has been what happened. For
all practical purposes, the appropriations bill was written by the
conferees. We went through the exercise in the house and senate, but it
didn't mean anything. And this kind of thing didn't mean . . . and this
wasn't the first session that that had been pushed. I can recall that in
my first session, I had attempted as a rules change, to have at least a
record of the committee testimony. Because I had had first hand
experience with my experience with the land commissioner where witnesses
would take an oath and then there was no record of what they testified
to, which made the matter meaningless. So, it came from different
problems like that, but then the substantive matter came with the
Sharpstown Bills. And again, we stay with procedure because the
procedure was so much a part of what went on and what didn't go on. For
example the consent calendar where
Page 3 one time and we
were passing something that averaged a bill a minute. So that you had to
do something about correcting the procedure before you could get to the
substantive matter. What happened in a sense with the Sharpstown Bills,
the speaker's head lieutenant got up and said that it was a good bill,
that it would help the small banks and that was it. And because it was a
speaker's bill, automatically, there would be whatever number of
committee chairmen that we had and the vice-chairmen. That was part of
getting those positions, so, I mean that there was no substantive
discussion. And in a way, that's why I want to say that the procedural
part was so much a part of what we were trying to do. But again, you
didn't know where it was going to lead in the beginning and I still
sometimes have second thoughts about where it has led now. I think we
have the veneer of much, but I don't know if we have anything else. It
wasn't cut and dried in the beginning. When we tried to get an
investigation of . . . all I wanted when I asked the resolution, was to
study the legislative history of those two bills. I did that in March of
'71. Because I really wanted to know and I thought that it would be very
informative to all of us, if we could just find out what went into the
passage of a piece of special legislation. Who drafted it, where it came
from, how it was manipulated, if you want to call it that. And of
course, we were stopped there and I didn't intend to be stopped there.
So, we went all different directions around the problem. I don't think
that we know very much today.