The Rostrum
By DAN WALKER
Governor of Illinois, 1973-1911

Setting the record straight

I WRITE to hopefully put in better perspective some of the issues that have been repeatedly raised in the media with respect to my administration:

1.  The charge that the state was "broke" or "nearly bankrupt" when I left office because of my "overspending and poor fiscal management."

2.  The claim that I talked like a "good guy" but was guilty of questionable fund-raising tactics.

3.  The theory that I was a "confrontationist" who always wanted to pick a fight.

These characterizations range from oversimplification or half-truth to outright inaccuracies.

First, the state was in good financial condition when I left office, with a surplus in the general revenue fund of over $100 million. All my successor had to do was exercise reasonable prudence to have an even larger surplus six months later at the end of that fiscal year, as he did.

The financial problems that existed from six months to a year before I left office (exaggerated greatly by Comptroller George Lindberg and others) stemmed principally from two factors — substantial appropriation veto overrides by the General Assembly over a two-year period and the dramatic adverse impact on tax revenues resulting from the serious recession we were hit with in 1975. Governor Thompson has suffered from neither of these events. He is particularly fortunate to be governor during a time of rampant inflation, which has in Illinois a much greater inflating effect on tax revenues than it does on government expenses.

By saying this, I do not intend to downplay Governor Thompson's fiscal prudence. He has not been a "big spender" — but neither was I. My budget increases every year were less than the rate of inflation. The total number of employees in the executive branch decreased by over 10 percent while I was governor. And if anyone wants to turn to bonded indebtedness, it has increased much more rapidly during the Thompson administration.

Second, as to ethics and fund raising, I am proud of our record. No governor's campaign fund raising has been as relentlessly subjected to investigations as mine — by reporters, grand juries, states' attorneys, U.S. attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Board of Elections and whoever else could get in the act.

None of these investigations, widely heralded in the press, have produced anything of substance done wrong by me or anyone at a high level in my campaign or administration, except, perhaps, two — one allegedly anonymous contribution by Victor de Grazia and one by a currency exchange lobbyist. I would gladly contrast my record with, for example, that disclosed in a series of articles run by the St. Louis Post Dispatch in 1973 regarding collections from highway contractors by highly placed members of a former administration.

I do not believe there is an administration in Illinois history that can muster a record as good as mine on ethics:

1.  Repeatedly making an issue of the need for a state ethics law governing campaign contributions, including calling the legislature into special session on that subject, until the first such law was finally passed in 1974.

2.  The executive order (since watered down) which required all key state employees in the executive branch to disclose income, assets, liabilities and tax returns.

3.  The constant fight I waged for a nonpolitical Board of Elections.

4.  The executive order which prohibited state employees from soliciting contributions from other state employees, an age-old shakedown practice in Illinois politics and government. (Yes, it was violated a few times — but those who violated it were punished.)

5.  The executive order (struck down as unconstitutional, unfortunately) which required firms doing business with the state to disclose campaign contributions by officers, directors and key stockholders.

6.  The establishment of independent committees (including a member from the appropriate state professional society) to review granting of no-bid contracts to professionals such as engineers and contractors on state construction projects. (Contrast this with the practice in prior administrations of having in the governor's office a list of "approved" architects and engineers to be used on state construction projects.)

7.  The prohibition on persons involved in regulatory or inspection jobs from selling tickets to political events to those they regulated or inspected.

There is more, but I hope this covers the ethics issue.

Then, there is the "confrontationist" or "always fighting" label. It has been repeated so frequently that it is probably engraved in stone, but I'll make one more try.

I start with the premise that the label has been used in a pejorative sense, depicting a man who would rather fight than lead, either because he liked to fight for the sake of fighting or he did not know how to lead without fighting.

Certainly, in the campaigns during 1971 and 1972, I did have to fight to get attention, to be taken as a serious candidate and to win two contests (primary and general) against the odds. I will also agree that I had a deep philosophical difference with the

34/June 1980/Illinois Issues

"club" brand of politics that pervaded both parties and continually affected government, and that I never was and never wanted to be a member of that "club." And I will also agree that there could never have been a total rapport (even a Stevenson-type rapport) between me and Mayor Daley, simply because we had such a wide divergence of views as to how the Democratic party should operate and be structured and as to certain key governmental issues.

'... as to ethics and fund raising, I am proud of our record. No governor's campaign fund raising has been as relentlessly subjected to investigations as mine . . .'

In any event, it is accurate to say that the stage was well-laid for accommodation problems when I, the independent outsider, took office in January 1973. I was disliked by the professionals in both parties holding leadership positions as well as by the lower-echelon party regulars from Chicago. Daley and the Chicago machine certainly did not want to see me succeed. The legislative leaders of both parties made no secret of their desire to "get Dan Walker," as they openly put it on the floor of the House and Senate in early 1973, before any issue differences arose between the governor's office and the General Assembly.

In my first State of the State message, I ignored the attacks and proposed "partnership" between the executive and legislative branches in developing programs for the state. The message was clearly conciliatory and was described as such by the media. It was just a few weeks later when key Democrats in the Senate joined the Republicans in refusing to confirm a series of cabinet nominees, an action unprecedented in recent Illinois history.

Weeks later, the Chicago Transit Authority subsidy controversy arose. This was widely depicted as my fighting Daley just to fight the Chicago machine. But what was really at stake was proportionate funding. On mutual projects, the tradition had been one part state, one part Chicago. For the first time, the Chicago Democrats tried to make it two-to-one, with the state giving two-thirds and Chicago one-third. I opposed this on principle — and lost. This should be contrasted with the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) issue, where I could have taken the position, popular in the suburbs and downstate, of opposing major state involvement. Instead, I worked closely with the Republican leadership and Mayor Daley to bring the much needed RTA into existence.

Far more than on politics, the appearance of ''wanting to confront" stemmed from my policy of bringing statewide issues out in the open to the public rather than utilizing the age-old Illinois practice, now resumed, of solving them through one-on-one deals between the governor and the mayor of Chicago. A by-product of this overall policy was the "fly arounds" — press conferences on the same issue in six or seven cities in one day — a practice much disliked by the Springfield press corps, which wanted to be the funnel for state government news.

The Springfield press corps can get the news out through newspapers, but not TV. The best way to get the TV public interested and involved is to have the issued carried live on the 10 o'clock news. And the only way I could do that was to do it myself by facing the cameras in each TV market.

All I'm trying to say is that there is a much deeper story behind the so-called "confrontation" image than has been portrayed. Sure, some part was political fighting. But another part was an attempt to change the way politics and government have traditionally been practiced in Illinois.

June 1980/Illinois Issues/35