• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Abstract
 Interview














Title: Mallory Horne
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00005586/00001
 Material Information
Title: Mallory Horne
Physical Description: Book
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00005586
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Abstract
        Page i
        Page ii
    Interview
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
Full Text



COPYRIGHT NOTICE


This Oral History is copyrighted by the Interviewee
and the Samuel Proctor Oral History Program on
behalf of the Board of Trustees of the University of
Florida.

Copyright, 2005, University of Florida.
All rights, reserved.

This oral history may be used for research,
instruction, and private study under the provisions
of Fair Use. Fair Use is a provision of United States
Copyright Law (United States Code, Title 17, section
107) which allows limited use of copyrighted
materials under certain conditions.
Fair use limts the amount of material that may be
used.

For all other permissions and requests, contact the
SAMUEL PROCTOR ORAL HISTORY PROGRAM at
the University of Florida









FP43sum


Mallory Home

This is an interview with Mallory Home, president of the Florida Senate. The interview
was conducted in Tallahassee, Florida, on May 21, 1974, by Jack Bass and Walter De
Vries. The interview is from the Southern Oral History Program in the Southern
Historical Collection, University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill.

pp. 1-5: Home opens the interview by discussing the tight political race for U.S. senator in
which he is currently involved. He has been in state politics for twenty years and talks about
bridging the gap between the former Pork Chop Gang scenario to the legislature's current,
reorganized state since 1967 when reapportionment occurred. He targets the differences in the
ways in which the two eras ran the legislature, citing rules of procedure as a prime example. He
recalls several examples from the autocratic Pork Chop era: only a few legislators had copies of
the actual bills on which they were to vote; the sixty-day biennial legislative sessions were
mostly ceremonial--no atmosphere of deliberation and no orderly procedure; legislators had to
share secretaries; and legislators had no office space. Home discusses the power of the
legislative council, composed of one member from the House and one from the Senate from each
district, which was formed to be the interim governing body between the formal legislative
sessions.

pp. 5-10: Before legislative reorganization, Home states that the Florida Legislature was "ill-
equipped and inept," and it was in the shadow of the executive branch. He talks about his bill
eliminating the legislative council. But with reorganization, such as going to annual sessions,
revising the constitution and restructuring the executive and judicial branches, Home feels that
the government is still in a "terrible situation." As an example, he cites the legislature taking on
increased loads of legislation which has bogged down the system, resulting in little time for
debate on certain issues. He does not want an open-ended session, just more time constraints on
getting bills passed in the current sixty-day session. He would like to see committee members
spend more time debating bills before they reach the floor.

pp. 10-15: Home then focuses on the Florida Senate's ombudsman program, which was an
outgrowth of the appropriations process. From the standpoint of a businessman, he wants to see
the legislature's appropriations process to be more scrutinized, that is, follow the dollars to see
how well they were doing the intended job--just as a business operates. He says the state has
failed in following up expenditures. As a result, citizens' complaints increased, compounded by
having to go through the state bureaucracy to get answers. After a government evaluation, Home
shows how governmental functions were broken down, computerized, and complaint calls
fielded to the ombudsman. Home provides examples of specific instances in which the
ombudsman program has achieved results.

pp. 15-19: Home feels that the ombudsman program has not only had positive results but has led
to better agency evaluation, and also better training and organization in defining jurisdiction. He
shows his pride in the caliber of the staff manning the phones--staff members being not only









bilingual but also highly qualified to deal with callers' complaints and accusations. He gives an
example of planting an employee in a state-run institution to see if accusations were valid. Home
talks about the difficulty in separating fiscal auditing from performance-type auditing.

pp. 19-21: Home then turns his attention to the two-year legislative session, at the end of which
any unpassed legislation is dead. He questions the constitutionality of limiting a legislator's
number of introduced bills due to the bill crunch.

pp. 21-23: Home calls attention to the executive branch's reorganization beginning in the late
1950s to reduce the abundance of departments, culminating in 1968 with the massive
reorganization and reapportionment.

pp. 23-25: The conversation turns toward the subject of the executive branch versus the cabinet
system. Home believes in the power of the cabinet because it diminishes the governor's power.
But he feels that the cabinet has become autonomous units rather than a cohesive unit. He
doesn't trust an unchecked governor's powers--and he doesn't trust Governor Reubin Askew
going "unchecked." Home is uncomfortable when the governor, legislature and cabinet work
together.

pp. 25-27: Home professes his love of the legislative process--the fighting, difference of
opinion, and reconciliation of philosophical differences, all of which make him want to campaign
for U.S. senator. He wants to run for this position despite the fact that the office is a patronage-
and constituent-oriented one. He wants to "raise hell" in the U.S. Senate. He feels that the U.S.
Congress could use Florida's Sunshine Law and the Florida Legislature's computerized ability to
quickly ascertain a bill's status. He describes the senatorial campaign at this point as being
unpredictable.

pp. 27-29: The interviewers present the hypothetical case of a presidential primary between
Governor Reubin Askew and George Wallace. Home talks about Askew's aloofness, his popular
image, and how he has become symbolic of the words "fairness" and "honesty." Home never
directly answers the question about how Askew would fare against George Wallace, but he
believes that Askew would receive at least 70 percent of the vote in a Democratic primary.





FROM THE S.0-/lR, o7A '
SOUTHERN HISTORICAL COLLECTION, THE LIBRARY OF -
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL







This is an interview with Mallory Home, president of the

Florida senate conducted in Tallahassee, Florida on May 21, 1974

by Jack Bass and Walter De Vries. Transcribed by Joe Jaros.





Mallory Home: I'm involved in a state wide race as soon as this

damn session is over.

Jack Bass: Sounds like it is going to be quite a race.

Home: It is. Well, there are four of us, seven or eight, in it.

Really have a pretty deep background and tradition in Florida's

government over the last few years and all of them really top-notch

people, so that makes for an interesting campaign.

Walter De Vries: Well, you are one of the senior members of the

legislature.

Home: Well, I don't like to call it that anymore. That means that

you are old.

Jack Bass: Well, not in this place.

W.D.V.: Well, it seems that here the senior members are also young.

You go to other states and you see that the president, the speaker and

so on are all sixty sometimes older.

Home: Well, I've been at this for twenty years now. Do either one of

you have a match on you? My lighter's gone completely .

W.D.V.: I might.

J.B.: Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. (Interruption on tape)



From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview 4-S in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 2


W.D.V.: You're one of the few legislators who have bridged both eras.

The so-called "Pork Chop Era" and the era since 1967. Can you tell

us a little bit about both and the differences between the two?

Home: Well, there are great differences. There are a lot of differences

first of all in the organization and structure of the legislature. There

are monumental differences also in the philosophy and technique of

those who. .I was in the house during the heyday of the so-called

Pork Chop group, which was a group in the senate. They were predominantly

businessmen, very conservative and they ran an exceedingly tight ship.

Their rules were extremely loose, rules of procedure, and their technique

was very autocratic. I remember the first bill I introduced, I guess

that was like a mother having her first child, you are very proud and

very paternalistic. It was a bribery bill, to tighten the bribery

laws of the state. We passed it through the house and then it vanished.

We had, of course, none of us, the technology to enable us to really

follow a bill, so journals and calendars were the only source to go to

to find the progress of a bill and though their rules called for notice

to the introducer, I never received any notice and after an embarassingly

quiet week or ten days, I became alarmed and concerned, and during that

period of time, I was really ashamed to admit that I didn't know what

might be happening. So, I went to the speaker, Ted Davies, who is dead

now, and confessed that I didn't know what was happening. He smiled

and suggested I go see my senator. I did, and he sent me to another

senator, who was chairman of the committee of reference. And when I

went to him, he said, "Why son, your bill is dead." And I, in shock,

reminded him that I was supposed to have notice and cited to him his

rule. He said, "Oh, we called your office and gave you notice and

left you notice. But your bill is dead. We've had a hearing and


From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview /S* in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 3


it's been killed." And he literally pulled out his drawer and showed me

my bill. So, from that day, which really wasn't typical, but by proxy

voting, they frequently would have meetings with only the chairman there

or the vice-chairman there and he would have proxies from all the other

members, so that each senator would have a number of significant sounding

committees on his letterhead and every member was chairman of a committee.

And which meant that the logistics of the session kept them from being

able to attend all the committee meetings. So, proxy voting was the vogue.

Proxy voting also occurred in the house, but it never reached that point.

They didn't have quite that many committees and every member was not

a chairman. The legislature then and now is best characterized by

really just painting a picture for you of the legislature when I arrived.

We didn't even really have copies of the bills we were supposed to vote

on. This really was an affront to me and to a lot of younger fellows

that came there. There were six copies available and only the senior

deacons had access to those. You would go to a committee hearing and

a chairman would have a copy and he would read from parts of it and

for the most part of it, with the crunch of legislation, we were then

handling almost twice as many bills in half the time as the next busiest

legislature. We met bi-annually for sixty days and much of that was

ceremony. So, we had to rely on capsules of information describing that

bill by people who had a pro or con interest in it. And it was

frightening at best. The house then, while they had a sound system, had

no office facilities, and the only time that a member had to use a

secretary from the pool was on the floor or in committee. So, it was

rather common practice for members to be dictating on the floor of the

house while debate ensued. The consequence of that was that there was




From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview -5'Y in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 4


no atmosphere of deliberation and no orderly procedure there at all.

It was almost a shouting contest and most instances, the member who

had the floor, unless it was a bill that had intense interest behind

it, he was literally talking to a group peripheral to him. And we

had actually then two legislatures. Under a court construction, our

legislature began and ended, constitutionally, the curtain rose at

the beginning of the sixty day bienniel session and that's when the

power of that legislature began and it ended when it adjourned. It

had no power to recall itself, it had no power for any interim

activity at all, because of some constitutional language that the

courts construed to be a constraint on any extra session jurisdiction.

There developed a technique around that, called the legislative

council. And it was composed of one member from the house and one

from the senate from each congressional district. They became the

interim work product, such as it was. They could introduce bills

in the legislature .

W.D.V.: But they were ad hoc?

Home: Yes and exceedingly powerful. And as you might expect, the

chairman of that, who was rotated between the house and the senate,

there naturally developed because they had access to the staff and

to the work product and study and all of that, they had the best

legislative information that was available. The session had none,

except those people who had an interest would volunteer talent, you

know. Literally, in the critical areas of appropriations, we borrowed

from the executive branch some of their budgeting people to help us

put together the appropriations bill. So, except in an area where

you really had the time to pour into one little item of the budget,




From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview R-S in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 5


we were absolutely at the mercy of what the executive wanted to spend.

The tacticians were powerful people then. And jealousies developed

between the councils that operated for a year and a half and the

ceremonial legislature, to be sure that there was a separation of

this vast power, the speaker or the president would never appoint to

the committees the same people that had been on committees over here

because that was a submission to the other, and vice-versa. So,

there never was an inter-facing at all. In fact, an in-bred conflict.

W.D.V.: Who appointed the members from the various congressional

districts?

Home: The speaker and the president. But once they got on it,

they just stayed there, because they became powerful enough to help

name the next. At some point way back, probably, they. .

W.D.V.: So, the continuity of leadership remained on the legislative

council, but not in the formal legislature?

Home: Right. And so, we were really a rather ill-equiped, inept

legislature during those days. The ceremony was there and the

honor was there, but as far as being a test of the executive branch

in any way, we were not. Only on the most volatile issue of the

times, did the legislature speak any philosophy. We really just

enunciated the executive request and demands. There was really

an impatience of younger fellows coming out of World War II and

out of college after World War II, and they began to demand the

series of changes that you are still involved in producing. Because

change, when it involves the power structure, of course, is

excruciatingly painful. So, now, from that description of the

problems of the legislature twenty years ago to the problems of


From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview 4-5' in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.






page 6


the legislature today, during that period of time, of course, we've

abolished the legislative council and I was fortunate enough to be

the drafter and introducer of senate bill 35, which put the coup de

grace to that monster and I did it after reapportionment had put

so many freshmen in the legislature that didn't know what that really

was. We were able to jam that thing through, literally in a matter of

three days, before those who were on it could really regroup and

realize what power they were relinquishing.

W.D.V.: Had it been set up by statute?

Home: Yes.

J.B.: This is the legislative council?

Home: Yes. Now, that's not the. .I may be thinking of the wrong

name, now. And the other was the legislative reference bureau. Then

we changed and had our legislative council become the body of research

and library and all the services for both.

J.B.: What was it before, basically a bill-drafting .

Home: Yes. Now, the other problem is that the other end of

the cycle has been that we have moved in that span of years to totally

computerize the legislature with almost complete services through

capability of identification of a measure and its present status, with

offices and a good staff which we have been able to keep highly

professional for the most part, as professional as politicians can

tolerate, as massive power changes have occurred, of course, the

personalities have changed some, but they-have been replaced by very

professional people and talented people. Then, we have gone to annual

sessions and we've revised our constitution and restructured the

executive branch and we've restructured the judicial branch. And

where we are today is in one terrible situation. We've become so

From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview /--I" in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 7


expert and so staffed and so computerized that we have taken on more

of a load than the human equation can stand. The house, for example,

has started a continuing review of bills introduced. They don't ever

get through with that process, which means that we receive from them

at the first part of every session, seven or eight hundred bills that

may have been the work product of the house for over two years. In

other words, if a bill passes through one committee one year on a

dual reference and then goes to the second session and then hits the

floor and dies on the calendar because it wasn't reached, then that's

where it is the next session. And this is a very compounding situation.

It probably is best, but it is only best in the context of more time.

What I'm really trying to describe for you is that we have all the

facilities for capsuled information from our own people, objective then

in source and intent, but the ultimate impact is that a member has just

so many hours and we've reduced that capsule of information to its most

infinite context and he's getting this literally running down the hall,

eating lunch in a hurry, spending sixteen hours a day over half the

session, the ones that really work and really for quite another reason,

we've lost the time to really dialogue with each other, to really

deliberate, to spend enough time to really exhaustively pursuing the

complex ramifications of a particular measure. So, I see this session

really indicating now the necessity of taking the next step, and that's

to remove the time constraints on a session. We still have a compulsive

sixty day session, even though it is annual it isn't helping, because

it's just a continuation of the last one. So, that's a thumbnail

really, I guess that your question probably would develop more .






From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview /-6 in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 8


J.B.: What you describe really, is almost.as though you are

describing the legislature suffering from some kind of future shock.

You've had so much change so fast that it is hard .

Home: Right.

J.B.: ... .the human equation.

Home: That's right.

J.B.: But do you propose then an open-ended session, or just a

longer .

Home: I don't want to go to an open-ended, because then it might slow

down too much.

J.B.: You think that sixty days isn't enough, but that there needs to

be a limit somewhere?

Home: Right. I think that we are going to have to. .one, we are

going to have to face the question of whether a bill, and this needs

to be a joint deliberation during this interim, faced with a house

proposition of whether a bill ever dies by virtue of the adjournment

of a session. If that one is crossed in the negative, so that a

measure just continues to be before the legislature, then we have

to. .we have studied, for example, in the senate it reached such a

crucial point on the human thing by the time that my predecessor in

title took the chair, that I recommended that we evaluate the pressures

on us and I took on the responsibility for doing it. So, as I reviewed

the build-up before a session and examined by time spent on bills, I

found really, a remarkable curve with the pressure being notably more

apparent at committee time at the outset of a session. Up to this

time, by the way, we were having sessions every day, simply because

they had had sessions every day historically. The senate convened, and


From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview 4--6' in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 9


the house did too, every morning and we had a half day session every

day. During that time, we were largely debating relatively non-controversial

bills, but because we had to be there for three hours, senators debated

longer and they frolicked around a little bit, so when I evaluated this

curve of corresponding and changing pressures, it was apparent that

immediately we needed to give the committees more time in the beginning

and take more time away from the floor. So, the first three weeks of

our session, we don't have but two floor sessions a day. That keeps

pressure on that floor so that they are moving and not wasting .

J.B.: Two a day, or two a week?

Home: Two a week. Did I say two a day? Excuse me, two a week. And

we load up on committee time and then as they begin to expurgate that

load and the bills in committee begin to diminish, this is about the

third week, we begin to vote and the calendar begins to grow. We begin

then to fold in another half a day a week, another a day a week until

then we are diminishing our committee time and we are meeting every day

and twice on two days. So, it is just a sandpipe, approximately

corresponding to the changing work load. And that helped a lot, until

the house changed its rule. .well, it still helped, it would be

insuferable without it now. Now, we are in double sessions every day

and the committees, the ones that have to, are meeting at night. What's

today, Tuesday? Tonight is the last night that our committees can meet

without a waver of the rules, on the theory that any bill that still

has to be debated in committee with a thirty-eight page calendar with

one week to go, unless it is an emergency, and we have monitors monitoring

for the major bills, and if one of them is still tucked in there, and

one of them still is, we'll go in with a waiver of the rules and have




From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview 9-9 in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 10


a hearing on that bill and bring it out and try to get it to urgent

attention. But a human being isn't a computer and as much as the

age and education has changed over that twenty year period of time,

there still is an emotional and clearly discernible limit on what a

person can handle during a day. And whereas we once began to reach

that during the last week, we now begin to reach it after two weeks

of a session. On the strong evidence of a conclusion that we can't

compact what Florida has to do into sixty days anymore. I don't

know how long it will take them to admit that, because it is unpopular

to admit it. Frankly, the combination of the times and legislators

and politics, the last two being at the bottom end of the run, most

people would just say, "Well, hell, let's just don't have a legislature."

Or don't meet. And they laughingly say, you know, "we're better off

if the legislature doesn't meet." It may be, but if they are going to

meet, the whole idea is to deliberate and the atmosphere is not good

for that. Then, you take the other thing where fifteen or twenty

percent do 90% of the work and you are really killing those guys. They

are walking around glassy-eyed the last three weeks of a session. They

really look sick. So, that's a problem really, that's consequent of

the progress, I think. Here in the senate, we are undertaking a unique

thing that may work. Did Louis 'rParte talk any about our ombudsman

program.

J.B.: No.

Home: Let me take a minute just to mention it, because it's unique

in the states. As a businessman, I have viewed our biggest failure over

the years to be. .first of all, I view the legislature, it's primary

role to be a check on the executive branch, a test of the executive


From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview *q-Cf in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 11


branch, and where that really comes into prime focus is in-the

appropriating process. To a businessman, the appropriating process is

two vital and separate functions. And the same needs to apply in

government. First of all, he needs to evaluate the function to be

performed by his business or to be performed by government and then

to allocate out of the existing dollars in priority those dollars to

those functions. Now, the legislature has been doing that in increasing

independence and increasing capability. In my beginning, twenty years

ago, that was a farce. As I said, our tools were their tools. We had

no way in the world of knowing what functions of government were

being performed. There was no index of digest of them and even worse

than that, we didn't know how to evaluate the priorities, so we had to

take their priorities. So, that part of the appropriation cycle

improved dramatically over this period of time, with the independence

and capability at of having budget people working concurrently with

the executive branch evaluating where, how many dollars we had and

where they ought to go. That part, we have begun during the last

six years to do fairly well and fairly independently, very independently

as a matter of fact. And to develop in that process, new programs

for the executive and the funding. But the second part of that

business is vital in a business, and the cheif executive does this,

the board does it, the legislature needs to be about the business of

doing it, but finding a technique of doing it without itself becoming

a terribly expensive and onerous thing was a challenge. So, what we

did beginning with my term, was to try to find a scheme of testing.

Here's what that function should be, and you probably know it as well

as I, but the businessman then, follows constantly. He may do it on a




From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview ^-5y in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 12


selective basis, because he can't really know all of them. We have

different techniques in my business, I constantly, without much

notice, would call in and get down deep into the performance area,

but it's efficiency testing, performance evaluation. But he follows

his dollars to see how well they are doing the job that he intended to

do when he allocated the dollars. Now, that's the role that the

legislature has been absolutely unable to perform in any state and

certainly here. So, I realized that the one thing that we had all

the time, constantly, from the level where government touches people

nose on nose, was complaints. Twenty or twenty-five telephone calls

a day during the interim came to me, and I assume to every senator

and every house member, from people who were involved with government.

They were bitching at me because they couldn't get an answer, or they

were getting sidetracked to another agency, or they were getting

wrong answers or a multitude of things running the whole gamut.

Well, in the past, for each member to serve his constituent, he had

to first of all, find out where in the hell that job was being done.

And I'd call, and call, and I'd get two or three answers and then I'd

finally find the guy that could give me an answer or that interviewed

that person. "What's the trouble?" "Well, we'll try to get to him."

And I would call my constituent back and say, "O.K., you're right.

The state roads department when they put in that culvert, did use the

wrong elevation, they are flooding your yard and they are going to

come fix it. They'll be there next week." So, I multiplied in my mind

the experiences that I had like that everyday and so I called in the

senators and we developed, with a lot of different ideas from sources

within the senate to a sophisticated thing. So, here's what we did.




From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 13


And it's beginning to work. The executive surely doesn't like it, so

that means it's got a chance of working. First of all, we got some

smart people in government to evaluate Florida's government. This

took eight months. We bD ke out all of the functions of government

expressed in verb form, very minute, infinite verb form, to do a small

thing, so that it could be instantly controllable. And we computerized

the functions of government expressed thusly, "to do blank." And we

put that in the computer. When that same job was done on a regional

basis first, then we computerized that back with the geography

constituting that region and we also added the top cat's name in

that region that was solely responsible for that job. We trained

people to answer the phone. Then we talked to senators and said, "Look,

rather than bothering with all you complaints, you either give them

this number and tell them to call the senate ombudsman, or you get the

information and give it to the ombudsman. 'And in every case, when we

solve your constituents problem, we'll do it in your name." To keep

the political end of it in balance. If we isolated him from his

constituents, they wouldn't cooperate. The first few months, we did

this in house, to test our equipment and to test ourselves, then, we

put on an ongoing toll watts line so that different regions could call

directly. And we began to advertise down there, a sort of a place to

complain to, you know. But the important thing was constituent service.

The idea is that we take those complaints, and when they begin to

patternize, and they do, by the way. About 15 or 20% of them are

misconceptions of entitlement or misconceptions of what government can

do, you know. But 80% fall into some really interesting classifications,

and what we are doing there is sending those compalints, the summaries




From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview -S" in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 14


of those complaints to the committee of jurisdiction, to the ways

and means committee for next year when they meet with those people.

And we also send it to the agency, because the prime purpose is to

help them. And so, we are into the business now of following the

appropriations into performance evaluation and that .

J.B.: Can you give us a couple of examples of how that has worked?

The omsbudman program. I mean, just from your own personal experience.

Home: Yes, a woman in my district calls me and now, I just tell them

to call that number. In fact, with incoming calls, my own procedure,

because I'm president, I'm really too busy. But with most senators, let

me give you a classic example. In Ocala, a person going for aid to the

blind, complaining that they had taken a month and a half or two months,

and still filling out forms and still not getting a decisive answer

whether they were entitled or not, or getting a no when they felt like

they were entitled, will call in to me or direct to our number. O.K.,

they first of all attack that computer and it comes up with a statute

number and they check to see whether under these circumstances, a person

does this woman's age and degree of blindness, certified by the doctor,

does that constitute blindness, and are they entitled? Then, they pick

up the phone, the watts line and they call that top cat in Ocala, who

is regional head, "Mrs. Johnson has been in and out of your office for

three weeks, she says, trying to perfect her claim for aid to the blind.

What's the trouble?" "Well, the Tallahassee office has to. ." "Well,

your own rules say that you make the final decision unless there is a

controversy." "O.K., tell her to come back." Then we call that lady

back and tell her to go back. But we catelogue that gap and that

complaint and we send it to governmental operations and we send it to

appropriations to evaluate. And they sit down with those people when


From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview --Ty in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 15


their appropriations come up and talk to them about it. One, that

we've found two or three things indicated. That first of all, we have

found .

(end of side A of tape.)



J.B.: Has this resulted in increasing their sensitivity to people?

Home: Well, we've called on them for some retaining. Some of them

have sent some of their employees for retraining. The one thing that

it's doing, and it's too early to really claim anything, because we

are now into the first session after its initiation, but we in all

cases send this summary to agency heads. First of all, just the fact

that somebody is looking that closely at your performance perks you

up just a bit. You do a better job when you know damn well that somebody

is evaluating. And particularly when they are evaluating in context of

dollars for your agency. So, the one thing that it has done already is

to have agencies recycle, retrain, redefine and in some cases it has

developed problems in executive reorganization, in defining jurisdiction.

We had left gaps, so it was our fault. In those cases, we quickly moved

in and introduced bills to cope with that, the who reorganization of

health and rehabilitative services is a consequence of the patternized

complaints largely in that area. The difficulty in getting any answer

at all in a region indicated to us a structural failure, our fault, when

we compacted the multiplicity of health and personal-oriented services in

one gigantic department and put all the structure up here in Tallahassee

with no real authority down here. So, it's not only helping us, but

it's helping .

W.D.V.: Now, this is the only state that has put the ombudsman structure

in the legislative branch, it has always been an executive thing.


From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview 1-V in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 16


Home: That's right. And of course, the problem with having it in the

executive branch is like having the auditor in the executive branch. The

goddanged auditor he never really did a hell of a job. The same man, the

same staff, but when we had him under the executive branch, he'd walk

tippy-toe through the boss's office, you know, and if he wrote up anything,

it was fairly good. Now, he'sbusting their ass, those dollars and that

statute are going to match. It's just the human equation.

W.D.V.; This is program budget based on client reaction, period. Right?

Home: Right.

W.D.V.: It's not investigatory, it's based on reaction?

Home: That's right. Then, when it patternizes, we move into investigation

with the committee of jurisdiction having responsibility. We have to

diffuse that, or it will overwhelm them. We have to be very selective, we

can't take on the whole damn world in one year.

J.B.: Does it, well, is this ombudsman situation at the moment limited to

the senate only?

Home: Yes.

J.B.: Do you anticipate a little expansion for it to become a legislative

function?

Home: Yes. I sure do. But it's first got to work. I proposed it first

to be a joint legislative management deal. The fear of failure makes us

leary of trying sometimes, so I think that in a couple of years, this thing

will be. .and the house is already using some of the data that we are

developing.

W.D.V.: How does the executive office feel about it?

Home: They don't like it.

W.D.V.: Do you send them your reports?

Home: Yes sir. The idea isn't to embarrass them at all. Because that


From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview S' in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 17


test. But the executive branch isn't going to test itself any more than

I am going to test myself.

J.B.: It's sort of a new demension of the concept of legislative oversight.

Home: Right, right. And it is an index.

W.D.V.: I was George Romney's executive assistant for program and

development and his liason for six years and I ran that whole thing, but

doesn't it result in people, instead of coming to the executive office,

the governor, going to the legislature? In other words, that case work

was originally a function of the governor's office. Is it shifting?

Home: No, well. .

W.D.V.: Do people still go to the governor's office?

Horne: They still go to the Division g Bureau where they think they

can get the service.

W.D.V.: So, when that fails. .

Home: When that fails, they'll probably try to go to the governor's

office. When they don't get an answer there, they are mad and they will

probably go to the legislature.

W.D.V.: You are the government of last resort in that case.

Home: Right.

W.D.V.: So, after they have gone to the bureaucracy and the governor's

office. .

Horne: They are already half pissed off when they call our ombudsman.

W.D.V.: You think they have already exhausted those other two offices?

Home: Yes, in almost every case they have. And we don't want to

discourage that.

W.D.V.: I presume then, that you direct the ombudsman director, who

has to be a very special person, right?

Home: Yes, very special and very hard-nosed. And these people have


From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview 4-5' in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 18


to be, we even are bilingual, because so many of our people are Spanish.

And the people who are manning the phones have a great deal of talent. We

aren't just using telephone answerers. They know what they are talking

about.

J.B.: How much do you spend on that operation right now?

Home: I don't even have a total figure broken out, because I'm using

our computer. But it is considerable, of course. We had to do some good

staffing and I'm doing it out of my governmental operations committee. So,

the software was exceedingly expensive. But really, it has been a worth-

while product, even if the program doesn't produce. Because, we do have

the best index, the first index of where it all happens in Florida.

J.B.: Well, presumably, if you aren't getting any complaints about some

agencies, you must be doing a pretty good job?

Home: That's right. And when we get a lot, for example, about a Sun

Land Institution, then we hired a little old employee with a good hit of

sense, because there were some accusations and all sorts of extraordinary

brutality and that sort of thing and I called Emmet Roberts who was then

director of Health and Rehabilitative Services and I said, "I've got a

little old buddy here that I sure would like for you to get a job and I

understand there is a vacancy in the Sun Land Institution out here at

Tallahassee. He just needs to be an orderly." Pretty soon, they hire

him as an orderly. We've got him there to give us some first hand

information about whether these complaints are real. What degree are

they real? And they were much more real than I would want to believe.

But then with that, we were able to get to the head of that division

and say, "Look, you've got some terribly crusty employees and all these

stories aren't phony." We did it just that way. And it cleared up.

J.B.: What did they do, did they retrain employees?


From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview i-'S in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 19


Home: They retrained some and fired a bunch. But they mainly got them

a good personnel person out there that wouldn't tolerate that sfff.

W.D.V.: Is the ombudsman tied in with the audit function?

Home: No. And with all respects to the audit type, audit is historic.

It's exact, it's "is this check legal." It's a CPA type of deal.

W.D.V.: They don't do any performance type of auditing?

Home: Yeah, they do do some performance type of auditing, but it's

more in the fiscal area, not the efficiency performance. But, to tell

you the truth, and I hope that neither of you are a CPA, I love them

and we can't do without them, I wouldn't want to run a business without

one, but it's hard to get a CPA to move across this line and into

the human equations of getting a job done. They just don't think that

way. They still go into dollars and sense. And I want to separate

them. I felt that if they got married in the beginning, they would be

just another CPA type of report and that isn't what I wanted.

W.D.V.: What else do you think ought to be done in the legislature?

Home: Well, the time thing for committies and for floor debate is the

most significant. We've achieved the staffing level that we need, we've

got the money to do it with. The other is purely just subjective. It

just depends on how gutty your members are?

J.B.: I want to ask you one question in order to try and understand

something. The session is in effect for two years, or do you have two

sessions?

Home: Well, we have more than that, because of special sessions. But

primarily we are set up to have two sessions, one a year.

J.B.: But at the end of the second year, everything that is untouched is

dead, right?

Home: Right.


From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview 4-15 in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.






page 20


J.B.: And then you start over with the new legislature.

Home: Right.

W.D.V.: But you are saying that the carry-over from one session to the

next is too much?

Home: Well, it's too much for a sixty day session.

J.B.: Has there ever been any thought given to limiting the number of

bills that any member can introduce during a session?

Home: Now, that's an alternative. That would certainly help. I don't

know how constitutionally you would. .I guess that if the courts contrued

that as a procedural thing, it would be ruled that that came in under our

rules. The trouble is that you have 20 or 25% out there who are competent

and able to handle a lot more. It would be limiting them. It has some

weak points.

W.D.V.: Can you limit the right of a member to express what he wants

to?

Home: That's what I'm talking about. The constitutional restraint.

When that became the vogue around here, I said, "How do you tell one

constituent that. ." They may be in suchsituation of flux that their

whole ideas and concepts are wanting to test everything that we've got

and they may demand that their senator introduce twenty-five or thirty

bills. And the guy who is effective out there, a real mover and charger,

he is going to be sought for an introducer. But somehow, by God, that

bill crunch is the problem right now. But I don't know how you can tell

one that you can't introduce but three or four bills. Constitutionally.

Because it isn't him you are limiting, it's whatever constituency he

represents.

W.D.V.: As you meet with your colleagues from other state legislatures,

do you find the kind of format for performance that you find here?

From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.






page 21


Home: For the most part. It's not as rare as it was in the proceeding

decade. There are as few states where it is as compelling as it is here.

W.D.V.: In the South? Do you find any states like this in the South?

Home: No, not really.

W.D.V.: We haven't found any.

Home: No, I haven't. But there are a few states nationally that really

are driving to fight the battle of dying legislatures.

W.D.V.: Well, a lot of this is due, of course, to reapportionment, but

was a lot of it also due to the group that came out of World War II and

the University of Florida and all that sort of thing?

Home: I put more of it on that than I do on reapportionment. Because

much of this began to start. I told somebody yesterday. I said, "You

know, you put all of this at the hands of reapportionment." I said, "Name

me one that originated since then. Where the growing pressure originated

then. That's untrue." Constitutional revision, we were driving for that,

and I was on the first constitutional advisory commission in 1955. That's

almost twenty years ago. Executive reorganization began in 1957 with a

bunch of hardheads, and some of them are in Congress now. They couldn't

stand the fact that nobody really knew what happened. We had 210 boards,

bureaus and commissions and nobody knew who was doing what. And we

were appropriating money to them. So, the idea for executive reorganization

began then, but to mess with the machinery of the executive branch was

such a terrible fight, because you know, when you mess with that power index,

you've got a war. So, finally to do it, in '63, and this was before

massive reapportionment, in '63 we just simply created the executive

reorganization commission and put top people on it and put them to work.

It wasn't just the legislature, it was a little bit of everybody -, but



From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview 1-'T in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 22


we told them that we wanted to compact the executive branch of government

into 25 or less departments. And they spent three or four years doing

that and in '68, that was the fruition of it. So, people, I think have

unfairly said, because it happened in '68, that it was after the massive

reapportionment, that really hasn't been a fair statement in my opinion.

The zeal picked up some, because there were members interested in the

result. But it was breed of independent. scrapping, scratching guy

that wasn't going to be dictated to after World War II, brand new

college degrees, idealistic, his own man, that began all of that. And

we began messing with the judicial branch. The first major amendment

to article 5 was done in 1955, not '68 or '70. It was '71 before we

completely rewrote the entirety of our court system, from a structural

point of view. So, no, I don't .

W.D.V.: You think that it was all there, it was just accelerated by the

reapportionment?

Home: Yeah, and I find just as many weak sisters politically today as

there were then. Some of these guys, a headline can hit, or an editorial

can hit and they run into the road. That's not necessarily bad, but it

is if that is the only criteria. I find just as many of them today as I

did then. And I find just as many guys like Jim Williams here from Ocala

and Louis De~a Parte, who you could put a whole governor and cabinet and

every newspaper in the state on him and you thought you had him convicted,

he'd get up to fight tomorrow. He's like a burrowing nematode, you might

slow him down, but you are not going to stop him.

W.D.V.: Are there more of those kind of men coming up?

Home: There are always some of those kind of men.

W.D.V.: But you don't think that this period will be dominated by .

Home: I don't think that the proportion is any greater. The impatience


From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview -S in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 23


of Sam Gibbons, who is now in Congress, the impatience of Bill Chappel.

Now, it's easier to do it today for some of these, I don't know how to

evaluate them, but .

W.D.V.: Does the press of this state have anything to do with that?

Home: Yes, I think so. I wouldn't know how to assess that in rank of

importance, but I think that it has.

W.D.V.: What would you change in the other branches, the executive

branch,say?

Home: Well .

W.D.V.: Take the cabinet system, for example.

Home: The one thing that I've learned in government, and this is where

I disagree with the textbook classic governmentalists, the one thing that

I have learned on my own is that people can't stand power. And I believe

in every instance, even at the risk of some inefficiency, to diffuse it,

the absolute of power. So, I like the cabinet system. I would have them

meet more frequently, I think it's more public. On the major policy of

this state, I worry a hell of a lot about. .the easy movement in

government is subsurfacial to the elected official. So, I really am

opposed to absolute power being in any governor. You might have an

exceedingly good one, but even then, absolute power just cripples a good

man, but more importantly than that, one man can only reasonably exercise

wide dominion over a limited amount of jurisdiction, whether that's

business or whatever. And then, the thing that I really fear the most

is that those people who make government happen, and this predominates

at the federal level I think, they function and make decisions without

anybody seeing it or feeling it until it is fact accomplished. So, I

like our cabinet system, it may be slow and tedious, but from an




From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview -S' in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 24


administrative point of view, it's wise. So, the only thing I would do,

is have them. .they are killing themselves in this state by being inept

as a cabinet. The cabinet has gone through some remarkable change. A lot

of new people, and it has become more a matter of autonomous units than

a cohesive cabinet. And frankly, I think that has been encouraged by the

governor, and every governor. No governor would like the cabinet system

after he gets there. Most of them haven't liked it before. For example,

he has encouraged them to meet xwit only every other week. I think that

was a tragic beginning of the end of the cabinet system in Florida. But

the real evils that have occurred in a lot of other states have occurred

not because you necessarily had a bad governor, but because he was in

control of such a vast empire. It was self executed in so many sensitive

areas where he had no knowledge and no way of having knowledge. And those

people function outside of the public arena. They make decisions without

the public being even reasonably a part of them. What I would change in

the executive branch is that I would love to see the governor and the

cabinet produce it's real on-going testing. The motivation of government

is really counter-productive. It's to hire more people to build more

empires, to have more people dispersed around the state for political or

organizational reasons and it lacks, so the legislature has got to supply

it, it lacks the motivation to perform efficiently in the most expedient

and efficient form and inexpensive form. That is the compelling basis

for almost every other thing except government. And it goes in other

directions naturally. And I would be no different if I was head of

the department of Health and Rehabilitative Affairs, I'd hire as many

people as I could hire. I know that, I think that it's a human equation.

I would build an empire, if somebody would let me. And that's the thing




From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview 19-S in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 25


that I've learned out of twenty years of government. So, I don't trust

government. I don't trust me unchecked and I don't trust Reuben Askew

unchecked, because that power puts a man in the fram of mind that

he cannot stand divergence of opinion. And I watched it happen to Reuben

even with the power that we had, the give and take of Askew as a senator

and the give and take of Askew as a governor. .oh, he is almost

recriminatory when somebody bucks an idea. That happens to people with

absolute power. So, that's what I've learned and I think that it's the

legislative role to perform that function of testing. I use the

expression that people become "uncomfortable" when the governor and the

cabinet and the legislature quarrel and I become uncomfortable when they

are in a loveftst.. I guess that sums that up.

W.D.V.: Why do you want to be a United States Senator?

Home: I don't know. You know, I, well, I surely wouldn't want to be

governor, or caginet member, or a judge. The conflict in my mind is that

I really wanted to get back into my business and up until February 1st, I

was heading there pretty dramatically. Rebuilt another business to go

back to, as a matter of fact. Started and built a life insurance company

to head in Tampa. I now have to go and grab some new leadership for that.

But I love the legislative business, I love the fighting, the difference of

opinion, the reconcilliation of philosophic differences. That's just part

of me, and the idea of all of a sudden of not being involved in that,

probably stirred whatever there is about us that is a virus. In fact, if

there was ever anything else that I wanted, it would be the Congress. And

I think oddly enough, everything that I don't like about a legislature, I

think they've lost really their type. I thinlyhey are as ill equipped

today as we were twenty-five or thirty years ago. I think that they are


From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview /-S in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.






page 26


just like the cabinet. A senator up there has a fine staff, a lot of

people to help him, but he is so patronage and constituent oriented that

it is hard for him to be a viable part of the whole. And I don't see

the U.S. Senate really as a whole. I hope I'm wrong. And you aren't

supposed to be concerned about anything except what comes before your

committee and the seniority system pisses me off. That's a bad way to

run a battleship. Maybe they do .

W.D.V.: You want to go up there and raise a little hell, is that it?

Home: Well, yeah, I don't want to not raise hell. And really, if it is

as bad as I think it is, I'm not going to run again. If all I am going

to be is a letter writer. .if I get there, and I've got a 25% chance

of getting there, if all I'm going to be is a letter writer and a post

office originator, and .

W.D.V.: Do you think that some of the reforms like the Sunshine Law

and the way you operate and organized this legislature would help the

Congress?

Home: It damn sure couldn't hurt it any. Yes, I do. They can't find

a bill, and they do every once in a while, one of them will call me and

I can pluck out here and tell them where a house bill is and where it's

been amended and find out in seconds .

J.B.: That's a computer console, right?

Home: Yes.

J.B.: It ties you into what?

Home: To the legislative computer. In a second, I can recall a bill's

current status. Well, the same thing, you call a member of the United

States Senate and if he can give you the current status on a bill in less

than four days, it's because he is handling it.



From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview 4'*f in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 27


J.B.: Could you demonstrate that for us for just a minute? I'd

just like to see it.

Home: Yeah.

(Tape turned off)



W.D.V.: You've got what, five or six serious candidates against you?

Home: Well, no .

W.D.V.: Three?

Home: Three serious candidates. And all pretty (Interruption on tape)

We are hard to forecast. And I guess that that's because we are sort of

a melting pot, really. We've assimilated so much of the national

population by infusion that we really are in some sections, typical

midwestern conservatives and typical northeastern liberals and we view

government from that vantage point. And you can sit out there and

watch the appropriations bill out there this afternoon, and feel it.

So, forecasting a Florida election is tough, and being in one is even

tougher. So, I don't know, I think that any one of the four. .there

are several others, but I don't think that any of them are making any

waves. .any one of the four could by a fortuitous set of circumstances

put together a winning campaign.

J.B.: How would Governor Askew fare in a head-on presidential primary in

Florida against George Wallace?

Home: Against George Wallace? That's a hell of a good question. Well,

George Wallace was high man before. .you know, I never have had that

put to me quite like that.

J.B.: Let's assume that Askew gets re-elected governor by a substantial

margin .

Home: Oh, heh going to get re-elected by a substantial margin. He's


From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview /-65 in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.






page 28


got more trouble than he thinks he has, but it's with the people that have

organized for him. They feel that he has been aloof, and he has, but being

governor makes you be rather aloof. He can't spend the time. People

around the state that have been in his organization in large numbers, aren't

in his organization anymore. He's replaced that with an extremely strong

popular image with people that don't know anything about politics and

don't give a damn. That's really a strange thing to move around and see

that that's what. .I'm not even sure that Reuben realizes this. Let

me punctuate that. I was in Broward County the other night and there

were four or five hundred people and the people that had organized it for

me, one of them was standing at the door greeting people as they came in,

and as that began to subside and the party separated and begin to me&low

out and having a drink or two, this guy says,"You know, I was Rueben's

campaign manager in Broward County last time." "Oh really?" And he

started calling over people and he called all but two of the committee

last time. And this isn't much of a compliment to me, but they are using

my race as an excuse not to screw with Askew. But in that same county, too .

W.D.V.: Why?

Home: One, he wouldn't communicate with them, wouldn't talk to them.

Being with him was a neuter. He is very, very objective. He leans

completely on staff and staff evaluation of what is right and wrong in

his opinion. Which is great, but committees like to be talked to and

listened to, particularly about patronage. Who is going to be this, that

and the other, and who isn't. But in that same county, I would venture

to say that Askew would get a 70% vote or better against anybody that ran

against him in the Democratic primary. And that doesn't answer kisxxiqKS

your question.

W.D.V.: Well, keep pondering his question, but how do you explain that

From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview /-.? in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.





page 29


phenomena, that 70% of Broward County would vote for him no matter what.

Home: Because of what I just said. That he had replaced the typical

extension of candidate from an organizational point of view, which is the

basic way, the way I've got to do it, because I don't have that image.

J.B.: How do you think, getting back to my question. .

Home: Yeah, I am, but he has replaced that with an image that is

pleasing to people.

W.D.V.: Is it free of organization?

Home: Yes. Free of organization. The name "Askew" has become symbolic

with fairness, honesty, and for the most part, he has been that. So, he

has replaced typical campaigning, and he would have to really screw up. .



(End of tape.)


From the Southern Oral History Program, #4007, Interview -S in the Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH MUST BE REQUESTED. WARNING: MOST MANUSCRIPTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs