Let 'em Holler - A Political Biography of J. Bracken Lee

Battle with Bateman

9 Battle with Bateman E. Allen Bateman, a Democrat, became Utah state superintendent of public instruction in 1944, when the post was elective, and was reelected in 1948. He had always contended that the posi­tion should not be elective, even campaigning on that platform in 1944; but it was not removed from politics until after the 1948 election. The first major conflict between Bateman and Lee occurred when Lee, as mayor of Price, suggested that the presi­dent of Carbon College be dismissed. Since the college was under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Instruction, Bateman conducted an investigation and found no cause for dis­missal. There is reason to believe that when dismissal did not occur, Lee decided that his position as mayor had been circum­vented. 1 Early in Lee's first term as governor, the two had another serious clash over a $20,000 research fund request. Bateman wanted $10,000 per year allocated for two years to the Research Division of the Department of Public Instruction, but Lee vetoed it. In a test case, a district court held the veto to be invalid; and Clinton Vernon, the attorney general, agreed. When Bateman requested the money from the Finance Commission, Lee refused to allow the commission to make payment. Even though he admitted that Bateman's department was entitled to the funds, Lee was convinced that they could operate effectively without the $20,000 through wise and efficient use of current funds. He tried to pressure Bateman by emphasizing the need to save the tax­payers' money.2 Bateman refused to submit. The issue as he saw it was whether the governor or the legislature had the constitutional authority to make appropriations. If the money was legally avail­able, insisted Bateman, the governor must allow the appropria- 109 J . BRACKEN LEE tion to be made regardless of his own opinion about its wisdom. Bateman threatened further court action,3 but Lee remained adamant. He argued that the money was not legally available because the opinion of the court was not binding. He rejected Bateman's conclusion that inconvenience or suspension of state services was the responsibility of the governor in case of court action; rather, he believed that it was the responsibility of the department of government that initiated the action.4 But Lee lost the battle. Five months later, the state supreme court upheld a lower court ruling that Bateman was entitled to the $20,000." A specialist at diversion politics, Lee called for an investiga­tion of the Department of Public Instruction, questioning its efficiency for thinking an additional $20,000 was needed. Even though he recognized its motivation, Bateman welcomed an investigation providing it was impartial and carried out by pro­fessionally trained and experienced public school educators.0 Lee proceeded to choose the committee with blatant disregard for the superintendent's suggestion, designating instead people like Thorpe Isaacson, whose extreme views on education paral­leled his own, and Marl Gibson of Price, a political crony with no experience in the field and biases similar to Lee's. Three more citizens with no special expertise in education completed the committee: Karl Hopkins of Ogden, Melvin Wilson of Payson, and W. J. O'Connor of Salt Lake City.7 Finally, Lee accused Bateman of unethical conduct and illegal procedure for openly promoting two constitutional amend­ments with the purpose of removing the superintendent from the political ballot. Bateman believed this was an educational prob­lem rather than a partisan political issue. He admitted having actively worked for adoption of the amendments with the full support of the Utah State Board of Education, and he quoted several portions of the Utah Code to support the ethics of his stand.8 The Lee-Bateman feud was moving toward a major con­frontation. In 1950 Bateman spent six weeks teaching courses in educa­tional administration during the summer session of the University of Southern California. This angered Lee, who thought it unethi- 110 BATTLE WITH BATEMAN cal for Bateman to accept a salary in California while continuing to receive his Utah salary. Bateman compared it to a sabbatical taken by university professors and said that the state school staff had a policy allowing directors and supervisors six weeks off with pay every three years in order to teach or attend school. The process enabled administrators to keep abreast of developments in their fields. It had been five and one-half years since he had assumed office, and he had not yet taken advantage of that pro­vision. 9 When Lee accused him of spending too much time out of state, Bateman offered to compare his record with the gover­nor's and have them published.10 Bateman attacked Lee for allowing an inefficient and danger­ous state car pool system. He claimed that paying employees at the rate of six cents per mile for driving their own cars would be cheaper than the method employed by the state, because it would be paid on a destination-to-destination basis instead of total mile­age. However, P. H. Mulcahy, Utah State Finance Commission chairman, claimed that the rate paid was actually four cents and that in two years there had not been a single accident charged to mechanical defects in state-owned cars.11 In 1951 Lee began a series of attacks on the "school lobby" which was trying to convince the legislature of the importance of raising teacher salaries. Lee was opposed to an increase in the state school finance program for economic reasons, contending, in a startling example of overkill, that if it was necessary to choose between the destruction of the schools and the destruction of democracy, he would choose the schools. In his counterattack, Bateman charged that the governor had impugned the motives of educators. Bateman claimed that it was unrealistic to charge the schools with vicious lobbying and ignore the great pressures exerted by the governor's office, by paid professional lobbyists, and other opponents of the schools. It is especially regretted that the governor is including school board members and members of the Parent-Teacher Associa­tions in his so-called "vicious school lobby". . . . To impugn their motives can serve no worthy purpose and to call them minority groups is a misnomer.12 I l l J . BRACKEN LEE Bateman attacked Lee's suggestion that the Board of Exam­iners direct the Salt Lake Area Vocational School on the grounds that it would be unconstitutional for an educational institution to be controlled by anyone other than the state Department of Education.13 Lee never believed in vocational schools, main­taining that educators made a serious mistake in arguing that arts and science were "better" than bricklaying, carpentry, mechanics, etc. According to Lee, high schools and colleges should train students for the vocations just as they do for the professions and issue a diploma equal to the arts and sciences. He vetoed the vocational education bills because he honestly thought it would put them out of business. Federal funds kept them going, confirming his suspicion that they did not need all the money Bateman had claimed.14 Bateman was critical of the governor's request for a $10,000 job evaluation study in Utah's institutions of higher learning, calling it "an attempt at dictatorship."15 Lee charged Bateman with the desire to establish his office as a fourth branch of gov­ernment with funds guaranteed, not appropriated, and with free­dom to spend them without legislative or executive check or supervision. According to Lee, the fact that Bateman had taken a position against the job survey was "recommendation in itself that the survey be made." Referring to the successful referendum removing the office of superintendent from the ballot, Lee claimed that the people had voted "to take politics out of educa­tion but they did not succeed in taking the Superintendent of Public Instruction out of politics." He alleged that people whose livelihood depended on public funds would gain from an increase in taxes. Such motivation he attributed to Bateman.10 After he had signed the bill providing for popular election of school board members with the authority to name the state superintendent and set his salary, Lee launched an open effort to eliminate Bateman. Although he promised not to interfere with the board, he wrote a letter to each board member asserting that the people did not want this appointment to go to anyone who had been active in partisan politics or who might be in the future.17 112 BATTLE WITH BATEMAN Ignoring Lee's advice, the school board appointed Bateman and raised his salary from $6,000 to $10,000 per year. Flabber­gasted, Lee called a special meeting of the Board of Examiners to review the salary hike and bitterly remarked that his suspicions were confirmed that "Bateman was more interested in getting a raise in salary than in helping the schools when he supported the change in the law." Lee objected to the raise because Bateman had been elected to a job that paid only $6,000. Actu­ally, there was another more important reason. Bateman's raise placed him well above the salary bracket of all other elected officials in the state, Lee's salary at the time being only $7,500.1S Lee opposed both the appointment and the salary and declared, "I will never approve the salary, and if there is any possible grounds on which to challenge his right to the position, I will seek a court decision."19 The Board of Examiners, consisting of the governor, the attorney general, and the secretary of state, approved the salary raise two to one, with the two Democrats voting against the gov­ernor. However, the Finance Commission rejected the new salary by a two to one vote on grounds that it was not consistent with salaries of other state appointive and elective officers.20 In turn, the Board of Education held up Bateman's first paycheck under the new salary but refused to reconsider their decision.21 According to a survey, Bateman had become the second highest paid superintendent in the eleven western states, with only Cali­fornia paying more at $15,000.22 Meanwhile, Bateman threatened court action to get his salary. Although he was entitled to receive his old salary, he refused to accept it, pending court action. To him it was a matter of principle whether the governor or the Board of Education had the power to control his position and salary.23 He rejected his checks for over eight months, going completely without salary. According to one news account he was forced to refinance his home and borrow money from friends in order to eat and have a place to live.24 But Bateman's son Richard said that his bank volunteered to put him on an "open loan" basis and continued to honor his personal checks with the understanding that he 113 J . BRACKEN LEE would pay them back with minimum interest when the matter was resolved. A group of local superintendents also offered to finance him, but Bateman decided to accept the bank's arrange­ment. 25 In 1952 the Utah State Supreme Court ruled that the salary could be legally determined by the Board of Education, thereby upholding Bateman's position, and awarded him $8,750 in back pay.20 Unaccountably, the Board of Examiners ignored the action and officially cut his salary back to the old $6,000 per year. Finally, the Utah legislature passed a bill putting a ceiling on his salary at $8,000, a measure Lee said he would sign into law. Weary of the controversy, the Board of Education also backed down by recommending that Bateman's salary be set at $8,000, virtually relinquishing their right to set his salary,27 and the matter was finally resolved. With the legislature on Lee's side and the courts on Bateman's, the result could be construed as a draw. Claiming no animosity for Bateman, Lee maintained that he respected him and considered him a "good man." Oversimplify­ing their controversy, he said, "I liked Bateman, at first. But I wanted to cut down on travel and everybody cut down except Bateman."28 The differences between liberal Democrat Bateman and the highly conservative Lee were far more severe. Bateman considered education a nonpolitical issue, whereas Lee believed that the chief executive should be able to control educational policy. Bateman thought that Lee was harmful to education because his economy measures retarded the building program and cultural programs such as music, art, and foreign languages.29 Since most educators sympathized with the latter view, the Lee-Bateman feud came to symbolize Lee's intensive battle with educators.30 114 BATTLE WITH BATEMAN iRichard A. Bateman, son of E. Allen Bateman, to author, October 5, 1972. 2Lee to E. Allen Bateman, September 28, 1949, Lee Gubernatorial Papers. 3Bateman to Lee, November 4, 1949, ibid. 4Lee to Bateman, November 14, 1949, ibid. ^Deseret News, March 8, 1950. GBateman to Lee, November 4, 1949. TLee to Marl D. Gibson, December 9, 1949, Lee Gubernatorial Papers. 8Bateman to Lee, November 8, 1950, ibid. sDeseret News, August 8, 1950. 10Deseret News, August 13, 1950. 14Deseret News, November 23, 1950. 42Deseret News, April 21, 1951. 13Deseret News, June 6, 1951. "Lee interview. 15Deseret News, June 6, 1951. 1GIbid. See also Lee's press release dated June 5, 1951, Lee Gubernatorial Papers. "Salt Lake Tribune, June 20, 1951. ^Deseret News, October 1, 1951. ™Salt Lake Tribune, October 20, 1951. 20Deseret News, October 27, 1951. 21Deseret News, November 3, 1951. 22Logan Herald-Journal, October 27, 1951. 23Bateman to author. 24Logan Herald-Journal, July 15, 1952. 25Bateman to author. 26Salt Lake Tribune, September 1, 1952. "Deseret News, March 7, 1953. 28Lee interview. 29Bateman to author. 30This view was supported by M. Lynn Bennion, former superintendent of the Salt Lake City School District. Bennion called Bateman "a dedicated and capable administrator." He said that "the school people generally sided with Bateman and tended to develop at the outset of Lee's term as Governor a very great dislike for him." Bennion to author, January 13, 1973. 115