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

Education I

10 Education I When educators introduced a bill in the 1951 legislature to increase the minimum school program cost from $3,300 to $3,800 per classroom unit, Lee gave no assurance that he would support it. He sympathized with educators that more funds were "desperately needed" but insisted that all state departments were facing shortages due to inflation. The bill was designed to increase transportation allowances by $325,000 and liberalize the local leeway levies, authorizing local districts to levy up to 8 mills or 40 percent of the district's minimum program for operation and maintenance. A levy of 4 mills or 20 percent of the district minimum program would be allowed for build­ing purposes.1 Eventually, Lee came out in direct opposition to the bill and began making his case in radio addresses. He quoted from a 1947 governmental research association survey that claimed that "the public education crisis is a hardy and hungry peren­nial," springing up every year with the same problems-inade­quacy of the program with the resulting need for more money, the cost of education not equitably distributed among all tax­payers, the basis for school support in need of broadening, and underpaid schoolteachers. Lee concluded that "crisis" was not a suitable word and advised all Utahns to worry less about educa­tional needs. Warning that Senate Bill 75 would cost $6,500,000 per biennium, he declared that the only way to obtain that money would be to increase taxes, principally on property." Lee correctly asserted that Utah was not a wealthy state, rank­ing thirty-fifth among states in average income per school child. Nevertheless, Utah ranked second among states in percentage of revenues devoted to schools.3 Lee's claim was supported by M. Lynn Bennion, former superintendent of Salt Lake City 117 J . BRACKEN LEE schools, who maintained that Utah consistently ranged near the top in percentage of personal income spent for education, even though the expenditure per pupil was near the bottom. In Bennion's view, teacher salaries were the major factor in school budgets.4 The theme for Lee's battle with educators could be taken from his memorable speech to national educators early in his first term. He said that many of Utah's chief public officials, including some in the field of education, were "not worth a raise in salary" because they were "mediocre individuals." He claimed that some of these mediocre individuals had "injured the schools.""' In a ten-year period, according to Lee, school costs had tripled while welfare costs had only doubled. He was unsympa­thetic with the argument that teachers had not had an increase in salary in four years and were underpaid. Lee told a radio audience: Some teachers, particularly the younger ones who have fami­lies, no doubt have a difficult time making ends meet. But 98% of the teachers receive over $2,400 per year and many of them can look to a guaranteed salary increase after every year of teaching up to an average of 16 years. Compared with teachers in most other states, Utah teachers also are doing right well. In 1941-42, when the average salary for Utah teachers was $1,431, the national average was only $1,223. Utah ranked 16th among the states. For 1947 and 48, the last period for which comparative figures were available, Utah ranked 13th among the states, with an aver­age teacher's salary of $2,916, compared with the national average of $2,440. Thus in 8 years' time, Utah climbed 3 notches on the salary ladder, while every teacher's salary more than doubled. And the salaries in many instances are still increasing.0 Lee quoted the average salary of teachers at $3,100, and said it was bound to increase every year at about 6 percent, the rate of increase in the cost of living.7 However, Allan M. West, executive secretary of the Utah Education Association disagreed. In a radio address, West said the average salary quoted by Lee included the salaries of principals and supervisors but that Lee 118 EDUCATION I had not included the earnings of physicians in computing nurses' salaries. "But if nurses are underpaid, does it follow that teachers should be also?"8 Nevertheless, Lee continued to strike out at "special interests" and "greedy minorities," claiming that further expenditures would lead to socialism.9 Senate Bill 75 was passed by unanimous vote in the Senate, then sent to the House where it was amended from $3,800 to $3,600 per classroom unit. Claiming that even the lower figure would raise tax bills some $1,500,000, Lee vetoed it. A substi­tute bill was introduced to raise the classroom unit to $3,500 which was passed by both houses, but Lee vetoed it, too. The veto was overridden in the Senate but sustained by the House. Incredibly, Lee had succeeded in expunging virtually every pro­posed educational expenditure from the budget. He remarked that the time had come when the public, the legislature, and educators themselves must realize that school costs had "increased out of proportion with the state's ability to foot the bill."10 He was also distressed that the educational lobby had "used every possible means to influence legislation," even "permitting school children to serve as carriers for messages to the homes." He called it "one of the most disgraceful displays of power politics in the state's history.11 The Utah Educational Review, organ of the UEA, com­plained that although eighty-two of eighty-three legislators had voted favorably at least once in the course of the bill's history, the 1947 figure of $3,300 per classroom unit would remain unchanged. The editors blamed Lee's assertion that Utahns were faced with a choice between lower school taxes or "the loss of our democratic freedoms." They rejected his claim that educators constituted a "vicious lobby" and supported the right of every citizen to actively participate in the affairs of representative government.12 The Review asserted that Lee's warnings about socialism and excessive government spending bordered on demagoguery, since Utah's income had tripled, increasing from $265 million in 1940 to $825 million in 1949. Moreover, Senate Bill 75 would have been 1.3 mills less expensive than the previous year, due to 119 J . BRACKEN LEE increased assessed values and increased income tax revenues.13 Although he did not claim to be misquoted, Lee accused edu­cators of twisting his words to suit their own purposes. He main­tained that he had never used the word "vicious" to describe educational lobbyists but only the word "disgraceful."14 The Review admitted mistakes in lobbying but insisted that they were "honest, innocent, and harmless," to which Lee took exception, saying there was great danger in using school chil­dren. He also claimed that the "deliberate misrepresentations and obvious dishonesty" of the Review's editorial spoke for them­selves. To support his belief that Utah had been extravagant in education, he quoted figures showing expenditures had increased 250 percent during a ten-year period while costs of the remaining functions of government had increased only 118 percent.15 Addi­tionally, Utah devoted a higher percentage of its total income for educational purposes than all other states except one.10 Acknowledging that Utah's income had tripled from 1940 to 1949, Lee reminded his detractors that there were multiple uses for that money. Finally, he insisted that since Utah was exceeding the national average in educational expenditures even though it ranked thirty-seventh in ability to pay, its expenditures were exceptional.17 Lee had preferred that legislators cut taxes first and then gauge appropriations accordingly. When they refused he felt compelled to cut away at those appropriations. He cut $710,000 for the two vocational schools, $1,000,000 for teacher retire­ment, and $124,000 for the school for the blind. He line-vetoed all of the $11,623,000 for higher education, necessitating a spe­cial session in June.18 At the special session Lee presented the legislature with a mandate for economy, quoting Thomas Jefferson to support his case: I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.19 120 EDUCATION I Promising that he had no intention of "crippling" state insti­tutions, he declared the necessity to be realistic in appraising financial needs. He reminded legislators of a law passed over his veto that permitted institutions of higher learning to "retain any surplus funds on hand at the end of any budget period for subse­quent use." Lee estimated those surpluses at between $847,000 and $955,000, either figure being in excess of reductions he had made in educational budget figures. He recommended a reduc­tion for the experiment station at Utah State Agricultural Col­lege, claiming the appropriation was seven times what it was eight years earlier. Lee requested that a $10,000 "job evaluation survey" be conducted at the state's major educational institutions and recommended reductions in appropriations to the two voca­tional schools; however, he wanted to purchase the property of the Salt Lake school at a price of $312,000. He called the appropriation for the teachers' retirement fund a token amount and suggested that a permanent financing plan be devised.20 Refusing to accept the latest economy edict, the legislators failed to reduce any of the eighteen items Lee had line-vetoed and gave the colleges and universities their full budgets. On the question of Senate Bill 75 they claimed that the increase per classroom unit from $3,300 to $3,600 would necessitate a prop­erty tax levy increase in every school district of 2.18 mills and even then would not produce the desired results. Therefore, they proposed a bill designed as a stopgap measure until a long-range study could be completed. Only funds urgently needed to equal­ize the tax burden among school districts and to provide state aid primarily to those districts unable to finance their own program were to be supplied. They gave $1,500,000 to poorer school districts and granted wealthier ones the authority to increase taxes if necessary. The state's portion of the program was pro­vided by the sales tax surplus, as Lee had recommended. This temporary solution realized the need for a more comprehensive study of the schools to be made by a sixty-member commission composed of individuals from every county, representing various occupations.21 121 J . BRACKEN LEE The legislature appropriated $312,000 for the purchase of the vocational school property, reinserted $1,000,000 for the teachers' retirement fund, and denied Lee the $10,000 he had requested for his educational "job survey." The legislators suc­ceeded in increasing the total outlay by $3,300,000 over that appropriated by the regular session. In other words, Lee's econ­omy program suffered more with the special session than it would have had he not vetoed the original package. To his credit, he observed the costs of the special session and the legislative vote count and decided against vetoing any of the bills. He did take a nominal swing at what he called "Democratic politicians" who were allegedly responsible for "excessive appropriations." Actu­ally, the House was split 30-30 between Democrats and Republi­cans, and the Senate was nominally Democratic but tending toward the conservative.22 Most significant for economy pur­poses, the special session cost the state $50,000.23 At the 1952 Governors' Conference, Lee made it clear that his views had not changed: Now, I cannot see the sense of building a school system that we can't afford to operate. If building a school system is going to destroy the economy of this country, what good is the school system? I think we've got to get back to this, that the people of this nation can afford to spend only so much money. Now, if we want to put all our money into schools, and let the highways go, all right, but we've got to balance this thing; we've got to balance our income with our outgo.24 In a national television interview he was asked if any Utah groups had been especially active in opposing his economy pro­gram. He replied that schoolteachers had been the most vehe­ment in opposition and that although most were "fine, loyal Americans," there was "a small, selfish minority" who had opposed him "for their own selfish ends."""' Since it was an election year, Lee boasted of his own record in education both on television and in a campaign tract entitled, "The Lee Record." He noted that expenditures for education had increased 42 percent, with the major share going into new 122 EDUCATION I construction, which, he said, was up 390 percent. Even though enrollment had declined, appropriations for higher education had increased 40 percent, producing the most impressive state-financed building program institutions of higher learning had ever experienced, according to Lee. For instance, Weber College was building a completely new campus on Ogden's southeast bench at a cost of more than $1,200,000, the University of Utah's building allocations totaled almost $2,000,000, and Utah State was given $1,000,000. He claimed that if the federal gov­ernment made a comparable effort to economize, the savings "in the vast, sprawling bureaucracy" would "stagger and defy the imagination."20 The UEA felt obliged to publish a special newsletter to answer Governor Lee's alleged achievements. They claimed that the 42 percent increase was misleading because school operating expenditures had increased only 17 percent while building expenditures had increased 247 percent; the average for the two was 42 percent. Furthermore, the number of children in daily attendance had increased by 12 percent and the cost of living by 7 percent, figures that more than offset the 17 percent increase in operating expenses. Educators thought it important to separate operating and building expenses since no state money had been spent for building construction.27 The UEA claimed that the war and postwar years had created a demand for new buildings because of depression, wartime restrictions, and an increased birthrate. All construction was financed from local funds. Therefore, educators believed that any credit Lee took for increased expenditures during his admin­istration should be ignored, because any increase was made possi­ble and controlled by a formula written into state law by the 1947 legislature-two years before Lee took office. Even the special session's appropriation for the poorest school districts was designed for the relief of emergency conditions and as of October 1952 had not been used to construct a single school building. Moreover, Lee had recommended against increased expenditures to higher education as well as against expenditures for building to both the 1949 and 1951 legislatures. Finally, the 123 J . BRACKEN LEE supplemental appropriations bill from the special session became law without his signature.28 Lee said that salaries for all instructional personnel had reached an all-time high average of $3,250 per year. But as educators pointed out, when Lee took office teachers' salaries were $277 above the national average; by 1951 they had dropped to $40 below the national average, in spite of the fact that Utah teachers ranked among the top four states in the amount of professional training completed.29 Continuing his economy program into the second term, Lee announced his firm intention to "give first consideration to the long abused and forgotten taxpayers." His proposed budget of $58,156,900 was almost a half-million dollars less than appro­priations for the previous biennium and nearly $15,000,000 less than the total of departmental requests. Operating on a budget of $5,869,480 during 1951-53, the University of Utah requested $7,107,561 for the 1953-55 biennium, and Lee recommended a cut to $5,360,000. In support of his action he cited a survey of the university made by a specially engaged firm of management consultants who predicted an enrollment decline. He made simi­lar cuts in requests of the Utah State Board of Education, Utah State Agricultural College, Branch Agricultural College (now Southern Utah State College), and Central Utah Vocational School. Lee cut requests totaling $15,026,268 for higher learn­ing to $10,926,000, more than $1,000,000 below the 1951-53 appropriation.30 Presumably, Lee considered the education requests to be padded, believing it axiomatic in budget-making to ask for more than was expected or needed, knowing that requests would be cut. The Deseret News raised the question of "whether other departments whose requests were not so drastically cut might also have submitted padded requests." The governor's statement of intent to study higher education and to devise a more satis­factory method of fixing institutional budgets was considered a significant clue to his thinking. The News pleaded with the legis­lature to prevent economies from jeopardizing "the state's nation- 124 EDUCATION I ally recognized leadership in education," even if that should make necessary an increase in educational appropriations.31 In Lee's opinion every college padded its budget: I knew it! Because I'd seen what had happened down in Carbon County. I was in a sporting goods store one day. The athletic director of Carbon College came in and said he had to get rid of $30,000 in 15 days. I says, "Why?" He says, "We've got it in the budget and if we don't spend it, the legislature'll reduce the budget. So my orders are to spend it." I says, "Do you need it?" He says, "I don't need any­thing, but I've got to spend it." Now this is human nature, see?32 Lee said he called the college presidents in 1953 and asked, "Why don't you just once give me an honest budget-what you actually need-let's see what happens." The legislature was short of money and cut everyone's budget by 20 percent. Accord­ing to Lee, college administrators were aware of that possibility, and thus padded their budgets about 20 percent. Since Utah State's president was the only one to present an "honest budget," he was the only one to be short of money that year. Well, do you think I could get that president next time to cut his own throat? I gave him the money through the Board of Examiners. But I didn't have the heart next time to say, "Don't you pad your budget." Because he became the sucker!33 The college president who was not affected by the budget limitations, ultraconservative Ernest L. Wilkinson of Brigham Young University, commended Lee for his "courage in slashing the new budget." His only regret was that Lee was not slashing the national budget, where the need was greatest.34 When the sixty-member school survey commission was appointed in 1951 Lee agreed to abide by its findings and to call a special session if necessary to implement them.35 In February 1953 the commission completed its work and presented a three-hundred- page report to Lee. H. Grant Vest, executive secretary of the commission, recommended the upgrading of teacher sal­aries, noting that the average teacher salary in Utah was $200 125 J . BRACKEN LEE per year lower than the average for the western states. Because of that, the commission suggested an increase in the classroom unit allowance from $3,300 to $3,500. To augment the salary recommendation the commission suggested that teachers be placed on a merit system so that they could be rewarded with incentive pay for superior work. These recommendations would cost the state an estimated $3,000,000 or more.30 Unfortunately for the schools, the legislature found it necessary to defer action because of a logjam of bills and the lateness of the report relative to the legislative calendar. It was presented on the thirty-ninth day of the sixty-day session. In a conference with the legislative council, Lee claimed that a $200 per year increase would not solve the problem for teachers suffering the most: teachers with wives and dependent children. This bias was shared by the Deseret News, which had earlier suggested that married teachers with families to support be given special salary considerations on the grounds that they were being forced out of education into more lucrative positions. The News asserted that the single person was in good shape, especially with three months off in the summer. A differential for male teachers would supposedly upgrade education without curtailing services or raising property taxes.37 The commission had considered and rejected the differential for male teachers, believing that a merit system would be more fair and equitable.38 PRESSURE FOR A SPECIAL SESSION Although several interested individuals and groups reminded him of his promise to implement the commission's report, Lee balked at calling a special session of the legislature.39 He insisted that he also promised the people that he would reduce taxes. However, he pledged to call a special session if he could be assured that additional funds requested for education would be obtained by reducing appropriations to other departments of government.10 Both the Deseret News and the Tribune strongly urged a special session and an emergency appropriation in the interest of good administration and good schools.11 As the teacher crisis 126 EDUCATION I became more serious, Lee grew more and more unpopular. By April, teacher contracts in thirty-five out of Utah's forty school districts had been withheld pending the possibility of financial assistance from the state to improve salary schedules. School boards adopted a "watch and wait" attitude in the hope that Lee would call a special session.42 Even though Utah faced a teacher shortage, a $200 raise would, in the view of administrators, enable the system to retain most of its best teachers rather than lose them to other states with higher salaries. The threat to the teacher supply could be seen clearly: in 1947-48 Utah trained 773 teachers, with 82 percent of them taking jobs in Utah schools. In 1954 the state trained 802 teachers, with only 37 percent taking jobs in Utah schools.43 Lee remained adamant. He also suggested that school dis­tricts in financial difficulty should tax to their local limits and raise those limits if necessary. State financing should only come as a last resort, he said, after local entities had exhausted their resources. Furthermore, he told a special committee of educa­tors that if a special session were called it should provide a referendum on higher taxes and better schools so that the people could directly choose.44 Attacking the governor for suggesting that legislators might be "pressured" into higher taxes when they were against them, the Tribune asserted that they were the people's direct repre­sentatives and thus more responsive to the people's will than the governor. Any "pressures" applied might well be the voice of the people arguing for a solution to the school problem. The Tribune urged that the people's representatives be given "a free hand in attacking the school problem-and soon."45 The Deseret News echoed that sentiment, claiming the school problem was "startlingly simple." There was an obvious, compelling need for "more money particularly for teacher salaries and for school finances." According to the News, the survey commission had done a creditable job which deserved a full hearing from the legislature.40 Lee responded ominously by predicting that if he was "forced by pressures from organized groups and newspapers" to call a 127 J. BRACKEN LEE special session, it would be "wide open" for increased expendi­tures and tax increases. He claimed to be "standing alone" in his opposition to increased taxes and would regard the calling of a special session a surrender of his economy program. In that event, he facetiously suggested, he might advocate more funds for health, highways, and "a fine state park on the shores of the Great Salt Lake."47 The situation was serious, because other Intermountain states slated to make increases ranging from $100 to $500 would widen the already noticeable $200 gap between their teacher salaries and Utah's.48 Finally, the legislative council agreed to study the school survey and make a report of its findings. In turn, Lee agreed to call a special session if the council suggested a "pro­gram that would provide for something more than just an increase in taxes." Since the survey was conducted under the auspices of the council, he maintained that no action could be taken until the council made a recommendation.49 The council recommended a special session, with only one of its members, Senate President Mark Paxton of Fillmore, dissent­ing- on the same grounds as the governor-that local boards had not yet exhausted their own revenue possibilities. Citing the need for "further study," Lee avoided a commitment and agreed to meet with the council at a later date.50 Severely criticizing Lee for ignoring the emergency, the Deseret News insisted that not only the council but a majority of Utah's citizens wanted full legislative consideration. The rejection of the council's recommendation indicated a lack of confidence in that body, just as Lee had previously demonstrated his mistrust of the legislature. As the News editorialized, "Appar­ently on the matter of school finances he has his neck bowed, and it is doubtful that any amount of 'further-study' will alter his position."51 This was only the warm-up in a continuing feud. Lee repeated his refusal to call the session: The greatest emergency is high taxes. Anything else is very minor. I would rather have a son with only an elementary 128 EDUCATION I school education than a son with a college degree and no freedom.52 In a scathing editorial entitled "Utah's One-Man Govern­ment," the Deseret News called for an end to "stubborn, auto­cratic government" and cited a placard behind Lee's desk quot­ing Oliver Cromwell: "In the bowels of the Lord, I beseech you, brethren, consider it possible that you may be mistaken." The News suggested that this governor "turn around and read it." Lee had established a commission to study the problem, but when its findings disagreed with his personal views he rejected them. He asked the legislative council to review the commission's findings, and when their recommendation disagreed with his he rejected it. "All of the best judgment of fine, intelligent people is thus discarded by the man who asked for their judgment in the first place." This, said the News, is "government unworthy of Governor Lee and unworthy of the State of Utah."53 The News objected to Lee's penchant to "blame" the school people and suggested that there be less talk of blame and more of the "welfare of our children." The editors complained that there would be fewer qualified teachers when school opened again in the fall; there would be curtailed classes and an "undercurrent of resentment" that would be transmitted to the children. Since Lee was not elected to be a lawmaker but to carry out the will of the lawmakers, the News implored him to realize that he was mistaken.54 In the Tribune's opinion, Lee's refusal to follow the advice of the council was a "breach of faith," placing on Lee "moun­tainous responsibilities," with Utah's future citizens the obvious victims. The Tribune questioned Lee's political acumen in delay­ing the matter until 1954 when an untried legislature would face the issue. He would, the Tribune believed, be more likely to influence the 1953 legislature since it was dominated by his own party.55 In spite of Lee's claim that his mail was running 10 to 1 against a special session, the Deseret News opinion poll reported that 81.9 percent of Utah's citizenry favored it.50 Finally, at the end of July, Lee changed his mind. He agreed to call a special 129 J . BRACKEN LEE session but unreasonably stipulated that educators agree to support all of the recommendations of the survey commission. E. Allen Bateman cautioned educators against making preses-sion agreements with the governor.57 Lee thrived on being recalcitrant with educators, and at times he seemed determined to prevent a resolution to the problem. In August a subcommittee of the legislative council was organized to work out a proposal for school financing acceptable to the governor, the legislators, and the educators.58 A few days later the legislative council as a whole approved their proposal and presented it to the governor, who was pleased enough with it that he announced that a special session would probably be called within a few months. Later, he announced that it would definitely not be called before the start of school in September, but it would likely be before January l.59 Lee further complicated the issue by threatening to withhold state aid to schools that shortened classes, a direct reference to the Salt Lake City School District's announced intention to cut second grade classes to a half-day. Superintendent M. Lynn Bennion said that there were 1,800 more children than the previous year, which suggested a need for three new schools. The answer could come only from the legislature.00 Bennion maintained that second grade had to be cut in order to open doors and make room for the additional schoolchildren. Still blinded by his philosophy, Lee blamed educators for being "shortsighted" and failing to take the issue to local taxpayers instead of continually relying on state aid.01 Nevertheless, he finally agreed to recommend to the special session a plan provid­ing about $1,000,000 in additional funds to school districts throughout the state. These funds would be allocated on the basis of current enrollment rather than on the previous year's enrollment.02 Formal announcement of the special session, to convene in December, did not come until November.03 Unaccountably, Lee called attention to some of the nonfinancial matters recom­mended by the survey commission and refused to put financing on the agenda until four days after the session had convened. 130 EDUCATION I He seemed especially interested in providing uniform textbooks for the state, in forbidding teachers to engage in politics while under contract, and in putting teacher salary raises on a merit basis. He accused the Utah Education Association of being a pressure group and said the state PTA was nothing but its "echo."04 Finally, in a surprise move, Lee recommended that the state close Carbon Junior College in his home town of Price and that it transfer three other junior colleges, serving 2,250 students, back to the Mormon church. He estimated that it would cost $1,400,000 to operate the colleges during the next biennium. Taxpayers were aghast, for there had been a popular joke about Utah's educational morass: save the entire education expenditure by giving the junior colleges to the Mormons, the universities to the Unitarians, the high schools to the Catholics, and the grade schools to the Protestants.05 But Lee was not joking; he favored returning the colleges to the Mormon church to enable state funds appropriated to them to be applied to elementary schools.00 The session considered two finance programs, one prepared by the legislative council and one by Lee. The difference lay more in the methods of obtaining funds than in the amount pro­posed. Lee would have required school boards to obtain a tax­payer vote of approval if school expenditures exceeded $4,617 per classroom unit, while the council would have required the vote at $5,000. The legislature enacted the council program, which included a $340 increase in classroom unit over what Lee had recommended. Lee promptly vetoed the plan, and the legis­lature failed to override. A compromise plan was worked out in which a $200 increase over what Lee wanted was imple­mented. Actually, the program was set at $4,050 per classroom unit, with a supplemental program raising the figure to $4,535. It became law without the signature of the governor.07 The same was true of a two-cent addition to the cigarette tax to be turned over to the schools. The legislature enacted a 70 percent teacher retirement plan, vetoed by Lee but overridden by the lawmakers.08 Merit raises were postponed, and Utah's teachers were sched­uled for a blanket increase of $200. Lee's only apparent victory 131 J . BRACKEN LEE was the junior college recommendation, which brought bitter reactions from the colleges and their communities.09 Since the transfer was tied to a referendum ballot, Utah voters went to the polls on November 2, 1954, and rejected it.70 Lee saw no inconsistency in his earlier role in helping to establish Carbon College and his later desire to abandon it. He had shared local high hopes for the college but thought it had failed to live up to expectations. Therefore, the state's general welfare could best be served by writing the college off as a failure. The people of Price were unimpressed with his reasoning and claimed that the college not only had justified itself but would continue to get bigger and better.71 The obvious victors in the special session were the survey commission, the legislature, and the educators. Although educa­tion would receive some long-awaited relief, the problems were hardly resolved. Education was destined to remain underfinanced as long as Lee remained governor. 132 EDUCATION I 4Salt Lake Telegram, January 23, 1951. 2Radio address by Gov. J. Bracken Lee, KSL, February 9, 1951, p. 1, MS in Lee Gubernatorial Papers. 3Ibid„ p. 2. 4Bennion to author. 5Salt Lake Telegram, February 8, 1950. 6Lee radio address, February 9, 1951. 'Ibid. sSalt Lake Tribune, February 16, 1951. 9E. L. Hess, "Utah's Angry Man," Frontier, August 1951, p. 9. 10"Education to Leeward." See also "The Strange Story of Senate Bill 75," Utah Educational Review, March 1951, pp. 6, 7. "Radio address by Gov. J. Bracken Lee, KSL, February 23, 1951, MS in Lee Gubernatorial Papers. 12"The Strange Story of Senate Bill 75," p. 6. 13Ibid., p. 7. "Lee to Allan M. West, executive secretary, UEA, April 12, 1951, Lee Gubernatorial Papers. 15Ibid. Lee used as his source Utah Foundation, Facts and Figures on Government in Utah: An Encyclopedia of Taxes and Public Expenditures in Utah (Salt Lake City: Utah Foundation, 1950 [?]), table 30, pp. 54-58. 16Lee to West. "Ibid. 18Hess, "Utah's Angry Man," p. 8; "Education to Leeward." "Message of Gov. J. Bracken Lee to Special Session of 29th Legislature of State of Utah, June 4, 1955, Lee Gubernatorial Papers. 2°Ibid. 21Hess, "Utah's Angry Man," p. 9; J. Bracken Lee, television and radio address, aired September 18, 1952, MS in Lee Gubernatorial Papers. 22Hess, "Utah's Angry Man," pp. 9, 10; Wilcox, "The Major Financial Policies," p. 34. 23Wilcox, "The Major Financial Policies," p. 36. 24J. Bracken Lee, speech at 1952 National Governors Conference, MS in Lee Gubernatorial Papers. 25Salt Lake Tribune, June 9,1952. Lee was questioned on national televi­sion by correspondents Huey and Hazlitt. 26Lee address, September 18, 1952. "Utah Education Association Newsletter, October 1952. 28Ibid. 29Ibid. 30Wilcox, "The Major Financial Policies," p. 43, quoting House Journal, 30th Legislature. 31Deseret News and Telegram, January 28, 1953, editorial. 32Lee interview. 33Ibid. 34Ernest L. Wilkinson, president, Brigham Young University, to Lee, Janu­ary 28, 1953, Lee Gubernatorial Papers. 35Rep. Simeon A. Dunn (Hyrum, Utah) to Lee, May 12, 1953; Lee to Dunn, May 21, 1953, ibid. 3sOgden Standard-Examiner, Deseret News, Salt Lake Tribune, February 20, 1953. 133 J. BRACKEN LEE ^Deseret News, April 8, 1952, editorial. 380. N. Malmquist, "Money Alone Won't Solve Teacher Problem," Salt Lake Tribune, May 3, 1953. 39Dunn to Lee. 40Lee to Dunn. 41Deseret News, February 20, 1953, editorial. See also Salt Lake Tribune editorial same day. 42Salt Lake Tribune, April 8, 1953. 43Statistics from U.S. Office of Education. 44Salt Lake Tribune, May 11, 1953. 45Ibid., editorial. 4BDeseret News, May 11, 1953, editorial. "Salt Lake Tribune, May 29, 1953. 480. N. Malmquist, "Teacher's Pay and Quality Seen as Urgent Issues," Salt Lake Tribune, May 12, 1953. 49Lee to Maurice Lyon, teacher, Grandview Elementary School, Provo, June 9, 1953, Lee Gubernatorial Papers. ™Deseret News, June 22, 1953. 51Ibid., editorial. ^Deseret News, July 3, 1953. '^Deseret News, July 4, 1953. S4Ibid. 55Salt Lake Tribune, July 5, 1953. The Richfield Reaper, July 16, 1953, also aggressively encouraged a special session. ^Deseret News, July 22, 1953, editorial. "Salt Lake Tribune, July 29, 1953. 5SDeseret News, August 3, 1953. ™Salt Lake Tribune, August 18, 1953; Deseret News, August 18, 1953. 00Logan Herald-Journal, August 26, 1953. "Ibid. S2Salt Lake Tribune, August 28, 1953. *3Deseret News, November 17, 1953. 04"The Governor and the Schools," Time, January 11, 1954, p. 47; Lee to Time, January 9, 1954; Lee to Roy Alexander, managing editor, Time, March 4, 1954, Lee Gubernatorial Papers. 05"Education to Leeward." ^Deseret News, February 20, 1954. C7"The Governor and the Schools"; House Journal, 30th Legislature, spe­cial sess., as quoted in Wilcox, "The Major Financial Policies," pp. 50, 51. 68Ibid. 69"The Governor and the Schools." 70State of Utah, "Abstract of Elections," November 2, 1954, Secretary of State's Election File, Utah State Archives. 71Salt Lake Tribune, October 2, 1954. 134