Seeking to address various interests as lieutenant governor
Scott describes his relationship with the North Carolina legislature. Democrats dominated state politics, he remembers, so he did not have to navigate as many partisan rivalries as do contemporary politicians. He did need to be responsive to other interests, though, including the desires of legislators and the need for them to appease their constituents. It appears that Scott wielded most of his power through committee appointment and by assigning bills to certain committees, depending on the legislators' wishes.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Robert W. (Bob) Scott, February 4, 1998. Interview C-0336-1. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- JACK FLEER:
-
Well, given that particular fact about your concern on that system, how
do you assess the relationship between you as lieutenant governor and
the legislature? What did you see your relationship as being? What were
you expected to do, from the legislative standpoint?
- ROBERT W. (BOB) SCOTT:
-
Well, from the legislative standpoint, I was expected to stay out of it,
pretty much. But our relationships, I think, were much more cordial then
than it is today. First of all, the house and the senate were both
heavily Democratic, so we were the same political
party. And the house and the senate worked much more closely together,
because there just wasn't that competition, that conflict
between the house and the senate on legislative matters. We often had
joint committees—a joint appropriations committee, joint
committees on whatever subject. And that hastened the process along,
because they'd work it out in a joint committee and then it
would go to the committees of the respective chambers and be passed
rather quickly, because it had been worked out by both houses of the
general assembly.
And we would have frequent conferences between the presiding offices of
the two bodies; our legislative staffs worked more closely together, I
think—in fact, I'm sure they did. And, you know,
when the sessions were over, we'd have a traditional
love-feast, you know, and gifts. That silver service set sitting right
over there, I think that's the one that was a gift from the
members of the Senate to me and my wife.
They don't do that kind of thing anymore, and one could say
the "good old boy" atmosphere—well, maybe
there was some truth in that, but the civility is not there anymore. And
the house and the senate, you know, they're just going for
each other's throats. And the same thing with the
governor's office. We didn't have a huge
staff-just a research staff, and all of that. We had some staff, but not
nearly as much as they have now. And so we relied on the governor and
the agencies of the state government for our information. But the
legislature's grown much more independent now. They act like
Congressmen, in Washington. During the time I was governor, and even as
lieutenant governor, I think the state legislature
was the fastest growing agency of the state government.
- JACK FLEER:
-
I have traced that growth. So, as a lieutenant governor, in your
relationship with the legislature, you were basically there to
preside?
- ROBERT W. (BOB) SCOTT:
-
Preside. And yet it was more than that. You know, sometimes they would
come and ask me, the members of the senate—My feelings, I had
so much camaraderie with the members of the senate that they would
always keep me informed, and my close supporters in the senate would try
to prevent their being a tie vote where I would have to go show my hand.
Only a couple of times, I think, I had to break a tie vote; I
don't even remember what the issues were.
- JACK FLEER:
-
I'm sure I can think of a number of reasons, but why did you
think they didn't want you to have to show your hand?
- ROBERT W. (BOB) SCOTT:
-
Friendship, I guess, and I guess some of them said, Well, he may run for
governor. And I would have one or two floor leaders, you know, and
I'd say, "How's this vote going to turn
out?" And they would move around and lean over and talk to this
senator and then go around and talk to that one and then come back and
say, "The vote's going to be thus and so",
and they'd be pretty close to right.
Remember that, of course, during those days, the lieutenant governor had
the authority to appoint committees and to refer legislation, and that
made me much more involved as a part of the senate. So they wanted to be
in my good graces, the members of the senate, so that if they had a
bill, they could get me to refer that to a friend
in committee. And they also, prior to the session, would like to serve
on certain committees, and they would like a certain person to be named
chairman of those committees. But the lieutenant governor had that
authority, which was considerable. And if I was opposed to a certain
piece of legislation, I could refer it to an unfriendly committee, or
one that I knew it would never see the light of day in. So that enabled
me to be much more a part of the process than the lieutenant governor
today. And that power also—the governor's office
was aware of that, and he would want to get his legislation through. And
so yes, I did confer with the governor's legislative liaison,
and so forth, but that was more a matter of process than it was
initiating legislation.
- JACK FLEER:
-
Was it felt at that time that it was appropriate for the governor or the
governor's office to talk with you about those appointments
or those legislative referrals, that was an acceptable thing to do?
- ROBERT W. (BOB) SCOTT:
-
Oh, yes. That was an acceptable thing to do. And you know, the governor
in some cases had no feeling about it—say, the committee on
agriculture and the committee on cities and towns, he didn't
really care too much about that, you know. So they recognized the
lieutenant governor's authorities and respected that, just as
I would recognize the governor's authorities. There
wasn't any pressure brought.
[END OF TAPE 1, SIDE B]
[TAPE 2, SIDE A]
[START OF TAPE 2, SIDE A]
- JACK FLEER:
-
The relationship between you and the governor and the possibility of the
governor having some influence, say, on you, in making appointments to
committees and making referral of legislation?
- ROBERT W. (BOB) SCOTT:
-
You know, there was no problem with communication. The
governor's desires would be made known, if he had any in a
particular situation, and I would take that into account. I guess in
terms of appointing committees and committee chairs, the greatest
interest in that came from the senators themselves. I know the late
senator Julian Allsbrook, of Roanoke Rapids in Halifax County, took
great pride in the fact that, ever since he'd been in the
state senate, he'd always been chairman of the judiciary
committee number one. And it was just beyond any possible understanding
of his that he would have anything else. Judiciary committee number two
would not suffice. That was the only thing he wanted in the way of
appointments. Of course, the longevity or seniority wasn't
really a factor, in the end, but sometimes you do kind of respect it, if
a person has done a good job and you have no objection to it, like
Senator Allsbrook. I could care less, in that situation.
So again, as you well understand, in the appointment of committees,
you're trying to get a certain balance geographically to the
state and to certain interests. You want to be certain
that the agricultural people have their representation on
committees other than agriculture.
Where a lot of the influence tried to be placed—well, not
pressure, but—came from the special interest groups, like the
educators, the North Carolina Association of Educators. They were very
interested in who was going to be on their subcommittees on
appropriations. And the agricultural organizations, of course, were
concerned about who was going to be, not only chair of the committee,
but who was going to be on those committees. And they, the so-called
special interest groups—which weren't called that
in those days, that's a relatively new term—but
they would not hesitate to come. Utilities, that was a big one. The
utility companies wanted very much to have some say in who was going to
be on the utilities committee. During that particular period of time, we
were trying to work out an agreement by law between the private
utilities and the rural electric cooperative associations. That was a
bitter battle, back in those days, about territorial rights. So in those
cases, it was anticipated there might be a legislative activity, perhaps
very controversial activity, the commodity organizations, the special
interest groups, would have a great deal of interest and would spend
some time with the lieutenant governor trying to make their case,
"We'd like to have these people on the
committee."