This week on The Editors.

The state of Pennsylvania continues its search for governor, with the state primaries only a few weeks away.

A state House subcommittee begins the investigation of a Supreme Court justice.

And Brian O'Neill brings us the last word.

With the primary election right around the corner.

Voters must decide who will best serve Pennsylvania as the next leader.

Continuing in the series of candidates for governor, John Craig and Dennis Roddy meet Sam Katz, a Philadelphia businessman who claims he'll create jobs by cutting both taxe and spending in the government.

Sam, nice to have you with us.

Dennis, I think the might be good if we just tell people out here, who is Sam Katz?

So some of his opponents are asking that, too.

So I hope they're listening.

Sam Katz is 44 years old.

He's from Philadelphia.

He is a businessman.

He helped to found a firm that, among other things, does, financial analysis and, correct me if I'm wrong.

Some bond business or adviser to state local governments and, we do all kinds of things from helping them balance their budgets to helping them figure out how to finance projects.

In 1991, he changed his registration to become a Republican, ran for mayor of Philadelphia, did not win that nomination.

This is his first statewide run for office.

He's going for the top governor.

So you ran for the first of the mayor, and then and then and now governor.

I changed my registration in 1990, and, I ran in the primary in 1991 and lost to Frank Rizzo.

And, this is my first race, but I think the people in the Delaware Valley have a great awareness of me in the southeastern.

I've been building, I think, a high level of name recognition in other parts of the state.

And I think the campaign is going quite well.

And an what are your credentials to be?

I mean, why would we take, somebody who's in investment counseling business, to come in government?

Government finance is my business, and I've been a financial advisor to states and local governments for 18 years.

If you're satisfied with the way government is in Pennsylvania today, then you must like career politicians.

And if you think that Pennsylvania is on the wrong track, if you think that Pennsylvania needs to change the way its government functions in order to become competitive in the 21st century, if you want government to run more business, like, maybe the better choice would be a business person.

And as the only business person in the Republican field, I think the reason why voters in the southwest and other parts of the state would find my candidacy appealing is because I don't come out of the political system, I don't come out of the political machine, and I'm not wedded to the ways of the past.

Could you give me an example?

I mean, because this is a this is a standard Republican line, at least in long.

A lot of Republican say what you really need to do is to put somebody like, you know, Charles Wilson of General Motors, in charge of the Defense Department.

Things will be okay.

But actually, experienc suggests that most businessmen are really failures when they get into any government because government isn't really business.

Government is politics.

So can you give me some examples of where the kind of line you just put forward actually work?

Well, I've been involved i negotiating some very difficult, lease arrangements and transactions and business arrangements between conflicting parties, like legislators who are very often conflicting parties.

I've organized and built a company, in which I was responsible for motivating people to get a job done.

That's a good thing for a governor to do.

I understand that there is a lot of anxiety about the businessman absent the government experience, but I've had government experience because my entire business career has been with helping people like mayors and county commissioners and governors deal with legislators to get things done.

So you're telling me you ar actually, in fact, a politician?

I'm a good politician.

You're not embarrassed about this?

Absolutely not.

I think I'll be an excellent politician in that role.

But I think all of life is politics.

I started out.

My view on politics by reminding my children.

And remind I would remind your audience that, when you're a father you have to trade peas for TV.

And we learn at a very early age that if you want to watch television, you got to eat your peas.

And I think that's part of the life of many other fathers who are running against me, have this similar and better credentials, better, better credential on on peas for TV, I don't know.

And as to whether he's a good witch or a bad witch when it comes to politics, that's generally decided on an emotive basis.

What sticks out here in my mind, though, is that one, you come from the outside, which means that already we're talking about, a need to establish some degree of credibility with peopl when when you promote a program and then two you, you carry along with you, program that, at first blush, would sound sort of, like something that came from outer space.

You want to sell the turnpike?

Oh, no, no, that's not outer space.

Now, look, I'm not selling it to move it.

It's going to stay where it is.

I'm selling it in a recognition that if you want to cut taxes in Pennsylvania and you want to do i with the least amount of pain, one strategy available to a smart governo who is thinking about the future is to sell off the rights to manage certain assets well, you can retain the use of the asset for the benefit of the public privatization.

Yes.

And and and that's not that's not a goofy idea from outer space.

Governments all over this country are doing that.

This is not a new idea for, for for this for this state, for this.

This state needs to be by the throat and brought into the 21st century.

We're going to be competitive.

Which brings up the next question is, is that is that privatization, factore into your tax and budget plan?

The way that, the way that the, privatization of the state liquor stores would be.

Well I have proposed the sale of both the liquor system and the turnpike by the end of this decade, by fiscal 1999.

And I am proposing that the proceeds from the sale of those assets be invested in an endowment where the investment income can be used to reduce business taxes.

I am not proposing tha as a first year accomplishment.

This is something I have established as a goal to be completed by the end of my first term, and I recognize that I have a lot of educating to do, but that's the job of a governor.

A governor has to put forward an ambitious program and go sell it to the people.

And I intend to try to.

Thornburgh had two terms to try this and and a considerable amount of, of political capital with which to work, and he was unable to accomplish it.

What makes you different in that respect?

Well, I don't want to.

I don't want to compare myself to anybody else.

I think that, one of the skills that I do bring to this job, is as a good compromiser and a good marketer and a good merchandizer of ideas, and one of the thing that I've done on this campaign, as evidenced by this program, is the fact that we're talking about one of my ideas, and that's been characteristic of the Hulk.

We try to do that.

So we figure for a couple more, we'll talk about what their have is given mine.

This is where the issue and this is not unique to talking about ideas.

No no, no.

That's what this program is all about.

Well I don't want to I think that I have a good ability to go down to the caucuses, both Democrat and Republican, both the House and the Senate, and negotiate a resolution to the proposals that I want to get done, both a Governor Thornburgh and Governor Casey have shown historically, a disinclination to do that.

I'm not looking to g from governor to something else.

This is going to be a very exciting challenge for me in terms of my personal interests and career.

And I want to be successful at it, and I'm going to ge my fingernails dirty doing it.

Do you have to, you completely sort of collapse your business if this if this turns out to be successful I have cut unlike, Congressman Ridge, who no longer attends, his business very diligently but still gets paid full time.

I've already cut myself back to one day a week, and I'm really only working on one thing in my business.

I resigned as CEO of the company last January a year ago, and my partner, is running the business and it will run great without me.

And when I resigned from the company, I don't own the business.

The business is a wholly owned subsidiary of a bank.

I will sever all ties with the business.

I think that one of the things is, though, as eloquent as Dennis was when we began to explain this thing, that what you're what you really are are some somebody who advises people and how to to to get money.

Right.

Is that government not somebody?

I mean governmental agencies, governmental agencies and and raising capital to build highways, libraries, schools, hospitals, wastewater treatment and stadiums and arenas and a variety of other kinds of projects.

And we're principally involved now, and also developing a business that deal with distressed cities, cities that are financially underwater and are trying to figure ou a way back, to financial health.

When we're talking about money, I assume that one of the principal vehicles is bonds.

Is that right?

Well, for raisin capital, bonds, leases, loans, all kinds of things like that for dealing with financial problems it's things like privatization, fiscal reforms, designing new ways to collect and accelerate tax collections and so on.

But it's a very interesting and successful business, and one that's had a very goo long history here in Pittsburgh.

Do you think that Pennsylvania, from your, view, is, is more sophisticate in general in these areas than, than other states, average below average, average, average?

I think Pennsylvania's quite average.

I think that the, you know, finance is about politics because finance is about people's money.

And there's no issue that gets people more excited than their money.

And I think that one of the things that you need to recognize when you're dealing in the financial world is that you can give the very best advice and come up with the very best ideas.

But if you can't sell i to the people who run for office every four years, it's not going anywhere.

Is the best place.

Well, I think that, one of the most interesting places in terms of financial reform has been in Wisconsin under Governor Thompson.

There's been an awful lot o exciting things happening there.

There are a lot of efforts being made to, reform, for example, of what do you think?

What do you think?

Well I think that the whole movement in both Wisconsin and in Michigan towards trying to reform, property taxation for education, which has now been successful in Michigan, it took a crisis to make it successful, I think Governor Thompson, support of school choice and educational finance reform in Milwaukee is something that's really worth looking at.

The problem with Pennsylvani right now, in terms of finances is that the the state has really imposed an extraordinary number of restrictions.

The state has retained fo itself an awful lot of control.

And local governments are really suffocating under that, that those controls.

And I think those controls were set up a long time ago, at a time when government demands for that at the local level were entirely different than they are today.

And what we need to really do is revisit the question of the relationship between the state and local governments.

Who's responsible for what kinds of services, and who ought to have the ability and flexibility and responsibility to pay for it.

Let's quickly now, let's take off a few things.

Just, you know, where does this guy stand on certain issues like let's let's just begin capital punishment for it.

Abortion.

I'm pro-choice.

And I would, I would not have signed the Abortion Control Act, as I said on Saturday, but it's the law of the lan that's been tested by the state, the United States Supreme Court.

And I want to move the state o to other issues like adoption, and trying to promote more education in terms of teenage abstinence and prenatal care and things like, would you sign a state leve sort of freedom of choice act, which removed virtually al or any restrictions on abortion?

I would not expend capita to get one pass because frankly, I don't thin the votes are there to pass it.

But if one was passed, I would sign it.

What about shifting, to private education vouchers or things where public money is used for private education?

I'm very supportive of both propert tax reform of dramatic property tax and fiscal reform.

That wasnt my question.

My question is whether or not we want to use public money for private education.

I want to use public money t improve the quality of schools.

And what I propose is that we give each school district a referendum, the opportunity to vote on whether they want to continue the system that they have, or to a system of educational choice in which dollars would be used.

But if you have an educational I favor, school choice, I favor okay.

And in that system, does it include just choice within the public school system or vouchers, which could be spent in the private schools?

I would I would favor the freedom of the use of those vouchers or scholarships for the school of choosing by the parents.

How about increased funding at the state level for public education in Pennsylvania?

Right now, it's averages about 45%.

You could go to some states where it gets up to be in the 90 range.

Is it do you have any position on that?

I have not taken a positio to increase funding right now.

I think that the problem in public schools needs to focus on spending and not funding.

The mix of funding.

Yes, but not increasing funding.

There's no evidence in Pennsylvania, despite the fact in the past decade that we've increased school funding by 100% from 4.5 to 9.5 billion, that we've improved the quality of education.

And there's no correlation that I think is statistically valid that says more money.

Yeah, right.

Just in this state that you cited, including Michigan, one of the way to get off the property tax is that you should if they just replaced.

Well, that's right.

But you, you, you in a sens go to taxes which are statewide.

And and so that means that you have increased state funding.

Are you in favor increased state funding?

I'm very interested in exploring the elimination of the property tax and the replacement with other taxes, but I have not taken a position as to which tax I would be because you haven't thought about it.

You don't want to commit yourself.

This is because in the nature of political campaigns, most decisions get framed in 30 second TV ads.

Okay, well, we give we've given you a few minutes on this where, what are the other issues that we missed, well, I guess we could touch on gun control and the proposed ba on what I call assault rifles.

Where are you on that?

Quickly.

I'm supportive of a ban on military weapons.

And the sale of military weapons in Pennsylvania.

Is it is Tom Ridge your opponent?

Tom Ridge is principle opponent at this point, I think I'm the candidate to beat in this race.

I'm the person who's been the most aggressive in articulating the future for Pennsylvania.

And I think that the Ridge campaign has recognized that evidence, their, negative television ads against me.

So any it's out of the races?

No, I don't think so.

I think that, you know, he's been hurt, but, he has shown himself to be an extraordinarily resilient campaigner.

And, with three weeks or three and a half weeks to go, I'm not ready to ride anybody out of this race.

Mike Fisher is still out kicking.

And, I just feel very confiden that the people in Pennsylvania are ready for a change, that I'm the candidate that offers the best chance of making a change on a national basis.

What Republican are you closest to philosophically?

Jack Kemp I like Kemp.

I think Kemp is somebody who has not lost sight of the problems of cities and who understands the importance of economic development and attacking crime and and helping people where they live.

I find, Dick Cheney to be a guy who's a very appealing, if not in terms of personality, certainly in terms of thought and philosophy.

And I, I try to define my own path.

And then that's wha I've done during this campaign.

But I think maybe you've accomplished that too.

Thanks.

Thanks a lot, Sam.

Pleasure.

Thank you.

John.

State Supreme Court Justic Ralph Larsen refuses to testify before the House, but as a focus of an investigation will he find himself impeached next?

Representative Frank Dermody a Democrat from Oakmont, joins John Craig and Bill Moushey to explain the charges against Larsen.

Well, it's nice to be in another installment of the young and the restless.

I think this case seems to me to be going along with about as many plot changes as that.

Where where do we stand right now in the saga of Ralph Larsen.

Well, as most people know, last Saturday he was convicted of conspiracy, in a drug, scheme.

Last Tuesday, the House Subcommittee on Courts, from the Judiciary Committee listed six charges or six areas that could be possible grounds for impeachment.

And a variety of things are happening.

Almost by the hour, I and jus I was being a little suspicious, but isn't it true that the first parts of this thing began back in about 1981 or 2?

Well, as you well know, since you're the editor of the newspaper, the paper started writing stories in 1981.

And then, we published another story in 1985 that I wrote about the, possible contact, which is one of the issues in this, which is one of the issues today.

And, actually, you know, it's just been going on and on and on.

It's taken on, several lots.

So Frank, your committee is for people watching.

This is what it what is it?

What's his nature, where it come from?

But the subcommittee is this a subcommittee on courts of the House Judiciary Committee and has been in existence for several years.

A impeachment petition was filed with with the House of Representatives was referred to the Judiciary Committee, and that petition was referred to the Subcommittee on Court.

When did that occur?

That occurred back in last March, maybe even early February or March over a year ago.

Exactly.

And somebody said and introduced the petition which was passed in the House.

We are and we ought to proceed with in this impeachment proceed.

Impeachment proceedings ended and then an impeachmen proceedings is actually a trial.

Is that right?

Well, the the the culminatio of the impeachment proceedings would be a trial.

And what we had to start out with, with this petition, because it was, very roughly drafted and it was just from that weekly.

And the need for have an investigation.

Right.

And, in other words, somebody says it's sort of like it's not like a grand jury, but somebody says to the, to your committee, do we have grounds to present to the, to the, I guess, to the full house or to make the we turned a return some indictment against this man.

So basically.

That's correct.

And, you know, it's impeachment hasn't been used in the Commonwealth since 1811.

It's a very extreme remedy.

We wanted to mov very cautiously and carefully.

But what we're saying is that basically, like a grand jury says, if we take it and step from the subcommittee to the Judiciary Committee, and then they would vote ou a resolution if there's there's sufficient evidence for the House to consider.

And all we're saying at that point, if the House, let's say, votes out articles of impeachment, that there's enough evidence to proceed to trial and that trial is your job done now, for all intents and purposes, the investigation of the subcommittee, we hope to have finished by the end of April.

And then my job o the subcommittee's job was to, make recommendation to the full Judiciary Committee, and then they would do what they would vote on.

A resolution would not be a recommendation, a resolution either containing articles of impeachment, which they would vote up or down.

And if they vote any articles or all the all the suggested articles out of the committee, that resolution would be presented the floor of the House.

Now for people again, just I want to be a bore about but the way they can see some parallel this is they can remember in Nixon's last days.

Right.

And the House Judiciary Committee, the U.S.

Congress was holding at leas hearings on on the Nixon matter.

That's correct.

That's correct.

I just said that about where they were to make an recommendation.

He quit.

That's right.

All right.

Now is what's going to happen here.

Does anybody have any idea?

Well, well, I think that, Bill can stop loss.

Justice Larson's lawyer has constantly kept doors open as far as negotiations and, he even was quoted in the Post-Gazette yesterday saying that he, opened the door to, negotiations, etc.. What my question for Frank is, is, are you guys in a negotiating mood at this point?

Well, I don't think that there's much that we can negotiate.

If the justice decide to resign, then he can resign.

And I don't.

There probably isn't much reason for us to have an impeachment proceedings.

However, we're operating under a House resolution that requires us to make a report.

And I would think the way it would shake out was we would finalize our report, make that report as we required to do, and that would probably be the end of it.

But other than that, there's not any negotiations that we could carry.

I mean, he could I mean, he you wouldn' be the people he, you know, go with what you that's.

Well, exactly right.

I mean, there were some, attempts while there were tha the criminal case was going on, and there's absolutely nothing we can do or intervene with or participate in, in any way in a criminal, case.

No.

One thing we have left undescribed.

There is also in place a brand new judicial disciplinary procedure in this state, which has two parts.

It has one part which does an investigative part, and the second part has one which acts as a court, which which acts on recommendations from the investigative report.

That's right.

And that group is called what now?

The Court of Judicial Conduct, Code of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Discipline.

Yes.

All right.

And and if you would worry, are they the more likely people with whom you work a deal?

I guess the justice could tr to work a deal with them.

Yes.

They're just getting started.

They're now in operation, our investigation, it was much farther along than theirs.

And if there was going to be any negotiation about penalties, that would be, you suggest they're incurred through that court.

And that's where the negotiations would have to this biggest, all along, all the sources I have have always said that, the hang up to a resolution of the criminal matter and through a plea bargain or or some kind of, adjudication, was that Larson wanted assurance that no one would attempt to, would, you know, to pull his license to practice law.

And the way I understand it, the Court of Judicial Conduct has that decision making role now because he's a member, it could act on, a license.

And that was one of the biggest concerns Larson had prior conviction.

Frankly all the pundits and legislators and people in the know are basically wondering why why would they want to negotiate now?

I mean, this is the again is it in the history of this thing?

And a justice gets in trouble with the disciplinary people in his profession and about, what, five years ago, six years ago, this same court we're talking about in his earlier incarnation, it considered charges against justice laws, and it made recommendations for certain disciplinary procedures which ultimately came to the Supreme Court.

And one of them was adopted by the court.

That's right.

And they and he recommended that he be reprimanded, that right, publicly about public reprimand.

And and that sent him off, like a skyrocket.

And that started the ball rolling because that's when he filed a petition for recusal for justices, captains of power, and said things about them.

And then then, then the attorney general, among other people, gets two special prosecutors to investigate this whole thing again, plus these new matters.

That's right.

And they, in turn, come back and they recommend his prosecution on criminal judge, charge drug charges.

And they also recommend tha he be taking these other matters be taken up by you or the or the judicial board.

So we got rid of the the criminal stuff last week.

Now we've got everything else.

And what's the irony o the whole thing is, as you well know, from publishing stories about him for so many years, the guy's an excellent counterpuncher.

He's always come back hard on somebody that did something to him.

He did that with Zappala and Cappy.

And now, it's the story of the prizefighter who tries to let everything go in a counter punch and leaves himself wide open.

Now he's learned his lesson on the ropes of this.

Guys, how much money?

Just the the attorney general's investigation cost over $800,000.

And we purposely didn' continue a House investigation because we want to duplicate efforts.

And obviously, we're spending some money now with the subcommittee.

We have special counsel hired, and we've been investigating.

We've tried to be as frugal as we can get.

We have a very important issue here.

Right.

And then, you know, the highest court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and I think we have to take the steps to whatever it takes to resolve.

And you'll be done when I hope the subcommittee work to be done.

The end of April, the Judiciary Committee to file a report shortly thereafter.

And I if they do report out or decide there's sufficient evidence to recommend articles of impeachment to the full House, I would, expect the House to consider those in May.

That's right.

Frank, thank you very much.

Bill, thank you very much.

Brian O'Neill brings us the last word.

So I'm watching TV, much like you are now.

And I come to this that it's all about the phone companies new identity.

It seems the name Bell of Pennsylvania is going the way of the rotary dial.

We're only supposed to say Bell Atlantic, so.

Okay.

Potato, potato.

But then I start thinking, why are these people advertising?

This is a money sucking monopoly.

State approved.

It's advertising in a market that has no choice.

This is nuts.

This is like getting a card from home, hoping you'll still let me be your mother.

I'm changing my name to Mom of Long Island.

Hey, Bell.

It's not as if any of us ar expecting any other offers here.

Mom has a lock on the maternal marketplace.

You have one.

And reaching out and putting the touch on us.

You don't have to spend a dime to maintain that position.

I shouldn't complain about the phone company pumping up the economy with its advertising dollars, but I think with all this talk of a new name, they're forgetting who they really are.

Maybe I should call Bell.

Whatever.

I wonder if they're in the Bell of Pennsylvania book.

Thank you, Brian, and thank you for being with us.

Send your comments to the editors.

Care of WQED, 4802 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213.