>> PRODUCTION FUNDING FOR THE GOVERNORS WAS PROVIDED BY THE FUND FOR VERMONT'S THIRD CENTURY, AND BY CENTRAL VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE, OFFERING NEW DI MEGSES IN CUSTOMER SERVICE.

ADDITIONAL FUNDING WAS PROVIDED BY THE WINDHAM FOUNDATION.

>> WHEN WE LOOK INTO HISTORY WE OFTEN ASSOCIATE NEGOTIATION WITH SPECIFIC PROGRAMS.

SOME CONCRETE ACHIEVEMENT.

IN OUR MINDS, THE PERSON IN AND THE PROGRAM BECOME GROINED LIKE DEAN DAVIS OR TOM SALMON APPEARED THE LAND GAYS TAX.

NOT SO RICHARD SNELLING.

WE REMEMBER HIM MORE FOR AN ATTITUDE THAN ANY SINGLE PROGRAM OR ACHE PLSHMENT.

WE THINK OF HIM AS A FIGHTER, UNAFRAID OF CONTROVERSY, SOMEONE WHO STORMED IN WHERE OTHERS WOULD FEAR TO TREAD.

IT WASN'T THAT RICHARD NELG WAS LOOKING FOR CONTROVERSY IN THE WAY THAT A BULLY WOULD PICK A FIGHT.

IT WAS THAT HE WANTED TO DO WHAT HE FELT WAS RIGHT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT WAS POPULAR.

WHETHER HE WAS VETOING VERY POPULAR LEGSLATION TO RAISE THE DRINKING AGE IN VERMONT OR FIRING THE STATE'S PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSIONER OR TAKING ON A LOW INCOME GROUP IN NORTHEAST KINGDOM SNELLING CHARGED ON.

IT WAS THAT HE DIDN'T REALLY CARE WHICH WAY THE POLITICAL WINDS WERE BLOWING.

HE WANTED TO DO WHAT HE FELT WAS RIGHT AND IT WAS AN ATTITUDE THAT HE HAD EARLY ON IN HIS POLITICAL CAREER.

LONG BEFORE HE WAS GOVERNOR SNELLING WAS ACTIVE IN VERMONT POLITICS.

WHEN POB DISAFERRED WAS GOVERNOR SNELLING, THEN IN THE HOUSE, TRIED TO DERAIL STAFFORD'S PLANS FOR ROOMS AND MEALS TAX.

IN THE KEYSER ADMINISTRATION SNELLING ARGUED WITH THE GOVERNOR OFFER THE ROLFE STATE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND HE WAS AN UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND GOVERNOR.

SNELLING RETURNED TO THE LEGISLATURE IN 1973.

THIS THE SUCCESS HELP HIM WIN THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR IN 1976.

HE DRAMATICALLY REDUCED TAXES.

HAD GRACE IT SUCCESS CAME IN PERSUADING VERMONT'S UTILITIES TO PURCHASE LARGE AMOUNTS OF POWER FROM CANADA.

SNELLING BECAME THE FIRST GOVERNOR TO SERVE FOUR TWO-YEAR TERMS.

TWO YEARS AFTER LEAVING OFFICE, HE RAN AN UNSUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN FOR THE U.S.

SENATE AGAINST DEMOCRAT PATRICK LEAHY.

RICHARD SNELLING'S POST POLITICAL DAYS HAVE BEEN JUST AS FULL AS WERE THE DAYS DURING HIS GUBERNATORIAL YEARS.

HIS ATTENTION TO DETAIL AND DEMAND FOR EXCELLENCE REMAIN JUST AS STRONG.

WHETHER MANAGING HIS INNS INVESTMENTS, REBUILDING HIS LONG TIME SHELL BURR BAY HOME, OR JUST RESEEDING THE LAWN, RICHARD SNELLING TACKLES EACH CHALLENGE WE HAVE QUALITY INTENSITY.

GOVERNOR, OVER THE YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT WANTED TO DEBATE WITH YOU IF THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEIR FACTS.

YOU'VE GONE UP AGAINST PRESIDENTS, GOVERNORS, THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO SAY YOU ALWAYS DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

AND THAT YOU HAVE THIS VERY FORCEFUL ABILITY TO MAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS.

>> WELL, I GUESS A LOT OF IT COMES FROM MY HOME LIFE.

MY FATHER WAS A SCIENTIST, AND HIS VIEW WAS THAT YOU COULD HAVE ANY VIEW YOU WANTED TO BUT THAT YOU OWED OTHER PEOPLE WITH WHOM YOU SHARED YOUR VIEW AN EXPLANATION.

THAT YOU HAD TO HAVE FACTS.

SO I WAS BROUGHT UP IN A HOUSEHOLD THAT BELIEVED THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE RATIONAL AND THOUGHTFUL AND RESPECTFUL OF OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS AND WILLING TO CHANGE YOUR OWN BASED ON FACTS.

>> THERE ARE REALLY TWO SUCCESS STORIES OF DICK SNELLING.

WE KNOW AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK MORE ABOUT YOUR CAREER AS A POLITICIAN, BUT THERE'S THE SUCCESS STORY FROM BUSINESS.

I REMEMBER IN THE '76 CAMPAIGN YOU USED TO BRISTLE WHEN PEOPLE REFERRED TO YOU AS THAT RICH SHELBURNE INDUSTRIALIST.

YOU FELT THAT WHAT WAS MISSING FROM THAT DESCRIPTION WAS THE FACT THAT YOU HAD COME BACK FROM BANKRUPTCY, YOU HAD BEEN REAL POOR AS A YOUNG MARRIED PERSON, AND YOU HAD BUILT A BUSINESS FROM SCRATCH.

>> WELL, THIS IS A SENSE IN WHICH PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO HAVE THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS DISMISSED AS SOMETHING THAT CAME TO THEM UNFAIRLY OR JUST GRATUITOUSLY.

WE HAD WORKED VERY, VERY HARD, BARBARA AND I, AS YOU POINT OUT I STARTED A BUSINESS IN MY 20s WHICH FAILED.

I WAS THE PRINCIPAL LOSER BUT IT WAS VERY, VERY PAINFUL.

>> YOU STARTED A BUSINESS IN '59, SAME YEAR YOU RAN FOR THE LEGISLATURE, THEN YOU JUMPED IN WITH BOTH FEET.

BOTH THOSE UNSUCCESSFUL.

WHAT MOTIVATED YOU AT THAT TIME?

>> AT THAT TIME, AN ENORMOUS NUMBER OF YOUNG VERMONTERS WERE HAVING TO LEAVE THE STATE.

THERE WAS A GREAT DETERMINATION TO KEEP THINGS THE WAY THEY WERE, AND THAT WAS CAUSING A FAILURE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR THE KIND MUCH JOB OPPORTUNITIES WHICH PEOPLE NEED TO ENJOY THE ENVIRONMENT OF A PLACE THAT THEY LOVE.

I REALLY FELT IN THE MID '60s THAT VERMONT WAS POLITICALLY ON THE WRONG TRACK.

>> SO WAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THE NUMBER ONE CONCERN IN YOUR MIND IN THAT TIME?

>> YEAH.

THE WORD DEVELOPMENT HAS COME TO HAVE A NEGATIVE MEANING.

WE DIDN'T THINK IT THEN.

WE THOUGHT OF IT IN TERMS OF JOB OPPORTUNITIES.

I BECAME VERY, VERY ACTIVE IN THE GREATER BURLINGTON INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION IN I GUESS 1955 OR 1956.

THAT REALLY WAS THE BACKGROUND OF A GREAT DEAL OF MY EFFORTS IN LATER YEARS.

>> WE'LL COME BACK AND SEE WHEN YOU RAABE FOR GOVERNOR SUCCESSFULLY IN '76 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WAS STILL THE KEY CONCERN OR KEY CONCERN.

>> IN '66 YOU KNEW AFTER WHAT HAPPENED IN '64 THAT PHIL HOFF WAS GOING TO RUN AGAIN, WIN AGAIN MOST LIKELY, AND YOU WERE TELLING YOUR SUPPORTERS THAT WE HAVE TO BE SOLDIERLY ABOUT THIS.

>> .

[LAUGHTER] BUT SOMEBODY HAD TO GO OUT THERE AND BE THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE THAT YEAR.

YOU DECIDED IT TO BE YOU.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS A DUTY, ONE OF TWO TIMES IN MY LIFE WHEN I RAN AGAINST MY BETTER JUDGMENT KNOWING OR FEELING THAT I PROBABLY COULDN'T WIN.

BUT MY WHOLE VIEW OF POLITICS IS THAT NOT ONLY THAT WINNING ISN'T EVERYTHING BUT TO A GREAT EXTENT THAT IT MUST NOT BECOME SO MUCH OF A FOCUS THAT YOU'RE NOT THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH OR WHAT YOU CAN DO.

I HAVE ALWAYS RESPECTED PHIL HOFF, WHO WAS THEN THE GOVERNOR.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION THAT HE MADE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO VERMONT.

BUT IN MY OPINION, HE DID NOT HAVE A LONG-TERM VIEW OF WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HE WAS THEN DOING WOULD BE.

>> YOU SAID MANY YEARS LATER ONE OF BEST THINGS THAT EVER HAPPENED TO ME PERSONALLY WAS TO BE DEFEATED IN 1966.

>> YOU BET.

>> THE TRUTH IS I COULD NEVER HAVE SERVED AS WELL HAD I BEEN ELECTED IN 1966 AS I HOPE I HAVE SERVED IN THE YEARS SINCE THEN.

>> THAT'S UNDOUBTEDLY TRUE FOR ALL KINDS OF REASONS.

I HAD SERVED IN THE LEGISLATURE AT THAT POINT FOR ONE TERM, AND I HAD LOTS OF IDEAS.

BUT I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT I HAD DEPTH OF PERSPECTIVE THAT COMES WITH TIME.

WITH ENDLESS DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS AND LISTENING AND PARTICIPATING.

>> WE'RE GOING TO JUMP AHEAD TO THE '76 CAMPAIGN.

WE'LL GET TO SOME OF THE ISSUES IN THE LEGISLATIVE YEARS, BUT IN 1975 YOU'RE CONSIDERING RUNNING AS GOVERNOR.

YOU SAY, THE ANSWER TO MANY OF THE STATE'S CURRENT PROBLEMS IS A MUCH MISUNDERSTOOD WORD.

MANAGEMENT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> YOU WENT ON TO SAY, I FRANKLY THINK A SUCCESSION OF POLITICIANS AND LAWYERS AS THE HEADS OF GOVERNMENT IN THIS AND OTHER STATES HAS LEFT US WITH A REALLY BADLY RUN, BADLY ORGANIZED APPARATUS FOR SERVING THE PEOPLE.

>> SOMETHING ABOUT OUR SYSTEM HAS ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO SAY GOOD THINGS WITHOUT TOO MUCH CONCERN ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD DELIVER.

BUT TO CHANGE THE WORLD OR TO ACHIEVE GOALS SOMEBODY HAS TO DO AN AWFUL LOT OF WORK.

A LOT OF BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS APPEARED YOU GOTTA ASK THE QUESTION HOW.

BY WHAT STEPS AND WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES AND HOW MUCH WILL IT REALLY COST NOT JUST IN THE SHORT TERM BUT IN THE LONG TERM AND HOW WILL WE MANAGE THIS CHANGE AND WAB KIND OF MANAGESSERS WILL WE NEED AND WHAT STEPS SHOULD BE DONE FIRST.

>> YOU RAN BASICALLY AGAINST MONTPELIER SAYING THERE ARE PROBLEMS, WE HAVE TO STRAIGHTEN THEM OUT.

ONCE IN OFFICE IT SEEMED LIKE EVERY DAY YOU WERE TACKLING SOMETHING ELSE, TAKING ON SOMETHING, AND SURPRISING PEOPLE BY YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BE BLUNT, TO TALK ABOUT -- TO STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVED EVEN IN THE FACE OF GREAT OPPOSITION.

I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES AND THEY ARE NOT ALL EXACTLY THE SAME BUT SHOW THE TENOR OF THE TIMES.

GREEN MOUNTAIN RACETRACK WAS AN ISSUE WHERE PENAL FELT THAT RACETRACK AND A BILL BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THAT AREA.

YOU VETOED THE BILL.

YOU SAID WE CANNOT GIVE IN TO THIS INCESSANT BLACKMAIL.

WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE, THOUGH?

BECAUSE HERE YOU HAVE THE ISSUE OF THE LOTTERY.

YOU DID NOT VETO THE LOTTERY BILL.

DRINKING AGE.

YOU DID TWICE VETO A BILL TO RAISE THE DRINKING AGE BECAUSE YOU FELT SO STRONGLY THAT IT WAS WRONG EVEN THOUGH A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE JUST LIKE IN THE CASE OF THE LOTTERY FELT RAISING THE DRINKING AGE WAS A GOOD THING.

>> WELL, I DIDN'T BELIEVE NASHUA AND DON'T BELIEVE IN THE LOTTERY, IN THE MEGA BUCKS.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD PUBLIC POLICY.

I'M AWARE OF THE FACT THAT VERY LARGE MAJORITIES OF VERMONTERS DO.

MY POLITICAL DUTY IS NOT TO CRAM SOMETHING DOWN PEOPLE'S THROATS THAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN, BUT MY MORAL DUTY IS NOT TO CHANGE OR CONCEAL MY CONVICTIONS.

NOW, IN THE CASE OF THE LOTTERY I DID NOT LIKE IT BUT THERE HAD BEEN SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

THERE HAD BEEN A PRESIDENT-ELECT PRESIDENT-ELECTBUSH ESITE ON TH.

IT HAD BEEN PUT TO A VOTE.

THE DRINKING AGE IN MY OPINION WAS A POLITICAL ACT, SOMEBODY SAID THAT LIFE WOULD BE BETTER IN VARIOUS WAYS IF WE TOOK AWAY THE RIGHT AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF DRINKING FROM 18-YEAR-OLDS.

IT DID NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME THEN OR NOW.

>> WE TALKED SOME ABOUT THE CONTROVERSIAL STANDS THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN IN THE ADMINISTRATION, TAKING ON SOME ESTABLISHED IDEAS OR ENTITIES.

CERTAINLY IN THE EIGHT YEARS IN OFFICE NONE WAS GREATER THAN THE FIGHT FOR CANADIAN POWER.

YOU TALKED ABOUT VERMONT YANKEE AND HOW YOU WERE QUESTIONING THEIR PUBLIC RELATIONS PROBLEMS AND YOU HAD SOME PROBLEMS WITH THEM.

BUT IT WAS WHEN YOU TOOK ON THIS FIGHT TO BRING IN CANADIAN POWER THAT YOU FOUND THAT THE UTILITIES WERE AT GREAT ODDS WITH YOUR POSITION.

>> THAT'S TRUE.

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY AS A UTILITY YOU MAKE MORE MONEY IF YOU BUILD A POWER PLANT OR GENERATOR AND EXPENSIVE FACILITIES ALL THOSE INVESTMENTS ARE THE BASIS FOR A RATE OF RETURN.

NOW, IF OARPD SOMEBODY ENCOURAGES YOU TO BUY CHEAP POWER, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE, AND THE UTILITY ONLY GETS TO TRANSMIT IT AND ONLY THEN FOR A SMALL PORTION EVER THE TOTAL TRANSMISSION LINE, THEN THEIR PROFITS ARE SMALLER.

>> YOU SAID LATER ON WHEN CANADIAN POWER HAD BECOME MUCH MORE ESTABLISHED THAT VERMONTERS WOULD NEVER KNOW HOW MUCH AT RISK THE STATE WAS BECAUSE OF INACTION BY UTILITIES.

>> I TI THINK THAT'S TRUE.

WE GET BACK TO THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE.

POLITICS.

IT SEEMED THROUGHOUT MANY OF THOSE DISPUTES WITH THE UTILITIES YOU HAD TO USE A CLUB, OFTEN SAYING IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, WE'RE GOING TO FORM A STATE POWER AUTHORITY.

>> RIGHT.

>> IS THAT THE TYPE OF THING THAT WAS NECESSARY?

>> I DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER WAY.

YOU CAN NEGOTIATE WITH PEOPLE JUST SO FAR SOMETIMES.

PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS NEGOTIATE WITH A DESIRE TO REACH AGREEMENT.

SOMETIMES PEOPLE NEGOTIATE WITH THE DESIRE TO MAINTAIN THEIR POSITION OR THEIR SPECIAL INTEREST.

>> CERTAINLY THE CANADIAN POWER AND SEEING IT ACTUALLY COME INTO VERMONT AND SEEING THE PUBLIC -- SEEING THE UTILITIES NOW CHAMPION IT HAS TO BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT ALLOWS YOU TO FEEL IT'S WORTHWHILE TO TAKE RISKS, TO BE CONTROVERSIAL.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THE OUTCOME OF THE WORK AND EFFORT PUT INTO FORGING A SOLID ENERGY PLAN IS AN ACHIEVEMENT.

>> ON THE OTHER SIDE ONE EVER THE HARD 'EM TIMES OF BEING GOVERNOR MUST HAVE BEEN IN 1979, THAT SUMMER WHEN A CORPORAL OF THE VERMONT STATE POLICE COMMITTED SUICIDE WHEN YOU WERE FORCED TO FIRE THE COMMISSIONER OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT AND WHEN YOU TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO THE VERMONT STATE POLICE AND TO VERMONTERS WHAT IT WAS ALL ABOUT.

>> WELL, IT WAS VERY COMPLICATED.

I WAS CONVINCED THAT PEOPLE WITHIN THE STATE POLICE WERE TRYING TO HIDE AND COVER UP RELATIVELY MINOR TRANSGRESSIONS ON THEIR PART.

NO BIG FRAUD.

NO BIG ACTS OF DISHONESTY BUT BAD JUDGMENT.

THAT THAT WAS WRONG.

THAT WE HAD TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE THAT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, PARTICULARLY ASSOCIATED WITH POLICE WORK, TOO TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY.

IN THE END IT WAS NECESSARY TO DISCHARGE THE COMMISSIONER.

>> LOOKING BACK ON THAT ISSUE, THE FIRING OF COMMISSIONER LYNCH, YOU SAID THAT ACTUALLY WHAT YOU HAD MEANT TO DO AND WANTED TO DO WAS FIRE HIM IN "MARCH" OF THAT YEAR.

WHEN YOU ACTUALLY FIRED HIM WAS JULY.

IT WAS ONE OF YOUR BIG REGRETS THAT YOU GOT COLD FEET BECAUSE RIGHT WHEN YOU WANTED TO FIRE HIM HE HAD A PUBLIC DISAGREEMENT OVER POLICY WITH YOU AN YOU FELT THE PUBLIC WOULD PERCEIVE YOUR FIRING OF HIM OVER THAT DISAGREEMENT.

>> IT'S EXACTLY AS YOU SAY AND I RECALL HAVING SAID THAT.

HAD I DISMISSED HIM FOR THE RIGHT REASONS AT THE WRONG TIME THEN I MIGHT HAVE LOST THE CAPACITY TO GET PEOPLE TO SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS AND TO PUT IN PLACE AN PRO PROPOSAL PERSONATIVE.

>> ONE OF THE ISSUES YOU DEVOTED ENOUGH TIME TO, PERHAPS THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE, WHERE YOU COULD NOT AFFECT WHAT YOU WANTED WAS STATE AID TO EDUCATION, PROPERTY TAX, AND WE HAVE TALKED WITH GOVERNOR HOV AND HE TALKS ABOUT 1968 WHEN HE WANTED TO STABILIZE PROPERTY TAX AND TALK ABOUT THIS.

YOU PUT CONSIDERABLE EFFORT TO TRYING TO SHOW VERMONTERS THAT IT WAS A GOOD SOLUTION, YET THEY WOULDN'T BUY IT.

>> LOTS OF GOVERNORS HAVE TRIED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.

AND LOTS OF GOVERNORS HAVE DUCKED THE PROBLEMS AND THE CONTROVERSY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY TAX.

WE CONTINUE TO UNDERTAX PEOPLE IN THE RICHEST COMMUNITIES AND UNDERTAX TOURISTS AND SECOND HOMEOWNERS AND INDUSTRY WHO LOCATE -- WHICH LOCATE IN THE TOWNS OR TEND TO LOCATE IN THE TOWNS WHICH ALREADY HAVE LOTS OF PROPERTY, AND SO SOME KIND OF STATEWIDE PROPERTY TAX PARTICULARLY IF IT IS A UNIFORM STATEWIDE TAX ON NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, WILL COME ABOUT SOME TIME.

NOW IN THE MEANTIME EVERY TIME YOU SUGGEST IT IT'S CONTROVERSIAL AND OTHERS BESIDE MYSELF HAVE VISUALIZED THE NEED AND WHEN THEY THE NEED THEN SOMEBODY ATTACKS THEM OR CALLS THEM NAMES OR POINTS OUT THE POLITICAL HAZARDS.

THEN THEY BACK AWAY.

>> 1981 WAS A PRETTY HEADY TIME FOR YOU TO BE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION WITH RONALD REAGAN AS PRESIDENT.

YOU WENT HEAD-TO-HEAD WITH THE PRESIDENT MANY TIMES OVER THE ISSUE OF THOSE MASSIVE BUDGET CUTS THAT WERE BEING DISCUSSED, AND THEN IMPLEMENTED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

YOUR MESSAGE TO RONALD REAGAN AT THE TIME WAS DON'T LET RESTRAINT LEAD TO NEGLECT.

>> WELL, IN POLITICS THERE TENDS TO BE A GREAT ADVANTAGE TO USING WORDS OR PHRASES THAT SELL WELL AT THE TIME.

FREQUENTLY DON'T MEAN AT ALL WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY MEAN.

THE PRESIDENT AT THE TIME, PRESIDENT REAGAN, WAS DETERMINED TO REDUCE SPENDING BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND I'M VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

ABOUT ALL THOSE QUESTIONS, THE QUESTION OF DEGREE BECOMES VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.

HOW MUCH CAN YOU REDUCE EXPENDITURES WITHOUT REALLY HARMING THE QUALITY OF SERVICES.

>> THERE SEEMED TO BE A REAL BATTLE BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE CONGRESS AT THE TIME WHERE BASICALLY WHAT YOU CAME DOWN TO IS CONGRESS JUST DOESN'T TRUST THE STATES.

>> YOU KNOW, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFTEN ACTS AS THOUGH IT HAS ITS OWN SOURCE OF MONEY AND IT DOESN'T.

EVERY DOLLAR THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GETS IT GETS FROM PEOPLE IN STATES.

THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT PROGRAMS WORK BETTER WHEN THE GROUND RULES ARE ESTABLISHED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND THEN APPLIED TO THE PEOPLE OF ALL THE STATES.

>> BUDGETS AND MONEY ARE SUCH A THEME IN TAXES THAT RUN SO MUCH THROUGHOUT ALL THE YEARS OF ALL THE GOVERNORS.

IN YOUR CASE, EVEN MORE SO.

WHEN YOU WERE ELECTED IN 1976, A GREAT DEAL OF YOUR REPUTATION CAME FROM THE FACT THAT IN 1975 YOU STOOD UP TO THE INCUMBENT GOVERNOR AT THE TIME, TOM SALMON, HE WAS SAYING VERMONT NEEDED TO RAISE THE SALES TAX.

VERMONT NEEDED MORE REVENUES.

OR WAS GOING TO FACE SEVERE PROBLEMS.

YOU SAID IT DOES NOT.

THE TAX REVENUES WERE SUFFICIENT.

THAT GAVE YOU A REPUTATION AS A FISCAL WIZARD.

1979 YOU HAD THAT BUDGET YEAR WHERE YOU HAD TO FIGHT OFF A VERY, VERY STRONG ELEMENT THAT WANTED ZERO GROWTH BUDGET.

THEN IN THE END, THE LAST YEAR YOU FOUND A CYCLE COMING THROUGH WHERE YOU WERE SAYING, NO, NO, NO, VERMONT WILL END UP WITH MAYBE AN $8 MILLION DEFICIT.

IN THE END IT WAS $35 MILLION DEFICIT.

WHERE DID THAT DEFICIT COME FROM?

BECAUSE IT REALLY CAUGHT YOU UNAWARE.

>> WELL, BUT YOU KNOW EVEN AT THE TIME I SAID WE WON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS BUT THE QUESTION IS HOW LONG WILL IT LAST AND WHAT TIMES WILL FOLLOW.

I THINK YOU SHOULD SPEND WHAT IS NECESSARY WHETHER OR NOT IT'S AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME FROM REVENUES.

SO I'M PERFECTLY PREPARED TO CUT TAXES AND REDUCE REVENUES IN GOOD TIMES AND PERFECTLY PREPARED, ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, TO ACCEPT DEFICITS IN BAD TIMES.

>> WE HAVE TALKED A LOT ABOUT SOME OF THE TOUGH DECISIONS YOU MADE.

WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT MANY OTHER TOUGH DECISIONS YOU MADE.

THERE'S ONE CASE IN WHICH EVEN TODAY THE PUBLIC IS DIVIDED OVER.

A VERY, VERY TOUGH DECISION YOU MADE.

THAT WAS TO SEND STATE POLICE INTO ISLAND POND TO THE NORTHEAST KINGDOM COMMUNITY CHURCH.

>> YOU KNOW, I REALLY DIDN'T MAKE THAT DECISION.

IT'S OFTEN BEEN SAID THAT I DID.

I MADE A DIFFERENT DECISION.

REMEMBER THAT THE QUESTION WAS ARE THE CHILDREN BEING ABUSED.

THAT WAS THE QUESTION.

AND HOW WILL WE FIND OUT AND WHAT WILL WE DO ABOUT IT IF IN FACT CHILDREN ARE BEING ABUSED.

WHERE I DID HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY YES OR NO WAS WHETHER SOCIAL REHABILITATIVE SERVICES PARTICIPATED.

I MADE A DECISION TO SEND STATE WORKERS TRAINED TO SEE THE NEEDS AND ESTABLISH THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN.

A JUDGE HAD GRANTED A STATE'S ATTORNEY IN THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY THE WARRANT TO DO THE SO-CALLED RAID, AND THAT INFORMATION WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION.

WE HAD A MEETING OF STATE PERSONNEL AND THE QUESTION REALLY WASN'T WHETHER I FAVORED A RAID.

I HAD NO SAY WHATSOEVER.

>> THE POINT WAS AT THE TIME THAT YOU FELT THAT CHILDREN WERE AT RISK.

BECAUSE THAT STATE'S ATTORNEY HAD COME PREVIOUSLY AND RAISED CONCERNS.

>> BUT HE HADN'T GOTTEN A WARRANT BEFORE.

>> BUT THERE SEEMED TO BE AT THAT POINT A FEELING THE CHILDREN WERE AT RISK.

>> I THINK THERE'S ALL KIND OF EVIDENCE THAT THE CHILDREN WERE AT RISK.

IT'S ALSO FAIR TO SAY THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE PARENTS WERE ENTITLED TO THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.

THE TOUGH TASK FOR A GOVERNOR DON'T COME WHEN THERE'S A STRONG CASE ON ONE SIDE OR WHERE ONE GOAL IS BEING SOUGHT.

THE TOUGH TASK FOR A GOVERNOR IS WHETHER TWO RIGHTS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH ONE ANOTHER.

TWO LEGITIMATE GOALS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH ONE ANOTHER.

>> OF ALL THE GOVERNORS WE ARE VISITING DURING THIS SERIES, YOU WERE THE ONE PERSON OF THOSE SIX WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED OVER THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THIS PERIOD.

WHAT DOES THIS PERIOD, EARLY '60s TO MID '80s, WHAT HAS THAT MEANT FOR VERMONT?

>> WHAT WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE '50s TO THE '90s IS A PERIOD IN WHICH VERMONT HAS ACHIEVED SOME GREAT ECONOMIC GOALS, AND HAS BEEN FACED WITH A TASK OF FIGURING OUT HOW TO GET AT BOTH.

HOW TO PLAIN CONTAIN -- WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT VERMONTERS CAN LIVE IN VERMONT AND NOT PAY A BIG ECONOMIC PENALTY, AND PRESERVE THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, THE WHOLE AMBIENCE OF VERMONT THAT MAKES US LOVE IT SO, THAT MAKES US WANT TO LIVE HERE?

>> ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC FOR THE STATE IN THE '90s?

>> WE HAVE SO MUCH GOING FOR US AND VERMONT HAS SO MUCH GOING FOR IT.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK VERY, VERY HARD.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE MORE DISCIPLINED AS VERMONTERS AND AS AMERICANS THAN MANY PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN USED TO BEING IN THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES BUT I'M OPTIMISTIC BECAUSE IN THE LONG RUN IF NOT THE SHORT RUN DEMOCRACY WORKS.

PEOPLE HAVE SHOWN A TREMENDOUS CAPACITY TO SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS, TO REACH OUT AND ACCEPT SOMETIMES WITH GREAT DIFFICULTY BUT TO ACCEPT THE NEEDS OF PLANNING FOR THE FU FUTURE.

>> I, RICHARD A. SNELLING, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR FOR THE STATE OF VERMONT, AND WILL THEREIN DO EQUAL RIGHT AND JUSTICE TO ALL MEN AND WOMEN, TO THE BEST OF MY JUDGMENT AND ABILITY ACCORDING TO LAW SO HELP ME GOD.

>> PRODUCTION FUNDING FOR THE GOVERNORS WAS PROVIDED BY THE FUND FOR VERMONT'S THIRD CENTURY, AND BY CENTRAL VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE, OFFERING NEW DIMENSIONS IN CUSTOMER SERVICE.

ADDITIONAL FUNDING WAS PROVIDED BY THE WINDHAM FOUNDATION.

>> FOR MORE CLASSIC PROGRAMS, VISIT