Interview with Garry Mauro Interviewer: Lori Ann Jones Transcriber: Lori Ann Jones Interrupter: Frank Gibberson Date of Interview: March 27, 1986 Location: Mr. Mauro’s Office, Stephen F. Austin Building, Austin, TX _____________________ Begin Tape 1, Side 1 Garry Mauro: Of course, I am Garry Mauro. I’m thirty-eight years old, and I’m Texas Land Commissioner. I went to high school in Waco, graduated from Reicher [Catholic High School], went to Texas A&M, got a marketing degree from Texas A&M, then came over to University of Texas with a degree in JD. [I] practiced law, worked in Congress for a while for Bob Krueger, worked as deputy comptroller for Bob Bullock, was executive director of the Texas Democratic Party, and I’m now Texas Land Commissioner running for re-election. Lori Ann Jones: Okay. And you ran for student president when you were at A&M? How did that go? And were you involved with the Young Democrats there? Mauro: Well, I was—I played football the first two years I was at Texas A&M, and I decided I didn’t like football. Not because I didn’t like football, I did like football, but because in college it limited what else you could participate in. And so I—what I basically did was at that point— [interruption]. At that point, I quit football because I wanted to be involved in more things on campus. I first ran for the student senate and lost. But the next year, I looked around and decided that what I wanted to be was a “yell leader” at Texas A&M because a yell leader served on the resident hall council and the student senate, and he was a yell leader. So I ran for that job and was the first non-member of the corps of cadets selected as a yell leader. Then at that point I served, somewhat controversial, because the corps guys didn’t like the idea that we had a civilian yell leader. [I] ran for student body president; it became kind of a holy war. The day of the election, my opponent was disqualified because he didn’t have [the] grades. So I was elected, somewhat unanimously. Earl Rudder called me in and asked me not to serve and asked that we hold another election, and I agreed to do that and lost. Jones: Why did you agree to do that? You thought people would— Mauro: I wanted to be a unity candidate. [Interruption] We’re in the process of settling a lawsuit with King Ranch. And at one o’clock, we’re going to go over to the courthouse and settle with the King Ranch. It’s going to be one of the better settlements in the history of the Texas Land Office, and I’m very proud of it. Jones: Can we digress and you tell me what that’s about? Garry Mauro Interview, March 27, 1986 1 Texas 150 Oral History Collection. University Archives, Texas State University Mauro: Well, in 1933, the King Ranch, representing the state’s eighteen thousand mineral acres, signed a lease with Exxon, representing the state of Texas. And as required by law, they got 50% of what they convinced Exxon to pay for that lease. In 1954, they got themselves a much better lease on their lands and took an override on our lands, but did not give us the additional override. So, today, we are going in and basically equalizing our lease with their lease. Jones: Do they have to pay the fifty years’ or so back tax? Mauro: They’re paying us $1.3 million, which goes back to the money taken from the lease; the additional money taken from the lease since 1954. We’re very pleased with that. Over the next fifteen–twenty years, it’ll bring in a least, at current prices, at least another $2 million. So it’s a $3 million-plus lawsuit. Jones: That is something excellent. Frank Gibberson: I spent the last thirty minutes talking to Jerry Whittenberg from Amarillo. [We] talked about the Canadian River. Mauro: Is he unhappy with me about the Canadian River? The Canadian River, by the way, belongs to the people of Texas. We dammed it up. It used to be a river that was a mile long in places. We’ve dammed it up so now it’s at least twenty-five feet wide at the widest places. And they want to use all of that riverbed, which belongs to the people of Texas. We’re doing this because it’s being taped for the sesquicentennial. Gibberson: Oh, maybe I better not talk about it— Mauro: What did you get? Gibberson: We did work it out—but I didn’t have any time because I’ve just been on one thing right after another; phone calls and such. We worked out where Flowers, our surveyor from downstairs, is going—maybe you’ve been told about? Mauro: No, I haven’t. Gibberson: He’s going to meet with Hank Grover and his brother, the surveyor, we’re going to work that out, survey it out, and see how much property, if any, we owe them there. Once we come back with a survey, then we’ll be in a position to tell you whether there is any disputed acres for sure, and they seemed pretty satisfied with that approach. Mauro: They are satisfied? Gibberson: With the approach. We don’t know yet what we’re going to end up with. Mauro: The solutions—did Mr. Whittenberg agree to let us come on land to survey it? Garry Mauro Interview, March 27, 1986 2 Texas 150 Oral History Collection. University Archives, Texas State University Gibberson: He didn’t say he wouldn’t do that at all. His problem is, and I told him, I said, you know, we just differ on the law. And he agreed with that. He wants to survey that river as it exists today, and I said, well, that’s not our theory. I said none of us is infallible, but I said nobody has convinced us that that’s the proper way to survey it.” Because anytime you go out in a riverbed, and you dredge or you fill, you can change the riverbed for the benefit of one party or another, and we don’t think that should be considered. So he said, well, as a third party—and I spent thirty minutes. He and I got along—we got along. Mauro: Did he cuss me? Gibberson: No, he didn’t. At one point, he says, “Well, I think y’all are just surveying this to try to gain more land for the hunters.” I said, “Let me tell you, Mr. Whittenberg, I say we’re in an elected office here, and we do what the legislature tells us to do, to some extent.” I said we have no reason to want to gain land for the benefit of the hunters. I said that’s not our purpose in life. I said we’re trying to do a true and honest survey for the benefit of the people of Texas, and we don’t care whether they’re hunters or land owners. And finally, I convinced him that by God, we weren’t doing it for their benefit. He had thought that before. But finally, when we ended up the conversation he said, “You know, I want to thank you for being candid with me, for going over the facts with me.” He said, we may not agree, but he said, “I appreciate being able to talk to you.” He said, “I’d like to meet with y’all.” And I said the commissioner is not closed-minded on any of this stuff. I said, “If you can convince him that we’re wrong on the law, I can guarantee you he’ll change.” He called me in reference to our meeting; our meeting’s set for April tenth, up there with the landowners. Jones: Mr. Whittenburg is a landowner on the Canadian River? Mauro: Yes, he is the biggest landowner. Gibberson: He’s the biggest landowner. Big landowner. Mauro: They own the newspaper. They founded most of that part of the world. Jones: And in what area is that? Mauro: In Amarillo. Gibberson: But anyway, we had a real, what I consider a productive meeting. Mauro: Well, good. Gibberson: Because he better understands our position and what we’re trying to do and why we’re doing it. Mauro: He came to that meeting I had for those people. Garry Mauro Interview, March 27, 1986 3 Texas 150 Oral History Collection. University Archives, Texas State University Gibberson: You mean when you and I were up there? Mauro: Uh-huh. Gibberson: Yeah, I remember him sitting back there. Mauro: He wasn’t real friendly. Gibberson: No. But I can honestly say that he and I— Mauro: You think he’d understand what we’re doing now? Gibberson: I think he does; I think he absolutely does now, but he didn’t in the beginning. He thought we were going up to survey his land just to increase the acreage so the hunters could use it. Mauro: In my opinion— Gibberson: I even said that— Mauro: What we’re doing up there is we’re going to establish where we think the boundary is, and what’s going to happen is, is it’s going to end up in the courthouse. And then the courts are going to get to decide how we’re supposed to do it, and that’s who’s supposed to decide.