Page images
PDF
EPUB

pointed by the President would be given authority over almost every phase of business and personal life in the District of Columbia, with power to make such rules and regulations as it might see fit. If these nine members of the City Council were elected by local taxpayers and responsible to them, there would be the basic control characteristic of representative government. However, since they will be appointed by the President and responsible only to him, the product of their controversy, exploitation of local issues, public statements, policy pronouncements and all of the other activities common to city councils, might well be disastrous. Most important of all, Congress has delegated to the D.C. Board of Commissioners only very limited authority to make necessary police regulations, reserving to Congress the basic responsibility to enact all legislation affecting the District of Columbia in accordance with the Federal Constitution. A nine-man City Council will have great difficulty deciding the proper limits of the delegated police-regulation authority, as against possible trespassing over the line into the area reserved to Congress. This could lead to endless judicial appeals questioning the Constitutionality of regulations promulgated by the nineman City Council.

While the single Commissioner is given a power of veto over actions of the City Council, the plan provides that five members are a quorum, and three-fourths of the members of the City Council present and voting can over-ride the single Commissioner's veto. Significantly the President has not reserved to himself a power of veto at the White House level, although such a provision has been included in the past in many home rule bills sent by the White House to Congress. So here again the stage is set for controversy between the single Commissioner and the City Council, but instead of the President resolving the differences, matters will necessarily float back to the House and Senate District Committees for resolution. This seems to be one more aspect of a blueprint for chaos, and opens the door to minority rule by 4 of the 9 council members.

There are many other aspects of the plan which will deserve the closest scrutiny and study by members of this Committee. The basic flaw in the proposed reorganization plan is that it simply contains no background material to indicate that it will result in more efficient, more honest, or less expensive government. Quite the contrary, it seems to open the gate to all kinds of confusion, increased taxation, increased budgets, and a proliferation of committees, study groups, and all of the other types of civilian interference in the existing government which tend to degrade efficient and economical government. What the plan really does is (1) eliminate the Army Engineer Commissioner, who has been a rock of integrity and ability over the years, and (2) substitute an eleven-man appointed Board of Commissioners for the existing three-man Board of Commissioners. We believe that the Senate Government Operations Committee should not approve the plan, but instead should sponsor a resolution killing the plan.

There is now pending in the House a proposal by Congressman Joel Broyhill of Virginia to give District residents a measure of home rule or local self-government by permitting them to elect the President of the existing D.C. Board of Commissioners. The Broyhill proposal (H.R. 4315) would not result in any restructuring of the existing government, or any interference with the control of Congress over the Nation's Capital. It would, however, establish a reasonable division between the right to vote of local citizens and the Federal interest, which must always be paramount. By letting D.C. residents elect the president of the Board of Commissioners, and letting the President of the United States continue to appoint the other civilian Commissioner, and designate the Army Engineer Commissioner, and not raising any new problems respecting the proper division between delegated rule-making authority to enact police regulations and the powers of general legislative activity reserved to Congress under the Federal Constitution, it offers a workable plan to increase the efficiency and responsiveness of the local government. The Senate Government Operations Committee should consider substituting the Broyhill proposal for Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967.

Mr. SHIPLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. I have no questions. Thank you for being here. The next witness is Mr. John Immer.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN IMMER, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. IMMER. Mr. Chairman, I am John R. Immer, I live at 1638 19th Street NW., and I have just recently been reelected as president of the 50-year-old Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia, which has 20,000 members organized into 38 chapters throughout the city. We have members form both major racial groups. All our members live in the District of Columbia. I am a former professor of industrial management at the University of Minnesota and the American University in Washington, D.C. I have two degrees in this country in management and business from Drury College and the University of Illinois, and a degree from Oxford University in England in history. I have several books published, I have had extensive contacts with a number of cities of Western Europe and the United States during the past 20 years. My business is that of management consultant, and most of my adult life has been spent studying management problems.

In his testimony to the House Committee on Government Operations, Phillip S. Hughes, Deputy Director, Bureau of the Budget, pointed out that Peorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 as well as other reorganization plans are required to: (1) promote the better execution of the laws, the more effective management of the executive branch and of its agencies; and the expeditious administration of the public business; (2) reduce expenditures and promote economy; (3) increase the efficiency of the operations of the Government; and (4) eliminate overlapping and duplication of effort. We don't think that President Johnson's reorganization plan meets any of the requirements of the reorganization statutes which were listed by Mr. Hughes. Let me give one example. Congresswoman Florence P. Dwyer, ranking minority member of the House Government Operations Committee asked Walter N. Tobriner, President of the Board of Commissioners, this question:

The President indicates that the reorganization plan will bring savings to the District taxpayers. In what ways will such things be realized, and what types of savings can be expected?

To which Commissioner Tobriner replied:

a great

there is roughly a $35,000 saving in the actual salaries involved saving might result. But, since this is largely within the discretion of a Commissioner yet to be named, an attempt at estimating dollar savings is highly speculative.

There are other factors, too, which must be considered. For instance, will this plan provide greater police protection; will it make our streets safer for law-abiding citizens; will it reduce or eliminate the growing flood of crime? What about riots, will it eliminate riots? There was a constant attempt to discover if this plan would make our cities safe-President Johnson has said that the safety of its citizens is the first duty of government. It is significant, we think, that the reorganization statutes cited by Mr. Hughes do not make any mention of this first duty of government.

82-247-67- -9

Congressman John J. Rhodes, chairman of the Republican House policy committee, has said he would recommend that the House GOP take an official position against President Johnson's plan to reshape the District government. He said the plan could create a "twinheaded government, leading to controversy and conflict and possible chaos." He has questioned whether Congress can share with the President its exclusive responsibility under the Constitution to run the Nation's Capital. Let me point out that the President's own recommendation for a constitutional amendment to provide voting representation in the Congress recognizes the responsibility of the Congress under the Constitution to run the Nation's Capital. Congressman Rhodes said that previous attempts of the Congress to provide "home rule" for District citizens "has been demonstrated to be a failure because of the lack of a tax base." There is no recognition in the President's plan of the need for a secure tax base, and this may properly be a cause for alarm. This is so because in the past 15 or 20 years there has been a great exodus of higher income families and business to the suburbs, so that the problems of the central city are made insoluble.

Other points made by Congressman Rhodes are:

The President recommended his reorganization plan on the ground that 27 of the largest cities of the Nation follow this pattern. Congress cannot be blind to the fact that it is in just these 27 largest cities with the mayor-city council form of government that we have the greatest failure of representative government, including riots, fiscal problems, the highest rate of crime, flight to the suburbs, inadequate school systems, unsolved water and air pollution problems, and all the other ills which are taking so much of the time of Congress in the form of various legislative proposals.

When President Johnson sent Federal troops into Detroit, he said, "We will not endure violence." He spoke after the rioting soared to a new peak with at least 19 persons known to be dead and disorder spreading to areas throughout the city. More than 800 persons had been injured, arson and looting had fanned out of control, 1,800 persons had been arrested, and property destruction had climbed past $150 million.

Can this committee, can the Senate give specific assurance that the mayor-city council form of government can do here in the Nation's Capital what it has been unable to do in the great cities and even the small cities throughout our Nation-maintain peace and order, and make our Nation's Capital safe for its citizens? We have seen no as surances by the President that his plan will prevent riots in Washington, D.Č.

Yet President Johnson is quoted in the report of the President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia as saying:

The safety and security of its citizens is the first duty of government.

We are not alone in asking this question which was posed by Congressman Rhodes in his speech to District Republicans on June 15; many other witnesses before the House Committee on Government Operations, and the House District Committee asked the same question and failed to get any answers.

Another question asked by Congressman Rhodes is this:

I think Congress must consider very carefully the President's proposal to assign to the City Council such major responsibilities as approval of boundaries and plans for urban renewal, establishment of rules governing the licensing of

professions, and setting the rates for property taxation. Also, he wishes to empower the Council to review and revise the D.C. Budget before submission to the President. In the past these have proven to be extremely troublesome and controversial areas of action by the D.C. Board of Commissioners and Congress, and there is a serious question as to whether any responsible decision can come out of an appointed nine-man City Council. Particularly is this so when it is considered that the President's plan would authorize the single Commissioner to veto actions of the City Council with which he disagrees, but will permit the Council in turn to override the Commissioner's veto by a three-fourths vote of its members present and voting, and it requires only five of the nine members to constitute a quorum. Thus, a minority of the members of the City Council can override the veto of the Single Commissioner. Significantly, the President himself has omitted to provide for a White House veto, which would bring all these matters back to Congress for resolution without the guidance of White House action or responsibility.

So, it is clear, that the President's plan in these several particulars fails to meet the strict test of the reorganization statutes cited by Mr. Hughes, of the Budget Bureau.

The President's plan actually removes the government from the people, because under it the President, whoever he may be in the years to come, will appoint the mayor and the city council.

It repeals the act of Congress establishing the Board of Commis

sioners.

The present government of the District of Columbia is free from graft and corruption, and we want to keep it that way.

The President's Crime Commission report pointed out that:

A much greater proportion of Negroes than whites are the victims, as well as the perpetrators, of crime.

The Washington Post, and many other observers have noted the failure of city government to cope with the problems of our day, and this failure is greatest in those very cities with the mayor-city council form of government. I think it only fair to point out that the Congress itself, and the administration, have recommended and adopted legislation which have made the development of the suburban areas and the flight from the city attractive and possible, while the hearts of our cities have been permitted to progress from blight to slums and to fester and develop the situations which have resulted in the chaos of today, and the violence which has shocked the world. What European city, for instance, is plagued with the problems of Newark, Chicago, Detroit, New York, Los Angeles, and so on?

The Washington Post on July 18 reported that 19 cities have been hit by violence since April, they are: Omaha; Houston; Chicago; Nashville; Jackson, Miss.; Boston; Tampa; Prattville, Ala.; Cincinnati; Lansing, Mich.; Atlanta; Buffalo; Des Moines; Kansas City, Mo.; Waterloo, Iowa; Erie, Pa.; Hartford; Newark; Plainfield, N.J. Now we must add to this record Detroit. This does not include the cities where riots and violence occurred last year, and where the violence and the riots may occur tomorrow and the day after.

The Washington Post says, in an article by Joseph Kraft (July 25, 1967), that:

To grasp the problems, it is first necessary to understand the high level of ghetto lawlessness. All studies indicate the unusual prevalence of all kinds of crime in the down-and-out Negro quarters of the big cities.

Far more than in white neighborhoods of comparable income level, murder, assault, robbery, drug peddling, prostitution and the numbers racket are part of the scene No doubt the reasons for ghetto crime are complex. Bad hous

[ocr errors]

ing, poor job opportunities and inadequate schools are involved. So is the breakdown of the Negro family. But another vital cause is the deficiency of police protection in the ghetto areas. While even the Crime Commission seems not to have studied the matter, the poor quality of law enforcement in the Negro slums is massively attested. . . A study of Cleveland by the Federal Civil Rights Commission found that among Negroes "the most frequent complaint is that of permissive law enforcement and the policemen fail to provide adequate protection and services in areas occupied by Negroes". Evidence along the same lines is implicit in recent surveys made in Watts, Washington and Harlem. A Cincinnati survey of Negro boys found 83 per cent agreeing that "without police there would be crime everywhere."

Indifferent police performance in the ghetto finds its worst expression in the toleration of a small minority of undoubted hoodlums. This hoodlum element, by assaulting people, peddling narcotics, robbing, and defacing buildings, exerts a severe negative drag on all the various programs in education, housing and racial understanding designed to ameliorate ghetto conditions. It is the hoodlums, moreover, who come to the fore, in leading others to the burning and looting and shooting which has marked recent riots. . .

The right remedy for these tragedies is a-major effort to improve police performance in the ghettos-a program for police saturation of the Negro slums aimed at holding down crime.

The sorry record of crime, and violence, and hate and destruction offered to the world in the past 2 or 3 years in the great cities where the mayor-city council form of government is in operation is not one to recommend it for the Nation's Capital. If the performance record of this form of government in the Nation's great cities was outstanding, if it really had something to commend it, if the kind of things which are taking place in Newark and Detroit, Chicago, and New York, and Los Angeles were taking place in the Nation's Capital, and everywhere else in our Nation there was peace, and order and tranquillity, then I think the response of our citizens would be different. As it is, I don't see anything to commend the importation of a form of government to the District of Columbia which has proved unworkable wherever it has been tried.

Frankly, we do not share the enthusiasm of the President for this proposal. We do not have riots here, or violence, or looting or burning and destruction of property, we do not have people killed by hoodlums, we have the outstanding and most peaceful city in the Nation today, and it is this which the President's plan would change. And mark my words, it would change it not for something better but for something far worse, and far inferior. It would exchange peace and tranquillity for disorder, for looting and burning, for violence and hate. The record is clear, the cities of Detroit and Newark look like the bombed out cities during wartime.

The spoils system would be reestablished in the District of Columbia. We think your committee should and must be concerned as we are with the lack of job protection in the President's reorganization plan. Sections 303 and 304 of the reorganization plan, which, as John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, has pointed out in a letter which I wish to introduce into the record at this point, "authorize the Commissioner to establish new agencies and offices and to transfer personnel, property, records and unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations and other funds, available or to be made available, relating to functions transferred by the reorganization plan, between agencies of the corporation as he may deem necessary in order to carry out the Reorganization Plan."

« PreviousContinue »