our Republican members proceed in the same freethinking way. The persons who make these allegations and charges wrote me a letter saying, "How do you have the audacity to appear before a committee of Congress?" And I wrote back to the lady and said, "You weren't present and voting and haven't been present and voting and participating so far as I know for a year or two, and if you had been there you would have known." And it is a little embarrassing when the Members of Congress get an impression like that. We are the official party body. And we try to proceed in an ordinary way. Had the action of the committee been to support the reorganization plan, I would have been here supporting it with all the capacity to do so that I could marshal. Senator JAVITS. You said that one man made the motion. Who was that man? Mr. SHIPLEY. My memory, without going back to the minutes, is that Dr. Henry Robinson made the motion, although one of our members last night said that he understood that one of our other strong leaders, Mr. Samuel Biddle, had made the motion. But it really is not too important which one made it, because both of those men are identified with the Forward Looking Republican group, as I have always thought I was myself. So, this is just the type of matter which, of course, does raise some sparks unnecessarily. And I say that I have been very disturbed, and some of the people in the District government, employees, are deeply concerned. And I should think that we should get some of those employees here. Mr. Immer, though not in the language that I would have chosen, at least discusses the problem involving some kind of a Tammany spoils system like that which is operated in both political parties in New York, Chicago, and various cities of this Nation. And we certainly don't want this to happen here with our 36,000 city employees. Senator JAVITS. Mr. Shipley, do you feel that it would be proper to put into the record on the other side of this issue the position of the Committee for Forward Looking Republicans, of which, according to the letter here, Henry S. Robinson, Jr., is the chairman of the executive committee, and Samuel Biddle is secretary? Mr. SHIPLEY. Yes, sir. Senator JAVITS. This letter is signed by Edward Burling, Jr., the chairman of this committee. And it did go into the record on the House side before Congressman Blatnik. Mr. SHIPLEY. Yes. I would think it would be proper. Let me say that we have another lady who seems to be the source of our problem, a Mrs. Morrisen, who seems to have written a number of Members of Congress and said that I was an audacious fellow who had no authority to speak-which I thought was quite unusual with Mr. Biddle and Dr. Robinson being present at the meeting and supporting the position I take. Mr. Burling is one of the outstanding Republicans here in town, and has been a pillar of our party for many years, and is an honorable man in many ways. And I think the views he expresses in that letter are moderate, sensible views which should be taken into account by your committee. Senator JAVITS. I thank you, Mr. Shipley. I think it is judicious to agree that the letter should go in. And I ask unanimous consent that it go in. Senator RIBICOFF. With objection, it is so ordered. (The letter follows:) EXHIBIT 4 COMMITTEE FOR FORWARD LOOKING REPUBLICANS, Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK, DEAR MR. BLATNIK: The D.C. Committee for Forward Looking Republicans was organized in the summer of 1964 as a medium through which financial assistance could be given to support the candidacies of moderate Republicans running for public office, principally for the United States Senate and House of Representatives, to help rebuild the local Republican organization and to support the cause of good government in the District of Columbia. The Committee has continued to function actively since its organization and we believe that our efforts have been effective in many instances. We have carefully reviewed the issues which have been raised and discussed with respect to Reorganization Plan No. 3. Our analysis leads us to conclude that the Reorganization Plan is a sound and significant step forward in bringing modern, effective and efficient government to the District of Columbia. We respectfully urge the members of the Congress-and particularly those of our great Republican Party-to support this important move for better local government. The District of Columbia is the home of some 800,000 citizens. Within the area of the District we find most of the same problems and potential as are found in other large American cities. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States, in its publication "Modernizing Local Government," recently pointed up the problems facing urban America : Cities choked with traffic Millions of substandard dwellings An environment becoming steadily more polluted We know these problems are found to varying degrees in Washington. The Chamber stressed that, "unless local government is revitalized, our political and economic systems, as we now know them, will have little chance to solve public problems effectively. Governments of yesteryear must be remodeled to fit not only today's but tomorrow's needs." The actions to be taken under the Reorganization Plan are necessary to remodel the District's government to meet the needs of today and tomorrow. The existing structure of the District government is a vestige of yesteryear, designed to meet the conditions of the mid-1870's. If Washington, like other American cities, is to rise to its challenges to fulfill its mission as the Capital of this Nation-it must have strong executive leadership. A three-headed executive is by its very nature conducive to delay and confusion. District agencies are divided among the Commissioners for executive leadership. This compartmentalization is destructive and self-defeating. No private business would willingly accept such a plan of organization. Local and Federal resources are wasted because three Commissioners are unable to give unified direction and to require coordination of activities cutting across traditional lines. These infirmities of the District's form of government were pointed out in a Report on District of Columbia Affairs submitted to the Congress as long ago as 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt, who stated that "a single head in place of three Commissioners . . . (will) . . . increase efficiency, determine responsibility, and eliminate delays and uncertainties inevitable under the present system In 1948 the House Committee on the District of Columbia, Chaired by then Congressman Everett M. Dirksen, announced similar conclusions in adopting a proposal both for Home Rule and for reorganization of the District government. Among other defects of the Commission form of government the Committee pointed out that: ... "The present organic law, passed in 1878, . . . represents a crazyquilt pattern poorly suited to the requirements of modern municipal government. . . . There is ... no clear separation of legislative and executive functions which students of municipal government consider essential." The Reorganization Plan will remedy these deficiencies. It creates the position of a single Commissioner who will be directly responsible to the President and the Congress for the effective administration of the District. The heads of District agencies, too, will have a clear focus of responsibility. Each will report to the same top man. The result of this organization change should be quicker, clearer decisions plus more effective administration. The Commission form of government is no longer satisfactory for large, complex cities such as Washington. This is shown not only by the difficulties created by its continuing use here in Washington, but by its declining use throughout the Nation. Today none of the Nation's largest 27 cities, except Washington, still operates under this form of government. If the commission structure were an effective means of governing our large cities, surely the trend would have been slowed or reversed. We must conclude that many years of American experience, under many different political, economic, and social conditions, have led to a fundamental conclusion-the commission form of government is outdated, outmoded, and cannot do the job. There is no reason why the Nation's Capital, alone among the Nation's cities, should be hobbled by a system established in 1874 when the scope of responsibilities of city government was entirely different than it is today. While there has been some criticism of elements of the plan, we believe these criticisms are not valid. Whatever substance they may have does not outweigh the value of the plan for good government in the District. For example, criticism has been leveled at an important provision of the plan which gives the single Commissioner authority to organize the subordinate agencies of the District government. In our judgment this is vital if the District is to be organized to carry out present and future programs with economy and efficiency. This authority is no different from that which Congress has given to practically all of the heads of Cabinet Departments and to the heads of important independent agencies. It carries out one of the important recommendations of the Hoover Commission for better government. Last year, for example, in creating the Department of Transportation, Congress gave to the Secretary of Transportation essentially similar authority to reorganize subordinate units of the agency. The year before the Congress gave the Secretary of HUD this basic reorganization authority. The power to group functions and activities for effective results is central to making District government a responsive instrument for civic progress. Congress, of course, retains full power to terminate this authority in whole or to reverse or revise individual actions by the Commissioner. Another objection which has been made is that somehow the powers delegated to the Council under the plan will involve the Council in controversy and perhaps trespass over the line into the area reserved for the Congress. We do not see how this could happen any more under the plan than is now the case. The Council is given only such quasi-legislative authority as is now vested in the three Commissioners--no more. There is no substantive change in the authority delegated by the Congress. Congress retains for itself the full responsibility to enact all legislation affecting the District, appropriate funds, and make its budgets. Indeed, in accordance with the best of counsel of students of municipal government, the plan separates these quasi-legislative functions assigned to the Council from the executive functions lodged with the Commissioner. Therefore. the plan should measurably reduce the chance for confusion. We have considered these and other objections to the plan. They offer no ground for changing our opinion that the plan offers the best immediate step for bringing better government to the District. If it appears that further changes are needed, or indeed that elements of the plan can be improved, there is no bar to having Congress legislate directly on these points. In the meantime, the problems of the District increase. Prompt action is needed to insure that progress can be made to make the city one in which its residents will be proud to live and which all Americans will be pleased to visit. Respectfully submitted. EDWARD BURLING, Jr., Chairman. Senator JAVITs. Apparently another letter was written, among others, by some who identified themselves as five members of your central committee to Congressman Rhodes in the other body. And I would just refer to that by reference, Mr. Chairman, as I think the letter I have inserted covers the matter. The letter written to Mr. Rhodes as chairman of the Republican policy committee on the House side is dated June 19, and also favors the reorganization plan. It was signed by Edward Burling, Jr., George E. C. Hayes, among others, Mrs. J. H. Morrisen, Barrington Parker, and Wesley Williams, who identify themselves as members of the Republican central committee. Mr. SHIPLEY. Yes, they are all able and honorable leaders, and very strong pillars of our party. I would request, Senator, that I have an opportunity to file with other correspondence the letter I sent to Mrs. Morrisen which dwells on the fact that she wasn't fair and didn't come to the meeting, and really could have consulted the record to see what did happen and how it happened before leading Members of Congress to believe that some shenanigans or funny business was going on. Senator JAVITS. Mr. Shipley, I hope you won't press that, because I am not putting the Rhodes letter in, I am just putting in Burling's letter. Mr. SHIPLEY. That is agreeable with me. Senator JAVITS. I will tell you why I say that. We don't want to get embroiled in the controversy. Mr. SHIPLEY. I certainly don't want the official party's position to be undermined and diluted by the well-organized but somewhat intemperate attacks of a minority which wasn't there, instead of going to the meeting and listening to the argument and debate and abiding by the decision of the group. We just can't run the railroad if we let this, that, or the other individual place his views ahead of the responsible group that takes a responsible action. Senator JAVITS. I hope you will examine the letter I have put in. You will find that it raises no issue whatever; it is just a statement by another group stating that they favor the plan. Mr. SHIPLEY. Yes; I appreciate that. And I say, normal political interchange is healthy for our party and for the country. Senator JAVITS. Very good. Let me ask you just one other question. You mentioned that people had this notice as of the first of the year. Do they get one notice for all the meetings throughout the year? Mr. SHIPLEY. That is the official notice. It lets them set up their calendar for the year. I carry one in my pocket, just like many Members of the Congress do. And they will follow with notices which are not official notices, but we try to get them out. One of these people, Mrs. Morrisen, told me that she hadn't seen it until a day or 2 days before. After all, one who holds the responsibility of membership has the responsibility to get there. Because these aren't decisions made in the dark of the night by me, these are decisions made at regular constituted meetings by the majority of those present. Senator JAVITS. But they did get this notice listing the date of the particular meeting? Mr. SHIPLEY. Yes; and the other meetings of the executive committee from January through December, and the full central committee, which meets every month. Senator JAVITS. This was the full central committee? Senator JAVITS. What date was it? Mr. SHIPLEY. I don't recall the date now. It was called to my attention that this was a special meeting. I don't want to misspeak myself, because I simply haven't gone back to the record, since all the people were there, Mr. Biddle, Dr. Robinson, and the Forward Looking Republicans were there. Senator JAVITS. I ask unanimous consent that anything that Mr. Shipley wishes to put in the record describing the decorum and regularity of the procedure, and the fact that a quorum was present, according to the rules of the organization, be received in the record as supporting his statement. Senator RIBICOFF. Without objection, it is so ordered.1 Mr. SHIPLEY. I don't think I have seen a majority quorum in the 10 years since I have been the Republican chairman-and I am the senior one in the United States today simply because nobody else will take the job; there is no pay, indeed it has a little outflow connected with it. Senator JAVITS. Mr. Shipley, your reputation has always been very high with me. And I came this morning especially because of what I had heard and of what had been presented to me. Mr. SHIPLEY. I appreciate your taking the time to come here, Senator, because you are one of the great admired leaders of our party. If more of us were to follow your leadership, we would win just like you win in New York, instead of losing for one reason or another. Senator JAVITS. Do not speak too soon. I have to run next year. Thank you. Mr. SHIPLEY. Thank you. Senator RIBICOFF. Mr. Tilford Dudley, please. Mr. LYON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tilford Dudley has asked me to substitute for him before the committee this morning. My name is Richard K. Lyon. I am a member of the Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia, and also chairman of its suffrage committee. Mr. Dudley, our chairman, had another appointment before the House Judiciary Committee, and he therefore was unable to be here. He has asked that I read his statement to the committee, and then make any additional remarks I might see fit to make and then answer any questions the committee might wish to direct to me. This is the statement of Mr. Tilford Dudley: STATEMENT OF TILFORD DUDLEY, CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE, PRESENTED BY RICHARD K. LYON I am Tilford E. Dudley, chairman of the Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia, whose office is at 1009 13th Street NW., Washington, D.C., 20005. In view of the detailed information and analytical testimony which you have already received, I will give you simply the statements officially adopted by the central committee and then submit myself for any questions that may be asked at this hearing. 1 Material referred to was not received at the time this publication went to press. |