order to meet the situation at the time the situation arises, rather than waiting a full year, the maximum period, and coming back to Congress and asking for authority to transfer available funds to some other function. It seems to me to that extent there is a substantial realinement of the authority of the municipal-type government to cope with the problems that are presented to it. Would you agree with that? Mr. RUSK. Yes, I would agree with that. As I pointed out, my understanding of the reorganization plan is that its going into effect would lift from the city government the denial of any really flexible reorganization powers within it, which were applied in 1954 as an attachment to the budgetary action that year. Senator BAKER. To express it a different way, under the present plan, as distinguished from the proposed plan, the Board of Commissioners is in fact an administrative agency to carry out the precise programs authorized by the annual appropriations of Congress for the District of Columbia? Mr. RUSK. Yes. Senator BAKER. But under the new plan, the Council and the Commissioner will have substantial latitude and leeway in determining what money will be spent for what purpose within the total sum allocated for the operation of the District of Columbia? Mr. RUSK. Rather than having to work with a hardened skelton of municipal action as determined by Congress, I think that the city Council and the single Commissioner in particular would be able to mold the internal structure of the District government more to meet the needs both long range and short range. Senator BAKER. And you think this flexibility and their ability to apply available funds for a given critical problem as to the time it is needed may be a substantial step in the direction of increasing the efficiency and responsiveness of the District government? Mr. RUSK. Yes, this I do believe. Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much, Mr. Rusk. These hearings will be adjourned as of today. We will keep the record open until Saturday for the submission of statements from any individuals who might desire to file with the committee. The committee will stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.) STATEMENTS AND OTHER MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD WASHINGTON, D.C., July 28, 1967. Hon. ABRAHAM A. RIBICOFF, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Upon a poll of the executive committee of East Rock Creek Park Civic Association, the committee voted unanimously that the following position be taken: Reorganization Plan No. three of 1967 to substitute a single chief and a nine-man council for the existing board of commissioners will not correct the major weaknesses in the present set up. We heartily endorse the idea to strengthen and up date the city government, but the proposed plan is inadequate. We therefore request the plan be withdrawn, The ultimate goal for the District of Columbia is the return of the right to self-government to its residents. Since that is in the projected future we urge Congress to keep the current three-man commissioner system; establish clear lines of authority, centralizing administrative machinery beneath the commissioners and broadening their powers to the greatest possible extent until home rule is obtained. Sincerely. Mrs. AGNES C. KENDRICK, President, East Rock Creek Park Civic Association. Mr. JOHN SHULMAN, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SHULMAN: Enclosed is my statement to be placed in the record of hearings on the Reorganization Plan No. 3 for the District of Columbia which were held by the Senate Committee on Government Operations. If you have any questions, please call me at 737-6141. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, CARL J. MEGEL, Legislative Representative. STATEMENT BY CARL J. MEGEL, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION of Teachers, AFL-CIO Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Carl J. Megel. I am the Legislative Representative of the American Federation of Teachers, a national, professional teachers' union of more than 130,000 classroom teachers, affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Our organization embraces 660 teacher locals, including locals in Hawaii, Alaska, the Canal Zone, the Department of Defense Overseas Dependents Schools, and in the Department of Interior Indian Schools. Representing the American Federation of Teachers, I urge this Committee and the Senate to approve the Reorganization Plan No. 3 for the District of Columbia. By supporting the Reorganization Plan, I do so in conformity with a convention resolution of the American Federation of Teachers which was unanimously passed by the 1964 Convention and reiterated at subsequent Con-ventions of the American Federation of Teachers as follows: Whereas the citizens of the District of Columbia have not enjoyed the benefits of local self-government for almost a century; and Whereas such disenfranchisement of American citizens is inconsistent with the high principles of free government which we profess to the world and endeavor to encourage; and Whereas such a system of municipal government throws the work of carrying on the affairs of our capital city on Congress itself, rather than on locallyelected officials; and Whereas the time of our statesmen in Congress is too valuable to be used in such a manner; and Whereas bills have been introduced in the Congress for a number of years to provide the people of the District of Columbia with local self government : Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the American Federation of Teachers continue its efforts to influence the Congress of the United States to grant local self government to the citizens of the District of Columbia. The Convention of the American Federation of Teachers supported this resolution for the following reasons: The citizens of Washington, D.C. are denied self government since they do not elect a city council or a board of education. The functions of an elected city council are performed by a government of commissioners appointed by the President or detailed from the Army Engineering Corps. The board of education is chosen by the judges of the District Supreme Court. Accordingly, the citizens of the District of Columbia who pay in taxes most of the money required to run their government, do not have power to say how the money is to be spent. To deny nearly 1 million American citizens this elementary right violates the traditional American principle of no taxation without representation. While we recognize that this Reorganization Plan is not a substitute for home rule, we support the Plan because we feel it will provide the District of Columbia with a more effective, more efficient, more representative and more responsive government now. By replacing the three-commissioner form of government with a single executive and a nine-member city council, the lines of authority and responsibility will be better established. The Council, which regrettably will not be an elected one, will nevertheless provide representation for the citizens of the District in the making of rules, regulations and budgets of their government. But, perhaps more important, this Council with its broadened citizen representation will provide a training ground for future city leaders. Approval of this Plan would be an important step towards the restoration of citizenship to residents of an area which has been disenfranchised for nearly 90 years. The injustices created by the denial of constitutional rights will be corrected and the benefits so derived will strengthen the entire nation. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PARK CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION, Subject: District of Columbia reorganization. U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: We oppose the President's reorganization plan which in any case should be delayed for 60 days to allow proper consideration. We believe that the proposed single Commissioner and nine Council members would be purely political appointments without regard to merit or governmental efficiency. The lack of opportunity to revise the plan is also a serious defect. We have dealt with the Government of the District of Columbia for many years and we have high regard for the quality of service provided under the present form of government, the mishandling of the transit situation in 1955–56 being a conspicuous exception. We are convinced that few cities in the Nation have more responsible local governments than does the District of Columbia. Respectfully, O ALFRED S. TRASK, President. |