fective. This is an effort to adopt to the peculiar and unique situation of the District that form of government.

Senator HANSEN. Will this reorganization plan, if it is adopted, make city government more responsive to the need for changes than you think could be undertaken and that would be indicated to reduce some of the reasons that are paramount to some of the difficulties that cities have been having-these recent riots, for instance? Would this be a step in the direction of minimizing those problems?

CITY COUNCIL WILL PROVIDE A FORUM FOR THE DISTRICT CITIZENS

Mr. HUGHES. We believe so, Senator Hansen, in perhaps two or three respects. First of all, we think the establishment of the council as a broadly representative body, while it is certainly a far cry from home. rule, does provide the District citizens with, in effect, a forum in which their grievances with respect to regulations and rules and so on, can be heard. And the Council, therefore, can be more responsive than the three Commissioners with their divided responsibilities can be.

SINGLE COMMISSIONER WILL PERMIT MORE EFFECTIVE AND
EFFICIENT EXECUTIVE ACTION

Secondly, we believe that the clarification of the administrative responsibility, executive responsibility, which is inherent in the establishment of a single Commissioner as a head of a government, will permit more effective and efficient executive action within the District, avoiding the delays, and, if you will, the bureaucratic problems that are inherent in the three-headed present governmental arrangement, facilitating action in the District, it seems to us. And together with increased responsiveness that we believe is inherent in the Council, it should do a great deal to alleviate some of these problems and make the government not only a more effective and efficient instrument, but a more responsive instrument.

Senator HANSEN. In your opinion will the Council of the District as is proposed by Reorganization Plan No. 3 have duties that will keep it pretty well engaged all the time?

COUNCIL A PART-TIME BODY

Mr. HUGHES. We contemplate a Council which is a part-time body, certainly, with important responsibilities, not full-time responsibilities. We regard it and the pay scale reflects this as a group with its basic business ties and connections maintained in the community, and with a continuing channel of communication to the community by that means as well as through the responsibilities of the Council per sesomething like a half-time body, perhaps, but a very significant rulemaking and regulatory responsibility.

Senator HANSEN. Would it be your opinion that the average city dweller would regard the duties and responsibilities of the Council as being very important, and requiring a considerable time?

Mr. HUGHES. We believe so, sir. They will be demanding, particularly if coupled with the Council's responsibilities to represent the citizens of the District. The plan itself enumerates the Council's responsibilities. Many of these are minor and daily routine. On the other

hand, to the extent that the Congress delegates, has delegated or in the future delegates to the District of Columbia Council rulemaking or regulatory responsibilities, these will be performed by the Council. They are significant. They are functions performed now by the Commissioners either en banc or as individual Commissioners and will be of significance.

WHY NOT A FULL-TIME COUNCIL?

Senator HANSEN. I am somewhat surprised-and perhaps because I don't know what is in mind-why a city the size of Washington, D.C., with the problems that are very much in evidence here, would not require full-time participation by a Council composed of eight members. It seems to me that there are enough things to be done and there are enough concerns to be tackled that this would be a full-time job. I am surprised that it would be considered only a part-time job, and that the people who compose the Council would remain active in the business and professional life of the community. I appreciate the need to keep these people in touch with the economic and business and social life of the community, but I should think that there is enough to do so that it would be a full-time job.

Apparently this is not your feeling.

Mr. HUGHES. We do not feel so, Senator. The job is a demanding one with significant responsibilities. The Council will have a staff, however. A combination of the shared ability among the nine members and the Council staff and the division and delineation of authority between the Council and the Commissioner, it seems to us, should enable the Council to serve on a part-time basis and satisfactorily perform its duty. I am sure that in practice the share of their time which individual Council members will give to the performance of their functions will vary somewhat with their own situation, the degree of interest they have, the type of responsibilities that they undertake. But as a generalization, we saw this as a part-time rather than full-time job.

Senator HANSEN. Let me pose a question. It is one that will have to be met with many, many times. Supposing a citizen living in a part of the District feels that he has observed certain functions of city government that he thinks could be improved upon, or certain deficiencies in some of the service provided by the District. To whom would he go to make such an observation or to lodge a complaint, and what sort of reception would be given him?

Mr. HUGHES. It seems to me that, assuming the plan is put into effect, he would have a choice of channels of communication. If his concern, his dissatisfaction related to the content of regulation it seems to me that obviously his first and best approach would be to the Council, perhaps through its staff and its secretary. And it could be an approach personally, or an approach in writing, depending again on the nature of the problem and his own feelings about it. In different circumstances where administrative matters were involved, he could well approach the Commissioner's Office or the Assistant to the Commissioner if his concern lay in those areas. Certainly, always then as now, he has recourse to the national machinery of Government, the Congress and the executive branch. These channels would not be closed to him by the plan in any way. But we would hope that the broad representative Council would furnish in appropriate areas a very important and new channel of communication.

Senator HANSEN. Serving in this capacity only part time, I should think that the average citizen would be precluded from being heard by the Council. Would you say this is not generally true?

COUNCIL STAFF WILL OPERATE ON FULL-TIME BASIS

Mr. HUGHES. I don't think it need be, Senator Hansen. The Council will have a staff and an office and a permanent setup. It will not be in business just part time. The actual involvement of individual members may only be part time, but the Council as an entity will be an integral part of the District government doing business on a full-time basis, and with its communication lines, personal, written, and so on, open to the community on a full-time basis.

Senator HANSEN. I think one of the problems that people everywhere are recognizing-and certainly this is true without regard to race, religion, or anything else is that while we recognize deep-seated problems that perhaps give rise to some of the difficulties that our big cities are presently experiencing, we recognize at the same time-and the President pointed this out last night, I understand-the need for a wider recognition of the importance of respecting and observing the law. I cannot believe that the welfare of any group will be enhanced, or their position, economic or social or any other way, will be advanced by a breakdown in the law. Does this plan in your judgment provide any better mechanism whereby city government can translate this conviction to the individual better than can be done under the present law that controls the District?

Mr. HUGHES. We believe so, Senator Hansen. I tried in the statement that I gave to give a couple of specific instances here, such as in the area of alcoholism and the area of school juvenile delinquency prevention, pointing out that under the present structure of the District government the various agencies which deal with some of these problems and which must be brought together receive their instructions and have their being in separate Commissioner boxes of the District of Columbia government. Alcoholism is a case in point, where you have welfare, police, public buildings, and legal considerations all involved. The first three are under separate Commissioners. The legal considerations of the Corporation Counsel are the responsibility of all three Commissioners. So, you have an extremely difficult administrative job to deal with these kinds of problems. And the same sorts of problems can exist in other phases of District law enforcement and law and order maintenance. And Chief Layton himself testified to the problems which he has as a consequence of existing divided authority. And I believe that concentration of this authority in a single Commissioner should markedly improve the capacity of the District to deal both with the symptoms of the problems and with their more basic but more remote causes. There can be no disagreement with the view that you expressed that we have to start out with law and order if we are to accomplish anything else. That is a paramount consideration. Senator HANSEN. Is it your feeling that any significant number or percentage of any group, any ethnic group that you wanted to examine, might misunderstand the long-range continuing objective of government in seeking through law and order to protect people, their person and their property, and to project upward at the same time their wellbeing through law and order? Has there been any breakdown in your judgment?

Mr. HUGHES. I guess the short answer, Senator, is, in any firsthand sense-I am not an expert in this particular area-I think one must assume-I assume anyway that the government has a responsibility to communicate with the citizens its concern not only with law and order, but with their well-being, and with equity and justice in civil rights. And if this is properly communicated, irrational actions of the sort that we have seen won't take place, because they are irrational, and they benefit no one. As you pointed out, any benefits even to those who are engaging in these lootings, and so on, are very short lived, and the consequent breakdown in commercial enterprise, and neighborhood organization far outweigh even those very transitory benefits. And so it seems to me that they are irrational actions reflecting not just the need to maintain law and order, but to make sure that all of your citizens understand and communicate with one another and with the government their mutual concern.

Senator HANSEN. You said that this was-I am not quoting you verbatim, but essentially I understood you to say that this was a first step, it would not preclude or block in any way further action by the Congress or further improvement by the District in perfecting city government. And do you feel that this step is the best that can be hoped for at this time?

Mr. HUGHES. It seems to us, Senator, that the first step in the restructuring and updating of the District government was to deal with the body of powers and responsibilities now vested in that government per se. And the plan does that as we see it in the most effective manner that we could develop. Other problems, as the chairman's questioning made clear, other problems do exist. And the plan if approved should not be an excuse or an occasion for all of us to rest on our oars and let the District operate under the plan. Rather, we see the need for further and very carefully considered actions to deal with some of the problems that have been referred to.

Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Baker.

Senator BAKER. I have no questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. Senator RIBICOFF. The next group of witnesses are Walter Tobriner, President, Board of Commissioners, John B. Duncan, Commissioner, and Robert E. Mathe, Engineer Commissioner.

We are delighted to have the three of you here today.

TESTIMONY OF WALTER H. TOBRINER, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN B. DUNCAN, COMMISSIONER, AND ROBERT E. MATHE, ENGINEER COMMISSIONER

Mr. TOBRINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. As this committee knows, the complex ailments of our big cities have become the Nation's overriding domestic problem.

The list is all too familiar: education, crime, jobs, housing, transportation, and air and water pollution.

We have found on quick, simple or inexpensive answers. On the contrary. But it is obvious that one of the elements needed to solve these urban problems is governmental machinery that is geared to plan and carry out the needed array of projects and programs.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT NEEDS UPDATING

Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia's current form of government is simply not up to the demands levied by current problems. In my opinion, adoption of President Johnson's reorganization plan would eliminate this crippling handicap; under Reorganization Plan No. 3, Washington would be given a municipal government designed today to meet today's and tomorrow's needs.

COMMISSION FORM OF GOVERNMENT ADOPTED NEARLY A CENTURY AGO

This city, the Nation's Capital and the heart of a burgeoning urban complex, has a municipal government adopted nearly a century ago. In the matter of size alone: When our current commission form of government went into effect (on a temporary basis) June 20, 1874, Washington, had 150,000 residents. That new city government had 500 employees and a budget of less than $4 million. Today we have a population of more than 800,000 and a city government staffed by about 30,000 with a budget of more than half a billion dollars, last year.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Board of Commissioners has worked hard at the job of governing this Capital City, but that the results have not been good enough. The blame, in my opinion, stems mainly from the District's outdated and sluggish form of govern

ment.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ADMINISTERED BY THREE-MEMBER BOARD

As the committee members know, the city government is administered by action of the three-member Board of Commissioners, but each Commissioner has a number of departments under his direct supervision. Under this system, the president of the Board directs public safety matters, the second civilian Commissioner supervises health and welfare activities, and the Engineer Commissioner has direct responsibility for the public works program.

As Mr. Hughes has said in his prior statement, the urban ailments of today, however, do not group themselves cleanly into such categories. Instead, they are closely interrelated. And, more often than not, provision of services to the public involves a number of agencies that fall under the jurisdiction of more than one Commissioner. We have no single individual, however, with authority to provide overall leadership, to coordinate multiagency projects, to settle disputes and to clarify policy questions.

PRESENT SETUP HAS NO SINGLE ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD

At the risk of overemphasizing the point, let me repeat that, as president of the Board, I have no administrative authority over and above the other two Commissioners. This means, of course, that the city has no "strong Chairman" provision for swift and clear resolution of issues.

Mr. Chairman, may I offer, as I did in my testimony before the House Executive and Reorganization Subcommittee, a few examples of the breakdown in the city government's operations that can be traced to this system of collective decisions by coequal Commissioner: