Mr. NEVIUS. I was thinking about that as the questioning came up before.

I certainly view it as a desirable objective, but as a practical matter it seems to me that it is a long way off in being achieved. As someone pointed out, as the chairman pointed out, we are now 375 policemen short without requiring that the policemen live within the District, and unless and until educational opportunities and other training have made it possible to recruit the full needs within the population of the District, it seems to me we simply, as a practical matter have to recruit outside.

Senator DOMINICK. So you would not be in favor of having any Council ordinance which would require that all District employees should be residents of the city?

Mr. NEVIUS. Certainly not within the foreseeable future, not within any period that I shall be privileged or may be privileged to serve on the Council.

Senator DOMINICK. Are you also in favor of an elected School Board?

Mr. NEVIUS. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMINICK. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we have a lobbyist for the elected School Board here.

Senator DOMINICK. I just wonder where they all were before.

The CHAIRMAN. We have all had a few problems, most of which I think have now presently vanished.

The Senator from Virginia.

Senator SPONG. Mr. Nevius, I must say your corporate connections have intriguing names, Beef A-Go-Go Corp. I wanted to ask you about Washington_Civic Television, Inc. I asked Reverend Fauntroy about this earlier. I notice you also

Mr. NEVIUS. Yes, Senator, I can answer that.

I am more familiar with it than he is.

This is a corporation for profit. It is not a nonprofit corporation. It presently has no profit. It is one of several applicants for a television channel, a commercial television channel serving the Washington metropolitan area, and it has plans as to the philosophy of its programing that are designed to be helpful and educational to the residents of the Washington area.

Senator SPONG. Did you discuss this with the Justice Department when you talked to them about your other representations?

Mr. NEVIUS. No; I don't believe I even thought of that while I was talking to Justice.

Senator SPONG. Can you foresee any conflict of interest, by reason of these holdings?

Mr. NEVIUS. Offhand I don't, Senator, but that is something I think I would rather like to look into a little further before definitely answering.

Senator SPONG. I am only asking the question in light of what was said here earlier today. I think we are here to get the record just as clear as we can. If you have further information, let me know. I would appreciate it.

Mr. NEVIUS. I shall.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Our next nominee is Mr. Stanley J. Anderson. Mr. Ånderson, happy to see you again.

STATEMENT OF STANLEY J. ANDERSON, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate District Committee, my name is Stanley J. Anderson. I am 40 years old and live at 2604 Stanton Road, SE. I have lived in Washington all my life and attended its public schools through high school.

Since my early childhood days in Anacostia, I have been intimately involved in community life, beginning as an active participant in athletic, educational, Scouting, and social events conducted in the neighborhood. Within my community I was a newspaper delivery boy, a package carrier in the supermarket, and dispenser of soda in the drugstore, to help with the income in our family of 10.

The world of work has long had a special significance to me.

More recently, as a prime mover and director of the roving leader program in Washington, D.C., I have gained firsthand experience in many of our city's major problem areas: police-youth relations, housing, crime, and delinquency. I have worked day to day with educational administrators and school dropouts as well as other youths who have difficulty finding a meaningful place in our present system.

Employment for youths and adults is one of the great challenges to the reorganized government of the District of Columbia. I hope this new Council will become their beacon toward community involvement and participation. I hope it will reach out into the neighborhoods for meetings and hearings to listen to the "voice of the people."

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate District Committee, I am pleased and deeply honored that the President of the United States has nominated me for the position of Councilman in our Nation's Capital. This is a position which I did not seek. It will demand long hours in addition to those I will put in as an employee of the Recreation Department. It will, however, bring great challenges, great opportunities for service, and great satisfactions in working as part of a first-rate government team.

I will do my best to serve the best interest of all citizens of our city, if it is the judgment of the Senate to confirm my nomination.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Anderson. I have only one area that causes me difficulty, and that is the fact that you are presently employed in the Recreation Department. I guess you are the Deputy Director of the Neighborhood Centers Division. I guess you achieved this post in August of 1967, is that right?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I know of your fine work in the Recreation Department, as roving leader. I have had many, many people speak to me about you and the wonderful work you have done, but the problem that worries me is whether or not you could serve as a Councilmen and likewise be the Deputy Director of the District of Columbia Recreation Department under the Council on which you serve.

I would like to have you comment on that. I am worried about it both from the standpoint of the Dual Compensation Act and from the standpoint of possible conflict of interest. I would just like to you develop that for me.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have discussed this matter with the Justice Department, and they did say that I am eligible

to serve. However, under the Dual Compensation Act, I would have to waiver the salary of the Councilman.

This matter has also been discussed with the Board of Recreation, the Justice Department, and the Superintendent of Recreation, and it was their thinking, and I think the committee has a memorandum from the Corporation Counsel, Mr. Charles Duncan, relating to this matter, where he stated that it will be possible that the Councilman's salary, when we are working-say if I had to work 8 hours during a given week-then the Councilman's salary would compensate for the loss of salary that I would achieve while I am on leave without pay from the Recreation Board job.

The CHAIRMAN. The letter, and I have not read it, though Mr. Smith has told me we just received it, will be made a part of the record and will be furnished to members of the committee for their study.

I have no solemn and fixed position on a case of this type. I do recall from my days as attorney general we constantly ran into these problems of conflicts and dual compensation as a general principle, that you certainly couldn't serve in both these capacities. Spell out that waiver of your compensation as a Councilman. Do you mean to tell me that if you continue to work as a Deputy Director of the Recreation Department and waive your salary as a Councilman, that you could then do both? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, I believe that I could, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Are you saying that if you are confirmed, that you would waive your salary as a Councilman? You would just serve for free?

Mr. ANDERSON. This is what I am saying, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to serve. The Justice Department has said that this was legally correct, ethically. Matters concerning the Recreation Department, when they come up, I would have to disqualify myself. The CHAIRMAN. Again let me get this straight. What is the salary of Councilman? My understanding is the salary of Councilman is $7,500. Do you mean that you would be willing to waive that salary just to be the Councilman? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. ANDERSON. That is what I am saying, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. That is one way that the city government could save $7,500; but I don't know if that is fair to you or whether it is within the purview of the law. I haven't studied this. I don't know whether there is a conflict.

As I say, I had this presented to me as attorney general of my State, and there are conflicts other than the compensation problem as they are probably construed under different laws. The opinion of the Corporation Counsel will be made a part of the record at this point. The memorandum from the Department of Justice will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The material referred to follows:)

Hon. ALAN BIBLE,

Chairman, Committee on District of Columbia,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, October 19, 1967.

DEAR SENATOR: The Committee staff has informally requested a statement of the position of the Department of Justice on the applicability of the Hatch Act to the new officers of the District of Columbia Government created by

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967. In our view, the political activity restrictions of the Hatch Act presently do apply to the Commissioner, the Assistant to the Commissioner and the members of the District of Columbia Council, although the members of the Board of Commissioners have been exempt from these restrictions.

The analysis underlying this conclusion is not complex. As codified in 5 U.S.C. 7324, the Hatch Act prohibits "an individual employed by the government of the District of Columbia,” as well as federal employees, from taking “an active part in political management or in political campaigns." This prohibition is expressed in subsection (a) (2), which by subsection (d) is made inapplicable to five specific classes of employees and officials. The exemption for the Board of Commissioners is expressed in subsection (d)(4) by referring to "the Commissioners of the District of Columbia.”

The Reorganization Act, codified in 5 U.S.C. 901-913, authorizes the creation of new offices and the abolition of existing ones, as well as the transfer of functions from existing offices to the newly-created ones. It does not, on the other hand, authorize a reorganization plan to amend statutory references to existing offices except insofar as a transfer of functions or one of the other express authorities under the Reorganization Act is involved. We were unable to conclude that any of the authorities under that Act would permit a reorganization plan to rewrite the Hatch Act exemption provision referring to the present Commissioners.

As a matter of legislative policy, it may well be the judgment of the Congress that the governing officers of the District, the Commissioner and the members of the Council, should be exempted from the political activity restrictions of the Hatch Act, for the same reasons that moved the Congress in 1940 to exempt their predecessors of the three-man Board of Commissioners. The same reasoning would also seem to extend to the wholly new office of Assistant to the Commissioner. These are matters for Congressional consideration; our position described above seeks only to apply the existing statute.

The Department is reviewing the questions that have arisen in connection with the applicability to these new officers of several statutes, including the Hatch Act, the conflict of interest law (18 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and the Dual Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. 5533). It appears that some amendments would be appropriate, particularly with respect to the special circumstances of part-time service by Council members. It has been our thought that it would be advisable to await some experience in practice before formulating proposals for legislative changes, which would suggest deferring consideration of these matters until the next session of the Congress. However, if the Committee feels that it would be appropriate to take action at the present session, we shall be pleased to assist in formulating appropriate legislative proposals.

Sincerely,

Hon. ALAN BIBLE,

MARTIN F. RICHMAN,
Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Legal Counsel.

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL,
Washington, D.C., October 19, 1967.

Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Bible: In response to informal inquiries from the Committee staff, I am writing to explain how the District Government will deal with the effect of Mr. Stanley Anderson's Council membership on his employment with the D.C. Recreation Board.

In the event that Mr. Anderson from time to time should have to be absent from his Recreation Board duties in order to fulfill Council responsibilities, he will do so in leave without pay status as far as the Board is concerned. Applicable regulations allow the head of a department or agency to grant an employee leave without pay from his job when such leave is in the interest of the District of Columbia Government.

The Dual Compensation Act, codified as 5 U.S.C. 5533(a), provides that “an individual is not entitled to receive basic pay from more than one position for more than an aggregate of 40 hours of work in one calendar week." This provision limits the basic compensation Mr. Anderson may receive to that of his full-time

government job. Accordingly, he will not regularly be paid the Council salary provided in the Reorganization Plan. However, we believe it is consistent with the language and purpose of this statute for Mr. Anderson's Council salary to be used to replace salary he may lose by taking leave without pay from his Recreation Board job to perform Council duties. The appropriate method of allocating his Council salary, under the Dual Compensation Act, will be to cover from his Council salary such amounts of pay as Mr. Anderson loses by taking leave without pay to serve the Council. Such amounts will be charged, of course, to the budget of the Council rather than that of the Recreation Board.

I have informed the D.C. Accounting Office of Mr. Anderson's situation under the Dual Compensation Act, and that office has no objection to the method of allocation outlined above. Mr. Anderson has also been informed of these matters and the situation has been discussed with Mr. Joseph Cole, Superintendent of Recreation, who does not see any difficulty in this solution.

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES T. DUNCAN,
Corporation Counsel, D.C.

The CHAIRMAN. Again in repetition, I have no hard-and-fixed opinion on this, but I do want to study it, because I think it does present a problem. I think we do have to draw guidelines and be very careful.

That is why we are going into this so thoroughly on this first go-around on the selection of Councilmen, so that if there have to be changes in the law, that we have some guidance as to how we can change it. I can't commend you too much for your great desire to serve your native city. This has great appeal to me, but I want to study the law to see just exactly how it shapes. The Senator from Vermont.

Senator PROUTY. Mr. Chairman, I think we all feel that this should be resolved in fairness to Mr. Anderson, both as for the committee, and the Senate. I do thoroughly agree with the emphasis, Mr. Anderson, that you place upon the need for appointment for youths in the District.

I think that is one of the greatest needs we have, and I commend you for the role you have played in that effort thus far. I hope that it can be worked out so that you can serve as a member of the Council. I think there is a legal problem which some of the lawyers on the committee will have to resolve for me, as a matter of fact, because I don't possess that background and training.

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Colorado.

Senator DOMINICK. Mr. Anderson, I want to join in the tribute that has been paid to you for the work that you have done, and also I want to join in the tribute for what you have just expressed to the committee, a desire to serve on the Council. But I do want to bring up some points.

I have been asking questions one after another of every Councilman that has been brought up here as to the amount of time this would take. It seems apparent it is going to take a lot of time at least to begin with. Everybody seems to agree on that. Presumably you are going to have to get time off from the District of Columbia Recreation Department in order to do that, and presumably this is going to have to be what-without pay, or with pay?

Mr. ANDERSON. According to the Justice Department, this would be leave without pay, and this compensation up to the amount that I will be making in the way of salary in my regular job would come from the $7,500.