Our next witness is Mr. Nelson C. Roots, president of the District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations.

Mr. Roots.

STATEMENT OF NELSON C. ROOTS, PRESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS, INC.

Mr. Roots. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Nelson Roots. I am president of the District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations, Inc. We are an integrated organization of 45 constituent associations having a total of approximately 45,000 members.

My comments on these nominees may be helpful since I have been active in civic affairs for over 30 years.

These must be personal comments. The civic federation has no position on any of these as individuals.

The consensus position within the federation is that we are extremely disappointed that appointees are not representative of their neighborhoods. People who have made reputations by service to their neighborhoods and their city by hard work in local organizations and on city boards and commissions have not been appointed.

Long before the poverty program brought paid workers into poor neighborhoods there were people who worked 20 or more hours per week for years, all without pay, to bring better schools and other facilities to their neighborhoods. They studied budgets and testified at public hearings. They raised money for emergency aid to the needy. They built organizations to improve police-community relations. They developed youth programs. That Washington was spared riots last summer was largely a direct result of their work.

Appointments are now given to residents of their neighborhoods who chose to become professional successes instead of serving their community. We have no desire to criticize these good and responsible people. We only wish to point out that the person who spent 20 hours per week for years on community affairs is more aware of the problems and better equipped to serve on the city council.

My personal comments on the appointees are:

John Hechinger. This man has made a fine reputation by service on city board such as the Redevelopment Land Agency and by progressive hiring practices in his business.

Rev. Walter Fauntroy. Although still a young man he has given years of service to our community. He has a good knowledge of the problems of the inner city, and should make an excellent Vice Chairman.

Some have said he has a conflict of interest because of loyalty owed to MICCO and the people of the Shaw area. If the more serious conflicts caused by the employment of others by even wealthier groups whose interests are vitally affected by District government decisions is ignored this conflict should be ignored also.

When reorganization was proposed the civic federation asked for full-time Councilmen to avoid conflicts of interest and incidents such as the Maryland savings and loan scandals and the Fairfax County, Va., zoning scandals. Since our proposal was ignored we think it is unfair now to point to one man's conflicts and ignore others.

J. C. Turner and Polly Shackleton. These people, like Walter Fauntroy, have been in the forefront of most worthwhile activities in the District for years. They clearly earned their appointments. The criticism directed at them has been not only unjust but unfortunate. It has made some people who have heard these three criticized at the same time as other nominees were criticized for sounder reasons think that the persons criticizing the other nominees did not know what they were talking about.

William Thompson. While I have not had too much contact with him I do know that he has served in many worthwhile activities, including his service as president of the Urban League, a broadly based organization. He has also been a member of the Northwest Boundary Association, one of our constituent organizations.

John Nevius. I do not know him personally, but our past president, William Hammond Thomas, speaks well of his activities on the health and welfare council.

Margaret Haywood. I have known her for many years and although she is a nice woman her community involvement over the past 10 years has not been too broadly known.

Joseph Yeldell. I never heard of him until I received a brochure setting out his qualifications. The brochure was impressive even if the qualifications were not. I am sure that others could have put out more impressive brochures, if they had not been busy trying to stop riots and bring youth programs to their neighborhoods, or otherwise doing public service. I am particularly concerned with the conflict of interest inherent in putting a salesman for a major corporation which may have much to gain in computer contracts and poverty program contracts in this type of position.

This type of appointment is particularly offensive because it shows that the less affluent neighborhoods will be used to appoint unqualified persons in order to please friends or fulfill political commitments. The administration does not care about the less affluent areas enough to find out who are their leaders, or know their problems.

Stanley Anderson. His work with the roving leader program is worthwhile, and it is desirable to have people on the Council who know the problems of youth. However, it should be possible to find others who have equal experience obtained through volunteer community service in bringing youth programs to their neighborhoods. The implications of having a District government employee acting as a District government boss is disturbing.

I want to say these are the views of the men of the civic area, at the grassroots level. If these persons are confirmed, I pledge that our federation will support them to the highest.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Roots.

Questions of the witness?

Senator DOMINICK. Mr. Chairman, I think it is only fair to ask the witness if he has any knowledge of any direct conflicts of interest. If he does not, he has left an implication that there are some, and I think this ought to be brought out.

Mr. Roots. Any direct evidence of conflict of interest?

Senator DOMINICK. That is correct.

Mr. Roots. No. As said here, we question the position of a person employed by a major business enterprise. For one thing, I think

that there is some room for conflict of interest, as was stated in the program.

Senator DOMINICK. But you don't know the gentleman yourself? Mr. Roors. I don't know him personally, and I don't mean to imply that there is this direct involvement or anything, but it is from the community I base this possibility. It is the kind of thing that people carry in their minds.

Senator DOMINICK. Is it correct to say that you, like me, and most members of the committee, would prefer to have elected people as opposed to appointed?

Mr. Roots. The federation realizes, that this is an appointment, not an election. We would certainly, and I think the community as a whole would much prefer and look forward to the day when we will have elected individuals.

Senator DOMINICK. Thank you, Mr. Roots.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Spong?

Senator SPONG. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Mr. John R. Immer, president of the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia.

Yes, Mr. Immer, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. IMMER, PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. IMMER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, our federation opposed the Reorganization Act primarily on the basis that it would set the stage for graft and corruption in the Nation's Capital on a scale which we have never seen in our history. We have every reason to believe that the basic philosophy in appointing this committee has been to carry out such an objective.

We believe that this will carry it out in the form of grandiloquent urban renewal projects, greater than we have ever seen before. I I would like to bring to the attention of this committee that only yesterday Mr. J. C. Turner, so I have been told, went to Philadelphia to confer with officials of HUD regarding potential urban renewal projects in the District of Columbia. And he was overheard saying that we would soon have in the neighborhood of $300 million projects for urban renewal in the District of Columbia.

I think these are very disturbing facts if they are facts; and it can be ascertained by your committee.

Mr. Chairman, by action of the executive committee of the federation I have been authorized to express the shock and consternation of our federation at the appointments submitted by the President of the United States for the first City Council of the District of Columbia under the Reorganization Act. This is a list of individuals with such questionable ties and activities that the President must, even before the group is confirmed, discuss the possibility of new legislation in order to allow them legally to take their position.

The only philosophy that we can see at work here is that of offering a group which will serve as a rubber stamp, as a front, for a clique that will operate behind the scenes. The first candidate of the President for Chairman of the Council was a man with a long record of success in such deals. The President saw fit, and we think with good reason,

to change that nomination to another group from the same upperincome area and the same special privilege group and the same background as the first appointee. I am not so sure but that we are not much better off now than we were before.

There are several outstanding characteristics of the group that is proposed. First, is a conflict of interest of almost every proposed appointee. Second, is the fact that seven out of the nine, I believe, are members of the Washington Urban League. Now, the Washington Urban League certainly does not represent the Negro interests of the District. It is true that they represent a small clique, mainly of affluent white liberals from the far Northwest and Montgomery County who try to tell us who live in the central city how to get along with our neighbors.

And I might add that I live in the area of Dupont Circle.
Let us consider the appointees one by one.

Polly Shackleton has a conflict of interest because she is Democratic national committeewoman for the District of Columbia. She is not particularly noted for her independence, and she can be depended upon to do what she is told to do by the White House, liberal Democrats in Congress, and some other advanced thinkers who are backed by foundations and are not accountable to the people of the District of Columbia.

Walter E. Fauntroy has a conflict of interest because he is head of the Model Inner City Community Organization which is supported by a local urban renewal project. Mr. Fauntroy has refused to divulge his real estate holdings in the area. We are certainly not opposed to Mr. Fauntroy because we recognize him as a leader in the community, and of an element that needs to be represented in the Council, but we are concerned that his background would make him extremely susceptible to the approval of any urban renewal project, and that is the danger.

J. C. Turner has a conflict of interest as Democratic national committeeman and as president of the Washington Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO. He represents the group that is responsible for shutting Negroes out of the apprenticeship programs of the District.

Joseph P. Yeldell has a conflict of interest because he is an employee of the IBM Co. which has and will have numerous contracts with the District government. He is relatively unknown even in his own area.

John A. Nevius has a conflict of interest as a member of the District of Columbia Republican Committee. He is also an unknown and we wonder why he was selected. Mr. Nevius lives across the street from me, and I never knew of him or had heard anything about until his name was announced.

Margaret Haywood has a conflict of interest because she is the attorney for a group that is presently being prosecuted by the U.S. district attorney for alleged frauds on District of Columbia homeowners. She is unsupported by the citizens even in her own area. William S. Thompson is a highly regarded Negro lawyer not too widely known outside of the circles of the Washington Urban League and the bar association. He has not been particularly noted for his original contribution to civic affairs but we suspect that he will be guided in many of these matters by Sterling Tucker, executive director of the Washington Urban League. We would certainly recognize

his position as head of a local organization and note particularly that he is, as far as we can tell, the only member of one of the two citizen federations in the city, among the appointees who have been recommended.

From the standpoint of being a recognized leader in the city, noted for his drive and initiative and having the support of the area in which he lives we have only Stanley J. Anderson. Yet, even here we have a conflict because he is a full-time employee of the District of Columbia Recreation Department and has an immediate problem of payments from two Federal agencies. There is also a question as to whether employees of the government of the District should be allowed to serve on the City Council.

I have been advised that any citizen could seek an injunction against the seating of most of the members of the Council as proposed. I do not know what would happen if this were done later when Congress was not in session; in any case, it leaves the prospect for the new government in an exceedingly precarious position.

The Nation's Capital is not just a fiefdom for a small clique that is presently able to operate under the shadow, and with the blessings of the White House. This slate is obviously the result of this clique. The President rejected all the names of civic leaders which were submitted to him in good faith at his request by the people of the Districtnames of civic-minded Negro and white citizens well known for their activities and dedictation to District problems.

The Nation's Capital deserves something better than this. We ask this committee to reject the entire list and request the President to start all over again. We will be much further ahead in the long run, and so will the Congress and the President.

Certainly, the appointment of John W. Hechinger by the President is a distinct improvement, and if the President tries equally as hard with the other nominees if he tried as hard as Avis-he undoubtedly would come up with nominees who would make the enormous task of our new Commissioner, Mayor Washington, enormously easier and enormously successful.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Immer, you have appeared before our committee many, many times. I think I know generally of your philosophy. I would share the hope of my good friend from Colorado that one of these days we can have the citizens here themselves select people, but that is not the case right now, and we are presently considering the names of the nominations that have been sent to us. I think on balance you are going to find them much better nominees than you seem to indicate. I have a deep down feeling that you are not particularly interested in seeing the Council work anyway, but maybe I am wrong.

Mr. IMMER. I would object to this very vigorously, sir, and I would like to put in the record at this time a letter that I submitted to the local press regarding the nomination of Walter Washington, in which I supported Walter Washington completely and outlined 10 points, and I would like to point out that we distributed this to the local newspapers and not a single one of them published a single reference to it.

In other words, there is a conspiracy in this city to prevent any active cooperation of the Negro and white elements of the city, and this is what we are faced with here today.