to elect at least one of the men who make the rules and who execute the policy which Congress lays down. And it seems to us to be much more important to get the elective principle established at this time rather than completely shattering the Board of Commissioners and starting off with a new group of 11 appointed persons. The problem with the District Board of Commissioners is not the structure, it is a sound structure. And the men in it, Commissioner Tobriner and Commissioner Duncan, are remarkably able and efficient men. But they have to operate under such great political pressures that they simply can't do their job. And there isn't any reason to believe that the President can find 11 other people to appoint that will be able to escape these pressures that come to bear on appointed officials as against elected officials. There is no reason to believe that 11 appointed new ones, or a combination of 11 composed in a different way, will lead in any way to a more efficient and honest government. We have honest and efficient men now, and we have good men who simply can't do any better because they are appointed and not elected.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Shipley follows:)

STATEMENT OF D.C. GOP CHAIRMAN CARL L. SHIPLEY, TO SENATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE RESPECTING REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 3 OF 1967, To ABOLISH THE D.C. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Residents of the District of Columbia along with all other Americans have a direct and vested interest in honest and efficient government in the Nation's Capital. The 803,000 persons who live in the District of Columbia pay Federal and local taxes, serve in the military forces, and bear all the other burdens of citizenship, the same as every other American. However, we have neither voting representation in the Congress of the United States nor the right to elect officials who make the rules that regulate our lives and our property. However, since the adoption of the 23rd Amendment to the Federal Constitution, District residents do have the right to vote for President and Vice President of the United States, which is very important right indeed.

After three-fourths of a century of elected and appointed mayors, city councils, legislative assemblies, levy courts, and other types of local self-government or home rule, Congress in 1878 abolished all local elections and established for the Government of the District of Columbia a Board of Commissioners consisting of two civilians appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, and a military officer from the Army Corps of Engineers to be designated by the President from time to time. Since that time the Nation's Capital has had unusually honest, and efficient local government. Congress has by various statutes empowered the D.C. Board of Commissioners to make and enforce all such reasonable and usual police regulations as may be necessary for the protection of lives, limbs, health, comfort and quiet of all persons, and the protection of all property within the District, and other regulations of a municial nature. The Commissioners are in general vested with jurisdiction covering all the ordinary features of municipal government and are also members of the Zoning Commission. All legislation affecting the District of Columbia must be passed by Congress under the Federal Constitution, which provides in the 8th Section of the first Article that Congress shall have the power "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States".

The President's proposed Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967, which would abolish the D.C. Board of Commissioners and substitute in its place a single Commissioner, an Assistant Commissioner, and a nine-man City Council, all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, raises serious policy questions. The plan seems to be an effort by the President to establish for the Nation's Capital a mayor-city council form of government, similar to that in existence in 27 of the nation's largest cities. This structure itself raises a question, since these large cities are exactly the places where representative government and municipal administration have deteriorated to the point of near-chaos. It

is in those cities where race riots, fiscal disorder, urban renewal, public housing, welfare fraud, transportation difficulties, and similar big-city problems have reached such a state that the Federal Government itself has had to step in with special programs and special legislation to accomplish what the mayor-city council form of government either cannot or will not accomplish.

A second equally important consideration is whether Congress ever intended that the Reorganization Act of 1949 could be the vehicle to abolish the D.C. Board of Commissioners and substitute in its place another structure of government which Congress has not authorized directly. It would seem that Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 in effect repeals the Act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. 102) in violation of those provisions of the Constitution which (1) require Congress to enact all laws affecting the District, and (2) the fundamental legislative authority reposed in Congress by the Federal Constitutión. Legislation by "reorganization" by-passes Congress, and deprives voters of an opportunity to express their views in hearings, proposed amendments, and participate in the various steps of the legislative process so necessary to the development of a consensus resulting in legislation which will be respected and obeyed by all whom it affects. The District of Columbia Republican Committee has instructed me to advise you that it disapproves of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 for a variety of reasons, apart from the Constitutional question of whether the President has the power to reorganize the D.C. Board of Commissioners out of existence and substitute a mayor-city council government to be appointed by him. Although the proposed single Commissioner will be appointed by the President for four years, it is significant that the President reserves the right to remove him at will and without cause. In other words, he will serve at the pleasure of the President, which is a very unhealthy relationship for any public official.

Sections 303 and 304 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 would give to the single Commissioner the power to abolish and establish new offices, committees, boards, commissions and other agencies of the government as he might see fit. Also, he would be authorized to transfer personnel, property, records and funds from agency to agency as he might decide. When it is considered that we have 36,000 employees, a $500 million budget, of which over a $100 million goes into capital programs alone, 47 major divisions of the existing government, and 110 other boards, commissions, committees, agencies and other types of government activities, it seems an incredible grant of authority with a tremendous potential for chaos.

Section 301, which establishes the single Commissioner, also provides that he may be a non-resident of the District of Columbia, provided the Assistant Commissioner authorized by Section 302 of the Plan is a resident. This raises the possibility of the importation of some lame-duck or carpetbagger type of nonresident Commissioner, who will be unfamiliar with our local people, local conditions, local history, and the relationship between the District of Columbia and the Federal Government. It is fundamental to democracy and representative government that the officials who run the government be residents of the community over which they exercise control.

Reorganization Plan No. 3 calls for appointment by the President of a nine-man City Council, including a Chairman to be paid $10,000 a year, a Vice-Chairman to be paid $9,000 a year and seven other members to be paid $7,500 a year each. As significantly distinguished from the single Commissioner, the members of the City Council must be residents and will be appointed for three-year terms, and can only be removed by the President for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Thus, the stage is set for the Chairman of the Council, because of his more secure tenure of office, to challenge policy-making decisions of the single Commissioner, who will serve only at the pleasure of the President. Of the 432 quasilegislative and to some extent quasi-executive functions proposed to be transferred from the existing D.C. Board of Commissioners to the new City Council there are included such major responsibilities as approval of boundaries and plans for urban renewal, establishment of rules governing the licensing of professions, setting of rates for property taxation, and control of the D.C. budget. The City Council would also be given regulatory authority over public welfare, the police department, the fire department, building regulations, health and safety, highways, streets and bridges, parks, public buildings and grounds, weights measures and markets, alcoholic beverages, corporations, education, food and drugs, insurance, labor, motor vehicles, public utilities, real property, social security, taxation and fiscal affairs, criminal offenses, feeble-minded persons, prisoners and penal institutions. In short, the nine-man City Council ap

pointed by the President would be given authority over almost every phase of business and personal life in the District of Columbia, with power to make such rules and regulations as it might see fit. If these nine members of the City Council were elected by local taxpayers and responsible to them, there would be the basic control characteristic of representative government. However, since they will be appointed by the President and responsible only to him, the product of their controversy, exploitation of local issues, public statements, policy pronouncements and all of the other activities common to city councils, might well be disastrous. Most important of all, Congress has delegated to the D.C. Board of Commissioners only very limited authority to make necessary police regulations, reserving to Congress the basic responsibility to enact all legislation affecting the District of Columbia in accordance with the Federal Constitution. A nine-man City Council will have great difficulty deciding the proper limits of the delegated police-regulation authority, as against possible trespassing over the line into the area reserved to Congress. This could lead to endless judicial appeals questioning the Constitutionality of regulations promulgated by the nineman City Council.

While the single Commissioner is given a power of veto over actions of the City Council, the plan provides that five members are a quorum, and three-fourths of the members of the City Council present and voting can over-ride the single Commissioner's veto. Significantly the President has not reserved to himself a power of veto at the White House level, although such a provision has been included in the past in many home rule bills sent by the White House to Congress. So here again the stage is set for controversy between the single Commissioner and the City Council, but instead of the President resolving the differences, matters will necessarily float back to the House and Senate District Committees for resolution. This seems to be one more aspect of a blueprint for chaos, and opens the door to minority rule by 4 of the 9 council members.

There are many other aspects of the plan which will deserve the closest scrutiny and study by members of this Committee. The basic flaw in the proposed reorganization plan is that it simply contains no background material to indicate that it will result in more efficient, more honest, or less expensive government. Quite the contrary, it seems to open the gate to all kinds of confusion, increased taxation, increased budgets, and a proliferation of committees, study groups, and all of the other types of civilian interference in the existing government which tend to degrade efficient and economical government. What the plan really does is (1) eliminate the Army Engineer Commissioner, who has been a rock of integrity and ability over the years, and (2) substitute an eleven-man appointed Board of Commissioners for the existing three-man Board of Commissioners. We believe that the Senate Government Operations Committee should not approve the plan, but instead should sponsor a resolution killing the plan.

There is now pending in the House a proposal by Congressman Joel Broyhill of Virginia to give District residents a measure of home rule or local self-government by permitting them to elect the President of the existing D.C. Board of Commissioners. The Broyhill proposal (H.R. 4315) would not result in any restructuring of the existing government, or any interference with the control of Congress over the Nation's Capital. It would, however, establish a reasonable division between the right to vote of local citizens and the Federal interest, which must always be paramount. By letting D.C. residents elect the president of the Board of Commissioners, and letting the President of the United States continue to appoint the other civilian Commissioner, and designate the Army Engineer Commissioner, and not raising any new problems respecting the proper division between delegated rule-making authority to enact police regulations and the powers of general legislative activity reserved to Congress under the Federal Constitution, it offers a workable plan to increase the efficiency and responsiveness of the local government. The Senate Government Operations Committee should consider substituting the Broyhill proposal for Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967.

Mr. SHIPLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. I have no questions. Thank you for being here. The next witness is Mr. John Immer.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN IMMER, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. IMMER. Mr. Chairman, I am John R. Immer, I live at 1638 19th Street NW., and I have just recently been reelected as president of the 50-year-old Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia, which has 20,000 members organized into 38 chapters throughout the city. We have members form both major racial groups. All our members live in the District of Columbia. I am a former professor of industrial management at the University of Minnesota and the American University in Washington, D.C. I have two degrees in this country in management and business from Drury College and the University of Illinois, and a degree from Oxford University in England in history. I have several books published, I have had extensive contacts with a number of cities of Western Europe and the United States during the past 20 years. My business is that of management consultant, and most of my adult life has been spent studying management problems.

In his testimony to the House Committee on Government Operations, Phillip S. Hughes, Deputy Director, Bureau of the Budget, pointed out that Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 as well as other reorganization plans are required to: (1) promote the better execution of the laws, the more effective management of the executive branch and of its agencies; and the expeditious administration of the public business; (2) reduce expenditures and promote economy; (3) increase the efficiency of the operations of the Government; and (4) eliminate overlapping and duplication of effort. We don't think that President Johnson's reorganization plan meets any of the requirements of the reorganization statutes which were listed by Mr. Hughes. Let me give one example. Congresswoman Florence P. Dwyer, ranking minority member of the House Government Operations Committee asked Walter N. Tobriner, President of the Board of Commissioners, this question:

The President indicates that the reorganization plan will bring savings to the District taxpayers. In what ways will such things be realized, and what types of savings can be expected?

To which Commissioner Tobriner replied:

there is roughly a $35,000 saving in the actual salaries involved

a great

saving might result. But, since this is largely within the discretion of a Commissioner yet to be named, an attempt at estimating dollar savings is highly speculative.

There are other factors, too, which must be considered. For instance, will this plan provide greater police protection; will it make our streets safer for law-abiding citizens; will it reduce or eliminate the growing flood of crime? What about riots, will it eliminate riots? There was a constant attempt to discover if this plan would make our cities safe-President Johnson has said that the safety of its citizens is the first duty of government. It is significant, we think, that the reorganization statutes cited by Mr. Hughes do not make any mention of this first duty of government.

82-247-67

Congressman John J. Rhodes, chairman of the Republican House policy committee, has said he would recommend that the House GOP take an official position against President Johnson's plan to reshape the District government. He said the plan could create a “twinheaded government, leading to controversy and conflict and possible chaos." He has questioned whether Congress can share with the President its exclusive responsibility under the Constitution to run the Nation's Capital. Let me point out that the President's own recommendation for a constitutional amendment to provide voting representation in the Congress recognizes the responsibility of the Congress under the Constitution to run the Nation's Capital. Congressman Rhodes said that previous attempts of the Congress to provide "home rule" for District citizens "has been demonstrated to be a failure because of the lack of a tax base." There is no recognition in the President's plan of the need for a secure tax base, and this may properly be a cause for alarm. This is so because in the past 15 or 20 years there has been a great exodus of higher income families and business. to the suburbs, so that the problems of the central city are made insoluble.

Other points made by Congressman Rhodes are:

The President recommended his reorganization plan on the ground that 27 of the largest cities of the Nation follow this pattern. Congress cannot be blind to the fact that it is in just these 27 largest cities with the mayor-city council form of government that we have the greatest failure of representative government, including riots, fiscal problems, the highest rate of crime, flight to the suburbs, inadequate school systems, unsolved water and air pollution problems, and all the other ills which are taking so much of the time of Congress in the form of various legislative proposals.

When President Johnson sent Federal troops into Detroit, he said, "We will not endure violence." He spoke after the rioting soared to a new peak with at least 19 persons known to be dead and disorder spreading to areas throughout the city. More than 800 persons had been injured, arson and looting had fanned out of control, 1,800 persons had been arrested, and property destruction had climbed past $150 million.

Can this committee, can the Senate give specific assurance that the mayor-city council form of government can do here in the Nation's Capital what it has been unable to do in the great cities and even the small cities throughout our Nation-maintain peace and order, and make our Nation's Capital safe for its citizens? We have seen no as surances by the President that his plan will prevent riots in Washington, D.Č.

Yet President Johnson is quoted in the report of the President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia as saying:

The safety and security of its citizens is the first duty of government.

We are not alone in asking this question which was posed by Congressman Rhodes in his speech to District Republicans on June 15; many other witnesses before the House Committee on Government Operations, and the House District Committee asked the same question and failed to get any answers.

Another question asked by Congressman Rhodes is this:

I think Congress must consider very carefully the President's proposal to assign to the City Council such major responsibilities as approval of boundaries and plans for urban renewal, establishment of rules governing the licensing of