Senator KEFAUVER. Can the people remove you? Senator KEFAUVER. I thought you said you were named for life. Mr. SHEPARD. No, sir. Senator KEFAUVER. You said at the will of the President. Mr. SHEPARD. I am appointed by the President. Senator KEFAUVER. For how long? Mr. SHEPARD. At the pleasure of the President. Senator KEFAUVER. You said during good behavior. Mr. SHEPARD. My commission reads "at the pleasure of the President." Senator KEFAUVER. How do you think you are responsible to the people? Mr. SHEPARD. I am responsible-I mean I am an independent agent. What I am trying to say Senator KEFAUVER. Do you think you ought to be beyond the removal of the people or you ought to be removed by the people? Mr. SHEPARD. I think this: the people elected the President of the United States, and he is removable by the people. I think that since the municipal set-up in Washington, the city being situated as it is, the land is the concern of all the people, and that the one person who is a representative of all the people should appoint the person whose responsibility it is to care for the records of the land of all the people. Senator KEFAUVER. You have a list attached which you have taken a great deal of pride in showing, that in every State the Recorder of Deeds is elected. And you want to get just as close to the people as you can. Yet you are appearing for a position where you are beyond the touch of the people. Mr. SHEPARD. I would not object to the Recorder .of Deeds being elected by the people of the District. Mr. THORNTON. Senator, I would like to interpolate this one thought at this point. I think it is most pertinent. This chart not only shows that these men are elected, but by the same token it also proves that these officers have completely independent status. They are not a bagatelle attached to another department that has other things within their primary scope and function. According to this bill the functions of the Recorder of Deeds would be transferred to a department whose primary function is acting as corporation counsel for the District of Columbia. It would be a sort of a tail attached to another animal. Mr. SHEPARD. What I am concerned about is maintaining the independent status of the office, that it should not be a part of any other department. Senator KEFAUVER. In other words you do not want to be under any department? Mr. SHEPARD. I want the Recorder of Deeds' office to be a separate and independent agency, and not the tail end to any other department. Senator KEFAUVER. So all this business about you wanting to be responsible to the people, you do not mean that? Mr. SHEPARD. I am just simply following the pattern that is being followed in other States. In no State or political subdivision is the Recorder of Deeds appointed by the mayor, except for one, or by say the county commissioners. He is always elected by the people, and his office is an independent agency. That is the point I am trying to make. Senator KEFAUVER. You say in paragraph 5: This particular plan to grant home rule to the District of Columbia will fail as regards this office, to follow the intent of our founding fathers and the accepted American pattern of good government in that it further removes the responsibility of the choice of the recorder from the people. Do you mean that? Mr. SHEPARD. In this way: The people elected according to this bill-the city council. The city councilmen appointed the city manager. The city Manager appoints the head of the Department of Law. And the Department of Law designates who shall carry out the functions of the Recorder of Deeds, which is quite far. Senator KEFAUVER. Of course, you have the situation that the people of the District can change the Council any time they want to, in any election. They, in turn, can change the Recorder of Deeds, can they not? Mr. SHEPARD. The only way the people of the District now can change the Recorder of Deeds is to ask the President to do it. Senator KEFAUVER. What control have the people of the District over you now? Mr. SHEPARD. In matters of budget, my budget is submittedSenator KEFAUVER. I know, but can the people of the District remove you from office? Mr. SHEPARD. No; they cannot. I am only removable by the President. Senator KEFAUVER. In other words, you have no responsibility at all to the people of the District? Mr. SHEPARD. No. Senator KEFAUVER. So far as your tenure of office is concerned? Mr. SHEPARD. It is an independent agency. Senator KEFAUVER. There is nobody that is elected by the District that can touch you one way or the other so far as your tenure of office is concerned? Mr. SHEPARD. Not at all. I have here a survey as to Recorder of Deeds or comparable officers being elected or appointed in the 48 States. (The statistical table submitted by Mr. Shepard and a letter of April 2, 1949, to Hon. William L. Dawson, from Dr. George B. Galloway follow :) Survey as to recorder of deeds or comparable officer being elected or appointed Iowa. Kansas. Survey as to recorder of deeds or comparable officer being elected or State Montana. New Hampshire. North Carolina North Dakota. Oklahoma. Pennsylvania. South Carolina. South Dakota. Tennessee.. Vermont Virginia West Virginia. Wisconsin Wyoming. New York City (civil-service). Providence (Council and Board of Term of office 2 4 2 THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Washington 25, D. C., April 2, 1949. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, 1510 House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. DAWSON: In view of the interest you expressed yesterday in the office of the Recorder of Deeds in the District of Columbia, I assume that you want to know the reasons which led the Subcommittee on Home Rule and Reorganization of the House District Committee in the Eightieth Congress, of which I was staff director, to recommend that "the powers and duties of the Recorder of Deeds be transferred to the Director of the Department of Law," and that "the authority to appoint the Recorder of Deeds should be in the District Manager who may delegate it to the Director." The Auchincloss subcommittee learned from its studies that the administrative structure of the District Government is incredibly cumbersome, complicated, and confused. It has grown like Topsy since 1878 until today there are almost four-score units in the local government rendering services to the people of the District of Columbia. In order to modernize this crazy-quilt set-up, the Auchincloss committee recommended that local agencies performing related functions be grouped into 12 major municipal departments, in accordance with the guiding principles (1) that the administrative branch of the District Government should be organized into departments along functional lines, with each function being concentrated in one department instead of being splintered among several agencies; and (2) that responsibility for the local administration should be centralized under a City Manager as the chief administrative officer of the District Government. From your own studies of the Federal Government, I am sure that you will recognize the validity of these guiding principles. As one phase of this general reorganization plan, the Auchincloss committee pointed out in its report that "the Recorder of Deeds serves to deposit and reproduce legal documents," and it recommended that "this activity should be under the District Manager as it bears a functional relationship to a Department of Law." This recommendation was endorsed by the Board of Commissioners of the District who testified that the Recorder of Deeds should be under the head of the District Government. One of the main advantages of the city manager form of government is that the heads of all agencies are directly responsible to the city manager through the various department heads under which the agencies are grouped. The only witness at the hearings who favored the retention of the present independent status of the Recorder of Deeds was the Recorder himself. No spokesmen who testified for the various Negro organizations in Washington objected to this recommendation. At the present time, the Office of the Recorder of Deeds is an agency in the Government of the District of Columbia. It is a small unit, employing only 61 people and spending only $200,000 a year. It is entirely financed out of the District budget. The Recorder submits his budget estimates to the District budget officer and he deposits his collections with the District Collector of Taxes. Under all these circumstances, it seemed to the Auchincloss committee that the Recorder of Deeds was not an important enough office to be given independent status, and that the Department of Law was as good a place as any for it since it has custody of legal records. Although the Recorder has hitherto been appointed by the President of the United States, the committee could think of no good reason why the President should continue to be burdened with the appointment of this minor local official who performs a local, not a Federal, function. It is true that elsewhere in the United States the recorder of deeds is usually an elected county officer. But the Government of the District of Columbia is unique in that it performs both city, county, State, and Federal functions. Therefore, the governmental patterns that prevail elsewhere do not necessarily apply to the District of Columbia. None of the other 70-odd agencies now performing administrative functions in the District of Columbia is given an independent status under either the Auchincloss of the Kefauver home rule bills. Very sincerely yours, GEORGE B. GALLOWAY. Senator KEFAUVER. Are there any other witnesses? (No response.) Senator KEFAUVER. If no one else wants to testify, this will conclude our hearings. We will instruct the staff of the committee to have this testimony transcribed and to work it in with the other volumes. I want to thank the press for their courteous attendance and cooperation, and all of our witnesses. We will undertake to have a committee meeting some time next week and get the bill in final shape. The meeting is now adjourned. (Whereupon, at 3 p. m., the committee adjourned.) FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOME RULE AND REORGANIZATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EIGHTY-FIRST CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR HOME RULE AND FOR -88178 FEBRUARY 17, 1949 Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia UNITED STATES WASHINGTON: 1949 |