I can see where this particular position could lend itself to the type of handling which could lead to the overall condemnation of an otherwise very effective type of government. If this would be handed out as a strict patronage plum you could really have some difficulty which the best Governor under the sun might not be able to correct. Do you understand what I am talking about?

Commissioner MCLAUGHLIN. I imagine one thing that influenced us considerably on this is that in the reorganization of the government of the District of Columbia a few years ago all the powers were vested in the Board of Commissioners, and then they delegate the powers to the various officials of the government. I think it was just a desire to keep enough latitude here so that the Governor himself could organize his government in the way that he felt was most efficacious.

Mr. Schuyler Lowe wanted to say something.

Mr. Lowe. It was really an elaboration of that last point that the Commissioner was making. When the President selects these two men to appoint presumably they both will be capable men, but one will have greater ability.

Senator HARTKE. I haven't seen an appointment yet that hasn't been of a capable man.

Mr. Lowe. One will probably have greater ability in one field of administration of District affairs, whereas another will excel in another area. The thought was that if it were left flexible the Governor and the Secretary could then divide up in the most advantageous manner the various duties among them. Certainly one man cannot handle the multitudinous details that would be involved in the top administrative job for the District government.

Senator HARTKE. Schuyler, let me suggest a question which somebody might propound to you, and then you tell me the type of answer that you might give in this regard. If you want to give the Governor this type of latitude why don't you permit him to appoint his own administrative assistant so that he could really have the type of control that he would want to have. He would have some authority instead of having the second person responsible to an appointing officer who is not the Governor.

In the language of the street, telling the top man to "go fly a kite." Commissioner MCLAUGHLIN. I believe one answer to that- -we are being quite informal

Senator HARTKE. That is right.

Commissioner MCLAUGHLIN (continuing). Is that we have found in the District government that it makes a great deal of difference in the type of a person you can interest in a job if the job is a Presidential appointment. I don't know whether that has anything to do with this at all, but I know that if we have a certain type of job that is quite difficult, that it is pretty difficult to get a man to undertake it unless he has that little added glory and glamour of being appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. That is just one aspect of it. Senator HARTKE. But you want to be careful now in developing this line of thinking, this line of reasoning, because if you extend this to the ultimate, you completely deny any validity to the argument that there is any reason for any self-rule or any self-government here. Let us have everybody appointed by the President and confirmed by

the Senate and we will really have the highest type of local government you can have.

Commissioner MCLAUGHLIN. I am not speaking of a career appointment, which is a different thing altogether. I am speaking of the short term appointment of maybe 3 years or 4 years or something which is carved out of a man's professional life and starts him all over maybe back down at one of the lower rungs in the ladder that he was striving with 20 years before.

Mr. Lowe. Mr. Chairman, along with this same point I think we were also paralleling the Federal practice here. The President as we understand it does appoint not only the Secretaries of the major Federal departments, but he also appoints the several Under Secretaries and the Assistant Secretaries who occupy the key roles. It seemed only appropriate that if the new form of local government were to be keyed into the administration in the manner that it otherwise is, that we should have the number two administrative job in the organization selected by the President.

(A supplemental statement of Commissioner McLaughlin is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. MCLAUGHLIN

In response to questions on the advisability of more detailed enumeration of the secretary's duties, there seems to be some misunderstanding on the purpose of this office.

In early drafts of this bill, he was called Lieutenant Governor. Later this title was changed to secretary. This was more nearly comparable to the organization structure in the U.S. Territories. In the absence or disability of the Territorial Governor, the secretary exercised the powers and performed the duties of the Governor. The Governor did not ordinarily delegate powers to the secretary. The secretary served in an executive capacity only in the case of a vacancy or absence of the Governor. At all other times, the secretary performed ministerial, rather than executive functions. These duties consisted principally of recording the laws and proceedings of the legislature and transmitting copies to the President and Congress. The duties of a Territorial Governor and secretary are set forth in 48 U.S.C. 1454 and 1455.

The intent of S. 659 is to provide executive assistance to the Governor. The ministerial functions of recording proceedings of the assembly and publishing laws are the responsibility of the secretary to the assembly as provided in section 332.

The concept of the secretary under section 403 is more nearly comparable to the Under Secretary in a Federal department. The Governor is comparable to the cabinet-rank Secretary who performs executive rather than those ministerial and recording functions frequently associated with the title of secretary.

The purpose of the executive-type Secretary recognizes that it would be impossible for one person, the Governor, to maintain reasonably close contact with all elements of the District government. This is especially true in the District where the top executives are expected to serve as hosts for visiting dignitaries and officials from foreign countries.

The powers and duties of the secretary described in section 403, on the surface, might appear light and insufficiently detailed. Subsection 403 (a) provides, however, that the secretary "shall perform such duties and exercise such powers as the Governor shall impose or vest in him." Under section 402, the powers and duties of the Governor are described in 15 subsections, including the delegation of all functions except approval of contracts between the District and the Federal Governments. The secretary, therefore, should not suffer for want of functions and duties. The duties of the secretary are purposely not detailed in S. 659 to permit the Governor broad discretion in the delegation of his functions.

Senator HARTKE. Let us proceed. I think we have at least opened that up for some thinking.

Let us proceed to the matter of the members of the assembly. The bill provides in these cases for $10,000 annual salary to each. I would be interested in knowing just why $10,000. Just tell me how you arrived at this figure.

Commissioner MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, we made an extensive study at the time. Actually I think the preceding bill provides for just $3,000 or something like that.

Mr. Lowe. Yes.

Commissioner MCLAUGHLIN. We felt that this is going to take really a great deal of time of the members of the assembly. In fact it could for long periods take practically all of their time. We found that councilmen, and this was several years ago well, no, it was 1958-we found that councilmen in Detroit, Mich. get $12,000; Los Angeles, $12,000; Philadelphia, $12,000; Pittsburgh, $10,000; Washington, D.C., they call the commissioners councilmen, $19,000; Jersey City, $12,000; Memphis, Tenn., $12,000; Portland, Oreg., $12,080.

It didn't seem to us for a Board of 15 that $10,000 was an improper figure.

I imagine Mr. Loew's recollection on this might be better than mine, but when you work it on the basis of satisfactory service the number of councilmen that they generally have in these cities, it looks like a bargain. Now do you have something to say?

Mr. Lowe. That is true in a number of cases that we have worked with, that there are somewhat fewer councilmen in this proposal than some of the other cities who pay lesser salaries. Cleveland, I think, is a rather apparent illustration of what the Commissioner is talking about there. There they have 33 councilmen paid $5,000 a year, which would be an annual cost of $165,000 against the annual cost for this local assembly of $150,000.

Senator HARTKE. But is it your idea that these councilmen are going to devote full time to this activity?

Mr. LowE. We feel very strongly, Mr. Chairman, that for the first 2 or 3 years it is going to be virtually a fulltime assignment because there would be very many complicated problems for this assembly to work out. Even subsequently it will continue as a rather time consuming responsibility for them.

Senator HARTKE. Is that spelled out in the proposed bill?

Mr. Lowe. You mean as a requirement?

Senator HARTKE. These duties and obligations. I don't find this spelled out.

Mr. Lowe. The functions of the legislative assembly commences to be described in section 321.

Senator HARTKE. What page? Page 11, all right.

Mr. Lowe. The legislative assembly can legislate on any subject which is not reserved to the Congress by the terms of this bill. Therefore, that means that they will have a wide range of duties to perform. Senator HARTKE. Is it spelled out in here that they are going to be fulltime officials any place?

Mr. Lowe. Oh, no.

Senator HARTKE. Are their duties spelled out in here? In other words, except maybe to attend the formal meetings of the legislature? Mr. Lowe. It is not spelled out, I don't think any more than you customarily have the duties of a legislator detailed, Mr. Chairman. There are in this act distributed throughout it the things which can be done only by the assembly. For example, the assembly must act on provisions to borrow money. They must approve the budget. They have to pass all the substantive legislation required for the government as the time goes on so long as it does not conflict with the reservation of power by the Congress. It is rather a strenuous legislative assignment that they will have.

Senator HARTKE. I think that you will find that the comparison of figures alone is rather difficult with other municipalities in view of the wide varied application of the duties of certain councilmen. Some people have some duties which are rather perfunctory. Others are charged with the practical administration of certain parts of government. I think that I would like to have more information on this some place along the line as to exactly what these people are to do. You must realize that you are dealing with setting up a procedure where you are passing a law by the Federal Government specifying the salary of the District assembly, according to this, 15 people at a rate of $10,000 a year. Maybe this is a type of burden that the people in the District feel is unfair that has been pushed upon them by the Congress. On the other hand it may be the type of situation that possibly they are not being paid for their obligations in a sufficient amount to accomplish the purpose it is intended to accomplish.

Mr. Lowe. Probably it would be better to supply a complete statement for the record.

Senator HARTKE. I think so.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. MCLAUGHLIN

S. 659 establishes a legislative assembly of 15 members with annual salaries of $10,000, except for the chairman who is to be paid $12,000.

The legislative assembly will be required to function as a combined State legislature and a municipal council. It will have to do much of the work now performed by the Board of Commissioners and by the Congress. The Commissioners now spend a significant amount of time in an overcrowded schedule on public hearings and regulations work that would come under the jurisdiction of the new assembly. Likewise, the committees of Congress spend no small amount of time in legislative work pertaining solely to the District.

During the first year or two the workload will be extremely heavy. The problems of the new government will be quite different from those of a longestablished State or city. The assembly will undoubtedly have to make use of committees and other devices to relieve the full membership of some of the timeconsuming activities. Only experience will tell how heavy a workload will fall on the assembly.

The following table, derived from the Municipal Year Book 1958, pages 70 and 71, shows the number of Council members and salaries paid in cities with 800,000 or more population in 1950. Cities are listed in the order of total cost after multiplying the annual salary by the number of Council members.

In these 11 cities, salaries range from $3,000 to $12,000. The salary of each councilman has little meaning, however, unless it is multiplied by the number of members. The total cost ranges from a low of $45,000 in Boston to a high of $250,000 in Chicago. Both cities pay each councilman $5,000 per year. The difference lies in the fact that Boston has only 9 councilmen as compared to 50 in Chicago. Three cities in this group pay council members $12,000 per year. The 15 assembly members at $10,000 proposed in S. 659 places the District of Columbia at the midpoint when total salary costs per year are considered. Differences in population and many other factors could be cited as invalidating any conclusions drawn from the above tabulation. In the larger cities, however, substantial segments of the municipal functions are performed by special districts, commissions, authorities for schools, districts, parks, transit, and, in Boston, even police. The city councils usually have no significant responsibility for these independent agencies. In Philadelphia, for example, the council has no jurisdiction for school operations. Under S. 659, only a very limited number of independent agencies would not be under the jurisdiction of the District's legislative assembly.

In considering the $10,000 annual salary rate proposed under S. 659, we believe that consideration should be given to the upward trend of council salaries in recent years. The following comparisons between council members' salaries in 1953 and 1958 seems significant :

In summary, then, the number of councilmen and their compensation proposed under S. 659 appear to be based on a reasonable and realistic approach. Mr. Lowe. But I would think it is interesting to take this particular aspect of the District of Columbia into account in looking at the responsibilities that devolve on the legislative body as well as on the executive body of the District, and that is the composite responsibilities vested in the District government that cut across the lines of what you find normally performed elsewhere at the city level, special District level, such as water and sanitation and school district, the county level and the State level. All of those 4 customary levels of government actually broaden out into 10 and a dozen levels in some places which are performed in this one gov

ernment.

To rather dramatically illustrate it our local budget here is a shade under the city of Philadelphia, a community of 2 million souls. It should be, the reason being that the other expenses related to the city of Philadelphia are not budgeted by the city. Their