The fate of the government of the District of Columbia lies between these two plans: One has been brought fully to the attention of our citizens and includes specific improvements in our form of government; the other is a plan whose details we barely know and which in principle we oppose.

We therefore petition you, Mr. President, to consider our statement in opposition to the council-manager proposal, and in favor of the Commissioner's plan as representing the views of citizens seriously alarmed over the ill effects the Budget Bureau's proposal could have upon our community.

Mrs. ALICE M. BARTLETT,

(For Thomas J. Groom, who is out of the city),

WOOLSEY W. HALL,
Mrs. C. D. WRIGHT,

Cochairmen, Citizens Emergency Committee on Reorganization.

MARTIN A. Cook,

Veterans' Organizations Representative.

Representing the following organizations: Federation of Citizens Associations, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Federation of Civil Associations, Washington Board of Trade, American Legion, District of Columbia Industrial Council of the CIO, Federation of Business Men's Associations, Bar Association of the District of Columbia, Federation of Women's Clubs, District of Columbia Bankers Association, Junior Chamber of Commerce, Committee of 100 for the Federal City, Catholic War Veterans, District of Columbia Building and Loan League, American Business Association, Merchants and Manufacturers Association, AMVETS, Washington Real Estate Board, Association of Oldest Inhabitants, District of Columbia.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Clifford H. Newell, will you come forward, please, sir?

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. CONNAUGHTON, MEMBER, EXECUTIVE BOARD, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APPEARING FOR CLIFFORD H. NEWELL, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON REORGANIZATION

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Newell was unavoidably detained by a very serious illness, and I have been delegated in his place to make a very short statement on behalf of the Federation of Citizens Associations.

My name is John H. Connaughton. I am a member of the executive board of the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia.

In the absence of Mr. Newell, Dr. Veal, president of the Federation of Citizens Associations, called me last night and asked me to appear here this morning. I am informed that a short statement will be filed.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Newell will file a statement?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Yes. It will be filed, I expect, over the signature of Dr. Veal, who is president of the Federation of Citizens Associations.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will order it printed whenever it is filed with the clerk.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. The sum total of that statement will be that we endorse, with very little qualification, the entire program of the Commissioners as submitted in plan No. 5. We thing it is an elastic proposition, that will permit us to reorganize the District government in the most economical efficient way possible. And we unqualifiedly approve it.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

99821-52-6

Thank you very much.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Thank you.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

Washington 5, D. C., May 20, 1952.

Chairman, Senate Committee on Government Operations,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: The Federation of Citizens Associations, which represent 66 member bodies, located in all sections of the District of Columbia, and representing the largest group of citizens of any organization, have voted overwhelmingly endorsing the Commissioners reorganization plan for the Dis trict of Columbia.

As president of the Federation of Citizens Associations I wish to strongly urge your committee to adopt this plan.

I would like to add that in addition to the citizens associations many other civic organizations have joined with us in endorsing the Commissioners reorganization plan. I feel sure that under this plan the Commissioners will have the wholehearted support from the citizenry. Furthermore, it is apparent that the citizens of Washington will have a voice through the advisory council. May I urge you again to adopt this plan for the District of Columbia. Sincerely yours,

J. ROSS VEAL, M. D., President.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mrs. Luther present?

STATEMENT OF MRS. LLOYD LUTHER, PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mrs. LUTHER. I am Mrs. Lloyd Luther, president of the District of Columbia League of Women Voters.

We appreciate the opportunity of appearing at these hearings, and understand the proposal in House Document 447 may be accepted or rejected but not changed.

We believe it is important that reorganization come about by executive order. Otherwise, there might be further postponement of the much-needed streamlining of our government. The League of Women Voters feared the recent controversy might result in no plan whatever being submitted to Congress. Under those circumstances we called attention to the Fowler plan as an alternative which had elements of both the Commissioners' and the Budget Bureau's plans. Now that the decision has been made by the President, we believe if Congress approves all citizens should cooperate to make the streamlining work well.

Our major concern regarding the Commissioners' original plan was that it would prevent them from giving sufficient time to over-all planning and policy matters. This is somewhat alleviated by the agreement to avoid the rigid three-bureau structure, but we still feel the character of the commission form of government makes it difficult not to be pretty thoroughly absorbed by the administration of three separate segments of the government.

As a matter of fact, the Commission in the District has been compared to a triumvirate city-manager for the policy-making Congress. It is our view that, because they are closer to District problems than is Congress, the Commissioners should take part in policy-making to the extent of determining what they, as a body, could recommend to

Congress as good policy for the city. It is our view also that nothing disastrous will happen to Washington if some day, as we would hope, we should have a city manager, and nothing disastrous will happen if we don't. We shall simply not be adopting what is at present regarded as the most businesslike way of getting the work done. The important thing as of today is to begin to realine the scattered agencies of the District into a more efficient organization.

We have every confidence that the present Board of Commissioners will carry out the reorganization under House Document 447 in accordance with their statements, and we believe this committee should report the authorization favorably. We should like, however, to see the answer to one question in the record of these hearings, that is, How binding on future Commissioners are the agreements and statements with regard to this plan made by the present Board?

Regarding the Citizens Advisory Council, we agree that, pending the coming of home rule, it is worth while to undertake the difficult task of setting one up. We believe this Council would be more valuable in expressing citizens' views on general problems and interpreting to the public the problems faced by the Commissioners in running the city, rather than in dealing with technical aspects of reorganization.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Luther, you raise a question that I certainly would like to see answered for the record:

How binding on future Commissioners are the agreements and statements with regard to this plan made by the present Board?

Frankly, I do not think they would necessarily be binding on their successors. I assume you mean, with respect to the reorganization contemplated in this plan, whether the statements in the record here by the present Commissioners as to how they would reorganize would be binding on their successors. I do not think they would be. I think they should be very persuasive, but legally I do not think they would be binding upon them, any more than an act of Congress today would bind the next Congress to retain such an act. They might repeal it. I do not think the plan as submitted by the Commissioners definitely binds their successors.

Mrs. LUTHER. It would be a case of public opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. Frankly, I am of the opinion that they will probably change their minds about some as facts before the reorganization is completed.

Mrs. LUTHER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Groom, will you come forward, please?

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. GROOM, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE

Mr. GROOM. My name is Thomas J. Groom. I appear before you today as president of the Washington Board of Trade, an organization composed of more than 6,000 business, professional, and civic leaders, which is generally recognized as a responsible association having a deep and continuing interest in the welfare of the Nation's Capital.

I am here to endorse without qualification Reorganization Plan No. 5, 1952, providing for the reorganization of the government of the District of Columbia.

Our endorsement of Reorganization Plan No. 5 came about after detailed study of the Commissioners' proposals, and after carefully weighing the merits of the Budget Bureau's proposals, the plans which were under consideration by the President.

We believe that the Commissioners should have the authority to streamline the organization of the District of Columbia government and that they should have the power to do so in an orderly manner based on the knowledge which they and other District officials have of this community and its government, and after consultation with citizens whose daily lives are intimately affected by District government activities. This is consistent with Board of Trade policy of many years standing that the authority of the Commissioners over all phases of local activities be increased and that their powers be enlarged within the limitations set down in the Constitution of the United States.

I think the committee will be interested in knowing that the Washington Board of Trade has had continuous existence since 1889, only 11 years after the permanent establishment of the present commission form of government for the District of Columbia. During all these years, the members of the Board of Trade have taken a very active interest in local government operations and in the many legislative and fiscal problems which have arisen. I know of no other local citizen group which can claim such a long active interest in this community or which has more carefully considered as great a number of proposals affecting the welfare of Washington.

I am confident that no other group has manifested such continuous interest in many varied fields embracing not merely commercial and economic matters, but also, the improvement of social conditions and cultural development. The minute details of the organization and operation of the local government, as well as the interrelation of the interests of the citizens of Washington as residents of a local community and as residents of the Nation's Capital, an area in which it is recognized that the interests of the United States must be predominant, have also commanded our attention.

I do not wish to burden the committee with a lengthy recitation of the forms of government which have been in force in this jurisdiction since it became the Capital of the United States in the year 1800. Suffice to say, that in our judgment none of the several forms of government in force between 1800 and 1878 proved to be so satisfactory for developing and operating the Federal city as has the present form of government in effect since this latter date.

Washington has fared well under the commission form of govment. In our judgment, and, I believe, in the judgment of most citizens of this community, we enjoy honest, effective, economical, and relatively efficient government services.

It seems quite clear that efficiency can be improved and some economies can be achieved through centralized control, simplifying and streamlining lines of authority and through regrouping of District agencies and improving administrative services. All of these will be possible under the terms of Reorganization Plan No. 5. In fact, that was the principal objective of the President's proposal and is, of course, the basic purpose of the Reorganization Act.

My comments thus far demonstrate that we have great confidence in our Board of Commissioners. It was that confidence and our con

viction that it was unsound to order a rigid plan of reorganization which motivated our committees and board of directors to support this plan so strongly in preference to other proposals. It is our hope that the Congress will accept it.

The board of trade is confident that the detailed actions taken under the authority granted by the proposal will result in an even better administration of the District of Columbia's affairs than is now enjoyed.

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

Are there any questions, Senator Hoey?

Senator HOEY. I just wanted to commend Mr. Groom and especially his organization. I have great respect for the Board of Trade of Washington. I like its intelligence. I like its courage. And I especially respect the fight it has made against home rule in the city. I think it deserves the everlasting gratitude of the citizens. I shall be very happy to go along with it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Gottsegen, will you come forward, please?

STATEMENT OF MRS. JACK J. GOTTSEGEN, WASHINGTON SECTION, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN

Mrs. GOTTSEGEN. I am Mrs. Jack J. Gottsegen of the Washington section of the National Council of Jewish Women. We are interested in promoting good government and informed citizen participation, not only on the national scene, but in the local communities. We are therefore deeply interested in the form of government of the District of Columbia and thank you for this opportunity to appear here today.

On December 21, 1951, at a public hearing held by the Board of Commissioners, we expressed our interest and support of reorganization of the District government which we believe is essential to the welfare of this community. At that time we indicated our preference for a city-manager plan which we felt would be an effective means of separating administrative functions from the policy-making responsibilities of the District Commissioners. However, while neither Reorganization Plan No. 5, nor the announced intentions of the Commissioners provide for a city manager, we are nevertheless anxious to see that the District government is reorganized on an efficient basis. We were, therefore, greatly interested in General Robinson's testimony last Thursday, in which he granted that the plan does not prohibit the appointment of an executive officer, and we are still hopeful that the Board of Commissioners will see the advisability of appointing such an administrative officer who would be responsible to them for the over-all administrative management of the District government.

Since the plan does not include specific details of this proposed reorganization, we would like to comment on the Commissioners' proposals for carrying out the plan. For example, we hope that with the exception of those agencies specifically exempted from the plan, all other departments and agencies will be reorganized, not on an autonomous or semiautonomous basis, but will function under the full control of the Board of Commissioners. This would provide for centralized responsibility which General Robinson has stated to be one of the major purposes of this plan.

We are happy that the Board of Commissioners have announced their intention to form a citizens' advisory council which we feel