is most important to a community which has no elected representatives. We heartily endorse the qualifications for membership as outlined by General Robinson since they emphasize the need for a truly representative body and one which, we hope, will fairly reflect the various shades of opinion in the District. We were, however, disappointed in reading the proposed plan for such a council that no provision was made for this body to initiate matters for the consideration of the Commissioners. In our opinion, its functions should be not only that of adviser on matters referred to it by the Board of Commissioners, but should extend to the privilege of bringing matters for consideration to the Board.

I should like to add one item to my prepared statement: That we were happy to hear General Robinson's statement this morning that this was now their intention.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the other members of the committee share my views that the council should be permitted to initiate suggestions, and not just simply submit advice on matters referred to them.

I appreciate this morning that General Robinson did say the Commissioners now contemplate the granting of that privilege, and I hope that promise will be kept.

Thank you very much.

Mrs. GOTTSEGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Herbst? I have a letter here. He is probably not present. I have a letter here from Dr. Herbst's organization, the Medical Society of the District of Columbia, and it will be placed in the record.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Washington, D. C., May 16, 1952.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I have been requested by Dr. William P. Herbst, Jr., chairman of our committee on public policy, who attended yesterday's hearing on the reorganization plan for the District of Columbia to inform you that our society approves this legislation in principle.

Dr. Herbst was very favorably impressed by the presentations of Commissioners F. Joseph Donohue and Brig. Gen. Bernard L. Robinson, and he feels that the enactment of the proposed bill will do much to increase the efficiency of the District government.

Sincerely yours,

THEODORE WIPRUD.

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

STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. WALINSKY, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON CHAPTER, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

Mr. WALINSKY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Louis J. Walinsky. I am president of the Washington chapter of Americans for Democratic Action, and I wish to thank you on behalf of my organization for this opportunity to testify on the President's Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1952, pertaining to the government of the District of Columbia.

I wish to state at the outset that Americans for Democratic Action strongly advocate home rule for the District of Columbia as well as reorganization of its government. In our view, both home rule and

reorganization are urgently needed. Reorganization is not and cannot be made a substitute for home rule. It would be a tragedy if reorganization were permitted in any way to delay progress toward home rule.

I wish also to state very frankly that, as between the present reorganization plan and one which would have created a city council-manager type of government in the District of Columbia, ADA preferred the latter plan. In fact, as recently as April 22 we urged the President of the United States to recommend to the Congress the reorganization plan prepared by the Bureau of the Budget.

While we have not changed our views in this basic regard, we do not appear before you to urge the rejection of Reorganization Plan No. 5. We realize that if badly needed progress is to be made in the direction of reorganization this year, it will have to be on the basis of the plan before you. We appear, therefore, not to oppose this plan, but to raise certain questions in connection with it and to make certain suggestions which we think may be of some help.

The first point we had planned to make, Mr. Chairman, I think was more or less taken care of in your hearings on Thursday, and so I will skip that.

There is another very important point on which we believe the Commissioners' views should be ascertained. Certain very important offices and agencies are not included among those brought under the authority of the Commissioners by the present reorganization plan. Among these are the Board of Education, the Recreation Board, the Board of Library Trustees, the Redevelopment Land Agency, the Zoning Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission.

Now, obviously, any reorganization plan which leaves such very important municipal functions as education, recreation, and publicutilities control outside the scope and authority of the municipal government, and uncoordinated with it, is seriously deficient. At the same time, we realize that under the Reorganization Act, this plan No. 5 must be accepted or rejected in toto-it cannot be modified. We, therefore, cannot urge your committee to correct this major deficiency and weakness in the plan. We can only urge you to inquire into the "why" of these omissions; to ascertain whether these functions should not have been included; and to inquire whether additional legislation should not be enacted in the near future to correct these deficiencies in the plan. This committee, in our opinion, would do a real service by shedding light on these points.

There is still one more avenue of inquiry we wish to propose. The tentative plans announced by the Commissioners have indicated that consideration is being given to the creation of a Citizen's Advisory Council. We regard this as the critical idea of the entire reorganization plan-critical because of its great potential if it is properly developed and critical because of its great dangers if it is not well handled. How large should such a Citizens' Advisory Council be? How and on what basis should its members be chosen? For how long a period should they serve? With what type of questions should it concern itself? Should such a council concern itself only with matters placed before it, or should it offer its advice on other matters of importance as well?

These are difficult questions, not easily answered, but we should like to place on record our views on these questions so that you may, if you desire, pursue them further.

We believe, first of all, that a Citizens' Advisory Council is subject to a number of infirmities which must be carefully guarded against. It could all too easily become a vehicle for organized pressure groups representing narrow special interests. It could all too easily be comprised of easygoing individuals who would not take their responsibilities seriously, and thus become a rubber stamp of automatic approval for every proposal placed before it. In such an event, it would tend to create an aura of public approval for actions and policies which would not, if closely examined, obtain public approval at all. It could thus tend to insulate the Commissioners from the public and public opinion, when in fact its major functions should be to bring the Commissioners in ever closer contact with them.

What we would like to see is a medium-sized council comprised of perhaps 15 members, not so small as to prevent its subdivision into several important subcommittees, not so large as to be unwieldy. We think it should be truly representative of the District's citizenry and should therefore be chosen on a geographic basis. It should meet regularly at least twice a month. It should offer its views on all matters which it deems important enough to engage its attention. We think members should serve for a 2-year period.

But now we come to the most important question of all: How should members of this Council be chosen? If we are to have a Council comprised of interested, independent-minded individuals who are truly representative of the District's citizenry and views, there is only one answer, in our view. The Council members must be elected by their fellow citizens. We understand very well that, under the Reorganization Act, the election of a city legislature is impossible. What we are proposing, however, is not the election of such a body but the election of an advisory council or committee. We believe this is quite another matter and perfectly appropriate under the circumstances. We believe the provisions of S. 1976, already passed by the Senate, provide a satisfactory procedure for such elections. And we urge you to inquire into the feasibility and desirability of this proposal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Any questions, Senator?

Senator DwORSHAK. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. L. F. Schmeckebier.

STATEMENT OF LAURENCE F. SCHMECKEBIER, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. SCHMECKEBIER. Mr. Chairman, the major defect of Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1952 is that under the commission form of government an executive officer also participates in the ordinance-making power. This is contrary to the long-established principle that the legislative functions should be distinct and separate from the executive.

Sitting as a board the Commissioners perform the duties of a municipal council; acting separately they have the duties of executive officers. One member may take action on a matter in the field assigned

to him, and later when the same matter is reviewed by the board he will vote on the review of his own action.

Some years ago Commissioner Newman commented on this condition as follows:

When someone appeals from my action as a member of the Board of Commissioners to the full Board of Commissioners, and I have to pass on my own action, I find that I am usually prejudiced in my own favor.

That is Senate Document 247, Sixty-fourth Congress, page 879. With reference to staff memorandum No. 82-2-33, prepared by Miles Scull, Jr., of the committee staff, which I understand is already in the record, and also the original proposal by the Bureau of the Budget for the establishment of council-manager form of government in the District of Columbia, I endorse these recommendations without reservation.

The council-manager plan has been characterized as new, untested, and vague. It is none of these. It was first adopted by Staunton, Va., in 1908, 44 years ago. By 1951 it had been adopted by 33 percent of the cities having populations of 30,000 or over. Four detailed studies of the District government made since 1928 have recommended that it be adopted.

On the other hand, the commission form of government has been tested and found wanting. From 1917 to 1951 the cities with a population of 30,000 and over using the commission form of government decreased from 36 percent to 23 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Next on the list is Mr. Edward R. Carr, president of the Washington Real Estate Board.

Mr. Carr, will you come forward.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. THROCKMORTON, REPRESENTING THE WASHINGTON REAL ESTATE BOARD

Mr. THROCKMORTON. Mr. Chairman, my name is William M. Throckmorton, and I am substituting for Mr. Carr, who was unavoidably called out of the city.

I am first vice president of the Washington Real Estate Board, which is composed of the principal real-estate firms in the District of Columbia. The recommendation which I am here to make today is presented with the full authority of the board of directors of my organization.

As has been indicated by others, there would appear to be no necessity for me to review the details of Reorganization Plan No. 5. Further, in deference to the time of the members of this committee, this statement has been made just as brief as possible.

We have examined generally Reorganization Plan No. 5 and we understand that under its terms the Commissioners of the District of Columbia are given a free hand and the authority to consolidate, realine, and streamline agencies of the District of Columbia government except those specifically excluded such as the Board of Education, the Board of Library Trustees, the Recreation Board, the courts,

et cetera.

We subscribe to the view that the Commissioners should have such authority. We believe as a general policy that the Board of Commissioners should be clothed with the maximum amount of authority

consistent with the provisions of the Constitution in the administration of the affairs of the District of Columbia.

We endorse Reorganization Plan No. 5 and strongly urge that the Congress take no adverse action, and, therefore, permit it to become law on July 1.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir, thank you very much.

Mr. Zirkin?

STATEMENT OF DEWEY ZIRKIN, PRESIDENT, MERCHANTS AND MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. ZIRKIN. I am Dewey Zirkin, president of the Merchants and Manufacturers Association, an organization composed of business establishments covering virtually every field of commercial activity in Washington.

We have been very much interested in the proposals recently advanced to reorganize the government of the District of Columbia. The association has carefully weighed the facts presented and made a concentrated effort in adopting its policy to arrive at recommendations which would best serve the people of the District of Columbia.

In view of the chairman's request for brevity in these statements, and in view of the fact that the Commissioners of the District of Columbia covered most of the points involved for the record last week, I will confine my statement today to merely endorsing Reorganization Plan No. 5, 1952, providing for organization of the District of Columbia.

We earnestly believe that the Board of Commissioners will, through the powers granted under it, effect appropriate and necessary reorganization of the various elements of the government of the District of Columbia in such a manner as to improve efficiency and effect economies. We believe that the Commissioners can best perform this task because of their intimate knowledge of the operations over which they preside.

Thank you very much for having afforded us this opportunity to make our views part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The committee appreciates very much the assistance the witnesses are giving this morning in making their statements brief.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. ZIRKIN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Linowes?

STATEMENT OF DAVID F. LINOWES, DIRECTOR, JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. LINOWES. Mr. Chairman, may name is David F. Linowes. I am here in the capacity of a director of the Junior Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D. C.

The junior chamber of commerce represents over 700 young business and professional men, most of whom work and live in the District of Columbia. We are vitally interested in any steps taken to improve our form of government, which daily affects our business and personal lives.