APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUTH HANKINS NESBITT, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEMOCRATIC WOMEN'S CLUB

Mr. Chairman and members of the House Government Operations Committee, I am Ruth Hankins Nesbitt, president of the District of Columbia Democratic Women's Club.

My club has a membership of approximately 300 women from all sections of the city, all ethnic groups, all economic and cultural levels, and all citizens of the District of Columbia. The membership wishes me to express their unequivocal approval and endorsement of the President's Reorganization Plan for the District of Columbia, and urge that it be allowed to pass.

One of our most unique features as U.S. citizens, is that we grow wiser and more efficient as years pass, so is the case with our Government. The States may demand their changes and reorganizations through the vote of its residents. This is not the case with the residents of the District of Columbia who do not have a voice in the administration of the District of Columbia government.

While the reorganization plan will not give us, yet, a voice in the administration of the government, it will be a most decidedly right step toward efficiency in government. This efficiency is urgently needed in the District of Columbia government, and the present form of government is not geared to the need, nor problems and dilemma the government now finds itself in.

An executive and nine-member council although appointed, will be representative of the community and the citizens they serve.

This, we hope, will be the first step in our struggle for self-government. Thank you Mr. Chairman for allowing us to express our views on the President's Reorganization Plan, and urge its approval.

Respectfully,

RUTH HANKINS NESBITT.

PREPARED STATEMENT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS

At its regular meeting in April 1967, the District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations took cognizance of President Johnson's plan to reorganize the District of Columbia government. Realizing that hearings on this matter would be held quickly after introduction of the formal proposal to Congress, the federation felt it would be worthwhile to take a stand on this matter, although our only knowledge of the details of the proposal was based on rumors.

It was our belief that the reorganization plan would give the District government a structure similar to that which it would have had under the administration home-rule bill which died in the last Congress. As such, the reorganization would be in interesting experiment in determining whether such a governmental structure is a good one for a city-State like the District.

While voicing some reservations, the federation did vote to support the idea of a reorganization plan which would separate the executive and legislative functions of the District government. When the House of Representatives voted the Sisk bill in the last session of Congress, one of the features which was loudly objected to from certain quarters was the "sudden death" provision whereby either House of Congress could kill the proposed charter but no changes could be made in it. Thus, the charter would have had the same status in Congress as this reorganization plan, but the charter, at least, would have been prepared with the participation of the rank-and-file citizens of the District. Our major complaint about this reorganization plan is its lack of democratic parentage.

We are sure this plan is not perfect, but we can hope to introduce perfecting features as the imperfections become apparent in the operations of this new government. We therefore urge that this committee go on record as not opposing this plan.

PETER GLICKERT, Chairman, Suffrage Committee.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHIEF JOHN B. LAYTON, METROPOLITAN POLICE

DEPARTMENT

As I have examined the President's reorganization plan for the District, I am impressed by the fact that we have in the Metropolitan Police Department been implementing a reorganization for somewhat similar purposes. These purposes are to provide a more effective crime fighting agency by establishing direct control from the executive head, shortening span of control, focusing responsibility, and providing clearer lines of authority.

In this area, the key element in the President's plan, it seems to me, is the proposal for a single Commissioner with strong executive powers which would provide the consolidated authority which should aid especially the long-range crime prevention programs.

Each criminal act is of concern to a number of departments and agencies in the District government. Under the present system, the operating departments and agencies are divided among the three Commissioners for administrative supervision. For example, the Police Department is under the immediate supervision of the president of the Board of Commissioners; the Department of Corrections is supervised by the other civilian Commissioner; the Engineer Commissioner has immediate supervision over the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Office of the Corporation Counsel reports to the full Board of Commissioners.

It seems appropriate that such closely linked activities as those of the police force, the prison system, motor vehicle supervision, and the legal office, should be coordinated under a single, clear line of authority.

The job of the police force is, of course, primarily to control crime through prevention and arrest of offenders. Many other factors must be taken into account, however, to achieve lasting progress in reducing crime. Long-range programs in such fields as education, employment, and housing are important in this effort. More efficient governmental machinery such as offered by the President's reorganization plan would give the community hope of swifter progress toward these goals.

I am also mindful that our police force is providing community liaison through its precinct councils, as well as the advisory committee to the Chief of Police. I see an indication that the President's reorganization plan would broaden this approach in applying it to the entire District of Columbia government. The proposed nine-member council would be required to be broadly representative of the community. Such a council could reflect the needs and position of the force and in turn feed back the community's view of the Department.

In this connection, I would emphasize that our precinct councils have a broad representation of the community; members have been active, responsive, and very helpful in the overall effort. The police, of course, are charged with the responsibility for maintaining law and order and, in this connection, must make judgments as to what action is required in a given situation when there is a threat to the continuation of order in the community. At the same time, we welcome the assistance of citizens to serve as channels of information, to help squelch rumors, and to exercise a stabilizing influence in the community.

In this endeavor and in conjunction with the updating and expansion of our "Operation Communication" (Tension Alert) files, I view the newly formed network of Citizens Alert fieldworkers as a valuable supplement to the department's existing citizen liaison and advisory groups.

Once again, I would say citizen cooperation is essential in the law enforcement effort.

JOHN B. LAYTON, Chief of Police.

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, June 24, 1967.

Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK, Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In an informal meeting with the District of Columbia Committee of the House of Representatives on Reorganization Plan No. 3, a question was raised concerning the eligibility of Federal employees for appointment to the proposed District of Columbia Council. In view of the fact that the Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization has subsequently been holding hearings on the plan, I thought I would send you a copy of my response to Chairman John L. McMillan, of the Committee on the District of Columbia, as well as the enclosed memorandum prepared by the Department of Justice on the question.

Sincerely,

STEPHEN J. POLLAK,

Adviser for National Capital Affairs.

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, June 23, 1967.

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In the informal discussion before your Committee on Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 on June 6-7, 1967, a question was raised concerning the eligibility of Federal employees for appointment to the proposed District of Columbia Council. Enclosed is a memorandum prepared by the Department of Justice on the subject. The memorandum concludes "that there is no statutory bar to appointment to the Council of such an employee (other than a congressional employee); but he or she would be entitled to receive the compensation of only one of the two offices held."

Federal employees constitute a significant percentage of the population of the District of Columbia. As with other citizens of the District, it is proper that such employees take an active interest in community affairs, including service in community organizations and, where appropriate, on public bodies such as the proposed District of Columbia Council.

In providing an opportunity for such service the plan is consistent with the policy reflected by the Congress in section 7327 of title 5 of the United States Code. This statute authorizes the Civil Service Commission to prescribe regulations permitting Federal employees to take an active part in the management of the municipality in which they reside when the municipality is in Maryland or Virginia and in the immediate vicinity of the District of Columbia, or is a municipality in which the majority of voters are employed by the Government of the United States, or where the Commission determines that, because of special circumstances which exist in the municipality, it is in the interest of the employees to permit such participation in their city government.

Inclusion of Federal employees among those who may be considered for appointment to the Council will help insure the selection of a well-qualified and representative Council. Of course, the time demands of an individual's regular employment, private or public, would be an important factor bearing both upon his selection and upon his employer's judgment whether service on the Council would interfere with his performance of his regular duties. Sincerely,

STEPHEN J. POLLAK, Adviser for National Capital Affairs.

MEMORANDUM

Re statutory restrictions on appointment of Government employee to proposed District of Columbia Council.

The question has been asked whether there may be any statutory restriction upon the appointment of a full-time civilian employee of the Government to the District of Columbia Council which would be established by section 201 of pro

posed Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967. It is concluded that there is no statutory bar to appointment to the Council of such an employee (other than a congressional employee), but he or she would be entitled to receive the compensation of only one of the two offices held.

The Dual Compensation Act provides that, with certain exceptions, an individual is not entitled to receive basic pay from more than one Government position for more than an aggregate of 40 hours of work in 1 calendar week.1 This section does not prohibit the holding of two offices; the prohibition is against the receipt of pay from more than one full-time position. See Senate Report No. 935 (88th Cong., second sess.); House Report No. 890 (88th Cong., First sess.). Prior to the enactment of the Dual Compensation Act in 1964, the result would have been different. Section 2 of the act of July 31, 1894, 5 U.S.C. 62 (1964 ed.), commonly referred to as the dual employment or dual office holding statute, provided that no person could hold two offices if the salary attached to either was $2,500 or more per annum. Section 6 of the act of May 10, 1916, 5 U.S.C. 58 (1964 ed.), provided that no money appropriated by any act should be available for payment to any person receiving more than one salary when the combined amount of the salaries exceeded $2,000 per year. Under these provisions, which were repealed by the Dual Compensation Act in 1964, an individual could not have held the District of Columbia Council position while at the same time holding another civilian Government position.

COMMITTEE FOR FORWARD LOOKING REPUBLICANS,

Washington, D.C., July 10, 1967.

Hon, JOHN A. BLATNIK, Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BLATNIK: The District of Columbia Committee for Forward Looking Republicans was organized in the summer of 1964 as a medium through which financial assistance could be given to support the candidacies of moderate Republicans running for public office, principally for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, to help rebuild the local Republican organization, and to support the cause of good government in the District of Columbia. The committee has continued to function actively since its organization and we believe that our efforts have been effective in many instances.

We have carefully reviewed the issues which have been raised and discussed with respect to Reorganization Plan No. 3. Our analysis leads us to conclude that the reorganization plan is a sound and significant step forward in bringing modern, effective, and efficient government to the District of Columbia. We respectfully urge the Members of the Congress and particularly those of our great Republican Party-to support this important move for better local gov ernment.

The District of Columbia is the home of some 800,000 citizens. Within the area of the District we find most of the same problems and potential as are found in other large American cities. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States, in its publication "Modernizing Local Government," recently pointed up the problems facing urban America: Cities choked with traffic; millions of substandard dwellings; rising crime and delinquency rates; widespread social unrest; an environment becoming steadily more polluted; and, vast deteriorating commercial

areas.

We know these problems are found to varying degrees in Washington. The chamber stressed that "unless local government is revitalized, our political and economic systems as we now know them will have little chance to solve public problems effectively, Governments of yesteryear must be remodeled to fit not only today's, but tomorow's needs."

The actions to be taken under the reorganization plan are necessary to remodel the District's government to meet the needs of today and tomorow. The existing structure of the District government is a vestige of yesteryear, designed to meet the conditions of the mid-1870's.

1 Public Law 88-448, 78 Stat. 484, sec. 301, 5 U.S.C. 5533. An exception relating to congressional employees provides that they may not receive aggregate compensation from more than 1 position of more than $2,000 a year. In effect, this bars the holding of a second Government position.

If Washington, like other large American cities, is to rise to its challenges-to fulfill its mission as the Capital of this Nation-it must have strong executive leadership. A three-headed executive is by its very nature conducive to delay and confusion. District agencies are divided among the Commissioners for executive leadership. This compartmentalization is destructive and self-defeating. No private business would willingly accept such a plan of organization. Local and Federal resources are wasted because three Commissioners are unable to give unified direction and to require coordination of activities cutting across traditional lines.

These infirmities of the District's form of government were pointed out in a Report on District of Columbia Affairs submitted to the Congress as long ago as 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt, who stated that "a single head in place of three Commissioners *** [will] * * * increase efficiency, determine responsibility, and eliminate delays and uncertainties inevitable under the present system. ** **

In 1948 the House Committee on the District of Columbia, chaired by then Congressman Everett M. Dirksen, announced similar conclusions in adopting a proposal both for home rule and for reorganization of the District government. Among other defects of the commission form of government the committee pointed out that:

"The present organic law, passed in 1878, * * * represents a crazy quilt pattern poorly suited to the requirements of modern municipal government. * * * There is no clear separation of legislative and executive functions which students of municipal government consider essential."

The reorganization plan will remedy these deficiencies. It creates the position of a single Commissioner who will be directly responsible to the President and the Congress for the effective administration of the District. The heads of District agencies, too, will have a clear focus of responsibility. Each will report to the same top man. The result of this organization change should be quicker, clearer decisions plus more effective administration.

The commission form of government is no longer satisfactory for large, complex cities such as Washington. This is shown not only by the difficulties created by its continuing use here in Washington, but by its declining use throughout the Nation. Today, none of the Nation's largest 27 cities, except Washington, still operates under this form of government. If the commission structure were an effective means of governing our large cities, surely the trend would have been slowed or reversed. We must conclude that many years of American experience, under many different political, economic, and social conditions, have led to a fundamental conclusion-the commission form of government is outdated, outmoded, and cannot do the job. There is no reason why the Nation's Capital, alone among the Nation's cities, should be hobbled by a system established in 1874 when the scope of responsibilities of city government was entirely different than it is today.

While there has been some criticism of elements of the plan, we believe these criticisms are not valid. Whatever substance they may have does not outweigh the value of the plan for good government in the District.

For example, criticism has been leveled at an important provision of the plan which gives the single Commissioner authority to organize the subordinate agencies of the District government. In our judgment, this is vital if the District is to be organized to carry out present and future programs with economy and efficiency. This authority is no different from that which Congress has given to practically all of the heads of Cabinet departments and to the heads of important independent agencies. It carries out one of the important recommendations of the Hoover Commission for better government.

Last year, for example, in creating the Department of Transportation, Congress gave to the Secretary of Transportation essentially similar authority to reorganize subordinate units of the agency. The year before the Congress gave the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development this basic reorganization authority. The power to group functions and activities for effective results is central to making District government a responsive instrument for civic progress. Congress, of course, retains full power to terminate this authority in whole or to reverse or revise individual actions by the Commissioner.

Another objection which has been made is that somehow the powers delegated to the Council under the plan will involve the Council in controversy and perhaps trespass over the line into the area reserved for the Congress. We do not see how this could happen any more under the plan than is now the case.

The Council is given only such quasi-legislative authority as is now vested in the three Commissioners-no more. There is no substantive change in the author