ity delegated by the Congress. Congress retains for itself the full responsibility to enact all legislation affecting the District appropriate funds and make its budgets. Indeed, in accordance with the best of counsel of students of municipal government, the plan separates these quasi-legislative functions assigned to the Council from the executive functions lodged with the Commissioner. Therefore, the plan should measurably reduce the chance for confusion. We have considered these and other objections to the plan. They offer no ground for changing our opinion that the plan offers the best immediate step for bringing better government to the District. If it appears that further changes are needed, or indeed that elements of the plan can be improved, there is no bar to having Congress legislate directly on these points. In the meantime, the problems of the District increase. Prompt action is needed to insure that progress can be made to make the city one in which its residents will be proud to live and which all Americans will be pleased to visit. Respectfully submitted. EDWARD BURLING, Jr., Chairman. THE ASSOCIATION OF THE OLDEST INHABITANTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, 1ST, Chairman, Government Operations Committee, SIR: The Association of Oldest Inhabitants of the District of Columbia, by unanimous vote, has authorized me to advise you of their opposition to the proposed plan of reorganization of the District government which would provide for an appointed commissioner or mayor and an appointed council. Our opposition is not solely on the basis that it is a step toward home rule, which we have always opposed, but that the authority for determining the type of government for the District rests in Congress not in the White House. We can see no advantages to the proposed plan but can see a materially increased expense. We urge you to take prompt action to kill this proposed plan. CLIFFORD H. NEWELL, President. NORTHEAST BUSINESS MEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC., GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: This association, at its regular March meeting, went on record opposing a proposal to abolish the commission form of government in the District of Columbia and supplant it with a mayor and nine-member council. Very truly yours, JOHN J. TRIPP, Mr. ELMER HENDERSON, THE WASHINGTON TEACHERS' UNION, Counsel for Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HENDERSON: The Washington Teachers' Union wishes to file the enclosed testimony in regard to Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967. We highly appreciate this opportunity to make our views on this matter known to the members of the committee. Very sincerely, DON B. GOODLOE, Legislative Representative of the Gentlemen of the Government Operations Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization: The Washington Teachers' Union is glad of an opportunity to present testimony on Reorganizatioon Plan No. 3 of 1967. Our organization has always taken an interest in improving the government of the Nation's Capital. We have, for example, always supported legislation for establishing local self-government in the District of Columbia. At the present time, moreover, the union is working to secure representation in the Congress of the United States for the citizens of Washington. Local 6 of the American Federation of Teachers is therefore intensely interested in any effort for better government of our Capital City. Our affiliations have furthermore brought us in close contact with citizens and organizations which strive constantly for the amelioration of political and social conditions here. These include the American Federation of Teachers, with more than 100,000 members, as well as the national AFL-CIO. The Washington Teachers' Union supports Reorganization Plan No. 3, as presented by the President of the United States. We think it would be an improvement over the system now operating in our city. Incidentally, the commission form of government has not lived up to expectations throughout the United States and has, consequently, been abandoned in various places. In the first place, there would be more centralized responsibility than exists here now. One commissioner would be responsible, rather than three with divided activities and prerogatives. That, in our opinion, would be a decided step forward. The council would also probably function more efficiently in the government, as a whole, than is possible for the three executives, under the present setup. The chief executive, although exercising responsibility, would have more assistance in making important decisions. It does not seem to us that the arguments being made against this reorganization plan carry much weight. It is stated that the plan does not go far enough. It is declared that only top level functions are changed. Yet, the same people fear that indescribable confusion and chaos would result following the effective date of the change. The two things do not add up. If the thing is so innocuous that it would have practically no effect, it is difficult to see how it would, at the same time, have such a catastrophic effect on the District government. It has been suggested that rather than act on reorganization of our local government now, we might have hearings on an identical bill now before the House District Committee. In that case (as the argument goes), needed amendments could be adopted, instead of taking the plan in toto, within the next few weeks. That sounds all right; but past history does not justify such optimistic expectations. The President began efforts toward reorganization of the District government almost 6 months ago. Yet, the House District Committee took no action in this direction until plan No. 3 was actually sent to Congress. Then, an identical bill was introduced, on which hearings would presumably be held. Assuming that such hearings were held, it is uncertain how long they would take. We know how long and involved the legislative procedure is. No one could predict that an amended reorganization bill would reach the floor of the House before the end of this session. Still less, could anyone foresee its future after that. Reliance on the prospect of securing changes in our government through this process is not reassuring. For these reasons, the Washington Teachers' Union urges that the Government Operations Committee react favorably to Reorganization Plan No. 3 and prevent its defeat in the House of Representatives. Very respectfully, DON B. GOODLOE, Legislative Representative, Washington Teachers' Union Local No. 6, American Federation of Teachers. THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE, Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK, DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK: I transmit to you herewith a statement of policy of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade respecting the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 concerning the District of Columbia. This policy was adopted by our board of directors today. I am sure you will be interested in knowing that the board of directors acted on the recommendation of a task force which was appointed to review the President's reorganization proposal. This task force had the benefit of the experience, judgment, and advice of six Board of Trade members who have served as Commissioners of the District of Columbia. We trust that this statement of policy will be made a part of the record. LEONARD B. DOGGETT, Jr. THE BOARD OF TRADE POLICY RESPECTING THE PRESIDENT'S REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 3 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA The Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade heartily endorses the President's purpose "to strengthen and modernize the government of the District of Columbia," and "to make it as efficient and effective as possible." The Congress, Washingtonians, and all Americans should vigorously support changes which will accomplish these objectives for their National Capital. Those District of Columbia government operations which are widely recognized as ineffective and inefficient directly result from divided authorities between the Commissioners and some Federal and quasi-independent agencies. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 will not change this situation. Unfortunately, Plan No. 3 as submitted, which means that it must be accepted as is or rejected in its entirety, is not susceptible of change to remedy such defects. We therefore recommend that this plan be withdrawn and that all concerned proceed to develop a properly planned and executed reorganization of the government of the District of Columbia which will benefit from public debate among citizens and Members of Congress. Such action should be taken immediately. EXPLANATION The District of Columbia is a Federal district, provided for by the framers of the Constitution, over which the Congress exercises exclusive legislation. We continue to support the principle of a Federal district in which the will of Congress is supreme. We seriously question the validity of efforts to apply forms of government considered effective in other large cities to Washington which is unlike any other municipality in America. We cannot overlook the fact that several types of mayor and council government and the territorial form of government which were practiced from 1800 until 1874 were supplanted by the commission form of government which as proved to be an honest government and, until recent years, an effective and efficient form of government. Our current form of government now should be updated by placing responsibility and complete authority to fill that responsibility in the hands of the Commissioners. We believe that State, county, and municipial functions exercised by the District of Columbia government will be made more effective and more efficient if the powers of the Commissioners are broadened to the greatest possible extent consistent with the exclusive legislative jurisdiction reserved to Congress in the Constitution. Strengthening local government and making it as efficient and effective as possible is clearly mainly dependent upon the centralization of authority in the presidentially appointed Commissioners who are answerable to Congress. This requires many alterations of present organization and practices. It involves transferring to the Commissioners some or all powers now exercised by the National Capital Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Land Agency, the National Capital Housing Authority, the U.S. Employment Service for the District of Columbia, and other agencies. In recent years the Commissioners' authority and prestige has been diluted by the creation of the position of Adviser to the President on National Capital Affairs which clearly the President has the power to appoint. It is essential, however, to effective local government that the President of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia perform this Presidential advisory function. A proper reorganization plan will give to the Commissioners the powers which they need to carry out their responsibilities for administering our local government. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, HEALTH AND WELFARE COUNCIL Chairman, Government Operations Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN DAWSON: The Health and Welfare Council of the National Capital Area, on recommendation of the District of Columbia Health and Welfare Council, endorses the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 for the District of Columbia, as representing a necessary improvement in the District of Columbia government. HWC regrets that Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 does not provide for a District of Columbia residence requirement for the Commissioner prior to appointment. However, we are confident that, in making his selection, the President will look to the many qualified residents of the District. The Council, while not an elected body, will nevertheless give the citizens of the community an opportunity for the expression of their views at this level of government, since it should be representative of the people of the city. The Health and Welfare Council believes that early legislation should be introduced and adopted to give the residents of the District of Columbia the right to choose through democratic processes the persons who govern the people of the city, and to be represented in the Congress as are all other citizens of the United States. Respectfully yours, GLENN E. WATTS, Health and Welfare Council of the National Capital Area. President, District of Columbia Health and Welfare Council. COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, BARRY FINANCE, INC., Washington, D.C., June 21, 1967. Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I wish to go on record as being very much in favor of the bill which sponsors one Commissioner for the District of Columbia, with a committee in close cooperation with him. In my opinion it will create a much more efficient operation and place the full responsibility upon one operating head. Sincerely, D. E. SNYDER, President. Mr. ELMER HENDERSON, NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, INC., U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations, Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HENDERSON: I am enclosing herewith a statement prepared on behalf of the Northeast Neighborhood Council, Inc., in support of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3. Kindly insert this statement in the record in lieu of our testimony at the public hearings. Thank you very much for your kind consideration. Best wishes and warmest personal regards to you and your family. Very truly yours, KENNETH C. KENNEDY, Chairman. STATEMENT OF NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, INC., IN SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT'S REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 3 The Northeast Neighborhood Council, Inc., strongly supports the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3, for the District of Columbia, because of reasons already ably stated by the many groups that have testified before the Government Operations Subcommittee. Among these reasons we include the belief that it will provide a much more efficient way of handling the constantly mushrooming urban problems of the the District of Columbia. We feel, from past experience, that if a disapproval resolution kills the President's plan that the identical bill before the House District Committee could be emasculated into "insensibility." Though short of the ideal of self-government, the nine-member appointed council could not help but be more representative of the various geographical and social groupings of this city. Congress would still maintain ultimate control, however, to answer the argument that control of Washington would be shifted to the White House. Legislative functions would be transferred to the council with executive administration put in the hands of a strong commissioner who would have the overall responsibility. Buckpassing will be lessened by having one head instead of three. We would like to cite two current examples of problems in the Northeast section of Washington that we feel would be helped by the President's reorganization plan. (1) The lack of movement toward the use of the valuable land site to be vacated by the National Training School for Boys. Will it be for the new community college or for badly needed housing? There seems to be an impasse that is holding it up from consideration for either of these needs. A number of projects have been similarly held up in the past because of inability of the three commissioners to reach an agreement. (2) The first Northeast public housing apartment development (located at 18th St. and Montana Avenue, NE.) will be opening soon. There are 156 units containing three, four, five, and even six bedrooms. There is an already overcrowded school situaiton in Northeast. This housing development will bring into the area up to 1,000 more children with no provision made for additional classroom, welfare or recreation facilities. Would one strong executive have allowed this situation to develop? The Northeast Neighborhood Council is trying to meet the problems of the present situation, which is taxing in itself, and by organizing the clergy and interested groups and individuals is attempting to prepare for the expected emergency from the Montana Avenue development. The anticipated result of the President's reorganization plan, with its more modern, efficient, "the-back-stops-here" form of executive head, would be to speak to these aforementioned problems. We wish to thank the committee for the opportunity for our civic group to speak about some of our community problems in relation to a possible start at their solution-the reorganization of the District of Columbia. Chairman JOHN BLATNIK, DIOCESE OF WASHINGTON, Washington, D.C., June 29, 1967. Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. BLATNIK: I would like to urge you to use whatever influence you have to approve the President's Reorganization Plan for the District of Columbia. Although I realize it's a long way from home rule, which I personally favor, I feel it would bring not only a greater efficiency to our government but would also make the people of the District feel that some change is possible and would stimulate the morale of the citizens of the District, which at this point is at a very low ebb indeed. One executive head and a council which hopefully would be representative of, if not elected by, various sections of the city would be tremendously helpful both in increased efficiency and in deeper involvement of the people. Sincerely, The Right Reverend PAUL MOORE, Jr. |