and to give treatment of the District of Columbia courts on a basis comparable to other jurisdictions.

We are attaching a comparative chart which appeared in the December 1963 issue of the Journal of the American Judicature Society which lists the level of compensation paid to the highest court, the intermediate appellate court, and the general trial court in each of the 50 jurisdictions in the United States as of December 1963.

If there is any additional information which we can provide, I hope that you will not hesitate to call on us.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT W. BARKER, Chairman, Committee on Pending Legislation.

[From Journal of the American Judicature Society, vol. 47, No. 7]

(December 1963)
APPENDIX I

COMPARATIVE CHART-JUDICIAL SALARIES IN MAJOR TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS General Note.—The table on p. 15 sets forth prevailing judicial salary rates for judges of supreme courts, intermediate appellate courts, and trial courts of general jurisdiction in all 50 States, the Federal judicial system, and and Puerto Rico. In utilization, the following should be noted: (i) Salaries are stated in annual amounts and do not reflect additional compensation frequently authorized for chief or presiding judges of particular courts nor payments for expenses or in lieu of expenses. Chief judge increments range from $500 to $2,500. (ii) In jurisdictions which have constitutional restrictions against increasing compensaton during a judge's term of office all judges of a particular court may not as yet be entitled to the salary indicated, which is the current rate authorized for newly appointed or elected judges. (iii) Where a salary range rather than a single rate is shown on the chart, this reflects variations in compensation resulting from payment of local supplements or authorized variations based on population, property formulas or length of service. (iv) Reference should be made to individual State summaries for detailed information.

A court of appeals is authorized under the new constitution, but no implementing legislation was passed at the 1963 session.

2 Salary shown become effective Jan. 1, 1965. For current rates, see State summary. Salary for superior court: See State summary for district court.

In computing the national average and national median figures, (i) Federal salaries are excluded (except those for the District of Columbia); (ii) all States have been weighed equally without adjustment for variations in the size of the judiciary; (iii) for courts where a salary range rather than a single rate is shown, the figures used have been the average of the upper and lower limits of this range; and (iv) Puerto Rico is included. Average and median salaries for supreme courts in thos States which have intermediate appellate courts are $23,666 and $22,500 respectively.

$45 J. Amer. Jud. Soc. 253 (March 1962).

Mr. WHITENER. Well, now, Mr. Irving Bryan of the Office of Corporation Counsel, and Dr. Henry F. Hubbard, personnel officer, and Mr. Schuyler Lowe are here.

Do you gentlemen have something to add?

STATEMENT OF IRVING BRYAN, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. HENRY F. HUBBARD, PERSONNEL OFFICER, AND SCHUYLER LOWE, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. BRYAN. Good morning, gentlemen.

Mr. Chairman, for the record I will give the names of the several witnesses here. My name is Irving Bryan, Assistant Corporation Counsel; this gentleman is Mr. Schuyler Lowe, Director of the Department of General Administration. This is Dr. Henry Hubbard, personnel officer of the District government.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have this morning handed to the clerk of the committee the Commissioners' written report on the bill which is before you.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Bryan, at this point we will make that communication a part of the record, if you will give the reporter a copy. Mr. BRYAN. Yes, sir.

Thank you, sir.

(The document referred to follows:)

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, D.C., March 25, 1964.

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

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

MY DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have for report H.R. 10487, 88th Congress, a bill to increase the compensation of certain officers of the government of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

H.R. 10487 increases the compensation of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, the judges of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the judges of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, the judges of the District of Columbia Juvenile Court, the judge of the District of Columbia Tax Court, the Superintendent of Schools and the Deputy Superintendent of Schools, the Fire Chief, and the Chief of Police.

The first section of H.R. 10487 amends sections 2 and 3 of the act of July 25, 1958 (erroneously referred to as the act of July 25, 1959; 72 Stat. 414; District of Columbia Code, (secs. 1-204a and 1-204b) so as to increase the salaries of two of the Commissioners from the present rate of $19,000 per annum to $29,000 per annum, and to increase the salary of the President of the Board of Commissioners to $29,500. These increases are consistent with other legislative proposals now pending in the House of Representatives.

A review of the salaries of mayors in cities over 500,000 population, as reported in the 1963 Municipal Yearbook, indicates that the upper quartile salary is $28,750. Four of the sixteen cities included in this report pay their mayors more than this amount, with the highest (New York City) paying a salary of $50,000. The District Commissioners should be in the highest quarter of these cities because they assume levels of responsibilities which include State, county, and city functions. These functions and the continuous contact with the highest levels of the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government combine to make the role of the Commissioners one of the most complex in any municipality in the United States. Because of the uniqueness of their role, direct comparison to any one level of State, county, or city government, for purposes of establishing or relating comparable salary rates, is extremely difficult.

The salary level of $29,000 approximates the levels for members of regulatory boards and commissions proposed in H.R. 10444 Federal executives. Further

more, the $500 differential proposed for the President of the Board of Commissioners is consistent with the $500 differential for chairmen of the Federal regulatory boards and commissions.

For example, the Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and chairmen of similar commissions and boards are presently receiving a $500 differential above their commission or board members. This differential will be increased to $1,000 if pending legislation (H.R. 10444) is passed by the Congress. The proposed salaries in H.R. 10444 are $29,500 for board and commission members and $30,500 for the chairmen. Also, the chief judges of the District of Columbia courts presently receive a $500 differential. Therefore, the $500 differential proposed for the President of the Board of Commissioners seems fully warranted.

The Commissioners' salaries have not been increased since 1958. As a result of successive Classification Act increases in 1960, 1962, and 1964, a number of employees under the supervision of the Commissioners now receive higher salaries than the Commissioners. This inequity, under which a superior receives less pay than the person supervised, violates sound rules of management and personnel administration. This situation would be corrected by H.R. 10487.

Sections 2, 3, and 4 of H.R. 10487 increase the salaries of the chief judge and the associate judges of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the District of Columbia court of general sessions, the District of Columbia juvenile court, and the judge of the District of Columbia Tax Court, as follows:

Salaries of municipal judges in the District have not been increased since 1955, whereas the salaries of Federal and District Government employees subject to the Classification Act were increased in 1958, 1960, 1962, and 1964.

Salaries of the judges of the U.S. district courts, presently $22,500, would, under H.R. 10444, be increased to $32,500, H.R. 10444 also substantially increases the salaries of Federal and District Government employees subject to the Classification Act. These proposed increases in the salaries of District administrative officials and judges of the U.S. district court seem fully to justify increases in the salaries of the municipal judges of the District of Columbia, as provided by H.R. 10487.

Further, it must be recognized that the stature of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions has been enhanced by the recent increase in its jurisdiction in civil matters from $3,000 to $10,000, indicating an increase in the responsibilities of the judges of that court.

Section 5 of the bill increases the compensation of the Superintendent of Schools from the present $19,000 to $28,000, and that of the Deputy Superintendent from the present $16,500 to $22,500. A comparison of the salary of the Superintendent of Schools with the salaries paid to the incumbents in similar positions in 20 other cities having a population of more than 500,000 shows the salary paid to this District official to be the lowest paid in all 21 cities. This unfavorable position becomes even more disturbing when the population and school enrollment in the District of Columbia is compared with the other 20 cities. For example, the District of Columbia ranks 9th among these cities in terms of population, and 10th in terms of city school enrollment. However, the median maximum salary paid in the 20 other cities for the position equivalent to that of the Superintendent of Schools of the District of Columbia is $27,750 per annum, as compared with $19,000 per annum in the District of Columbia. The salary of $28,000 per annum established by H.R. 10487 would have the effect of causing the District of Columbia to attain 10th place among this group of cities, as compared to its present last place.

The proposed salary of $22,500 for the Deputy Superintendent of Schools would move the District of Columbia from 18th place among the 21 cities above referred to 4th place among such cities.

With respect to the compensation paid the Superintendent of Schools of the District of Columbia, the District's rank among the six surrounding school jurisdictions is considerably below its objective. At present, the District ranks fifth21 percent below Montgomery County and Prince George's County. Montgomery County's school enrollment is 46 percent smaller than the District's, and Prince George's County school enrollment is 64 percent smaller than the District's. The proposed increase in the salary of the Superintendent of Schools of the District would have the result of causing the District of Columbia to attain first place in the metropolitan area of Washington. This would be consistent in terms of school enrollment and other factors adding to the difficulty of the position.

The Commissioners believe the foregoing discussion concerning the salaries of both the Superintendent of Schools and the Deputy Superintendent of Schools indicates the urgent need for higher salaries for these officials.

Section 6 of the bill changes the compensation of the Fire Chief and the Chief of Police from a present range of $17,000 through $19,000 to a range of from $21,000 through $23,500. The present salary range falls between grades GS-16 and GS-17 of the Classification Act. Several department heads in the government of the District of Columbia, such as the Director of Highways and Traffic, Director of Sanitary Engineering, Director of Public Welfare, Director of Corrections, and other officials of the District of Columbia, have been placed in grade GS-17 by the Civil Service Commission. The Chief of Police and the Fire Chief are both considered to have operational and administrative responsibility comparable to the other department heads of the government of the District of Columbia, and therefore should receive comparable salary consideration. The Commissioners note, incidentally, that H.R. 10444 provides a salary range of $21,445 to $24,445 for grade GS-17. In view of the foregoing, the Commissioners believe that a salary range of $21,000 to $23,500 for the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief is appropriate.

In a comparison with the 20 other major cities of the United States, the proposed minimum salary of $21,000 for the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief would change the ranking of the salary paid the Chief of Police of the District of Columbia from ninth place to sixth place, and that paid the Fire Chief from ninth place to fourth place. The proposed maximum salary of $23,500 would change the ranking of the salary paid the Chief of Police from eighth to fourth place, and that of the Fire Chief from sixth to third place. The more favorable ranking with the other major cities of the country is believed merited because the competence and stature of both the Police and Fire Departments are recognized not only nationally, but also internationally.

The proposed increases in the salaries of the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief, as provided in H.R. 10487, are necessary in order to maintain a reasonable salary relationship to other key officials of the District of Columbia and to keep pace with the salaries paid the police and fire chiefs of other large cities. While the Commissioners are naturally somewhat reticent to comment concerning their own salaries, they nevertheless must recognize that the duties of the officials specified in the bill are of a high level of responsibility and importance, and that the salaries paid to all of the officials affected by the provisions of the bill should be commensurate with their responsibilities and the importance of their duties. For this reason the Commissioners recommend the approval of H.R. 10487.

Time does not permit seeking the views of the Bureau of the Budget as to the relationship of this report to the program of the administration.

Very sincerely yours,

WALTER N. TOBRINER,

President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia. Mr. BRYAN. The bill, as the chairman has indicated, and as has already been elaborated on by these several judges, covers the whole judiciary, so I do not think that it will be necessary for me to say anything further on that, except that the Commissioners, in their general approval of the bill, include the judges in their general approval. They do give in their letter some reason-or other justification, for increasing the salary rates for the various judges.