HANNAN, CASTIELLO & BERLOW, The HOUSE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C. (Attention Hon. John L. McMillan). DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: As a Washingtonian I wish to thank you for your many years of excellent service to our community. I particularly wish to thank and support you in your position with respect to the various proposals for home rule for the District of Columbia. Being an active member of the board of trade, the Spring Valley Citizens Association, the West-End Citizens Association, the Washington Heart Association, the Health Facilities Planning Council of Metropolitan Washington, the District of Columbia Bar Association, and several other fraternal and religious groups of the community, I feel that I can speak the sense of a large portion of the people of Washington. While admitting that there is a sense of loss in being precluded from participation and the shaping of the affairs of one's own community, these personal losses should and must be sustained rather than participate in a vote in Washington which would be unlawful and tragic. You have already outlined the legal and constitutional objections to the vote and although they may be deemed "threadbare" by the proponents of these measures, they are there only because their validity has kept them alive though worn. By far the more serious objections (beside the legal) stem from the fact that Washington is composed of 60 percent transients, as it were, with no municipal interests or loyalties so far as Washington is concerned and the fiscal tragedies that would follow such a vote. To one whose forebears came here in 1829 (we never had enough money to move away) the one phenomenon of Washington is the constantly moving population. The corollary of this fact is that no more than a handful of people, comparatively, work at the affairs of the city. This lack of interest is fatal to municipal government and order. Thus far you and the members of your committee have, with a commendable noblesse oblige attacked the problems of our community and have consistently done a wonderful job. You have particularly come through with the financial help and direction that is absolutely necessary lest the taxes become so high and the services so poor that the income tax paying, and real estate tax paying people of Washington would be forced to leave. With a silent vote in Congress as our representation the Congress would no longer feel a duty toward Washington and we would be delivered to fend for ourselves. Presently, despite its unfortunate crime situation which is being attacked energetically, Washington is a clean honest city. Our law firm has approximately 75 years experience in the trial courts of Washington. In that time we know of only one instance where we felt that the court had been venal. The Washington trial lawyer has the happiness of going to court with the assurance that what he will produce in the way of evidence and law will swing the judgment and nothing else. You cannot imagine the feeling that this gives one as against complaints which we hear from so many of our confreres in the surrounding States. There is no air of taint in the District Building and the efficiency of that organization attests to its absence. (It is no accident that we have the lowest fire insurance rate of any city of like size in the world.) We have a fine operating municipal government that has proved itself through the years and should be continued. We would wish to swap Washington government and its results with that of Boston, Newark, Chicago, Kansas City, Philadelphia, and an endless list of countless cities who are suffering from inept, politically ridden cliques or downright grafters? Even though the budget for the District of Columbia is in excess of $300 million, and the Federal contribution is less than 13 percent, while the tax-free land occupied by the Federal Government and others is in excess of 50 percent of the total taxable land value of Washington, nevertheless our taxes are lower than in any of the cities I mentioned. This is no accident. This is good government. Finally, although we live in Washington and try to maintain it, it belongs to the Nation. No more reason obtains today to make Washington a political prize and divest it of the insulation it affords the Congress than obtained at the time the Founding Fathers found it wise to offer those who governed the Nation this protection. But what is more to the point, no one has shown, nor can show, that the vote will correct the evils complained of. To the contrary, the vote would heighten the difficulties and it would not be 10 years before the Congress would have to take back the reins of a wracked city. I apologise for intruding upon your busy schedule to this extent, and again I thank you for what you and the House District Committee has continued to do for Washington. Respectfully yours, WILLIAM T. HANNAN. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 26, 1965. CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5: As a resident of the District of Columbia for over 50 years, I wish to protest the passage of a home rule bill for the Federal District of Columbia. Politically, economic, and socially it is wrong, to say nothing of the fact that it is unconstitutional. Politically it is a device to add three more electoral votes to the Democratic Party. This is assured if it is passed for the rest of time. Economically it will create an impoverished State run by those who pay now the lowest taxes, who take little pride in the upkeep of their property or the public parks or streets. The District is already deserted by white children, whose parents have taken them to the suburbs rather than send them to public schools, largely colored and inadequately staffed. Adults are already beginning to consider selling property and leaving for apartments on the outskirts where they have no responsibilities as citizens to try to keep up property threatened by deterioration because of growing problems of order and safety. The Capital of the United States belongs to each citizen of the United States and not alone to those who live here. It is Congress' responsibility to see that it is a model city in which any one of the citizens of the United States can feel pride. It is not the responsibility of a small number of people who live here for a small span of years and have interests elsewhere. Most of them leave when retirement comes. Certainly it is not a city belonging to refugees from areas unable to support them. Very respectfully yours, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, ELIZABETH H. JOHNSON. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 27, 1965. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: I am writing you for myself as a native of Virginia and resident of the District of Columbia for the past 47 years, and for my husband who is a fourth generation, native-born citizen of the District of Columbia. We are both unalterably opposed to home rule for the District of Columbia. I shall not attempt to spell out our objections, but we are both completely satisfied that we and the other citizens stand to gain little if anything thereby and, if enacted, we stand to lose a great deal. We appreciate and admire your heroic and forceful stand in this matter and we hope and pray that once more your views will prevail. Sincerely yours, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Mrs. ELSIE C. MATTINGLY. ARLINGTON, VA., August 27, 1965. Chairman, House District of Columbia Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Please tell me in your own words what this country is coming to! The headlines in today's issue of the Washington Daily News reads: "“L.B.J. Warns of Possible Violence Here Unless District of Columbia Gets Home Rule" and the opening paragraph of the news story reads: "President Johnson warned today of possible racial violence in the Nation's Capital, similar to the Los Angeles riots, unless the District is given home rule. * For the President's sake I hope this news report is in error, but if not then God help us. It would seem to confirm a statement attributed to H.H.H. not long ago to the implied effect that "the boss wants demonstrations." Aside from the fundamental fact that there is positively no basic or constitutional reason for home rule for the District, isn't this type of arm twisting akin to a phase of extreme intimidation, threat, or even what some might be disposed to describe as blackmail? Very truly yours, E. M. NICHOLS. ROCKPORT-CAPE ANN, MASS., August 27, 1965. DEAR SIR: My husband and I as residents of Washington are exceedingly anxious that the home rule bill does not reach and pass on the floor of the House. The District of Columbia should be truly the Nation's Capital belonging to 195 million people, not the political pawn it will be with the present imbalance of voters from a minority group in the United States. Lack of experience and leadership will handicap the people of Washington if put in control of a mayor and 19 advisers. We have felt the Senate and House District Committees have given serious attention to matters we have called to their attention. We appreciate your handling of the hearings and wish we could be present. However we are on vacation. Please do your best for the hundreds of us who are frightened at the thought of what will take place under home rule. Very truly, Mr. and Mrs. BEVERLY ROBINSON. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5 OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMITTEE, GENTLEMEN: Our remarks will be addressed to H.R. 4644, a bill to provide an elected mayor, city council, and nonvoting delegate to the House of Representatives for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. We are concerned that this bill abolishes the Organic Act of June 20, 1906, which vested control of the public schools of the District of Columbia in a board of education. Our concern arises from the fact that the present functions of the Board of Education would be "transferred to the District Council for exercise in such manner and by such person or persons as the council may direct." There is no assurance in the bill that control of the public schools would be vested in a board of education. We are concerned, too, because teacher tenure was established by the Organic Act of 1906. If H.R. 4644 is passed in its present form teacher tenure would be abolished. The language of the bill does not guarantee to teachers that future benefits from any of their personnel legislation would be equal to those they now receive. It merely states that their personnel legislation "shall continue to be applicable until such time as the Council shall provide similar or comparable coverage.” What assurance is there that "similar or comparable coverage" will provide to retired teachers annuities equal to those they now receive? What assurance is there that they will receive benefits equal to those they now receive under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 and the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act of 1954? It should be pointed out that the District of Columbia teachers retirement law contains a provision which requires the District government to pay its share annually into the teachers' retirement fund. There is no provision in the home rule bill to safeguard this provision nor to insure that these funds will be used solely for the purpose for which they were created. Teachers in active service are just as disturbed about these matters. In addition, they are disturbed about their tenure rights, leave privileges, salary schedule, etc. We respectfully request, therefore, that the language of H.R. 4644 be changed to retain the Organic Act of 1906 so we may be certain that control of the public schools will be vested in a Board of Education and that teacher tenure will be safeguarded. Rather than abolish the Organic Act of 1906 it could be amended to give the citizens of the District the privilege of deciding whether the Board of Education should be elected or continue to be appointed as it is at present. We request that the bill contain language to safeguard the rights, benefits, and privileges which teachers receive from personnel legislation in force at the time of the passage of the bill and to keep their retirement fund actuarially sound. We ask also that favorable consideration be given to our requests in any bill providing for home rule which may be reported to the House by the District Committee. Respectfully yours, ELIZABETH D. GRIFFITH, Executive Secretary. HELEN E. SAMUEL, Legislative Representative. STATEMENT OF JOHN R. IMMER, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am John R. Immer, president of the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia. This federation of 40 citizens associations, having over 22,000 members, has represented the citizens of the District of Columbia for over 55 years. During this time our primary concern has been for good government for the District. This is our primary concern today. Gentlemen, we have one of the cleanest and most honest governments of any major city in the United States. There is not a breath of scandal or payoff in our city government. Our Commissioners are men of unquestioned capability and achievement in other posts before they took their present positions. Senate bill 1118 would replace this by a local political machine, managed by a small clique which would be self-perpetuating. There would be no control on our expenditures and eventually the Congress would have to step in again and bail us out as it did nearly a century ago. Now this is not to say that our present form of government is perfect. In my testimony this morning I will recommend a specific program for making an intensive study of the particular governmental problems of the Nation's Capital and a plan for a formulation of the form of government or administration that will most effectively carry out the needs of the Federal Government and of the citizens living in this Capital City. The federation is opposed to S. 1118 for the following reasons, most of which objections also apply to the other home rule bills before this committee: 1. The District of Columbia was founded to serve as the Nation's Capital and that is its first responsibility. Partisan politics and local graft and corruption should never be allowed to interfere with or besmirch that lofy purpose. 2. S. 1118 provides no voting representation for the people of the District. The local home rule forces are making no effort to obtain this representation and there is a very good reason for this. This would not provide the large number of lucrative jobs which S. 1118 would make available to local politicians. A substantial case can be made for providing the people of the District of Columbia with two elected Senators and two Representatives. Over eight other States have a smaller population; none is so close to or so familiar with the workings of the National Government. 3. S. 1118 does not provide for nonpartisan elections. If there was ever any doubt as to the real objectives of the proponents of this bill it was completely cleared by the debate held in the Senate last month. In the words of Senator Hugh Scott, Republican, of Pennsylvania: "What is coming forth now is not so much home rule as political machine domination. The bill does not provide home rule. It would create a political machine for one more city." A strong case was presented in the Senate for nonpartisan elections. This amendment was beaten down. Senator Jack Miller summed up the arguments by saying, "In my judgment partisan elections have no place in the government of our Nation's Capital City. If anything, such elections can work to the detriment of the city and its people. If, for example, the city council is preponderantly Democratic and the Congress is preponderantly Republican, friction is almost sure to develop-friction which would never occur if the city council was nonpartisan. No one has presented any evidence showing how partisan elections could possibly benefit our Capital City." It is no secret that the voters in the District are predominantly Democratic. Our federation is not concerned with whether it is predominantly Democratic or Republican. We are, however, very much concerned about the prospect that a single party may remain in power for the next 20 years or more. Democratic processes work only where there is an opportunity for the two-party system to function. We appeal to this committee to save us from a one-party system which will provide every opportunity for unlimited graft and corruption without any restraining influence. This is not democracy; it is machine politics of the worst kind. And this is what is proposed for us. 4. S. 1118 is supported primarily by those special groups within the city which have special interests and which expect to gain from the partisan political system to be installed in the Nation's Capital. The District of Columbia has an annual operating budget of approximately one-third of a billion dollars. It is now proposed to turn over the complete responsibility of that money to a group of hopeful politicians and visionaries who have never operated a business in their lives and have no sense of community financial responsibility. Permit me to quote the words of Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat, of West Virginia: "The District of Columbia already has its financial problems, but under the pending legislation, I do not believe it would be long before its financial difficulties would be compounded manifold. Having served as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on District of Columbia Appropriations, I know, as perhaps no other Member of this body knows, the ineffable pressures which can be brought to bear on behalf of programs, sound and unsound, from groups which appear to be oblivious to the important question as to how the money will be raised or from where it will come. Often those who clamor the loudest for expensive programs are those who pay little or no taxes in support of the programs espoused. Yet these same individuals who are a part of or who are represented by some of the pressure groups, while bearing little or none of the tax burdens necessary for the support of the spending programs espoused, would be allowed to vote for city officials under the pending legislation." Gentlemen, these same groups will appear before you urging support for S. 1118, and for a very good reason. Under the political system to be set up by S. 1118 there would be no controls and no limit to the spending for welfare programs, free health programs, free food programs, and other programs designed to attract people here by lurid tales of the welfare largess which is awaiting them. Now the issue is not quite that clear cut and we are not opposed to many of these programs. We are insistent that there be adequate financial and social service controls on these programs. From the testimony offered to the Appropriations Committee it is evident that some outside control and balance wheel on the welfare expenditures of the District is required. There is no evidence of any financial responsibility on the part of these pressure groups. Although we are sure that these programs would be expanded without adequate controls-we would expect a doubling of our welfare budget within the first 2 years we are not sure at all that the extra funds expended would ever get to the people who need the help. The first thing our local politicians would do would be to increase the administrative staff which would provide jobs for deserving political supporters. Eventually some of the funds would trickle down to the people who need them-providing their political philosophy was right. We would ask this committee to inquire of the local Democratic leaders who will appear before it in support of S. 1118 and the other home rule bills what they personally expect to get out of it. We would ask them to inquire as to the number of political jobs that would be made available. I understand that meetings have already been held to discuss the number of jobs that could be made available to officeseekers. There would be a drastic change in civil service regulations in the District. 5. The federation opposes an elected Board of Education. Under the present system by which Board members are appointed, individuals and organizations may submit names to a screening committee of judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointments are then made on the basis of qualification rather than popularity, and appointees are free to consider school questions objectively, not being subject to political pressure or pressure from any other source. 6. The home rule bills before this committee are opposed by the business interests of the city. It should be of considerable interest to this committee that the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade has opposed home rule legislation since long before anyone thought of injecting the racial question into the picture. This opposition has been based on the board's realization of the need for responsible financial control of the District and of the overlying responsibilities of the District as the seat of the Nation's Capital. |