office of the Director of the Department of Finance. An act passed in the last session of Congress (Public Law 201) transferred the office of the Register of Wills from the government of the District of Columbia to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for budgetary and administrative purposes. Section 1405 (p. 99) contains provisions relative to the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Attention is invited to the fact that a bill, S. 1931, passed the Senate at the last session changing the personnel and powers of this Commission. In subsection (c) of section 1405 of S. 656, it is provided that the function of preparing, developing, and maintaining a comprehensive, consistent, and coordinated plan for the National Capital and its environs shall be exercised by the Commission on behalf of the District government as well as the Federal Government, and no officer or agency of the District may exercise any function in conflict with such function of the Commission. This subsection also provides that the term "comprehensive plan" as used in section 2 of the District of Columbia Zoning Act of 1938 shall mean the plan prepared, developed, and maintained by the Commission. Section 322 (a) of this bill (p. 10) transfers the functions of the Zoning Commission to the District Council. The Zoning Commission, under existing law, is authorized to make regulations in accordance with a comprehensive plan but no such regulations may be adopted without a public hearing. The effect of subsection (c) of section 1404 of this bill is to require the Zoning Committee of the District Council to make its regulations pursuant to the plan adopted by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, but no public hearing is required before the Commission; hence the property owners of the District will be deprived of the protection which the present Zoning Act affords them of being heard on questions affecting the establishment and maintenance of a comprehensive plan. It would indeed be strange, if a law, purporting to give our citizens greater control over their local government, should place a large measure of that control in the hands of a Federal agency which is appointed by the President; which consists principally of nonresidents; and which has not the slightest administrative responsibility for the effect of its decisions upon the rights of property owners. In section 1903 (d) it is again provided, with respect to those who may vote in the referendum to determine whether the charter shall be adopted, that a person shall not be registered unless he executes a registration affidavit completed in his own handwriting unless prevented by physical disability. Here again, under this provision, one lacking all education may vote if physically disabled. Section 2001 (c) (p. 118, line 21), provides that if. in any fiscal year, the expenses of the District are less than the revenue received by the District, such excess shall be used exclusively for the construction, repair, and improvement of the public schools. Such a provision would invite extravagance, and would prevent the District from laying aside funds for public works (other than schools) to be needed in the future. The result would necessarily mean a large bonded indebtedness. Time has not permitted the ascertainment of advice from the Bureau of the Budget as to the relationship of this report to the program of the President. Respectfully, President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia. The CHAIRMAN. Could you briefly tell us what the Commissioners say in this lengthy communication about the pending bill? Mr. WEST. I might read the first two paragraphs: The traditional heritage of every American is home rule and local self-government. For this reason, as a matter of principle, we feel that our citizens should be given home rule, provided a responsible majority of them want it and provided there are adequate safeguards which will conserve the benefits bestowed on the city by its present form of government and grant to the citizens the right to govern their local affairs without administrative interference from Federal agencies and yet will protect the paramount rights of the Federal Government in its own capital with respect to Federal matters. We do not believe that home rule would add anything to the cleanness, honesty, and freedom from graft and corruption of our city government. The example of other American cities certainly justifies this belief. It is the opinion of the Commissioners that, if true home rule is to be granted to the District, this bill should not undertake a reorganization of the various departments and agencies of the District government to an extent further than necessary to be consistent with home rule. The city council should be given broad authority to reorganize the District Government in the manner it shall deem proper. If other changes later appear to be desirable to the Council they can then be made without resort to legislative proposals. The CHAIRMAN. What is their attitude toward this bill? Are they for it or against it, and if they are against it, what modifications do they suggest? Mr. WEST. We suggest a number of changes that should be made with respect to the provisions of the bill, especially dealing with reorganization, and they also object to the provision of the bill which gives to anyone who is a resident of the District and has been a resident for 1 year, the right to vote, even though he may be domiciled in another State and retain his right to vote in that other State. They feel that the right to vote in the District of Columbia should be limited to those persons who are domiciled in the District, with no voting privilege elsewhere, but there are a number of objections that the Commissioners have to the reorganization provision. The CHAIRMAN. Do they approve any of the provisions of the bill? Mr. WEST. They approve those that we do not specifically mention. They point out a number of The CHAIRMAN. Mr. West, how many paragraphs of the bill do they disapprove? Mr. WEST. In section 302, on page 9, they call attention to the fact that a member of the District Council cannot hold an appointive office for which compensation is provided out of District funds, but a member of the District Council may be a Government employee or a Government official and may even be an official of some branch of the Government with which the District is required to enter into agreements, and even may be an employee of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which is given very broad power over the District in this bill. Then they also call attention to the fact--and this is more or less technical-that the bill provides that an ordinance other than a zoning ordinance shall take effect as law upon passage by the District Council. The Commissioners suggest it would be possible to provide in there that the Council may provide that the law shall take effect, or the ordinance shall take effect at a later date, because that is sometimes very desirable in order to give people an opportunity to comply with the ordinance. In section 332 authority is given the District Council to appoint a secretary, but there is no authority given the District Council to appoint an assistant secretary and the necessary clerical personnel. Then we point out that in section 336 (b), page 16, the District Council, when it adopts a zoning ordinance, must then refer it to the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, and if the National Capital Park and Planning Commission certifies that this ordinance is contrary to the Federal interest, then the zoning ordinance cannot be enacted unless it is adopted by two-thirds of the District Council. Now, the District Council consists of 11 persons, 2 of whom are appointed by the President. It would therefore be very difficult to adopt a zoning ordinance if such a certificate is filed by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, but the citizens are not given an opportunity to appear before the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, and a citizen is certainly entitled to use his property as he sees fit under the Constitution, unless in the exercise. of the police power it would be improper for him to so use that property, but this gives an absolute power of veto, subject to the subsequent passage by two-thirds of the city Council, places this power of veto in the National Capital Park and Planning Commission without giving the citizens of the District an opportunity to be heard before that Commission, and merely if they deem that the interests of the Federal Government would be adversely affected by that zoning ordinance. Then they point out that in section 402 a legislative proposal by the District Council submitted to the Congress becomes law unless it is disapproved by a joint resolution of Congress within 45 days or by the President within 10 days. There is a conflict in legal opinion as to the constitutionality of this provision, that is, whether the Congress can delegate to a District Council the authority to enact legislation. There is no question, of course, of their power to delegate to the District Council authority to pass all ordinances of a municipal nature. Now, even though this provision be held constitutional, it seems to the Commissioners that a great deal of confusion would result from the passing of this provision of the statute, because until the constitutionality had been determined, no one would know whether the law had been passed validly or not, and whether they should proceed under this legislative proposal of the District Council or under the law as it existed prior to that time. They also call attention to the fact that under sections 701 and 702 the amount of the bonded indebtedness may be as great as 5 percent of the assessed value of the taxable real property of the District. This will permit the District to create a bonded indebtedness of over $83,000,000. It provides, however, that the District Council must raise the money with which to pay this bond issue from ad valorem taxes. They are given no authority to levy other taxes or to increase the rates of the other taxes. Over 50 percent of the land in the District is exempt from tax. Therefore, it would necessarily follow that every real-estate owner would have hanging over his head a very large increase in his rate of taxation which might seriously affect property values in the District. Now, section 802 provides that the Director of the Department of Finance shall "compile the correct estimates for the budget and exercise financial budgetary control over each agency." This is inconsistent with section 504 (a), pages 27 and 28, which transfers the office of the Budget Officer to the District Manager. The Commissioners believe that budgetary matters should be immediately under the District Manager and not in the Department of Finance. Under this bill it seems to be both places. Then, under section 831, pages 45 and 47, the District is required to pay 60 percent of the estimated expenditures of the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, the name of which has now been changed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Thirty percent of the estimated expenditures of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. the correct title of which is now the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and 60 percent of the estimated expenditures of the office of the United States District Attorney and the office of the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia. At the present time the District receives the same percentage of the fees and fines collected by these courts and officers, but section 832 on page 49 provides that after June 30, 1951, the District shall receive no portion of such fees and fines. Then 903 (a) and 904 (a) make just certain technical objections to the abolishing of a board after transferring its functions. In section 907 (a) the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of the District is transferred to the Director of the Department of Law. The offices of the Corporation Counsel and Assistant Corporation Counsel are abolished, but the office of Recorder of Deeds is not. The Recorder of Deeds is placed under the Director of Law. The Recorder of Deeds is an officer appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Director of Law will be appointed by the District Manager. This will create the anomalous situation of having an officer appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate under the direction of one appointed by a lesser authority, the District Manager. We see no reason for placing the office of the Recorder of Deeds in the Department of Law. It is not a law office. It is purely an administrative office. The duties of such an office are usually performed by the clerks of the court in the States. It would seem that the Director of the Department of Law will have all he can handle in directing the legal affairs of the District without undertaking to direct an administrative office such as the Recorder of Deeds, which has something over 60 employees. Section 908 creates a Department of Public Works and transfers to that Department, among other departments in the District, the Department of Highways. The Commissioners believe that the work of the Highway Department is of such magnitude that it should not be combined with other departments under a common director, but should remain a separate and distinct department. Then in section 909 the language is not at all clear. Apparently something has been omitted, and we call attention to that fact, but make no objection to the intent. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. West, would it not save time for you to tell the committee what provisions of the bill, if any, the Commissioners are for? Mr. WEST. They are for this much. They believe The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me. Did you prepare this paper? Mr. WEST. All three. The CHAIRMAN. Did the three Commissioners hold a meeting and actually consider the bill or did you exercise the vicarious privilege of preparing this vicious attack on it with the confident expectation that the Commissioners would promptly approve any condemnation of the bill you might proclaim? Mr. WEST. NO. They went over the bill themselves. In fact they went over it last year because The CHAIRMAN. We are not interested in last year, but in the year 1951. Have the Commissioners to your knowledge considered S. 656? Mr. WEST. May I go back to last year for a moment? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mr. WEST. Mr. Chairman, if I may say this, the Klein bill in the House is word for word the Klein bill which was introduced last year in the House, line for line and page for page with this bill. They went over the Klein bill very carefully last year and told me what to place in this report, which I did. Then yesterday at a meeting held at 3 o'clock in Commissioner John Russell Young's office at which all the Commissioners were present, they then went over the bill in the light of the report that they had filed last year, made some changes in the report, and this is the result. The CHAIRMAN. You say all three of the Commissioners were present? Mr. WEST. All three of the Commissioners were present. The CHAIRMAN. My question was how much time did they devote to the bill-and I meant the bill now before us. Mr. WEST. About 1 hour, but they were familiar with the bill, and as I say, they had gone over it in much more detail last year, and this bill is word for word, as I say, line for line and page for page with the Klein bill. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mason participated? Mr. WEST. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did the Commissioners really discuss the provisions of the bill yesterday? Mr. WEST. Yes, sir; they did. The CHAIRMAN. And the report or letter that you have presented, you prepared last year? Mr. WEST. Prepared last year, but there were changes made yesterday in this bill. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not a fact that the three Commissioners are really against this bill? |