ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

of policy making and policy execution will continue to be combined in the Board of Commissioners and a long-standing practical drawback of the present system will handicap the operation of the new regime. Policy making for a great city is a full time job for which large rule-making powers have been delegated by Congress to the Commissioners over the decades (Cf. District of Columbia Code, title I, ch. 2, sec. 1–226).

Finally, Mr. Chairman, plan No. 5 retains a three-member Board of Commissioners as the governing body of the District of Columbia. This is clearly too small a governing body for group or area representation in a city of 802,000 people. In the 18 cities over 500,000 population, the modal size of the governing body is 9 in the mayor-council and council-manager cities, and eight in the commission cities. The number ranges from 8 in Houston and New Orleans, to 33 in Cleveland and 50 in Chicago.

Only two of our three Commissioners must be former residents of Washington. In practice, this means that important group interests in the community have no voice in the top councils of the city. This basic defect in plan No. 5 will be mitigated to some extent by the creation of a citizens' advisory council which the Commissioners have announced their intention of establishing. Such a council, if fairly representative, gives hope of wider citizen participation in the making of local policies.

My conclusion, then, is that, although plan No. 5 is inferior to the Budget Bureau's plan, which was an authentic, detailed plan of reorganization that embodied the best features of many past studies, as well as the wisdom of 50 years of American municipal experience, and although plan No. 5 is on its face merely a blank check, nevertheless, it may well be approved on the strength of the improvements expected to flow from it. Citizen disappointment that plan No. 5 does not provide for a more satisfactory overhead government for the District of Columbia will be offset if the House of Representatives acts favorably on the Senate approved bill, S. 1976, which abolishes the Board of Commissioners and creates a 15-member District Council as the governing body of the District.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Galloway. That is an excellent statement of your views, which I am sure are shared by many others.

(Subsequently, the following letter was received from Dr. Galloway :)

Senator JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE, Washington, D. C. May 20, 1952.

Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: At the hearing on Reorganization Plan No. 5 on May 15 the Engineer Commissioner, General Robinson, commented upon the Griffenhagen report of 1939 and the Auchincloss report of 1948, both of which recommended adoption of the council-manager form of government for the District of Columbia. General Robinson's comments on these two reports may have left the impression with the committee that the Griffenhagen firm and Congressman Auchincloss no longer favor the manager plan for Washington, D. C.

General Robinson also stated at the hearing last week that the Griffenhagen report included the question of legislation for the franchise in the District of

Columbia. The fact is that the question of the franchise was specifically excluded from the authorized scope of the Griffenhagen study and report.

Since last week's hearing I have been in touch with Mr. Ferguson, Washington representative of Griffenhagen & Associates, and with Mr. Auchincloss. The Griffenhagen report proposed, among other things, the creation of an administrative officer responsible to the governing body of the District. I have discussed this feature of their report with Mr. Ferguson who was one of the authors of their 1939 study. Mr. Ferguson informs me that he feels that the Commissioner's plan will permit constructive improvements to be made in the administrative organization of the District Government below the top level; but that he has not abandoned his former conclusions regarding the proposed administrative officer.

Mr. Auchincloss informs me that "General Robinson is off the reservation if he implied in his testimony on May 15 that I have changed my mind about the council-manager form of government for Washington. I am still in favor of the manager form."

Sincerely yours,

GEORGE B. GALLOWAY.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that concludes our list of witnesses for this morning. Have we other requests?

Mr. REYNOLDS. None that I know of, Senator.

Mr. William A. Roberts, the former Peoples Counsel of the District, unavoidably on his part, is not present this morning; shall I ask him to submit a statement?

The CHAIRMAN. He may be permitted to file a statement.

I am in receipt of a letter here, this morning, from the Assistant Attorney General, in response to an inquiry which we made of the Department of Justice regarding certain features of the plan. There is some correspondence attached also.

I will place all of this correspondence into the record. (The material referred to follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, May 19, 1952.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: I have for reply your letter of May 15, 1952, to Acting Attorney General Philip B. Perlman, and I have noted your request therein for opinions of the Attorney General interpreting certain provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1952, providing for reorganization of the government of the District of Columbia.

As you know, the Attorney General is authorized by statute to give opinions only to the President and heads of the executive departments. While the Acting Attorney General would like to be of service to you and to your committee, I do not feel that he should depart from the prevailing practice in this instance. I may say, however, that in all reorganization plans prepared by the Bureau of the Budget for transmittal by the President to the Congress, there is extensive consultation between representatives of this Department and the members of the staff of the Bureau of the Budget before a plan is certified to the President by the Attorney General for form and legality. Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1952 was so approved as to form and legality.

I have taken the liberty of discussing the questions which you have raised with representatives of the Bureau of the Budget, and I understand from them that arrangements have been made to further advise your committee concerning the intent of the language which has given rise to your questions. I trust that this assistance will meet the needs of your committee. Meanwhile, please be assured that this Department stands ready at all times to cooperate fully with your committee in any way feasible within the framework of long-standing policies.

Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH C. DUGGAN, Assistant Attorney General, Executive Adjudications Division.

MAY 15, 1952.

PHILIP B. PERLMAN,

Acting Attorney General of the United States,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. PERLMAN: The Senate Committee on Government Operations has under consideration Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1952 for the reorganization of the District of Columbia. At a hearing held this morning on this plan, some questions of legal interpretation arose regarding certain of its provisions. One of these questions was whether or not the plan, if approved, would permit, or prohibit, the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia to appoint a chief administrative officer to assist the Board in its conduct of the municipal administration. The committee respectfully requests the opinion of the Attorney General on this question.

A question also arose concerning the authority granted by section 3 of Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1952 to the Board of Commissioners to delegate the performance by other officers, employees, or agencies of functions vested in the Board. The section with its limitations follows:

"SEC. 3. PERFORMANCE OF FUNCTIONS OF BOARD. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Board of Commissioners is hereby authorized to make from time to time such provisions as it deems appropriate to authorize the performance of any of its functions, including any function transferred to or otherwise vested in the Board of Commissioners by this reorganization plan, by any member of the Board of Commissioners, or by any other officer, employee, or agency of the government of the District of Columbia, except the courts thereof. "(b) The Board of Commissioners shall not provide for the performance by any member of the Board of Commissioners, or by any other officer, employee, or agency of: (1) any function vested in the said Board by Act of Congress with respect to making and adopting regulations except those pertaining to the administration of or procedure before any agency of the government of the District of Columbia; (2) the function of approving any contract in excess of $25,000; (3) the function of appointing or removing the head of any agency responsible directly to the Board of Commissioners; or (4) the function of approving the budget for the District of Columbia."

The committee requests the opinion of the Attorney General as to whether the authority to delegate functions includes all functions vested in the Board, with the exceptions of the limitations in section 3, subparagraph (b), or whether the authority to delegate functions is limited expressly to the functions vested in the Board of Commissioners by the provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1952, and whether the authority to delegate functions which may be vested by the Congress in the Board of Commissioners in the future is prohibited by the plan.

As the committee hopes to conclude hearings upon Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1952 on May 20, 1952, it would be very helpful if we could have your opinion on these questions by that date.

Sincerely yours,

FREDERICK J. LAWTON,

JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman.

MAY 15, 1952.

Director, Bureau of the Budget,

Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR MR. LAWTON: Attached hereto is a copy of a letter I am addressing to the Acting Attorney General of the United States, requesting an opinion from him as to the legality of certain provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1952, providing for reorganization of the District of Columbia, which is self-explanatory.

I understand that the Attorney General has heretofore held that advising the Congress regarding the legality of legislative proposals is not a function of his office, and that he can only submit such opinions to the President. However, since this is a reorganization plan originating with the President, under authority delegated to him by the Reorganization Act of 1949, it will be appreciated if you will request the Attorney General to supply the committee with the desired information.

Thanking you for your cooperation in this matter, I am

Sincerely yours,

JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further witnesses?

Mr. Cook. Mr. Chairman, before you conclude, I represent the veterans' organizations of the District of Columbia. May I file this for the purpose of the record?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

You were not on my list of witnesses here, I believe. What is your name?

Mr. Cook. My name is Martin Cook. Evidently it was an oversight.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure it was an oversight. We are sorry about it, sir. You may file your statement.

Mr. Cook. Thank you very much.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF MARTIN A. COOK

My name is Martin Cook. I am a native Washingtonian and president of the Enterprise Federal Savings and Loan Association, and until recently was commander of the Catholic War Veterans.

I was asked by the department commanders of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Veterans of World War II (AMVETS), the Catholic War Veterans, and the president of the Council of Veterans' Auxiliaries, which represents 15 veterans' auxilary units in the District of Columbia, to represent them in appearing before this committee in the interest of the Commissioners' Reorganization Plan No. 5, which we formerly approved over the Budget plan, and requested the President to submit for your consideration the plan which you now have before you.

The organizations that I represent here, as you know, participate and assist in every way possible campaigns for the underprivileged, patriotic events such as I Am An American Day, Flag Day, Armed Forces Day, et cetera, as well as taking an active part with their time and money to make successful events such as welcoming foreign dignitaries visiting our Nation's Capital.

We were unanimous in favoring the Commissioners' plan over the city manager's plan and to the best of my knowledge every veterans' organization where there has been an opportunity the organization approved the action of the commander unanimously, and we solicit your favorable consideration in approving the Commissioners' Plan No. 5, which we feel will offer better government for our citizens.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone else here representing any group, or any organization, who would like to file a statement?

If not, then, the hearings are concluded.

(Thereupon, at 12: 10 p. m., the hearing was concluded.)

(Subsequently, the following statement was received from Senator Estes Kefauver:)

STATEMENT BY SENATOR KEFAUVER ON REORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

I have examined with much interest Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1952, which the President has transmitted for the reorganization of the municipal government of the District of Columbia. As I read it, this is really not a plan of organization, but rather a grant of power to the Board of District Commissioners. If they carry out their announced intentions faithfully, I believe that this "plan" will enable them to modernize and simplify the administrative structure of the District government, and that it will result in great improvement.

Reorganization of the District government is certainly long overdue. The need of establishing a strong and effective government organization for the District of Columbia has long been evident. Many comprehensive studies of the District government have been made during the last 25 years. Outstanding among them have been the studies made by the Brookings Institution in 1929, by the Citizens Efficiency Committee in 1937, by Griffenhagen & Associates in 1939, by the Auchincloss Committee on Home Rule and Reorganization in 1948,

by the Budget Officer of the District government in 1951, and by the Bureau of the Budget in 1952. All of these studies have recommended a basic reorganization including the consolidation of local agencies into a limited number of municipal departments. All but one of them have recommended adoption of a manager form of government for the District. Even the opponents of home rule who have testified before the District Committees of Congress in recent years have agreed that the administrative branch of the District government has grown up like Topsy since 1878 into a tangled hodgepodge of uncoordinated, duplicating, and overlapping agencies.

DEFECTS OF PRESENT ORGANIZATION

The major defects in the organization of the District government are briefly these:

1. There are too many separate agencies for efficient administration. Estimates of the number range from 79 to 108. There are so many of them that even the experts disagree on the total. No executive can effectively supervise the number of agencies that are supposed to report to the Board of Commissioners. 2. Lines of authority and responsibility are confused, uncertain, and sometimes nonexistent; many agencies are largely autonomous and some are wholly uncontrolled. Theoretically, the Board of Commissioners heads the District government and is responsible for its administration. But in reality it lacks the necessary authority to exercise effective supervision and control in the case of many agencies. Moreover, the very multiplicity of agencies impairs executive control, obscures responsibility, and confuses Congress and the community as to the conduct of District affairs.

3. In several areas related programs are scattered among a considerable array of separate agencies. Five agencies divide up the fiscal functions of the District government. Engineering and public works activities are split among eight different departments and agencies. Fifteen boards and commissions are engaged in the licensing of professions and trades.

4. The District lacks a chief executive officer, which is the first essential of efficient administration. The necessity of a chief executive officer is a basic principle of organization, both in government and in business. The Board of Commissioners is not an adequate substitute for such a chief executive. Not only are boards and commissions cumbersome as executive agencies, but in this case the Board has normally left administrative supervision largely to its individual members for assigned groups of agencies. Three Commissioners acting individually as executives for three segments of the city government do not in practice add up to a single executive head for the government of the District. 5. The Board of Commissioners is too small to make local policies for a city having more than 800,000 people. Only two members of the Board are chosen from the citizens of Washington. Such a small body cannot adequately represent the diversity of interests in a large city. In no other city of comparable size in this country is the governing body composed of less than eight members. 6. The Board of Commissioners combines in one body the functions of policy making and policy executing which call for basically different types of agencies. Policy making requires deliberation and bringing together different interests and viewpoints. In a large city that calls for a body of several members, free from administrative detail, who can view the problems of local government as a whole. On the other hand, administration calls for a single executive who can provide unified leadership and direction and who can be held clearly responsible for efficient, economical administration of local governmental activities.

DOES PLAN 5 REMEDY THESE DEFECTS?

To what extent will Reorganization Plan No. 5 remedy these defects in the present organization of the District government? The "plan" as submitted to Congress for its approval is merely a blank check to the Commissioners to simplify the local administrative set-up. Presumably they intend to carry out the plan they proposed last November. The Commissioners' plan would go far to remedy the first three defects outlined above by consolidating most District agencies into 15 municipal departments, by corresponding reduction in the number of officials reporting to the Board of Commissioners, by combining related programs in the same departments, and by clarifying lines of authority and responsibility. In these respects, if the Commissioners' proposal is translated into action, three of the existing major defects will be corrected.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »