Page images

citizens. Therefore, reasons for the District's opposition to this legislation include the following:

1. The bills in effect divide responsibility and weaken the ability of the Government of the District of Columbia to provide comprehensive protection and services for people living in the District.

2. If enacted the legislation would cause conflict and confusion between Police operations and closely related services in crime control, including the functions of education, corrections, welfare, and traffic control.

3. It would result in a major reversal in the trend toward citizen participation and involvement in District Government affairs provided under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967.

4. The bills would create waste and inefficiency through requiring duplication of supporting services, such as personnel, purchasing, and computer equipment by setting up a costly overhead organization duplicating many existing support services in the D.C. Government.

5. Considerable coordination of the Police functions (involving all entities covered by the subject bills) with other related functions such as Civil Defense, Fire Protection, Corrections, the Courts, and the Attorney General is accruing through the District of Columbia Director of Public Safety. The foregoing reasons are sufficient for the Government of the District of Columbia to strongly recommend against the enactment of H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448. Additional information is being developed and will be sent to you later.

I have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress.

Sincerely yours,

(S) Walter E. Washington, WALTER E. WASHINGTON, Commissioner.





Washington, D.C.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Dowdy (Acting Chairman), presiding.

Members Present: Representatives Dowdy (Acting Chairman), Adams, Nelsen, Broyhill and Gude.

Also present: James T. Clark, Clerk; Hayden S. Garber, Counsel; Sara Watson, Assistant Counsel; Donald Tubridy, Minority Clerk; and Leonard O. Hilder, Investigator.

Mr. DowDY. The Committee will come to order.

We have had some hearings previously on the bills H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448 to establish a Commissioner of Police for the District of Columbia. These hearings will be continued this morning.

I notice the District of Columbia Police Wives' Association is represented here this morning by Mrs. Barbara Newman. She was also present but was not reached at the other hearings. Mrs. Newman, if you will come around we will be glad to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF MRS. BARBARA NEWMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICE WIVES' ASSOCIATION, INC. Mrs. NEWMAN. First of all I would like to say that our Association is in favor of the House of Representative bills H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448.

It is a privilege to be here this morning as the representative of our District of Columbia Police Wives' Association in support of H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448.


The men of the Metropolitan Police Department are in a state of uncertainty and confusion with regard to policies. I wish to quote from the President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia, Report on the Metropolitan Police Department, dated July 16, 1966:

"The state of the police officer's morale bears heavily on the nature of his contacts with citizens, the vigor of his efforts to apprehend criminals, and the integrity with which he approaches his job.

The Commission concludes that morale in the Metropolitan Police Department is poor, as reflected in the repeated, far-ranging grievances expressed by the rank and file. Some members of

the force blame the courts and the community; dissatisfaction is registered with citizen apathy, community toleration of vice activities, failure to raise children properly, and judicial decisions freeing known and dangerous criminals. Greater dissatisfaction. however, is expressed with the Department itself. Complaints about the poor caliber of leadership, the quality of equipment and facilities, and unrealistic training and promotion practices are heard over and over again. The men of the Metropolitan Police Department enter into police service with a desire to serve the community as efficiently and fairly as they can. However, their quality and potential are gradually eroded as their period of service lengthens. The impact of low police morale, poor supervision, poor equipment, lack of leadership and inadequate training will affect police-community interaction and lead to a general estrangement of the community from the police. Such a state of affairs can produce nothing other than mutual distrust and lack of confidence."

This was the state of affairs in July of 1966 and, as the Commission predicted, it has led to general estrangement of the community from the police and produced distrust and lack of confidence. The situation has not bettered itself since 1966, but has grown more acute.

Our interpretation of morale as Police Wives is the mental and emotional state of the individual with regard to confidence and enthusiasm. One of the greatest weapons that can be used against man is utter discouragement. Its use can cause despondency, lack of interest, and bring about a feeling of total disrespect and lack of pride. This weapon of discouragement is being used effectively against the Policemen of the Metropolitan Police Department. In the months since April, the discouragement of the men of the Department has become increasingly more apparent. They are used by the press in the choice of articles that appear in print, they are reviled and belittled by militant pressure groups, and are sacrificed by the District Government to appease these pressure groups.

There is a general feeling among the men that the City Council is not giving them their full support. In a letter dated August 3, 1968. addressed to our Association. Chairman John W. Hechinger of the City Council told us, "We have sought the considered opinions of experts in many fields to help the community to understand the need for good police-community relations." Members of this subcommittee. as an example of the experts whose opinions were sought by the City Council, I wish to read a copy of a letter our Association sent to Chairman Hechinger, September 5, 1968.

Mr. DoWDY. That letter will be made a part of the record.

Mrs. NEWMAN. Shall I read it?

Mr. Dowdy. That will not be necessary; we will incorporate it in the record at this point.

(The letter follows:)


The Honorable JOHN W. HECHINGER,


D. C. City Council,

14th & E. Streets,

Washington, D. C. 20004.


SEPTEMBER 5, 1966.

DEAR MR. HECHINGER: We charge that the D.C. City Council has made a major contribution to the deterioration of police-community relations. This is proved by a little-noticed report in the Washington Post of September 2, 1968, (page B 4) in a 2-column article titled "Columbia U. Rebel Is D.C. Researcher." The Post reported, in part, as follows: "Jonathan D. Schiller, 21, connects the Columbia University riots of last spring with Washington's police-community relations crisis of this summer. A 6-foot, 5-inch exponent of the New Left, Schiller threw his considerable bulk between the police and the Columbia demonstrators, an experience he brought to bear recently when, as a research assistant for the D.C. City Council, he helped prepare its report on police-community relations Now a $100-a-week summer intern for the City Council, Schiller has tucked his knees under a low desk and helped turn out the 43-page report on policecommunity relations that is still being considered by the Council. For two weeks, with his Columbia experience still fresh in mind, Schiller plowed through reports of various crime commissions, called police and law enforcement officials and conferred with specialists from the Justice Department. "The Columbia riots taught me a lot about power,' he said. 'And working here has enabled me to get a perspective on the art of power and that a real citizen influence is necessary. It gives me an awareness of when and under what conditions it will be feasible.' The image of a 'Columbia rebel' may clash with that of the municipal Bureaucrat hunched over a desk shuffling papers into oblivion, but Schiller, articulate as usual, has an answer. ‘A radical or extremist probably considers summertime work in city government an exercise in futility,' he conceded. 'But my job with the Council has been educational and productive. I've learned something.'"

We thought, and certainly we, as well as the rest of the community were led to believe from earlier newspaper and radio-TV reports, that the City Council's study on police-community relations has been prepared by the members of the Council's Public Safety Committee. These members are William S. Thompson Chairman, Margaret A. Haywood, Polly Shackleton, Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, John A. Nevius, and yourself as an ex officio member. Whatever Mr. Schiller may consider he has learned about the "art of power," we think this Washington Post article, shocking and revealing as it is, clearly calls for decisive action by the City Council.

We are demanding that you (1) publicly identify the sections of the City Council's 43-page report on police-community relations on which Mr. Schiller worked, and those he contributed to; and (2) issue a completely frank and open report on the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the hiring of this "Columbia U. Rebel.' 'Please bear in mind that this 43-page report is not a mere student's thesis on "the art of power" and citizen control of the police.

Mr. Schiller, an avowed "radical or extremist", has successfully included some novel proposals clearly acceptable to the Black United Front, but not to Public Safety Director, Patrick V. Murphy who has totally rejected a number of recommendations in the report. The City Council should have consulted experts personally in preparing its report. Its use of a self-admitted “radical or extremist" such as Mr. Schiller to do its work seems to vitiate this 43-page report.

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton called for a “check upon a spirit of favoritism" which would "prevent the appointment of unfit characters from state prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachments, or from a view to popularity." Clearly, such a check is desperately needed in the City Council. May we hear from you?

Sincerely yours,


Mrs. NEWMAN. We feel that the appointment of a Commissioner could eliminate appointment of such unqualified persons to a position of such importance where the Police Department is concerned. This was one of the points I wished to bring out by the letter.

97-945-68- -6

« PreviousContinue »