Mr. ABERNETHY. This is the first instance in which your professional services have been applied to a reorganization of municipal government? I would not say applied, but sought.

Mr. COLLETT. No, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Is that right?

Mr. COLLETT. I was not sought for a reorganization of municipal government, Mr. Chairman. I was asked by the Bureau of the Budget to indicate to them barriers to management improvement, the cost reduction program which they had indicated in testimony to the Senate that they were wanting to assist the District in doing.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I guess I have misunderstood. I thought it was out of the study you made that this reorganization emanated.

Mr. COLLETT. I would not know about this, Mr. Chairman, because my informal memorandums were submitted to the Budget in June of last year. Beyond that, if they took those documents to do anything with, I was in no way called on to develop the reorganization plan. Mr. ABERNETHY. When did they call on you to develop what you did develop?

Mr. COLLETT. Between February and June of last year.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Between February of 1966 and June of 1966? Mr. COLLETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Was this reorganization then in the making? Mr. COLLETT. I cannot testify on that. I do not know what they may have had in mind. My specific request and the things which I talked about with the Budget Bureau had to do with cost reduction and management improvement in the District government, and it was on that basis I first went to talk to Mr. Lowe and I indicated to Mr. Lowe at that time that anything that I would write would be submitted both to the District government and to the Budget Bureau, which I did.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Did you suggest to the Budget Bureau and also to the District government in June of 1966 that the District government would operate more efficiently and more satisfactorily if it abolished its commission system and adopted the system which you testified to here?

Mr. COLLETT. I was not asked. As a matter of fact, I was specifically told not to consider anything on the basic structure of the Board of Commissioners.

Mr. ABERNETHY. What did you recommend?

Mr. COLLETT. I do have my papers here since I thought it might

come up.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Let me put it this way

Mr. COLLETT. May I read one thing?

Mr. ABERNETHY. I do not think we have time.

Mr. COLLETT. Just a paragraph.

Mr. ABERNETHY. All right.

Mr. COLLETT. "Progressive urban areas"-this is my first recommendation having to do with the functions of the District Board of Commissioners-"Progressive urban areas long ago reached virtual unanimity that municipal services require a single executive, whether elected or appointed. More recently this consensus became a wave of change in city after city which had first sought from officials. circumscribed by outdated executive structures, action on such problems as

expansion of financial resources to meet program needs, relation of the corporate center to its metropolitan area, and provision of service based not only on the need of the physical city but on the needs of the people who live there. However, since the Organic Act of 1878 precludes a single executive and provides for a three-Commissioner executive in the District of Columbia functions should be distributed among the three Commissioners in such a way as to reflect today's requirement for executive direction."

You see I was estopped from considering any basic changes.

Mr. ABERNETHY. This volume that you have there before you which appears to me about an inch thick; is that your report to the Budget Bureau?

Mr. COLLETT. This is only that thick because there are seven memorandums in it. It is not a single report.

Mr. ABERNETHY. There were seven reports in the form of memorandums?

Mr. COLLETT. As a matter of fact, they specifically did not pay me on a report basis. I was contracted on a per diem basis as an individual consultant and it was specifically indicated I was not preparing a report.

Mr. ABERNETHY. What do you call it? I am not trying to entangle you nor am I endeavoring to be facetious. I am trying to find out what you did.

If they hired you to do a job and you filed those papers with them, would you call it a report or a love letter? Just what is it?

Mr. COLLETT. This was considered to be reconnaissance memorandums on administrative problems in the District of Columbia.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Would not a memorandum that you submit as a result of the job you were given to do constitute a report of your views on a particular study that you make?

Mr. COLLETT. This was my view on the particular problems that I looked at; yes, sir. This was a discussion draft and there was nothing further done. As a matter of fact, I had no reaction from anybody on it.

Mr. ABERNETHY. The paragraph you read was the original paragraph in your memorandums-I believe you said how many of them,

six or seven?

Mr. COLLETT. That is right.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And that is the only instance in which you mentioned or suggested that there probably would be a more efficient government here if they had a single executive and a council? Just that one paragraph?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. In your testimony you stated that a separation of policy and executive functions and the creation of a single executive for the District of Columbia is imperative. I believe that was the language you used.

Could you give us an example where there is a separation of policy and executive function in the top unit of government either in the case of a single executive or in a three-man board?

Mr. COLLETT. You mean in local government?

Mr. ABERNETHY. Any government.

Mr. COLLETT. Are you asking me to define policy, Mr. Chairman? Mr. ABERNETHY. I just want an example of that which you say.

Mr. COLLETT. I would say this: If the District of Columbia Board of Commissioners indicated that evictions in housing were not to take place except under such and such conditions, that this would be a policy; and that if there were a single executive he would then operate under that policy.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Maybe you do not follow me. I will move on to something else.

Is it your view that, if this reorganization plan becomes law or becomes the plan under which the District government should hereafter operate, all policy would be made by the council?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. It is?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes.

Mr. ABERNETHY. What happened to that provision in the Constitution which says that the Congress of the United States shall legislate in all cases whatsoever for the District of Columbia?

Mr. COLLETT. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the Board of Commissioners under this plan, or under any plan, would have only the authority that has been given to it by the Congress. It certainly would have no authority to go into fields that they have not been granted that authority by the Congress.

As a matter of fact, in my testimony I specifically indicated that the Federal interest in the District had to be maintained.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Is it the witness' intentions that the President of the United States, who is a strong Executive, with a legislative council or legislature or Congress on the Hill, at the present does not make policy?

Mr. COLLETT. No, sir. I think there have been examples in the field of foreign policy where the President does. But I do not see that relating to a municipal function.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You would not limit it to foreign policy, would you?

Mr. COLLETT. I am not a student of the Executive in relation to the Congress, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You came here to testify as an expert.

Mr. COLLETT. As an expert on administration.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Let me finish. You came here to testify as an expert on the establishment of a system of government. That is the purpose of your appearance. And I do not want to be misunderstood. I ain trying to find out where we stand. I am sure you will give me your answer if you have an answer.

Is it your contention that here in the Federal Government where we have an executive and a legislative council in the nature of a Congress that the President is not a policymaking official?

Mr. COLLETT. I do not say that.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you say he is?
Mr. COLLETT. Yes, he makes policy.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Is there a State in this Union, all of which have Governors, where the Governor does not make policy?

Mr. COLLETT. I would say that the Governors have a great deal of leeway in the implementing of basic policy which the legislature has passed in one act or another.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you say that the Governor's policymaking is limited to that which is conveyed to him by the legislature?

Mr. COLLETT. That is generally considered to be the function of the government.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you say that would also apply to the President of the United States?

Mr. COLLETT. That is generally to be his function but, neverthelesshere we are getting into the question I asked you, as to what is policy. I think that when we are talking policy federally we are talking on very broad and very basic, very general statements. As a matter of fact, when you read the Demonstration Cities Act, this a very, very broad statement of policy and within that there can be many, many administrative actions which are also policy.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Speaking of policy, what did the Congress of the United States have to do with the President ordering 5,000 troops to the city of Detroit?

Mr. COLLETT. I would gather this is a question of Presidential action under martial rule or a version of that, protection of property. I am not an attorney.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I mention that only as an example of strong policymaking powers that are vested in the President, in Governors, and I am going to get down to mayors; but I want to go into the question, because it is obvious what the answer is, that policy is not limited to legislative powers or advisers or to the Congress.

You agree with that, do you not?

Mr. COLLETT. I would say this: That the interpretation of policy is, in any way is this, that if the council, and I would like to come back to the council in the municipality here because that is what I am testifying on-if the council has taken a basic rulemaking action that this has to govern the executive, and if no action has been taken and if the executive within some grant feels that he can deal with the question, my guess would be he would ask the Corporation Counsel whether he had authority.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Suppose the council under this plan had taken no action and had not provided any guidelines or policy for the executive to follow, and a situation arose that needed some action on the part of the District government, what would the Chief Executive or the Executive Officer of the District do?

Mr. COLLETT. Would you give me an area in which he would be taking that action.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Any area in which the council had taken no action or laid down no policy?

Mr. COLLETT. Then he should make a recommendation to the council. Mr. ABERNETHY. He could recommend to the council?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY.This council is not a full-time body?

Mr. COLLETT. It is full time under the present situation, it is full time under the Reorganization Act.

Mr. ABERNETHY. They of course serve as councilmen 365 days a year, but they are not on duty the customary and usual number of working days the three commissioners are on. What is the pay they provide?

Mr. COLLETT. A grade 18.

Mr. ABERNETHY. It is $7,500 for councilmen. You do not think you are going to get nine councilmen to do a job 5 days a week, or maybe six or seven, for $7,500 a year?

Mr. COLLETT. My assumption is that the council are having these meetings, and these regular meetings are provided, and this is when they would make their policy.

Mr. ABERNETHY. But they are on duty only a few days out of the month for the purpose of conducting meetings. That is right, is it not; that is what is anticipated?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Your three Commissioners are in the District. Building every day, are they not?

Mr. COLLETT. I cannot say. They are full-time employees.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And if something arose which required the establishment of policy, they would merely have to step into the chairman's office instead of making a recommendation or waiting for the council to come in, step in the chairman's office and he would act on it immediately; is that right?

Mr. COLLETT. If you are asking me to indicate what the past record has been, I would say no.

Mr. ABERNETHY. What is to keep them from it. If the Commissioners do not get together, only three of them, when the call is urgent, how would you expect nine councilmen to get together?

Mr. COLLETT. Mr. Chairman, I indicated in my testimony that one of the reasons for the delay, and I have seen it happen while I was there, is that the people you are calling Commissioners are also executives.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is right.

Mr. COLLETT. And as executives, they are responsible for individual departments.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is right.

Mr. COLLETT. And that thereafter when a matter comes up, they are not looking at it solely from the standpoint of a policy decision in which they have not a vested interest. The fact that a vested interest exists on each of these policies and the fact that they have to work together

Mr. ABERNETHY. What do you mean they have a vested interest? Mr. COLLETT. A vested interest in the sense that they are responsible generally general cognizance is the term-for a specific function. Mr. ABERNETHY. Would not the Council have a vested interest? Mr. COLLETT. No, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. What would be the equivalent of a vested interest? They simply vote on what they want done and you say pass it up to the Commissioner and the Commissioner has to act.

Mr. COLLETT. I disagree, sir. I think if you have somebody who is generally cognizant for the operation of a function as it is being carried on, he carries that general responsibility into the policy decisions, whereas, if you have a council which has no executive responsibility for the way its function is being carried on, you do not have a vested interest in what is coming before them.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Would the Commissioner have a vested interest? Mr. COLLETT. He would have no vested interest. He would be representing whether the policy of the Council or the Commissioners or whatever you want to call them are.

Mr. ABERNETHY. In other words, in your judgment this Council would determine the policy, pass it up to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner would put it into effect?