D.C. REORGANIZATION PROPOSALS

THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1,
Washington, D.C.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, the Hon. Thomas G. Abernethy (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives McMillan (Chairman of the Full Committee), Abernethy (Chairman of the Subcommittee), Jacobs, Nelsen, Brovhill and Winn of the subcommittee. Also Representatives Gude and Horton.

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

Mr. Abernethy. The subcommittee will come to order.

We meet this morning for the purpose of inquiring further into the subject of reorganization of the District Government. We are honored with the presence of our very distinguished friend and former Commissioner of the District of Columbia, Major General Thomas A. Lane.

General Lane, we are happy to invite you to the witness table. You may proceed to make such statement as you care to make. We are very happy to have you here and welcome your views on this subject. I might say that they are needed and requested.

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL THOMAS A. LANE (RETIRED), FORMER D.C. ENGINEER COMMISSIONER

General LANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a great pleasure for me to come back and appear before this honored committee once again to give some testimony on matters of vital importance to the District of Columbia.

Mr. ÁBERNETHY (presiding). General, would you please state for the record what years you served as District Commissioner.

General LANE. I am Major General Thomas A. Lane, United States Army (retired). I served as Engineer Commissioner of the District. of Columbia from December 1954 to July 1957.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Proceed.

General LANE. For my opening statement, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to three public statements made by advocates of this proposed reorganization measure. The first is the presidential message transmitting this measure to the Congress. The second is the statement

made to this committee by Mr. Merrill J. Collett of Arlington, Virginia, on June 27, 1967. The third is a statement by the President of the Board of Commissioners, Walter Tobriner, published in the Washington Post on July 10, 1967.

All of these statements share a common characteristic, the failure to adduce any evidence to support this measure. They all depend upon repetitious assertion of the assumption that a single executive and a separation of powers would improve the efficiency of the District of Columbia Government.

This assumption is false, as I shall soon demonstrate. It would be most unfortunate if the mere assertion of inapplicable organizational theory should move the Congress to allow a reorganization plan which will only magnify the troubles and conflicts which plague the District of Columbia today.

I spoke of a lack of evidence. For example, when Mr. Tobriner asserts the need for a single executive authority, I do not consider that evidence. That is his opinion. If Mr. Tobriner could show me how he could have managed the police and fire departments better, if he had also had the responsibility for direct supervision of all the engineering departments and all the public welfare branches of the government, I would be interested to see his evidence.

If Mr. Tobriner could cite the instances in which he was unable to bring the Board to a sound decision on the interests of the District of Columbia by reason of the recalcitrance or obstructionism of the other Board members, this would constitute some evidence which the committee might then weigh.

I find in the record not one bit of evidence that Mr. Tobriner could have managed the executive responsibilities better alone than he has done in association with his fellow Commissioners.

This lack of evidence is characteristic of the whole case for this plan. In my judgment, the evidence has not been submitted because there is no such evidence. On the contrary, all evidence supports the superior efficiency of the present government of the District of Columbia.

Advocates of this reorganization plan base their whole case on the assumption that the mayor-council form will assure more efficient government in the District of Columbia. They cite the general practice of other cities. They make two basic errors:

First, the mayor-council form of organization is not designed for efficiency.

Second, Washington is different from all other cities.

The separation of powers in American Government is not designed for efficiency. It is designed to protect the people from arbitrary government. It is a less efficient form of government which our cities suffer in order to retain the control of government in the people. Therefore, the assumption that the mayor-council form of government is more efficient is demonstrably false.

In the actual record of public administration measured by the costs and efficiency of operations, the District of Columbia Government has been far superior to the governments of our major cities. Which city government would you select in preference to your present District Government?

A first principle of sound organization is that it must be tailored to the mission and responsibilities of the unit.

This rule is violated by this plan which would apply the governmental form of other cities to the District of Columbia.

Washington is different. It comprises a small jurisdiction set aside pursuant to the Constitution to provide a federal district in which Congress should have exclusive legislative jurisdiction.

The obvious purpose of this provision is to establish a sanctuary in which Congress would be secure from the mob. The consequence is that the District of Columbia must be administered first to provide security for the Congress, and only secondarily for the benefit of its residents. It is this difference of purpose which makes the ordinary form of municipal government unsuitable for the District of Columbia. The mayor-council form is designed to be responsive to the people. It automatically creates a center of power which will be hostile to the Congress. This form was used in the District of Columbia in the 19th century and it failed.

The present Board of Commissioners organization brought efficiency and tranquility to the District of Columbia because it was designed to meet the special needs of the National Capital. It has been efficient and it has been responsive to Congress.

For these reasons I can assure this committee and the Congress that this reorganization plan is without any redeeming merit whatsoever. It will reduce the efficiency of the District Government and will make that government less responsive to the will of Congress.

Why then has the President proposed such a measure?

In my opinion, this plan is designed as a step toward home rule. The President is acceding to pressure designed to make the District of Columbia Government responsive to the will of the District residents. I submit that this city can not have two masters. Either the Congress must accept its responsibility for the District or surrender that control to the people. When it surrenders control, Congress will become a hostage to those who manipulate the city mob.

The presidential plan allows the council to override a veto of its adopted police regulations. It is therefore possible for the council to adopt regulations which will paralyze police response to mob action and force the Federal Government to call on the National Guard of the United States Army to preserve order. There are forces in this country which would be eager to exploit such a possibility.

I consider it most unfortunate that leaders of both major parties have supported the movement for home rule. As I see the problem, home rule is not feasible.

If Congress really wishes to transfer control of the District to the people, it should do so by retroceding the District to Maryland so that local government would have a normal relationship with state government. To create a local government of the people and still be subject to Congress could promote new and potentially disastrous conflict in the District of Columbia.

Therefore, the propaganda for home rule is, in my judgment, misleading the people, creating a totally unwarranted persecution complex, and building psychological opposition to good government. This movement has for at least a decade obstructed constructive measures designed to improve the efficiency of the District government. The District government can be improved and should be improved. However, the measures required are not in the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3.

The Congress can make the District of Columbia a most desirable jurisdiction in which to live and work. It must develop a new rationale for residents of the District as citizens who are specially favored to live in a national capital governed by the Congress of the United States. Only through such an approach can Congress create a government compatible with the needs of the Federal City.

I therefore urge that the Congress reject the President's plan, put aside home rule, and address itself to its responsibility for efficient administration of the National Capital.

Mr. Chairman, I have written three newspaper pieces on the District of Columbia Government. I would like to offer copies of these for the record at this time, to be inserted at this point.

This concludes my opening statement.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Without objection, they may be received for the record.

(The newspaper articles referred to follow :)

[Public affairs copy from Thomas A. Lane, 6157 Kellogg Drive, McLean, Va., 22101, June 10, 1967]

PRESIDENT USURPS LEGISLATIVE POWER IN D.C. REORGANIZATION

Washington . . . . In a general sense, the District of Columbia is the home of the federal government, but in a particular sense it is the home of the United States Congress. The Constitution specifies that Congress "shall exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district"; but it make no specific mention of any executive powers therein.

The architects of the Constitution were keenly aware of the history of Rome, where mobs were manipulated to install and depose emperors. They knew also that mobs had been used by the executive authority to intimidate the legislature. They recognized the importance of having a federal district in which the will of Congress would be supreme.

It is therefore of national concern that President Johnson has issued an executive order for the reorganization of the Government of the District of Columbia. The order raises serious questions of legality, propriety and substantive value.

It must first be noted that Congress gives continuing attention to the organization of the District of Columbia Government. It maintains in both the Senate and the House of Representatives Committees on the District of Columbia which bear that responsibility. In recent years, the Committees have considered various bills to provide new governmental forms for the District of Columbia but the Congress has rejected all such general reorganization bills.

In acting under his reorganization powers, the President has taken out of the hands of Congress a matter which Congress was actively considering. The propriety and wisdom of such executive action is open to serious question.

The presidential order does not and cannot add any powers to those now held by the District Government. In this connection, it is ironic that the White House has for years opposed legislative action to strengthen the present government because such partial measures might stall the drive for home rule.

The presidential order is also open to challenge on grounds of legality. It undertakes to redistribute not only executive powers but legislative powers as well. It seems quite clear that jurisdiction over the legislative powers of the present board of commissioners was not delegated to the President by the Executive Reorganization Act.

The District of Columbia Government is a special branch of the federal establishment. It has a separate civil service. The specific executive powers are lodged in the District Commissioners and not in the President. The District is not subordinate to any federal department or office, though its budget is incorporated in the President's budget. The District Government is a creation of Congress to serve a special purpose, unique in the whole structure of U.S.

government.

The clear purpose of the Reorganization Act was to delegate to the President desirable flexibility in adjusting and improving the structure of the executive branch without requiring legislative authorization of routine cases. There was

no power given for major reorganization such as the creation of a new Department of Transportation. There was no power given to reorganize the Government of the District of Columbia.

This executive order takes effect if it is not rejected by one house of the Congress within sixty days. Thus, the issue of legality may become moot. Once the change is made, it is unlikely that any court would intervene to restore the present government. The issue will be decided by the action or inaction of Congress wtihin the sixty days now running. (The writer, who is a former Commissioner of the District of Columbia, will treat the substantive merits of the President's reorganization plan in a following column.)

[Public affairs copy from Thomas A. Lane, 6157 Kellogg Drive, McLean, Va., 22101, June 13, 1967]

PRESIDENTIAL PLAN WOULD WORSEN D.C. GOVERNMENT

Washington . . . President Johnson has filed an executive order for the reorganization of the District of Columbia Government. He would replace the present three-man board of commissioners with a single executive and an appointed nine-member council.

The President's message contained the tiresome cliches with which organization specialists hail each new creation. Every measure which in fact vitiates, stultifies and corrupts existing organization is hailed with the customary management lingo of "strengthen and modernize", "efficient and effective", etc.

The present organization of the District Government is unique. That is because the District itself is unique and the organization fits the need. This organization has given the District of Columbia the best municipal government in the country for ninety years.

The first crass misjudgment of the President's plan is the assumption that the form of municipal organization common in other cities is suitable for the District of Columbia. It is not, as anyone familiar with the problems of governing the District can attest. The Mayor-Council form of organization was tried in the District in the early years of the republic and was rejected. It sets up a conflict between the local citizens and the Congress which it is the precise purpose of the District of Columbia to avoid.

If Congress allows this executive order to stand, it will plant the seeds of future trouble. The new council will become a lobby to attack and harass the Congress. It will blame the Congress for every municipal deficiency and will demand increasing powers over District affairs. It will control the police through the issuance of police regulations. In time Congress will no longer be safe in its own house.

The President has criticized the "divided executive authority" of the present government and implied that this division is a cause of growing crime in the District of Columbia. Neither the President nor any of his assistants can cite a single instance of the "divided executive authority" causing any delay or error in the exercise of executive authority in the District. The President was indulging management rhetoric.

Two of the District Commissioners are political appointees of the President. The third is appointed by the President from the Army Corps of Engineers. Thus, the ruling party controls the Board of Commissioners.

The real cause of the lessened effectiveness of the Board of Commissioners in recent years has been the White House interference in District affairs. Although the law places responsibility squarely upon the Commissioners, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson have maintained White House staff assistants to supervise District affairs. Regrettably, the District Commissioners have yielded to such unauthorized controls for reasons of party expediency.

In consequence of these changes, the District Government response to crime has been dictated by the White House out of its concern for the interests of national political blocs and with scant regard for the preservation of order in the District of Columbia. This is a critical condition which would be worsened by the President's reorganization order.

Congress should take the reorganization of the District of Columbia Government in hand. It should tighten congressional control of the District Government and eliminate the White House interference which has been practiced in recent years.

The first step to be taken is the rejection of the President's reorganization order.