You have a committee of police officers' wives being formed because the policeman cannot do the job. He cannot complain to anybody because of this manual.

Even in the military service you have the Inspector General situation and there is no prohibition against anybody complaining through that line.

You have a situation where just within the past few days this particular regulation was read to the men in the Department in several precincts because they were thinking about forming an organization for this purpose. The Association would be the proper avenue for this, but under the present regulations they cannot.

Mr. WHITENER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NELSEN. Yes.

Mr. WHITENER. Also in the Universal Military Training Act, there is a specific provision making it a crime for any commissioned officer to in any way interfere with the right of any enlisted man to communicate with his Senator or his Representative in the Congress.

Mr. DECKELBAUM. I was not aware of that, but there is a provision, I believe, in the United States Code which says any citizen has a right to petition Congress for any reason.

Mr. NELSEN. It would seem to me, that the atmosphere and the understanding between the leadership in the Police Department and the people working in it would be very much improved by a forum where information such as this would be requested by those in charge of the Department to create not only a better method of operation but also better understanding.

I noted, too, your reference to getting the news out of a newspaper without being informed first. This seems to be a very simple thing that could be done properly by giving notice first to the policemen and them issuing a press release.

Now, you made comment about the lack of respect for the police. However, there is nothing that we can do about it. This is sort of a public education program, is it not?

Mr. DECKELBAUM. This is true. I think it is a question of not merely words, not merely the authorities, the people saying good things about policemen, but I think it is a question of letting the policeman out on the street do his good deeds and let these get the publicity that the incidents receive. There are many policemen on the street risking their lives day in and day out and there are small blurbs in the paper. Occasionally, they do get notoriety, awards by some association, "Policeman of the Month" or something of this nature, but these do not seem to attract the notoriety and publicity nor are they getting the proper public presentation when compared to the small incidents where a man is charged for using too much force, or where a regulation is promulgated as to how an officer is supposed to maintain an arrest. The notoriety it gets gives every defendant a ready avenue of complaint.

I would venture to say that as a result of the publicity given the Canine order recently, any time in the next several months that you have an arrest by a Canine Corps officer, that order is going to be used by the defendant to his advantage.

Mr. NELSEN. With respect to the suggested police reorganization, I have had some experience in government, and when there are rumors

of reorganization, it always creates a good deal of unrest and uncertainty because no one knows who is going to be reorganized out of his position or his authority and it would seem to me that a forum such as you propose, where the authorities could review the proposed reorganization with the officers and the policemen, where there is complete communication, there might be a good deal of better feeling and perhaps better results.

Mr. DECKELBAUM. This is exactly my point.

Mr. NELSEN. No more questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Fuqua?

Mr. FUQUA. No questions.
Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Zwach?
Mr. ZWACH. No questions.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Adams?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes. Mr. Deckelbaum, I noticed two or three things that ran through your total testimony. First, I support very much your suggestion for a better communications system between the top staff and the officers on the street, but your only specific suggestions are to either attempt through legislation or otherwise to change the section in the police manual and to have an outside counsel appointed. Were those the two specifics for communication

Mr. DECKELBAUM. No.

Mr. ADAMS. (continuing). Within the Department?

Mr. DECKELBAUM. There were several others, a couple of others mentioned either directly or indirectly. There was a recommendation that some member of the Association be in the staff meetings of the Police Department. There was also a recommendation made that information, both orally and in writing, be transmitted down to the rank and file of the force, so that they can be advised of the situation. Mr. ADAMS. All right. Now, I also noticed that you indicate that the morale is low and yet with regard to the specific changes which have been suggested by the D.C. Crime Report, for example, to change the type and character of the Department, you opposed those changes. I want to go first specifically to the Detective Division which you spent quite a bit of time on. And I would refer you, and I will just give you these as reference and you can look at them later, but on page 201 of the D.C. Crime Report, and again at page 228, you will find there is no reference to the abolishment of the Detective Division at all. There is the establishment, as I understand it, of a criminal investigative unit in order to avoid the present situation where the Department has 220 men assigned to eight investigating squads, 14 precincts and a number of miscellaneous units, which is alleged to be completely inefficient.

Do you want to comment on that?

Mr. DECKELBAUM. Yes. I would like to comment on that. It is my understanding of this reorganization act that these men would not necessarily be permanently assigned as investigators.

Mr. ADAMS. To a precinct.

Mr. DECKELBAUM. As investigators.

Mr. ADAMS. Do you want to comment in writing, so we will not take the time of the other members here, on that specific, but as I read the report, there would still be investigations. Further, let me ask you this question: Is it not true that what is in the report is simply

an acceptance of the recommendations of the International Association of Chiefs of Police made in their analysis of the Department? Mr. DECKELBAUM. I do not know if this is what it was based on. Mr. ADAMS. I will refer you

Mr. DECKELBAUM. I will say this. They are similar. There are some fields in which there are differences.

Mr. ADAMS. I would refer you, then, to the Appendix of the Crime Report which contains these IACP recommendations. I would like a statement if you could give it to the Committee, as to whether or not you agree or disagree specifically with the specific recommendations that are set up on the Detective Division by the IACP which are set forth on page 201 of the D.C. Crime Report because as I understand it, with regard to the Detective Division, the suggestions are simply an attempt to update the Division and not to abolish it.

The third item was with regard to people coming into the Department. As I understand it, you say the Cadet System you think, is a good one. You are aware of the fact, are you not, there are 40 vacancies on the 75 positions presently available?

Mr. DECKELBAUM. Yes.

Mr. ADAMS. Do you think, therefore, that we can continue the same system that we have now and use the Cadet Corps effectively?

Mr. DECKELBAUM. Yes, I do. And the reason for that is that the salary has been

Mr. ADAMS. You think salary is the only problem, then?

Mr. DECKELBAUM. I think so.

Mr. ADAMS. All right. Now, with regard to the master patrolman or the infusion laterally into the Department, you indicate that you oppose that also.

Now, would you accept the position that if there was a period of time, I believe this is also recommended in the D.C. Crime Report, that these men serve a probationary period or, I believe you mentioned two years, would you then accept the creation of a master patrolman rank that would take an infusion both from men presently in the Department and those from outside?

Mr. DECKELBAUM. May I have Inspector Sullivan answer that?
Mr. ADAMS. Certainly.

Mr. DECKELBAUM. He is more familiar with that.

Inspector SULLIVAN. Under the system that we propose, Congressman Adams, we want to compensate the new men coming in in a merit system for their education. We also would propose at the proper time the proper type of salary to bring men in. And once they are in, then we would give them credit for 15 units or 16 units or whatever they might have in credits, to the full extent, based from 1 to 5 percent, let us say, of the top grade of private. But we would not want to establish a master patrolman system because if you do that, you are establishing something that is going to deeply affect the morale of the men who have been on six, seven, eight, nine, 20 years.

We want to give them the same chance to get this education for two years so they can participate and many of them are doing so today. Mr. ADAMS. That is what I asked you. In other words, you would have no objection to such a position if there was available promotion

into that position. For example, there would be a chance for the men in the Department through upgrading through their educational system as well as bringing in from the outside to move into this rank. Incidentally, Mr. Deckelbaum, this master rank in the D.C. Crime Report specifically is limited to those who have degrees either in police enforcement or a law enforcement type of degree. It was not directed to all college degrees.

Mr. DECKELBAUM. Yes, I am aware of that.

Inspector SULLIVAN. We are for that, but we do not want to call him a master patrolman. What you are saying to these other men, what kind of patrolmen are they? We want it based on percentage basis, Congressman Adams, so that the Chief of Police would have a leeway of, say, one to five per cent, to increase them as they proceed in their education, and we want the man coming out of college to qualify first as being a policeman and then give him credit for his accomplishments in the police sciences.

Mr. ADAMS. I think that is a very good suggestion.

Now, Mr. Deckelbaum, I notice in the first part of your testimony you indicate that you are unhappy with the press, courts, public, and the comments that they make, and I understand Mr. Nelsen did start on this question. You do not believe there is anything that this Committee can do to order anybody to like you, do you?

Mr. DECKELBAUM. Unfortunately, no, not directly. However, indirectly, this Committee is the only group that can help the police obtain those items set out in my report. No other avenue is now open to the policeman to solve his problems. The committee of legislators can give the police what they need to help themselves; as examples, a police advocate, the right to have an association that speaks for them, the right to be heard about proposed changes affecting them, and so forth.

Mr. ADAMS. In other words, it is the good deeds and reorganization and the changes, that occur within the Department that will produce this result and thus correct low morale, is that not correct?

Mr. DECKELBAUM. Inspector Sullivan would like to address you. Inspector SULLIVAN. There is one thing this Committee can do to increase policemen image and let me go back to when I walked a beat in No. 4 Precinct on 4th a half Street. I began to know the families and the people on my beat. I knew Joe Brown, let us say, who made $28 a week in those days and Joe came home and he bought the food and he paid his rent. He had about $2 left, and in the futility of all of it he would go out and get just as stoned as he could get.

I knew whether it was all right to take him home or not or whether we could take him to the Precinct until he sobered up, but as long as we did not take any time or money away from him we were the friends of the people.

We can keep these precincts and we can keep this patrol and this Committee can do it and it is essential for public relations that we do this very same thing because without the tools to work with and without our precincts and our lines of communication, we are going to draw further away from the people because today when the same Joe Brown gets stoned, a motorized unit comes up, picks him up. They do

not know anything about him, or his family. They throw him in the clink and the Civil Rights people say we cannot hold him 24 hours until he gets sober in the precinct. We have got to take him into the courts. The family is deprived of this little income they have and that is when we began to wear the black hat instead of the white hat.

So this Committee can do something along that line.

Mr. ADAMS. In other words, you would maintain a number of localized police headquarters whether they are precincts or station houses, and second, you urge maintaining of a foot patrol?

Inspector SULLIVAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ADAMS. All right. Now, we have talked before about the number of men involved. Do you agree that there should be an increase in number of men? It has been stated that we should pick up not only the 300 vacancies presently existing which would give the Department 3100 men, but also go to 3500 which would mean the Department would need a total of 700 additional men.

Do you have a comment on that?

Inspector SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. Let me go back to last year, just at the end of the year, to page 76 of the hearings held here on the police pay scale and I think it was Mr. Fuqua who asked the question. At that time it had been pointed out that we had 3.8 policemen per thousand in the city, taken on the census of 1960 of about 700,000 people. It did not take into view the 300,000 standing population, the 500,000 transit population. It did not take in the tourist population and, I believe we all agreed at the end of the hearing that this figure was a misnomer and that I had testified on that same page that at that time that we needed 3500 to 3600 policemen to do the job in the city of Washington because we are confronted with so many things non-related to the prevention and detection of crime that it is vitally necessary that you bring the Police Department up to 3600 men to do the job that is required here in the Nation's Capital.

Mr. ADAMS. All right. I noticed on this precinct matter, the basic point being made by the IACP and also by the Crime Commission report is that there is a great deal of waste motion and a large number of people who are not able to function as policemen because of the complete decentralization of the Department into these precincts. Do you have a specific recommmendation or statement as to whether there should be a continuation of the present precincts organization, I will state frnakly to you from my reading of these reports, I would not be in favor of it because it looks to be archaic and old-fashioned and yet perhaps we can meet the thing that you talk about of maintaining some kind of a system within the neighborhoods and particularly provide a place where you can operate a foot patrol operation.

Inspector SULLIVAN. Mr. Adams, first let me say I wish the Committee would have had the advantage of listening to some of the representatives of the International Chiefs of Police who made this report and we find no disagreement in the inspections, the planning and all of this, but I asked one of those gentlemen who talked about precincts if he had ever been in a precinct and he said, well, I have been in yours. This gentleman happened to come from a city out west who in 1957 was in temporary police quarters. He happened to be a gentleman who now is in the same place but with 390,000 people, 638 authorized strength police department and no precincts and they do not need