Mr. WHITENER. You have, in the District of Columbia, according to the last figures that I saw, about 34 employees in the District of Columbia government for every 1,000 population, whereas comparable cities run about 12 employees per 1,000. I am not talking to the merits of this proposal. I would certainly be very leery about unnecessarily contributing to what I consider to be inordinate costs of operating the government here in the District of Columbia.

I think that the information that you can furnish would be of considerable value to us. I am sure that you are familiar, Mr. Bryan, with the high cost of government here in the District of Columbia, as compared to St. Louis and other places?

Mr. BRYAN. Only in a very general way. I do know there have been a lot of studies made by way of comparison. I know you run into complications, such as in the District of Columbia the local government pertains to State and county as well as city functions.

Mr. WHITENER. That is the argument that you folks give. On the other side, you have the Federal Government performing functions here that they do not perform in other towns, like Park Police, FBI, and law enforcement and many other agencies, which ought to bring a little more favorable picture than we have.

Then you have also the questionable situation here that the District of Columbia government has always performed these State functions but the increase in employees has been rather remarkable during the last few years. In other cities it has not been.

Mr. BRYAN. That may be true, sir. But in fact I suspect everything the District of Columbia government does is by virtue of some program contained in some act of Congress.

Mr. WHITENER. That is exactly why I do not want to be a party to any further acts of Congress that are going to give you an opportunity and the District government an opportunity to blame us for extravagance in government.

Mr. BRYAN. I would suggest, sir, that your views on that are extremely well founded and consistent with the Commissioners. The Commissioners' views are consistent with your views on not proliferating agencies which cause increased costs.

Mr. HORTON. Would the gentleman yield for a question? Would there be any objection to keeping the office that now operates, the Superintendent of Corporations, keeping that office intact, located in the same place, working under the Recorder and delegating authority specifically to him in accordance with the reorganization?

Mr. BRYAN. I think there would be objection to that. I would like very much, if you will permit it, to have Mr. Ridley answer that. Mr. RIDLEY. May I comment on that?

Mr. HORTON. Yes.

Mr. RIDLEY. In the Office of Recorder of Deeds, we do not have a complete differentiation between the services that we give. For example, the photostats are done for the whole agency. That is for the corporations. It is for auto loans, partnerships, and everybody. To put into the Office a separate function like that would be almost administrative anarchy.

Mr. HORTON. It would not change the function. You would have the same function. Instead of issuing certificates, you issue and the Superintendent of Corporations issues them sometimes. The Superintendent of Corporations would issue them. It would be the same function.

Mr. RIDLEY. It would be the same function. What I am trying to say is: It could not workad ministratively because the staff would not know under whom they work. I do not think any sound administrator would ever recommend that.

Mr. WHITENER. In that connection, why could they not change your title to "Recorder of Deeds and Superintendent of Corporations"? Mr. HORTON. This is what I suggested earlier.

Mr. RIDLEY. That has been considered many times. May I correct one thing here?

Mr. DOWDY. Go ahead.

Mr. RIDLEY. May I say to you gentlemen that there has never been any issuance of certificates of incorporation by anyone except the Superintendent of Corporations as the head of the Corporations Division of the Recorder of Deeds Office. There are not any issuances by any two or three authorities. They all come out under the signature of the Superintendent of Corporations. I wanted to clear that point up.

Mr. DowDY. That sort of gets to what I was preparing to ask. As I understand it, the Superintendent of Corporations is in the nature of one of your deputies?

Mr. RIDLEY. That is exactly correct, Mr. Dowdy. He is the head of a large and important division of the organization, the same as a deputy.

Mr. DowDY. He is a deputy in charge of corporations?

Mr. RIDLEY. That is correct.

Mr. Dowdy. It seems to me that all of this argument would be obviated if he signed everything in your name by him as Commissioner, as Recorder of Deeds, by him as Commissioner of Corporations.

Mr. RIDLEY. That is exactly what is done. You have got it exactly right.

Mr. DowDY. It seems to me there is no problem.

Mr. RIDLEY. I can furnish you a certificate to show that if you would like to have one, a form.

Mr. DOWDY. He also takes care of the nonprofit corporations?
Mr. RIDLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dowdy. He signs those the same way?

Mr. RIDLEY. The same way.

Mr. DOWDY. But in your name as deputy?

Mr. RIDLEY. Absolutely.

Mr. Dowdy. I cannot see why there

Mr. RIDLEY. There has been no change from that in that office. Mr. DowDY. Under those circumstances, I see no reason why you should have delegated any authority to anybody.

Mr. RIDLEY. I don't see any either, sir.

Mr. DowDY. Have you had any complaints at all about the charters or applications for corporation charters?

Mr. RIDLEY. I would say, Mr. Dowdy, none except during the time when we have thousands of annual reports that come in. That delays us sometimes. That is in April and May. Other than that, I would say not. We need more staff and money to take care of that. Mr. DOWDY. In those rush times you get them out within the 10day limitation?

Mr. RIDLEY. We get them out within the 10-day limitation.
Mr. Dowdy. Ordinarily within 2 days?

Mr. RIDLEY. That is correct.

Mr. HORTON. Would the chairman yield?

How specifically are these certificates issued? Who signs them? Under what name?

Mr. RIDLEY. They go out under the name of Superintendent of Corporations. He signs, the Recorder of Deeds appears printed on them. The signature on it is that of the Superintendent of Corporations.

Mr. HORTON. I think maybe you ought to furnish us a facsimile. Mr. RIDLEY. I would be glad to do so.

Mr. HORTON. So that we will see.

Mr. RIDLEY. I would be very glad to do that.

Mr. HORTON. I understand your earlier testimony that you indicated there was a written redelegation by the Recorder of Deeds to the Superintendent of Corporations?

Mr. RIDLEY. You see in 1954 there was a complete detailed redelegation. Then they had to continue to amend and keep adding and subtracting from it. In 1962, when the Nonprofit Act came in, he did not think it necessary to make a detailed redelegation. He was operating under the supervision of the Recorder. We did not make a detailed redelegation at that time. We had no problem with it whatsoever.

Mr. HORTON. I submit this whole area does need some study and these hearings ought to help bring this out.

Mr. DowDY. Do you have some further comments? Mr. BRYAN. I do not think I have anything more. I might say the thought just occurred to me. Mr. Whitener pointed out that the Federal Government does quite a few things for the District government. I can not let the opportunity pass without saying that the District government does a few things for the Federal Government, too, such as furnishing a lot of extra police service for various Federal functions and officials which adds to the cost, I did not mean to omit that. It just did not occur to me.

Mr. WHITENER. I noted the other day that the military services furnished several hundred for the District government without cost. Mr. BRYAN. There is no doubt there is a lot of reciprocal and mutual cooperation going on here. It is a very complicated subject. It is pretty hard to pin down the exact reason why.

Mr. DowDY. I have one more question. We have one more witness to get through. From what has taken place, do you see any need for an act of Congress that ratifies or need for ratification of any past actions?

Mr. BRYAN. I do not know of any at this time, sir.

Mr. DowDY. Thank you, sir. That will be all then.

I have one more witness on the list on this bill. William H. Thomas, president of the District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations. That bell that just rang was for a quorum. If you have a written statement, Mr. Thomas, please put it in the record and briefly tell us about it.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. THOMAS, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS

Mr. THOMAS. I do have a written statement, Mr. Chairman. It is very short. I can read it in a minute, if I may.

Mr. DOWDY. All right.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am William Hammond Thomas, president of the District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations.

The federation is made up of delegates from 43 local civic associations from all sections of the District of Columbia. Our total combined membership is approximately 30,000.

The federation is opposed to the enactment of H.R. 7173.

We can see no merit in removing from the office of the Recorder of Deeds an operation that office has successfully administered for more than 60 years.

We can see neither increased economy nor greater efficiency in such a proposal. Neither can we see any additional convenience for the citizens of the District.

We do not believe in decentralization for the sake solely of decentralization.

Certainly, a proposal to place an additional tax burden of $200,000 on the District of Columbia residents without attendant benefits is unthinkable.

The restriction in the bill which limits the authority of the Commissioners to the extent that delegation of corporation functions may be made only to the Superintendent unreasonably restricts and aborts the already emasculated powers of the Board of Commissioners.

We have heard nothing but praise for the administration of the office of Recorder of Deeds in all of its functions.

We can see no reason for disturbing one of the best operated agencies of the District government. This bill appears to be an attempt to effect an unnecessary division of long recognized and public approved services.

We respectfully request the defeat of H.R. 7173.

Thank you.

Mr. DowDY. That will conclude the hearings for today on all these bills.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

О