of the Chief of Police in dealing with the departmental matters. They quoted you as saying, "There will be flexibility. I am a real liberal when it comes to organization charts."

Is that an accurate statement?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. You are going to go around the man that is duly appointed and

Mr. MURPHY. I would not see myself ever going around Chief Layton, Congressman. In my experience in administration I always told my subordinates to talk freely to my superiors should they visit them, but, unless they were instructed otherwise, I would want a report on what was discussed, and that has been my policy.

I have talked with Assistant Chief Hughes and Assistant Chief Wright, and I have met with the Deputy Chief of Traffic and Chief Trotter. I have visited many precincts and criminal investigation units. And in trying to educate myself, because I am new, I have talked at that level about many problems. I frequently sent notes to Chief Layton after such meetings, raising questions. And as I think I made clear to the Chief, it was never intended that I would shortcircuit him.

Mr. WHITENER. I think this story implies an entirely different situation, that you were saying that sometimes "I will act through Chief Layton; sometimes I will go to his subordinates." Now, this is talk about action, not discussion.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. Well, for instance, Congressman, if I am in my car and I respond to a police call and the Chief is not present, if I feel an important decision has to be made, I would not hesitate to do it, but the Chief would be advised of it. I certainly do not intend to short-circuit the Chief at all.

That comment simply meant that I did not feel that every time I had a contact with someone higher in the police department that we would require Chief Layton to be present or that I would always discuss it in advance with Chief Layton. I think that would be quite restrictive.

Mr. WHITENER, So, as I understand it, what you are saying is you did not imply that you would be issuing orders to→→

Mr. MURPHY. Oh, no, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. To subordinates of the Chief of Police on policy

matters?

Mr. MURPHY. No, sir; just in an emergency.

Mr. WHITENER. Or personnel matters?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir; that is right.

Mr. WHITENER. That merely for the purpose of doing your job better you would seek information from any sources available whether they were commissioned officers or not,

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir; that is accurate..

Mr. WHITENER. Well, I think that clarifies it a little. I was concerned when I read the story in the Post of your statement-"an angry Murphy" it said, and I suppose you now disclaim that you were off base because of some great anger, is that

Mr. MURPHY. I try, Mr. Congressman, never to be angry. I am not always successful.

Mr. WHITENER. Well, I suppose all of us have that problem at times. It is not too advisable to get angry.

Now, about the promotion announcement that you made the other day. Is there any reason for eliminating from promotion boards duly constituted officers within the Department here in Washington? Mr. MURPHY. The promotion

Mr. WHITENER. Do you feel that the Chief of Police in some strange community would be better able to serve on a promotion board than local officers who have had an opportunity to see it firsthand, the performance of the individual who was considered for promotion?

Mr. MURPHY. Concerning the use of some outside police administrators to assist us in the selection process, Mr. Congressman, my view is that certainly the opinions of the ranking commanders of the Department who have had the opportunity to observe men over the years, their opinions would be most valuable. I think we enrich the selection process somewhat by adding to it the benefit of opinions of outside police experts. I think it is a fact, an unfortunate fact, that our police departments in the United States do not exchange personnel. They are very much entities unto themselves because of the civil service system. I think this is a negative rather than a positive influence.

As I explained earlier, some of the most progressive developments made in various police departments throughout the nation tend not to reach other departments because of this lack of communication and exchange of personnel, and the opportunity to work in different systems as occurs in the professions, in medicine, in law, in teaching, and so forth. And the significance of asking some outside people to assist us is simply to get another kind of opinion. It in no sense implies the exclusion of the recommendations of our ranking commanders. And I have been asking

Mr. WHITENER. Yes, but it would not matter what the ranking commander had said on a fitness report. If these nomadic members of a promotion board took an action contrary to that recommendation, there would be nothing anyone could do about it.

Mr. MURPHY. Well, they will not have the authority to make the promotion. They will simply submit their comments, Mr. Congressman. The final decision will rest with me. And I will be discussing all of the promotions with Chief Layton and possibly some other members of staff.

So their authority or their function will not be to select the members but simply to provide us with one other factor.

Chief Layton and I met with people at the United States Civil Service Commission to discuss this approach, and all of us who attended that meeting felt that we could improve the process even further by doing something like this.

Mr. WHITENER. Well, as I read this newspaper article, you contemplate that there will be oral examinations by this nonresident board of officers who are being considered for promotion in Washington.

Mr. MURPHY. Well, they will

Mr. WHITENER. Now, does this mean that the glib tongue will get the promotion, or what is the purpose?

Mr. MURPHY. No, sir; not at all. I think it will provide the officers appearing before that oral interview panel the opportunity to express their philosophy, policies.

Mr. WHITENER. But suppose that in this promotion process you have three officers who are being considered, and they have taken a written examination, and one officer has made a 10-point higher grade on the written test than the others and all the rest of their files balance out evenly. Does this mean that by this device of oral examination you might take the least qualified of the three men?

Mr. MURPHY, No, sir, Congressman. For these ranks no written examination has been involved. These are for ranks above captain. The highest rank for which written examination is taken is for captain. These are promotions above the level of captain which have been completely in the description of the District Commissioner in the past. Mr. WHITENER. I understand what you are saying, Chief Layton is still Chief of Police in Washington.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. And you are not going to meddle into his operation of the Department. You are going to be a policy maker, and that you are not issuing orders to his subordinates to carry out policy, but those orders will go through the Chief of Police

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. just as it has been done before?
Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. And that what we have here now instead of one commissioner looking after the police, we have two civilian commissioners looking over the shoulder of the Chief of Police instead of one as we had before the re-organization. Is that the situation?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, to the extent that Commissioner Washington can give us time

Mr. WHITENER. We formerly had Commissioner Tobriner.
Mr. MURPHY. That is right, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. So now we have two civilian supervisors of the Chief of Police instead of one to carry out this economic or efficient re-organization program that was passed by Congress.

That is all I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mathias.

Mr. MATHIAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Murphy, I see you first began your police career as a patrolman in New York City

in 1945.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ADAMS. Would the gentleman yield for a question right at that point?

Mr. MATHIAS. I would be delighted to yield.

Mr. ADAMS. This re-organization is a vertical re-organization to achieve what occurs in most cities, Mr. Murphy, where you have a Mayor and Council and then a Police Commissioner and then a Chief?

Mr. MURPHY. Most large cities.

Mr. ADAMS. Most large cities. New York has that, has it not, and most others. And, therefore, that is your job. Your job is like the police commissioner's in the major cities, which is mayor, commissioner of police, chief-is that not the way it works?

Mr. MURPHY. That is how I have seen it, Congressman.

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you.

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. Murphy, you began your career in New York City as a patrolman in '45. That was at the conclusion of your service to the Navy in World War II.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

Mr. MATHIAS. And you had previously gradu ated from Saint Johns University.

Mr. MURPHY. I discontinued my college education to enter the Naval Air Service, Congressman, and completed it after becoming a police officer in New York City.

Mr. MATHIAS. Now, as you worked up through the ranks in New York City from patrolman to sergeant to lieutenant, you then became an instructor and training officer.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

Mr. MATHIAS. And you went through the procedure of organizing a Commissioner's Inspection Squad.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. MATHIAS. Could you just tell us very, very briefly a little bit about what that involved?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. In the New York City Police Department, the Commissioner, for many years, has had a unit known as the Commissioner's Confidential Unit, and this was an internal affairs and organized crime unit, but it had never carried out an inspection function similar to the Inspector General function in the military. And Commissioner Michael J. Murphy requested me, assigned me to organize, plan and organize such a unit.

We developed that unit in 1961, and inspected precincts-New York has a large number of precincts, about 78-and many detective units, traffic, youth and other units. And it was the function of this unit which I organized to inspect and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of these units in the field.

Mr. MATHIAS. Then you went on leave of absence and served as Chief of Police in Syracuse, and were you there involved in a reorganization of the police department?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir; I was.

Prior to my coming to Syracuse, the department had been under investigation, and the Chief of Police and the First Deputy Chief resigned, retired, and the Mayor determined that he would bring in an outside Chief of Police.

At the time I came in the department was under severe stress because of this investigation, and I felt that the department needed a re-organization. I sought the assistance of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and they came in and surveyed the department for us. And with their assistance, we re-organized the department into four major branches, whereas previously there had been a very broad span of control.

Mr. MATHIAS. Now, when you returned to New York as Commanding Officer of the Police Academy, did you again get involved in a re-organization of the Academy?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, at the time I returned to New York, Congressman, the move into the new $10,000,000 Police Academy building in New York City was imminent, and this involved housing in one structure the college program for police officers of New York City which at that time was conducted jointly, and to this day conducted jointly by the police department and the City University of New York. So one of my major responsibilities was to implement this moving process and to re-organize several of the training programs for the department, including some new command level training and specifically some disorder prevention and control training.

Mr. MATHIAS. Well, now, having in mind that we are undergoing here in Washington a rather general re-organization of the whole District government, and having in mind what you are commissioned to do as the Director of Public Safety, do you feel that there is an undue amount of confusion in the police department, or an undue degree of morale difficulty in the police department?

Mr. MURPHY. No, sir. I do not believe that there is any kind of general confusion in the Department. I am very impressed by the way I see day-to-day cases being handled.

I do realize that there are misunderstandings of some kind or another about just what my function is. I feel it has been clear to me. I do not think police morale is low.

I made reference earlier to the fact that I see rapid response to calls. Our officers look smart. They present themselves very well. Their uniforms are net and clean. I found them to be courteous. I have been very impressed by the number of commendatory letters I have received in my short time in this office concerning the activities of our police officers. I have been very impressed by the activity of our Criminal Investigation Division which last year cleared significantly more cases than it had the previous.

All of these things suggest to me that morale is high. I think the leadership of the Department is good. If there is room for strengthening it, we will certainly try to strengthen it. But I have great confidence in this Department and its leadership, and I am confident that we will be equal to whatever tasks face us in months ahead.

Mr. MATHIAS. And you have no fear that the arrangements which exist will not prove to be incompatible with an increasingly higher level of efficiency in the Department?

Mr. MURPHY. No, sir. As I attempted to indicate earlier, I accepted this position because I have great confidence in Chief Layton. I am delighted that he has indicated to me that he has hope to be part of the team of Commissioner Washington, who is most concerned about our crime problem, and the other problems facing the police department, including traffic accident fatalities and injuries. And Chief Layton has indicated that he will be with me and we will be together, and I am most confident of where we are going.

Mr. MATHIAS. I am very glad to hear that, Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder, since the time is passing so fast, if we can limit our questioning now to five minutes from here on? Mr. Sisk. Mr. SISK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Murphy, who contacted you originally. How did you happen to be contacted for this particular position?

Mr. MURPHY. Commissioner Washington communicated with me. Mr. SISK. And did you talk to anyone else? Was anyone else involved at all in your employment?

Mr. MURPHY. I discussed-I also had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Fletcher, the Assistant to Commissioner Washington. I made my decision so rapidly that I am uncertain now about some other people who may have spoken with me about it, but principally a very brief conversation with Commissioner Washington and Mr. Fletcher, some people in the city government. It involved a discussion with the personnel office.