CHARTER COMMISSION With equal emphasis, your Committee is urged to give full consideration to the bill introduced by Congressman Nelsen (H.F. 11215). There cannot be too much constructive study and analysis and the answer lies somewhere, but let us not keep looking to the distant future as the time is now. The structure of the Commission authorized therein would certainly bring to light the needs of the hour, and those men and women who will comprise its membership, will, of course, be well versed in all matters of local interest, and fully capable of rendering a report worthy to be considered. Allow this witness to again and again stress the necessity for a more workable system of government. Until the passage of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the people of the District of Columbia were deprived of voting for anybody or anything. Many people still feel they were always treated fairly and squarely by the Congress of the United States, and I am one of them, although not in the matter of the Federal contribution at all times, hence this witness is not prepared to approve the adoption of the so-called Home Rule Bills, and takes his stand in favor of national representation-if we must have a vote. After all, the Congress is the repository of power to govern the District of Columbia-the seat of the Federal Government. Washington is the show window of America, and yet there are those who keep picturing the residents of the Capital City as only half equipped, and espouse Home Rule as being the acme of perfection, when, in fact, such a law will give us just what it purports to give—a half loaf. No, Mr. Congress, give us national representation, and if necessary, we will enlarge your membership by the finest of people, brought to office through the same suffrage to which you are entitled in your respective political subdivisions. NON-VOTING DELEGATE IN HOUSE AND SENATE Until that time arrives, a non-voting delegate in each House of Congress will be helpful, both to the City and to the Houses and Committee of Congress. Your witness is convinced that a listening post for the city administration, and a guidepost for the members of Congress, seated on the floors in the form of a qualified personality, always available for consultation or questions or the securing of facts and data, would not be objectionable. Such a non-voting delegate, however, would be but a stap-gap pending national representation. Therefore, H.R. 11216 and H.R. 14176, merit your favorable consideration. Without being too personal, this witness served as Counsel to the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia under the chairmanship of former Senator Patrick A. McCarran of Nevada-the first office ever established in either branch of Congress whereby a link was forged between them and the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia. Through the able handling of District affairs by the Senator, much beneficial legislation was drafted and enacted-based largely on the knowledge of the Counsel who conferred with the officials in the District Building to enlighten the Committee on matters before it. The enactment of the model dental law and the reorganization of the local Court systems are but two which come to mind at this moment. 47-573-70- -31 Your witness is firmly of the opinion that the Congress should either continue to avail itself, so far as the District is concerned, of the superior facilities maintained by the Congressional Library or have the District authorities create and establish a Legislative Reference Service, whereby the problems of the District Government might be categorized and its findings made available upon a moment's notice so that no legislation dealing with the affairs of the District of Columbia might be enacted without the benefit of such a service. This service could be headed by the non-voting delegates, or at least operated in cooperation with them. Gentlemen, you should at all times be aware and I know you are, of the impact on the moods of local residents in whatever action you take for we look to the Congress of the United States to provide a form of government which will reflect the needs of the people. The proposed study groups should lose no time in submitting their reports, as the rising costs of government, necessitating ever-increasing taxes in the face of diminution of services, coupled with duplication of overlapping departments and agencies, are causing many of our residents serious concern. Your witness feels such a statement or compilation by these study groups, placed in the hands of the Congress and in the hands of the Mayor and his associates, and in the hands of the people, will expose to light the feelings of our residents, and will go a long way toward stopping the moves to the suburbs of both people and business. Something is wrong somewhere, and a genuine presentation to those charged with administering the affairs of the City is a need long overdue. Given the tools, the solution will not be difficult to find. No witness before your Committee can give you a complete answer but we can and do point to the blind winds of insecurity, fast becoming hurricanes of discontent-so this witness pleads with you for a profes sional analysis of what erroneously now appears to be an unsolvable situation. We have dragged too long-let us get to the roots of the matterand from the measures under consideration your wisdom and knowledge will become the foundation upon which we can and do have every reason to expect results. [From the Washington Evening Star, July 8, 1970] (By William Basham, Star Staff Writer) The D.C. Department of Economic Development has mapped a major reorganization of the city government, consolidating a number of city agencies. Seven hundred employes would be affected. Julian R. Dugas, head of the department, said if all goes well "we should have this new system off and running within six months." Most of the agencies could start moving from the District Building to new quarters in the Potomac Building at 6th and H Streets NW. within two weeks. The proposed reorganization will be shown to the appropriations subcommittee chairmen of the Senate and House District committees. Dugas, who expects no opposition, said he hopes to meet with the subcommittee staffs early next week to discuss his proposal. SPECIAL OPERATIONS OFFICE The building, zoning and housing sections of the government would be placed in one bureau. The license and permits division and the Department of Occupa tions and Professions would be placed in an office of Licenses and Permits, directly responsible to Dugas. In addition three investigation branches would be grouped into an Office of Special Operations directly responsible to Dugas-a move he said would give his department more efficient use of manpower. As set forth in a city executive order dated March 7, 1969, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and the Mayor' Economic Development Committee officially will be under Dugas. Dugas said his office will serve as an "intermediary supervisory channel" in MEDCO's and the ABC Board's dealings with the mayor. Dugas said the city has ordered new automatic data processing equipment and should have it by October. He said the system will save countless man hours lost to the government in the preparation of reports that can be handled by machines. Dugas said it will make possible the moving of personnel into new areas "without constantly having to go to Congress for new funding." NOT PERSONALLY INVOLVED Dugas said he has no plans to personally involve himself with the operations of the agencies placed under him "unless absolutely necessary." But the change obviously would mark him as one of the most powerful figures in the District government. He would become the official who oversees questions concerning licensing, issuance of building permit zoning and housing code enforcement. Mr. CAMALIER. The name of this witness is Renah F. Camalier, a native of the District of Columbia. Mr. BROYHILL. We miss you, Mr. Camalier. Mr. DOWDY. When were you Mr. CAMALIER. I am residing in the City of Washington at all times. Mr. CAMALIER. Along with the other two gentlemen behind me. Mr. CAMALIER. That is right, 1951 to 1955, somewhere around there. RETROCESSION TO MARYLAND So much for that type of bill. In closing, may I speak on one other bill, and probably companion bill, H.R. 4276, which has for its purpose retroceding certain portions of the District to the State of Maryland. Mr. Spencer very ably pointed out that instead of reducing the size of the Federal District that we might well enlarge it. Well, of course, that would tread on Mr. Broyhill's domain to a great extent, because we would have to go over and take back Arlington County and the rest of it, and if I remember correctly, when I first became Commissioner Mr. BROYHILL. Excuse me you said you were going to take it back? Mr. CAMALIER. I said if we abided by what Mr. Spencer said and ought to enlarge the District of Columbia, that we would have to go back and take that portion of Virginia which you took from us in 1846. Mr. BROYHILL. Now, on that you would have to have our permission. Mr. CAMALIER. Of course, sir. Mr. BROYHILL. And you are not likely to get it. Mr. CAMALIER. I do not think we ever would. I well remember Judge Howard Smith when I was first appointed Commissioner. I thought I was real smart, and I came up to see him and suggested that possibly the Act of 1846 was unconstitutional. He said, "Young man, how long do you expect to be Commissioner?" Now, I can see no harm, and if I remember correctly, when I was back in school, that the boundary lines of the District of Columbia, the City of Washington, it was Florida Avenue in general and beyond that it was the County of Washington. Now, several bills, one by Mr. Kyl and a couple of others, and those advocated by General Lane would cut off the City of Washington at K Street, or P Street, or some other street, and give it back to the State of Maryland. I would then become a resident of the State of Maryland, although my office would still be in the District of Columbia, in the City of Washington. First I question, I raise the question of whether the City of Washington, itself, was ever conceived by the framers of the Constitution, all I can ever see is that they framed the District of Columbia, this Federal Seat of the Government, and it did include the original City of Georgetown, which is quite true, and that was an incorporated city that was then incorporated in the City of Washington. Now, whether we should retrocede some of the District to Maryland is questionable, very questionable. But, on the other hand. I have long considered that the Federal Seat of Government should be in a restricted area, downtown Washington, in downtown Washington. We have many buildings we are occupying in Virginia and in Maryland, and all over this country, which could well be housed in buildings downtown, if we made the Federal jurisdiction right in that section of the city, and the commercial establishments would move out to the suburbs, which they have done anyhow. It is questionable, yet I cannot see too much harm in going back to good old Maryland, the good old State of Maryland from which my father came. Beyond that, I have no other statement to make. Mr. DowDY. Thank you, sir. Are there any questions, gentlemen? Mr. NELSEN. No questions, except I thank the gentleman for his statement. It is very interesting, and I want to thank him for supporting the package of bills that many of us have introduced, including the Little Hoover Commission, and the non-voting delegates, and the charter commission study. The thing that sort of bothers me is that constantly I hear those who criticize the structure of the City Government, how it is growing, and how bad it is, and we yet fail to seize upon a vehicle to examine it and to come up with some constructive recommendations to change it, and for that reason a Little Hoover Commission approach, or a study commission that I introduced is in there with that intention. I realize that many times commissions have come up with reports, nothing is done, but as I see the structure of the city government at the present time, the Mayor or the Council or no one has really the authority to make the proper changes that ought to be made. This commission could bring in a recommendation, and we would implement it through reorganization, or some other method and we could do something constructive for the City of Washington, and I would agree. am sure you Your testimony would indicate that you do, and I want to thank you. Mr. CAMALIER. I heartily approve of the creation of the study commission, and I remember way back in 1940-something when Senator Pat McCarran and I, in my capacity then as Counsel to the Committee, drew up what was known as the Charter Commission for the District of Columbia. It had the same aim and purpose that the Little Hoover Commission has, and I certainly hope that the Little Hoover Commission will come into existence and bring about a proper solution for the District. There is no question but what there is an answer, Mr. Nelsen, and there is no question but what intelligent men sitting on this committee can find the answers. They are there. Call on the right people in the District of Columbia and you will get your right answers. Mr. NELSEN. Thank you very much. Mr. Dowdy. Thank you, sir. Mr. CAMALIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DowDY. We will make a part of the record a statement by Mr. Broyhill. STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman : Before we conclude hearing the legislative proposals before us with regard to the District of Columbia Government and various proposed changes therein, I should like to submit a proposal for an entirely new Federal-local partnership government for the District which I sincerely believe will find favor with both proponents and opponents of so-called "home rule", once it is clearly understood. I propose that we create a Board of Governors of the District of Columbia, consisting of nine men, three to be appointed by the President, three by the Congress and three elected by the citizens of the District of Columbia. I further propose that one of the elected members of the Board of Governors be designated Mayor and Chairman of the Board. May I emphasize here that I am not wedded either to the number nine nor to the ratio of appointed and elected officials. My plan is an outline which I urge this Committee to consider in its deliberation of the subject of District of Columbia government. I do believe, nevertheless, that a true partnership can be achieved by creation of a government such as that I shall outline which will, on the one hand, protect the interest of the residents of the District of Columbia through their elected Members of the Board, and protect the interest of all American people in their Nation's Capital, through appointment by the President and the Congress of outstanding citizens of the nation who are dedicated to making the Nation's Capital the finest the world has ever known. The Board of Governors I envision would serve on a full-time basis and receive adequate compensation to attract the high calibre individuals capable of assuming the arduous tasks which would be assigned to them. Serving at the pleasure of the Board, and responsible for all administrative functions in the District of Columbia, would be a city Administrator. He would be elected by the Board of Governors and would be removed, like city managers in most of our nation's cities, from the political pressures which might tend to interfere with efficient management of the city's affairs. While his actions would always be subject to review and veto by the Board, he would be answerable only to them rather than to pressure groups, large or small, who might attempt to |