Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Reorganization Plan 3 of 1967: Government of the District of Columbia

To the Congress of the United States:

I am transmitting Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 to provide a better government for the citizens of the Nation's Capital.

The explosive growth of the District of Columbia challenges the city on every front--from schools and hospitals, courts and police, to housing and transportation, recreation and job opportunities. If the District is to meet these tests and fulfill the needs of its citizens, it must, as I said in my message on the National Capital, "have the most responsive and efficient government we are capable of providing."

The plan I submit today is more than a matter of routine reorganization. Its vital purpose is to bring Twentieth Century government to the Capital of this Nation: to strengthen and modernize the government of the District of Columbia; to make it as efficient and effective as possible.

The present form of District government was designed almost a century ago for a community of 150,000 people. The District government then employed less than 500 persons and administered a budget of less than four million dollars.

Today Washington has a population of 800,000. It is the center of the country's fastest growing metropolitan area with a population of 2.5 million. The District's Government now employs some 30,000 people and the proposed 1968 budget is more than half a billion dollars.

The machinery designed more than 90 years ago to govern a small community is now obsolete. The commission form of government-unorthodox when the Congress accepted it as a temporary measure in 1874-provides neither effective nor efficient government for the Nation's Capital. That form of government has long since been abandoned by the few cities which adopted it around the turn of the century. Today none of the Nation's 27 largest cities and only two of the country's 47 cities with populations exceeding 300,000 have a government of divided authority.

The District of Columbia is governed by three Commissioners. Each Commissioner is the chief executive--the mayor--but for only a part of the government. Yet, the problems of the District of Columbia, like those of any major city, cannot be neatly broken into three parts. Any effort to control crime, for example, cuts across virtually every function of government--from police and corrections to housing, education, health and employment. An effective attack on the problem requires action by two or more Commissioners and the Departments for which they are separately responsible--a time..consuming and often costly process.

The District has been fortunate in the caliber and dedication of the men who have served as Commissioners, but it can no longer afford divided executive authority. Its government must be able to respond promptly and effectively to new demands and new conditions. This requires clear-cut executive authority and flexible government machinery-not divided authority which too often results in prolonged negotiations and inaction.

The problem of divided executive authority in the District is aggravated by the additional non-executive responsibilities now borne by the Commissioners. As a member of the Board of Commissioners, each must now make rules and regulations on matters with which he is not otherwise concerned as an executive. Some of these quasi-legislative responsibilities-such as police regulations and property taxation--are of great importance to the city. Many--such as the naming of streets and the labeling of potato packages-are merely time-consuming. None should require a substantial portion of the time of the chief executive of a major city.

The reorganization plan I propose would remedy these deficiencies in the present form of government. It would:

--Unify executive and administrative authority.

--Eliminate competing and sometimes conflicting assignments of responsibility.

--Provide for the informed exercise of quasi-legislative functions through a Council which would be bipartisan and representative of the community.

--Permit the single Commissioner to organize the District government to provide effective day-to-day administration.

Under the plan, subject to Senate confirmation, the President would appoint a single Commissioner as chief executive and a bipartisan Council of nine members. The Commissioner would serve a four-year term, corresponding to that of the President. Council members would serve three-year terms, with three members to be appointed each year. The staggered terms would insure continuity of experience on the Council.

The plan would abolish the present Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia. Its powers and responsibilities would be apportioned between the single Commissioner and the Council.

The Commissioner would be assigned the executive functions now vested in the Board of Commissioners. He would be given responsibility and authority to organize and manage the District government, to administer its programs and to prepare its budget. The plan also provides for an Assistant to the Commissioner to help him carry out these responsibilities.

The Council would be assigned the quasi-legislative functions now performed by the Board of Commissioners. The plan describes more than 430 functions which would be transferred to the Council. These include major responsibilities such as the approval of boundaries and plans for urban renewal, establishment of rules governing the licensing of professions, and setting of rates for property taxation. The Council would also be empowered to review and revise the Commissioner's budget before submission to the President.

Since the plan was announced in my Message on the Nation's Capital, we have been working to strengthen the Office of Commissioner and the Council. Out of this process of refinement four key changes have emerged, and have been incorporated into the plan.

First, the plan would authorize the Commissioner to veto actions of the Council with which he disagrees. The Council, in turn, could override such a veto by a three-fourths vote of its members. This provides due recognition for the responsibilities of the chief executive, while at the same time preserving the right of the Council to act on matters of overriding importance.

Second, the terms of Council members would be set at three years instead of two. The reduction in turnover and increase in experience would add strength to the Council.

Third, the salaries of the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Council members would be increased to reflect their important responsibilities.

Finally, the plan recognizes that the machinery of the District's Government, no matter how modern, cannot realize its highest purpose unless it is infused with the most experienced, informed and able leadership.

The 800,000 citizens of the District of Columbia deserve nothing less than such leadership, not only as a matter of fundamental right but because the District occupies a special and central role in the affairs of the Nation.

The best talent available must be found for the key posts of Commissioner and Assistant to the Commissioner. The Commissioner is the chief executive of the District of Columbia. The Assistant to the Commissioner will be his chief aide, his deputy, and will perform such duties as the Commissioner may prescribe.

In the search for leadership necessary in these crucial posts, the President and the Congress must balance the need to draw from the best talent in the Nation with the need for local experience and local involvement that are such valuable assets to enlightened municipal government. The plan therefore provides for the Presidential appointment of both these men, subject to Senate confirmation, with the requirement that at least one of them be a resident of the District for three years prior to appointment.

We would be indifferent to the cause of good government if the search and selection of the Commissioner and his Assistant were confined only to those who reside within the geographic boundaries of the District. This plan does not take that course. It provides a wide range of choice--opening the field not only to those who reside in the District, but to those who live in other parts of the Nation. At the same time, the plan assures that local experience will be well represented in the highest councils of the District Government.

Not only must either of the top executive positions be filled with a District resident, but each member of the nine-man Council must have been a resident of the District for at least three years prior to appointment.

Moreover, in selecting the Commissioner, I will look first to the residents of the District and I hope that he can be found here.

Of all the benefits of the plan, one stands out in particular--the strong leadership it provides as the cornerstone of support for any effective attack against crime. With that leadership and with the continued commitment and devotion of its police, the District can move with a greater sense of sureness and purpose against the spectre of crime that haunts the streets and shops of the Nation's Capital.

Of all the duties of the new single Commissioner none will be more important than his leadership in a renewed community effort to stem the rising tide of crime in the District.

The reorganization plan has been prepared in accordance with chapter 9 of title 5 of the United States Code. At my direction, it has been discussed with each member of the interested Committees of Congress or with their Staff Assistants. I have found, after investigation, that each reorganization included in the plan is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in section 901(a) of title 5 of the United States Code.

I have also found that it is necessary to include in the plan, by reason of the reorganization made, provisions for the appointment and compensation of the new officers specified in sections 201, 203 and 301-303 of the plan. The rates of compensation fixed for these officers are comparable to those fixed for officers in the executive branch of the Government having similar responsibilities.

The functions which would be abolished by the provisions of section 503(c) of the reorganization plan are provided for in subsection (e) of Section 6 of the Act of March 3, 1925, 43 Stat. 1121, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 40-603 (e)).

The plan would not impair the corporate status of the District of Columbia government. Nor would it in any way detract from the powers which the Congress exercises with respect to the District.

This reorganization plan would provide improved management of the municipal responsibilities vested by Congress in the government of the District of Columbia. It would bring savings to the District taxpayers and the Federal Government, although overall costs will not be less because of the increasing scale and complexity of municipal government. The precise amount of such savings cannot be itemized at this time.

The proposed reorganization is in no way a substitute for home rule. As I stated in my Message on the Nation's Capital, the plan

"will give the District a better organized and more efficient government . . . but only home rule will provide the District with a democratic government--of, by and for its citizens."

I remain convinced more strongly than ever that Home Rule is still the truest course. We must continue to work toward that day-when the citizens of the District will have the right to frame their own laws, manage their own affairs, and choose their own leaders. Only then can we redeem that historic pledge to give the District of Columbia full membership in the American Union.

I recommend that the Congress allow the reorganization plan to become effective.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON

The White House

June 1, 1967