PAGENO="0001" POLICE AND FIREMEN PAY INCREASE HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 4 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 10761, H.R. 11278, H.R. 11435 and H.R. 13980 TO PROVIDE SALARY INCREASES FOR POLICE AND FIREMEN H.R. 6644 and ll.R. 11149 TO PROVIDE SALARY INCREASES AND RECRUITMENT INCENTIVES FOR POLICEMEN H.R. 13981 TO PROVIDE RECRUITMENT INCENTIVES FOR POLICEMEN AND H.R. 13202 TO ABOLISH THE RANK OF DETECTIVE ANI) PROMOTE DETECTIVES TO DETECTIVE SERGEANTS JANUARY 23 AND 30, 1968 Printed for the use of JJ~e..coLuE1Iittee on the District of Columbia c~OVERNMENT DEPosrroRy * ~ T~E STATE UNWERSITy ~ OF SOUTH JERSEY LU3RARY CAMDEN, N, J. 08102 2 ~ 3 / U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 88- 4 WASHINGTON : 1968 FE~ 1 4 1968 27rfr/7~( PAGENO="0002" THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, Mississippi WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Illinois JOHN DOWDY, Texas BASIL L. WHITENER, North Carolina B. F. 515K, California CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR., Michigan G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia DON FUQTJA, Florida DONALD M. FRASER, Minnesota BROCK ADAMS, Washington ANDREW JACOBS, JR., Indiana E. S. JOHNNY WALKER, New Mexico JOHN DOWDY, Texas B. F. SISK, California G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia DON FUQUA, Florida BROCK ADAMS, Washington ANCHER NELSEN, Minnesota WILLIAM L. SPRINGER, Illinois ALVIN E. O'KONSKI, Wisconsin WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Ja., Maryland FRANK J. HORTON, New York JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas GILBERT GUDE, Maryland JOHN M. ZWACH, Minnesota SAM STEIGER, Arizona COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN L. McMILLAN, South Carolina, Chairman JAMES T. CLARK, Clerk CLAYTON S. GASQTJE, Staff Director HAYDEN S. GABBER, Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE No. 4 BASIL L. WHITENER, North Carolina, Chairman WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia GILBERT GUDE, Maryland SAM STEIGER, Arizona (ir) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS HR. 10761 (McMillan), H.R. 11278 (Mathias), H.R. 11435 (Machen), and H.R. 13980 (Broyhill), to provide salary increases for police and Page firemen, adjust pay alinement, and for other purposes 6 H.R. 6644 (Steiger) and H.R. 11149 (Adams), to provide salary increases for police and firemen, recruitment incentives for policemen, and for other purposes 9 H.R. 13981 (Broyhill), to provide recruitment incentives for policemen_. 11 Staff Memorandum, comparison of House bills with proposal of D.C. Government 2 STATEMENTS Adams, Hon. Brock, Representative in Congress from the State of Washirgton 31 Broyhill, Hon. Joel T., Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia 23 District of Columbia Government: Washington, Hon. Walter E., Commissioner 33 Fletcher, Hon. Thomas W., Deputy Commissioner 33 Murphy, Hon. Patrick V., Director of Public Safety 33 Wilson, Jerry V., Deputy Chief, Metropolitan Police Department~_ 33 Weitzel, William C., Assistant Chief, Fire Department 33 Moyer, Thomas F., Assistant Corporation Counsel 33 Eaton, John, Personnel Office 33 Dreschler, Sgt. Carl. W 83 Fire Fighters Association, District of Columbia: Beller, Edwin J., Treasurer 88 Kefauver, Alden C., President 88 Raeder, Albert 0., Secretary 88 McMillan, Hon. John L., Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia - - - 22, 61 Machen, Hon. Hervey G., Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland 25 Multer, Hon. Abraham J., Justice, New York State Supreme Court, former Representative in Congress from the State of New York 28 National Zoological Park Police, American Federation of Government Em- ploynes, Lodge 185: Jordan, Norman E., President 93 Van Tassel, Charles H., Secretary-Treasurer 93 Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia: Beatty, Sergeant Carl W., President 85 Finzel, William J., member, Legislative Committee 85 Givens, Royce L., Executive Secretary 85 Sullivan, John L., Chairman, Legislative Committee 85 U.S. Park Police, Walter W. Lange, Chief 85 Whitener, Hon. Basil L., Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 4 32, 79 ` ~1I ) PAGENO="0004" Iv MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD Amendments proposed: District of Columbia Government: Page Tobriner, Hon. Walter N 14, 18 Washington, Hon. Walter 37, 42, 48-61 Dreschler, Sgt. Carl W 84 Fire Fighters Association_ 90,91 Machen, Hon. Hervey G 26 Multer, Hon. Abraham J 29 Policemen's Association 86,87 District of Columbia Government: Tobriner, Hon. Walter N., President, Board of Commissioners: Letter dated February 9, 1967 to The Speaker of the House, submitting draft of legislation to increase police salaries, etc. (subsequently introduced as H.R. 6644 and H.R. 11149) Letter dated October 10, 1967 to Chairman McMilan, reporting on and analyzing H.R. 10761, H.R. 11278 and H.R. 11435, and submitting a new bill to be considered in lieu thereof 11 Washington, Hon. Walter, Commissioner: Letter dated January 22, 1968 to Chairman McMfflan, reporting on H.R. 13980, and submitting a new bill as an amendment to the draft of October 10, 1967, to be considered in lieu of all the pending bills 34 Letter dated January 22, 1967 to Chairman McMlllan, reporting on H.R. 13981 46 Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia, John R. Immer, President, letter dated January 23, 1968 to Chairman McMillan, and enclosures 93 Kalorama Citizens Association, Inc., iVirs. Jewell B. Smith, President, letter dated January 22, 1968 to Chairman McMillan 96 APPENDIX CONTENTS H.R. 13203 (Multer), a bill to amend the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 to abolish the rank of detective in the Metropolitan Police force, and to promote persons with such rank to the rank of detective sergeant 99 STATEMENTS Detectives, Metropolitan Police Department: Banta, Ronald M., Homicide Squad 101 Burwell, Harold H., Robbery Squad 101 Dunphy, George M., Robbery Squad 101 Wilson, George B., Robbery Squad 101 District of Columbia Government: Moyer, Thomas E., Assistant Corporation Counsel 117 Wilson, Deputy Chief Jerry V., Metropolitan Police Department - 117 Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia: Stickley, Lt. Samuel W., President 114 Sullivan, Inspector John L., Chairman, Legislative Committee 114 MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD District of Columbia Government: Layton, Chief John B., 1~Ietropolitan Police Department, Mem- orandum dated June 26, 1967 ~- 126 Washington, Hon. Walter E., Commissioner, letter dated November 8, 1967., reporting on H.R. 13203 100 Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia, Mrs. Ernest W. Howard, Chairman, Police and Fire Committee, letter dated January 31, 1968 to Chairman McMillan 131 PAGENO="0005" POLICE AND FIREMEN PAY INCREASE TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 4 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Basil L. Whitener (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives McMillan (chairman of full committee), Whitener (chairman of subcommittee), Dowdy, Fuqua, Adams, Nelsen, Broyhill, and Gude. Also Present: James T. Clark, clerk; Hayden S. Garber, counsel; Sara Watson, assistant counsel; Donald Tubridy, minority clerk; and Leonard 0. hider, investigator. Mr. WHITENER. The subcommittee will come to order. We will pro- *ceed with hearings on legislation relating to the pay of police and firemen of the District of Columbia. Among those bills are H.R. 10761, H.R. 11278, H.R. 11435, HR. 13980, HR. 6644, H.R. 11149, and H. R. 13981. We will not deal at this hearing with H. R. 14430 or H. R. 14448, bills relating to the establishment of a Commissioner of Police for the District of Coumbia. Those matters will be considered in separate hearings at a later date. Briefly, the cost estimates of the bills before us are as follows: HR. 10761 (McMiI1an~, HR. 11278 (Mathias), HR. i143) (Machen), HR. 13980 (Brovhill to iacrea nay of nolice and firemen by 8.7 percent (cost: $4.4 million on a full year basis; $4.1 million excluding vacancies.) HR. 11149 (Adams), Hit. 6644 (Steiger) to increase pay of police privates (Cost: $1.2 million) ; provmde recruitment incentives, travei to 1) .C., resettlement cash allowance (cost: $127,000 yearly). 1-i.R. 13981 (Broyhill) to provide recruitment incentives as above (cost: 8127,000 yearly). Modified Conirnissioner's bill to increase pay of police and firemen, provide recruitment incentives, etc. (cost: $3.3 million, excluding vacancies). I note that under PubliO Law 89-810, approved Nov. 13, 1966, but which became effective July 3, 1966, Congress provided the last pay increase (9.9 percent) for District of Columbia police and firemen. So, we are now engaged in a study to determine what amount of pay increase for these public servants would be warranted and equitable. (The staff comparison and various bills referred to follow): (1) PAGENO="0006" H.R. 10761 (McMillan) H.R. 11278 (Mathias) H.R. 11435 (Machen) H. R. 13980 (Broyhill) Section 1-Salaiies a. Provides a schedule of rates aver- aging 8.7% increase for estimated annual cost of $4.1 million, excluding vacancies. b. Provides a beginning salary of $7500 (in lieu of $6700 present law) with $340 increments between steps for Classes 1 through 4. NOTE: H.R. 11435 combines all Police, Fire and Detective Ser- geants in subclass 4(a) using sub- class 4(b) rates as provided by H.R. 10761, H;R. 11278 and HR. 13980 for Detective Sergeants only. c. Provides $428 increments between steps for Classes 5 and 6, and $535 in- crements between steps for Classes 7 through 10. Comments: Starting salary is the same in Class 1 in the House bills and D.C. proposal. Beginning step of Class 2 in D.C. pro- posal, $160.00 less; beginning steps of Classes 3 and 4 in D.C. proposal $200.00 less with the exception of Class 4(a) of D.C. proposal which is $710 less when compared to Class 4(a), H. R. 11435. Increments in Classes 1 through 4 of D.C. proposal are $40.00 less than H.R. bills. All salaries at the various steps in Classes 5 through 10 are identical in the House bills and D.C. proposal. Section 1-Salaries a. Provides a schedule of rates aver- aging 7% increase for estimated annual cost of $3.3 mfflion, excluding vacancies. b. Provides a beginning salary of $7500 (in lieu of $6700 present law) with $300 increments between steps for Classes 1 through 4. (This results in a range of rates in these classes which are lower than in the H. R. bifis.) STAFF C0MPA1U50N o~' H.R. BILLS WITH D.C. PROPOSAL FOR POLICE AND FIREMEN PAY INCREASES 1 D.C. Proposal c. Same as H.R. bills. `Prepared by the Classification Division of D.C. Personnel Office-Oct. 23, 1967, as revised Jan. 22, 1968s (Comments added.) (2) PAGENO="0007" 3 Section 2 H.R. 10761 (McMillan) 11.11. 11278 (Mathias) H.R. 11435 (Machen) H.R. 13980 (Broyhill) a. Provides for application of new schedule rates. b. Provides for the payment of $500 per annum additional to the pay for the Police Executive Officer who is also assigned as one of the Assistant Chiefs of Police, with such additional com- pensation being subject to retirement benefits. No other man to receive this when present Executive Officer is separated from the service. Comments: Officers and members in all classes and steps will receive the new rate of pay corresponding to their class and step. Additionally, officers and members in Classes 1 through 4, service step 6 and longevity steps 7 and 8 having 3 years service (reduced from 4 years service in present law) in step will be given the next higher longevity step rate with any excess service time credited toward next allowable longevity step. Also, a private upon completion of 10 years, 13 years or 16 years of service will be advanced to longevity steps, 7, 8 or 9 respectively. Also, officers and members in Classes 5 through 10, service step 4 or longevity step 7 having 3 years service (reduced from 4 years in present law) in step will be given the next higher longevity step rate with any excess time credited toward next allowable longevity step. Section 3.-Educational Incentive House bills (except H. R. 13980) provide that upon completion of one year probation, a payment of $600 will be made for completion of thirty college credit hours, and $1200 for completion of sixty or more college credit hours to all Police Department officers and members below Deputy Chief. HR. 13980 provides for the same compensa- tion for educational attainment for Po- lice and Fire and also designates the need for credit hours in law enforcement or administration or fire science or ad- ministration. The D.C. Commissioners to develop regulations as to qualifications for Metropolitan Police, Secretary of Treas- ury for White House Police and Secre- tary of Interior for Park Police. The Commissioners and Secretaries shall standardize qualifications to the fullest extent. D.C. Proposal Section 2 a. Essentially the same as H. R. bills. b. Same as H. R. bills but provides that the additional amount of compen- sation should be subject to insurance benefits as well as retirement benefits. Comments: D.C. proposal includes similar appli- cation and service time benefits as House bills through use of different phraseology and without specifying numerical desig- nations for longevity step increases. Revision to existing law proposed in Section 4 of House bills and Section 5 of D.C. proposal does not include any numerical designation for longevity step increases. Section 3-Educational Incentive Provides for similar compensation for educational attainment for both Police and Fire. Kinds of subjects, number of semester hours required, and amount of applicable compensation will be deter- mined by i).C. Council for Metropolitan Police and Firemen; and Secretary of Treasury, and Secretary of Interior, for the White House and Park Police re- spectively and embodied in regulatory issuanees standardized to the fullest extent between concerned agencies. PAGENO="0008" Section 5.-Thirty Years Service Provides for advancement of all officers or members except privates to the highest longevity step in their respective class or subclass upon com- pletion of 30 years' continuous service. No similar provision. However Sec- tion 6 of D.C. proposal provides for the repeal of Section 105 of P.L. 88-575, which allows the advancement of Deputy Chiefs to their highest longevity step upon completion of 30 years' service. 4 T1.R. 10761 (McMillan) H.R. 11278 (Mathias) H.R. 11435 (Machen) H.R. 13980 (Broyhill) D C Pronosal ~ Comments: House bills refer to the Board of Commissioners which is no longer appli- cable to the administration of the D.C. Government. Comments: D.C. proposal contemplates deter- mination of compensation on a percent- age basis which initially would result in the same amounts as designated in House bills. Section 4.-Recr uitment Incentives No such provisions in House bills, Provides recruitment inducements: with the exception of HR. 13981, which (1) Pay pre-employment inter- in its entirety covers the recruitment view expenses. inducements in the same manner as (2) Pay recruits relocation allow- provided by Section 4 of D.C. proposal. ances not to exceed $250 and per diem allowance not to exceed $7.50 for up to 90 days. (Applies to Police Dept. only.) Section 4.-Longevity Step Increase Deletes longevity steps 7, 8 and 9 from schedule with retention of three longev- ity step increases for Privates through Sergeants and two longevity step in- creases for Lieutenants through Deputy Chief with reduction from four to three years between such increases. Comments: Sec. 4. Longevity Step-long and faithful service- #1. One longevity step increase for each 156 calendar weeks of service after having reached the maximum service step. #2. Only three longevity step in- creases, Classes 1 thru 4; only two steps in Classes 5 thru 9. #3. Longevity step increase equal to the step increase in the class or subclass in which officer or member is serving. #4. Date increase to begin: first pay period following completion of each 156 calendar weeks. Section 5 of D.C. proposal is same as Section 4 of HR. bills. ~ PAGENO="0009" 5 H.R. 10761 (McMillan) H.R. 11278 (Mathias) H.R. 11435 (Machen) H.R. 13980 (Broyhill) D.C. Proposal Section 6-Reorganization H.R. 13980 provides salary saving provisions for Police and Fire Tech- nicians I and II and Police Station Clerks who may lose such assignment because of any reorganization of these Departments. No such provision. No such provision in House bills. Section 7.-Probationary Period D.C. proposal provides for dismissal proceedings for probationary policemen without formal charges before a police trial board. No such provision in House bills. Section 8.-Retroactive Provisions Provides retroactive compensation or salary for individuals in service on date of enactment and for service rendered by Policemen and Firemen who retired or died between the retroactively ef- fective date (the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after 12/31/67) and the date of enactment. No such provision in House bills. Section 9.-Life Insurance Provides for any changes in amounts of life insurance to be effective on date~ of enactment. Comments: This provision necessary to designate date of any change in rates effeèting life insurance and to avoid deductions from an individual's pay for insurance premiums covering on already elapsed period of time bet~veen the retroactive effective date and date of enactment. Section 6 of H.R. 10761, H.R. 11278 and H.R. 11435 provides for the ef- fective date to be the first day of the first pay period on or after enactment date. Section iO.-E~ffective date D.C. proposal provides for the ef- fective date to be retroactive to the first day of the pay period which began on December 31, 1967. Section 7 hR. 13980 provides for the effective date to be the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after the first day of October, 1967. PAGENO="0010" 6 (H.R. 10761, 90th Cong., 1st sess., by Mr. McMillan, on June 12, 1967; H.R. 11278 by Mr. Mathias on June 29, 1967; HR. 11435 by Mr. Machen on July 13, 1967: and H.R. 13980 by Mr. Broyhall on Nov. 13, 1967) A BILL To amend tbe District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended, to increase salaries, adjust pay alinement, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Stales of America in Congress assembled, That section 101 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 (D.C. Code, sec. 4-823) as amended, is amended to read as follo~a 5: `SEc. 101. The annual rates of basic compensation of the officers and mem- bers of the Metropolitan Police force and the Fire Department of the District of Columbia shall be fixed in accordance with the following schedule of rates: PROPOSED SALARY SCALE FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN Salary and class Class 1: Subclass (a) Fire private. Police private Subclass (b): Private assigned as technician I, plainclothes- man Subclass (c): Private assigned as technician II, station clerk, motorcycle officer Class 2: Subclass(a): Fire inspector Subclass (b): Fire inspector assigned as technician I Subclass (c): Fire inspector assigned as technician II Class3 Assistant marine engineer. Assistant pilot. Detective. Class 4:1 Subclass (a) Fire sergeant Police sergeant Subclass (b): Detective sergeant Subclass (c): Police sergeant assigned as motorcycle officer~ - Salary class and title Class 4: Subclass (a) Fire sergeant Police sergeant Detective sergeant Subclass (b): Police sergeant assigned as motorcycle officer Service step 1 2 3 4 5 6 $7, 500 $7, 840 $8, 180 $8, 520 $8, 860 $9, 200 7,790 8,130 8,470 8,810 9,150 8, 080 8,420 8,760 9,100 9,440 8,860 9,200 9,540 9,880 9,150 9,490 9,830 10,170 9,440 9,780 10, 120 10,460 9,490 9,830 10, 170 10,510 9,490 9,780 9,775 10,115 10,455 10,795 10,285 10,625 10,965 11,305 10,355 10,695 11,035 11,375 1 HR. 11435 provides the following proposed salary schedule for Class 4, combining subclasses (a) and (b) to give fire sergeants, police sergeants and detective sergeants the same pay under a new subclass (a); and continues the separate classification of police sergeant assigned as motorcycle officer, in subclass (b): Service step 1 2 3 4 5 6 10,285 10,625 10,965 11,305 10,355 10,695 11,035 11,375 PAGENO="0011" 7 Salary class and title - Servic e step 1 2 3 4 Class 5 First lieutenant. $11,200 $11,628 $12,056 $12,484 Police lieutenant. Detective lieutenant. Class6 Marine engineer. Pilot. 12,270 12,698 13,126 13,554 Class 7 Fire captain. Police captain. Detective captain. Class 8 Battalion fire chief. 13,340 15, 490 13,875 16, 025 14,410 16, 560 14,945 17, 095 Police inspector. Class 9 Subclass (a): Deputy fire chief. Deputy chief of police. Subclass (b) Assistant fire chief. 18, 165 19, 236 18,700 19, 771 19,235 20, 306 19,770 20, 841 Assistant chief of police. Commanding officer of the White House Police. Commanding officer of the U.S. Park Police. Class 10 Fire chief. 23,500 24,035 24,570 25,105" Chief of police. SEc. 2. The rates of basic compensation to officers and members to whom the amendment made by section 1 of this Act applies shall be adjusted in accordance with this section. Such rates of basic compensation shall be adjusted as follows: (1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), (3), or (4), each officer and member receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at one of the scheduled service rates of a class or subclass in the salary schedule in section 101 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 shall receive a rate of basic compensation at the corresponding rate in effect on and after the effective date of this Act. (2) Each officer or member receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at one of the scheduled longevity steps 7, 8, or 9, as the case may be, in classes 1 through 4, respectively, of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended, shall receive a rate of basic compensation derived for his longevity step by the application of an additional step increase (to be known as a longevity step increase) beyond the maximum scheduled service step (as provided by section 1 of this Act) for each of the three longevity steps as heretofore scheduled and included in classes 1 through 4, respectively, of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended: Provided, That each officer or member serving in a maximum sched- uled service step, or longevity step 7, or longevity step 8, as the case may be, as heretofore included in classes 1 through 4, respectively, of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended, shall receive additionally a longevity step increase if he has completed one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of continuous active service, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States but excluding any period of time determined not to have been satis- factory service, in the step in which he was serving immediately prior to the effec- tive date of this Act: Provided further, That any active service which each such officer or member has rendered in excess of the one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of active service in the maximum service step, longevity step 7, or longevity step 8, as the case may be, in which he was serving immediately prior to the effec- tive date of this Act will be credited to him for the next longevity step increase under the provisions of section 401 of the District of Columbia Police and Fire- men's Salary Act of 1958, as amended. (3) Each private in service step 6, longevity step 7, or longevity step S in any subclass in class 1, upon completing a minimum of sixteen years of continuous service as a private, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States but excluding any period of time determined not to have been satisfactory service, shall be advanced to longevity step 9 in class 1, and receive the appropriate scheduled rate of basic compensation for such step in the subclass in which he is serving. PAGENO="0012" 8 ~ ~4*) ~ Eachprivate in~ervicestep6~or longevitystep Tin class 1, npwi completing a minimumof thirteen years of continuous service as a private, including service iit~ the Armed Forces Of theIJnited States but excluding any period of time de- termined not to have been satisfactory service, shall be advanced to longevity step 8 in class 1, and receive the appropriate scheduled rate of basic compensation for such step in the subclass in which he was serving. (5) Each officer or member receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at one of the scheduled longevity steps 7 or 8, as the case may be, in classes 5 through 9, respectively, of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended, shall receive a rate of basic compensation derived for his longevity step by application of an additional step increase (to be known as a longevity step increase) beyond the maximum scheduled service step (as provided by section 1 of this Act), for each of the two longevity steps as heretofore scheduled and included in classes 5 through 9, respectively, of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Sala.ry Act of 1958, as amended: Provided, That each officer or member serving in a maximum scheduled service step or longevity step 7, as the case may be, as heretofore included in classes 5 through 9, respectively, of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act, of 1958, as amended, shall receive additionally a longevity step increase if he has completed one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of continuous active service, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States, but excluding any period of time determined not to have been satisfactory service, in the step in which he was serving immediately prior to the effective date of this Act~ Provided further, That any active service which each such officer or member has rendered in excess of the one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of active service in the maximum service step or longevity step 7, as the case may be, in which he was serving immediately prior to the effective date of this Act wifi be credited to him for the next longevity step increase under the provisions~ of section 401 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended. (5) The officer assigned as Police Executive Officer and who is receiving basic compensation as such immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at the scheduled longevity step 8, class 9, subclass (b), shall receive ~a corresponding rate of basic compensation as an kssistant Chief of Police as established by section 1 of this Act and as provided for other officers and members in longevity step 8 of class 9, subclass (b) by subsection 3 of this section: Proinded, That such officer shall receive $500 per annum additionally so long as he is assigned in the dual capacity of Police Executive Officer and Assistant Police Chief, and that such additional amount of compensation is to be included in any basic computation f or retirement purposes under the Policemen and Firemen's Retirement and Disability Act (D.C. Code, sec. 4-527(1)): Provided .further, That upon termina- tion of the service of such officer, the provisions of this subsection are not to b& applied to any other officer or member assigned as Assistant Chief of Police. SEC. 3. (1) Any member upon entering the Police Department with a mini- mum of thirty college credit hours and upon the completion of one year probation will be entitled in addition to the scheduled salary as set forth in section 1 of this Act, an amount equal to $600, which will be considered a part of the basic salary: Provided, That any officer or member below the rank of Deputy Chief who has completed the one year probation with thirty college credits will be entitled to the additional compensation as set forth in paragraph (1) of this section. (2) Any member upon entering the Police Department with sixty or more college credit hours and upon the completion of one-year probation will be entitled in addition to the scheduled salary as set forth in section 1 of this Act, an amount equal to $1,200.00, which will be considered a part of the basic salary: Provided, That any officer or member below the rank of Deputy Chief of Police who has completed the one-year probation with sixty or more college credit hours wifi be entitled to the scheduled salary as set forth in section 1 of this Act, an amount equal to $1 200 00 which will be considered a part of the basic salary (3) The qualifications which a person must possess prior to the receipt of the additional compensation set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section shall be determined by and embodied in regulations adopted and promulgated by the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia in the case of the Metropoli- tan Police force, the Secretary of the Interior in the óase of the United States Park Police force, and the Secretary of the Treasury in the case of the White House Police force: Provided, That the said Commissioners and the said Secretaries shall standardize such qualification requirements to the fullest extent possible. PAGENO="0013" 9 SEC. 4. (a) Section 401(a) of the T)istrict of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended, is amended to read as follows: "SEC. 401. (a) In recognition of long and faithful service, each officer and member shall receive an additional step increase (to be known as a longevity step increase) beyond the maximum sheduled service step rate for the subclass in which he is serving, or for the class in which he is serving if there are no subclasses in his `class for each one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of continuous service completed by him following the effective date of this Act at such maximum rate or at a rate in excess thereof, without change to a higher class, subject to all of the following conditions: "(1) No officer or member shall receive more than one longevity step increase for any one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of continuous service, and in order to be eligible therefor he shall have a current performance rating of `satis- factory' or better. "(2) Not more than three successive longevity step increases may be granted to any officer or member in classes 1 through 4, nor more than two successive longevity step increases may be granted to any officer or member in classes 5 through 9. "(3) Each longevity step increase shall be equal to one step increase of the class or subclass in which the officer or member is serving. "(4) Each longevity step increase shall begin on the first day of the first pay period following completion of each one hundred and fifty-six weeks." SEC. 5. Section 105 of the Act approved September 2, 1964 (76 Stat. 1239), is amended to read as follows: "(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other law, each officer or member above the rank of private of the Metropolitan Police force and of the Fire Department of the District of Columbia shall, upon completion of thirty years of continuous service on the police force or fire department, as the case may be, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States, but excluding any period of time determined not to have been satisfactory service, be placed in, and receive basic compensation at, the highest longevity step in the class or subclass to which his position is assigned in the schedule of rates established by section 101 of this Act. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize the payment of any retroactive compensation." SEc. 6. This Act shall become effective on the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after the date of enactment of this Act. (H.R. 11149, 90th Cong., 1st sess., by Mr. Adams on June 26, 1967, and H.R. 6644 by Mr. Steiger on March 6, 1967) A BILL To amend the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 to increase salary rates and provide certain benefits for purposes of recruitment and retention of privates in the Metropolitan Police force, to establish the rank of master patrolman, to change the titles of certain Metropolitan Police officials, and for other purposes Be it enacted by fhe Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in' Congress assembled, That the rates of basic compensation in class 1, `subclasses (a), (b), and (c), of the salary schedule in section 101 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 (D.C. Code, sec. 4-823), as amended, are amended to read as follows: "SALARY SCHEDULE "Salary class and title Class 1: Service step - ---- 1 2 3 4 5 6 Longevity step ---`----------- 7 8 9 Subclass (a): Fire private Police private Subclass (b): Fire private assigned as: Technician I Police private assigned as: Technician I Plainclothesman Subclass (c): Fire private assigned as: Technician II Police private assigned as: Techsician II Station clerk Motorcycle officer. - -- $6,700 7, 500 6,990 7,790 7, 790 7,280 8,080 8, 080 8, 080 $7,040 7, 700 7,330 7,990 7, 990 7,620 8,280 8, 280 8, 280 $7,380 $7,720 7, 900 8, 100 7,670 8,010 8,190 8,390 8, 190 8, 390 7,960 8,300 8,480 8,680 8, 480 8, 680 8, 480 8,680 $8,060 8, 300 8,350 1,590 8, 590 8,640 8,880 8, 880 8, 880 $8,400 8, 500 8,690 8,790 8, 790 8,980 9,080 9, 080 9, 080 $8,740 $9,080 $9,420 8, 740 9, 080 9, 420 9,030 9,370 9,710 9,030 9,370 9,710 9, 030 9, 370 9,710 9,320 9,660 10,000 9,320 9,660 10,000 9, 320 9, 660 10, 000 9, 320 9, 660 10, 000'. PAGENO="0014" 10 SEC. 2. Each private receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at one of the scheduled service or longevity rates of subclass (a), (b), or (c) in class 1 of the salary schedule in section 101 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, and to whom the amendment made by the first section of this Act applies, shall receive a rate of basic compensation at the corresponding scheduled service or longevity step in effect on and after the effective date of this Act. SEC. 3. There is hereby established, in class 3 of the salary schedule in section 101 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended, the rank of master patrolman. The qualifications which a person must possess prior to assignment to, and receipt of the rate of compensation for, the rank of master patrolman, shall be determined by and embodied in regulations adopted and promulgated by the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia in the case of the Metropolitan Police force, the Secretary of the In- terior in the case of the United States Park Police force, and the Secretary of the Treasury in the case of the White House Police force: Prmnded, That the said Commissioners and the said Secretaries shall standardize such regulations to the fullest extent possible. SEC. 4. (a) The titles in subclass (b) of class 9 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended, are amended to read as follows: Subclass (b): "Assistant Fire Chief "Assistant Chief of Police "Commanding Officer of the White House Police "Commanding Officer of the United States Park Police". (b) The title of police executive officer now included in subclass (b) of class 9 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended, shall be changed to the title of assistant chief of police, and the officer assigned as the police executive officer immediately prior to the effective date of this Act shall be assigned as an assistant chief of police at his corresponding rate of com- pensation, as provided by subclass (b), class 9, of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended. SEC. 5. (a) The Commissioners are authorized, under regulations prescribed by them, to- (1) pay or reimburse an individual, as provided for civilian officers and employees by title 5, chapter 57, subchapter I, United States Code, for the expenses of travel, including per diem in lieu of subsistence expenses, in traveling between his home or place of business and the District of Columbia, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he is qualified for appointment to the position of private in the Metropolitan Police force; (2) pay to a person newly appointed as a private in the Metropolitan Police force, who is required to relocate his place of residence in order to come within the area of residence for such employees prescribed by the Commis- sioners, in addition to any other payments authorized by law- (i) a cash resettlement allowance not to exceed $250, and (ii) a per diem allowance not to exceed $7.50 per day for a period not to exceed ninety days beginning with the date of his appointment: Provided, That allowances authorized by this subsection shall not be allowed unless the person selected shall agree in writing to remain a member of the Metropolitan Police force for twenty-four months follow- ing his appointment unless separated for a reason which is (1) beyond his control, and (2) which is acceptable to the Commissioners. In case of violation of such agreement, any moneys expended by the District of Columbia on the allowances authorized by this subsection shall be re- coverable from the individual concerned as a debt. (b) Unobligated balances of applicable current appropriations are hereby made available to carry out the purpose of this section. SEC. 6. This Act shall become effective on the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after the date of enactment of this Act. PAGENO="0015" 11 (H.R. 13981, 90th Cong., 1st sess., by Mr. Broyhill on November 13, 1967) A BILL To authorize the District of Columbia government to pay travel expenses, per diem to persons traveling between their home or place of business to the District of Columbia to ascertain whether he is qualified for appointment to the Metropolitan Police Department, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (a) The Commissioner of the District of Columbia is authorized, under regulations prescribed by the 1)istrict of Columbia Council, to- (1) pay or reimburse an individual, as provided for civilian officers and employees by title 5, chapter 57, subchapter 1, United States Code, for the expenses of travel, including per diem in lieu of subsistence expenses, in traveling between his home or place of business and the District of Columbia, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he is qualified for appointment to the position of private in the Metropolitan Police force; (2) pay to a person newly appointed as a private in the Metropolitan Police force, who is required to relocate his place of residence in order to come within the area of residence for such employees as prescribed by the Act of Congress (T. 4, Sec. 132a), in addition to any other payments author- ized by law- (i) A cash resettlement allowance not to exceed $250, and (ii) A per diem allowance not to exceed $7.50 per day for a period not to exceed ninety days beginning with the date of his appointment: Provided, That allowances authorized by this subsection shall not be allowed unless the person selected shall agree in writing to remain a member of the Metropolitan Police force for twenty-four months follow- ing his appointment unless separated for a reason which is (1) beyond his control, and (2) which is acceptable to the Commissioner. In case of violation of such agreement, any moneys expended by the District of Columbia on the allowances authorized by this subsection shall be recoverable from the individual concerned as a debt. (b) Unobligated balances of applicable current appropriations arc hereby made available to carry out the purpose of this section. SEC. 2. This Act will become effective immediately upon approval. GOVERNMENT OF THE 1)IsTRICT OF COLUMBIA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, Octobtr 10, 1967. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia desire to report on H.R. 10761, H.R. 11278, and H.R. 11435, 90th Congress, indentical bills "To amend the District of Columbia Police arid Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended, to increase salaries, to adjust pay alinement, and for other purposes." The first section of these bills provides for a salary increase for police and fire- men averaging 8.7% estimated to cost $4.4 million for a full fiscal year. The remaining sections contain a number of personnel provisions affecting police and firemen which are discussed in Exhibit A (attached), an analysis of the bills and the Commissioners' recommendations. The Commissioners recognize there is urgent need for an increase in the salaries of policemen and firemen. A study of this riced is presented in Exhibit B (attached). In view of this study, the Commissioners are proposing the pay plan and other personnel provisions for policemen and firemen set forth in a draft bill, Exhibit C (attached). They therefore recommend that these bills be amended in their entirety by substituting the provisions of the Commissioners' proposed bill, arid that one of such bills, as so amended, he enacted in lieu of HR. 6644 or H.R. 11149. These latter bills were introduced upon the recommendation of the Commissioners in their letter of February 9, 1967, to the Speaker of the House. The Commissioners' proposed bill provides for a salary increase for policemen and firemen averaging approximately 7%, at an estimated annual cost of $3.6 million. The Commissioners' proposal also contains several of the provisions now contained in hR. 10761, hR. 11278, H.R. 11435, H.R. 6644, and HR. 11149, PAGENO="0016" 12 as discussed in the attached analysis and study. In the belief that the passage of H.R. 10761, H.R. 11278, or H.R. 11435, if amended as the Commissioners pro- pose, is vital to the recruitment and retention of policemen and firemen, the Commissioners urge enactment of one of these bills. However, no funds are available to finance such an increase at this time. Enactment of this pay increase together with other possible salary increases for teachers and school officers will require additional funding. Consequently, if pay increases are to be approved, local revenue legislation must also be enacted to provide funds sufficient to meet the costs of such increases. The present Board of Commissioners is certain that the new D.C. Government will wish to cnsider the matter of pay increases and appropriate revenue measures and submit its proposals to the Congress at an early date. The Commissioners have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the sub- mission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, WALTER N. TOBRINER, President, Board of Commissioners, D.C. Attachments (3). ExHIBIT A ANALYSIS OF H.R. 10761, H.R. 11278, AND H.R. 11435 These bills provide for (1) an increase in salaries; (2) deletion of the scheduled longevity steps 7, 8, and 9, with retention of three longevity step increases for Privates through Sergeants and two longevity step increases for Lieutenants through Deputy Chief, with three years between each such increase; (3~ pay- ment of $500 per annum additional to the pay for the Police Executive Officer who is assigned as one of the Assistant Chiefs of Police; (4) payment of $600 to any officer or member below the rank of Deputy Chief in the Police Depart- ment who has a minimum of thirty college credit hours and has served one year probation; (5) payment of $1200 to any officer of member below the rank of Deputy Chief in the Police Department who has 60 or more college credit hours and has served one year probation; and (6) advancement of all officers or mem- bers except privates to the highest longevity step in their respective class or subclass upon completion of thirty years of continuous service in the police force or in the Fire Department. The salary increases provided by the bills average 8.7% and the estimated cost for a full fiscal year is $4,400,000. The Commissioners concur in the provisions of these bills relating to the change in longevity step increases, additional pay for the Police Executive Officer, and pay incentive for educational attainment. However, (1) the additional pay for the Police Executive Officer should be subject to insurance benefits in addition to retirement benefits, and (2) the pay incentive for educational attainment should be applicable to firemen as well as policemen and rather than to indicate a stated amount of compensation for educational attainment, the Commissioners believe it more practical to provide for administrative application of such compensation through regulatory issuances according to changes which may occur in basic salary rates. The Commissioners do not consider appropriate the provision in these hills concerning the advancement of all officers and members except privates to the highest longevity step of their respective class or subclass upon completion of thirty years service. The Commissioners were strongly opposed to a similar pro- vision which was considered by the Congress in August 1964 for Deputy Chiefs and subsequently enacted into law as a provision of P.L. 88-575, approved September 2, 1964, because of the inequities which it created and because of its conWct with the concept of longevity pay for compensatory recognition of long service in the same class or grade. Also, since the basic salary rate is used for retirement pay purposes, this provision which allows attainment of the top rate in a class or subclass after thirty years service might encourage early retirement of those officers and members who had not yet reached the mandatory retirement age. Otherwise such officers and members might continue their employment and the Police and Fire Departments would benefit from their long experience and knowl- edge. Additionally, no other salary system in the District Government permits an employee to automatically jump to his top rate because of a long period of service. 1 Subsequent to this letter, the Appropriations Committees established for the current fiscal year a reserve of $1.6 million to defray the estimated cost of increasing the pay of police and firemen, assuming that itwould be effective on and after January 1, 1968. PAGENO="0017" 13 ExHIBIT B STUDY ON PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR D.C. POLICE AND FIREMEN For purposes of recruitment for and maintenance of police and firefighting services, a study has been made concerning the need for any pay adjustment and related benefits. The need for this study was especially emphasized because of the difficulties being encountered in the filling of vacancies particularly iii the Metropolitan Police Force and to a lesser extent in the 1). C. Fire Department. Policy In order to accomplish a more a dequate and meaningful program of crime prevention and detection, preservation of peace and good order and protection of lives and property, it is essential to provide the means whereby the D.C. Government is able to attract and retain sufficient qualified recruits in both the Police and Fire 1)epartments. Accordingly- (1) Rates of pay for police and firemen should be in a favorable com- petitive position with the other major cities having over 500,000 population, especially with those cities in the eastern half of the United States which constitute the primary labor market for recruitment of I).C. police and firemen. In addition, Washington, D.C., by reason of its national and inter- national prominence which places special emphasis on the various com- munity services required, should rank at least in the top quarter of the other major cities; (2) Rates of pay for police and firemen should be in reasonable alignment with rates of pay for classified employees of the Federal and District Govern- ments, not only on the basis of comparable duties and responsibilities, but also with due consideration of the hazards inherent in large urban police and fire activities; and (3) Rates of pay for police and firemen should be very favorable in relation to rates of pay for police and firemen in the Washington Metropolitan area. This is necessary so that the D.C. Government may compete with advantages enjoyed by the surrounding suburban communities such as less travel time and costs, availability of parking facilities, and lower crime incidence with less hazardous conditions. Comparison With Other Major Cities and Nearby Communities Attached exhibits show a comparison of minimum and maximum rates for Police and Firemen respectively, in the major cities having over 500,000 popula- tion, and in the nearby communities. As a result of an average increase of 11.2% in the recruiting rates for police privates by 17 of the 20 other major cities, and an average increase of 10.7% in the recruiting rates for fire privates by 18 of these 20 major cities since the last pre- vious study made in mid-1966, Washington, with a recruiting rate of $6,700 ap- proved in November 1966, has dropped in relative standing from 5th to 12th place for police private and from 5th to 11th place for fire private. The nearby communities have also increased their rates averaging 10.7% for police and 7.9% for firemen. The recruiting rates paid police by these communities either exceed or are within a few hundred dollars of the D.C. Government's recruiting rate of $6,700 for policemen. Rates for firemen are somewhat lower than rates for policemen in Fairfax, Prince Georges, and Montgomery Counties, due primarily to the manner in which such services heretofore have been accom- plished; i.e., mainly through volunteer services or fire tax district arrangements. However, these communities are developing their firefighting activities on a direct County payroll basis which will in all probability require the establishment of rates closely paralleling their rates for police services. At the present time, Alex- andria has the same rate for both police and fire privates, and Fairfax is con- templating the same rate for both services. Classification Act Employees Increases for Federal and District employees under the Classification Act have been recommended for consideration by the Congress. A bill reported by the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee provides for a pay increase of approximately 11% in three stages for classified employees. The first stage, a 4.5% increase, is to be effective this year. The amount of increase is meaningful insofar as police and fire employees are concerned, because it adds substance to other categories of positions from a more attractive competitive recruitment viewpoint. 88-574-68-2 PAGENO="0018" 14 Private Business and Industry Other occupations in the community currently are being paid rates which when compared to the existing rates for police and firemen pose a more desirable attraction, especially in view of the qualification and physical requirements, hazardous and other work conditions as are present in police and fire occupations. One of these occupations is that of local bus driver which has a salary rate of $7,000, requiring that a person have good health, valid driver's permit, clear police record, be at least 21 and no older~ than 45 years of age, have a minimum height of 5'-6" with a maximum of 6'-4", and proportionate weight. Also, according to the United States Employment Service, one of the most consistent sources of employment in the Washington Metropolitan area for a person with little or no experience is with construction operations. Based on current prevailing rates published by the United States Department of Labor, following are some of the typical local construction jobs and their rates of pay: Occupation Hourly rate Annual Rate Line Construction Groundman Laborer Marble Setters Helper Plumbers Helper Truck Driver (Medium-Heavy) Tile Setters Helper $3. 00 3.125 3. 175 3. 20 3. 35 3. 475 $6, 240 6,500 6, 604 6,656 6, 968 7, 228 Vacancies A crucial problem of recruiting continues in the police and fire services. The following table shows the trend in vacancies: 1-1-67 2-1-67 3-1-67 4-1-67 Police 307 304 308 317 Fire 37 35 41 35 5-1-67 6-1-67 7-1-67 9-29-67 Police 313 333 348 376 Fire 34 45 38 28 While the vacancy problem in the Fire Department is not as acute as it is in the Metropolitan Police force, there is still a need to fully man both forces to carry out these vital services in the District of Columbia. It is therefore essential that effective action be taken with respect to pay and recruiting benefits and techniques so as to enable the District Government to fully staff these forces. Recommendations The improved competitive position of the nearby communities due to their increased rates, comparison to rates for other occupations within the District of Columbia which have less demanding working conditions and requirements than do police and firemen, and the lowering of the District's relative standing with other major cities in the rates paid police and firemen, fully substantiate a need to increase the rates for D.C. Government police and fire forces. Using $7,500 as the entrance salary for police and fire privates as previously recommended for police privates by the Commissioners on February 9, 1967, to Congress, a proposed schedule of rates has been developed as a measure to insure salaries that would both attract and retain qualified personnel. The proposed increase which averages approximately 7% (costing an estimated $3.6 mfflion for a full fiscal year) would improve considerably the District's competitive salary position both locally and nationally, by assuring the continuation of the District's first place ranking with nearby communities, and raising the recruiting salaries for District police and firemen from 12th to 5th and 11th to 5th respectively among the 20 other major cities. In addition to the proposed increase, the CommissiOners also propose to elimi- nate the longevity steps from the salary schedule but retain the principle of longevity step increases with a reduction of time between three such increases from four to three years. This would permit a private to reach the maximum salary rate in sixteen years rather than in nineteen years as is now the case. PAGENO="0019" 15 The same reduction in the number of years between longevity step increases would apply to all the other officers and members except the Fire Chief and Police Chief who would not receive the benefit of any longevity step increase. For the improvement of both the police and fire services, the Commissioners propose to provide additional compensation to those officers and members who have served their first year probationary period and who complete or have com- pleted courses of study in law enforcement or fire science subjects at an accredited college or university. The proposed form of compensation would be 8% of their rate of pay (i.e., $600 in the case of a private) upon completion of thirty hours of such subjects and 16% of their rate of pay (i.e., $1,200 in the case of a private) upon completion of sixty hours of such subjects. The Commissioners consider this approach to recognition of academic attainments to be more feasible than the Use of the "Master Patrolman" concept as originally recommended by the Crime Commission and which was included in the proposed bill concerning increase in rates of pay for police and related recruitment benefits submitted by the Corn- missioners in February 1967 for Congressional consideration. This concept, as proposed, is that a person before being eligible for a rate of pay which is higher than the regular base pay for a police or fire private, should have at least a year of police or firefighting experience in addition to having the required college credits. Also from a morale standpoint of the present forces, the Commissioners believe it inadvisable to appoint a person as a master patrolman or master firefighter, as the case may be, without his having gone through a period of basic on-the-job training and experience. In addition, the provision of added compensation as proposed for completing thirty credit hours and sixty credit hours provides an incentive to personnel already on the force to achieve such additional education. Also, the Commissioners believe the objective of attracting persons with more than a high school education to the police or firefighting forces will be served by having an initial recruiting rate of $7,500 with the added incentive of $600 or $1,200 additional salary at the end of the first year of employment. The Deputy Chief assigned as Police Executive Officer has also been assigned as one of the Assistant Police Chiefs. In recognition of this dual assignment, the Commissioners propose that this police officer should receive an additional rate of compensation in the amount of $500. The Commissioners also propose to include recruitment inducements as previ- ously endorsed in their February 1967 proposal introduced as HR. 6644 and HR. 11149. These recruitment inducements include payment of transportation expenses to prospective police privates to come to the District of Columbia for interviews, and resettlement cash allowances not to exceed $250 and an initial ninety-day per diem allowance of $7.50 per day to new appointees who have to move into the Washington Metropolitan area. Additionally, the Commissioners propose the repeal of the provision of P.L. 88-575 approved September 2, 1964, which allows a Deputy Chief to advance to the top step of his class upon completion of thirty years of service. This provision is a benefit applying to Deputy Chiefs only. Should it remain, it is the view of the Departments and Associations and of the members that a similar provision should apply to all members of the forces. As a matter of principle and sound pay administration, it is the opinion of the Commissioners that such provision should be deleted from present legislation. POLICE MINIMUM SALARY RATES IN NEARBY COMMUNITIES Pvt. Sgt. Lt. Capt. Asst. or Chief Dep. Chief PrinceGeorges $6,853 $8,561 $10,026 $10,912 $13,447 Arlington 6,677 8,091 8,902 9,818 10,546 Fairfax 6,672 8,118 8,940 10,344 11,976 Montgomery 6, 671 7, 724 8, 517 10, 355 13, 879 Alexandria 6, 510 7,910 8, 725 10, 100 10, 605 $20,000 14,123 14,556 15, 302 12, 280 POLICE MAXIMUM SALARY RATES IN NEARBY COMMUNITIES Prince Georges $9,010 $10,717 $11,797 $13,861 $16,987 Fairfax 8,520 10,860 11,976 13,860 16,056 Montgomery 8,517 10,355 11,417 13,879 18 602 Arlington 8,486 10,317 11,378 12,542 13,458 Alexandria 8,310 10,100 11,140 12,895 13,540 $20,000 19,512 20 510 18 013 15,675 PAGENO="0020" C'-, =~2$~-~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ p p ~ p ~ p ~- ~ =~`= ~<0~ C~~C)C)(~~ ~;; -~ !" ~ : ~ 4~ :~z~ ~ w~==Zj~ ~ -~ ~ S~ ~ C) 0-00'o0~z P 4~ -J c~ ~fl 00 o u~ C) -4 >< C,) -4 C,, 2 2 -( C) 0 2 -4 ~: ~: 00 -n C, -4 2 C,) -4 C,) 2 2 -< C, 0 2 -4 C,) C,, 00 C, C- 0 C, C, C) C) 0 C) PAGENO="0021" Cl) 00 2~»=g~c~ P ~)Z~ =~= C) I P ~ ,.~C) P ~- C) C Cl) C C C C) >< Cl) -v > 0~ -~ cD ~ Cl) ~C) -0 C C C C) ~ Cl_ C) -1 -< C) ~ Cl) C -4 C C) -4 PAGENO="0022" ~` o~ F~a~-~F ~` ~ CD~ ~: ~"~: ~: ~~CDCD ,~ 2. ` -~ `.~ `~E. ~ nC'~ - Q ~ (D~ fl CD ~ ~ ~c-~ `````` `````` - ~ ~ ::::::::::::::: ~ ~1 c#~ `:::::: CD ``~```````~~ ```````~ >< C" I-' CD -4-~QoCOOoOo °`oo co -u C'~,, )~ll~ -:~: c~ :2 CDe6 ` ---- ~ B tj~ ~~4C71i CD ~ co ©a, c~n ~ 5 ~ .~ .~- ,-`- _~4 C~) C~CDOOCDCO~Coc~cD ~ : ~ ~; a ~ ~ PAGENO="0023" 19 `Salary Schedule "Salary class and title - -- 1 2 Servic e Step -- 4 5 6 3 Class 1: Subclass (a) $7,500 $7,800 ~8,100 $8,400 $8,700 $9,000 Fire Private Police Private Subclass (b) 7,790 8,090 8,390 8,690 8,990 9,290 Private assigned as: Technician I Plainclothesman Subclass (C) 8,080 8,380 8,680 8,980 9,280 9,580 Private assigned as: Technician II Station clerk Motorcycle officer Class 2: Subclass (a) 8,700 9,000 9,300 9,600 Fire Inspector Subclass(b) 8,990 9,290 9,590 9,890 Fire Inspector assigned as Technician I Subclass (c) 9,280 9,580 9,880 10,180 Fire Inspector assigned as Technician II Class 3 9,290 9,590 9,890 10,190 Assistant marine engineer Assistant pilot Detective Class 4: Subclass (a) 9, 575 9, 875 10, 175 10, 475 Fire sergeant Police sergeant Subclass (b) 10,085 10,385 10,685 10,985 Detective sergeant Subclass(c) 10, 155 10,455 10,755 11,055 Police sergeant assigned as Motorcycle officer Class 5 11,200 11,628 12,056 12,484 Fire lieutenant Police lieutenant Class 6 12,270 12,698 13,126 13,554 Marine engineer Pilot Class 7 13,340 13,875 14,410 14,945 Fire captain Police captain Class 8 15,490 16,025 16,560 17,095 Battalion fire chief Police Inspector Class 9: Subclass (a) 18, 165 18,700 19,235 19,770 Deputy fire chief Deputy chief of police Subclass (b) 19, 236 19, 771 20, 306 20, 841 Assistant fire chief Assistant chief of police Commanding officer of the White House Police Commanding officer of the U.S. Park Police Class 10 23,500 24,035 24,570 25, 105 Fire chief Chief of~Police" SEc. 2. The rates of basic compensation of officers and members to whom the amendment made by section 1 of this Act applies shall be adjusted as follows: (1) Except as otherwise hereinafter provided in this section, each officer and member receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at one of the scheduled service rates of a class or subclass in the salary schedule in section 101 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 shall receive a rate of basic compensation at the corresponding rate in effect on and after the effective date of this Act. (2) Each private receiving basic compensation at service step 6 in any subclass in class 1, immediately prior to the effective date of this Act, and who has completed a minimum of ten years of continuous service as a private, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States, but excluding any period of time determined not to have been satisfactory service shall, in addition to receiving the corresponding rate provided for service step 6 by section 1 of this Act, receive a step increase (to be known as a longevity step increase) in an amount equivalent to the amount of increment between PAGENO="0024" 20 the service step rates provided by section 1 of this Act for his subclass in class 1: Provided, That any active service which each such private has ren- dered in excess of the ten years of continuous service wifi be credited to him for the next longevity step increase under the provisions of section 401 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1938. (3) Each private receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at scheduled longevity step 7. longevity step 8, or longevity step 9 in any subclass of class 1, as the case may be, of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, shall receive a rate of basic compensation comprised of the rate provided for service step 6 in the respective subclasses in class 1, by section 1 of this Act, pins an amount derived for his longevity step by the application of a step increase for each of the three longevity steps in an amount equivalent to the rate of salary increment between the service steps in class 1 as provided by section 1 of this Act: Provided, That each such private serving in longevity step 7 or longevity step 8 of class 1, as the case may be, immediately prior to the effective date of this Act, and who completes thirteen years or sixteen years of continuous service as a private, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States, but excluding any period of time determined not to have been satisfactory service, shall receive additionally a step increase (to be known as a longevity step increase) upon completion of the thirteen-year period and also upon completion of the sixteen-year period in an amount equivalent to the amount of increment between the service step rates pro- vided by section 1 of this Act for his subclass in class 1: Provided further, That any active service which each such private has rendered in excess of thirteen but less than sixteen years of continuous service will be credited to him for the next longevity step increase under provisions of section 401 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958. (4) Each officer or member receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at scheduled longevity step 7, longevity step 8, or longevity step 9, as the case may be, in classes 2 through 4, respec- tively, of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, shall receive a rate of basic compensation comprised of the rate provided for service step 4 in the respective classes 2 through 4 by section 1 of this Act, plus an amount derived for his longevity step by application of a step increase for each of the three longevity steps in an amount equivalent to the rate of salary increment between the service step rate in the respective classes 2 through 4 as provided by section 1 of this Act: Provided, That each officer or member serving in a maximum scheduled service step, longevity step 7, or longevity step 8, a~ the case may be, in classes 2 through 4, respectively, of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, shall receive additionally a longevity step increase if he has completed one hundred and fifty six calendar weeks of continuous active service, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States but excluding any period of time deter- mined not to have been satisfactory service, in the step in which he was serving immediately prior to the effective date of this Act: Provided further, That any active service which each such officer or member has rendered in excess of the one hundred and fifty six calendar weeks of active service in the maximum service step, longevity step 7, or longevity step 8, as the case may be, in which he was serving immediately prior to the effective date of this Act will be credited to him for the next longevity step increase under the provi- sions of section 401 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958. (5) Each officer or member receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at scheduled longevity step 7 or longevity step 8, as the case may be, in classes 5 through 9, respectively, of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, shall receive a rate of basic compensation comprised of the rate provided for service step 4 in the respective classes 5 through 9, by section 1 of this Act pins an amount derived for his longevity step by application of a step increase for each of the two longevity steps in an amount equivalent to the rate of salary increment between the service step rates in the respective classes 5 through 9 as provided by section 1 of this Act: Providçd, That each officer or member serving in a maximum scheduled service step or longevity step 7, as the case may be, as heretofore included in classes 5 through 9, respectively, of the District of Columbia Police twd Firemen's salary Act of 19!i~, ~tuill receive additionally a longevity step increase if he has completed one hundred and PAGENO="0025" 21 fifty-six calendar weeks of continuous active service, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States, but excluding any period of time deter- mined not to have been satisfactory service, in the step in which he was serving immediately prior to the effective date of this Act: Provided further, That any active service which each such officer or member has rendered in excess of the one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of active service in the maximum service step or longevity step 7, as the case may be, in which he was serving immediately prior to the effective date of this Act will be credited to aim for the next longevity step increase iiiider the provisions of section 401 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958. (6) The officer assigned as Police Executive Officer arid who is receiving basic compensation as such immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at the scheduled longevity step 8, class 9, subclass (b), shall receive a corresponding rate of basic compensation as an Assistant Chief of Police as established by section 1 of this Act arid as provided for other officers and members in longevity step 8 of class 9, subclass (h), by subsection (5) of this section and such officer shall receive $500 per annum additionally so long as he is assigned in the dual capacity of Police Executive Officer and Assistant Police Chief. Such additional amount of compensation is to be included in any basic computation for retirement purposes under the Police- men and Firemen's Retirement and Disability Act (1).C. Code, title 4, chap- ter 5) and for the purpose of determining the amount of insurance for which an individual is eligible under title 5, chapter 87, United States Code: Pro- vided, That upon termination of the services of such officer, the provisions of this paragraph are not to be applied to any other officer or member assigned as Assistant Chief of Police. SEc. 3. Each officer or member in class 1 through class 8 who has completed one year of probation and who has completed or completes courses of study in law enforcement or fire science subjects as the case may be at an accredited college or university, shall receive additional compensation subject to the kind of law enforcement or f~re science subjects, the number of semester hours of study required, and amount of such additional compensation to be paid as de- terrnined and embodied in regulations adopted and promulgated by the District of Columbia Council in the case of the Metropolitan Police I)epartment and the District of Columbia Fire I)epartnient, the Secretary of the Tnterior in the case of the lJnited States Park Police force, and the Secretary If the Treasury in the case of the White [louse Police force: Provided, That the said Council and the said Secretaries shall standardize such requirements a1I~ compensation to be paid to the fullest extent possible for the respective police forces and the District of Columbia Fire Department. SEc. 4. (a) The Commissioner of the District of Columbia is authorized, under regulations prescribed by the District of Columbia Council, to- (1) pay or reimburse an individual, as provided for civilian officers and employees by title 5, chapter 57, subchapter 1, United States Code, for the expenses of travel, including per diem in lieu of subsistence expenses, in traveling between his home or place of business and the District of Columbia, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he is qualified for appointment to the position of private in the Metropolitan Police force; (2) pay to a person newly appointed as a private in the Metropolitan Police force, who is required to relocate his place of residence in order to come within the area of residence for such employees prescribed by the Council, in addition to any other payments authorized by law- (i) A cash resettlement allowance not to exceed $250, and (ii) A per diem allowance not to exceed $7.50 per day for a period not to exceed ninety days beginning with the date of his appointment: Provided, That allowances authorized by this subsection shall not be allowed unless the person selected shall agree in writing to remain a member of the Metropolitan Police force for twenty-four months follow- ing his appointment unless separated for a reason which is (1) beyond his control and (2) which is acceptable to the Commissioner. In case of violation of such agreement, any moneys expended by the District of Columbia on the allowances authorized by this subsection shall be recoverable from the individual concerned as a debt. (b) Unobligated balances of applicable current appropriations are hereby made availabe to carry out the purpose of this section. SEC. 5. (a) Section 401(a) of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 is amended to read as follows: PAGENO="0026" 22 "SEc. 401. (a) In recognition of long and faithful service, each officer and member, except the Chief of Police and Fire Chief, shall receive an addi- tional step increase (to be known as a longevity step increase) beyond the maximum scheduled service step rate for the subclass in which he is serving, or for the class in whicn he is. serving if there are no subclasses in his class for each one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of continuous service completed by him following the effective date of this subsection at such maximum rate or at a rate in excess thereof, without change to a higher class, subject to all of the following conditions: "(1) No officer or member shall receive more than one longevity step in- crease for any one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of continuous service, and in order to be eligible therefor he shall have a current performance rating of `satisfactory' or better. "(2) Not more than three successive longevity step increases may be granted to any officer or member in classes 1 through 4, nor more than two successive longevity step increases may be granted to any officer or member in classes 5 through 9. "(3) Each longevity step increase shall be equal to one step increase of the class or subclass in which the officer or member is serving. "(4) Each longevity step increase shall begin on the first day of the first pay period following completion of each one hundred and fifty-six weeks." SEC. 6. Section 105 of Public Law 88-575, approved September 2, 1964 (78 Stat. 882) is repealed. SEC. 7. This Act shall become effective on the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 8. If on the date of enactment of this Act, Part IV of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 (32 F.R. 11671 et seq.) has not taken effect, the functions vested by this Act in the Commissioner or the Council shall be deemed to be vested in the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia until the effective date of that Part IV and shall on the latter date vest in the Commissioner or the Council, in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Mr. WHITENER. Since the Chairman of the full committee is the author of one of the pending bills and is with us here today, I at this time recognize Chairman McMillan for his comments. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN L. McMILLAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIR- MAN, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Chairman, as our first order of business, we welcome Commissioner Washington and all our other visitors here this morning. I would like to state to the Commissioner that we welcome him at any time he would like to visit the House District of Columbia Committee, either in executive session or at any other time. We will be happy to have you. Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, sir. Mr. MCMILLAN. We want to help you in every way we can. We know some of the problems confronting you, I am delighted you do not have some of the problems this committee has, but you have enough. I introduced this bill (H.R. 10761) to increase the salary of police and firemen at the request of friends and representatives of the Police and Fire Departments of the District of Columbia. I would like to state that the recommendations made by the Commissioners in 1966 were for a 6.7 percent increase. We increased the salaries by 9.9 percent. We hope we can all get together on this legislation and take it before the Congress as early as possible. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Broyhil of Virginia has introduced at least two of the legislative proposals on our agenda, and we will be glad to hear from him at this time. PAGENO="0027" 23 STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, I have a written statement which I would like to submit for the record. Mr. WHITENER. Without objection it will be made a part of the record at this point. (The statement follows:) Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, 1 wish to commend the Chairman for holding these hearings today on the extremely vital subject of salary increases for members of the Metropolitan Police Department and the Fire Department of the District of Columbia. While time did not permit action on this legislation durmg the first session of this Congress, it is entirely appropriate that we give it the highest priority for enactment during this session. Among the several bills pending on this subject is II. R. 13980, which I introduced on November 13, 1967. I should like to comment briefly on the major provisions of this bill. The most important provision of H. R. 13980 is a new salary scale for officers and members of the Police and Fire Departments of our Nation's capital. This scale would provide an overall average increase of 8.7% in salaries, and it is estimated that it will cost some $4.4 million per year. The bill would increase the starting salary for police and fire privates from the present $6,700 to $7,500 per year. The maximum salary for privates would become $10,200, attainable after 16 years of service, compared to the present $9,420 which accrues after 19 years of service. rfhe presently scheduled longevity steps 7, 8, and 9 would be deleted, with retention of three longevity step increases for Privates through Sergeants and two longevity step increases for Lieutenants through Deputy Chief, with 3-year intervals between these increases as com- pared to the present 4-year intervals between the scheduled longevity steps. Since the last salary increase for District of Columbia policemen and firemen was enacted in November, 1966, there has been an average increase of 11.2% in the recruiting rates for police privates by 17 of the 20 other major U.S. cities, and an average increase of 10.7% in recruiting salaries for fire privates in 18 of those 20 major cities. These actions have dropped the District of Columbia from 5th to 12th 1)lace among these cities in starting salaries for l)olice privates, and from 5th to 11th place in recruiting salary for fire privates. The salary scale proposed in H.R. 13980 will restore both of those vitally important starting salaries to 5th place among those in the 20 largest U.S. cities. Also, since 1966 the recruiting rates for police privates have in- creased by an average of 10.7%, and those for fire privates by an average of 7.9%, in the other jurisdictions in the Washington metro- politan area. The salary scale in this proposed legislation will also improve the District's competitive position with respect to these neighboring communities. With the incidence of major crime in the District at an all-time high and increasing steadily each month, and with the Nation's capital acquiring a nation-wide reputation of being unsafe for visitors, the necessity for recruiting and retaining a capable, well-trained police force in this city cannot be overestimated. PAGENO="0028" 24 Today, there are 304 vacancies in the ranks of the Metropolitan Police force, with an authorized strength of 3,100 men. The force has not been at full strength since February of 1964. While the number of vacancies has been reduced somewhat in the past several weeks by the most arduous recruitment efforts, the force remains dangerously understaffed. The problem with respect to recruitment in the Fire Department is less acute, but is serious nonetheless. I am informed that in recent years the D.C. Fire Department has been obliged to accept increasing numbers of recruits who have barely achieved the minimum passing score on the mental examination for candidates, in order to fill its vacancies. With firefighting becoming ever more technical in nature, and with the Department's in-training becoming more demanding as a consequence, this poses a serious problem. I realize that salaries alone do not constitute the sole cause of the acute problem of recruitment and retention of well-qualified personnel for these forces. However, I am convinced that the salary schedule proposed in this bill, particularly as it is weighted in favor of the lower salary classes, will have .a highly salutary effect on this situation. And in these times when the safety of the citizens of this city, and of its millions of visitors each year, is in serious jeopardy, then it is incum- bent on the Congress to provide every possible assistance to the solu- tion of the problem. Andther provision of this bill would authorize additional compensa- tion to officers and members of the D.C. Police and Fire Departments, below the rank of Deputy Chief, who acquire college credits in subjects which will enhance their value to the organization. A member acquiring 30 semester hours of credit in law enforcement or administration in the case of a policeman, or in fire science or administration in the case of a fireman, will receive $600 of additional salary per year, and a member obtaining 60 semester hours of such credit will be entitled to an additional $1,200 per year. HR. 13980 also includes a "grandfather clause", to assure that certain members of these forces who may be reassigned because of reorganization within the Departments may not be reduced in salary as a result of such reassignment. The Deputy Police Chief presently assigned as Police Executive Officer has also been assigned as one of the Assistant Chiefs. My bifi would provide this officer $500 of additional compensation per year as long as he acts in this dual capacity. Mr. Chairman, the classified employees of the Federal and District of Columbia governments were granted a salary increase of 4.5% as of October 1, 1967. In addition, these employees have been granted a prospective additional increase to take effect July 1, 1968. It is re- grettable that time did not permit consideration of increases at that time for policemen, firemen, and teachers in the District of Columbia. Now, however, we are properly engaged in the consideration of legis- lation to compensate these dedicated public servants for this delay. For this reason, my bill H.R. 13980 would make these salary increases and other benefits for District of Columbia police and firemen retro- active to October 1, 1967, which I feel strongly to be necessary in fairness to these members. PAGENO="0029" 25 Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to express my views on this vital subject, and urge prompt and favorable action on this measure. The Chairman pointed out that we will have separate hearings on the other bills listed on the agenda, including one I cosponsored for the establishment of a Commissioner of Police. I notice on the agenda the notation that HR. 13980, introduced by me, would increase the pay of police and firemen by 7 percent at a cost of $3.6 million. I believe this is in error, because the bill I have intro- duced is similar to the one the Chairman introduced which would provide an over-all average increase of 8.7 percent at an estimated cost of $4.4 million per year. it would increase the starting salary for police and fire privates from $6,700 to $7,500 per year. The maximum salary for privates would become $10,200, attainable after 16 years of service. I have no pride of authorship. I am cosponsor of this legislation with other Members. I think we are all in accord that it is extremely necessary that we do whatever is possible to bring the salaries of members of the Police and Fire Departments of the District of Columbia to a proper level. Since the last salary increase for District of Columbia policemen and firemen was enacted in November of 1966, there has been an average increase of 11.2 percent in the recruiting rates for police privates by 17 of the 20 other major cities of the United States, and we have no choice but to get on with this task before us and be sure we provide adequate salaries and incentives for the men to seek these jobs as a career. Another provision of this bill would authorize additional compeiisa- tion for officers and members of the Police and Fire Departments, below the rank of Deputy Chief, who acquire college credits in sub- jects which will enhance their value to the organization. A member acquiring 30 semester hours of credit in law enforcement or admin- istration in the case of a policeman, or in fire science or administration in the case of a fireman, would receive $600 of additional salary per year, and a member obtaining 60 semester hours of such credit would be entitled to an additional $1200 per year. We want to do what we can to help lower the crime rate of this city. it is certainly something that is within our jurisdiction, and we hope the committee will be prompt in considering this legislation. Mr. WHITENER. Thank you very much, Mr. Broyhill. We also have a prepared statement from Representative Hervey G. Machen of Maryland, which will be made a part of the record at this point if there is no objection. STATEMENT OF HON. HERVEY G. MACHEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Mr. MACHEN. Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee, I am Hervey G. Machen and I represent Maryland's Fifth Congressional District. I am testifying on behalf of H .R. 11435 which I introduced on July 13, 1967, to give badly-needed pay raises to members of the Metropolitan Police Department and the D.C. Fire Department. PAGENO="0030" 26 In all respects but one my bill is identical to H.R. 10761 which was introduced on June 12, 1967, by Chairman McMillan. The differ- ence between the two bills is the result of a problem that was brought to my attention by a member of the White House Police force who is a constituent. In effect, the problem is that the 1966 amendment to the public salary schedule placed all police privates with 19 years of service in longevity at lower pay. In order to correct this inequity, I have offered a slightly different salary scale in H. R. 11435. What I have done is to eliminate Subclass (c) under Class 4 and to combine Subclass (a) and (b) under Class 4, thus giving fire sergeant, police sergeant and detective sergeant the same pay under a new Subclass (a), Class 4, and to continue the sepa- rate classification of "police sergeant assigned as motorcycle officer," but as Subclass (b) of Class 4 at the same proposed salary. In working out this solution to the inequity I corresponded with Chief Layton who suggested that in effect I increase all rates for Class 4, Subclass (a) sergeant so that the maximum rate for private would not exceed the minimum rate for sergeant. Under my bill, H.R. 11435, the maximum rate for private is $9,780 and the minimum rate for sergeant is $10,285. This was accomplished by combining Sub- classes (a) and (b) Class 4 into a single subclass and by applying the present rates for detective sergeants to both grades. According to a letter of July 14, 1967, from Chief Layton, this change in my bill "would not only eliminate any possible inequity between the rates for sergeants and privates, but would also accom- plish the goal of this department to eliminate the existing, unjustified separation of salary rates between police sergeants and detective ser- geants." IVIr. Chairman, the entire text of Chief Layton's letter is attached to my testimony and I request that it be included in the record of the hearing. Mr. Chairman, on the overall question of increasing the salaries for these dedicated public servants, I believe that this legislation *is entirely justified and badly-needed. Certainly the Congress is trying to do everything in its power to strengthen the front lines against crime and we must have the forces, and they must be equi- tably compensated, in order to conquer crime in the District. By the time the 90th Congress finally closes its doors later this year it is my hope that we will have enacted a comprehensive package of anti-crime legislation not only for the District but the nation as well. The administration has pointed to many proposed programs for the District as "models." There is no reason why the District cannot be a model community in peace and tranquility and in the guarantee that every citizen can move about as he pleases in complete safety in mind and body. The Omnibus District Anti-Crime Act is a definite step in this direction. So will be the enactment of this legislation to provide equitable salaries for our policemen and firemen who daily defend our rights against criminals and violence. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge that this distinguished Com- mittee give a favorable report to this legislation with a view toward early passage in the second session of the 90th Congress. PAGENO="0031" 27 GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, July 14, 1967. Hon. FIERVEY G. MACHEN, House of Representatives, Washington. D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MACHEN: This is in reply to your letter inquiring about an apparent inequity in the 1966 amendment to the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act. It is true that, as indicated in the material accompanying your letter, when the 1966 amendment to our salary schedule placed all police privates with 19 years service in longevity step 9 at an annual salary of $9,420, it left some police sergeants, who also had 19 years service, in service step 2 of sergeant at an annual rate of $9,315. Therefore, until those sergeants advance to service step 3 (which they do after two years in service step 2), police privates with approximately the same years of service as they have will be earning a slightly higher rate of pay. I would emphasize, however, that this disparity is temporary, as the police privates in the $9,420 rate are at their maximum salary rate, whereas the sergeants can continue to higher service and longevity steps to a maximum rate of $11,015. In connection with this complaint which you have received, I think that you will b~e interested to know that H. R. 10761, which was introduced June 12, 1967, will accentuate this problem even further. That bill will reduce from 19 years ~to 16 years the time required for a private to reach his maximum longevity rate, which is set by that bill at $10,220, and will move into that rate all privates with 16 years or more years service, while your complainant will continue in service step 2 of sergeant, set in that bill at $10,115, until he has earned additional service and longevity step increases through time in grade as a sergeant. Since 1953, when Congress first provided service and longevity step increases for policemen, we have experienced problems such as this, where, because of various attempts to adjust salary rates to correct old inequities, new inequities were created. One of the major problems with a service step and longevity step salary system is the not infrequent occurrence of a subordinate earning a higher salary rate then his superior; even though the superior may have more total government service. I firmly believe that this problem is going to be with us so long as we con- tinue to have a salary schedule which provides service and longevity step increases based on a combination of time in service and time in grade; such inequities can be completely eradicated only by change to a salary schedule such as that provided by the military, where longevity step increases are based on total time in service without regard to time in grade. I am enclosing a table which indicates, as you requested, the number of ser- geants now on this department who would be affected by your proposed amend- ment to the salary schedule. As we read your proposed amendment, it would not have a direct effect on any of our privates. I would personally recommend against a provision such as that proposed in the attachment to your letter as a correction of this inequity. It has been our experience that whenever an attempt has been made to correct old inequities by shifting selected groups about in the salary schedule, the net effect has been to generate new disparities. Instead, I would suggest to you that a simple solu- tion, short of a change to a flat time-in-service longevity systemS.., would be to increase all rates for the Class 4, Sub-class (a.) Sergeant so that the maximum rate for private would not exceed the minimum rate for sergeant. This could be done without affecting the relationship between the basic rates for sergeants and the basic rates for lieutenants by simply combining Sub-class (a) for police sergeant, and Sub-class (b) for detective sergeant into a single sub-class, apply- ing the present rates for detective sergeants to both grades. This change would not only eliminate any possible inequity between the rates for sergeants and privates, but would also accomplish the goal of this department to eliminate the existing, unjustified separation of salary rates between police sergeants and detective sergeants. Sincerely yours, JOHN B. LAYTON, Chief of Police. PAGENO="0032" 28 POLICE PERSONNEL IN CLASS 4 July 14 1967 10 years 13 years 16 years Sergeants: Stepi Step 2 Step 3 10 17 1 6 12 Total 10 17 19 Detective Sergeant: Stepi Step 2 Step 3 2 1 16 Total 2 17 Motorcycle Sergeants: Step I Step 2 Step 3 2 Grand Total 12 17 41 Mr. WHITENER. We also have a statement from a former member of this Committee, Honorable Abraham J. Multer, now of the New York State Supreme Court, which we will make a part of the record at this point unless there is objection. STATEMENT OF HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER. JUSTICE, NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman I appreciate the opportunity to submit my views to the Committee concerning an amendment to the legislation before you to increase the salaries of Policemen and Firemen in the District of Columbia. On September 23, 1967, while still serving in this body I introduced H.R. 13203, which would abolish the rank of detective in the Metro- politan Police Force and promote detectives to detective sergeants. On November 9, 1967, Subcommittee #2, which I had the honor to chair, conducted a public hearing on this bill. The Subcommittee heard at that time representatives of the detectives directly concerned in the proposed legislation and the leadership of the Metropolitan Police Force. We also had the benefit of a report on the bill from the Commissioner of the District of Columbia and his recommendations. Mr. Chairman, the results of my investigations into this matter and my conclusions based upon conversations with the District of Columbia government, the Metropolitan Police Department and the men involved, have led to only one course of action: an amendment to the legislation before you to protect the more than 130 men pres- ently serving as detectives from the bureaucratic ineptitude of those who have blindly accepted the recommendations of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. What the reorganization of the Police Force proposes to do is simply lump together all detectives and anyone else on the force who wishes to become an "investigator" and put them on the same footing. Thus the man with fifteen years experience seeking the new designation (which he does not want anyway, but which he would be PAGENO="0033" 29 forced to take) is going to compete with the man with two or three years of experience. What has happened to the merit system here? Where is the principle of fair play? These men have not devoted their lives to police work only because they get paid for it. They are dedicated public servants; they take justifiable pride in their work and the status in society which it affords them. They devote long hours in overtime-much of it unpaid volunteer overtime-to solving serious crimes committed in the Nation's Capital. This is no easy task; the sharply rising crime rate in Washington does not permit nine to five workdays for those who must cope with it. In my view nothing we can do for these men can adequately compensate them for the tremendous job they are doing against very substantial odds. But, we can see that they will not have their hard-won status taken from them. I submit that it is your responsibility as legislators to see that this does not happen. Following the hearing which my Subcommittee held on HR. 13203 I and other Members of this Committee held discussions directed at arriving at a fair and equitable solution. The administrative officials involved offered a compromise in Commissioner Washington's letter to me of November 30, 1967. A copy of that letter is attached to my statement and I ask that it be made a part of the hearing record at the end of my statement. As a result of this offer of compromise I would like to suggest the following amendment to the salary bill which would protect the present members of the force holding the rank of Detective: PROPOSED NEWT SECTION TO BILL PRovIDING SALARY INCREASES FOR OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE SEC. -. The Commissioner of the District of Columbia (or his delegate) may not as a part of any reorganization of the Metropolitan Police force or through any other administrative action- (1) change the title of the positions of Detective and Detective Sergeant in salary classes 3 and 4, respectively, of the salary schedule contained in section 101 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 (D.C. Code, sec. 4-823), (2) change the job description or duties of such positions as in effect on , or (3) deny any individual serving in the position of Detective on - every opportunity to advance to the position of Detective Sergeant, or transfer such individual without his consent to any other position, so long as any individual serving in the position of Detective on is serving in such position. Everyone I have spoken with on this matter is agreed, I believe, that this language will solve the problem. I am informed that the District Government will do this in any case, but I believe that it is in the best interests of all concerned if the language is written into the law. rFI1anI~ you. SS-574-6S------3 PAGENO="0034" 30 GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C., November 30, 1967. Hon. ABRAHAM J. MULTER, Chairman, Subcommittee 2, Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MULTER: On November 9, 1967 Assistant Corporation Counsel Thomas F. Moyer and Deputy Police Chief Jerry V. Wilson testified before your subcommittee on H. R. 13203, a bill "To amend the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 to abolish the rank of detective in the Metro- politan Police Force, and to promote persons with such rank to the rank of de- tective sergeant." They presented the position of the District Government as set forth in my letter of November 8, 1967 to the Honorable John L. McMillan, and made a part of the hearing record. In that latter, I opposed the bill on the grounds (1) that there is no basis to automatically promote to the rank of detective ser- geant all of the detectives in the Metropolitan Police force, as provided by the bill, and (2) that such automatic promotions would compound the present in- balance of supervisor-subordinate ratio in the Criminal Investigation Division. At the hearing you asked Assistant Corporation Counsel Mover and Deputy Chief Wilson if the District's position would be different if the bill were amended to provide for smaller increases in compensation for the detectives upon their automatic promotion to the rank of detective sergeant. The total estimated annual cost of the increases provided by the bill, as presently writter~, is $75,000. If the bill were amended to provide for the smaller increases, the estimated cost would be $31,000. I attach a chart indicating the breakdown of the increases under the present bill and those if the bill' were amended to provide for such smaller increases. However, a smaller increase in the compensation of the detectives upon their automatic promotion to the rank of detective sergeant would not obviate the primary objections of the District Government to this bill; i.e., that there is no basis for this automatic promotion, by legislation, of detectives to a higher grader and such promotions would compound the present imbalance of supervisor- subordinate ratio in the Criminal Investigation Division. I therefore reiterate my opposition to the enactment of the bill, regardless of whether it be amended as has been proposed. As the District witnesses testified during the hearing, the Pollee Department does not propose to reduce any of the existing detectives in rank, compensation, or status, nor does it propose to establish another grade of criminal investigator which would be equal in rank or compensation to the existing grade of detective. The Chief's policy, quoted in my letter of November 8, 1967, includes extending the opportunity to the existing detective force to take an examination for detective sergeant in 1969. The Chief of Police and I are informed that during the hearing you expressed the view that the District should continue the detective sergeant examinations as long as the incumbents remain in the grade of detectives. As Deputy Chief Wilson testified during the hearing, the 1969 cutoff for detective sergeant exami- nations was established with the assumption that by the time those registers are exhausted in 1971, few if any of the incumbent detectives will stifi be in that grade. However, this cutoff decision would be subject to review based on the number of incumbents actually remaining in the detective grade in 1971. Should the Subcommittee, as an alternative to HR. 13203, recommend that the optional opportunity for promotion to detective sergeant be continued in promotional examinations so long as any incumbent remains in the grade of detective, the Chief of Police and I would have no objection to adopting such a policy. Sincerely yours, WALTER E. WASHINGTON, Commissioner of the District of Columbia. PAGENO="0035" 31 [Attachment] No. in Step From Detective To Detective Step 66 Sergeant Step ~ Increase Cost 6 1 $8,690 1 $9,485 21 2 $9,030 1 $9,485 34 3 $9,370 2 $9,825 52 4 $9,710 3 $10,165 8 7 $10,050 4 $10,505 9 8 $10,390 7 $10,845 8 9 $10,730 8 $11,185 $795 455 455 455 455 455 455 $4,770 9,555 15 470 23 660 3640 4095 3,640 Subtotal Cost of pension increases 64,830 10,170 Estimated cost $75,000 PROPOSED REVISED SCHEDULE 6 1 $8,690 1 $9,485 21 2 $9,030 I $9,485 34 3 $9,370 1 $9,485 52 4 $9,710 2 $9,825 8 7 $10,050 3 $10,165 9 8 $10,390 4 $10,505 8 9 $10,730 7 $10,845 $795 455 115 115 115 115 115 $4 770 9,555 3 910 5,980 920 1 035 920 Subtotal Cost of pension increases 27,090 3,910 Estimated cost $31, 000 Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman, in connection with Mr. Multer's statement, may I say that in the past session Mr. Multer's Subcom- mittee No. 2 held a hearing on this question of retaining detectives, in which I and other Members participated, and I request that for the information of this subcommittee, the earlier hearing be included in the record of these proceedings. Mr. WHITENER. Unless there is objection, we will make that hear- ing a part of this record. (The testimony referred to appears in the appendix hereto, pp. 97-131.) Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Gude, do you have a statement you would like to make at this time? Mr. GTJDE. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Adams. STATEMENT OF HON. BROCK ADAMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I, also, want to welcome Mr. Wash- ington. In prior bills pending before this coirnnit~ee, we have dealt with the special problem of the recruitment of men at the lower levels of the Police Department, and at that time we all recognize the problem was severe. We hope this will be included in a larger package because we feel this recruitment is very necessary. Secondly, I hope we will have an opportunity to implement some of the recommendations made by the International Association of Chiefs of Police relating to new positions and so on. PAGENO="0036" 32 Many of us are extremely pleased and want to take this opportunity to compliment you, Mr. Washington, and your new Director of Public Safety, Mr. Murphy, on the steps you are taking to attack the crime problem. Many of us feel Washington, D.C. is a place where we should create a model-type Police Department that other Police Departments in the United States can learn from and copy, and I hope from these hearings and the later hearings that wifi be held we will be able to accomplish this. STATEMENT OF HON. BASIL WHITENER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN OF SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 4. Mr. WHITENER. May I say I appreciate very much the attitude of the members of the Police and Fire Departments of the District of Columbia. Last year many of them talked to members of this Commit- tee about the pay legislation, and we were a little concerned that we were not able to act upon it at that time. Chairman Mc~vfffian and I assured them that early in this session we would proceed with hearings and give expeditious consideration to their situation. Their attitude has been one of dignity. We have not had marches to the Capitol and picketing and hollering. I, as one member of the committee, appreciate this attitude and I feel it will pay off in the long run. We on this Committee have always had a special place in our affections for members of the Police and Fire Departments, not only in the field of pay but in the field of working conditions and taking some of the shackles off the law enforcement people. We have not always had the fullest cooperation at various levels in some of the efforts we have made. Notwithstanding that, the police, particularly, who have been involved more than the Fire Department in these matters, have been most patient. We are hoping we have a different attitude now on some of these matters and that the community will give more support to the men in uniform who serve their community night and day. We are delighted to have with us representatives of the District of Columbia Government, headed by Commissioner Walter E. Washington. The Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Thomas W. Fletcher, is with us; also Mr. Patrick V. Murphy, the Director of Public Safety; our good friend, Deputy Police Chief Wilson; Assistant Fire Chief William C. Weitzel; John Eaton of the Personnel Office; and Mr. Thomas F. Moyer of the Office of the Corporation Counsel. So, Commissioner Washington, if you. would come forward and bring with you as many of these other gentlemen as you would like to have sitting with you here, we shall hear you. PAGENO="0037" 33 STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER E. WASHINGTON, COMMISSIONER OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS W. FLETCHER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER; PATRICK V. MURPHY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY; JERRY V. WILSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR CHIEF JOHN B. LAYTON; WILLIAM C. WEITZEL, ASSISTANT FlEE CHIEF FOR CHIEF HENRY A. GALOTTA; THOMAS F. MOYER, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL; AND JOHN EATON, PERSONNEL OFFICER Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say that Chief Layton is attending a meeting of public officials from across the Nation at Airlie House or he would be here this morning; he wanted to come. And Chief Galotta is ill this morning. He has just gotten out of the hospital and was unable to come. I want to say, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that I appreciate so much the reception you have given me. This is my first appearance before the committee. I have tried to get around and meet some of you individually and intend to do more of this in line with Chairman McMillan's suggestion that I meet with you both in execu- tive session and otherwise. He is most gracious, and Mr. Nelsen was also most gracious in having me up to meet some of the members of the committee on the Republican side. I Want to say to you and assure you that my attitude is one of trying to do the very best I can for the City of Washington, D.C. I love this city; it has been very good to me and to my family; and I would like to think I can work in this background so that everyone might have an opportunity and be able to live safely in the city and on the streets and that our forces and personnel serving this town can work in dignity and can work in peace. I know that this is a great obj ective of this committee, and I want you to know that it is my full intention to work as hard as I can to achieve the goals that we talk about in making this a model city, a city where all people can survive and thrive and raise their families in decency and that the streets will be peaceful enough that all can walk on them in dignity. You have my solemn pledge that this is the basis on which I intend to go after my job and do my work. I certainly concur with the statements that have already been made that our policemen and firemen who are rendering great service to this city should be given every incentive and that we should make every possible means available to them to improve the service and to strengthen the service and strengthen the conditions under which they labor. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the relevant bills which concern proposed salary increases and other benefits for policemen and firemen in the District of Columbia. There is an urgent need for an increase in the salaries of policemen and firemen. At this time, I ask ~liat there be incorporated in the record of the hearing the letter of October 10, 1967 from the District of Columbia Government, transmitting a report on the first t hree cited bills including a recommendation that they be amended in their entirety PAGENO="0038" 34 by substituting the provisions of the District's proposed bill, and that one of such bills as so amended, be enacted in lieu of H.R. 6644 and H.R. 11149. These latter bifis were introduced upon the recom- mendation of the District Government in a letter to the Speaker of the House dated February 9, 1967. A recent study completed by the D.C. Personnel Office has empha- `sized the need for a more comprehensive pay adjustment for both police and firemen, rather than just the modification of the first six step rates for a Police Private as initially recommended in H. R. 6644 and H.R. 11149. In addition, I ask that there be incorporated in the record my report on H.R. 13980, recommending the amendment of H.R. 13980 in its entirety by substituting the provision of my proposed legislation (which is an updated version of the District Government's proposed legislation accompanying report of October 10, 1967) and that H.R. 13980 as so amended be enacted in lieu of H.IR. 10761, H.R. 11278, H.R. 11435, 13981, H.R. 6644, and H.R. 11149. Mr. WHITENER. We will make those items a part of the record at this point. Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you. (The reports referred to follow:) GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, Januarl,s 22, 1968. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, - Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Government of the District of Columbia has for report H. R. 13980, 90th Congress, a bill "To amend the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended, to increase salaries, to adjust pay alinement, and for other purposes." The first section of H. R. 13980 provides for a salary increase for police and firemen averaging 8.7% estimated to cost $4.4 million for a full fiscal year. The remaining sections contain a number of personnel provisions affecting police and firemen which are discussed in Exhibit A (attached), an analysis of the bill, and the District Government recommendations. The District Government recognizes there is urgent need for an increase in the salaries of policemen and firemen. A study of this need is presented in Exhibit B (attached). In view of this study, the District is proposing the pay plan and other personnel provisions for policemen and firemen set forth in a draft bill, Exhibit C (attached). We therefore recommend that H. H. 13980 be amended in its entirety by substituting the provisions of the District Government's proposed bill, and that H. R. 13980, as so amended, be enacted in lieu of H. R. 10761, H. R. 11278, H. R. 13980, H. R. 6644, or H. R. 11149, the last two of which were intro- duced upon the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners in its letter of February 9, 1967, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The District Government's proposed bill provides for a salary increase for policemen and firemen averaging approximately 7%, at an estimated annual cost of $3.6 million. The District's proposal also contains several of the provisions now contained in H.R. 13980, H.R. 6644, and H.R. 11149 and discussed in the attached analysis and study. In the belief that the passage of H. R. 13980, if amended as the District of Columbia Government proposes, is vital to the recruitment and retention of policemen and firemen, we urge its enactment. The funds required to meet the cost of the District Government's proposal for a police and firemen's pay increase for the last six months of fiscal year 1968 have been reserved in the 1968 District Appropriation Act. However, if H.R. 13980 were enacted with its October 1967 effective date, the cost for fiscal year 1968 would be approximately $3.3 million, for which additional revenues would be required. In view of other District needs, the Government of the District of Columbia cannot support an increase of this size at this time and therefore reiter- ates its recommendation that the attached draft bill be enacted, in lieu of H. R. 13980. PAGENO="0039" 35 I have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, THOMAS W. FLETCHER, Assistant to the Commissioner, (For Walter E. Washington, Commissioner). {Attachmentsl EXHIBIT A-ANALYSIS OF H.R. 13980 HR. 13980 provides for (1) an increase in salaries; (2) deletion of the scheduled longevity steps 7, 8, and 9, with retention of three longevity step increases for Privates through Sergeants and two longevity step increases for Lieutenants through Deputy Chief, with three years between each such increase; (3) payment of $500 per annum additional to the pay for the Police Executive Officer who is assigned as one of the Assistant Chiefs of Police; (4) payment of $600 to any officer or member below the rank of Deputy Chief in the Police and Fire Depart- ments who has a minimum of thirty college credit hours in law enforcement or administration or in fire science or administration respectively, and has served one year probation; (5) payment of $1,200 to any officer or member below the rank of Deputy Chief in the Police and Fire Departments who has 60 or more college credit hours in law enforcement or administration or in fire science or administration respectively, and has served one year probation; (6) advancement of all officers or members except privates to the highest longevity step in their respective class or subclass upon completion of thirty years of continuous service in the police force or in the Fire Department; and (7) salary saving provisions for members of the Police and Fire Departments assigned as Technician I, Tech- nician II, or Station Clerk, as the case may be, who may lose such an assignment only because of the reorganization of the Police or Fire Department. The salary increases provided by the bill average 8.7% and the estimated cost for a full fiscal year is $4,400,000. The District Government concurs in the provisions of HR. 13980 relating to the change in longevity step increases, additional pay for the Police Executive Officer, pay incentive for educational attainment, and salary protection for Technicians and Station Clerks. However, (1) the additional pay for the Police Executive Officer should be subject to insurance benefits in addition to retirement benefits, and (2) rather than to indicate a stated amount of compensation for edu- cational attainment, the District Government believes it more practical to pro- vide for administrative application of such compensation through regulatory issuances according to changes which may occur in basic salary rates. The District Government does not consider appropriate the provision in H.R. 13980 concerning the advancement of all officers and members except privates to the highest longevity step of their respective class or subclass upon completion of thirty years service. The former Board of Commissioners was strongly opposed to a similar provision which was considered by the Congress in August 1964 for Deputy Chiefs and subsequently enacted into law as a provision of P.L. 88-575, approved September 2, 1964, because of its conflict with the concept of longevity pay for compensatory recognition of long service in the same class or grade. Also, since the basic salary rate is used for retirement pay purposes, this provision which allows attainment to the top rate in a class or subclass after thirty years service might encourage early retirement of those officers and members who had not yet reached the mandatory retirement age. Otherwise such officers and mem- bers might continue their employment and the Police and Fire Departments would benefit from their long experience and knowledge. Additionally, no other salary system in the District Government permits an employee to automatically jump to his top rate because of a long period of service. The District of Columbia must also oppose the provision of section 7 of H.R. 13980 making the legislation effective on the first day of the first pay period which begins after the first day of October, 1967. As indicated previously, the District cannot support a retroactive increase of this size at this time and there- fore recommends the substitution of the attached draft bill (Exhibit C). PAGENO="0040" 36 EXHIBIT B-STUDY ON Px~ ADJUSTMENTS FOR D.C. POLICE AND FIREMEN For purposes of recruitment for and maintenance of police and firefighting services, a study has been made concerning the need for any pay adjustment and related benefits. The need for this study was especially emphasized because of the difficulties being encountered in the filling of vacancies particularly in the Metro- politan Police Force and to a lesser extent in the D.C. Fire Department. POLiCY In order to accomplish a more adequate and meaningful program of crime prevention and detection, preservation of peace and good order and protection of lives and property,. it is essential to provide the means whereby the D.C. Govern- ment is able to attract and retain sufficient qualified recruits in both the Police and Fire Departments. Accordingly- (1) Rates of pay for police and firemen should be in a favorable competitive position with the other major cities having over 500,000 population, especially with those cities in the eastern half of the United States which constitute the primary labor market for recruitment of D.C~ police and firemen. In addition, Washington, D.C., by reason of its national and international prominence which places special emphasis on the various community services required, should rank at least in the top quarter of the other major cities; *(2) Rates of pay for police and firemen should be in reasonable alignment with rates of pay for classified employees of the Federal and District Govern- ments, not only on the basis of comparable duties and responsibilities, but also with due consideration of the hazards inherent in large urban police and fire activities; and (3) Rates of pay for police and firemen should be very favorable in relation to rates of pay for police and firemen in the Washington Metropolitan area. This is necessary so that the D.C. Government may compete with advan- tages enjoyed by the surrounding suburban communities such as less travel time and costs, availability of parking facilities, and lower crime incidence with less hazardous conditions. COMPARISON WITH OTHBR MAJOR CITIES AND NEARBY COMMUNITIES Attached exhibits show a comparison of minimum and maximum rates for Police and Firemen respectively, in the major cities having over 500,000 popula- tion, and in the nearby communities. As a result of an average increase of 11.2% in the recruiting rates for police privates by 17 of the 20 other major cities, and an average increase of 10.7% in the recruiting rates for fire privates by 18 of these 20 major cities since the last previous study made in mid-1966, Washington, with a recruiting rate of $6,700 approved in November 1966, has dropped in relative standing from 5th to 12th place for police private and from 5th to 11th place for fire private. The Hearby communities have also increased their rates averaging 10.7% for police and 7.9% for firemen. The recruiting rates paid police by these communities either exceed or are within a few hundred dollars of the D.C. Government's recruiting rate of $6,700 for policemen. Rates for firemen are somewhat lower than rates for policemen in Fairfax, Prince Georges, and Montgomery Counties, due primarily to the manner in which such services heretofore have been accom- plished; i.e., mainly through volunteer services or fire tax district arrangements. However, these communities are developing their firefighting activities on a direct County payroll basis which will in all probability require the establishment of rates closely paralleling their rates for police services. At the present time, Alex- andria has the same rate for both police and fire privates, and Fairfax is contem- plating the same rate for both services~ CLASSIFICATION ACT EMPLOYEES Increases for Federal and District employees under the Classification Act have recently been enacted by the Congress. The legislation provides for a pay increase of approximately 11 % in three stages for classified employees. The first stage, a 4.5% increase, was effective in October 1967. The amount of increase is meaning- ful insofar as police and fire employees are concerned, because it adds substance to other categories of positions from a more attractive competitive recruitment viewpoint. PAGENO="0041" 37 PRIVATE BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY Other occupations in the community currently are being paid rates which when compared to the existing rates for police and firemen pose a more desirable attrac- tion, especially in view of the qualifications, physical requirements, and hazardous work conditions present in police and fire occupations. One of these occupations is that of local bus driver which has a salary rate of $7,000, requiring that a person have good health, valid driver's permit, clear police record, be at least 21 and no older than 45 years of age, have a minimum height of 5'-6" with a maximum of 6'-4", and proportionate weight. Also, according to the United States Employment Service, one of the most consistent sources of employment in the Washington Metropolitan area for a person with little or no experience is with construction operations. Based on current prevailing rates published by the United States Department of Labor, following are some of the typical local construction jobs and their rates of p~ay: Occupation Hourly Rate Annual Rate Line Construction Groundman Laborer Marble Setters Helper Plumbers Helper Truck Driver (Medium-Heavy) Tile Setters Helper $3.00 3.125 3.175 3.20 3. 35 3. 475 $6,240 6,500 6,604 6,656 6, 968 7, 228 VACANCIES A crucial problem of recruiting continues in the police and fire services. The following table shows the trend in vacancies: 1-1-67 2-1-67 3-1-67 4-1-67 Police 307 304 308 317 Fire 37 35 41 35 5-1-67 6--1-67 7-1-67 9-29-67 Police 313 333 348 376 Fire 34 45 38 28 While the vacancy problem in the Fire Department is not as acute as it is in the Metropolitan Police force, there is still a need to fully man both forces to carry out these vital services in the District of Columbia. It is therefore essential that effective action be taken with respect to pay and recruiting benefits and tech- niques so as to enable the District Government to fully staff these forces. RECOMMENDATION S The improved competitive position of the nearby communities due to their increased rates, comparison to rates for other occupations within the District of Columbia which have less demanding working conditions and requirements than do police and firemen, and the lowering of the District's relative standing with other major cities in the rates paid police and firemen, fully substantiate a need to increase the rates for D.C. Government police and fire forces. Using $7,500 as the entrance salary for police and fire privates as previously recommended for police privates by the Commissioners on February 9, 1967, to Congress, a proposed schedule of rates has been developed as a measure to insure salaries that would both attract and retain qualified personnel. The proposed increase which averages approximately 7% (costing an estimated $3.6 million for a full fiscal year) would improve considerably the District's competitive salary position both locally and nationally, by assurisig the continuation of the District's first place ranking with nearby comlnunities, and raising the recruiting salaries for District police and firemen from 12th to 5th and 11th to 5th respectively among the 20 other major cities. PAGENO="0042" 38 In addition to the proposed increase, the District also proposes to eliminate the longevity steps from the salary schedule but retain the principle of longevity step increases with a reduction of time between three such increases from four to three years. This would permit a private to reach the maximum salary rate in sixteen years rather than in nineteen years as is now the case. The same reduction in the number of years between longevity step increases would apply to all the other officers and members except the Fire Chief and Police Chief who would not receive the benefit of any longevity step increase. For the improvement of both the police and fire services, the District proposes to provide additional compensation to those officers and members who have served their first year probationary period and who complete or have completed courses of study in law enforcement or fire science subjects at an accredited college or university. The proposed form of compensation would be 8% of their rate of pay (i.e., $600 in the case of a private) upon completion of thirty hours of such subjects and 16% of their rate of pay (i.e., $1,200 in the case of a private) upon completion of sixty hours of such subjects. The District considers this approach to recognition of academic attainments to be more feasible than the use of the "Master Patrol- man" concept as originally recommended by the Crime Commission and which was included in the proposed bill concerning increase in rates of pay for~ police and related recruitment benefits submitted by the Board of Commissioners in February 1967 for Congressional consideration. This concept, as proposed, is that a person before being eligible for a rate of pay which is higher than the regular base pay for a police or fire private, should have at least a year of police or fire- fighting experience in addition to having the required college credits. Also from a morale standpoint of the present forces, the District of Columbia believes it inadvisable to appoint a person as a master patrolman or master firefighter, as the case may be, without his having gone through a period of basic on-the-job training and experience. In addition, the provision of added compensation as proposed for completing thirty credit hours and sixty credit hours provides an incentive to personnel already on the force to achieve such additional education. Also, the District believes the objective of attracting persons with more than a high school education to the police or firefighting forces will be served by having an initial recruiting rate of $7,500 with the added incentive of $600 or $1,200 additional salary at the end of the first year of employment. The Deputy Chief assigned as Police Executive Officer has also been assigned as one of the Assistant Police Chiefs. In recognition of this dual assignment, the District of Columbia Government believes that this police officer should receive an additional rate of compensation in the amount of $500. The District also proposed to include recruitment inducements as previously endorsed in the February 1967 proposal introduced as HR. 6644 and H.R. 11149. These recruitment inducements include payment of transportation expenses to prospective police privates to come to the District of Columbia for interviews, and resettlement cash allowances not to exceed $250 and an initial ninety-day per diem allowance of $7.50 per day to new appointees who have to move into the Washington Metropolitan area. Additionally, the District proposed the repeal of the provision of P.L. 88-575, approved September 2, 1964, which allows a Deputy Chief to advance to the top step of his class upon completion of thirty years of service. This provision is a benefit applying to Deputy Chiefs only. Should it remain, it is the view of the Departments and Associations and of the members that a similar provision should apply to all members of the forces. As a matter of principle and sound pay admin- istration, it is the opinion of the Government of the District of Columbia that this provision should be deleted from existing law. And, finally, the District of Columbia proposes an amendment to existing law relating to the probationary year of police privates. A recent District Court decision interpreted existing law as requiring that a police private must be retained for the full probationary year unless formal charges are brought against him before a police trial board. This procedure is inconsistent with that applicable to probationary firemen and all other District employees, who are subject to dismissal for unsatisfactory performance at any time during the probationary year. The requirement that a probationary policeman with unsatisfactory service be retained for the full probationary year reflects unfavorably on the efficiency and economy of the Police Department and is not in the best interest of the District Govern- ment in terms of public safety. A provision is therefore included in the attached proposed substitute bill to bring dismissal proceedings for probationary poheemen in line with those of all other District employees. PAGENO="0043" C) C) C) Co C) C) Co H3 Co I- S S C) C-) >- C,, >- S = S S C) C) 0~ C) Co C) C) >- a, F- >- Co S = S >< S C-) C) a- C) ~C) Co C) = S C) C)~ a. >- C) F: Co F- S S C) C) >- a, Co F- a: >- a, a: a: Co S = S >< a: S F- = CD Co E S E E S E Sc~ PAGENO="0044" h -~ C) CD2 -c ~C) CD3 -u Ct) ~ = -~ -u ~ ~CO C)Ct) C) C)D CD == ~ = C ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ rC) 3CD CC CD 4, CD ~ ~C 00 - ~ c~ 4, UI COOl CD C') 01 4' ~ 01 C~) 01 -i r~4 o ~ C') C) 0 -u > C,) 0 2 0 -D 0 C) > >< C,, C)> D - 2> SC,) 2 -n C) 0 COO z m C) -4 C,, 0 8 -v 0 0 z CD ~3 ~J 0100 -~ 00-ICC -I 0100 C'DCCCDOOQ1 0CC) CC ~ CC ~ CD CC C') --I ~ ~- CD or 01 01 2~< C0~-J~CO C') ~ N) 0 a 0CC 4, N) ~ ~ 0)0CC CC) ~ 01 ~ -J CC C), C) 0 C) C~) 0 -u > C,, 0 2 0 0 C) 2 C,, C,, -n 2 --4 -< 0 2 C) -4 C,, 0 ~0 0 -o --4 0 0 00 or C-) -o C,, C) 0 C)> C) PAGENO="0045" = Z 9 2 C~ ~ C W zr ci~ C, C = = -~ ~ C, 22 g~ ~ p ~~;) = C, H *11 1k: u~ij ~j -~ H H -4 ~ H C- U ~U :~::;;!;!:~! PAGENO="0046" 42 EXHIBIT C A BILL To amend the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's SalaryAct of 1958,as amended, to increase salaries, to adjust pay alignment, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 101 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 (D.C. Code, sec. 4-823) is amended to read as follows: "SEc. 101. The annual rates of basic compensation of the officers and members of the Metropolitan Police force and the Fire Department of the District of Columbia shall be fixed in accordance with the following schedule of rates: "SALARY SCHEDULE Service "Salary class and title 1 2 3 Step 4 5 6 Class 1: Subclass (a) Fire Private. Police Private. Subclass (b) Private assigned as: Technician I. Plainclothesman. Subclass (c) Private assigned as: Technician II. Station clerk. Motorcycle officer. Class 2: Subclass (a) Fire Inspector. Subclass (b) Fire Inspector assigned as technician I. Subclass (c) Fire Inspector assigned as technician II. Class 3: Assistant marine engineer Assistant pilot. Detective. Class 4: Subclass (a) Fire sergeant. Police sergeant. Subclass(b) Detective sergeant. Subclass(c) Police sergeant assigned as motorcycle officer. Class 5 Fire lieutenant. Police lieutenant. Class6 Marine engineer. Pilot. Class 7 Fire captain. Police captain. Class 8 Battalion fire chief. Police Inspector. Class 9: Subclass (a) Deputy fire chief. Deputy chief of police. Subclass (b) Assistant fire chief. Assistant chief of police. Commanding officer of the White House Police. Commanding officer of the U.S. Park Police Class 10 Fire chief. Chief of Police." $7, 500 $7, 800 $8, 100 $8, 400 $8, 700 $9, 000 7,790 8,090 8,390 8,690 8,990 9,290 8,080 8,380 8,680 8,980 9,280 9,580 8,700 9,000 9,300 9,600 8,990 9,290 9,590 9,890 9,280 9,580 9,880 10, 180 9,290 9, 590 9,890 10, 190 9,575 9,875 10,175 10,475 10, 085 10,385 10,685 10,985 10, 155 10,455 10,755 11,055 11,200 11,628 12,056 12,484 12,270 12,698 13,126 13,554 13,340 13,875 14,410 14,945 15,490 16,025 16,560 17,095 18, 165 18,700 19,235 19,770 19, 236 19, 771 20,306 20, 841 23, 500 24, 035 24, 570 25, 105 SEc. 2. The rates of basic compensation of officers and members to whom the amendment made by section 1 of this Act applies shall be adjusted as follows: (1) Except as otherwise hereinafter provided in this section, each officer and member receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at one of the scheduled service rates of a class or subclass in PAGENO="0047" 43 the salary schedule in section 101 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 shall receive a rate of basic compensation at the corresponding rate in effect on and after the effective date of this Act. (2) Each private receiving basic compensation at service step 6 in any subclass in class 1, immediately prior to the effective date of this Act, and who has completed a minimum of ten years of continuous service as a private, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States, but excluding any period of time determined not to have been satisfactory service shall, in addition to receiving the corresponding rate provided for service step 6 by section 1 of this Act, receive a step increase (to be known as a longevity step increase) in an amount equivalent to the amount of increment between the service step rates provided by section 1 of this Act for his subclass in class 1: Provided, That any active service which each such private has rendered in excess of the ten years of continuous service will be credited to him for the next longevity step increase under the provisions of section 401 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958. (3) Each private receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at scheduled longevity step 7, longevity step 8, or longevity step 9 in any subclass of class 1, as the case may he, of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, shall receive a rate of basic compensation comprised of the rate provided for service step 6 in the respective subclasses in class 1, by section 1 of this Act, plus an amount derived for his longevity step by the application of a step increase for each of the three longevity steps in an amount equivalent to the rate of salary increment between the service steps in class 1 as provided by section 1 of this Act: Provided, That each such private serving in longevity step 7 or longevity step 8 of class 1, as the case may be, immediately prior to the effective date of this Act, and who completes thirteen years or sixteen years of continuous service as a private, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States, but excluding any period of time determined not to have been satisfactory service, shall receive additionally a step increase (to be known as a longevity step increase) upon completion of the thirteen- year period and also upon completion of the sixteen-year period in an amount e'iuivalent to the amount of increment between the service step rates pro- vided by section 1 of this Act for his subclass in class 1: Provided further, That any active service which each such private has rendered in excess of thirteen but less than sixteen years of continuous service will be credited to him for the next longevity step increase under provisions of section 401 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958. (4) Each officer or member receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at scheduled longevity step 7, longevity step 8, or longevity step 9, as the case may be, in classes 2 through 4, respectively, of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, shall receive a rate of basic compensation comprised of the rate provided for service step 4 in the respective classes 2 through 4 by section 1 of this Act, plus an amount derived for his longevity step by application of a step increase for each of the three longevity steps in an amount equivalent to the rate of salary increment between the service step rate in the respective classes 2 through 4 as provided by section 1 of this Act: Provided, That each officer or member serving in a maximum scheduled service step, longevity step 7, or longevity step 8, as the case may be, in classes 2 through 4, respectively, of the District of Colum- bia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, shall receive additionally a longevity step increase if he has completed one hundred and fifty six calendar weeks of continuous active service, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States but excluding any period of time determined not to have been satisfactory service, in the step in which he was serving immediately prior to the effective date of this Act: Provided further, That any active service which each such officer or member has rendered in excess of the one hundred and fifty six calendar weeks of active service in the maximum service step, longevity step 7, or longevity step 8, as the case may be, in which he was serving immediately prior to the effective date of this Act will be credited to him for the next longevity step increase under the provisions of section 401 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958. (5) Each officer or member receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at scheduled longevity step 7 or longevity step 8, as the case may be, in classes 5 through 9, respectively, of the District PAGENO="0048" 44 of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, shall receive a rate of basic compensation comprised of the rate provided for service step 4 in the respective classes S through 9, by section 1 of this Act plus an amount derived for his longevity step by application of a step increase for each of the two longevity steps in an amount equivalent to the rate of salary increment be- tween the service step rates in the respective classes 5 through 9 as provided by section 1 of this Act: Provided, That each officer or member serving in a maximum scheduled service step or longevity step 7, as the case may be, as heretofore included in classes 5 through 9, respectively, of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, shall receive additionally a longevity step increase if he has completed one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of continuous active service, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States, but excluding any period of time determined not to have been satisfactory service, in the step in which he was serving im- mediately prior to the effective date of this Act: Provided further, That any active service which each such officer or member has rendered in excess of the one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of active service in the maximum service step or longevity step 7, as the case may be, in which he was serving immediately prior to the effective date of this Act will be credited to him for for next longevity step increase under the provisions of section 401 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958. (6) The officer assigned as Police Executive Officer and who is receiving basic compensation as such immediately prior to the effective date of this Act at the scheduled longevity step 8, class 9, subclass (b), shall receive a corresponding rate of basic compensation as an Assistant Chief of Police as established by section 1 of this Act and as provided for other officers and members in longevity step 8 of class 9, subclass (b), by subsection (5) of this section and such officer shall receive $500 per annum additionally so long as he is assigned in the dual capacity of Police Executive Officer and Assistant Police Chief. Such additional amount of compensation is to be included in any basic computation for retirement purposes under the Police- men and Firemen's Retirement and Disability Act (D.C. Code, title 4, chapter 5) and for the purpose of determining the amount of insurance for which an individual is eligible under title 5, chapter 87, United States Code: Pro- vided, That upon termination of the services of such officer, the provisions of this paragraph are not to be applied to any other officer or member assigned as Assistant Chief of Police. SEC. 3. Each officer or member in class 1 through class 8 who has completed one year of probation and who has completed or completes courses of study in law enforcement or fire science subjects as the case may be at an accredited college or university, shall receive additional compensation subject to the kind of law en- forcement or fire science subjects, the number of semester hours of study required, and amount of such additional compensation to be paid as determined and em- bodied in regulations adopted and promulgated by the District of Columbia Council in the case of the Metropolitan Police Department and the District of Columbia Fire Department, the Secretary of the Interior in the case of the United States Park Police force, and the Secretary of the Treasury in the case of the White House Police force: Provided, That the said Council and the said Secretaries shall standardize such requirements and compensation to be paid to the fullest extent possible for the respective police forces and the District of Columbia Fire De- partment. SEC. 4. (a) The Commissioner of the District of Columbia is authorized, under regulations prescribed by theDistrict of Columbia Council, to- (1) pay or reimburse an individual, as provided for civilian officers and employees by title 5, chapter 57, subchapter 1, United States Code, for the expenses of travel, including per diem in lieu of subsistence expenses, in traveling between his home or place of business and the District of Columbia, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he is qualified for appointment to the position of private in the Metropolitan Police force; (2) pay to a person newly appointed as a private in the Metropolitan Police force, who is required to relocate his place of residence in order to come within the area of residence for such employees prescribed by the Council, in addition to any other payments authorized by law- (i) A cash resettlement allowance not to exceed $250, and (ii) A per diem allowance not to exceed $7.50 per day for a period not to exceed ninety days beginning with the date of his appointment: Provided, That allowances authorized by this subsection shall not be allowed unless the person selected shall agree in writing to remain a PAGENO="0049" 45 reember of the Metropolitan Police force for twenty-four months follow- ing his appointment unless separated for a reason which is (1) beyond his control and (2) which is acceptable to the Commissioner. In case of violation of such agreement, any moneys expended by the District of Columbia on the allowances authorized by this subsection shall be recoverable from the individual concerned as a debt. (b) Unobligated balances of applicable current appropriations are hereby made available to carry out the purpose of this sectioii. SEC. 5. (a) Section 401(a) of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 is amended to read as follows: "SEc. 401. (a) In recognition of long and faithful service, each officer and mem- ber, except the Chief of Police and Fire Chief, shall receive an additional step increase (to be known as a longevity step increase) beyond the maximum scheduled service step rate for the subclass in which he is serving, or for the class in which he is serving if there are no subclasses in his class for each one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of continuous service completed by him following the effective date of this subsection at such maximum rate or at a rate in excess thereof, without change to a higher class, subject to all of the following conditions: "(1) No officer or member shall receive more than one longevity step increase for any one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of continuous service, and in order to be eligible therefor he shall have a current perform- ance rating of `satisfactory' or better. "(2) Not more than three successive longevity step increases may be granted to any officer or member in classes 1 through 4, nor more than two successive longevity step increases may be granted to any officer or member in classes 5 through 9. "(3) Each longevity step increase shall be equal to one step increase of the class or subclass in which the officer or member is serving. "(4) Each longevity step increase shall begin on the first day of the first pay period following completion of each one hundred and fifty-six weeks." SEC. 6. Section 105 of Public Law 88-575, approved September 2, 1964 (78 Stat. 882) is repealed. SEC. 7. The paragraph relating to the probationary period for police privates under the heading "Metropolitan Police" in the first section of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations to provide for the expenses of the government of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and nineteen, and for other purposes", approved August 31, 1918 (40 Stat. 938, D.C. Code, sec. 4-105), is amended to read as follows: "No person shall receive a permanent appointment who has not served the required probationary period, but the service during probation shall be deemed to be service in the uniformed force if succeeded by a permanent appointment, and as such shall be included and counted in determining eligibility for advancement, promotion, retirement, and pension in accordance with existing law. If at any time during the period of probation, the conduct or capacity of the probationer is determined by the Commissioner of the District of Columbia, or his designated agent, to be unsatisfactory, the pro- bationer shall be separated from the service after advance written notifica- tion of the reasons for and the effective date of the separation. The retention of the probationer in the service after satisfactory completion of the proba- tionary period shall be equivalent to a permanent appointment therein." SEC. 8. (a) Retroactive compensation or salary shall be paid by reason of this Act only in the case of an individual in the service of the District of Columbia government or of the United States (including service in the Armed ~ orces of the United States) on the date of enactment of this Act, except that such retroactive compensation or salary shall be paid (1) to an officer or member of the Metropoli- tan Police force, the Nrc Department of the District of Columbia, the United States Park Police force, or the White House Police force, who retired during the period beginning on the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after December 31, 1967, and ending on the date of enactment of this Act, for services rendered during such period, and (2) in accordance with the provisions of sub- chapter 8 of chapter 55 of title 5, 1~ nited States Code (relating to settlement of accounts of deceased employees), for services rendered during the period beginning on the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after IDecember 31, 1967, and ending on the date of enactment of this Act, by an officer or member who dies during such period. 8S-574-6S-----4 PAGENO="0050" 46 (b) For the purposes of this section, service in the Armed Forces of the United States, in the case of an individual relieved from training and service in the Armed Forces of the United States or discharged from hospitalization following such training and services, shall include the period provided by law for the manda- tory restoration of such individual to a position in or under the Federal Govern- ment or the municipal government of the District of Columbia. SEC. 9. For the purpose of determining the amount of insurance for which an officer or member is eligible under the provisions of chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code (relating to government employees group life insurance), all changes in rates of compensation or salary which result from the enactment of this title shall be held and considered to be effective as of the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 10. This Act shall take effect on the first day of the first pay period begin- ning on or after December 31, 1967. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, January Pd2, 1968. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Government of the District of Columbia has for report H.R. 13981, a bill "To authorize the District of Columbia government to pay travel expenses, per diem to persons traveling between their home or place of business to the District of Columbia to ascertain whether he is qualified for appointment to the Metropolitan Police Department, and for other purposes." The bill provides recruitment inducements for the Metropolitan Police force substantially similar to those recommended by the former Board of Commissioners in its letter of February 9, 1967 to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and incorporated in H.R. 6644 and H.R. 11149. These recruitment inducements were also recommended by the Board of Commissioners in its October 10, 1967 report to you on H.R. 10761, H.R. 11278, and H.R. 11435. The District of Columbia Government reiterates the view that these inducements would be a valuable aid in filling the vacancies on the Metropolitan Police force. While it is believed that a salary increase will facilitate the recruitment of applicants for the Metropolitan Police force, there is also a definite need to pro- vide additional recruitment incentives to strengthen the District's ability to obtain more qualified applicants. Even though definite emphasis is placed on recruiting locally, the shortage of qualified police applicants in the District of Columbia and the National Capital Region requires recruiting efforts beyond these areas. In addition to attractive salaries, applicants are interested in compensation for their expenses and such extra expenditures as may be required in accepting employment as a police private in the District. Accordingly, the following recruitment inducements provided in the bill can be expected to aid in eliminating the present large number (304) of police vacancies: 1. The payment of transportation expenses to applicants who are requested to travel to Washington, D.C. in order that certain determinations as to their suitability and qualifications for appointment can be made. The estimated annual cost to the District for these expenses is $25,000. 2. A resettlement cash allowance (not to exceed $250) and a 90-day per diem allowance (not to exceed $7.50 per day) for newly-appointed privates who are required to relocate their place of residence. Such allowances would be subject to an agreement by the newly-appointed private to remain in the police service for a period of two years, with a refund required if he left the service within such period. It would be necessary to establish regulations for the entitlement of resettle- ment allowances. Dependent on the District's ability or inability to recruit qual- ified policemen, it may be necessary to revise these regulations, but initially they would provide that- A. Payment of the resettlement cash allowance will be made on the basis of $250 for a married appointee, or $100 for an unmarried appointee, to provide for extra expenses incurred in relocating his place of residence. To be eligible for such resettlement allowance, the appointee at the time of appointment must live outside the limits of the area prescribed by the Dis- trict of Columbia Council pursuant to statute, presently the territory within a radius of twenty-one miles from the United States Capitol Building, and be required to move into the prescribed area. The estimated annual cost to the District for these allowances is $35,000. PAGENO="0051" 47 B. The per diem allowance of $7.50 per day will be limited to 30 days for unmarried policemen, and for married policemen will be limited to such time as is required to relocate his family, but not in excess of 60 days, sub- ject to change based on difficulty of recruiting, as indicated above. The estimated annual cost for these allowances is $67,000. Federal Government agencies such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Veterans Administration, have authority to pay preemployment interview expenses. In a report on H. R. 9020, 89th Con- gress, in June, 1965, concerning the payment of preemployment interviews expenses of applicants for positions in the Federal Government, the United States Civil Service Commission pointed out the need for payment of interview expenses in order to compete with private industry. Also, in the report it was stated that it has been the experience of Federal employers in recent years that inability to pay these expenses was a governing factor in numerous declination of job offers. A report issued March, 1962 by the Civil Service Commission on "Moving Expenses of Federal Employees" pointed out some of the "above normal" living or extra expenses incurred as the result of relocating. These extra expenses were incurred by reason of requirements such as food and lodging of an employee while maintaining his family at the old location; house-hunting visits to new locations; temporary housing at the new location; return trips to the old place of residence for visiting and moving employee's family; closing of the old residence and open- ing the new permanent home, including forced sales, increases in rent, home pay- ments, need for purchasing new household furnishings, and similar other needs. The study showed that analysis of over 5,000 responses indicated that four out of five employees lost money on their move. The average loss, counting only expenses considered necessary and reasonable for such moves, was $558. (With the $250 resettlement allowance plus the $7.50 per diem allowance not to exceed 60 days for a married policeman, the District could pay a maximum of $700.) Heaviest losses were from closing costs on sale of old home, closing costs on new home, above normal cost for employees reporting to new jobs ahead of their families, and cost of temporary quarters for the family. A study of industry practice in 1964 by the American Management Association confirmed earlier studies by the National Industrial Conference Board and others that the great majority of businesses having specific policies on transfer expenses (generally the larger firms) do everything possible to ease the burden on employees who are asked to move. Practically all underwrite temporary living expenses and make allowances for assistance in disposing of homes and in meeting other relocation expenses. For the foregoing reasons, the Government of the District of Columbia strongly urges the enactment of H.R. 13981 in order to make available for the use of the District the Metropolitan Police recruitment inducements provided by the bill. I have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, THOMAS W. FLETCHER, Assistant to the Commissioner, (For Walter E. Washington, Commissioner). Mr. WHITENER. ELR. 13980 is a bill intrOduced by Mr. Broyhill on November 13, 1967? Mr. WASHINGTON. November 13, yes. Mr. WHITENER. That is the one I believe Mr. Broyhill mentioned a while ago and said there was some error? Mr. BROYHILL. No, not an error in the bill. I stated that in the agenda of the hearing there was an error as to what was included in the bill. The agenda states that my bill would increase the pay of police and firemen by an average of 7 percent, and I believe it would increase the pay by 8.7 percent. Is that your understanding, Mr. Commissioner? Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes. Mr. WHITENER. You may proceed, Commissioner Washington. PAGENO="0052" 48 Su~IARY OF BILLS Mr. WASHINGTON. In an analysis of these bills, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the following statement: H.R. 10761. H.R. 11278, H.R. 11435, and H.R. 13980 provide for (1) a salary increase for police and firemen averaging 8.7 percent estimated to cost $4.1 million, excluding vacancies for a full fiscal year, with H.R. 11435 combining all Sergeants including Detective Sergeants in one sub- class rather than in separate subclasses as provided by H.R. 10761, H.R. 11278, and H.R. 13980; (2) deletion of the scheduled longevity steps 7, 8, and 9, with retention of three longevity step increases for Privates through Sergeants and two longevity step increases for Lieutenants through Deputy Chief, with three years between each such increase; (3) payment of $500 per annum additional to the Police Executive Officer who is assigned as one of the Assistant Chiefs of Police; (4) payment of $600 to any officer or member below the rank of Deputy Chief in the Police Department who has a minimum of thirty college credit hours and has served one year probation (H.R. 13980 includes somewhat similar provision covering both Police and Fire and designates the need for credit hours in law enforcement of administration for police and fire science or administration for firemen); (5) payment of $1200 to any officer or member below the rank of Deputy Chief in the Police Department who has 60 or more college credit hours and has served one year probation (H.R. 13980 includes both Police and Fire in same manner as for 30 credit hour provision); (6) advancement of all officers or members except privates to the highest longevity step in their respectn e class or subclass upon com- pletion of thirty years of continuous service in the police force or in the Fire Department; and (7) H.R. 13.980 only provides for salary saving provisions for members of the Police and Fire Departments assigned as Technician I, Technician II, or Station Clerk, as the case may he, who may lose such an assignment only because of the re- organization of the Police or Fire Department. H.R. 13981 provides only for police recruitment inducements covering pay for pre-employ- ment interview expenses, relocation allowances not to exceed $250 and per diem allowance not to exceed $7.50 up to 90 days. RECOMMENDATIONS I concur in the provisions of these bills relating to the change in longevity step increases, additional pay for the Police Executive Officer, pay incentive principle for educational attainment for both police and fire, and salary protection for Technicians and Station Clerks. However, (1) the additional pay for the Police Executive Officer should be subject to insurance benefits in addition to retire- ment benefits, and (2) rather than indicate a stated amount of com- pensation for educational attainment, I believe it more practical to provide for administrative application of such compensation through regulatory issuances according to changes which may occur in basic salary rates, and changes in law enforcement and fire fighting tech- nology. I do not consider appropriate the provision in these bills concern- ing the advancement of all officers and members except privates to the highest longevity step of their respective class or subclass upon completion of thirty years service. The District Government was PAGENO="0053" 49 strongly opposed to a similar provision which was considered by the Congress in August 1964 for Deputy Chiefs and subsequently enacted into law as a provision of P.L. 88-575, approved September 2, 1964, because of the inequities which it created and because of its conflict with the concept of longevity pay for compensatory recognition of long service in the same class or grade. Also, since the basic salary rate is used for retirement pay purposes, this provision which allows attainment of the top rate in a class or subclass after thirty years service might encourage early retirement of those officers and members who had not yet reached the niandatory retirement age. And with our present problems, I might say parenthetically, with recruitment, we certainly want to keep the officers who have reached this kind of service. Otherwise such officers arid members might continue their employ- mnent and the Police and Fire Departments would benefit from their long experience and knowledge. Additionally, no other salary system in the District Government permits an employee to automatically jump to his top rate because of a long period of service. Although I recognize there is an urgent need for an increase in the salaries of police and firemen, and for some of the benefits as provided by these bills, I cannot support the pay schedule provided therein nor the 30-year service advancement that I have just discussed. In addition to those provisions of these bills with which I concur with certain modifications, there is also need to include recruitment in- centives similar to those provided in ll.R. 13981. At this time I would like to comment on the need for legislation as well as the Dis- trict's proposed bill which is recommended to be substituted for the provisions of these bills. NEED FOR LEGISLATION-VACANCIES rfhe need for this proposed legislation is critical because of the difficulties being encountered in the filling of vacancies particularly in the Metropolitan Police force. The President has charged the Dis- trict Government with responsibility for making the streets of Wash- ington free of crime. In order to meet this responsibility, it is essential that the police force be at full strength and manned with the best qualified personnel available. As of January 18, 1968, the Metro- politan Police Force had 308 vacancies as compared to 307 vacancies on January 1, 1967. Also, the D.C. Fire Department has averaged 33 vacancies since January 1, 1967, with 39 vacancies as of January 18, 1968. While the vacancy problem in the Fire Department is not as acute as it is in the Metropolitan Police Force, there is still a critical need to fully man both forces to carry out these vital services in the District of Columbia. It is therefore essential that effective action be taken with respect to pay and recruiting benefits and techniques so as to enable the District Government to fully staff these forces. The District's proposed bill is designed to meet this need by includ- ing a pay adjustment and recruitment incentives, as well as other benefits to increase the quality and effectiveness of the Police and Fire Departments. In addition to the vacancies, statistics show that major crime in the District of Columbia increased 34.3 percent during period from Janu- ary through September 1967 as compared to same period during 1966, With the national trend increase being 16 percent during same period. PAGENO="0054" 50 And I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to work very hard on that problem. In 1966 the District of Columbia ranked 3rd highest in number of crime offenses among sixteen cities with a population of 500,000 to 1,000,000. The number of fire alarms in the District of Columbia has also increased approximately 19 percent in 1967 as compared to the same period of time in 1966. The District, in its recruitment efforts, continues its vigorous efforts to recruit for the vacancies in the police and fire forces. We now have, I might say, two recruitment mobiles on the streets of the city in order to enhance recruitment. Continued contacts are also being made in the District of Columbia and nearby community high schools, colleges, citizens and other private groups, federal agencies and other similar sources. Also cooperation of the Department of Defense has been obtained for visiting military bases and early dis- charge of servicemen for police recruitment purposes. We will have another group out very shortly at seven more of the bases and it is hoped that we will come very close, within the next 30 or 40 days, to coming to full strength. Advertisements and posters- have been placed in metropolitan area newspapers, periodicals, buses, post offices and other available public facilities, together with spot an- nouncements on radio and television. In addition the LT.S. Civil Service Commission holds examinations in the District on the 2nd and 4th Saturday and on the 1st Thursday night of each month for the benefit of any walk-ins. Since October, 1967, a mobile recruiting unit has been used in various locations in the District. I mentioned that. We now have another one. Recruiting teams are also utilized in visiting other cities in the eastern and middle states. During the period January 1, 1967 through January 15,. 1968 these efforts have resulted in the appointment of 272 policemen out of a total in excess of 1200 applicants who passed the written examination. The recruitment program for the Fire Department is essentially conducted similar to that for the Police Department except that recruiting teams to other cities are not used. During Fiscal Year 1967, 83 firemen were appointed out of 357 originally certified as being eligible. Despite these recruiting efforts and number of appointments made, the vacancies continue to exist and, as in the case of the police depart- ment, the high number of vacancies has not decreased. COMPETITION WITH OTHER CITIES In making a comparison with other major cities and nearby com- munities, the study of pay adjustment needs indicated that as a result of an average increase of 11.2 percent in the recruiting rates for police privates by 17 of the 20 other cities having over 500,000 population, and an average increase of 10.7 percent in the recruiting rates for fire privates by 18 of these 20 major cities since the last previous study made in mid-1966, Washington, with a recruiting rate of $6,700 ap- proved in November, 1966, has dropped in relative standing from 5th to 12th place for police private and from 5th to 11th place for fire private. Also, the study showed that the nearby communities have increased their rates averaging 10.7 percent for police and 7.9 percent for firemen. PAGENO="0055" 51 The recruiting rates paid police by these communities either exceed or are within a few hundred dollars of the D.C. Government's recruit- ing rate of $6,700 for policemen. Rates for firemen are somewhat lower than rates for policemen in Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties, due primarily to the manner in which such services heretofore have been accomplished; for example, mainly through volunteer services or fire tax district arrangements. However, these communities are de- veloping their fire fighting activities on a direct County payroll basis which will in all probability require the establishment of rates closely paralleling their rates for police services. At the present time, Alexan- dria and Fairfax have the same rates for both police and fire privates. CLASSIFICATION ACT EMPLOYEES Increases to be given in three stages for federal and District employees under the Classification Act have been approved by Congress. The first stage, a 4.5 percent increase was made effective retroactive to the beginning of the first pay period beginning on or after October 1 for our Police and Firemen. If we can do this for our Classified Service employees it would appear to me that we should leave our police and firemen in the same position. I would strongly urge that this be considered. The second and third stages would become effective in 1968 and 1969 respectively, with increases given according to the salary comparability needs of the Federal Government with private enterprise. The amount of increase is meaningful insofar as police and fire employees are concerned, because it adds substance to other categories of positions from a more attractive competitive recruitment viewpoint. PRIVATE BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY Other occupations in the community currently are being paid rates which when compared to the existing rates for police and firemen pose a more desirable attraction, especially in view of the qualification and physical requirements, hazardous and other work conditions as are present in police and fire occupations. Exemples are: Bus Driver, $7,000; Construction Laborer, $6,500; Plumber Helper, $6,656; Truck Driver, $6,968; and Tile Setter Helper, $7,728. PAY PROPOSAL The improved competitive position of the nearby communities due to their increased rates, comparison to rates for other occupations within the District of Columbia which have less demanding working conditions and requirements than do police and firemen, and the lowering of the District's relative standing with other major cities in the rates paid police and firemen, fully substantiate a need to increase the rates for D.C. Government police and fire forces. Using $7,500 as the entrance salary for police and fire privates as previously recommended for police privates by the District Govern- ment on Febrñary 9, 1967, to Congress, a proposed schedule of rates has been developed as a measure to insure salaries that would both attract and retain qualified personnel. PAGENO="0056" 52 The proposed increase which averages approximately 7 percent (costing an estimated $3.3 million excluding vacancies for a full fiscal year) would improve considerably the District's competitive salary position both locally and nationally, by assuring the continuation of the District's first place ranking with nearby communities, and raising the recruiting salaries for District police and firemen from 12th to 5th and 11th to 5th respectively among the 20 other major cities. Comparison of the recruiting and maximum rates for police and fire privates with other major cities and nearby communities is shown in Charts A through F provided to the Committee members. (The charts follow:) Ci~art A COMPARISON OF POLICE PRIVATE MINIMUM SALARY RATES CITIES OVER 500,000 POPULATION - $5~ 000 $6000 $7~ 000 S8~ 000 $9~000 San Francisco Los Angeles New York San Diego D.C. PROPOSED Detroit Seattle Milwaukee Cincinnati Cleveland Chica go Baltirnore* D.C. PRESENT Philadelphia St. Louis New Orleans Pittsburgh Houston Dallas Buffalo Boston San Antonio ~`Effective 9/1/67 p,~~j(Rank 5th pla ~ $7500 $6 - ~o r-j ~i$6780 iiiuuiuuia(Rank 12th place)nwIUlI$6700 $5963 $5946 $5904 * $5825 - $5772 -$4992 `U 8/T7~7 PAGENO="0057" 53 Chart C COMPARISON OF POLICE PRIVATE MAXIMUM SALARY FATES EXCLUDING LONGEVITY RATES~CITIES OVER 500, 000 POPULAT1ON -~-~ - ~~0058000000~l00 San Francisco ~ Los Angeles ~ $051 San Diego = ___________________________ New York 0. C. PROPOSED w (Rank 5th place) ~ $9000 Milwaukee ~.................. $8700 Baltimore* -$8640 0. C * PRESE NT m.nuiau.t(Rank 7th pla c e)uiuim,uim,u~i4ft$ 8400 Detroit -~o35 Chicago ~ Cleveland Seattle $8040 Cincinnati - $7921 St. Louis Buffalo -- $7285 Boston ~ $7280 Pittsburgh ~$6900 Philadelphia ~ - -~$6879 New Orleans $6720 Houston .~-~---.----~-.--~ $6708 Dallas __________ San Antonio ~$5820 aEffective 9/1/67 8/1 / 67 PAGENO="0058" 54 Chart C COMPARISON OF FIRE PRIVATE MINIMUM SALARY RATES CITIES OVER 500, 000 POPULATION _______________ $5_000 $6_000 $7_000 58.000 $9000 I I $8124 - ~7Q_~7 $7572 ~~-.~(Rank 5th plaCe)'' ~ $7500 $6840 - $6792 ~$6780 San Francisco Los Angeles New York San Diego D.C. PROPOSEfl Detroit Seattle Cincinnati Cleveland Chicago Baltirnore* D.C. PRESENT Milwaukee Philadelphia St. Louis New Orleans Pittsburgh Hou ston Dallas Buffalo Boston San Antonio aEffective 9/1/67 *uiuuui.u( Rank 11th place)uu.u~flhI$670 0 ~. $5940 $5772 8/1/67 PAGENO="0059" DO Chart 0 COMPARISON OF FIRE PRIVATE MAXIMUM SALARY RATES EXCLUDING LONGEVITY RATES -CITIES OVER 500, 000 POPULATION - $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10 000 I ~- 1 ~ ~$9564 ~~$9564 .... Rank 5th plac e)~ r~ ~ $9000 - -_.~$8 640 uunuiusp(Rank 6th place).iiiiuiuiiun.iiu.,IIII $8400 San Francisco Los Angeles New York San Diego D.C. PROPOSED Baltimore * D.C. PRESENT Detroit Chicago Cleveland Seattle Cincinnati Milwaukee St. Louis Buffalo Boston Pittsburgh Philadelphia New Orleans Hon 5ton Dallas San Antonio A -~ 477 Rfl $6879 ~$67a0 _-J~ $6684 ~ $6156 ~$5424 Effective 9/1/67 8/1/67 PAGENO="0060" 56 Chart E COMPARISON OF POLICE PRIVATE SALARY RATES WITH NEARBY COM\IUYITiE~ - MINIMUM $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,00.Q__. D. C.. PROPOSED Prince Georges D.C. PRESENT Arlington Fairfax Montgomery Alexandria. I I I ~ $7500 - $6853 ~uunwrniHhJ$67oo -$6677 $6672 $700~ $6510 MAXIMUM (Excluding Longevity Rates) $6 000 $7 000 $8000. . $~. 00 - Prince Georges D, C. PROPOSED Fairfax Montgomery Arlington U. C. PRESE NT Alexandria . $901 $900 $852a $891i3 $8486 miiiuiuuiuur.mii.uimiuannuu..uuiuiuuiu.wi.Jlff $8400 ~ $8310 ~-~---------. 8/1/67 PAGENO="0061" 57 Chart F COMPARISON OF ~ RATES WIT~~RBY COMMUNITICS MINIMUM -~ ..%~O00 ~ ~ 0 O C. PROPOSED ~~ar4 ~ $7500 D. C. PRESENT ~ mu ~ $6700 Prince Georges ~$6527 Alexandria $65l0 Montgomery Arlington mui mm umwramsu~mmriTnmmm~mumr~I $6344 Fairfax ~ $~6672 ~ ~- ~- MAXIMUM Excluding Longevity Rates D. C. PROPOSED Prince Georges Montgomery D.C. PRESENT Alexandria Fairfax Arlington 97.000 $8~000 ~ $9000 ~-.----- $8581 ~ $8517 ~1 1111 1 *mrniuuumiuadflt. $8400 ~ $8310 ~-~- ~ ~ $8~20 ~ $8091 8/1/67 Mr. WASHINGTON. In addition to the proposed increase, it is pro- posed to eliminate the longevity steps from the salary schedule with retention of the principle of longevity step increases. However, it is proj)osed to reduce the time between such increases from four to three years. This would permit a private to reach the maximum salary rate in sixteen years rather than in nineteen years as is now the case. The same reduction in the number of years between longevity step increases would apply to all the other officers and members except the Fire Chief and Police Chief who would not receive the benefit of any longevity step increase. Proposed Recruitment Benefits: PAGENO="0062" 58 RECRUITMENT INCENTIVES I also propose to include recruitment inducements as previously endorsed by the District Government in the proposed legislation introduced as H.R. 6644 and H. R. 11149. While it is believed that the salary increase as discussed will facilitate the recruitment of appli- cants for the Metropolitan Police Force, there is also a definite need to provide additional recruitment incentives to strengthen the District's ability to obtain more qualified applicants. Even though definite emphasis is placed on recruiting locally, the shortage of qualified police applicants in the District of Columbia and the National Capital Region requires recruiting efforts beyond these areas. In addition to attractive salaries, applicants are interested in compensation for their expenses and extra expenditures as may be required in accepting employment as a police private in the District. I would say here parenthetically that it would appear to me that in other categories of employment we recognize this as a perfectly valid position, and for the police and firemen I certainly believe that we should close all the gaps that might even suggest that we have less than the best for our police and fire forces. Accordingly, the following recruitment inducements are proposed in conjunction with recruitment salary increases to aid in eliminating the large number of police vacancies: 1. The payment of transportation expenses to applicants who are requested to travel to Washington, D.C. in order that certain deter- minations as to their suitability and qualifications for appointment can be made. The estimated annual cost to the District for these expenses is $25,000. 2. A resettlement cash allowance (not to exceed $250) and a 90-day per diem allowance (not to exceed $7.50 per day) for newly appointed privates who are required to relocate their place of residence. Such allowances would be subject to an agreement by the newly appointed private to remain in the police service for a period of two years, with a refund required if he left the service within such period. It would be necessary to establish regulations for the entitlement of resettl unent allowances. Dependent on the District's ability or in- ability to recruit qualified policemen, it may be necessary to revise these regulations, but initially they would provide that: 1. Payment of the resettlement cash allowance will be made on the basis of $250 for a married appointee, or $100 for an unmarried appointee, to provide for extra expenses incurred in relocating his place of residence. To be eligible for such resettlement allowance, the appointee at the time of appointment must live outside the limits of the area prescribed by the District Government, which is presently the territory within a radius of 21 miles from the United States Capitol Building, and be required to move into the prescribed area. The estimated annual cost to the District for these allowances is $35,000. 2. The per diem allowance of $7.50 per day will be limited to 30 days for unmarried policemen, and for married policemen will be limited to such time as is required to relocate his family, but not in excess of 60 days, subject to change based on difficulty of recruiting, as previously indicated. The estimated annual cost for these allowances is $67,000. PAGENO="0063" 59 PRECEDENTS Federal Government agencies such as the Tennessee Valley Au- thority, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Veterans Adminis- tration, have authority to pay pre-employment interview expenses. In a report on H. B. 9020, 89th Congress, in June, 1965, concerning the payment of pre-employment interview expenses of applicants for positions in the Federal Government, and in a report dated February 6, 1967 to the President of the Senateon the same subject, the U.S. Civil Service Commission pointed out the need for payment of inter- view expenses in order to compete with private industry. Also, in the report it was stated that it has been the experience of Federal employers in recent years that inability to pay these expenses was a governing factor in numerous declinations of job offers. A report issued March, 1962 by the Civil Service Commission on "Moving Expenses of Federal Employees" pointed out some of the "above normal" living or extra expenses incurred as the result of relocating. These extra expenses were incurred by reason of require- ments such as food and lodging of an employee while maintaining his family at the old location; house-hunting visits to new locations; temporary housing at the new location; return trips to the old place of residence for visiting and moving employee's family; closing of the old residence and opening the new permanent home, including forced sales, increases in rent, home payments, need for purchasing new household furnishings, and similar other needs. The study showed that analysis of over 5,000 responses indicated that four out of five employees lost money on their move. The average loss, counting only expenses considered necessary and reasonable for such moves, was $538. (With the $250 resettlement allowance plus the $7.50 per diem allowance not to exceed 60 days for a married policeman, the District could pay a maximum of $700.) Heaviest losses were from closing costs on sale of old home, closing costs on new home, above normal cost for employees reporting to new jobs ahead of their families, and cost of temporary quarters for the family. A study of industry practice in 1964 by the American Management Association confirmed earlier studies by the National Management Association confirmed earlier studies by the National Industrial Conference Board and others that the great majority of businesses having specific policies on transfer expenses (generally the larger firms) do everything possible to ease the burden on employees who are asked to move. Practically all underwrite temporary living ex- penses and make allowances for assistance in disposing of homes and in meeting other relocation expenses. PROPOSED EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS For the improvement of both the police and fire services, it is proposed to provide additional compensation to those officers and members who have served their first year probationary period and who complete or have completed courses of study in law enforcement or fire science and administration subjects at an accredited college or university. In the interest of facilitating the application of the latest technological advances and techniques in police and firefighting operations, it is proposed to meet such need by the issuance of regula- tions regarding the subjects required and the amount of compensation. PAGENO="0064" 60 It might be well parenthetically to point out to Congressman Nelsen that even now in the new technical college (Washington Technical Institute) we are in the process of working out some training courses for both police and firemen that would be an integral part of the curriculum of the new college. There has been a great deal of interest in this development in recent days. Initially the proposed form of compensation could be 8 per cent of their rate of pay (i.e., $600 in the case of a private) upon completion of thirty hours of such subjects and 16 per cent of their rate of pay (i.e., $1,200 in the case of a private) upon completion of sixty hours of such subjects. This approach to recognition of academic attainments is believed to be more feasible than the use of the "Master Patrolman" concept as originally recom- mended by the Crime Commission and which was included in the proposed bills (i.e. H.R. 6644 and ILR. 11149) concerning increase in rates of pay for police and related recruitment benefits submitted in February 1967 for Congressional consideration. The concept, as now proposed, is that a person before being eligible for a rate of pay which is higher than the regular base pay for a police or fire private, should have at least a year of police or firefighting experience in addition to having the required college credits. Also from a morale standpoint of the present forces, it is believed inadvisable to appoint a person as a master patrolman or master firefighter, as the case may be, without his having gone through a period of basic on-the- job training and experience. In addition, the provision of added com- pensation for completing thirty credit hours and sixty credit hours provides an incentive to personnel already on the force to achieve such additional education. Also, the objective of attracting persons with more than a high school education to the police or firefighting forces will be served by having an initial recruiting rate of $7,500 with the added incentive of $600 or $1,200 additional salary at the end of the first year of employment. ASSISTANTS CHIEFS OF POLICE The rank of Assistant Chief of Police is proposed to permit appro- priate recognition and compensation of those officers who report directly to the Chief of Police and have been assigned responsibility for a maj or function under the reorganization of the Metropolitan Police Department, such an Assistant Chief for Field Operations, Assistant Chief for Administrative Services, Assistant Chief for Tech- nical Services, or Assistant Chief for Inspectional Services. The present rank of "Deputy Chief assigned as the Police Executive Officer" is proposed to be eliminated because the officer who had been serving in this category has been also assigned as one of the Assistant Chiefs of Police. In recognition of this dual assignment, I propose that this police officer receive an additional rate of compensation in the amount of $500. DELETION OF 30-YEAR ADVANCEMENT PROVISION Additionally, it is proposed to repeal the provision of P.L. 88-575 approved September 2, 1964, which allows a Deputy Chief to advance to the top step of his class upon completion of thirty years of Service in the department. This provision is a benefit applying to Deputy PAGENO="0065" 61 Chiefs oniy. As a matter of principle which I discussed earlier in my comments regarding the 30-year advancement provision for all officers and members and in the interest of sound pay administration, this provision should be deleted from the present legislation. REVISION OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD REQUIREMENT It is proposed to amend the existing law relating to the probationary year of police privates. A recent District Court decision interpreted existing law as requiring that a police private must be retained for the full probationary year unless formal charges are brought against him before a police trial board. This procedure is inconsistent with the applicable to probationary firemen and all other District~ employees who are subject to dismissal for unsatisfactory performance at any time during the probationary year. rfhe requirement that a proba- tionary policeman with unsatisfactory service be retained for the full probationary year reflects unfavorably on the efficiency and economy of the Police Department and is not in the best interest of the District Government in terms of public safety. A provision is therefore included in the proposed substitute bill to bring dismissal proceedings for probationary policemen in line with those of all other District em- ployees. ESTIMATED Cos~ OF LEGISLATION COST AND FUNDING The estimated cost for the proposed pay raise is $3.3 million ex- cluding vacancies, on a full year basis. However, I propose that the proposed pay increase be effective retroactively to the first day of the pay period which began on December 31, 1967-and I might point out that this varies from. the earlier urging which I now reinstate that this retroactive feature be made to become effective on October 1. The problem that I have here is that the appropriated funds that are a]ready allocated for this increase provide for a December 31 date. I am urging upon this Committee consideration of the October 1, 1967, date to conform it with that of the Classified Pay Bill. Therefore, the additional cost of the balance of Fiscal Year 1968 will be approximately $1.6 million. The funds required for Fiscal Year 1968 to finance these pay raises have been reserved in the appro- priation action for Fiscal Year 1968. The fiscal year 1969 Budget makes provision for these proposed pay increases. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have with me technicians that can deal with any question that you might wish to ask, and I would be glad to make myself available at this time for any comments. I appreciate your patience in hearing us out. Mr. WHITENER. Thank you~ very much, Commissioner Washing- ton. Mr. McMillan. Mr. MCMILLAN. Commissioner, I want to congratulate you on your forthright and concise statement. You can rest assured that your suggestions will be given every consideration by this committee. Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you. Mr. MCMILLAN. I would like to ask a question. You suggest that this legislation be made effective December 3 1st, 1967. 88--574-68-5 PAGENO="0066" 62 Mr~ WASHINGTON. This I think was contained in the provision of the appropriation bill. I think that is how it got in there on the Senate side. Mr. MCMILLAN. But you want it retroactive to October 1, the same as the classified employees. Mr. WASHINGTON. That is what I was urging. Mr. MCMILLAN. Do you have a person here who is in charge of the Police Recruiting Service? Mr. WASHINGTON. Most of our recruiting is done through the Office of Deputy Chief Wilson who is here. Mr. MCMILLAN. Chief Wilson, maybe you can enlighten the Com- mittee as to just what troubles you are encountering in trying to recruit for the Metropolitan Police force. Is it pay, or is it something else? Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, we have not been able to determine a real cause of the difficulty in recruiting. It is something that occurs across the country. Police departments across the country have an extreme difficulty in recruiting and have had for the past five or six years at least. In fact, they have had some recruiting difficulties since World War II. It has been particularly acute in the last five or six years. The studies generally show that most Police Departments have difficulty and run about ten per cent vacancies. This is the trend across the nation in all of the large cities. We are suffering along with the rest. As we go out and send recruiting teams out into the field, we run into recruiting teams from New York City, Los Angeles, Oakland. They actually send teams from as far away as Oakland, California, to recruit in this area, because there is an extreme shortage of people who are willing to work the hours and do the job of a police officer. Mr. MCMILLAN. I do not think the hours are too bad because when I came to Congress the police worked 70 hours a week. Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir, but in those days the tradesmen worked 60 hours a week. It is quite true, there has been a great deal of im- provement in the working conditions largely as the result of the efforts of this committee since I have come here. Stifi there has been a great improvement in the working conditions of everyone and this is the thing we have to compete with. Mr. MCMILLAN. What we want to find out is just why we cannot recruit people here. My file is full of letters from men who have quit the Metropolitan police during the past ten years. Not once have they stated they resigned on account of salary. I am in favor of this salary bill and I think the starting salary should be more than $7500. But we realize, and I am sure you do, that money is not going to cure all the trouble unless you support recruits and present members of the Dis- trict of Columbia Police. You remember when we held these hearmgs last year as to why we could not get recruits or why policemen left for other jobs, that people who testified stated that the main trouble was that they did not have the backing of the top level people in the District of Columbia or the District of Columbia government. I want to know if that is being corrected. I am sure Commissioner Washington will do everything he can to correct the situation, but he has not been there long enough to find out all the problems confronting the Police Department. I think you have been there long enough to give us this information. PAGENO="0067" 63 Mr. WILsoN. Mr. Chairman, I cannot say we have ever lacked back- ing at the top. I will say that since Commissioner Washington has been appointed he has done a great deal to stimulate support. He has done a great deal to get support from all levels of Government for us. I do not mean by this to imply there was a lack of support before, because I cannot say that there was. However, he has received support direct from the President in our recruiting efforts to help us with military recruiting. Commissioner Washington met, as you probably know, with Police officers of the city at the request of the Policemen's Association, and pledged his support to them. I think we have every indication that we are getting full support from Commissioner Washington. Mr. MOMILLAN. There was one instance that was well advertised throughout the country when w,e had a carnival here a few years ago. We had a so-called little riot. I think you remember it. Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. McMILLAN. There were eight policemen injured and I under- stand not one person was arrested. No one was convicted. Just recently a man was arrested and placed in a paddy wagon and he kicked the paddy wagon to pieces. Some of the policemen were brought before the trial board. Those things are not very conducive to young men who would like to join the force. They must have protection from those higher up. Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, these are problems of being a police officer in a big city these years. We have to approach it and look at it and take a professional view of it and accept it as a part of the job. I do not know that we have had, as I can recall, any police officer who has been dismissed from our Department as a result of anything that even appeared to be an unfounded complaint by police officers. As you know, your committee found as a result of Mr. Harney's report that complaints against police officers do concern the officers, and the Department tries to show that it supports them. The only thing that we can do in these cases is to stress that we are supporting the men and are working with them and ask that they take a professional view of the fact that complaints made by citizens have to be examined and considered on their merits. Mr. MCMILLAN. I have checked the 11th Precinct. Are you giving Captain Davis full support? I understand he is trying to do a real good job in that precinct. Is the Police Department giving him full support from the top to the bottom? Mr. WILsoN. Absolutely, sir. We have given Captain Davis full support, and we have had full support from the Mayor with respect to matters in the 11th Precinct. Mr. MCMILLAN. How can hoodlums rock the whole police station and throw bottles at the station, and these people were not even arrested? Mr. WILsoN. I could not testify on that, Mr. Chairman. I was not at the scene, and I have not really studied the report fully enough to testify precisely what took place there. Mr. MCMILLAN. I hope we can get together, and I hope someone connected with the Police Department can give the police some pro- tection, from privates all the way up. We cannot expect men to join the Metropolitan Police force and get hit and heads busted open with no one to protect them. PAGENO="0068" 64 There has been a tendency for several years to give the criminal more protection than the policeman who is trying to carry out the duties which are imposed upon him. I am for the Police Department. I want to give them all the protection they need, and I think they should be furnished with proper guns to protect themselves. I do not know whether you will solve crime with some of the new methods or not, but if we let it be known to a criminal that if he broke the laws of the Nation's Capital he would be met with a bullet we would stop some of this crime. Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that we must give our police officers on the street support at all levels of government. I would testify again that every indication I have seen, and I think every officer I have heard speak to the subject has indicated that he thinks Mayor Washington is doing that-he is giving us his support and he is getting support. Mr. MCMILLAN. He is just beginning. He will need the help of everyone concerned. I think it is best to bring this out right now. I don't think anyone objects to the District of Columbia spending money for proper police protection. Mr. WILsoN. I have never known this committee to be penurious when it came to spending money for supporting police services in this city. Mr. MCMILLAN. I think the evidence proves that the city must be a little soft here, or people like Gregory and Rap Brown and every other type of criminal would not come to Washington to make their home. We must not make it too comfortable for these people. I want to bring these statements out while we have you all here before us. I feel Mr. Murphy is just beginning, and he may have some ideas and would like to say something on this subject. Mr. MURPHY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the matter which you have raised. I do not think any police department can be effective unless the individual police officer has the strong conviction that he is supported. I think strong leadership is an essential ingredient of any large police department. In order to bring to every man in the Department the feeling that he will be strongly supported from the Mayor's level and from my level and from the level of the Chief of Police, we have begun to look into this whole matter of supervision, this whole matter of leadership at the precinct level and the District level as well as at the headquarters level. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of problem we must work at every day. We cannot assume that the morale of a police officer will be good, even with a salary increase. We must understand that society imposes upon a police officer one of the most difficult tasks that are imposed upon any public servant. He is the man we expect to be out on the front line, facing the criminal, facing the violent person, facing the disturbed individual. I think that that because he faces this difficult task, and because he represents the law in doing it, he must be a mature, calm, flexible individual. I think day after day we must work at the problem of convincing him that we are supporting him. At the same time lie will lose a case in court on occasion because he is not an attorney. Mr. Hoover has demonstrated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for these many years the great value of having well-educated men in the enforcement positions, even attorneys as PAGENO="0069" 65 special agents. A police officer without the benefit of all that legal training will on occasion have a case loss in court. I think he must be mature enough and we must help him to understand it is no reflection. upon him. But I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that we must, and I. pledge to you as my responsibility, I will do all I can to give that support. Mr. MCMILLAN. I certainly agree with your statement. I think if we expect to keep the police we already have, we must give them some assurance that they have the backing of the top level. Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. MCMILLAN. If necessary, they should explain some of their actions to the men on the beat. I think there has been a time when there was not enough communication between the top level and the low levels in the department. Mr. MURPHY. I think that is a very serious problem, Mr. Chairman, and we are working on it. Mr. MCMILLAN. I am certainly looking forward to seeing great improvements along that line in the Nation's Capital. Mr. MURPHY. rfhank you, sir. Mr. MCMILLKN. I certainly agree with you that there is no other city we can compare Washington with in the United States. We have more than 100 embassies here, we have the Congress, we have the Supreme Court, we have the White House, and we have seven or eight million visitors to the Capitol every year. There is no other police department in the world that has to meet that type of service. For that reason you have to be selective in your recruitment. Just anybody will not ff1 the requirement for the Nation's Capital I)Olice problem. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WHITENER. While we are discussing this p:roblem of support of the police on the beat, recently I had a visit from some of the wives of our police officers who gave detailed report upon what they construed to be abuse of police officers by at least one member of the Judiciary in the community. Of course, we know that a judge is appointed for a fixed term of years. I suppose there is not much you can do about it. What do you propose as an answer to that if the allegation be true? Mr. MURPHY. I propose, Mr. Chairman-- Mr. WHITENER. Their statement, if true, presented a rather ugly picture of judicial abuse of police officers. Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is Ifl~ responsibility to indicate to every officer in this Police Department that I will stand behind him. That is my firm resolve. Mr. WHITENER. But you are not a judge. Mr. MURPHY. I realize that, sir, and I realize that what I can dO about a judge mistreating a police officer, if any judge should do that, is quite limited. But within the limits of what would be appropriate for me to do, sir, as far as a public statement might be concerned, or my reassuring that officer of my support of him, I will do that. I intend to do it. Mr. WHITENER. If you make the public statement too strong, the judge will have you down there for contempt of ~ourt. Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the dangerous territory which one could tread in commenting upon the actions of a member of PAGENO="0070" 66 the Judiciary. I intended to imply that I would do what is appropriate for me. I realize there is a line beyond which it would not be appro- priate for me to act. Mr. WHITENER. I am not going to give you legal advice but I would hate to have a conference with you down in the lock-up. Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Nelsen. Mr. NELSEN. Dealing with your recruitment problems, several weeks ago the Montgomery County Council moved to permit policemen from other jurisdictions to join the force without a reduction in pay. This is obviously competition for recruitment, is it not? Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. NELSEN. Is there anything in your planning for the future that would adopt a similar pattern for the District of Columbia? Mr. MURPHY. I would like to have the opportunity to review that whole area, Congressman. We do not have specific proposals prepared at this time. I think we should attempt to be competitive. I think we should study the possibility of giving credit for police experience in another jurisdiction to a man who would transfer to the Metropolitan Police Department. Unfortunately, I do not have a specific. proposal in mind now but will study it. Mr. NELSEN. How many vacancies do you now have in the Police Department? Mr. MURPHY. There are slightly less than 300. Mr. WILSON. 295. Mr. FLETCHER. Let us point out, if I may, that we have already signed up 96 who will be coming on board from the military with the biggest number by the first of March and some all the way into the first of July. Mr. NELSEN. In the Fire Department how many vacancies? Mr. WEITZEL. Thirty-eight. Mr. NELSEN. It has come to my attention that in one of the pro- posals before us, sergeants on the police force would be hurt as far as pay rates are concerned in that they would be getting less than they are getting now if the schedule is changed, and less than the maxi- mum rate for privates. Can anybody clear that up for me? Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the problem that is probably going to be discussed later by the Associations, it involves a reduction in the time of service for the privates from 19 years to 16 years. They figured out in some cases that a sergeant who was promoted five years ago, would now be receiving less under the new schedule than he would have received had he remained a private. I think it is around $15 less. But we must consider also that he has been getting more as a sergeant than he would have received as a private. That is something we would hope to look at in the next go-around on the pay. Mr. NELSEN. I hope if there is any inequity as to salary that recommendations will be made to correct it. Mr. DOWDY. If the gentleman would yield, I understand this inequity exists under present law. Mr. EATON. I imagine there is. Any time you make a change it seems there are some small inequities that occur. Mr. DOWDY. Thank you. PAGENO="0071" 67 Mr. NELSEN. I have one more question. How many separations from the police and fire forces were there in 1967? Is this contained in your report, Mr. Washington? Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes, sir, it is in the schedule. Mr. FLETCHER. The turn-over rate is 12 percent. That is on the police force. It is about five percent in the Fire Department. Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention to Mr. Wash- ington that I appreciated his opening statement and that I wish him well in his new responsibility. I believe all of us are hopeful that this can be the model city. Recalling the testimony of Chief Layton at past hearings, it seems to me that one of the problems that the Police Department finds itself confronted with is Court-imposed restrictions that appear to retard law enforcement. Court rulings are something, of course, which we can do little about, but this Committee and the Government of the District of Columbia must give the police all the backing and moral support they need so that they can do the job. I wish you well in your responsibility. I have no more questions. Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you. I certainly will follow that course. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Dowdy. Mr. DOWDY. On the question of separations from the force, you said 12 percent for the police, and that would be 360 last year. Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir, that includes retirement and voluntary separation. Mr. DOWDY. How many nf those were voluntary separations? Mr. WILSON. For fiscal 1967, which I have readily available, we had 149 resignations, 149 retirements, 24 transfers to the White House, and 14 various minor reasons, military leave and died. Mr. DOWDY. 149 retirements on account of age, fourteen died, or otherwise. Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. DOWDY. And 24 transferred to the White House. 149 just quit. Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. DOWDY. Can you give me any indication of those 149 who just quit? Do you have a breakdown of why they quit? Mr. WILSoN. We get various reasons. Of course, you will under- stand that we have to accept the reason that the man gives; 104 of those went to other employment, 54 went to other police departments; four went to the fire department; seven went to other District agencies; five to the Federal Government; four to enter the armed services; thirty for various associated other appointments; eleven quit to return to their home state or to move to another state; seven resigned for the good of the service. They resigned rather than being dismissed. Mr. DOWDY. You requested seven to resign? Mr. WILsoN. Yes, sir. Twenty-seven went for miscellaneous reasons, seven for education, three for family reasons, two for fiscal reasons, seven for personal reasons, two gave no reasons and seven to st~mrt their owti business, which is a total of 27. I can supply this for the committee record if you like. We have had this for a number of years. Mr. DOWDY. We will be glad to have that for the record. (The material referred to follows:) PAGENO="0072" Reason given by officer - Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 For other employement: In another police department In D.C. Fire Department As civilianin this department In other District agency In a Federal agency To enter armed forces Unspecified other employment Subtotal 6 1 1 1 1 13 23 4 ~ 4 15 23 4 3 16 23 3 1 3 23 30 7 1 1 9 1 50 69 8 6 1 28 43 17 1 1 4 41 63 19 3 4 4 22 52 25 3 2 9 27 66 54 4 7 5 4 30 104 For Geographic reasons: To return to home state Tomovetoanotherstate For change of climate Unhappiness in this city 8 6 1- 4 4 I 9 1 8 3 I 6 2 4 5 1 3 1 . 1 4 2 13 6 1 3 8 Subtotal 15 9 10 12 8 10 4 7 20 11 For good of service: Unsuited for police work While under suspension Best interest of department 1 5 2 6 10 1 7 9 1 6 9 2 4 16 1 ~ 13 - - - - 6 6 1 8 8 2 1 4 2 3 2 Subtotal 6 18 17 16 22 14 12 17 7 7 Miscellaneous reasons: To complete education To enter religious order For family reasons For physical reasons Because of financial difficulties Personal reasons No reasons given To start own business 1 4 1 4 3 1 8 3 6 2 3 1 14 5 4 1 1 11 3 6 1 1 24 10 3 6 1 1 26 9 5 1 ~ 37 10 9 3 1 10 1 15 1 5 9 6 1 26 ~ 6 6 3 2 7 2 7 Subtotal 10 21 25 20 42 46 62 36 48 27 Total resignations 54 71 75 78 141 113 141 112 141 149 Source: Metropolitan Police Department. Mr. DOWDY. You stated in your statement, Commissioner Wash- ington, that 272 policemen were appointed during the last seven months period. There were 1200 who passed the written examination and apparently qualified, and yet you have a deficiency in your force of 295. Do you know why there were only 272 employed out of 1200 who were qualified when you needed 300 more? Mr. WASHINGTON. We can give you that. It has been a matter of great concern to me. In our recruiting we found the same thing with regard to the written examination, on a walk-in basis. Some of them have taken their physical and have not passed or have not shown interest beyond that, but I think the Chief can probably pinpoint from that number exactly what happened. Mr. WILSON. I can't pinpoint it, Mr. Washington, but I can give you some light Qfl it. This is for calendar year 1966, but it wifi be approximately the same. There were 991 who were certificated and passed the written exami- nation. 208 failed to reply to an invitation to be considered for employment after they had taken the examination. 131 declined employment. 339 were rejected by the Board of Surgeons. 125 were not selected, which is to say they had criminal records or poor employ- ment records. Ten were unable to be located and 215 out of that 991 were appointed. So we lose about a third for physical reasons and approximately two-thirds are being lost for miscellaneous reasons. 68 RESIGNATIONS FROM THE FORCE AND REASONS GIVEN PAGENO="0073" 69 Apparently they take the examination and then decide they don't want the job. Mr. FLETCHER. May I add to that, one of the things we have asked is to go back through the records and find out why people who wanted to be policemen were rejected. Particularly on the written examination or physical requirements. That is, can we bring them back? The mere fact that they have applied for the job is a big step as far as we are concerned. If we can rescue them and bring them back in, it is a very important step for us to take and we are in the process of going back *through all of those rejected to see if we can retrieve them and bring them in as policemen. Mr. DOWDY. I probably misunderstood the Commissioner's state- ment. I knew of the record of reported trouble you had in recruitment and I took the Commissioner's statement to be there were 1200 quali- fled but evidently that was just on the written test. Mr. WASHINGTON. Just on the written, yes, sir. Mr. DOWDY. I am glad to have that cleared up. Now on the question of morale, it came to me through investiga- tions my committee conducted last fall, something about an officer named Johnson in the 11th precinct that Captain Davis had over there, and it appeared he was trying to bring some law and order to that precinct. It appeared he had been harassed to such an extent that he went to the hospital with ulcers. I would like to have some explanation of that. If a man is trying to do a job and the people in business over there appreciate what he is trying to do, why he should suffer such harassment. I don't know what it is from, but I would like to have some comment about it. Mr. MURPHY. Congressman, from what I know of the record of the individual concerned, I don't know that ulcers developed as a result of the experience of the officer in the 11th precinct. I would have to review his entire medical history and his department record. Officer Johnson had a very difficult assignment in the 11th precinct- Mr. DOWDY. I understand there were difficulties and I was wonder- ing, when he tried to do a good job, why he wasn't given support. Mr. MURPHY. Well, sir, I think as we analyze these situations frequently we find there are two sides to the issue. There is the diffi.. culty of the assignment, and the medical condition in the case of Officer Johnson I cannot testify to at this point. It just brings me back to the statement I made earlier about how difficult the task of a police officer is. Tile is frequently called upon to exercise judgment and to maintain his calm in a way that is very difficult, even for a police officer. That matter is still under investigation and the Mayor, I know, will make a complete report of the results of that investigation and take whatever action is appropriate. Mr. DOWDY. I have read reports of what goes on here and there are other things that come to my attention. When you refer to a person keeping his calm, we wonder whether you mean if he is firm he has lost his "calm". I think in dealing with criminals you have to be firm. Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir, I agree with you. My many years of police experience tell me that a police officer can be calm and be firm at the same time. I think police officers are human beings and they occasion- ally find it difficult to carry out the delicate tasks that are imposed PAGENO="0074" 70 upon them. They must function within the law. The amount of force they may use under any circumstances is defined in the law. Theymay not use more force than is necessary. That is frequently an extremely difficult judgment for a police officer to make and if he makes an!error in judgment, no matter how slight, there is frequently a great deal of publicity about that. Unfortunately sometimes the total picture is distorted. Day after day in this city police officers are doing an excellent job. They are making excellent arrests. We don't hear as much about that as the one case in which the force used may have been excessive, or the force may have been entirely appropriate, but some citizen complains that the officer used excessive force. Frequently there is a flurry of publicity about that incident. I have been reviewing investigations where a thorough investiga- tion indicates that the officer's action was perfectly proper. There frequently is not, publicity when we find that the officer did his job well. If there has been a complaint that he did not do his job well, there tends to be publicity. Mr. DOWDY. I was a prosecutor for a number of years. I realize sometimes hindsight is better than foresight. When an officer is `accused of using excessive force, you have to put yourself in his shoes at the time to determine how it appeared to him at the time, rather than using hindsight to determine what he sould have done. Mr. MURPHY. Congressman, I have been a police officer. I served as a patrolman. I did patrol duty and I have made arrests. Mr. DOWDY. I understand that, but when you are talking about the complaints brought against an officer now, do you put yourself in his shoes? Mr. MURPHY. Yes, I do. Having been in those shoes myself at one point, I appreciate how difficult it is for them and I try to be as sympathetic and reasonable as possible. Mr. DOWDY. You give him the same consideration as you would to a complainant? Mr. MURPHY. I am sorry, sir------ Mr. DOWDY. You give him the same benefit When charges are brought against him as you would a defendant who comes before you for instance, who claims self-defense in a murder case or an assault case? Mr. MURPHY. I try to give him the benefit. Of course, at the same time a police officer is a public officer. I think all of us would agree we want high standards. We have high standards and we must impose upon a police officer higher standards than the community will impose upon itself. Mr. DOWDY. I don't know whether you were misquoted, but I would like your comment on this news item. The statement was that you felt a police officer should be a social worker rather than a thief catcher. Mr. MURPHY. Congressman, it is my view that a police officer spends about ninety per cent of his time in preventing crime and in keeping the peace in a manner that does not require his resorting to ~the criminal justice process. What few studies we have available tell us that a patrol officer uses the criminal justice process in perhaps less than ten per cent of the cases which he handles. For instance, the police officer who is dispatched to a family fight situation will frequently restore order to that situation without making PAGENO="0075" 71 an arrest, and much of the time of a patrol officer is spent in preventing crime and maintaining the peace in a manner that does not involve making arrests. Of course, a police officer is not a social worker and I do not claim that what was reported in the press is an accurate report of my state-. ment, but he does, as a matter of fact-a good police officer-he prevents crime. Mr. DOWDY. That is the reason we have laws, to prevent crime. We have penal statutes to punish, and that is to prevent crime, and the reason we have officers on the street is to have a show of author- ity so that people know that it is our intention to enforce the law. That has been my theory all the time. As far as family squabbles are concerned, it is better to get them threshed out because when you get to court there will be nobody to testify anyway. Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. Congressman, a police officer has very broad discretion. Every police officer has great power. That is why it seems to me we have this desperate need for upgrading the police service; not only in this city, but in this entire nation. Unfortunately, in the past quarter century, the relative position of the police officer in our society has declined. Mr. DOWDY. Isn't that because he hasn't had the backing of his superiors and the courts have been taking out after him rather than trying to enforce laws against crime? Mr. MURPHY. Well, Congressman, with all due respect, I think there is a factor there, but I think we have failed to upgrade our police. I wholeheartedly agree with the National Crime Commission's recommendation that police officers should have higher education. I think Mr. Hoover has demonstrated this with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When he took it over many years ago, he determined to upgrade the Federal Bureau of Investigation and he has made it a truly professional law enforcement organization. It is one of the few in the United States. I think the police administrators of this nation are anxious to upgrade their police departments, to provide more education and to provide incentives for education. Mr. DOWDY. Isn't there something else about the F.B.I.? All the F.B.I. agents know that Hoover is behind them. I sometimes wonder if our policemen know that their superiors are behind them, or even think they are behind them. Isn't there a distinction there? Mr. MURPHY. Congressman, as I said earlier, I took this position to stand behind every police officer in this city who does his job. That is my pledge to you, that I will do that. I think the Mayor knows that I have said I want to stay in this position only so long as I can do my job in that way. I have accepted this appointment because the Mayor gave me his assurance that he was behind me completely in supporting and providing the leadership for the policemen in this city who needed so much in this important year, and I pledge to you I will give what- ever support I can. Mr. DOWDY. If you get the policemen here in the District of Co- lumbia to believe that you are behind them rather than that you will support the rabble-rousers, or give them some trouble, you will have much better morale in the police department. That is my opinion. Mr. MURPHY. I assure you my position on law and order is clear. We will provide law and order in this city to the best of our ability and we will make it clear to anyone who thinks otherwise that we are PAGENO="0076" 72 `determined to have peace in this city. I assure you that we will do all we possibly can, CongTessman. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Broyhill? Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Commissioner, I am very happy to get your recommendations to make this measure retroactive. I think we have provided that in H.R. 13980, and in some of the other bifis as well. I join with my colleagues in commending you for a very thorough, complete, and comprehensive statement. In the classified employees' salary increase hearings last year that you refer to in your statement, not only was the increase of 4.5 percent made retroactive to last October 1st, but there is another increase provided to take effect next July. Those two alone-and that doesn't include the third increase that we provided for, I think, to take effect in April of 1969- will provide a total increase of perhaps 9 percent. Now, I wonder if we are keeping the police and fire departments in line with what the classified and postal employees are receiving? Mr. WASHINGTON. I think we had an increase in 1957. Mr. ETON. It was 9.9 percent I think, and I believe the classified government was somewhat less than that. Mr. BROYHILL. Could you repeat that? Mr. ET0N. The last increase for police and fire was 9.9 per cent, as I recall it, which was several percentage points higher than the classi- fied government personnel received at that time. It is true the first stage and the next of two stages of the civilian pay bill exceed what we are asking for here. Of course, we probably plan to come back with another pay increase at another time. Mr. WASHINGTON. I wouldn't want to stop at that answer though, Mr. Congressman. I think we would hope, in the police and fire area, for continued study of this matter. The 8.2 is one that we felt, based on the prior increase, brought them up to a position, and I wouldn't think that we ought to remain static. If we are talking about keeping a force in competition with other forces and giving them the best opportunity and working conditions, I would think we would study this just as the federal is being studied. I would not be averse to further consideration in terms of increase. Mr. BROYHILL. I know you have budgetary problems, Mr. Com- missioner. Mr. WASHINGTON. We do, sir, annually. Mr. BROYHILL. I know you have difficulty raismg revenue, and I wifi help you all I can within certain boundaries. However, don't go too far in too many different directions. I don't think we can escape the necessity . of providing proper compensation for the police and fire departments. When we talk about comparison with other cities, the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. McMillan, made mention of the fact that this is the Nation's Capital; we have so many tourists coming here; and the government agencies are here, the judicial and legislative branches. I notice that even with the recommendation in yur chart, we would only bring the District of: Columbia back from 12th place to 5th place among the largest U.S. cities. It seems to me we should set our sights a little higher than that, because this is an exceptional area, there being only one like it in the world: If we want the best, we will have to pay f or it. I urge that you consider fifth place as just not completely satisfactory PAGENO="0077" 73 Mr. WASHINGTON. I am just delighted, Mr. Congressman, to hear YOU say that. I think in bringing this up to fifth place we thought we were doing pretty good for this year with budgetary limitations, but I have no intention of staying at number five in anything. I would like to be number one, even if it brings us into a budgetary problem. I think in view of what you have said and what the Chairman observed, it gave me a little perspective in terms of some of the needs and some of the requirements here that maybe we haven't taken the best look at, the hardest look at, in terms of the embassies and the policemen. This is the only place in the nation the policemen have this problem. It is the only place in the nation where they have nine mil- lion visitors coming in from all over the country, and they have to be courteous to these people who come in to see the nation's capital. There are requirements that go beyond what one individual would be doing in maybe Tom's home in San Diego, or something like that. It seems to me the perspective I get is that the members of this committee are concerned about this and want to put us in the highest and best competitive position. Mr. BROYHILL. Your statement is so complete that I don't know that I see all the specific differences between your recommendations and those in the pending bills. I note that you recommend the same increase for recruits. I am sure it would be helpful to all of us if someone on the staff could provide a chart showing a comparison of these various salary scales in the bills before us and those you recommend, so that we can see at which point in the scales we differ. Mr. WASHINGTON. We have a scale if you wish it. The comparison is more a comparison of the proposals. It does break it out in money and per cent. This may not be as adequate as you wish in detail, but we would be very happy to furnish that to you. Mr. BROYHILL. I am sure the committee would like to have that for our guidance when we go into executive session. Mr. WASHINGTON. We can bring this closer to your requirements. This was a rather general analysis of the bills with relation to the proposal. (See comparison chart, pp. 2-5.) Mr. BROYHILL. Another matter on which you placed considerable emphasis was that of travel allowance and other incentives for new recruits to move in here from other areas. In my conversation with Mr. Murphy the other day, I asked about the present residence requirement for D.C. policemen and firemen. This has been a matter of controversy, Mr. Commissioner, since before you came here, some people in both parties have recommended that all city employees be required to live in the District of Columbia. The Police Department, as I understand, has for a period of years, imposed a maximum distance that D.C. policemen may live from the Capitol building, in order to be properly available in times of emergency. We know that the metropolitan area has gotten larger. We know that developments are being constructed much further out from the city, mainly because of the cost of land and the cost of construction. For this reason, many people are being required to move out 25 and 30 miles from the city just because they can't get housing within their income, closer in. PAGENO="0078" 74 I am wondering, in light of that change in the cost of housing, plus the fact that hopefully, if we ever get the Three Sisters Bridge and a few other things straightened out, we wifi have better communica- tions and transportation facilities within the entire metropolitan area, whether Mr. Murphy or the Commissioner or someone couldn't consider easing this restriction and extending that boundary some- what. I have heard that several members of the Police Department have wanted to move out further, mainly for economic reasons, so they could have a home with a little more land. They have felt they could live more within their incomes if they could move out a little further. I think there is justification for this. I have heard that in effect you have had to lower the entrance qualifications for candidates for the Fire Department in recent years. Is that correct? Mr. WEIT7EL. No, sir. We have a proposal to lower the height to five foot seven. That is the only qualification we have recommended lowering. Mr. BROYITILL. You haven't actually lowered the mental require- ments for the Police or Fire Department, although in the latter you have been obliged to accept candidates of marginal qualifications on the mental examination? Mr. WEITZEL. No, sir. Mr. WiLsoN. We have lowered the height requirement, and lowered the sight requirement from a flat 20-20 to a 23-40 corrected. We have been working with the Civil Service Commission to determine whether the mental test that is now given is truly effective in selecting good police officers, but no decision has been made on that at this time. Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabor this point concerning the problems the police are having in the precincts, but I think the overwhelming majority of our civilized society recognizes that they must support the police. I don't think there is any question that everybody in the District Government fully recognizes that problem. I hope the phrase "support your police" doesn't become just a cliche, with no real meaning. I am not the expert that you are, Mr. Murphy, but I have heard that it has become something of a vogue nowadays, on the part of some people, to challenge the policeman's authority and to see just how far they can push law enforcement officials. We have nationally known figures, as you well know, who do not hesitate to appear on nationwide television and make the threat that they will come to Washington and foment mass civil disobedience. Again, this is a challenge to the endurance of law enforcement officials. I think that somewhere along the line we are going to have to go a little further than just to draw up a phrase, "support your local police". I noticed some of the people in this audience turned their heads a little when Mr. McMillan said something about the police officers shooting people. . . Nobody is advocating that. I am sure Mr. McMillan isn't. But it is a fact that today we have reckless disregard for the constitutional rights of the citizen. The police chief in Miami, Walter Ileadley, has employed what some people might consider severe tactics, but he has unshackled the arms of his city's police force, and the record shows that crime there has been reduced by fifty per cent as a result. And I PAGENO="0079" 75 haven't heard charges of anyone's constitutional rights being violated or of improper police brutality as a result, though such accusations may be forthcoming. It just seems that somewhere along the line we are going to have to let the policeman have a little more leeway, or at least let the criminal element feel that that policeman has more authority. I have suggested that, rather than dragging out these so-called demonstrators who block the halls of the Justice Department and the Pentagon and even the Capitol, for that matter, with perhaps four or five policemen dragging out one individual demonstrator, there are certain better ways to make that demonstrator move, without doing him bodily harm. You can grab him in a certain place in a certain way so that he will not only move, but the next one won't try to sit there. Now, I repeat for emphasis, Mr. Murphy, that I don't think any of us has to choose sides as to who is for constitutional rights and who isn't, or who is against genuine police brutality and who isn't. I challenge anyone to be more concerned about these matters than I would be, but I think this side of the picture has been overplayed, and if we will let our policemen know that they are not going to be yanked before a police trial board, and be ridiculed and criticized whenever they try to protect themselves in their precincts, and let some of these offenders know they can't get by with such tactics, that will do more to reduce crime here in the District than anything else. Mr. Whitener mentioned one of the judges a moment ago. I don't know why he didn't mention the name, but the name I heard was that of Judge Alexander. One of the other judges in the District of Columbia told me he is an ill man, that he is actually sick. Now, the question is, what can we do about it? I think it is ridicu- lous to have a person sitting on the bench who only adds more to the burdens of the law enforcement officials. If there is no other way of getting rid of that type of person, than perhaps we could start im- peachment proceedings. This might have a stabilizing influence on the judiciary, as well as on the criminal element. I don't know of any other measure that will be as effective. All these other methods have proved to be ineffective, because we still have *these law-breakers down in the precincts who feel that their chances of evading punishment are pretty good. But if the steps along the way, to the court and the appeals and so forth, are made not so easy, then perhaps they might not want to take so many such trips. The President mentioned the other night his wish to hire a hundred new district attorneys. I don't think there is any question but what that would be most helpful. In fact, another of the judges in the District of Columbia suggested just that to me; not only more district attorneys, but higher salaries so that the city can get better qualified prosecutors. In many instances, the criminal element is coming before the courts with highly paid, experienced attorneys, and just a law school graduate is prosecuting for the people. This is another step that I think could help reduce this terrible problem of crime in in the District. In the past, the Police Department has always enjoyed good public relations here. Just recently, however, we have heard about bad public relations, or poor community relations. I think a little more meaningful support for the Police Department, which would restore PAGENO="0080" 76 such relations, would be worth a great deal more than a couple of~ extra percentage points in these proposed salary scales. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Fuqua. Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Washington, we certainly thank you and your people for coming down this morning and supporting this legislation. I certainly support it, too. I have one question. On page 2 of both Mr. Broyhill's bill and Mr. McMilan's bill, you will note that there is a $340 increment between steps in classes 1 through 4, privates through sergeants. There is a $300 increment in your bill for the same service steps,. classes 1 through 4. Then for lieutenants and engineers, in classes. 5 and 6, the increment between steps jumps to $428, and then for captains and inspectors, deputy chiefs, and so forth, to $535. Could you explain the reason for these differences? I notice from~ the bottom to the top there is about $200 difference in the increment.. We have been urged to approve maj or increases in the lower echelons and not in the higher echelons, I thought, in order to induce recruits. to sign up. Mr. ETON. I believe this is a bill introduced by Mr. Broyhill. Mr. FIJQUA. One is H.R. 10761 and the other bill is H.R. 13980.~ These are the two bills I have looked at so far. Mr. ETON. The bills now before the committee are not the District Government bills. We have submitted our own proposal, which is a. draft bill, which we are asking be put in- Mr. FUQUA. Did your bill contain these same type increment steps?~ Mr. MURPHY. No, sir, we have a $300 increase- Mr. WILSON. They do increase at the higher rates, though. Of course, this is in line with the Qualification Act pay scale, and, as you go into the higher rates, you get some percentage and some money also. Mr. FUQUA. Is there a percentage that brings this increment up? Mr. WILSON. It isn't a flat percentage, but this same arrangement is found in all salary structures, I think, that at the higher rates the step increases are higher. The same procedures are followed in the Classified Act bill, for example. The rates in GS-1, the step increases, are smaller than they are at GS-1 5. I don't have the bill with me so I couldn't tell you precisely what they are, but this is a standard procedure. Mr. FUQUA. The point I was making is, the emphasis for increase. in pay is for recruits and in the lower ranks. You haven't had any problems with mass resignations of sergeants, lieute~iants and cap- tains, have you? Mr. WILSON. No, sir; but there is the problem of maintaiiiing some. comparability in those ranks with similar people in the classified bill and in fact the bifi does give a substantially larger percentage increase in the lower rates than in the upper rates. The percentage. increase is higher in the lower rates. For example, the beginning rate. of a private will increase by $700, or 11 percent. In the upper ratesc it gets down to around two and three per cent. Th~ iIAoreas~ from the. current rate to the proposed rate, I am speaking of. Mr. FUQUA. With regard to the examinationa of recruits, as I understand, if they make a grade of 50, tli~y ar~ autom~tically~ given a grade of 70. Is that correct? PAGENO="0081" 77 Mr. WILSON. This is the procedure, this is standard proeedure~ with all Civil Service examinations; it is not something peculiar with ours. Our examinations that have been given by the Civil Service f Or the Police Department and the Fire Department since 1948 have been examinations with 80 questions, and the passing grade is established at 40 questions being correct which, if you take it as a flat percentage, it is 50 per cent. But you must recognize that a Civil Service exarnina- tion is not exactly like an examination which you take in school to see how much you have learned from the course, but it is an exami- nation to see what you know; but also to establish registers and in order to establish registers you must necessarily put questions much. harder than you necessarily-you have to have some questions in there that some people can't answer. Otherwise-this isn't a problem with us now because we can take all that we can get, hut otherwise when you get into periods where you have to select between appli-~ cants, if everybody can make a hundred-if you write an examina- tion that people can make a hundred on, then you will have no register. The fact that 40 is selected or 30 is selected is not necessarily indica- tive of a low mentality required. You could conceivably write the examination so hard that a passing of ten questions would be indicative of a higher mentality than another examination that you would write where you would require one hundred questions to be right. It is true 40 questions out of 80 is transmuted as an average of 70 per cent. Mr. FIJQTJA. I want to commend you for the incentive for further schooling. I think this is very good. When an officer decides to take advantage of this provision, on whose time will he be going to school? Will this be on his own time, or considered duty time? Mr. WILSON. We have and have had since 1956 a college education program within the Department. Since about 1961 the Department has been paying most of the cost of the courses. We have an arrange- ment with American University where we pay all tuition except $10. They pay $10 for the three credit hour course and they must buy their books. They go on their own time. The courses are arranged with these classes. We have them arranged. so that there is a night session and a day session during each week so that men working in changing shifts can always attend class without interference with their work schedules, but it is off duty education. Mr. FUQUA. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Gude? Mr. GIJDE. I have nothing but admiration for the police whom. I have observed, both in the District of Columbia and in my own Montgomery County. If we are going to have an adequate force with. the necessary professional competence that will do justice to those who are in the forefront of this fight against crime, we must have a. pay and recruitment program similar to what has been outlined here. Mr. Murphy, I have had no doubt but what you have been fully behind our police force and giving them your full support and not just words. We certainly wish you well in what you are doing. With regard to recruitment, you said the recruitment pattern here in Washington was the same, and you have talked with people in 88-574-68-- 6 PAGENO="0082" 78 other metropolitan areas in the same type of work with regard to the recruitment and so on. Mr. WILSON. Recruitment is a problem in all larger cities. I believe Chicago recently did ff1 their vacancies by lowering their height standards and lowering their age requirements, but the pattern across the country has been that large city police departments have been unable to ff1 their vacancies for many years now. The National Crime Commission found an average vacancy rate of ten per cent across the country. Nation's Business, I believe, conducted a sur- vey and determined the same thing. There are severe difficulties in recruiting high caliber police officers for large city police work and this is true across the nation. This committee held hearings last year on the problems of recruiting in the District of Columbia and on the problems of men leaving the District of Columbia and Mr. Harney, I believe, reported he found the same problems that we have in Los Angeles, in Minneapolis, and in other cities across the nation. All have a problem recruiting men and keeping them. Mr. GUDE. This ten per cent figure is pretty much of a national figure? Mr. WILSON. This was a national figure. That is about a year old, as I recall. Mr. GUDE. Isn't it true in comparing the District of Columbia to other metropolitan areas that here, because of the District Line, you are dealing with an inner city, whereas elsewhere you include suburbs and therefore, as with other statistics, they do not show a true rela- tionship? In other words, you could have another city that would be the same size of Washington where the so-called city boundary might run out into Fairfax County? Mr. WILsoN. You find that in some cities, particularly the Texas cities, I believe. There the city boundaries take in substantially all of the metropolitan area, but there isn't too much that is unusual in this. Philadelphia is a fairly small city within a large metropolitan area, so I believe San Diego and Los Angeles also are-it isn't unusual for the city to be a fairly small core. As I say, with the exception of Texas, where there seems to be a tendency to have only as little as one or two per cent of the standard metropolitan statistical area located outside the city boundaries. Boston, for example, is almost the same as we are. St. Louis has almost precisely the same problems as we have. These are all cities of around eight hundred thousand with metropolitan areas in the neighborhood of one and a half to two million. Mr. GlIDE. Is there thought being given to giving credit for college hours beyond 60 hours? Has this been thought of? You have two incentives in here; one for 30 hours and one for 60 hours. Is there some thought about going beyond that in this area? Mr. MURPHY. In some departments. They are giving credit up to thebachelor's degree and beyond. A very limited number. It is princi- pally on the west coast. Mr. GlIDE. Thank you very much. Mr. MCMILLAN. Since the retirement age is 64, what would be wrong with recruiting up to age 34? That would give a man 30 years of service. PAGENO="0083" 79 Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, we find, to begin with, there are very few officers who stay to 64. Most begin retiring about fifty years of age. Mr. MCMILLAN. I have had people come to me trying to get a waiver for one year past the age. Would it add anything to your problem if the age limit were increased to 34 years? Mr. WILsoN. We consider it would add to the problem of retirement. We have difficulty now with most not serving much past 50 years of age. Mr. MCMILLAN. A number of them retire after 20 years' service? Mr. WILSON. Yes, if they are 50 years of age. And, of course, we did move the age from 29 to 30, and we do not see where we would pick up enough men to pay for the earlier loss of other men by raising the age another year or so. If we could raise it to 40 or 42 to get men who have retired from the military, that might be advantageous, but as it stands now we find most of our men retiring at age 50 or shortly thereafter. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Commissioner and gentlemen, we appreciate your being with us and your comments on the many items. We have been talking about community relations. I wonder sometimes about public relations. I mention this since you are now in the leadership of the District Government. I often wonder what would happen if instead of our sending a man to the moon they were sending a man down here and before he got here the only information he had as to where he was coming, to the Nation's Capital, was newspaper stories and stories by public officials about the Nation's Capital. In most places, especially down my way, the average citizen would defend the public schools of his community even if he had a little reservation about it. He would defend his local institutions of higher education; he would defend his Police Department and his city government and all the facets that go to make up his community. But here, if one had no other information than the statements made by community leaders and sometimes by public officials, one would think Washington had the worst highway system in the world, the worst people in the world, the worst schools in the world, the most run-down school buildings and public buildings, and so on. Nothing you read about Washington is good. I would like to see somebody sometime brag on the Nation's Capital, because I happen to be proud of it. Down my way, as a result of this bad publicity about the City of Washington, D.C., if you talk to a young lady about coming here to work she gets all excited about it, but after she goes home and talks to her parents about it, the next day she comes back and says, "My parents won't let me go there because it is such a horrible place." I don't think it is so terrible as the press and other media picture it. I don't think Congress is as bad in its relationship to the District of Columbia as folks imply here in the public media. I would hope that somewhere along the line under this new administration-and I want to say to you, Mr. Commissioner, that I think you have done a good job of taking a sound position on the condition of the District of Columbia-I would like to see all of us start talking about positive things. If we had only one of the thousands of things you have in the District of Columbia in my State, it would be on every map published by the State as a place that you ought to see when you are in North PAGENO="0084" 80 Carolina. Yet one would get the impression here that there is nothing: in the District but chaos, disorder, neglect by public officials toward your institutions. It shocks me to see this attitude of complete nega- tivism about everything that is done here in the City of Washington. I don't know where you have been, but I guarantee in some of the meet-- jugs you have attended there have been some, maybe many, people who have stood up and spoken with this approach: that Congress is so cruel to the District of Columbia, that the needs of the people are- disregarded, that the new Commissioner is hard-headed about the vital needs of the community. Of course, I have not lived in a lot of places, but I have been in a lot of places around the world, and I have not been any place where this general sentiment prevails as it does in the District of Columbia. I wonder, if we worked together, if we could not get one editorial favorable to the Nation's Capital. Mr. WASHINGTON. It is so close to me- Mr. WHITENER. You love this city or you would not be here. You: said that earlier. The whole Nation loves it. Mr. WASHINGTON. I think you have struck a note that is so signifi- cant and that is, we have not done enough to tell about the good things and to display them and talk enough about them and put them on the signboards. The one thing I have tried to do since I have been back is to capture an entire positive attitude of optimism about our town. It is not only a psychology but an optimism to show the needs and what we are doing, trying to get people to work in unity and harmony so we can do many things. But we are doing many things. We are meeting with the department heads. We want them to spend more time teffing the people about the positive things we are doing and not only the things that are always blown up. Most departments have not told their story completely. As an example, hardly anyone realizes the number of programs going on in welfare. We ought to be talking so people will understand. Of course there is room for additions and many other things, but I think people have to get a totally optimistic point of view about their own home town. This is the place we want to raise our children, and we ought to be thinking about it in those terms. I salute you for that observation because I certainly intend to work on it myself. Mr. WHITENER. Chief Wilson comes from my home county, and if you were down there with him he would show you the new high school,. and he would show you Belmont Abbey College and Sacred Heart College, and he would not tell you Belmont Abbey College is a bad college because the monks many years ago made the bricks with their own hands. He wouldn't say, "Look at that old building." He would say, "It is one of the finest buildings in the country, built by hand by dedicated men." And he wouldn't run down our schools. He would be proud of the new high school, but he wouldn't run down our other schools. Here, with all your fine new school buildings, you never read anything in the paper except about one or two that are old and run down. Certainly we want to do something about the old and rim down buildings, but let us not talk all the time about our deficiencies. Maybe you and I together can get our press and other news media on another tack for a while and make these folks proud of Washington. If you kept telling me I lived in the worst community in the world PAGENO="0085" 81 and was not doing well economically or otherwise, I might do some-. thing foolish. Take a man throwing a rock through a public housing project window, or a child throwing rocks through school windows. Instead of saying this is the worst place in the world, if you said it was the finest place in the world, these people might become proud of the city and not do these things. I think those who look at the local situation from the outside find that a lot of things you hear about are not true. We have the best police force I know of, but to read about it in the paper you would think a bunch of animals was running around in police uniforms. I had some other questions, but I know you want to go on. One question I would like to ask is on the pay raise based on educational attainment. That is a flat figure regardless of the rank of the officer, is it not? In other words, a Captain of Police would get $600 or not over $1200 in any event. I am talking about educational attainment. Mr. WILSON. In the Commissioners' bill, the figure is not estab- lished, it would be established by regulation, but our information is the preliminary feeling is it would be a flat figure and would go through the rank of Inspector. Mr. WHITENER. Say an Inspector made more money than a pri- vate. He would get the same number of dollars for educational attain- ment as a private? Mr. WASHINGTON. Our proposal is a fiat figure. Mr. WHITENER. Well, of course you cannot talk beyond your tour of duty, but if you had the regulatory power you would have a flat fee for men of all ranks for this educational attainment? Mr. WASHINGTON. That is what we proposed. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Fletcher, you made a statement a while ago by which I hope you did not mean to imply you would lower the standards in your recruitment program? Mr. FLETCHER. No, raise the applicants but not lower the stand- ards. We want to see what we can do to give them the education they need or, if it is a physical problem, to get them to build themselves up physically. We would raise the applicants but not lower the standards. Mr. WHITENER. We have made an exhaustive study of that, and I think our specialists came to the conclusion it would be disastrous to lower the standards. Any other questions? We want to thank you again and wish you well. This is your first appearance, I think, before any House committee of the Congress? Mr. WASHINGTON. It is my first appearance and I want to thank you for receiving us. Mr. WHITENER. You have made an auspicious beginning. You made a very splendid statement, and I commend you and your associates. Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, sir. Mr. WHITENER. We want to work with you. Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you. Mr. WHITENER. We will now recess until Tuesday of next week at 10 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 12:30 p.m. the subcommittee recessed until Tuesday, January 30, 1968, at 10 a.m.) PAGENO="0086" PAGENO="0087" POLICE AND FIREMEN PAY INCREASE TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 4 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 am. in Room 1310 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Basil L. Whitener (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Whitener, Dowdy, Sisk, Fuqua, Nelsen, Harsha, Broyhill, and Gude. Also present: James T. Clark, Clerk; Hayden S. Garber, Counsel; Sara Watson, Assistant Counsel; Donald rrubridy Minority Clerk; and Leonard 0. Hilder, Investigator. Mr. Whitener. The subcommittee will come to order. We will continue the hearings which were begun on Tuesday, January 23, on legislation relating to the pay of the Police and Fire Departments. I understand we have with us representatives of the White House Police and the United States Park Police. Perhaps they could come up together and we will start with the White House Police, Major G. E. Lanier, Chief, and Sergeant Carl W. Drechsler. STATEMENT OF SERGEANT CARL W. DRECHSLER, WHITE HOUSE POLICE Sergeant DRECHSLER. Major Lanier is not here. I understand he is teaching in a school. My name is Carl W. Drechsler. I am a Sergeant of the White House Police Force, and I am here to express my personal opinion concerning the inequities in the Sergeants' schedule, Class 4, of Representative McMillan's pay bill, H.R. 10761. In brief, the proposed pay bill will give a rookie sergeant with 10 years the same pay as a sergeant with 20 years' service. rfhis is includ- ing one year and 11 months in the rank of sergeant. Also, it would give. a rookie sergeant with 13 years' serviee $340 more than the sergeant with 20 years' service. This is including the one year and 11 months' service in rank, also. In addition, a private promoted to sergeant after 16 years of service would draw a salary $680 more than the sergeant with 20 years' service, with one year and 11 months in rank. Furthermore, the pri- vate with 16 years' service would draw a salary of $105 more than the sergeant with 20 years, with one year and 11 months in rank. (83) PAGENO="0088" 84 In my opinion, the following amendment should be added to the ~bill in order to correct these inequities. Insert on page 5, after line 4, the following: Mr. HARSHA. Do you have that in writing? Sergeant DRECHSLER. Yes. Mr. HARSHA. May we have copies of it? Sergeant DRECHSLER. Yes, sir. "Each sergeant in Step 1, 2, or 3 in Class 4 upon completion of a minimum of 16 years of continuous service, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States but excluding any period of time determined not to have been sat- isfactory service, shall be advanced to Step 4 and receive the ap-. propriate scheduled rate of basic compensation for such step in which he is serving. Each sergeant in Steps 1 and 2 in Class 4 upon com- pleting a minimum of 13 years of continuous service, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States but not including any period of time determined not to have been satisfactory service, ~shall be advanced to Step 3 and receive the appropriate scheduled rate of basic compensation for such step in which he is serving. Each ~sergeant in Step 1 in Class 4 upon completing a minimum of 10 years of continuous service, including service in the Armed Forces of the United States but excluding any period of time determined not to .~have been satisfactory service, shall be advanced to Step 2 and receive the appropriate scheduled rate of basic compensation for such step in which he is serving." If this is done, it will take care of the overlaps in the private making sergeant in a shorter period of time. This occurs through lowering the number of years that a private becomes top pay. At the present time under the 19-year bifi, I am right now drawing $105 less than I would be if I were broke to a private. I am drawing $9315 at the present time as my basic salary. I would be drawing $9420 if I were a private at top pay. liVir. WHITENER. As I understand it, the bill, H.R. 11435, introduced by Mr. Machen, takes care of the situation that you have referred to here, is that correct? Sergeant DRECHSLER. I am just familiar with Mr. McMillan's bill. I think Mr. Machen's bill raises the sergeant's salary up a grade, but it does not take care of the inequities that exist in the sergeants' ranks. In other words, there is a sergeant rank today at the White House who is drawing $680 more than I am, and he has less time in service and less time as a sergeant than I have. Mr. WHITENER. How much longer do you have in service? Sergeant DRECIISLER. I have more time than he has in service. I have more time in police service and more time as a sergeant than he has, and he is drawing $680 more than I because of this inequity, because he had his 19 years when he made sergeant, and I was 6 months away from it. I made it before him. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Nelsen. Mr. NELSEN. No questions. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Dowdy. Mr. DOWDY. No questions. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Sisk. Mr. SISK. No questions. Mr. WHITENER. All right, Chief Eange, you may proceed. PAGENO="0089" 85 STATEMENT OF WALTER W. LANGE, CHIEF, U.S. PARK POLICE Mr. LANGE. Mr. Chairman, my name is Walter W. Lange, Chief of the U.S. Park Police. I have brief comments. Inasmuch as the Police Department Salary Act of 1958, as amended,. affects principally the personnel of the District of Columbia Govern- ment, we defer to the views of the District of Columbia as expressed by the Mayor in his testimony before the committee, that one of the identical bills, H.R. 10761, H.R. 11278, or H.R. 11435, 90th Congress, be enacted. Under the Commissioners' proposed bill we estimate that the annual cost of the salary increase for U.S. Park Policemen would be $275,000, of which $180,000 would be chargeable to the National Park Service payroll and $95,000 chargeable to the District of Columbia payroll under existing budgetary procedures. I understand that the Interior Department is working on its com- ments and will submit them to the committee directly from the Legislative Office. Mr. WHITENER. Have you any men in your department who are faced with the problem that Sergeant Drechsler faces? Mr. LANGE. Of course, we come under the same pay bill, but I have not particularly studied it from the viewpoint he expresse&. I have not heard any comment from our people along that line. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Nelsen. Mr. NELSEN. No questions. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Dowdy. Mr. DOWDY. No questions. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Sisk. Mr. SIsK. No questions. Sergeant DRECHSLER. Could I add here that I was testifying on my own, and I do not represent the Police Association or the White House Police. Mr. WHITENER. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We have with us Inspector John L. Sullivan, Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the District of Columbia Policemen's Association. STATEMENT OF JOHN L. SULLIVAN, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, D.C. POLICEMEN'S ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY SERGEANT CARL W. BEATTY, PRESIDENT; WILLIAM J FINZEL, MEMBER, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE; AND ROYCE L. GIVENS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is John L. Sullivan. I am a retired Police Inspector with about 26 years-plus service in the Metropolitan Police Department. First I would like to introduce the new President of the Policemen's Association, on my immediate right, Carl W. Beatty; Mr. William J. Finzel, who is a member of the Legislative Committee; and, of course, my good friend, Royce L. Givens, the Executive Secretary. My name is John L. Sullivan, Chairman, Legislative Committee of the Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia. I am retired from the Metropolitan Police Department with the rank of Inspector. We cannot support H.R. 6644, H.R. 11149, H.R. 11278, and HR. 11435. PAGENO="0090" 94 in a speech in Nassau County, declared: "Citizen support means a refusal to tolerate lawlessness in any form We all know the fear of the sudden attack in the streets. But crime is also the billion dollar industry of narcotics and gambling and prostitution . . we require not simply citizen support but participation citizens can begin to take on the actual patroling of their neighborhoods. Citizen patrols have worked in far more dangerous communities: in Crown Heights, the `Maccabee' patrols have substantially cut down violent crime; volunteer police in East Flatbush, Tampa, Florida, and elsewhere have prevented violence." I submit Senator Kennedy's speech and other items and ask that they be included in the hearing record, and we request your help in establishing such citizen i)atrols here. Respectfully yours, JOHN R. IMMER, President. FEDERATION OF CITIZENS AssocIATIoNs OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, January 16, 1968. Re: New Ideas to Reduce Crime in D.C Mr. PATRICK V. MURPHY, Director, D.C. Public Safety Municipal Building, Room 5080, 300 Indiana Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MURPHY: Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the New Mayor of Gary, Indiana, Richard G. Hatcher, have made some suggestions for reducing crime which I request your comment upon. The January 12 issue of LIFE Magazine reports that Mayor Hatcher gave marching orders to gansters and racists. "There are those who are no longer wel- come in Gary" he said. Here in Washington Stokeley Carmichael is welcomed with open arms, even though Negro clergymen and others have become increasingly outspoken and disturbed, by leaders in the District Government itself. At the same time there has been no similar expression on your part that "There are those who are no longer welcome in Washington" directed to criminals and this is a great pity. Why not? I am sending you herewith a brilliant speecy by Senator Robert Kennedy which I commend to you for your most serious consideration, in which he says, quite rightly that "Citizen support means a refusal to tolerate lawlessness, in any form. We all know the fear of the sudden attack in the streets. But crime is also the billion dollar industry of narcotics and gambling and prostitution. . . we require not simply citizen support but participation . . . citizens can begin to take on the actual patroling of their neighborhoods. Citizen patrols have worked in far more dangerous communities: in Crown Heights, the `Maccabee' patrols substantially cut down violent crime; volunteer police in East Flatbush, Tampa, Florida, and elsewhere have prevented violence." There has been `i 300% increase in ciime in the District since the Eisenhower year of 1957; despite the adoption of the new Crime Bill by Congress and its signing into law by the President there has been no "get tough with criminals" statement by you, you have not made them feel "unwelcome" When. are you going to speak out like Mayor Hatcher has? Furthermore, I request you to take immediate action to act on Senator Kennedy's recommendation for citizen patrols in such high crime precincts as the 10th and 13th Police Precincts. I will give you my complete support in these steps. The high incidence of crime was No. 1 on a Poll taken by the famed pollster Louis Harris here in the District under the spon- sorship of the Washington Post. When do you plan to get tough with criminals, as suggested by Senator Kennedy and Mayor Hatcher? Sincerely yours, JOHN R. IMMER, President. GOVERNMENT OF THE DIsTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C., January 24, 1968. Mr. JOHN R. IMMER, President, Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia 1638 19th Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20009 DEAR MR. IMMER: Thank you for your letter of January 16, 1968, with which a copy of Senator Robert F. Kennedy's address to the Nassau County Crime Council was enclosed. I appreciate receiving the copy of Senator Kennedy's address. It points out so many of the root causes of crime which our affluent society must eliminate if crime is to he brought under reasonable control. PAGENO="0091" 95 Your offer of complete support for citizen patrols in the 10th arid 13th precincts is encouraging and commendable, On December 1st Mayor Walter E. Washington announced as one of the 21 points of his crime control program (developed with Chief of Police John B. Layton) the expansion of the Police Reserve Corps. By copy of this letter I am directing Acting Chief of Police Howard Covell to person- ally, or through a Deputy Chief of Police, communicate with YOU concerning the assistance you have so generously offered. Sincerely, P\T1rICK V. Muitpiiy, Director of Public Safety. FEDERATION or CITIzENs AssocI~urIoNs OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, December 21, 1967. In re: $8,000 Giant to Julius W. Hobson The Rt. Rev. WILLIAM F. CREIGHTON, Bishop of Washington, Washington Cathedral, Washington, D.C. DEAR BisHop: CREIGHTON: I am writing to request that you recommend a $20,000 Church grant to Dr. Carl F. hansen's suit in the Courts to obtain simple justice. The $8,000 grant to Julius W. Ilobson is completely without justification, and, from my discussion with a number of Episcopal clergy, has been strongly objected to by Negro as well as White Clergy and parishioners in the Episcopal Church. It seems to mc that the Episcopal Church must support the moderates in our city instead of the Black and White Militants. The moderates, representing 95 percent of the people in the District, have been deserted by the Episcopal Church which has gone seeking the support of the extremist elements whom it has aided and abetted in their extremism. Father Wendt now seeks to obsolve himself of any connection with the tough young gang of hoodlums who raped a defenseless woman in a basement which he was instrumental in providing, just as he has provided a meeting place and a rostrum for F. Rap Brown. The Rev. Malcolm Marshall, Rector of St. Margaret's Episcopal Church at Connecticut and Bancroft Place is working with one Arthur I. Waskow, Secretary of the Adams-Morgan Community Council, and financing arid aiding that Council in any number of ways. Waskow is a leading figure in the new left, according to the New York Times, which is controlled by Black Militants, lie, Waskow, a leading figure in the Tnstitute for Policy Studies, is working closely with Stokely Car- michael and other militants. He is, according to the Washington Post Potomac Magazine of November 12, a leader in the Resist the Draft Movement (his picture appears on page 32). The national Catholic publication, `The Wanderer" of Au- gust 31, 1967 had a major 3-column article on Waskow's nefarious activities. This man is far more dangerous than Julius W. llobson, yet the Rev. Malcolm Marshall has 1~or years financed the Adams-Morgan Community Council which is filled with Black Militants. On July 26 this year William Raspberry reported that rumors (Washington Post, July 26) were circulated in the Adams-Morgan area and outside it which were "started deliberately . . . and are coldly calculated to set the town afire". The Adams-Morgan Community Council's Black and White militants circulated those rumors and, only when the Police intervened, was this dangerous situation brought under control. Why doesn't the Rev. IV[alcolm Marshall support the Black and White Moderates in the Adams-Morgan-Cardozo area? Why doesn't Father Wendt do the same? Are they trying o get the city's inner city ghetto burned down? Sincerely, Joi [N II. IMMER, President. cc: Rev. Malcolm Marshall Rev. William A. Beal Members of Congress Press-B adio-TV PAGENO="0092" 96 KALORAMA CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, THE WESTMORELAND, 21P~2 California St., NW., Washington, D.C. ~OOO8, January 2~, 1968. Honorable JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District qf Columbia, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Our members strongly support the police pay raise bills being considered by your Committee. We consider police as essential to a peaceful and ordered society, and the charges of "police brutality" are baseless, and those who make these charges are mendacious. We request the support of the House District Committee to take the following additional steps to reduce crime: (1) make criminals know they are not welcome in the Nation's Capital. So far, no one has spoken out in this way, warning criminals to move on, including Members of Congress. Yet LIFE Magazine (Jan. 12, 1968) reported that the new Mayor of Gary, Indiana, a grandson of a slave, warned criminals "There are those who are no longer welcome in Gary". Bravo for Mayor R. G. Hatcher. It is significant that no one in the new District Government has had the courage to speak out in this fashion. Instead, highly placed members of the City Council rushed to embrace Stokely Carmichael when he returned here. In city after city, Negro moderates are rising to protest the Federal coddling of Black Militants, extremists, and criminals. Here, too, Negro ministers, the Washington Urban League, and other Negro groups have spoken out, and moved against Stokely Carmichael-but not our new Mayor and City Council, who are dominated by the White House. (2) Urge Congress to immediately move to set up citizen patrols to take care to protect Congress and District citizens from criminals and marches. Help bus and taxi drivers, and law-abiding citizens Negro and White. There is broad support even in the Congress for citizen patrols; for instance, Senator Robert F. Kennedy recently told a New York audience: "we need full citizen support for the police departments of our nation . . . . citizen support means a refusal to tolerate lawlessness in any form. . . . the reporting of crimes to the police. citizens can begin to take on the actual patroling of their neighobrhoods. Citizen patrols have worked in far more dangerous communities: in Crown Heights, the `Maccabee' patrols substantially cut down violent crime; volunteer police in East Flatbush, Tampa, Florida, and elsewhere have prevented violence." We need all the help Congress can give, not only to protect law-abiding citizens but the Congress as well. President Johnson ha~ said "The safety and security of its citizens is the first duty of government". We are delighted he signed the crime bill, but then he proceeded to dilute its application in the District of Columbia- the Nation's Capital-immediately. Not a single criminal has left town, and citizens are constantly struck down, murdered, raped, criminally assaulted, most often by repeaters with long records, or coddled juveniles. Help! Help! Help! Respectfully yours, Mrs. JEWELL B. SMTTH, President. Mr. WHITENER. Are there airy other witnesses who desire to be heard? If not, thank you very much for your presence. The sub- committee will meet at some subsequent time in executive session to come to a conclusion on the pay legislation, as such. (Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.) PAGENO="0093" [APPENBIX1 POLICE DETECTIVES HEARING BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 2 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLIJMB1A HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINEIJEIIT CONGRESS I~ IRSI SESSION ON H.R. 13203 TO ABOLISH THE RANK OF DETECTIVE IN THE METR&- POLITAN POLICE FORCE ANT) TO PROMOTE 1)ETECTIVES TO DETECTIVE SERGEANTS NOVEMBER 9; 1967 U.S. G()YERNMI6NT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1968 (97) PAGENO="0094" THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, Mississippi WILLIAM L. DAWSON, flhinois ABRAHAM J. MTJLTER, New York JOHN DOWDY, Texas BASIL L. WHITENER, North Carolina B. F. SISK, California CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR., Michigan G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia DON FUQTJA, Florida DONALD M. FRASER, Minnesota BROOK ADAMS, Washington ANDREW JACOBS, JR., Indiana E. S. JOHNNY WALKER, New Mexico ANCHER NELSEN, Minnesota WILLIAM L. SPRINGER, Illinois ALVIN E. O'KONSKI, Wis~nsin WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio CHARLES McC. MAPHL&S, In., Maryland FRANK HORTON, New York JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia LARRY WINN, Jn., Kansas GILBERT GUDE, Maryland JOHN M. ZWACH, Minnesota SAM STEIGER, Arizona SUBCOMMITTEE No. 2 ABRAHAM J. MULTER, New York, ~Jhairnuzm JOHN DOWDY, Texas WILLIAM L. SPRINGER, Illinois B. F. SISK, California WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR., Michigan CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jn., Maryland G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia LARRY WINN, Ja., Kansas (98) * COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN L. McMILLAN, South Carolina, Chairman JAMES T. CLARK, Clerk CLAYToN S. GASQUE, Staff Director HAYDEN S. GARBER, c~a PAGENO="0095" POLICE DETECTIVES THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 HoUsE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 2, Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, in Room 1210, Longworth House Office Building, at 10:00 am., Hon. Abraham J. Multer (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Multer (Chairm an of the Subcommittee), Dowdy and Winn. Also Present: James T. Clark, Clerk; Hayden S. Garber, Counsel; Sara Watson, Assistant Counsel, and Leonard 0. hider, Investigator. Mr. MULTER. The committee will please be in order. We have met this morning to consider H.R. 13203, a bill to amend the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 to abolish the rank of detective in the Metropolitan Police force, and to prom.~~. ote persons with such rank to the rank of detective sergeant. Without objection, HR. 13203 will appear in the record at this point. (HR. 13203 follows:) (H.R. 13203, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., by Mr. Multer, on Sept. 28, 1967) A Bill To amend the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 to abolish the rank of detective in the Metropolitan Police force, and to promote persons with such rank to the rank of detective sergeant. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the salary schedule contained in section 101 of the i)istrict of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 (D.C. Code, sec. 4-823) is amended by striking out "Detective" where it appears under "Class 3" in the column entitled "Salary class and title". SEc. 2. Each officer and member who, immediately prior to the effective date of the amendment made by this Act, was in salary class 3, as a detective, shall, on such effective date be placed in and receive basic compensation at a scheduled rate in salary class 4, subclass (b) with the title of detective sergeant as follows: From- To- Detective, salary class 3: 1)etective sergeant, salary class 4, subclass (b) Service steps 1 and 2 Service step 1. Service step 3 Service step 2. Service step 4 Service step 3. Longevity step 7 Service step 4. Longevity step 8 Longevity step 7. Longevity step 9 Longevity step 8. In computing the time served by each officer or member so assigned from detective to detective sergeant on the effective date of the amendment made by this Act for purposes of advancement to the xiext higher scheduled service step or longevity step as provided in section 303 or 401, as the case may be, of the District of Ce- (99) PAGENO="0096" 100 lumbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 such time shall commence as of the effective date of the amendment made by this Act. SEC. 3. The amendment made by the first section of this Act shall take effect on the first day of the first pay period beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act. Mr. MTJLTER. We will also place in the record a communication from the District of Columbia Commissioner, Walter E. Washington, addressed to the Honorable John L. McMfflan, Chairman of the Committee, dated November 8, 1967. (The report referred to follows:) GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, Yovember 8, 1967. The Honorable JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: I have for report H. R. 13203, 90th Congress, a bill "To amend the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 to abolish the rank of detective in the Metropolitan Police force, and to promote persons with such rank to the rank of detective sergeants." I believe H. R. 13203 to be unnecessary and without apparent justification, since, from a sound pay administration standpoint, there is no basis, through the legislative process, to automatically promote to the rank of Detective Sergeant all of the detectives in the Metropolitan Police force, 138 in number. The President's Commission on Crime has endorsed the recommendation of the International Association of Chiefs of Police that the supervisory ranks in the Criminal Investigation Division should be reduced rather than be increased, as would result from the enactment of H. R. 13203. In order that the objective ex- pressed in the report of the Association may be accomplished in an orderly manner, the Chief of Police has adopted the following policy: 1. Members of the department who held the grade of detective on the clos- ing day for filing for the 1967 promotional examination, may file for "De- tective to Detective Sergeant" or for "Detective to Uniform Sergeant." 2. Once the detective files his application, his decision is irrevocable. 3. There will be one written examination for promotion to sergeant, which will include material applicable to investigative procedures as well as to supervisory techniques. 4. After the examination has been graded and the necessary adjustments have been made in the test scores to secure the desired number of eligibles, separate registers will be established for uniform sergeant and for detective sergeant. ~i. The detective sergeant register will consist of those detectives who file application for promotion to detective sergeant and who qualify on the written examination. Separate adjustments in the test scores will not be made. 6. Promotees will be selected from the detective sergeant register to fill vacancies which occur because of promotion or separation of incumbent detective sergeants who have not elected to convert to uniform sergeant duty. 7. The same procedure as above will be followed for the 1969 promotional examination. 8. After the register established from the 1969 examination for promotion to Detective Sergeant has expired, this procedure will terminate and there will be 110 further promotions to the grade of Detective Sergeant. 9. No further promotions to the grade of Detective will be made after the current register expires. The passage of this proposed legislation would further compound the present inbalance of supervisor-subordinate ratio in the Criminal Investigation Division. I therefore strongly recommend against the enactment of HR. 13203. I have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, (5) WALTER E. WASHINGTON Walter E. Washington, Commissioner of the District of Columbia. PAGENO="0097" 101 Mr. MULTER. We will proceed first with thewitnesses we have sub- poenaed this morning It is not usual to subpoena witnesses to attend our hearings, but in consultation with the chairman of the full com- mittee we thought we should not ask members of the Police Depart- ment to volunteer any testimony because of the situation that neces- sarily exists here, where they might be put in a position of taking a public position con;trary to that of some of their superiors. Therefore, we issued subpoenas to them requiring their attendance. When they do testify, we anticipate they will testify fully and freely without reservation, and we expect that their superiors will not find fault with them for expressing their views as American citizens as well as mem- bers of the Department. I am quite sure I speak for the Commissioner of the District and for Chief Layton and all of the other superior officers in the Police Department that there will be no reprisals because any witness may disagree with what is the so-called policy of either the District Corn- missioner or of the superior officers in the Department. In order to expedite the hearings, I will call those detectives who were subpoenaed and ask them to take seats at the witness table. They are George M. Dunphy, Harold H. Burwell, Robert P. King, George R. Wilson and Ronald M. Banta. STATEMENTS OF DETECTIVES GEORGE M. DUNPHY, ROBBERY SQUAD; HAROLD H. BURWELL, ROBBERY SQUAD; ROBERT P. KING, ROBBERY SQUAD; GEORGE R. WILSON, ROBBERY SQUAD; AND RONALD M. BANTA, HOMICIDE SQUAD ~`Ir. DUNPHY. Mr. Chairman, approximately ten months ago the Metropolitan Police Department stated that due to the recommenda- tions of the International Chiefs of Police, the President's Crime Commission, that we were going to be placed into a reorganization program. Since that time reorganization has started to be implemented and in fact. will be; the entire Department will be reorganized. We first discovered what was happening when we read the report that was presented to the President from the International Chiefs of Police. In these recommendations the rank of detective of the Metro- politan Police Department was to be abolished; in its place was a new rank to be created, the rank of investigator. The investigator will be an appointed position to the Detective Bureau by the Police Depart- ment. This investigator could come from any of the ranks. He will be a private arid then he will be placed in plainclothes in the Criminal Investigation Division or any of the other investigative divisions of the Detective Bureau and he could be a man with one, two or three years on the Police Department. The men presently holding the rank of detective who range any- where from ten to twenty-five years on the Metropolitan Police Department, who have passed Civil Service promotional examinations, some of whom have passed two promotional examinations to obtain this rank, will be known as investigators and placed in the same cate- gory of investigators, in the same category as anybody else appointed to this position. We felt at this time that this act right here was depriving us of our status. 88-574-68----8 PAGENO="0098" 102 To become a detective of the Metropolitan Police Department, you serve in a capacity as a plainclothesman which is an appointed position by the Department; Until you are appointed to this position of plainclothesman, you are not eligible to take an examination for detective After you attain the plainclothes rank, you are then ehgible to take this test, which we have done. We have passed this examina- tion; we waited out a Civil Service promotional list, and then we were promoted. Now we are to be placed back in the category of an in- vestigator with any prophet who may meet the qualification. Gentlemen, back in 1962 the set-up of the Detective Bureau of the Metropolitan Police Department was such that there was a plain- clothesman who was appointed by the Police Department. There was a detective. He took a Civil Service examination. There was a precinct detective who took a Civil Service examination and then there was a detective sergeant and he took a Civil Service exammation On the uniform side at the time was the rank of corporal-Civil Service examination-and sergeant-Civil Service examination. Under Public Law 87-882, which was a pay bill for the Metropolitan Police Department, the rank of precinct detective was abolished. Some of these men had passed two promotional examinations and all of whom had passed at least one. They were put back to the rank of detective. Also in this bifi the corporal who had passed one examina- tion was upgraded to the rank of sergeant. Every one of them. Some of whom had only been a corporal for two or three weeks prior to the enactment of that 1962 bifi. At this time all of these men gained compensation. This was a pay bill that this was done in. Then the reorganization comes of the Metropolitan Police Depart- ment in 1967 to extend through `68, and will take some years to be implemented on the Metropolitan Police Department. At this time they eliminate or abolish the rank of detective and we are now to be called investigators. Many efforts were made on our part to communi- cate with the Chief's office at this time to find out where we actually stood in this new program of the Police Department. The original recommendations of the International Chiefs of Police stated that these detectives who were in the new investigative rank every so many years would be looked at; they would be surveyed and then the lowest twenty per cent of these men would be placed back in uniform and then new men would replace them. They found out that through an act of Congress that we detectives had been promoted through a Civil Service promotional examination and then they couldn't do this to us without departmental trial board action. So the recommendations were revised to fit our situation. After these efforts to contact the Chief's office, the only response we received from the Chief's office was that "We are not taking any money away from you people." From the outset of this, money is not the problem with us. If this could have been done without money, we would have taken it without money. We are not interested in money. The raise will be somewhere in the vicinity of $400 or maybe a few dollars more than that. This is not going to buy a Cadillac for me and it is not going to send my kids to college. We are interested in our status and our future. There are approximately 138 detectives at the present time. These men have over 1300 years of police service on the Metropolitan Police Depart- PAGENO="0099" 103 ment. Under an administrative pencil stroke. they are placing us~ba~ in the position of an investigator They will take a new police officei-~- who maybe qualified; I ám~ not saying he won't be qttalified-and place him in an investigator's role, the same as it took me these 15 years to obtain through a promotional examination. We are not asking for anything that the Department~ hasn't set its precedent on before, when they abolished the rank of corporal. They also tell us that we haven't taken a supervisory test. Well, gentlemen, the examination I took for detective had approximately * 160 questions on it. The private who' took a test for, uniform sergeant the same day I took my detective's examination, the questions were verbatim, excepting maybe five or ten questions; the same examina- tion. The examination that I was forced to take three Saturdays ago for detective sergeant, the uniformed men and some detectives who may have taken it for sergeant because they felt this was the only way they were going to be promoted, was a verbatim test; the same test. In fact, the title of that examination~was "Sergeant and' Detective Sergeant." So there should be no question as to who are supervisors and who are not supervisors. The Chief's office then, after many months of deliberation-not with us-said, "I will extend to you an opportunity to take a detective sergeant's examination" and he said, "I will do that for two years, this October and the October of 1969. Therefore, I am affording you an opportunity to become a detective sergeant." Well, gentlemen, if you read the International Chiefs' of Police recommendations, this Criminal Investigation Division which we are all a part of calls for 34 detective sergeants. There are presently 91 Now, this figure may be 93, 92. I could pass this examination ,I just took in October~ I could pass it two years in October, wind up first on the list both times and never be promoted. All the Chief has said to this is that "I will fill the vacancies." Well, under reorganization this contradicts the Reorganization Plan and the Chief has said that this department will be reorganized. This process has started. I feel-I mean the 138' detectives-feel that after trying to talk with the Chief about this problem-and the response we got was, approximately two or three months ago, a meeting was called at Police Headquarters for all the detectives. It was done in two parts; one in the morning, one in the afternoon. We responded and in the meeting I went to in the morning there were 72-some-odd detectives present. Deputy Chief Wilson was there. A civilian, Mr. Glenn Murphy, was there, and he was a representative of my Chief of Police because this was a Police Department meeting. There were no civilians from anywhere there other than he. He spoke to us on behalf of the Chief to try and explain to us what the recommendations were of the International Chiefs of Police. We asked him very pertinent questions, we thought. We asked Deputy Chief Wilson if this was done for the corporals in 1962 why shouldn't it be done for these detectives at this time. The answer we got then was that that was another administration and that we have nothing to do with that administration. This was said on the floor of the Detective Bureau squad room. Then the civilian got up there, Mr. Glenn Murphy, and we asked him questions about this and how the original recommendations of PAGENO="0100" 104 the International Chiefs of Police had been changed pertaining to detectives because of our Civil Service status. He stood there in front of 72 men and said, "If you don't hit the pitching to the Trial Board." Now, I will explain what that remark meant to people who don't understand. It meant, "If you don't come up to our qualifications or our standards, it can be arranged to send you to a Trial Board and your rank can be taken away from you." There is no other way to interpret that remark. This was the cooperation, or the feeling of our department toward us. We had nowhere to turn, due to Departmental orders, Commis- sioners' orders-and I don't mean to imply that we detectives would do it any other way. We had nowhere to go, so we went to Congress. We said that what we want is our day in court, what we are having right now, and I want to extend the appreciation of all the detectives of the Police Department right now for this opportunity, Mr. Chair- man. We asked to be heard at a hearing, that our problems could be aired. `If you gentlemen here in Congress say we are wrong, that will be it. What we want is our opportunity and we are here. I want to read a chapter from the Metropolitan Police Department Manual; one paragraph. It is on page 99, Chapter 23: Duties for officers detailed for the prevention and detection of crime. This is from the current Manual of the Metropolitan Police Depart- ment: Section 1. There shall be assigned to the Detective Bureau for special service in the prevention and detection of crime such member or privates as may be directed by the Major and Superintendent of Police and authorized by law and privates so assigned, upon approval by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia receive such additional compensation as may be provided for by law for privates so assigned and during the period of such assignment shall be designated as detec- tive sergeants and in all matters relating to their duties in connection with such assignment shall be obeyed and respected as sergeants. And from the United States Code, Title 4, Section 110: "Detail of privates for detective work," the Code says: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are hereby authorized to detail from time to time from the privates of the Police Force such number of privates as may be in their judgment necessary for special service in the detection and prevention of crime and while serving in such capacity they shall have the rank of sergeants of the force. That was February 28th that was enacted in 1901 and it is still in effect as of this minute. Gentlemen, I don't see how anybody can say we are not entitled to what we are asking for. We are not asking to be made the Chief of Police. We are not asking for a thousand dollar raise. We are asking that our status not be taken away from us with the stroke of an ad- ministrative pencil. Thank you. Mr. MULTER. Do any of you other gentlemen want to add to that? Mr. BURWELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the Comiinittee, ladies and gentlemen: I think that my fellow worker, Detective Dunphy, has expressed my sentiments very well. The only thing that I can add is that I think that I would be a representative of the former precinct detectives. I would like to say there are a few more left and they have asked that their former grade be mentioned at the hearing. PAGENO="0101" 105 I would like to say that I was assigned as a detective in 1954. I was promoted to the rank of probational detective, which was later changed to detective in 1957. I took a Civil Service examination and success- fully passed the examination in 1959 and was promoted to the rank of precinct detective. In 1962 the rank of precinct detective was abolished, as detective Dunphy stated, and the men were integrated into one rank of "detec- tive." The former probational detectives who were then classified as detectives, and then precinct detectives, were made into one grade and at that time a comparable rank, which was the rank of corporal, was upgraded to the rank of sergeant. I think Detective Dunphy has covered the rest of it very well. I have worked with him from the very beginning all the way through and I think he has expressed my sentiments very well. I thank you very much for the opportunity to be heard. Mr. MULTER. Detective King, do you want to add anything? Mr. KING. I don't believe so, Mr. Chairman. I think these two gentlemen have covered it completely. Mr. ]\/JIJLTER. Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILSON. Same sentiments, sir. Mr. MULTER. Detective Banta? Mr. BANTA. No, Mr. Chairman. I think Detective Dunphy has done a complete and eloquent job. Mr. MIJLTER. Do I understand this does not involve any attempt to legislate a pay increase? Mr. D UNPHY. Under this bill there will be an increase in pay and it will be somewhere in the vicinity of $400 to $450 a man. We found out when the bill was being written that it would be almost impossible to write it any other way legally. Mr. MUtTER. When a police officer is first appointed or assigned to the detective post, before taking an examination, is that appointment revocable at the will of the Department? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes, sir. In other words, in the plainclothesman rank, where these men are given $250 for a clothing allowance, this can be taken back from them at the will of the Department at any time. Mr. MTJLTER. Up until the time he takes and passes a Civil Service examination and gets a permanent appointment, may his assignment be changed and may he be reasigned as a uniform officer? Mr. DTJNPHY. No, sir, not under the present set-up. Mr. MULTER. Once the man passes the Civil Service examination and gets his appointment, is there any way of taking any of his pay away by change of title? Mr. DUNPHY. No, sir, not unless this preliminary action is sent to a Trial Board and upon conviction at a Trial Board and if the findings of the Trial Board are upheld by the Commissioner, then it can be done. Mr. MULTER. If a man is subjected to charges and trial and dis- ciplinary action as a result of the trial, there is nothing in this bill to interfere with that procedure? Mr. DTJNPHY. No, sir. Mr. WINN. Does the Department still have the rank of probationary detective? Mr. DUNPHY. No, sir. Mr. WINN. Has it been abolished by the reorganization? Mr. DUNPHY. The probation detectives were abolished a number of years ago when the rank of detective was created. PAGENO="0102" 106 Back as far as 1959 the words "probation detective"-that rank or status was changed and at that time it was changed-the first man was a plainclothesman, then came a detective, then came a precinct detective and then detective sergeant, which were all Civil Service examinations. That is when the detective bureau was placed under Civil Service ratings, at that time. Then in 1962 the rank of precinct detective was abolished and all that was left in the Detective Bureau at that time was the appointed rank of plainclothesman for just a clothing allowance and then there was the rank of detective. All the. men who were precinct detectives, we believe, were put back a step to detective. This was a Civil Service examination. Then there was another examination for detective sergeant at that time. Now, again under the reorganization, they are doing the same thing to the detective bureau again. They are taking the detective and placing him back as an investigator. The investigator is going to be an appointed position by the Department, the Chief or the Chief of Detectives, who will ask for the man and then he will finally be ap- proved of by the Chief and it can be anybody. He could be a man with one year on the street. Mr. WINN. He doesn't have to be. permanent rank? Mr. DUNPHY. All he has to be is a member of the Metropolitan Police Department. Mr. WINN. He would have to be a member of the Police Depart- ment and come somewhere from the ranks? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. WINN. He couldn't be recruited from the outside? Mr. DUNPHY. No, sir, he has to be a police officer. Mr. WINN. You mentioned your attempts to meet with the Chief and you finally sat~ down with a Glenn Murphy. Mr. DIINPHY. Yes. Mr. WINN. Did he say he was representing .the Chief? Mr. DUNPHY. No. He was there. This was a Police Department meeting held at Police Headquarters and the only one I could see who was in that room who wasn't a police officer was this gentleman. Now, to the best of my knowledge as to his position, I know be is employed by the~ International Chiefs of Police. What his exact title is with the Police Department~ whether he is a liaison officer, I don't know. I couldn't give you the exact title o~ Mr. Murphy, bu.t I believe Deputy Chief Wilson will be able to. . . . Mr. WINN. You haven't checked to see who this man. was?. Mr. DUNPHY. We knew he was a representative of the International Chiefs of Police. . . .. Mr. BANTA. Mr. Glenn Murphy is a~ consultant on the staff of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. He also. acts .as an adjunct professor for American University teachers, some of the police administration courses for American University at Metropolitan Police Headquarters. Mr. WINN. Do you know then for sure that he had the authority to speak for the Chief? Mr. DUNPHY. The conclusion I drew from that meeting was that this was a meeting called by the Office of the Chief of Police. I re- sponded to it and I expected the Chief of Police to respond to it, but he PAGENO="0103" 107 didn't and in his stead there was `someone there who we were told would explain to us what the reorganization was about, pertaining to the detectives. Mr. WJNN. But you don't know for sure that he had the authority to actually speak. He might have been invited there to explain, but you don't know that he had the authority to make a statement? Mr. DUNPHY. I didn't mean to imply that, sir, that this statement was the Chief's feelings. When I thought I implied at that time was that he made this state- ment, but he had been asked to come there to explain to us what they were doing to us, by the Chief. He couldn't have been there any other way. Mr. WINN. I am still a little hazy on how you get to be a detective. Will you explain that to me again? Mr. DIJNPHY. At the present time under the present setup, prior to reorganization, they take men out of the uniformed force who they seem to believe-when I say "they," I mean the Police Depart- ment-have the qualifications to do investigative-type work. These men are placed in plainclothes. Now, this is something I omitted, and I shouldn't have, the first time. These men sometimes-and I speak from experience because I did it for two years-work in plainclothes without compensation. None whatsoever. Mr. WINN. For their clothing? Mr. DTJNPHY. For their clothing. There is an order in the Police Department that says that any man working in such capacity for a sixty-day period shall receive this compensation. I am not sure whether it is sixty days or ninety days, but there is a time limit put on it. How the Department gets around this-and I did this for two years and I could bring in all these dates in-I have failed to do that. They take you out of this position for one day and put you back in uniform and a letter is written through the Chief taking you out of this capacity as plainclothesman and then another letter is written the same month or the day after asking that you be put back in. I did this for over two years, trying to become a plainclothesman. Finally, after two years, I was appointed by the Police Department as a plainclothesman. This procedure is happening right now on. this Police Department. , There are men who are working in plainclothes doing detectives' work, doing detective sergeants' work,. drawing assignments on the. same cases that I draw in the robbery squad, being responsible for the detection and the presentation of any facts in United States District Court in all felony cases who are. receiving no compensation whatsoever and yet the Department once a month writes-or should be doing it. Now, in a lot of cases they don't do it and the men could force, so to speak, a showdown over this, but they don't do it; they want to get into this rank. In my case this letter was written and they are on file in my jacket- a copy of `every one of them-at the Metropolitan Police Department. After my two years-it was a little more than two years of this letter writing, one day a month I put a uniform on and then was made a plainclothesnian. Mr. WINN. Excuse me for interrupting, but you are getting into some personal- Mr. DUNPHY. I am speaking of the policy matter. PAGENO="0104" 108 Mr. WINN. But you have made another point that you didn't before. Right now under the Reorganization Plan-because that is what we are talking about-to be a detective, you become a plainclothesman from the ranks, from the uniform ranks? Mr. DUNPHY. No, sir. Under the reorganization you will be ap- pointed as an investigator, period, under the reorganization plan or program. Mr. MULTER. You have to be a member of the uniformed force before being named an investigator? Mr. DUNPHY. You have to be a Metropolitan Police officer. Mr. MULTER. You can't take a man from the outside and give him an appointment in the first instance as an investigator? Mr. DUNPHY. No, sir. Mr. MULTER. When a man is taken out of the uniformed force and is made an investigator, he then continues as such by appointment?~ * Mr. DUNPHY. Yes, sir. * Mr. MULTER. How long must he serve as a plainclothesman before he can take the Civil Service examination? * Mr. DUNPHY. At the present time I believe you have to be in grade one year. In other words, you have to be an investigator-well, under the reorganization-let me say this to you, sir: Under the reorganiza- tion there will be no more detective sergeants; there will be no more detective lieutenants; there wifi be no more detective captains. There will be sergeants of police, lieutenants of police, captains of police. A lateral movement as the International Chiefs of Police call it. And the only qualifications you will have to fulfil is, once-if you are in the investigator role, if you are appointed to this position, you will take a test for sergeant of police. Now, all you will have to do, or the only qualification at that time will be that you will have to be in this capacity a year. One thing I omitted, for a uniformed man or any police officer to take any promotional examination, upon being appointed to the Metropolitan Police Department, he has to be in grade three years. So if a man, after one year of being appointed to the Police Depart- ment, is made an investigator, he wouldn't be eligible to take a test for sergeant of police for two more years. But if he has been on three years and he is made an investigator, he would be eligible to take his examination for sergeant of police. Mr. MULTER. That is under the present reorganization plan? Mr. DUNPHY. Right. Mr. MULTER. When you mean first joined the force, you jomed as uniformed officers? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. MULTER. After serving as uniformed officers, you were ap- pointed as plainclothesmen? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes, sir. Mr~ MULTER. Then you were given an opportunity to take a Civil Service examination? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes. Mr. MULTER. To qualify as plainclothesmen? Mr. DUNPHY. As detectives. . Mr. MULTER. And only those men who passed the exammation could then be appointed? PAGENO="0105" 100 Mr. DIJNPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. MTJLTER. Then after you were appointed detectives, having passed the qualifying examination, you were then entitled to take promotional examinations? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. MULTER. And only those men who passed the promotional examinations were entitled to be promoted? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. MTJLTER. And that continued until the reorganization plan? Mr. DTJNPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. MTJLTER. Now, under the reorganization plan your opportunity is being limited to take those promotional examinations, is that right? Mr. DTJNPHY. Yes, sir. Other than the one other incident I referred to where the Chief finally-and this was only-I think it was perhaps a month prior to the examination; it might have been two, where he said he would extend to us the opportunity to take two detective sergeants' examinations, one this year-which was three weeks ago- and one in 1969. But what I also made very clear at that time was that under the reorganization in the Criminal Investigation Division it calls for a total of 34 detective sergeants. There are 91 right now. There will be no vacancies. How could there be when we are 40 over staff right now under reorganization? One other point, sir, I think I had better make right now. The duties of a detective and a detective sergeant-right now I am a detective; my partner is a detective sergeant in the Robbery Squad. He draws assignments as I draw them. We are both responsible for each other's assignments. We both work jointly on these assignments. In our squad we handle nothing but armed hold-ups. In the Homicide Squad they are responsible for their duties, which is the investigation of homicides. Detectives, plainclothesmen and detective sergeants at the present time are doing the same work. We perform the same duties. Our re- sponsibilities are identical and have been under the present set-up prior to reorganization. A detective sergeant at the present time is not required by the Metropolitan Police Department to have any more qualifications or to perform any other duties than I and the 140 detec- tives are also responsible for. We do the same identical work. This point I though I should make at this time so there would be no doubt about what our actual work, or assignments, are. Mr. WJNN. Is there not a manual that describes the duties of the detective sergeant and the regular detective? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. WINN. Is there a manual telling what each classification should do? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes, sir. I read to you a chapter from the Police Department Manual. It very clearly states what we are. The Manual calls me a sergeant of police. The manual says that when I respond to the scene of an armed hold-up that I shall be in charge at that time. The United States Code, which I also read, calls me a sergeant of police and I shall be respected as such. Mr. WINN. There is no difference at all spelled out in that Manual? Mr. DUNPHY. No, sir. If you would like, I could bring this up to you and let you read it. PAGENO="0106" 110 Mr. WINN. It doesn't seem the job specifications are spelled out; if there are no differentials in the book, if sounds like the differential must be political. Mr. DUNPHY. The differential is admithstrative. They decided many years ago there would be certain ranks in the Detective Bureau and when I read the changes in our ranks through the years, these were administrative things. The men had no say whatsoever when the Department made these changes. The Department thought when they made these changes they were for the betterment of the Police Depart- ment and they probably were. Otherwise they wouldn't have been done. I believe through the years administrative changes have changed the titles of the men doing this work but it has not changed their job or the work they had to perform. Mr. WINN. If you took a Civil Service examination to go to detec- tive sergeant, and all of those taking it passed it-I don't know what the percentage in the past has been, but then who makes the decision as to who are going to be the detective sergeants and who aren't? Is it based on the examination or is it based on someone's own integrity and idea on how you qualify and what your background is? Mr DUNPHY That is almost what it amounts to Under the former set-up by the Police Department-it has been changed this year-this last examination which is under the reor- ganization has been changed. But formerly we would take a-first you would get what they called an efficiency mark from the Police De- partment. This was prior to the examination. Then you would take the examination Then they would take your exammation mark and put it on a piece of paper two times. They would take your efficiency mark and put it on a paper three times They would add up the figure and divide by five and that would be your final mark and this is how a list would come about and they would promote off this list from the top to the bottom Now, under reorganization this has been changed Now you take the examination first, and from my understandmg-and this is bemg done very quietly No one seems to put it down m a general order or a memorandum order-after the examination sometime, either this week or next week, after the Civil Service Commission has a list of the men who pass this examination, the list of the names of these men will be supplied to the Police Department. Not their marks, just the names. These men are eligible. This is an eligibility list. Then the Department is going to give you a suitability rating. I am not too clear as~ to how they are going to do this. I understand we are to be interviewed, but through some administrative function we will get a suitability rating and then a list will be created. This is how it is going to be done this year with the suitability rating or efficiency rating; then the test was to be used in the promoting of men. These men were to be promoted whenever there was a vacancy. In other words, if a detective sergeant retired, they would take the first man off the top of the list to fill his vacancy. If a captain retired, they would replace him with a lieutenant on the lieutenants' list. The sergeant who took the test for lieutenant would replace that lieutenant and so on down the line. What I say is that since our department is being reorganized-the Chief has said it will be implemented-and the Criminal Investigation Division called for 34 detective sergeants, and there are 91 right now, PAGENO="0107" 111 I don't see how I am going to be promoted. If I pass that examination and if I come out No. 1 on that examination, how will there ever be a vacancy for me? Mr. WINN. There are 34 at the present time? Mr. DUNPITY. There are 91, give or take one or two. We just had a promotion a number of days ago. Mr. .WINN. They are trying to fill 34 spots. Mr. DUNPHY. There are91 detective sergeants filling the vacancies of 91. Reorganization says there shall be but 34. rphe Department then says that through attrition, through retirement, through new organiza- tions within the Department, these men will be disseminated. .1 could be first on that list and never be promoted. But I took that examina- tion because I believe-I had an opportunity to take the uniformed sergeants test or this one. Now, I believed this: I took the detective sergeants' examination. I will tell you right now I took that test. Even though 1 feel if I come out No. 1 on it, I won't be promoted from it. But I took it because I believe we are right in this, that we are morally right. Mr. WINN. If a man joins the force today as a uniformed officer when, if ever, will he get to take the examination to qualify as a detective or investigator? Mr. DUNPHY. He won't have to. He will be appointed to that. Mr. WINN. Without examination? Mr. DUNPHY. Without examination. It will not be a Civil Service- rated job any more with the Police Department. It will be an appointed one. Mr. WINN. Assume he is appointed investigator after service as a uniformed officer for a year. When, if ever, can he take the examina- tion for detective sergeant? Mr. DTJNPHY. He wouldn't be able to because there will be no more detective sergeants. He will be able to, after three years of service on the Metropolitan Police Department, take a test for sergeant of police. During this examination that we just took there was no examina- tion given for detective. The rank has been abolished. Mr. MULTER. Take the case of the man who has been on the force for three years. He then takes the examination for uniformed sergeant. Mr. DUNPHY. Sergeant of police. Mr. MIJLTER. Am I to understand correctly that after you men: have been in the service now as detectives, after you have taken the examination twice, you then can't compete with these other fellows for sergeant of police? Mr. DUNPIIY. Oh, yes, sir. The Chief extended us that opportunity of taking the test for sergeant of police on this last examination. Mr. MTJLTER. You just said you took it twice? Mr. DUNPHY. For detective sergeant. Mr. MULTER. What is meant by taking the examination two suc- cessive times? Mr. DUNPIIY. What the Chief said in the memorandum order was that apparently he saw there were some inadequacies in this reorga- nization. He felt that we deserved to have two more opportunities to take the test for detective sergeant. Then there would not be a test for detective sergeant after this point. Mr. MULTER. Then there would only be tests for sergeant of police? Mr. DUNPHY. After that time. After 1969. PAGENO="0108" 112 Mr. MULTER. Then you take that examination together with any- body else who has been on the force for three years? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes, sir. I took the same verbatim test with every private who has three years service, three Saturdays ago. Mr. MULTER. That will be the situation in the future too? Mr. DTJNPHY. Yes, sir. One other point that I want to make is this one: Under reorgani~a- tion and the lateral movement that they claim is a better thing for the Police Department-every officer should be able to do a number of jobs and not be so specialized-it wifi take that man with three years on in the Police Department and he passed this examination three Saturdays ago and he gets on the Civil Service list. This man becomes No. 1 on this list. Now, this is something that could happen. When he is promoted it will be at the direction of the Chief of Police as to where he is placed, and under reorganization this man can be placed into the Detective Bureau or the Criminal Investigation Division, and if so assigned, this man could be my supervisor. An it can happen under the re- organization. Mr. MULTER. How many years of service have you had? Mr. DUNPHY. I have 15 years on the street in this city and two in the service for a total of 17 years on the Metropolitan Police De- partment. Mr. MIJLTER. How many as a detective? Mr. DUNPRY. I have been a detective seven years. Mr. MULTER. And a man on the force only three years under this reorganization plan can be named as your supervisor? Mr. DTJNPHY. Could be. Very possibly it could happen. Mr. MULTER. I suppose the same would apply to each of the other men. Mr. DUNPHY. Yes. Mr. MULTER. And to the other 138 men in the same position you are? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. WINN. May I ask a question about salaries? As I understand, the members of the Department who now hold the grade of detective may file for this examination either from detective to detective sergeant or from detective to uniform sergeant. Mr. DUNPHY. Yes. Mr. WINN. What is the difference, roughly speaking, in the pay, do you know, between the detective sergeant and the uniform sergeant? Mr. DTJNPHY. There is a difference in pay at the present time and I would rather have Mr. Sullivan say. He~ could give you the exact figures and I would not want to quote the wrong ones at this time. There is a difference in this but I see what point you are making right now. This is another point that the Police Department or the Adminis- tration has brought up. They said that we are not taking any money away from you and you are making more money than that man with three years on the force. We know this. You have a secretary in your office who has been there 15 years and you bring in a new secretary who is just as capable and does the same work, but that girl there with 15 years better be making more money than she is. So money is not the issue here. We know we are PAGENO="0109" 113 making more money. I should be making more money than a man with three years on the Police Department. I have spent 15 yeurs on the street in this city. Every one of these police officers sitting here today, these detectives, some have 25 years on the Police Department, some have 12. Mr. WINN. I understand you are talking about seniority, but I am~ talking about actual money. If any of these other gentlemen, for instance-and I guess it is their prerogative-decided to make a request to take the examination from detective to uniform sergeant, if they decided to go that way, would they be making less money than if they decided to go for the detective sergeant? Mr. DTJNPHY. No, sir. Mr. WINN. The category of detective sergeant or uniform sergeant are basically the same? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes. What would determine whose salary is higher would depend how long they were on the Police Department. We have longevity steps and in-service steps, and as your in-grade you get these things auto- matically. So the total salary might be different, but for the one pro- motion you would get a certain amount. Mr. WINN. If you went from detective to uniform sergeant with your 15 years' experience, would you make less money than you would going from detective to detective sergeant, with your 15 years' experience? Mr. DUNPHY. No, sir; I would notmake less money. Mr. WINN. I can see offhand that they may have a money problem. If it is $450 a year difference, Mr. Chairman, and 138 men involved, I do not know where they would have any hidden fund to come up with the money. Although you say it is not what you are getting at and I see what you are talking about, it could be a problem of where they would get the funds. I am thinking out loud now but I think this may be where in their thinking they would have to come out of left field with $450 for approximately 138 of you, which they probably have not planned on. We would have to talk to the budget people about that. I `have no other questions. Mr. MULTER. As I understand it, under the reorganization plan there will no longer be a detective sergeant or uniform sergeant and there will merely be the title of sergeant of police. Mr. DUNPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. MTJLTER. And the sergeant of police may be either assigned in uniform or. in plainclothes? Mr. DUNPIIY. Yes, sir. If he is promoted off this last promotional examination, it will be at the discretion of the Chief of Police as to his assignment: . Mr. MIJLTER. In other words, in the future it will be entirely up t~ the people in charge of the Police Department to determin.e which sergeant will serve in uniform and which will not? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes, sir. `` Mr. Mrn~TER. As it has been up to the reorganization, you men who were detective sergeants were not assigned to serve as uniforni sergeants? ` ` ` PAGENO="0110" 114 Mr. DUNPHY. No, sir; we were ineligible to take tests for the uni-. form branch. When you took a test for detective you took for detective sergeant; if you were scrgeant, you took a test for lieutenant and so on up to the rank of captain. Mr. MULTER. That was the situation when you went into service? Mr~ DUNPHY. Right. Mr. MULTER. Now if you want to be a sergeant, you will have to take a chance as to whether you will serve in uniform or not, as your superior may decide? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes. Mr. MULTER. In other words, under the reorganization plan, once you decide to ifie the application, that decision is irrevocable, and if you pass the examination you are subject to appointment at the will of your superior under the title of sergeant of police in or out of uniform. Once you have decided to change your present status, you can no longer be a plainclothes sergeant detective, you are subject to the will of your superior whether you serve in or out of uniform? Mr. DTJNPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. MULTER. Despite the fact up to this time when you took the examination and qualified, you determined you wanted to be in plainclothes? Mr. DUNPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. MULTER. Thank you, gentlemen. Our next witness will be Mr. John L. SuJ]ivan, former Inspector of Metropolitan Washington Police Department. Will you identify yourself, sir? STATEMENT OF JOHN L. SULLIVAN (FORMER INSPECTOR, METRO- POLITAN WASHINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT), CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, POLICEMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACCOMPANIED BY LT. SAMUEL W. STICKLEY, PRESIDENT Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. My name is John L. Sullivan. I am retired Inspector of the Metro- politan Police Department and I am Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Policem en's Association of the District of Columbia, which includes the Metropolitan, th~ Park Police and the White House Police. On my right is the President of the Policemen's Association, Lieutenant Samuel Stickley. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am appearing here today in support of H.R. 13203, a bill introduced by Congressman Multer to abolish the rank of detective in the Metropolitan Police Force, and to promote persons in such rank to the rank of detective sergeant. At a regular meeting of the Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia, the Legislative Committee was directed to petition the Congress for legislation as set forth in the title of H.R. 13203. The reason for this bill is that as a result of the reorganization of the Metropolitan Police Force, as recommended in a report by the Inter- national Association of Chiefs of Police, it was recommended that certain ranks be phased out. The rank of detective is to be phased out. PAGENO="0111" 115 The elimination of the rank of detective and promotion of those in that rank to the rank of detective sergeant does not set a precedent. I call to the Committee's attention Public Law 87-882, approved October 24, 1962, wherein the rank of corporal was abolished and those in the rank of corporal were made sergeants. In the same law the rank of precinct detective was abolished and all those in the rank of detective and precinct detective were combined. Those detectives being redesignated as detective sergeants would not be eligible to take an examination for promotion to lieutenant as they must serve two years in grade before being eligible to take the promotional examination for lieutenant. A promotional exam was held in October this year, therefore, it would be four years before they would be in competition with the present detective sergeants for pro-. motion to lieutenant, or the uniform sergeant, as the case may be. I am informed that the estimated cost of this bill would be approx- imately $72,000 under the present pay scale. We respectfully urge that the committee report favorably on 1E[.R. 13203. We feel that the upgrading of these men would do much to retain experienced policemen on the force. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for the privilege of appearing here today and expressing the views of the Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia. I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, that as it now stands in the pro- motional system, the men in the Criminal Investigation Division have to take four promotions to reach the rank of captain, whereas in the uniform set-up they only take three examinations to reach captain. All of these men that sat here and testified today were under my com- mand no later than last year. I know them to all be dedicated police- men. Their desire is to remain in. plainclothes. Whether our Depart- ment yields to the total reorganization as it was suggested is a question yet to be determined. It is my humble opinion that we will always need, and there will always be a need for plainclothesmen, detectives in the Police Department. One only has to look to the crime clearance of last month in robberies alone, which were a pitiful 16 percent. One can understand that this is demoralizing and it is certainly a morale killer for a man who has put many years in plainclothes, when he could have gone the other route, to all of a sudden find himself on the same basis with a new private to take an examination for promotion. Therefore, I strongly urge you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, to vote this bill out favorably. Thank you very much. Mr. MULTER. Did your Association take any action on this matter? Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, we did. We listened to the members from the Detective Division who came to the Association. We also had meetings with the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police stated that he would allow the two examinations that had been previously testified to, one this year and one in 1969, that he would make no less than 80 this year and 70 two years hence. This is well and good enough, but if we go into the reorganization of the Police Department where it says that within five years we will accomplish this phasing out of 35 or 34 detective sergeants, whatever the number may be, I do not see how it could be possible to say these men would have a fair chance in promotion under the detective set-up. PAGENO="0112" 116 I am just convinced we are going to continue to have need of a de- tective bureau because in my humble opinion it is a must if we are going to ever alleviate this ever-increasing crime rate in the District of Columbia, because when we start destroying the precincts, as recom- mended in some of this report, and we start turning the criminal in- vestigation over to uniformed men who have many other assignments, it is quite obvious it is not going to work. And someone, in my opinion, is dreaming We are going to need a Detective Bureau, Mr Chairman, and w e are going to need a larger Detective Bureau than we have and we need a competent Detective Bureau, we need one where the morale is boosted to its highest so they can perform a function and make the city streets safe for the citizens of the District of Columbia. I certainly urge you as strongly as I can to pass this bifi. Mr. MULTER. My question about the Association was intended to ask whether or not there had been a meeting of the members approving your stand. Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. We had a meeting with the Association, and the Association supported H.R. 13203 at one of our regular meetings. There were other meetings, Mr. Chairman, in which we tried to put this bill on to the pay bill that is pending, thinking it would be the best way to expedite it, but the vote of the Association was it would be two separate bills. There was a question asked as to how we will pay for this four or 500, whatever it is a man. We are understaffed approximately 370 men. So you have vacancies for 370 men we have not been able to fill. So there is a little place you can pick up the extra dollars to promote these men without any violation of the spending of the money as appropriated by Congress as we spend it for the tax days, as we call them, which is for overtime days the men are working today. So it is not a real hard problem to find the money. The question is, we want this morale of our investigators kept up, we want our Detec- tive Bureau to stay intact with whatever is reasonable under the Chief's direction. But, better than that, we want to retain these very fine men we have in the Detective Division and if we do not do this when they get their time they are going to immediately leave the Police Department and look for other jobs. Mr. MULTER. Am I right in saying previously, when a man joined the force and then decided he would. like to be a detective or inves- tigator in plainclothes, call it what you will, this was a matter of his choice but he could not be so assigned unless he was appointed? Mr. SULLIVAN. It is not a matter of his choice today. Mr. MULTER. Previously, a uniform officer could not be compelled to be a detective or investigator; it was up to him to accept it or not? Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct. Mr. MULTER. Now the concept is being changed as far as a sergeant is concerned. The detective or investigator in plainclothes is going to take the sergeant's exam and oncehe passes that and qualifies, he will then have to take the appointment that is given to him either in uniform or in plainclothes. Mr. SULLIVAN. He has no choice. Mr. MULTER. Thank you. Are there any questions? PAGENO="0113" 117 rrhank you very much. Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MULTER. Our next witness is Deputy Chief Wilson. STATEMENT OF ~1ERRY V. WILSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, METROPOLI- TAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS E. MOYER, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL Deputy Chief WILsoN. Mr. Moyer is of course representing the Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present the Commis- sioners' view and Deputy Wilson will be available. Mr. MULTER. Identify yourself for the record. Mr. Momn. Mr. Chairman, my name is Thomas F. Moyer. I am Assistant Corporation Counsel and I am here to present the view of the District of Columbia Government on this bill. Mr. MTJLTER. And the gentleman with you is? Deputy Chief WILsON. Deputy Chief Jerry V. Wilson, Director of Planning and Development for the Metropolitan Police Department, representing Chief Layton. Mr. MULTER. We have placed in the record at our opening, the letter from Mayor Washington, dated November 8, 1967, addressed to Chairman MoMillan. You may add anything you please, sir. Mr. MOYER. I would like to quote briefly from the letter in order to bring out the view of the District Government on this bill. Commissioner Washington states: I believe H.R. 13203 to be unnecessary and without apparent justification since from a sound administration standpoint, there is no basis through the legislative process to automatically promote to the rank of detective sergeant all of the detectives in the Metropolitan Police Force, 138 in number. The `President's Commission on Crime has endorsed the recommendation of the International Association of Chiefs of Police that the supervisor ranks in the Criminal Investigations Division should be reduced rather than increased, as would result from the enactment of HR. 13203. In order that the objective expressed in the report of the Association may be accomplished in an orderly manner, the Chief of Police has adopted the following policy- And then the next page sets out the policy which the Chief has adopted as was discussed by the detectives here, taking detective sergeant examinations over a period of time. Then the Commissioner finishes with: The passage of this proposed legislation would further compound the present imbalance of superior-subordinate ratio in the Criminal Investigation Division. I therefore strongly recommend against enactment of HR. 13203. Then the Commissioner states he has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that from the standpoint of the Administration program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Basically, that is the District Government's position on the bill. Mr. MULTER. As long as it expresses the District Government's position, that is the desire of the Chief of the Police Department, is it not? Deputy Chief WILSON. That is correct. If you like, I can explain some the background of this. As was noted earlier, the bill is essentially an outgrowth of findings and recommendations of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The ICP in their findings and recommendations regarding the 8S-574--GS---9 PAGENO="0114" 118 Department, found that there is a disproportionately higher ratio of detective sergeants to subordinate ranks in the ranks of the Depart- ment. They found a ratio of one to three, which is an extremely high ratio. They found further there was no substantial justification in terms of work performed, and this was pointed out here, or in terms of qualifications required for the higher pay that is given to detective sergeants over uniform sergeants or that is given for detective over patrolmen. They recommended essentially that the Department eliminate the straight detective branch, specifically the detective rank of captain, and that the individuals who are currently in the grade of detective be continued in that grade for a period of five years, and that there- after they be reduced to the grade of patrolmen unless they have achieved the higher education requirements which would qualify them for additional compensation also recommended by the TOP for educational advance. Chief Layton, as he reviewed this recommendation, and as he said many times, is in favor of most of the recommendations of the TOP but not all, and this is one with which he did not agree. He agrees with the ultimate goal of the ICP, but from the standpoint of the practical- ity, he did not see it as practical to reduce people who have long years of service and who have achieved upper ranks and grades under departmental policies, and he saw no fairness basically in reducing these people arbitrarily or even after a period of five years. So he adopted a policy that he would continue those individuals in the rank of detective sergeant so long as they are with the Department until they are either promoted or have retired, and that he would continue those people who are in the grade of detective until they are promoted to a higher rank or have retired. We did have meetings first with the Counsel of the Policemen's Association, who represented to the Chief that this was causing some dissatisfaction among detective personnel and we then advised him of the policy, and had this Aprilmeeting referred to earlier with the detectives to get down to the crux of what their complaint was. The thing we found as the predominant view was that they felt they had entered the detective grade, and all of them, not all but most of them had taken the exam and had achieved the grade of de- tective through examination, and at least many of them expressed the view they did not want to become uniform sergeants. They felt they should be permitted to continue as detective sergeants since they had entered a system which did at least impose one additional exami- nation over the uniform route and they did not feel it was fair to require them to convert at this late date to the uniform route. So in response to this complaint, the Chief agreed that we would continue the grade of detective, and this is pointed out in the Com- missioners' recommendation, and it was published to the force in a memorandum of June 26 that he would continue those people who are detective sergeants as detective sergeants until that rank is eliminated through attrition, but further, that he would continue for this exami-. nation which was just held and for the examination which will be held in 1969 to hold an examination for detective sergeant, which those personnel in the grade of detective could apply for, and would continue to make promotion to the grade of detective sergeant as vacancies occurred in that grade. PAGENO="0115" 119 And we have tried to encourage detective sergeants to convert to uniform positions where they are willing. He took the position he would not force them to convert but that those who have been willing could convert, to uniform assignments. I think we now have something on the order of six who converted to uniform assignments, but any who had remained in detective sergeant grade would be replaced by per- sonnel selected from the detective sergeants registers established through this examination and the 1969 examination, and this is a detective sergeant examination that can only be taken by personnel in the grade of detective, that he would continue this through the 1969 exam which would continue the register through 1971 and there- after, he would continue people in the grade of detective sergeant and in the grade of detective in their respective grades until the grades have been eliminated through attrition. The policy with regard to new investigative personnel is that they will be assigned to plainclothes grades and to a plainclothes compen- sation and will have to compete for a uniform sergeant rank if they want to be promoted further. This would not apply, however, to the detectives. I would interject that in the examination held last month 56 of these personnel in the grade of detective applied for examination for detective sergeant, 26 applied for examination to uniform sergeant, and the remainder did not apply for examination. In summary then, the Department's position is that we will con- tinue the grades of detective sergeant and detective until they are eliminated through attrition, that those individuals in the grade of detective are now being amply compensated for the work they per- form and for the past promotional examination achievements, and H.R. 13203 is therefore unnecessary and would in essence give the detectives, a salary increase for which there is no substantial justification. Aside from that, I would like to comment on a few points that were made in Mr. Murphy's statement because they did seem to get the committee's attention. The meeting held in April was held essentially at the request of the detectives who wanted an explanation of what was going to happen to them. The meeting was conducted by Deputy Chief Hartnett, who is Chief of Detectives, myself and Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy's function there-and I thought this was absolutely explained-was to explain to the detectives the viewpoint by which the ICP had arrived at its recommendations. Beyond this it was my purpose there to explain to the detectives the policy of the Chief of PolIce. I do not recall this statement attributed to Mr. Murphy. I am not going to deny it was said because I do not know. I was present during the entire thing. I will point out the session lasted for about three hours. They were not lecture sessions, but were interchange sessions, discussion sessions. So whatever he said in this regard is not a policy of the Chief that anyone is going to be taken before the Trial Board for arguing against these policies. I do not recall the statement. Anyhow, if he said individuals who do not produce work may be taken to the Trial Board, this is true, but beyond that I am not going to defend it except to say I want you to understand the way in the context of three-hour discussion sessions, with three people, with some 50 people who were opposed to our position. PAGENO="0116" 120 Mr. MULTER. Chief Layton and you both agree there should be no reprisals taken against any of these men because they differ with your views or what you are doing in the reorganization? Deputy Chief WILsoN. No, sir. It is certainly not with respect to the point before this committee. If they disagree with reorganization, this is something else. But in terms of this, no, sir. There certainly will be no reprisals from the De- partment because they have made representations of their positions to the committee. Mr. WINN. Were you at the meeting? Deputy Chief WILsoN. Yes, sir. Mr. WINN. Do you not represent the police? Deputy Chief WILSON. Yes, sir; I do. I was the representative of the Chief of Police at that meeting. Mr. MULTER. The meeting was called by the Chief? Deputy Chief WILSON. The meeting was called at the direction of the Chief. There were two sessions because the detectives worked separate shifts, two sessions in one day, and at the sessions were the Chief of Detectives, myself representing the Chief, Mr. Murphy who was there for the purpose of explaining ICP rationale for their recom- mendations, not as a direct representative of the Chief. Beyond that, as I say, I do not recall the statement attributed to him, but I am not in a position to deny it because they were three-hour sessions ~nd a great deal of discussion was off-the-cuff, so I am not in position to defend what he may or may not have said. I think this is basically the point. The citation of the statute that was put into the record regarding detectives being sergeants is a citation which refers to the grade of detective sergeant, not to all detectives exclusively. There is a long history of the way in which various detective ranks were established and I will be glad to put it in, but I do not think it is necessary. Mr. MULTER. Before we leave that point, I have no reason to doubt the law is exactly as read to us. If that is so, how can you by reor- ganization of the Department violate that statute? Is it not necessary that you come to the Congress and get that law changed before you can by a reorganization plan give up or change that position? Deputy Chief WILSON. Positively. That statute which was read pertains to the existing grade of detective sergeant which we will have to change in the Police and Firemen's Salary Act in order to eventually eliminate it. We do not propose to eliminate it so long as the present incumbents or those detectives who achieve that grade remain with the Department. It is true we will eventually need to have that law changed Mr. MULTER. Does that finish your statement, sir? Deputy Chief WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. MULTER. Is it not true when these men joined the force, these 138 men, and then accepted the assignment of detective, they at that time had the right to believe that they could continue in the Police Department and gradually move on up the ladder of promotion, re- maining in the detective force rather than the uniform force? Deputy Chief WILSON. That is correct, that is the reason for the Chief's policy of continuing the detective-sergeant examination for two more times. PAGENO="0117" 121 Mr. MULTER. Why do you limit it? Why do you say it will go on only for two years, they will never have an opportunity again to continue in the plainclothes division of the Department; thereafter, if they participate in examinations for sergeants of police, they must then give up the right to remain in plainclothes. Deputy Chief WILsoN. It would continue for four years and after that. Mr. MULTER. Whether four or ten years, what right have you now to say to these men, whether it be four or five years or any other time, after that expiration of time you will have to give up your right to remain in the plainclothes division of the Department, investigative or detective of whatever you please, thereafter you will take a com- petitive examination and if you pass it you are going to have to take our assignment either in uniform or otherwise? Deputy Chief WILSON. Yes, sir; this is so. Mr. MIJLTER. What right do you have to make that change? Deputy Chief WILsoN. The purpose of selecting four years is that we assume that within four years the grade will be largely eliminated through attrition. We do not know this and of course continuation beyond that is subject to further discussion when we see what has happened in the ensuing four years. Mr. MULTER. What do you think will happen at the end of four years. How many of these 138 men in the force of detectives will still be on the force four years from now? Deputy Chief WILSON. I would expect four years from now, Mr. Chairman, that most of them will either have achieved the grade of detective sergeant or of sergeant for four years have expired. Half of them approximately have elected to compete for uniform sergeant and are very likely to be promoted if they qualified on the example an4 the other half I expect have a very good opportunity of being pro- moted, assuming they pass the exam. Mr. MULTER. If that is so, why do you need the limitation? If only five or ten are left, why take the opportunity from them to remain in the detective or investigative division and competing in the examina- tion? Why, whether it be 5, 10 or 15 men remaining four years from now, still just detectives, why should you take away from them the right to compete for the position of sergeant but remaining in the plainclothes division? Deputy Chief WILSON. This was~ a decision which the Chief made, Mr. Chairman, on the assurnptiou that most of them or all of them will be gone within four years. If they are not I will think we will examine the position again. We do not want to announce, as it were, we were going to continue the position indefinitely. Mr. MIJLTER. I have discussed this at length with Chief Layton off the record, and I respect him as a very valuable and valiant Chief of Police, and with all due deference to him, 1 say this most respectfully, I understand his views but I disagree with him in this particular case. As a legislator I am compelled to say I think it is unjust and unfair to these men to do what you are doing here. As a lawyer I think what you are trying to do here is illegal. I do not think you have or he has any right to say to these men, who in effect had a contract when they entered the service that they can remain in the Detective Investigative Plainclothes Division of the Department and move up the ladder, that now you are taking PAGENO="0118" 122 this away from them. I do not think you have any right to do that. I do not think you should do it as a matter of good public relations or as a matter of morale in the Department. As to future men coming in, make any regulations the Department thinks is going to be fair to the men, but as to those already m the service, I think you are duty-bound to continue to give them the rights that were theirs when they entered the service, rather than now changing the rules in the middle of the game. I do not think it is fair to these fellows, whether there are going to be five or only one left four years from now. I do not think that limitation should be placed on this. That~ is my personal view. I have not discussed it with the other members of the committee. Mr. WINN. Getting a little further on this, you said you thought there would be this attrition and phasing out based on the number of detectives that took the two types of examinations and some that did not take either one who probably do not know what they want to do Deputy Chief WII~oN. Yes. Mr. WINN. I can't figure out yet how ~ou are going to be able, if 58 men took the examination say and 40 of them passed the examina- tion, to then gO on their other merits to fill 34 positions. Deputy Chief WILsoN. You are referring to the 34. We do not propose to reduce the number to 34, Mr. Winn. The 34 recommended by the TOP. We do not propose to reduce the numbers of detective sergeants to 34 at this point. We have pointed this out in the memo- randum to the force Mr WINN We have been led to believe there were 91 or 92 men trying for 34 spots Am I wrong on that? Deputy Chief WILSON. The point that was being conveyed errone- ously was there are some 91 detective sergeants now The TOP has recommended there be only 34 sergeants in the CriminalTnvestigation Division. The Chief of Police has not adopted this recommendation of the TCP. Mr. WINN. Have these men been told that? Deputy Chief WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. WINN. There are more spots than the 34? Deputy Chief WILSON This was issued m the memorandum of June 26 which was issued to the Department I believe it is also reflected in the letter of Mr. Washington. The memorandum pomted out: The promotees will be selected from the detective sergeant register to fill vacancies which occur because of promotion or separation of incumbent detective sergeants who have not elected to convert to uniform sergeant duty. We have only five who have elected to convert and see no likelihood a large number are going to elect to convert. We did have a meetmg with the Policemen's Association which Mr. Sullivan referred to, asking that we negotiate a minimum of detective sergeants, which the Chief was willing to do. We have not had a further meeting to define the precise number, but he has assured them there will continue to be made promotions to the grade of detective sergeant, that he is not going to reduce to the number of 34 recommended by TOP at this point. Mr. WINN. So if these 56 men pass the test and meet the require- ments, they could all be detective sergeants? PAGENO="0119" 123 Deputy Chief WILSON. Yes, sir. In the normal course of events, approximately 20 detective sergeants are made from each two-year register. It is the normal course of events. It is not 100 percent. Mr. WINN. I understand that. What do you do with the rest of them? Deputy Chief WILSoN. The rest would have to compete on the 1969 examination which would continue for another two years. Mr. WINN. They would have another chance later on? Deputy Chief WILSON. Through 1971 they would have a chance, yes, sir. Mr. MULTER. Mr. Dowdy? Mr. DOWDY. If I understand correctly, 58 detectives took the examination to compete for detective sergeant, 56. Deputy Chief WILSON. 56. Mr. DOWDY. And in a two-year period you would expect 40 of them to become detective sergeants? Deputy Chief WILSoN. I would expect 20 in the normal course in a two-year period. Mr. DOWDY. You have 91 detective sergeants now. Did I under- stand you to say any of those that converted to uniform sergeants that would eliminate one, you would not refill that? Deputy Chief WILSON. We would refill that with the uniform sergeant. Mr. DOWDY. So that would be less than 91? Deputy Chief WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. DOWDY. If one of the 91 is promoted to-what is the next step? Deputy Chief WILSON. Lieutenant. Mr. DOWDY. Would that leave a vacancy? Deputy Chief WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. DOWDY. Then one of these detectives could come in and fill that, or if one retired or died? Deputy Chief WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. DOWDY. Detectives are what you call those on your robbery squad and homicide squad and what other squads? Deputy Chief WILSoN. The auto squad, the pawn squad, all of the detectives in the Criminal Investigation Division squads at the De- partment, as do the precincts. We still have general assignment detec- tives working from under the Criminal Division but who are assigned essentially to precinct work, and all of them have a mixture of detective sergeants, detective and plainclothesmen with compensation and plain- clothesmen without compensation. Mr. DOWDY. Do I understand-I have not studied the proposal for reorganization as well as I should to intelligently ask questions. Is it the intention to do away with plainclothes services? Deputy Chief WILSoN. No, sir. The recommendation for the re- organization was to eliminate the four grades as it is of detectives- detective sergeants, detectives, plainclothesmen with compensation and plainclothesmen without compensation, or who have a position designated investigation or who do all of this investigative work and who would receive a clothing allowance rather than a promotion in rank or grade. This is the proposal of the ICP because we are confined to what the current status provides, and because of the other practicalities of the situation, Chief Layton has adopted the position of continuing PAGENO="0120" 124 the detective sergeant or detectives so long as there are present incum- bents with us and to use the grade of plainclothesmen with compensa- tion for the basic investigative function. Above the basic investigator the TOP proposed that sergeant be used and there be no distinction between uniform and detective ser- geants, but the sergeants be assigned as supervisors of investigators. Mr. DOWDY. The assigned sergeant would be a uniform man? Deputy Chief WILSON. He might or might not be. He could very well be, and I would anticipate because this is what happens with most specialties-ordinarily, for example, in traffic most of the traffic division sergeants are men who were privates in traffic division and most of the sergeants in criminal investigations would certainly be men who had been investigators. It naturally follows that you use a man in a specialty who has experience in that, although there is a possibility of lateral movement. Mr. DOWDY. I was disturbed a little while ago about whether you were going to assign a man to be an investigator for a while and then into something else for a while. It would seem to me that you would want specialists in the field. An assignment to the robbery squad, would it be permanent or temporary? Deputy Chief WILSON. It is not necessarily permanent. The detective squad often moves from one specialty into another. Exposure to many various specialties sometimes. Mr. DOWDY. That is all. Mr. MULTER. What is the thinking behind the change of title from detective to investigator? Deputy Chief WILSON. This was a recommendation of the TOP, and frankly, I am not certain what their particular reason was and I am not certain that the Police Department especially likes it. I think we will cooperate with the plainclothesmen titlewise in the statute at the present time. It is a different title. I suspect their thinking was it differentiates between what we have now and what they were pro- posing we would have. Mr. MIJLTER. As a career officer in the Police Department, do you not think, that the word "detective" carries with it a lot more meaning and distinction than the word "investigator"? Are you not downgrading the detective in changing the title to investigator? Deputy Chief WILSON. I would have to agree with that, Mr. Chair- man. I want to make clear we do not propose to change the title. I would have to say that my personal preference is for the title of detective over that of investigator. Mr. MULTER. What is the thinking behind the compulsion of a detective to make an irrevocable choice as to whether or not he is going to be a uniform sergeant or a detective sergeant? Deputy Chief WILSoN. In order to establish registers from the examination, we have to let him make a choice. Mr. MULTER. Why make it irrevocable? Why can he not change his mind a year hence and say "I made a mistake. I would rather be a detective sergeant than a uniform sergeant"? Deputy Chief WILSON. Because then we would not have any reasonable method of converting him over to the registers. What would very likely happen is that he would elect one or the other and then as he saw more rapid movement in one of the promotion systems PAGENO="0121" 125 than the other, he might want to convert. This would nake it very impractical to administer in terms of fairness to everyone else having registered. Mr. MTJLTER. Unless I misunderstood the witnesses thus far, there is no difference between the function of a uniform sergeant and a detective sergeant. Deputy Chief WILsON. That is correct. Mr. MTJLTER. Then why not have one register and let the man have the choice? Instead of saying you take this examination under the title of uniform sergeant or under the title of detective sergeant, and that is it, why not give one examination for all the men, and let them have the choice? Deputy Chief WILSON. We proposed initially to have the one ex- amination, but many of the detectives objected on the ground that they wanted to be able to compete for further promotion and be as- sured that they would remain in the detective field. This was the purpose of having a separation of the registers so that a detective- and many of them I suspect and in fact it is indicated, many of them apparently at least are willing to move into the uniform field. But the addition of a register for detective sergeant this time and the next time was to accommodate the detectives who indicated they wanted to be able to compete for promotion without having to move into the uniform field. Mr. MTJLTER. One other question along the same line. As I understand, you are now going to abolish the detective sergeant and uniform sergeant, and under your reorganization plan all you are going to have is sergeant of police. Is that right? Deputy Chief WILSON. Eventually, after the incumbent detectives are gone. Mr. MULTER. Then you will just have a sergeant of police? Deputy Chief WILSON. After the detective sergeant incumbents have all left us through attrition. Mr. MULTER. Do you not think that your recruitment program would move along more successfully and you would get more men if you give them a choice, if they would know when they join the force they can go into the detective division of the Department and stay in that until they have reached the top, rather than be submitted to the choice of their superior officers as to whether they will be in uniform or not? Deputy Chief WILSON. We do not permit them, you understand, to come into the force making this choice. I suppose there are a number of individuals we could attract if we would guarantee them we would leave them in the detective field, but this is not a highly practical method of getting men because the men we need are really those in the uniform branch. We do not have any shortage of men now who are willing to move into plainclothes, but we do have a shortage, a great shortage, of men in the uniform branch. Mr. MULTER. The figures you referred to as being in the detective sergeant rank are not reflected at all in Mr. Washington's letter of November 8. I suggest you give us that directive and let us make it a part of the record. Deputy Chief WILSON, The number of men taking the examination? PAGENO="0122" 126 Mr. `MULTER. The number of men in this category. You stated what you were going to do with the 34 figure that has not yet been determined on. That is the July 26 memorandum. Deputy Chief WILSON. I will submit it for the record. (The information follows:) GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, June ~6, 1967. MEMORANDUM Subject: Action by the Chief of Police on recommendation relative to detective promotion of the Ad Hoc Committee Established to Review the Promotional Procedures of the Metropolitan Police Department. To the Force: In a memorandum dated February 13, 1967, this department published for information of members of the force the major recommendations of the ad hoc committee which was established by the Chief of Police for the purpose of making a complete study and review of the promotional procedures of the Metropolitan Police Department. The primary purpose of that publication was to apprise those officers and members of the department whom the recommendations would affect of the proposed changes before establishing a final policy on adoption or rejection of major proposed changes. Since the publication of that memorandum, the most consistently voiced com- plaint has been against the recommendation "That separate promotional examina- tions for detective ranks be eliminated." The strongest complaints in this respect have been voiced by personnel currently in the grade of detective who strenuously object to being required to compete for promotion to sergeant from the uniform sergeant register. These objections have persisted despite the fact that 176 addi- tional uniform sergeant positions have been requested and are likely to be approved in the 1968 budget for promotions to be made from the register going into effect in 1968 and that, therefore, logical estimates indicate that all eligibles on that. register stand an excellent chance of being promoted. In order to insure that personnel in the grade of detective were aware of the increased promotional opportunities in the uniform rank, to explain to them the policies of the department regarding promotional opportunities for personnel in that grade, as well as to obtain the basic reasoning behind their objections to the proposed promotional plan, on April 21, 1967, officials of the department con- ducted discussion sessions with all personnel then in the grade of detective to explain the policies of the department relating to promotions for those personnel. During those sessions, it became obvious that the personnel in the grade of detective held two strong, somewhat contradictory views regarding the proposed promotional plan. On the one hand, a few of the detectives argued that, for various reasons, all personnel presently in the grade of detective should be auto- matically promoted to the rank of unifOrm sergeant. On the other hand, the pro- dominately expressed view was that personnel currently in the grade of ~detective do not really want to be uniform sergeants at all, that this is the reason they, chose the detective promotion system (with its extra promotional examination) in the first place, and they they should be permitted to continue to compete within a separate detective system for promotion to the rank of detective sergeant. Upon consideration of the various comments of. the detectives, as reported to ~ne, it seemed that there is significant merit in the position of those personnel that, because they had entered the detective promotion system (with its extra examination) in the belief that this action would permit them to compete for promotion to detective sergeant rather than to uniform sergeant, the department has an implied obligation to make a reasonable effoTt to make it possible for them to continue towards achievement of their stated goal of being able to con- tinue as investigators even after promotion to the rank of sergeant. For this reason, I directed the Ad Hoc Committee on Promotional Procedures to restudy the proposal for elimination of separate promotional examinations for detective ranks, taking into consideration the views expressed at the discussion sessions, and to submit an alternative proposal. As a result of the committee recommenda- tions, I have adopted the following policies relating to promotions to and from the grade of detective: PAGENO="0123" 127 1. Members of the department who hold the grade of detective on the closing day for filing for the 1967 promotional examination, may file for "Detective to Detective Sergeant" or for "Detective to Uniform Sergeant." 2. Once the detective files his application, his decision is irrevocable. 3. There will be one written examination for promotion to sergeant, which will include material applicable to investigative procedures as well as to supervisory techniques. 4. After the examination has been graded and the necessary adjustments have been made in the test scores to secure the desired number of eligibles, separate registers will be established for uniform sergeant and for detective sergeant. 5. The detective sergeant register will consist of those detectives who file application for promotion to detective sergeant and who qualify on the written examination. Separate adjustments in the test scores will not be made. 6. Promotees will be selected from the detective sergeant register to fill vacancies which occur because of promotion or separation of incumbent detective sergeants who have not elected to convert to uniform sergeant duty. 7. The same procedure as above will be followed for the 1969 promotional examination. 8. After the register established from the 1969 examination for promotion to Detective Sergeant has expired, this procedure will terminate and there will be no further promotions to the grade of Detective Sergeant. 9. No further promotions to the grade of Detective will be made after the current register expires. JOHN B. LAYTON, Chief of Police. Index Subjects: Detective promotions, policies re Examinations, promotional, policy re detectives Promotional examinations, policy rc detectives Mr. WINN. I would like to ask one more question. From my understanding earlier in the hearings the duties, according to your manual, of the detective sergeant and the regular or plain- clothes detective are spelled out exactly the same. Is this true that there is no differential? Deputy Chief WILSON. This is substantially correct. The manual of our Department was written in 1948, the Department submitted a revision in 1957 to the Corporation Counsel which has never been fully approved. So our manual is in many respects out of date. But in terms of realities, it is correct that the duties of the detective sergeant and the detective and plainclothesman do not substantially differ. Mr. WINN. The only difference in reality then is the pay; is that right? Deputy Chief WILsoN It is pay, that is correct, with some minor exceptions Mr WINN My suggestion would be maybe you ought to update the manual while you are reorganizing everything else. Deputy Chief WILsoN. We are seeking to do that. Mr. MULTER. Is there a way we can give these men the right to move up the ladder in the service as far as title is concerned without giving them any immediate increase in compensation and let them earn that in accordance with the longevity rules that prevail in connection with pay? In other words, as I understand the bill as we now have it, if we pass this it will cost about $72,000 a year for increases in pay that will become effective on the date this law becomes effective, and these detectives become detective sergeants. Is there a way of handling this so that we preserve their right to increase of pay in accordance with the annual increments, and so forth, PAGENO="0124" 128 and that seniority may call for, but give them the title without the increased pay? In other words, without mandating an increase in pay? Mr. MOYER. You mean the title of detective they now have or detective sergeant? Mr. MULTER. Assuming we pass H.R. 13203, moving these men to detective sergeant without giving them the increased pay that is apparently mandated by the bill; can we do that? Deputy Chief WILSON. If you change the title by statute. Right off-hand, I am not certain how it would affect their possibilities for future promotion. This would mean to be promoted they would stifi compete for lieutenant. It is certainly possible I suppose to amend the existing statute to call people in the grade of detective sergeant class 2 or class 3. Mr. MULTER. Is that not what was done when they promoted the corporals to sergeants? Deputy Chief WILSON. In that case there was a: general adjustment. Mr. Chairman, they were actually promoted to the grade of sergeant. Mr. MULTER. With pay increases? Deputy Chief WILSON. With the pay increase. It was involved in a total pay change at the time. So I am not certain whether they got a substantial increase over what they would have gotten otherwise anyhow. My recollection is generally they did not. They got about the same increase they would have gotten as corporals. Mr. MULTER. Would the District Government or the Police De- partment object to the bill being passed if it did not cariy with it the mandate of increased pay and provided merely for the change of title? Mr. MOYER. So these detectives would have the same title as the existing detective sergeants? Mr. MULTER. Yes. Mr. MOYER. Mr. Chairman, would there by any differentiation between these detectives and the existing detective sergeants other than the pay that they would have other than the pay, that they would have one designation and the other detective sergeant another such as class 1 or class 2? Mr. MULTER. I assume the designation would be the same, there would be one class of detective sergeant. I do not think you would want to create another class of detective sergeant. Deputy Chief WILSON. There are difficulties in that because the grades are not the same. The increase for most of them is $455. There are five or six who would get $700 some-odd, but most would get $455 in the bill. But to place them in the existing class of detective sergeant, since there are differentiations between the two rates, I am not certain how you could do it. There are only seven specific steps within the grade of detective sergeant in which a person can be placed. I think to place a detective into that you either have to give him a decrease or an increase. Mr. MULTER. Look at page 2, of the bill. Is there any difference in pay in detective salary class 3, step 9 and detective sergeant salary class 4 in step 8, or any one of those steps? In other words, the highest step in salary class 3 is higher than any steps of detective sergeant in class 4. Deputy Chief WILSON. Step 3 of a detective, ~\lr. Chairman, is lower than any of the steps of the detective sergeant, but to move to detective service step 4 of detective is $9,710 per annum, and so PAGENO="0125" 129 with service step 4 you would either have to place him as a detective sergeant. in service step 2, which is $9,852, which would be a slight increase, or place him in service step 1 which is. $9,480 and would be a decrease. As it is now as the bill is written, it would place him in service step 3 at $10,165. Mr. MTJLTER. Can we revise that scale between lines 4 and 5 on page 2 so as to make these men detective sergeants, take them from one service step of detective and placing them in salary class 4 at approximately the same salary scale? Deputy Chief WILsoN. Yes, sir; if you place service step 3, for example, of detective into service step 1 of detective sergeant, that would be an increase of only $115, for example, as compare to the bill, which would give $455. I suspect the same would apply if you reduce detective step 4 into detective sergeant, step 2. This would only be $115. So it would be possible. Mr. MULTER. Will you submit to us a new scale which would show the approximate equivalent with dollars and cents set forth? Deputy Chief WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. MTJLTER. And also submit to us both the views of the Depart- ment and the District government as to whether or not you can go along with this bill is we do that. Deputy Chief WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. MULTER. Making only the change in title and so we do not make any substantial increase of salary, keeping it as close to the pres- ent salary as possible, and let them continue to earn their increments as time goes on. Deputy Chief WILSON. I will submit that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DOWDY. In connection with that, you might let us know how many detectives you have in steps 1 and 2. I believe those are the two steps that may give us trouble. Deputy Chief WILsoN. There are very few in step 1 and step 2. I will give you the population of each step. Mr. DOWDY. I have one other question. Is the main purpose of this bill to make detectives eligible to take the examination for lieutenant? Is that the niain purpose of this bill? Mr. MULTER. No. The main purpose of the bill is to continue these men in their right to become detective sergeants and to at least, as I see it, also eliminate the requirement that they give up their choice between remaining as a detective and being switched to uniforms. In other words, under the reorganization plan, as I understand it, it would be at the discretion of the Chief of Police or his deputy in charge of personnel, whoever it may be, as to whether these men, once they become sergeants of police, would be assigned to uniform or plainclothes. Mr. DOWDY. It seems to me under this set-up that has been taken care of for at least four years. But the conirnent I made, this would be one effect, it would make them eligible to take examinations for lieutenant. Deputy Chief WILSoN. Yes, sir. Mr. MOYER. I would like to point out one thing. The problem of moving all the detectives up to the rank of detective sergeant is that the force has a bigger problem in eventually reducing the rank of detective sergeant to the number the International Asso- ciation of Chiefs of Police and the present Crime Commission have PAGENO="0126" 180 recommended, that the rank of detective sergeant eventually be re- ducèd to something like 34 men. If this large number of detectives is promoted to the rank of detective sergeant, then of courseif the force wants to phase out the detective sergeant rank, this will take a great many more years than is now anticipated with the present number of men in the detective sergeant grade. Mr. MULTER. I might have misunderstood the Deputy Chief. I thought there was no intention of following that recommendation of phasing out to 34. Deputy Chief WILSON. Not at this point, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MULTER. And reducing the number of detective sergeants. Deputy Sergeant WILSON. Only through the eventual process of attrition. Mr. MOYER. The point is with their large number of extra men, attrition would be a lot longer. Mr. WINN. You stifi have the possibility, though, that some of these men might not want to go on to detective sergeant; they.might still want to switch over to uniform sergeant? De~p~ity Chief WILSON. Yes, sir. I suspect there are a number who would. Mr. MULTER. Once these men qualify by examination and appoint- ment as sergeants of police, wifi they all then be entitled to take the lieutenant examination? Deputy Chief WILSoN. Yes, sir. Mr. MULTER. That completes our hearing this morning. Thank you very much. We will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the subcommittee was recessed subject to call of the Chair.) FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Jan'uary 31, 1968. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Congress of the united States, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: The Federation of Citizens Associations wishes to reiterate its endorsement of the former Multer bifi (H.R. 13203) and now H.R. 14809. As you know, a recommendation from the President's Crime Commission makes this bill necessary, and we feel this is no time to experiment with, or phase out, any of the men of the Metropolitan Police Department. In this terror-stricken city, with its lawlessness and crime and where the criminal is favored, lets not say to 130 dedicated detectives who have spent 10 to 20 years in that specialized work, "You go back to the end of the line and compete with the recruits." Rather, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, we urge you, and re- spectfully request that you approve H.R. 14809. Sincerely, LILLIAN P. HOWARD Mrs. Ernest W. Howard, Chairman, Police and Fire Committee, Federation of Citizens Associations. 0 PAGENO="0127" PAGENO="0128"