PAGENO="0001"
~REOI~GANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 OF 1968
(D.C. RECREATION FUNCTIONS)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
HEARING
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
11OUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETIETH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MAY 14, 1968
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
IJ'.S~ VERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON 19~7
PROPE~y Qp
0
ov. DŘC.
& 11 Li!
94-350
~1968
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITTEE ON GOVEflNMENT OPERATIONS
WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Illinois, Chairman
CHET HOLIFIELD, California
JACK BROOKS, Texas
L. H. FOIJNTAXN, North Carolina
PORTER HARDY, Ja., Virginia
JOHN A. BLAT~IK, Minnesota
ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama
EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Maryland
JOHN E. MOSS; COliJornia
DANTE B. 1rASCELL, Florida
~HENRY S. REUSS, Wisconsin
JOHN S. MONAGAN, Connecticut
TORBERT II.'MACDONALD, Massachusetts
J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana
WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, PennsFlvahia
CORNELIUS E. GALLAGHER, New Jersey
WILLIAM J. RA~DALL, Missouri
BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York
JIM WRIGHT, Texas
FERNAND J. ST GERMAIN, Rhode Island
CIHOSTINE RAY I)AV1S, Staff Director
JAMES A. LAESG-AN,. General Counsel
MILEs Q. ROMNEY, Associate General Counsel
J, P. CA1OLSON, Minority Counsel
VILLIAM II. COPENHAVER, Mnor~ty Professional Staff
EXECthIVE AND LEGISLATIVE B~OfIGANIZATION SUBCOMMITTEE
JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota, Chairman
BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois
CHET HOLIFIEED, California CLARENCE J. BROWN, JR., Ohio
HENRY S. REUSS, W~gconsin JACK EDWARDS, Alabama
ELMER W. HENDERSON, Coausel
VERONICA B. JOHNSON, Clerk
JANET A. HTYETACK, C~erk
(If)
0 0
I
FLORENCE P. DWYER, New Jersey
OGDEN II. REID, New York
FRANK HORTON, New York
DONALD RUMSFELD, Illinois
YORN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois
JOHN W. WYDLER, New York
CLARENCE J. BROWN, JR., Ohio
JACK EDWARDS, Alabama
GUY VANDER JAGT, Michigan
JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana
FLETCHER THOMPSON, ~eorgja
WILLIAM 0. COWGER, ~entttcky
MARGARET M. HECKLER, Massachusetts
GILBERT GUDE, Maryland
PAUL N. M0CLOSKEY, Ja., California
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
Message from the President of the United States, transmitting Reorgani-
zation Plan No. 3 of 1968, bringing recreation programs under the Page
authority of the District of Columbia Commissioner 2
Statement of-
Hughes, Hon. Phillip S., Deputy Director, Bureau of the Budget - - - 4
Segal, Benjamin D., chairman, Citizens Task Force on Recreation in
the District of Columbia 10
Thomas, William Hammond, Chairmafl, District of Columbia Recre-
ation Board and Department; accompanied by Mrs. Elizabeth M.
Stern, Vice Chairman
Washington, Hon. Walter E., Commissioner of the District of Colum-
bia 5
Waters, William H., member, District of Columbia Recreation Board. 26
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by-
Hughes, Hon. Phillip S., Deputy Director, Bureau of the Budget:
Letter to Hon. John A. Blatnik dated May 20, 1968 12
Jackson, Daniel W., Jr., president, Lodge 2741, American Federation
of Government Employees, of the District of Columbia Recreation
Department, letter to Hon. John A. Blatnik dated May 11, 1968 - 32
Johnson, Elizabeth S., president, League of Women Voters of the
District of Columbia: Statement 25
Washington, Hon. Walter E., Commissioner of the District of Co-
lumbia: Organizational chart of the government of the District of
Columbia 8
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
PAGENO="0005"
REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 OF 1968
(B.C. RECREATION FUNCTIONS)
TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1968
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE
REORGANIZATION SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 2203, Rayburn House
Office Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Present: Representatives John A. Blatnik, Henry S. Reuss, John N.
Erlenborn, Clarence J. Brown, Jr., and Jack Edwards.
Also present: Representative William L. Dawson, chairman, Com-
mittee on Government Operations.
Staff members present: Elmer W. Henderson, subcommittee counsel;
and William H. Copenhaver, minority professional staff.
Mr. BLATNIK. The Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative
Reorganization will please come to order.
We meet here in public hearings on Reorganization Plans Nos. 3 and
4 of 1968.
Mayor Washington planned to be here; he will probably still be
here. He has been detained.
To date, no resolution of disapproval has been introduced on either
of these reorganization plans, and allowing for the 10-day Easter
recess, these plans become law on May 23. That would be about 9 or
10 days from now. Both of these reorganizations relate to the District
of Columbia government which, as you all recall, was reorganized into
a new structure by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1968 transfers to the Mayor-Com-
missioner of the District of Columbia all functions, personnel, property,
and funds of the District of Columbia Recreation Board and the
Superintendent of Recreation. Both offices are then abolished. The
Mayor will then have complete control over this important municipal
activity.
(Reorganization 1?lan No. 3 of 1968 follows:)
(1)
PAGENO="0006"
2
[H. Doe. No. 280, 90th Cong., second sess.]
MESSAGE FRO1~E THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TRANSMITTING REOR-
GANIZATION PLAN No. 3 OF 1968, BRINGING RECREATION PROGRAMS UNDER
THE AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMISSIONER
To the Congress of the United States:
In the past few years Congress and the President have pledged to make the
Nation's Capital a model of excellence for America: in government, in housing,
in city planning, in law enforcement, in transportation,
But the quality of any city is not just a matter of efficiency and public order.
If it is to be truly great, the city must be lively and inviting-a place of beauty
and pleasure.
The city's life is lived not only in its buildings, but in its pools, playgrounds,
and recreation centers, in the places where the young gather to find excitement
and delight, where the old come to find relaxation, fresh air, companionship.
In Washington, recreation is a vital element of the city's school-enrichment
activities, its model city project and its summer programs.
But the District of Columbia Recreation Department is not an integral part
of the District government. With its six-member independent board, the au-
tonomy of the Department prevents the District of Columbia Commissioner from
providing policy supervision to the city's recreation activities and from relating
them to other community service programs-in health, education, child care,
and conservation.
There is no reason to distinguish between recreation and other community
service prograifns now vested in the Commissioner.
Accordingly, I am today submitting to the Congress Reorganization Plan No.
3 of 1968. This plan brings recreation programs under the authority of the District
of Columbia Commissioner. It enables the nOw city government to make recrea-
tion an integral part of its strategy to bring more and better community services
to the people who live in the city.
The plan achieves these objectives by abolishing the present Recreation Board
and the Office of the Superintendent of Recreation. It transfers their functions
to the District of Columbia Commissioner.
The accompanying reorganization plan has been prepared in accordance with
chapter 9 of title 5 of the United States Code. I have found, after investigation,
that each reorganization included in the plan is necessary to accomplish one or
more of the purposes set forth in section 901(a) of title 5 of the United States
Code.
Closer coord~ination of recreation with other municipal improvement programs
of the District government and the improved efficiency of recreation management
will produce a higher return on the taxpayer's investment in recreation programs,
though the amount of savings cannot be estimated at this time.
I urge the Congress to permit this reorganization plan to take effect.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON.
THE WHITE HousE, March 13, 19'38.
REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 3 OF 1968
(Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and the House of Rep-
resentatives in Congress assembled, March 13, 1968, pursuant to the provisions
of chapter 9 `of title 5 of the United States Code)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RECREATION FUNCTIONS
SECTION 1. Definitions. (a) As used in this reorganization plan, the term "the
Recreation Board" means the District of Columbia Recreation Board provided
for in District of Columbia Code, sec. 8-201 and in other law.
(b) References in this reorganization plan to any provision of the District of
Columbia Code are references to the provisions of statutory law codified under
that provision and include the said provision as amended, modified, or supple-
mented prior to the effective date of this reorganization plan.
SEC. 2. Transfer of functions to Commissioner. There are hereby transferred to
the Commissioner of the District of Columbia all functions of the Recreation
Board or of it~ chairman and members and all functions of the Superintendent
of Recreation (appointed pursuant to District of Columbia Code, sec. 8-209).
SEC. 3. Deiqations. The functions transferred by the provisions of section 2
PAGENO="0007"
a
hereof shall be subject to the provisions of section 305 of Reorganization Plan
No. ~3 of 1967 (32 F.R. 11671~).
SEC. 4. Incidental transfers. (a) All personnel, property, records, and unex-
pended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds employed, held,
used, available, or to be made available in connection with the functions of the
Recreation Board or the Superintendent of Recreation are hereby transferred to
the Commissioner of the District of Columbia.
(b) Such further measures and dispositions as the Director of the Bureau of
the Budget shall deem to be necessary in order to effectuate the transfers pro-
vided in subsection (a) of this section shall be carried out in such manner as he
may direct and by such agencies as he shall designate.
SEC. 5. Abolition. The Recreation Board, together with the position of Super-
intendent of Recreation, is hereby abolished. The Commissioner of the District
of Columbia shall make such provisions as he may deem necessary with respect
to winding up the outstanding affairs of the Recreation Board and the Super-
intendent of Recreation.
SEC. 6. Effective date. The provisions of this reorganization plan shall take
effect at the close of June 30, 1968, or on the date determined under section 906(a)
of title 5 of the United States Code, whichever is later.
Mr. BLATNIK. We may proceed with the witnesses. First, we have
our good friend, Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes, would you please take the center seat, and we would
like to have you joined by Mr. William Hammond Thomas, who is
Chairman of the District of Columbia Recreation Board and Depart-
ment; and Mr. Benjamin Segal, who is the chairman of the Citizens
Task Force on Recreation in the District of Columbia.
Mayor, we had you on a radarscope. Come on down. We had it
timed. We introduced three witnesses. First, you know Mr. Hughes of
the Bureau of the Budget; Mr. Thomas, Chairman of the Recreation
Board and Department; and, of course, Mr. Benjamin Segal, chairman
of the Citizens Task Force. Mayor, we certainly welcome an extremely
busy man.
Commissioner WASHINGTON. Thank you, sir. I want to report a
very happy incident~ I was sort of delayed in getting through the Capi-
tol. There were so many visitors over there, tourists, that I could not
make my way through, and I just appreciate the scene.
Mr. BLATNIK. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. BLATNIK. At the outset, we will not go into too much detail;
but the Mayor will recollect nearly 12 months ago, when we were
discussing Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967, which permitted the
administration to create the new restructured city government, little
did we realize then how important it would be-not only the form of
the government a year later, your municipal government, but the
extraordinary job of leadership which the Mayor, who at that time
was still unknown to us, performed. His civic duty and performance
were far beyond the call of duty. He has won the admiration of
certainly all the citizens of the entire District of Columbia, the entire
metropolitan area and of the Nation itself. We commend you and
welcome you this morning in your perseverance.
Mr. Hughes, you are an old hand at these hearings. How should
we start? Should we start with your stetement?
Mr. HUGHES. I would be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. I have a
very brief statement. I would be pleased to present that, if you wish,
and then proceed in any way you would like.
Mr. BLATNIK. You open up the hearings with your statement,
Mr. Hughes.
Mr. HUGHES. All right, sir.
PAGENO="0008"
4
STATEMEN~~ OP RON. PHILLIP S. HUGHES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
BUREAU OP THE BUDGET
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
I am pleased to present the views of the Bureau of the Budget on
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1968, providing for certain reorganiza-
tions relating to District of Columbia recreation functions.
This reorgtmization plan derives from a recognized need to provide
the District of Columbia Commissioner with the necessary tools to
effectively manage District affairs.
When Reo~rganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 was under consideration
by the Congress, the question was raised repeatedly as to why provi-
sions were not made for the transfer to the new Commissioner of a
variety of municipal functions that were not then vested in the Board
of Commissioners. Those functions were not included in that plan
because it was first necessary to create the basic organizational envi-
ronment to assure their more effective management. Given the basic
problems with the commission form of municipal government which
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 was trying to correct, too early
transfer of tihese other functions could have been harmful, rather
than helpful. Since the basic format of the District government now
has been changed, and since Mayor Washington has the internal
restructuring of the District government well underway, it is time to
deal with these other functions.
As President Johnson indicated in his 1967 message on the National
Capital: "As these changes are made," he said, "it will be possible to
effect further improvements, both in the structure of the District
government and in its relationship to other agencies serving the
Nation's Capital."
In keeping with the President's statement, Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1968 transfers a significant municipal function to the Mayor.
The District of Columbia Recreation Board is something of an
organizational curiosity. It is funded by the District government, and
its employees are employees of the District government. Yet all
policy and management functions are vested in the Board or in its
appointee, the Superintendent of Recreation, who has certain powers
vested directly in him, particularly with respect to personnel appoint-
ments and program supervision. The Board itself includes representa-
tives of the Board of Education and the District of Columbia govern-
ment, the Superintendent of National Capital Parks, and four citizen
members appointed for 4-year terms by the Mayor.
The Mayor and District of Columbia Council have, in fact, little
direct control over the development and implementation of recreation
programs in the District. The integration of recreation with schools,
with youth programs, with employment programs, with programs for
the elderly, with housing and urban development programs are matters
of separate negotiation between the Recreation Board and other
District government entities. Present arrangements do not represent
a coherently conceived and directed program.
The Recr~ation Board has the function of developing and con-
ducting a comprehensive recreation program for the District of
Columbia. Recreation programs are conducted in parks, playgrounds,
PAGENO="0009"
0
and other facilities under the jurisdiction of the District government,
the Board of Education, or the National Park Service. It has no
facilities under its own jurisdiction, but negotiates for the use of
such facilities with those three bodies.
A recent report of a citizens task force established by the Super-
intendent of Recreation pursuant to complaints about the conduct
of the District recreation program noted-as aside from criticism of
its actual operation-
* * * that recreation programs were fragmented and uncoordinated among various
agencies. At the same time they (the task force) were hopeful that this would
change for the better under the proposed reorganization plan submitted to Con-
gress which placed the Recreation Department directly under the District govern-
ment administration.
A major trend in public recreation organization today is to bring
park management and development functions together with recre-
ation functions. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1968 is in line with
this trend which promises improved delivery of public recreation
services. And, while a large part of the District program is carried
out on properties of the Park Service and the Board of Education,
the problem of coordination will be much simplified by transferring
District recreation functions to the Mayor.
This is exactly what Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1968 would do.
All of the functions of the Board and the Superintendent of Recreation
would be transferred to the Mayor, thus allowing him to coordinate
this vital municipal activity with other District progra*ns. The rec~
reation organization would become, in fact as well as in name, an
agency of the District of Columbia government.
The statutory position of the Superintendent would be abolished as
would the Board itself. Of course, the Commissioner could establish an
advisory board on recreation should he deem it necessary or advisable.
However, since the new District Council is a body broadly representa-
tive of the community, it can obviate the need for the establishment
of so many of the citizen advisory boards that appeared necessary
under the previous organization of the District government.
In sum, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1968 would provide the new
government of the District of Columbia with the organizt~tiona1 means
by which public recreation programs in the Capital City can be effec-
tively coordinated with related District programs and activities. I
urge, therefore, that the Congress permit the plan to take effect.
That is the end of my prepared statement. I would be glad to
proceed-
Mr. BLATNIK. We will proceed with the Mayor.
Commissioner Washington, would you proceed with your statement?
STATEMENT OP HON. WALTER E. WASHINGTON, COMi~SSIONER OP
THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
Commissioner WASHINGTON. Yes, sir; I would be glad to, Mr.
Chairman. I would first like to thank you for the very kind statement
you made at the opening of the session. I kind of need it these days.
And I also would like to say that the matter of our reorganization
proposal here does not bear upon the great dedication and service of
94-350-68----2
PAGENO="0010"
6
Chairman Thomas and his Board. They have, in my opinion, func-
tioned in an outstanding manner against very, very difficult circum-
stances. I believe that for too many years they have had to try to
develop a recreation program which has been neglected, underbudg-
eted, understaffed and undernourished, and I believe that we are
taking an appropriate step now to put the recreation program and the
organization into tandem with the District's resources. I would hope
that this action would give the city a far more viable program in the
future.
With respect to the reorganization proposal specifically, at present
the District of Columbia Recreation Department is not an integral
part of the District government. Mr. Chairman, I think we have intro-
duced the organization chart, and with your permission, I would like
to have it made a part of the record. It may provide some answers
just by looking at it.
Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, the chart will follow the actual
text of your statement which will appear in the record.
Commissioner WASHINGTON. Thank you, sir, As I indicated, the
Department has not been an integral part of the government. Instead,
it operates under an independent seven-member board. The reorgan-
ization plan would abolish the Board of Recreation and transfer its
functions, with those of the Superintendent of Recreation, to the
District of Columbia Commissioner.
Like urban renewal, recreation is a vital and integral element of
the city's life. It is closely related to health, education, child care,
delinquency prevention, vocational rehabilitation, and conservation.
It is a key element in the city's school enrichment activities, its urban
renewal and model city programs, and its summer youth programs.
The present autonomy of the Recreation Department prevents the
District of Columbia Commissioner from achieving the necessary co-
ordination of recreation programs with the other closely related Dis-
trict programs. And I again refer to that chart, Mr. Chairman, and
I think that it-I don't want to belabor it-but I think you get a
little feel of what we are faced with in trying to function as a govern-
ment with a maze of interdependent and unrelated agencies and
activities.
There should be no distinction in my belief between recreation and
other community service programs now under the policy supervision
of my office. Last year's Reorganization Plan No. 3 had as funda-
mental obj ectives the unification of executive and administrative
authority, the elimination of competing and sometimes conflicting
assignments or responsibility, and organization of the District govern-
ment under a single Commissioner to provide effective day-to-day
administration. Both of these 1968 reorganization plans will further
those obj ectives and permit the District government to function more
effectively in meeting the needs of the community.
Last fall, I called in nationally known authorities on urban affairs
to advise our new administration. These experts, operating through
five work groups, stressed the urgent need for greater integration of
various municipal activities under the policy supervision of the Com-
missioner. Two of the groups specifically addressed themselves to the
need for a closer relationship of urban renewal and recreation, both
PAGENO="0011"
7
to each other and to other District government activities. I believe
this to be necessary if we are to meet the growing problems of the
District of Columbia.
Widened and strengthened recreation programs are needed for
the well-being of this community. They cannot be separated from
other community service programs without detriment to all such
activities. As the President pointed out in his message transmitting
plan No. 3 of 1968, the quality of any city is not just a matter of
efficiency and public order. If it is to be truly great-and Congress
and the President have pledged to make the Nation's Capital a model
of excellence for America-the city must be lively and inviting, a
place of. beauty and pleasure. And I believe, Mr. Chairman, the
approval of this plan to place the recreation functions under my
policy supervision will help accomplish this end.
Mr. Chairman, may I again thank you for this opportunity to
underline our strong support for these much needed reorganization
measures, and I join Mr. Hughes in recommending the approval of
this legislation.
(The organization chart referred to follows:)
PAGENO="0012"
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The President and the Congress
..4 Departments/Agencies
Csntroi
Department of:
Buildings & Grounds
Corrections
General Administration
Highways and Traffic
Insurance
Licenses and inspections
Motor Vehicles
Occupations arsd Professions
Public Health
public Welfare
Sanitary Engineering
Veterans Affairs
Vocational Rehabilitatics
Fire DepartmemUj
Minimum Wage and industrial
Safety Board
Motor Vehicle Parking Agency
Office of Civil Defense .1/
Office of the Coroner
Office of the Surveyor
Police Department il
Recorder of Deeds
1~empSoymemt Comio~1
I Agencies with Fiscal -
Relationship to
~yts~PC5l M~trPyf~ rnmet~
Board of Education National Capital Housing
Board of Higher Education Authority W
Board of Vocational National Capital Planning
Education Commission
Board of Elections National Guard of D.C.
Board of Library Trustees National Park Service
Soard of Recreation National Zoological Park
Board of Zoning Adiustment Public Service Commission
District of Columbia Courts: Redevelopment Land Agency
Court of Appeals United States Courtin
Court of General SeunioOS~ District Court
Tan Court Court of Appeals for the DC.
Ixvesile Court Washington Aqueduct
Interstate C~mmisnion on the Washington Metropolitan
L~5c River Basin
1 Advisory Groups
Aicoholic Clinic Commis- Interdepartmental Statissi~i1
Building Code Advisory Planning & Urban Renewal
Committee Advisory Council
Charitable Solicitation Public Health Adviuory
Council Council
Civil Defesoe Advisory Pubiiu Welfare Advisory
Council Council
Commissioners Youth Traffic Advisory Board
Council Urban Renewal Operations
Committee for Employment Committee
of Physically Handicapped Vocational Rehabilitation
Council on Law Enforcement Advisory Council
Emergency Ambulance
[~rvice Advisory Cuuscil
[ The Council
Vice Chairman and seven other members, all
of whom are appointed by the President of the
UnIted States, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate. At the time of his
appointment each member of the Council shall
be a citizen of the Usited Staten, shall have
bees an actual renident of the District of
Columbia for three years preceding his ap-
pointment, and nhall during that period have
claimed residence nowhere else. The Council
shall be nonpartisan and no more than six of its
memberu shall be adherents of any one political
party. Appuistmests to the Council shall be
made with a view toward achieving a Cosscil
membership which will be broadly representa-
tive of the District of Columbia community.
Mayor-Commissioner
L Deputy-Mayor-Commissioner
I
Office of the
L Corporation Counsel
L__Emecutive Office
Budget Office
Management Office
Persossei Office
Program Develop. Off
Public Affairs Office
Secretariat
Highway Safety
Coords Office
Public Safety Dir.'s
Office 1/
Comm&~ft~a~& Urban~
Human Relations
Council
Board of
Appeals and Review
Contract Appeals
Board
Ad Hoc Commit Standing Committe~~]
Cl)
j/ Under the supervision of the Public
Safety Director.
~/ Transfemed by Emecutisre Order of
March 14, 1968, to be under the
jurisdiction of the Commissioner.
April 1968
PAGENO="0013"
9
Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mayor. We will come back to you with
questions.
We will hear now from the Chairman of the District of Columbia
Recreation Board and Department, Mr. Thomas. Will you please read
your statement?
STATEMENT OP WILLIAM HAMMOND THOMAS, CHAIRMAN, DIS-
TRICT OP COLUMBIA RECREATION BOARD AND DEPARTMENT;
ACCOMPANIED BY MRS. ELIZABETH M. STERN, VICE CHAIRMAN
Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com-
mittee. Before I go into my statement, I would like to thank the Mayor
for his kind words relative to the Board's work. I can say without
equivocation that each member of the Board is a dedicated public
servant. Mrs. Stern, Vice Chairman of the Board, is here today and I
would like to present Mrs. Stern to the committee.
Mr. BLATNIK. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. BLATNIK. Certainly the record will show you as part of the
panel. We appreciate your making the effort to be here in person.
Mr. THOMAS. My name is William Hammond Thomas, and I
appear here today as Chairman of the District of Columbia Recreation
Board. I thank you, on behalf of the Board, for this opportunity to
present the views of the District of Columbia Recreation Board rela-
tive to the President's proposal for the reorganization of the District
of Columbia recreation functions, designated as Reorganization Plan
No. 3.
The District of Columbia Recreation Board supports the President's
Reorganization Plan No. 3.
We believe that the new city government, if it is to have marked
administrative success, must have administrative control of all city
governmental community service agencies. Moreover, the prestige of
the Mayor's office can bring to the Recreation Department the neces-
sary funds to permit the essential upgrading of recreation in this city.
The increased interest in community school complexes envisions
cooperative and cohesive educational, recreational, and other neighbor-
hood functions. We believe that the Mayor's office can effect a better
cooperative meshing of these community services than can an inde-
pendent and autonomous board.
While the new Board now in operation has made tremendous strides
in the past 10 months toward upgrading recreation services and
facilities, it believes that even better and quicker results can be had
from the vantage point of the Mayor's office.
While I recognize that this hearing is for the purpose of determining
the Board's position relative to the reorganization plan, nevertheless,
we would like to read into the record some of our thinking with re-
spect to the future. We believe that there should be a successor board
for recreation organized along these lines:
(1) An 11-man board with agency representatives from the
Board of Education, National Park Service, and the City Council.
There would be a citizen representative from each of the four
sections of the city, a member at large, two youth representatives,
and one representative with a strong interest in the arts.
PAGENO="0014"
10
(2) Citizen board members would be appointed by the Mayor
and confirmed by the Council. Agency members would be named
by their respective agencies.
(3) Bo~ird members would be appointed for staggered terms.
Youth representatives would serve not more than two 3-year
consecutive terms.
(4) The Board should meet at least once a month with the
majority of the meetings scheduled in the community.
(5) The Board would have responsibility for recreation policy
matters subject to review ai~id veto by the Mayor.
(6) The Board would have the responsibility to review and
make changes in the Department's budget before it is sent to
the Mayor.
(7) The Board would be responsive to and representative of
the community.
(8) The Board would render judgment on program priorities
for the Recreation Department subject to review by the Mayor.
We believe that a board along these lines, operating under the aegis
of the Mayor's office, would be properly transitional from the present
autonomous Board to a posture consonant with the reorganization
plan.
Finally, we believe that our support of the President's Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3 is not inconsistent with our sworn duty to provide
recreation for all 0 the people of the District of Columbia.
Thank you~ members of the committee.
Mr. BLATNIK. These are your recommendations to the committee
and the present Commissioner?
Mr. THOMAS. Yes.
Mr. BLATNIK. We will come back to you in just a few minutes.
Mr. Segal, Chairman of the Citizens Task Force on Recreation in
the District of Columbia. We welcome you and thank you for your
appearance. Will you please read your statement?
STAT1~MENT~ OP BENJA1V~IN D. SEGAL, CHAIRMAN, CITIZENS TASK
POR~E ON RECREATION IN THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
Mr. SEGAL. Thank you, Mr. Blatnik. It is a pleasure to be here.
The Citizens Task Force on Recreation wishes to give its wholehearted
endorsement to the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 which would
place the Recreation Department under the direct jurisdiction of the
District government.
Our task force, which was appointed by the Recreation Board,
recently completed a 3-month investigatQry survey of the programs,
personnel policies, and practices of the Recreation Department. We
visited numerous recreation facilities, met with all of the field and
supervisory ~mp1oyees of the Recreation Department as well as with
representati~~es of the private and governmental agencies involved
in recreation programs. In essence, we prepared one of the most com-
prehensive reports prepared on District of Columbia recreation
programs and needs.
We found that the recreation program in the District is ill equipped
to meet the urgent needs existing in the Nation's Capital. As our
report indicates, for years the Congress and the community have
appeared to consider recreation as a sort of stepchild-underbudgeted,
PAGENO="0015"
11
neglected, and overlooked. In recent years with the increasing con-
cern about "summer tensions" money and programs were frantically
sought to patch up quickly organized activities aimed at cooling
things down.
We found that recreation activities were fragmented and divided
between the Recreation Department, the National Capital Parks, the
public schools, with other agencies involved from time to time and
more recently the Youth Programs Division of the District govern-
ment. There has been little or no effective coordination of these
activities.
It is for these reasons that we favor the reorganization plan which
will result in the Recreation Department becoming an integral part of
the District government. We believe that this will help eliminate
the duplication and the lack of coordination among the various
recreation programs and aid in the development of a greatly accelerated
recreation program.
But there are still other problems that need to be pointed out and
which we hope will be corrected once the reorganization plan goes into
effect, I have reference to the glaring inequities and shortcomings in
the present recreation facilities and programs. We found that the best
services and most extensive programs as well as the best qualified
specialists were to be found in the higher income areas. We therefore
recommended that priority should be given to the low-income areas of
the city in the allocation of facilities, programs, and personnel. Closely
related was the recommendation that the overall recreation budget for
the city should be tripled from the present $7.6 million.
On the (hoped for) assumption that the reorganization plan would
be approved, we recommended that a new Community Recreation
Board be appointed by the Mayor, with a membership of 15, which
would include representatives of community recreation councils, the
young people, and the various Government agencies involved in
recreation programs.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, we urge approval of Reorganization
Plan No. 3 placing the recreation program within the District gov-
ernment with the added hope that Congress will provide the necessary
funding to the District which will make possible the urgently needed
expansion and improvement of the District's recreation program.
With your permission, we would like to submit our task force report
as part of our testimony for inclusion in the record.
Mr. BLATNIK. Is that your task force report?
Mr. SEGAL. That's right.
Mr. BLATNIK. That will be filed with the subcommittee but will
not appear in the printed proceedings, merely for purposes of economy.
It will be available for all members of the committee and the other
persons interested in the proposal.
Maybe we will start with you, Mr. Segal. I did not realize that
funding was such a serious problem. Your recommendation is that
the present $7.6 million be tripled by Congress, is that correct?
Mr. SEGAL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BLATNIK. Who would present the bi~tdget request to the
Congress? That would go to the District of Columbia Committee,
would it?
Mr. SEGAL. Yes. What we visualize-----
Mr. BLATNIK. Maybe you would help us. Who would submit the
original budget request?
PAGENO="0016"
12
Mr. THOMAS. The Board has the responsibility to submit the
budgetary request.
Mr. BLAT~IK. Directly to the Congress?
Mr. THOM~LS. No; it goes by way of the Budget Bureau and then
to the Congress by way of the city Budget Office. The Bureau of the
Budget and the City Council also have a say-so in its ultimate form,
because the Mayor's office and the City Council can eliminate budget-
ary items from the recommendations. So that the Board's budget, by
the time it is ultimately approved, is unrecognizable as far as the
original requests are concerned after it runs the gauntlet of the City
Council, the Bureau of the Budget, and the proper Appropriations
Subcommitt~es of both Houses of Congress.
Mr. BLAT~IK. Mr. Hughes, would you have any comment to make?
I am particularly interested in why the budget is so greatly inadequate.
Mr. HuGm~s. I think, first, Mr. Chairman, on the procedure under
the plan, the recreation budget would become a part of the budget
of the District of Columbia and would follow the same channels as
the District of Columbia budget follows as a whole and would--
Mr. BLATNIK. Part of the total budget which is then presented to
the District of Columbia Committee.
Mr. HucalEs. That would be the case under the plan. With respect
to budget levels, I am not familiar in detail with who has taken what
from the recreational budget of the District, but I think at least a
substantial part of the problem is the fact that the Recreation Board
as a separate entity and one of many separate entities competing, in a
sense, for District of Columbia funds has found it difficult to make its
case fully, perhaps even in the District government. I don't think
the Bureau of the Budget should be exonerated from all responsibility
in this. As Mr. Thomas has pointed out, the Board has had a series of
hurdles, in effect, to jump in making its budget requests and missing
any one of the hurdles is a fairly painful process in a budgetary sense.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Hughes, would you have any figures, or could
you get them later on for the record if they are not available at this
time, on the;recreation budget for other cities of comparable size?
Mr. HUGI~ES. We will try. I don't have any with me, Mr. Chairman.
We will try end provide some figures for the record.
(The following information was subsequently submitted:)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., May ~O, 1968.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. BLATNIK: During the hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1968, the question was raised as to how recreation expenditures in the District
of Columbia Compared with recreation expenditures in other large cities. The
National Reci~eation & Park Association has supplied us with figures on program
budgets of larger municipalities which have separate recreation departments.
These figures, to the extent that they are actually comparable, indicate that,
on a per capita basis, the budget of the District of Columbia Board of Recreation
is slightly above average. The table showing this relationship is enclosed.
However, these figures do not really tell us very much, it seems to me. Most
cities not orly supply recreation programs of their own through a variety of
municipal agencies, but very frequently county and State programs represent
significant inputs into the municipal recreation package. The District is city,
county, and State rolled into one. On the other hand, the National Park Service
PAGENO="0017"
13
makes a significant contribution to, recreation resources available to the District
citizen. Moreover, figures are not re~xdily available to indicate for these yities
the magnitude of existing problems or the scale of the capital development pro-
grams devoted to recreation facilities.
In sum, I think the recreation problems of the District-as of any city-will
need to be evaluated in its own terms, and decisions respecting allocation of avail-
able resources to recreation wjll have to be made in the light of overall local needs
and priorities.
Sincerely,
PEtILLIP S. fluGlins,
Deputy Director.
NATIONAL RECREATION & PARK ASSOCIATION
FROM THE PARK AND RECBEATION YEARBOOK 1965-EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1965
Cities' Population Program Per capita
budget expenditure
1. Cincinnati, Ohio 500,000 $1,307,850 $2.61
2. Clevtland, Ohio (Board of Education) - 858, 000 2, 691, 993 3. 13
3. Milwaukee, Wis. (Board of Education) 765,000 2,713,837 3.58
4. Philadelphia, Pa 2,200,000 11,384,680 5.15
5. New Orleans, La 900,000 900,000 1.00
6. Columbus, Ohio 750, 000 3,208, 100 4.27
7. Pasadena, CaliL 200,000 429,345 2,12
8. Jersey City, NJ 276, 101 1, 350, 000 4. 87
9 Providence, R.l 191,000 742.368 3.88
District of Columbia 800, 000 3, ~O9, 000 4. 14
1 Major cities of 200,000 and up with separate recreation departments.
2 1965 actual.
Mr. SEGAL. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might just comment on
this point and give some rationalization or reason for the recommen-
dation that the present budget needs to be at least tripled in light of
the urgent needs that have developed and have existed in the District.
One case in point is that we found in our investigation that the
best equipped recreation center in the city was the Chevy Chase
Commur~ity Center. Now, that building has been condemned, so to
speak, and to rebuild it is going to cost $920,000-at least $920,000.
Our contention is that this type of recreation center is needed in all
the areas of the city, especially the poverty and low-income areas,
and if you were to build, for example, just seven of these centers, it
would take up the entire budget, the entire present budget that the
Recreation Department has. And when you add to it the need for
upgrading and improving the facilities, the need for having a more
imaginative and more innovated program, you could see why we
recommend this figure.
Mr. BLATNIK. Any questions, Mr. Reuss?
Mr. REuss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To me, this is clearly an excellent reorganization plan. I am glad
it is before us. When the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967, the
basic reorganization, was before us last year, there were some 432
separate functions that were transferred nuder that plan. Had you
subdivided them into 432 reorganization plans, which happily you
did not do, you could have immobilized the Congress for years to
come. .
I note that there was a great deal that was not accomplished by
Reorganizatiän Plan No. 3. Some. of `the things that should have been
done are now `being done under Reorganization Plans ~ and 4 of 1968,
but I notice that there are all kinds of functions still left lying around
in the District of Columbia which are not under the Mayor-Commis-
94-35O-BS-~
PAGENO="0018"
14
sioner-the Public Service Commission, the Zoning Commission,
the Board of Zoning Adjustment, and severa] others.
My question is addressed to Mr. Hughes. Will there be an efl~ort
made to grdup. some of these future reorganization plans so that they
may be submitted in toto rather than too much subdivision? I am just
thinking of the quality of attention which the Congress can give to
the proposals.
Mr. HUGhES. I think your concern is a very proper and legitimate
one. We will give consideration to grouping functions. We have been
somewhat reluctant to group because, in the process of grouping,
plans which are not necessarily controversial may become contro-
versial. And it is not always easy to tell at the outset which is which.
But both for our own benefit and for this committee's and the Con~
gress we would like wherever we can to deal in reorganization plans
with as large blocks as possible because it does greatly simplify
consideration.
Mr. REuSS. Thank you very much.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Erlenborn.
Mr. EBTJE~BOHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that Mayor
Washing~n is not here. He will be back in a few minutes?
Mr. T3JJATNIK. He will be back in a few minutes. I have some
questions, too, to ask him.
Mr. ERLENBORN. But 1 notice that both Mr. Segal and Mr. Thomas
have mentiQned that they would hope that there would be created
an advisory board after the abolition of the Recreation Board. And
I also note that Mayor Washington's statement does not make any
reference to a successor board. Has there been any discussion with
the Mayor as to the possibility of a successor advisory board?
Mr. THOMAS. We had a conference with the Mayor, and it in-
cluded, I believe, Mrs. Stern and one other Board member, oh, several
weeks ago. At that time, the Mayor indicated that he would be
interested in knowing how the Board felt about a future board; and
he also invited us to submit to him our recommendations relative to
a future boa~d. And this is the format that we have come up with
as far as our recommendations are concerned for a future board. And
we will have further discussions with him.
Mr. ERLENBORN. You are fairly well assured that some successor
board will be appointed?
Mr. THOMAS. The Mayor indicated that he was amenable to the
formation of a successor board. He made no-
Mr. ERLE~BORN. No commitment.
Mr. ThOMAS. No commitment, but he indicated that if we would
tell him what we wanted, then he would give it serious consideration.
Mr. BLAP~JK. WouJd the gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLE~BORN. Cei~tainly.
Mr~ BLATNIK. Was your proposal submitted as a formal proposition
in writing?
Mr. THOMAS. It was not. It was not; no. It has not been submitted
as a formal proposition to the Mayor.
Mr. BLATNIK. I see, but this has been discussed with the Mayor.
Mr. THQM4S. This has been discussed with him orally in his office,
and we will submit the format that we have included in our testimony
to the Mayor at an early date.
Mr. BLAT~IK. Fine.
PAGENO="0019"
15
Mr. SEGAL. Our task force is meeting with the Mayor actually
this noon. We are going to discuss this kind of proposal that you
suggest.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Well, I note that at the present time the District
of Columbia Recreation Board is rather broadly representative of the
various groups in the District and has the power to make rules and
regulations. The District Council for present municipal functions is
broadly representative of the residents of the District and has the
power of making rules and regulations. I wonder what is the rationale
of putting the rule and regulation-making power for recreation in the
Commissioner and not having a public forum so to speak for establish-
ing rules and regulations and policies. You do it through the District
government. You hare already done it in the past through the Rec-
reation Department. Now, we are concentrating the rule and regula-
tion power in the Co~nniissioner and not having this by law at least-~
there may be by agreement some policy committee, but by law you
will not have any group broadly representative of the residents of
the District with the power to make rules and regulations.
Mr. THOMAS. This is true, and this is, I think, in essence, wh~it the
reorganization plan is all about. In essence, it is to give the MayOr-
Commissioner the authority to issue directives, so to speak, consonant
with his new powers. Whereas now, the Board, on occasion, would
have to meet perhaps with the Board of Education or with the Na-
tional Park Service, and there is a time gap between a proposal and its
effective operation, or before it could be put into effect. But here, if
this plan goes into effect, the Mayor will, because of his own authority,
be able to immediately coordinate and facilitate the operatiOns~-
recreation operations-between the Board of Education, between the
National Park Service arid any other recreational facilities that might
exist without going through the cumbersome procedure of awaiting
a Board decision.
Mr, ERLENBORN. Wel], maybe my question would be clearer if
I would put it this way. For what reason do you believe the District
Council is left out of this picture? Apparently, the only authority they
will have, since the authority under the law is to be concentrated in
the Commissioner, will be over the budget. Other than this, however,
the power to formulate policy will bypass the Council, the group that is
broadly representative of the residents of the District.
Mr. THOMAS. Well, I do not know that I could speak too much to
the advisability of the division of authority here between the Council
arid the Mayor. I was under the impression that the reorganization
plan itself outlines the proper division of authority in the new--
Mr. ERLENBORN. I do not see any mention of the Council at all in
the reorganization plan. It seems to take all of the powers of the
I)resent Board and concentrate them in the Mayor-Commissioner.
Mr. THOMAS. I meant the original reorganization plan that formed
the Council and set up the Mayor and the City Council. I was under
the impression that that plan delineated the authority of the Mayor
and the Council, and this would fit into that-
Mr. ERLENBORN. As to th~ functions being transferred in that plan,
yes, but here the plau specifically puts the functions in the Mayor-
Commissioner without any reference to the Council.
I think Mr. Hughes wants to comment on this.
PAGENO="0020"
16
Mr. HuGrn~s. I think the key point, Mr. Erlenborn, is with respect
to the kind of functions we are talking about. Obviously, the District
of Columbia Council's quasi-legislative responsibilities are vested in
the Council by the previous plan and would remain there. What we
are talking about here are essentially administrative authorities of
the sort that I think we would generally agree any administrator
should have. The budget control which the Council has is the key
program control in many respects. We did consider the question of
whether some of these regulations were significant and sufficiently
of a policy nature to warrant placing them in the Council, but it
seemed to us quite clear that they were of a routine and adminis-
trative character like, for instance, entering into agreements by which
facilities are wade available, prescribing rules and regulations govern-
ing the payment of night differential, providing by agreement for the
maintenance and improvement of playground and recreation areas
and facilities-all of these within the general framework of the statutes
that are applicable to the District and also within the general frame-
work of those quasi-legislative responsibilities which the District of
Columbia Council already has.
So I think Mr. `Thomas put it properly when he said the heart of
the plan is to place in the Mayor-Commissioner administrative re-
sponsibilities which, at least as we see it, are well within the normal
compass of administration of a city government.
Mr. ERLENI~oRN. It has just been called to my attention that p]an
No. 3 of last year that established our new District government gave
to the Council such rulemaking powers as the making of rules and
regulations for the management of a public convenience' station and
financing charges for the use of such station, and other things of
that sort.
My question really is this. What will the overall policy be as to
the type of recreation program that there is going to be and where
the services `~iIl be concentrated. Will we continue to have better
facilities in Northwest Washington to the detriment of Southeast or
Northeast? These questions have been decided up till now by the
District of Columbia Recreation Board. The Board was established
in a way that gave representation to, I think, elements that should
be considered, the Board of Education, park, District, civic groups
and so forth. Now, with the abolition of this Board, this power is
being transferred to the Commissioner without reference to the
Council, and unless the nonlegal Advisory Board is established to
help the Commissioner make these decisions-and there is `no re-
quirement that he do that in this plan-then you rnare not going to
have any group broadly representative' of the various interests in the
District of Co~umbia making these decisions. And as a matter of fact,
even if the Mayor does appoint an advisory group', it will be nothing
more than that, just advisory.
Mr. I~rn~s. But, Mr. Erlenborn, the question, for instance, of
the location of recreational facilities is the heart of the planning
process that goes into the preparation of the budget, and the Council
must be directly and intimately involved in these `kinds of decisions.
These are important decisions. The Mayor and the Council under the
terms of the previous plan share them in a fashion spelled out there.
Mr. ERLEN~ORN. Well, as I recollect, the Council does not establish
the budget.
PAGENO="0021"
17
Mr. HUGHES. No, but it reviews it and may modify it.
Mr. ERLENBORN. They may refuse to accept a particular line item
or something like that.
Mr. HUGHES. Or change it.
Mr. ERLENBORN. But why are they not in on the original planning?
Why do you not have this Council, as a group broadly representative
of the residents of the District, in on the planning for the recreation
program? Why are you concentrating this all in one man?
Mr. HUGHES. Well, I think the normal process of administration
is to provide-I think the Federal Government is perhaps a parallel
situation-to provide within an executive entity for the initiation
of proposals and for their review, modification or investigation by a
legislative or legislative-like body. This is the pattern for the prepa-
ration of the budget as it is now established in the District. Of course,
the legislative body, in this case the Council, can initiate also.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mrs. Stern had her hand up before.
Mrs. Stern, you are recognized.
Mrs. STERN. At one point I sat down to find out what the budget-
making process really was, and I find 45 places where the budget
could be cut from the time it left the desk-
Mr. BLATNIK. How many?
Mrs. STERN. Forty-five. I am sorry I did not bring--
Mr. BLATNIK. That really is an obstacle course; is it not?
Mrs. STERN. But from the time it left the desk of the man who
was requesting the item until it got back, usually cut out~ I just think
that this would clean up this cutting system and that you would have
a more direct way of funding programs. This is, I think, the whole
point of putting it under the Mayor. He may well designate the
Council as his advisory board as opposed to the Board that Mr.
Thomas has suggested or Mr. Segal has suggested, but the problem
is money. Hopefully, this will be an effort--
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes; in addition to funding, we understand the point
ou make, but what Mr. Erlenborn is pointing out,~ and I am too, is,
o you have a broad enough representation, both laterally and in
epth, of the community to do the actual planning to meet the real
eeds on an equitable basis regardless with the funding that will be
ade available? I believe that is the issue; is it not, Mr. Erlenborn?
Mr. ERLENBORN. It is, plus the fact that now you have a Recreation
oard that by law must hold public hearings. It has to have its
eetings at stated times and places and all meetings are open to the
ublic and the public can participate, I presume, the public can at
ast act as observers of what the p1 ans are, when they are being
formulated. Now all of this authority will be given to the Mayor-
Commissioner who is not required by law to hold any public hearings.
None of this planning will be done with the advisory help of the public
or with public scrutiny unless the Mayor wishes to do so and unless the
Mayor appoints an advisory committee who by law will not be re-
quired to hold public hearings.
I just think that though the intentions are good, and it may work
out in practice, we should be aware of the fact that we are removing
from the public domain the power to establish the plans and programs
for recreation in the District and will not be required by law to allow
the public to participate or even observe this planning process. And it
just is curious to me that no part of this authority is given to the
PAGENO="0022"
18
Council which also by law must hold public hearings and I presume
~rou1d allow the public to express themselves.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Segal has a response, I assume, on this same
point.
Mr. Segal.
Mr. SEGAL. Yes, I just wanted to comment just from another
point there. Our task force considered the points that you raised,
and we felt that the overriding need was to have the District Recrea-
tion Dep~rtment become part of the District government. But in
light of same of the points you raised and making the additional
point that1perhaps no function of the city needs to be more responsive
to the community needs than recreation, it is because of that that
we recommended the formulation or appointment of the community
advisory hoard.
Now, there are nine regions that the Recreation Department is
divided into. So our suggestion was to have a representative from
each of the regions on this board, elected by the people in the region,
in addition to having two youth representatives and representatives
appointed by the various agencies involved. And our thought wa
that these people would, in effect, develop the kind of needs the
have in their communities, the kind of recreation needs they have
make budget proposals and suggestions. And on the basis of this, th
way I visi~talize it, we would actually have a more responsive boar
with no slights intended to the present board, but really a muc
more responsive board, responsive to the community needs than w
have had in the past. And, of course, the Mayor is here and can spea
for himself in terms of what his intentions are, but this was th
thinking of the task force in considering the points that you raised.
Mr. ERXAENBORN. Yes, maybe I could restate the question.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mayor, to bring you up to date, we were discussi
not only the need for much greater funding-the recommendatio
has been rnad~ that the present fiscal level of $7.6 million for recre
tional purposes~ in the District of Columbia should be tripled,
addition to approving the amount of the funding and the procedu
for budgeting and funding-but the question of how much, or to wh
degree, will there be representation of the community in planning o
these programs.
Mr. Erienborn, will you restate your earlier proposition?
Mr. ERLENBORN. The sentiment I was expressing in the form o
question was the fact that presently the District of Columbia Rec
ation Board is broadly representative of the community. By I
they must~ hold their meetings at stated times and places, and
meetings ri~iust be open to the publicS so that they can at least obsei
and hopef~illy participate in the deliberations of the Board in estab-
lishing policy for recreation in the District, establishing the overall
plan.
Now, all of these authorities are being transferred to the Mayor-
Comniissioner; who by law does not have to have any public hearings
or allow the public to participate in establishing the recreation plans
for the District. My real question was why was this authority for
planning not given to the Council, which is bioadly representative of
the residerxts of the District and must hold public hearings.
Coininis~ioner WASHINGTON. I would think that might even be
counterproductive. I think the matter that we are concerned with is
PAGENO="0023"
19
first to get a so-called "handle" on the situation within the framework
of the District.
Secondly, I believe the matter of representation and broad repre-
sentation of the citizens is a primary concern of mine, and I propose
that an appropriate advisory committee or an appropriate body be
established to include the broadest cross section of citizens possible
and particularly the youth. Since I have been in this position, I have
upon recommendation appointed two youngsters to this Board in
order to further implement it and give it some vitality related to the
younger people's interest.
I think, Mr. Congressman, we have a real opportunity here to gain
a form of citizens' participation in recreation, in leisure time activities,
and in cultural enrichment which will be significant and in which
they will be able to participate.
I am right now, for instance, in the process of arranging for citizens'
participation in model cities. The development of Fort Lincoln, which
is the National Training School site, is a response to the whole question
of citizens' participation. And I believe that this would be simply
one other aspect of it. The Council will have many roles here. They
will have the role, first, of reviewing the budget and holding hearings
on the budget which will be obviously related to the recreation plan,
and they will be assisting the Department in this fashion.
They will, also, from time to time, at my request, just as they do in
earings on housing, have an opportunity to look at some of the regula-
tions. We have a serious problem in the matter of permits which needs
0 be updated. The Council will have, I think, a rather substantial
ole in many of the policy areas. But beyond that--
Mr. ERLENBORN. The rulemaking power will be concentrated in
ou.
Comniissioner WASHINGTON. Yes.
Mr. ERLENBORN. The present rulemaking power of the District of
olumbia Recreation Board will be given to you.
Commissioner WASHINGTON. Under this proposal, yes.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Whereas, with parks and other things under the
organization plan of last year, the rulemaking power was given to
e Council.
Commissioner WASHINGTON. With respect to the parks?
Mr. ERLENBORN. Yes. I was just reading, for instance, that the
tablishment of public-convenience stations and the charge to be
ade therefrom was one of the functions that the present Council
as given last year under the reorganization plan, also setting aside
ace in the streets and avenues for parking purposes, denominating
portions of streets as business streets, jurisdiction over parking, and so
forth. All of this rulemaking power-
Mr. HuGHES. Many of those authorities are rather basic zoning
responsibilities that I think are traditionally council-type functions.
Commissioner WASHINGTON. And technically, Mr. Congressman,
I might say that the Council has already taken a group, closing of
streets, for example, and turned them back to me. I am not saying
I am happy about getting them, but I do have them now.
However, I do not believe we have a serious problem here. The
nature of the format on involving broad citizens' participation seems
to be a crucial point here. I assume any mayor that is worth his salt
would want, in a program as significant as this, which goes to the
PAGENO="0024"
20
heart of what the whole youth problem is, to have a viable mechanism
for citizen participation. I have already talked with the present
members of the Board along these lines and asked them to come u
with a recommendation. I expect to ta]k with them after this meeting.
But on the rulemaking question, I do not see that as a serious problem.
It is one that I would be concerned about, as you are, if we did no
recognize it.
Mr. EI~LENBORN. Do you feel that the budget for recreation wil
receive greater attention as a line item in the overall budget, greate
attention than it did when it was the budget of the District of Colum
bia Recreation Board and had them as its champion? Now, it will b
just one item in your overall budget.
Commissioner WASHINGTON. Well, I think that is again why it i
necessary to develop a citizen mechanism and develop a formidabi
body of support for the recreation budget. I mean a real formidabl
one, because I think the budget, as I indicated earlier, is not on!
paltry, I think the whole program of recreation has been neglecte
to a degree that I think is unfortunate. In any city it speaks to th
whole y~uth problem. It speaks to enrichment and leisuretim
activities of your entire population, every age group. I believe tha
virtually from the kindergarten through the old people, we shoul
have programs that speak to the needs of this city, and particular!
in the area of teenage activity where we can use leisuretime program
not simply for play activities but as real youth developmental pr
grams-the expansion of the entire concept. I think that we shou
create a mechanism here where we indeed seek out all over the Nati
funds from foundations and other places, and it should be done wi
some resolve, and that money should come in for experiments a
demonstrations in the area of leisuretime activity. This is a b
business. It focuses on one of our most serious problems, the deli
quency p~oblem. I believe if this dedicated Board had had this opp
tunity to function as they might have and with the full weight of t
city government behind them, and with the leadership of the gove
ment behind them, that this program that I speak of might ha
been further along than it is today. But I have great faith that
citizens here, given an opportunity to participate, will support
greater budget and a broader operation in the Recreation Departme
Mr. ERLENBORN. Well, in the interest of time of my colleague
am not going to ask any more questions, but I will just make the 1
observation that I hope you will implement the proposal of an advis
committee when the plan becomes law, as I am sure it will. Ther
not a resolution of disapproval pending. An advisory commit
should be appointed or the Council should be given authority t
deliberate in open hearings so the public can have a place to express
themselves, as they have had up till now by law. Just to appoint an
advisory committee that meets in some room that nobody knows
about and the public does not have a chance to participate could not,
I believe, be sufficient. I think you would have to have this open to
the public to allow a greater participation in the formulation of plans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner WASHINGTON. I would agree with you, sir.
Mr. BI~ATNIK. Our distinguished chairman, Mr. Dawson, is with
us this thorning. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate not only your being
here, but I want the record to show, as most of the witnesses know,
PAGENO="0025"
21
iat the distinguished chairman is never too busy to be present. As
r as I can recollect, and I am sure I am correct in my recollection,
~e chairman has never been too busy to be at any single reorganiza-
on plan hearing, whatever it may be-large, intermediate, or
nall-to personally listen to the testimony and to observe the proce-
ire. We appreciate it very much, Mr. Chairman. On my left, are
iere any other questions?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Commissioner, I seem to feel from listening to
us colloquy between you and my colleague, Mr. Erlenborn, that you
oth agree on the value of broad representation in the preparation
the recreation program, but the only area of disagreement is whether
r not this should be specifically written into the reorganization plan,
that correct?
Commissioner WASHINGTON. I do not know that I disagreed with
I did not think that it was necessarily a factor that I thought
ras significant. I thought that what we were talking about was
rying to get administrative machinery within the boundary, or
mbrella of our total government so that the matter of representation
nd mechanism for citizens' participation could then be worked out.
think we may have difference of opinion on this, but I was not in
debate.
Mr. BROWN. Well, my question is, Do you think this should have
en or should be written into the reorganization plan?
Commissioner WASHINGTON. I do not think it is necessary. I think
e plan in its present form is adequate.
Mr. BROWN. Well, now what about the next Commissioner? If we
ye someone who is not as dedicated either to recreation or to
izens' participation, what protection do we-do the citizens of the
munity have who are interested in citizen participation in the
nning of recreation programs?
ommissioner WASHINGTON. Well, I think the Council certainly
uld be a part of the machinery as it is worked out. Their involve-
nt in the budget and the whole budget process, which is a very
stantial and controlling element, will have a great deal of bearing
what we do and how we move this.
r. BROWN. But not by regulation, just by tradition.
ommissioner WASHINGTON. Well, the control over the budget
cess is rather substantial, it seems to me.
r. BROWN. I am talking really about the citizen participation in
e advisory committee to the Recreation Board; in other words, the
~rowth of this program from the ground up.
Commissioner WASHINGTON. Well, my only reaction to that, Mr.
~ongressman, is along the lines I have indicated. I think it is basically
udministrative machinery that we are talking about here. And I
bhink that under the present legislation it could well be handled. The
~xtent to which-
Mr. BROWN. Well, but it could also Well be ignored or avoided, could
.t not?
Mr. HUGHES. I do not see how it could, Mr. Brown, if you would
riot mind. The Council is a standing body which will be concerned
with regulations in what I would consider the more fundamental
sense. It also is concerned on a continuing basis with the planning,
PAGENO="0026"
22
the budget planning for recreation and for all other aspects of cit~
life. And if the Mayor in any given situation does not do right by thai
aspect of the budget in the judgment of the Council, it seems to m
the matter is automatically in the public arena and a matter foi
debate,
Obviously, a citizen advisory group, which was representative
would always have a continuing interest in the proper conduct ol
the recreation business of the community, and I would think in a
subsequent administration it would be hard to silence in the kind
of circumstances where the Mayor, for one reason or another, differed
with that body or with the Council on how business should b
conducted,
Mr. BROWN. Yes. You were discussing budget, and the question
of regulation also comes into this, and program and so forth.
Mr. HUGHES. Regulation is, I think, an overstatement really; that
is the point I was trying to make with Mr. Erlenborn. We are talk-
ing about the administration of a recreation program and not about
what I would consider legislative or quasi-legislative functions of the
sort that E~re vested now in the Council. We are talking about th(
administrative machinery to run a recreation program, hours, whc
uses what when, and those kinds of things.
Mr. BROWN. Well, it just seems to me-and I agree with my col~
league, Mr. Erlenborn's implicit comments in this regard, that if th
Council had been given in this reorganization plan the rule and reg
ulation making authority rather than having all of that authority co
centrated in the Commissioner, that you would have one mor
protection for, if you will, self-government. Of course, the Counc
is an appointed group, too, but you would still have one more metho
of getting-~--
Mr. HUGHES. A broader forum.
Mr. BROWN (continuing). Getting this as the Commissioner point
out, very important area in the hands of the people of the communit
Now, this is what I think ought to be the function of representati
government. And I *ould like to ask the Commissioner, who p
pared this reorganization plan?
Commissioner WASHINGTON. I think we all had parts in it. 0
entire governmental group, both administrative and legislati
along with, the Bureau of the Budget participated.
Mr. BRbWN. In other words, the Council participated in
consideration of the aspect of this plan?
Commissioner WASHINGTON. In some of it; yes. And I do
think we have a debate here from my standpoint, Mr. BroWn,
that subj ect. The question was whether or not we would have any
feeling about adding rulemaking power to the Council. I think the
Council has broad rulemaking powers. And as I indicated in dis-
cussing housing, we frequently call on them. I would certainly not
object to the rulemaking powers here. The question that I have is
if you are going to have a citizen grou~p-and this is where it gets
sticky-if you are going to have a citizens advisory group, or whatever
you are goi~ig to call it, and then you have a Council with rulemaking
powers, too, who is going to comeup with--
Mr. BROWN. Now, the citizens advisory group, as I understand
the reorganization plan before us, is not specifically called for; is
that correct?
PAGENO="0027"
23
Commissioner WASHINGTON. Not specifically called for, but if you
stablished it, you would certainly have certain rulemaking respon-
ibilities.
Mr. BROWN. Well, Mr. Commissioner, my only objection-my
)nly concern, and it is not a deep enough concern I guess to object
o the plan, is that the rulemaking and regulation powers are placed
n the hands of the Commissioner, and there is no citizens advisory
~roup called forth in the plan. Now, Mr. Thomas recommends eight
)bjectives for this governmental change which I think are all laudible.
Commissioner WASHINGTON. I do, too.
Mr. BROWN. Will you accept them?
Commissioner WASHINGTON. Absolutely.
Mr. BROWN. Will the next Mayor accept them?
Mr. BLATNIK. He cannot answer that.
Commissioner WASHINGTON. I do not think you expect me---
Mr. BROWN. That is exactly the point. I do not think you can
peak for the next Mayor.
Commissioner WASHINGTON. Well, I would not think I could.
Mr. BLATNIK. The Chair would like to object here. The Mayor
id not propose to speak for any future Mayor-and I am sure it
as intended that way with your question-any more than we can
eculate on what the next Congress may or may not do.
Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. That is the point I am trying to make.
Mr. BLATNIK. I think the record should show-I think it is known
those who are familiar with reorganization plans-that there is
thing to prevent any Member of Congress or any succeeding Con-
ess to introduce any other legislation to improve, broaden, or
arify the organizational structure of any part of the District of
olumbia. There is nothing to prevent any future administration from
ming up with any further ai~aending or clarifying reorganization
oposals. Is that not right, Mr. Hughes?
Mr. HUGHES. That it certainly is, Mr. Chairman. I would like
suggest a line of approach here. I think the major point in ques-
ii is the nature of the "regulations" that we are talking about, and
ould be happy to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Brown
d the committee staff, to examine in some detail the kinds of things
t we are talking about here. And I believe very sincerely that we can
isfy you that these are administrative things and they are the kind
things that this Council and other city councils would not want to
burdened with.
suggest that as a line of approach here. It think the basic question
really is what we are talking about by way of "regulations," and I
think we are talking about very pedestrian "regulations" indeed.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. Yes, if you will permit me, the point I am trying to
make is a very simple one. It is that if we are going to have a govern-
ment of laws and not of men, then we must write into the law that
v~thich we wo~ild like to have the law contain. And it is my feeling
that a step which puts the regulation and rulemaking power completely
in the hands of a single administrator is not a good fundamental
step toward representative government.
Now, I would also submit, in response to a comment you made,
Mr. Hughes, that the idea of a government in this country whereby
the Executive initiates and the Legislature vetoes is a good, strong
PAGENO="0028"
24
step away from the Magna Carta. I would hope we have made some
progress since then. I would like to suggest that perhaps if this pro-
posal had been initiated through the regular legislative process,
rather than coming in as a reorganization plan from the adminis-
trative branch of the Government, the procedure by which it could
have been done in the former way would have allowed us to make a
simple am4endment to incorporate the recommendations made by
Mr. Thomas. As it is now, we must accept the plan as it is, as the
administration prepared it, or veto it in the reverse legislative process
by which the reorganization plans are presented. If accepted, we
freeze into the law this idea that we have set this up with the Com-
missioner in control of the regulation and rulemaking authority
without an advisory council provision written into the law. And I am
not sure that that is altogether good. I think it may be better from
the standpoint of administration, but I am not sure it is better from
the standpoint of representation of the interested parties in the
communi tyr.
Now, if I may, I would like to ask just one other question. Mr.
Thomas suggested that this would assist in the improvement of the
budget allowed for recreation in the community, and this has been the
implication of this whole reorganization plan.
How will this assure the provision of more funds for recreation in
the city of Washington?
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Brown, when I wrote that it was with the
thought that the Mayor's office, with the prestige that it carries an
knowing that the Mayor's office is interested, vitally interested i
recreation, that that office would, with its prestige in support o
recreation budgets, carry great influence in helping to get the budge
through the various processes that we touched upon earlier; and i
was for that reason that I mentioned that. It was merely because of th
prestige and the vantage point of the Mayor's office that I felt tha
rather than as now-of course, the Board does support the budge
but the Board does not necessarily have the all-out support that woul
initiate and/or originate in the Mayor's office.
Commissioner WASHINGTON. I would like to react to that just for
moment, too, Mr. Brown.
I do not think that the reorganization itself, per se, has any r
evance to additional funds. I think there is a recast of the functi
of a department, as I see it, and as I have read the report of t
Citizens Task Force which suggested that there is something inh.
ently wrong there-I think that the recast of the functioning of t
department into the whole delinquency area, the whole cultura
enrichment area, the entire youth promotion area, plus the develop-
ment of what we are now going into-of a programmatic budget,
that is, a budget based on programs, will indeed cause this budget to
go beyond what it is now. ii think that the qualifying for certain pro-
grams in the delinquency area (some that HEW, for instance, spon-
sors) would bring additional funds in here. It is not that this has not
been done~ It is just that a breakdown of this program into program-
matic areas seems to me to be imminent, and it seems to me that we
should do it. In doing this, it puts you in a position to compete for
foundation funds, as well as other Federal funds based on the recast
of a recreation program that goes beyond only recreation and gets
into the prevention of delinquency.
PAGENO="0029"
25
Mr. BROWN. Well, if I may respond to that, I think that it would
Edso increase the potential if broad support came from the commu-
ruty. I think your original statement that it will not in and of itself
improve the availability of funds from public resources, the tax
~unds, and so forth-
Commissioner WASHINGTON. From the District budget you mean.
Mr. BROWN. From the District budget is probably quite accurate.
I have taken quite enough time, I am sure, and I have a colleague who
may wish to ask some questions. I would comment also that if you
and some good foundations that are anxious to give money for the
development of recreation programs within communities, I hope you
will share that with some of us who are more directly representative
of communities of some size back in our own constituency and who are
also looking for funds to broaden their recreation programs.
Commissioner WASHINGTON. Well, Mr. Brown, I might just say
as a result of my experience last year in New York and here, I know
that there are some possibilities. I would be very happy to share the
information, but the resources I think I am going to keep for myself.
Mr. BLATNIIC. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good plan
and much needed and I support it.
Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Segal, we thank you very much for a very interesting and
elpful presentation; and the same to you, Mr. Thomas.
Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BLATNIK. We have a statement submitted by the League of
omen Voters of the District of Columbia, written by Elizabeth S.
ohnson, the president, in support of Reorganization Plan 3 of 1968.
he statement will appear at this point in the record.
(The statement referred to follows:)
REPARED STATEMENT OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, PRESENTED BY ELIZABETH S. JOHNSON, PRESIDENT
The District of Columbia League of Women Voters supports the President'5
eorganization Plan 3 of 1968 as a further step in coordinating and focusing
sponsibility for the essential functions of a city government.
In Plan No. 3 the Commissioner will be given control over the Recreation
epartment which will bring about overall direction and coordination of recrea-
on resources and facilitate the integration of recreation plans into the urban
velopment programs and the program budgeting process. Yet, the league feels
at this plan does not include the city's major recreation resource, the city's
rk lands, and that through a future reorganization these areas should be
ought under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner.
Thus, because of our interest in a more efficient and centrally responsible
government under the single Commissioner and City Council, we urge the Con-
gress to permit this plan to take effect.
Mr. BLATNIK. Is Mr. William H. Waters, a member of the District
of Columbia Recreation Board, here?
Mr. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am here.
Mr. BLATNIK. I am sorry you had to wait. We had the other
scheduled witnesses. We would be pleased to hear you.
Mr. WATERS. I will submit correspondence to you.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Are you in support?
Mr. WATERS. I am not in support.
Mr. ERLENBORN. You are.not in support.
PAGENO="0030"
26
Mr. WATERS. I think that you, Mr. Erlenborn, and Mr. BrQwn
have raised some important questions.
Mr. BLATNIK. Why do we. not wait just a minute, Mr. Waters,
We would like to hear you and have your statement in the record.
Will you please take a chair?
Mr. WATERS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BL~&TNJK. Mr. William H. Waters, a member of the District
of Columbia Recreation Board, is appearing apparently on his own
behalf and as an individual member of the Board. Is that correct,
Mr. Waters?
Mr. WATERS. Yes, sir, Mr. Blatnik.
STATEME1'TT OP WILLIAM H. WATERS, MEMBER, DISTRICT OP
COLUMBIA RECREATION BOARD
Mr. WATERS. No doubt your staff has prepared information to
give you the background which brought into being the Recreation
Board back in 1942, an initiative taken here in the Congress-
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Waters, I might say I do not have that back-
ground. I o not even have the background on the people who have
testified this morning.
Mr. WATERS. Prior to 1942, recreation services in the District of
Columbia were administered under divided responsibility; divided
between the Board of Education-Community Centers and Play
ground Department-and the Board of Commissioners, and th
National Park Service through the Office of the National Capita
Parks. The citizenry at that time, as early as 1937, took such initiativ
which prompted the Park Service to detail a staff to make a study o
this matter. In 1942, Congress passed a Public Law 534 coordinat
ing all recreation services and programs under a single agency, an
designating the agency as the Recreation Board of the District
Columbia. The composition of the Board is referred to in the stateme
submitted by Mr. Hughes this morning.
I think the Recreation Board has served the community admirabi
I say this from the vantage point of being a resident of the District
Columbia, by having observed the Recreation Board and its admin'
tration for many years. I will in a few days conclude 8 years of servi
as a member of the Board, 7 of which were in the capacity as Chairma
It would be an understatement to say that there are no pressi
needs for additional recreation service in the District of Columb~
I am not at all certain that these needs and improvement in admin
tration can be better served by abolishing the agency as propos
in this Executive order.
It is astounding to me for Mr. Hughes to make a statement that
the District of Columbia Recreation Board is an organizational
curiosity. It is also astounding to have Commissioner Washington
state that the Recreation Department-referring to the adminis-
trative arm of the Board-is not an integral part of the District of
Columbia government. It is obvious that the Recreation Board, and
its administration, is an integral part of the District government.
The relevancy raised by Mr. Erlenborn and Mr. Brown concerning
citizen participation, I believe, is really at the heart of this whole
matter. The Recreation Board, certainly more so than the District
Building is, in my judgment, closer to the population, closer to the
PAGENO="0031"
27
eople. The omissions in this proposed reorganization plan unquestion-
bly will deny to the citizenry the opportunity to be heard at public
~earings, and before public board meetings.
Rather, it seems to me that what is necessary is an awareness at the
)istrict Building by the Commissioner and City Council that there
s a Recreation Board under mandate by the Congress; that it is an
ntegral part of the District government. The Recreation Board
reated by the Congress is not to be considered an organizational
~uriosity.
I can recall, not only in my tenure but in the tenure of the Chair-
nan of the Board prior to my appointment, that vacancies would
~xist on the Board for many months. Failure to fill a vacancy of a
iltizen member denies the community 25 percent of its representation.
A~nd long delays in filling vacancies have been all too frequent.
We have at the present time under the Recreation Act, with admin-
Lstration vested in the Superintendent of Recreation, total responsi-
bility for public recreation. We have witnessed in recent years a
rragmentation of recreation service and responsibility. This fragmen-
cation started with the introducton of the poverty program. It has
accelerated substantially since then because many agencies find that
hey have collateral or peripheral interests and embark accordingly
vithin their own range of choice rather than recognize that the Recre-
tion Board, under public law, has the total responsibility for public
ecreation in the District of Columbia. We now have recreation activ-
ties which emanate from Commissioner Washington's office, the
oard of Education, and from the Park Service. This year the Park
ervice has introduced an extensive program "Summer in the Parks."
ecreation service, in the broadest context, is, basically and funda-
entally, a responsibility of the Recreation Board. To me it seems
at these agencies are overzealous. If the agencies have public funds,
they do, the community will receive the best recreation service
d the greatest mileage out of the funds only when channeled through
e Recreation Board. This is the only way in which an agency can
ccessfully establish policy, administer service, and develop programs
r the people of the District of Columbia. This, I might add, is a
arge given the Recreation Board by congressional mandate-to
der service in the city of Washington, a municipality and as the
tion's Capital.
One other matter which has not come to your attention this morning:
ears ago, Congress at the initiative of Senator Claiborne Pell and
ngressmen Frank Thompson and William Widnall introduced on
e floor an amendment to the National Arts and Humanities Act of
1965, a provision designating the Recreation Board as the State Arts
Agency for the District of Columbia. The Recreation Board offers
and administers a substantial program in this field of endeavor.
It is interesting to note, of a very recent date, that a cultural
services program which should be administered by the Recreation
Board has been introduced at the District Building under the super-
vision of Commissioner Washington. This is another case of frag-
mentation-of service duplication totally outside the agency respon-
sible therefor. If these services are desired, if funds are available as
they are, it seems to make sense, at least to me, out of my experience
with the Recreation Board that such services should be offered and
administered by and within the appropriate agency-the Recreation
PAGENO="0032"
28
Board. For such service all that is required is a telephone call to ou
agency. There has never been a time when the public members of th(
Board and the Superintendent of Recreation were not available t(
service d~monstrated needs with interest, determination, and witi
immediate response.
I can recall only one instance in which the Recreation Board ha~
differed ~With Commissioner Washington (never with the former Board
of Commissioners) and this was a situation not too long ago when s
militant rally was to be scheduled in Georgetown. It was publicly
reported that Commissioner Washington expressed concern because of
community tensions. The Recreation Board, with one dissenting vote,
did not accept that expressed concern, not only by the Commissioner
but also by one member of the City Council who likewise had reserva-
tions about what might occur at the time. Fortunately, there was no
incident because the 7th precinct of the Metropolitan Police Depart-
ment and the local citizens took extensive precautions to forestall any
consideration of disorder which might have occurred.
What I think is needed here, Mr. Chairman, is a strengthening of
the Recreation Board, an acceptance and* a recognition by the Dis-
trict Building and all agencies who have some interest in recreation
to be fully cognizant of the fact that the Recreation Board is charge
with responsibility by congressional act, has the responsibility to de
velop and administer the Arts and Cultural service programs in th
District of Columbia within the framework of its mandate. Further
the Recreation Board is one of the agencies with ex officio representa
tion undei~ the act establishing the John F. Kennedy Center for th
Performing Arts.
The Cohgress might wish to (and I would suggest) examine th
effectiveness of the leadership and the discharge of agency respons
bilities within the range that those responsibilities can be met. An
this, obviously, relates to the qualifications of the members of t
Recreation Board, the ability and leadership of management, t
qualifications of Civil Service personnel, and the funding.
The heart of the whole problem, as in many programs of the Distri
of Columbia and indeed programs everywhere, involves pub
appropriation, because the public appropriation to a large exte
governs policy, service, and staff quality.
This, I think, is the core situation. The appropriation process,
the most part, evolves in the District Building through the Office
the Budget Director. From that office it becomes the Commission
budget to the President, and the President's budget to the Congr
for the District of Columbia. It is my observation that over the year
in light of the financial circumstances whidh prevail in the District,
that the Recreation Board has been reasonably well treated when
measured against the treatment of other agencies. Recreation is a big
business now, and certainly must ask for and receive increased appro-
priations to provide services to a changing community which is de-
manding r~iore and more. The judgment and consideration of the
Congress, I think, over the years in light of the funding possibilities
in the Dis*ict has been reasonably generous to our agency.
The Recreation Board has many ties with the citizenry of the Dis-
trict of Columbia. The Board is dependent in large measure for sup-
port by volunteer groups. Many volunteer groups are closely related
to the Board in providing service to all segments and sections of the
PAGENO="0033"
29
~ommunity. It is very doubtful that volunteers would continue this
~ssociation under reorganization. Such a loss of community volunteer
ervice which totaled more than 41,000 1 hours last year would be
~rippling to all recreation service now offered to our citizenry and to
Tisitors.
I think that if you were to make known throughout the community
:as the Recreation Board does annually for its public meetings and
nonthly board meetings) that you will find substantial opposition to
he abolition of this agency.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the Congress would see fit to
strengthen the Recreation Board, not abolish it.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Waters.
Mr. Erlenborn. S
Mr. ERLENBORN. I just have one or two questions. First of all
with reference to the funding, I think there was a figure given to us
earlier of $7.6 million annually. Would that be the budget of the
Recreation Board?
Mr. WATERS. This is the administrative budget. The $7 million
plus does not include the capital funding. It does not include various
other funding that come through such sources as BOR, HEW, and
~thers-
Mr. ERLENBORN. So the total funding would be greater than the
7.6?
Mr. WATERS. Yes; it would be.
Mr. ERLENBORN. You mentioned a "Summer in the Parks" pro-
ram. Now, this is not through the Recreation Board but through-
this the National-
Mr. WATERS. "Summer in the Parks" is an initiative taken o~i the
art of Mr. George B. Hartzog, who is Director of the National Park
ervice. I am aware, as a member of the Recreation Board, that there
as no advance consultation with our agency. I can recall that a repre-
ntative of the National Park Service made a presentation before
r Board several months ago, and the Recreation Board, on the
heel of community groups, was put in the same bracket as citizens
sociations and all others. This kind and type of classification does
t compliment the work of a public agency.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I am advised the Superintendent of the Park
rvice is ex officio member of your Board. Has he participated in
ur-
Mr. WATERS. The Superintendent of the National Capital Parks
is a member of the Board, although often represented by a staff
associate.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Do you know what the funding is for that
program?
Mr. WATERS. No, I am sorry; I do not know what the funding is
for that aspect of the parks program. The program is an effort to get
children and others from the inner city into the public parks. This is a
program activity, and program is really the heart of the responsibility
of the Recreation Board. This, again, is what I mean by the fragmen-
tation of recreation responsibility. And this is what the Congress wanted
to overcome back in 1942 when it brought forth the public law that
drew together these several functions into a single agency.
141,000 liours/716 volunteers equal 19 staff personnel.
PAGENO="0034"
30
Mr. ERLENBORN. Does the school administration have any sort oi
recreation, summer recreation program that they operate apart frorr
the Recreation Board?
Mr. WATERS. Yes; to acertain extent. The Recreation Board, by
contract and agreement with the Board of Education, uses certair
facilities of schools, both buildings and grounds. The general concept
of school planning and construction here in the District of Columbia
over the years has not been developed along the lines of school-corn.
munity use. The schools have been built and utilized largely fot
school purposes only. And in many instances they have been, although
they are not now, shut down at 3:30 in the afternoon. Some, for a
long time, lock up over the weekends. With a good bit of contact and
persuasion, this has been overcome. In fact, on June 15, the Rec-
reation Bdard will assume a large measure of the responsibility incident
to the use of school buildings and grounds after the school period.
If the public wishes to use a school building or a school ground,
application is made to the Recreation Board and a permit is issued.
We do not grant the permit if there is any conflict with school activ-
ity, recognizing that the first business of schools is education and,
conseqtiently, there is no infringement upon school time. But aftei
the normal school day we do service the community by providin~
access into approximately 120 school buildings.
Mr. ER1LENBORN. Do you think that there is a valid criticism o
the Recreation Board that too much of its funding has been devote
to programs in the better sections of the District, that there is no
enough in the way of recreation programs in the poorer sections
the District?
Mr. WATERS. Sir, I think that is not a valid statement. I thinkS
is a biased statement. The chevy Chase Recreation Center, reférre
to by Mr. Segal, is always held up as having the best recreatio
program in the city. Whether this is true or not, I suppose, cou
be debated.
The Chevy Chase center is in a building long condemned. It w
be demolished shortly after the first of July. It so happens that t
Chevy Chase center is in a well-established upper middle class re
dential area of Washington. I do not live there. At one time I d~
I went to t~he school in 1924, It was the E. V. Brown School. One-thi
of the building is sealed off because of fire hazard. Recreation h
access to only one-third of the building.
The structure of our society, I suppose, is such that you likely fi
facilities in a more affluent area better maintained for a variety
reasons. In addition, they have programs that would not necessarily
be avai]able in other areas because the people pay for special services
which do ~ot come out of the budget dollar. And this is not reterred
to in Mr. Segal's report. I think upon examination, you would find
facts in hi~ report wanting, and that there is some bias so expre~ed.
But we have good recreatiOn centers elsewhere in the city. They
may not necessarily have the extensiveness of program, but extensive-
ness of prt~gram *can also be measured in items of interest of the
people. Throughout the ôit~ in varying degrees we have a wide range
of centers. I regret to say that some of them are not of a condition
we wouldcare to brag about.. I would also say that upon examination
you will find these centers to be located in public housing projects
and in schools, and this classification of facilities, operated by the
PAGENO="0035"
SI
Recreation Board under agreement with those agencies, are the ones
about which we hear the greatest criticism.
Mr. ERLENBORN. One last question. You have expressed concern
about the citizen participation, as I did in my questioning. Let us
measure what our concern is here. To what extent has there been
citizen participation with the existing Board? How often have you
had at your meetings people from these areas who have criticized
poor recreation facilities; who have come to meetings of your Rec-
reation Board to complain about the facilities that they have; to
press for additional programs or for facilities?
Mr. WATERS. Once a year we have an advertised public meeting.
The most recent one was held at the Sharpe Health School at 13th
and Upshur Streets NW. The meeting started at 7 in the evening
and did not adjourn until after midnight. More than 100 community
groups were listed on the agenda. It is a rare occasion when the
Recreation Board at its monthly meeting does not have individuals and
organizations' representatives present as observers or participants
on the agenda to make statements, to ask for service. It is customary
for the Recreation Board members, with staff assembled-the
superintendent of recreation, the assistant superintendent and division
directors-to respond and initiate such action as can be appro-
riately taken within the framework of recreation policy and the
imitation of budget. But oftentimes, just to give you a point of
liustration, we will have citizens come in and say we should have
ne more classified worker at a recreation center. As a Member of
he House of Representatives, you well know that we cannot add
SC staff until the Congress authorizes the position. Our inability to
rovide such staff is often misunderstood, yet whenever we can
rvice the need--and in many instances the need is serviced through
signmeut of staff on a per diem basis. We can never move as fast
ithin the normal framework that we find ourselves to promptly meet
e changing needs of the community. Seldom is it possible to provide
I the service and facilities which the citizens request. Sometimes it
kes 5 years to obtain a single recreation center. Usually very much
nger.
Mr. EIILENBORN. In sum, though, you would say that the ability
the public to participate in your monthly meetings has been
ilized and that public participation has been part of the Recreation
ard's function?
Mr. WATERS. Absolutely. The Recreation Board meeting tonight
s being held ii~i Southeast Washington at 7 o'clock so that people
in the Congress Heights area may have an opportunity to attend.
This meeting, I suspect, will run until 11 or 12 o'clock in the evening.
All community groups within the Anacostia area have been invited
to come and share in the meeting and to address the Board.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you.
Mr. BLATNIK. If there are no further questions, thank you very
much, Mr. Waters.
This concludes the hearing on Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1968.
(Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee concluded its hearing
on Reorganization Plan No. 3 and proceeded to further business.)
(Subsequently, the following letter was submitted for inclusion in
the record:)
PAGENO="0036"
32
LODGE 274~, AMERICAN FEDERATtON OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RECREATION DEPABPMENT,
Washington, D.C., May 11, 196th
Chairman J~uin A. BLATNIK,
Executive and Legislative Reorganization Subcommittee, Committee on Government
OperatiQns, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CHAIRMAN BLATNIK: The President's statement that accompanjed
Reorganization Plan No. 3 Of 1968 graphically pointed out the need for the
District of Columbia Commissioner to assume policy supervision over the city's
recreation activities.
Moreover, the employees of the District of Columbia Recreation Department
feel that the President's statement and his submission of the reorganization plan
was timely and sorely needed, especially in view of the recent civil disorders. If
the quality ~f public recreation is to be improved, if it is to lose its stepchild image,
the RecreatiOn Department must became on integral part of the city government;
and it must ~ecome more responsive to the needs of the community.
Therefore, the members of AFGE AFL-CIO Lodge 2741 unequivocally support
the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3.
Sincerely yours,
DANIEL W. JACKSON, Jr., President.
0