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