D 63)2-

Su. NOMINATIONS TO SUPERIOR COURT, CITY COUNCIL, ,\L'

GOVERNMEN AND REDEVELOPMENT LAND AGENCY

Storage

DEC IC 1973

T H L:

KAN:3AS 3TATe.

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

NOMINATIONS OF: DAVID LUKE NORMAN, ORMAN W. KETCHAM,

EDMOND T. DALY, SUPERIOR COURT; HENRY S. ROBINSON,

W. ANTOINETTE FORD, MARGUERITE C. SELDEN, CITY COUNCIL;

AND ALFRED P. LOVE, REDEVELOPMENT LAND AGENCY

APRIL 3, JUNE 19, AND JULY 25, 1973

Printed for the use of the

Committee on the District of Columbia

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

98-088 WASHINGTON: 1973
COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri, Chairman

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

ADLAI E. STEVENSON III, Illinois

JOHN V. TUNNEY, California

CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland

DEWEY F. BARTLETT, Oklahoma

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

ROBBRT HARRIS, Staff Director and Counsel

ANDREW E. MANATos, Associate Staff Director

COLBERT I. KING, Minority Staff Director

(II)
CONTENTS

Page

WITNESSES

Allen, Dr. Donna, Women's Institute for the Freedom of the Press 28 Daly, Edmond T., nominee, Superior Court of the District of Columbia 38 Biographical sketch 36 Duncan, Charles T., president, District of Columbia Bar_ 40 Ford, Mrs. W. Antoinette, nominee, District of Columbia Council 9

Biographical sketch 6

Glee, Sidney, acting chief, Community Relations Division, Department of Human Resources, District of Columbia Government 19 Henley, Benjamin J., retired vice superintendent, District of Columbia Public Schools 27 Ketcham, Orman W., nominee, Superior Court of the District of Columbia. 36 Biographical sketch 35 Love, Alfred P., nominee, Redevelopment Land Agency. 6

Biographical sketch 5

Meyers, Tedson J., member, District of Columbia Council_ 14 Monk, George E., vice chairman, Judicial Selection Committee, District of Columbia Bar Association 39 Moore, Rev. Douglas, Black United Front 21 Mosee, Dr. Jean C., resident, Washington, D.0 19 Nevins, John A., chairman, District of Columbia Council_ 14 Norman, David Luke, nominee, Superior Court of the District of Columbia 2

Biographical sketch 1

Parker, Mrs. Marjorie, member, District of Columbia Council 14 Reid, Mrs. Annette C., State Federation, Business and Professional

Women's Clubs, Inc 19 Robinson, Dr. Henry S., Jr., nominee, District of Columbia Council. 9

Biographical sketch 6

Rothman, Julius F., president, Human Resources Development Institute;

and associate director, Urban Affairs Department; AFL—CIO 6

Selden, Mrs. Marguerite C., nominee, District of Columbia Council. 9

Biographical sketch 6

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Jackson, Maxine H., resident, Washington, D.0 

Turner, J. C., general secretary-treasurer, International Union of Operating Engineers 

LETTERS AND TELEGRAMS

30

31

Bible, Alan, a U.S. Senator from Nevada, letter to the chairman, July 25,

1973 42

Greenfield, Francis L., president, Laborers District Council of Washington, D.C. and Vicinity, AFL—CIO, telegram to the chairman, June 15,

1973 31

Gude, Gilbert, a U.S. Representative from Maryland, letter to the chairman, July 24, 1973 41

Harris, Gladys P., community school coordinator, Harrison Community

School, letter to the chairman, June 22, 1973 31

Kennedy, Edward M., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, letter to the

chairman, June 18, 1973 11

Lyons, Reverend Msgr., Thomas W., secretary for Christian education,

Archdiocese of Washington, letter to the chairman, June 14, 1973 ____ 32

(In)
IV

Page

Murphy, Thomas F., president, Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers International Union of America, telegram to the associate staff director,

June 15, 1973 32

Nazdin, Leo, director of jurisdiction, Laborers International Union of

North America, telegram to associate staff director, June 13, 1973. 32

Slaiman, Don, director, Department of Civil Rights, AFL-CIO, telegram

to the chairman, June 18, 1973 33
NOMINATIONS TO SUPERIOR COURT, CITY COUNCIL,

AND REDEVELOPMENT LAND AGENCY

TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1973

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

TV ashing ton, D .0 .

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 :30 a.m., in room 6226,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Thomas F. Eagleton (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Eagleton and Bartlett.

Staff present: Robert Harris, staff director; and Colbert I. King,

minority staff director.

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

The Senate District of Columbia Committee will now be in session

to conduct a hearing on the nomination of David Luke Norman to be

a judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Norman has been an attorney for the past 16 years with the

Department of Justice and was, until last February, assistant attorney

general in charge of the Civil Rights Division.

At this point I place Mr. Norman's biography in the record.

[The biography follows:]

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF DAVID LUKE NORMAN

ADDRESS

611 G Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024.

DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH

October 12, 1924; Stromsburg, Nebr.

FAMILY STATUS

Married to Monica Gallagher, December 23, 1968. One daughter by a previous

marriage.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

College: University of California, Berkeley, Calif.; B.A. with highest honors,

1953; Junior Phi Beta Kappa.

Law school: University of California, Berkeley, Calif.; LL.B., 1956; associate

editor, California Law Review.

POSTGRADUATE EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

1956-57: Attorney, Criminal Division, US. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

1958-64: Trial attorney, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C.

1964-66: Chief, Southeastern Section; Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department

of Justice, Washington, D.C.

(1)
2

1966-9/67: Chief, Appeals and Research Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

9/67-12/67: Director, Office of Planning and Coordination, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 1/68-10/68: Vice-President (nonlegal position), Bedford-Stuyvesant D and S

Corporation, Brooklyn, N.Y.

10/68-7/69: Director, Office of Planning and Coordination; Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 7/69-8/71: Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S.

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

8/71-2/73: Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

2/73-present: Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Civil Rights Division,

U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

BAR MEMBERSHIP

California Bar, 1957; and District of Columbia Bar, 1972.

AWARDS AND HONORS

Rockefeller Public Service Award in the Field of Law-1970.

Attorney General's Sustained Superior Performance Award-1961, and 1963.

Phi Beta Kappa.

The CHAIRMAN. An announcement of these hearings was printed in

the Congressional Record on Tuesday, March 27, 1973, at which time

individuals interested in testifying in regard to this nomination were

invited to indicate such desire with this committee.

Until this moment, we have received no requests to appear.

Mr. Norman, as I ask all nominees for this court, I should be interested in hearing of the type of trial experience you have had.

You were admitted in practice of law. Will you tell us when?

STATEMENT OF DAVID LUKE NORMAN, NOMINEE, SUPERIOR

COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. NORMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was admitted to practice in

California in January 1957. At about that time, I started to work for

the Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Civil Rights Section.

Later that year, the Civil Rights Division was born. I transferred

to it and began my trial experience there.

Throughout the early 1960's, from about 1960 to about 1964, my

work was exclusively that of trial lawyer in the U.S. district courts.

Basically in the South, because in those days our entire effort was

pretty much to end voting discrimination in the Deep South.

I participated in the trial courts. I would estimate in some 50 cases.

Those were some of the very complex cases because they involved

numerous documents to prove our cases, largely by demonstrating to

the court from the applications for registration made by white persons

,on the one hand and by black persons on the other that the black persons were not getting a fair share and were being discriminated

against.

Some of our cases involved 5,000 to 10,000 documents to put before

the court through witnesses and to explain to the court subsequently

what those documents contained and what they meant.

It was basically a practice in equity. They were nonjury trials.

Subsequent to that, about 1964, I was asked to serve as a chief in a

trial section of approximately 25 lawyers.

IMP
3

I had the southeastern section, which embraced the States of Alabama, Georgia Florida, and South Carolina. For 2 years I directed.

those trial attorneys in their trials in the Deep South, and subsequently I was asked to head the appellate section where I handled all

of the appeals for the Civil Rights Commission—a group of about 15

lawyers.

For 2 years I was in charge of the appeals section, and at that time I

practiced pretty much in the appeals courts.

Thereafter, I was asked to serve as Director of Planning and Coordination, more as a policy advisor on law enforcement litigation,

appellate, and policy problems in the Civil Rights Division, which I

did for about 2 years.

I had a small staff of something like 9 or 10 lawyers.

Then

'

in 1969, I was asked to serve as Deputy Assistant Attorney

General under Mr. Leonard, who was appointed as Assistant to the

Attorney General. So I had general supervision of the work of all of

the lawyers of the Civil Rights Division.

In August of 1971, I was appointed by the President and confirmed

by the Senate as Assistant Attorney General. I had the entire responsibility for the Civil Rights Division and their work—approximately

150 lawyers.

That sort of brings me to date, although I am not now Assistant

Attorney General.

The CHAIRMAN. In terms of experience before juries: How many

eases have you tried or participated in trying before 12 gentlemen and

women?

Mr. NORMAN. Sir, I have not had jury experience. I have not tried a

jury case. My cases were all with a single judge or three judges,

depending on the gravity of the issue.

I have had the unique experience three or four times of appearing

before the full panel of judges in the fifth circuit, which are about 14,

slightly larger than a jury, but I have not had jury experience.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bartlett.

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I will have to leave. I have enjoyed hearing Mr. Norman. I enjoyed hearing your sketch, and

enjoyed meeting you. It is nice to meet you.

The CHAIRMAN. Fine, Senator. Thank you.

You are a resident of the District of Columbia, Mr. Norman?

Mr. NORMAN. Yes; Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you resided in the District of

Columbia ?

Mr. NORMAN. In the District itself—I think I moved into the District, well, this particular series I have lived in the District of Columbia dates to about October 15, 1968.

Prior to that I lived for a year in the District of Columbia at 1440

M Street. I lived in Virginia and in Maryland in the suburbs prior to

that. So that I have lived in the District area ever since I came here in

December 1956.

For a brief period I went to Brooklyn, N.Y., to help John Dorr start

his work with D. & S. Corp. and then I returned to the Department of

Justice.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all I have, Mr. Norman.

Thank you very much for your appearance this morning.
4

Is there anyone else here present, based on the notice placed in the

record several days ago, that desires to testify, either in favor of or in

opposition to the nomination of Mr. David Norman to be Associate

Judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court?

Hearing no response to that, that will conclude the hearings on the

nomination of Mr. Norman to superior court.

Mr. NORMAN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The nomination will be polled out of the

committee.

Mr. NORMAN. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 9:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
NOMINATIONS TO SUPERIOR COURT, CITY COUNCIL,

AND REDEVELOPMENT LAND AGENCY

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1973

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washi'ngto'n, D .0 .

The committee met at 8 :30 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 6226,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Thomas F. Eagleton (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Eagleton and Domenici.

Staff present: Andrew E. Manatos, associate staff director; and

Colbert I. King, minority staff director.

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing- relates to nominations to the District

of Columbia City Council and the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency.

Section 201(b) of part II of the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967

states: "The Council shall be composed of a Chairman of the Council,

a Vice Chairman of the Council, and seven other members, all of whom

shall be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with

the advice and consent of the Senate . . ."

Section 4 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (D.C. Code, § 5-703) and.

section 1 of the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1968, authorize appointments by the Commissioner of the District of Columbia of members to

the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency subject to the

confirmation of the Senate.

Today's hearing is intended to gather information so that the Senate

can carry out its role regarding the following nominations:

Renominated for a 5-year term as a member of the Redevelopment

Land Agency of the District of Columbia is Mr. Alfred P. Love.

Renominated as a member of the District of Columbia City Council

for a term to expire February 1, 1976, is Dr. Henry S. Robinson, Jr.

Nominated to the District of Columbia City Council for a term to

expire February 1, 1976. is Mrs. Marguerite C. Sel den.

Nominated to the District of Columbia City Council for a term to

expire February 1, 1976 is Mrs. W. Antoinette Ford.

I now place in the record biographical sketches of the nominees.

[The biographical sketches follow:]

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF NOMINEES

REDEVELOPMENT LAND AGENCY NOMINATION

Mr. Alfred P. Love (for reappointment for a term of 5 years.)

Assistant Director for Programs and Operations, AFL-CIO Human Resources

Development Institute.

Formerly with the Laborers' District Council of Washington, D.C.

(5)

98-088-73-2
6

Bachelor of Arts—Business Administration—Dillard University, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1952.

Master of Arts—Economics—American University, Washington, D.C., 1959.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL NOMINATIONS

Dr. Henry S. Robinson, Jr. (for reappointment until February 1, 1976.)

Practicing physician.

Formerly Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Howard University.

Bachelor of Arts—Colgate University, Hamilton, New York, 1926.

Doctor of Medicine—Howard University Medical School, Washington, D.C., 1930.

Mrs. W. Antoinette Ford. (for appointment to replace Carlton W. Veazey. Term

to expire February 1, 1976.)

Last position held was as Director of Development for the Institute for Serv- ices to Education.

Formerly a White House Fellow as Special Assistant to the Secretary of the

Treasury where she chaired the department of Minority Business Concessions

Task Force.

Bachelor of Science—Biology—Chestnut Hill College, Philadelphia, Pennsyl- vania, 1963.

Graduate study—American University, Washington, D.C., 1964-66 and Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, 1967.

Mrs. Marguerite C. Selden (for appointment to replace Stanley J. Anderson.

Term to expire February 1, 1976.)

Retired Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Department of Summer Schools, Continuing Education and the Urban Service Corps of the District of Columbia.

Involved in innumerable projects for community improvement.

Bachelor of Science—Miner Teachers College.

Master of Arts—New York University.

Additional graduate study—Howard University, George Washington University, Catholic University, and New York University.

The CHAIRMAN. At this time I would like to begin todays' hearing

by calling the Mayor-Commissioner's nominee for the Redevelopment

Land Agency to the microphone. Mr. Love is accompanied by Mr.

Julius F. Rothman, president, Human Resources Development Institute, and Associate Director AFL-CIO Urban Affairs Department.

Mr. Rothman, I understand, is to give his statement first.

STATEMENT OF ALFRED P. LOVE, NOMINEE, REDEVELOPMENT

LAND AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY JULIUS F. ROTHMAN, PRESIDENT, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, AND

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, URBAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO

Mr. ROTHMAN. My name is Julius F. Rothman. I am president of

the AFL-CIO Human Resources Development Institute, and associate

director of the AFL-CIO Urban Affairs Department.

I am delighted that you provided me the opportunity to appear before your committee to speak on the nomination of Al Love for reappointment to the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency

Board.

I have been asked by the AFL-CIO Greater Washington Central

Labor Council, the AFL-CIO Washington Building Trades Council,

and the Washington Laborers District Council, AFL-CIO, to represent them this morning.

The three councils had wished to present their own statements, but

recognized the time limitation and asked that I include their endorse-
7

ments in my statement. As the principal officer of the Human Resources Development Institute, I had the opportunity to know Mr.

Love very well over the past 5 years. He has been a principal assistant

to me. In fact, he is one of our oldest employees in point of time.

He came with us at the point when the Human Resources Development Institute was started. He was one of the first staff members

employed when this department was established and he came to us

with very high recommendations from various parts of the labor

movement with which he had had contact over time in the past. The

position he holds today attests to the fact that he has been able to live

up to his recommendations.

Mr. Love is no stranger to this committee. This is his third appear,

ance seeking Senate confirmation for nomination to the RLA Board.

This, too, attests to the fact that he has performed his duties well on

the RLA Board.

I could speak at some length about Mr. Love and his abilities, but

they would only utilize some time which we don't have.

I might say that his experience is precisely in the area that the Re,

development Land Agency deals with. It has never been very far from

that area.

Mr. Love is before this committee today seeking approval by the

Senate for a position in which he has already demonstrated proficiency.

Therefore, Senator I would like to say that organized labor in the

Washington area and in particular our own organization, the Human

Resources Development Institute, which incidentally is a manpower

related institute within the AFL—CIO, urges you to recommend to the

Senate the confirmation of the nomination of Mr. Alfred P. Love for

reappointment to the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land

Agency. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rothman. Mr. Love, for several

years now there has been a dispute, or some kind of bone of contention,

between RLA and Mr. Quesada and his development of L'Enfant

Plaza. Could you bring this committee up to date on the current status

of that dispute?

Mr. LOVE. The current status of the dispute is in the final stages of

being resolved. We brought in an outside attorney to get froniGeneral Quesada the plans and to adjudicate from that point. We are

looking for a reason to settle the thing. That is where it is. It is coming

to a close.

The CHAIRMAN. Roughly how much is in disagreement, in terms of

dollars between RLA and Mr. Quesada'?

Mr. LOVE. It is really not a dollar thing. I don't think there is a

dollar difference there, Senator. It is an issue thing that has to be resolved. I think it has got to have a way that legally this can be resolved.

It has been happening. It has been pending. It has been all over here

in the Halls of Congress. I know that. It has been all over the place.

But there is right now enough evidence on the table to say this will

soon be resolved. With this concern of yours, I will pass it on.

The CHAIRMAN. You say it will soon be resolved. Do you think if

you are nominated for 'another 5-year term it will be resolved in that

period?

Mr. LOVE. Considering the fact it was happening before I came on

board, just maybe some of the issues might resolve themselves within
8

this 5-year period, Senator. General Quesada will be satisfied but the

courts must be satisfied that it was done properly and legally.

The CHAIRMAN. I was being facetious. I hope it is resolved sooner

-than that. It has been happening for at least 4/12years that I have been

in the Senate and perhaps some time before that. So in my judgment

the matter ought to be brought to some resolution and termination. I

hope you will convey that notion from me to the other members of the

Board.

Mr. LOVE. I will note that, Senator, and I see behind me the Vice

Chairman of the City Council. I know, he too, shall take note.

The CHAIRMAN. I see the Chairman of the City Council. I hope he

will take note.

Senator Domenici ?

Senator DOMENIC'. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Love, I assume that in your years of experience that you have

some feel for urban renewal. Not a long dissertation, but tell me, if you

would, whether you really think that Congress could just give cities

with very few strings attached the kind of money that they have been

getting for urban renewal projects and could they do a better job if

they had more versatility or do you see some problems? Give me just

a few of your thoughts on the subject.

Mr. LOVE. Senator, to provide that and give the urban renewal

agency more versatility—yes. My experience with urban renewal is

they send us out to do a job, to negotiate a change in conditions, with

our hands tied behind our back. We can go over the sociological

causes of it and whatnot—but the cities are there. One of the biggest

problems is enticing industry and businesses back to invest in the

cities with which we are concerned.

Businesses are in business to make money. Until we can come up

with the type of instrument that can really entice businesses and industries to come back, I don't think we are going to ever get very far.

Back to your question about Congress turning over to cities moneys

without strings attached—I am against it. I think there should be

some Federal guidelines of attachment to those funds you give to the

cities. But they must be more versatile out there in urban renewal.

Senator DOMENIC'. There must be more versatility, you say, Mr.

Love?

Mr. LOVE. Right. That is it.

Senator DOMENIC'. Home rule is in the air again, perhaps with more

vigor this year than last, and who knows its destiny. But obviously, in

the area you are involved in there will always be the problem of adjusting to the property rights of the Federal Government and its land

use prerogatives on Capitol Hill and the Federal City. Historically

speaking, I assume you are in favor of home rule, you recognize the

Federar Government has some clear kinds of concerns with reference

to development and protection of things that are Federal.

Could you just talk to that for a moment?

Mr. LOVE. Well, you put my thoughts and opinions on it precisely.

I am for home rule, but I think the Federal Government should have

some concerns about the property rights in their own program in the

District of Columbia, which is a Federal program.

Once again, I am for home rule. But I realize, too, that there must

be a Federal formula to operate with any frame of home rule in the

District of Columbia.
9

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Domenici.

Is there anyone else here present who desires to testify either for or

against the nomination of Mr. Alfred Love for the Redevelopment

Land Agency?

If not, that will conclude the hearings on that nomination. Thank

you, Mr. Love and thank you, Mr. Rothman.

-We will now proceed to the nominees for the District of Columbia

City Council. I will ask the three nominees to come forward as a group,

Dr. Henry Robinson, Jr., Mrs. Marguerite C. Selden, and Mrs. W.

Antoinette Ford.

Dr. Robinson, you are a reappointment. When did you originally

go on the City Council?

STATEMENTS OF DR. HENRY S. ROBINSON, JR., NOMINEE FOR

REAPPOINTMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY 1, 1976; MRS. W. ANTOINETTE FORD, NOMINEE FOR APPOINTMENT TO REPLACE

CARLTON W. VEAZEY, TERM TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 1, 1976; MRS.

MARGUERITE C. SELDEN, NOMINEE FOR APPOINTMENT TO REPLACE STANLEY J. ANDERSON, TERM TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 1,

1976; TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL

Dr. ROBINSON. I first went on the City Council on October 16, 1969,

to the term that had been left vacant by Mr. Thompson, who was appointed judge. My first full reappointment I went on in February of

1970.

The CHAIRMAN. In terms of background: Dr. Robinson is a practicing physician, formerly Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Howard University; Bachelor of Arts, Colgate University, Hamilton, New York, 1926; and Doctor of Medicine, Howard University

Medical School, Washington, D.C., 1930.

What has been the scope of your activities on the Council insofar as

specialization by committee assignment?

Dr. ROBINSON. I am chairman of the Health, Welfare, and Aging

Committee and a member of two other committees. I also serve as an

alternate director of Metro, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority, and alternate member of the District of Columbia Armory

Board.

I am also on the Drug Abuse Council of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your position with respect to home rule for

the District of Columbia?

Dr. R013INSON. I believe in home rule for the District of Columbia,

sir, because we will not be masters in our own house until we do have

home rule. But I would not want home rule unless we had the Federal

guarantee. I would not want to be a member of a bankrupt community.

That is, we would have to have the Federal guarantee. But I would

like all other privileges of any other citizen of the United States, full

voting rights, the mayor or Governor, whatever it is, what type of

form of government we have, elected citizen councils, elected Senators,

and our elected Representatives.

The CHAIRMAN. By Federal guarantee, do you want any home rule

legislation provision that is a guaranteed Federal payment?
10

Dr. ROBINSON. That is correct, sir. As you know, the Federal Government owns pretty near 50 percent of the real estate property of the

District of Columbia. I believe that the Federal Government should

pay their share of that. The citizens of the District of Columbia raise

about 80 percent of their own revenue in taxes and Congress appropriates 20 percent of that money.

But we are not the judges of how that money is to be spent. That is

one of the reasons that I think we must have home rule in the District.

I would like to be run out of a job; that is, not be appointed anymore

and let the people of the District elect their own representatives.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Robinson.

Mrs. Selden is for appointment to replace Stanley J. Anderson, retired Assistant Superintendent of Schools. Mrs. Selden is the retired

assistant superintendent of schools Department of Summer Schools,

Continuing Education, and the Urban Service Corps of the District

of Columbia. She is involved in innumerable projects for community

improvement. Her educational background: Bachelor of Science,

Miner Teachers College; Master of Arts, New York University; additional graduate study, Howard University, George Washington University, Catholic University, and New York University.

• Could you give us the benefit of your viewpoint with respect to home

rule for the District of Columbia?

Mrs. SELDEN. I certainly concur with Dr. Robinson's statement. I

would reemphasize a point he made, which is if the District is to have

authority, it must also have responsibility. It must also have the authority to have fiscal and budgetary autonomy. We certainly would

have to reemphasize, from my point of view, that there would have

to be an adequate Federal share to support the fact that the Federal

Government is in the city.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any other statement, Mrs. Selden, that

you would like to make in your own behalf as a nominee for the City

Council?

Mrs. SELDEN. I consider it an exceptional honor and privilege to be

nominated by President Nixon. I would like to express my appreciation to him for the vote of confidence that this suggests. I am certainly

maintaining my interest in education and in addition to that in the

delivery of the services that are required to maintain youngsters adequately in their environment and send them to school prepared to

learn.

So that I hope I have an opportunity to continue service in the

areas of education and in youth affairs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Antoinette Ford, for appointment to replace

Carlton W. Veazey. Mrs. Ford's last position held was as Director of

Development for the Institute for Services to Education; formerly a

White House Fellow as Special Assistant to the Secretary a the

Treasury where she chaired the Department of Minority Business

Concessions Task Force. Education: Bachelor of Science, Biology,

Chestnut Hill College Philadelphia, Pa., 1963; graduate study,

American University, -Washington, D.C., 1964-66, and Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif., 1967.

At this time I will introduce and make a part of the record a letter
11

from Senator Edward M. Kennedy from Massachusetts in support of

the nomination of Mrs. Ford to the District of Columbia Council.

[The letter follows:]

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, D.C., June 18, 1973.

Senator THOMAS EAGLETON,

Chairman, Senate District of Columbia Committee, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am pleased to have this opportunity to congratulate

Mrs. Antoinette Ford upon her nomination for appointment to the D.C. City

Council.

I am familiar with her diligent work to develop programs and activities to aid

needy, young children who live in the nation's capital.

She has demonstrated an ability to respond to the needs of the people who

might otherwise be ignored by society's institutions. For this reason, I feel she

will bring a sensitive and imaginative presence to the City Council that will serve

effectively every facet of the federal city community.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to commend to you and the Committee the name

of Mrs. Ford as a new appointee to the District of Columbia City Council.

Respectfully,

EDWARD M. KENNEDY.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a statement, Mrs. Ford, that you would

like to make to the committee in connection with your nomination?

Mrs. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am indeed honored

and very pleased to have been nominated to the District of Columbia

City Council by the President, and if confirmed by the Senate, I will

do all in my power to represent the citizens of the District and to

continue to work in their behalf in any way that I possibly can.

The CHAIRMAN. Finally, the same question as to the two previous

nominees: What is your position with respect to home rule for the

District of Columbia?

Mrs. FORD. I am very much in favor of home rule for the District

of Columbia, Senator. Also, I feel that with home rule, again restating what has been said before, with that goes fiscal responsibility,

budgetary responsibility, and the right to elect our own officials as

well as the power to raise our taxes locally. I am very much in favor

of home rule.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator Domenici ?

Senator D01VIENICI. Dr. Robinson, how much time—using whatever

understandable time frame you want, month, week, year—does it take

you to be a City Councilman?

Dr. ROBINSON. Senator, including our regular duties, our extracurricular duties, serving on other boards, going to meetings in the

evening, between 40 and 50 hours a week, although we are supposed

to be a part-time council.

Senator DOMENICI. I take it that you are not only an advocate of

home rule

'

but if you got home rule you would be an advocate of adequate pay for councilmen for the work they have to do in behalf of the

community so that anyone could serve, not only rich people?

Dr. ROBINSON. That is correct, sir. If the Council was going to be

part-time, a salary should be commensurate. As you said, there are

a lot of young folks, young married people that would be a great

asset on the Council. But they cannot afford to serve because of the

pay of $7,500 a year. So it seems that we people, either with professionals or retired or something like that are the only ones that are

eligible because of that fee schedule.
12

I think it is an injustice the salary they are paying the Council now.

We are getting the same amount that we did in 1967 and I understand

that all other Government employees have gotten at least a 30 percent pay raise by steps during that time.

Senator DOMENIC'. In your work on the City Council in the past

you have certainly come in contact with the various proposals for

home rule. I join with my distinguished chairman in being concerned

about your feelings on home rule. I am delighted to hear you say

that you are for the idea. But could I ask specifically: Aren't you

somewhat concerned about making sure that the city really has

enough power in this home rule grant to do what it must do? Doesn't

that concern you, that we aren't just passing on some concept without

real power in you to do your share in this dual kind of role? Is that

of a concern to you?

Dr. ROBINSON. Yes, sir. I think I tried to address myself to that

when Senator Eagleton spoke. We would like to have fully elected.

representatives. That is: A mayor, legislature, Senators, and Representatives and also have all of the other powers over which the

District of Columbia House Committee has control now.

I will give you an example. Several years ago Congress had to pass

a law to repeal the flying of kites in the District of Columbia. The

only taxing power that we have now is that of the property tax. I

would like the city government, to have all of the powers that the

House District Committee has now with probably oversight in the

Federal interest on the Federal budget.

I would not like to even see the House District Committee have

veto over any of the legislation of the District of Columbia. I think

we should be treated as a State and as citizens. We are the last colony,

the District of Columbia, but we are peculiar in that the Federal

City is here. I believe the Federal interest should be protected. But

at the same time, I think the Federal City has obligations of paying

for that real estate that they have here and the services they are

getting—police, fire, and the other public services.

Senator DOMENIC'. You would agree on the veto concept that you

just talked about, that if District law interfered with the ordinary

carrying on of the government at the national level because it imposed

traffic or impeded mobility or the like, that is an area we ought to be

retaining concern about. Is that what you are saying?

Dr. ROBINSON. Yes just like the States. Any Federal law would

supersede a local law, but in things pertaining to the District of Columbia, I think we should have complete control.

Senator DOMENIC'. Mrs. Ford, I understand you have had some

experience in minority business—at least from the standpoint of government. Is that right?

Mrs. FORD. Yes, sir. As a White House Fellow I chaired the Treasury Department's Minority Business Concessions Task Force, which

established concessions in the Treasury-owned and/or operated buildings. The first one was opened in Philadelphia last September and

dedicated by then Secretary of the Treasury Shultz.

Senator DOMENIC'. How long have you lived in the District area?

Mrs. FORD. I came to the District of Columbia on January 31, 1964.
13

Senator DOMENIC'. In my short time here, and what I have been

able to read, I find that most people think the problem of Washington's inner city is one of the economics flowing out away from it.

Business leaving it, employment other than government leaving it,

which is much the inner city problem nationally, perhaps magnified

here.

Would you share your observations on whether you think this is

a problem, and if so, do you have any ideas as to your role on the

Council in that regard?

Mrs. FORD. Insofar as economic development, that would perhaps

best describe it at this time, is the situation we are speaking of for

the District of Columbia. I do believe that one of the primary concerns for an urban area, and in this case the District of Columbia,

is its economic development. That means the ability of an area to

generate revenues, to also retain the revenues it does by virtue of sales,

not just retail but perhaps light industry in an area, in any way to

be able to generate revenues.

Yes; I do think economic development is one of the concerns. Specific answers as to how or what I would do on the Council I am not

prepared to say at this particular time. I am prepared to say that

T am willing and very much interested in working for the general

economic development for the District of Columbia.

Senator DOMENIC'. Do you believe that minority business opportunities should be an integral part of any such economic development

effort for this area?

Mrs. FORD. Yes. I believe businessmen should be encouraged to

come to the Washington area. Minority businessmen ought to be given

broad opportunities to develop and increase their size m the area of

the District of Columbia.

Also. I feel that terms of minority business development, it

should be looked on as one of the bases or one of the cornerstones for

development for the District of Columbia. With the population makeup as such as it is, this is an area we cannot afford to overlook.

Senator DOMEN-ICI. If in fact employment for young people 16-20,

in that area, is a problem, as I understand it is: Do you feel that government has a valid role in trying to help solve that problem?

Mrs. FORD. The problem of youth unemployment.

Senator DOMENIC". Youth opportunity for employment.

Mrs. FORD. Yes; I do. I think the Government certainly has a role

in helping solve this problem. Also, I think we should feel free to

call on our private sector, the local or area businessmen in the District

of Columbia, to assist in this also. But I frankly believe that the Federal Government has a role to play in employment of youth.

Senator DOMENIC'. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Robinson, Mrs. Selden, and Mrs.

Ford.

We have three. members of the City Council who wish to testify.

I will call them as a group, Mr. Nevius is the Chairman of the Council,

Mr. Meyers who is a member of the Council, and Mrs. Parker, who is

likewise a member of the Council.

98-088-73— 3
14

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. NEVIUS, CHAIRMAN; ACCOMPANIED BY

TEDSON J. MEYERS, MEMBER; AND MRS. MARJORIE PARKER,

MEMBER; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL

Mr. NEVIITS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me say how much

I appreciate your and Senator Domenici's working the hearing in at

such an early hour in order to make it possible at an early date. We

are very grateful for your scheduling this and the inconvenience that

you have gone to to be here at such an early hour in the morning.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify in behalf of the nominations

by the President of Mrs. Marguerite Selden and Mrs. W. Antoinette

Ford to serve as new members of the District of Columbia City Council, and the nomination of Dr. Henry S. Robinson to serve a second

full term on the Council.

I believe all three are well equipped to serve on the City Council

and I hope this committee will favorably pass on the nominations

and that the full Senate will quickly confirm them.

Dr. Robinson, whom I have known personally for a decade and

whose friendship I value, has been an able and effective councilman

since his first •appointment in 1969. He has been responsive to the

needs of the community and has worked diligently. His perspective

on matters involving health services and senior citizens is especially

important to the Council.

Both Mrs. Selden and Mrs. Ford are singularly qualified by background, educational training, and outlook to serve on the Council. I

am particularly pleased that their confirmation would result in three

women serving on the Council for the first time since the Reorganization Plan of 1967 created the Council-Mayor form of government

in the District. They would join Dr. Marjorie Parker, whose contributions to the Council have been important and integral to the

overall operation of the body. I am confident that Mrs. Selden and

Mrs. Ford will make similar contributions.

Mrs. Ford is a former director of the Institute for Services to Education. She holds a master's degree in oceanography—a subject she

has taught. She has served with distinction as a White House Fellow

and was instrumental in effecting a dramatic increase in Federal

money on deposit in minority banks.

Mrs. Selden was a District of Columbia Public Schools principal

for 10 years, an aide to the Superintendent of Schools in the District

for 6 years and retired last year as assistant superintendent for summer schools after 29 years with the system. She also supervised the

continuing education program and the Urban Service Corps. Both

Mrs. Selden and Mrs. Ford have been active in community affairs.

We have been too slow to recognize the value and the need for

women in government policymaking positions. Mrs. Ford and Mrs.

Selden have proved their ability, their talents are evident, and I would

welcome the privilege to serve with them as well as with Dr. Robinson.

I thank you for permitting this time to speak in their behalf, I would

be pleased to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

If all three of the nominees are confirmed: What will the political

mix be on the Council?

Mr. NEVIUS. There will be six Republicans and three Democrats,

Mr. Chairman.
15

The CHAIRMAN. That is the permissible ratio as established by law.

Mr. NEviu-s. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. It cannot be more than two to one.

Mr. NEVIUS. I think it says under the plan there cannot be more

than six from any one party.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Meyers?

Mr. MEYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Tedson Meyers. I am a resident of the District of Columbia and a member of the District of Columbia City Council. I

am one of the Democrats. I am privileged to support this morning the

nomination of the Honorable Henry Robinson to another 3-year term

as a member of the City Council to share our labors in behalf of the

city.

I have been a member of the friendly family Robinson for about

a year and a half and I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot imagine

the City Council without him. There is in Dr. Robinson not only the

'dedication and intelligence one would minimally expect in a member

of the Council; more important, there is an openness, a directness—

the unmistakable signs of a forthright person, confident of his abilities

but never overconfident—which make him a pleasure to claim as a

colleague.

Dr. Robinson is not afraid to take on the big assignments: The regulation of abortion clinics; regulation of health and food standards;

regulation of minimum standards of care and service to the city's

poor and those unable to help themselves.

This heavy schedule of activities the doctor carries on, despite recent surgery which, in an ordinary man, would leave him searching

for the exit from an increasing burden of responsibilities.

Yet I have observed that Dr. Robinson maintains his interest and

his commitment undiminished. He asks many questions—including

the hard ones requiring diligent research to answer. He is never possessive about the areas of his responsibility but asks for and seeks

a sharing of all Council members, their judgment as well as their work

in support of problems assigned primarily to him.

These are qualities, Mr. Chairman, which many legislators must recognize as indeed welcome in a colleague. Therefore, I respectfully ask

that his nomination to remain among us be approved.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Meyers.

Dr. Parker.?

Mrs. PARKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a

statement also in behalf of Dr. Robinson and that of Mrs. Selden as

well.

I am Council Member Marjorie Parker Chairman of the Department of Education and Psychology of the 

Parker,

of Columbia Teachers College. I consider it a distinct and unique pleasure to speak this

morning in support of Dr. Henry S. Robinson

'

Jr., to a third term

of service as a member of the City Council of the District of Columbia.

Dr. Robinso'l, a specialist in orthopedic medicine, has been a practicing physician in the District of Columbia for more than 35 years. He

has been ,an examining physician at Howard University and an instructor in the University's medical school. Dr. Robinson has always

maintained strong ties with the Washington community. He is a

fourth generation native of this city, and with his equally active wife,
16

is involved in programs and organizations too numerous to list, and

has accumulated a service record of which time will not permit even

a summary.

As a half-century resident of Washington

'

I have known and have

been happily associated with both Dr. and Mrs. Robinson in varied

activities. I can and do personally attest to Dr. Robinson's efficiency,

effectiveness, reliability, honesty, and ability as a leader, and to the fact

that these characteristics are always tempered by just the right touch

of humor.

In the 8 months of my service on the City Council, I have observed

the same characteristics in Dr. Robinson's discharge of his Council

responsibilities. Dr. Robinson serves as chairman of the Committee

on Health, Welfare, and Aged. In this very critical area where so

many issues of vital concern to our citizens have proven so emotional,

Dr. Robinson has a performance record of at least "9944A oo percent

perfect."

Dr. Robinson has proven himself dedicated, effective, and an eminently respected Council member. Without any reservation whatsoever, I strongly urge that the committee endorse the reappointment

of Dr. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to now speak in behalf of Mrs. Selden.

I have known Mrs. Selden and her lovely family, including her

mother—who are here this morning, incidentally—for more than 25

years. We are both graduates of Miner Teachers College, a predecessor

institution of the District of Columbia Teachers College, and have

been associated with her in public education in Washington for many

years. There are many adjectives I might use to describe Mrs. Selden

in trying to outline her qualifications, but I realize I am limited by

time, so I will mention only a few.

- First of all, Mrs. Selden is charming. In fact, some of her associates

say that she is almost a hypnotist in her ability to marshal cooperation in support of projects. Moreover, Mrs. Selden is efficient, she is

a creative thinker of unlimited energies. I believe that you have the

record of her rapid rise in the public school hierarchy from teacher

to associate superintendent, and the almost revolutionary impact she

had because of the community, programs which she developed during

those years.

Mrs. Selden is compassionate, she has a rare ability to empathize

with people and moves to meet needs without being maudlin or

sentimental.

Last October in hearings similar to this on my own nomination,

some members of this committee may recall that the single objection

to the three nominations then under consideration was that if the

three were approved, Council membership would then include only

one woman.

I would not suggest that there is necessarily a connection between

that testimony and the subsequent appointment of two new women

members, but I can and do state that Mrs. Selden is an eminently

qualified individual and, if approved, will do much to rectify the community's image of sexual imbalance on the Council.

I believe that Mrs. Selden has the experience, the training, the

energy, the disposition and the capacity to make many contributions

of service as a member of the City Council, and I do urge the speedy

confirmation of her nomination.
17

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Parker.

Mr. Nevius, while you are here could you address yourself, if you

have some awareness, to this dispute between General Quesada and the

Redevelopment Land Agency that has been lingering so long and that

so many of us would like to see resolved?

Mr. NEVIIIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of serving on

the RLA Board for 2 years along with Mr. Love who is subject of

the hearing this morning. It has been 2 years since I have been on

the RLA Board, so I don't have the recent information, but I am aware

of the background of it and of the difficulties.

I think that Mr. Love stated it very well, that in large measure it is

not a matter of money at all. It is a matter of issues—a matter of policy

disagreements. If I recall correctly, General Quesada has never filed

a bill, if you will, he has never sent a bill to RLA for money as such.

He feels that things have cost money in the past, but if I recall correctly from my tenure there, that is not the main concern that he has.

I am very pleased to hear that they are worki-ig on a solution that

if it is approved legally will finally resolve the dilemma.

It was definitely a matter of more than just money. In fact, my

impression was that the money aspect was almost secondary. There

were legal obstacles to resolving the differences.

T am very pleased that Mr. Love reported this morning that they

seem to be finding a way around those obstacles and that the thing

ean be resolved.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Domenici ?

Senator DOMENICI. I think we have enough time for me to depart

from the subject and ask you for an observation, if you would, please,

sir.

Back to home rule which we have been discussing. I think you know

that T have more than a passing relationship with cities. I was a mayor

and contrary to what you get for the 40-hour week, we are yet more

old-fashioned.

I was mayor for a 300,000 city for free. We considered it to be a

chamber of commerce type function. We hadn't changed the charter

in about 50 years. It still remains.

I am somewhat concerned about the distinct difference between

a charter for the District of Columbia and a statute creating home

rule. I am impressed with the idea that people of the District ought

to have more to say about its governmental structure and have more of

a vote than just for the Mayor, six Councilmen, pay, and legislative

and executive power.

I think they ought to vote on a lot of things that go into a charter

and then have the right to vote on changing that in an orderly manner.

What is the police chief? Many charters define him and people vote

on that. What is your feeling on that aspect of home rule having

served for a long time versus just the legislature saying, "You have

got this thing called home rule, but you are still tied to us up here."

Would you tell us about that?

Mr. NEVIUS. First of all, Senator, I have been a member of the Home

Rule Committee for over 20 years. At various points in time in our

efforts to achieve local self-government the concept of a charter commission with the responsibility of drafting a charter has been pro-
18

posed and there have been a number of bills along the trail of the last

20 years that have suggested that. Indeed, in 1965, I believe, one passed

the House.

It was inconsistent with the Senate bill which was a Mayor-City

Council bill that year, and the differences were never resolved.

But I personally feel that the charter concept is a very sound one

and could lead to both resolving the many important details about

local duties and local powers, as between an executive and a legislature, for example, and also it has the flexibility of which you speak.

The principal objection to the charter approach in the history of

the home rule effort in the District has been that inherently it requires

further delay. We have always been on the horns of this dilemma.

The principal charm of a bill that simply lays out the Mayor and

the City Council and other facets of it—the principal charm of it is

in one fell swoop, and if it were enacted by Congress tomorrow, that

would be it.

The concept of the charter approach would offer an opportunity

for very careful analysis and for citizen input, which is missing in

the direct enactment, but the general feeling has been the anxiousness

to get home rule that has made it, I guess you would say, an unpopular

approach in recent years since 1965.

Senator DOMENICI. Would you just give us your brief thoughts on

whether we could combine the best of those two worlds by proceeding

expeditiously with the Mayor-Council powers format and charge that

first group with setting up the Charter Commission to work out the

details and let the people vote yes or no on such a charter? Even if

they vote no we would have government. But we would have a year of

citizen input and analyzing the many detailed relationships that the

bills I have seen are ignoring in terms of the future of this urban

community, the Federal Government, and the urban community's

internal structure. What it really has power to do and not do, and

which of these current agencies that are now functioning will be indeed agencies after the legislation passes, and which the new Mayor

will have to recognize and which could be ignored.

We could analyze those in a charter mandate. Would you address

yourself to that?

Mr. NEvms. I think the two could be very readily combined with

an initial delegation of authority and responsibility and then provision for very careful and detailed analysis of the dividing of the responsibilities and the authorities within the local government.

I see no reason why they couldn't be combined.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I should point out for the record that the

bill reported out by this committee which sets up an initial structure

of government is flexible in permitting the changes in that structure

desired and even broad enough to permit the submission of a charter

to the people if that be the desire of the Council in order to effectuate

change.

Mr. NEVII7S. I think that is a very constructive approach, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DO1VIENICI. I think the only difference is that it permits it,

rather than saying you shall do it, as a mechanism.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Nevius, Mr. Meyers, and Dr.

Parker.
19

We now have a panel of three witnesses, Mr. Sidney Glee of Washington, D.C., Mrs. Annette C. Reid, and Dr. Jean Mosee, Washington,

D.C.

Mr. Glee?

STATEMENTS OF SIDNEY GLEE, ACTING CHIEF, COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT; MRS. ANNETTE C. REID,

STATE FEDERATION, BPW CLUBS, INC.; AND DR. JEAN C. MOSEE,

WASHINGTON, D.C. RESIDENT

Mr. GLEE. Gentlemen, it is a pleasure for me to be here today. I

am particularly grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the outstanding qualifications of Mrs. W. Antoinette Ford, nominee for the

District of Columbia City Council, whom I have known for 9 years.

Mrs. Ford is an unusual young woman whose vitality, initiative, and

imagination will contribute much to our City Council. She is interested in the broad range of the city's problems and has the energy and

deep concern to follow them through to a solution.

Although at 31, Mrs. Ford is younger than the average nominee to

the City Council, her professional background indicates her maturity.

She began her career as an oceanographer. In that demanding field,

in addition to accomplishing her regular duties in a superior manner,

she began a special program for minority youth.

She introduced them to science abroad ocean-going vessels where

most would not have had the chance to test their potential interest

or ability.

Later, Mrs. Ford was selected as a White House Fellow. As a Fellow she was assigned to the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury,

where she served both Secretary Connally and Secretary Shultz.

Such an appointment indicates that those who worked with Mrs.

Ford recognized her intellectual promise. It is important to note that

she has the capacity to master technically difficult fields and the flexibility to move from one area to another and perform with skill.

These qualities will serve her well on the City Council where she

will be called upon to make decisions in complex areas of urban

administration.

As a private citizen, Mrs. Ford has demonstrated her leadership

repeatedly. She is the founder and past president of the Black

Women's League, an organization providing opportunities for inner

city youth.

She is one of the sparkplugs for Africare, a group working to alleviate hunger and provide delivery of health services in developing

countries. She is on the board of Presidential Classroom which brings

high school children to Washington to get a firsthand view of

government.

Locally, one of her numerous programs was the development of a

Sea Explorer Program for the National Capital Area Boy Scouts.

interests

from 

overview indicates the broad range of Mrs. Ford's 

from the community to the international level. In the same way Mrs.

Ford shares with her husband, a native Washingtonian, concern about

all aspects of the quality of life in the city.

It is not unusual to see this involved southeast couple with their 4-
20

year-old daughter and her friends filling the car on their way to a

community event—a ball game, PTA affairs. This reflects the Fords active on-the-spot approach.

To conclude I would like to say that both personally and profes- sionally, I feel Mrs. Ford's most convincing characteristic as a nom- inee for the City Council is her sincere commitment to her fellow

man. Without this her intellectual and civic achievements would be meaningless in terms of what they would bring to the city. In my job

as acting chief of the Community Relations Division of the Department of Human Resources, I see every day the need for the kind of commitment and compassion I know Antoinette Ford will bring to the City Council.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Glee.

Mrs. Reid?

Mrs. REID. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear

before this committee this morning.

The official records contain evidence of a varied and rich background, including the education, talents, experiences, and administrative abilities of the nominee, Mrs. Antoinette Ford.

I wish to make a few statements about a few intangible observations

of the nominee as a person.

Mrs. Ford has an exceptional positive concept of self. This is viewed

as a human strength which enables an unusual awareness and understanding of others and regulates her involvements with them. She

is, therefore, able to relate to and work with all people.

In working with groups she emerges as a leader without effort despite her humility. She understands the importance of listening, sharing ideas

'

focusing on purposes, and making decisions which are

essential to group interaction.

In community work Mrs. Ford believes in first understanding the

basic essentials of all aspects which can only be obtained through information and study. With facts she moves to utilize the appropriate

resources that can be helpful in providing answers.

I testify that this warm, intelligent, and personable young woman

is extremely aware and knowledgeable about the District of Columbia

and its citizens. She has the capacity to undertake the responsibilities

assigned to her.

Thank you very much for permitting me to make this statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Reid.

Dr. Mosee ?

Dr. MOSEE. I am very pleased to be able to testify in behalf of Mrs.

Antoinette Ford, who is the nominee for the District of Columbia

City Council. As a resident of the southeast section of town she would

be sensitive to some of the problems peculiar to our area, but at the

same time she is broadminded enough and concerned about the citizenry at large as to be able to represent any so-called man from the

street.

I cannot imagine her ever being the tool of a special interest group.

I know that she is a thorough, industrious, scholarly person who reads

a great deal and would thus make a great effort to acquaint herself

in depth with all facets of the problems that will come before the

Council for consideration so that she can make the most intelligent

and fairest decision when called upon to vote on an issue.
21

Through conversation and observation of her, I can testify that she

is interested in all phases of urban problems, housing, ecology, good

schools, mass transit, health care delivery, consumer affairs, and the

like.

Most people who know her enjoy working with her as she is very

pleasant, interesting, and charming. She is a national diplomat, well

-bred, communicates easily with people, energetic and innovative

thinker, and outstandingly fair.

Without any reservations I would recommend that this nomination

be approved.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator Domenici ?

Senator DOMENICI. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you

very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Rev. Douglas Moore of the Black United Front.

STATEMENT OF REV. DOUGLAS MOORE, BLACK UNITED FRONT

Reverend MOORE. Again we come before this, the greatest deliberative

'

democratic body of the world. Yet we come as slaves in chains.

Land of the Pilgrims pride, land where our fathers paid the highest

price. Involuntary slavery, segregation, rape, racism, and murder.

Again we come here to watch you play games with black people.

But for the record we come. You take from us the right to govern

ourselves tax us like everyone else, send our sons to war, and yet deny

us the right to select our own representatives.

And like your cruel cousins in Europe and in Africa, you pick the

puppets to perform and play for you. The question has been raised

over and over again in the Watergate hearings: "Why didn't you

say 'No'? Why didn't you answer to a higher level ?" Just like they are

incapable of making the right decision in truth and honesty, this committee has consistently shown the same type of character.

The three persons the President selected should be turned down.

They are nothing more than three more puppets who will vote for

freeways, vote for weak rent control, and not make any waves.

The selection of these persons is an insult to every freedom-loving

person, every black man who has raised his voice in opposition to

injustice in this city, and to every black woman who has been involved in this city. We are sick and tired of the nice Negro being selected for us. We are sick and tired of Etta Horne and Mrs. Theresa

Jones of the southeast area being overlooked. We are sick and tired

of educated elitists being selected.

My brother Absalom Jordan is a registered voting Republican

whose representation is known, and yet we continually get the zeros.

Mr. Chairman, the Senate sent Robert Morrison's nomination back

to the President and the Black United Front opposed Mr. Morrison.

We suggest you do the same with these persons. Demand that the choice

reflects the will of the community, or better still, that you will no

longer be put in the position of being a colonial administrator or worse,

a whoremaster for Washington, D.C.

We note that it was not possible for us to appear here because of ,a

staff mixup when the Mayor came down. But when we began to look
22

very candidly and critically at the functions of the Mayor-Commissioner and the City Council, we found a great deal lacking.

For example, the Mayor approved the $275,000 contract that was

designed to reduce Federal City College to a junior college. This, to

our judgment, places him right in the hand of cooperation with Mr.

Ancher Nelsen, who wishes to reduce our only State liberal arts university to a junior college, while pretending to be a friend of the Washington Technical Institute. •

Yes, we need an MIT, but we also need a Harvard or a University

of St. Louis. When we look at the Metro, out of that $3 billion contract, only one-half of a half percent has gone to minority firms. Now

they are haggling over whether or not a black owned local firm will

get one little contract out of this sort of thing.

We feel that the kind of people that you have sent to the council

do not have the backbone or the pride to stand up.

We have some questions about Dr. Robinson's performance—particularly in the area of home care. We feel he has been very arrogant

and that he has not followed through in having hearings to give us

the kind of public care homes that we need. We can document cases

where there have been persons who under the administration of the;

city government have been pulled out of rest homes and have died because of the lack of care.

We also note that one Mrs. Fannie Byrd tried to go to the University

of Maryland and passed a test to be a registered, licensed home operator, but the city government under Dr. Robinson has thrown everything in her way to keep her from being a person of this sort.

We are facing tremendous problems with the impact in the terms.

of the 0E0 cutbacks in this city. Neither the City Council nor the

appointed Mayor-Commissioner have even thought about what happens when 20,000 people who were once employed through the 0E0

programs are put out. We think this is irresponsible. We think it is

something amiss because we have the kind of leadership that we have.

In our city government we have secrecy, we have taxes being surreptitiously raised on the property owners, whereas there are no public hearings. The Black United Front has repeatedly talked about the

secretiveness of the city government, but it was not until the taxpayers were victimized by this that they began to squawk.

When the gun control law came up it was enacted without public

debate. When the legal fare for D.C. Transit came up, it was enacted

without public debate.

We talk about economic development for the city, Mr. Chairman,

and we note in the city's budget for economic development, on page

20, that the Mayor-Commissioner and the Council have provided $275,-

000 for the renovation of the 0 Street Market, which is leased to a

white corporation

'

whose occupants are white, while not one dollar

has been provided for the burned-out 0 Street Market. To us this is

very unusual and smells of stink.

But we understand the role and function and having appointed persons who have no backbone. We see the Council of t-Governments as

being another formal way to dilute what we don't even have in the

District of Columbia—self-determination. Those programs for the

subway and what it will cost and who will bear the burden will be

determined by elected officials from Maryland and Virginia and not

from us.
23

There is no rent control because the Mayor said he is against it.

There is no no-fault insurance because he is against it, and we think

this is because it is out of deference to the big insurance corporations

and also the big real estate industry.

Mr. Senator, you suggested a tax some years ago on commuters. It

was a good move. But it was defeated not because of the poor peasant

from Virginia. It was defeated because the big insurance foreign

corporations in this city know that we wouldn't even have to ask you

for a Federal payment if we had the right to tax the foreign corporations who take the resourcces out of this city just as they do in Africa.

We have some concern about the Mayor when he appoints his friends

to the board of higher education. It is very strange to us that he could

appoint two persons: Dr. Newton and Mrs. Flaxie Pinkett to the

board of higher education and they live side by side. We cannot even

find a poor person to be represented on the board of education.

The same thing with these nominees. All educated elitists. They

are victims of selected inattention. We have people in this city who

could respond to some other kinds of needs.

The police department is a terrible bone of contention for this community. We have asked that they elect them. but no one seems to want

to have us to elect the police chief accountable to us because that

would stop the killing of innocent citizens, it would stop police brutality. Now they wish to give it to us through a Council.

And the judges in this system in this city—we would like to elect

our judges. But again, they want to give it to the Mayor-Commissioner.

We are opposed to this particular thing.

We feel that the people who have been selected lack knowledge, they

have no idea about revenue sharing and how revenue sharing has

brought the District government even to more control by the Congress of the United States.

This was demonstrated through Mr. Natcher's committee and the

proposed program of citizens participation has all kinds of quirks

that will kill the District of Columbia.

How can we amend our State charter to reflect certain kinds of

things in that bill? It is impossible, Mr. Chairman.

This is a broad shotgun approach, Mr. Chairman, of some of our

concerns and how we feel about this sort of thing. Oftentimes we

refuse to come down. In fact, we haven't been down to see you in 2

years. But every time I go to St. Louis I talk to my cousin about what

is going on in the District of Columbia because we feel it is almost

an exercise in futility and we resent it.

There is absolutely nothing we can do about this sort of thing but

raise our voice in protest. Our protest has nothing to do about the

character of the persons involved. They are good law-abiding, obviously, American citizens. We think it is time that the Congress of

the United States stop playing games with us and do as you did to Mr.

Robert Morrison, and send the nominees back—because you don't have

one poor person on that Council.

In fact, you have violated the law. You don't even have a representative of the State of which I am not a part, I am a registered Democrat.

But I think this Council has the responsibility to say something to the

President of the United States in the selection of our representatives

of the District of Columbia.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Reverend Moore.
24

What form or device of home rule do you support insofar as the

District of Columbia is concerned?

Reverend MOORE. If I had my ideal way, I would prefer we would

be like the States of Missouri or Colorado. For we are larger than

some States and pay more money, et 

cetera, 

and we function as a State

already. I think we ought to be a State—an independent State.

In Idaho you have some 12 million acres of Federal land. But that

does not keep them from being a State. That is my idea of the solution.

Then we would have two Senators who would sit in the Congress

of the United States and I wouldn't have to worry about other things

because they could take care of business if we had two Senators from

the District of Columbia sitting in the Senate. We could take care

of the other things.

If we have an elected home rule thing, I would prefer an elected

Mayor, an elected City Council, an elected Police Chief, and elected

judges. Also, I would prefer that if you do not give us the power

to tax the foreign insurance corporations and we can't pay for the

creation of the lottery in this community—when we ran for Congress

a couple of years ago we campaigned for the creation of off-track

betting, because if we had that, we wouldn't have to worry about your

coming to us.

We feel the people ought to have a choice to select their representatives and I would be opposed to any kind of compromise that would

build in the kind of thing that might be, say "Okay, we will give you

home rule and an elected Mayor provided you accept the current administration of the Mayor for 4 years."

I would be opposed to this because I think he has demonstrated his

incapacity to manage and even to speak on some of these issues.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you had occasion to examine the bill that

was reported out of this committee a week or so ago with respect to

home rule in the District of Columbia?

Reverend MOORE. Not in detail. I was looking at the one that Mr.

Diggs was proposing.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you remember the bill the Senate voted on

either a year or 2 years ago and passed and sent to the House?

Reverend MOORE. It was a good bill.

The CHAIRMAN. This year's bill is almost identical to it with some

slight variations, but almost identical to that bill. You thought the

one that passed the Senate a couple of years ago was a good bill?

Reverend MOORE. Yes; I did.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Domenici ?

Senator DOMENIC'. I understand in your summary you did say that

as for Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Selden that your objection was philosophical?

Reverend MOORE. Philosophical, absolutely.

Senator DOMENIC'. You were not suggesting to this committee that

there is anything wrong with their character or anything wrong with

their mentality in terms of education. Rather you think their status

in life makes them not representative of the poor people. That is basic-,

ally your objection?

Reverend MOORE. That is exactly correct.

Senator DOMENICI. On the other hand, you did address yourself to

Doctor Robinson who presently serves. I assume it would be fair to

say you were critical of his performance. Is that correct?
25

Reverend MOORE. On the question of health care. There are some

people that we have had to work with who have been, we think harassed

by the Department of Human Resources and by the failure of Doctor

Robinson's committee to be just.

Black people have a different concept of how we take care of the

aged. We can give you the names of persons because of their arrogance

of moving them out of home care and how the man died and how he

was unshaven—he died of a broken heart.

We think that the ladies, Mrs. Fannie Byrd, that those ladies had

performed the service and also had tried to meet whatever requirements there were, but even after she went to the University of Maryland and graduated as a licensed person, the District of Columbia

would not accept her because they are continually harassing her.

I might say, also, that the District of Columbia because it has got

a kind of bureaucracy has a tendency to harass people. They harass

local black business.

I know this from my own personal experiences because they are not

accountable, because the Mayor never has a public press conference.

Even Rizzo and the President and everybody else has public press

conferences. But there is nowhere in the record where the MayorCommissioner ever opens himself up to be questioned.

We can't impeach him, we can't get rid of him by petition, we can't

get rid of him by election. He stays there. We have some questions

about how certain agencies within the city government operate.

We raised a question a long time ago about corruption before it

finally came up. We asked questions about contracts in this city—

how they get them and who gets them. Certain building contractors

and the cost of what it costs to build a modern public school here in

the District of Columbia and what it costs in Baltimore—there

shouldn't be that much difference.

But we never get those hard questions from the City Council, from

the Mayor or anybody else.

Mr. Absalom Jordan is an expert on health care and Doctor Robinson's record. He was delayed this morning and he will submit documentations of why he feels that Doctor Robinson has failed.

Senator DOMENICI. You are really telling us that you want your

public officials in the District of Columbia elected. You want the District to have authority that other units of government in this country

have for its elected officials. Isn't that your principal complaint?

Reverend MOORE. Absolutely. No more, no less.

Senator DOMENICI. I think the fact that you can come here and

make the kind of statement you have made and make the accusations

that you have made, some of which I honestly believe are your own

ideas and assertions and perhaps not even provable, to me is a pretty

good indication of the kind of committee we have.

I would also like to say to you personally, as a U.S. Senator, that I

didn't come here to the Senate to play games with any people. There

are some comments by you about the character of this committee of

which I happen to be a member for a very short period of time. But

I didn't come here to play games with your people or with any people.

I think your complaint about the elected officials and the form of

government in the District is a longstanding one, and one that de-
26

serves very serious consideration. I don't think you should confuse

the difficulty in getting that from the collective U.S. Congress with

the quality, character, or desire of this Senate committee to do what

is right.

I thank you for your testimony.

Reverend MOORE. Before you came to this committee, Senator, I did

a long, exhaustive presentation to Senator Eagleton before of what

kind of home rule. I did an awful lot of research and did all of the

review. It was an exercise in futility, because we keep getting served

up the same thing.

The only thing that happened was that at that time we pointed

out the fact that the President had sent us two persons up who lived

next door to each other—President Johnson, I recall. We are constantly reminded of that sort of thing. If you want to have some additional facts on what we say—we can prove them.

Senator DOMENICI. I don't care to engage in a prolonged dialog. I

was just suggesting 

Reverend MOORE. I would love it because it is the only way we have

a chance to speak to you.

Senator DOMENICI. Just this one observation. Read the record where

certain distinguished U.S. Senators have a cause as much as you may

have a cause. They spend 16 years trying to get from the cause to a

bill to get through the Senate. They spend innumerable years of effort.

They end up being perfectly right. They were right 16 years ago.

But the process is a slow one. I remember Senator McClellan speaking of budgetary reform the other day, Mr. Chairman, he has been

advocating it in a certain way for some 16 years.

This committee should not be accused of playing games in that area

to which he is addressing himself. Nor should these nominees be put

in the position of being part of that long-standing problem. That is

why I specifically asked about their quality, their educational background, and their ability to serve under the present system.

With that I personally want to thank the witness for his appearance here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Reverend Moore, let me say this. You said your

presentation to the committee on previous occasions with respect to

home rule is an exercise in futility and yet you said the bill we reported out last year and passed in the Senate was a good bill.

Reverend MOORE. Exercise in futility—by this I didn't want you to

pass on the person. Keep the people out of the positions because they

aren't very useful anyway, and let the pressure build up for us to

have the right to govern ourselves.

If you take any of these three nominees and put them out in a preelection tomorrow, they couldn't win a dog's race. That is for the record. Make a survey. We feel there is an inside use sort of thing that

happens, that you keep appointing people to the Council and you

give up enough time to give them enough public image so that if we

might get home rule we can do that.

'We are going to continue fighting. We appreciate your effort. It

really gets to me when I think of a woman like Mrs. Jones who has

worked in that southeast area, who is a tremendous technician, and

she was never even considered.
27

When I think of Mrs. Etta Horne who lives in that area, and could

give us a different perspective. I, myself, finished 12 years beyond

high school. I am elitist—I guess you could call it. I have a problem

with that. I don't think all of the Senators here are university or

college graduates or all of the Members of the House. Yet, you have

given us this sort of thing.

I don't think there is any correlation between your capacity to think

creatively because how far you have been in education.

That is why I was raising the question about the education, you

see. I think that is kind of an irrelevant thing. I want to see the performance, how you think and where you come out on the issue.

I think the President according to the enabling act was supposed

to be representative. We don't have a single person in public housing

on this Council. We don't have a single person who is so-called poor,

who has not been distilled through the system. How can this be representative government? That is my concern. It is not representative.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Reverend Moore.

I understand Mr. Henley wishes to testify.

Good morning, sir.

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN I. HENLEY, RETIRED VICE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Mr. HENLEY. Senator Eagleton, Senator Domenici I appreciate the

opportunity to speak in support of the nomination of Mrs. Marguerite

C. Seidel) to the City Council of the District of Columbia.

I have known Mrs. Selden primarily through my association with

her as an employee of the public schools of the District of Columbia,

which she served as a teacher, as an elementary school principal, and

as the assistant superintendent in charge of a complex school department—the Department of Summer Schools, Continuing Education

and Urban Service Corps.

In these public school assignments, Mrs. Selden was responsible

for the development of educational programs for preschool children

for elementary school children; for adults, who needed basic education; for adults, who were welfare department clients; for Spanishspeaking adults in need of basic education; and for those students

who needed after school day care.

Over and above these responsibilities, Mrs. Selden was the Superintendent's representative on the District of Columbia's Advisory.

Committee on the Aging, the President's Committee on Mental Retardation and the District of Columbia Commission on the Status of

Women.

Even beyond this, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Selden has served as president of the Parkside Civic Association.; as a volunteer in the meals

on wheels program; and, during this year, as a consultant, planning

the establishment of the 1VUL prep school—a school for dropouts

and underachievers between the ages of 15 and 19 years which is located in the near Northeast area of 'Washington, D.C.

I cite these aspects of Mrs. Selden's career because they highlight

the fact that she has had experience as an employee of the city govermi,,iit that she has been completely involved in the life of the community as a citizen and that she has had responsibility for the
28

development of programs for many different segments of our community ranging from the very young to the aged, for welfare clients, for

the Spanish-speaking citizens, for school dropouts and for the mentally

retarded.

So, Mr. Chairman, she is experienced, knowledgeable, involved, and

committed to the solution of problems affecting the lives of the citizens

of the District of Columbia and I urge that her nomination to the

City Council of the District of Columbia be endorsed by your committee.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Henley.

Senator Domenici ?

Senator DOMENICI. I have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anybody else here present who would desire

to testify in favor of or against the nominees to the District of Columbia City Council?

Yes, madam. Come forward, please.

Would you give your name and address for the record.

STATEMENT OF DR. DONNA ALLEN, WOMEN'S INSTITUTE

FOR THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Dr. ALLEN. I am Dr. Donna Allen of the Women's Institute for the

Freedom of the Press. I would like to say I recognize that the Senate business changes from day to day, but I would like to say that there

were at least five groups—women's groups—that I know of who asked

to testify. including myself. At least three of us that I know of were

called back and told that we couldn't. So we weren't prepared.

Now, we could put something in the record. But at that time it was the reason given us that there was too much pressing business. Now

I recognize some things change, but I think we might have been noti- fied. We also feel strongly about the District of Columbia Council.

We would hate to see this committee only hear generally when so

many groups are so violently interested in what is happening.

My testimony is in regard to women who are nominated. As you

may recall from last September when I testified, it was particularly

because our interest is in the cable television system that the District of Columbia Council is going to be deciding on, and any system of communication for the people in the District of Columbia. These are

so vitally important that we must all make a special effort to see that the District of Columbia Council is properly represented.

I would like to make five very brief points, and I will be brief because I do appreciate your asking for people to come, even though you had not scheduled me.

The first point that I want to make in urging confirm,tion of the two women is that these are extremely and unusually fine women. Their record is before you and I will not go into that. It would be needless duplication. Except that I would like to commend the selec- tion of these and urge their nomination.

The second point I would like to make is that we need their con- firmation because we need more women on the District of Columbia Council. Eight to one is the present female-male ratio on the Council. It is a disgrace. Almost as much as the disgrace of that of the Senate of the United States, which has 100 men and no women.
29

But this nomination will make the ratio 6 to 3 on the District of

Columbia Council—which is a great improvement. But I would like

to suggest that since the Senate has the duty to advise as well.as .to

consent, that your committee advise the President that the District

of Columbia Council still is not representative of the District. There

should be at least one, and preferably two more—because after all

women are the majority—appointees to the Council. I don't know what

your procedure is that you go through to advise and consent, or reject

and accept, or whatever the procedure is. You can recommend to the

President or recommend to the Senate that we need still more women

on the Council.

My third point is that they should be confirmed because of the fact

that this begins to break a quota system on the District of Columbia

Council. A quota is any artificially determined ratio of people. As

long as there are more men on the Council than in the natural population, we have a quota system in effect. And we would like to say

that since the proportion in the city, in the District of Columbia, is at

least 50 percent, even a little more, there should be at least 50-percent

women, or else you are following a quota system. This would break

the quota system and begin to get a more natural representation of

the population.

The fourth point I would like to make is that these appointments

will set a standard for many of the other boards and commissions

in this city that carry on a geat deal of the business of the District

of Columbia but that are, in many cases, totally male, but in very few

cases are really representative. Yet they take up many issues that are

extremely important to women as well as men in the District of

Columbia.

It will also be a model for other actions in the District of Columbia

as a part of the individual citizens, such as women feeling like they

can take part in activities because we have a District government,

or at least the appointed Council does have women as well as men,

and women should not be excluded.

The final point I want to make is confirming these two women. I

would like to urge your recommendation to the Senate on the grounds

that the women alone bring with them certain attributes that will be

a great help to the District of Columbia which you are lacking now.

That is, a sense of gentleness, a sense of accommodation, a sense of the

viability of decisions they make, and particularly a feeling for the

very great importance of communication among the citizens of the

District of Columbia.

That is our primary concern in testifying, and I would urge as

author of all these reasons that you recommend to the Senate that

they accept the nomination and make these two women members of

the District of Columbia Council.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator Domenici ?

Senator DOMENICI. I would just like to ask one question, madam.

You do say that the women's groups that had been discharged in

this case were going to appear to testify in favor of the nominees?

Ms. ALLEN. Yes, they were. We were heartily in favor of it.

Senator DoivrtNici. Thank you very much.
30

Mr. Chairman, might someone on the staff explain the discouragement of the groups as alleged by Dr. Allen?

The CHAIRMAN. It is my understanding that the several groups

which were to testify have the alternative to submit their statement

in a prepared form for the record. Most people who have watched

me conduct these hearings now for about 2 years know that I permit

anyone to testify in the hearing. We don't try to have exclusive presentations. It is my understanding that some of the other groups wish

to prepare their testimony and submit it in prepared form for the

record.

Senator DOMENIC'. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. SO I will repeat again, is there anybody else here

present that would desire to testify in connection with the three nominations that we have before us for the District of Columbia City

Council?

The other groups will submit a statement: The Washington Area,

Citizens, the D.C. Women's Political Caucus, and the D.C. Commission on the Status of Women.

The previous witness was the spokesman for the Womens Institute

for the Freedom of the Press. We will keep the record open for 5 days

for the submission of any statement that any individual wishes to

submit for the record.

With that we will conclude these hearings on the District of Columbia nominations.

[Whereupon, at 10 :05 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]

[The following material was presented for insertion in the record.]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAXINE H. JACKSON, RESIDENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

I am Maxine H. Jackson, a mathematician with the National Oceanographic

Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department

of Commerce, and a resident of Washington, D.C.

It is with great pleasure, that I appear before this Committee to speak in

support of the nomination of Mrs. Antoinette Ford for a position as a member

of the City Council of the District of Columbia.

Mrs. Ford and I became acquainted while she was employed as an Oceanographer at the National Oceanographic Data Center. I found Mrs. Ford to be

a capable, sincere and conscientious worker—fulfilling her assignments responsibly and with excellence.

Mrs. Ford's professional background also includes working with the Ogden

Corporation. This program involved the introduction of Oceanography to disadvantaged youth with the aim of their becoming Oceanographic Aides. She

was involved in the formatting of the program, instructions in the various phases

of Oceanography and counseling of the youth.

Mrs. Ford furthered her professional experience by serving as a White House

Fellow. She was selected from a number of applicants from all over the country.

During her internship as a White House Fellow, she was assigned to the staff

of the Secretary of the Treasury. In this position, Mrs. Ford was able to travel

extensively in the states and abroad and subsequently became interested in black

enterprises as well as the economic progress of underdeveloped nations.

Mrs. Ford has also been involved in many community activities. She was

one of several professional women who undertook the task of working with

young women in the Shaw area. The main emphases were to instruct these girls

in sewing, cooking and personal appearance as well as to introduce them to

various types of careers.

Mrs. Ford is a woman of character and highest integrity. I am sure if confirmed she will add broad experiences and tremendous insight to the City Council.
31

PREPARED STATEMENT OF 3. C. TURNER, GENERAL SECRETARY-TREASURER,

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS

Alfred P. Love and I have been close friends for the past seventeen years. He

is a fine gentleman and an outstanding citizen of our city.

His efforts in behalf of the poor and the underprivileged have been substantial

and have borne fruit. He has been a sensitive, compassionate, and conscientious

member of the Redevelopment Land Agency Board. Washington needs his continued input in the work of the Redevelopment Land Agency.

We urge that your honorable committee adopt a favorable report on his conLrrnation for reappointment.

LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL, AFL-CIO,

Washington, D.C., June 15, 1973.

Senator THOMAS F. EAGLETON,

Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: Mr. Alfred P. Love has been nominated for reappointment to the

District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency and is scheduled to appear

before your committee. It is the wish of the Laborers District Council of Washington, D.C. and Vicinity AFL—CIO that your committee will report favorably

to the U.S. Senate.

FRANCIS L. GREENFIELD,

President.

HARRISON COMMUNITY SCHOOL,

Washington, D.C., June 22, 1973.

Hon. THOMAS F. EAGLETON,

Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR EAGLETON : I am writing in support of the appointment of Mrs.

Marguerite C. Selden to the City Council of Washington, D.C.

I have known Mrs. Selden for over thirty years. I wish to address myself

to her service as principal of the Harrison Elementary School where I worked

with her daily as a teacher. As the principal, she not only set high standards

for the children academically, she was greatly concerned about the human needs

of her children, parents and teachers. Her warm personality and sincere interest in children drew parents into the school activities that had never felt

welcome before in a school building.

Mrs. Selden was a pioneer in outdoor education for our children and parents.

She wrote the proposal and obtained the funds for our first experience in camping. All of our fourth, fifth and sixth grade children had the opportunity to live

and learn in the great outdoors. Parents also had an opportunity to spend time

there. As a result of her efforts there is a city wide program in the Catoctin

Mountains for D.C. children to participate in outdoor education.

Mrs. Selden knew every family in the school area. She spent long hours beyond her normal duty to find solutions for mothers in crisis situations. When

she could find no other solution for the hungry and evicted, she has spent her own

money to help.

She has been an inspiration for service to the community to me. She firmly

believes in the philosophy of the Community School. As a result Harrison School

now serves the community in five centers from eight in the morning until sixthirty in the evening. All of this came about because of her. Some of the parents

who were on welfare when she came to Harrison now are off of the welfare

rolls with meaningful jobs in the community. She is well known, respected

and much beloved in our community. We have named a teen girls' house for her.

We have followed her career with pride since she left our school. We fervently

hope that her appointment to the City Council is confirmed.

Very truly yours,

GLADYS P. HARRIS,

Community School Coordinator.
32

ARCHDIOCESE OF WASHINGTON,

CATHOLIC OFFICE OF EDUCATION,

Washington, D.C., June 14, 1973.

Senator THOMAS EAGLETON,

Chairman, Senate Committee for the District of Columbia, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR EAGLETON : I am writing in support of the appointment of MTS.

Marguerite Selden to the District of Columbia City Council.

I have known Mrs. Selden for approximately ten years. As her pastor for three

of those years, I can testify to her integrity and outstanding qualities of character and personality.

Moreover, my duties as Director of Education for the Archdiocese of Washington brought me in contact with Mrs. Selden when she was principal of the Harrison School and later when she was appointed Assistant Superintendent

of Schools. In both cases we worked closely and cooperatively in providing serv- ices for disadvantaged children in the city. I have been impressed by Mrs. Selden's high motivation and goals which have always been accompanied by prac- tical good sense. She has a deep respect for the dignity of human persons and

a keen understanding of the need to make it possible for people to achieve and maintain self respect.

Absence from the city during the week the hearing is scheduled will make it impossible for me to attend personally. However I offer this statement for the record. I believe Mrs. Selden's interest, knowledge and experience qualify her eminently for a position on the Council. It is a pleasure to recommend to you with enthusiasm the confirmation of her appointment.

Sincerely yours,

Rev. Msgr. THOMAS W. LYONS,

Secretary for Christian Education.

BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA

Washington, D.C., June 15, 1973.

ANDREW E. MANATOS,

Associate Staff Director, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: This telegram is to urgently request the reappointment of Alfred

P. Love as a member of the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency.

Mr. Love has demonstrated and proven his capabilities to handle this posi- tion. We have found him to be most fair and impartial in his role as a member

of the DCLRA. We, therefore, strongly request your consideration to support

Mr. Love's reappointment to this important job.

THOMAS F. MURPHY,

President.

LABORERS,

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,

Washington, D.C., June 18, 1973. ANDREW E. MANATOS,

Associate Staff Director, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I wish you would bring the contents of this wire to the attention of Senator Eagleton as chairman of the committee, and the other members of the committee as well, pointing out that I sincerely urge the reappointment of Mr. Alfred P. Love as a member of the District of Columbia Redevlopment Land Agency. Several years ago I appeared as a witness for and on behalf of Mr. Love at a similar hearing chaired by Senator Bible, and I again press for the reap- pointment of Mr. Love. He is a most competent, educated and earnest knowl- edgeable citizen of the District of Columbia and I am sure will continue to do an excellent job if reappointed.

Sincerely,

LEO NAZDIN,

Director.
33

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AFL-CIO

Washington, D.C., June 18, 1973.

Mr. THOMAS F. EAGLETON,

,Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.& Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIB: We urge the reappointment of Alfred P. Love as a member of the

District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency. He is scheduled to appear

before your committee June 19, 1973.

Kind regards,

DON SLAIMAN,

Director.

NOMINATIONS TO SUPERIOR COURT, CITY COUNCIL,

AND REDEVELOPMENT LAND AGENCY

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1973

U.S. SENATE,

COIVIMPITEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 6226,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Thomas F. Eagleton (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senator Eagleton.

Staff present: Andrew E. 1Vranatos, associate staff director; and Colbert I. King, minority staff director.

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

The Committee on the District of Columbia is now open to take

testimony in connection with the nomination of two judges for the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

According to rule XXXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,

"When nominations shall be made by the President of the United

States to the Senate, they shall . . . be referred to appropriate committees; and the final question on every nomination shall be, Will the

Senate advise and consent to this nomination?'"

This morning's hearing is for the purpose of taking testimony regarding the nominations of the Honorable Orman W. Ketcham and

the Honorable Edmond T. Daly to be associate judges of the Superior

Court of the District of Columbia.

Both men are presently serving as associate judge of the Superior

Court of the District of Columbia and are being nominated for reappointment.

At this time in today's proceedings, I would like to enter biographical sketches of both nominees into the record.

We will take Judge Ketcham first.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JUDGE ORMAN W. KETCHAM

Judge Orman W. Ketcham was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., is married

and has four daughters.

He received his bachelor of arts degree from Princeton University

where he graduated cum laude in 1940. His legal education was interrupted in 1941 by World War II during which time he served as a

lieutenant commander. Judge Ketcham graduated from Yale Law

School in 1947.

His employment experience includes the Covington & Burling law

firm, the Fund for the Republic, the Foreign Operations Administration, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, a

(35)
36

judge of the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia, adjunct professor of law at Georgetown

i

University and the University of Virginia Law School and s presently an associate judge of the Superior

Court of the District of Columbia.

Judge Ketcham has written many Law Review articles as well as

.contributed to two books.

His extra-professional activities are too numerous to mention. They

include being president of the National Council of Juvenile Court

Judges and delegate to the Third United Nations Congress on the

Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JUDGE EDMOND T. DALY

Judge Edmond T. Daly was born in New York City. He graduated

from the University of Maryland with a bachelor of science degree in

1937 and received his LL.B. from Catholic University Law School in

1947.

Judge Daly accumulated an extraordinary record of athletic accomplishments while a student at the University of Maryland—receiving his letter in three sports.

His employment experience includes work at McCormick & Co. of

Baltimore, United Clay Products Co. in Washington, D.C., the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission in Montgomery

County, Md., the Air Transport Association in Washington, D.C.,

part ownership in R. Robinson, Inc., of Washington, D.C., the general practice of law in Washington, D.C., Chief of the District of

Columbia Court of General Sessions Division of the U.S. Attorney's

Office and is presently an associate judge of the Superior Court of the

District of Columbia.

Judge Daly has had a number of his legal opinions published in the

Washington Law Reporter and is a member of a number of civic and

professional organizations.

Would both of the nominees come forward? Judge Ketcham and

Judge Daly please.

Judge Ketcham, when were you first appointed to what is now

called the Superior Court?

STATEMENT OF ORNIAN W. KETCHAM, NOMINEE, ASSOCIATE JUDGE,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (REAPPOINTMENT)

Judge KETCHAM. I was first appointed to the bench in May of 1957,

to the then juvenile court by President Eisenhower. That was for a

6-year term.

I was reappointed in May of 1963, still to the juvenile court by

President Kennedy, and that appointment was in effect converted to

my present status in the Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act

of 1970, and that court was merged into the new Superior Court of

the District of Columbia.

The CHAIRMAN. From 1957 to 1970—that is, from the time you went

on the Bench, to 1970, at the time of the Court Reform and Criminal

Procedure Act, was your judicial experience for those 13 years confined specifically to juvenile work?

Judge KETCHAM. It was confined to the juvenile court but the juve-
37

nile court was not confined exclusively to juvenile work. About a third

of the business was the jury trial of paternity cases, and some of the

business had to do with the criminal nonsupport procedures of that

court and neglect and abusement cases. Most of it, however—probably 50 percent, or a little better—was concerned with juvenile delinquency and dependency cases.

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Since 1970, when the Court Reform and

Criminal Procedure Act became operative, had your judicial assignments as a member of the District of Columbia Superior Court been

brought out beyond the juvenile field?

Judge KETCHAM. Yes. I requested the chief judge, when I became

a member of the Superior Court, not to be assigned any longer in the

juvenile court for the present, in order to broaden my experience and

so that I did not become typecast. My experience since then has been

about 40 percent in civil trials and about 60 percent in criminal work.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Judge KETCHAM. And not in juvenile in order to balance.

The CHAIRMAN. And did criminal work include both felonies and

misdemeanors?

Judge KETCHAM. The only parts of felonies that I have dealt with

so far have been preliminary hearings and arraignments. I expect to

be sitting in felony trials for 6 months beginning about the 1st of

September—I hope.

The CHAIRMAN. Just for my edification, how many judges at any

given time were assigned to juvenile work in the court reorganization

plan?

Judge KETCHAM. It varies with the judges available, but I believe

that they run 10 to 12 judges of the 45.

The CHAIRMAN. And they would be focusing pretty much exclusively on juvenile and related problems?

Judge KETCHAM. We have the family division. The family division also includes domestic relations matters.

The CHAIRMAN. The 10 to 12 would include not only juvenile but

divorce cases?

Judge KETCHAM. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. And related matters?

Judge KETCHAM. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. How many judges totally are there in the Superior

Court of the District of Columbia?

Judge KETCHAM. Forty-four or 45, I forget which it is.

The CHAIRMAN. How many are customarily assigned to the trial

of criminal cases or the handling of criminal cases?

Judge KETCHAM. Again it's an estimate, and it varies, but I would

think that it is in the nature of 20, with the balance taking care of

essentially civil. We have really three major divisions:Criminal—

which uses up the talents of about 20 of our judges on a regular basis.

Of course, in the summertime with judicial schools and vacation, it is

less; the family—which uses up about 10; and the civil—which uses

up somewhere, I would say, in the neighborhood of seven to eight as a

usual rule.

An then you've got some special matters, such as tax. We are taking

on mental health work. I think it is the 1st of August. The court also

accepts probate work that is coming over from the U.S. District Court.
38

But roughly speaking, it would be about half the judges in criminal,

and the other half divided between family matters, civil matters, and

the other parts of our system.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Judge.

Judge KETCHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF EDMOND T. DALY, NOMINEE, ASSOCIATE NUDGE,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (REAPPOINTMENT)

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Daly, when were you appointed to the

bench?

Judge DALY. I was appointed on May 17, 1963.

The CHAIRMAN. What court was that then—general sessions?

Judge DALY. That was then the general sessions court, that is true.

The CHAIRMAN. And were you reappointed, or is this the first—

Judge DALY. This is it.

The CHAIRMAN. This is it?

Judge DALY. It was a 10-year appointment at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Ten years.

Judge DALY. As a matter of fact, Judge Ketcham and myself appeared, as we do today, in May.

The CHAIRMAN. In May of 1963?

Judge DALY. 1963; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, what is the nature of your judicial assignments for the 10 years that you have been on the bench, Judge? Have

you occupied the full 

Judge DALY. Criminal.

The CHAIRMAN. Primarily criminal?

Judge DALY. Yes, sir. But I have been in all divisions except the

family division. I spent about 2 weeks in family.

The CHAIRMAN. Did they drive you bananas, so you got out of there?

Judge DALY. Thank God, that is as many times that I have been

assigned there, about 2 weeks, but my specialty is criminal law.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you practice criminal law?

Judge DALY. I did some. As a matter of fact, I had a criminal -

general practice of law, but I did some criminal work. But then, of

course, I was, you know, in the U.S. attorney's office for a period of

about 7 years, so my total concentration was on criminal matters.

The CHAIRMAN. During those 7 years in the U.S. attorney's office,

did you try a great number of criminal cases?

Judge DALY. Yes; I had considerable trial experience both as a

defense counsel and as prosecutor.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your age, Judge?

Judge DALY. I am 60.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Ketcham, how old are you?

Judge KETCHAM. Fifty-four. I will be 55 in October.

The CHAIRMAN. I forget—under the act we did write a mandatory

retirement age. Do you have any idea 

Judge KETCHAM. Seventy.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the term now for judges-15 years?

Judge KETCHAM. Fifteen years, or until 70 whichever comes first.

The CHAIRMAN. You will retire, Judge Daly, after your 15 years?

Judge DALY. I will be ready at 70.
39

The CHAIRMAN. Do either of you gentlemen have anything that you

would like to say to the committee for purposes of the record. You are

free to so do if you desire—any statement that you may wish to make—

we will be pleased to have.

Judge DALY. I have nothing to say.

• Judge KETCHAM. No, sir. I appreciate being here, and I know that

your time is precious, and I look forward, that if it is the wish of the

Senate, to serving further in the court.

' The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Judge Ketcham; thank you, Judge

Daly. I appreciate your appearances here this morning.

Mr. George E. Monk, Vice Chairman of the Judicial Selection Committee of the District of Columbia Bar Association.

Good morning, Mr. Monk.

:STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. MONK, VICE CHAIRMAN, JUDICIAL

SELECTION COMMITTEE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR ASSOCIATION

Mr. MONK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

My name is George E. Monk, and I am Vice Chairman of the Ju-

.dicial Selection Committee of the District of Columbia Bar _Association.

We consider both Judge Ketcham and Judge Daly to be able and

industrious judges and both possessed of good, judicial temperament.

We feel that they should continue on the bench, and we firmly rec-

.ommend that they be confirmed. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Monk. What does the Judicial Selection Committee of the District of Columbia Bar Association really

? You don't participate in the selection process of the judges, do

you?

Mr. MONK. No; we don't. Of course, the selection process is done by

the Department of Justice.

The CHAIRMAN. Right.

Mr. MONK. We comment on them—that is on new appointments—

and we also make comments.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the Department of Justice ever confer with

you or your committee or members of your association in advance of

the appointment to get a preliminary analysis of the prospective

nominee?

Mr. MONK. No; they don't.

The CHAIRMAN. But in some judicial plans in some States it is done?

Mr. MONK. At the present time, the system is much like that used

for the American Bar Association, where the Department of Justice

does the appointing of men. We say whether we think they are qualified or not, and with a sitting judge we may go into a little bit—we

really don't do anything until the Department of Justice acted—at

least in this present case.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a little easier to appraise the capabilities or the

lack thereof of a sitting judge than a fresh nominee?

Mr. MONK. It is very much so; it is more likely that in the case of the

sitting judge our opinion would be based upon much more factual experience than in the case of a nominee—many of whom we don't know.
40

The bar association has about 4,400 members, and most of the practicing bar is in the association. We feel that they are qualified to speak

on the sitting judge. And in this case we firmly believe that both of

these gentlemen should be reappointed.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Monk.

Mr. Charles Duncan, president, New Unified District of Columbia

Bar.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES T. DUNCAN, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA BAR

Mr. DUNCAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I have a short statement which I would like to read into the record with your permission.

The CHAIRMAN. Very good.

Mr. DUNCAN. My name is Charles T. Duncan. I am an attorney in

private practice and president of the District of Columbia Bar and

was formerly Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia.

I am pleased and honored to have this opportunity to appear before

you this morning to testify in support of Judge Ketcham's nomination as an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of

Columbia.

I have known Judge Ketcham since his appointment in 1957 as

judge of the former Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia, and I

have appeared before him on numerous occasions. Throughout the

years, as a private practitioner and as a member of the old Juvenile

Court Advisory Committee, as principal assistant U.S. Attorney in

the District of Columbia and as Corporation Counsel, I have had occasion to work with Judge Ketcham on a variety of matters involving

the administration of justice in this jurisdiction.

Based on that background and personal experience, as well as on

the judge's reputation in the legal community, I support Judge Ketcham's nomination without qualification, and respectfully urge this

committeee to confirm him.

To me, one of the judge's most impressive accomplishments occurred early in his judicial career. At the time of his appointment as

sole judge of the juvenile court, that court did not have an enviable

reputation. The rights of juveniles were frequently disregarded. Delay

rather than dispatch was the accepted procedure. There were large

case backlogs and litigants. Government personnel and attorneys were

treated rudely by many of the court's staff. It is not an exaggeration

to say that an appearance in juvenile court at that time was a demeaning experience.

Within months of his elevation to the bench, Judge Ketcham administratively reorganized the court and instituted procedures and

practices which eliminated the existing abuses and transformed the

court into a meaningful place of justice with concern and fairness to

all who 'appeared there.

In this process, Judge Ketcham manifested those qualities of wisdom, intelligence, and compassion which earned the highest respect of

all who came into contact with him—qualities which are now associated with his name and which are taken for granted in his case.

The same willingness and determination to see that justice is done,

with concern for the rights of all and with concern for decency as well

as the practical, were exhibited repeatedly in my many contacts with
41

the judge as principal assistant U.S. Attorney, at the time when waiver

of jurisdiction procedures from juvenile to U.S. District Court were

undergoing substantial change. Many seemingly vexing problems were

presented, but Judge Ketcham unfailingly approached them with wisdom and calm practicality. I had the same experience with him as

Corporation Counsel—when my assistants were the prosecutors in his

.court.

I have said enough, I think, to indicate to this committee that I have

the greatest respect for Judge Ketcham's wisdom, integrity, and judicial ability. I wish him a speedy confirmation.

Were it possible, I would also bring the formal support of the District of Columbia Bar. I am unable to do so, however, because the

District of Columbia Bar, a new entity, is just commencing its second

year and is still in the process of internal organization. Procedures

for judicial selection and support of judicial nominations have not

yet been adopted, and for that reason the mechanism does not exist

at this time to support this nomination or indeed any other nomination. This state of organizational development or underdevelopment

does not, of course, carry the slightest negative implication with respect to the nomination now before you.

Thank you for your courtesy and for this opportunity to appear

before you.

I wasn't asked, Mr. Chairman, and I indeed did not know that Judge

Daly was up for confirmation, or reconfirmation, today.

When I was in the U.S. attorney's office as principal assistant, he

was chief of the criminal division in the then Superior Court, and I

certainly—based on my experience with him and having observed

him on the bench and also having appeared before him—give him my

unqualified support.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Gilbert Gude of Maryland's Eighth

District has contacted this committee, indicating that though he cannot appear personally, his is submitting a letter in support of the

nomination of Judge Ketcham. Congressman Gude's letter will be

made part of this hearing record.

[The letter referred to follows:]

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 24, 1978.

Hon. THOMAS F. EAGLETON,

Chairman, Senate District of Columbia Committee,

'6222 New Senate Office Building,

-Washington, D.C.

DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: I am most pleased to speak in support of the confirmation of the Honorable Orman W. Ketcham as an Associate Judge of the Superior

'Court of the District of Columbia.

Judge Ketcham possesses the great respect of his community and public

officials and retains the years of his judicial experience on this Court. Since the

Court Reform Act of 1970 he has served on the Superior Court and previously he

served on the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia since 1957.

During his years on the court as well as in his previous private practice and

federal government service, he has always performed distinguished service on

the bench as well as in advisory capacities related to juvenile causes, law enforcement and the administration of justice.

I am privileged and honored to commend Judge Ketcham most highly to this

Committee for his confirmation as Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the

District of Columbia.

Sincerely,

GILBERT GUDE.
42

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Alan Bible of Nevada, former chairman of

this committee has submitted a letter in support of Judge Daly's nomination. Senator Bible's letter will also be made a part of the record.

[The letter referred to follows:]

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 25, 197.

Hon. THOMAS F. EAGLETON,

Chairman, District of Columbia Committee,

Room 6222 Dirksen Building,

Wasluington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR EAGLETON : As you are aware, Judge Edmond T. Daly, has been

nominated for a 15-year term as Associate Judge of the Superior Court for the

District of Columbia.

It was my privilege while serving as Chairman of the Senate District Committee to hold hearings on Judge Dalys nomination in 1963.

My faith in Judge Daly's excellent qualifications has been fulfilled by his diligence and competence in performing his duties in his high office during the past

years.

He is dedicated to his office. Judge Daly has faith in humanity, and his ability

to understand the elements which give life to our means of justice has served.

him well.

I am hopeful you and other members of the Committee will act favorably upon

Judge Daly's nomination.

Cordially,

ALAN BIBLE.

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing record will remain open until the end

of this week for any further statements, commentaries, et cetera, that

any individual may see fit to submit to this committee.

When the record is closed, the nominations will be polled out of the

committee and reported by me before the Senate.

The committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 9:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]