Evening star., 1939-11-15
Why Not Both?

Representative Kennedy of Mary
land is inclined to take the Commits
Sloners to task for preparing a new
District reorganization bill instead of
confining themselves to a critical
analysis of the Griffenhagen reor-
ganization bill
Mr.. Kennedy is premature, for the
Commissioners have as yet adopted
no plan of their own. The document
released for publication at the Dis
trlct Building yesterday was prepared
for the Commissioners study by the
committee of municipal officials
designated for that purpose.
Why cannot the Commissioners,
however, do both things-submit to
Mr.. Kennedy, as he wishes them to,
detailed criticism of the Griffenhagen
plan and then follow it up with a
reorganization bill of their own.
adopting the plan of their advisers or
as much of it as they approve?
This procedure would be helpful
not only to Mr.. Kennedy and to his
subcommittee but to many local ia
payers who have, with good reason,
become so confused by the complexi-
ties OF various reorganization pro-
posals that they hardly know now
who is proposing what or why.
First, there was the original Griff-
enhagen proposal, rearranging the
municipal machinery from stem to
stern and leaving practically nothing
unchanged, with great emphasis on
the principle of sharply dividing
policy-making from administration,
placing administrative functions
under one appointed administrator
who would appoint his assistant
administrators responsible only to
the chief administrator Some of
the efficiently functioning branches
OF local government were sacrificed
for this principle and citizen boards
were, in effect, discarded.
Strong criticism of this set-up led
to its modification and revised re-
organization bill, which the Griffen-
hagen associates prepared for Mr..
Kennedy against what they seemed
to feel was their own better judg-
ment. That is the plan which Mr..
Kennedy has invited the Commits
sioners to criticize and they should,
by all means, accept the invitation.
Thus far it has been the object
OF piecemeal attack certain of its
features having been regarded as
peculiarly Objectionable. There
should be a detailed statement, for
instance, of how the Public Utilities
Commission would function under
the Griffenhagen set-up. Some au-
thoritative analysis should be made
of the proposed merger of the lower
courts, and the effect on prosecution
of crime in the District under the
Griffenhagen plan. Each municipal
agency, in fact, should be asked to
study and report on the Griffenhagen
plan as it affects that agency. The
heads of some of these agencies
should be able to speak with as much
authority as the Griffenhagen ex-
perts. 1t has been suggested at the
District Building, for instance, that
the Griffenhagen plan would result
In more expensive government. If
that is true it should be plainly
shown, as one of the objectives of
municipal reorganization has been
economy, with efficiency.
There are similarities between the
bill drawn up for the Commissioners
study and the revised Griffenhagen
plan. The sharp difference is that
the District Building bill retains the
commission form of government
while the Griffenhagen proposal
would establish a modified city-man-
ager plan, extending the principle Of
dividing policy making from admin
istration throughout the local gov
ernment.