Evening star., 1946-02-03
Welfare Board Foces
Fight for Survival

Tl9Hl IOT SuFvIVOl
Status Held Endangered by Clash
With Commissioners
By John w. Thompson, Jr.
The Commissioners and the Board Of
Public Welfare they appointed have
come to a parting of the ways.
Conduct of the board in the still-pend-
ing case of Howard B. Gill, suspended
general superintendent of District penal
institutions and the recently concluded
controversy over plans for the new Re-
ceiving Home for Children has shattered
any vestige Of confidence the city heads
may once have had in the organization.
The two issues are providing consid-
erable impetus to revive the Commits
sioners' bill now slumbering in Capitol
pigeonhole, which would strip the board
of its administrative powers and make
welfare department under the direct
control of the city heads.
While the Commissioners are anxious
to argue the bill on its merits, 1t will
be impossible to consider the legislation
without reference to the boards han
ding of the two highly controversial
matters.
In the case of Mr.. Gill, the board
had been seeking an opportunity to
fire him after a mounting number of
differences between Mr.. Gill and We'll
fare Director Ray Huff. Mr.. Gill did
nothing to improve their opinion Of
him by openly advocating administra-
ton of the penal institutions by a cor
rections agency other than the welfare
board. No action was taken, however.
until five men walked out of the District
Jail on November "a. The board then
recommended Mr.. Gill's dismissal. .
This evoked spirited protest not only
from Mr.. Gill but from powerful or
ganizations interested in good prison
administration. They sought and won
for the suspended superintendent an
impartial open hearing before a non
official board of inquiry. But not before
the welfare board had embarrassed the
Commissioners by dumping into their
laps the disposition of the Gill case with
set of vague charges and no specifica-
tions. The city heads ordered prepa-
ration of specific charges and the Cor
poration Counsels oflce drafted 16 al
legations. The Civil Service Commission
then stepped In to say that six of these
were not sufficiently detailed to meet
their rules. The whole matter now
stands at this stage.
In the case Of the $285 900 new Re-
ceiving Home for Children, to be built
on land adjacent to the Columbia In
stitution for the Deaf, the Commission
ers were placed in the position Of being
arbiters between the board and a group
Of social workers with different views
on how the institution should be built.
The big issue was the charge by the
opponents that the. welfare board plans
did not provide adequate segregation
between delinquent and nondelinquent
children. The opposition felt that inter-
mingling Of the two groups would result
in school Of crime" within the home
itself.
AS the weight of evidence piled up,
the city heads found themselves siding
with the opponents and sought to COM
promise with the board. The members
stood pat, however. and nearly forced
the Commissioners to overrule them.
Apparently fearing mass resignation
of the board If they did, the Commits
sioners at length reluctantly approved
the plans Of the board as being their
duty "in- the spirit of the law"
The victory for the board was Pyrrhic
in that 1t probably lost more than it
gained, It's plans were approved but
with the approval went one of the
severest tongue-lashings a Board of
Commissioners has ever handed group
of its own appointees.
Responsibility for the situation lies
in the weakness of the basic statutes.
Under them the board has responsibility
for administration of public welfare
The instruments for this administration,
as anywhere, are personnel and equip
ment. But the board can appoint no
personnel. 1t recommends and the Com
missioners hire and fire. In the matter
of buildings the Commissioners build
through their Engineer Department, re-
quiring only the suggestion and criti-
cism" of the plans by the board. Thus
the board has been given a job to do
and no authority to do it, The situation
further creates twilight zone" within
which the board and the Commissioners
can handy responsibility and pass the
buck"
AS II this situation did not produce
enough confusion, the board has under
taken, another questionable step. Un-
like the Board of Education and the
Recreation Board, which hold their
meetings in public, the Welfare Board
has set policy of secret meetings in
which proceedings and personalities are
hidden from the public. The excuse is
that the board deals with the intimate
details of family lives that should not
be made public. 1t is not these details,
however, in which the public is inter-
ested, but rather the functioning of the
board as to welfare policies and ad-
ministration. Both the recreation and
school boards have closed meetings
when discussing matters of personnel.
The welfare board could do the same
and still have many open meetings.
Out of this administrative confusion
comes the motivation for a change,
either to complete autonomy like the
School Board or to placing welfare
department status directly under the
Commissioners.
The proposal to place the jurisdiction
under the Commissioners is nnt new