Evening star., 1949-02-20

How the legislative acts of the
City Council would become effec'
tive; what congressional super
vision there would be over loca
law-making: the extent Of re
straints on floating District bone
issues; and congressional review
of District budgets.
In addition to these questions
the Senate Home Rule Subcom'
mittee, headed by Senator Kefau'
yer, Democrat, of Tennessee, nov
is wrestling with the problem Of
whether to include reorganiza.
ton of District agencies with
suffrage.
Both the Auchincloss and tho
Democratic Central Committee
bills include reorganization, alons
with an elected city government
Following is a comparison of tn
AuchincloSs and the Central Com
mittee bills:
FORM OF GOVERNMENT:
Both bills, as well as the some
what streamlined version of tn
Auchincloss measure the New Jer'
sey Republican sent to the Hous'
last month. propose an elected cit!
government to replace the ap'
pointed Board of Commissioners
There would be an elected Cit!
Council of IL members, all elected
| ait large, which would name cit.
manager as chief executive, ane
an elected Board of Education O.
eight members, also elected on {
city-wide basis.
POWERS OF COUNCIL.
There is a fundamental differ
ence in proposed council powers
The Central Committee plar
would give broader authority tt
the council, delegating to it powel
substantially like that given undel
territorial forms of government
while reserving, likewise, final con
troll in Congress to override Distric
COR territoriaD legislation. But th'
legislative acts of the council, a.
distinguished from mere loca
health, welfare and safety regula'
tions, or mere ordinances, woult
be law unless Congress acted tt
stop or modify them.
Under the Auchincloss plan, th'
council could adopt legislation O
local application but this would b.
only a Legislative proposal" unit
Congress adopted, and the Presi
dent signed, joint resolution en-
acting it into law. This process
was turned to by the Auchinclos
subcommittee last year because o.
lawyer fears anything short OF thi
affirmative action" plan would b.
clouded with serious questions Al
to constitutionality.
BOND ISSUES:
The Auchincloss bill specifically
restricts bond issues to permanent
improvements such as schools, re-
quires a three-fourths vote by the
city council, approval in a voters
referendum and a formal accept
ance by Congress. Bonded debt
would be limited to 3 per cent Of
taxable property value. or (now)
no more than S48 .000. 900,
Central Committee: Negotiable
bonds could be issued up to 5 pei
cent of taxable property value, o.
some $80,000,00O, on the majority
vote of city council and majority
vote in public referendum. NJ
congressional action required, bu
/ a restraint or veto action by Con
gress would apply.
Both bills provide for limitee
emergency borrowing and fol
short term borrowing. Both stip
ulate amortization of bonds within
30 years and require per cen
payment after first year and an
nual installments.
| DISTRICT BUDGETS:
Both plans would place Distric
budgeting power with the cit.
council, acting after public hear
ings on spending proposals sub
mitted by the city manager ant
the Board of Education. In botf
plans, the council would determine
the total spending for schools bu
would leave details to school au
thoritieS.
And if the council decided or
new items or increases in Distric
departments notice would have tt
be published and second hearing
held.
Major differences on the bulge
are these: Auchincloss plan woule
require submission of District bud
get to a new Congressional join
Committee on the District, for re-
view and recommendation. Cen
tral Committee plan would LEI
councils budget become law-un'
less Congress discovered some rea'
son for disagreement and initiated
action, enacted into law, to upse'
part or all of councils action.
Both bills reserve to Congress
it's present constitutional right tt
enact any or all legislation affect
ing District government.
DELEGATE IN HOUSE.
District elected but non-votins
delegate in house, similar to dele
gates from Hawaii and Alaska, il
provided in Auchincloss bill bu
not in Central Committee meas
ure.
FEDERAL PAYMENT TO
DISTRICT.
Both bills would call for an in
crease over the present $11 900, ,00'