Evening star., 1951-11-26
Another Reorganization Plan

All reorganization plans for the District Of
columbia are designed to promote efficiency
ana economy In government, to fix responsibility
TO make logical and workable functional group
mgS and to effect combinations that prevent
overlapping and duplication of effort
The most recent of these plans proposed by
Engineer Commissioner Robinson. is aimed at
such objectives
The chief difference between the reorgani-
zatlon plans and there have been a great num-
Der OF them proposed in the past half century
is found In the varying concepts of policy
making and administration at the top.
That Is where the important difference
occurs between General Robnson's plan and
other proposals for effecting reorganization of
the commission form of government without
introduction of so-called home rule As General
Robinson states, True home rule in the District
OF Columbia cannot be achieved without Con-
stltutlonal amendment"
Under the general plan advocated by Budget
Officer Fowler, the Board of Commissioners
would be concerned in the main with policy,
leaving administration to an executive. That
concept is also found in the city ncI-city
manager form of local government.
Under General Robinson's plan the Board
Of Commissioners would be concerned with
S~SAA
specific administrative authority over one of
three bureaus-Public Welfare, Public Safety
and Public Works. Under these bureaus the
various departments and agencies of the local
government would be grouped according to
function.
This plan would in effect formalze an exist
ing informal arrangement in which the Com
n1issioners assign themselves special jurisdiction
over certain departments Commissioner Young
for example, makes the police and fire depart
ments, with some others, his particular re-
sponsibility; health hospitals and public welfare
come under Commissioner Donohue; construc-
tion including highways and other public works,
come under the Engineer Commissioner.
This informal arrangement has not worked
well In budget-making, for example, the
strongest Commissioner is apt to get the biggest
slice of pie for his own agency, with nominal
interest in what another agency gets. There is
inevitable horSe-trading and log-rolling. And
when one department of the local government
becomes involved in some investigation the
Commissioner in charge of that department is
the one who gets put on the spot, with his
brethren inclined to stand sanctmoniousy aloof
until the storm blows over.
The proposal in the Robinson plan to make
such system permanent and give it legal
standing is of dubious wisdom There is the other
consideration that our civilian, appointed Com
nlissioners are not necessarily good adminis-
traitors. This criticism is acknowledged by Cen
eral Robinson in so far as elected Commissioners
are concerned. 1T has been stated" he says
that the commission form results in govern
ment by amateurs that there is no guarantee
that the Commissioners will be fitted for their
posts; and that considerable time is spent in
political activities looking to their reelection"
But, he says, "The appointive system in effect
in the District of Columbia should remove this
source Of major weakness" The Star doubts
that this has been or will be the fact.
The commission form Of government is we'll
adapted to the unique situation in Washington.
But it would be most effective, in, The Stars
opinion, when the Commissioners concern them
selves with policy and general supervision as a
board, leaving actual administration to career
specialists working under competent executive
manager.