Senator CAIN. Gas tax and all the rest.

Mr. TURNER. On a residence basis; we were against the gas tax and excise taxes, but we believe that income-producing property, if you cannot get enough property from-enough taxes from the other sources, and that is the last resort should be the source of income, the additional source

Senator CAIN. Mr. Turner, we have appreciated your testimony very much.

You have no official connection with the school system of Washington, have you?

Mr. TURNER. None whatsoever.

Senator CAIN. You have a tremendous interest in what goes on in the schools as a result of your educational work within the American Federation of Labor.

Mr. TURNER. That is right. The statement was drawn up with the assistance of the

Senator CAIN. I raised the question because you have made certain comments which have not been supported or encouraged by any of the witnesses from the school system itself. You and I will both agree that is interesting.

You used the word "persecution" once or twice. You used the phrase "bad morale." Mr. Bates and I, and our colleagues, are endeavoring to understand this problem comprehensively. I believe you are the first one who has raised the question seriously concerning morale.

We do not want to belabor the point, but I think it perfectly fair to call that to your attention, for you have not been in attendance at all the hearings, and I wanted Mr. Bates and myself to be conscious. of that fact, you see.

Mr. TURNER. That is fine. This statement has been drawn up in consultation with people representing the American Federation of Labor teachers' union here in the city.

Senator CAIN. Well, one reason Mr. Bates and I have leaned over backward in permitting a democratic process here has been in high hopes that because of a hearing of this character not having been held for a decade in the past-and it may not be held again before 10 years— we wanted to be as certain as we could that people would say exactly what they thought.

Mr. TURNER. Well, in regard to the people in the attendance department and in the child labor enforcement section, we believe it is persecution that they should be given conditions of employment the way it is different from most people.

Senator CAIN. We have a lady who is coming right after you apparently from that section.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Turner, you oppose the gas tax and you oppose the sales tax in your testimony.

Senator CAIN. Is that so, Mr. Turner?

Mr. TURNER. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BATES. What we are trying to do is to find enough money to pay these bills that everybody is recommending. I am sorry the Board of Trade is not here this morning because I did expect to examine the witnesses.

There are a great many suggestions being made as to the support of these various bills increasing the cost of the government of the city,

but very, very few suggestions other than a more liberal Federal contribution. I would like to get down to the bottom of that question to find out just where the people stand. Somebody has got to pay these bills, and in your opposition to the gas tax and also the sales tax, that leaves us primarily with the two other major sources-three other major sources, real estate, income and Federal contribution.

Senator CAIN. May I interrupt you there, sir. If I am not very much mistaken, this witness in his previous testimony was solidly in opposition to raising the real-estate base.

Mr. TURNER. No.

Senator CAIN. No?

Mr. TURNER. We did not pass on that at all.

Mr. BATES. I am coming to that point; he made a contribution in that respect. I want to just inquire as to just what he means by it. Now, apparently, we are facing a deficiency here of approximately 15 to 16 million dollars in the 1948 budget. That is precisely correct, is it not?

Mr. TURNER. Yes.

Mr. BATES. In order to make up that deficiency we have got to find money, and that includes, of course, the $1,600,000,000 that is not in the present estimates, and the additional expenses brought about by the approval of this bill, if this bill is approved; so, we are $16,000,000 short. Now, the District representatives have recommended the income-tax bill; that embraces all people living within the District, and so on, and will yield about $4,000,000. That is precisely correct, is it not, maybe five?

Mr. WEST. Our estimate was $3,000,000, but I think that was probably a little low.

Mr. BATES. Well, probably $4,000,000. So, that is $4,000,000. I think this deficiency will reach closer to 16 than 15, so that brings it down to $12,000,000.

Well then, according to your testimony, you believe that we ought to find that money some other way, and your suggestion is primarily a Federal contribution. Well, if you increase the Federal contribution by twice the amount it now is, which would be $8,000,000, in excess of what it is, that is double, that would still leave us $4,000,000 short of our requirements of what we are told are our requirements of the deficiency in 1948, not to say anything about 1949, 1950, and so forth. Now, your suggestion is that we ought to apply, perhaps, a tax to property that is now income-producing. Do you mean commercial properties alone or do you mean residential properties also that have roomers and boarders, and so forth; where would you draw the line!

Mr. TURNER. I say my suggestion-that is we have not discussed the exact drawing of a line-but I should think it would be a clear line of demarcation between commercial property of the type and the residential field that deal with large numbers of people. I do not think that it would be very practicable to apply to people taking in roomers or having maybe one light housekeeping room or something of that sort.

Mr. BATES. Have you made an examination-I presume you haveof the residents of the District of Columbia, the outrageous prices that are charged for one room for people who are trying to get a place to live here in the District?

Mr. TURNER. Yes, I am aware of it.

Mr. BATES. And perhaps two or three small room apartments that may be part of the tenement, have you examined into that to decide and find out what the story is?

Mr. TURNER. I know that the rents are very high.

Mr. BATES. Do you include those in your testimony?

Mr. TURNER. We have not taken a stand, that is, the Central Labor Union, as to just where the line of demarcation ought to be drawn. We assume that that particular problem is a problem more for the Congress.

Mr. BATES. Well, it is a very difficult one, as you know, to separate real property into classes for the purpose of assessment values, excepting under what we might call the real cash value of the property itself, and the Board of Assessors are in fact, and they have already revalued the District, and put a substantial assessment, we are told, on commercial property; a 20 percent flat assessment increase on residential property. I believe that is the principal base. But in that sense, I understand that the assessment on commercial property has been more heavy that the 20 percent on residential properties.

Mr. TURNER. I would say this, sir: That in regard to the sales tax, as compared to even a tax that might have to include residents, that if we may go by past national A. F. of L. policy, the A. F. of L. would prefer a property tax any time over a sales tax.

Mr. BATES. Well, if we increase the tax valuations in the District to about $1,600,000,000 next year-that is approximately correct, is it not, Mr. Fowler?

Mr. FOWLER. I think that is about right.

Mr. BATES. If the tax rate is raised from $1.75 to $2 on the increased total valuations that would yield approximately $4,000,000 more; is that correct? So that if you add that to the doubling of the Federal contribution, and the $4,000,000 increase from the income tax, that is 8 and 4, which are 12, and 4 more from the 25-cent increase in the tax rate, you are just balancing off your deficiencies.

Mr. TURNER. That is correct.

Mr. FOWLER. That is right.

Mr. BATES. Where are we going to go from there?

They say figures do not lie, but I would like to see if my analysis lies anywhere.

Mr. TURNER. There is also the fact that on incomes, that is, on the amount of money that is estimated by the Budget Officer that might accrue from the income tax, I do not think they took into consideration, naturally, the recommendations that we have made a steeper graduation in the higher brackets, which we think is a reasonable source of income, since the States on either side have higher rates than we have.

Mr. BATES. This income-tax bill, as I understand it, Mr. Walker, applies to the same rates that presently exist.

Mr. WALKER. That is right.

Mr. BATES. Thank you.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you very much.

Senator CAIN. I wonder if Mrs. Alice C. Sheldon, Director of the Department of School Attendance and Work Permits, is with us.

STATEMENT OF ALICE C. SHELDON, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AND WORK PERMITS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mrs. SHELDON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a prepared statement which is quite brief, relating to the suggested amendment that was presented by Mrs. Ward, the president of the Attendance Officers' Association, on Saturday. Since you were not present, perhaps you would like to have a copy of the amendment before you.

Senator CAIN. Permit me to read this amendment before you proceed with your statement..

Mrs. SHELDON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. Proceed, Mrs. Sheldon.

Mrs. SHELDON. As director of the Department of School Attendance and Work Permits, I wish to make a brief statement in addition to the one made by a staff member of my department.

Last Saturday, Mrs. Isabel R. Ward, president of the Attendance Officers' Association, which includes both white and colored, presented a proposed amendment to H. R. 2976 and S. 1088.

I wish to explain what preceded this decision to present that amendment. Early this year the Superintendent told me that as director of the department, he expected me to lead the thinking of staff members. along the lines of school officers' proposals as incorporated in the schedule for the Attendance Department.

Since the schedule did not include salary credit for the A. M. degree, the attendance officers felt that in justice to themselves they did not wish to accept limited opportunity for professional improvement. Mrs. Ward was instructed by the group to present to the Superintendent, and later, to the Board of Education, their carefully considered conclusions. I believe they were sincere and professional in their attitude as they are trained people, most of whom have planned to make attendance work their permanent vocations. The wish to maintain high standards for their chosen profession seems to me to be a

proper one.

After the attendance officers' requests were refused, I reviewed the points in their petition, and made a strong plea to Mrs. Ward, president; Mrs. Jones, vice president, and to several individual members of the staff to reconsider their entire position and accept school officers' refusal to give salary credit for the master's degree. I urged that they confine their request to the matter of leave inequities which appeared to me to be their most serious problem, and the one having the greatest effect on morale and efficiency.

A vote was taken, and a majority of the group decided to drop all proposals which had to do with raising general standards of this department, and to present a suggested amendment concerning leave only. This amendment will nullify the existing provision for 10 days' sick leave for attendance officers, and will provide vacations and substitute privileges instead.

As director, I have found the present leave situation has caused lowered morale and has had damaging effects on the efficiency of the department.

I believe that the rigidity of the present leave provisions has been actually cruel in practice. In the case of death in the immediate

family of an attendance officer full loss of pay, at a time when expenses are unusually high, has been unjust.

This lack of provision for substitutes in an emergency has proved detrimental both to the worker and the department. The suggested amendment requests substitute privileges such as teachers and others now have, and will remove that inequity.

The other result here of existing legislation has been that attendance officers are unable to attend summer school. The department is, therefore, deprived of the new interest and enthusiasm which usually results from summer-school work.

With the proposed schedule giving credit for the master of arts degree to every group except the attendance officers, some officers may wish to return to teaching in order to benefit from the higher schedule. The present work year practically prohibits such study so that attendance officers would be unable to improve themselves in the District of Columbia school system.

The proposed amendment will remedy this inequity by giving attendance officers the same time off for possible summer study that other professional groups in the system have.

The leave proposals included in the suggested amendment do not affect the salary schedule in any way, nor will they increase costs. I believe this is a very important point since the superintendent has expressed the hope that the schedule itself would not be altered.

The days of leave involved would set no precedent for other groups to make new leave requests because the amendment will do no more than provide the attendance officers with the same leave as all other professional groups already enjoy.

I hope that you will incorporate the suggested amendment into the salary bill, knowing that it has been offered in a cooperative and conciliatory spirit by a small group who earnestly desire the passage of this bill which benefits all.

Thank you.

Senator CAIN. Thank you, Mrs. Sheldon.

I know very little about this end of the school business, almost nothing at all. Did I understand you to suggest that you thought it would be desirable for the pay scales to cover those attendance officers who have masters' degrees as pay scales cover master's degree holders within the teaching end of the system itself?

Mrs. SHELDON. I believe it would be, in the light of what is being done in other cities.

Senator CAIN. I want to ask just a question about that. What is the function of the attendance officer?

Mrs. SHELDON. The function of an attendance officer is to enforce the school-attendance provisions, to enforce the law.

Senator CAIN. Yes.

Mrs. SHELDON. And an attendance officer in other jurisdictions does the same work where frequently he does it under other titles. For instance, a visiting teacher in Baltimore enforces the attendance law; a supervising attendance officer enforces the law, the attendance law, in Boston, so the function is quite similar, although very often it has a different title. Would you like me to review the list of cities that give leave?

99538-47-67