Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

a profit from which they make up the deficiencies in the operating costs of some units, say, out in Yellowstone or somewhere else

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. It is very involved; it is illogical for us to get into the specific elements.

Senator Cain. It is easy to understand how they or anybody else would not be interested in taking any positive action. It is a part of their component operation.

Mr. BATES. Your Department does not make a contribution to the Federal Government that may be considered as part of the expenses of the District over and above what you would have in a normal community?

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. Our contributions to the Government, if you use that expression, are primarily rendering recreation services to employees of the Government.

Mr. BATES. I know, but those are residents of the District.
Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. Yes; only as residents, that is all.

Senator Cain. I would address an observation to the Commissioners. From what I have gathered in these interesting days of testimony, I think it would be helpful to Mr. Bates and to myself and to 'the other members of the joint committee if each one of the department heads, Mr. Commissioners, who has thus far testified and will testify in the future, will prepare a one-page-not exceeding one page-standard-sized paper, summary of the highlights of their testimony, so that we shall have as many single pages when we get through as we have more voluminous testimony from the individuals who have testified, because from those summaries we can go right to the meat of the problem.

Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I would have a suggestion that they make enough copies so that there will be enough for each of us to take home with us.

Senator Cain. Yes.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Commissioner, in addition to what the chairman has said in regard to the one-page summary, I hope that you are keeping in mind that what we want also is a brief summary from each department, setting forth whatever contributions are being made to the Federal Government in the form of services.

Now, a second thought: We have had many figures thrown at us during these hearings. We would like to have a recapitulation of every department head who has appeared here. It is all in the testimony; we do not want to wade through it, but if you would provide this committee also with a complete tabulation, so far as you are able to do it, and then as the department heads have already done, of the expenditures in each of those departments in '37, and then, say, '40, then '45, and then the estimate of 48, so that we can quickly get from that testimony the increases of the cost in those departments cver the period of years, and then the over-all cost of the Government-I think we have that here anyway, for '37, 40, 45—and then bring it down to the last 3 years—’46, 47, and the estimate for '48, that would be of great help to the committee.

Senator Cain. The great question that the Congress is going to ask is why do you want so many millions of dollars more in 1948 than you apparently got along with reasonably well in 1947. So we have to have that background.

Mr. BATEs. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the representative of the District Auditor's oflice that I have a complete tabulation of personnel in the District of every department since '37, up to and including the estimate for '48, and I would like to have the City Auditor just separate each department's sum total as to the number of employees in the entire department. You have got them broken down by divisions here, and I will turn this sheet back to you; and also the expenditures for personal services; and then follow through and give us the entire expenditures for that department for that period of years, and type it out, and you had better make an extra carbon copy, and we will have it photostated.

Senator Cain. Is the gentleman who will testify for the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board available-Mr. Payne ?

Mr. Witness, will you be good enough to provide the reporter with your name and proper title, and then proceed in your own way?

(Statement later received for the record from the District of Columbia Recreation Department.)

[blocks in formation]

The District of Columbia Recreation Board was created in 1942 by Public Law 534 (77th Cong.) for the purpose of unifying the District's far-flung recreation system.

1941: The increase in 1944 over 1943 was due to 21 new positions, allocation of 27 unclassified positions, increase in temporary employment, War Overtime Pay Act, increase in transfer to National Capital Parks, and increase in capital outlay.

1945: This year's increases were for 9 new positions, increase in temporary employment, War Overtime Pay Act, increase in transfer to National Capital Parks, and increase in capital outlay.

1946: Increases this year represent the Federal Employees Pay Act, increase in temporary employment and increase in transfer to National Capital Parks.

1947: The increase over 1946 was the Federal Employees Pay Act, 5 new positions, increase in temporary employment, increase in transfer to National Capital Parks, and increase in capital outlay.

STATEMENT OF ALAN W. PAYNE, CHAIRMAN, ALCOHOLIC BEVER

AGE CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WASHINGTON, T. C.

Mr. PAYNE. My name is Alan W. Payne, and I am chairman of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.

I have a very brief statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be glad to submit the brief table which you request.

Senator Cain. Thank you.

Mr. PAYNE. The increases in the operating costs of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board in the last 10 years have been due almost solely to increases in personal services. In fact, expenses other than personal service have increased in the amount of only $1,277.

The total appropriation in 1937 for the Board and all its staff was $10,000 of which $31,192 was for salaries and $9,208 for other obli

a

gations. Including the 3 members of the Board, the total number of employees was 12.

The Board is composed of three members, citizens of the community, appointed for a period of 4 years by the District Commissioners.

At that time, however, in addition to the Board's two inspectors, eight officers of the Metropolitan Police Department were permanently assigned to Board work. If the cost of their salaries were added to the total Alcoholic Beverage Control Board operational expenses for that year, as it should be, the sum of $19,200 should be added to the payroll cost, making a total of $50,392.

In 1943 fiscal year, another inspector was added to the staff; in 1944, one clerk was added in 1945, seven inspectors were added to the staff, the eight police officers having previously been withdrawn.

In 1946, one messenger was added to the staff. The total appropriation for 1947 was $79,307, of which $74,156 was for salaries and $5,151 for other obligations. The 1947 total will be increased by the

of $5,700, which is included in a supplemental appropriation for the current year which has not yet been approved, and which is to cover the amount of pay-roll increases authorized by the Federal Employees' Pay Act of 1946, which went into effect July 1, 1946— Public Law 390 of the Seventy-ninth Congress.

The total appropriation for the fiscal year 1948 requested by the Board originally was $94,400, which included a request for two additional clerical assistants and a small amount for other obligations. These increases, however, were not favored by the Board of Commissioners, who reduced our request to $89,600 in the appropriation bill now before the Congress.

Thus, it is patent that the major portion of the 10-year increase of cost of personal services has been due to the pay increases of July 1, 1945, and of July 1, 1946.

There have also been, of course, increases incidental to the operation of the Meade-Ramspeck Act for periodic within-grade promotions.

Mr. BATES. That is an increase of well over 100 percent, and your salaries and wages have only increased by 40 percent, have they not, during that period of time? Mr. Smith. That includes the transfer of the police officers.

Mr. Bates. What I am saying is this: That he attributes this increase in costs to the increase in wages. Now, if the increase is in personnel plus increase in wages, then I probably will go along with him. But the increase of cost of personnel from '37 to '48, inclusive, which is over 100 percent, is it not, and cannot be attributed to any increased wage structure?

Senator Cain. I may have misunderstood you. You contend that you had six or seven policemen on loan.

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, sir.

Senator Cain. They went back to the source of their origin and you replaced them with people of your own on your own pay roll, whose salaries you were covering, and that would constitute quite an item.

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. Restate the last sentence that you read there, will you, please? Due to the increase in pay, and so forth.

Senator Cain. You refer to the pay acts of 1945 and 1946.
Mr. PAYNE. I was referring to the Meade-Ramspeck Act.
Mr. BATES. Before that-the preceding paragraph.

[ocr errors]

Mr. PAYNE. The major portion of 10-year increase of cost to personal service has been due to the pay increases of July 1, 1945, and July 1, 1946.

Mr. BATEs. Now, let me have the increase of personnel from 37 to '46 again. '37 was what?

Mr. PAYNE. '37 was $31,192.
Mr. BATES. And '48?
Mr. PAYNE. '48 was $74,156.

Mr. BATES. So that is more than double. Now you would not say that increase is due entirely to the increases in pay authorized by the acts of '45 and 46, would you?

Mr. PAYNE. I have covered that one point at a further point in my statement.

Mr. BATEs. But that is a statement you made that was due to the increase in wages. That is not true, is it, when wages did not increased a hundred percent?

Mr. PAYNE. Not that much.

Mr. BATES. Then that statement you made is not exactly so; it is as a result of a combination of increased personnel

Mr. PAYNE. In personal services.
Mr. BATEs. And increase in wages, that is not what you said.
Mr. PAYNE. I have got one point farther back here that I think will
clarify my position.

Mr. BATEs. Fine.
(The matter referred to above is as follows:)

Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, operation costs and income, 1937–48

[blocks in formation]

1 $5,700 has been requested in a supplemental appropriation to cover pay costs authorized by the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1946 and Public Law 390.

? Does not include cost of police officers assigned to board work, estimated at average salary of $2,400 yearly. Such salaries were paid from budget of Municipal Police Department.

Mr. PAYNE. I will come back to that point after several paragraphs. The gross income of the municipal government from alcoholic beverage taxes, licenses, and fees for 1937 was $1,950,970.54. The total

disbursements of the Board for that year were $39,026, leaving a net income to the District of Columbia of $1,911,944.54. The gross income for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1946, from taxes on alcoholic beverages, licenses, and fees increased to $3,472,565.65. Net operating cost disbursements were $70,691.84, leaving a net income to the municipality of $3,401,873.81; showing a net increase in the 10-year period from such sources of $1,489,929.27, or almost double the 1937 amount.

Mr. BATEs. How many permits did you give out in 1937 and how many in 1946? This income is based entirely on the number of permits you issue?

Mr. PåYNE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BATES. And taxes are for various kinds of beverages!

Mr. PAYNE. In the fiscal year of 1937 which ended June 30, 1937, there had been a total of 2,502 licenses issued. On March 1, 1947, there was a total of all class of licenses of 2,169.

Mr. BATEs. There were less licenses in March 1947, almost 400 less licenses, than in 1937?

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, sir. In 1937 the salaries of eight Metropolitan Police officers assigned to the Board for control purposes were paid under the appropriation for that department, and were not included in the budget or appropriation for the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. Since this was a proper charge against the Alcoholic Beverage Control Administration, it would indicate that 1947 pay-roll increase has actually been only $23,764. Does that answer the question that you had in mind, sir?

Mr. Bates. Yes; excepting that the original statement that this increase is due entirely to the two pay acts in a major sense.

Senator Cain. If you just put another phrase in between those comments it will clarify that.

Mr. PAYNE. That is for personal services entirely. The total cost of administration for the last fiscal year was approximately 2 percent of the gross income which we believe to be the lowest cost of alcoholic beverage control administration in any jurisdiction of the United States.

Since 1935, the first full year of administration of the District of Columbia Act, the amount of work of the office and staff has increased 38 percent, and the income from these sources, taxes and licenses, is now approximately 5 percent of the District's total income.

Senator Cain. You are practically unassailable, sir.
Mr. PAYNE. Well, I will admit that Mr. Bates' point is
Mr. BATES. I am not through with him yet.

When you see the number of enterprises growing substantially less and the cost going substantially higher, I would like to know the reason for that. Now, in 1937 you had 2,502 permits; you have only got 2,100 today, or in 1947. Now, I would like to know what has happened. After all, you are dealing with permits in the first instance, and the supervision of those permits, the taxing of the supplies

go into those areas, and why is it that the expenses have more than doubled in that period of time, and your permits are much less. Now, admitting that your increase is due in major degree to personnel, say 40 percent, as a result of those two pay acts, you do not buy matériel, you do not buy supplies, you do not buy wheelbarrows and

that

« PreviousContinue »