Senator EAGLETON. Now, I will call on Mayor Washington, and Mr. Mayor, do you wish to identify the individuals accompanying you? STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER E. WASHINGTON, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY DEPUTY MAYOR THOMAS FLETCHER; JOHN EATON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PERSONNEL OFFICER; JERRY WILSON, CHIEF, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; DONALD WEINBERG, CHIEF, PAY SYSTEMS AND LABOR RELATIONS DIVISION: TOM MOYER, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL; AND STANLEY EHRLICH, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PERSONNEL OFFICE

Mayor WASHINGTON. Yes. I have with me as the principal witnesses: Mr. Fletcher, our Deputy Mayor; Personnel Director John Eaton; Mr. Weinberg; Chief Wilson, our newly appointed Police Chief; Tom Moyer from Corporation Counsel; and Stanley Ehrlich from our Personnel Office.

Senator EAGLETON. Very well. You may proceed.

Mayor WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I know your time schedule and I know of the executive meeting and I will try to get through this. I think my statement will probably be the basic one and we will be available for questions.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this committee and. testify on behalf of S. 2694, a bill amending the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended.

With your permission, I would like to have inserted in the record my letter and report dated August 1969 to this committee which provides the detail and analysis relating to the proposed legislation. Senator EAGLETON. It will be made part of the record. Mayor WASHINGTON. Thank you, sir.

(The documents referred to follow:)

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS

EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

Washington, D.C., August 8, 1969.

Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: The Government of the District of Columbia has for report S. 2964, 91st Congress, a bill to amend the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 to increase salaries, and for other purposes.

The first section of S. 2694 provides salary increases averaging 13 percent, estimated to cost $10.1 million for a full fiscal year. The legislation is made retroactive to July 1969. The remaining sections of the bill contain provisions for reducing the number of subclasses in the salary schedule, and for revising the method of salary placement of certain officers and members who are promoted to a higher class from one of the subclasses of a lower class. An analysis of S. 2694 and the District Government's suggested amendments is presented in Exhibit A (attached). The District Government recognizes that there is a need for an increase in salaries of police and firemen. A study of the trend in police and fire pay levels, contained in Exhibit B (attached), conclusively shows the dramatic change in police and fire salaries since 1967, the date of the last major pay increase for District policemen and firefighters. In view of this study, the District is proposing the pay plan set forth in a draft bill, Exhibit C (attached). The District Government recommends that S. 2694 be amended in its entirety by substituting the provisions of the District's proposed bill, and that S. 2694, as so amended, be enacted.

The District Government's proposed bill provides salary increases averaging approximately 12 percent, effective in the first pay period after enactment, at an estimated full fiscal year cost of $9.25 million. The District proposal is basically the same as S. 2694 in classes 1 through 3, but is below the salary scale of S. 2694 in the higher ranks, thus accounting for the relatively small but significant difference in cost. The District salary proposal is in line with the policy of keeping police and firemen's salary rates competitive in the upper quartile of major cities, in reasonable alignment with Classification Act employees, and above the rates of pay of other police and firemen in the Washington Metropolitan Area. This proposal also sets salaries according to certain ratios, so that there is a specific relationship between salaries at various levels. The salary scale in S. 2694, however, is based on a relationship of police and fire salaries to the rates of pay of General Schedule employees with similar responsibilities, thus accounting for significantly higher salaries in the higher ranks of the departments.

The District Government's proposed substitute bill contains several of the provisions contained in S. 2694. It also contains certain technical amendments to the existing law to clarify changes in determining longevity step increases made by the salary schedules. The District also proposes the repeal of a special provision of existing law applicable only to deputy chiefs.

Enactment of this pay increase together with other possible salary increases for teachers and school officers will require additional funding. No revenue sources are currently available to pay for these increases. Consequently, if pay increases are enacted, local revenue legislation must be enacted to provide funds sufficient to meet the cost of such increases. The District will submit revenue proposals to the Congress to support such increases as soon as possible.

The Government of the District of Columbia has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress.

Sincerely yours,

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WALTER E. WASHINGTON, COMMISSIONER OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON S. 2694, A BILL INCREASING THE SALARIES OF POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate District Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee and testify on behalf of S. 2694, a Bill amending the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958, as amended.

With your permission I would like to have inserted in the record my letter and report dated August 8, 1969, to this Committee which provides the detail and analysis relating to the proposed legislation.

I believe that our system of public safety is rapidly approaching a most significant crossroad. The impact of recent court decisions as well as a changing emphasis on law enforcement and its relationship to the community it serves will shape the future course of police-community relations for years to come.

However, even with the comprehensive changes taking place before us we must have the best "tools"-both human and material to meet the challenge that has been placed before us. It is in this spirit that I come before this Committee. Without your continued help, the goals we have set will be extremely difficult to achieve.

MAJOR DIFFERENCE IN S. 2694 AND DISTRICT PROPOSAL

Our review of S. 2694 indicates that in the major areas of pay we are generally in agreement. The recommendations submitted to me by our D.C. Personnel Office embodies similar salary levels for Salary Class 1 through 3 (Class 1 contains our police privates and fire fighters) but our proposal has somewhat lower salary levels for salary classes 4 through 11 than does S. 2694.

This difference is based primarily on our use of comparability with like police and fire jobs in cities over 500,000 population and locally while S. 2694 uses a direct tie to certain grade levels of the General Schedule for Federal and District civilian employees. Although we do not necessarily oppose this relationship to the

General Schedule, no real determination as to the correlation of GS levels to uniformed officer salaries has as yet been made. We cannot support the higher increases proposed in S. 2694 without more supporting information. The District's proposed officer salaries indicates that we would be in first or second place in nearly every officer category when compared to like jobs paid by the other large cities. Although these differences do exist, the concepts and attitudes embodied in both S. 2694 and our proposed bill are quite similar.

TRENDS IN POLICE AND FIRE SALARIES SINCE OCTOBER 1967

The basis for my recommending the District's proposed legislation is as follows: First, the last major increase for D.C. policemen and firemen took place in October 1967 where an increase averaging 9.2 percent became effective and moved police and fire entrance salaries from $6,700 to $7,800. The following July 1968 an increase averaging less than one percent increased the entrance rate to $8,000. However, between July 1967 and July 1968, sixteen or 80 percent of the twenty eities over 500,000 population increased their salaries for policemen and seventeen of these cities or 85 percent increased salaries for firemen.

The Monthly Labor Review in its April 1969 issue noted:

Salaries of urban teachers increased about twice as much between 1965 and 1967 as during the preceding two years; gains for teachers were greater than those for workers in private industry but less than increases won by city policemen and fire fighters. [Emphasis added.]

Salaries of firemen and policemen in cities with populations of 100,000 or more rose 10 percent between January 1968 and January 1969, according to information made available by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor and supported by our own studies which have been provided this Committee. It was also noted that in the cities comprising the Northeastern Region, the average increase between 1968 and 1969 alone was 12.2 percent and 9 percent in the Southern Region for the same period.

The cumulative increase in minimum salaries for policemen and fire fighters since 1967 for all cities over 100,000 population is 18.6 percent. From January 1964 to January 1969, the annual average salary increase for fire fighters and police patrolmen rose 6.7 percent a year. This was substantially faster than the 5.5 percent annual average rate of increase registered for any other major groups of government workers over the comparable period.

The 10.1 percent increase given by the District in the period 1967-68 was generally consistent with the average given by other major cities. The increase was below the average for the Northeastern Region for the same period and above the average of increases given by the cities making up the Southern Region. The period of major change for minimum salaries is 1968-69 and shows substantial increases ranging from a low of 9.5 percent in cities between 500,000 to a high of 12.2 percent for cities of 1 million population and over.

If one asks the question how does the minimum salary of $8,000 and the maximum $9,280 (excluding longevity steps) currently paid D.C. policemen and fireman compare nationally, we can only respond that the District is barely competitive for minimum salaries paid and in a poor competitive position with regard to its maximum salary for these employees.

It is most interesting to note that almost one-third of the firemen and about two-thirds of the policemen were employed by cities that had as their minimum annual salary $8,500 or more in January 1969 and about 32 percent of firemen and 48 percent of policemen were employed by cities where the maximums were $10,000 or more.

If there is one clear trend Mr. Chairman, it is the overwhelming evidence that police and fire pay levels are moving at an accelerated rate and the adjustment being proposed is needed in 1969.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND AND COST-OF-LIVING

Economic pressures dictate our ability to compete in the labor market. Where you have a heavy demand for police manpower, which is in short supply, coupled with a change in the consumer price index for Washington, D.C., which has increased 8.3 percent between November 1967 and May 1969 you have all the ingredients necessary for an extremely dangerous recruiting problem. Salary is the short term attractor for recruitment and retention of shortage personnel.

COMPARISONS WITH TWENTY CITIES OVER 500,000 POPULATION AND SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS

Before you on the easel is Chart 1 which shows a comparison of minimum and maximum salaries for the twenty other cities over 500,000 population.

As you can see a police private in the Metropolitan Police Department ranks in a tie for seventh place for the minimum salary paid and ninth place for the maximum paid. Our rank for fire fighters indicates a tie for eighth for minimum salaries paid and eighth place for maximums.

Our proposal and S. 2694 would move the District to fifth place and sixth place for the minimum salaries paid for police and fire respectively.

The proposed legislation, however, would rank both police and fire in second place nationally for maximum salaries paid and this has great significance which I will explain in just a moment.

Chart 2 before you indicates our position with the surrounding jurisdictions. As you will note, the District has dropped to second below Fairfax County for minimum salaries paid and we compete very poorly on the basis of maximum salaries paid since we are in sixth or next to last place for police private maximums and last place for fire fighter maximums.

S. 2694 and our proposal would correct this deficiency.

The need for a career oriented pay system for our police and fire becomes quite evident.

THE NEED FOR A CAREER SCHEDULE

The survey of the Metropolitan Police Department issued in April 1966 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police noted when it discussed salaries: "The principal problem in the establishment of a compensation plan is the lack of a well-defined wage theory for the public service. Lacking such a theory, those responsible for the preparation of a compensation plan have floundered among various improvised conceptions. Not by the process of clear formulation but by rationalization from practices that seem prevalent, wage setting for per annum employees in the public service appears to be generally based on the minimum rate necessary to obtain qualified employees." 1

As the salary schedule is currently constructed a policeman or fireman at Class 1(a) can only look toward a 16 percent increase in scheduled salary between the entrance salary and the time he reaches the maximum after seven years.

The past emphasis on recruitment has focused a majority of attention "on the minimum" rate. We believe that greater emphasis must be placed on the development of a career pay system as it relates to police and fire, rather than just providing a high entrance salary. A competitive entrance salary rate is necessary but those individuals who desire a career in public safety are looking beyond Step 1.

A career in any occupation must have as a basic need monetary growth which will allow an individual to plan a reasonable standard of living for his family and himself. The IACP noted in their report "a policeman's salary should provide an adequate living standard without restoring to outside employment, either by himself or his wife". Experience indicates we might expect "moonlighting" to be most frequent among the relatively young policemen and firemen who are faced with relatively low salaries and the rising needs for family support. However, the shift requirements makes holding an additional job difficult for the uniformed member and many times the wife is required to be employed. A further complication arises when children arrive and the wife's income stops. It is at this point that a policeman or fireman must decide to remain with the District or seek better paying employment.

Vacancies for police privates totaled 484 as of July 1969 and nine for fire fighters as of the same date. We believe that the concept of a career in public safety for young men must reflect a career schedule beyond the salary offered at the minimum.

We have found that the majority of voluntary police private separations, i.e., not dismissals, came about in the first five years. This turnover, we believe, can be reduced with a career oriented salary program as we are now proposing.

YEARS TO REACH THE MAXIMUM

In these comparisons a major factor which must be considered is the number of years it takes to reach the maximum. In nearly all major cities surveyed 1 IAPC quoted Milton M. Mandell in his text Elements of Public Administration.

(fourteen of nineteen) the time to reach the maximum for police took less than five years as compared to the District's seven years. This is also generally true for fire.

We must then conclude that since other jurisdictions get their uniformed personnel to the higher salary rates faster, the cumulative income for these employees tends to be greater than for District policemen and firemen.

Therefore comparisons of only minimum and maximum salaries can be misleading.

PROPOSED SALARY SCHEDULE

The three major elements which appear in this statement are as follows:

1. Police and fire salaries in the large cities have increased substantially since 1967, the last major increase of D.C. policemen and firemen.

2. The District's competitive position has dropped below the upper quartile for minimum salaries paid to police privates and fire fighters in comparison to the major cities.

3. The heavy emphasis on the minimum salary level over the past years has ignored the need to build a career oriented pay schedule for those uniformed members choosing public safety as their careers.

The proposed salary schedule averaging 12 percent which would provide a competitive entrance salary, rank the District in fifth place for minimum salaries for police privates and fire fighters and in second place for the maximum paid (without longevity) and establish a career salary for those who chose public safety

as a career.

OFFICERS' SALARIES

For the first time an index or ratio method above the private level at Class 1 (a) (entrance salary at Class 1 (a) = 1.00) was used to establish the salaries for ranks above Class 1. These indices were established generally on the basis of the relative ratios above police private and fire fighter found in the D.C. Personnel Office

surveys.

This principle takes into account that once the private level is established competitive ratios for officer ranks can be equitably determined without fear of salary compression.

The District salary proposal would put the District at or near the highest level nationally in all ranks from sergeant and above at the minimum and in first or second position nationally in maximum service step for most officer ranks.

REFINEMENT OF TECHNICIAN LEVELS

A refinement in the District's as well as S. 2694 proposal is the elimination of Technician I and II levels and the establishment of a single Technician rating in Salary Classes 1 and 2.

It has been our experience that the criteria used to differentiate between a Technician I and a Technician II is questionable. The concept of the Technician rating is to provide additional compensation to a police private or fire fighter who brings skills to the job over and above that normally possessed by the regular private. The criteria for the I or II rating was the evaluation of these skills in terms of certain GS grade or wage grade. The determination or evaluation in many instances resulted in inconsistencies which have caused internal problems. The proposal provides a rating based on a single factor, that of additional skill brought to the job.

ESTIMATED COST OF INCREASE AND PROBLEMS OF FUNDING

The estimated cost of the District's proposal for the increase is estimated at $9.25 million for a full fiscal year but the effective date proposed is the beginning of the pay period after date of enactment. Using the same personnel base, S. 2694 has been estimated at $10.1 million for the full fiscal year 1970 since the effective date is proposed to be July 1, 1969.

Although the District Government supports a substantial increase in salaries for its policemen and firemen, funds for payment of this increase are not available either in the District's Fiscal Year 1970 or 1971 budgets. Financing would be required from additional revenue sources and I ask the help of this Committee in acquiring these additional funds.