down that criticizes that appointment, is simply to say, "Well, it is the other side's appointee," and you then begin to destroy the integrity of the Board of Elections.

Mr. MURPHY. I can see your point.

Mr. ADAMS. That is why we are trying to make an independent group removed from the current election campaign and leave the City Council and the Mayors the responsibility of handling all subsequent elections. Don't you think that problems will immediately flare up in the coming elections if we follow your advice about the Board? Mr. MURPHY. It may. I personally don't think it will. I can see the possibilities.

Mr. ADAMS. What would you think of giving GAO the responsibility for this election?

Mr. MURPHY. I hadn't thought about it. Probably that might not be a bad transitional mechanism.

Mr. ADAMS. The currently appointed Board of Elections has a great many duties that are very different from those going to be required under this bill.

This bill provides for a Division that shall essentially serve as a police or monitor.

We have just been through an election under a strict disclosure law in my State. Therefore I expect that D.C. with the numbers of candidates it is going to have will have to handle an enormous volume of paper work.

Do you stand with the position that the Election Board which is trying to set up voting machines and do other things that are involved with the election should also be attempting to monitor what may be a long list of candidates? I would estimate somewhere between 100 and 150 separate candidates filing form systems will have to be handled assuming that at least 3 candidates will file for each of the 13 positions. Mr. MURPHY. I believe the actual work load would be carried by the staff.

Mr. ADAMS. My understanding is that the Election Board itself is involved in the detail of the electoral procedures.

Mr. MURPHY. The Board has been involved very closely and tentatively in connection with the development policies, and of course, these new regulations, but I would think that insofar as reviewing forms that have been filed in compliance with the law that is the type function that must necessarily be performed by staff.

Mr. ADAMS. Isn't that what is done in the bill? It creates a unit with staff to function within the Board of Elections and handle the mechanics, while the Board of Elections is moved from a detail operation to a policy operation?

This is the thrust of the Subcommittee's action. That is what we were trying to create, a way to have both the independence in the monitoring, and the experience and the good people on the Board of Elections as a policy group to oversee.

Mr. MURPHY. I think the way the bill is framed, this division would really become a separate entity.

Mr. ADAMS. For this election it would be an entity that would be doing the monitoring. It could be overruled by a Board of Elections. Isn't that what you want?

Mr. MURPHY. I don't see where the Board of Elections would have the right to, in effect, supervise.

Mr. ADAMS. Suppose there is an appeal from the ruling of the division?

Mr. MURPHY. That would go to judicial review.

Mr. ADAMS. Suppose there is an appeal within the department administratively? Inspector No. B, reviewing a form, has made a recommendation that the candidate be cited.

Mr. MURPHY. That is in the division.

Mr. ADAMS. But still in the Board of Elections?

Mr. MURPHY. But, the Board as an entity would have no role in connection with that problem.

Mr. ADAMS. What about firing the examiner?

Mr. MURPHY. I think the division is authorized to employ. The division is authorized to employ, and it would be the division that would be authorized to fire. The bill carves out and makes a separate operating entity out of this division.

Mr. ADAMS. It carves out three people. The Chairman of the Board and two to be appointed by the Unified Bar as a policy group within the Electoral Board, but it makes clear that this is a division within the Board, and that the personnel involved are generally subject to supervisory control by the Board. We could use the Board's expertise, but the establishment of the division was simply to indicate to the Board of Elections that they weren't supposed to be involved in the day-to-day monitoring of this enormous thing as they are presently doing.

Mr. MURPHY. Then I think there would have to be some amendatory language. Section 301 (f) as it is presently, deletes final decisions of the division with respect to the establishment of policy or rules and shall not be subject to review by the Board or any member or employee of the Board.

Mr. ADAMS. That is true. I am talking about the day-to-day monitoring operations of the personnel done within the Board itself. These are still employees of the Board.

Mr. MURPHY. There, again, it seems you have built a problem into it because you have employees of the Board. Then you have divisions with certain responsibilities set forth in the legislation.

Who are the employees going to be subject to? The division or the Board?

Mr. ADAMS. You just want to leave the Board in place and let them run it?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ADAMS. I noticed also that you have stated that you have been formerly meeting with the General Accounting Office. It indicates that there should be amendment in the bill.

It is on page 7. There are a number of major significant amendments and new provisions in H.R. 14754 which did not appear before the Government Operations Subcommittee. You stated:

We have been informed that based upon the General Accounting Office, a number of changes would strengthen the bill and we would support them.

They sat in on this in three days of mark up and I would like to know what they are.

Mr. MURPHY. We support the changes that have been made by the Subcommittee in the bill as the result of consultations with GAO.

Mr. ADAMS. You say a number of changes would strengthen the bill? Mr. MURPHY. I think we should say these changes.

Mr. ADAMS. Do you have another laundry list?

Mr. MURPHY. We do not have a laundry list.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Gude?

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. GUDE. I was wondering in reference to the last page of your testimony, you refer to H.R. 13914 introduced by Congressman Fraser in regard to conflict of interest.

You say that you would be happy to work with the Committee to develop an appropriate amendment to bring the provisions of Congressman Fraser's provisions into this bill?

Mr. MURPHY. Pardon me?

Mr. GUDE. In the last pages of your testimony you refer to the bill of Congressman Fraser, H.R. 13914, and you say that you would like to see some of the provisions relating to this matter, that is, conflict of interest, to be brought into H.R. 14754 as an amendment.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

Mr. GUDE. Did you take exception to some of the provisions in Congressman Fraser's bill?

Mr. MURPHY. I don't believe we take exception. I believe some of the provisions are already covered by existing law. We would generally support areas of conflict that are put forth in that bill.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES

Mr. GUDE. You favor a general statement of financial disclosures by candidates and by officials above the GS-15?

Mr. MURPHY. Financial disclosures generally across the board? Mr. GUDE. Yes.

Mr. MURPHY. I think that we do not have an official position on disclosure. I think, obviously, a reasonable disclosure which is balanced against a normal consideration of privacy or protection of privacy would be an appropriate provision.

Mr. GUDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Breckinridge.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I think you have added some necessary observations and I hope that it will clean the bill up.

On pages 5 and 7 you also touch on another area of concern to me. I think anything we can do here in the District legislation to lend credence to the incorruptibility of the democratic process and strengthen the individual private citizen's participation regardless of party membership in that process is important.

Only by the fact that it is done and by precinct and one of the very difficulties encountered over the years is achieving that type of participation on a meaningful basis.

This is perhaps why so many people are turned off and are dropping out of the major parties and falling into the individual groups by way of registration.

The system discourages rather than encourages participation. The place that starts in your judicial system is at the precinct level.

VOTER INFORMATION COST

Having said that, I would like-not now, but at your convenienceyour estimate of what it would cost to provide the voter information pamphlet which is mentioned in your testimony there so that the Committee can give consideration to any provisions of those funds, and I would go a step further and say that without knowing how you operate your election officials, schooling and training in the District. that this is another area of some particular difficulty, because our election laws are not simple and are becoming increasingly complex.

There is a certain stability in officers that serve over the year, but with the migratory population we are getting more and more people who know less and less about the precinct.

Consequently, the question of the election law financial information pamphlet is almost as important, if not more important, than the voter information pamphlet, that he might not know the member of a given party or representative of a given group or what the law is and what his rights are.

I would support the strengthening of that service and I would not accept the proposition that the President discharge that job.

BOARD'S HEARINGS

The hearings provided for, are mentioned on page 7 of your testimony, I note are limited to the year 1975 and I would hope that we might strike the year 1975 and wonder whether or not you would object again if the Board were properly funded to allowing that to become a continuing process whereby there would be in every election an opportunity on the part of the public, an opportunity on the part of the candidates, and an opportunity on the part of the people participating. to make a record that could result in a future purification of the electoral process.

Mr. MURPHY. This would be a hearing by the Board.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Breckinridge.

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE. Once a year. It would be a continuing process that would allow the Board to keep under continuing and a constant. review on the basis of review and experience, identification of the shortcomings, deficiencies, and inadequacies of the election laws, a publication and an updated pamphlet as the law is revised, laying a predicate for instruction and training of your election officials.

Mr. MURPHY. That may be a good mechanism. I would like to point out that presently the Board has prepared a kit for each candidate which does explain all the various laws and regulations that must be complied with.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Breckinridge.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. That is the kind of thing we ought to have on a continuing basis. Let me ask for information another question. You have a very one-sided party registration in the District of Columbia,

but on the other hand, I understand you have a lot of independent candidates that are not necessarily a major part. Is that correct? Mr. MURPHY. I think that is generally correct.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Breckinridge.

POLL WATCHERS

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. What assurances are afforded those independent candidates that they do in fact have a representation in the voting places on election day other than through the appointed officials of the Republican party and the Democratic party, and I take it they are designated by the responsible party under their rule. Is that correct? Mr. MURPHY. As far as representation at the polling places?

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. How do you choose and appoint your election officials?

Mr. MURPHY. Poll watchers for the benefit of the independent candidates?

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. We have a judge and two clerks and two sheriffs. The judge settles the questions, the clerks check the registration and books, and the sheriffs enforce the law.

That gives you, depending on whether it is a minority or a majority party, an opportunity to get a free division, and that represents the two major parties, but there is no one there under those limited circumstances representing any independent candidacies.

Mr. MURPHY. Under our procedure any candidate can designate poll watchers.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. What authority do they have?

Mr. MURPHY. They have authority to challenge, and if a challenge is made, the procedures for separating the vote until such time the challenge is decided.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. Are those designated challenges entitled to the same sort of instructions as to the law and their right as all other election officials?

Mr. MURPHY. I believe the Board makes available through the watchers, the pertinent information that they would have to be aware of.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. Thank you very much.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Fauntroy.

BOARD OF ELECTIONS

Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Murphy, I wonder if you would be kind enough to state the reasons for your opposition to an independent division within the Board of Elections to address itself to questions of the Campaign Finance Commission, which would obviously be more conversant with the questions than would be the General Board that may have so many other responsibilities.

Mr. MURPHY. As we see it, Mr. Fauntroy, the question of familiarity with the various laws and regulations that will be associated with campaign practices is of a certain nature.

For example, the existing Board is very familiar with that area right now. They have just gone through the process of developing fairly comprehensive regulations under the existing law.

31-517-74-vol. 2- -3