It becomes one of planning and one of anticipation, not firefighting, because if this job is properly done, there are never going to be any fires.

I am very much afraid that if we address this problem purely from the standpoint of putting out the conflicts that arise in these areas, we are never going to achieve our ultimate goal.

And so I have serious doubts that a recognization such as advocated by plan No. 1 ultimately can achieve our total objective.

I think, as in so many cases, its fragmentation of objective and its limitation into traditional mediation, conciliation, or law enforcement, will detract from this overall function.

Now, the position I have just set forth is to a very large degree my personal thinking.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, in an official executive committee session, has not taken a position as far as I have just expressed. Their position basically is one of concern, and they do not per se oppose or, for that matter, encourage the transfer of functions from Commerce. I wish to make that very clear.

The questions that I am raising are questions that have been in the minds of all of the people having to deal with local government that I have come across. And I must say that in reviewing the testimony before this committee by the Bureau of the Budget, I find factual misunderstanding, because it was not my understanding that the local bodies dealing with this problem had any connection whatsoever with law enforcement. And, by far, to my certain knowledge and I am chairman of the Community Relations Committee of the U.S. Conference of Mayors-those bodies on a local level, the level of our cities, are independent bodies, only a few of which even have regulatory powers, and are completely separate and apart from law enforcement. And I think basically that they can ultimately best serve their function by remaining separate and apart.

As a matter of fact, in Minneapolis, where the regulatory and advisory functions were coordinated, they have just recently separated them out and made them independent functions located in independent commissions.

So I think, gentlemen, that we ought to consider total objectives in this matter, and we should evaluate where we are going and where we want to go, and how best we can get there.

I think if I personally had the responsibility for answering that question, I could not conscientiously approve the transfer of the Community Relations function to Justice.

Senator HARRIS. Let me say that I think you have made a very excellent off-the-cuff statement to this committee, in addition to the prepared statement which has been made a part of the record.

At this time I would like to ask two questions, Mr. Mayor, on behalf of Senator Javits.

The first is this: While your testimony indicates that the Conference of Mayors has expressed great concern over this transfer, do I understand correctly that you, speaking personally, would oppose the transfer?

Mr. GOLDNER. Yes, sir. If I were called on to make this decision, or if I had any authority to vote on this in the U.S. Congress, I would vote in opposition.

Senator HARRIS. I would further like to ask on behalf of Senator Javits, who, as you know, has been part of these hearings to date, and unfortunately had to leave momentarily:

Do the members of the Conference differ in their views on this matter according to their geographic background, or do most, north and south, east and west, share this concern?

Mr. GOLDNER. I don't think there is a geographic differentiation of opinion in this regard. The approach to these problems by individuals in their individual solution often will vary by reason of their background and training and environment. But from the standpoint of organization and structure, and from the standpoint of the realization of the very serious nature of this problem, this is the concern of every mayor in the United States, whether it is southern, western, northern, or even New England.

Senator HARRIS. I want to commend you personally, as well as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, for your appearance here. I think whether or not this plan becomes effective, we have sharpened the issues by your appearance, as well as the appearance of others who have opposed the plan. If the plan should become effective, I think we have performed a service by having you present, because we have secured some rather hard commitments in the record about how the plan would be administered, after it was effective.

So I do thank you.

Do you have anything further to add?

Mr. GOLDNER. I think, if I may just a minute, sir, enlarge briefly on the last question that you asked, to perhaps make it a better rounded

answer.

Because we are-w -when I used the term "we," I mean mayors, charged with the administration of local government-deeply concerned with this problem, and because of our varying individual backgrounds as to how we got concerned with this problem, I think I would ilke to make some observations that go into the approach.

First, sir, we are very much concerned with the fact that we feel very definitely this service is in support of local activity, and that it is an aid, if you will, to helping local general government solve these problems. We feel very strongly that these problems will never be solved by an administrative order or fiat originating in Washington, regardless of the merits of such an order or the soundness of the thing in writing.

We feel that to a degree this problem has been fragmented in its approach at the expense of fully appreciating the general nature of the problem. By this, I mean it is not purely a problem of prejudice. It is a problem of economics, it is a problem of education, it is a problem of job opportunity, as well as prejudice.

We feel that any approach to the ultimate solution of this problem, which we are all dedicated to solving, which forgets or subordinates the local responsibility in the solution of this problem, and not only local responsibility, but the realism that if it is not solved locally it cannot be solved any place else would be a bad mistake.

We feel that any approach to this problem which fragments the ingredients of the problems by specialization, and which, because of its approach, precludes a total coordination of administration and understanding of the total problem, will not facilitate its total solution.

If you apply these general principles, as I have tried to outline them, to a management structure, then of necessity the structure is not a line function, and the need of capsulizing the Community Relations Service, if you will, under a Cabinet officer here or a Cabinet officer there becomes secondary.

Basically, as we look at it, it is a staff function, it is a function of coordination and planning, it is a function of taking a generalist—and I use this in the generic sense, sir-with management ability and allowing him to coordinate and direct the functions of the various specialists involved. And I don't believe that looking at this problem from the standpoint of a line structure organizational view is overall conducive to effectively reaching the total problem.

Thank you very much.

Senator HARRIS. Thank you very much.

(The statement referred to previously follows:)

STATEMENT OF HERMAN W. GOLDNER, MAYOR OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLA., CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY RELATIONS, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS

Mr. Chairman, my name is Herman Goldner; I am the mayor of St. Petersburg, Fla., and I am chairman of the Community Relations Committee of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Our interest as a conference in the matter before this subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, goes back to our annual meeting in Hawaii in 1963. At that time the late President John F. Kennedy appeared before our assembly to urge us, as he stated:

** to identify community tensions before the crisis stage is reached, to improve cooperation and communication between the races with responsible leadership on both sides, to advise local officials and merchants and organizations as to what steps they can take and what problems they will face to insure prompt progress."

As one means of implementing these goals he urged us to establish local community relations commissions on an official basis.

There was good precedent for what President Kennedy recommended. Following the disastrous racial riots and disturbances which swept the Nation during the early years of World War II, when so many newcomers were pouring into the major industrial centers, some six to eight cities took official action setting up such biracial commissions and provided them with a budget and professional staff. Detroit, Chicago, New York City, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, and Cincinnati were among such cities. By 1960 there were 85 local official commissions in the cities over 30,000 in population of which there are roughly 600. By the spring of 1963, when the civil rights protest demonstrations reached such dimensions that President Kennedy undertook his national campaign to urge Federal legislation and greater local, State, and civic action to resolve these problems, there were 117 of our cities with such commissions.

Today, nearly 3 years later, the number of local governments who have acted affirmatively has more than doubled. Eighty percent of the cities over 100,000 in population have taken action. Some 265 of the 600 cities over 30,000 now have official local community relations commissions. A third of our Southern cities have acted and 70 cities have provided their local commissions with budget and professional staff. Twice that number now have at least part-time staff.

The number of local community relations commissions is continuing to grow and local financial commitment is keeping pace. Last year, for example, the total local tax expenditure for these commissions' efforts increased by 40 percent and now stands at nearly $4 million. (I might point out parenthetically that that figure is double what it is proposed be appropriated for the Federal Community Relations Service.)

I am proud to say that our national action as a conference has had a good deal to do with these developments. And I am personally proud that I was a sponsor with Mayor Jerome Cavanagh of Detroit of the resolution which was adopted at that 1963 conference committing the conference to a program designed to enlarge equal opportunity and affirmative action. (A copy of that resolution is attached to my statement.) Following this action you may be interested to know that the conference established its own Community Relations Service in November, 1963.

Senator HARRIS. I would further like to ask on behalf of Senator Javits, who, as you know, has been part of these hearings to date, and unfortunately had to leave momentarily:

Do the members of the Conference differ in their views on this matter according to their geographic background, or do most, north and south, east and west, share this concern?

Mr. GOLDNER. I don't think there is a geographic differentiation of opinion in this regard. The approach to these problems by individuals in their individual solution often will vary by reason of their background and training and environment. But from the standpoint of organization and structure, and from the standpoint of the realization of the very serious nature of this problem, this is the concern of every mayor in the United States, whether it is southern, western, northern, or even New England.

Senator HARRIS. I want to commend you personally, as well as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, for your appearance here. I think whether or not this plan becomes effective, we have sharpened the issues by your appearance, as well as the appearance of others who have opposed the plan. If the plan should become effective, I think we have performed a service by having you present, because we have secured some rather hard commitments in the record about how the plan would be administered, after it was effective.

So I do thank you.

Do you have anything further to add?

Mr. GOLDNER. I think, if I may just a minute, sir, enlarge briefly on the last question that you asked, to perhaps make it a better rounded

answer.

Because we are when I used the term "we," I mean mayors, charged with the administration of local government-deeply concerned with this problem, and because of our varying individual backgrounds as to how we got concerned with this problem, I think I would ilke to make some observations that go into the approach.

First, sir, we are very much concerned with the fact that we feel very definitely this service is in support of local activity, and that it is an aid, if you will, to helping local general government solve these problems. We feel very strongly that these problems will never be solved by an administrative order or fiat originating in Washington, regardless of the merits of such an order or the soundness of the thing in writing.

We feel that to a degree this problem has been fragmented in its approach at the expense of fully appreciating the general nature of the problem. By this, I mean it is not purely a problem of prejudice. It is a problem of economics, it is a problem of education, it is a problem of job opportunity, as well as prejudice.

We feel that any approach to the ultimate solution of this problem, which we are all dedicated to solving, which forgets or subordinates the local responsibility in the solution of this problem, and not only local responsibility, but the realism that if it is not solved locally it cannot be solved any place else would be a bad mistake.

We feel that any approach to this problem which fragments the ingredients of the problems by specialization, and which, because of its approach, precludes a total coordination of administration and understanding of the total problem, will not facilitate its total solution.

If you apply these general principles, as I have tried to outline them, to a management structure, then of necessity the structure is not a line function, and the need of capsulizing the Community Relations Service, if you will, under a Cabinet officer here or a Cabinet officer there becomes secondary.

Basically, as we look at it, it is a staff function, it is a function of coordination and planning, it is a function of taking a generalist—and I use this in the generic sense, sir—with management ability and allowing him to coordinate and direct the functions of the various specialists involved. And I don't believe that looking at this problem from the standpoint of a line structure organizational view is overall conducive to effectively reaching the total problem.

Thank you very much.

Senator HARRIS. Thank you very much.

(The statement referred to previously follows:)

STATEMENT OF HERMAN W. GOLDNER, MAYOR OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLA., CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY RELATIONS, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS

Mr. Chairman, my name is Herman Goldner; I am the mayor of St. Petersburg, Fla., and I am chairman of the Community Relations Committee of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Our interest as a conference in the matter before this subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, goes back to our annual meeting in Hawaii in 1963. At that time the late President John F. Kennedy appeared before our assembly to urge us, as he stated: "* * * to identify community tensions before the crisis stage is reached, to improve cooperation and communication between the races with responsible leadership on both sides, to advise local officials and merchants and organizations as to what steps they can take and what problems they will face to insure prompt progress."

As one means of implementing these goals he urged us to establish local community relations commissions on an official basis.

There was good precedent for what President Kennedy recommended. Following the disastrous racial riots and disturbances which swept the Nation during the early years of World War II, when so many newcomers were pouring into the major industrial centers, some six to eight cities took official action setting up such biracial commissions and provided them with a budget and professional staff. Detroit, Chicago, New York City, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, and Cincinnati were among such cities. By 1960 there were 85 local official commissions in the cities over 30,000 in population of which there are roughly 600. By the spring of 1963, when the civil rights protest demonstrations reached such dimensions that President Kennedy undertook his national campaign to urge Federal legislation and greater local, State, and civic action to resolve these problems, there were 117 of our cities with such commissions.

Today, nearly 3 years later, the number of local governments who have acted affirmatively has more than doubled. Eighty percent of the cities over 100,000 in population have taken action. Some 265 of the 600 cities over 30,000 now have official local community relations commissions. A third of our Southern cities have acted and 70 cities have provided their local commissions with budget and professional staff. Twice that number now have at least part-time staff.

The number of local community relations commissions is continuing to grow and local financial commitment is keeping pace. Last year, for example, the total local tax expenditure for these commissions' efforts increased by 40 percent and now stands at nearly $4 million. (I might point out parenthetically that that figure is double what it is proposed be appropriated for the Federal Community Relations Service.)

I am proud to say that our national action as a conference has had a good deal to do with these developments. And I am personally proud that I was a sponsor with Mayor Jerome Cavanagh of Detroit of the resolution which was adopted at that 1963 conference committing the conference to a program designed to enlarge equal opportunity and affirmative action. (A copy of that resolution is attached to my statement.) Following this action you may be interested to know that the conference established its own Community Relations Service in November, 1963.