Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. SEIDMAN. That is correct.

Senator JAVITS. All right.

Mr. SEIDMAN. But I think I would read that in the context

Senator JAVITS. You would. But we do not have to. That is your reading.

Now, as to your business about conciliation by enforcement agencies, you are using that word "conciliation," are you not? It is not in their statutes necessarily.

Mr. SEIDMAN. I have not, Senator, examined all of the statutes. Senator JAVITS. Of course not. And you are talking about the settlement of cases, are you not?

Mr. SEIDMAN. No; I am talking about assuring voluntary compliance with the laws without proceeding with formal enforcement proceedings, by voluntary action.

Senator JAVITS. Yes. But you used the word "conciliation."
Did you take that out of those statutes?

Have you read those statutes?

Mr. SEIDMAN. No.

Senator JAVITS. And you are dealing with cases of fair employment practices?

Mr. SEIDMAN. That is correct.

Senator JAVITS. And public accommodation?

Mr. SEIDMAN. That is correct.

Senator JAVITS. And the word "conciliation" is your word, correct? Mr. SEIDMAN. Correct.

Senator JAVITS. Now, have you read the statutes with relation to these intergroup agencies, which the previous witness testified to? Mr. SEIDMAN. No; I have not.

Senator JAVITS. You have not. So you are in no position to give us this on the basis of an analysis of both types of statute, are you?

Mr. SEIDMAN. No; Senator, I am not. I asked for an analysis which was furnished to me, and I think this question might be addressed to Mr. Wilkins when he testifies. I think he will appear before your committee.

This was the analysis furnished to me by those who made a study of these ordinances.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much.

Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Harris?

Senator HARRIS. Well, I would just say, Mr. Chairman-it is not a question I drafted the Human Rights Commission Act in Oklahoma, and offered it when we passed it, I think 2 or 3 years ago. We gave them conciliation powers, not just enforcement of the law-but also enforcement of the law which for my own State would tend to confirm partially what Mr. Seidman said.

Senator JAVITS. That is one State, Mr. Chairman; is that right? Senator HARRIS. I think I made that clear.

Senator RIBICOFF. Any other questions?

The committee stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, March 4, 1966.)

EXHIBIT 3

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS,
Washington, D.C., March 16, 1966.

Mr. ROBERT WAGER,

Assistant Counsel,

Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. WAGER: At your request we have reviewed the duty, authority, and responsibility of State civil rights or human relations agencies. Data available to us shows that there are 38 State agencies with programs in one or all of the following areas: employment, housing, public accommodations, police-community relations, education, or general conciliation of issues. Twenty-five of these are independent agencies. Of the remaining 13 (each of which is part of a large department) only two are located within the office of the State attorney general. All 24 of the 38 agencies can issue cease and desist orders, 18 can initiate suits or seek court enforcement with the assistance of other official agencies, and 27 have either or both of these powers.

In terms of your special interests South Dakota and New Jersey are those States which have civil rights agencies clearly identified with the State attorney general. In South Dakota there is an attorney general's commissioner of human rights who is also an assistant attorney general. He has authority to ask conciliation, but he may also originate suits to seek enforcement.

In New Jersey there is created in the department of law and public safety a division on civil rights under the overall supervision of the attorney general. Within this division is a commission on civil rights, which is essentially an advisory board. The attorney general appoints a director of the division, but complaints are filed with and investigated under the name of the attorney general; but it is the latter who supervises the conciliation and complaint processes. Although the attorney general is interested to attempt conciliation as a first step in resolving complaints, there is specific authority in the State enabling legislation for complaints to be initiated by the attorney general, the commissioner of labor and industry, and the commissioner of education.

The term "conciliation" as used in the State legislation is applied to a situation somewhat different from that of interest to the Federal Community Relations Service. Conciliation in the former context is primarily a first step in the resolution of a complaint-thus, it is directed at the resolution of the problems presented in individual cases. On the other hand, seldom is Community Relations Service concerned with the investigation or the resolution of an indi vidual case, but rather it is concerned with patterns of conflict. If we can be of further service, please advise.

Sincerely yours,

WALTER B. LEWIS,

Director, Federal Programs Division.

REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 1 OF 1966

(Community Relations Service)

FRIDAY, MARCH 4, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 3302, New Senate Office Building, Senator Abraham Ribicoff (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Ribicoff, Harris, and Javits.

Also present: Jerome Sonosky, staff director; Philip Cook, professional staff member, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization, and Eli E. Nobleman, professional staff member, Committee on Government Operations.

Senator RIBICOFF. The committee will be in order.

Senator Hart, who was to have been the first witness, will be somewhat delayed.

Mr. Wilkins, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF ROGER W. WILKINS, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE

Mr. WILKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased at this opportunity to testify in support of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1966.

As I do, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that I have nothing but praise for the sympathetic consideration and unwavering support which the Service has received from Secretary Hodges and from Secretary Connor in the Service's history in the Department of Com

merce.

The legislation passed in the last two sessions of Congress has given to the President greatly increased Executive and administrative responsibilities in a wide range of fields. It is clear that the President has been and continues to be deeply concerned about deploying resources within the executive branch in a way that will enable him to carry out these enlarged responsibilities as effectively and as efficiently as possible.

There is no area of responsibility which is of greater importance to this country or to the quality of the lives of its citizens than civil rights. There is no area of responsibility, including this one, in which effective operations are not substantially impaired by a proliferation of agencies, by overlap and by duplication.

[ocr errors]

My own views on this are clear. I want the civil rights activities of this Government and particularly those of the Community Relations Service to be as effective as possible. I believe that Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1966 will help achieve those purposes.

By January 1965, legislation passed by the Congress and Executive orders issued by President Johnson and President Kennedy had created the following organizations, which were responsible for one or another facet of civil rights activity: the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Community Relations Service, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in Housing, and the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.

Early in 1965, the President, by Executive order, created the President's Council on Equal Opportunity. That body was charged with the responsibility of coordinating civil rights activities within the Government. The President asked the Vice President to chair the Council and asked him to look for areas where tighter coordination and more effective operations could be achieved. As could be expected, areas where streamlining operations would be helpful soon became apparent.

Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1966 is one of the steps designed to achieve tighter coordination and more effective execution of policy.

The plan would place the Community Relations Service in the Department of Justice which, because of its statutory responsibilities and because of other assignments given to it by President Kennedy and by President Johnson, has far more knowledge, far more experience and far more responsibility in this field than any other department or agency in the Government. It is the Department to which the people in communities with racial problems of all kinds naturally gravitate. It is the Department which has more coordinating responsibility in this field than any other. The Attorney General is the Cabinet officer to whom the President looks as his principal adviser in this area. The Attorney General is the Cabinet officer with the broadest and deepest civil rights experience.

The Director of the Community Relations Service and his staff need the advice, guidance, and assistance of a Cabinet officer in order to carry out their programs most effectively. The agency also needs departmental support and assistance which is deeply involved in and knowledgeable about what we do. The Attorney General is in a much better position than the Secretary of any other department of the Government to give me and the staff of the Community Relations Service the support we need.

In turn, because of the greatest bulk of the civil rights problems do gravitate to the Department of Justice, it is important that the Department has as many and varied resources to deal with those issues as possible.

Clearly, I want the Community Relations Service to be as deeply and broadly involved in as as much of the civil rights activity of the Government as possible. Such involvement will occur if the agency is in the Department of Justice. It is less likely to occur if the agency is located elsewhere.

« PreviousContinue »