« PreviousContinue »
ful, mediation efforts must have a chance to resolve problems before legal enforcement actions are initiated or at any timely point during an enforcement proceeding. Untimely enforcement action could easily upset a promising effort to promote voluntary compliance. The placing of primary responsibility for both functions under the same Cabinet members will facilitate necessary coordination.
History at the Federal level does not support the view that efforts to promote voluntary compliance with a law cannot be successful if conducted by a law enforcement agency.
a On the contrary, law enforcement agencies are expected, wherever possible, to resolve problems of noncompliance without resort to formal enforcement proceedings. Indeed, in this connection it should be borne in mind that most Federal agencies in one way or another are concerned with the enforcement of Federal laws.
As I pointed out before, under title VI, all agencies which administer grant programs or assistance programs have enforcement responsibilities, and indeed are required to seek voluntary compliance before proceeding with enforcement.
Court action is but one step in the law enforcement process.
In June 1965, the Community Relations Service issued a pamphlet for local communities entitled “How To Turn Talk Into Action: A Guide for an Effective Commission on Human Relations." In that pamphlet, the CRS endorsed the assignment of law enforcement powers to the Commission on Human Relations. Nearly every city or State which has enacted an ordinance or statute prohibiting discrimination and created a special agency to further compliance with the law has assigned both conciliation and enforcement functions to that agency. This reorganization plan would establish the same pattern in the Federal Government to the extent feasible in view of the character and complexity of the civil rights functions of the executive branch.
Few areas of Government activity involve such wide-ranging problems of interagency coordination as the effort to assure equal opportunity. As the Government's lawyer, the Attorney General is uniquely qualified to deal with these problems.
In terms of the discussion this morning, I do not think you can equate the Attorney General of the United States with a district attorney, who has much more limited functions, nor with the attorneys general in many States. The Attorney General of the United States combines within himself the functions of both a district attorney and a corporation counsel at the local level-he is the Government's lawyer.
He also has a much broader range of activities than most of the attornevs general in the States.
Indeed, his duties are inherently Government-wide in nature, and he is accustomed to view problems from the perspective of the Government as a whole.
The Bureau of the Budget believes that the transfers made by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1966 will contribute immeasurably to the success of the entire civil rights program.
The reorganization plan will contribute to effectiveness, efficiency, and economy in the way I have described, chiefly by assuring maximum utilization of all manpower available for conciliation in the area of civil rights. It is not feasible however, to identify immediate savings which will result from the reorganization plan.
Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Javits?
Senator JAVITs. Mr. Chairman, there are other questions here which have been gone into with the Attorney General, such as the extension of the functions of the Department to conciliation questions. I am not going beyond the purview of the civil rights law.
I notice this statement is very heavily tied to an additional way to bring about voluntary compliance with the law. I do not conceive the Community Relations Service is confined to that activity.
But I do have one question I would like to ask.
I draw your attention, Mr. Seidman, to the statement at the bottom of page 7:
Nearly every city or State which has enacted an ordinance or statute pro hibiting discrimination and created a special agency for further compliance with the law has assigned both conciliation and enforcement functions to that agency.
I ask you to square that statement with what we have just heard as testimony, that the intergroup relations agencies in 32 States, with only 1 exception, New Jersey, and the intergroup relations agencies in 170 cities, are not under the tent of a prosecuting arm.
Just what did you mean by your statement?
Mr. SEIDMAN. The statistics, Senator Javits, which I have are that 85 cities have a local ordinance which prohibits discrimination, 65 of those cities have established special agencies to administer those laws, and 59 of the agencies established to administer those local laws to prohibit discrimination have both enforcement and conciliation functions.
Senator JAVITS. But that does not exclude the functions of the intergroup agency, which are independent, according to the previous witness.
Mr. SEIDMAN. That is correct. And I would like, Senator Javits, to respond to your previous comment, because the functions of the Community Relations Service, as I read the statute, do relate to the administration of Federal laws.
As I read under section 1002 it is to provide service to communities and personsin resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties which impair the rights of persons in such communities under the Constitution or laws of the United States.
So the functions of the Community Relations Service do relate to creating situations where you will obtain voluntary compliance with Federal laws and the Constitution.
Senator JAVITS. Will you also continue to read, sir?
The Service may offer its services in cases of such disputes, disagreements, or difficulties whenever in its judgment peaceful relations among the citizens of the communities involved are threatened thereby. It may offer its services either upon its own motion or upon the request of the appropriate State or local officials.
Senator Javits. That is also a function-peaceful relations?
Mr. SEIDMAN. Yes. But what I wanted to point out, the Community Relations Service is charged specifically with the function to assist in assuring compliance with Federal laws and the Constitution of the United States without formal enforcement actions.
Senator Javits. That is one function. The other functions do deal with peaceful relations; is that not true?
Mr. SEIDMAN. That is correct.
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.”
Senator Javits. And you are dealing with cases of fair employment practices?
Mr. SEIDMAN. That is 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 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?
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.)
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.O.
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,