« PreviousContinue »
much less if we had more precise and complete responsibility for this matter and exercised it than we do now.
Let me make these points. First of all the decision to do this was made in 1965. This has been continued by a number of my predecessors in this office all of whom I knew well.
The second thing to say is that we have now built up in this Government 1,800 officers, compliance officers, who work in these various 17 agencies, a number of them in Washington, a number scattered around the country. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance in the Labor Department has 130 people. So the main responsibility has been delegated and the stafling patterns over this decade have been built up along this line.
Now I want my mouthpiece to comment on some aspects of it but my offhand view is, yes, it would be possible, indeed my meeting with these procurement people the other day was to express to them directly my own interest in this state of unhappiness and to find out directly from them how they thought about it. I do think what one has delegated one has the problem of redelegating. I agree with that.
I also have the view that the concept of delegation, from my perspective, from the little time I have had to work on it, is a little bit confusing. Sometimes the concept of delegation means we give you authority and then we stand over your shoulder and watch you do each thing. That is one concept of delegation.
A very different concept of delegation is one where we delegate you authority, it is your baby, you handle it, and every 3 or 4 months we will come in and monitor what you are doing. If we don't like what you are doing we will take it away from you or give you additional guidelines but we will not sit there and handle each case two times, one time by you and the second time by us.
So I do think there is a good bit of need for clarity in this area of delegation.
Now Bill might add something on it because I am not familiar as much with the evolution of this system which, as I say, is a decade old.
Mr. KILBERG. May I address the two questions of both Mr. Clay and Mrs. Mink. Since there have been a number of references to mouthpieces, I would only point out that this committee both on the majority side and the minority side are graced with particularly able counsel.
First, Mr. Chairman, to address your section 60-1.2 which appears in title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, that statement is nothing more than a reiteration of the Secretary's orders issued in pursuance to the Executive order that delegated authority to the Secretary of Labor to administer this program. It gave him authority in addition to delegate certain responsibilities other than those for rules and regulations of a general nature to other individuals in the Department of Labor.
Pursuant to that and by order the Secretary of Labor has created the Office of Federal Contract Compliance. That office does report to the Secretary through the Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards.
With regard to the second question Mrs. Mink asked, it is true that the Department of Labor has delegated certain authorities to the various compliance contracting agencies. Indeed the Executive order
'in section 205 contemplates there will be a role for the contracting compliance agency. If I may read the first sentence of 205 it says:
Each contracting agencỹ shall be primarily responsible for obtaining compliance with the rules, regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor with - respect to contracts entered into by such agency or its contractors.
In addition that section of the Executive order commands each agency to set up from among their personnel compliance officers. The more important question I think, given the indication of the Executive order and the notion that this is a procurement process and therefore necessarily involves a degree of cooperation from the various procurement agencies, and related to the question that the Secretary raised with regard to the organizations of those agencies, I don't think that the Secretary of Labor, indeed any cabinet officer, has the authority to direct another cabinet officer to create an office where none now exists or to modify their existing institutional structure.
The question becomes whether we, in fashioning our general rules and regulations and working with the agencies, can fashion a system which relates to the needs, the problems and the operational structures of those agencies and the industrial sectors which they are assigned authority to regulate.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Secretary, I like the way your mouthpiece brushed off the regulations as merely nothing. I view them as the law of the land. I think that you are bound to obey the regulations which have been published and are the law of the land. I would like to read the regulations to you that we are talking about.
t'nder the general direction of the Secretary the director has been delegated authority and assigned responsibility for carrying out the responsibilities assigned to the Secretary under the order except the power to issue rules and regulations of a general nature. All correspondence regarding the Order should be directed to the director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance, U.S. Department of Labor, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Washington, D.C., 20210.
I would like you to explain to me how you can completely ignore this regulation and set up an intermediary between the director of contract compliance and yourself?
Secretary DUNLOP. What is intermediary?
Secretary DUNLOP. Mr. DeLury wants to say something. Let him say something and I will respond.
Mr. DELURY. I am not a lawyer, Mr. Clay, but the portion just read of "the rules and regulations of a general nature" are spelled out in the Executive order as being in the domain of the Secretary. He does indeed sign those rules and regulations. The Employment Standards Administration was set up in 1972. The Director of OFCC does report to the Secretary of Labor. He reports through the Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards.
Basically, no matter how one reads this, attorneys and myself as a layman, that is exactly what happens. The Director does report to the Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards for purposes of budget, personnel, resources, and resource allocation. I have the obligation on appropriations to make sure the budget is allocated properly according to title which I do. That is about the extent of it with respect to budgeting matters.
Mr. CLAY. I don't think you should change the regulations I think it is totally irresponsible to ignore the regulations, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary DUNLOP. Mr. Clay, I am trying to understand. Perhaps because I am new I don't understand adequately the point you are trying to make. I really am trying to be responsive.
Mr. Clay. The point I am trying to make is that the position of the director has been down-graded. Formerly the director was in the office of the Secretary, reported directly to the Secretary of Labor. Now he is removed from that position. In a word, across this country there is apparently no emphasis placed on that office.
You don't have to obey this part of the law dealing with nondiscrimination between race and sex. I think that position ought to be where it originally was, in the Secretary's office and the Secretary ought to take a personal interest in making sure that part of the law is carried out.
Secretary DUNLOP. I do recall, if you are referring to the fact that at one time Mr. Fletcher whom I knew, his office was in the area of the Secretary's, rather than reporting to another Assistant Secretary. He was an Assistant Secretary.
I guess I have a little bit of difficulty personally in believing that some of these matters of position make all that difference if the person is interested in it and if one has access to the Secretary on request. The Department of Labor has a number of anomalies in this area.
May | point out to you that the Women's Bureau has a Director which is a Presidential appointment, working in the orbit of an Assistant Secretary who is also a Presidential appointment. The Wage and Hour Administrator is a Presidential appointment, also working within the orbit of that same Assistant Secretary. So, I would agree with you that there are a number of anomalies in that organization which have been historical.
I will look at this location problem that you refer to but my graphical experience teaches me that the degree of attention and responsibility which the Secretary can exercise in a given area is much more related to access and willingness to talk about problems than it is to my formal organization chart. Also, the attention to problems varies at different times over the course of a year or as problems arise.
Now I take it what you are saying to me, and I want to be sure I understand it, is that you are raising the question of what might be described at the status or image or perception of the importance of the program in the Department by virtue of its location in the hierarchy of the Department. Is that right?
Mr. Clay. I think it is much deeper than that, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. CLAY. It has nothing to do with image and status as such. It has to do with the general thinking of the people who are running the Department of Labor, whether or not this program is going to be put on par with the other priority programs over there. I think for the past 4 or 5 years it has been constantly downgraded.
For instance, is there a deputy secretary or a deputy director of OFCC?
Mr. DELURY. No, sir, there is no deputy director.
Mr. Clay. If possible I would like the Secretary to answer it. If he can't answer it I think that ought to prove that maybe the position ought to be right at his desk there.
Secretary Dunlop. I don't know, Mr. Clay. What is the function of a deputy director?
Mr. DELURY. There is a position.
Mr. DELURY. It was vacant when I came to the job 2 years ago. We filled it with an individual who has left to go to work in the Manpower Administration. There is an executive search being done.
Mr. Clay. How long did he stay in that position?
Mr. Clay. So, for 2 years, 212 years, it has only been filled for 90 days?
Mr. DELURY. That is correct.
Mr. Clay. The Secretary does not know that. But he would know it if that office was assigned directly to him, I am sure.
Secretary DUNLOP. I don't think it would make a single bit of difference, Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Davis, wouldn't you have reported this to the Secretary that you didn't have a deputy? Have you reported it to the Assistant Secretary?
Secretary DUNLOP. I was not aware of that, Mr. Clay. Normally in the process of seeking people for key posts the Secretary does not go out and interview people or seek people until names and persons are brought to him.
Mr. DELURY. Mr. Clay, may I add a few points on that too, sir.
Mr. DELURY. Several years ago that position was a political position, schedule C. In order to maintain some continuity of service in the OFCC program because Mr. Davis was also a political appointee we went to the Civil Service Commission to have the job rescheduled as a career position. That in itself took time.
The executive search took time to get the individual into the job and the upgrading of the job to a higher grade, also a super grade position, took time.
Mr. Hawkins. Would the gentleman yield at this point?
Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Kilberg, may I ask you, do you review what Mr. Davis does and if so what type of reviews do you conduct?
Mr. KILBERG. No, sir, I don't review what Mr. Davis does unless questions are raised in which my office reviews programs.
There is an Associate Solicitor for Labor Relations and Civil Rights who represents the Office of Federal Contract Compliance.
Mr. Hawkins. You say Mr. Davis consults with you only on legal matters?
Mr. KILBERG. He generally consults directly with the Associate Solicitor for Labor Relations and Civil Rights. In some matters I am asked personally. When legal matters go out they generally clear my desk before they go out. Mr. Hawkins. Nr. DeLury, is Mr. Davis' action reviewed by you? Mr. DELURY. Yes, sir. Mr. HAWKINS. Prior to the time they go to the Secretary?
Mr. DELURY. Yes, sir. And if there are legal matters involved, and in some instances sometimes it is pretty difficult to separate program substance from legal substance in this office, then it would be reviewed by the Solicitor.
Mr. HAWKINS. Then, Mr. Clay, I assume, is right in saying that the regulations with respect to the 60-1.2 concerning the Director reporting to the Secretary of Labor is just being ignored. Is that true?
Mr. DELURY. I don't believe so at all.
Mr. HAWKINS. What does the regulation require, then, in your opinion?
Mr. DELURY. According to how it reads, sir, it says the Director reports to the Secretary of Labor.
Mr. KILBERG. The exact language says, “Under the general direction of the Secretary, the Director has been delegated authority and assigned responsibility," et cetera.
Mr. Hawkins. It says for carrying out the responsibilities assigned to the Secretary. It does not say he has to consult with you or Mr. DeLury or anyone else.
Mr. KILBERG. All officials in the Department consult with their lawyers on matters that involve the law. That is true of assistant secretaries who report directly to the Secretary.
Mr. HAWKINS. We are not talking just about legal matters. We are talking about all matters pertaining to the work of the Director.
Mr. KILBERG. It is only on legal matters on which I have a relationship with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance.
Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. DeLury is certainly not the legal counsel for the Director: is he?
Mr. KILBERG. Are you asking the question of me, Mr. Hawkins?
Mr. KILBERG. It is my understanding, reading the language, that we are not in violation of our own regulations. The general direction of this program, the responsibility for issuing general rules and regulations is the responsibility of the Secretary. The Director of OPCC signs all regulations along with the Secretary. The decision in 1969 to place the Office of Federal Contract Compliance for administrative and management purposes within the office of the Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards was a management decision which was made and I don't think it really affects in any significant way the priority which that program has in the Department of Labor. I don't think the two are really related.
Mr. HAWKINS. Isn't it true that the people in the regional offices, for example, personnel in regional offices report not to Mr. Davis, but to Mr. Delury. Is that not a fact?
Mr. DELURY. Which people?
Mr. DELURY. We have in each region an assistant regional director who, in view of decentralization, functions as my counterpart. Similarly, other parts of the Department, such as OSHA, have an assistant regional director. The associate regional director for OFCC re