we have experience. There have been no complaints in the context of A.T. & T.'s agreement pursuant to which we have this procedure, nor am I aware of any other complaints with respect to the experience that we have. So, putting aside the question of whether this is a matter which the Chairman can do or whether it is a question of whether it should be addressed to the Commission, because I did in fact present it to them because it is my feeling authority is not a question, the question is is this a feasible thing to do. Having gotten the advice of counsel, I feel as I do feel with respect to those issues, but I want to consult with my Commissioners and to be guided by their counsel. This is too important a matter for us to get hung up on the question of authority. Mr. HAWKINS. We would like to discuss with you the merits of this. I am not suggesting that the merits should be all in one side or the other. Mr. POWELL. I didn't understand you to be so suggesting. Mr. HAWKINS. It is a matter of finding out what are the issues involved and getting the views of those who disagree probably with the merits or legal authority of doing it that we would desire to have that testimony presented in some manner. Now, who speaks for the Commission? Who would be in a position to speak for other Commissioners, or is it necessary to address the question to each one of the Commissioners? Mr. POWELL. On the basis of my experience in 81/2 months, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that each of the Commissioners feel their responsibility in such a manner that they would want to speak each for themselves. Mr. CAREY. I may say, Mr. Chairman, in that regard as I follow this area of an informal or self-enforcement of charges, if you have me here tomorrow at 9 o'clock, I can give you the General Counsel's position. Now, I will be speaking only for the Office of General Counsel, but I can assure you that I can give you completely the position of the General Counsel's Office. Mr. HAWKINS. That will be good. Let us do that. Mr. CAREY. Beyond that, I cannot speak for the Commission. Mr. HAWKINS. The committee will take the steps to ascertain the views of the Commissioners. Mr. Telles, I notice that you are here today, but we are limited as to time. I wonder if you could respond, let's say, as rapidly as possible, possibly within a minute if it is possible to address yourself to that. STATEMENT OF RAYMOND TELLES, COMMISSIONER, EQUAL Mr. TELLES. I am Raymond Telles, Commissioner with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I had no idea that I would be testifying here this morning, but I am interested in whatever is related to the Commission. But to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, I believe that not only for myself but for the other Commissioners, I can say that we are very much concerned with this business of the backlog. I certainly appreciate the work that you are doing in this committee to try and find out what is the problem in the increased backlog that seems to continue. 42-235-75-5 As far as the question of authority, I don't believe that anyone would question the authority of the Chairman or the Commissioners. There may be a difference of opinion as to where an administrative function becomes a policy or where a policy becomes an administrative function. We are very much, as I said, concerned with the backlog, and we definitely would like to come up with new ideas and methods of meeting the situation. I doubt seriously that the question of authority really has much to do with it. Now, we do believe that the Chairman and the Commissioners have a responsibility to protect fully the rights of the charging parties as required by Title VII, and that is the question involved. Also, I think we have a responsibility to be fair and just to the respondents in arriving at a solution to the charge. I think we should make every effort to establish new procedures which are within the legal framework of Title VII in order to reduce the enormous backlog of charges and bring investigations up to date. I also believe that we must maintain the proper image and credibility of the EEOC before the people of our country. So there is no lack of interest or desire on the part of the Commissioners to develop new ideas, new methods of attacking this huge backlog. As far as any dispute as to the authority of the chairman, I don't believe there is any, although there may be a difference in interpretation. I think a memorandum which I have just written might explain at least my position more clearly as to the reason that I am opposed to the proposed procedure which is recommended by the Chairman and at one point opposed by the General Counsel. But now, as I understand it, he is in favor of it under a different procedure. My memorandum will state, I think, very clearly the reasons for my opposition. Mr. HAWKINS. In order to conserve time, Mr. Telles, will you submit that memorandum to the committee? We will have an opportunity then to go through it. I assume it gives your reasons for having been opposed to the procedure? Mr. TELLES. Mr. Chairman, not the procedure as such. It is the approach to which we consider unlawful since it does not protect the full rights of the charging party. Now, we are not opposed to any procedure that will alleviate the situation of the backlog. But I think that any procedure, regardless of how beneficial it may be, we feel it has to be within the law, within the requirements of Title VII. Many of the present procedures that have been implemented have been ideas that have been presented by the Commissioners over the past two years adopted in accordance with Title VII. Mr. HAWKINS. Could we ask you to present the memorandum to the committee before the day is over, and we will have that to consider. Is this a copy of it? Mr. TELLES. Yes, sir. Mr. HAWKINS. With that, may I thank the witnesses. May I review the procedure now. It is the understanding of the Chair that the committee will meet at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, at which time the General Counsel will be with us; that on Thursday, included on the agenda, Mr. Powell will be back. Of course, the General Counsel is invited back at that time also. Mr. POWELL. What time did you want me? Mr. HAWKINS. Nine o'clock on Thursday seems to be the general consensus. With that, the day is recessed to meet tomorrow morning, Wednesday, September 18, at 9 a.m. Mr. POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Mr. Powell. [Whereupon, at 12:30 o'clock p.m., the subcommittee was in recess, to reconvene on Wednesday, September 18, 1974, at 9 o'clock a.m.] EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1974 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2257, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C., Hon. Augustus F. Hawkins presiding. Present: Representatives Hawkins, Chisholm, and Steiger. Staff present: Lloyd A. Johnson, staff director; Susan D. Grayson, special assistant; Carole Schanzer, clerk; Richard M. Mosse, minority counsel. Mr. HAWKINS. The meeting of the Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities of the Education and Labor Committee is called to order. At the conclusion of yesterday's session, the subcommittee requested that Mr. William Carey, General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, again appear before the committee today. Mr. Carey has done so. Mr. Carey, you are accompanied by two additional witnesses. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. CAREY, GENERAL COUNSEL, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM L. ROBINSON, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, TRIAL DIVISION; AND GEORGE P. SAPE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL Mr. CAREY. Sitting to my left is William Robinson, who is the Associate General Counsel in charge of the General Counsel's Trial Division. And sitting to my right is Mr. George Sape, who is the General Counsel's special assistant. Mr. HAWKINS. I am very glad to welcome both Mr. Robinson and Mr. Sape as additional witnesses today, and to see that you are back and on time this morning, Mr. Carey. At the conclusion of yesterday's meeting, Mrs. Mink, in particular, requested this meeting this morning with you. Unfortunately, she isn't here yet. I think she will be in very soon. I don't know whether or not Mr. Steiger had concluded his questioning or not. May I ask you, Mr. Steiger, if you had concluded your questions? I do have some, but I will be very glad to yield to you. |