against A.T & T. and a decree entered against the entire basic steel industry does two things. First, it deals with all of the backlog charges which are directed against A.T. & T. Second, to the extent that we have a conciliation agreement and, in the case of A.T. & T. a court decree which gives us the contempt power of the court, we prevent future charges which we would not be able to deal with in the expedited way we can deal with them in the cases of A.T. & T. and steel; so we look to the time when systematic discrimination will be ended.

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Bell, your time is up. We have a host of witnesses this morning and the member is going to have to confine himself to 5 minutes. This is not by way of any negative reflection upon Mrs. Chisholm.

Mrs. CHISHOLM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to ask you two or three questions. First of all, in terms of the testimony that we have heard thus far, there seem to be many, many difficulties within the Commission. I would like to know, as Chairman of this Commission: What legislative proposals would you recommend to this committee to assist in the restructuring of this Commission in such a way that it can work much more effectively and efficiently?

Mr. POWELL. Well, Congresswoman Chisholm, I believe that I would be in a better position to answer that question responsively after I have had sufficient time to make the best use of the powers available to the Commission and to myself and to the senior staff.

I firmly believe that, when we get to the point where we are making the most effective use of our powers, we will be processing a lot more

cases.

The unanswered question is: When the time comes that we will be getting 100,000 charges in the course of a fiscal year or more, will the powers, when used most effectively and when we decide how much resources the agency will be given for fiscal 1975-will those powers be adequate to the task or not? That is a question which we do not have experience sufficient to answer.

Mrs. CHISOLM. My next question is this: In view of the fact we are faced with a fantastic backlog of cases, the private sector-that is, private lawyers-could assist in those situations where there is involved just the matter of a simple issue of law. I am talking to the fact that the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law have submitted a proposal which would help in terms of moving this backlog, and I am cognizant of the fact that there are discussions with the administration on policy.

Where is this particular proposal? Is it being held back because of the policy of the Commission or because of administrative procedures? Mr. POWELL. Well, certainly not because of the policy of the Commission. There are some very important areas in which my colleagues and I agree. There had been some discussion by Commissioner Lewis, who was concerned that we give some of the action, so to speak, to schools which were black schools and concern on the part of Commissioner Walsh that we take a careful look at the affirmative action status of a university vis-a-vis women faculty members, and I have endeavored to be very responsive because I am in accord with those views.

Now, the contract to which you refer is a contract which has at least two problems with it in my opinion. One is that the agency is laboring to make sure that we do not spend more money for this project than a reasonable allocation of our resources would indicate.

Another problem is that, as a lawyer and as Chairman, I am very conscious of the question of whether or not we take care to see to it that the charging party's interests are protected, and I take a very dim view, even with respect to the people with the Lawyers' Committee, about their looking at files as to which the charging party has not granted his permission.

The General Counsel is very familiar with my attitude in that regard, and I can assure you that we will do everything we can to see that somebody-it may or may not be the Lawyers' Committee, because I am concerned that the National Bar Association, the MALDEF, that Howard University get some of this, and I have been importuned by people in this regard, both inside the Commission and outside the Commission.

I am sympathetic, consistent with seeing to it a good job is done, that we do what would be required or we would hope what the outside corporations would do that is, give minority- and women-dominated institutions an opportunity to get some of the public business.

Mrs. CHISHOLM. Just one last question. Why is there this constant duplication and reopening of cases that have been settled at the State and local levels? Why, when they reach the Commission does the whole thing start all over again? Is that a waste of time?

Mr. POWELL. I agree. I think one of the terms which all of the members use, senior staff in EEOC, which is conventional with them, is a term I use to describe an attitude in the bureaucracy, which often has little relationship to the facts and one of the matters of conventional wisdom before I came aboard, that State and local agencies existed only for use to refer to and frankly we ought to get on with the business.

I frankly and firmly believe that not only are these agencies competent to do the job, save only for the resources question

Mrs. CHISHOLM. You said "incompetent"?

Mr. POWELL. No; competent to do the task but, in some instances, because they have greater authority than we do, they can do a better job, and the only way we are going to knock down the backlog-and, as I say, we are going to do it in fiscal 1976-is to exhaust every resource we have, and an important resource is the resource embodied in the State and local agencies.

Mrs. CHISHOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Mrs. Chisholm. Mr. Powell, I think that concludes our questioning.

Mr. STEIGER. May I inquire?

Mr. HAWKINS. May the Chair caution that we have representatives of the National Association of Manufacturers, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and other persons representing the business communities that we would like to hear.

If we proceed further, I would hope we have an understanding from the members of the committee that at noon, 12:30, or 1 o'clock they will stay with me. Do we have that understanding? If we do, I think we

can proceed. I will say Mr. Steiger has been our most consistent member in terms of reporting and he is very persuasive in that regard. Mr. STEIGER. Just a brief questioning.

Mr. HAWKINS. The Chair would be appreciative if we could limit our questions in view of the time factor.

Mr. STEIGER. Sure. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to you and the

members of the committee.

The Commission met yesterday and are the Commission meetings open?

Mr. POWELL. The General Counsel advises me that is the requirement of the Freedom of Information Act.

So, yes, they are open to the public.

Mr. STEIGER. And how quickly can we get a copy of the minutes of the meeting?

Mr. POWELL. I am very delighted to report that a problem which we had when I first came on board has now been resolved and I would say you would get a copy of the minutes of tomorrow's meeting within less than 2 weeks to the extent you consider it pertinent and relevant

to the considerations of this committee.

I

Mr. STEIGER. I think it would be pertinent and relevant and, yes, would like a copy of the minutes if it is possible to get them and have them incorporated in the hearing record.

[The information requested follows:]

SUMMARY REPORT OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.

(By Marie D. Wilson, Executive Officer)

COMMISSIONERS' MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1974

Commissioners Present: Chairman Powell, Commissioner Lewis (present for Items (D) 1.f., 2.a., (L) and (M)), Commissioner Telles, Commissioner Walsh. Staff Present: M. Carter, J. Cooper, H. Fleming, B. Hamer, I. Jenkins, E. Pena, B. Rivers (present except for Items (D) 1.f., 2.a., (L) and (M)), R. Romberg, S. Saltman, S. Wexler, M. Wilson.

(A) COMMISSION MEETINGS: EXECUTIVE SESSIONS

Chairman Powell proposed to define an Executive Session as a meeting attended only by Commissioners and the General Counsel, unless the Commissioners determine that the General Counsel does not need to be present.

Commissioner Walsh asked whether, under the Freedom of Information Act, a recording official should be present "in the event a vote is taken on anything." Chairman Powell said he "would be glad to know what the General Counsel says on that."

With regard to Special Assistants, the Chairman stated that he objected to attendance by Special Assistants unless there were some specific reason for their presence. He asked that the Chairman's Special Assistant be permitted to attend "in view of the fact that actions taken in Executive Sessions, ordinarily, are implemented by the Chairman or his Special Assistant." He said he had not checked "what the practice is."

Commissioner Telles suggested that no "fast rule" be adopted and Chairman Powell agreed that he was proposing a "general rule."

(B) STATE, CITY AND COUNTY AGENCY DESIGNATIONS; PROPOSED REVISION OF REGUATIONS; SECTION 1601.12, DEFERRALS TO STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES Consideration of the proposed revised regulations was tentatively scheduled for a meeting proposed to be held on Friday, September 20.

(C) BOOZ, ALLEN AND HAMILTON; COMMISSION BRIEFING

The briefing scheduled for September 19 was cancelled and tentatively rescheduled for Saturday, September 21, if Commissioner Walsh were able to return from a meeting in New Orleans on an early Saturday flight. Commissioner Lewis stated that he would not attend the meeting proposed for Saturday.

(D) LITIGATION AUTHORIZATION; GENERAL COUNSEL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Commission voted to sue, as indicated, in the following cases: (a) YPA3-041. Approved 3-0: Powell, Telles, Walsh-Affirmative; Lewis-Absent.

(b) YKC1-131; YKC3-120 thru 125, 128, 131, 132, 158. Approved 3-0: Powell, Telles, Walsh-Affirmative; Lewis-Absent.

(c) YJA3-272. Approved 3-0: Powell, Telles, Walsh-Affirmative; Lewis-Absent.

(d) YB12-128. Approved 3-0; Powell, Telles, Walsh-Affirmative; Lewis-Absent.

(e) YPA3-217. Approved 3-0: Powell, Telles, Walsh-Affirmative; Lewis-Absent.

(f) YBU4-111. Approved 4-0: Powell, Lewis, Telles, Walsh.

2. The Commission voted to intervene, as indicated, in the following case: (a) TLAO-0780 and five others. a/k/a YLA4-001. Approved 2-1: Powell, Walsh-Affirmative; Lewis-Negative. Telles-Abstaining.

(E) DISCOVERY PROCEDURE; EXPERIENCE OF EEOC; "INADEQUATE" INVESTIGATIONS During the discussion of (D) 1.a Chairman Powell said that it was his impression that the Office of the General Counsel "could enhance a number of actions which would appear to be 'inadequately investigated' by making full use of the discovery mechanism of the Federal Rules." He stated that a hiatus in the evidence could be filled in this way.

The Chairman asked for a report on the experience of the Office of the General Counsel in this regard, and whether that Office felt that EEOC has used the discovery procedure as have other Government agencies, such as the Justice Department.

(F) SEX DISCRIMINATION; MINORITY FEMALES; SPECIAL PROBLEMS; CONSENSUS In connection with (D)1a, a case of discrimination because of sex, female, Chairman Powell asked whether the Office of the General Counsel was "prepared to shape those kinds of interrelated inquiries, those kinds of innovative provisions in a proposed decree, which would deal with" the problems encountered when "a person is not only a woman, but black." S. Saltman, Office of the General Counsel, answered, "That is a consideration in every sex discrimination case that we file."

Commissioner Telles pointed out that these same problems exist for Spanishsurnamed American women. Commissioner Walsh added that statistical information supports the view that all minority women are affected.

It was the consensus of the three Commissioners present that it is important to direct efforts toward eliminating such compounded discrimination.

(G) LEGISLATION; CEASE AND DESIST AUTHORITY

The respondent employer in (D)1b maintains completely sex-segregated job classifications; 21 being all female and 130 all male. Chairman Powell observed that it is "preposterous that a respondent of this size, with counsel, would have sex-segregated classifications." He proposed that this was the kind of case wherein the Commission could use cease and desist power, since no massive discovery effort would be necessary. In answer to a question from the Chairman, S. Saltman, Office of the General Counsel said that "this, more than other cases, I think would be an appropriate vehicle for a cease and desist order."

Chairman Powell asked that the General Counsel, in conjunction with other parts of the agency, develop a memorandum "between now and Thanksgiving" 42-235-75-12

addressed to "those questions on which it might be appropriate to have cease and desist authority." (See, also, Item (K).)

(H) INVESTIGATIONS; JOB CLASSIFICATIONS; OLD PRACTICES; WORLD WAR II Commissioner Walsh asked, during discussion of (D) 1.b. if the Commission investigators look into whether sex-segregated job classifications were as restricted during World War II. S. Saltman, Office of the General Counsel, answered that investigators are instructed to at least inquire of witnesses as to the past situation, "going back as far historically as they can," especially with respect to sex discrimination. Commissioner Walsh stated that she knew of several plants which did not have these restrictions in 1942, and observed that "nobody seemed to worry about how much weight (a woman) could lift in World War II."

Chairman Powell pointed out that, while he agreed with Commissioner Walsh "100%," it was questions of this sort, which seek pertinent material, that led critics to accuse the Commission of "harassing people." Commissioner Walsh stated that she did not think the Commission "should be concerned about criticism when our cause is right and our purpose is right.” Chairman Powell agreed.

(I) LITIGATION; EXPANSION OF SUIT BEYOND CHARGE

S. Saltman, Office of the General Counsel, in presenting (D) 1.c. for consideration, said that non-alleged charges of race discrimination, on which cause was found, were to be included in this suit. The charge was not amended, and Chairman Powell stated that he had been questioned about such expansions by a Member of the House of Representatives. The Chairman said: "In view of all the ... charges we have, when we move to prevent other charges from being added to that (backlog), the Congressman thinks that we are being irresponsible." He asked the other Commissioners whether they would propose an answer to that. Commissioner Telles said that the answer was not a simple one, and that he believed that the basic objective of Title VII was to protect individual rights. “But I think," the Commissioner said, “basically, too, that Title VII is for the purpose of eliminating all types and kinds of discrimination wherever they may be found."

Commissioner Walsh pointed out that a decision had been made by the Members of the Commission in 1973 that the first charge against a respondent would be handled "very narrowly," and that investigations would not be expanded unless a "triggering" point had been reached. The formula for calculating this point would include not just the number of charges against the respondent, but the "size of the company." The Commissioner said that this "triggering" strategy had not yet been acted on, and offered to give Chairman Powell the records of 1973 action and a proposal, which the Chairman said he would be glad to have.

J. Cooper, Deputy General Counsel, observed that the Commission might be considered derelict in its duty if it did not act on non-alleged discrimination when it manifests itself during an investigation.

Chairman Powell asked the Office of the General Counsel to give him a report, "today, on the case law on the question of whether we can move on non-alleged charges or not."

(J) DECREES AND AGREEMENTS; MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE

Although the respondent in (D) 1.c. is not a party to a consent decree or conciliation agreement, it is part of the trucking industry. Since the Justice Department obtained a consent decree involving that industry, the question of compliance with such decrees arose. Chairman Powell suggested that a program be developed for monitoring the compliance of signatories to agreements and decrees. He was advised by R. Romberg, Assistant General Counsel for Litigation Services, that such a program was being developed.

(K) LEGISLATION; HELP-WANTED ADVERTISING

The respondent in (D) 1.e. advertised in the "Help-Wanted, Male" column of a local newspaper. Chairman Powell asked whether a newspaper's refusal to advertise in this way, except when certain assurances were given by the adver