Charges received jumped significantly (3,353 charges) in the third quarter, far outstripping charges resolved which only increased by 1207 charges. Charges received have hovered around third quarter levels since then, while charges resolved have continued to increase thus reducing the size of the increase in backlog.

Finally, we are taking steps toward improving and developing the Commission's information systems. This is a prerequisite to the achievement of the many goals of mutual concern to you, Senator Javits and the other members of your Committee as well as to this Commision.

I will be happy to discuss this report with you or members of the Committee staff.

Sincerely,

JOHN H. POWELL, Jr., Chairman.

JUNE 28, 1974.

Hon. HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In your letter to me of December 10, 1973, you requested that I outline my plans to eliminate or reduce the Commission's backlog of

charges. My response to you of December 13, 1973 indicated that I would submit both a preliminary report to you 30 days after assuming office, and a more complete report before the end of FY 1974 on the specific steps that the Commission is taking to reduce its backlog.

A preliminary report was submitted to you on February 1, 1974. What follows is a report on the specific steps that the Commission is taking to reduce its backlog during FY 1975 and FY 1976.

I have established as the Commission's major objective for FY 1975 the achievement of zero growth in the backlog. This means that the number of charges resolved must equal the 70,000 new charges we expect to receive in FY 1975. To achieve this goal, resources have been shifted within the compliance program from relatively less productive strategies to those which this agency's experience indicates will be more productive in terms of charge resolutions.

By shifting resources in the compliance area, we project that we can resolve a total of 56.000 charges, or 55% more than the 36,000 resolutions accomplished during the current fiscal year. In addition, we project that state and local agencies will satisfactorily complete 15,000 charges which would otherwise have to be processed by EEOC, bringing the total number of charges resolved in FY 1975 to 71,000.

State and local agencies are vital to our plan for zero growth in the backlog in FY 1975. In the past, our program for funding state and local agencies has been aimed primarily at developing their capabilities. In the future, this program will focus on obtaining a useful work product. In addition, we are decentralizing responsibility for this program by adding staff in district offices to manage the deferral caseload, which constitutes 65% of all charges received. The District Directors will determine how to best utilize deferral agencies to alleviate particular backlog problems.

Under the policy guidance of the Commissioners, the Headquarters staff responsible for the state and local program will provide necessary program support to the field. Our objective is to assure that the capabilities of state and local agencies are effectively employed. Through greater interaction between EEOC and these agencies and a coordinated monitoring effort, we believe they can constitute an important resource in the achievement of EEOC's goal of zero growth in backlog in FY 1975.

In the Commission's own compliance effort, a number of actions designed to make the compliance process more efficient, and thereby increase the Commission's ability to resolve charges, are underway. These actions are:

1. A systematic study of the entire investigative process, including the preinvestigation analysis (PIA) function, is in process. One of the early recommendations of this study-increased staffing for and upgrading of the PIA unithas been approved and will be implemented within 60 days. Through this action we anticipate that new charges will be categorized and consolidated more effectively, thus leading to faster processing of our caseload.

2. Currently being implemented are consent decrees covering the steel and trucking industries which contain mechanisms for the resolution of all outstanding charges covered by the respective decrees. Other similar agreements will be developed. We have also directed our District Directors to develop conciliation agreements which contain provisions for resolving pending charges. These agreements will also include procedures for handling new charges through a "fast track" method. Respondents executing such agreements will be required to investigate charges filed against them and submit proposals for resolution to EEOC. In addition, the voluntary programs staff is exploring the possibility of obtaining agreements which would include "fast track" provisions.

3. The Commission is now negotiating agreements with several federal agencies for the resolution of employment discrimination matters directly under those agencies' existing authority. These agreements will also contain provisions authorzing, as permitted by law, the use of the findings of these agencies in the resolution of charges under Title VII.

4. Six district offices with the largest backlogs are receiving on-site assistance from headquarters personnel in resolving their charges. These offices have onethird of the Commission's total charges on hand.

The Commissioners and I have determined that EEOC employees have not received satisfactory training. This deficiency in training has adversely affected productivity and the quality of the work product. To correct this problem, the Commission will institute for the first time a coordinated training effort, through the establishment of a training academy, starting in September 1974.

In the first year of operation, basic standardized courses for compliance personnel will be developed and 600 employees will be trained.

In FY 1976, our goal will be to resolve 100,000 charges, thereby attaining an absolute reduction in pending charges for the first time in the Commission's history. We project that we will receive 87,000 new charges in FY 1976, and that with our present staffing we can resolve 60,000 charges in-house and another 25,000 through deferral agencies. We will require 450 new positions to resolve 15,000 more charges and meet our goal.

As of June 30, 1974, we will have approximately 98,000 charges on hand in various stages of the compliance process. If we achieve our FY 1975 plan for zero growth in backlog, our charges on hand as of June 30, 1975, should remain at the same level or lower. If we have a production capability of 100,000 charges in FY 1976, our charges on hand at the beginning of FY 1976 will represent a one-year backlog. This will be reduced to a ten-to-eleven month backlog by the end of FY 1976.

We fully intend to employ every resource at our disposal (coordinated training, more efficient information retrieval and disposal, better use of 706 agencies, a possible revamping of the organizational structure of the agency, a streamlining of procedures, etc.) in order to achieve FY 1975 and FY 1976 objectives. Achievement of these objectives will be a substantial improvement over the past. However, even were we to achieve these objectives, additional efforts and resources would undoubtedly be necessary to achieve an adequately current caseload posture for this agency. Accordingly, we will make further efforts in FY 1977 to bring the time required to process a charge down to the 180 days stipulated in the Act.

This concludes my report. I will be happy to discuss this report with you or members of the Committee staff.

Sincerely,

JOHN H. POWELL, Jr., Chairman.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., May 13, 1974.

Hon. ELMER B. STAATS,

Comptroller General of the United States,
General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. STAATS: Section 705 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended creating the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been a source of continuing controversy to the members of the Commission and the Chairman.

Section 705 (a) provides in part: "The President shall designate one member to serve as Chairman of the Commission. The Chairman shall be responsible on behalf of the Commission for the administrative operations of the Commission..." (emphasis added)

There has existed much internal controversy recently over the Congressional intent in the above cited section and other subsections of Section 705. Certainly the inclusion of "on behalf of the Commission" raises a definite inference that the authority of the Chairman derives directly from the whole Commission as a body; when considered in light of the fact that the reference to the Chairman in Section 705 (a) is the only reference to the responsibilities of the Chairman of the Commission contained in Statute for the most part.

Section 705 (g) enumerating the powers of the Commission specifically speaks in terms of the Commission as a body, in creating its authority.

In substance, the controversy and concerns of the Members of the Commission stem from the different interpretations of Section 705 by the Chairman and the Members of the Commission regarding what Commission activities must be presented to, deliberated on, by, and decided by the whole Commission as a body. Of particular and immediate concern is the continuing controversy over Commission contracts, expending Commission funds, which the Chairman feels should not be considered by the full Commission as a body. And which the Chairman feels are solely within the Chairman's province to grant and execute without full Commission approval.

In an effort to resolve the continuing controversy over the interpretation of Section 705 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and to enable the Commission to fully exercise their duties and responsibilities under the statute. We hereby request:

(1) That the Comptroller General of the United States Government render an opinion interpreting Section 705 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, determining the roles and responsibilities of the whole Commission as a body; the roles and responsibilities of each individual Member of the Commission and role and responsibility of the Chairman of the Commission vis-a-vis the other members of the Commission.

(2) That there be a freeze placed on the expenditure of appropriated Commission funds, pending the rendering of an opinion by the Comptroller General of the United States on the interpretation of Section 705 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, unless said expenditure is approved by a majority of the full Commission.

(3) That all presently pending contracts of the Commission be held in abeyance pending the rendering of an opinion by the Comptroller General unless approved by a majority of the full Commission.

(4) That no future Commission contracts be entered into without final approval by a majority of the full Commission pending a ruling by the Comptroller General on this matter.

Absent a clear cut interpretation or ruling on the Congressional intent of Section 705 of our statute, the Members of the Commission will consistently be confronted with this controversy regarding the responsibilities and powers of the Member of the Commission.

In the interest of enabling the Members of the Commission to exercise fully their duties and responsibilities conferred upon them by our Statute, we resepctfully request that this matter be given your immediate attention.

Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

DEAR MR. POWELL: Enclosed is a copy of our decision of today concerning the administrative authority of the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

As our decision contains a recommendation for corrective action to be taken by the Commission, i.e., formal consideration and adoption by the Commission as a body of an affirmative policy concerning contracting and spending procedures, it is being transmitted by letters of today to the House and Senate Committees on Government Operations and Appropriations Reorganization Act of 1970, 31 on Government Operations and Appropriations. Your attention is directed to section 236 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 31 U.S.C. 1176 which requires the submission of written statements of the action to be taken with respect to our recommendation. The statements are to be sent to the House and Senate Committees on Government Operations not later than 60 days after the date of this letter, and to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in connection with the first request for appropriations made by the Commission more than 60 days after the date of this letter.

We would appreciate advice of whatever action is taken on our recommendation.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure.

ELMER B. STAATS, Comptroller General of the United States.

THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., September 19, 1974.

Re: Decision.

File: B-167015.

Matter of: Administrative authority of the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

1. Section 705 (a) of Civil Rights Act, which vests responsibility for administrative operations of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in

the Commission Chairman, is analogous to provisions in several reorganization plans which assign administrative responsibilities to chairmen of independent commissions. Since background of these reorganization plans, which seems applicable under section 705 (a), indicates generally that such provisions are not intended to supersede or diminish substantive powers of full commissions, EEOC Chairman's exercise of administrative functions is subject to general policies and directives of full Commission and cannot derogate from substantive responsibilities of full Commission.

2. Matters of basic Equal Employment Opportunity Commission staff organizations and budget formulation, while in part administrative, normally involve substantive determinations of legitimate concern to full Commission, and spending and contracting matters are in part administrative but may raise substantive issues which should be determined by full Commission. While GAO is not in position to delimit such substantive issues and therefore cannot in abstract question Chairman's judgment as to whether particular transactions should be submitted to full Commission, Commission as a body can and should formally consider and adopt affirmative policy in this regard.

This decision to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is in response to a request by three Commissioners of EEOC for our interpretation of that portion of section 705(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-4(a), which in establishing EEOC provides, quoting from the Code:

零 ** The Chairman shall be responsible on behalf of the Commission for the administrative operations of the Commission, and shall appoint, in accordance with the civil service laws, such officers, agents, attorneys, and employees as it deems necessary to assist it in the performance of its functions and to fix their compensation in accordance with chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of Title 5. ***"

The three Commissioners who have written to us refer to a difference in interpretation of section 705 (a) between the Chairman and other Commissioners in terms of what EEOC activities must be submitted to and decided by the Commission as a whole. Of particular concern, it is said, is a continuing controversy over EEOC contracts which the Chairman believes he may approve and execute without consideration and approval by the full Commission. Accordingly, our opinion is requested concerning the respective roles and responsibilities of the Chairman and of the Commission under section 705 (a).

The request of the three Commissioners also refers to the relative roles and responsibilities of each individual Commissioner under section 705. However, it appears that the context presented raises issues only in terms of the Chairman vis-a-vis the other Commissioners as a body. In addition, the three Commissioners requested that pending issuance of our opinion a freeze be placed on expenditures, all pending contracts be held in abeyance, and no new contracts be entered into unless such actions are approved by a majority of the full Commission, but we would have no basis for taking such action.

Subsequent to the request for our opinion, we received a letter from the Chairman of EEOC transmitting a copy of a memorandum to him dated March 14, 1974, from the General Counsel of EEOC captioned "Authority of the Chairman of EEOC." This memorandum addresses the issues raised by the three Commissioners, and provides a focal point for our consideration of these issues. In terms of the general effect of section 705 (a), the General Counsel's memorandum states:

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was structured so as to embody the ongoing Congressional intent, as reflected in the structure of other independent executive agencies, that the administrative responsibility for the day to day operation of the Agency be centralized in a chief executive officer. As a general rule, where the Chairmen of similarly structured agencies have been given the executive and administrative functions, such functions include (1) the appointment and supervision of personnel employed under the agency, (2) the distribution of business among such personnel and among administrative units of the Commission, and (3) the use and expenditure of funds. See Reorganization Plan No. 9 of 1950 for the Federal Power Commission (effective May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3175, 64 Stat. 1265, historical note to 16 U.S.C.A. Section 792); Reorganization Plan No. 10 of 1950, for the Securities and Exchange Commission (15 F.R. 3175, 64 Stat. 1265, 15 U.S.C.A. Section 78d). In other similarly structured multi-member agencies, as in the Commission, the collective body makes policy determinations and promulgates substantive regulations.