For example, nearly all of the business enterprises they regulate are subject to the equal employment opportunity requirements provided under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many also are Government contractors and, by virtue of that status, are subject to the equal opportunity requirements of Executive Order 11246. In view of the degree of control exercised by the agencies over the industries they regulate, the agencies could be a significant force for promoting the cause of equal employment opportunity.

In some industries, excellent opportunities are presented for enabling minority group members to participate in business ownership and management. For example, the motor carrier industry and the radio and television industry both require relatively small capital investments. By virtue of the licensing authority of the ICC and the FCC, these agencies could contribute measurably to facilitating greater minority business entrepreneurship. Moreover, minority participation in radio and television could be of special help in creating greater understanding within the majority community of the deep-seated injustices which minority group members experience. The agencies could also play a key role in eliminating discrimination or segregation of services and facilities provided by members of the industries they regulate.

The agencies, in most cases, have ignored their civil rights responsibilities. In those cases where they have accepted these responsibilities, their performances have been disappointing.

For example, only one of the five agencies that regulate specific industries-FCC-has taken steps to assure against employment discrimination by the members of its industry. The FCC has issued a rule against such discrimination by radio and television stations and is planning to issue a similar rule regarding telephone and telegraph companies. None of the other four agencies under consideration in this chapter has given indication of taking a similar step. Some of the FCC's actions, such as license renewals of radio stations that apparently discriminate in their employment policies, have suggested that the agency does not consider its antidiscrimination rule to have a high priority.

Neither the ICC nor the FCC has taken advantage of the special opportunities afforded

them to promote a greater minority participation as owners and managers in the industries they regulate. In fact, the standards used by the two agencies in approving license applications tend to exclude new entrepreneurship in favor of protecting those already entrenched in the industry.

Further, while most of the agencies operate under statutes which prohibit discrimination in facilities or services offered by industry members, few have even taken rudimentary steps to carry out their responsibility of enforcing the statutory prohibitions against overt discrimination. Little, if anything, has been done to eliminate the more subtle forms of discrimination in their industries, such as programing policies of FCC-licensed radio and television stations and recreational facilities provided at FPC-licensed hydroelectric plants. Nor have any of the agencies even attempted to inform themselves of the extent to which minority group members are participating in industryprovided services and facilities.

The five agencies charged with responsibility for regulating specific industries have barely joined in the civil rights effort being carried out by other Federal departments and agencies. To the extent they have adopted rules and policies against discrimination, they generally enforce them solely through the processing of complaints. Only the FCC has adopted an affirmative program to assure against discrimination. None has taken even the basic step of establishing a staff or single staff member with direct responsibility for implementing the agency's civil rights functions. Thus, such important matters as devising affirmative civil rights programs, coordinating the agency's civil rights responsibilities, establishing liaison with other departments and agencies having similar civil rights functions, and proposing new ideas for strengthening the agency's civil rights performance, are largely ignored insofar as no one is given specific responsibility for handling them.

The Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, although they do not regulate specific industries, are charged with responsibilities that carry significant civil rights implications. For example, the FTC, in carrying out its responsibility to prevent deceptive practices, could be an affirmative

force for protecting the ghetto poor from unscrupulous businessmen who exploit them. Indeed, the FTC has recognized the need to act in this area. Its one effort, however, involving creation of a Washington, D.C. task force, generally failed because of inadequate staff and lack of imaginative implementation. In carrying out its responsibility to enforce antitrust laws, the agency should, in appropriate cases, be concerned with the effect of incipient mergers on the economy of ghetto areas, including such matters as unemployment, price levels, and the quality of goods and services that will be available. Currently, the FTC does not view its functions with sufficient breadth to take these matters into account.

The SEC, in carrying out its responsibility of assuring full disclosure of information by registering companies, could contribute to more effective civil rights enforcement. For example, the Agency could require registering companies to disclose the fact that sanctions are being imposed for violation of Federal contract requirements under Executive Order 11246, of pending lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and findings of employment discrimination by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In addition, if the ICC, the CAB, or the FPC issue rules prohibiting employment discrimination by their regulatees, as the FCC has done, a regulatee found to be in noncompliance with the rule should be required to disclose this fact to the SEC. The requirement of

public disclosure not only would tend to strengthen enforcement of equal employment opportunity laws, but also would be of legitimate interest to potential stockholders who are concerned over possible loss of important contracts or pending litigation against companies in which they are thinking of investing. Currently, the SEC does not require the disclosure of such information.

Further, stockholders, by way of the proxy mechanism, could be in a position to bring an end to discriminatory practices by the companies in which they own stock and to transform these companies into instruments of social progress. The SEC, however, currently prohibits use of the proxy mechanism for the purpose of promoting "general economic, political, racial, religious, and social" causes, thus preventing socially motivated stockholders from even suggesting changes in company policy related to any of these matters.

Each of the regulatory agencies considered in this chapter can play a significant role in promoting the cause of civil rights. None has made more than a half-hearted effort to do this. Some of the agencies have failed to recognize that they have civil rights responsibilities. In this Commission's view, only after all of these agencies have acted forcefully and affirmatively to promote civil rights and end social and economic injustice can they truly proclaim themselves to be protectors of the public interest.

I. INTRODUCTION

In a number of the civil rights areas discussed in earlier chapters, mechanisms exist to coordinate and focus the efforts of departments and agencies having civil rights responsibilities in common. In housing, HUD is charged by statute with the duty of coordinating the activities of all other agencies that operate programs and activities relating to housing and urban development and of providing leadership in the Government-wide effort to further the purposes of fair housing. The Department of Justice has responsibility, under Presidential Executive order, to coordinate the Title VI activities of the large number of Federal agencies that administer the variety of loan and grant programs covered by that law. The Civil Service Commission is responsible, also by Presidential Executive order, for coordinating the effort to assure equal opportunity in Federal employment. And in the area of private employment, a loose-knit arrangement among the three agencies principally concerned with preventing private employment discrimination-OFCC, EEOC, and Justice serves this function.

There also are coordinating mechanisms that function across subject area lines, and there are agencies whose authority-directly or indirectly extends beyond coordination to decisions on overall civil rights policy and uniform methods of assuring compliance with all civil rights laws. The duties and scope of authority of these across-the-board civil rights coordinating mechanisms differ widely. Some have no role in the formulation of civil rights policy and programs. Their function is to see that Federal programs are understood at the local level and that Federal policy is carried out effectively in the field. Thus, the Federal Executive Boards, consisting of regional representa

tives of a large number of Federal agencies, have responsibility for disseminating information on the many social and economic welfare programs operating in the various cities and metropolitan areas in which they are located to assure effective and coordinated implementation.

Other agencies, in addition to serving an across-the-board civil rights coordinating function, also play a significant role as civil rights advocate, either as Government spokesman for minority group members generally or for particular minority groups. The Community Relations Service, part of the Department of Justice, serves as a needed link between the minority community and the Federal bureaucracy and tries to make the Federal Government more responsive to the needs of the Nation's ghettos and barrios. The Cabinet Committee on Opportunity for the Spanish-Speaking, recently given a legislative mandate, performs a similar advocate function in stimulating the Federal Government to protect Spanish surnamed Americans against denials of civil rights and to assure their equitable participation in the benefits of Federal programs.

Although these agencies and mechanisms have authority to coordinate or press for more effective implementation of Federal laws and programs, they are in no position to determine overall civil rights policy or to make binding decisions on how departments and agencies shall implement civil rights and related laws. There are agencies and mechanisms, however, that do have such authority. They are key parts of the decisionmaking process that determines Government-wide civil rights policy and influences the manner in which all Federal agencies carry it out.

The Department of Justice, in addition to its

title VI and equal employment coordinating functions, plays a broader and more determinative role in the Government's overall civil rights program. As the Government's principal litigator, the Department can be the key to determining strategies and priorities in civil rights enforcement. As the President's chief legal adviser, it can be instrumental in determining how broadly or how narrowly civil rights and related laws are interpreted. Through its legal interpretations, it can either stimulate greater compliance and enforcement activities by other Federal departments and agencies or set severe limits on these activities.

Within the Executive Office of the President, two mechanisms exist which have great potential utility in directing the course of civil rights policy and enforcement. The Bureau of the Budget, through its functions of reviewing budgetary submissions by all Federal departments and agencies and planning and evaluating Federal programs, can stimulate greater civil rights compliance activity by urging the allocation of additional resources for civil rights enforcement and more efficient program evaluation systems to assure that minority group members are receiving the benefits of civil rights and other Federal programs as intended.1

The President's own staff of White House assistants also can play a major role in bringing about needed Government-wide changes in civil rights policy and practice. Although they possess no formal authority over operating departments and agencies, the close working relationship with the President that many of them enjoy affords them unusually persuasive leverage to bring about such changes on a significant scale. In addition, the ready access of some White House staff members to the President provides them with special opportunities to generate sweeping Government-wide changes in civil rights laws and policies through Presidential directive.

The current and potential role of each of these mechanisms and agencies is discussed in the following sections of this chapter.

'The Bureau was reorganized in July 1970, and the President has indicated that the focus of its activities will be on management rather than budget.

II. FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BOARDS

A. Background

Upon taking office in January 1961, President Kennedy voiced concern that policy formulated in Washington was not being adequately implemented or coordinated in the field. A study team verified that this was in fact the situation; that many Federal agency directors in major centers were not even acquainted with each other or with the programs of the other agencies.2

As a consequence, in November 1961, the President ordered the establishment of Federal Executive Boards, under the supervision of the Civil Service Commission and the Bureau of the Budget, in the Nation's largest metropolitan areas. The Boards were initially designed primarily as a vehicle for rapid communication of Presidential concerns to the field and to facilitate coordination among various agencies in a particular locale. Their focus was altered in 1966, when they were charged by the Civil Service Commission with identifying critical urban problems and coordinating programs and policies to deal with those problems. Although never given specific civil rights duties, they have been involved in a general way in such civil rights matters as equal employment opportunity and fair housing programs and, more specifically, in programs designed to serve the poor and minority groups such as minority entrepreneurship and summer youth programs.

fices were located. Five more were created during the next 6 years. Pursuant to recommendations made to President Nixon by the Civil Service Commission and the Bureau of the Budget," FEB's are currently being established in 10 additional metropolitan areas of significant Federal activity." Thus, FEB's will operate in 25 metropolitan areas.

Members of the Federal Executive Boards are the highest officials of their agencies in their particular locale and are designated by the head of the agency in Washington. Although members are usually Agency regional directors, the ambit of concern of the FEB's does not extend to the entire region but is limited to the particular metropolitan area in which the office is located. The size of the FEB's varies from 40 to 70 members. Officers, i.e., chairmen and vice chairmen, and a five or sixman policy committee, are chosen by the members. The FEB's meet only on a quarterly basis, but the policy committees convene monthly."

Past operational procedure has included the appointment of standing committees and subcommittees to deal with matters of special concern to the FEB's, e.g., employee development and cost reduction. Committee assignments frequently were unrelated to a member agency's own program involvement. This, coupled with a proliferation of committees, lessened the flexibility and effectiveness of the FEB's. 10 As a result of a July 1969 joint BOB-CSC evaluation, FEB's will be reorganized along the lines of three broad areas of responsibility; " greater

11

'The 10 were established in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, and St. Louis.

'Kansas City and Los Angeles were added in 1963; Cleveland, Honolulu, and Minneapolis-St. Paul in 1968. • Memorandum for the President from Robert P. Mayo, Director, Bureau of the Budget, and Robert E. Hampton, Chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission, "Evaluation of Federal Executive Boards" 1, July 22, 1969.

'The cities include: Albuquerque, Baltimore, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Detroit, Miami, Newark, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, and Portland, Ore.

"Rosen, Rummel interview, supra note 2.

•Id.

10 Joint study by the Bureau of the Budget and the U.S. Civil Service Commission, "Evaluation of Federal Executive Boards," 9, 10 July 1969.

"See "Implementation," p. 308 infra. The roles are implementing Government-wide policies, service to the

reliance will be placed on ad hoc assignments; and the lead agency concept will be followed in selecting project chairmen.12

Organizationally, FEB's also suffered from the lack of permanent, full-time staff and budget. Although present and past Board chairmen have cited the need for permanent staff and budget to improve continuity and effectiveness,13 neither has been provided to the FEB's.

In the past, responsibility for furnishing guidance to the Boards resided both in the Civil Service Commission and the Bureau of the Budget. It was the Civil Service Commission, however, which was the focal point for distributing information to the Boards and channeling to appropriate agencies problems and recommendations submitted by them.14 However, responsibility for liaison, guidance, and technical support recently was shifted to a secretariat in the Bureau of the Budget in order "to offer a better opportunity to inter-relate FEB's to other recently organized field coordinative mechanisms." 15

C. Implementation

Initially FEB's were assigned four broad areas of responsibility: liaison with Washington and among agency heads in the field; management improvement and cost reduction; improvement in relating to State and local governments; and identification and referral of problems to Washington.16 According to Civil Service Commission officials, FEB's enjoyed some success, during their initial years, in carrying out these functions, particularly in disseminating administration policy and improving communication channels between Washington and the field.17

Following the 1965 riot in Watts, the focus of the FEB's was redirected. They were asked