CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served two copies of the foregoing Brief for THE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC NONDISCRIMINATION AND INTEGRITY as Amicus Curiae upon counsel for Appellants and Appellee by mailing them, first class, postage prepaid, to the offices indicated below: APPENDIX PART 1.-ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE, STATEMENTS, AND MATERIALS FROM THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Hon. BIRCH BAYH, U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, Chairman, Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In view of your interest in the consolidation of the Commission's 51 State Advisory Committees into ten Regional Advisory Committees, I am enclosing a copy of a recent letter from James T. McIntyre, Jr., Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The letter indicates that after a reassessment of the matter, the Office of Management and Budget still believes that the proposed regional committee structure is preferable to the present State Advisory Committee organization. The Commission is committed to involving current State Advisory Committee leaders in implementing an effective transition program. I will, of course, be prepared to address the matter of advisory committee reorganization at the time of your subcommittee's hearings on legislation extending the life of the agency. In that regard we have developed a more complete written response to the issues raised in your letters of September 21, 1977 and October 14, 1977 which will be the basis for our testimony. It will provide more details on how the reorganization is planned. We shall send this response when we submit our written testimony to you prior to the hearing. If you should have any questions prior to the hearings, please have Mr. Dixon call Lucy Edwards or Jim Lyons at 254-6626. Sincerely, Enclosure. Hon. ARTHUR S. FLEMMING, ARTHUR S. FLEMMING, Chairman (For the Commissioners.) EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Chairman, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: After meeting with a number of representatives of the Commission's State Advisory Committees last month I indicated that, in light of their concerns, we would reassess the recommendation in Mr. Granquist's letter of August 19, 1977, that the State Advisory Committees be consolidated into ten Regional Advisory Committees. We have completed that reassessment, which included a careful review of both the original basis for the recommendation and the views subsequently expressed. While we continue to be impressed with the accomplishments of the State Advisory Committees, and the contributions they have made, we believe that the proposed regional committees structure will put the Commission in an even better position to perform its vital role in ending all forms of discrimination. As we indicated earlier, we would be happy to assist you in any way we can in effecting the transition, and share your commitment to meeting the objectives of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Sincerely, JAMES T. MCINTYRE, Jr., Hon. BIRCH BAYH, U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN BAYH: On November 22, 1977, you wrote to me confirming your plans to hold hearings on S. 2300, a bill which you introduced to extend the life of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. I am prepared to testify on December 15 and am enclosing 50 copies of my written statement for the record. I welcome the opportunity to testify on this bill and respond to questions which you and members of the Committee may have. In your letter of October 14, 1977, you extended a similar invitation to us and raised six issues which you expect to cover at the hearing. My prepared statement covers the issues listed in your letter except for issues 4, 5 and 6. I shall briefly respond to these issues in this letter. Issue 4: Whether the Commission's state advisory panels should be retained in their present form or be combined into regional groups. In August, Office of Management and Budget staff recommended the consolidation of our 51 State Advisory Committees into 10 Regional Advisory Committees as a part of the President's plan "to improve the organization and effectiveness of Government." After some discussion of the alternatives, we agreed. In September, we met with regional staff, chairpersons and members of the State Advisory Committees and presented a transition plan to them. The Commission asked for advice and assistance in effecting the transition. Recommendations were received from them and statements of concern that the State Advisory Committees be continued were expressed by them. State Advisory Committee Chairpersons and members who do not agree with the change have conveyed their views to White House and OMB staff, as well as to members of the Congress. The Office of Management and Budget reassessed the situation in light of such requests, and in November reaffirmed its original recommendation. The Commission anticipates meeting with a number of the State Advisory Committee representatives who have strongly asserted that the State Advisory Committee structure should be retained. It is our continued hope that they will assist us in the transition. The Commission is committed to moving forward in this matter. The 51 State Advisory Committees will be consolidated into the 10 Regional Advisory Committees by February 1978. The total number of members will be cut from about 800 to about 400, with at least 5 members from each state on a Regional Advisory Committee. All present State Advisory Committee Chairpersons and many of the present members will be invited to serve on the Regional Advisory Committees. Our thinking is that Regional Advisory Committees can be effective, as was the case with State Advisory Committees, when members are strategically selected to allow for full representation. We further feel that the mission of he Agency will not suffer if the Regional Advisory Committees have a substantial input into the programming of the Commission and are allowed to retain some resource for dealing with local critical issues, which we will ensure. Issue 5: Whether the Commission should be authorized to spend the amounts necessary to carry out its mandate during the extension period or retain an authorization ceiling limiting its authority to spend. There are two important reasons for removing the statutory ceiling on the Commission's annual appropriations. First, such a ceiling is the exception rather than the rule; most Federal agency operating budgets, as opposed to grant programs, have open-ended appropriations provisions. As a practical matter, every annual appropriation request is subjected to a thorough review by the Office of Management and Budget and by the Congress. Under the existing legislation, however, in order to increase the Commission's annual appropriation, the Congress must first go through the complicated and time-consuming process of amending the Commission statute. Removal of the ceiling would permit the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress to determine the Commission's financial needs on the basis of an annual review of the agency's work in light of the country's needs, without the hindrances and delay imposed by the necessity to seek new authorization legislation. |