adequately covered the relevant areas. The answers given would have remained the same even though the responses had been given anonymously. H. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your letter of February 24 regarding your Questionnaire on Administrative Practices and Procedures. A completed Questionnaire pertaining to the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration is enclosed. I trust you will appreciate that several incomplete responses are occasioned by the fact that I have but recently entered upon my present duties. You may be assured of my continuing cooperation and my willingness to provide whatever additional data you may require. Sincerely, CHARLES H. ROGOVIN, Special Assistant to the Attorney General. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION I. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS A. During its formative stages LEAA, and its predecessor, the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance, encouraged private participation in the agency's decision making process. The agency actively sought the advice and counsel of numerous public interest groups whole vital interests would be affected by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Officials of the Department of Justice, the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance and later the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration met and consulted on several occasions with representatives of the National Governor's Conference, the National League of Cities, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American Correctional Association, the National Service to Regional Councils, and the National Sheriffs Association. The agency's substantive plans and proposals were presented to representatives of the above named groups for review and comment. Suggestions and advice from these groups measurably assisted in early LEAA implementation efforts and these groups are advised on a continuing basis of developments affecting the administration of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration has, and shall continue to, encourage inputs from public interest groups. B. Section 517 of P. L. 90-351 authorizes the Administration to appoint technical or other advisory committees. Advisory committees shall be appointed in the near future to advise the Administration on police, court and correctional matters. We anticipate that such Committees will be composed of distinguished representatives of State and local police, court and correctional agencies and that such advisory groups will include lay representatives of the community at large. We expect to appoint a law enforcement education program advisory panel to assist the Administration with policy regarding educational assistance awards. We expect to appoint an advisory board for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice in the near future. Finally, in addition to these technical advisory boards the Administration will appoint a National Law Enforcement Advisory Council to assist us in establishing overall policy on improving the administration of criminal justice. It is our intent to actively involve the several advisory groups in our policy and decision making processes. We shall attempt to secure advice and counsel from these groups prior to the establishment of policy guidelines. C. To date, while no specific procedures have been established to "take account of the views and consider the needs of the poor as they might be affected by the agency's decision making," we have established guideline provisions requiring among other things that State Law Enforcement Planning Agency Board representation offer reasonable geographic and urban-rural balance and regard for the incidence of crime and the distribution and concentration of law enforcement services in the State. It is hoped that this requirement will ensure that members from high crime areas will be adequately represented on the State boards. In addition the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act specifically provides for programs of public education relating to crime prevention and Attorney General Mitchell has proposed that the State law enforcement planning agencies secure the views of independent citizens by holding Town Meetings on crime prevention. We shall encourage the States to actively solicit the views of their citizens and to the extent that particular crime problems are exacerbated in poorer communities we shall encourage the States to actively seek the advice and counsel of the poor. D. We are unable to answer this inquiry inasmuch as we lack sufficient operational experience with individual citizen complaints. E. Those affected by the agency's activities probably do not know enough about it. In addition to the States, the LEAA program will directly affect some 40,000 law enforcement agencies as well as state and local court and correctional systems. Professional association journals and newsletters, Departmental press releases and our own brochures and miscellaneous publications have publicized the programs of the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration. We are presently reviewing various proposals and plans for disseminating information and will be pleased to report further on these efforts at a later date. F. We are presently reviewing the feasibility and desirability of establishing regional Law Enforcement Assistance Administration offices. Should we decide to establish Regional Offices, the feasibility of creating them before we receive our fiscal 1970 budget will depend in large measure on a supplemental appropriation. Regional offices would, of course, participate actively in information dissemination programs. II. PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTING MORE RESPONSIVE AGENCY DECISION-MAKING A. We are presently reviewing the agency's decision-making procedures and we are unable at this time to render a firm judgment as to whether or not these procedures operate with reasonable speed. This Administration became fully operational on October 21, 1968. Between that date and January 24, 1969 the Administration published its revised planning grant guidelines and awarded a state law enforcement planning grant to each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Between October 21, 1968 and December 26, 1968 the Administration published its academic assistance guidelines, received and reviewed applications and awarded educational assistance contracts to 484 institutions of higher education. In the coming months the Administration will be charged with the responsibility of reviewing the State Comprehensive Law Enforcement Plans: these plans must be approved to render the States eligible for law enforcement grants. We are now examining our capacity for rapid, effective review and will be pleased to report further on this matter at a later date. B. The LEAA has a small Program Review and Planning Staff at present. We have access to Departmental computer facilities and we are now considering the uses to which we may put our computer facilities. The law enforcement field-police, court and correctional agencies have not effectively employed available human and mechanical resources to date. While various criminal justice institutions have used systems analyses techniques, computers etc., such use is not widespread. Thus the constituents with whom we shall deal do not now have superior human and mechanical resources. C. We have established an Intergovernmental Liaison Division and while it is presently understaffed we have attempted to use this Division, and other personnel, to coordinate LEAA activities with HUD's Model Cities Administration, with HUD's 701 Planning Program, with HEW's program under the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1968. We expect to increase the size of our Intergovernmental Liaison Division staff in the near future. In addition we have established four Regional Desks to handle the day to day contacts with State Law Enforcement Planning Agencies. D. We are unable to answer this inquiry at this time. The questions raised here are now under review and we will be pleased to supply further information in this regard at a later date. E. Again, due to our short association with LEAA and due to LEAA's brief existence we would not be able at this time to do justice to this inquiry. All of the questions pertaining to our staff are under review. We shall, of course, report further at a later date if you should so desire. III. THE QUESTIONNAIRE It took approximately two hours to complete Sections I and one hour to complete Section II. The issues raised were relevant and useful. Because we are now in the midst of an overall review of agency 57-371-Vol. 2-71-16 practices and procedures it would be difficult to suggest deletions or additions to this questionnaire. Our responses have in no way been. affected by the lack of anonymity. I. Tax Division DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: With further reference to your request of February 24, 1969, that we respond to the questionnaire of the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, we are submitting herewith our responses to the various questions. We appreciate the efforts of the Subcommittee to provide a constructive resource and stimulus for a joint effort at administrative reform. If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, JOHNNIE M. WALTERS, RESPONSE OF JOHNNIE M. WALTERS (ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TAX DIVISION) TO QUESTIONNAIRE OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY I. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS (A) The Tax Division is engaged in its primary function of litigating tax questions in behalf of the United States; because of the nature of its primary function, there is very little imput into the Division's decision-making process by private citizens or citizen groups. The Division does not encourage such inputs because, generally speaking, it would be improper. Infrequently broad general questions involving litigation procedures arise and interested citizens or citizen groups (such as industry groups) request opportunities to present their views. When this happens, the Division does afford such citizens and groups an opportunity to present their views. We do not believe any substantial increase in that type of input could or should be accomplished. (B) The Tax Division does not have any citizen or industry advisory groups in the ordinary sense. The Section of Taxation of the American Bar Association at times serves a function similar to citizen or industry advisory groups by making known to the Division (as well as other agencies concerned with federal taxes) its views with respect to broad issues and policies. The Section of Taxation of the American Bar Association, however, does not become involved in any way in the policy-making or decision-making processes of the Division in individual cases. No attempts are made to solicit the views of affected groups that otherwise might not become involved in the administrative process on their own initiative. By the time the Tax Division becomes involved in a case concerning a person or persons, the issues usually are clearly drawn and involve only questions of fact in the particular case or of law applicable to the particular facts. In such a case, there is little room for policy-making or decision making discussions with the adversary party except to determine whether a negotiated settlement might be proper and feasible. (C) The "poor" as we ordinarily think of them do not become involved in tax litigation. At times we are concerned with persons who may be bankrupt or in dire financial straits (and in that respect "poor") but ordinarily they are persons who have made substantial income during the period covered by the litigation. The Tax Division has no procedures to take into account the views and needs of "the poor" as such. Any individual against whom the Tax Division is proceeding naturally is entitled to all of the administrative procedures of the Internal Revenue Service and of the Tax Division. Such procedures are available to every taxpayer, the rich and the poor alike.1 (D) The Tax Division promulgates no regulations to be followed by citizens generally, violation of which would generate complaints. The Division's only regulations are those that establish its procedures for handling litigation in accordance with the applicable laws and policies. An individual taxpayer or his counsel naturally might complain about the manner in which a particular case is processed by the Division. Such a complaint would be given most serious consideration by the officials of the Division and in case a determination were made that the complaint was valid, the offending Division employee would be dealt with promptly and properly. The complaining party would play no part in the Division's deliberation on the complaint. While we have been in the Division only since January, 1969, we have not heard of any complaint of such a nature. If such a case were to arise, the sanctions applied should be adequate to deter future offenses. (E) Those affected by the Tax Division's activities generally speaking know a good bit about the Division's activities, at least through their counsel. The Division deals with attorneys throughout the country, and generally they are knowledgeable in the field of taxation. The awareness of the Division's functions, process and decisions is conveyed generally to citizen and industry groups in our court briefs and through court decisions ordering refunds to taxpayers, approving deficiency assessments against taxpayers, or imposing prison sentences on taxpayers. Also, the functions of the Division are spelled out in Title 28 C.F.R., Sec. 0.70. A greater awareness of the Tax Division's functions and the applicable internal revenue laws could be improved by District Courts imposing more adequate sentences on convicted tax evaders. One of the greatest deterrents to evasion of internal revenue laws would be an adequate imposition of criminal sanctions. Some District Courts apply the criminal sanctions adequately, fairly and reasonably more often they decline to impose adequate sanctions. The Tax Division does not make its records, proceedings and files available to the public because the Division's work relates to tax returns and related data of taxpayers. It not only would be improper but it would be unlawful to make such information available to the public. Certain information with respect to any tax case naturally is made available to the public 1 Naturally in collection cases where the taxpayers do not have the ability to make immediate payment, the Division settles tax claims on the basis of collectibility or on a time-payment schedule. |