14 activities of any Commission under such direction and control were pre- Time and space limitations imposed upon me by the Commission Chairman prohibit a detailed elaboration of the peculiar composition of the Mr. Bender also participated. It was crystal-clear from the position taken 1 by Mr. Bender on that show that he was dedicated to the position on obscenity I am in possession of a taped copy of the show, which is incorporated herein by reference, 15 enunciated by the American Civil Liberties Union--a position, as I have stated, diametrically opposed to the purpose and intent of Public Law 90-100. When I attended my first meeting of the Commission in July, 1969, the direction and propensities of the Commission toward a "Danish" solution to the problem became immediately obvious. It was also obvious that the Commission was meeting infrequently and the work was being done by a Staff which, with a couple of exceptions, had no background or familiarity with the problem of obscenity and pornography. At this point, I promptly requested the Commission to meet frequently and regularly, suggesting meetings every two weeks or certainly no less often than once a month. My purpose was to have the Commission itself engage in the task at hand and not delegate it to others. This request was denied. I next asked that I be permitted to serve on each of the four Panels which the Commission had created; namely, Traffic and Distribution, Legal, Effects, and Positive Approaches. (This latter Panel, as constituted and directed, has no basis in Public Law 90-100.) This request was also denied to me; and, further, while I was told that I could attend any Panel session, it was to be strictly a non-participating attendance. The Chairman then arbitrarily assigned me to the Legal Panel, whereon I refused to serve inasmuch as the Panel itself did not do the work but rather delegated it to Mr. Bender whose biased predispositions were obviously opposed to the purport and intent of Public Law 90-100. I then argued for public hearings to investigate the nature and extent of pornography, the persons who comprised the industry, and other relevant 16 facts, suggesting these public hearings be held in key areas throughout the United States. This request was also denied, although later, after Commissioners Hill and Link (with whom I found myself in almost constant agreement), knowing the importance of public hearings, went ahead on their own and held quite a few such hearings across the country. The majority of the Commission were thus forced into holding public hearings which they did at the end of the life of the Commission in Los Angeles and in Washington, but in a manner so as to effectively exclude meaningful dissent or contradiction to their direction. I have been accused of non-attendance at the Commission meetings. From the foregoing conduct of the Commission, it became obvious to me that the best service I could render would be to utilize the time I had available for my own investigation, fact-finding, and opinions. This being the case, I repeatedly requested the Commission for copies of any and all Staff or contractors or Panel Reports, studies, memoranda, etc.; for minutes of the Commission's meetings; for budget information; and for information regarding the biographical background of the Staff, etc. These requests were never complied with. Structure of the Commission Report The method arrived at by the Commission to evolve its Final Report was this: The contracts, along with certain Staff work, would result in a series of "Technical Reports." These Reports of so-called experts were to be the basis for Panel information and deliberation and subsequently the four Panel Reports. In turn, the four Panel Reports would be the basis for 17 the Commission Overview Report. As a matter of fact, the Final Draft of the Overview Report was completed prior to the final drafts of the four Panel Reports upon which it was supposed to rest, and the four Panel Reports, which were supposed to rest upon the Technical Reports, were completed before the completion of the Technical Reports. Even today, September 30, 1970, the termination date of the life of the Commission, the Technical Reports are not completed. Improbable as it seems, the Technical Reports continued to be edited by the Staff, after the last full meeting of the Commission on August 25 and 26 1970, and even today, they continue to be edited and, as a matter of fact, will be assembled and "put together" by an administrative officer of the Commission who will, at that point, have no responsibility to anyone excepting herself, on her own time, as it is possible for her to work into a schedule under the circumstances of a new and different job, and then give them to the Government Printing Office. Similarly, the four Panel Reports, the Commission Overview Report, and the dissenting Reports, even though presented on September 30, 1970, to the President and to the Congress, have not yet been submitted to the Government Printing Office. and this processing will also be accomplished after the life of the Commission terminates under the control and direction of a person responsible to no one. Obtaining Information From the Commission As a Minority Member Several facts must be noted; namely, not only were the studies, reports, etc. denied to me, but I understand from the beginning of the Commission's life and certainly while I was a member of the Commission, 18 the awarding of contracts, the hiring of experts, etc., were never submitted for the consideration or the approval of the full Commission. Additionally, those Commissioners whose views did not concur with those of the Chairman were given no right, no authority, nor any funds for studies they considered On July 7, 1970, I received First Draft Reports of the Legal, |