District of Columbia Issues: D.C. Workforce Reductions and	 
Related Funding Issues (05-NOV-01, GAO-02-128R).		 
								 
As part of the Mayor's workforce reduction initiative, $18	 
million in funding was to be transferred from the District of	 
Columbia (DC) Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
Authority to the DC government for severance payments during	 
fiscal year 2000. This briefing report reviews whether the	 
District had the authority to use the $18 million in funding and 
addresses other questions relating to DC appropriations. The	 
District did not meet the conditions set forth in Section 157 of 
the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Act.	 
Therefore, the District did not have the authority to use the $18
million in Section 157 funding for the fiscal year 2000 workforce
reduction. The District advised GAO that it believed it had the  
Financial Authority's approval to use the Section 157 funding,	 
and, consequently, incurred $14.3 million in costs during fiscal 
year 2000 related to the workforce reduction activities. However,
the District provided no documentary evidence that the Financial 
Authority had certified compliance with the requirements of	 
Section 157 to authorize the use of the funds. The Financial	 
Authority disagreed with the District's position that it had	 
received the authority to use the $18 million and held to its	 
position that it had not approved the use of the funds by the	 
District and had denied the District's request for reimbursement 
for severance payments in writing. The District accounted for the
workforce reduction costs during fiscal year 2000 as if it had	 
access to the Section 157 funding. The District concluded that,  
had the Section 157 funding been unavailable, one agency would	 
have ended fiscal year 2000 with an operating deficit and two	 
agencies would have experienced increases in their existing	 
operating deficits. As a result, the District may have potential 
Anti-Deficiency Act violations. 				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-128R					        
    ACCNO:   A02418						        
  TITLE:     District of Columbia Issues: D.C. Workforce Reductions   
and Related Funding Issues					 
     DATE:   11/05/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Appropriations					 
	     Budget obligations 				 
	     Noncompliance					 
	     Budget authority					 
	     District of Columbia				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-128R
     
A

November 5, 2001 The Honorable Joe Knollenberg Chairman, Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr. House of
Representatives

Subject: District of Columbia Issues: D. C. Workforce Reductions and Related
Funding Issues

In a January 3, 2001, letter, the Honorable Ernest J. Istook, then Chairman
of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia,
requested that we review the use of the $18 million in funding that was to
be transferred from the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and

Management Assistance Authority (Financial Authority) to the District of
Columbia government for severance payments made to individuals separated
from employment during fiscal year 2000 as part of the Mayor?s workforce
reduction initiative.

On September 26, 2001, we briefed the staff of the House Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia Appropriations on the results of our review. This
letter transmits material from that briefing addressing whether the District
had the authority to use the $18 million in funding as well as information
in response to other questions posed by the Subcommittee. The briefing
document is reprinted in enclosure I. We received written comments from the
District?s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and oral comments from the

Financial Authority on the briefing document. The District?s CFO comments
are in a letter dated August 29, 2001, that is reprinted in enclosure II.

Results in Brief The District did not meet the conditions set forth in
Section 157 of the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Act
(Public Law 106-

113). Therefore, the District did not have the authority to use the $18
million in Section 157 funding for the fiscal year 2000 workforce reduction.
The District advised us that it believed it had the Financial Authority?s
approval to use the Section 157 funding and, consequently, incurred $14.3
million in costs during fiscal year 2000 related to the workforce reduction
activities. However, the District provided no documentary evidence that

the Financial Authority had certified the District?s compliance with the
requirements of Section 157 to authorize the use of the funds. The Financial
Authority provided written documentation to the District that it did not
release or certify the use of the $18 million in funding intended for

severance payments. The Financial Authority disagreed with the District?s
position that it had received authority to use the $18 million and held to
its position that it had not approved the use of the funds by the District
and had denied the District?s request for reimbursement for severance
payments in writing. In addition, the District did not obtain approval of
the plan from the Senate Committee on Appropriations as required by Section
157.

The District accounted for its workforce reduction costs during fiscal year
2000 as if it had access to the Section 157 funding. In particular, the
District recorded a $14.3 million receivable in fiscal year 2000 in
anticipation of

receiving the Section 157 funding. The District concluded that, had the
Section 157 funding been unavailable, one agency would have ended fiscal
year 2000 with an operating deficit and two agencies would have experienced
increases in their existing operating deficits. As a result, the

District may have potential Anti- Deficiency Act violations. We are
recommending that the District conduct the required review of this situation
and report as necessary any Anti- Deficiency Act violations.

Background Section 157 of the District of Columbia?s Fiscal Year 2000
Appropriations Act provided for the transfer of up to $18 million from the
Financial Authority to the District government to finance severance payments
made

to individuals separated from employment during fiscal year 2000, subject to
the District meeting certain conditions set forth in the act. The funds were
to be used only in accordance with a plan agreed to by the City Council and
the Mayor and approved by the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate. The Financial Authority was to release the
funds, on a quarterly basis, to reimburse such expenses, so long as the
Financial Authority certified that, based on the approved plan, the
severance payment expenses would reduce reoccurring future costs at an
annual ratio of at least two to one relative to the funds provided,

and that the program was in accordance with best practices of municipal
government.

Objectives, Scope, and The Subcommittee originally asked us to determine
whether the Mayor

Methodology followed the plan provided to Congress in conducting the
workforce

reduction and whether the objectives of the plan were achieved.
Additionally, the Subcommittee had requested specific information on (1) the
number of people involved in the workforce reduction, (2) related
expenditures, (3) whether individuals were in positions that were considered
?critical? and whether any individuals holding ?critical? positions were re-
hired, (4) the type of positions held by individuals who

took the buy- outs, and (5) whether costs savings were realized as a result
of the workforce reduction. This information is in appendix I of the
briefing document. The results of our preliminary work indicated that
certain conditions surrounding the District?s use of the funding for
severance payments made to individuals separated from employment during
fiscal year 2000 may not have been met. In June 2001, as agreed with staff
of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, we
expanded our review to include determining the source of funding used by the
District to fund the fiscal year 2000 workforce reduction and whether the
District had sufficient funding in fiscal year 2000 to implement the

workforce reduction. To review and assess the source and use of the funding
for the Mayor?s workforce reduction, and to provide information on the
Subcommittee?s specific questions, we (1) interviewed and obtained
information from officials in various District offices and the Financial
Authority and (2) reviewed legislation related to the $18 million in funding
for the workforce reduction and relevant accounting, budget, and program
data; personnel policies and regulations; memorandums; and cost schedules.
We did not independently verify or audit the accounting and cost data we
obtained

from District officials. Our work was conducted from January 2001 through
September 2001 in accordance with U. S. generally accepted government
auditing standards.

Lack of Approval by According to the Financial Authority, it did not approve
the District?s

the Financial Authority request for reimbursement for severance payments
primarily because the

District did not provide the Financial Authority (1) documentation
confirming approval of the plan by the Senate Committee on Appropriations as
required by Section 157, and (2) adequate analysis or documentation to
facilitate the Financial Authority?s certifying that the

workforce reduction would achieve the cost savings targets as required by
Section 157 of the act. The Financial Authority maintained its position as
stated in its October 20, 2000, letter to the District. The letter provided
supporting detail why the Financial Authority did not approve the District?s
reimbursement request for severance payments.

Funding the Plan Although the Mayor?s plan was not approved by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations and the funds were not released by the Financial
Authority in fiscal year 2000, District officials told us that they had
implemented the

workforce reduction plan under the assumption that the Section 157 funding
was available. Further, District officials told us that the District
recorded fiscal year 2000 expenditures against the Section 157 budget
authority based on the assumption that the plan had been approved and the
Financial Authority would authorize reimbursement for expenditures. However,
in the absence of the Financial Authority?s certification, the funding
identified under Section 157 to cover the costs of the Mayor?s workforce
reduction activities was not available for the District?s use.

District?s Preliminary The District concluded that without the availability
of the Section 157

Analysis of Fiscal funding, one agency, the Office of Property Management,
would have ended fiscal year 2000 with an estimated $246,000 operating
deficit rather than the Impact

previously reported surplus of $1.3 million. The District also concluded
that two other agencies would have reported increased operating deficits.
The Fire and Emergency Medical Services net deficit would have increased
from $160,000 to $260,000 and the Department of Corrections deficit would

have increased from $770,000 to $2,576,000. The District reported that the
Office of Property Management falls under the Governmental Direction and
Support Appropriation title, which would have ended fiscal year 2000 with
revenues in excess of expenditures sufficient to cover the charges related
to the workforce reduction. The Fire and Emergency Services and the
Department of Corrections fall under the District?s Public Safety and
Justice appropriation title. The District stated that if the Section 157
funding was not available, the Public Safety and Justice appropriation title
would have ended fiscal year 2000 with an operating deficit.

As a result, the District may have potential Anti- Deficiency Act
violations. The Anti- Deficiency Act prohibits District government officers
and federal officials from making (1) obligations or expenditures in excess
of amounts available in an appropriation or fund or advance unless they are
otherwise

authorized to do so by law and (2) an obligation or expenditure in excess of
an apportionment. The Anti- Deficiency Act requires the head of any agency
to report immediately to the President and the Congress any violation of the
act, including all relevant facts and a statement of actions taken. Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) A- 34, Instructions on

Budget Execution provides additional guidance on information that the agency
is to include in its report to the President. Fiscal Year 2001

During fiscal year 2001, the Financial Authority transferred $18 million to
Transfer from the the District?s general fund. The Financial Authority
stated that the March 2001 transfer was unrelated to the workforce reduction
funding because Financial Authority the District had not met the
requirements of Section 157. The Financial Authority further stated that the
transfer was intended to support the

District?s operations and daily cash position during fiscal year 2001 as
part of the Financial Authority?s periodic transfers of interest earnings
held by the Financial Authority on behalf of the District in accordance with
Section 106( d) of P. L. 104- 8. The Financial Authority stated the purpose
of the transfer in documentation provided to the District.

Conclusions The Mayor?s workforce reduction plan was not conducted in
conformance with the conditions set forth in Section 157. As a result of
using the $18

million for its workforce reduction costs as if Section 157 funding had been
available, the District obligated and spent funds that were unavailable. As
a result of the inappropriate use of funds, one District agency showed a
surplus rather than a deficit in its operating budget and two other agencies
showed decreased operating deficits. After reversing the prior accounting

treatment, the District could have reportable Anti- Deficiency Act
violations. Recommendations We recommend that the Mayor of the District of
Columbia perform the

required investigation to determine if the operating deficits resulting from
reversing its inappropriate use of the Section 157 authority would result in
or contribute to any potential Anti- Deficiency Act violations and report as
necessary, to disclose any such violations.

Agency Comments and We provided a draft of the enclosed briefing document to
officials from the

Our Evaluation Financial Authority and the District?s CFO. The Financial
Authority provided oral comments on the briefing document and concurred with
its contents, and we have incorporated its comments as appropriate. The

District?s CFO provided written comments on the briefing document. The
District?s CFO comments are reprinted in enclosure II. The District CFO
disagreed with certain information contained in the briefing. Specifically,
the District disagreed with our conclusion that it did not have the
authority to use the Section 157 funding. However, the District was unable
to provide documentary evidence that the Financial Authority made the
required certification. We reaffirm our view. The position of the Financial
Authority on this matter is clear- it did not authorize the District to use
the Section 157 funding, and the Financial Authority continues to maintain
its position

that the District did not meet the requirements for the Section 157 funding.
The District also commented that the Financial Authority transferred the $18
million to the District after the expenditures for the severance fund had
been incurred. While the Financial Authority did ultimately transfer $18
million to the District?s general fund, the transfer was not made during
fiscal year 2000. In addition, the Financial Authority stated that the
transfer was unrelated to the Section 157 funding and was intended to
support the District?s fiscal year 2001 operations and cash position in
accordance with Section 106( d) of P. L. 104- 8.

The District also disagreed with several technical matters related to the
Financial Authority?s reasons for not approving the reimbursement for
severance payments. We view these matters as disagreements between the
District and the Financial Authority that do not relate to the specific
matters discussed in our briefing document. The District also commented that
it believes that no Anti- Deficiency Act violations would have resulted if
the Section 157 funding had not been used because the lack of such funding
would not have caused an operating deficit for any appropriation title.
However, the District?s letters to GAO dated August 8, 2001, and July 20,
2001, stated that if the Section 157 funding had not been available, the
Public Safety and Justice appropriation title would have ended fiscal year
2000 with an operating deficit, thereby indicating a potential Anti-
Deficiency Act violation. Accordingly, reversing the Section 157 funding
would increase the potential Anti- Deficiency Act violation.

Subsequent to our briefing to the Subcommittee staff on September 26, 2001,
the District provided us additional information regarding the potential
Anti- Deficiency Act violations that may have occurred during fiscal year
2000. The District stated that the information was a preliminary

assessment of the potential violation and the Districted presented an
alternative basis for evaluating whether Anti- Deficiency Act violations may
have occurred during fiscal year 2000. This assessment does not provide the
sufficient level of detail needed to conclude whether any AntiDeficiency Act
violations occurred, nor is there any evidence that this assessment has been
provided to the appropriate reporting officials as required by established
guidance. We, therefore, reaffirm our

recommendations that the District conduct the required investigation of the
situation and report any Anti- Deficiency Act violations as required. As
previously noted, in response to the Subcommittee?s original questions
relating to whether the objectives of the workforce reduction plan were met,
cost savings were achieved, and other specific information, we have provided
answers in appendix I of the briefing document. We are sending copies of
this letter to the Ranking Minority Member of the

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. We are also sending the report to
the following District officials: the Mayor, the City Administrator, and the
Chief Financial Officer. Copies will be made available to others upon
request. This letter will also be available on GAO?s home page at http://
www. gao. gov.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512- 2600, or by e-
mail at steinhoffj@ gao. gov, or Jeanette M. Franzel, Acting Director, at
(202) 512- 9471, or by e- mail at franzelj@ gao. gov. Key contributors to
this letter were Richard T. Cambosos, Louis Fernheimer, Gary L. Kepplinger,
Meg Mills, Christina L. Quattrociocchi, and Keith A. Thompson.

Jeffrey C. Steinhoff Managing Director Financial Management and Assurance

Enclosures

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Financial Management and Assurance Team District of Columbia Government: DC
Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia

September 26, 2001 1

Introduction The Subcommittee asked us to review the anticipated cost
savings resulting from the Mayor s fiscal year 2000 workforce reduction
plan, including the use of the $ 18 million in funding that was to be
transferred from the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority ( Financial Authority) to the District of Columbia government for
severance payments 1 to individuals separated from employment during fiscal
year 2000.

. 2 For purposes of this briefing, severance payments inclu e early- out
retirements, buy- outs, and re uctions in force.

Background: Section 157 Requirements

Section 157 of the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Act
( Public Law 106- 113) :

Transferred from the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority to the District of Columbia $ 18 million
derived from interest earned on accounts held by the Authority on behalf of
the District of Columbia for

severance payments to individuals separated from employment during fiscal
year 2000 ( under such terms and conditions as the Mayor considers
appropriate) ,

expanded contracting authority of the Mayor, and 3

Background: Section 157 Requirements

the implementation of a system of managed competition among public and
private providers of goods and services on behalf of the District of
Columbia.

Provided that such funds shall be used only in accordance with a plan agreed
to by the City Council and the Mayor and approved by the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

4

Background: Section 157 Requirements

Provided that the Authority shall release said funds, on a quarterly basis,
to reimburse such expenses, so long as the Authority certifies

that the expenses reduce re- occurring future costs at an annual ratio of at
least 2 to 1 relative to the funds provided and

that the program is in accordance with the best practices of municipal
government.

5

Objectives The Subcommittee originally asked us to:

Determine whether the Mayor followed the plan provided to the Congress in
conducting the workforce reductions and whether the objectives of the plan
were achieved.

Provide specific information on ( 1) the number of people involved in the
workforce reduction, ( 2) related expenditures, ( 3) whether individuals
were in positions that were considered critical and whether any individuals
holding critical positions were rehired, ( 4) the type of positions held by
individuals that took buy- outs, and ( 5) whether cost savings were realized
as a result of the workforce reduction.

6

Objectives The results of our preliminary work indicated that certain
conditions surrounding the District s use of a portion of the $ 18 million
for severance payments made to individuals separated from employment during
fiscal year 2000 may not have been met. Therefore, as agreed with
Subcommittee staff, we expanded our review to include the following
objectives:

Determine the source of funding the District used for the fiscal year 2000
workforce reductions.

Determine whether the District had sufficient funding in fiscal year 2000 to
implement the workforce reduction plan.

7

Objectives As agreed with Subcommittee staff, the responses to the
Subcommittee s original questions are presented in appendix I. The following
sections presents the results of the expanded objectives.

8

Scope and Methodology To meet the original and expanded objectives, we
Interviewed and obtained information from officials in the

following District offices: Chief Financial Officer ( CFO) , City
Administrator, Budget and Planning, Financial Operations and Systems,
Personnel, and Inspector General.

9

Scope and Methodology Obtained information from the Financial Authority.

Reviewed legislation related to the $ 18 million funding for the workforce
reduction and relevant accounting, budget, and program data; personnel
policies and regulations; correspondence and memorandums; cost schedules;
and other information.

We did not independently verify or audit the accounting, budget, and cost
data we obtained from District officials.

We conducted our work from January 2001 through September 2001 in accordance
with U. S. generally accepted government auditing standards.

10

Results in Brief The Financial Authority reported that it provided written

documentation to the District that it would not release the $ 18 million in
Section 157 funding because the District did not meet the conditions set
forth in Section 157 of the act.

Therefore, the District did not have authority from the Financial Authority
to use the $ 18 million in Section 157 funding for the workforce reduction
that occurred in fiscal year 2000.

The District stated that it believed that it had the authority to use the
Section 157 funding and proceeded to incur $ 14. 3 million in costs related
to the workforce reduction activities after continued discussions with and
disclosures of information to the Financial Authority.

11

Results in Brief The Financial Authority told us that it had not provided
the

District with the authority to use the Section 157 funding. The District
accounted for its workforce reduction costs

during fiscal year 2000 as if it had access to the Section 157 funding. The
District conducted a review to determine the impact of reversing its
previous accounting treatment that assumed the availability of Section 157
funding for the workforce reductions in its fiscal year 2000 accounting
records.

The District has concluded that without the availability of the Section 157
funding, one agency would have ended fiscal year 2000 with an operating
deficit and two agencies would have an increase in their existing operating
deficits.

12

Results in Brief As a result, the District may have potential Anti-
Deficiency

Act violations. We are recommending that the District investigate this
situation and report as necessary any Anti Deficiency Act violations.

We provided a draft of this briefing document to officials of the Financial
Authority and the District s CFO office. While the Financial Authority
generally agreed with the contents of this briefing, the District s CFO
office disagreed with certain information contained in the briefing
document.

13

Results in Brief The key point of difference centers on whether the
Financial

Authority gave the District approval to use the Section 157 funding. The
District believed that it had the authority to use the Section 157 funding
from the Financial Authority. However, the Financial Authority states that
such approval was not provided to the District.

We disagree with the District s position. We reaffirm our position based on
data from the Financial Authority and reiterate our recommendation that the
District investigate the potential Anti- Deficiency Act violation and report
as necessary.

Both the Financial Authority s and the District s comments are discussed in
the last section of this briefing document.

14

Lack of Approved Plan According to the Financial Authority s written
notification

that it provided to the District, it did not approve the District s request
for release of $ 12.4 million 2 for severance expenditures for the following
reasons:

The District did not provide to the Financial Authority documentation
confirming approval of the plan by the Senate Committee on Appropriations as
required by Section 157 of the act.

The District did not provide adequate analysis or documentation to support
the Financial Authority s certifying that the workforce reduction would
achieve the cost savings targets as required by Section 157 of the act.

15 2 This number increase to $ 14. 3 million to inclu e $ 1. 9 million for
re uctions in force.

Lack of Approved Plan The District did not segregate the costs for each

employee between lump sum incentive payments and other separation payments,
such as payments for annual leave balances. The amounts to be applied
against the $ 18 million on severance payments were limited to separation
payments only and were to exclude any accrued leave due the affected
employees.

The District s documentation identified checks to employees in amounts
exceeding $ 25,000. The plan approved by the Mayor limited the retirement
incentive program to $ 25,000. The Financial Authority requested that the
District recalculate its reimbursement request in accordance with this
limitation.

16

Funding the Plan Although the Mayor s plan was not approved by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations and the funds were not released by the Financial
Authority in fiscal year 2000, the District implemented the workforce
reduction plan under the assumption that the Section 157 funding was
available.

The District recorded the fiscal year 2000 expenditures against the Section
157 budget authority based on the assumption that the plan had been approved
and the Financial Authority would authorize reimbursement for the
expenditures. The District also recorded a $ 14.3 million receivable for
fiscal year 2000 in anticipation of receiving the Section 157 funding from
the Financial Authority.

17

Funding the Plan In the absence of the Financial Authority s certification,

the funding identified under Section 157 to cover the costs of the Mayor s
workforce reduction activities was not available for the District s use.

Although the District had received written notification from the Financial
Authority that the funding would not be released, District officials said
they believed they had received approval from the Financial Authority to use
the Section 157 funding after providing additional information to the
Financial Authority. However, the District was not able to provide any
support for its discussions with the Financial Authority. According to the
Financial Authority, however, it did not give the District approval to use
the Section 157 funding.

18

Funding the Plan The Financial Authority stated that, during fiscal year

2000, the District did not satisfy explicit conditions set forth in Section
157. The Financial Authority further stated that, as a result, the District
allowed the Section 157 appropriations to lapse at year- end.

District officials stated that: The workforce reduction plan was submitted
to the

House Committee on Appropriations in fiscal year 2000 in accordance with
Section 157. However, the District stated that the plan was not submitted to
the Senate Committee on Appropriations until fiscal year 2001 due to an
oversight by the District.

19

Funding the Plan The District stated that it provided documentation to the

Financial Authority escribing how the 2 to 1 savings requirement was
achieved. And, because it did not receive any contrary correspondence from
the Financial Authority, the District believed that all the requirements
were satisfied for it to receive reimbursement from the Section 157 funding.

20

District s Analysis/ Fiscal Impact The District reported that it incurred
workforce reduction

costs of $ 14. 3 million during fiscal year 2000, resulting in $ 26 million
in personnel savings during fiscal year 2000. The District reported that the
workforce reductions will result in the reduction of future costs at an
annual ratio of 2 to 1.

The District conducted a review to identify the agencies that would have
ended fiscal year 2000 with operating deficits assuming that the Section 157
funding was not available:

The Office of Property Management would have ended fiscal year 2000 with an
estimated $ 246,000 operating deficit rather than the previously reported
surplus of $ 1.3 million.

21

District s Analysis/ Fiscal Impact Two other agencies would have reported
increased

operating deficits as follows: Fire and Emergency Medical Services (
increase

from $ 160, 000 to $ 260, 000) Department of Corrections ( increase from $
770, 000

to $ 2,576,000) . The District reported that the Office of Property

Management falls under the District s Governmental Direction and Support
appropriation title, which would have ended fiscal year 2000 with revenues
in excess of expenditures sufficient to cover the charges related to the
workforce reduction.

22

District s Analysis/ Fiscal Impact The Fire and Emergency Services and
Department of

Corrections fall under the District s Public Safety and Justice
appropriation title.

Based on the District s review of this mater, it concluded that, if Section
157 funding was not available, the Public Safety and Justice appropriation
title would have ended fiscal year 2000 with an operating deficit.
Consequently, the reversal of the charges to Section 157 authority presents
the potential for an Anti- Deficiency Act violation.

23

Impact of Operating Deficit The Anti- Deficiency Act prohibits District
government

officers and federal officials from making obligations or expenditures in
excess of amounts

available in an appropriation or fund or advance unless they are otherwise
authorized to do so by law and

an obligation or expenditure in excess of an apportionment.

24

Impact of Operating Deficit The Anti- Deficiency Act requires the head of
any agency to

report immediately to the President and the Congress any violation of the
act, including all relevant facts and a statement of actions taken. Office
of Management an Budget ( OMB) Circular A- 34, Instructions on Budget
Execution, provides additional guidance on information that the agency is to
include in its report to the President.

25

Fiscal Year 2001 Transfer from the Financial Authority

The District had not demonstrate that it was authorized to use an $ 18
million transfer under Section 157 for the workforce reduction in fiscal
year 2000. During fiscal year 2001, the Financial Authority transferred $ 18
million in March 2001 to the District s general fund. The Financial
Authority stated, however, that the March 2001 transfer

was unrelated to the workforce reduction funding because the District had
not met the requirements of Section 157 and

was intended to support the District s operations and daily cash position
during fiscal year 2001 as part of the Financial Authority s periodic
transfers of interest earnings held by the Financial Authority on behalf of
the District in accordance with Section 106( d) of P. L. 104- 8.

26

Conclusions The Mayor s workforce reduction plan was not

conducted in conformance with Section 157 requirements because the Financial
Authority did not certify that the District met the requirements for
utilizing the Section 157 funding. The Financial Authority s lack of
certification was primarily because:

The District did not obtain approval of the plan by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations and

The District did not provide satisfactory evidence to the Financial
Authority that the 2 to 1 target savings were met.

27

Conclusions As a result of accounting for its workforce reduction

costs as if the Section 157 funding had been available, the District
obligated and spent funds that were unavailable. Accounting for the use of
the Section 157 funding resulte in one agency showing a surplus rather than
a deficit in its operating budget and two other agencies showing decreased
operating deficits. After reversing the prior accounting treatment, the
District could have reportable Anti- Deficiency Act violations.

28

Recommendation We recommend that the Mayor of the District of

Columbia perform the required investigation to determine if the operating
deficits resulting from the reversal and the inappropriate use of the
Section 157 authority woul result in or contribute to any potential Anti-
Deficiency Act violations and to perform the necessary reporting to disclose
any such violations.

29

Agency Comments an Our Evaluation: District of Columbia CFO

We provided a draft of this briefing document to officials of the Financial
Authority and the District s CFO. The District s comments are discussed
below, and the Financial Authority s comments are discussed in a later
section.

District comment: The District disagreed with the statement that it did not

have the authority to use the Section 157 funding. Further, the District
states that the Financial Authority did transfer the $ 18 million to the
District after the expenditures for severance had been incurred.

30

Agency Comments an Our Evaluation: District of Columbia CFO

GAO evaluation: There is no documentary evidence that the District

received approval from the Senate Committee on Appropriations as required by
Section 157.

The position of the Financial Authority is clear: it did not authorize the
District to use the Section 157 funding.

Therefore, the District s fiscal year 2000 accounting treatment, which
assumed the availability of the Section 157 funding and resulted in
recording a $ 14. 3 million receivable from the Financial Authority, is
inappropriate.

31

Agency Comments an Our Evaluation: District of Columbia CFO

GAO evaluation continued: During fiscal year 2001, the Financial Authority
did

transfer $ 18 million to the District s general fund. The Financial
Authority has state that the transfer was unrelated to the workforce
reduction funding because the District did not meet the requirements of
Section 157. The Financial Authority further stated that the transfer was
intended to support the District s fiscal year 2001 operations and cash
position.

32

Agency Comments an Our Evaluation: District of Columbia CFO

District comment: The District also disagreed with several technical matters

related to the Financial Authority s reasons for non- approval of the
reimbursement for the severance payments.

GAO evaluation: The disagreements between the District and the

Financial Authority o not relate to the specific matters discussed in this
briefing document.

33

Agency Comments an Our Evaluation: District of Columbia CFO

District comment: The District commented that it believes that no Anti
Deficiency Act violations would have resulted if the

Section 157 funding had not been used because the lack of such funding would
not have caused an operating deficit for any appropriation title.

GAO evaluation: The District s correspondence provided to us on August

8, 2001, stated that two appropriations would be impacted by a reversal of
the Section 157 funding. The District stated that one appropriation title
was already in a deficit position, thereby indicating a potential Anti-
Deficiency Act violation. Accordingly, reversing the Section 157 funding
would increase the potential Anti- Deficiency Act violation.

34

Agency Comments an Our Evaluation: District of Columbia CFO

GAO evaluation ( continued) : The District also stated that reversing the
Section 157

funding would not result in a deficit in the other appropriation.

Therefore, we reaffirm our recommendation that the District perform the
required analysis to determine if the operating deficits resulting from the
reversal and the inappropriate use of Section 157 authority would result in
or contribute to any potential Anti- Deficiency Act violations and perform
the necessary reporting to disclose any such violations.

35

Agency Comments an Our Evaluation: Financial Authority

Financial Authority s comments: In providing oral comments on a draft of
this briefing

document, the Financial Authority stated that it concurred with its
contents. In its comments, the Financial Authority reiterated that it gave
the District written notification with specific reasons as to why it di not
approve the District s request for reimbursement of $ 12.4 million for
severance payments.

GAO evaluation: We have incorporated the Financial Authority s

comments into the briefing ocument as appropriate. 36

Appendix I: Answers to the Subcommittee s Original Questions

Di the Mayor follow the plan provided to the Congress in conducting the
workforce reductions and were the objectives of the plan achieved?

The Mayor did implement a workforce reduction plan. However, due to the lack
of approval by the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the non-
certification by the Financial Authority, the Mayor s plan was not conducted
in conformance with Section 157.

37

Appendix I: Answers to the Subcommittee s Original Questions

How many people were involved in the workforce reduction and what were the
related expenditures?

The District reported the following detail related to the plan: The
reduction involved 579 employees. This included:

464 employees who took early- out retirements and 115 employees who were
involved in the reduction in force ( RIF) .

The reduction included expenditures of $ 14. 3 million. ( $ 12. 4 million
for early- out retirements and $ 1.9 million for RIFs) .

See table 1 for specific details provided by the District. 38

Appendix I: Answers to the Subcommittee s Original Questions

Table 1: Summary of the District s Fiscal Year 2000 Early Out Retirements,
Reductions in Force, and Related Expenditures

Total Number Grand total Total of reductions

number of Total Total Gran total

number of in force retirees and expenditures expenditures

expenditure Agency retirees

( RIFs) RIFs

paid for retirees paid for RIFs

amounts paid

Office of Property Management 44 30 74 $ 1, 053, 674 $ 511,440 $ 1, 565, 114
Office of the Chief Financial Officer 39 39 $ 1, 240, 800 $ 1, 240, 800
Office of Personnel 18 18 $ 535, 871 $ 535, 871 Office on Aging 3 3 $ 71,
520 $ 71, 520 Office of the Corporation Counsel 16 16 $ 446, 729 $ 446, 729
D. C. Public Library 1 1 $ 29, 760 $ 29, 760 Department of Employment
Services 38 38 $ 1, 078, 176 $ 1, 078, 176 Deparment of Consumer/ Regulatory
Affairs 16 16 $ 424, 861 $ 424, 861 Department of Housing and Community
Development 11 11 $ 366, 369 $ 366, 369 Metropolitan Police Department 27 27
$ 597, 187 $ 597, 187 Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department 5 5 $
100, 334 $ 100, 334 Department of Corrections 13 85 98 $ 354, 640 $ 1, 450,
616 $ 1, 805, 256 D. C. Public Schools 1 1 $ 34, 011 $ 34, 011 Department of
Parks and Recreation 14 14 $ 358, 916 $ 358, 916 Department of Health 51 51
$ 1, 286, 418 $ 1, 286, 418 Department of Human Services 65 65 $ 1, 745, 954
$ 1, 745, 954 Department of Public Works 71 71 $ 1, 813, 287 $ 1, 813, 287
Department of Motor Vehicles 11 11 $ 273, 299 $ 273, 299 Office of
Contracting and Procurement 14 14 $ 422,049 $ 422, 049 Office of the Chief
Technology Officer 6 6 $ 156, 444 $ 156, 444

Totals 464 115 579 $ 12, 390, 299 $ 1, 962, 056 $ 14, 352, 355

Source: Unaudited data from the District of Columbia government. 39

Appendix I: Answers to the Subcommittee s Original Questions

How many people in the workforce reduction were paid buy- outs and were
holding positions that were considered critical?

As shown in table 1, the District reported that 464 employees were paid buy-
outs through the retirement incentive program.

The District reported that, for the retirement incentive program, specific
criteria was used for determining whether an employee was holding a position
that was considered critical. If an employee was holding a position that was
deemed critical, they were not allowed to take the early- out retirement.

40

Appendix I: Answers to the Subcommittee s Original Questions

District officials stated that a critical position was defined as one that
met any of the following criteria:

the only position of its kind, a sole- supervisory position, a court-
ordered position, or essential to carrying out the mission or functions of
an

agency. We did not independently verify the District s application of

the criteria for the 464 employees that took the early- - out retirement.

41

Appendix I: Answers to the Subcommittee s Original Questions

Were any of the personnel cut as a result of the workforce reduction that
were holding positions that were considered critical rehired through city
contracts or other means?

The District reported that none of the 464 employees who took the buy- outs
met the District s criteria as critical and, therefore, no employees holding
critical positions were rehired.

District officials reported that three senior managers with expertise in
snow removal were brought back on an hours worked contract to assist with
the fiscal year 2000- 2001 snow removal season, but stated that they did not
meet the definition of critical.

42

Appendix I: Answers to the Subcommittee s Original Questions

The District reported that the Council of the District of Columbia adopted
emergency legislation that allowed the District to contract for employees
who had taken the early out incentive for the snow season. This was a one-
time effort for one snow removal season.

The District reported that it incurred $ 32, 812 in costs for the three
senior managers who worked a total of 1,057 hours.

District officials viewed this as a more cost- effective approach than
retaining these employees on the District payroll on a year- round basis.

43

Appendix I: Answers to the Subcommittee s Original Questions

What were the types of positions for individuals that received buy- outs?

The types of positions involving employees that took the early outs were
numerous and varied.

For example, the District reported more than 200 different position types.
Of the 200 different position types, we identified the positions that
occurred most frequently. Examples of these include the following:

Program Analyst/ Specialist/ Assistant Manpower Development Specialist
Supervisory Social Service Representative

44

Appendix I: Answers to the Subcommittee s Original Questions

Sanitation/ Foreman/ Crew Chief Contract Representative/ Specialist
Personnel Management Specialist Supervisory Police Officer/ Assistant
Secretary/ Typing Clerical Assistant/ Clerk Staff Assistant Tree Trimmer

45

Appendix I: Answers to the Subcommittee s Original Questions

Have the anticipate cost savings been realized as a result of the workforce
reduction?

District officials reported that $ 26. 3 million in personnel savings were
achieved, resulting in a reduction of the District s fiscal year 2001
baseline budget. As shown in table 2, almost half of the reported savings
was attributed to cutting funded positions that were vacant.

The savings involved utilization of approximately 518 full- time equivalents
( FTEs) including: early- out retirements, reductions in force, transfers
among agencies budgets, and elimination of funded vacancies. However, we did
not verify these reported savings. See table 3 for details.

46

Appendix I: Answers to the Subcommittee s Original Questions

Table 2: Summary of the District s Fiscal Year 2000 Personnel Savings by
Agency an Type Elimination Reduction of funded Total Agency Retirees in
force Transfers a vacancies Other b

savings

Office of the Mayor $ 114,000 $ 114,000 Office of City Administrator $
139,320 $ 139,320 Office of Property Management $ 311,029 $ 325, 057 $
120,004 - $ 17,445 c $ 738,645 Office of Chief Financial Officer $ 1,000,
000 $ 1,000,000 Office of the Secretary $ 71,590 $ 71,590 Office of
Personnel $ 252,967 $ 143,357 $ 246,409 $ 642,733 Emergency Management
Agency $ 86, 608 $ 28,798 $ 115,406 Office of Corporation Counsel $ 712,592
$ 712,592 Department of Employment Services $ 213,391 $ 330,625 $ 544,016
Department of Consumer/ Regulatory Affairs $ 192,301 $ 52, 495 $ 164,556 $
780,172 $ 1,189,524 Business Services/ Economic Development $ 745,000 $
411,591 $ 1,156,591 Metropolitan Police Department $ 1,151, 374 $ 350, 721 $
308,796 $ 180,599 $ 1,991,490 Fire/ Emergency Medical Services Department $
201,414 $ 47,429 $ 913,461 $ 1,162,304 Department of Corrections $ 719,867 $
1,924,545 $ 812,023 $ 3,456,435 Department of Human Services $ 716,713 $
562,181 $ 743,113 $ 2,022,007 Department of Health $ 264,498 $ 1,292,901 $
1,557,399 Department of Parks and Recreation $ 501,539 $ 266,038 $ 979,503 $
1,747,080 Department of Public Works $ 151,705 $ 236, 138 $ 2,750,450 $
1,205,333 $ 4,343,626 Department of Motor Vehicles $ 177,662 $ 2 68,957 $
30,869 $ 477,488 Office of Contracting and Procurement $ 692,287 $ 2,173,874
$ 2,866,161 Office of the Chief Technology Officer $ 280,543 $ 861 $ 281,404

Totals $ 6,333, 356 $ 1,051, 019 $ 4,599,178 $ 12,441,517 $ 1,904,741 $
26,329,811

a Savings from positions that were transferre from local funds to non- local
funds. b Savings from hiring personnel at lower salaries and reduce overtime
in agency budgets. c Savings were reduce at agency summary level; however,
the District was not able to provide allocation by type of savings.

Source: Unaudited ata from the District of Columbia government. 47

Appendix I: Answers to the Subcommittee s Original Questions

Table 3: Summary of the District s Fiscal Year 2000 Full- Time Equivalent (
FTE) Positions Reduced That Were Counted Towar the Personnel Savings

Elimination Reductions of funde Total Agency Retirees in force Transfers a
vacancies FTEs

Office of City A ministrator 22 Office of Property Management 6 9 2 17
Office of Chief Financial Officer 15 15 Office of Personnel 4 2 7. 5 13. 5
Emergency Management Agency 21 3 Office of Corporation Counsel 2121
Department of Employment Services 4 8 12 Department of Consumer/ Regulatory
Affairs 5 1 213 21 Business Services/ Economic Development 7 7 Metropolitan
Police Department 27 8 9 44 Fire/ Emergency Medical Services Department 5 0.
5 23 28. 5 Department of Corrections 13 43 56 Department of Human Services
13 15 28 Department of Health 5 29 34 Department of Parks an Recreation 11 4
27 42 Department of Public Works 3 7 69 23 102 Department of Motor Vehicles
4 9 1 14 Office of Contracting and Procurement 1241 53 Office of the Chief
Technology Officer 5 5

Totals 123 27 90. 5 277. 5 518

a Positions transferre from local funded FTEs to non- local funded FTEs.
Source: Unaudite ata from the District of Columbia government.

48

Appendix I: Answers to the Subcommittee s Original Questions

The District s Office of Inspector General ( OIG) has informed us that it is
currently performing a verification of the District CFO s certification of
the District s total fiscal year 2001 management reform savings, which
includes personnel and non- personnel savings.

The OIG s audit includes a review of the $ 26. 3 million personnel savings
that the District reported as a result of the Mayor s workforce reduction.

The OIG plans to complete its review during the early part of fiscal year
2002.

( 194017) 49

Enclosure II: Comments from the District of Columbia

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the text appear at the end of this
enclosure.

See comment 1. Now p. 11 of briefing document.

See comment 1. Now p. 11 of briefing document.

See comment 1. Now pgs. 15- 16 of briefing document.

See comment 1. Now p. 16 of briefing document.

See comment 1. Now p. 29 of briefing document.

GAO Comment 1. See Agency Comments and Our Evaluation section of the report.

Page 1 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues
United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and
Related Funding Issues

A

Page 2 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Page 3 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Page 4 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Page 5 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Page 6 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Page 7 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Page 8 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Page 9 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 10 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 11 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 12 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 13 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 14 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 15 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 16 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 17 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 18 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 19 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 20 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 21 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 22 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 23 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 24 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 25 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 26 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 27 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 28 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 29 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 30 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 31 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 32 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 33 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 34 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 35 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 36 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 37 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 38 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 39 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 40 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 41 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 42 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 43 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 44 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 45 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 46 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 47 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 48 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 49 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 50 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 51 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 52 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 53 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 54 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 55 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 56 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 57 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

Page 58 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Page 59 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure II: Comments from the District of Columbia

Page 60 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure II: Comments from the District of Columbia

Page 61 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure II: Comments from the District of Columbia

Page 62 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure II: Comments from the District of Columbia

Page 63 GAO- 02- 128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues
*** End of document. ***