Federal Advisory Committee Act: General Services Administration's
Oversight of Advisory Committees (Letter Report, 06/15/98,
GAO/GGD-98-124).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed whether the General
Services Administration (GSA), through its Committee Management
Secretariat, was carrying out its oversight responsibilities under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), focusing on whether GSA had: (1)
ensured that federal advisory committees were established with complete
charters and justification letters; (2) comprehensively reviewed each
advisory committee annually; (3) submitted annual reports on advisory
committees to the President in a timely manner; and (4) ensured that
agencies prepared follow-up reports to Congress on recommendations by
presidential advisory committees.

GAO noted that: (1) compared to when GAO last reported in 1988, little
had changed during the period it studied on how the Secretariat carried
out its FACA responsibilities; (2) with 963 federal advisory committees,
57 sponsoring agencies, and submissions for each committee during fiscal
year (FY) 1997, GSA's Committee Management Secretariat reviewed a large
amount of paperwork for the purpose of ensuring that sponsoring agencies
were: (a) following the requirements placed upon them by FACA; and (b)
implementing GSA regulations; (3) the Secretariat conducted these
reviews while performing other duties, such as providing formal training
to federal employees who were directly involved with the operations of
advisory committees and collaborating with an interagency committee on
advisory committee management; (4) nevertheless, the Secretariat was
responsible under FACA and GSA regulations for ensuring that those
requirements were all fulfilled; (5) GSA, in consultation with the
agencies, did not ensure that advisory committees were established with
complete charters and justification letters as required by FACA or GSA
regulations; (6) 36 percent of the charters and 38 percent of the
letters GAO reviewed did not contain one or more items required by FACA
or GSA regulations; (7) GSA did not independently assess, as it
conducted the annual comprehensive reviews required by FACA, whether
committees should be continued, merged, or terminated; (8) although GSA
collected the FY 1996 annual reports, GSA officials said they accepted
the data in them without further review; (9) GAO found this acceptance
to be the norm even when information in a FY 1996 annual report should
reasonably lead to further inquiries; (10) GSA did not submit most of
its FACA annual reports to the President in time for him to meet the
statutory reporting date to Congress nor did it ensure that
FACA-required follow-up reports on presidential advisory committee
recommendations were prepared for Congress; (11) Secretariat officials
told GAO that agencies must take greater responsibility for preparing
complete charters and justification letters and committee annual reports
for sending follow-up reports to Congress; and (12) FACA has given the
Secretariat responsibilities for ensuring that agencies satisfy the
requirements for forming and operating advisory committees, and the
Secretariat is not carrying out these responsibilities.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-98-124
     TITLE:  Federal Advisory Committee Act: General Services 
             Administration's Oversight of Advisory Committees
      DATE:  06/15/98
   SUBJECT:  Congressional oversight
             Proposed legislation
             Presidential appointments
             Committee evaluation
             Noncompliance
             Federal advisory bodies
             Reporting requirements

             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

June 1998

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT -
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION'S
OVERSIGHT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES

GAO/GGD-98-124

GSA's Oversight of Advisory Committees

(410297)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  FACA - Federal Advisory Committee Act
  GSA - General Services Administration
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-279334

June 15, 1998

The Honorable Stephen Horn
Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives

The Honorable John Glenn
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

This report responds to your request that we assess whether the
General Services Administration (GSA), through its Committee
Management Secretariat, was carrying out its oversight
responsibilities under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 
Specifically, as agreed with your offices, we determined whether GSA
had (1) ensured that federal advisory committees were established
with complete charters and justification letters, (2) comprehensively
reviewed each advisory committee annually, (3) submitted annual
reports on advisory committees to the President in a timely manner,
and (4) ensured that agencies prepared follow-up reports to Congress
on recommendations by presidential advisory committees (any federal
advisory committee that advises the President).  We issued a report
about 10 years ago in which we said that GSA was not fully carrying
out these responsibilities.\1


--------------------
\1 Federal Advisory Committee Act:  General Services Administration's
Management of Advisory Committee Activities (GAO/GGD-89-10, Oct.  5,
1988). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Compared to when we last reported in 1988, little had changed during
the period we studied in how the Secretariat carried out its FACA
responsibilities.  With 963 federal advisory committees, 57
sponsoring agencies, and submissions for each committee during fiscal
year 1997, GSA's Committee Management Secretariat reviewed a large
amount of paperwork for the purpose of ensuring that sponsoring
agencies were (1) following the requirements placed upon them by FACA
and (2) implementing GSA regulations.\2 The Secretariat conducted
these reviews while performing other duties, such as providing formal
training to federal employees who were directly involved with the
operations of advisory committees and collaborating with an
interagency committee on advisory committee management. 
Nevertheless, the Secretariat was responsible under FACA and GSA
regulations for ensuring that those requirements were all fulfilled. 

The GSA Secretariat had not carried out its responsibilities in the
following areas: 

  -- GSA, in consultation with the agencies, did not ensure that
     advisory committees were established with complete charters and
     justification letters as required by FACA or GSA regulations. 
     We reviewed 203 advisory committee charters and 107
     justification letters that were submitted to GSA during the
     first 10 months of fiscal year 1997.  (Only 107 of the 203
     committees were required by GSA regulations to submit
     justification letters.) Thirty-six percent of the charters and
     38 percent of the letters did not contain one or more items
     required by FACA or GSA regulations.  Even though required items
     of information were missing, such as estimated operating costs
     and plans for attaining balanced membership, GSA concurred in
     establishing all 203 advisory committees.  Although GSA has no
     authority to stop the formation of advisory committees, it is to
     ensure that agencies follow the requirements under FACA and GSA
     regulations in forming these committees. 

  -- GSA did not independently assess, as it conducted the annual
     comprehensive reviews required by FACA, whether committees
     should be continued, merged, or terminated.  According to GSA
     regulations, the Secretariat is to use an advisory committee's
     annual report to make its review.  The agency that sponsored or
     supported the advisory committee is to prepare the annual
     report, and the report is to include the agency's recommendation
     on whether the committee should continue.  Although GSA
     collected the fiscal year 1996 annual reports, GSA officials
     said they accepted the data in them without further review,
     including agencies' recommendations to continue, merge, or
     terminate committees.\3 We found this acceptance to be the norm
     even when information in a fiscal year 1996 annual report, such
     as a statement that the committee did not meet during the year
     and no explanation was provided, should reasonably lead to
     further inquiries. 

  -- GSA did not submit most of its FACA annual reports to the
     President in time for him to meet the statutory reporting date
     to Congress.  Seven of the last nine reports, covering fiscal
     years 1988 through 1996, were submitted to the President after
     the due date to Congress.  As of April 27, 1998, GSA had not
     submitted its fiscal year 1997 annual report to the President,
     which was due to Congress by December 31, 1997. 

  -- GSA did not ensure that FACA-required follow-up reports on
     presidential advisory committee recommendations were prepared
     for Congress.  Of the 17 presidential advisory committee reports
     issued in fiscal years 1995 and 1996 that GSA said required
     follow-up reports, agency officials said that 4 were erroneously
     listed in the President's annual report to Congress as requiring
     follow-up reports, and none of the remaining 13 follow-up
     reports were made to Congress. 

Secretariat officials told us that agencies must take greater
responsibility for preparing complete charters and justification
letters and committee annual reports and for sending follow-up
reports to Congress.  The officials also said they plan to ask
Congress to change the reporting deadline for the President's annual
report to Congress to a later date.  Regardless of the responsiveness
of agencies, FACA has given the Secretariat responsibilities for
ensuring that agencies satisfy the requirements for forming and
operating advisory committees, and the Secretariat is not carrying
out these responsibilities. 


--------------------
\2 The Secretariat provided a summary table of federal advisory
committee data for fiscal year 1997 after we completed our review. 
We have included the 1997 summary data in this report for
informational purposes. 

\3 At the time of our review, which was from June 1997 to April 1998,
fiscal year 1996 was the latest year for which agency reports were
available. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

In 1972, Congress passed FACA in response to a concern that federal
advisory committees were proliferating without adequate review,
oversight, or accountability.  FACA states that Congress intended
that the number of advisory committees be kept to the minimum
necessary, and that the advisory committees operate under uniform
standards and procedures in the full view of Congress and the public. 

Although Congress recognized the value of advisory committees to
public policymaking, it included in FACA measures intended to ensure
that (1) valid needs exist for establishing and continuing advisory
committees, (2) the committees are properly managed and their
proceedings are as open as possible to the public, and (3) Congress
is kept informed of the committees' activities.  Congress ensured
through FACA that the public had access to advisory committee
information and activities, including charters, reports, and
transcripts of committee meetings and other records.  Under FACA, the
President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
and agency heads are to control the number, operations, and costs of
advisory committees. 

To help accomplish these objectives, FACA directed that a Committee
Management Secretariat be established in OMB to be responsible for
all matters relating to advisory committee administration.  In 1977,
the President transferred advisory committee functions from OMB to
GSA.  The President also delegated to GSA all of the functions vested
in the President by FACA, except that the annual report to Congress
required by section 6(c) of the act was to be prepared by GSA for the
President's consideration and transmittal to Congress.  To fulfill
its responsibilities, GSA has developed regulations and other
guidance to assist agencies in implementing FACA, has provided
training to agency officials, and was instrumental in creating and
has collaborated with the Interagency Committee on Federal Advisory
Committee Management.  GSA is also in the process of linking an
internet-based reporting system with its internal database that is
used to track committee transactions. 

FACA requires that each agency head designate an advisory committee
management officer to help manage the committees, and that designated
federal officials shall be responsible for the individual committees. 
According to FACA, a committee's designated federal official must
approve or call a committee meeting, approve the agenda, and chair or
attend each meeting. 

In February 1993, the President issued Executive Order 12838, which
directed agencies to reduce by at least one-third, the number of
discretionary advisory committees by the end of fiscal year 1993. 
Discretionary committees are those created under agency authority or
authorized by Congress.  OMB, in providing guidance to agencies on
the executive order, established a maximum ceiling number of
discretionary advisory committees for each agency and a monitoring
plan.  Under the guidance, agencies were to annually submit committee
management plans to OMB and GSA.  These plans were to include
performance measures that were to be used to evaluate each
committee's goals or mission, information on new committees planned
for the upcoming year, actions taken to maintain reduced committee
levels, and the results of a status review of nondiscretionary
committees, which are committees mandated by Congress or established
by the President.  OMB approval was required before the creation of
new discretionary committees.  Later, in 1995, OMB dropped the
requirement for prior approval of new committees, as long as an
agency was beneath its approved ceiling. 

Since fiscal year 1988, the number of federal advisory committees has
declined.  There were 1,020 advisory committees in fiscal year 1988. 
The number of advisory committees grew to 1,305 in fiscal year 1993
and then declined over the next several years to 963 committees in
fiscal year 1997.  This decrease occurred after the President's
February 1993 executive order to reduce the number of advisory
committees. 

Advisory committees are made up of individuals, not organizations,
and a total of 36,586 individuals served as members of the 963
committees in fiscal year 1997.  Members of the 1,020 committees in
fiscal year 1988 numbered 21,236 individuals.  From fiscal years 1988
to 1997, the number of individuals serving on advisory committees had
generally increased.  Advisory committees incur costs to operate, and
GSA reported that the cost to operate the 963 committees in fiscal
year 1997 was about $178 million.  However, the cost to operate the
1,020 committees in fiscal year 1988 was about $93 million.  The
costs incurred over the 9-year period were on a steady increase
through fiscal year 1992, after which they began to increase only
sporadically.  In constant 1988 dollars, the costs to operate
advisory committees went from about $93 million in fiscal year 1988
to about $136 million in fiscal year 1997. 

On average, between fiscal years 1988 and 1997, the number of members
per advisory committee increased from about 21 to 38, and the cost
per advisory committee increased from $90,816 to $184,868.  In
constant 1988 dollars, the average costs per advisory committee
increased from $90,816 to $140,870 over the same period.  Appendix I
contains statistics on the number of federal advisory committees and
their (unadjusted) costs and membership from fiscal years 1988
through 1997. 

In 1988, we reported that GSA had focused its oversight
responsibilities under FACA on preparing the President's annual
reports to Congress and issuing guidance to agencies.\4

We found that GSA had not appropriately ensured that (1) advisory
committees were properly established, (2) committees were reviewed
annually, (3) annual reports were submitted to the President before
they were due to Congress, and (4) follow-up reports on presidential
advisory committees' recommendations were prepared for Congress.  At
that time, GSA attributed these shortcomings to insufficient staff
and management inattention. 

The Secretariat is under the GSA Associate Administrator for
Governmentwide Policy.  For fiscal year 1997, the Secretariat had
eight employees and a budget of $645,000 ($491,490 in constant 1988
dollars).  It had five employees in September 1988 and a budget of
$220,000 for fiscal year 1988. 


--------------------
\4 GAO/GGD-89-10. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

To determine whether GSA had ensured that federal advisory committees
were established with complete charters and justification letters, we
obtained from GSA advisory committee charters and justification
letters that agencies had submitted from October 1, 1996, through
July 21, 1997.  The charters were for 203 committees, and the
justification letters were for 107 of the 203 committees.  GSA
regulations require justification letters for discretionary
committees (107 of the 203 committees) but not for nondiscretionary
committees (96 of the 203 committees).  We reviewed the charters and
letters to determine whether each contained the items of information
(e.g., the committee's objectives and why the committee is essential
to the agency) required by FACA and GSA regulations.  If an item of
information was missing from the charter or letter, we reviewed
information in the applicable GSA file to ascertain whether the file
documented that GSA acted to obtain the missing item. 

To determine whether GSA had comprehensively reviewed each advisory
committee annually, we first requested from GSA the annual report for
each of the 1,000 advisory committees that existed in fiscal year
1996.  In total, we reviewed the annual reports for 978 advisory
committees; the reports for 22 committees were missing from GSA's
files.  According to GSA regulations, the Committee Management
Secretariat is to make its annual review of each committee by using
the committee's annual report.  We read the reports to see if they
contained the information that GSA regulations prescribe.  We then
discussed with Secretariat officials how they used information from
the reports to make comprehensive reviews. 

To determine whether GSA had submitted annual reports on advisory
committees to the President in a timely manner, we examined
documentation regarding when GSA had submitted annual reports to the
President for fiscal years 1988 through 1996.  We compared the dates
on the letters GSA used to transmit the reports to the President with
the date that FACA requires the President to report to Congress,
which is December 31, or 3 months after the end of a fiscal year. 

To determine whether GSA had ensured that follow-up reports to
Congress were prepared on recommendations by presidential advisory
committees, we contacted agencies' committee management officers to
ascertain whether they knew of the follow-up requirement and whether
the follow-up reports were submitted to Congress.  According to GSA
regulations, agencies are to prepare the reports and submit them to
Congress, but GSA is to ensure that it is done.  We discussed GSA's
role with Secretariat officials and contacted committee management
officers for the 17 cases that were identified in the President's
annual reports to Congress for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 as
requiring follow-up reports.  These officers were employees of the 9
agencies that were accountable for the 17 cases. 

In general, to identify and understand GSA's oversight
responsibilities, we interviewed Secretariat officials and reviewed
applicable laws, regulations, and GSA guidance to agencies regarding
advisory committee activities.  We did not assess the extent to which
GSA provided the agencies with guidance on advisory committee
activities beyond the guidance for establishing advisory committees,
the comprehensive annual reviews, and the follow-up reports on
presidential advisory committees.  Also, we did not assess OMB's role
in dealing with advisory committees beyond reviewing its guidance to
agencies for implementing Executive Order 12838. 

We did our work in Washington, D.C., between June 1997 and April 1998
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
After we completed our work, the Secretariat provided a summary table
of advisory committee data for the entire 1997 fiscal year.  These
data are to be included in the President's annual advisory committee
report for fiscal year 1997, and they were incorporated in this
report for comparison to previous years. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the
Administrator of GSA and the Director of OMB or their designees. 
Written comments provided by GSA are discussed near the end of this
letter and are reproduced in appendix II.  An OMB official
responsible for federal advisory committee matters provided oral
comments on May 13, 1998, which are discussed near the end of this
letter. 


   GSA DID NOT ENSURE THAT
   ADVISORY COMMITTEES WERE
   ESTABLISHED WITH COMPLETE
   CHARTERS AND JUSTIFICATION
   LETTERS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

FACA and GSA regulations require that agencies consult with GSA
before establishing advisory committees.  As part of this
consultation, FACA requires agencies to submit charters for all
committees, and GSA regulations require them to also submit
justification letters for discretionary advisory committees.  These
documents must contain specific information.  FACA outlines that
agencies are to include 10 specific items in the charter, including
the committee's objectives and scope of activities, the time period
necessary to carry out its purpose, and the estimated annual staff
years and cost.  GSA regulations state that agencies must address
three items in the justification letter:  why the committee is
essential to conduct the agency's business, why the committee's
functions cannot be performed by the agency or other means, and how
the agency plans to attain balanced membership. 

GSA's role is to review agency proposals to establish advisory
committees and determine whether FACA requirements and those imposed
by regulation are met.  The regulations say that GSA is to review the
proposals and notify the agency of its views within 15 days, if
possible.  However, GSA does not have the authority to stop the
formation of an advisory committee.  Nor does it have the authority
to terminate an existing committee.  GSA can only recommend to the
President, Congress, or an agency head that an advisory committee not
be formed or that an existing committee not be continued. 

In our review of the 203 charters and 107 justification letters
submitted to GSA from October 1, 1996, through July 21, 1997, we
found that 36 percent of the charters and 38 percent of the letters
were missing at least one item that was required by FACA or GSA
regulations.  Seventy-four charters were missing a total of 85 items,
such as stating the period of time necessary for the committee to
carry out its purpose and estimating annual operating costs and staff
years.  For the justification letters, 41 were missing a total of 88
items, such as a description of the agency's plan to attain balanced
membership.  Appendix III shows the number of specific items that we
found missing in the charters and justification letters.  We found
minimal evidence in GSA's files to indicate that GSA raised questions
about these missing items.  GSA completed its reviews of the charters
and notified the agencies, generally by letter, of its views within
an average of 5 days and positively concurred in establishing the 203
advisory committees. 

Secretariat officials told us that, while they concurred with the
need for the 203 committees, the agencies were responsible for
ensuring that the charters and justification letters were properly
done.  These officials said that most charters and letters were done
well and met the spirit of FACA.  They also said that the problems
that did exist relating to incomplete or inadequate charters and
letters may have occurred due to review oversight by Secretariat
analysts.  The officials believed that some of the missing items of
information were more significant than others.  For example, they
believed that missing information pertaining to estimated annual
operating costs and staff years and a description of the agency's
plan to attain a fairly balanced membership were more significant
than information on the agency or official to whom the committee
reports and the time necessary for the committee to carry out its
purpose.  Nevertheless, the officials recognized that all of the
required information should be in the charter and justification
letters.  They also said that they plan to provide the analysts with
tools to better enable them to make comprehensive reviews. 


   ADVISORY COMMITTEES WERE NOT
   COMPREHENSIVELY REVIEWED
   ANNUALLY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

FACA requires GSA to make an annual comprehensive review of each
advisory committee to determine whether it is carrying out its
purpose, whether its responsibilities should be revised, and whether
it should be abolished or merged with another committee.  After
completing the reviews, GSA is required to recommend to the President
and to the agency head or Congress any actions GSA deems should be
taken. 

GSA regulations require that agencies prepare an annual report for
each committee, including the agencies' recommendations for
continuing, merging, or terminating committees.\5 For continuing
committees, the annual reports are to describe such things as how the
committee accomplishes its purpose; the frequency (or lack) of
meetings and the reason for continuing the committee; and why it was
necessary to have closed committee meetings, if such meetings were
held.  The annual reports also are to include the committee's costs. 

GSA's regulations call for it to use the data it receives in the
agencies' annual reports, including the agencies' recommendations to
continue or terminate the committees, in conducting the comprehensive
annual review.  However, GSA did not use the data provided by the
agencies to assess on its own whether committees were carrying out
their purposes, whether their responsibilities should be revised, or
whether the committees remain necessary. 

We reviewed 978 advisory committees' annual reports that were
submitted to GSA by the agencies for fiscal year 1996.  We were
unable to review another 22 reports that GSA reported receiving
because they were missing from GSA's files.  For those annual reports
that we reviewed, agencies generally reported the required
information, with the exception of explaining why some continuing
committees did not meet during the year. 

According to data GSA obtained from the annual reports, 212 advisory
committees (about 21 percent of the total number of 1,000 committees)
did not meet during fiscal year 1996.  Agencies did not have to
explain why no meetings were held for the 113 new and terminated
committees in 1996.  However, agencies were required to explain why
the remaining 99 continuing committees did not meet.  In our review
of the 99 committees' annual reports, we found that 47 gave reasons
why the committees had not met, including reasons such as the
committees' having no agenda items to consider, lacking funding, and
having delays in appointing members.  Fifty-two annual reports did
not explain why the committees had not met or why they should
continue.  We found no evidence that GSA had requested follow-up
information on why the committees had not met or why the agencies
believed that the committees should continue. 

Secretariat officials told us that they do not verify the agencies'
data, and that they accept the data without further review, including
the agencies' recommendations to continue, merge, or terminate
committees.  The officials said they could not undertake reviews on
their own because they do not have the expertise or program knowledge
to determine which committees should be continued or terminated. 
Regardless of whether this is the case, we believe that it is
incumbent upon Secretariat officials to follow up with agencies to
determine why committees have not met before accepting agencies'
recommendations that the committees be continued. 

Secretariat officials also told us that they have held discussions
with congressional staff about the possibility of reducing the number
of committees mandated by Congress that may no longer be warranted. 
Such committee terminations would require legislation.  Although we
did not evaluate this issue as a part of this review, we believe it
illustrates the benefits to GSA of following up with agencies when
they do not report why committees did not meet or why the agencies
believed the committees should continue.  For example, of the 52
committees that did not explain why they did not meet in fiscal year
1996, 25 were mandated by Congress.  By delving into the specifics of
why no meetings were held, GSA might develop information to assist
Congress in determining the potential for terminating some
congressionally mandated committees by clarifying reasons to continue
them.  We recognize that there are legitimate reasons why committees
may not meet in any given year. 


--------------------
\5 Fifty-nine agencies sponsored the 1,000 federal advisory
committees in fiscal year 1996.  The 59 agencies were offices from
the Executive Office of the President; cabinet-level departments;
independent agencies; and federal boards, commissions, and councils. 


   ANNUAL REPORTS WERE NOT
   SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT IN A
   TIMELY MANNER
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The President is required to report annually to Congress on the
activities, status, and changes in the composition of advisory
committees.  The annual reports are due to Congress by December 31
for each preceding fiscal year.  GSA prepares the annual reports for
the President on the basis of information provided in agencies'
annual advisory committee reports. 

GSA did not submit most of its annual reports to the President in
time for him to meet the December 31 reporting date to Congress.  For
seven of the last nine annual reports, covering fiscal years 1988
through 1996, GSA transmitted the reports to the President after they
were due to Congress.  In the last 4 years, one report was delivered
to the President 5 days before the due date to Congress; three
reports were delivered, on average, about 3 months after the due
date. 

As of April 27, 1998, GSA had not submitted the fiscal year 1997
report to the President.  According to Secretariat officials, the
December 31 reporting date to Congress is unattainable because, among
other things, agencies have other end of fiscal year reporting
requirements, in addition to the advisory committee reports. 
Secretariat officials also told us that they plan to ask Congress for
a later reporting date.  We did not examine the reasonableness of the
December 31 reporting date. 


   GSA DID NOT ENSURE THAT
   FOLLOW-UP REPORTS TO CONGRESS
   ON PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE
   RECOMMENDATIONS WERE PREPARED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

FACA requires the President, or his delegate, to report to Congress
within 1 year on his proposals for action or reasons for inaction on
recommendations made by a presidential advisory committee.  According
to FACA's legislative history, these follow-up reports are intended
to justify the investments in the advisory committees, provide
accountability to the public and Congress, and require the President
to state his response to the advisory committees' recommendations. 

According to GSA regulations, the agency providing support to the
advisory committee is responsible for preparing and transmitting the
follow-up report to Congress.  However, the regulations also state
that the Secretariat (1) is responsible for ensuring that the
follow-up reports are prepared by the agency supporting the
presidential committee and (2) may solicit OMB and other appropriate
organizations to help, if needed, to obtain agencies' compliance. 

GSA identified 17 presidential advisory committee reports in the
President's annual reports for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 that
required follow-up reports.  We contacted the nine agencies that were
responsible for the follow-up reports to determine whether the
reports were prepared within the year and delivered to Congress. 
According to agency officials, follow-up reports were not required in
4 of the 17 cases because the advisory committees were erroneously
listed as having issued a report with recommendations to the
President.  Follow-up reports were required in the remaining 13 cases
but, according to agency officials, none were transmitted to
Congress.  These presidential advisory committees included, for
example, the Glass Ceiling Commission, the President's Cancer Panel,
and the Federal Council on the Aging.  Six of the nine committee
management officers told us that they were unaware of the reporting
requirement.  Secretariat officials said that agencies are
responsible for preparing and delivering the follow-up reports to
Congress; therefore, they had not contacted the nine agencies to see
whether the reports were prepared and delivered. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

Although it has no authority to stop a federal advisory committee
from being formed or to terminate an existing committee, GSA is
obligated to ensure that its FACA responsibilities are fulfilled
completely and in a timely manner.  These responsibilities are not
insignificant.  Congress imposed them to help ensure that federal
advisory committees are needed, that the committees are properly
managed, and that Congress is kept informed of the committees'
activities in a timely manner.  Although we recognize that GSA
believes it does not have the expertise or program knowledge to
determine whether federal advisory committees are needed, it has the
authority to ask agencies to provide justification for their
recommendations.  For example, GSA could follow up with agencies to
determine why committees have not met before accepting agencies'
recommendations that the committees be continued. 

The Committee Management Secretariat intends to ask Congress to move
to a later date the reporting deadline for the President's annual
report to Congress on the activities of federal advisory committees. 
The Secretariat's view and proposed action do not relieve it of its
responsibilities under FACA, and the Secretariat has not fulfilled
those responsibilities. 


   RECOMMENDATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

We recommend that the Administrator of GSA direct the Committee
Management Secretariat to fully carry out the responsibilities
assigned to it by FACA in a timely and accurate manner.  In
particular, the Secretariat should (1) consult with the agencies to
ensure that the charters and justification letters for federal
advisory committees contain the information required by law or
regulation, (2) follow up with agencies when their annual reports
contain information that raises questions about whether committees
should be continued, and (3) ensure that agencies file the required
follow-up reports to Congress on presidential advisory committee
recommendations.  The Secretariat should also make the necessary
arrangements with agencies to submit its annual report to the
President on time or follow through with its intention to ask
Congress to move the reporting date. 


   GSA AND OMB COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10

GSA and OMB provided comments on a draft of this report.  In an April
27, 1998, letter (see app.  II), the GSA Administrator said the
Associate GSA Administrator for Governmentwide Policy will ensure
that the Committee Management Secretariat takes immediate and
appropriate action to implement our recommendation.  The
Administrator also said GSA will continue to improve its oversight of
advisory committees by (1) proposing amendments to FACA to address
some of the issues addressed by our report; (2) proposing new
governmentwide regulations relating to FACA in June 1998; and (3)
finalizing its new internet-based reporting system by the end of
fiscal year 1998, which will allow agencies to electronically
transmit data to GSA. 

On May 13, 1998, an OMB official responsible for advisory committee
matters said that we had conducted a thorough review of GSA's
oversight responsibilities in meeting FACA's procedural requirements,
and that GSA appeared to have undertaken some corrective actions that
will address many of our concerns and had scheduled other corrective
actions during 1998.  The OMB official said they would work with GSA
to ensure the success of the GSA efforts. 

The GSA Administrator and the OMB official made additional comments,
which we address here and as appropriate in appendix II for GSA. 

In general comments, GSA said that the draft report had not fully
examined the extent to which GSA's actions have achieved FACA's
principal stated outcomes of accountability for committee
accomplishments and public access to committee deliberations and
products.  In addition, GSA said it has sought through its actions to
strengthen the ability of other responsible officials at the agency
level to perform more adequately their required FACA
responsibilities. 

We recognize that GSA plays a broad role in overseeing advisory
committee activities and are aware of its past initiatives, such as
the creation of the interagency committee on FACA; the governmentwide
training program for agency personnel who manage advisory committees;
and the reduction of discretionary advisory committees under
Executive Order 12838, which we mentioned in this report.  But GSA
also has a narrower, more focused role of carrying out its specific
responsibilities that FACA and GSA regulations require.  This latter
role was the focus of this report.  Nevertheless, we have cited some
of GSA's other activities in the text of this report. 

GSA also said that it is in the process of linking its new
internet-based reporting system with an internal FACA database that
it uses to track committees.  By capturing data electronically, GSA
expects that gaps in required data will be identified more easily and
corrected contemporaneously.  We believe such a system, if
successful, should enable GSA to better ensure that its analysts have
the full range of required information available to them as they
perform GSA's required FACA oversight responsibilities. 

GSA and OMB took exception to our finding that advisory committees
were not comprehensively reviewed by GSA.  GSA and OMB stated that
advisory committees are reviewed annually by GSA through (1) the
annual reporting process used by the agencies to certify the need for
specific committees (which are the advisory committee annual reports)
and (2) the annual process developed to implement Executive Order
12838 and OMB Circular A-135, which require the committee management
plans. 

Under FACA, GSA has the responsibility to judge whether there is a
convincing case for continuing a committee and cannot delegate this
responsibility to the agencies under current law.  The advisory
committee annual reports were the basis for our analysis and
conclusion that GSA was not independently assessing whether the
committees should be continued or terminated.  The committee
management plans are used primarily to ensure that the number of
discretionary advisory committees within the agencies does not exceed
the ceiling established under Executive Order 12838 and to focus on
the need for new, not existing, committees.  A discussion of what
should be included in the plans can be found in the Background
section of this report.  The management plans that we reviewed did
not contain all of the information that would be needed for GSA to
determine or question the continuing need for committees.  For
example, an explanation of why a committee had not met during the
year is not required to be included in the management plan.  Thus, we
have not changed our conclusion. 


--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs; the Ranking Minority Member, House
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology;
the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight and other interested congressional
committees; the Administrator, GSA; the Director, OMB; and other
interested parties.  We will also make the report available to others
on request. 

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.  If you
have any questions about this report, please call me on (202)
512-8676. 

Michael Brostek
Associate Director, Federal Management
 and Workforce Issues


FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
STATISTICS DURING FISCAL YEARS
1988-97
=========================================================== Appendix I

                                     Number of
                             Total  discretion       Total   Number of
                         number of         ary     costs\a   committee
Fiscal year             committees  committees  (millions)   members\b
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
1988                         1,020         696       $92.6      21,236
1989                         1,042         636        98.4      22,960
1990                         1,128         721       112.3      22,391
1991                         1,212         783       132.6      27,580
1992                         1,230         767       146.3      29,020
1993                         1,305         833       143.9      28,317
1994                         1,195         739       133.4      30,446
1995                         1,110         643       157.0      29,766
1996                         1,000         530       148.5      29,511
1997                           963         491       178.0      36,586
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This column does not include underreported Department of Health
and Human Services costs of $3.9 million in fiscal year 1996 and
potentially similar but unknown amounts for fiscal years 1994 and
1995.  These costs were included in the fiscal year 1997 statistic. 
Costs in the table have not been adjusted for inflation. 

\b This column does not include underreported Department of Health
and Human Services committee members of 5,057 and 5,818 in fiscal
years 1995 and 1996, respectively.  These committee members were
included in the fiscal year 1997 statistic. 

Source:  Annual Reports of the President on Federal Advisory
Committees. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments on GSA's April 27, 1998, letter. 

GAO COMMENTS

1.  Although agreeing that not every committee charter and
justification letter that we reviewed included all of the required
information, GSA suggested that the 36-percent error rate in the
charters and the 38-percent error rate in the justification letters
were misleading.  Regarding committee charters, GSA said that a
fairer assessment of GSA's and agencies' compliance with FACA would
be to determine the error rate on the basis of the number of data
items found not to be in compliance (85) divided by the total number
of data items in the 203 charters we reviewed (2,030).  This
calculation provides an error rate of 4.2 percent.  We do not believe
that this would be a meaningful analysis because the charters or
justification letters are the unit of analysis.  That is, FACA and
GSA regulations require each charter or justification letter to
include a full set of specific data so that GSA analysts and others
can properly and fully assess whether the committee is needed and
whether it meets the FACA requirements for public participation and
disclosure. 

GSA said that among the 85 missing items in the charters that we
identified, 33 related to the period of time necessary for a
committee to carry out its purpose.  GSA said that 95 percent of all
charters submitted to GSA for review are for advisory committees that
are of a continuing nature, and that a default presumption of 2 years
(based upon the sunset provision of FACA) is applied.  GSA suggested
that the default presumption mooted the absence of a stated period in
the charters.  It said that removal of these 33 data items from the
85 found to be in error would result in an overall error rate of 2.6
percent. 

We cannot ignore these 33 data items in an analysis of compliance
with FACA requirements.  Congress specifically required that charters
include the time necessary for a committee to carry out its purpose,
just as it required that charters include the committee's termination
date if it is less than 2 years after the committee is established. 
We believe that Congress included these two items, as well as the
other eight items, in the charters to help keep Congress and the
public informed about committee activities.  Further, it seems to us
that a benefit of including such information in the charters is to
help agencies focus in the beginning of the process on the amount of
time the committees should be taking to accomplish their purposes. 

2.  GSA suggested that two of the items required in the justification
letter--explanations of why a committee is essential and why a
committee's function cannot be performed by other means--are
contained in the two other submissions by the agencies.  GSA said it
is in the process of revising its regulations to eliminate redundant
information and certifications among the advisory committee annual
reports, consultation letters (which are the justification letters),
and annual committee management plans, which are required by OMB and
GSA to implement Executive Order 12838 and OMB Circular A-135.  GSA
suggested that as long as an item of information is contained in one
of the required documents, it need not be in the others.  It said
that if these data items were removed from our analysis, the error
rate, on the basis of the number of data elements found to be in
error divided by the total number of data elements, would be 10.6
percent. 

As previously stated, we do not believe that this would be a
meaningful analysis because it is the justification letters that
should be the unit of analysis and not the individual data elements. 
Further, the two items in the justification letter to which GSA
referred are only required to be in the justification letter and,
therefore, agencies might not include them in the other two reports. 
For example, the two items do not need to be included in the advisory
committee annual reports if the committee is new--during fiscal year
1996, there were 52 new committees.  Additionally, only the
justification letters are submitted when the committees are
established; the other two reports are submitted on an annual basis
that does not necessarily coincide with the justification letter
submissions by the agencies.  It would also appear to be more
efficient for GSA analysts reviewing the charters to be able to rely
on the justification letters for all needed information, rather than
having to retrieve other documents that may or may not include
relevant information. 

3.  We deleted the section in the draft report that is referred to in
these comments.  GSA has corrected the underreporting of advisory
committee members and costs, which we brought to their attention
during the course of our work.  The underreporting was also
acknowledged by GSA at the November 5, 1997, hearing on FACA before
the House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology. 


OCCURRENCE OF REQUIRED ITEMS
MISSING IN CHARTERS AND
JUSTIFICATION LETTERS SUBMITTED TO
GSA FROM OCTOBER 1, 1996, TO JULY
21, 1997
========================================================= Appendix III

                                                                      >Number of
Description of required item                                       missing items
----------------------------------------------------------------  --------------
Items missing from 74 of 203 charters for discretionary and nondiscretionary
committees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee's official designation                                               2
Committee's objectives and scope of activities                                 1
Period of time necessary for committee to carry out its purpose               33
Agency or official to whom the committee reports                               6
Agency responsible for providing the necessary committee support               7
Description of the committee's duties                                          3
Estimated annual operating costs and staff years                              21
Estimated number and frequency of committee meetings                           5
Committee's termination date, if less than 2 years                             0
Date charter was filed                                                         7
================================================================================
Total items missing                                                           85

Items missing from 41 of 107 justification letters for discretionary committees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation of why committee is essential to the conduct of                   26
 agency business and in the public interest
Explanation of why committee's functions cannot be performed by               28
 agency, an existing committee, or other means
Description of the agency's plan to attain fairly balanced                    34
 membership
================================================================================
Total items missing                                                           88
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO analysis. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix iv

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Richard W.  Caradine, Assistant Director, Federal Management and
 Workforce Issues
Ronald J.  Cormier, Evaluator-in-Charge
Michael A.  Tovares, Evaluator

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Jill P.  Sayre, Attorney


*** End of document. ***