Federal Research: The National Academy of Sciences and the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Letter Report, 11/13/98, GAO/RCED-99-17).
The National Academy of Sciences, a private nonprofit institution,
provides scientific, engineering, and medical advice to federal, state,
and local governments; private industry; and nonprofit groups. In fiscal
year 1997, the federal government provided about 85 percent--or $145
million--of the Academy's funding. Committees that give advice to the
federal government are generally subject to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act of 1972. Congress passed the legislation because of
concerns that such committees were proliferating without adequate
review, oversight, or accountability. Among other things, the act
requires that most meetings be open to the public and must be attended
by a federal official. In response to Academy efforts to obtain
legislative relief from the act, Congress excluded Academy committees
from the definition of "advisory committee" and added a new section 15
dealing with Academy advisory committees. That section precludes an
agency from using the Academy's advice or recommendations unless certain
information is made available to the public--notice of committee
appointments, minutes of closed meetings, copies of final committee
reports, and the names of external reviewers of draft reports. This
report (1) discusses why the Academy sought relief from the act, (2)
describes the Academy's committee procedures for providing advice to the
federal government, and (3) discusses the Academy's implementation of
the new requirements for providing information to the public.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-99-17
TITLE: Federal Research: The National Academy of Sciences and the
Federal Advisory Committee Act
DATE: 11/13/98
SUBJECT: Reporting requirements
Committee evaluation
Federal advisory bodies
Research and development
Government information dissemination
Personnel recruiting
******************************************************************
** 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
November 1998
FEDERAL RESEARCH - THE NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND THE
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT
GAO/RCED-99-17
Federal Research
(141178)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
GAO - General Accounting Office
GSA - General Services Administration
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-279928
November 13, 1998
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable George E. Brown, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Science
House of Representatives
The National Academy of Sciences, a private nonprofit institution,
provides scientific, engineering, and medical advice to federal,
state, and local governments; private industry; and nonprofit
organizations. In fiscal year 1997, the federal government provided
approximately $145 million (or 85 percent) of the Academy's
funding.\1 These funds, provided through federal agency contracts,
grants, or cooperative agreements, sponsored approximately 300 of the
Academy's committee projects. The results of these projects are
often used to increase federal agencies' knowledge in a particular
subject area and can become the impetus for change in federal
policies, regulations, or programs.
Committees that provide advice to the federal government are
generally subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972.\2
The Congress passed the act because of concerns that such committees
were proliferating without adequate review, oversight, or
accountability. Under the act and regulations issued by the General
Services Administration (GSA), agency heads have a number of
responsibilities, including appointing a designated federal officer
for each advisory committee and submitting a proposed charter to GSA
for its review. In addition, the act requires that most meetings
must be open to the public and must be attended by a federal
official.\3 Prior to 1997, the Academy did not believe that the act
applied to its committees. However, in early 1997, the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia held that an Academy committee
doing work for the Department of Health and Human Services was an
advisory committee under the act and, therefore, the Academy's
committees were required to comply with the act.\4
The court's decision prompted Academy officials to seek legislative
relief from the act. The result was the enactment of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 1997.\5
The amendments exclude committees created by the Academy from the
definition of "advisory committee" and add a new section 15 dealing
with Academy advisory committees. That section precludes an agency
from using the Academy's advice or recommendations unless, among
other things, certain information is made available to the
public--notice of committee appointments, advance notice of open
meetings, written materials presented to the committee, minutes of
closed meetings, copies of final committee reports, and the names of
external reviewers of draft reports. Information may be withheld if
subject to exclusion under the Freedom of Information Act.
This report responds to your April 10, 1998, request that we study
the committee process at the National Academy of Sciences.
Specifically, as agreed with your offices, we (1) identify reasons
the Academy sought relief from the act, (2) describe the Academy's
committee procedures for providing advice to the federal government,
and (3) discuss the Academy's implementation of the new requirements
for providing information to the public. Your request also included
three legal questions on (1) the applicability of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act to the subgroups of the Academy, (2) the
applicability of the Freedom of Information Act to Academy advisory
committees, and (3) statutory and contractual barriers to the release
of data gathered by the Academy. These issues are being addressed
under separate cover by our Office of General Counsel.
--------------------
\1 1997 was the most current year for which actual funding data were
available.
\2 P.L. 92-463, Oct. 6, 1972.
\3 The provision for open meetings is subject to certain exclusions,
such as discussions of national security issues, as provided under 5
U.S.C. � 552b(c).
\4 Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Shalala, 104 F.3d 424 (D.C.
Cir. 1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ , 118 S.Ct. 367 (1997).
\5 P.L. 105-153, Dec. 17, 1997. The amendments applied to the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Public
Administration.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
According to Academy officials, the Academy sought relief from the
Federal Advisory Committee Act for a number of reasons. Central to
its concerns was the Academy's ability to maintain sole authority in
appointing committee members and to conduct its work independently
from sponsoring agencies' influence. In addition, the Academy
opposed opening deliberative meetings on the grounds that such an
action could stifle open debate and could impact the Academy's
ability to recruit committee members. Finally, the Academy was
concerned about the amount of time and expense to perform the
administrative requirements of the act, which could render the
Academy unresponsive to the government.
Prior to the enactment of the amendments, the Academy developed a
number of procedures governing its committees' activities, including
project formulation, committee selection, committee work, report
review, and the release and dissemination of reports. According to
Academy officials, these procedures are intended to help ensure the
integrity of advice provided to the federal government. For example,
committee selection includes procedures for identifying conflicts of
interest and potential bias of committee members. The committee work
phase provides an opportunity for some public participation, and
committee reports are reviewed by an Academy review committee before
they are released to the sponsoring agency and the public.
In response to section 15, the Academy developed a web site to
increase public access to current project information. The web site
includes committee members' names and biographies, notices of open
meetings, and summary minutes of closed meetings. In addition,
copies of most final reports are available through the National
Academy Press web site.\6
However, we found that some descriptive information on current
projects was not always posted in a timely manner and was not always
complete. During this audit, the Academy addressed these problems
and developed additional written guidelines regarding the posting of
committee information as well as additional quality assurance
procedures.
--------------------
\6 Reports that are too long to be posted on the web site are
available from the Academy's public reading rooms in Washington, D.C.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Founded in 1863 by congressional charter, the National Academy of
Sciences has a long history of serving as a scientific adviser. The
Academy, which has a total membership of 4,800, also serves as an
honorary institution to recognize distinguished members of the
scientific community. Among other activities, the Academy also
organizes symposiums, manages scientific databases, and serves as a
clearinghouse for research.
Throughout this report we use "Academy" to refer to the constituent
members of the Academy complex: the National Academy of Sciences,
the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and
the National Research Council. In 1916, the Academy formed the
National Research Council to broaden its committee membership to
include non-Academy members and to oversee the Academy's advisory
activities. In a 1998 report, the Academy reported that committee
membership consists of 55 percent from academia, 24 percent from
industry, 9 percent from nonprofit institutions, and 12 percent from
different levels of government.\7 The National Academy of Engineering
and the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970,
respectively, to recognize distinguished members in these fields and
to provide more specialized advice in these areas. The Academy is
organized by study units, which produce reports in the following
topic areas: transportation, health and safety, science, commerce,
natural resources, defense, space, education, and international
affairs. (See table 1.)
Table 1
Number of National Academy of Sciences'
Reports by Topic Area, From January 1993
Through June 1997
Percentage of
Number of reports total reports
Report topic area issued issued
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
International affairs 45 3.4
Education 52 3.9
Defense and space 79 5.9
Natural resources/environment 116 8.7
Industry, commerce, technology 127 9.5
Scientific enterprise 154 11.6
Health and safety 234 17.6
Transportation 524 39.4
Total 1,331 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Developed by GAO using the Academy's data.
The Academy issued 1,331 committee reports from January 1993 to June
1997 and had an average annual budget of about $150 million. During
those 5 years, most of its work was performed for the federal
government, which provided the Academy with 87 percent of its
revenue. (See fig. 1.) The Departments of Transportation, Energy,
Health and Human Services, and the Army; the National Science
Foundation; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
have been its largest federal sponsors--amounting to 75 percent of
the total revenues for 1993 to 1997. The Academy also advises state
governments, private industry, and nonprofit institutions, but that
work is limited by internal Academy guidelines. In addition, the
Academy may use its endowment to fund self-initiated studies deemed
critical by the Academy leadership.
Figure 1: National Academy of
Sciences' Revenue by Source
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Developed by GAO using the Academy's data.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 1997 addressed
concerns over the openness of the Academy's procedures. Prior to the
amendments, the Academy's committee procedures included some
openness. A 1975 policy document stated that committee meetings
where data would be gathered were to be open to the public with
advance notice given. Announcements of scheduled open meetings were
published monthly in a newsletter by the Academy's Office of
Information. However, the study unit heads determined which projects
would have scheduled and announced open meetings. Executive meetings
and working meetings, referred to as deliberative sessions, would
"not normally be open to the public." A 1995 proposed change to the
Academy's public access policy, among other things, further defined
the types of meetings that could be closed and applied the policy
uniformly across the Academy's major study units. This proposal was
under consideration at the time the amendments were enacted.
--------------------
\7 A Unique National Resource, National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and National
Research Council (1998).
REASONS THE ACADEMY SOUGHT
RELIEF FROM THE FEDERAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
According to Academy officials, the Academy had three main concerns
that caused it to seek relief from the Federal Advisory Committee
Act: (1) the erosion of independence if the Academy was under the
influence of sponsoring agencies, (2) the inability to recruit
committee members if committee deliberations were open to the public,
and (3) the burden of administrative requirements that would render
the Academy unresponsive to the government.
Paramount among these concerns was the Academy's independence from
the influence of sponsoring agencies. Under the act, a federal
government officer or employee would have to chair or be present at
every advisory committee meeting. This individual would have the
power to adjourn the meeting "whenever he determines it to be in the
public's interest." According to Academy officials, the Academy could
lose sole authority in appointing committee members, and the Academy
and committee members could be under pressure from a sponsoring
agency to change a report during the drafting process.
Under the act and GSA regulations, advisory committee meetings,
including deliberative meetings, would be open to the public.
However, the Academy opposed opening its deliberative meetings to the
public because it believed that such an action could stifle open
debate and criticism of ideas in those meetings. The Academy was
also concerned that the independence of the committees' deliberations
and the Academy's review process would be jeopardized by attempts of
sponsors and special interest groups to bring political pressure to
bear. Academy officials said that closed committee deliberations are
fundamental for ensuring the independence of their studies and the
scientific quality of their reports. Moreover, they stated, if draft
reports were available to the public, the first draft would become
the enduring impressions of a report, regardless of any changes made
later. In addition, the President of the Academy said that it could
be more difficult to recruit potential committee members in the
future if deliberations were open to the public.
We surveyed 12 current and former Academy committee members to obtain
their views on whether or not they would serve on Academy committees
if the deliberative meetings were open to the public. Two members
said that they would serve, six said that their decision to serve
would depend on the topic of study, and three said that they probably
would not serve on a committee whose deliberations were open to the
public. One member did not respond directly to the question but said
that closed deliberative sessions encourage greater candor among the
members.
In addition, these members generally echoed the Academy officials'
views regarding the need for closed deliberative sessions. The three
members who responded that they would probably not serve said that
open deliberations could seriously jeopardize the quality of the
reports. Two members said that Academy study committees might be
difficult to staff if deliberations were open to the public. Eleven
out of 12 respondents indicated that the Academy should retain the
ability to close committee deliberations.
Finally, the Academy was concerned that the amount of time and
expense associated with implementing the act would render the Academy
unresponsive to the government in general and to the Congress in
particular. Of particular concern was the requirement under the act
that each committee have a charter. Since the Academy is not a
federal agency, the federal agency sponsoring the Academy study would
prepare the charter and submit it for review by GSA. Academy
officials estimated that the process would take between 6 and 12
months, on average, a length of time that an Academy official said
would render the Academy unresponsive to the government's requests
for information. In addition, most of the Academy's studies are
funded by multiple agencies. Thus, the Academy was not certain which
agency would be responsible for fulfilling the administrative
requirements of the act. Academy officials also pointed out that
applying the act to the Academy would more than double the number of
committee charters that GSA would have to review each year.
ACADEMY COMMITTEE PROCEDURES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Prior to the enactment of the amendments of 1997, the Academy
established a number of procedures for committee work that are
intended to help ensure the integrity and the openness of committee
activities. The procedures consist of the following phases: project
formulation, committee selection, committee work, report review, and
report release and dissemination. (See fig. 2.) According to
Academy officials, the whole process can take anywhere from 4 months
to 2 years (usually from 6 to 18 months).
Figure 2: National Academy of
Sciences' Committee Procedures
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Developed by GAO using the Academy's information.
PROJECT FORMULATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
During the project formulation phase, the Academy assigns the project
to a study unit. According to Academy guidance, the study unit is
responsible for defining the scope of the project, leaving room for
the committee to further define the study, and for developing the
initial cost estimates. After the study unit approves the project,
the Academy gives final approval for the project. Then a contract,
grant, or cooperative agreement (depending on the sponsor) is drawn
up and entered into with the agency. A permanent Academy staff
member, referred to as the responsible staff officer, is assigned to
organize and support the project. The staff officer is responsible
for ensuring that institutional procedures and practices are followed
throughout the study and that the study stays on schedule and within
budget.
COMMITTEE SELECTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
According to the Academy's documents, each project is conducted by a
committee of subject matter experts who serve without compensation.
Committee selection starts with suggestions from the sponsoring
organization, members of the Academy, outside professional
colleagues, and Academy staff. After review of the suggestions, the
President of the Academy selects committee candidates. The Academy's
procedures require that each committee candidate fill out a form on
his or her potential conflicts of interest. The form consists of
five questions asking for the member's relevant organizational
affiliations, financial interests, research support, government
service, and public statements and positions concerning the
committee's topic. We reviewed a sample (about 10 percent) of the
331 current committees to determine whether the forms had been filed
and found that the Academy's procedures were generally being
followed. Under Academy procedures, 5 of the 30 committees selected
were not required to file the conflict-of-interest forms because they
were not subject to section 15 for various reasons.\8 Of the
remaining 25 committees, we found that almost all members (316 out of
341 or 93 percent) had forms on file.
At the first meeting of every committee, the Academy's procedures
require a confidential discussion among committee members and project
staff of potential conflicts of interest. If a conflict of interest
is identified, the committee member may be asked to resign from the
committee. If the Academy determines that the conflict is
unavoidable, the Academy will make the conflict public and will
retain the committee member. After this meeting, the executive
director of the relevant study unit makes a tentative determination
of whether the committee as constituted is composed of individuals
with the requisite expertise to address the task and whether the
points of view of individual members are adequately balanced such
that the committee as a whole can address its charge objectively.
Final approval of the committee membership, however, rests with the
President of the Academy.
--------------------
\8 The Academy explained that four committees did not issue
recommendations to any agency, and one project had only a principal
investigator and no committee members.
COMMITTEE WORK
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
Committees meet in data-gathering sessions that are generally open to
the public and in deliberative sessions that are closed to the
public.\9 The Academy defines a data-gathering meeting as "any
meeting of a committee at which anyone other than committee members
or officials, agents, or employees of the institution is present,
whether in person or by telephone or audio or video teleconference."
Committees also meet in closed sessions to discuss financial and
personnel matters, to discuss conclusions, and to draft the committee
report. The Academy's responsible staff officer facilitates the
meetings.
In order to identify the number of open versus closed meetings, we
reviewed the meetings held from December 1997 through June 1998 for
the 331 committees. Since we found that most meetings were a
combination of open and closed sessions, we identified the number of
open and closed hours during these meetings. Of the 331 committees,
129 either had no meetings or were not subject to section 15 for
various reasons.\10 The remaining 202 committees held a total of 353
meetings. For 300 (or 85 percent) of those meetings, at least some
portion of the meeting was closed. For 139 of the 300 meetings where
complete information about open and closed sessions was available, we
found that slightly less than half (45 percent) of the time was spent
in closed sessions. For 251 projects, we determined the reasons for
the closed sessions: 61 meetings included discussions of potential
bias of committee members, 36 meetings included discussions of the
committee's composition and balance, and 201 meetings involved
drafting the committee report.\11 We also found that seven
data-gathering meetings were closed under Freedom of Information Act
exemptions.
Every report is the collective product of the committee. According
to the Academy's documents, a committee member may draft a chapter or
portion of a report, but the author of record is the entire
committee. The Academy's responsible staff officer can help with
many aspects of developing the report, including researching,
integrating portions of the report written by committee members, and
ensuring consistent style and format, but the conclusions and
recommendations are attributed to the committee as a whole.
Throughout its work, the committee is subject to the oversight of the
Academy's supervisory boards and commissions.
--------------------
\9 Data-gathering meetings may be closed if the information being
gathered would be exempt under the Freedom of Information Act, which
includes classified, proprietary, or personal/privacy information.
\10 The database consists of 331 committees. Ninety-three projects
were excluded from the analysis because they did not have any
meetings within the December 17, 1997, through June 17, 1998, time
frame. Another 36 projects were classified as not being subject to
section 15 because they did not provide advice to the government.
\11 Some meetings had closed sessions for more than one reason.
REPORT REVIEW
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4
The next step in the process is an independent review of the draft by
individuals whose review comments are provided anonymously to the
study committee. This process allows the Academy to exercise
internal oversight and provides an opportunity for the study
committee to obtain reactions from a diverse group of people with
broad technical and policy expertise in the areas addressed by the
report. The anonymity of the reviewers is intended to encourage
individual reviewers to express their views freely and to permit the
study committee to evaluate each comment on its merits without regard
for the reviewer's position or status.
The Academy Report Review Committee, composed of members of the
Academy, oversees the report review process and appoints either a
monitor and/or coordinator depending on the type of study. Liaisons
are appointed from the Academy's membership to the major study unit
for the purpose of suggesting qualified reviewers. The monitor
and/or coordinator either participates in the selection of reviewers
or checks the list of reviewers for their relevant expertise or
particular perspective. Typically six to eight reviewers are
appointed, although more are acceptable for a major policy report.
According to the Academy's report review guidelines, the review of a
manuscript takes about 10 weeks, on average, from when a report is
sent to the reviewers until final approval; however, the time ranges
from a few days to many months. The reviewers look at whether or not
the
-- report addressed the committee's charge;
-- findings are supported by the evidence given;
-- exposition of the report is effective; and
-- tone of the report is impartial.
All study committee members are given copies of the reviewers'
comments (with the names of the reviewers removed from the comments)
in time to prepare or approve a response to the comments. After the
comments have been submitted, the monitor and/or coordinator may
prepare a brief summary of the key review issues for the study
committee. The study committee may provide a written explanation of
how each comment was handled, or it may address the key review
issues. The monitor and/or coordinator judges the adequacy of the
committee's responses and may require a resubmission to the
reviewers.
The Academy's procedures state that no report is to be released to
the project sponsor or the public, and no findings or recommendations
are to be disclosed until this review process has been satisfactorily
completed. All committee members are contacted to ensure that they
approve the report before it is published or released. The Report
Review Committee chair provides the final approval of the reports.
REPORT RELEASE AND
DISSEMINATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5
The Academy is responsible for the report's dissemination plan. The
report sponsor may also be involved in developing the plan. Targeted
groups are selected to ensure that the report reaches all appropriate
audiences. The report may also be made available via the National
Academy Press web site. Briefings are often arranged for interested
groups, and reports may become topics of future Academy workshops or
symposia.
WHILE THE ACADEMY HAS INCREASED
PUBLIC ACCESS TO CURRENT
PROJECT DATA, THE DATA ARE NOT
ALWAYS TIMELY OR COMPLETE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
The Academy developed a web site for current project information to
increase public access as a result of section 15, added by the
Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments. However, we found that
this information is not always posted in a timely manner and is
sometimes incomplete.
Among other things, section 15 generally requires the Academy to
-- make names and brief biographies of committee members public,
-- post notice of open meetings,
-- make available written materials presented to the committee,
-- post summaries of meetings that are not data-gathering meetings,
-- make copies of the final committee report available to the
public, and
-- make available the names of the principal non-Academy reviewers
of the draft report.\12
The committee members' names and biographies, notice of open
meetings, and summary minutes of closed meetings are available on the
web site of current projects. Copies of reports, which include the
names of the external reviewers of the reports, are available on the
National Academy Press web site. According to Academy officials,
written materials presented to the committees by individuals who are
not agents, officials, or employees of the Academy are available for
inspection at the Academy's public reading rooms in Washington, D.C.
We reviewed a sample of the 331 current projects to determine whether
the database included the names of the committee members. Five of
the 30 projects that we reviewed were not required by the act or by
the Academy to post committee membership for various reasons.\13 We
found that 24 of the 25 projects had the names of the members
available on the web site. Five projects had only the names of the
members and no biographical statements. However, these five
committees were not required to post biographies because the
committees were created prior to the act.
The Academy's guidelines state that the summary minutes for closed
meetings should be posted to the web site, preferably within 10
business days of the meeting. In order to determine whether this
requirement was met by the Academy, we reviewed data on the closed
meetings for the 202 committees that held meetings from December 17,
1997, through June 17, 1998. As previously stated, these committees
held a total of 353 meetings, with 300 of those meetings having some
portion closed. We found that 270 (or 90 percent) had the minutes of
the closed sessions on the web site.\14 The minutes of these closed
sessions had an average posting time of 13.5 calendar days, within
the Academy's guidelines of 10 business days. However, the amount of
time to post the minutes ranged from 0 to 124 calendar days, with 26
percent of the minutes posted 15 or more days after the meeting.
At the time of our audit, spot checks of information posted on the
web site were conducted at least once a week for missing or improper
information. However, we found that for a total of 63 out of 331
current committees (about 19 percent) there were chronological or
typographical errors or missing data in the information provided on
one or more of the meetings. For example, the listings of the
meetings for three projects were out of order. One meeting had two
different dates listed on the project web site. For 34 projects, the
agenda or summary minutes were not posted. The Academy has already
taken action to correct this information or has adequately explained
these specific problems. In addition, since we conducted our audit,
the Academy created a records officer position responsible for
checking the timeliness and accuracy of data on a daily basis.
Through the web site, the Academy also elicits public comments about
committee composition. The public is allowed 20 calendar days to
comment about the proposed committee members and/or suggest new
members. Since the web site's inception in December 1997 through
June 1998, the Academy received a total of 120 comments.\15 Only 13
of those comments concerned committee composition--all concerning
four committees: those on smokeless and black powder, illegal drug
policy, repetitive motion and muscular disorders, and cancer research
among minorities. Of these comments, six included suggestions for
additional committee members, three provided general or positive
comments about committee membership, three included negative comments
regarding specific committee members (one of the three members later
was removed from consideration), and two comments discussed the
length of the public comment period.\16
--------------------
\12 5 U.S.C. App. 2 � 15(b).
\13 Four committees did not issue recommendations to any agency, and
one project was performed by one person, not by a committee.
\14 One project had posted summary minutes prior to the meeting date.
This meeting was not included in our analysis.
\15 Non-Academy users had 83,185 visits (or "hits") to the Academy
web site. Academy users accounted for an additional 32,649 hits.
\16 One of the comments included both negative comments regarding
specific committee members and recommended additional committee
members.
OBSERVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Prior to the passage of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
Amendments, the Academy had efforts under way to increase public
access to and participation in the Academy's committee work. After
the amendments were passed, the Academy's web site of current
projects increased public access to project information. However,
the Academy had to quickly create and operationalize its web site of
current projects in December 1997 and additional enhancements are
under consideration pursuant to suggestions received from the public.
Thus, it will be some time before an assessment can be made of the
extent to which the general public uses the web site. Regarding the
untimely posting of data and incomplete data, the Academy's new
procedures should address our concerns. However, the availability of
timely information on current projects depends on the effective
implementation of the new procedures.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We provided a draft of this report to the National Academy of
Sciences and GSA for their review and comment. In general, the
Academy said that the report was accurate and balanced. Regarding
our finding that the Academy's data available on the web site are not
always timely or complete, the Academy believed that it was important
to note that in no case was there a violation of the requirements of
section 15. We agree. Since section 15 does not provide a time
frame for posting summaries of closed meetings, we noted instances in
which data were untimely by the Academy's own guidelines and
instances in which the information provided had some errors. The
full text of the Academy's comments appears in appendix I. GSA had
no comments on the report.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
To determine why the Academy sought relief from the act, we
interviewed Academy officials and reviewed their statements to the
Congress. We also talked with several committee members to obtain
their views on the act--the Academy selected the committee members,
with input from us. Each Academy study unit and the Presidents of
the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine selected members to
respond to our questions. The Academy narrowed this sample, and each
candidate was asked whether he or she would participate in the
survey. The sample included past and current committee members and
chairs of committees from across the country and from private
industry, academia, and not-for-profit institutions.
To identify the Academy's procedures for providing advice to the
federal government, we interviewed Academy officials. We also
reviewed the Academy's internal documents outlining the procedures,
the treasurer's reports, and annual reports.
To determine whether the Academy had implemented section 15, we
interviewed Academy officials and reviewed official documents. We
also reviewed the Academy's web site information, including committee
meeting agendas for both open and closed portions of meetings and the
content of the closed meetings as described in summary minutes, for
Academy projects that were active as of June 17, 1998.
To make this determination, we calculated the hours of open and
closed meetings, calculated the time in which summary minutes were
posted for closed meetings, and categorized the reasons for closed
meetings. Each step was verified for accuracy and completeness.
Only meetings that occurred in the 6-month period from December 17,
1997, to June 17, 1998, were analyzed. Of the 331 current Academy
projects, 69 had no meetings within the stated 6-month time frame,
and 24 had no meetings whatsoever. Thirty-six projects were standing
committees that were not subject to section 15 and were therefore
excluded from our analyses. None of the current project information
from the web site was independently verified against the Academy's
original records.
For the analysis of open versus closed hours, we considered only the
139 meetings with both open and closed hours. For the closed
meetings, we looked only at those meetings with summary minutes or
with posted agendas. Of the 300 possible meetings with some closed
sessions, 294 were analyzed to determine the reasons for the closed
sessions.
To measure the Academy's compliance with the section 15 requirement
to make committee members' names and biographies available for public
comment, we reviewed a random sample of 30 current projects'
potential bias and conflict-of-interest forms to determine whether
they were present in the Academy's files and signed by the committee
members. We compared the Academy's files to the committee's printed
lists from the Academy's current projects web site. Projects that
did not have meetings within the December 17, 1997, to June 17, 1998,
time frame were not sampled.
We conducted our work from May through November 1998 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for
10 days. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
President of the National Academy of Sciences and the Administrator
of the General Services Administration. We will also make copies
available to others on request.
Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report
were Diane B. Raynes, Gregory M. Hanna, Lynn M. Musser, and Robin
M. Nazzaro.
Susan D. Kladiva
Associate Director, Energy,
Resources, and Science Issues
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
COMMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL ACADEMY
OF SCIENCES
============================================================== Letter
(See figure in printed edition.)
*** End of document. ***