Federal Advisory Committee Act: Advisory Committee Process Appears to Be
Working, but Some Concerns Exist (Testimony, 07/14/98, GAO/T-GGD-98-163).

GAO discussed the: (1) views of federal advisory committee members and
federal agencies on specific Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
matters; and (2) General Services Administration's (GSA) efforts in
carrying out its oversight responsibilities under FACA.

GAO noted that: (1) advisory committees appear to be adhering to the
requirements of FACA and Executive Order 12838, which led to the
establishment of ceilings for each agency on the number of discretionary
advisory committees; (2) these requirements do not appear to be overly
burdensome to agencies; (3) although the responses of committee members
and agencies portrayed a more positive than negative image of FACA,
their responses did raise concerns and issues that the House Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information, and Technology may wish to explore in its
consideration of FACA; (4) there appears to be some concern among
agencies about the possibility of being sued for noncompliance with FACA
if they obtain input from parties who are outside of the agency and its
advisory committees; (5) GSA's Committee Management Secretariat has
fallen short of fulfilling its FACA oversight responsibilities; (6)
further, GSA did not ensure that the advisory committees were
established with complete charters and justification letters; (7) 36
percent of the 203 advisory committee charters and 38 percent of the 107
justification letters from October 1996 through July 1997 that GAO
reviewed were missing one or more items required by FACA or GSA
regulations; and (8) GSA said that it will take immediate action to
improve its oversight.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-GGD-98-163
     TITLE:  Federal Advisory Committee Act: Advisory Committee Process 
             Appears to Be Working, but Some Concerns Exist
      DATE:  07/14/98
   SUBJECT:  Congressional/executive relations
             Executive orders
             Federal advisory bodies
             Surveys
             Congressional oversight
             Accountability

             
******************************************************************
** 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


Before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of
Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
2:00 p.m., EDT
Tuesday
July 14, 1998

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT -
ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROCESS APPEARS
TO BE WORKING, BUT SOME CONCERNS
EXIST

Statement by L.  Nye Stevens
Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues
General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-98-163

GAO/GGD-98-163T


(410346)


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

  FACA - x
  GSA - x
  OMB - x

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT: 
ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROCESS APPEARS
TO BE WORKING, BUT SOME CONCERNS
EXIST
====================================================== Chapter Summary

Federal agencies often receive advice from advisory committees on a
range of issues, including policy and scientific matters.  In fiscal
year 1997, federal agencies could turn to over 900 advisory
committees for advice.  Congress enacted the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) 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 to the public
as is feasible, and (3) Congress is regularly informed of the
committees' activities. 

GAO has issued two recent reports relating to FACA.  The most recent
of these reports, which is being released today, summarized the views
of federal advisory committee members and federal agencies on
specific FACA matters.  The other report, issued in June 1998,
assessed the General Services Administration's (GSA) efforts in
carrying out its oversight responsibilities under FACA. 

The information from these two reports led GAO to make three general
observations. 

1.  Advisory committees appear to be adhering to the requirements of
FACA and Executive Order 12838, which led to the establishment of
ceilings for each agency on the number of discretionary advisory
committees.  These requirements do not appear to be overly burdensome
to agencies. 

2.  Although the responses of committee members and agencies
portrayed a more positive than negative image of FACA, their
responses did raise concerns and issues that the Subcommittee may
wish to explore in its consideration of FACA.  For example, there
appears to be some concern among agencies about the possibility of
being sued for noncompliance with FACA if they obtain input from
parties who are outside of the agency and its advisory committees. 

3.  GSA's Committee Management Secretariat has fallen short of
fulfilling its FACA oversight responsibilities.  For example, GSA has
not submitted its annual reports to the President in time for him to
meet the December 31 reporting date to Congress in 8 of the last 10
annual cycles.  Further, GSA did not ensure that advisory committees
were established with complete charters and justification letters. 
Thirty-six percent of the 203 advisory committee charters and 38
percent of the 107 justification letters from October 1996 through
July 1997 that we reviewed were missing one or more items required by
FACA or GSA regulations.  GSA said it will take immediate action to
improve its oversight. 


FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT: 
ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROCESS APPEARS
TO BE WORKING, BUT SOME CONCERNS
EXIST
==================================================== Chapter Statement

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on federal advisory
committees as the Subcommittee explores possible changes to the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the advisory committee
process.  Last November we presented to the Subcommittee an overview
of advisory committees since 1993.\1 We have issued two reports on
FACA since then on issues that you, Mr.  Chairman, and Senator John
Glenn asked us to examine.  The most recent of these reports, which
is being released today, gathered the views of federal advisory
committee members and federal agencies on specific FACA matters.\2
The other report, which was issued last month, assessed the General
Services Administration's (GSA) efforts in carrying out its oversight
responsibilities under FACA.\3

My statement today will focus on these two reports, as you requested. 

As you are well aware, federal agencies often receive advice from
advisory committees, and this advice covers a range of topics and
issues, including national policy and scientific matters.  In fiscal
year 1997, federal agencies could turn to 963 advisory committees for
advice.  Most of these committees were discretionary; that is, they
were created by agencies acting under their own authority or were
authorized--but not mandated--by Congress.  The rest were mandated by
Congress or the President. 

Congress has long recognized the importance of federal agencies
receiving advice from knowledgeable individuals outside of the
federal bureaucracy.  Nevertheless, Congress enacted FACA in 1972 out
of concern that federal advisory committees were proliferating
without adequate review, oversight, or accountability.  FACA
provisions are 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 to the public
as is feasible, and (3) Congress is regularly informed of the
committees' activities. 

To help meet these objectives, FACA directed that a Committee
Management Secretariat, which is now located at GSA, be established
and responsible for all matters relating to advisory committees.  GSA
has developed guidelines 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. 

Although FACA was enacted to temper the growth in advisory
committees, the number of advisory committees grew steadily from
fiscal year 1988 until fiscal year 1993, when the number totaled
1,305.  In February 1993, the President issued Executive Order 12838,
which directed agencies to reduce the number of discretionary
advisory committees by at least one-third by the end of fiscal year
1993.  Under authority provided by the executive order, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) established ceilings for each agency on
its maximum allowable number of discretionary committees. 
Subsequently, the number of advisory committees declined from 1,305
in 1993 to 963 in fiscal year 1997, the most recent fiscal year for
which complete data are available. 

Although the number of advisory committees has decreased, the average
number of members per committee and the average cost per committee
have increased.  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 cost per advisory
committee increased from $90,816 to $140,870 over the same period.  A
total of 36,586 individuals served as members of the 963 committees
in fiscal year 1997.  According to data published by GSA, the cost to
operate the 963 committees last fiscal year was about $178 million. 


--------------------
\1 Federal Advisory Committee Act:  Overview of Advisory Committees
Since 1993 (GAO/T-GGD-98-24, Nov.  5, 1997). 

\2 Federal Advisory Committee Act:  Views of Committee Members and
Agencies on Federal Advisory Committee Issues (GAO/GGD-98-147, July
9, 1998). 

\3 Federal Advisory Committee Act:  General Services Administration's
Oversight of Advisory Committees (GAO/GGD-98-124, June 15, 1998). 


   GAO'S TWO RECENT FACA-RELATED
   REPORTS
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:1

To gather the views of advisory committee members on committee
operations for our report being released today, we surveyed a
statistically representative sample of advisory committee members. 
The questionnaire responses we received from 607 members are
generalizable to the approximately 28,500 committee members for whom
we had names and addresses.  We also sent a questionnaire to 19
federal agencies to obtain their views on FACA requirements, and all
19 completed the questionnaire.  These 19 agencies account for about
90 percent of the federal advisory committees. 

To determine for our June 1998 report whether GSA's Committee
Management Secretariat was carrying out its FACA responsibilities, we
reviewed committee charters and justification letters, annual reports
for advisory committees, and other pertinent documents; applicable
laws and regulations; and GSA's guidance to federal agencies.  We
also interviewed Committee Management Secretariat officials at GSA
and committee management officers at nine agencies. 

The information from these two reports led us to three general
observations. 

1.  Advisory committees appear to be adhering to the requirements of
FACA and Executive Order 12838.  These requirements do not appear to
be overly burdensome to agencies. 

2.  Concerns surfaced about certain advisory committee requirements
that the Subcommittee may wish to explore in its consideration of
FACA. 

3.  GSA has fallen short of fulfilling its FACA oversight
responsibilities.  In response to our June 1998 report, GSA said it
will take immediate action to improve its oversight. 

I will turn now to each of these observations in more detail.  In
examining the responses of advisory committee members to our
questionnaire, we determined the overall response to each question
and, in addition, separately reported the responses of peer review
panel members and general advisory committee members where
appropriate. 


   ADVISORY COMMITTEE REQUIREMENTS
   AND PROCESS WERE VIEWED IN A
   POSITIVE LIGHT OVERALL
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:2

The answers the committee members gave to our survey showed that,
generally, they believed that their advisory committees were
providing balanced and independent advice and recommendations.  The
committee members also reported that they believed their committees
had a clear and worthwhile purpose and that the committees' advice
and recommendations were consistent with that purpose and considered
by the agencies.  These responses are shown graphically in the
following two figures, which group together by topic a number of the
specific questions that we asked committee members. 

   Figure 1:  Advisory Committees
   Providing Balanced and
   Independent Advice and
   Recommendations

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Responses from surveyed advisory committee members. 

   Figure 2:  Advisory Committees
   Serving Useful Purpose

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Responses from surveyed advisory committee members. 

FACA sets out requirements for agencies and advisory committees to
follow, and we asked the 19 agencies about their perceptions of how
useful or burdensome those requirements were.  With regard to the
requirements in general, figure 3 shows the range of agencies'
responses.  The largest number of agencies considered the
requirements to be useful. 

   Figure 3:  Agencies' Views of
   FACA Requirements Overall

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Responses from surveyed agencies. 

In addition to their overall characterizations, the agencies also
rated how useful and burdensome they found each of 17 FACA
requirements.  A majority of the agencies (generally more than 10
agencies) rated 14 requirements to be useful to a moderate, great, or
very great extent.  In contrast, only four requirements were
considered to be especially burdensome by a majority of the agencies. 
These same four were also among those rated as useful to a moderate
or greater extent. 

We also questioned the agencies about the impact of FACA requirements
on their receiving input from the public and about the impact of FACA
requirements and Executive Order 12838 on their forming new advisory
committees, and their responses were generally positive.  We asked
the agencies whether FACA had prohibited them from receiving or
soliciting input on issues or concerns from public groups (other than
from advisory committees).  Most of the agencies--16 of the
19--answered no. 

There has been some question about whether the possibility of
litigation over compliance with FACA requirements has inhibited
agencies from forming new advisory committees.  The most frequent
response--received from 14 of the 19 agencies--was that this
possibility did not inhibit the formation of new committees. 

As I noted earlier, Executive Order 12838 established ceilings for
each agency on its maximum allowable number of discretionary advisory
committees.  A majority of the agencies (12) said that the ceilings
did not deter them from seeking to establish new advisory committees. 
Seven agencies, however, said the ceilings did deter them.  An agency
could request approval from OMB to establish a committee that would
place it over its ceiling.  Two of the seven agencies had done so
during fiscal years 1995-1997, and OMB approved their requests. 


   CONCERNS SURFACED ABOUT CERTAIN
   ADVISORY COMMITTEE REQUIREMENTS
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:3

Although committee members and agencies responding to our
questionnaires generally provided a more positive than negative image
of FACA, their responses also pointed to concerns and issues that the
Subcommittee may wish to explore in its consideration of FACA.  We
list these concerns in no particular order of priority. 

  -- About 13 percent of the general advisory committee members said
     that agency officials had asked their advisory committees on
     occasion to give advice or make recommendations on the basis of
     inadequate data or analysis. 

  -- A majority of the 19 agencies reported that two FACA
     requirements--preparing an annual report on closed advisory
     committee meetings and filing advisory committee reports with
     the Library of Congress--required little labor on their part but
     offered little value, at least in the agencies' estimation. 

  -- Seven agencies offered suggestions for changing the FACA
     requirements, including two that suggested that rechartering be
     required every 5 years instead of the current 2 year cycle. 

  -- Under FACA, peer review panels are treated as advisory
     committees, and six agencies indicated that they used peer
     review panels.  Five of these agencies said that panels should
     be exempt from some, most, or all FACA requirements. 

  -- Agencies identified 26 congressionally mandated committees that
     they believed should be terminated. 

  -- GSA regulations allow agencies to determine whether members of
     the public may speak at advisory committee meetings.  (Members
     of the public are allowed to submit their remarks in writing.)
     All 19 agencies allowed members of the public to speak before at
     least some advisory committees.  However, agencies placed
     restrictions on the public's ability to speak at committee
     meetings (e.g., only if time permitted), and the restrictions
     varied from agency to agency. 

  -- Advisory committees may also have subcommittees.  Meetings of
     subcommittees may be exempt from FACA requirements, and agencies
     reported that about 27 percent of the meetings subcommittees
     held during fiscal year 1997 were not covered by FACA.  For
     these meetings, the subcommittees may voluntarily follow FACA
     requirements.  However, the extent to which the requirements are
     followed appears to vary.  For example, of the eight agencies
     that responded, only two said Federal Register notices were
     given for all or most subcommittee meetings.  Five said a
     designated federal officer attended all or most subcommittee
     meetings. 

  -- Although 16 agencies said FACA had not prohibited them from
     soliciting or receiving input from the public, 3 agencies said
     it had prohibited them.  One agency said that it had to limit
     its prior practice of forming working groups or task forces to
     address specific local projects or programs.  Another agency
     said that FACA had made it more cumbersome to seek citizen input
     because of the staff time required to complete FACA paperwork. 
     And, the third agency said that solicitation of a consensus
     opinion from a task force or working group could lead to that
     task force or working group being considered subject to FACA. 

  -- Finally, there appears to be some concern among agencies about
     the possibility of being sued for noncompliance with FACA if
     they obtain input from parties who are outside of the agency and
     its advisory committees.  Although 10 agencies said the
     possibility of such litigation has inhibited them to little or
     no extent from obtaining outside input independent of FACA, 8
     agencies said that it has inhibited them to some, a moderate, or
     very great extent. 

The Director of GSA's Committee Management Secretariat said that the
responses from committee members and agencies had suggested areas
that should be examined further, several of which GSA already had
been examining and others that GSA plans to examine. 


   GSA HAS FALLEN SHORT OF
   FULFILLING ITS FACA OVERSIGHT
   RESPONSIBILITIES
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:4

Although the GSA Committee Management Secretariat does not have
authority to stop the formation or continuation of an advisory
committee, FACA and GSA regulations assign it certain
responsibilities for overseeing the federal advisory committee
program.  These responsibilities include

  -- ensuring that advisory committees are established with complete
     charters and justification letters;

  -- conducting a comprehensive review annually to independently
     assess whether each advisory committee should be continued,
     merged, or terminated;

  -- submitting information to the President in time to meet the
     statutory due date for the President's annual report to Congress
     on advisory committees; and

  -- ensuring that agencies provide Congress with follow-up reports
     on recommendations made by presidential advisory committees. 

We concluded in our June report that the Secretariat had not carried
out each of these four responsibilities.  For example, even though
all charters and justification letters had been reviewed by the
Secretariat, 36 percent of the 203 charters and 38 percent of the 107
letters from October 1996 through July 1997 that we reviewed were
missing one or more items required by FACA or GSA regulations.  When
reviewing the advisory committees' annual reports for fiscal year
1996, the Secretariat did not independently assess whether committees
should be continued, merged, or terminated.  For 8 of the last 10
annual presidential reports on advisory committees, GSA submitted its
report to the President after the President's report was due to
Congress.  The Secretariat did not ensure that agencies prepared for
Congress the 13 follow-up reports required on recommendations made by
presidential advisory committees in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, and
in fact none had been prepared.  Based on our findings, we
recommended that the GSA Administrator direct the Committee
Management Secretariat to fully carry out the responsibilities
assigned to it by FACA in a timely and accurate manner. 

In response to that recommendation, the GSA Administrator said the
Associate Administrator for Govermentwide Policy will ensure that the
Committee Management Secretariat takes immediate and appropriate
action to implement our recommendation. 


------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:4.1

In summary, although agencies reported that they have benefited from
FACA requirements in administering their advisory committee programs,
there appear to be areas in which those requirements warrant a fresh
look.  In addition, there is room for GSA's Committee Management
Secretariat to improve its fulfillment of its FACA oversight
responsibilities.  GSA says that it is acting on both fronts.  Still,
the Subcommittee may wish to explore the concerns surfaced in our
reports as it considers ways to improve FACA. 

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes my statement.  I will be pleased to
answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may
have. 


*** End of document. ***