**APPENDIX A**

**FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION**

**FY 2002 PERFORMANCE REPORT**

**Pursuant to the GPRA**

**March 20, 2003**

##### Submitted to Congress/OMB

**March 2003**

**FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION**

**FY 2002 PERFORMANCE REPORT**

**SUMMARY**

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) submits concurrently to the
Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget its fy 2002
Performance Report pursuant to the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the Federal Election Campaign Act
(FECA). The report provides the FY 2002 Performance Plan, measures FEC
performance against the objectives and goals identified in the FEC
Performance Plan, and presents major program accomplishments.

The funding the FEC has received to support our programs, particularly
the annual earmarked funds to carryout the IT initiatives, has been a
key factor in Commission performance. This funding has been vital to the
modernization and enhancement of our IT systems. The funding has allowed
the FEC to accomplish its mission and achieve its program objectives
despite record levels of campaign finance activity in each successive
election cycle, and with a minimal addition of FTE in staff. A
combination of Commission management and program initiatives along with
sufficient funding for the IT projects has enabled the FEC to cope with
increasing and changing demands for campaign finance data and
information.

**Background**

The FEC is a personnel intensive regulatory agency, with roughly 70% of
our annual appropriations expended on salaries and benefits. Of the
remaining 30%, 8% is allocated to GSA rent costs; 11% to legislatively
earmarked IT projects, 5% to support programs, including the Office of
Election Administration (OEA), audits, compliance, enforcement,
disclosure and informational outreach programs; and 6% for overhead
support costs such as phones, postage, equipment and supplies.

**FY 2002 Appropriation**

During FY 2002 the Commission expended \$44,219,323 to support 353 FTE
and in a manner designed to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of
our programs. A total of \$6,230,586 was expended on earmarked IT
programs during the FY; this included \$4,730,032 for hardware,
software, contracts, supplies and equipment and \$1,500,554 for 19.4
FTE. During FY 2002 the Commission also received a Supplemental
Appropriation of \$750,000 to initiate a forced move to acquire
additional space to house staff required to implement the BCRA
amendments to the FECA. The FEC established an RWA account with GSA to
cover forced move and construction costs in our efforts to acquire an
additional floor of space to house 27 FTE for the BCRA implementation.
The FEC supplemented the \$750,000 with available funds to set aside a
total of \$1.1 million for the forced move and construction.

**FY 2002 PERFORMANCE REPORT**

## FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

### PERFORMANCE MEASURES, GOALS AND TARGETS

### 

### PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND GOALS 

The FEC Strategic Plan noted the difficulty in developing true measures
of performance for the FEC mission. It is difficult to define and
measure public awareness of the political and campaign finance systems.
It is also difficult to measure the impact of the FEC on the public's
confidence in the political process. However, the Commission has
developed a set of performance indicators to measure FEC success in
achieving improved public confidence in the political process.

If we are successful in meeting our performance targets for timely
review and processing of reports, if we meet our targets for resolving
enforcement actions in a timely manner, and if we are successful in
informing and educating the public about campaign finance, the desired
outcomes should be met: public confidence in the FEC's ability to fairly
and effectively apply campaign finance rules and to promote disclosure,
thereby enabling the electorate to make informed choices in the
electoral process.

The FEC Strategic Plan identifies performance goals by election cycle or
other multi-year periods. In this report, FEC FY 2002 performance is
compared to the FY 2002 Performance Plan.

#### 

#### FY 2002 PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND RESULTS

**Program I: Disclosure**

**Objective: Promote Disclosure** **of Campaign Finance Activity** **and
Provide Information on the FECA and FEC Regulatory Actions**

**Outcome**: **The public can make informed choices in the electoral
process because of full disclosure of the sources of candidate campaign
funding.**

Accomplishments: FEC disclosure provided information to the public
faster and in more flexible formats. In addition, the foundation has
been established for future IT enhancements that will improve automated
review of reports.

[Current Services Performance Level (362 FTE)]{.underline}

**[Public Disclosure Division:]{.underline}** met statutory deadline for
placing reports on the public record within 48 hours of receipt for over
99% of all reports received. Because the Senate campaign reports are
filed first at the Secretary of the Senate Office, Senate reports are
not as timely as the reports for which the FEC has point of entry
responsibilities. However, the FEC meets the goal of placing Senate
reports on the public record within 48 hours of their availability to
the FEC. Public Disclosure also met the timeframe of responding to
requests for information within 72 hours of their receipt by the FEC.

**[Data Systems Division (DSDD):]{.underline}** met statutory deadline
for indexing and making reports available for review within 48 hours of
receipt for over 99% of reports received, by coding and entering summary
information on all reports. DSDD has two key measures for timeliness of
processing reports: how many days from receipt of reports to completion
of all itemized data on 95% of the reports, and the number of days to
complete half of the reports, i.e. how many days required to process the
median of the reports. These measures show that half of all reports are
processed very timely, but that it takes longer to process the full
database. In essence, the major, higher priority reports are processed
more rapidly, but it may take much longer to complete the processing of
itemized data for all reports, including the smaller paper filed
reports.

With electronic filing of the larger reports, excluding Senate reports,
now mandatory, we expect to see the median days to process reports
continue to improve significantly. However, processing the Senate and
smaller non-electronically filed reports will still require several days
longer. For FY 2002, performance improved to 6 median days for the 2002
cycle reports, compared to 10 median days for the 2000 cycle reports.
This compared to 9 median days (and 27 days to 95% completion) for the
1998 cycle, which had improved from previous cycles, but the sheer
volume of activity had degraded the timeliness of the 2000 cycle data
processing.

Although the FEC met the target of completing coding and entry of
itemized data within 45 days of receipt at the Commission for 95% of all
documents for the 2000 election cycle, the days required to reach 95%
completion for the 2002 cycle increased to 50 days as of September 30,
2002 (60 days as of February 28, 2003.).

![](media/image1.wmf)

A significant factor in this increase is the mail delays in 2001 and
2002. Beginning on October 17, 2001, mail service to the Commission was
disrupted as a result of the anthrax attacks and subsequent irradiation
of mail addressed to federal agencies in Washington, DC. Sporadic
delivery of mail resumed in December 2001, and regular daily delivery
resumed in January 2002. Irradiation of mail caused significant mail
delays through the July Quarterly report deadline of July 15, 2002. In
addition to the delivery delay, the irradiation process destroyed a
number of paper filings and most diskette filings. The US Postal Service
refined the irradiation process, and by the October Quarterly report
deadline of October 15, 2002, few paper filings were affected by
irradiation and most diskettes could be read.

Irradiation now appears to be delaying mail delivery generally by one or
two days. Further, there are persistent delays in the processing of
reports filed with the Secretary of the Senate because mail addressed to
the Senate is sent to an off-site mail facility before delivery to the
Secretary of the Senate.

In addition, the fact that Senate reports and non-electronically filed
reports below the mandatory \$50,000 threshold must be processed
manually requires the FEC to operate both an electronic and manual
filing system. The larger Senate reports are processed before the
smaller non-electrically filed committees and take longer to complete,
thus delaying the processing of the smaller reports.

Finally, the increase in total campaign finance activity in federal
elections in recent election cycles has lengthened processing times. The
following table notes that total disbursements in federal elections grew
1,112% from the 1976 cycle with \$310 million to the 2000 cycle (900%
for the 2002 congressional cycle) at \$3.75 billion.

![](media/image2.wmf)

In addition, since 1984, the increase in the number of documents filed
(29% compared to 2000 cycle), the number of itemized transactions
processed per cycle (400%), and the average number of itemized
transactions per document (300%), highlight the increase in FEC
workloads. Without mandatory electronic filing, the Commission could not
have handled the increases in workloads with out large increases in
staffing.

![](media/image3.wmf)

Although the median time to process documents has improved significantly
(about 50% improvement from 11 or 10 days to 5 or 6 days), the volume of
financial activity coupled with the need to operate a parallel manual
system for the Senate and smaller committee reports creates delays in
reaching the 95% completion target of 45 days

**[Reports Analysis Division (RAD)]{.underline}**: reviewed all high
priority disclosure reports for the 2000 and 2002 election cycles within
100 days of filing by committees, ensuring that the most significant
committees are reviewed first and allowing referrals for audits and
enforcement actions under sections 437g and 438(b) of the FECA.

RAD also responded to 100% of filers' requests for assistance within 2
business days and reviewed 100% of all statements received within 30
days. Finally, RAD prepared notices to committees for all reviewed
reports requiring further information (Requests for Further Information
or RFAIs) within 18 days of review.

With 14,671 unreviewed reports from the 2002 cycle and 1,295 unreviewed
reports from the 2000 cycle as of September 30, 2002, RAD also met the
targets of less than 15,000 unreviewed reports from the 2002 cycle and a
total backlog of less than 16,000 reports.

As the workloads for RAD continue to expand due to increasing financial
activity in federal campaigns, enhanced and expanded automated review
will be required to allow RAD to meet its goals at current staffing.
Although RAD did not review 60% of all quarterly reports within 90 days
of receipt (75% within 120 days), the review program is structured to
review the highest priority committees first, and to meet the
requirement that all Audit referrals take place within six months of the
election for all candidate committees. As a result, the goal of issuing
all Requests for Additional Information (RFAIs) within 90 days of
receipt of the original reports will be met for the larger, most
significant committees.

The impact of the increases in workloads and financial activity on the
reports review process is evident in the following table:

![](media/image4.wmf)

**[The Office of General Counsel]{.underline}:** prepared all Advisory
Opinions in a timely manner, thus meeting the statutory deadlines for
issuance (or concluded action) on Advisory Opinions. The Commission also
met the 45-60 day target for Advisory Opinion reconsiderations as well
as the 15-day target for deficient request notices.

OGC also maintained targets for completing all rulemaking petitions
filed pursuant to 11 C.F.R. Part 200, as well as revisions to pertinent
regulatory sections, as directed by the Commission. Additionally, OGC
responded to all requests for legal assistance from the FOIA officer,
and all FOIA appeals, within the statutory deadlines.

The need to shift resources from enforcement to meet the strict
statutory deadlines for the promulgation of the BCRA regulations enabled
OGC to meet its targets for policy issues but did adversely impact on
the enforcement program (see below.)

# **Information Division:** responded to 100% of requests for general information on FEC and FECA within 72 hours, 14 days for written requests.

> Additionally, the Information Division:
>
> \-- Responded to 100% of requests for copies of forms, the FECA and
> Regulations, and Commission brochures and guidelines within 72 hours.
>
> \-- Notified all filers of upcoming reporting periods, and provided
> copies of forms as a pre-reporting notice; and published the monthly
> FEC Record newsletter.
>
> \-- Published the statutorily required **Annual Report** in similar
> fashion to current comprehensive efforts, and published the following:
>
> \-- FEC Disclosure Forms
>
> \-- FECA (the Act)
>
> \-- FEC Regulations and updates, 11 CFR
>
> \-- Campaign Guides
>
> \-- Brochures on Election Processes
>
> \-- Videos on Campaign Finance.

**[All Offices:]{.underline}** the Press Office, RAD, Disclosure, and
Information all met the goal of responding to requests for assistance,
data or information within 72 hours for over 95% of all requests; within
14 days for all requests requiring written responses. The Press Office
meets the statutory deadline for FOIA responses for 95% of all FOIA
requests. It should be noted that the use of the FEC Website has reduced
demands on FEC staff to respond to requests and has replaced thousands
of requests for data and information to staff with hundreds of thousands
of visits (and millions of hits) on the FEC Website. It should be noted
that the mail problems due to the anthrax attack did impact on how
timely requests were delivered to the FEC. However, once requests were
received, they were responded to within our performance targets for
responses to requests.

**Program II: Compliance**

**Objective: Obtain Compliance** **with the FECA** **and Enforcement of
the FECA**

**Outcome**: **The perception by the regulated community that disclosure
reports must be accurately and timely filed; that there are real
consequences for non-compliance with the FECA; and that the FEC will
impartially and speedily enforce the FECA**.

**Accomplishments: The result of the FEC compliance accomplishments was
the establishment of programs to speed up and streamline enforcement of
the filing requirements and to negotiate and settle some enforcement
cases without resorting to the full enforcement process. In addition,
the Case Management System was implemented, more enforcement cases were
activated, the ratio of active to inactive cases was improved, more
cases were closed with substantive action, and more audits were
conducted.**

[Current Services Performance Level (362 FTE)]{.underline}

**[Reports Analysis Division (RAD)]{.underline}**: reviewed the highest
priority reports within 100 days of receipt for the 2002 election cycle
disclosure reports filed by committees and referred committees for
potential audits and/or enforcement actions. All audits of authorized
Committees from the 1998 and 2000 cycles were initiated within six
months of the election per the requirements of the FECA.

**[The Office of General Counsel (OGC)]{.underline}**: processed and
closed 91 enforcement cases in FY 2002, meeting the target for 50% of
cases that were substantively closed in FY 2002 (65%). Moreover, the
Office exceeded its active case ratio targets for the year with a 67%
active case average over the course of the fiscal year.

During the peak of the 2002 election cycle, the FEC was faced with
strict deadlines for implementing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
(BCRA) amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The
Commission had to meet strict statutory deadlines for promulgating the
new regulations required to implement the new provisions of the statute.
In addition, the BCRA provided for expedited review of the
constitutionality of the new law, and the FEC was faced with very tight
court-imposed deadlines for the discovery and legal brief preparation
for the court challenges to the BCRA.

The regulations and legal discovery work commenced in the spring and
summer of 2002 and carried over into fiscal year 2003. As a result, the
Office of General Counsel (OGC) shifted staff from enforcement and other
teams to the regulations group. This shift of staffing affected the
compliance and enforcement programs. This impact will continue into FY
2003 and will not be remedied until the additional staff is on board and
adequately housed, most likely in FY 2004.

As a result, the average OGC caseload was 163 cases, with 29
conciliation agreements. In addition, the Commission initiated one
offensive litigation case directly from enforcement since FY 2000. One
aspect of the administrative fine program is that cases once classified
as offensive litigation are now categorized as defensive litigation if
they reach the litigation stage of the administrative fine program.

It is expected that by FY 2004 the addition of extra compliance program
staff and the conclusion of the BCRA implementation will allow the FEC
to increase resources committed to enforcement and increase the cases
closed. During the fiscal year, OGC devoted resources to and actively
participated in other Commission enforcement programs, such as the
Alternative Dispute Resolution program and the Offense Profile
initiative.[^1]

OGC also reviewed 438(b) audit reports within 6-8 weeks as well as
routine matters in two weeks. The Office also answered audit queries in
an average of 25 days from receipt and responded to RAD requests for
review of debt settlement plans within 10 days, completing review of
complex debt settlement plans within 60 days. With respect to RAD
requests for review of administrative terminations, OGC met the stated
processing goals for administrative terminations.

Finally, with respect to litigation matters, the Office met the stated
performance measures. OGC was mainly involved in preparing the defense
of the BCRA amendments to constitutional challenges during the fiscal
year. All of the offensive litigation pleadings were filed within 90
days of the Commission's determination to file suit. In addition, briefs
and pleadings in all matters were filed on a timely basis as imposed by
court rule or order. This Office also made at least one attempt to
settle each offensive case with enough time to allow the Commission to
consider any settlement proposal prior to filing suit. These efforts
resulted in three cases being settled. Moreover, OGC ensured that all
pleadings and briefs represented the Commission's positions
persuasively, that the status of active cases was reported to the
Commission on a monthly basis, and that a system for obtaining
satisfaction of all judgments imposing civil penalties was maintained.

**[The Office of Administrative Review (OAR)]{.underline}:** was
established in July 2000 to review committees' and treasurers' written
responses to the Commission's reason to believe findings and proposed
civil money penalties (challenges), monitor payments of civil money
penalties sent to the Commission's lockbox, forward unpaid civil money
penalties to the Department of Treasury (Treasury) for collection, and
serve as liaison to Treasury for these debts. Three months later, by the
beginning of FY 2001, OAR was fully staffed and receiving and reviewing
challenges, preparing written recommendations to the Commission,
monitoring payments, and working with Treasury staff on debt referral
procedures. In 2002, 183 administrative fine cases were placed on the
public record, with penalties exceeding \$250,000.

The Administrative Fine program has successfully enabled the Commission
to expedite and regularize the enforcement of the filing provisions of
the FECA. It has increased compliance with the filing requirements and
has improved timely filing of disclosure reports. Given that timely and
accurate filing of disclosure reports is vital to full disclosure of
campaign finance activity, the program has been successful. It has also
been successful in that it has reduced the staff resources required to
enforce the reporting requirements of the FECA and process the fines for
those committees failing to meet the filing deadlines.

**[The Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR Program]{.underline}:** was
established in FY 2000 and became fully operational in FY 2001. In FY
2002 a total of 17 cases were settled and closed with agreements
approved by the Commission. These cases were resolved within an average
of 161 days from receipt by the ADR team and represented cases that
would not have been activated and processed by the enforcement program;
in other words they would have been dismissed with no formal Commission
action. The ADR program has enabled the Commission to expand the reach
of the FEC enforcement program and has provided alternative solutions to
resolving cases, usually within an expedited timeframe. As such it has
met the FEC goals of improving the timeliness of enforcement and
increasing the number of cases resolved with substantive Commission
actions rather than dismissed.

**[Audit Division]{.underline}**: the performance target for Audit was
to complete 20-25 authorized committee audits and 20-25 unauthorized
committee audits from the 2000 and 2002 election cycles. As of September
30, 2002, the division had completed or initiated 21 authorized
committee audits under 438(b). In addition, the division had released 4
unauthorized committee audits and begun another 12 unauthorized
committee audits. All of the authorized committee audits were initiated
within 6 months of the election as required by the FECA. In addition, a
437(g) audit began in FY 2002. Audit maintained a stand-alone Title 2
Audit program even during the presidential election cycles. In addition,
the goal of expanding the Title 2 Audits from about 20-25 per cycle to
40-45 per cycle was achieved. A total of 17 Title 2 audits were released
during FY 2002, and 20 were in process, with 11 at the final report
stage.

**Program III: Public Financing**

### Objective: Administer Public Financing

**Outcome: The public funding program is implemented so that the
availability of federal funds does not become an issue in the campaign;
so that qualified presidential candidates receive entitled funds
expeditiously; so that public monies are correctly spent on qualified
campaign expenditures and are fully accounted for; and so that the
public is assured that the FECA has been impartially enforced in a
timely manner**.

**Accomplishments: FEC public financing accomplishments in FY 2002 were
to stay on track to meet the two-year deadline to complete presidential
audits and still maintain a "stand alone" Title 2 audit program with
available audit resources. Timely completion of the certification and
audit of public funds will assure the public that the public financing
system was properly implemented and enforced.**

[Current Services Performance Level (362 FTE)]{.underline}

**[Audit]{.underline}**: all matching fund requests were reviewed and
certified for payment within required timeframes. The FEC is on target
for completing, within 2 years of the 2000 general election, audits of
the 10 Presidential primary candidates who received federal funding. In
addition, audits of 3 general election candidates and of 5 convention
committees should also be completed within 2 years of the general
election. As of the end of FY 2002, 3 post-primary audits had been
released, with the remaining 7 at the final report stage. Four
convention committee audits had been released, with one at the final
report stage. All three general election audits were at the final report
stage. The report to Congress on the 2000 matching fund process is on
schedule to be completed within 2 ½ years of the general election.

**[OGC:]{.underline}** reviewed and commented on preliminary audit
reports on Title 26 committees during the fiscal year. Comments were
prepared within eight weeks of completion of the preliminary Title 26
audits for the 2000 cycle, with one comment completed two business days
late.[^2] Additionally, OGC prepared reports to the Commission on any
enforcement matters arising out of Title 26 audits and presidential
campaigns during the fiscal year.[^3] On a less frequent basis, OGC
prepared reports to the Commission on any additional enforcement matters
arising out of Title 26 audits and presidential campaigns.[^4]

**Program IV: Office of Election Administration**

**Objective: Administer Office of Election Administration (OEA)**

**Outcome**: **The state and local election officials charged with
administering federal elections are able to hold fair elections
efficiently with public confidence in the integrity of the results; to
enable elections administrators to comply with the Voting Accessibility
and NVRA statutes. The FEC is required by the NVRA to report to congress
on the impact of the law after each election**. **The Office of Election
Administration represents virtually the only direct federal assistance
to the multitude of state and local elections officials charged with
administering federal elections. The ability, or inability, to properly
administer elections and tally elections results can affect the outcome
of assuring public faith in the electoral process.**

**Accomplishments: the major FEC accomplishment in FY 1999-2002 was to
complete the update of the technical Voting Systems Standards (VSS) to
improve elections officials' abilities to select certified voting
equipment that meets the requirements for an accurate electoral
tabulation process**.

[Current Services Performance Level (362 FTE)]{.underline}

**[OEA:]{.underline}** In FY 2002, OEA released the revised and updated
Voting System Standards---the *voluntary* technical standards for state
and local election officials. The standards allow election officials to
procure voting tabulation systems that meet set criteria. OEA first
developed these VSS in the 1980s and the FEC has been requesting funds
to update them over the past several fiscal years. In previous years,
since FY 1998, the FEC has been reallocating OEA funds from other
projects and additional FEC resources to complete the VSS update. In FY
2001, an additional \$160,000 was appropriated to allow for the
completion of the VSS update.

The Commission also requested funding for a major increase in the OEA
program to provide for further enhancements to the VSS and to develop
management or operational guidelines for administering federal
elections. Funding for this program was denied in FY 2002 and was not
included in the President's FY 2003 budget request. The OEA initiated
limited work on developing the management guidelines.

The FEC has been committing OEA and Commission resources to the update
and revision of the technical VSS since well before the 2000 elections.
The FEC reallocated additional funds to the OEA VSS program in fiscal
years 1998, 1999, and 2000, as well as in FY 2001. With limited
resources, the Commission has been successful in providing some
assistance to the state and local elections officials charged with
administering federal elections. The technical VSS were formally
released in 2002. The OEA has also met its responsibilities with regard
to the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Voting Disability
and Accessibility Act.

A new Election Assistance Commission has been established and is
expected to begin operations in late FY 2003; this new agency is
contained in the President's FY 2004 budget request, and the OEA will be
transferred to the agency.

**Information Technology (IT) Projects**

**Objective: Successfully Implement IT Projects to Improve FEC
Programs**

**Outcome**: **A cross‑cutting set of projects for IT development and
enhancements to allow the FEC to meet its objectives and goals. The two
major initiatives are the IT Enhancements and the Electronic Filing
projects**. **Enhanced IT systems throughout the Commission have been
implemented in FY 2001-2002**.

Accomplishments: FEC IT accomplishments include installation of a new
accounting and finance system; installation of an upgraded and enhanced
electronic filing system; development and design of new systems for the
FEC web, internet, and imaging programs; migration of the main FEC IT
system to a client/server environment; and installation of new IT
equipment and systems for in-house staff support of disclosure and
compliance programs, as well as upgraded service to outside users of FEC
disclosure data and reports.

[Current Services Performance Level (362 FTE)]{.underline}

**[Data Systems]{.underline}**: met congressional mandates for three
identified IT initiatives funded with earmarked appropriations over the
last several fiscal years. The initiatives included:

> \-- Continued to provide point of entry for filing House disclosure
> documents at the FEC; scanning all documents and transmitting images
> to the House Office in usable format for that office; eliminating
> duplicate processing at FEC and House office.
>
> \-- Continued the multi‑year enhancement and upgrade of IT systems for
> all Commission Offices and Divisions: continued development and
> deployment of a client/server based IT system and the development of a
> replacement for the existing FEC document imaging system.
>
> \-- Developed and implemented a mandatory electronic filing system
> (with thresholds) for 2002 cycle for disclosure reports required to be
> filed under the FECA; interim, voluntary system initiated on January
> 1, 1997.

Data Systems has continued to upgrade and enhance the electronic filing
system and concurrently implement the upgraded IT systems in order to
develop automated review procedures. This will enable the FEC to cope
with increasing workloads with static staff resources. In order to meet
the document processing and review deadlines for over \$3.75 billion in
federal campaign finance activity in the 2000 election cycle, progress
on electronic filing and processing of reports, and ultimately the
automated review process, was vital to the success of the FEC. With the
total of \$3.1 billion in activity in the 2002 congressional cycle, and
a projected \$4 billion in the 2004 presidential cycle, the success of
the IT initiatives is of key importance to the FEC. Successful progress
on the IT enhancements in the past several fiscal years has set the
foundation for continued implementation of enhancements in FY 2003 and
later years.

#### FY 2002 FEC ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The mission of the FEC is to assure that the campaign finance process is
fully disclosed and that the rules are effectively and fairly enforced,
fostering the electorate\'s faith in the integrity of the nation\'s
political process. As a result of the major FEC improvements over the
last 25 years in the reporting and the disclosure of campaign finances,
the public has a better understanding of where and how federal
candidates raise and spend their campaign monies.

The FEC accomplishments in FY 2002 also improved the timeliness and
increased the substantive action in enforcement cases, as well a focused
our limited resources on more complex, substantive cases. The FEC
initiated several projects that continued into FY 2002. Significant
successes in FY 2002 include:

Completion of the regulations implementing the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act, meeting aggressive 90 and 270-day regulatory deadlines. The
Commission completed extensive revisions to the regulations to implement
the BCRA amendments to the FECA under very strict statutory timeframes,
and met stringent court imposed deadlines for the discovery and legal
brief preparation process in court challenges to the constitutionality
of the BCRA provisions.

> Establishment of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program as a
> permanent program. In FY 2002 the Commission accepted 17 agreements
> reached under this program, which was designed to handle
> administrative complaints and Title 2 audit referrals to free
> enforcement and litigation resources for more complex, significant
> cases. A total of 28 cases were closed in FY 2002.
>
> Implementation of the client/server disclosure system, the successful
> and on-time completion of a \$2.3 million upgrade.
>
> Release of the revised and updated Voting System Standards---the
> *voluntary* technical standards for state and local election
> officials. The standards allow election officials to procure voting
> tabulation systems that meet set criteria. The Commission's Office of
> Election Administration (OEA.) completed a multi-year project to
> update the Voting Systems Standards (VSS) to improve elections
> officials' abilities to select certified voting equipment that meets
> the requirements for an accurate electoral tabulation process. First
> initiated in FY 1998, the new updated VSS were formally released in FY
> 2002
>
> Placement of 183 administrative fine cases on the public record, with
> penalties exceeding \$250,000. Implementation of the administrative
> fine program freed enforcement resources for more complex, substantive
> cases and enhanced disclosure by improving timely filing.
>
> Expansion of the Case Management System to the ADR program. The Case
> Management system now provides case tracking, case management, and
> time reporting for ADR as well as OGC programs. Data from the Case
> Management system can be used to produce MIS and budget and planning
> data for OGC programs.
>
> As a result of the ADR program, the administrative fine program, the
> Case Management System, and the OGC Enforcement Priority System (EPS),
> the FEC has been improving the timeliness of enforcement actions and
> increasing the percentage of the caseload actively worked on. Since FY
> 1995, the Commission has used the EPS to triage cases, dismiss those
> with a lower priority and eliminate stale cases. The goal of all the
> initiatives has been to focus limited enforcement resources on the
> more complex, substantive cases, to increase the percentage of cases
> activated, and to improve the ratio of cases closed with substantive
> action rather than dismissed with no action. As a result of efforts
> since FY 1995, but particularly in FY 2000-2002, there were some
> significant improvements in enforcement:
>
> Over 50 percent of cases were activated FY 1998-2002, an improvement
> over the average of 35-40% from FY 1995-1997;
>
> The ratio of active to inactive pending cases on average improved to
> over 50% in FY 1999-2002, with the highest active ratio ever, 67% in
> FY 2002.
>
> A dramatic increase in cases closed with substantive action, from 43%
> in FY 1999 to 76% in FY 2000, and 65% in FY 2001. There was some fall-
> off in FY 2002 (due somewhat to the BCRA implementation impact), with
> the substantive case closing at 51%; but the target of 50% was still
> met.

ENFORCEMENT CASES IN PROCESS: ACTIVE AND INACTIVE

![](media/image5.wmf)

DISPOSITION OF CASES CLOSED: SUBSTANTIVE VS. DISMISSED

> ![](media/image6.wmf)
>
> .

[^1]: The Alternative Dispute Resolution program permits cases that may
    otherwise be dismissed without substantive treatment to be resolved
    by the Commission through a negotiated settlement. Three cases were
    returned from the ADR program to OGC to be processed pursuant to the
    regular enforcement process. In addition, the Office devoted
    resources to assess whether cases were appropriate for the ADR
    program.

[^2]: The performance measure for legal reviews of all 2000 presidential
    audit reports and repayment matters for 2000 cycle publicly funded
    committees were not applicable for FY 2002.

[^3]: The performance measure stating that OGC will complete all
    investigations of 2000 presidential matters within the four-year
    presidential election cycle was not applicable for FY 2002.

[^4]: During the fiscal year, the Office also had some Title 26
    enforcement matters held in abeyance pending completion of an audit.