United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

June 1998 FEDERAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE ACT

General Services

Administration’s

Oversight of Advisory

Committees

GAO/GGD-98-124

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-279334 

June 15, 1998

The Honorable Stephen Horn

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management,

Information, and Technology

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

The Honorable John Glenn

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

This report responds to your request that we assess whether the General

Services Administration (GSA), through its Committee Management

Secretariat, was carrying out its oversight responsibilities under the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Specifically, as agreed with your

offices, we determined whether GSA had (1) ensured that federal advisory

committees were established with complete charters and justification

letters, (2) comprehensively reviewed each advisory committee annually,

(3) submitted annual reports on advisory committees to the President in a

timely manner, and (4) ensured that agencies prepared follow-up reports

to Congress on recommendations by presidential advisory committees

(any federal advisory committee that advises the President). We issued a

report about 10 years ago in which we said that GSA was not fully carrying

out these responsibilities.1

Results in Brief Compared to when we last reported in 1988, little had changed during the

period we studied in how the Secretariat carried out its FACA

responsibilities. With 963 federal advisory committees, 57 sponsoring

agencies, and submissions for each committee during fiscal year 1997,

GSA’s Committee Management Secretariat reviewed a large amount of

paperwork for the purpose of ensuring that sponsoring agencies were

(1) following the requirements placed upon them by FACA and

(2) implementing GSA regulations.2

 The Secretariat conducted these

reviews while performing other duties, such as providing formal training

to federal employees who were directly involved with the operations of

advisory committees and collaborating with an interagency committee on

1

Federal Advisory Committee Act: General Services Administration’s Management of Advisory

Committee Activities (GAO/GGD-89-10, Oct. 5, 1988).

2

The Secretariat provided a summary table of federal advisory committee data for fiscal year 1997 after

we completed our review. We have included the 1997 summary data in this report for informational

purposes.

Page 1 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
B-279334 

advisory committee management. Nevertheless, the Secretariat was

responsible under FACA and GSA regulations for ensuring that those

requirements were all fulfilled.

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

areas:

• GSA, in consultation with the agencies, did not ensure that advisory

committees were established with complete charters and justification

letters as required by FACA or GSA regulations. We reviewed 203 advisory

committee charters and 107 justification letters that were submitted to GSA

during the first 10 months of fiscal year 1997. (Only 107 of the 203

committees were required by GSA regulations to submit justification

letters.) Thirty-six percent of the charters and 38 percent of the letters did

not contain one or more items required by FACA or GSA regulations. Even

though required items of information were missing, such as estimated

operating costs and plans for attaining balanced membership, GSA

concurred in establishing all 203 advisory committees. Although GSA has

no authority to stop the formation of advisory committees, it is to ensure

that agencies follow the requirements under FACA and GSA regulations in

forming these committees.

• GSA did not independently assess, as it conducted the annual

comprehensive reviews required by FACA, whether committees should be

continued, merged, or terminated. According to GSA regulations, the

Secretariat is to use an advisory committee’s annual report to make its

review. The agency that sponsored or supported the advisory committee is

to prepare the annual report, and the report is to include the agency’s

recommendation on whether the committee should continue. Although GSA

collected the fiscal year 1996 annual reports, GSA officials said they

accepted the data in them without further review, including agencies’

recommendations to continue, merge, or terminate committees.3

 We found

this acceptance to be the norm even when information in a fiscal year 1996

annual report, such as a statement that the committee did not meet during

the year and no explanation was provided, should reasonably lead to

further inquiries.

• GSA did not submit most of its FACA annual reports to the President in time

for him to meet the statutory reporting date to Congress. Seven of the last

nine reports, covering fiscal years 1988 through 1996, were submitted to

the President after the due date to Congress. As of April 27, 1998, GSA had

3

At the time of our review, which was from June 1997 to April 1998, fiscal year 1996 was the latest year

for which agency reports were available.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
B-279334 

not submitted its fiscal year 1997 annual report to the President, which

was due to Congress by December 31, 1997.

• GSA did not ensure that FACA-required follow-up reports on presidential

advisory committee recommendations were prepared for Congress. Of the

17 presidential advisory committee reports issued in fiscal years 1995 and

1996 that GSA said required follow-up reports, agency officials said that 4

were erroneously listed in the President’s annual report to Congress as

requiring follow-up reports, and none of the remaining 13 follow-up

reports were made to Congress.

Secretariat officials told us that agencies must take greater responsibility

for preparing complete charters and justification letters and committee

annual reports and for sending follow-up reports to Congress. The officials

also said they plan to ask Congress to change the reporting deadline for

the President’s annual report to Congress to a later date. Regardless of the

responsiveness of agencies, FACA has given the Secretariat responsibilities

for ensuring that agencies satisfy the requirements for forming and

operating advisory committees, and the Secretariat is not carrying out

these responsibilities.

Background In 1972, Congress passed FACA in response to a concern that federal

advisory committees were proliferating without adequate review,

oversight, or accountability. FACA states that Congress intended that the

number of advisory committees be kept to the minimum necessary, and

that the advisory committees operate under uniform standards and

procedures in the full view of Congress and the public.

Although Congress recognized the value of advisory committees to public

policymaking, it included in FACA measures intended to ensure that

(1) valid needs exist for establishing and continuing advisory committees,

(2) the committees are properly managed and their proceedings are as

open as possible to the public, and (3) Congress is kept informed of the

committees’ activities. Congress ensured through FACA that the public had

access to advisory committee information and activities, including

charters, reports, and transcripts of committee meetings and other

records. Under FACA, the President, the Director of the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), and agency heads are to control the

number, operations, and costs of advisory committees.

To help accomplish these objectives, FACA directed that a Committee

Management Secretariat be established in OMB to be responsible for all

Page 3 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
B-279334 

matters relating to advisory committee administration. In 1977, the

President transferred advisory committee functions from OMB to GSA. The

President also delegated to GSA all of the functions vested in the President

by FACA, except that the annual report to Congress required by section 6(c)

of the act was to be prepared by GSA for the President’s consideration and

transmittal to Congress. To fulfill its responsibilities, GSA has developed

regulations and other guidance to assist agencies in implementing FACA,

has provided training to agency officials, and was instrumental in creating

and has collaborated with the Interagency Committee on Federal Advisory

Committee Management. GSA is also in the process of linking an

internet-based reporting system with its internal database that is used to

track committee transactions.

FACA requires that each agency head designate an advisory committee

management officer to help manage the committees, and that designated

federal officials shall be responsible for the individual committees.

According to FACA, a committee’s designated federal official must approve

or call a committee meeting, approve the agenda, and chair or attend each

meeting.

In February 1993, the President issued Executive Order 12838, which

directed agencies to reduce by at least one-third, the number of

discretionary advisory committees by the end of fiscal year 1993.

Discretionary committees are those created under agency authority or

authorized by Congress. OMB, in providing guidance to agencies on the

executive order, established a maximum ceiling number of discretionary

advisory committees for each agency and a monitoring plan. Under the

guidance, agencies were to annually submit committee management plans

to OMB and GSA. These plans were to include performance measures that

were to be used to evaluate each committee’s goals or mission,

information on new committees planned for the upcoming year, actions

taken to maintain reduced committee levels, and the results of a status

review of nondiscretionary committees, which are committees mandated

by Congress or established by the President. OMB approval was required

before the creation of new discretionary committees. Later, in 1995, OMB

dropped the requirement for prior approval of new committees, as long as

an agency was beneath its approved ceiling.

Since fiscal year 1988, the number of federal advisory committees has

declined. There were 1,020 advisory committees in fiscal year 1988. The

number of advisory committees grew to 1,305 in fiscal year 1993 and then

declined over the next several years to 963 committees in fiscal year 1997.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
B-279334 

This decrease occurred after the President’s February 1993 executive

order to reduce the number of advisory committees.

Advisory committees are made up of individuals, not organizations, and a

total of 36,586 individuals served as members of the 963 committees in

fiscal year 1997. Members of the 1,020 committees in fiscal year 1988

numbered 21,236 individuals. From fiscal years 1988 to 1997, the number

of individuals serving on advisory committees had generally increased.

Advisory committees incur costs to operate, and GSA reported that the cost

to operate the 963 committees in fiscal year 1997 was about $178 million.

However, the cost to operate the 1,020 committees in fiscal year 1988 was

about $93 million. The costs incurred over the 9-year period were on a

steady increase through fiscal year 1992, after which they began to

increase only sporadically. In constant 1988 dollars, the costs to operate

advisory committees went from about $93 million in fiscal year 1988 to

about $136 million in fiscal year 1997.

On average, between fiscal years 1988 and 1997, the number of members

per advisory committee increased from about 21 to 38, and the cost per

advisory committee increased from $90,816 to $184,868. In constant 1988

dollars, the average costs per advisory committee increased from $90,816

to $140,870 over the same period. Appendix I contains statistics on the

number of federal advisory committees and their (unadjusted) costs and

membership from fiscal years 1988 through 1997.

In 1988, we reported that GSA had focused its oversight responsibilities

under FACA on preparing the President’s annual reports to Congress and

issuing guidance to agencies.4

 We found that GSA had not appropriately

ensured that (1) advisory committees were properly established,

(2) committees were reviewed annually, (3) annual reports were submitted

to the President before they were due to Congress, and (4) follow-up

reports on presidential advisory committees’ recommendations were

prepared for Congress. At that time, GSA attributed these shortcomings to

insufficient staff and management inattention.

The Secretariat is under the GSA Associate Administrator for

Governmentwide Policy. For fiscal year 1997, the Secretariat had eight

employees and a budget of $645,000 ($491,490 in constant 1988 dollars). It

had five employees in September 1988 and a budget of $220,000 for fiscal

year 1988.

4

GAO/GGD-89-10.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
B-279334 

Scope and

Methodology

To determine whether GSA had ensured that federal advisory committees

were established with complete charters and justification letters, we

obtained from GSA advisory committee charters and justification letters

that agencies had submitted from October 1, 1996, through July 21, 1997.

The charters were for 203 committees, and the justification letters were

for 107 of the 203 committees. GSA regulations require justification letters

for discretionary committees (107 of the 203 committees) but not for

nondiscretionary committees (96 of the 203 committees). We reviewed the

charters and letters to determine whether each contained the items of

information (e.g., the committee’s objectives and why the committee is

essential to the agency) required by FACA and GSA regulations. If an item of

information was missing from the charter or letter, we reviewed

information in the applicable GSA file to ascertain whether the file

documented that GSA acted to obtain the missing item.

To determine whether GSA had comprehensively reviewed each advisory

committee annually, we first requested from GSA the annual report for each

of the 1,000 advisory committees that existed in fiscal year 1996. In total,

we reviewed the annual reports for 978 advisory committees; the reports

for 22 committees were missing from GSA’s files. According to GSA

regulations, the Committee Management Secretariat is to make its annual

review of each committee by using the committee’s annual report. We read

the reports to see if they contained the information that GSA regulations

prescribe. We then discussed with Secretariat officials how they used

information from the reports to make comprehensive reviews.

To determine whether GSA had submitted annual reports on advisory

committees to the President in a timely manner, we examined

documentation regarding when GSA had submitted annual reports to the

President for fiscal years 1988 through 1996. We compared the dates on

the letters GSA used to transmit the reports to the President with the date

that FACA requires the President to report to Congress, which is

December 31, or 3 months after the end of a fiscal year.

To determine whether GSA had ensured that follow-up reports to Congress

were prepared on recommendations by presidential advisory committees,

we contacted agencies’ committee management officers to ascertain

whether they knew of the follow-up requirement and whether the

follow-up reports were submitted to Congress. According to GSA

regulations, agencies are to prepare the reports and submit them to

Congress, but GSA is to ensure that it is done. We discussed GSA’s role with

Secretariat officials and contacted committee management officers for the

Page 6 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
B-279334 

17 cases that were identified in the President’s annual reports to Congress

for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 as requiring follow-up reports. These officers

were employees of the 9 agencies that were accountable for the 17 cases.

In general, to identify and understand GSA’s oversight responsibilities, we

interviewed Secretariat officials and reviewed applicable laws, regulations,

and GSA guidance to agencies regarding advisory committee activities. We

did not assess the extent to which GSA provided the agencies with

guidance on advisory committee activities beyond the guidance for

establishing advisory committees, the comprehensive annual reviews, and

the follow-up reports on presidential advisory committees. Also, we did

not assess OMB’s role in dealing with advisory committees beyond

reviewing its guidance to agencies for implementing Executive Order

12838.

We did our work in Washington, D.C., between June 1997 and April 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. After

we completed our work, the Secretariat provided a summary table of

advisory committee data for the entire 1997 fiscal year. These data are to

be included in the President’s annual advisory committee report for fiscal

year 1997, and they were incorporated in this report for comparison to

previous years.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Administrator of

GSA and the Director of OMB or their designees. Written comments provided

by GSA are discussed near the end of this letter and are reproduced in

appendix II. An OMB official responsible for federal advisory committee

matters provided oral comments on May 13, 1998, which are discussed

near the end of this letter.

GSA Did Not Ensure

That Advisory

Committees Were

Established With

Complete Charters

and Justification

Letters

FACA and GSA regulations require that agencies consult with GSA before

establishing advisory committees. As part of this consultation, FACA

requires agencies to submit charters for all committees, and GSA

regulations require them to also submit justification letters for

discretionary advisory committees. These documents must contain

specific information. FACA outlines that agencies are to include 10 specific

items in the charter, including the committee’s objectives and scope of

activities, the time period necessary to carry out its purpose, and the

estimated annual staff years and cost. GSA regulations state that agencies

must address three items in the justification letter: why the committee is

essential to conduct the agency’s business, why the committee’s functions

Page 7 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
B-279334 

cannot be performed by the agency or other means, and how the agency

plans to attain balanced membership.

GSA’s role is to review agency proposals to establish advisory committees

and determine whether FACA requirements and those imposed by

regulation are met. The regulations say that GSA is to review the proposals

and notify the agency of its views within 15 days, if possible. However, GSA

does not have the authority to stop the formation of an advisory

committee. Nor does it have the authority to terminate an existing

committee. GSA can only recommend to the President, Congress, or an

agency head that an advisory committee not be formed or that an existing

committee not be continued.

In our review of the 203 charters and 107 justification letters submitted to

GSA from October 1, 1996, through July 21, 1997, we found that 36 percent

of the charters and 38 percent of the letters were missing at least one item

that was required by FACA or GSA regulations. Seventy-four charters were

missing a total of 85 items, such as stating the period of time necessary for

the committee to carry out its purpose and estimating annual operating

costs and staff years. For the justification letters, 41 were missing a total

of 88 items, such as a description of the agency’s plan to attain balanced

membership. Appendix III shows the number of specific items that we

found missing in the charters and justification letters. We found minimal

evidence in GSA’s files to indicate that GSA raised questions about these

missing items. GSA completed its reviews of the charters and notified the

agencies, generally by letter, of its views within an average of 5 days and

positively concurred in establishing the 203 advisory committees.

Secretariat officials told us that, while they concurred with the need for

the 203 committees, the agencies were responsible for ensuring that the

charters and justification letters were properly done. These officials said

that most charters and letters were done well and met the spirit of FACA.

They also said that the problems that did exist relating to incomplete or

inadequate charters and letters may have occurred due to review oversight

by Secretariat analysts. The officials believed that some of the missing

items of information were more significant than others. For example, they

believed that missing information pertaining to estimated annual operating

costs and staff years and a description of the agency’s plan to attain a

fairly balanced membership were more significant than information on the

agency or official to whom the committee reports and the time necessary

for the committee to carry out its purpose. Nevertheless, the officials

recognized that all of the required information should be in the charter and

Page 8 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
B-279334 

justification letters. They also said that they plan to provide the analysts

with tools to better enable them to make comprehensive reviews.

Advisory Committees

Were Not

Comprehensively

Reviewed Annually

FACA requires GSA to make an annual comprehensive review of each

advisory committee to determine whether it is carrying out its purpose,

whether its responsibilities should be revised, and whether it should be

abolished or merged with another committee. After completing the

reviews, GSA is required to recommend to the President and to the agency

head or Congress any actions GSA deems should be taken.

GSA regulations require that agencies prepare an annual report for each

committee, including the agencies’ recommendations for continuing,

merging, or terminating committees.5

 For continuing committees, the

annual reports are to describe such things as how the committee

accomplishes its purpose; the frequency (or lack) of meetings and the

reason for continuing the committee; and why it was necessary to have

closed committee meetings, if such meetings were held. The annual

reports also are to include the committee’s costs.

GSA’s regulations call for it to use the data it receives in the agencies’

annual reports, including the agencies’ recommendations to continue or

terminate the committees, in conducting the comprehensive annual

review. However, GSA did not use the data provided by the agencies to

assess on its own whether committees were carrying out their purposes,

whether their responsibilities should be revised, or whether the

committees remain necessary.

We reviewed 978 advisory committees’ annual reports that were submitted

to GSA by the agencies for fiscal year 1996. We were unable to review

another 22 reports that GSA reported receiving because they were missing

from GSA’s files. For those annual reports that we reviewed, agencies

generally reported the required information, with the exception of

explaining why some continuing committees did not meet during the year.

According to data GSA obtained from the annual reports, 212 advisory

committees (about 21 percent of the total number of 1,000 committees)

did not meet during fiscal year 1996. Agencies did not have to explain why

no meetings were held for the 113 new and terminated committees in 1996.

However, agencies were required to explain why the remaining 99

5

Fifty-nine agencies sponsored the 1,000 federal advisory committees in fiscal year 1996. The 59

agencies were offices from the Executive Office of the President; cabinet-level departments;

independent agencies; and federal boards, commissions, and councils.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
B-279334 

continuing committees did not meet. In our review of the 99 committees’

annual reports, we found that 47 gave reasons why the committees had not

met, including reasons such as the committees’ having no agenda items to

consider, lacking funding, and having delays in appointing members.

Fifty-two annual reports did not explain why the committees had not met

or why they should continue. We found no evidence that GSA had requested

follow-up information on why the committees had not met or why the

agencies believed that the committees should continue.

Secretariat officials told us that they do not verify the agencies’ data, and

that they accept the data without further review, including the agencies’

recommendations to continue, merge, or terminate committees. The

officials said they could not undertake reviews on their own because they

do not have the expertise or program knowledge to determine which

committees should be continued or terminated. Regardless of whether this

is the case, we believe that it is incumbent upon Secretariat officials to

follow up with agencies to determine why committees have not met before

accepting agencies’ recommendations that the committees be continued.

Secretariat officials also told us that they have held discussions with

congressional staff about the possibility of reducing the number of

committees mandated by Congress that may no longer be warranted. Such

committee terminations would require legislation. Although we did not

evaluate this issue as a part of this review, we believe it illustrates the

benefits to GSA of following up with agencies when they do not report why

committees did not meet or why the agencies believed the committees

should continue. For example, of the 52 committees that did not explain

why they did not meet in fiscal year 1996, 25 were mandated by Congress.

By delving into the specifics of why no meetings were held, GSA might

develop information to assist Congress in determining the potential for

terminating some congressionally mandated committees by clarifying

reasons to continue them. We recognize that there are legitimate reasons

why committees may not meet in any given year.

Annual Reports Were

Not Submitted to the

President in a Timely

Manner

The President is required to report annually to Congress on the activities,

status, and changes in the composition of advisory committees. The

annual reports are due to Congress by December 31 for each preceding

fiscal year. GSA prepares the annual reports for the President on the basis

of information provided in agencies’ annual advisory committee reports.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
B-279334 

GSA did not submit most of its annual reports to the President in time for

him to meet the December 31 reporting date to Congress. For seven of the

last nine annual reports, covering fiscal years 1988 through 1996, GSA

transmitted the reports to the President after they were due to Congress.

In the last 4 years, one report was delivered to the President 5 days before

the due date to Congress; three reports were delivered, on average, about

3 months after the due date.

As of April 27, 1998, GSA had not submitted the fiscal year 1997 report to

the President. According to Secretariat officials, the December 31

reporting date to Congress is unattainable because, among other things,

agencies have other end of fiscal year reporting requirements, in addition

to the advisory committee reports. Secretariat officials also told us that

they plan to ask Congress for a later reporting date. We did not examine

the reasonableness of the December 31 reporting date.

GSA Did Not Ensure

That Follow-Up

Reports to Congress

on Presidential

Committee

Recommendations

Were Prepared

FACA requires the President, or his delegate, to report to Congress within 1

year on his proposals for action or reasons for inaction on

recommendations made by a presidential advisory committee. According

to FACA’s legislative history, these follow-up reports are intended to justify

the investments in the advisory committees, provide accountability to the

public and Congress, and require the President to state his response to the

advisory committees’ recommendations.

According to GSA regulations, the agency providing support to the advisory

committee is responsible for preparing and transmitting the follow-up

report to Congress. However, the regulations also state that the Secretariat

(1) is responsible for ensuring that the follow-up reports are prepared by

the agency supporting the presidential committee and (2) may solicit OMB

and other appropriate organizations to help, if needed, to obtain agencies’

compliance.

GSA identified 17 presidential advisory committee reports in the President’s

annual reports for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 that required follow-up

reports. We contacted the nine agencies that were responsible for the

follow-up reports to determine whether the reports were prepared within

the year and delivered to Congress. According to agency officials,

follow-up reports were not required in 4 of the 17 cases because the

advisory committees were erroneously listed as having issued a report

with recommendations to the President. Follow-up reports were required

in the remaining 13 cases but, according to agency officials, none were

Page 11 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
B-279334 

transmitted to Congress. These presidential advisory committees included,

for example, the Glass Ceiling Commission, the President’s Cancer Panel,

and the Federal Council on the Aging. Six of the nine committee

management officers told us that they were unaware of the reporting

requirement. Secretariat officials said that agencies are responsible for

preparing and delivering the follow-up reports to Congress; therefore, they

had not contacted the nine agencies to see whether the reports were

prepared and delivered.

Conclusions Although it has no authority to stop a federal advisory committee from

being formed or to terminate an existing committee, GSA is obligated to

ensure that its FACA responsibilities are fulfilled completely and in a timely

manner. These responsibilities are not insignificant. Congress imposed

them to help ensure that federal advisory committees are needed, that the

committees are properly managed, and that Congress is kept informed of

the committees’ activities in a timely manner. Although we recognize that

GSA believes it does not have the expertise or program knowledge to

determine whether federal advisory committees are needed, it has the

authority to ask agencies to provide justification for their

recommendations. For example, GSA could follow up with agencies to

determine why committees have not met before accepting agencies’

recommendations that the committees be continued.

The Committee Management Secretariat intends to ask Congress to move

to a later date the reporting deadline for the President’s annual report to

Congress on the activities of federal advisory committees. The

Secretariat’s view and proposed action do not relieve it of its

responsibilities under FACA, and the Secretariat has not fulfilled those

responsibilities.

Recommendation We recommend that the Administrator of GSA direct the Committee

Management Secretariat to fully carry out the responsibilities assigned to

it by FACA in a timely and accurate manner. In particular, the Secretariat

should (1) consult with the agencies to ensure that the charters and

justification letters for federal advisory committees contain the

information required by law or regulation, (2) follow up with agencies

when their annual reports contain information that raises questions about

whether committees should be continued, and (3) ensure that agencies file

the required follow-up reports to Congress on presidential advisory

committee recommendations. The Secretariat should also make the

Page 12 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
B-279334 

necessary arrangements with agencies to submit its annual report to the

President on time or follow through with its intention to ask Congress to

move the reporting date.

GSA and OMB

Comments and Our

Evaluation

GSA and OMB provided comments on a draft of this report. In an April 27,

1998, letter (see app. II), the GSA Administrator said the Associate GSA

Administrator for Governmentwide Policy will ensure that the Committee

Management Secretariat takes immediate and appropriate action to

implement our recommendation. The Administrator also said GSA will

continue to improve its oversight of advisory committees by (1) proposing

amendments to FACA to address some of the issues addressed by our

report; (2) proposing new governmentwide regulations relating to FACA in

June 1998; and (3) finalizing its new internet-based reporting system by the

end of fiscal year 1998, which will allow agencies to electronically transmit

data to GSA.

On May 13, 1998, an OMB official responsible for advisory committee

matters said that we had conducted a thorough review of GSA’s oversight

responsibilities in meeting FACA’s procedural requirements, and that GSA

appeared to have undertaken some corrective actions that will address

many of our concerns and had scheduled other corrective actions during

1998. The OMB official said they would work with GSA to ensure the success

of the GSA efforts.

The GSA Administrator and the OMB official made additional comments,

which we address here and as appropriate in appendix II for GSA.

In general comments, GSA said that the draft report had not fully examined

the extent to which GSA’s actions have achieved FACA’s principal stated

outcomes of accountability for committee accomplishments and public

access to committee deliberations and products. In addition, GSA said it

has sought through its actions to strengthen the ability of other

responsible officials at the agency level to perform more adequately their

required FACA responsibilities.

We recognize that GSA plays a broad role in overseeing advisory committee

activities and are aware of its past initiatives, such as the creation of the

interagency committee on FACA; the governmentwide training program for

agency personnel who manage advisory committees; and the reduction of

discretionary advisory committees under Executive Order 12838, which

we mentioned in this report. But GSA also has a narrower, more focused

Page 13 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
B-279334 

role of carrying out its specific responsibilities that FACA and GSA

regulations require. This latter role was the focus of this report.

Nevertheless, we have cited some of GSA’s other activities in the text of

this report.

GSA also said that it is in the process of linking its new internet-based

reporting system with an internal FACA database that it uses to track

committees. By capturing data electronically, GSA expects that gaps in

required data will be identified more easily and corrected

contemporaneously. We believe such a system, if successful, should

enable GSA to better ensure that its analysts have the full range of required

information available to them as they perform GSA’s required FACA

oversight responsibilities.

GSA and OMB took exception to our finding that advisory committees were

not comprehensively reviewed by GSA. GSA and OMB stated that advisory

committees are reviewed annually by GSA through (1) the annual reporting

process used by the agencies to certify the need for specific committees

(which are the advisory committee annual reports) and (2) the annual

process developed to implement Executive Order 12838 and OMB Circular

A-135, which require the committee management plans.

Under FACA, GSA has the responsibility to judge whether there is a

convincing case for continuing a committee and cannot delegate this

responsibility to the agencies under current law. The advisory committee

annual reports were the basis for our analysis and conclusion that GSA was

not independently assessing whether the committees should be continued

or terminated. The committee management plans are used primarily to

ensure that the number of discretionary advisory committees within the

agencies does not exceed the ceiling established under Executive Order

12838 and to focus on the need for new, not existing, committees. A

discussion of what should be included in the plans can be found in the

Background section of this report. The management plans that we

reviewed did not contain all of the information that would be needed for

GSA to determine or question the continuing need for committees. For

example, an explanation of why a committee had not met during the year

is not required to be included in the management plan. Thus, we have not

changed our conclusion.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, Senate Committee

on Governmental Affairs; the Ranking Minority Member, House

Page 14 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
B-279334 

Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology;

the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House Committee on

Government Reform and Oversight and other interested congressional

committees; the Administrator, GSA; the Director, OMB; and other interested

parties. We will also make the report available to others on request.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. If you have any

questions about this report, please call me on (202) 512-8676.

Michael Brostek

Associate Director, Federal Management

 and Workforce Issues

Page 15 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Federal Advisory

Committee Statistics

During Fiscal Years

1988-97

18

Appendix II 

Comments From the

General Services

Administration

19

Appendix III 

Occurrence of

Required Items

Missing in Charters

and Justification

Letters Submitted to

GSA From October 1,

1996, to July 21, 1997

27

Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to

This Report

28

Abbreviations

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

GSA General Services Administration

OMB Office of Management and Budget

Page 16 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
Page 17 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
Appendix I 

Federal Advisory Committee Statistics

During Fiscal Years 1988-97

Fiscal year

Total number

of committees

Number of

discretionary

committees

Total costsa

(millions)

Number of

committee

membersb

1988 1,020 696 $92.6 21,236

1989 1,042 636 98.4 22,960

1990 1,128 721 112.3 22,391

1991 1,212 783 132.6 27,580

1992 1,230 767 146.3 29,020

1993 1,305 833 143.9 28,317

1994 1,195 739 133.4 30,446

1995 1,110 643 157.0 29,766

1996 1,000 530 148.5 29,511

1997 963 491 178.0 36,586

aThis column does not include underreported Department of Health and Human Services costs of

$3.9 million in fiscal year 1996 and potentially similar but unknown amounts for fiscal years 1994

and 1995. These costs were included in the fiscal year 1997 statistic. Costs in the table have not

been adjusted for inflation.

bThis column does not include underreported Department of Health and Human Services

committee members of 5,057 and 5,818 in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, respectively. These

committee members were included in the fiscal year 1997 statistic.

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

Page 18 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
Appendix II 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
Appendix II 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

Page 20 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
Appendix II 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

See comment 1.

Page 21 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
Appendix II 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

See comment 2.

Page 22 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
Appendix II 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

Page 23 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
Appendix II 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

See comment 3.

Page 24 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
Appendix II 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

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

GAO Comments 1. Although agreeing that not every committee charter and justification

letter that we reviewed included all of the required information, GSA

suggested that the 36-percent error rate in the charters and the 38-percent

error rate in the justification letters were misleading. Regarding committee

charters, GSA said that a fairer assessment of GSA’s and agencies’

compliance with FACA would be to determine the error rate on the basis of

the number of data items found not to be in compliance (85) divided by

the total number of data items in the 203 charters we reviewed (2,030).

This calculation provides an error rate of 4.2 percent. We do not believe

that this would be a meaningful analysis because the charters or

justification letters are the unit of analysis. That is, FACA and GSA

regulations require each charter or justification letter to include a full set

of specific data so that GSA analysts and others can properly and fully

assess whether the committee is needed and whether it meets the FACA

requirements for public participation and disclosure.

GSA said that among the 85 missing items in the charters that we identified,

33 related to the period of time necessary for a committee to carry out its

purpose. GSA said that 95 percent of all charters submitted to GSA for

review are for advisory committees that are of a continuing nature, and

that a default presumption of 2 years (based upon the sunset provision of

FACA) is applied. GSA suggested that the default presumption mooted the

absence of a stated period in the charters. It said that removal of these 33

data items from the 85 found to be in error would result in an overall error

rate of 2.6 percent.

We cannot ignore these 33 data items in an analysis of compliance with

FACA requirements. Congress specifically required that charters include the

time necessary for a committee to carry out its purpose, just as it required

that charters include the committee’s termination date if it is less than 2

years after the committee is established. We believe that Congress

included these two items, as well as the other eight items, in the charters

to help keep Congress and the public informed about committee activities.

Further, it seems to us that a benefit of including such information in the

charters is to help agencies focus in the beginning of the process on the

amount of time the committees should be taking to accomplish their

purposes.

Page 25 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
Appendix II 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

2. GSA suggested that two of the items required in the justification

letter—explanations of why a committee is essential and why a

committee’s function cannot be performed by other means—are contained

in the two other submissions by the agencies. GSA said it is in the process

of revising its regulations to eliminate redundant information and

certifications among the advisory committee annual reports, consultation

letters (which are the justification letters), and annual committee

management plans, which are required by OMB and GSA to implement

Executive Order 12838 and OMB Circular A-135. GSA suggested that as long

as an item of information is contained in one of the required documents, it

need not be in the others. It said that if these data items were removed

from our analysis, the error rate, on the basis of the number of data

elements found to be in error divided by the total number of data

elements, would be 10.6 percent.

As previously stated, we do not believe that this would be a meaningful

analysis because it is the justification letters that should be the unit of

analysis and not the individual data elements. Further, the two items in the

justification letter to which GSA referred are only required to be in the

justification letter and, therefore, agencies might not include them in the

other two reports. For example, the two items do not need to be included

in the advisory committee annual reports if the committee is new—during

fiscal year 1996, there were 52 new committees. Additionally, only the

justification letters are submitted when the committees are established;

the other two reports are submitted on an annual basis that does not

necessarily coincide with the justification letter submissions by the

agencies. It would also appear to be more efficient for GSA analysts

reviewing the charters to be able to rely on the justification letters for all

needed information, rather than having to retrieve other documents that

may or may not include relevant information.

3. We deleted the section in the draft report that is referred to in these

comments. GSA has corrected the underreporting of advisory committee

members and costs, which we brought to their attention during the course

of our work. The underreporting was also acknowledged by GSA at the

November 5, 1997, hearing on FACA before the House Subcommittee on

Government Management, Information, and Technology.

Page 26 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
Appendix III 

Occurrence of Required Items Missing in

Charters and Justification Letters Submitted

to GSA From October 1, 1996, to July 21,

1997

Description of required item

Number of missing

items

Items missing from 74 of 203 charters for discretionary and nondiscretionary committees

Committee’s official designation 2

Committee’s objectives and scope of activities 1

Period of time necessary for committee to carry out its purpose 33

Agency or official to whom the committee reports 6

Agency responsible for providing the necessary committee support 7

Description of the committee’s duties 3

Estimated annual operating costs and staff years 21

Estimated number and frequency of committee meetings 5

Committee’s termination date, if less than 2 years 0

Date charter was filed 7

Total items missing 85

Items missing from 41 of 107 justification letters for discretionary committees

Explanation of why committee is essential to the conduct of agency business and in the public interest 26

Explanation of why committee’s functions cannot be performed by agency, an existing committee, or other

means 28

Description of the agency’s plan to attain fairly balanced membership 34

Total items missing 88

Source: GAO analysis.

Page 27 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Richard W. Caradine, Assistant Director, Federal Management and

 Workforce Issues

Ronald J. Cormier, Evaluator-in-Charge

Michael A. Tovares, Evaluator

Office of the General

Counsel

Jill P. Sayre, Attorney

(410297) Page 28 GAO/GGD-98-124 GSA’s Oversight of Advisory Committees
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100