United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

July 1998 FEDERAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE ACT

Views of Committee

Members and Agencies

on Federal Advisory

Committee Issues

GAO/GGD-98-147

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-279404 

July 9, 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

Federal agencies often receive advice from advisory committees, and there

were 963 committees governmentwide in fiscal year 1997 established for

this purpose. Federal advisory committees are to be established and to

operate in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (FACA). Congress is currently exploring possible

improvements to FACA, and this report responds to your request that we

address certain questions about federal advisory committees and FACA

requirements. On June 15, 1998, we reported to you on how the General

Services Administration (GSA) had carried out its governmentwide

advisory committee oversight responsibilities under FACA.

1

 Specifically, as

agreed with your offices for this report, we surveyed

• advisory committee members to obtain their perceptions on the extent to

which their committees provided balanced and independent advice and

recommendations as required by FACA;

• federal agencies to obtain their views on the extent to which they found

compliance with FACA useful or burdensome, the impact of Executive

Order 12838 (which placed ceilings on the number of advisory

committees) on their ability to accomplish their missions, and whether any

advisory committees mandated by Congress should be terminated; and

• advisory committee members and federal agencies on the extent to which

they believed the public was afforded access to advisory committee

proceedings and a means to express their views to agencies and their

advisory committees.

To obtain the views of advisory committee members on these matters, we

sent a questionnaire to a randomly selected, statistically representative

sample of federal advisory committee members governmentwide. Of the

1

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

Committees (GAO/GGD-98-124, June 15, 1998).

Page 1 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

900 committee members in our sample, we received usable questionnaire

responses from 607—a response rate of about 67 percent. The numbers

and percentages of committee member respondents that we cite in this

report are generalizable to the committee members from which we

selected our sample.

The individuals we surveyed were members of peer review,

scientific/technical, nonscientific, national policy, and other advisory

committees. Agencies use peer review panels for evaluating contractors or

applications for research or other grants for federal funding, and FACA

requires agencies to treat peer review panels as advisory committees.

Because the work of peer review panels typically is different from the

work of other advisory committees, we divided the committee members

who responded to our questionnaire into two groups: members of peer

review panels and members of all other advisory committees, which we

refer to as general advisory committees. Whenever one group’s response

rate to a question was at least 5 percentage points different from the

overall response rate and appeared to us to be consequential, we provided

that group’s response. When the difference did not appear to be

consequential, we presented only the overall response rate.

To obtain the views of federal agencies on the specific issues, we sent a

questionnaire to 19 federal agencies. These 19 agencies account for

most—about 90 percent—of the federal advisory committees. All 19

agencies responded to our survey.

More information about our objectives, scope, and methodology is

contained in appendix I. We did our work between December 1997 and

May 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the

Administrator of GSA and the Acting Director of the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) or their designees. Their comments are included at the

end of this letter.

Results in Brief Overall, the views presented by both the committee members and agencies

we surveyed provided useful insights into the general operation of FACA as

Congress explores possible improvements to FACA. The responses of

committee members to a series of questions, when taken together,

conveyed a generally shared perception that advisory committees were

providing balanced and independent advice and recommendations.

Although the percentage differed by question, 85 percent to 93 percent of

Page 2 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

the respondents said their committees were balanced in membership, had

access to the information necessary to make informed decisions, and were

never asked by agency officials to give advice or make recommendations

based on inadequate data or analysis or contrary to the general consensus

among committee members. General advisory committee

respondents—77 percent of them compared to 85 percent overall, but a

large majority nevertheless—said their committees were never asked to

give advice or make recommendations based on inadequate data or

analysis.

FACA requirements were considered to be more useful than burdensome by

10 of the 19 agencies. For the other nine agencies, the requirements were

considered either as burdensome as they were useful or somewhat more

burdensome than useful. In addition to their overall characterizations, the

agencies also rated how useful and burdensome they found each of 17

FACA requirements. The majority of the agencies considered most of the 17

requirements to be useful to a moderate or greater extent. The majority

considered a few of the requirements to be burdensome to a moderate or

greater extent, and those requirements were among those they also

considered to be useful. Two requirements—annual reporting on closed

meetings and filing committee reports with the Library of Congress—were

considered by a majority of the agencies to have “little or no” or only

“some” usefulness or burden. Among the 19 agencies, the general

consensus was that the possibility of future litigation over compliance

with FACA requirements was not an inhibiting factor in their decisions on

whether to form new advisory committees.

The ceilings on discretionary advisory committees imposed by Executive

Order 12838 did not deter a majority—12 of 19—of the agencies from

seeking to establish such committees, according to their responses.

(Discretionary advisory committees are those created under agency

authority or authorized—but not mandated—by Congress.) However,

seven agencies said the ceilings did deter them. Some of the seven

commented that cases occurred in which a new committee may have been

warranted but it was not established. Agencies could seek relief from their

ceilings from OMB, which had authority under Executive Order 12838 to

approve the establishment of a committee that would take an agency over

its ceiling. Three of the 19 agencies reported making 4 such requests to

OMB, and all were approved. Two of these three agencies were among the

seven agencies that said ceilings had deterred them from establishing

advisory committees.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

Agencies identified a total of 26 advisory committees mandated by

Congress that they believed should be terminated. This number

represented about 6 percent of congressionally mandated advisory

committees in existence during fiscal year 1997. Three agencies also

reported that over fiscal years 1995 through 1997 they asked Congress to

terminate 18 mandated advisory committees. Only one of those

committees was terminated, according to the agencies. The remaining 17

committees were among the 26 committees that agencies said should be

terminated.

The overall responses we received from committee members on the issue

of public participation were mixed. About 27 percent of the respondents

said that all of their committee meetings were open to the public, and

37 percent said that all of their committee meetings were closed to the

public. Another 19 percent of the respondents said some meetings or

portions of meetings were closed. We also asked whether members of the

public were ever allowed to express their views to the committee. About

44 percent of the respondents answered yes, 31 percent answered no, and

25 percent were not sure.

Advisory committee meetings can be closed to the public to protect such

things as trade secrets or information of a personal nature. Peer review

committees often deal with proprietary or other sensitive information, and

responses from members of peer review panels indicated that panels were

much less likely to provide public access and obtain public input. For

example, about 64 percent of the respondents who served on peer review

panels said that their meetings were always closed to the public, and

2 percent said their meetings were always open. About 52 percent of the

panel respondents said that the public was not allowed to express views to

their panels, and 12 percent said the public was allowed.

Most of the agencies—16 of the 19—did not believe that FACA had

prohibited them from soliciting or receiving input from the public on

issues or concerns of the agency independent of the FACA process. Most of

the 19 agencies also said they permitted members of the public to speak

before their advisory committees, although there were likely to be

restrictions, such as the amount of time available for speakers and the

amount of time available to each speaker. Still, some agencies were

reluctant to get input from parties that were not chartered as FACA

advisory committees because of concern that this could lead to possible

litigation over compliance with FACA requirements. Eight agencies said this

possibility inhibited their getting input from parties outside of FACA to

Page 4 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

some, a moderate, or a very great extent. More explicitly, six agencies,

including five of the previous eight, reported that they decided not to

obtain outside input at least eight times during fiscal years 1995 through

1997 because of the possibility of future litigation over compliance with

FACA.

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

advisory committees were proliferating without adequate review,

oversight, or accountability. Although Congress recognized the value of

advisory committees to public policymaking, it included measures in FACA

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 feasible to the public, and

(3) Congress is kept informed of the committees’ activities. Under FACA,

the President, the Director of 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 at OMB to be responsible for all

matters relating to advisory committees. 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 the act was to be prepared

by GSA for the president’s consideration and transmittal to Congress.

GSA, through its Committee Management Secretariat, is responsible for

prescribing administrative guidelines and management controls applicable

to advisory committees governmentwide. It also has other responsibilities,

including certain oversight responsibilities, such as consulting with

agencies on establishing advisory committees and conducting

comprehensive reviews of advisory committees. 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.

FACA assigns agency heads responsibility for issuing administrative

guidelines and management controls applicable for their advisory

committees. FACA and GSA regulations assign them additional

responsibilities for their advisory committees. For example, agency heads

are responsible for (1) appointing a designated federal officer for each

Page 5 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

committee to oversee the committee’s activities, (2) reviewing annually

the need to continue existing committees, (3) ensuring that meetings are

held at reasonable times and places, (4) ensuring that members of the

public are permitted to file written statements with the committees and

are allowed to speak to the committees if agency guidelines permit, and

(5) reviewing committee members’ compliance with conflict-of-interest

statutes. FACA also calls for agency heads to designate a committee

management officer to whom the agency head frequently delegates these

responsibilities. 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—but not mandated—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.

The number of advisory committees grew from 1,020 in fiscal year 1988 to

1,305 in fiscal year 1993. The number then declined over the next several

years to 963 advisory committees in fiscal year 1997. This decrease

occurred after the President’s February 1993 executive order to reduce the

number of discretionary committees.

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

fiscal year 1997, and GSA reported that the cost to operate the 963

committees in that year was about $178 million. FACA permits agencies to

compensate nonfederal committee members for their services; and

according to GSA data, agencies paid about $14 million in fiscal year 1997

for such services. Advisory committee members are to be reimbursed for

their travel, lodging, and meals. The single largest cost in fiscal year

1997—about $81 million of the $178 million—represented the value of

compensation paid to federal employees for the time they spent assisting

and monitoring advisory committees.

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.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

Advisory Committee

Members’ Views on

Whether Committees

Provide Balanced and

Independent Advice

and

Recommendations

For each advisory committee member to whom we sent a questionnaire,

we identified an advisory committee to which the member belonged and

instructed the member to use that committee in answering our questions.

The committee we identified was the only federal advisory committee of

which most respondents said they were members. Respondents had

served as members on these committees for various periods. About

28 percent had served 1 year or less, 54 percent had served between 1 and

4 years, and 18 percent had served over 4 years.

The answers the committee members gave to our survey showed that

generally they believed their committees had worthwhile purposes, that

the advice and recommendations that the committees gave were

consistent with those purposes, and that the advice and recommendations

were balanced and independent. In addition, they generally believed that

the agencies to which their committees reported sought advice and

recommendations from the committees and used the advice or

recommendations after receiving them. Specifically:

• About 94 percent of the respondents generally or strongly agreed that the

committees they were affiliated with had clearly defined purposes, and

96 percent generally or strongly agreed that the committees’ purposes

were worthwhile.

• Ninety-four percent of the respondents generally or strongly agreed that

the advice or recommendations made by their committees were consistent

with the committees’ purposes.

• About 90 percent of the respondents generally or strongly agreed that

committee membership was fairly balanced in terms of the points of view

represented, and 85 percent generally or strongly agreed that their

committees included a representative cross-section of those directly

interested in and affected by the issues discussed by the committees.

• About 79 to 82 percent of the respondents said they were provided to a

great or very great extent with the necessary preparatory materials prior

to (1) committee meetings, (2) discussing issues, and (3) deciding on

issues. Another 11 to 13 percent said they had been provided the necessary

preparatory material to a moderate extent. The percentage of general

advisory committee members who answered to a great or very great

extent was less—67 to 72 percent—but still the vast majority.

• When asked if they generally had access to the information they needed to

make an informed decision on an issue, about 93 percent of the

respondents said they did in either all or most cases.

• About 76 percent of the respondents said committee members provided

somewhat more or much more input than agency officials in formulating

Page 7 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

committee advice or recommendations. About 79 percent of the

respondents thought that committee members should provide somewhat

more or much more input than agency officials in formulating committee

advice and recommendations. However, respondents from general

advisory committees expected and thought actual member input to be

less. About 60 percent of the general advisory committee respondents said

committee members usually provided somewhat more or much more input

than agency officials, and 65 percent said that committee members should

provide somewhat more or much more input. In addition, about 26 percent

of the general advisory committee respondents, compared to about

16 percent of overall respondents, said input from committee members

and agency officials was about equal; and 29 percent, compared to about

18 percent overall, said the input should be equal.

• About 85 percent of the respondents said that to their knowledge, no

agency official had ever asked their committees to give advice or make a

recommendation that was based on inadequate data or analysis. Fewer

respondents who were members of general advisory committees said

“no”—about 77 percent of them said their committees were never asked

by agency officials to give advice or make recommendations on the basis

of inadequate data or analysis. About 13 percent of the general advisory

committee respondents reported that an agency official had made such a

request, and 10 percent did not know one way or the other. These latter

two percentages were larger than the overall percentages (8 percent and

7 percent, respectively) for the same two questions.

• About 92 percent of the respondents said that to their knowledge, no

agency official had ever asked their committees to give advice or make a

recommendation that was contrary to the general consensus of the

committees. About 4 percent said officials had made such a request, and

4 percent did not know one way or the other.

• Eighty-seven percent of the respondents generally or strongly agreed that

agencies solicited advice or recommendations from the committees, and

about 84 percent said they strongly or generally agreed that the agencies

considered the advice or recommendations.

Appendix II contains a copy of the questionnaire that we sent to

committee members with the weighted number or percentage of

committee members responding to each item.

Page 8 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

Agencies’ Views on

How Useful or

Burdensome FACA

Requirements Were

FACA sets out at least 17 requirements for agencies to follow in establishing

and operating federal advisory committees, including preparing a charter

for the committee; developing plans for achieving a fairly balanced

membership; keeping detailed minutes of committee meetings; and

preparing annual reports to GSA on new, continuing, and terminated

committees. (All 17 requirements are listed in app. IV.) We asked the 19

agencies several questions on how useful or burdensome they found FACA

requirements.

With regard to the requirements overall, 10 agencies viewed them in a

positive light. Of these 10 agencies, 6 said the requirements were much

more useful than burdensome, and 4 said the requirements were

somewhat more useful than burdensome. The views of the other nine

agencies were less positive. Of these nine agencies, seven considered the

requirements about as burdensome as useful, and two said the

requirements were somewhat more burdensome than useful.

For each of 17 FACA requirements, we asked the 19 agencies to rate the

extent of the requirement’s usefulness. A majority of the agencies

(generally more than 10 agencies) rated 14 of the 17 requirements as useful

to a moderate, great, or very great extent. Most of the majority frequently

rated a requirement’s usefulness as great or very great. For example, 16

agencies said the requirement to create a plan for achieving fairly balanced

committee membership was useful to a great or very great extent. Thirteen

agencies considered the requirement to keep detailed meeting minutes as

useful to a great or very great extent.

We asked the agencies to also rate the extent to which they considered

each of the 17 requirements as burdensome. In comparison to the number

of FACA requirements considered as useful, far fewer requirements were

considered as especially burdensome by a majority of the agencies. Four

requirements were rated by a majority of the agencies as burdensome to a

moderate, great, or very great extent. These four requirements were:

develop a plan to achieve balanced committee membership, keep detailed

minutes of meetings, fulfill record keeping requirements, and prepare an

annual report on each advisory committee. Interestingly enough, all four

requirements also had been rated useful to a moderate, great, or very great

extent by a majority of the agencies.

The agencies’ responses regarding 3 requirements were different from

their responses to the other 14. Two requirements—prepare an annual

report on closed advisory committee meetings and file advisory committee

Page 9 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

reports with the Library of Congress—were said by a majority of the

agencies to have “little or no” or “some” usefulness or burden. There was a

mix of answers for the third requirement—follow-up reports to Congress

on recommendations by presidential advisory committees (any federal

advisory committee that advises the president). Seven agencies said it was

useful to a moderate or greater extent, and six said it was less than

moderately useful. Nine agencies said it presented “some” or “little or no”

burden, and four agencies said it was burdensome to a moderate or

greater extent. Six agencies did not rate the usefulness or burden because

they did not have any presidential advisory committees.

In rating the 17 requirements, agencies were given the opportunity to say

what change they would make to each requirement. Seven agencies made

suggestions, and four of them focused on the matter of rechartering

committees. FACA prohibits an advisory committee from meeting or taking

any action until a committee charter has been filed with certain officials

(for example, the agency head) and Congress and requires that charters

contain 10 specific items, such as the committee’s objectives and scope of

activities and the period of time necessary to carry out its purpose. FACA

requires agencies to recharter advisory committees every 2 years

regardless of how much more time they will need to accomplish their

purposes. Among the suggestions that the seven agencies made, two

suggested that rechartering be required every 5 years instead of the

current 2 years.

Under FACA, peer review panels are treated as advisory committees, and 6

of the 19 agencies indicated that they used peer review panels. Only one of

the six thought that peer review panels should be subject to all FACA

requirements. The other five agencies said that peer review panels should

be exempt from some, most, or all FACA requirements. Although we did not

specifically ask why the panels should be exempt from some or all FACA

requirements, some of the five agencies indicated that they should be

exempt because the nature of the panels’ work was incompatible with

FACA requirements. For example, in contrast to the idea of open meetings

as promoted by FACA, panel meetings were more often routinely closed to

the public to protect the privacy or proprietary rights of those who

submitted proposals.

Finally, we asked the agencies several burden-related questions that

focused on the issue of litigation and FACA. We asked whether the

possibility of litigation over compliance with FACA requirements inhibited

them from forming new advisory committees and, more specifically, if

Page 10 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

they decided against forming a new advisory committee anytime during

fiscal years 1995 through 1997 because of possible litigation. The

overwhelming response of the agencies was that the possibility of future

litigation was not an inhibiting factor. Fourteen agencies said that the

possibility of future litigation inhibited them to little or no extent.

Seventeen agencies said that at no time during fiscal years 1995 through

1997 did they decide not to form a new committee because of the

possibility of future litigation.

However, some agencies have been involved in litigation over their

compliance with FACA. Seven of the 19 agencies reported that they were

involved in such litigation during fiscal years 1995 through 1997 and

identified 13 lawsuits in total. According to the seven agencies, the major

issues being litigated were whether the group that provided information

was subject to the requirements of FACA (nine cases), whether the makeup

of an advisory committee was balanced (two cases), and procedural issues

(two cases). As of the date they were answering the questionnaire, the

agencies said that nine cases had been ruled on by the courts; three cases

were pending; and one case that was decided in favor of the plaintiff was,

in effect, rendered moot by a subsequent amendment to FACA in 1997.

According to the agencies, of the nine cases ruled on by the courts, the

courts ruled for the agencies in eight cases and for the plaintiff in one.

Agencies’ Views of the

Impact of Executive

Order 12838

As previously mentioned, Executive Order 12838 established ceilings for

each agency on the number of discretionary advisory committees. The

number of discretionary committees in the aggregate that the 19 agencies

reported having at the end of fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997 was about

88 percent, 95 percent, and 95 percent, respectively, of the aggregate

ceiling.

Twelve of the 19 agencies said the ceilings did not deter them from

seeking to establish any new advisory committees. In general, the 12

agencies reported being at or slightly below their ceilings at the end of the

3 years (fiscal years 1995 through 1997) for which we requested data.

However, seven agencies said the ceilings did deter them from seeking to

establish new discretionary committees. For most of the years for which

we requested data, the seven agencies were at or slightly below their

ceilings.

For those agencies that said they were deterred, we asked them to

describe how the ceilings affected their ability to accomplish their

Page 11 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

missions. Four said they had to reconsider whether an advisory committee

would really be necessary or had to give more careful consideration of

which committees would continue or which new committees would be

established. Two also indicated that committees were not established that

may have been warranted, although no numbers of such cases were given.

An agency could request approval from OMB to establish a committee that

would place it over its ceiling, and 3 of the 19 agencies said they had made

such requests over the 3-year period for which we requested information.

In total, they said they made four requests to OMB, and OMB approved all

four. Of these three agencies, two were among those that said they were

deterred from seeking to establish new advisory committees by the

ceilings imposed by the executive order. The third agency did not consider

the ceiling to be a deterrent.

Mandated Committees

Identified by Agencies

for Termination

Congress has required agencies to have various advisory committees.

According to GSA, there were 422 advisory committees in fiscal year 1997

that had been mandated by Congress. As agreed with your offices, we

asked the 19 agencies in our survey whether they had any mandated

committees that they believed should be terminated. Six agencies said yes

and listed a total of 26 different advisory committees. Of the 26

committees, according to GSA, 17 held no meetings and incurred no costs

in fiscal year 1997; 3 incurred some costs ($4,000) but held no meetings;

and 6 held meetings (14) and incurred costs (about $190,000). The names

of the 26 committees and the agencies they serve are shown in appendix

III.

Three of the 19 agencies reported that they had made formal requests to

Congress to terminate mandated committees during the 3 years for which

we requested information (fiscal years 1995 through 1997). These three

agencies were among the six agencies that identified committees that they

believed should be eliminated. The three agencies asked Congress to

terminate 18 mandated committees in total. According to the agencies,

Congress terminated one of those committees. The remaining 17

committees were listed among the 26 committees that agencies said

should be terminated.

Only Congress can terminate a congressionally mandated advisory

committee, and we asked the 19 agencies whether they found that

requirement burdensome. Twelve agencies indicated that they incurred

little or no burden. The other seven agencies indicated that they felt

Page 12 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

burden, and the extent of it ranged from some to great. We asked them for

suggestions to alleviate this burden. Some suggested, in essence, that

agencies be given the authority to terminate mandated committees.

Agencies made various suggestions, such as that agencies should be given

authority to terminate mandated committees after notifying Congress of

their intent to do so or after 2 years with notification to congressional

authorizing committees and after 4 years without notification.

In addition to asking for their suggestions, we asked all 19 agencies their

opinions about a sunset/automatic termination for congressionally

mandated committees. Their opinions were mixed. Ten agencies said a

sunset/automatic termination requirement would be helpful to a moderate,

great, or very great extent. Nine agencies said it would provide little or no

help or only some help.

Appendix IV contains a copy of the questionnaire that we sent to agencies

with the number of agencies responding to each item.

Advisory Committee

Members’ and

Agencies’ Views on

the Extent of Public

Participation

One intended purpose of FACA is to open government to the public. We

asked the advisory committee members and the agencies that we surveyed

a series of different questions about public participation.

Views of Advisory

Committee Members

We asked committee members questions about (1) public access to

committee meetings; and (2) public input in general to their committees

(that is, without regard to whether it was by letter, in person at meetings,

or by other means). The answers we received often depended on whether

respondents were members of peer review panels or general advisory

committees. Those answers indicated that peer review panels were less

likely to obtain public access and input than were general advisory

committees. The nature of their work may explain why peer review panels

do not obtain public input as much as general advisory committees do.

About 27 percent of the respondents said that all of their committee

meetings were open to the public, and 37 percent said that all meetings

were closed to the public. Another 19 percent noted that some meetings or

portions of meetings were open and others were closed. Finally,

17 percent of the respondents were not sure what access the public had to

Page 13 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

their committee meetings. Most of those whose committees held closed or

partially closed meetings agreed with their committees’ reasons for closing

those meetings to the public. Two reasons frequently cited were

discussions involving personal privacy issues and discussions involving

trade secrets.

According to GSA data, advisory committees frequently hold closed

meetings. Agencies reported to GSA that about 58 percent of the 5,700

advisory committee meetings held in fiscal year 1997 were either closed or

partially closed. Advisory committee meetings can be closed to the public

if the president or the agency head to which the advisory committee

reports determines that the meeting may be closed in accordance with

provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)). The

provisions provide for closed meetings to protect, for example, matters

that need to be kept secret in the interest of national security or foreign

policy; trade secrets; and information of a personal nature, the disclosure

of which would constitute an invasion of privacy.

Respondents who were members of peer review panels—which frequently

deal with such proprietary and sensitive information—were much less

likely to say their committee meetings were totally open to the public and

much more likely to say their meetings were totally closed to the public.

About 2 percent of the panelists said their meetings were always open to

the public. About 64 percent said their meetings were always closed to the

public.

About 44 percent of all respondents to our survey said yes and 31 percent

said no when asked whether members of the public were ever allowed to

express their views to the respondents’ advisory committees. The

remaining 25 percent were not sure whether members of the public were

allowed to express their views to the committees. Approximately

81 percent of those who replied no or not sure did not believe their

committees should provide members of the public with the opportunity to

express their views. In comparison to the overall percentages, respondents

who were members of peer review panels were much more likely to say

the public was not allowed to express views to the committee (52 percent

of the panel members who responded), to say they were not sure whether

the public was allowed (36 percent), and to believe the public should not

be allowed to express their views to the committee (88 percent).

We also asked those who said their committees allowed the public to

express its views (in other words, the 44 percent who said yes) whether

Page 14 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

the committees provided sufficient opportunity to the public to express its

views. About 59 percent replied that in their opinions, the opportunity was

sufficient to a great or very great extent. Another 19 percent thought it was

moderately sufficient. In comparison to these overall percentages,

respondents from peer review panels were less likely to say the extent was

greatly or moderately sufficient. About 21 percent said great or very great

while 8 percent said moderate. A sizeable number—about

38 percent—said they had no basis to judge whether the extent was

sufficient.

We also asked committee members about subcommittees they served on

and whether FACA requirements were followed. About 34 percent of the

respondents said the committees they served on had subcommittees, and

68 percent of the respondents said they had served on at least one

subcommittee over the past year. A majority (about 59 to 72 percent of

respondents) said that detailed minutes were kept, and the designated

federal officer attended and either approved or called for all or most of the

subcommittee meetings. However, less than one-half (about 41 to

45 percent of respondents) said that members of the public were given

access to the meetings and allowed to provide input, either in writing or in

person, for all or most of the subcommittee meetings.

Views of the 19 Agencies In general terms, most of the agencies—16 of the 19—said FACA had not

prohibited them from receiving or soliciting input from public task forces,

public working groups, or public forums on issues or concerns of the

agency. The three agencies that said FACA has prohibited them explained

that they had to limit their prior practice of forming working groups or

task forces to address specific local projects or programs, that FACA has

made it more cumbersome to seek citizen input because of the staff time

required to complete FACA paperwork, or that solicitation of a consensus

opinion from a task force or working group may lead to that task force or

group being considered a “utilized” committee and thus subject to FACA.

Although agencies generally reported that FACA has not prohibited them

from obtaining input, 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. Eight of the 19 agencies said the possibility of such litigation

has inhibited them in obtaining outside input independent of FACA to some,

a moderate, or a very great extent. Moreover, six agencies, including five

of the previous eight agencies, said there were at least eight instances over

Page 15 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

the fiscal year 1995 through 1997 period when they decided not to solicit

or receive outside input because of their concern about the possibility of

future litigation.

Agencies determine if members of the public can speak at advisory

committee meetings. We therefore asked the 19 agencies whether they

permitted members of the public to speak before their advisory

committees. Fourteen said yes and 5 said yes and no, indicating that they

permitted the public to speak before some committees but not others. In

this latter category, the reasons the agencies provided for not permitting

the public to speak included time constraints, a need to maintain order,

and statutory requirements that meetings be closed for such reasons as

protecting classified information or safeguarding privacy act material.

When an agency does permit members of the public to speak before its

advisory committees, there may be restrictions. According to the agencies,

restrictions included public presentations being contingent on the time

available at the end of meetings, time limits being imposed on speakers,

and members of the public being requested to provide written statements.

For members of the public to speak at advisory committee meetings, they

must be aware of when a meeting is to occur. FACA requires that specific

information be placed in the Federal Register to notify interested parties

of the scheduled date, time, and location of advisory committee meetings.

Fifteen agencies said they notify the public of scheduled meetings by using

methods in addition to the Federal Register, such as posting notices on the

Internet; posting notices in newsletters, newspapers, and trade association

publications; or mailing notices to stakeholders. However, four agencies

said they used only the Federal Register notice. GSA regulations generally

require agencies to give 15 days’ advance notice in the Federal Register for

committee meetings. Many of the agencies—14 of the 19—said they gave

less than this 15 day advance notice at times during fiscal years 1995

through 1997. All together, these agencies said they gave less than 15 days’

advance notice 153 times during the 3 years (fiscal years 1995 through

1997) for which we requested data. This number represented a very small

fraction of the 15,885 committee meetings that GSA reported as being held

during those years by all advisory committees.

We also asked the agencies about subcommittee meetings. The agencies

reported that there were 463 subcommittees reporting to full committees

in fiscal year 1997. These subcommittees held 926 meetings in fiscal year

1997, and 249 were reportedly not covered under FACA. For the 249

Page 16 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

meetings not covered under FACA, agencies reported that the meetings

were held for activities such as gathering information, drafting position

papers, doing research, and performing analysis. Of eight agencies

responding, the majority (five to six agencies) said that FACA requirements,

such as Federal Register notices of meetings, detailed minutes, and public

access, were not followed for all or most subcommittee meetings. About

one-half (four to five agencies) said the subcommittee meetings were

approved or called for and attended by the designated federal officer.

GSA and OMB

Comments

GSA and OMB provided comments on a draft of this report. On June 11, 1998,

we met with the Director of GSA’s Committee Management Secretariat,

who said he found the draft report to be very comprehensive, informative,

and useful. The Director said that surveying committee members and

agencies can provide the Secretariat very useful information to help it

manage the federal advisory committee program, and the survey should be

done every 3 or 4 years. However, according to the Director, no surveys

have been done by the Secretariat and none are planned. The Director

explained that the Secretariat lacks the technical expertise as well as the

clear authority to conduct surveys of committee members and agencies.

The Director said the responses we received from committee members

and agencies did not indicate any perceived significant systemic problems

with the advisory committee program. However, he said the responses

suggested areas that should be examined further, several of which GSA

already had been examining and others of which GSA plans to examine.

The Director said that GSA can address some of these areas by revising its

FACA regulations, but addressing other areas will require legislative

changes to FACA. For example, GSA expects to publish proposed regulations

in July or August 1998 that will address the definition of an advisory

committee. The Director said that GSA recognizes that some agencies or

their field offices may sometimes be reluctant to obtain information from

the public for fear of violating FACA, and one of GSA’s goals in revising the

regulations is to provide clarifying guidance and standards as to when FACA

does and does not apply. According to the Director, GSA has been working

with the Department of Justice on this definition because Justice is

responsible for defending the government in advisory committee litigation.

The Director also said that the use of subcommittees by advisory

committees is another area that GSA intends to address in its regulations.

For example, he believes that it is important for agencies to make uniform

determinations of when a subcommittee meeting or other activity would

be subject to FACA’s requirements.

Page 17 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
B-279404 

The Director said that GSA needs to evaluate and work with Congress on

the usefulness of some specific FACA requirements, such as sending copies

of advisory committee reports to the Library of Congress, and to

proactively address the issue of terminating congressionally mandated

committees when they no longer serve a useful purpose. He said that GSA

was sympathetic to extending the charter period of advisory committees

to beyond the 2-year period now stipulated by FACA. The Director also said

GSA could possibly support exempting peer review panels from some FACA

requirements, but GSA does not favor exempting them from all

requirements. For example, he said it is important for the public to have

access to information on how agencies ensure that peer review panels

have balanced representation and are free from potential conflicts of

interest. In addition, he noted that the number of peer review panels and

their costs have benefited from the increased accountability provided by

FACA and Executive Order 12838.

On June 12, 1998, an OMB official responsible for advisory committee

matters said that OMB had no comments on the draft report other than that

it accurately presented the impact of Executive Order 12838.

As agreed with your offices, unless you announce the contents of this

report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the date

of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the

Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Government Management,

Information, and Technology, House Committee on Government Reform

and Oversight; the Chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs;

the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on

Government Reform and Oversight; the Acting Director, OMB; the

Administrator, GSA; and other interested parties. Copies will be made

available to others on request.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. Please contact

me on (202) 512-8676 if you or your staff have any questions.

Michael Brostek

Associate Director, Federal Management

 and Workforce Issues

Page 18 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Page 19 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

22

Appendix II 

Responses to Survey

of Federal Advisory

Committee Members

26

Appendix III 

Mandated Advisory

Committees That

Agencies Believed

Should Be Terminated

38

Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal

Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

39

Appendix V 

Major Contributors to

This Report

63

Tables Table I.1: Analysis of Sample Disposition 23

Table I.2: Number of Federal Advisory Committees at 19 Federal

Departments and Agencies, Fiscal Year 1996

25

Abbreviations

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

GSA General Services Administration

OMB Office of Management and Budget

Page 20 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Page 21 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management,

Information, and Technology, House Committee on Government Reform

and Oversight; and the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee

on Governmental Affairs asked us to review selected matters relating to

the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). We addressed several aspects

of these separate requests in two previous products.2

 Our objectives in this

review were to obtain (1) federal advisory committee members’

perceptions on the extent to which their advisory committees were

providing balanced and independent advice and recommendations as

required by FACA; (2) federal agencies’ views on the extent to which they

found compliance with FACA useful or burdensome, the impact of

Executive Order 12838 on their ability to accomplish their missions, and

whether any of their advisory committees mandated by Congress should

be terminated; and (3) advisory committee members’ and federal agencies’

views on the extent to which they believed the public was afforded access

to advisory committee proceedings and a means to express their views to

agencies and their advisory committees.

To respond to these objectives, we designed and pretested two

questionnaires, one of which we later sent to a randomly selected,

statistically representative sample of federal advisory committee members

and the other of which we sent to all 14 federal departments and to

independent agencies with 10 or more advisory committees. Regarding the

issue of public participation, we were unable to send a questionnaire to

members of the public (individuals and organizations) who may have

provided or attempted to provide information to advisory committees

because we could not identify the universe of such individuals and

organizations from which to draw a statistically representative sample to

query.

Because a comprehensive listing of the names and addresses for all federal

advisory committee members was not available, we requested from federal

agencies the names and addresses of members assigned to advisory

committees as of August 1, 1997. The Committee Management Secretariat

assisted us in making this request to the agencies’ committee management

officers. We received the names (and about 95 percent of the addresses)

for 28,499 committee members on 783 advisory committees in 43 federal

agencies or entities. These numbers were somewhat less than the 36,586

members serving on 963 advisory committees in 57 federal agencies or

2

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Overview of Advisory Committees Since 1993 (GAO/T-GGD-98-24,

Nov. 5, 1997); and GAO/GGD-98-124, June 15, 1998.

Page 22 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

entities during fiscal year 1997, according to General Services

Administration (GSA) summary data as of April 27, 1998.3

Our survey of federal advisory committee members initially contained a

sample of 900 committee members. Beginning on February 25, 1998, we

mailed 865 questionnaires to a sample of committee members for whom

the agencies provided us with mailing addresses. Committee members

who did not respond to our initial questionnaire were sent a follow-up

questionnaire beginning on March 31, 1998. Table I.1 summarizes the

disposition of our sample of 900 committee members.

Table I.1: Analysis of Sample

Disposition Disposition of sample Number

Total committee members sampled 900

Unable to locate mailing address of committee member 35

Questionnaires returned by Postal Service due to inadequate address or

lack of forwarding address 31

Refused to participate 28

Questionnaires not returned 199

Usable questionnaires returned 607

This sample of 900 committee members was stratified according to the

functional types of advisory committees, which we obtained from GSA. The

types of committee functions we used to create our sampling strata

included grant review, national policy, nonscientific, scientific/technical,

and other. We combined the regulatory negotiation and other types and

those unclassified by GSA into the functional type “other.” In each of these

five strata, we selected a random sample of committee members. We

randomly selected 400 of the 13,392 members of grant review committees,

200 of 6,263 members of scientific/technical committees, 180 of 5,586

members of nonscientific committees, 80 of 2,393 members of national

policy committees, and 40 of 865 members of the other committees.4

We received usable questionnaires from 67 percent of the eligible sample.

The response rate across the five strata ranged from 62 percent to

3

We are aware of two factors that contributed to the differences between the number of committee

members for which we received information and the number that GSA reported. Our number is for 1

day (August 1, 1997); GSA’s number includes individuals who were committee members at anytime

during the fiscal year. Not every agency that we requested information from provided us with the

names and addresses of their advisory committee members.

4

Grant review committees is a term that GSA uses in categorizing advisory committees. According to

GSA, the category includes committees that review contract proposals as well as grant applications. In

this report, we refer to these committees as peer review panels, which is the generic name that they

are commonly known by and is the term we used in our agency questionnaire.

Page 23 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

72 percent. The overall sample had a confidence interval of no greater than

±4 percent. The confidence interval for the grant review committees was

no greater than ±6 percent. The confidence interval for the others, which

we refer to as general advisory committees, was no greater than

±5.5 percent. The overall results are generalizable to all federal advisory

committee members for whom we had names and addresses. The grant

review and general advisory committee members results are generalizable

to those types of advisory committees for which we had members’ names

and addresses. Although we did not test the validity of the respondents’

answers or the comments they made, we took several steps to check the

quality of our survey data. We reviewed and edited the completed

questionnaires, made internal consistency checks on selected items, and

checked the accuracy of data entry on a sample of surveys.

In addition to sampling errors, the practical difficulties of conducting any

survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as

nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular question

is interpreted by the survey respondents could introduce unwanted

variability in the survey’s results. We took steps in the development of the

questionnaire, the data collection, and the data editing and analysis to

minimize nonsampling errors. These steps, which we discuss earlier,

included pretesting and editing the questionnaires.

The 19 federal departments and independent agencies to whom we sent

questionnaires on February 24, 1998, accounted for 902 of 1,000

(90 percent) advisory committees that existed governmentwide in fiscal

year 1996, the latest year for which such data were available at the time we

selected the agencies. According to GSA data, the other 98 advisory

committees were chartered by 40 federal entities (offices of the Executive

Office of the President; independent agencies; and federal boards,

commissions, and councils). Table I.2 lists the 19 departments and

agencies in our survey and their number of advisory committees during

fiscal year 1996. We received completed questionnaires from all 19

agencies. We asked each agency to provide a consolidated response

covering all of its various organizational components. Although agency

information in this review applies only to the 19 agencies surveyed and

cannot be projected governmentwide, this information can be generalized

to the 902 advisory committees in the government that we included in our

review. We did not verify the accuracy of the data provided by the

agencies.

Page 24 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To aid us in meeting our objectives, we also interviewed GSA’s Committee

Management Secretariat officials and reviewed applicable laws,

regulations, and guidance to agencies regarding advisory committee

activities. We also reviewed applicable court decisions and our prior GAO

reports related to participation by outside parties on advisory committee

issues.

Table I.2: Number of Federal Advisory

Committees at 19 Federal Departments

and Agencies, Fiscal Year 1996 Agency

Number of

committees

Department of Agriculture 64

Department of Commerce 57

Department of Defense 59

Department of Education 11

Department of Energy 21

Department of Health and Human Services 243

Department of Housing and Urban Development 1

Department of the Interior 117

Department of Justice 11

Department of Labor 21

Department of State 14

Department of Veterans Affairs 24

Department of the Treasury 8

Department of Transportation 36

Commission on Civil Rights 51

Environmental Protection Agency 28

National Endowment for the Arts 24

National Science Foundation 65

Small Business Administration 47

Total 902

Source: Twenty-fifth Annual Report of the President on Federal Advisory Committees, Fiscal Year

1996.

Page 25 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix II 

Responses to Survey of Federal Advisory

Committee Members

Page 26 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix II 

Responses to Survey of Federal Advisory

Committee Members

Page 27 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix II 

Responses to Survey of Federal Advisory

Committee Members

Page 28 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix II 

Responses to Survey of Federal Advisory

Committee Members

Page 29 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix II 

Responses to Survey of Federal Advisory

Committee Members

Page 30 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix II 

Responses to Survey of Federal Advisory

Committee Members

Page 31 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix II 

Responses to Survey of Federal Advisory

Committee Members

Page 32 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix II 

Responses to Survey of Federal Advisory

Committee Members

Page 33 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix II 

Responses to Survey of Federal Advisory

Committee Members

Page 34 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix II 

Responses to Survey of Federal Advisory

Committee Members

Page 35 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix II 

Responses to Survey of Federal Advisory

Committee Members

Page 36 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix II 

Responses to Survey of Federal Advisory

Committee Members

Page 37 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix III 

Mandated Advisory Committees That

Agencies Believed Should Be Terminated

Agency Mandated advisory committee

Department of Agriculture Brule River (Wisconsin and Michigan) Study Committee

Northern Allegheny Wild and Scenic River Advisory Council

Southern Allegheny Wild and Scenic River Advisory Council

Department of Defense Department of Defense Government-Industry Advisory Committee

on the Operation and Modernization of the National Defense

Stockpile

Department of Energy Technical Advisory Committee on Verification of Fissile Material

and Nuclear Warhead Control

Technical Panel on Magnetic Fusion

Department of Health and Human Services Advisory Council on Hazardous Substances Research and

Training

End-Stage Renal Disease Data Advisory Committee

Federal Council on the Aging

Federal Hospital Council

National Advisory Board on Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin

Diseases

National Commission on Alcoholism and Other Alcohol-Related

Problems

Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Advisory Board

National Diabetes Advisory Board

National Digestive Diseases Advisory Board

National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Advisory Board

Task Force on Aging Research

Department of the Interior San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Advisory

Commission

Santa Fe National Historic Trail Advisory Council

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Advisory Commission

Trail of Tears National Historic Trail Advisory Council

Department of Transportation National Driver Register Advisory Committee

National Highway Safety Advisory Committee

Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Regulatory Review Panel

Transit Industry Technology Development Advisory Committee

National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee

Source: Responses to GAO’s federal advisory committees agency questionnaire.

Page 38 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 39 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 40 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 41 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 42 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 43 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 44 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 45 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 46 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 47 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 48 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 49 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 50 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 51 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 52 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 53 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 54 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 55 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 56 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 57 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 58 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 59 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 60 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 61 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix IV 

Responses to Federal Advisory Committees

Agency Questionnaire

Page 62 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
Appendix V 

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

Anthony Assia, Senior Evaluator

Steven J. Berke, Senior Evaluator

Gregory H. Wilmoth, Supervisory Social Science Analyst

Stuart M. Kaufman, Senior Social Science Analyst

Ernestine B. Burt, Issue Area Assistant

Office of the General

Counsel

Jessica A. Botsford, Attorney

(410229) Page 63 GAO/GGD-98-147 Federal Advisory Committee Act
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