United States General Accounting Office 

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on the Constitution, Committee on the 

Judiciary, House of Representatives 

October 2003 U.S. COMMISSION ON 

CIVIL RIGHTS 

More Operational and 

Financial Oversight 

Needed 

GAO-04-18

Highlights of GAO-04-18, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives 

Over the past 10 years, GAO, the 

Congress, the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM), and others 

have raised numerous concerns 

about the U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights. GAO was asked to assess 

(1) the adequacy of the 

Commission’s project management 

procedures, (2) whether the 

Commission’s controls over 

contracting services and managing 

contracts are sufficient, and (3) the 

extent of recent oversight of the 

Commission’s financial activities. 

GAO recommends, among other 

things, that the Commission adopt 

procedures that provide for 

increased commissioner 

involvement in projects; establish 

greater controls over its 

contracting activities in order to be 

in compliance with federal 

regulations; and take steps 

immediately to meet the financial 

statement preparation and audit 

requirements of the Accountability 

of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 for fiscal 

year 2004. 

In commenting on a draft of this 

report, four of the commissioners 

agreed with GAO’s conclusions and 

recommendations. GAO did not 

receive comments from the 

remaining four commissioners. In 

separate comments, the staff 

director indicated he will consider 

implementing GAO’s 

recommendations but took 

exception with many of GAO’s 

findings of management 

weaknesses at the Commission. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-18. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robert E. 

Robertson at (202) 512-7215 or 

robertsonr@gao.gov. 

October 2003 

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

More Operational and Financial Oversight 

Needed 

The Commission has established a set of project management procedures 

for commissioners and staff to follow when they plan, implement, and report 

the results of approved Commission projects. However, the procedures lack, 

among other things, a requirement for systematic commissioner input 

throughout projects. As a result, commissioners lack the opportunity to 

review many of the reports and other products drafted by Commission staff 

before products are released to the public, which serves to significantly 

reduce the opportunity for commissioners to help shape a report’s findings, 

recommendations, and policy implications of civil rights issues. 

The Commission lacks sufficient management control over its contracting 

procedures. The Commission routinely did not follow proper procedures for 

its fiscal year 2002 contracting activities. For the Commission’s largest dollar 

contract, key documentation on how the contract was initially awarded was 

missing from contract files. Moreover, Commission officials did not follow 

the legal requirements to obtain competition for its subsequent media 

services contracts. As a result, the Commission did not have all of the 

information it should have had to determine whether its contracts provided 

the best value to the government. 

Little, if any, external oversight of the Commission’s financial activities has 

taken place in recent years. An independent accounting firm has not audited 

the Commission’s financial statements for the last 12 years. Although the 

Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 requires the Commission—along 

with certain other executive agencies—to have its financial statements 

independently audited annually, the Commission has been granted a waiver 

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from compliance with the 

financial statement preparation and audit requirements of the act for the 

fiscal years 2002 and 2003 audit cycles, which OMB was authorized to waive 

during an initial transition period of up to 2 years. 

Management Reporting Structure, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

Commissioners (8) 

Staff Director 

Asst. Staff 

Director 

OCRE 

General 

Counsel 

OGC 

Chief 

Budget & 

Finance Division 

Chief

ASCD

Source: GAO analysis. 
Contents 


Letter 

Results in Brief 


Background


Procedures Have Improved, but Lack Some Key Elements of Good 


Project Management 

Controls Over Commission’s Contracting Procedures Are 

Insufficient 

No Independent Financial Audits Have Been Conducted in Recent 

Years 

Conclusions 

Recommendations 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

1 

2 

4 

7 

16 

21 

24 

25 

26 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 

Appendix II 	 Products Issued or Expected to Be Issued after 

Fiscal Year 2002 

Appendix III Comments from Four Commissioners 

Appendix IV Comments from the Commission’s Staff Director 40 

GAO Comments 51 

Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 58 

GAO Contacts 58 

Acknowledgments 58 

Tables 

Table 1: Number of Products Issued by OCRE, OGC, and OSD 

during Fiscal Year 2002, by Type of Product 11 

Table 2: OGC, OCRE, and OSD Projects and Products, Fiscal Year 

2002 30 

Page i GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

28 

34 

35 
Table 3: Number of Products Issued or Expected to Be Issued after 

Fiscal Year 2002 by OCRE and OGC from Projects That 

Were Ongoing during Fiscal Year 2002, by Type of Product 

Figure 

Figure 1: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Project Management 

Reporting Structure, Fiscal Year 2002 

Abbreviations 

ASCD Administrative Services and Clearinghouse Division 


FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 


FPDC Federal Procurement Data Center 


GSA General Services Administration 


NFC National Finance Center 


OCRE Office of Civil Rights Evaluation 


OGC Office of General Counsel 


OMB Office of Management and Budget 


OSD Office of the Staff Director 


RFQ Request for Quotation 


This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

34 

9 
United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

October 31, 2003 


The Honorable Steve Chabot 


Chairman 


Subcommittee on the Constitution 


Committee on the Judiciary 


House of Representatives 


Dear Mr. Chairman: 


The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was created as an independent, 


bipartisan, fact-finding agency to protect the civil rights of people in the 


United States. The Commission is authorized to undertake projects that 


study the impact of federal civil rights laws and policies and disseminate 


information on its findings through the issuance of reports to the Congress


and the President. In our past work, we recommended to the Commission


ways to improve how it managed its projects and issued reports.1


You asked us to assess 


• the adequacy of the Commission’s project management procedures, 

• 	 whether the Commission’s controls over contracting services and 

managing contracts are sufficient, and 

• the extent of recent oversight of the Commission’s financial activities. 

To respond to your request, we reviewed Commission records, applicable 

legislation and regulations, and internal administrative guidance. We 

interviewed all current commissioners, the staff director, key Commission 

officials, and several former Commission officials. We also observed 

several Commission meetings. In addition, we reviewed all projects and all 

contracts that were active during fiscal year 2002.

2

 Our review focused on 

1

See U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks 

Basic Management Controls, GAO/HEHS-97-125, (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1997) and U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights: Update on Its Response to GAO Recommendations, 

GAO/HEHS-98-86R, (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 1998). 

2

We did not review the Commission’s day-to-day administrative contracts, such as those for 

court reporters, temporary support services, and meeting room rentals. 

Page 1 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Results in Brief 

projects undertaken by Commission offices located at headquarters and 

excluded those produced in field office locations.3

 Our review also focused 

on whether the Commission maximized competition and followed 

established procedures in purchasing services. See appendix I for a more 

detailed overview of our scope and methodology. We performed our work 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards 

between December 2002 and September 2003. 

The Commission has established a set of project management procedures 

for commissioners and staff to follow when they plan, implement, and 

report the results of approved Commission projects. However, the 

procedures lack certain key elements of good project management that are 

reflected in federal internal control and budget preparation guidance. For 

example, commissioners have not generally received updates about 

certain project cost information. Commissioners, in practice, make many 

planning decisions with little or no discussion of project costs, which can 

eventually contribute to problems such as delayed products and lowerquality products if too many projects are undertaken. While some steps are 

being taken to increase the flow of cost information, it remains unclear 

whether this will meet Commission needs. Additionally, Commission 

procedures do not provide for systematic commissioner input throughout 

projects. As a result, commissioners often lack the opportunity to review 

many of the reports and other products drafted by Commission staff 

before products are released to the public, which serves to significantly 

reduce the opportunity for commissioners to help shape a report’s 

findings, recommendations, and policy implications of civil rights issues. 

The Commission lacks sufficient management control over its contracting 

procedures. The Commission routinely did not follow proper procedures 

for its fiscal year 2002 contracting activities. For the Commission’s largest 

dollar contract—$156,000 for media services—which has been ongoing for 

over 3 years—key documentation on how the contract was initially 

awarded was missing from contract files. Moreover, Commission officials 

did not follow the legal requirements to obtain competition for subsequent 

media services contracts. As a result, the Commission did not have all of 

the information it should have had to determine whether its awards 

3

The Commission defines a project as “...a study of civil rights issues that culminates in a 

report, transcript, summary of proceedings, film, monograph, or other product for public 

release....” 

Page 2 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
represented the most advantageous offer available to the government. In 

addition, the Commission has inadequate controls over the administration 

of its contracts. For example, information on specific tasks to be 

performed by vendors is communicated orally, not in writing as required 

by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). As a result, it is difficult for 

the Commission to track vendors’ performance against an objective 

measure and ensure that public funds are used in an effective manner. 

Little, if any, external oversight of the Commission’s financial activities has 

taken place in recent years. An independent accounting firm has not 

audited the Commission’s financial statements for the last 12 years. 

Additionally, the Commission is not required by statute to have an Office 

of Inspector General, which can typically conduct regularly scheduled or 

periodic oversight of an agency’s financial standing. Although the 

Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 requires the Commission, along 

with other executive agencies not previously required to do so under 

another statute, to have its financial statements independently audited 

annually, the Commission has been granted a waiver by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) from compliance with the financial 

statement preparation and audit requirements of the act for fiscal years 

2002 and 2003. During the initial transition period for this new 

requirement, the act permits the OMB Director to waive these 

requirements for up to 2 years. 

This report contains recommendations for improving the Commission’s 

project management process and for providing greater transparency and 

control over its contracting and financial management activities. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, four of the commissioners agreed 

with our conclusions and recommendations. We did not receive comments 

from the remaining four commissioners, who include the chairperson and 

the vice-chair. In separate comments, the staff director pointed out that 

the Commission is committed to ensuring that its operations are well 

maintained and will consider implementing whatever recommendations 

and suggestions appear in the final report. However, the staff director 

believed that many of the findings were inaccurate and that aspects of the 

draft report contained errors, unsubstantiated allegations, and 

misinterpretations. After carefully reviewing his concerns, we continue to 

believe that our conclusions and recommendations are well founded. The 

staff director also provided technical comments and clarifications, which 

we incorporated in the report as appropriate. Both sets of comments and 

our detailed responses to the staff director’s comments are provided in full 

in appendixes III and IV. 

Page 3 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Background The Commission on Civil Rights is a fact-finding federal agency required to 

report on civil rights issues. Established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the 

Commission is currently directed by eight part-time commissioners and 

employs approximately 70 staff members in fiscal year 2003. The 

Commission’s annual appropriation has averaged approximately $9 million 

since fiscal year 1995. The eight commissioners have a number of 

responsibilities, including investigating claims of voting rights violations 

and studying and disseminating information, often collected during 

specific projects, on the impact of federal civil rights laws and policies. 

Commissioners serve 6-year terms, and they are appointed on a staggered 

basis. Four commissioners are appointed by the President, two by the 

president pro tempore of the Senate, and two by the speaker of the House 

of Representatives. No more than four commissioners can be of the same 

political party. 

The Commission accomplishes its mission by (1) investigating charges of 

citizens being deprived of voting rights because of color, race, religion, 

sex, age, disability, or national origin; (2) collecting and studying 

information concerning legal developments on voting rights; (3) appraising 

federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal 

protection of the laws; (4) serving as a national clearinghouse for 

information; and (5) preparing public service announcements and 

advertising campaigns on civil rights issues. The Commission may hold 

hearings and, within specific guidelines, issue subpoenas to obtain certain 

records and have witnesses appear at hearings. 

The Commission must submit at least one report annually to the President 

and the Congress that monitors federal civil rights enforcement in the 

United States, and such other reports as deemed appropriate by the 

Commission, the President, or the Congress.4

 For instance in 2002, the 

Commission issued a report that evaluated the civil rights activities of the 

Departments of Justice, Labor, and Transportation and another on election 

reform. The Commission is also authorized to investigate individual 

allegations of voting rights discrimination. However, because it lacks 

enforcement powers that would enable it to apply remedies in individual 

cases, the Commission refers specific complaints it receives to the 

4

These reports are termed “statutory” reports. Statutory reports are produced in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 1975a(c). 

Page 4 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
appropriate federal, state, or local government agency for action.5

 A staff 

director, who is appointed by the President with the concurrence of a 

majority of the commissioners, oversees the day-to-day operations of the 

Commission and manages the staff in its six regional offices and 

Washington, D.C., headquarters. 

The Commission also has 51 State Advisory Committees—1 for each state 

and the District of Columbia. Each committee is composed of citizens 

familiar with local and state civil rights issues. The members serve without 

compensation and assist the Commission with its fact-finding, 

investigative, and information dissemination functions. 

Concerns Raised in the 

Past 

In 1997, we reported that the management of the Commission’s operations 

lacked control and coordination.6

 Among other findings, we found that 

projects lacked sufficient documentation, project monitoring to detect 

budget delays or overruns was not systematic, and little coordination took 

place among offices within the Commission to approve and disseminate 

reports. Moreover, senior officials were unaware of how Commission 

funds were used and lacked control over key management functions, 

making the Commission’s resources vulnerable to misuse. We reported 

that key records had been lost, misplaced, or were nonexistent, leaving 

insufficient data to accurately portray Commission operations. Centralized 

agency spending data resulted in Commission officials being unable to 

provide costs for individual offices or functions. We also found in 1997 

that the Commission had never requested any audits of its operations, and 

information regarding Commission audits in its fiscal year 1996 report on 

internal controls was misleading.7

 The Commission also had not updated 

administrative guidance to reflect a major reorganization that occurred in 

1986. We recommended that the Commission develop and document its 

policies and procedures to assign responsibility for management functions 

5

Several agencies have enforcement authority for civil rights issues. For example, the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission is charged with enforcing specific federal 

employment antidiscrimination statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 

of 1967. Also, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Department of Justice is 

the enforcement authority for civil rights issues for the nation. 

6

See U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks 

Basic Management Controls, GAO/HEHS-97-125 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1997). 

7

Federal agencies are required under the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 

to report on internal controls annually to the President and the Congress. 

Page 5 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
to the staff director and other Commission officials and provide 

mechanisms for holding them accountable for proper management of 

Commission operations. 

Federal Regulations 

Governing Contracting 

Competition Using Simplified 

Acquisition Procedures 

Awarding a Sole-Source 

Contract under Simplified 

Acquisition Procedures 

The FAR, established to codify uniform policies and procedures for 

acquisition by executive agencies, applies to acquisitions of supplies and 

services made by federal executive agencies—including the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights—with appropriated funds. The FAR contains 

procedures for awarding both competitive and sole-source contracts and 

selecting contracting officers.8 

The FAR calls for federal agencies to promote competition to the 

maximum extent practicable when making purchases using simplified 

acquisition procedures.9 In 1994, Congress authorized the use of simplified 

acquisition procedures for acquisitions not exceeding $100,000.10 Under 

those procedures, agency officials may, among other things, select 

contractors using expedited evaluation and selection procedures and are 

permitted to keep documentation to a minimum. In 1996, Congress 

authorized a test program that permits federal agencies to use simplified 

acquisition procedures for commercial items not exceeding $5 million.11 

The authority to issue solicitations under this test program is set to expire 

on January 1, 2004.12 

When they award on a sole-source basis,13 contracting officers are required 

by regulations to prepare a written justification explaining the absence of 

competition. The regulations also generally require public notices of 

proposed sole-source awards. Further, contracting officers must 

determine that the price of a sole-source award is reasonable. This 

determination may be based on evidence such as (1) market research, 

8

“Contracting officer” means a person with the authority to enter into, administer, and/or 

terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings. 

9

FAR part 13. 

10Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3243. 

11Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-106, Divs. D, E, 110 Stat. 642. 

12FAR subpart 13.500(d). 

13“Sole-source acquisition” means a contract for the purchase of supplies or services that is 

entered into or proposed to be entered into by an agency after soliciting and negotiating 

with only one source. 

Page 6 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Using the Federal Supply 

Schedule 

Procedures Have 

Improved, but Lack 

Some Key Elements 

of Good Project 

Management 

(2) current price lists or catalogs, (3) a comparison with similar items in 

related industry, or (4) a comparison to an independent government cost 

estimate. 

Under the Federal Supply Schedule, the General Services Administration 

(GSA) awards contracts to several companies supplying comparable 

products and services. These contracts can then be used by any federal 

agency to purchase products and services. As a general rule, the 

Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 requires that orders under the 

Federal Supply Schedule result in the lowest overall cost alternative to 

meet the needs of the agency.14 The FAR and GSA procedures generally 

require agencies to compare schedule offerings of multiple vendors in 

arriving at an award decision. 

The Commission has established a set of project management procedures 

for commissioners and staff to follow when they plan, implement, and 

report the results of approved Commission projects. However, the 

procedures lack certain key elements of good project management that are 

reflected in federal internal control and budget preparation guidance.15 For 

example, commissioners do not generally receive updates about certain 

project cost information. Commissioners, in practice, make many planning 

decisions with little or no discussion of project costs, which can 

eventually contribute to problems such as delayed products and lowerquality products if too many projects are undertaken. Additionally, 

Commission procedures do not provide for systematic commissioner input 

throughout projects. In practice, commissioners do not always have the 

opportunity to review many of the reports and other products drafted by 

Commission staff before products are released to the public, which serves 

14If this requirement is met, and the program has been open to all responsible sources, the 

competition requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act are satisfied. See 10 U.S.C. 

§ 2302(2)(C) and 41 U.S.C. § 259(b)(3). 

15We used a combination of OMB, private sector, and our guidance as criteria to identify 

key elements of good project management. These criteria included U.S. General 

Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999); Preparation and Submission of 

Budget Estimates (2002) (OMB Circular No. A-11, Part 2); Project Management Scalable 

Methodology Guide ( 1997, James R. Chapman); A Guide to the Project Management 

Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide–2000 Edition (The Project Management Institute, 

September 2003); and Project Management–Conventional Project Management (Northern 

Institute of Technology, Hamburg, March 2002). See appendix I, for additional details about 

our criteria. 

Page 7 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
to significantly reduce the opportunity for commissioners to help shape a 

report’s findings, recommendations, and policy implications of civil rights 

issues. 

Commission Has Updated 

Its Management Policies 

and Procedures to Better 

Manage Projects 

The Commission has made a number of improvements in project 

management since our 1997 review. For example, the Commission has 

revised and established policies that clarify the roles of the staff director 

and senior Commission staff such as the assistant staff director of the 

Office of Civil Rights Evaluation (OCRE) and the general counsel in the 

Office of the General Counsel (OGC), both of whom report directly to the 

staff director. These three key Commission officials are responsible for 

carrying out the policies established by the eight commissioners and for 

directly overseeing and managing virtually all headquarters projects that 

result in Commission products.16 See figure 1 for an abbreviated 

organization chart that shows the reporting relationship between 

commissioners, the staff director, and senior Commission staff. 

16At the time of our current review, the general counsel position was vacant and the deputy 

general counsel was overseeing and managing OGC projects and products and reporting to 

the staff director. 

Page 8 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Page 9 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Figure 1: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Project Management Reporting Structure, Fiscal Year 2002 

In addition to clarified roles of the staff director and senior Commission 

staff, the chief of the Budget and Finance Division now regularly provides

the staff director with spending data by office and function. This detailed 

information enables the staff director to track the status of the 

Commission’s expenditures by organizational component at headquarters 

and field offices. 

Commissioners (8) 

Staff Director

Source: GAO analysis.

$

Chief

Budget and Finance 

Division

Deputy 

General Counsel

Office of

General Counsel

Assistant 

Staff Director

Office of Civil

Rights Evaluation

Project Team Leaders Project Team Leaders 

1 2 3 5 1 2 4 5 6

12 projects, 16 products 9 projects, 15 products

7 1

1 project, 1 product

Project Team Leader

4 3
Senior Commission staff and the project team leaders we interviewed 

were also using various project management procedures to meet target 

deadlines. For example, the assistant staff director, OCRE, and the deputy 

general counsel, OGC, were using a combination of techniques to ensure 

that project deadlines were met. These techniques included weekly 

meetings with staff, weekly or monthly reports from staff, and computergenerated schedules to monitor large, complex projects and smaller 

projects. Moreover, all project team leaders were routinely monitoring 

their assigned projects to ensure that projects stayed on schedule. Our 

review determined that the Commission’s project management procedures 

allow commissioners, the staff director, senior Commission staff, and 

project team leaders to manage long-range projects that take a year or 

longer to complete as well as time-critical projects that take several 

months or weeks to complete.17 The Commission chairperson, who was 

also chairperson in 1997, is of the opinion that Commission projects and 

products in fiscal year 2002 and later were generally timelier than those 

products discussed in our 1997 report and testimony.18 

Table 1 summarizes the number of Commission products issued during 

fiscal year 2002 by Commission office and by type of product.19 Appendix I 

provides details about project names and product titles produced during 

fiscal year 2002 by those offices that generate headquarters Commission 

products that result from commissioner-approved projects: the Office of 

Civil Rights Evaluation, the Office of General Counsel, and the Office of 

the Staff Director (OSD). In addition, some fiscal year 2002 projects will 

generate products in future years. Appendix II lists the number of 

17Commissioners and Commission staff use the term “emerging issues” to describe projects 

that are generally not identified during the Commission’s annual project planning cycle but 

which the commissioners decide are high-priority projects as they emerge throughout the 

year. Emerging issues projects generally take less calendar time to complete than do larger, 

more complex projects included in the annual planning meeting, during which 

commissioners decide which projects to undertake. 

18In this review, we did not analyze the timeliness of Commission products for comparison 

with the results of our 1997 review. As agreed with our requester, our current review 

focused on the most recent fiscal year. Also, we examined during the current review a 

more expansive number and variety of products than what we reported on in 1997, which 

made comparisons between this review and our 1997 report methodologically 

inappropriate. 

19Of the 43 total products that resulted from these projects as of July 2003, 32 were issued 

during fiscal year 2002 and were included in the scope of our review. We excluded from our 

scope 3 products issued during fiscal year 2001 and 8 products issued or expected to be 

issued during fiscal years 2003 or 2004. 

Page 10 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
products, by type of product, issued or expected to be issued after fiscal 

year 2002 from projects that were ongoing during fiscal year 2002. 

Table 1: Number of Products Issued by OCRE, OGC, and OSD during Fiscal Year 2002, by Type of Product 

Type of product OCRE OGC OSD Total 

Background paper 1 

Briefing* 3 4 

Briefing paper 3 4 

Clearinghouse publication* 1 

Correspondence 2 

Executive summary 4 

Hearing, consultation, and conference* 2 

Miscellaneous* 1 1 

OCRE memorandum 1 

OSD memorandum 1 

Staff report* 1 

State advisory committee report* 1 

Statutory and interim reports* 2 

Total 16 15 1 

Source: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 

Note: Product types marked with an asterisk appear in the Commission’s Catalog of Publications, 

September 2003. We ascertained other product types based on the document title or from information 

supplied by Commission officials. 

Procedures Do Not Ensure 

the Inclusion of Cost 

Information 

Commission procedures do not provide for commissioners and senior 

Commission staff to systematically receive project cost information— 

primarily staff time charges—to help commissioners and senior staff plan 

and monitor projects. Commissioners continue to approve the majority of 

projects and products each year without having any specific information 

on how much the project will cost, or how much similar projects have cost 

in past years. Both federal government guidance and private sector project 

management specialists emphasize the importance of top-level reviews of 

actual performance. Feedback about actual project performance, 

including costs, is basic information essential for sound planning and 

allocation of scarce staff and other dollar resources. Without specific 

estimates of how much staff time will be spent and how much the project 

and its products will cost, Commission planning will continue to be 

conducted without key information. Commissioner approval of projects 

without key cost information may contribute to problems such as delayed 

Page 11 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

1 

7 

7 

1 

2 

4 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

32 
products and lower-quality products if too many projects are undertaken 

for staff to carry out without additional resources. 

The Commission has taken action to limit the number of major projects 

that it will approve during the Commission’s annual long-range planning 

meeting at which commissioners decide which projects to undertake. 

However, commissioners continue to approve new projects throughout 

the year without any detailed feedback from the staff director about the 

amount of time that staff is already committed to spend to complete 

previously approved projects. Unless they periodically receive a 

comprehensive picture of how much current projects have cost to date 

and how much staff time has already been committed, commissioners will 

continue to make decisions about how many and which future projects to 

undertake, or which current projects and costs to adjust, without basic 

information necessary for sound project planning.

20 

Without downplaying the value of cost information in project 

management, commissioners have been divided over how much project 

cost information they need. During our review, several commissioners 

expressed concern, both to us and publicly at monthly Commission 

meetings, that commissioners were not receiving sufficient information 

about project costs. However, several other commissioners said that they 

received a sufficient amount of information about the status of projects. In 

March 2003, the commissioners did not pass a motion—the vote was tied 

4-4—for the staff director to provide them with, among other things, 

quarterly information about project costs that commissioners were not 

receiving at that time. However, the commissioners reached a compromise 

and passed a subsequent motion in April 2003 to receive that quarterly cost 

information. Specifically, the motion requires commissioners to receive 

information quarterly on cost by project and by office. A category of 

information that was in the original motion that was not included in the 

motion that passed includes projects’ travel costs. 

20Our 1997 review also found that commissioners at that time did not receive information 

on the costs of projects or the personnel working on projects. After a vote to approve a 

project, commissioners were not aware of (1) those projects the staff director decides to 

start; (2) when projects are actually started; (3) cost adjustments for projects; (4) time 

frame changes; and (5) personnel changes, all of which can affect the timeliness and quality 

of projects. See U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency 

Lacks Basic Management Controls, GAO/HEHS-97-125 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1997), 

pp. 17-19. 

Page 12 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Good project management principles dictate that cost information be 

integrated in a timely manner into project management. As applied to the 

Commission, cost information may be most useful if it is provided on a 

monthly basis. During its monthly meetings, the commission discusses 

whether or not to undertake emerging civil rights issues. These decisions 

will be better informed if, for example, data on costs that are already being 

experienced—or expected on other projects—be included in the monthly 

discussions. 

As of September 2003, commissioners had not begun to receive the agreed 

upon information. Once the commissioners begin to receive the cost 

information, it will be important to assess the extent that the information 

is meeting their collective needs and responsibilities. 

Procedures Do Not Ensure 

Commissioner Input Once 

Projects Have Been 

Approved 

Although the Commission has guidance on project management 

procedures, we found that commissioners have limited involvement in the 

management of commission projects once they have been approved. This 

condition serves to significantly reduce the commissioners’ ability to lend 

their expertise to the development of Commission products that address 

civil rights issues. 

On a positive note, the Commission has a set of written instructions that 

outline the procedures that should be followed to manage its projects.21 

The instructions describe the general steps that should be taken in the 

planning, implementation, and product preparation stages of projects 

undertaken by the commission. For example, the instructions address 

steps for planning projects at the front-end as well as legal review prior to 

the publication of reports. 

Nevertheless, the general nature of the written project management 

guidance limits the involvement of commissioners in project management. 

Specifically, the guidance does not specify the role that commissioners 

play in the implementation and report preparation phases, nor does it 

discuss the timing that commissioners should be involved throughout the 

process. It is especially important to have clear guidance on commissioner 

involvement because commissioners serve on a part-time basis and are not 

headquartered in a central building. Clear guidance on the nature and 

21Administrative Manual, Administrative Instruction 1-6, National Office Program 

Development and Implementation, January 24, 2003. 

Page 13 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
timing of commissioner involvement can help commissioners prepare 

themselves to make substantive contributions to implement a project and 

sharpen its conclusions and policy recommendations. In addition, clear 

guidance can help commissioners balance their commission duties with 

other professional duties and travel commitments. 

While the guidance addresses the role of commissioners in the last stage of 

the product preparation phase—final revision and approval prior to 

official release—this guidance only covers 2 of the 15 types of products 

produced by the Commission: statutory reports and clearinghouse 

reports.22 In fiscal year 2002, 3 of the Commission’s 32 products were 

either a statutory or a clearinghouse report. Put another way, the guidance 

does not dictate that commissioners give final review and approval for 29 

of the 32 products worked on in fiscal year 2002.23 The 13 product types 

not covered by the guidance include, for example, briefings, briefing 

papers, executive summaries, staff reports, and State Advisory Committee 

reports.24 However, these reports address civil rights issues and as such, 

they could benefit from review by commissioners, as appropriate, as they 

are being developed. 

Further evidence pointing to a lack of commissioner involvement in 

project management is the very general nature of the monthly staff 

reports—the main management tool currently used to keep commissioners 

informed about the progress of projects. The monthly staff report is 

prepared by the staff director and sent to commissioners in preparation 

for the monthly Commission meetings. The report highlights the status of 

selected on-going projects (the report may contain a summary of any of 

the 15 product types). The staff director has the discretion to select the 

22Clearinghouse reports are general purpose, informational reports that do not include 

formal findings, conclusions and recommendations. 

23Two of the 29 products were internal memoranda from senior Commission staff to the 

staff director and were not intended for distribution to the public. Consequently, those 

memoranda do not meet the Commission’s definition of a product intended for public 

release and would not routinely be expected to be subject to commissioner review. 

24The full list of 13 product types not covered by the written guidance include background 

papers; briefings; briefing papers; briefing summaries; correspondence; executive 

summaries; hearing, consultation, and conference transcripts (The Commission defines 

these as “accurate transcripts of testimony at hearings” which the Commission periodically 

holds at headquarters and other locations throughout the United States); internal 

Commission staff memorandums; miscellaneous publications; project summaries; staff 

analyses; staff reports; and State Advisory Committee reports. 

Page 14 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
projects to include in the monthly report. We reviewed the 11 monthly 

reports that the staff director sent to the commissioners during fiscal year 

2002 in preparation for the monthly Commission meetings and found that 

information in those reports about the two-volume statutory report (and 

other projects and reports) to be issued during the year was limited to 

general descriptions of project status. For example, regarding the 

Commission’s statutory report, commissioners were informed via the staff 

director’s monthly reports that “progress on the project has slowed” or 

“staff is working on an initial draft of the report” or “staff has nearly 

completed a draft of the report.” These updates did not contain 

information about the project’s costs or staff day usage to date, nor 

potential findings or conclusions. Likewise, during the 4-month period that 

the one clearinghouse project and report were being developed, only one 

monthly report even mentioned that project, and none of the four monthly 

staff reports made reference to the anticipated product or the anticipated 

date of report issuance. 

During our review, several commissioners told us that they are often 

unaware of the status and the content of many of the written products that 

result from approved projects until they are published or released by the 

Commission to the public. Moreover, some commissioners expressed 

dissatisfaction with the level of detail on project status contained in the 

monthly report. 

Some commissioners are increasingly concerned about their lack of 

opportunity to review reports and other products drafted by Commission 

staff before they are released to the public. These commissioners believe 

that a lack of periodic commissioner input and review undermines the 

opportunity for commissioners to help shape a report’s findings, 

recommendations, and policy implications of civil rights issues. In June 

and July 2003, several commissioners expressed their displeasure publicly 

about this lack of involvement by voting against, or abstaining from, 

acceptance of Commission draft products, in part because the 

commissioners had not had the opportunity to provide input to those 

projects or products. Other commissioners voted to accept the draft 

reports without commenting on their opportunity, or lack thereof, to 

provide input. 

Page 15 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Controls Over 

Commission’s 

Contracting 

Procedures Are 

Insufficient 

The Commission on Civil Rights lacks sufficient management controls 

over its contracting procedures. In fiscal year 2002, the Commission did 

not follow proper procedures in awarding most of its 11 contracts. For 

example, the Commission’s largest dollar contract—currently $156,000—is 

for media services and has been ongoing for over 3 years with the same 

vendor. According to Commission officials, key documentation on how the 

contract was initially awarded was missing from contract files. Moreover, 

Commission officials did not follow the legal requirements to obtain 

competition for subsequent media services contracts. As a result, the 

Commission did not have all of the information it should have had to 

determine if the contract pricing was fair and reasonable. The Commission 

also has inadequate controls over the administration of its contracts. For 

example, information on specific tasks to be performed by vendors is 

communicated orally, not in a performance based statement of work as 

required by regulation. As a result, it is difficult for the Commission to 

track vendors’ performance against an objective measure and ensure that 

public funds are used in an effective manner. 

Proper Procedures for 

Awarding Contracts Were 

Not Followed 

The Commission did not follow federal contracting regulations for any 

contracts initiated in fiscal year 2002 that were over $2,500.25 All but 4 of its 

11 contracts were at or over this amount. When a government agency 

purchases services, the contracting officer must follow certain procedures, 

though these procedures vary slightly depending on the contracting 

method. Using simplified acquisition procedures, the contracting officer 

may select contractors using expedited evaluation and selection 

procedures and is permitted to keep documentation to a minimum. The 

agency still must, for contracts over $2,500, seek competition to the 

maximum practical extent. If circumstances prevent competition, agencies 

may award “sole-source” contracts, but are required to justify them in 

writing. 

A government agency may also issue orders against contracts that GSA 

awards to multiple companies supplying comparable products and 

services under its Federal Supply Schedule. The FAR and GSA procedures 

require agencies to consider comparable products and services of multiple 

25According to the FAR, $2,500 is considered the “micro-purchase threshold” with certain 

few exceptions. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive 

quotations if the contracting officer or individual appointed in accordance with FAR 1.603-

3(b) considers the price to be reasonable. 

Page 16 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
vendors prior to issuing an order over $2,500.26 For service orders, the 

agency must send a request for quotes (RFQ) to at least three Federal 

Supply Schedule contractors based on an initial evaluation of catalogs and 

price lists. The agency must evaluate the quotes based on factors identified 

in the RFQ. GSA’s ordering procedures also state that the office ordering 

the services is responsible for considering the level of effort and mix of 

labor proposed to perform specific tasks and for making a determination 

that the total price is fair and reasonable. 

In fiscal year 2002, seven of the commission’s contracts were for amounts 

over $2,500, and the Commission did not follow proper procedures for any 

of them. For example, in fiscal year 2002, the Commission ordered its 

media services from a contractor listed on the Federal Supply Schedule. 

Instead of requesting quotes from other Schedule vendors, as required by 

GSA’s special ordering procedures, the Commission merely selected the 

same contractor to which it had made improper awards in previous years 

using simplified acquisition procedures. 

A factor that likely caused the Commission to not follow proper 

contracting procedures is that the Commission does not have personnel 

who are sufficiently qualified to conduct several of the required actions. 

The Commission has only two officials authorized to enter into contracts: 

the Acting Chief of the Administrative Services and Clearinghouse Division 

and the staff director.27 However, both officials are operating with limited 

awareness of proper federal contracting procedures. 

By not following proper procedures, the Commission did not obtain the 

benefits of competition and did not meet federal standards of conducting 

business fairly and openly. For example, by not competing its media 

services contract, and by using an incremental approach to obtaining 

media services, the Commission did not make clear the fact that it would 

have a recurring need for media services. Initially, in April 2000, the media 

26In July 2000, GSA revised the ordering procedures for services. These “special ordering” 

procedures now apply to an order for services that requires a statement of work. 

27The FAR provides that unless specifically prohibited by another provision of law, 

authority and responsibility to contract for authorized supplies and services are vested in 

the agency head. The agency head may establish contracting activities and delegate broad 

authority to manage the agency’s contracting functions to heads of such contracting 

activities. At the Commission, the staff director, solely by virtue of his position as the 

administrative head of the agency, is a designated contracting official who may also award 

contracts and act as a contracting officer. 

Page 17 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
services contract was offered with a 90-day/$25,000 maximum. A series of 

90-day, 60-day, and even 30-day contracts followed, none of which were 

competed. The Commission’s relationship with this media services vendor 

has evolved into what is now an annual award with a maximum value of 

$156,000.

28 The staff director could not document for us whether the 

agency competed its media services contract initially in 2000,29 and told us 

that it did not compete subsequent awards, including the last 2 years using 

the Schedule. In effect, the Commission denied itself the opportunity to 

choose from a potential pool of bidders because other vendors were likely 

unaware of the contract, the contract’s potential value or both. 

Contract Administration 

Lacks Sufficient Internal 

Control 

The Commission lacks sufficient internal control over the administration 

of its contracts. Examples of internal control activities30 include 

maintaining clear and prompt documentation on all transactions and other 

significant events; evaluating contractor performance; and segregating key 

duties and responsibilities among different people to reduce the risk of 

error or fraud. However, these elements of good organizational 

management are not evident in the Commission’s administration of its 

contract activities. For example, the Commission has not met federal 

requirements to establish and maintain proper contract files and to report 

contract actions to the Federal Procurement Data Center (FPDC), just a 

few of the numerous contract administration functions listed in the FAR. 

As a result, the Commission is not promoting the transparency necessary 

28In an attempt to downplay the increasing dollar value of the Commission’s media services 

contract, the staff director stated in his comments on a draft of this report that the fiscal 

year 2003 total vendor fees related to its media services contract were less than $90,000. 

We were not provided documentation to support of this dollar figure. For fiscal year 2002, 

however, according to documentation from the Commission, total vendor fees related to its 

media services contract were approximately $131,225 under a contract maximum of 

$140,000. 

29No officials are currently employed at the Commission who originally awarded the initial 

contract for media services. Current Commission officials could not provide us with 

documentation to ensure that procedures had been properly followed in awarding that 

contract. Subsequent contracts for continued media services were awarded to the 

incumbent contractor. 

30Internal control activities are the policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms that 

enforce management’s directives, such as the process of adhering to requirements for 

budget development and execution. They help ensure that actions are taken to address 

risks and are considered to be essential elements of good organizational management. See 

U.S. General Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999). 

Page 18 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Record-keeping and Reporting 

Standards Not Met 

to keep the Congress and others informed about the Commission’s 

contracting activities. 

According to federal regulations, an agency must establish and maintain 

for a period of 5 years a computer file containing unclassified records of 

all procurements exceeding $25,000.31 Agencies must be able to access 

certain information from the computer file for each contract, such as the 

reason why a non-competitive procurement procedure was used, or the 

number of offers received in response to a solicitation. Agencies must 

transmit this information to the FPDC, the government’s central repository 

of statistical information on federal contracting that contains detailed 

information on contract actions over $25,000 and summary data on 

procurements of less than $25,000.

32 

The Commission has not followed federal regulations or established 

internal control standards with regard to reporting transactions. According 

to the Acting Chief of the Administrative Services and Clearinghouse 

Division, and to officials at the FPDC, the Commission has not met federal 

reporting requirements to the FPDC for at least the last 3 fiscal years. The 

Acting Chief said that a lack of resources is the reason for its 

noncompliance with this federal requirement. Moreover, the FPDC was 

unaware that the Commission, which historically had not entered into 

contracts over $25,000, now had contracts above that amount. FPDC 

officials told us that when they contacted the Commission, officials there 

told the FPDC that they were not able to submit the data because, for 

example, of problems with its firewalls. In addition, Commission officials 

31FAR part 4.601. 

32Executive departments and agencies are required to collect and report procurement data 

quarterly to the FPDC. The FPDC provides data for Congress, the executive branch, the 

private sector, and the public. The data are used to measure and assess the impact of 

federal procurement on the nation’s economy, the extent to which small business firms and 

small disadvantaged business firms are sharing in federal procurement, the impact of full 

and open competition in the acquisition process, and other procurement policy purposes. 

Page 19 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Little If Any Performance 

Monitoring Being Done 

Commissioner Participation in 

Contract Management Is 

Minimal 

did not accept FPDC’s offer to come to FPDC’s offices and key in the 

data.33 

According to federal regulations, agency requirements for service 

contracts should be defined in a clear, concise performance-based 

statement of work that enables the agency to ensure a contractor’s work 

against measurable performance standards.34 Despite these regulations and 

principles of good management, the Commission has not established a 

system to monitor contractors’ performance, even for its contract that 

exceeds $100,000. The Commission has no records that document its 

decision-making on this contract. Lack of this basic, well-established 

management control makes the Commission vulnerable to resource losses 

due to waste or abuse. 

An integral component of good organizational management is a strong 

communication network between key decision-makers. To that end, it is 

vital that information on key transactions be communicated among the 

staff director, the commissioners and other key decision-makers. In 

addition, internal control standards dictate that key duties and 

responsibilities be divided or segregated among different people to reduce 

the risk of error or fraud. This includes the separation of the 

responsibilities for authorizing, processing, recording, and reviewing 

transactions, and handling any related assets. No one individual should 

control all key aspects of a transaction or event. 

Due to the nature of the Commission’s operating environment, the staff 

director does not provide information on procurements to the 

commissioners. According to the chairperson of the Commission, 

contracting is one of the duties that the Commission has delegated to the 

staff director. In fact, at public Commission meetings, when 

33At the end of our review, the Commission provided us several documents that were 

purportedly submitted to the FPDC. However, the records were not consistent with FPDC 

documents. Specifically, the Commission sent us several completed summary contract 

action reports (standard forms 281, used to report data to the FPDC), showing contract 

data for selected quarters of fiscal years 2000-2003. According to the FPDC’s Federal 

Procurement Reports for fiscal years 2000-2002, the Commission did not report any data in 

fiscal years 2000 and 2002 and only submitted first quarter data for fiscal year 2001. 

Moreover, the Commission’s standard forms 281 covering the first three quarters of fiscal 

year 2003 are all dated August 11, 2003. According to FPDC, new data from the 

Commission regarding fiscal years 2002 and 2003 contracting activity were received on 

September 26, 2003. 

34FAR part 37.602. 

Page 20 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
commissioners raised questions concerning contracting activities and 

sought information on contract cost and vendor performance, the 

chairperson asserted that contracting is not an area with which 

commissioners should be concerned. Moreover, a recent motion for 

commissioners to, among other things, be provided with cost and status 

information on contracts and other items failed to pass. Commissioners 

reached a compromise and passed a subsequent motion; however, it did 

not include the provision to receive information on contracts. Although 

the commissioners are charged with setting the policy direction of the 

agency, the Chairperson told us that the decision to contract out for a 

service is not a policy decision. She told us that the decision for the 

Commission to receive a certain service is a policy decision, but whether 

or not to perform that function in-house or contract out for it, is not. Since 

the contracting function is delegated to the staff director, it is her position 

that the commissioners need not know any details, unless there is an 

allegation of fraud, waste, or abuse on the staff director’s part. For the 

Commission’s largest contract, however, only the staff director has 

knowledge of what is being done, why it is being done and how it is being 

done. The Acting Chief of the Administrative Services and Clearinghouse 

Division is not involved because of the dollar limit on her contracting 

authority. Without greater transparency, the current operating 

environment has no mechanism to elevate concerns about contractual 

impropriety to the Commission. 

The Commission’s fiscal activities have not been independently audited in 

at least 12 years. As noted in our 1997 report, the Commission is not 

required by statute to have an Inspector General, which could 

independently and objectively perform financial audits within the agency. 

In addition, for the fiscal year 2002 audit cycle, the Commission received a 

waiver from the federal requirement that its financial statements be 

independently audited.

35 The Commission submitted a request to have the 

requirement waived for both the fiscal year 2003 and 2004 audit cycles, 

citing a stable budget and high costs incurred through the agency’s 

35Prior to November 2002, federal law did not require the Commission on Civil Rights to 

prepare annual financial statements or have them independently audited. The 

Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-289, 116 Stat. 2049) requires the 

Commission and other executive agencies, not previously required to do so by another 

statute, to begin submitting annual audited financial statements to Congress and OMB. 

No Independent 

Financial Audits Have 

Been Conducted in 

Recent Years 

Page 21 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
conversion to a new accounting system. OMB granted the waiver for fiscal 

year 2003, but denied the request for the fiscal year 2004 cycle.36 

In addition to this lack of independent financial oversight, the 

Commission’s current financial situation is not transparent within the 

agency. The majority of the agency’s budget-related information is 

centralized, with only the staff director and the chief of the Budget and 

Finance Division having a detailed knowledge of the Commission’s 

financial status. However, both the body of the commissioners, which 

heads the organization, and senior Commission officials, who are 

responsible for planning and carrying out Commission projects, only know 

what is reported to them by the staff director. On the basis of our 

interviews with commissioners and other Commission officials, we found 

that information on costs is limited. As a result of the centralized nature of 

the Commission’s financial operations, financial oversight is structured in 

a way that precludes appropriate checks and balances. 

Moreover, the Commission has in place a policy that discourages 

individual commissioners and their special assistants from making 

inquiries of any nature to Commission staff and to direct all inquiries to 

staff through the staff director.37 The policy dictates that commissioners 

not make direct contact with staff but work through the staff director to 

exchange information with staff and vice-versa. According to Commission 

documentation, this policy is meant to ensure that requests are carried out 

and to avoid confusion and difficult or embarrassing situations between 

staff and commissioners. One memo we saw even stated that violations of 

this policy could result in appropriate disciplinary action. Another stated 

that circumventing the staff director can only create confusion and 

disorder within the agency. According to some commissioners we spoke 

with, as well as senior Commission managers, this policy stifles 

communication and productivity within the agency and creates an 

36OMB waived the fiscal year 2002 requirement for all covered agencies that had not 

prepared audited financial statements in the past, including the Commission, pursuant to a 

provision allowing the OMB Director to grant such a waiver for the first 2 fiscal years after 

the law’s enactment. Additionally, the law permits the OMB Director to exempt a covered 

agency from the requirement in any given fiscal year, if its budget in the fiscal year does not 

exceed $25 million and if the Director determines that an audited financial statement is not 

warranted due to an absence of risks associated with the agency’s operations, 

demonstrated performance, or other relevant factors. 

37This policy likewise discourages Commission staff from contacting commissioners or 

each commissioner’s special assistant, instead directing all inquiries through the staff 

director. 

Page 22 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
environment of uneasiness.38 In addition, while some commissioners 

believe it is their fiscal duty to oversee the financial activities of the 

Commission and want complete financial information, others do not and 

cite their part-time status as the reason why they do not seek more 

information on financial activities. The commissioners who have the latter 

view believe that the fiscal responsibility of the agency lies with the staff 

director. 

In the absence of independent financial oversight, what is known about 

the Commission’s financial status suggests an austere financial picture. 

The staff director has characterized the Commission’s financial condition 

in public meetings as “challenging.” In fact, although the Commission’s 

budget has remained at essentially the same level for about the last 10 

years, it has incurred several new costs associated with operations. For 

example, the Commission recently converted its accounting and payment 

processing system from the National Finance Center (NFC) to the 

Department of Treasury’s Bureau of the Public Debt at a cost to the 

Commission of almost $300,000.39 In addition, Commission officials cited 

an increase of more than $130,000 in rent for the Commission’s 

headquarters and field offices over the past year. Moreover, the 

Commission’s financial condition has affected its operations. For example, 

the Commission ordered a moratorium, citing funding limitations, on all 

previously authorized and new travel by the agency’s regional staff or 

State Advisory Committee members between late March 2003 and the end 

of July 2003. In addition, the Commission’s financial status has left it 

unable to reduce its high staff vacancy rate, which now stands at 20 

percent.40 

38Other commissioners we spoke with, however, believed the policy was implemented to 

allow staff to better manage its work requirements. 

39This figure includes a one-time fee of approximately $93,000. Annual costs are nearly 

$200,000 compared with $54,000 under NFC. Officials at the Commission told us that the 

Commission had to convert its accounting and payment processing system as they could no 

longer use NFC, due to a decision by NFC to no longer offer accounting and payment 

processing services to non-USDA agencies. 

40The Commission had no unfilled permanent positions at the end of fiscal year 1997 and 

had two vacancies at the end of fiscal 1998. The Commission had 10 unfilled positions at 

the end of fiscal year 1999, 9 at the end of fiscal year 2000, and 18 at the end of fiscal years 

2001 and 2002. Although the Commission reports 3 vacancies in its Public Affairs Unit, 

Commission officials have outsourced the agency’s public affairs function. 

Page 23 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Conclusions 
 While the Commission has taken steps in recent years to improve its 

operations, it nevertheless continues to operate in a manner not fully 

consistent with sound management principles. These principles dictate 

that key decision makers receive timely information on project cost and 

have a vehicle throughout the project process to communicate their ideas 

and expertise. We recognize that commissioners should soon be receiving 

more information on project costs than had been previously received. 

While it remains to be decided whether the amount and timing of this 

information will meet the Commission’s needs, the challenge now facing 

commissioners is to partner toward the strategic use of cost information. 

In addition, the current level of commissioner involvement in the reporting 

phase of Commission products does not ensure that products are 

reflecting the full and wide-ranging expertise of the commissioners and as 

such, the potential impact of Commission products can be limited. This 

outcome can undermine the important mission of the Commission—to 

help inform and guide the nation on civil rights issues 

The Commission’s procurement of services is not being conducted in 

accordance with established internal control standards or federal 

regulations. We have long held that an agency’s internal control activities 

are an integral part of its planning, implementing, reviewing, and 

accountability for stewardship of government resources and achieving 

effective results. Without the proper internal controls, there is little public 

assurance that funds are being spent in a proper and effective manner. As 

a result of the Commission’s weak contract management operations, the 

Commission does not have all of the information it should have to 

determine that the contracts it is entering into are reasonable and offer the 

best value to the government. 

Although the dollar amount involved in its contracting activities represents 

a small percentage of its overall appropriation, such expenditures are 

growing. But regardless of the amount spent on contracting, there is a 

need for the Commission to take steps now to ensure that current and 

future contract actions are performed in compliance with established 

regulations. If the Commission does not adhere to these regulations, then 

transparency cannot be established and no assurance can be given to the 

public that the Commission’s activities are leading to the proper and 

efficient use of public funds. 

The Commission has not had an independent audit of its financial 

statements in recent years. The requirement for the Commission to 

prepare and submit an audited financial statement, included in the 

Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002, is an important step to 

Page 24 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
strengthening its financial and performance reporting. However, these 

benefits have yet to be realized. Given the Commission’s limited financial 

management controls and current budget situation, the lack of external 

oversightparticularly in terms of financial audits—may make the 

Commission vulnerable to resource losses due to waste, mismanagement 

or abuse. Although funding an independent audit could represent a 

significant new cost to the Commission, these audits are essential to the 

sound stewardship of federal funds. Our longstanding position has been 

that the preparation and audit of financial statements increase 

accountability and transparency and are important tools in the 

development of reliable, timely, and useful financial information for dayto-day management and oversight. Preparing audited financial statements 

also leads to improvements in internal control and financial management 

systems. 

Recommendations 
 To further the Commission’s efforts to better plan and monitor project 

activities, we recommend that the Commission 

• 	 monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost information that the 

staff director will soon be providing to commissioners and make the 

necessary adjustments, which could include providing information on a 

monthly rather than quarterly basis, as necessary; and 

• 	 adopt procedures that provide for increased commissioner involvement in 

project implementation and report preparation. These procedures could 

include giving commissioners a periodic status report and interim review 

of the entire range of Commission draft products so that, where 

appropriate, commissioners may help fashion, refine, and provide input to 

products prior to their release to the public. 

To ensure proper contracting activities at the Commission, we recommend 

that the Commission 

• 	 establish greater controls over its contracting activities in order to be in 

compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. These controls could 

include putting in place properly qualified personnel to oversee 

contracting activities, properly collecting and analyzing information about 

capabilities within the market to satisfy the Commission’s needs, and 

properly administering activities undertaken by a contractor during the 

time from contract award to contract closeout. 

Page 25 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
While the Commission has received waivers from preparing and 

submitting audited financial statements for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, we 

recommend that the Commission 

• 	 take steps immediately in order to meet the financial statement 

preparation and audit requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars 

Act of 2002 for fiscal year 2004. These steps toward audited fiscal year 

2004 financial statements could include, for example, (1) identifying the 

skills and resources that the Commission needs to prepare its financial 

statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles 

and comparing these needs to the skills and resources that the 

Commission presently has available; (2) preparing such financial 

statements, or at least the balance sheet with related note disclosures, for 

fiscal year 2003; and (3) ensuring that evidence is available to support the 

information in those financial statements. 

Agency Comments 


and Our Evaluation 


The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights provided us with two sets of 

comments on a draft of this report. We received comments from four 

commissioners and from the Commission’s Office of the Staff Director. 

Commissioners Kirsanow, Redenbaugh, Thernstrom, and Braceras 

concurred with our conclusions and recommendations on the 

management practices at the Commission. Their comments are 

reproduced in their entirety in appendix III. We did not receive comments 

from the remaining four commissioners, who include both the chairperson 

and the vice-chair of the Commission. 

In comments from the Office of the Staff Director, the staff director 

pointed out that the Commission is committed to ensuring that its 

operations are well maintained and will consider implementing whatever 

recommendations and suggestions that appear in the final report. 

However, the staff director believed that many of the findings were 

inaccurate and that aspects of the draft report contained errors, 

unsubstantiated allegations, and misinterpretations. For example, the staff 

director disagreed with our finding that the Commission lacks sufficient 

management controls over its contracting procedures and concluded the 

Commission’s overall fundamental contract practices are sound. Similarly, 

he disagreed with our findings concerning weaknesses in project and 

financial oversight. After carefully reviewing his concerns, we continue to 

believe that our conclusions and recommendations are well founded. The 

staff director’s detailed comments and our responses to them are 

contained in appendix IV. Finally, the staff director also provided a 

Page 26 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
number of technical comments and clarifications, which we incorporated, 

as appropriate. 

As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents earlier, we 


plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. 


At that time, we will provide copies of this report to interested 


congressional committees. We are also sending copies to the 


commissioners and the staff director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. We 


will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 


report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 


http://www.gao.gov. 


Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 or Brett Fallavollita on (202) 512-8507 


if you or your staff have any questions about this report. Other contact and 


staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix V.


Sincerely yours, 


Robert E. Robertson, 


Director, Education, Workforce, and


Income Security Issues 


Page 27 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 


During our review of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ activities, we 

focused on the management of individual projects, as we had done during 

our 1997 review and examined them in the context of broader 

management issues at the Commission. For example, to analyze the 

Commission’s expenditures on projects since 1997 in the context of both 

the project spending discussed in our 1997 report as well as in comparison 

with the Commission’s most recent budget request, we reviewed the 

Commission’s annual Request for Appropriation for fiscal years 1999 

through 2004, which provided data on how the Commission actually spent 

its appropriations for fiscal years 1997 through 2002. We noted that the 

Commission’s fiscal year 2004 Request for Appropriation requests a 

significant increase in funding, from $9 million in fiscal year 2002 to $15 

million in fiscal year 2004. Consequently, we not only focused on how well 

the Commission currently manages its projects, but also considered the 

implications of potentially significant increases in project and product 

spending and the human resources need to properly manage such 

increases. 

We used a combination of Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

private sector, and our own guidance as criteria to identify key elements of 

good project management. These criteria included U.S. General 

Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999); 

Preparation and Submission of Budget Estimates (2002) (OMB Circular 

No. A-11, Part 2); Project Management Scalable Methodology Guide (

1997, James R. Chapman); A Guide to the Project Management Body of 

Knowledge (PMBOK Guide)—2000 Edition (The Project Management 

Institute, Sept. 2003); and Project Management—Conventional Project 

Management (Northern Institute of Technology, Hamburg, Mar. 2002). Our 

standards for internal control list top-level review of actual performance 

(e.g., commissioner review of actual project cost) as a key control activity. 

OMB Circular No. A-11 emphasizes the importance of managing financial 

assets. 

To supplement the general guidance on good project management 

principles described in OMB’s and our guidance to agencies, we identified 

several private sector principles, practices, and techniques for good 

project management at the individual project level. For example, the 

Project Management Scalable Methodology Guide ( 1997, James R. 

Chapman) and the Project Management Institute’s A Guide to the Project 

Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide)—2000 Edition 

identify project management principles for small, straightforward projects 

as well as a best practices approach for large, complex projects. According 

Page 28 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

to these principles, regardless of project size or degree of risk, sound 

project cost management calls for comparisons between project plans and 

actual project performance—even for projects with minor levels of 

investment and low risk. 

We reviewed the most recent complete fiscal year’s project activities at the 

time of our review (fiscal year 2002) and identified 22 projects and 43 

products (briefings, executive summaries, internal memorandums, reports, 

etc.) that resulted from those projects. Of the 43 total products that 

resulted from these projects as of July 2003, we included in our review the 

32 issued during fiscal year 2002. We excluded 3 products issued during 

fiscal year 2001 and 8 products issued or expected to be issued during 

fiscal years 2003 or 2004. 

Table 2 provides details about project names and product titles produced 

during fiscal year 2002 by those offices that generate headquarters 

Commission products that result from commissioner-approved projects: 

the Office of Civil Rights Evaluation (OCRE), the Office of General 

Counsel (OGC), and the Office of the Staff Director (OSD). The OSD 

product resulted from a project initiated by the staff director rather than 

from the commissioners. Table 2 also includes a State Advisory Committee 

report from Alaska because OCRE staff assisted in preparing the report. 

The table excludes an Arizona State Advisory Committee briefing and 

State Advisory Committee reports from Iowa and Pennsylvania in 2002 

because OCRE staff were not involved in preparing the briefing or those 

reports. Some fiscal year 2002 projects will generate products in future 

years. (See app. II.) 

Page 29 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Table 2: OGC, OCRE, and OSD Projects and Products, Fiscal Year 2002 

GAO-assigned Products and GAO-assigned product numbers (43 

project total products, 32 products in FY 2002) 

number Project title (Bold = FY 2002 = within GAO Scope) Project cost 

OGCa 

Crossing Borders 1. Briefing December 8, 2000 $50,290 

2. Executive Summary December 8, 2000: “Crossing 

Borders: An Examination of Civil Rights Issues 

Raised by Current Immigration Laws, Policies, and 

Practices” 

Boundaries of Justice 3. Briefing October 12, 2001 

4. Executive Summary October 12, 2001: “Briefing 

on Boundaries of Justice: Immigration Policies PostSeptember 11th” 

5. Briefing June 21, 2002 

6. Executive Summary June 21, 2002: “Briefing on 

Haitian Asylum Seekers and U.S. Immigration Policy” 

(Miami, Florida) 

1 + 2 Crossing Borders/Boundaries of Justice 	 7. Project Summary January 2003: “Crossing 

Borders: The Administration of Justice and Civil 

Rights Protections in the Immigration and Asylum 

Context” 

Florida Election Reform 8. Briefing June 2002 $109,329 

9. Briefing Paper June 13, 2002: “Voting Rights in 

Florida 2002: The Impact of the Commission’s Report 

and the Florida Election Reform Act of 2001” 

10. Executive Summary August 2002: “Voting 

Rights in Florida 2002” 

4 Environmental Justice 11. Hearing January 2002 

12. Briefing Paper January 4, 2002: “Environmental 

Justice Hearing” 

13. Hearing February 2002 

14. Briefing Paper February 8, 2002: “Environmental 

Justice Hearing” 

5 Education Accountability 	 15. Briefing Paper January 30, 2003: “Briefing Paper 

for Education Accountability, February 6, 2003” 

16. Briefing February 6, 2003 

17. Executive Summary June 2003: “Education 

Accountability and High-Stakes Testing in North 

Carolina” 

$234,926 

$162,570 

b

6 Native American Project Health Careb 

Page 30 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

1 

2 

3 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

GAO-assigned Products and GAO-assigned product numbers (43 

project total products, 32 products in FY 2002) 

number Project title (Bold = FY 2002 = within GAO Scope) Project cost 

7 Racial Privacy Actc 18. Briefing May 17, 2002 c 

19. Briefing Paper May 2002: “Enforcement Without 

Evidence? Consequences of Government Race Data 

Collection Bans on Civil Rights” 

20. Executive Summary July 2002: “Briefing on the 

Consequences of Government Race Data Collection 

Bans on Civil Rights” 

USA Patriot Act/Homeland Security 21. Background Paper July 2002: “Protecting Civil $17,864 

(Revisiting Anti-Terrorism Act) Liberties in the New Homeland Security Department” 

Supreme Court Review 22. Staff Analysis October 2002: “Supreme Court $6,700 

Civil Rights and Related Cases: The 2001 – 2002 

Term” 

OCRE 

Ten-Year Check-Up Volume 1 23. Statutory Report September 2002: “Ten-Year $310,542 

Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to 

Civil Rights Recommendations? Volume I: A Blueprint 

for Civil Rights Enforcement” 

Ten-Year Check-Up Volume 2	 24. Statutory Report September 2002: “Ten-Year 

Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to 

Civil Rights Recommendations? Volume II: An 

Evaluation of the Departments of Justice, Labor, and 

Transportation” 

Beyond Percentage Plans 	 25. Staff Report November 2002: “Beyond $121, 895 

Percentage Plans: The Challenge of Equal 

Opportunity in Higher Education” 

Voting Rights Procedures Nationwide 26. Briefing March 9, 2001: “Voting Rights Overview” $9,337 

27. Staff Report November 2001: “Election Reform: 

An Analysis of Proposals and the Commission’s 

Recommendations for Improving America’s Election 

System” 

Post Terrorism Initiatives 28. OSD Memorandum December 6, 2001: “Recent $15,532 

Civil Rights Developments Relating to Anti-Terrorism 

Efforts” 

Post Terrorism Initiatives Update 29. OCRE Memorandum July 11, 2002: “Update on 

December 2001 Memorandum on Post-9/11 Civil 

Rights Issues” 

16 Bioterrorism 30. Briefing March 8, 2002 

31. Briefing Paper March 8, 2002: “Bioterrorism and 

Health Care Disparities” 

17 The Individuals with Disabilities Education 32. Briefing April 12, 2002 $33,294 

Act Reauthorization 

33. Briefing Paper April 12, 2002: “Making A Good 

IDEA Better: The Reauthorization of the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act” 

Page 31 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

GAO-assigned Products and GAO-assigned product numbers (43 

project total products, 32 products in FY 2002) 

number Project title (Bold = FY 2002 = within GAO Scope) Project cost 

34. Correspondence May 17, 2002 

35. Correspondence January 8, 2003 

Welfare Reauthorization 36. Briefing July19, 2002 

37. Briefing Paper July 2002: “Comparison and 

Analysis of the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill and 2002 

Proposals” 

38. Miscellaneous (A Statement of the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights) August 2002: “ A New 

Paradigm for Welfare Reform: The Need for Civil 

Rights Enforcement” 

39. Correspondence August 2002 

d

Alaska State Advisory Committee Reportd 40. State Advisory Committee Report April 2002: 

“Racism’s Frontier: The Untold Story of Discrimination 

and Division in Alaska” 

Funding Civil Rights Enforcement (2002)e 41. Clearinghouse Publication April 2002: “Funding e 

Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000–2003” 

Federal Funding of Native American 42. Report July 2003: “A Quiet Crisis: Federal f 

Programs Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country” 

OSD 

g

Anniversary Update on Commission Activities 43. Miscellaneous September 2002: “Anniversary 

Related to September 11g Update on Commission Activities Related to 

September 11” 

Total 22 43 (32 in FY 2002) $1,072,279h 

Source: Commission staff. 

a

This list of OGC products does not reflect that OGC also produces internal briefing books for the 

commissioners in connection with hearings and briefings. OGC briefing books include a briefing or 

background paper; briefing or hearing agenda; witness lists with biographical information; copies of 

reports or studies conducted by each witness that are relevant to the issues presented; an 

explanation of the purpose and scope of the witness panels; relevant federal and state statutes; and 

other information deemed necessary for understanding the subject matter being presented during the 

hearing or briefing. Briefing books are prepared for commissioner use only, may contain privileged 

material, and are not made available to the public. 

b

The Commission originally approved a project titled Native American Access to Justice for fiscal year 

2001. The project was postponed until fiscal year 2002 due to emerging issues and other project 

work. During fiscal year 2002, the project was again postponed due to the Environmental Justice and 

the Education Accountability projects being given higher priority and for additional commissioner 

guidance to staff about the nature and scope of further Native American project work. The 

Commission terminated the access to justice project in November 2002, and in January 2003 

changed the focus of the Native American project from administration of justice to health care. 

According to the staff director, there were no costs associated with either the access to justice project 

or the health care project during fiscal year 2002. 

Page 32 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

c

According to the staff director, the work performed for the Racial Privacy Act briefing and summary 

was charged under a general legal code and, therefore, there were no specific cost data for this 

activity. The OGC deputy general counsel told us that the practice of using a general legal code 

sometimes occurs when staff perform general or miscellaneous legal work of short duration that 

needs to be completed within brief time frames. The deputy explained that legal work associated with 

most projects approved by the Commission is charged to the specific individual code established for 

each project assigned to the General Counsel’ s office. 

d

According to the staff director, the costs associated with OCRE’s work on the Alaska State Advisory 

Committee Report were not tracked by office but were captured to include all State Advisory 

Committee expenses associated with this project. However, the staff director did not provide us with a 

total cost figure for this project or with the proportion of total costs that were spent by headquarters 

staff and by the region. If the Commission’s project cost accounting system is to be considered 

accurate and complete, it should be able to account for the total costs associated with this type of 

field-headquarters collaborative effort product. 

e

According to the staff director, in fiscal year 2002 the Funding Civil Rights Enforcement project was 

tracked by OCRE as a monitoring activity, and a separate code for that project has been established 

since that time. 

f

The Commission approved an OCRE Native American project in December 2001. OCRE began work 

on this project in September 2002. 

g

The project team leader told us that his time associated with the OSD’s work on the anniversary 

update project was not charged to a separate code established for that report, but rather was charged 

to a general code that includes many similar types of relatively short-term efforts. This project was 

initiated by the staff director rather than by the commissioners. 

h

Excludes costs for those projects and products described in notes b through g. 

Page 33 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix II: Products Issued or Expected to 

Be Issued after Fiscal Year 2002 

This appendix lists the number of products, by type of product, issued or 

expected to be issued after fiscal year 2002 from projects that were 

ongoing during fiscal year 2002. (See app. I.) 

Table 3: Number of Products Issued or Expected to Be Issued after Fiscal Year 2002 

by OCRE and OGC from Projects That Were Ongoing during Fiscal Year 2002, by 

Type of Product 

Type of product OCRE OGC Total 

Briefinga 1 

b

Correspondence 1 (January 2003) 

Executive 

summary a

 1 

c Hearing 1 (FY 2004) 

Project summary 1 (January 2003)d 

Report 1 (FY 2004)a 

1 (July 2003)e 1 (FY 2004)c 

Staff analysis 1 (October 2002)f 

Staff report 1 (November 2002)g 

Total 3 7 

Source: Commission staff. 

a

Education Accountability project briefing February 2003, executive summary May 2003, and report 

due fiscal year 2004. 

b

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Reauthorization. 

c

Native American Project Health Care hearing (or briefing) and report projected for fiscal year 2004. 

d

Crossing Borders: The Administration of Justice and Civil Rights Protections in the Immigration and 

Asylum Context. 

e

A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country. 

f

Supreme Court Civil Rights and Related Cases: The 2001 – 2002 Term. 

g

Beyond Percentage Plans: The Challenge of Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. 

Page 34 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

10 
Appendix III: Comments from Four 

Commissioners 

Page 35 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix III: Comments from Four 

Commissioners 

Page 36 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix III: Comments from Four 

Commissioners 

Page 37 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix III: Comments from Four 

Commissioners 

Page 38 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix III: Comments from Four 

Commissioners 

Page 39 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Commission’s Staff Director 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

Page 40 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Commission’s Staff Director 

See comment 1. 

See comment 2. 

See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

Page 41 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Commission’s Staff Director 

See comment 5. 

See comment 6. 

See comment 7. 

See comment 8. 

See comment 9. 

Page 42 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Commission’s Staff Director 

See comment 10. 

See comment 11. 

See comment 12. 

Page 43 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Commission’s Staff Director 

See comment 13. 

See comment 14. 

See comment 15. 

See comment 16. 

See comment 17. 

Page 44 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Commission’s Staff Director 

See comment 18. 

See comment 19. 

Page 45 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Commission’s Staff Director 

See comment 20. 

See comment 21. 

See comment 22. 

See comment 23. 

See comment 24. 

Page 46 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Commission’s Staff Director 

See comment 25. 

See comment 26. 

See comment 27. 

Page 47 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Commission’s Staff Director 

See comment 28. 

See comment 30. 

See comment 31. 

See comment 32. 

See comment 29. 

Page 48 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Commission’s Staff Director 

See comment 33. 

See comment 34. 

See comment 35. 

Page 49 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Commission’s Staff Director 

Page 50 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Commission’s Staff Director 

GAO Comments 1. 	 Our draft report clearly indicates that we found deficiencies in the 

project management practices at the Commission. We focused largely 

on the role of the Commissioners because they comprise the 

Commission which, under the applicable statute, has ultimate 

responsibility in providing reports to Congress and the President, and 

carrying out other statutory responsibilities. 

2. 	 We do not concur with the staff director’s comment that the 

Commission has rejected the desirability of Commissioners shaping 

the findings and recommendations of Commission projects. 

Commission staff play an important role in running projects and 

helping produce reports, but their involvement does not diminish the 

important role that commissioners can and should play in shaping 

reports on civil rights issues. 

3. 	 We disagree that our draft failed to acknowledge the Commissioners’ 

role in helping scope projects. The draft indicates that Commissioners 

have some involvement, albeit limited, in the planning process. Our 

basic point remains: procedures do not provide for systematic 

commissioner input throughout projects and in practice, 

commissioners do not always have the opportunity to review many of 

the reports and other products drafted by the staff before they are 

released to the public. 

4. 	 We believe that the draft report accurately portrays the amount of 

information provided to commissioners and project managers about 

ongoing projects. We based our assessment on the (limited) 

information that has been provided to commissioners and project 

managers in the recent past. Project managers told us that, during 

fiscal years 2002 and 2003 (as of August), they were not regularly 

receiving project cost data and staff hour information. Additionally, the 

draft recognized that arrangements have recently been made to 

provide additional information to commissioners. As we noted in a 

draft recommendation, the efficacy of this action will need to be 

monitored. For example, the staff director’s first project cost report on 

September 30, 2003, in response to the commissioners’ April 2003 vote 

for quarterly cost information, was incomplete because it did not 

contain cost information for at least two projects that had been 

regularly reported in monthly staff director reports during fiscal year 

2003. 

5. 	 In our discussions with Commission officials subsequent to the 

December 18, 2002, letter, we discussed in further detail the scope of 

our review. We indicated that our review would primarily focus on 

current management operations and not entail a specific point-by-point 

Page 51 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Commission’s Staff Director 

assessment of the Commission’s implementation of our past 

recommendations. Nevertheless, during our review, we learned that 

the Commission had made a number of improvements since our 1997 

review. Our draft report discusses these improvements. However, our 

review was not intended to evaluate either the improvement in 

timeliness or the quality of Commission products since our 1997 

review. Notably, Commissioners Kirsanow, Redenbaugh, and 

Thernstrom expressed concern in their written response to our report 

that although we did not include an assessment of the quality of 

Commission products, they found that “reports lack the substantive 

and methodological rigor worthy of the Commission’s history and 

seal.” The staff director may wish to pursue the commissioners’ 

comments in further detail. 

6. As noted above, our report includes this recent development. 

7. 	 The staff director believes that our sentence in the draft stating that 

the report contains recommendations for improving Commission 

operations should be deleted or at least modified to reflect that 

recommendations are directed at commissioners and not staff offices. 

We do not believe that a change is warranted. The implementation of 

our recommendations will clearly involve the commissioners, the staff 

director, and officials throughout the agency. 

8. 	 The Commission’s responsibilities are described in the applicable 

statute. See 42 U.S.C. 1975a. We have qualified our description of the 

responsibilities we list in our report. 

9. 	 Our draft report noted that improvements in certain project 

management procedures have been made. 

10. We believe that the staff director’s comment that project milestone 

dates are routinely provided to commissioners in monthly reports from 

the staff director is an overstatement. Our draft report noted that, 

during fiscal year 2002, the staff director’s monthly reports to the 

commissioners in preparation for their monthly meetings did not 

contain a comprehensive list of project milestone dates for all ongoing 

projects. Furthermore, fiscal year 2003 staff director reports to the 

commissioners generally did not list all ongoing projects and did not 

include estimated product issuance dates or project completion dates 

for most projects. This information was maintained and routinely 

updated when warranted by OCRE and OGC project managers for 

project planning, management and monitoring purposes but was not 

reported in the staff director’s monthly reports to the commissioners. 

Page 52 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Commission’s Staff Director 

11. As we note in comment 5, our review was not intended to evaluate the 

quality of Commission products. 

12. We shared a draft of tables 1 and 2 with the staff director and other 

senior staff before we sent the draft report to the Commission. The 

officials indicated that the tables were generally accurate. 

Nevertheless, we made technical corrections, as appropriate, in areas 

clarified by the Commission. 

13. The purpose of the table in which the footnote in question appears is 

to provide details about the projects produced by those offices that 

generate headquarters products. The footnote intends to inform the 

reader about an OGC internal product not contained in the body of the 

table. The footnote is not intended to convey collateral duties. 

Therefore, we did not add the information suggested by the staff 

director. We note, however, the draft report contained a background 

paragraph which lists the activities carried out by the Commission to 

accomplish its mission, including the investigation of charges of 

citizens being deprived of voting rights because of color, race, religion, 

sex, age, disability, or national origin. 

14. The products that the staff director refers to were accurately described 

in our draft report as expected to be issued after fiscal year 2002, as he 

acknowledges in his description of expectations regarding each 

product. 

15. We continue to believe that our findings on the extent of financial 

oversight at the Commission are factually correct. Moreover, the 

recommendations we made in the draft report were based on the 

deficiencies we found in the Commission’s management practices. 

16. We do not agree that the draft report implied that a flow of financial 

information from the staff director to the commissioners is 

inappropriate. In fact, the concern the draft highlights is that 

information is centralized around the staff director, creating a situation 

that precludes appropriate checks and balances. 

17. We believe that the Commission’s internal communication policy was 

an appropriate aspect of Commission operations for us to review. As 

noted in our draft report, some commissioners, as well as senior 

Commission managers, told us they believe that the current policy 

stifles communication and productivity within the agency and creates 

an environment of uneasiness. Moreover, the Commission’s policy 

limiting direct commissioner and staff interaction is not consistent 

with sound management principles of highly effective organizations. 

Page 53 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Commission’s Staff Director 

Finally, we do not believe the longevity of a policy justifies its 

existence when the need for change becomes apparent. 

18. While it is true that the Commission has several large dollar 

agreements with other agencies, these agreements are not contracts 

awarded pursuant to the FAR, and our review did not extend to them. 

Our review was limited to an examination of how well the Commission 

used its contracting authority for purchases above the micro-purchase 

threshold. Our review focused on the extent to which the Commission 

complied with regulatory requirements applicable to these 

procurements. 

19. When we requested a list of all contracts for which the Commission 

budgeted or paid funds against in fiscal year 2002, the Commission 

provided us with a list of 11 contracts and orders awarded by the 

Commission. The staff director correctly points out that we requested 

and received information on a 12

th 

contract that was entered into in 

fiscal year 2003. This contract was specifically brought to our attention 

by our requester, but fell outside the timeframe we included in our 

scope. The draft has been corrected to show 11 contracts reported by 

the Commission as ongoing in fiscal year 2002. The change in the 

number of contracts we are reporting on did not affect in any manner 

our findings or conclusions. 

20. Our draft report has been revised to report 11 as the number of 

contracts that the Commission listed to us that it entered into in fiscal 

year 2002. The Commission noted in a letter accompanying the list, 

however, that its list of contracts did not include the Commission’s 

day-to-day administrative contracts, such as those for court reporters, 

temporary support services, and meeting room rentals. In discussions 

with the staff director and the acting chief, Administrative Services and 

Clearinghouse Division, we were told, as the staff director restates 

here, that these administrative contracts were modest and done 

through small scale purchase orders below the micro-purchase 

threshold. We noted in our draft report that we did not include these 

contracts in our review. 

21. We disagree with the staff director’s conclusion, and the logic used to 

reach that conclusion, that the Commission’s contracting practices are 

currently sound. We recognize that the Commission has undertaken 

many other contracting actions. We did not include these in our 

analysis because of the reasons stated in comments 18 and 20. Our 

review of the 11 contracts provided to us reveals that the Commission 

did not follow proper procedures for the majority of these contracts, 

that is, all 7 above the micro-purchase threshold. 

Page 54 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Commission’s Staff Director 

22. We refer the staff director to the list of 11 contracts provided to us 

earlier in our review, 7 of which were of amounts exceeding the micropurchase threshold. The Commission, in addition to lacking 

documentation on whether some contracts were competed, could not 

provide documentation to support that publicity requirements were 

met for other purchases, nor in the absence of such documentation, 

written justifications from contract files that would explain why those 

requirements were not met. 

23. The staff director acknowledges that the Commission could improve 

its recordkeeping and documentation procedures in terms of contract 

maintenance. He indicates that we erroneously state that the 

Commission did not compete its media services contract. In fact, our 

report states that the Commission could not document that it 

competed the initial media services contract. Without such 

documentation, we cannot ascertain whether or not this or certain 

other contracts at the Commission were, in fact, competed. We believe 

documentation deficiencies constitute a material breach of proper 

contracting activities. 

24. The staff director’s comments support our finding that documentation 

deficiencies were found across the contracts we reviewed. To the 

extent that an unfamiliarity with specific requirements contributed to 

the deficiencies, our draft recommendation for greater controls, 

including the need for qualified personnel to oversee contracting 

activities, becomes underscored. 

25. We continue to believe that the Commission did not follow proper 

procedures in awarding any of its contracts over the micro-purchase 

threshold, and that this condition limited the Commission’s ability to 

obtain the benefits of competition. Concerning the 2 contracts 

specifically mentioned in the staff director’s comments, we found that 

the Commission did in fact send out requests for quotations; however, 

it could not document that it had met other regulatory requirements, 

such as the requirements for publicizing proposed contract actions 

that serve to ensure that the vendor community is made aware of an 

agency’s need for services. By not doing so, the Commission limited 

the potential pool of bidders because other vendors were likely 

unaware of the contract and therefore did not have the opportunity to 

submit bids. 

26. We continue to believe that the manner in which the Commission 

obtained media services from the Federal Supply Schedule was not 

consistent with GSA’s established ordering procedures. While it is true 

that the GSA has clarified its regulation language to make clear its 

Page 55 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Commission’s Staff Director 

intent that soliciting from three vendors is mandatory, the staff 

director in his comments ignores the requirements in those earlier 

regulations to prepare an RFQ, transmit the request to contractors, and 

evaluate the responses before selecting the contractor to receive the 

order. We maintain that even the earlier version of GSA’s regulation 

was sufficiently clear in its requirement to solicit quotes from more 

than one vendor. 

27. For the reasons cited in comments 28 and 30, we do not agree that we 

imposed subjective and arbitrary criteria when assessing the 

soundness of the Commission’s contracting activities. 

28. While the Commission’s concern for small, traditionally disadvantaged 

and women-owned businesses is laudable, it does not provide a license 

for circumventing established contracting regulations and procedures 

to achieve these ends. We are aware of the Small Business 

Administration’s 8(a) program. Having elected not to pursue the 8(a) 

program, however, it was incumbent upon the Commission to adhere 

to procedures governing its choice of procurement vehicles. The 

regulations do not state nor imply that agencies promoting small 

disadvantaged or women-owned businesses in government 

procurement may dispense with the other requirements, such as the 

requirement to solicit multiple bids. Moreover, we note that OMB 

Circular A-76 does not encourage contracting out but merely 

establishes procedures for public-private competition. 

29. We disagree. The Commission’s relationship with its media services 

vendor has evolved into a de facto annual award. In addition, for fiscal 

year 2003, the contract had a maximum value of $156,000. We did not 

request records from the Commission in attempt to tally a fiscal year 

2003 total of funds actually spent. We did, however, tally a fiscal year 

2002 total of funds spent on the media services contract and found that 

$131,225 was spent on a “not-to-exceed” limit of $140,000. We have 

added a footnote in the report section to clarify this point. 

30. We disagree with the staff director’s belief that our findings are 

subjective and erroneous. We continue to believe that it is important to 

provide written performance-based requirements documents and do 

not believe that simplified acquisition procedures preclude this need. 

31. As our draft report stated, written performance-based requirements 

documents can help ensure contractors’ work against measurable 

standards. 

Page 56 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Commission’s Staff Director 

32. For the 7 contracts we reviewed with amounts above the micropurchase threshold, the Commission did not provide contractors in 

writing with specific task orders, instead providing oral information on 

tasks to be performed. For example, for its largest contract (media 

services), a broad statement of work with little detail was written to 

accompany the order. The staff director told us that he meets regularly 

with the contractor to discuss specific tasks under the order. As we 

state in comment 31, without written performance-based requirements 

documents, contractors’ work products cannot be successfully 

evaluated in a transparent manner. 

33. The Commission does not maintain written information on specific 

work tasks communicated to the vendor, expected timeframes for 

specific tasks to be performed, or the definition or description of how 

tasks were to be performed. Rather, the work reports that the staff 

director refers to consisted of several press releases, meant to 

illustrate activities performed by its media services vendor and copies 

of vendor invoices that showed tasks such as, media outreach/story 

placement, faxing, planning and consultation, etc., for which the 

Commission was billed. We continue to believe that the Commission 

cannot effectively assess contractor performance based on the 

documentation we were provided. 

34. The staff director recognizes that the Commission has experienced 

significant turnover with regard to its contracting personnel. Yet he 

disagrees with our characterization that the Commission’s current 

personnel are not sufficiently qualified in certain areas of contracting. 

The problems identified in this report should alert the Commission to 

the necessity of improving its contracting support or to look for 

outside assistance in this area. 

35. To conduct our review, we relied upon the extensive legal and 

technical assistance available within our agency. When issues arose 

during our interviews that required either GAO or Commission officials 

to conduct additional analysis, then a follow-on discussion usually 

transpired. We stand behind the findings reported in the draft report. 

Page 57 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Acknowledgments 

(130222) 

Brett Fallavollita, Assistant Director (202) 512-8507 

Monika Gomez, Analyst-in-Charge (202) 512-9062 

Dennis Gehley made significant contributions to this report, in all aspects 

of the work throughout the review. In addition, Caterina Pisciotta assisted 

in gathering and analyzing information and in writing a section of the 

report; Lori Rectanus was instrumental in developing our overall design 

and methodology; Corinna Nicolaou assisted in report and message 

development; Julian Klazkin and Robert Ackley provided legal support; 

and Ralph Dawn and H. Kent Bowden provided specialized assistance in 

the areas of contract and financial management. 

Page 58 GAO-04-18 U.S. Commission on Civil Rig 
GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone 	 The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: 	 Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: To Report Fraud, 

W Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm aste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs 	 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548