March 27, 2001

The Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.

Director

Office of Management and Budget

Washington, D.C. 20503

Dear Mr. Daniels:

Pursuant to provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), the Federal

Election Commission (FEC) herewith transmits its FY 2002 Budget Request of

$47,671,000 and 375 FTE for consideration by Congress. This budget request is

submitted concurrently to the Office of Management and Budget. See 2 U.S.C. §437d(d).

While the FEC is aware of the general budgetary climate, and has striven to reach

agreement with OMB on our budget request, we did not reach agreement for the FY 2002

request. Therefore, we must independently make a special appeal to pursue the staff and

resources necessary to fulfill our statutory mission. And, depending upon the scope of

campaign finance reform legislation under consideration, the FEC could face significant

additional resource needs.

Our request is $6,260,000 and 18 FTE greater than the amount included in the

OMB’s recommendation of $41,411,000 and 357 FTE. The OMB budget for the FEC is

inadequate to fund operations even at the Current Services level because no provision is

made for increases in non-salary costs, and it fails to fully cover mandatory pay and

health benefit increases. Our estimate of the cost of a true Current Services level for FY

2002 is $42,797,500 for 357 FTE. In addition, by freezing non-salary cost levels, the

OMB budget would foreclose the opportunity for the FEC to assist state and local

election officials to develop operational standards to address a variety of election

administration issues.

Our request represents a continuation of funding from FY 2001, as accurately

adjusted to cover inflation, federal COLAs, and the cost of implementing our Information

Technology (IT) Strategic Plan. In addition to such Current Services level, we are
2

requesting $4,873,500 and 18 FTE for programmatic increases in FY 2002, which includes

resources to enhance the Office of Election Administration (OEA) mission. These

initiatives would enhance the existing and planned Voting Systems Standards (VSS) and

address other election administration issues, including acquisition of new voting systems,

administering elections, training election workers, ballot design, and public education.

Furthermore, this budget request will allow the FEC to build upon the many

accomplishments made in the past several fiscal years. A number of initiatives were a

direct response to the PricewaterhouseCoopers Technology and Performance Audit and

Management Review of the FEC (“the PwC Audit”). Several other initiatives were

undertaken by the Commission to improve productivity and better utilize resources or

were in response to legislative requirements. Significant FEC successes include:

• Mandatory Electronic Filing Program. The first mandatory electronic filings were

received for the monthly reports due on February 20, 2001. Of the 605 reports

received for the February 20 filing, 440 reports were filed electronically. Only one

committee required to file electronically submitted a paper report. More than 1,000

committees filed electronically during the 2000 election cycle under the voluntary

electronic filing program.

• Administrative Fine Program. This program was implemented with the July

Quarterly Reports due on July 15, 2000. As of March 12, 2001, the Commission has

made public its final determination in 48 cases and has collected civil money penalties

totaling $63,230. In addition, the percentage of reports filed late in the later stages of

the 1999-2000 election cycle decreased when compared with the two previous

election cycles. For example, 11% of the 2000 Year-End Reports were filed late,

while 24% were filed late for the 1998 and 22% for the 1996 Year-End reporting

periods.

• Campaign Cycle Reporting. The new rules became effective for the reporting periods

beginning after December 31, 2000. Corresponding revisions to the reporting forms

went into effect at the beginning of this year. These news rules simplify candidate

committee record-keeping and increase the usefulness of the disclosure database.

• Implementation of a state filing waiver program. This program allows state election

offices to apply for and receive a waiver for maintaining paper copies of reports at

state offices, by making the FEC reports available online. The FEC provides states

with surplus computer equipment. This program relieves state offices of filing and

maintenance burdens, relieves committees of duplicative state filing, and maintains or

increases the level of state disclosure. The new rules to implement this program took

effect on June 7, 2000. To date, 47 states or similar jurisdictions have been granted a

filing waiver and are therefore included in the program.
3

• Development of a pilot Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program. This

program promotes compliance with the FECA by encouraging settlements for eligible

respondents in lieu of the traditional enforcement or litigation processes. The

program began on October 1, 2000. As of March 1, 2001, the ADR Office concluded

eight agreements based on seven complaints filed with the Commission. Settlements

were obtained in an average of 91 days from the time matters were referred to the

ADR Office. Civil penalties from the eight agreements totaled approximately

$17,800.

• Establishment of a program to allow the agency to focus more resources on the Title 2

audit-for-cause program. Commencing with the audits of the 2000 cycle candidate

committees, we plan to conduct 40-45 Title 2 “for cause” audits per election cycle as

opposed to an average of 20-25 over the three election cycles from 1992-1996. While

we increased the Title 2 audits in the 1998 cycle, the 2000 cycle represents the first

time the FEC has a true “stand alone” Title 2 audit capability that will not lose most

of its resources to the statutory Title 26 audits during presidential election cycles.

• Implementation of the Case Management System (CMS) in OGC, after completing

an extensive design and development process, making the system operational. This

included extensive training and input of legacy data into the system. The CMS will

now provide case tracking, case management, and time reporting for OGC programs.

• Over the last several years the Commission has embarked on an effort to improve

timeliness of enforcement actions, and to increase the percentage of the caseload

actively worked. To augment its traditional enforcement efforts, the Commission has

implemented an ADR Program, an administrative fine program, case management, and

an Enforcement Priority System (EPS). The goal of all initiatives has been to focus

limited enforcement resources on the more substantive cases, to increase the

percentage of cases activated, and to improve the ratio of cases closed with

substantive Commission action compared to those dismissed with no action. As a

result there were significant improvements in enforcement in recent FY’s: Over 50

percent of cases were activated (FY 1998-2000), an improvement over the average of

40 percent from FY 1995-1997; the ratio of active to inactive pending cases on

average improved to over 50 percent in FY 1999; and, a dramatic increase in cases

closed with substantive action, from roughly 40 percent in FY 1999 to approximately

75 percent in FY 2000.

• The Commission successfully completed revisions to the FEC regulations to permit

the institution of the voluntary, then the mandatory, electronic filing program; the

administrative fine program; election cycle reporting; state filing waiver program; and

the coordination rules.
4

• Migration of the FEC legacy databases to new, Y2K compliant technology through a

newly procured IT contract for basic IT services.

• Continuation of the migration of FEC IT systems to a client server environment, and

building the technological foundation for the client server system.

The Commission also transmits its FY 1999-2000 Performance Report, its revised

FY 2001-2007 Information Technology Strategic Plan, its FY 2001-2007 Strategic Plan,

and its FY 2002 Performance Plan, in accordance with the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA). In addition, included in the submission is our most recent status

report to Congress on the PricewaterhouseCoopers recommendations. The foregoing

summarizes the FEC FY 2002 budget request. I urge you to consult our more detailed

Budget Justification. It contains several charts depicting how our budget request would

be allocated and how it compares with previous years.

Again, the Commission strongly urges the full support of our FY 2002 budget

request. We are ready to answer any questions you may have and to work with you in

securing sufficient funding for the Commission in FY 2002.

Sincerely,

Danny L. McDonald

Chairman

Enclosure
FEC FY 2002 Budget Request

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 2

FY 2002 BUDGET REQUEST.......................................................................................... 7

..................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................

Difference Between FY 2001 Appropriation and FY 2002 Request................................... 9

Budgetary History......................................................................................................................... 13

Program/Objective Analysis

Mission ................................................................................................................................. 16

Programs ............................................................................................................................. 16

Overview of FEC Programs............................................................................................... 17

Program I: Disclosure (Core Program)........................................................................ 18

Program II: Compliance (Core Program)...................................................................... 20

Program III: Public Financing (Core Program).............................................................. 24

Program IV: Election Administration (Core Program).................................................. 25

Program V: IT and Electronic Filing Projects................................................................ 27

Program VI: Commission Policy and Administration .................................................. 32

APPENDIX A: FY 1999-2000 Performance Report

APPENDIX B: FY 2001-2007 Information Technology Strategic Plan

APPENDIX C: FY 2001-2007 Strategic Plan

APPENDIX D: FY 2002 Performance Plan

APPENDIX E: Status Report on Implementation of PwC Audit Recommendations
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

CONGRESSIONAL JUSTIFICATION

BUDGET REQUEST FOR FY 2002

PRESENTED TO THE

UNITED STATES CONGRESS

PURSUANT TO GPRA AND OMB A-11

MARCH 27, 2001

Concurrently submitted to OMB

pursuant to

2 U.S.C. §437d(d)
2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) submits a budget request of $47,671,000 and

375 FTE for FY 2002, an increase of $7,261,100 (18%) and an increase of 18 FTE (5%) over our

FY 2001 appropriation of $40,410,900 and 357 FTE. This request represents a continuation of

the FY 2001 funding level, as adjusted for inflation and salary and benefits increases,

supplemented by programmatic increases.

The FEC did not reach agreement with OMB with regard to the FY 2002 request for the

FEC. Our request is $6,260,000 and 18 FTE greater than the amount included in the OMB

budget: $41,411,000 and 357 FTE. The OMB budget for the FEC is inadequate to fund

operations at a Current Services level because no provision is made for increases in non-salary

costs, and the proposal does not fully cover increases due to mandatory pay and health benefit

increases. The OMB budget would require significant reductions in staff or programs or a

combination of both that would affect our disclosure and enforcement programs and would

jeopardize support for congressionally-mandated legislative programs and initiatives the FEC

must implement.

 In addition, the FEC must be prepared to implement any campaign finance reform

enacted. Depending on the scope of campaign finance legislation, the FEC could face significant

additional resource needs. Further, the OMB budget would foreclose the opportunity for the

FEC to assist state and local election officials to develop operational standards to address a

variety of election administration issues, including acquisition of new voting systems,

administering elections, training election workers, ballot design, and public education.

The FEC appealed the OMB passback, seeking to reach agreement at a level of

$45,339,500 and 363 FTE that consisted of a Current Services Budget of $42,797,500 and 357

FTE and a supplemental request for $2,542,000 and 6 FTE for the FEC Office of Election

Administration (OEA.) The budget presented in the appeal of the passback would support FEC

core programs, and in response to the numerous calls for reform of election administration, the

supplemental request would provide for an enhanced program of federal assistance to state and

local elections officials charged with administering federal elections. OMB denied the FEC

appeal. Pursuant to our authority as a concurrent submission agency, the Commission is

submitting its budget request to Congress. The FEC budget request includes several items in

addition to the Current Services funding and the OEA enhancements.

The FEC requires at least a FY 2002 Current Services budget of $42,797,500 to support

357 FTE. As a personnel intensive regulatory agency, 69% of the Current Services budget is

allocated to salaries and benefits. The remaining funds are allocated to: information technology

(IT) initiatives and operations (10%), rent (9%), programmatic support of educational outreach,

informational, audit, compliance, enforcement and election administration programs (6%), and

telephones, equipment, supplies, postage and printing (6%).
3

In addition to the Current Services level, the Commission is requesting $4,873,500 and 18

FTE for programmatic increases in FY 2002. The increases from our FY 2001 appropriation

include:

• $2,542,000 and 6 FTE for the OEA to increase federal assistance to state and local

elections officials charged with administering federal elections to further update and

enhance the Voting Systems Standards (VSS), to develop operational standards for

elections administration, and to identify needs and resource requirements of state and

local election officials

• $425,000 for 5 additional FTE for the Data Systems Development Division to complete

and support current and future IT initiatives

• $440,000 for 4 additional Executive Assistants to enable each Commissioner, not just the

Chairman and Vice Chairman, to have an additional position

• $700,000 to acquire one additional floor in the current FEC building to house the

additional staff requested and better support existing staff

.

• $250,000 to increase the capability to use data mining to expand comprehensive,

automated review of reports to review patterns of behavior that may extend to more than

one filer

• $200,000 to implement a Human Resources automated system as a supplement to the

finance and accounting system installed in FY 2001

• $190,000 to upgrade the analyst grade levels in the Reports Analysis Division (RAD) as

part of the further automation and increased scope of the review process

• $126,000 for 3 additional FTE in the Personnel, Information, and Alternative Dispute

Resolution divisions to enhance the disclosure, compliance and support functions at the

FEC by replacing temporary clerical staff with permanent staff

The funding level contained in this budget request will enable the Commission to:

• Complete the 2000 Presidential audits within two years of the election

• Conduct 40-45 Title 2 “for cause” audits per election cycle as opposed to 20-25 in the

previous election cycles

• Maintain a timely and enhanced campaign finance disclosure program
4

• Ensure that significant efforts are made to enforce the disclosure provisions of the FECA

• Complete the revision of the Voting Systems Standards and develop new operational

standards for the administration of elections

• Continue the Administrative Fine and Alternative Dispute Resolution programs

• Continue to improve the disclosure process by granting of waivers for state filings to

participating state elections offices, including making IT equipment available to participating

state offices and further automation of the reports review process

• Complete implementation of the PricewaterhouseCoopers audit recommendations

• Develop and maintain IT capabilities:

∗ support the mandatory electronic filing program

∗ complete the conversion to a client server environment

∗ implement a Commission-wide document management system

* maintain the FEC website, and

∗ support the case management system.

Difference Between FY 2001 Appropriation and FY 2002 Request

FY 2001 Appropriation $40,410,900

+ Increase in pay $ 1,581,500

+ Increase in rent $ 140,000

+ Increase in overhead $ 412,783

+ Increase in IT Initiatives $ 10,317

+ Increase in legal document imaging and indexing $ 145,000

+ Increase in Mandated Transit Subsidy $ 97,000

Subtotal for changes to FY 2001 for FY 2002 Current Services level: $ 2,386,600

= Current Services Budget for FY 2002 $42,797,500

+ 6 FTE and enhanced OEA Elections Administration program $ 2,542,000

+ 5 FTE for Data Systems staff for IT Programs $ 425,000

+ 4 FTE for Commissioners’ staff $ 440,000

+ Obtain additional space in building $ 700,000

+ Data Mining and enhanced automated review $ 250,000

+ Implement HR package for finance and accounting system $ 200,000

+ Upgrade RAD staff for reports review program $ 190,000
5

+ 3 FTE for staff in Personnel, Information, and ADR $ 126,500

Subtotal for programmatic initiatives in FY 2002 $ 4,873,500

= FY 2002 Request $47,671,000

Mission

The FY 2002 budget request will enable the FEC to perform its statutory mission and

meet its program goals and objectives. The FEC budget justification is structured to reflect its

mission to administer and enforce the three main components of the Federal Election Campaign

Act of 1971, as amended (FECA):

• the disclosure of campaign finance information

• the contribution limitations and prohibitions, and

• the public financing of Presidential elections

Additionally, the Commission has the mandated responsibility to compile information and

review procedures related to the administration of federal elections.

Programs, Objectives and Goals (See p.16)

To accomplish its mission, the FEC has established six major programs. For each

program, the Commission has defined objectives and goals that are provided in the full discussion

(p. 7 to 33). The programs are listed below, followed by the dollar amount and FTE needed to

achieve the objectives and goals under the FY 2002 Budget:

• Promoting Disclosure (core) - $8,851,216 and 108.5 FTE (p. 18-20)

• Obtaining Compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act (core) - $10,693,869 and

106.5 FTE (p. 20-23)

• Administering the Public Financing of Presidential Elections (core) - $3,553,588 and 38 FTE

(p. 24)

• Election Administration (core) - $3,258,500 and 11 FTE (p. 25-26)

• Special IT Projects (management) - $5,578,000 and 13.5 FTE (p. 26-31)

• Commission Policy and Administration (management) - $15,735,827 and 97.5 FTE (p. 31-

33)

Internal IT Enhancements (See p. 26)
6

The budget request funds IT initiatives as outlined in the (IT) Strategic Plan (Appendix

B), including the following areas:

• Client/server environment development and conversion

• Document management system development

• Enhanced automated review of disclosure reports

• Computer security

• Case Management and related tracking systems

• Financial management and human resources IT systems

• Website enhancement

Electronic Filing (See p. 28)

By 1998, the FEC implemented the voluntary electronic filing system for use by any

political committee, other than Senate committees and the national parties’ Senate campaign

committees that are required by law to file their reports with the Secretary of the Senate, and

therefore, cannot participate in the FEC electronic filing program. The voluntary program was

successful, with over 1,000 committees filing reports electronically in the 2000 election cycle.

 On September 29, 1999, the President signed the FY 2000 Treasury General

Government Appropriations Act that mandated electronic filing in the 2002 election cycle for

political committees reaching a certain threshold, excluding Senate committees and the national

parties’ Senate campaign committees. The provision was effective for reporting periods

beginning after December 31, 2000. Mandatory electronic filing began in February 2001 with the

filing of the monthly reports due on February 20, 2001.

Educational and outreach efforts by the Commission have been successful, as the first

results indicate a high compliance with the mandatory electronic filing requirements. So far, only

one committee that met the activity threshold filed a paper report rather than submitting an

electronic filing.

 Full realization of the potential of mandatory electronic filing will require the funding of

several of our programmatic requests for FY 2002. These initiatives include the enhanced

automated review/data mining project and the upgrades of the Reports Analysis Division (RAD)

staff engaged in the automated review process.

By the 2004 election cycle, based upon our experiences with the 2002 cycle and the

results of the RAD business process review, as well as the data mining project, the FEC expects

to realize the full benefits of both electronic filing and the IT enhancements in the document

processing and reports review programs.

Point of Entry (See p. 30)
7

The IT Enhancements will support implementation and operation of an enhanced

document imaging system. The updated imaging system and the new client server infrastructure

will enhance both the external user interface with the disclosure process and FEC internal

processing and use of in-house documents.
8

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

 FY 2002 BUDGET REQUEST

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) submits a budget request of $41,671,000 and

375 FTE for FY 2002, an increase of $7,260,100 (18%) and an increase of 18 FTE (5%) over our

FY 2001 appropriation.1 This request represents a continuation of the FY 2001 funding level, as

adjusted for inflation and salary and benefits increases, supplemented by programmatic increases.

(See list below, p. 7-8.)

The FEC requires a FY 2002 Current Services budget of $42,797,500 to support 357

FTE. As a personnel intensive regulatory agency, 69% of the Current Services budget is

allocated to salaries and benefits. The remaining funds are allocated to: information technology

(IT) initiatives and operations (10%), rent (9%), programmatic support of educational outreach,

informational, audit, compliance, enforcement and election administration programs (6%), and

telephones, equipment, supplies, postage and printing (6%).

In addition to the Current Services level, the Commission is requesting $4,873,500 and 18

FTE for programmatic increases in FY 2002. The increases from our FY 2001 appropriation

include:

• $2,542,000 and 6 FTE for the OEA to increase federal assistance to state and local

elections officials charged with administering federal elections to further update and

enhance the Voting Systems Standards (VSS), to develop operational standards for

elections administration, and to identify needs and resource requirements of state and

local election officials

• $425,000 for 5 additional FTE for the Data Systems Development Division to complete

and support current and future IT initiatives

• $440,000 for 4 additional Executive Assistants, to enable each Commissioner, not just the

Chairman and Vice Chairman to have an additional position

• $700,000 to acquire one additional floor in the current FEC building to house the

additional staff requested and better support existing staff

.

 

1

 The Commission's FY 2001 appropriation of $40,500,000 was reduced by the across the board rescission of .22%

or $89,100, for a total of $40,410,900. The president’s budget added $1 million for pay increases to the final FY

2001 appropriation for a FY 2002 FEC budget of $41,411,000 and 357 FTE. Our request is composed of our

Current Services estimate of $42,797,500 supplemented by several initiatives. The increases requested bring our

total request to $47,671,000 and 375 FTE. Our Current Services funds 357 FTE, an increase from the 352 FTE

originally authorized for FY 2001 due to legislatively mandated programs not funded in our original FY 2001

budget request.
9

• $250,000 to increase the capability to use data mining to facilitate comprehensive,

automated review of reports to review patterns of behavior that may extend to more than

one filer

• $200,000 to implement a Human Resources automated system as a supplement to the

finance and accounting system installed in FY 2001

• $190,000 to upgrade the analyst grade levels in the Reports Analysis Division (RAD) as

part of the further automation and increased scope of the review process

• $126,000 for 3 additional FTE in the Personnel, Information, and Alternative Dispute

Resolution divisions to enhance the disclosure, compliance and support functions at the

FEC by replacing temporary clerical staff with permanent staff

The funding level contained in this budget request will enable the Commission to:

• Complete the 2000 Presidential audits within two years of the election

• Conduct 40-45 Title 2 “for cause” audits per election cycle as opposed to 20-25 in the

previous election cycles

• Maintain a timely and enhanced campaign finance disclosure program

• Ensure that significant efforts are made to enforce the disclosure provisions of the FECA

• Complete the revision of the Voting Systems Standards and develop operational standards for

the administration of elections

• Continue the Administrative Fine and Alternative Dispute Resolution programs

• Continue to improve the disclosure process by granting of waivers for state filings to

participating state elections offices, including making IT equipment available to participating

state offices and further automation of the reports review process

• Complete implementation of the PricewaterhouseCoopers audit recommendations

• Develop and maintain IT capabilities:

∗ support the mandatory electronic filing program

∗ complete the conversion to a client server environment

∗ implement a Commission-wide document management system

* maintain the FEC website, and

∗ support the case management system.
10

Difference Between FY 2001 Appropriation and FY 2002 Request

The FEC FY 2002 request of $47,671,000 and 375 FTE is $7,260,100 more than the FY

2001 appropriation. This 18% increase is attributable to $4,873,500 for program initiatives and

$2,386,600 for increases in pay and benefits costs, GSA rent, and overhead (See Table 1, p. 12.)

This is $6,260,000 greater than the proposed FEC Budget for FY 2002 in the OMB

Budget of $41,411,000 and 357 FTE. The FEC appealed the OMB passback, seeking to reach

agreement at a level of $45,339,500 and 363 FTE that consisted of a Current Services Budget of

$42,797,500 and 357 FTE and a supplemental request for $2,542,000 and 6 FTE for the FEC

Office of Election Administration (OEA.) The budget presented in the appeal of the passback

would support FEC core programs, and in response to the numerous calls for reform of election

administration, the supplemental request would provide for an enhanced program of federal

assistance to state and local elections officials charged with administering federal elections.

The OMB budget does not support the level of funding necessary to maintain the FEC’s

programs and does not provide sufficient staff to allow us to achieve our mission. The

continuing increase in total financial activity in federal elections and the prospect of significant

campaign and electoral reforms require robust and vigorous disclosure and enforcement programs.

Without at least our Current Services level of $42,797,500 and 357 FTE, the FEC cannot support

the costs of our programs.

The OMB budget would require significant reductions in staff or programs or a

combination of both that would affect our disclosure and enforcement programs and would

jeopardize support for congressionally-mandated legislative programs and initiatives the FEC

must implement. In addition, the FEC must be prepared to implement any campaign finance

reform enacted. Depending on the scope of campaign finance legislation, the FEC could face

significant additional resource needs. Further, the OMB budget would foreclose the opportunity

for the FEC to assist state and local election officials to develop operational standards to address

a variety of election administration issues, including acquisition of new voting systems,

administering elections, ballot design, and public education.

OMB denied the FEC appeal. Pursuant to our authority as a concurrent submission

agency, the Commission is submitting its budget request to Congress. The FEC budget request

includes several items in addition to the Current Services funding and the OEA enhancements.

FEC has been operating for several fiscal years under Congressional earmarks that set

aside $4 to $5 million each year for IT initiatives to implement legislative mandates, including

mandatory electronic filing, faster disclosure requirements, and an administrative fine program to

accelerate enforcement against late and non-filers under the FECA. The FEC requires funding

above the Current Services level to ensure that these IT projects, as well as other IT initiatives

are fully implemented and operational. It does not make sound management sense to delay or
11

eliminate projects that have taken 5 to 6 years to develop and implement just as they reach

fruition. Many of these projects are scheduled to provide productivity benefits in FY 2002 and

2003. Full realization of the multiyear investments in the IT infrastructure requires the funding

we have requested at the full $47,671,000 and 375 FTE level.

The FEC has included an additional $2,542,000 and 6 FTE for the Office of Election

Administration (OEA) in our request. This is in addition to the supplemental request for

$3,000,000 and 3 FTE in FY 2001. Currently, the OEA is the only federal office directly

assisting and supporting state and local election officials through the development of the updated

technical Voting System Standards (VSS) and ongoing outreach efforts. The FY 2002 request and

the FY 2001 supplemental request represent a comprehensive effort to update and expand the

existing technical voting systems standards, develop management standards for the operation and

maintenance of voting machinery, and complete a detailed census of existing voting machinery

throughout the United States. The results of this effort will: improve election administration;

provide the Administration and the Congress with an objective measure of the scope of the

problem; estimate the cost to remedy inadequacies of the current election system; and establish

criteria to be used to design a federal grant program, should one be enacted to aid state and local

election officials.

Tables 1, 2 and 3 provide greater detail about the increases from FY 2001 to FY 2002.
12

TABLE 1 FEC FY 2001 TO FY 2002: SUMMARY DIFFERENCES

(CURRENT SERVICES AND FULL LEVELS FOR FY 2002)

FY 2002 3/01/01 FY 2001 FROM 2001 FY 2002 FROM BASE FY 2002

OBJECT CLASS 357 FTE INCREMENT BASE 357 INCREMENT 375 FTE

SALARIES AND BENEFITS 27,075,000 245,500 27,320,500 1,693,500 29,014,000 

2002 WIG INCREASES - 384,000 384,000 - 384,000 

2001 COLA - 219,000 219,000 - 219,000 

2002 COLA - 715,000 715,000 - 715,000 

TRANSIT SUBSIDY215,000 97,000 312,000 - 312,000 

OVERTIME 177,000 (7,000) 170,000 - 170,000 

CASH AWARDS 260,000 25,000 285,000 - 285,000 

OTHER 30,000 - 30,000 - 30,000 

PERSONNEL 27,757,000 1,678,500 29,435,500 1,693,500 31,129,000 

IT PROJECTS 4,056,683 10,317 4,067,000 450,000 4,517,000 

GSA RENT 3,500,000 140,000 3,640,000 100,000 3,740,000 

DOJ DOCUMENT IMAGING 105,000 145,000 250,000 - 250,000 

OBTAIN 5TH FLOOR - - - 700,000 700,000 

OEA ELECT. ADMIN. - - - 1,890,000 1,890,000 

OTHER NON-PERS. 4,992,217 412,783 5,405,000 40,000 5,445,000 

NON-PERSONNEL 12,653,900 708,100 13,362,000 3,180,000 16,542,000 

TOTAL FEC 40,410,900 2,386,600 42,797,500 4,873,500 47,671,000 

TABLE 2: FEC STAFFING HISTORY

30-Jan FEC HISTORICAL FTE

FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 2000 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2002

OFFICE ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL MPLAN ACTUAL MPLAN C SERVICE FULL REQ.

30-Sep 30-Sep 30-Sep 351.5 FTE 30-Sep 357 FTE 357 FTE 375 FTE

COMMISSIONERS 15.6 15.2 17.6 20.0 18.4 20.0 20.0 24.0

STAFF DIRECTOR 24.0 23.4 22.9 24.0 24.7 26.0 26.0 27.0

ADMINISTRATION 19.5 18.5 20.4 21.0 22.2 22.0 22.0 22.0

AUDIT 33.6 31.8 34.3 43.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0

INFORMATION 12.9 12.2 11.9 13.0 12.8 12.0 12.0 13.0

GENERAL COUNSEL 92.8 99.4 107.8 118.0 113.3 118.0 118.0 118.0

OEA 4.8 4.8 4.9 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 11.0

DATA SYSTEMS 37.9 40.6 46.1 47.5 46.5 48.0 48.0 53.0

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 12.5 13.5 13.3 14.0 13.4 14.0 14.0 14.0

REPORTS ANALYSIS 39.0 39.6 38.9 42.0 42.1 44.0 44.0 44.0

I.G. OFFICE 4.0 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 

ADR 2.0 0.4 2.0 3.0 

OAR 2.0 0.4 2.0 2.0 

TOTAL 296.6 302.7 322.1 351.5 343.1 357.0 357.0 375.0
13

TABLE 3 FEC FY 2001 TO FY 2002: DETAILED DIFFERENCES

FY 2002 BUDGET HOUSE FEC M PLAN FY 2002 REQUEST: 375 FTE

12-Feb-01 FY 2001 FY 2001 FY 2001 INCREASE CURR SERV INCREASE FULL

OBJECT CLASS HOUSE APP REQUEST 357 FTE TO FY 2002 357 FTE TO 375 FTE 375 FTE

SALARIES/BENF 27,186,000 27,186,000 1, 27,290,000 660,500 1, 28,950,500 693,500 30,644,000

OVERTIME 154,000 160,000 177,000 (7,000) - 170,000 170,000

WITNESSES 5,000 5,000 - 5,000 - 5,000 5,000

CASH AWARDS 230,000 230,000 25,000 260,000 - 285,000 285,000

OTHER 25,000 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 - 25,000

PERSONNEL 27,600,000 27,606,000 1, 27,757,000 678,500 1, 29,435,500 693,500 31,129,000

21.01 TRAVEL 436,500 451,500 75,500 441,500 40,000 517,000 557,000

22.01 TRANS/THGS 34,000 34,000 66,000 (13, 53,000 000) 5,000 58,000

23.11 GSA SPACE 3, 3, 645,000 3, 645,000 500,000 3, 140,000 640,000 3, 100,000 740,000

23.21 COM. SPACE 30,000 30,000 44,000 47,500 3,500 5,000 52,500

23.31 EQUIP RENT 191,500 191,500 17,000 160,000 177,000 5,000 182,000

23.32 TELE LOCAL 135,000 135,000 10,000 150,000 - 160,000 160,000

23.33 LDIST/TELEG 33,000 33,000 46,000 14,000 60,000 - 60,000

23.34 TELE INTCTY50,000 50,000 70,000 75,000 5,000 - 75,000

23.35 POSTAGE 180,000 180,000 175,000 5,000 25,000 180,000 205,000

24.01 PRINTING 354,500 369,500 353,500 7,500 40,000 361,000 401,000

24.02 MICROFILM 28,000 28,000 22,000 25,000 3,000 - 25,000

25.11 TRAINING 132,000 132,000 77,000 213,000 - 290,000 290,000

25.12 ADMIN EXP 104,000 104,000 108,500 173,000 10,000 281,500 291,500

25.13 DEP/TRANSC 76,000 76,000 74,000 18,000 92,000 - 92,000

25.21 CONTRACTS 2,029,000 2, 2, 153,000 647,500 2, (364,500) 2, 283,000 4, 200,000 483,000

25.23 REPAIR/MAIN 10,000 10,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 - 10,000

25.24 TUITION 5,000 5,000 - 5,000 - 5,000 5,000

25.31 FED AGENCY 696,000 796,000 (69, 414,000 000) 345,000 1, 700,000 045,000

25.41 FACIL MAINT 50,000 50,000 (14, 124,000 000) - 110,000 110,000

25.71 EQUIP/MAINT 236,500 236,500 327,500 560,500 - 888,000 888,000

25.72 SFT/HRDWRE 3,225,000 3, 2, 225,000 499,060 2, (198,560) - 300,500 2, 300,500

26.01 SUPPLIES 337,500 337,500 (13, 363,500 000) - 350,500 350,500

26.02 PUBS 193,000 193,000 50,500 192,500 - 243,000 243,000

26.03 PUBS SERV 198,500 198,500 15,500 222,500 - 238,000 238,000

31.01 EQP PURCH 230,000 230,000 429,840 200,160 50,000 630,000 680,000

NON-PERSONNEL 12,640,000 12,894,000 12,653,900 708,100 3, 13,362,000 180,000 16,542,000

 - - - - - 

TOTAL FEC 40,240,000 40,500,000 2, 40,410,900 386,600 4, 42,797,500 873,500 47,671,000

FEC Staffing and Workloads

FY 2002 represents the peak primary and pre-general election activity of the 2002

election cycle. The general election, as well as most of the post-general election disclosure and

enforcement work, will occur early in FY 2003. The 2000 elections broke all records for total

financial activity in federal elections. The FEC believes this record level of financial activity will

continue for the 2002 elections.

Despite large increases in Commission workloads because of increasing federal election

related campaign finance activity, the FEC has been relying on management initiatives and

information technology advancements to improve productivity rather than adding staff. Total

disbursements in federal elections have increased by over 1000% since 1976: from $300 million

to over $3.5 billion in the 2000 cycle. This has translated into workload increases such as a 27%
14

increase in documents filed since 1984 and an increase of 400% in the number of transactions

entered into the database since the 1984 election cycle with minimal increases in the staff

processing and reviewing the reports.

As a result of the dramatic increase in activity, our limited resources dictate that we audit

and investigate a relatively small number of committees. With approximately 8,000 committees

filing reports each election cycle, the FEC audits about 45 committees per cycle, or about .6% of

the filing universe. With an average active caseload of between 100 to 150 enforcement cases in

any given month, approximately 50% of the complaints received by the FEC are activated.

The Commission has attempted to maximize the effectiveness of the compliance and

enforcement programs through the increased use of technology and with management initiatives

to better focus the limited resources available. Due to the modest size of many of our compliance

and enforcement programs, any reduction in staffing below our Current Services base will

jeopardize our basic mission and objectives.

We expect new record levels of campaign finance activity for the congressional election in

the 2002 election cycle. The FEC anticipates close to $3 billion in total disbursements for federal

campaigns, from some 8,000 committees, filing over 80,000 reports in the 2002 election cycle,

and generating 2 million itemized transactions in the FEC Disclosure Database.

Additional future efficiencies to be realized from the mandatory electronic filing program

will help keep staffing needs at current levels in the disclosure program. The Commission has

managed new records for total campaign finance activity in presidential and congressional

elections each election cycle since 1992, with limited staff increases. Our request for FY 2002

only provides for additional staff and resources for the OEA, additional staff for the IT

programs, four additional staff for the Commissioners, and three positions for the ADR program,

informational and HR support functions.

Despite the prospect of continuing increases in record amounts of campaign finance

activity in federal elections, the FEC has requested no additional resources for the compliance and

enforcement programs. Given the expected volume of money involved in the 2002 election cycle,

we believe that the FEC request for FY 2002 is fully supported and is a modest one.

Budgetary History

Table 4A provides an historical view of the FEC budget, allocated among its

organizational units. Table 4B is an historical summary of the FEC budget, by object class.
15

TABLE 4A: COMMISSION ORGANIZATIONAL UNITS

FY 1997-2002

DIVISION/OFFICE FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

01-Mar-01 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ENACTED FEC REQUEST

306.9 FTE 302.7 FTE 322.1 FTE 343 FTE 357 FTE 375 FTE

COMMISSIONERS 1,612,216 $ 1, $ 1, 657,033 $ 2, 959,391 $ 2, 198,783 $ 2, 372,500 $ 913,500

STAFF DIRECTOR 1,915,353 $ 1, $ 2, 979,493 $ 2, 109,166 $ 2, 293,691 $ 3, 933,000 $ 469,500

 SDO/CS/ADR/OAR 847,853 781,676 975,816 1,156,848 1,658,500 2,061,0 0

 PLANNING/BUDGET 148,505 168,702 117,879 124,258 199,000 222,00 0

 PERSONNEL 444,399 465,775 460,978 439,733 475,500 556,00 0

 PRESS 446,999 407,964 489,233 471,451 482,000 505,00 0

 EEO 91,737 91,236 65,260 101,401 118,000 125,50 0

ADMINISTRATION 4, $ 5, 831,900 $ 6, 261,672 $ 6, 933,574 $ 6, 671,251 $ 7, 652,717 $ 767,500

AUDIT 2, $ 2, 369,213 $ 2, 294,643 $ 3, 505,010 $ 3, 142,326 $ 3, 257,000 $ 426,500

INFORMATION 965,088 $ 984,001 $ 9 $ 1, 62,716 $ 1, 059,900 $ 1, 097,000 $ 242,500

GENERAL COUNSEL 7,789,351 $ 8, $ 9, 839,611 $ 782,429 $ 10,213,174 $ 10,905,500 $ 11,689,500

OEA 523,963 $ 530,507 $ 7 $ 59 59,662 $ 0,128 $ 3, 804,000 $ 258,500

DATA SYSTEMS 2, $ 2, 746,688 $ 3, 753,863 $ 3, 317,844 $ 3, 363,794 $ 3, 905,000 $ 990,500

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 733,837 $ 806,102 $ 8 $ 83 12,399 $ 6,118 $ 9 918,500 $ 85,000

RAD 1,805,860 $ 1, $ 1, 856,679 $ 2, 946,126 $ 2, 186,245 $ 2, 260,000 $ 675,000

IG 268,200 $ 276,464 $ 3 $ 34 19,507 $ 8,773 $ 3 366,500 $ 90,000

CASH AWARDS - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 2 260,000 $ 85,000

IT/EF/INTERNET 2, $ 2, 581,725 $ 4, 935,915 $ 5, 360,604 $ 4, 370,882 $ 5, 679,183 $ 578,000

LAPSE $ 724,017 21,606 $ 1, $ 022,572 $ 2,935

TOTAL $ 28,165,000 $ 30,900,000 $ 36,791,000 $ 38,278,000 $ 40,410,900 $ 47,671,000

BUDGETS FOR THE SDO COMPONENTS ARE SUBTOTALS OF THE SDO TOTAL.

Note: Cash Awards are allocated to the Divisions/Offices of the recipients as they were awarded

in prior years, but the FY 2001 and 2002 totals are depicted for the entire Commission on a

separate line as they have not been awarded yet for those two years. The table on the next page

shows the total cash award budget for the Commission in prior years.
16

TABLE 4B: OBJECT CLASS SUMMARY

OBJECT CLASS FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 * FY 2001 FY 2002

01-Mar-01 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL PLANNED FEC REQUEST

Sep-97 Sep-98 Sep-99 Sep-00 357 FTE 375 FTE

SALARIES AND BENEFITS 19,089,170 20,261,967 22,235,004 25,098,185 27,290,000 30,644,000

OVERTIME 130,514 144,654 192,035 192,248 177,000 170,000

WITNESSES 1,569 600 - 2,249 5,000 5,000 

CASH AWARDS 187,158 181,995 230,357 227,223 260,000 285,000

OTHER 6,000 27,000 31,360 10,737 25,000 25,000

TOTAL PERSONNEL 19,435,411 20,595,216 22,688,756 25,530,642 27,757,000 31,129,000

21.01 TRAVEL 248,074 164,027 232,492 455,977 441,500 557,000

22.01 TRANS. OF THINGS 23,312 31,511 100,510 244,862 66,000 58,000

23.11 GSA SPACE 2,514,448 2,484,470 3,086,301 3,354,593 3,500,000 3,740,000

23.21 COMMERCIAL SPACE 24,000 25,000 28,670 43,743 44,000 52,500

23.31 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 185,934 101,117 166,278 151,160 160,000 182,000

23.32 TELEPHONE LOCAL 172,940 223,534 216,199 146,738 150,000 160,000

23.33 LONG DIST./TELEG. 29,070 19,769 25,725 28,684 46,000 60,000

23.34 TELEPHONE INTERCY. 51,050 37,500 38,874 52,573 70,000 75,000

23.35 POSTAGE 204,730 217,163 179,647 174,977 175,000 205,000

24.01 PRINTING 238,920 260,578 220,533 274,291 353,500 401,000

24.02 MICROFILM PRINTS 20,833 16,664 22,644 19,500 22,000 25,000

25.11 TRAINING 58,791 95,251 218,368 90,761 213,000 290,000

25.12 ADMIN. EXPENSES 45,116 122,398 162,092 127,339 108,500 291,500

25.13 DEPOSITIONS/TRANS. 55,633 41,323 37,819 69,662 74,000 92,000

25.21 CONTRACTS/OTHER 2,432,487 2,162,292 2,746,609 2,811,604 2,647,500 4,483,000

25.23 OTHER REP./MAINT. 4,400 3,261 3,176 3,893 5,000 10,000

25.24 TUITION 3,080 1,333 - 2,497 5,000 5,000 

25.31 FED. AGENCY SERV. 523,216 1,102,782 1,472,788 646,597 414,000 1,045,000

25.41 FACIL. MAINT. 49,720 145,273 144,502 332,887 124,000 110,000

25.71 EQUIP. REP./MAINT. 198,055 216,982 210,190 236,783 857,500 888,000

25.72 SOFT/HARDWARE 351,948 381,710 2,094,899 2,053,512 1,969,060 2,300,500

26.01 SUPPLIES AND MAT. 307,364 345,497 298,194 380,646 357,500 350,500

26.02 PUBLICATIONS 137,338 142,463 187,396 191,968 203,500 243,000

26.03 PUBLICATIONS SERV. 116,887 107,890 179,919 210,924 217,500 238,000

31.01 EQUIP. PURCHASES 710,637 1,130,979 1,005,847 638,252 429,840 680,000

NON-PERSONNEL TOTAL 8,707,983 9,580,767 13,079,672 12,744,423 12,653,900 16,542,000

LAPSE END OF FY 21,606 724,017 2,935 1,022,572 

TOTAL FEC 28,165,000 30,900,000 36,791,000 38,278,000 40,410,900 47,671,000

Note: cash awards for prior FY’s are actual as awarded; the FY 2000 and 2001 totals are

budgeted amounts.
17

Program/Objective Analysis2

Mission

The FEC budget is based on the agency’s fundamental mission to administer and to

enforce the three main components of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended

(FECA):

• the disclosure of campaign finance information

• contribution limits and prohibitions, and

• the public financing of Presidential elections3

Additionally, following the mandate of the statute, the Commission’s mission includes

serving as a clearinghouse for the compilation of information and review of procedures with

respect to the administration of federal elections.

Programs

To accomplish this mission, the Commission has established six major core and

management programs.

The core programs are:

• Promoting Disclosure

• Obtaining Compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)

• Administering the Public Financing of Presidential Elections, and

• Election Administration

The management programs are:

• Special IT/Electronic Filing Projects, and

• Commission Policy and Administration

Within each of the core programs, the Commission has defined specific objectives. To

achieve these objectives, the Commission must accomplish certain goals. To the extent that the

agency succeeds in reaching these goals and objectives, it will fulfill its fundamental mission. The

core and management programs in are described below in terms of their objectives and related

goals, and a series of tables supplement the explanation.

 

2

 This analysis is based on the Commission’s Strategic Plan and FY 2002 Performance Plan, submitted under the

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). For more information on the Strategic Plan and the

Performance Plan, see Appendices C and D.

3

 Public funding of Presidential elections has three components: matching funds for qualified Presidential primary

candidates; public grants for the Presidential nominees of major and minor parties; and public grants to major

parties to run their national Presidential nominating conventions.
18

Overview of FEC Programs

Tables 5A, 5B, and 5C provide an overview of the FEC budget, by program. Table 5A

shows the total dollars budgeted for each program; Table 5B distinguishes between personnel and

non-personnel costs; and Table 5C shows the personnel (FTE) for each program. Tables 5A and

5C indicate what percentage of the total budget request each program represents.

TABLE 5A: COMMISSION BUDGET BY PROGRAM COSTS

FY 2000-2002

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

PROGRAM $ FEC % $ FEC % $ FEC %

PROMOTE DISCLOSURE 7,660,623 $ 20% 8,119,509 $ 20% 8,851,216 $ 19%

OBTAIN COMPLIANCE 9,392,448 $ 25% 9,384,882 $ 23% 10,693,869 $ 22%

PUBLIC FINANCING 2,339,323 $ 6% 3,767,641 $ 9% 3,553,588 $ 7%

ELECTIONS ADMIN. 590,128 $ 2% 804,000 $ 2% 3,258,500 $ 7%

IT/EF PROJECTS 5,370,882 $ 14% 4,679,183 $ 12% 5,578,000 $ 12%

COMM. POLICY/ADMIN. 12,921,660 $ 34% 13,655,685 $ 34% 15,735,827 $ 33%

COMMISSION TOTAL 38,275,065 $ 40,410,900 $ 47,671,000 $ 

TABLE 5B: COMMISSION BUDGET BY PROGRAM COSTS

FY 2000-2002

PERSONNEL COSTS NON-PERSONNEL COSTS TOTAL COSTS

OFFICE/DIVISION FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

PROMOTE DISCLOSURE 6,498,184 $ 6,814,857 $ 7,468,915 $ 1,162,439 $ 1,304,653 $ 1,382,301 $ 7,660,623 $ 8,119,509 $ 8,851,216 $ 

OBTAIN COMPLIANCE 8,368,216 $ 8,311,169 $ 9,199,596 $ 1,024,232 $ 1,073,712 $ 1,494,273 $ 9,392,448 $ 9,384,882 $ 10,693,869 $ 

PUBLIC FINANCING 2,019,951 $ 3,371,735 $ 3,149,405 $ 319,372 $ 395,905 $ 404,183 $ 2,339,323 $ 3,767,641 $ 3,553,588 $ 

ELECTIONS ADMIN. 451,475 $ 471,500 $ 1,047,000 $ 138,653 $ 332,500 $ 2,211,500 $ 590,128 $ 804,000 $ 3,258,500 $ 

IT/EF PROJECTS 930,198 $ 622,500 $ 1,061,000 $ 4,440,684 $ 4,056,683 $ 4,517,000 $ 5,370,882 $ 4,679,183 $ 5,578,000 $ 

COMM. POLICY/ADMIN. 7,262,617 $ 8,165,239 $ 9,203,083 $ 5,659,042 $ 5,490,447 $ 6,532,743 $ 12,921,660 $ 13,655,685 $ 15,735,827 $ 

COMMISSION TOTAL 25,530,642 $ 27,757,000 $ 31,129,000 $ 12,744,423 $ 12,653,900 $ 16,542,000 $ 38,275,065 $ 40,410,900 $ 47,671,000 $ 

TABLE 5C: COMMISSION BUDGET BY PROGRAM FTE

FY 2000-2002

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

PROGRAM FTE FEC % FTE FEC % FTE FEC %

PROMOTE DISCLOSURE 104.1 30% 107.5 30% 108.5 29%

OBTAIN COMPLIANCE 104.4 30% 100.5 28% 106.5 28%

PUBLIC FINANCING 26.4 8% 43.0 12% 38.0 10%

ELECTIONS ADMIN. 4.9 1% 5.0 1% 11.0 3%

IT/EF PROJECTS 13.6 4% 8.5 2% 13.5 4%

COMM. POLICY/ADMIN. 89.7 26% 92.5 26% 97.5 26%

COMMISSION TOTAL 343.1 357.0 375.0
19

Program I: Disclosure (Core Program)

Objectives

With regard to the Disclosure Program, the Federal Election Commission seeks to:

• Review and process the financial reports filed by political committees accurately and timely.

• Make the reports and data readily accessible to the public, the media and the regulated

community.

• Educate the public, the media and the regulated community about the legal requirements

pertaining to disclosure, contributions limits and prohibitions, and the public financing of

Presidential elections—the core elements of federal election campaign finance law.

Goals

To achieve the above objectives, the FEC will strive to accomplish the goals listed below.

More quantitative performance measures are included in the pertinent sections of the FEC

Strategic Plan and FY 2002 Performance Plan attached to this justification in Appendices C and

D.

Review and Processing of Reports

To achieve the accurate and timely review and processing of all reports, the Commission

will:

• Facilitate the electronic filing of reports by all political committees reaching a certain

threshold, excluding Senate committees and the national parties’ Senate campaign committees.

• Continue to meet the 48-hour deadline for placing reports filed by political committees on the

public record.

• Review all reports filed for accuracy and complete disclosure.

• Review 60 percent of reports within 90 days of receipt at the FEC.

• Encourage filers to voluntarily correct the public record by requesting additional information.

• Code and enter into the FEC database the information contained in 95 percent of reports

within 45 days of receipt at the FEC. (For the 2000 cycle to date, 95% of all reports have

been entered within 44 days of receipt at the Commission; for the 1998 cycle it was 27 days.)

This is a pre-electronic filing goal that will be adjusted after our experience with the 2002

cycle reports under mandatory electronic filing.
20

Public Disclosure and Dissemination of Campaign Finance Data

To ensure that campaign finance data are widely distributed, the FEC will:

• Provide the public with Internet access to its disclosure database and digital images of the

reports (except those of Senate candidates).

• Operate a Public Records Office where reports and data are available in paper, microfilm and

digital images (scanned from original reports) and where the public can access the disclosure

database.

• Operate a Press Office to assist the media in the wide disclosure and dissemination of

campaign finance data.

• Compile and release comprehensive statistical information based on the reports filed by

political committees (e.g., using the Internet and news releases).

Education About the Law

To ensure that the public, the media and the campaign community fully understand the

federal election law, and that information about the law is readily available, the FEC will:

• Operate a toll-free line and maintain a well-informed staff to answer phone inquiries about the

FEC and federal election law.

• Produce educational and information brochures and booklets to supplement the FEC Annual

Reports.

• Make FEC publications available to the public through the FEC Website, an automated fax

service, and the U.S. mail.

• Conduct technical workshops on the law throughout the country.

• Provide policy guidance through the timely release of Advisory Opinions.

• Review and revise FEC regulations to clarify federal election law.

Summary

The resources needed to meet the objectives and goals of the Disclosure Program in FY

2002 are summarized in Tables 6A and 6B.

PERSONNEL COSTS NON-PERSONNEL COSTS TOTAL COSTS

OFFICE/DIVISION FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 672,572 $ 743,500 $ 769,000 $ 163,546 $ 175,000 $ 216,000 $ 836,118 $ 918,500 $ 985,000 $ 

DATA SYSTEMS 1,196,947 $ 1,432,785 $ 1,486,215 $ 612,444 $ 665,500 $ 657,250 $ 1,809,390 $ 2,098,285 $ 2,143,465 $ 

INFORMATION 825,537 $ 830,500 $ 952,000 $ 234,363 $ 266,500 $ 290,500 $ 1,059,900 $ 1,097,000 $ 1,242,500 $ 

PRESS OFFICE 429,208 $ 442,000 $ 462,000 $ 42,243 $ 40,000 $ 43,000 $ 471,451 $ 482,000 $ 505,000 $ 

OGC POLICY/REGS/AO'S 1,349,957 $ 1,462,072 $ 1,540,013 $ 88,942 $ 94,653 $ 108,051 $ 1,438,899 $ 1,556,725 $ 1,648,064 $ 

REPORTS ANALYSIS 2,023,964 $ 1,904,000 $ 2,259,688 $ 20,901 $ 63,000 $ 67,500 $ 2,044,865 $ 1,967,000 $ 2,327,188 $ 

PROGRAM TOTAL 6,498,184 $ 6,814,857 $ 7,468,915 $ 1,162,439 $ 1,304,653 $ 1,382,301 $ 7,660,623 $ 8,119,509 $ 8,851,216 $ 

COMMISSION PERCENT 25% 25% 24% 9% 10% 8% 20% 20% 19%
21

TABLE 6B: DISCLOSURE PROGRAM FTE

FY 2000-2002

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

OFFICE/DIVISION FTE DIV. % FTE DIV. % FTE DIV. %

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 13.4 100% 14.0 100% 14.0 100%

DATA SYSTEMS 17.5 53% 21.0 53% 21.0 53%

INFORMATION 12.8 100% 12.0 100% 13.0 100%

PRESS OFFICE 4.8 100% 5.0 100% 5.0 100%

OGC POLICY/REGS/AO'S 16.0 14% 17.0 14% 17.0 14%

REPORTS ANALYSIS 39.6 94% 38.5 88% 38.5 88%

PROGRAM TOTAL 104.1 107.5 108.5

COMMISSION PERCENT 30% 30% 29%

Program II: Compliance (Core Program)

Objectives

The compliance program is based on the premise that the FEC’s first responsibility is to

foster a willingness, on the part of the regulated community, to voluntarily comply with the

law’s reporting requirements, fundraising restrictions and public funding statutes. The FEC

encourages voluntary compliance through education (described under the Disclosure Program, p.

19). To buttress its educational efforts, the Commission carries out a Compliance Program with

the following objectives:

• Conduct desk audits (reviews) of every report;

• Audit those committees whose reports fail to meet threshold requirements for substantial

compliance with the FECA; and

• Enforce the law, in a timely and fair manner, against persons who violate the law.

Goals

For each of these objectives, the Commission defines the following goals:

Desk Audits

The Commission will:

• Conduct a desk audit of every report and encourage the regulated community to clarify the

public record when information is inaccurate or incomplete.

• Refer filers who fail to comply with the FECA disclosure requirements or contribution

limitations or restrictions, and who fail to voluntarily correct their reports, for an audit and/or

enforcement action, if necessary.
22

Audits

In those cases where reports indicate that committees have failed to meet the threshold

requirements for substantial compliance with the FECA, and have failed to voluntarily correct

errors or omissions on their reports, the Commission will conduct 40-45 audits “for cause” for

the 2002 election cycle, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §438(b).

The Commission’s budget contains the resources added in FY 2001 to establish a “stand

alone” Title 2 Audit “For Cause” Program (a PwC recommendation.) A total of three FTE (two

FTE’s allows the Audit Division to hire eight part-time student interns; one FTE is for a

permanent auditor position) will enable the FEC to conduct approximately 40-45 Title 2 audits

per cycle as opposed to the previous 20-25 per cycle. These part-time staff also will assist the

auditors in performing Title 26 audits of Presidential committees that receive public funds. This

proposal, along with other procedural changes, will allow the Commission to maintain the Title 2

audit program even during presidential election cycles. In contrast, over the last four cycles

(1991-92 through 1997-98) an average of 9 authorized and 12 non-authorized committees have

been slated for audit. This budget also will allow the Commission to meet its goal of completing

the Title 26 Presidential audits within two years after the 2000 elections.

Enforcement

Because the majority (63% since 1995) of the Commission’s caseload arises from

complaints filed by parties outside the agency, the total caseload figure is not singularly affected

by the number of FTE in enforcement. The number of FTE affects the proportion of the total

enforcement caseload that can be handled substantively, as well as the proportion of the caseload

that is active vs. inactive. (A substantive finding is a finding based on the merits of the matter

[other than dismissal], including findings of “no reason to believe the FECA has been violated.”)4

In past budget requests, the Commission has asked for additional resources for its

compliance program. The Commission is not seeking additional staff resources, above 357 FTE,

for its compliance programs in this budget request. Instead, OGC expects to maintain current

performance levels. It is important to note, however, that maintaining staffing levels in OGC

from FY 2000 and 2001 will limit the Commission’s capability to handle new major cases that

may arise from the 2002 cycle.

To reach the objective of enforcing the law in a timely and fair way, the Commission

plans to:

 

4

 There is a significant difference between mere “dismissal” and a finding of “no reason to believe” the law has been

violated. A finding of “no reason to believe” reflects affirmative Commission action based on its consideration of

the merits of the particular matter. A dismissal, on the other hand, usually reflects action by the Commission based

on an application of the Enforcement Priority System criteria to a particular case to determine whether the case

merits the use of the Commission’s limited resources.
23

• Maintain a monthly average active caseload of at least 45 percent of the total caseload.

• Close an estimated 225 cases. The Commission will close 45 percent of those cases through

substantive Commission action.

• Initiate from 12 to 15 civil actions under 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(6) to enforce the FECA.

• Maintain the Enforcement Priority System (EPS),5

 a system through which the Commission

identifies and assigns the more significant enforcement cases to staff, disposes of the less

significant cases rapidly, and manages limited staff resources.

• Conclude some or all of the major cases involving complex legal issues6

—including those

remaining from earlier election cycles (1996 and 1998) and those stemming from the 2000

cycle.

Administrative Fine Program and ADR

The Commission undertook two compliance initiatives in FY 2000 and 2001 to maximize

the use of limited enforcement resources. Based on a legislative mandate, the FEC implemented

an administrative fine program in July 2000 to reduce the OGC staff resources required to

enforce timely filing of disclosure reports. Since the inception of the program, 48 cases have been

placed on the public record, and civil money penalties totaling $63,230 have been collected.

There are many additional cases in various stages of the administrative fine process. The

administrative fine program frees Commission resources for more complex, substantive

enforcement actions.

The Commission also implemented an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program in

FY 2001. The ADR program is designed to promote compliance with the federal election law by

encouraging settlements outside the traditional enforcement or litigation processes. The program

aims to expedite resolution of enforcement matters and to reduce the cost of processing

complaints, and therefore, enhance overall FEC enforcement. Since the inception of the program

in October 2000, seven matters have been settled in the ADR process. This program also frees

Commission resources for other, more significant enforcement matters.

Summary

Since 1995, with the institution of the Enforcement Priority System (EPS), the

Commission’s enforcement workload has averaged about 240 total cases per month, with about

100 of those cases actively being worked on. In each election cycle, the FEC has averaged about

200 complaints and about 125-150 internal referrals. Historically, the FEC has closed about 40%

of its cases with some form of substantive action, dismissing the others without formal action

either due to staleness or lack of substantive issues. From FY 1998-2000, the Commission was

 

5

 Under EPS, OGC evaluates enforcement cases based on carefully crafted, Commission-approved criteria to

determine the relative significance of the allegations. EPS is a tool to match the seriousness of a particular case to

the resources available to undertake an investigation of the matter.

6

 Examples of complex legal issues include possible “soft money” abuse, claims of improper coordination or

express advocacy, and alleged laundered and/or foreign contributions.
24

able to increase the number of cases activated to over 50% of the incoming cases, and the average

active to inactive caseload percentages improved to over 50% in FY 1999-2000. In addition, the

number of cases dismissed, or closed without substantive Commission action, dropped

significantly from an average of about 60% (FY 1995-1999) to 25% in FY 2000. This was

accomplished without a major increase in authorized staff.

The FEC anticipates that the ADR and administrative fine programs will continue to

enable the Commission to assign enforcement resources to more complex, substantive matters.

The ultimate goals of the ADR and administrative fine programs, the Case Management system,

and other information technology enhancements are to speed up the resolution of cases and to

increase the number of cases closed with substantive Commission action.

The resources needed to meet the objectives and goals of the Compliance Program in FY

2001 are summarized in Tables 7A and 7B. We are requesting resources to maintain current

performance levels; no additional resources are sought for the compliance program.

TABLE 7A: COMPLIANCE PROGRAM COSTS

FY 2000-2002

PERSONNEL COSTS NON-PERSONNEL COSTS TOTAL COSTS

OFFICE/DIVISION FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

REPORTS ANALYSIS $ 127,775 $ 272,000 $ 13,605 322,813 $ 21,000 $ 25,000 $ $ 141,380 $ 293,000 $ 347,813

DATA SYSTEMS 68,397 $ $ 136,456 $ 247,703 $ 278,384 $ 302,500 $ 298,750 $ 346,780 $ 438,956 $ 546,453

AUDIT 1, $ 1, 842,533 $ 1, 017,394 $ 338,113 $ 81,844 207,834 $ $ 2, 118,150 $ 1, 050,368 $ 1, 099,238 $ 456,263

OGC ENFORCEMENT 4,404,234 $ 4, $ 4, 687,231 $ 937,100 $ 290,174 $ 298,445 $ 4, 346,398 $ 4, 694,409 $ 5, 985,676 $ 283,498

OGC LITIGATION 1, $ 1, 375,269 $ 1, 462,072 $ 90,610 540,013 $ 94,653 $ $ 1, 108,051 $ 1, 465,879 $ 1, 556,725 $ 648,064

OGC PFESP * $ 464,048 $ 344,017 $ 30,574 362,356 $ 22,271 $ 25,424 $ $ 494,622 $ 366,288 $ 387,780

LEGAL DOCUMENT INDEX ** - $ - $ - $ 23,969 $ $ 105,000 $ 23,969 250,000 $ $ 105,000 $ 250,000

ADR 46,597 $ $ 215,000 $ 64,112 265,500 $ 93,000 $ $ 227,500 $ 110,709 $ 308,000 $ 493,000

OAR 39,363 $ $ 177,000 $ 24,970 186,000 $ 55,000 $ 95,000 $ 64,333 $ $ 232,000 $ 281,000

PROGRAM TOTAL 8,368,216 $ 8, $ 9, 311,169 $ 1, 199,596 $ 1, 024,232 $ 1, 073,712 $ 9, 494,273 $ 9, 392,448 $ 384,882 $ 10,693,869

COMMISSION PERCENT 33% 30% 30% 8% 8% 9% 25% 23% 22%

TABLE 7B: COMPLIANCE PROGRAM FTE

FY 2000-2002

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

OFFICE/DIVISION FTE DIV. % FTE DIV. % FTE DIV. %

REPORTS ANALYSIS 2.5 6% 5.5 13% 5.5 13%

DATA SYSTEMS 1.0 3% 2.0 5% 3.5 9%

AUDIT 26.1 65% 13.5 34% 17.0 43%

OGC ENFORCEMENT 52.2 46% 54.5 46% 54.5 46%

OGC LITIGATION 16.3 14% 17.0 14% 17.0 14%

OGC PFESP * 5.5 5% 4.0 3% 4.0 3%

LEGAL DOCUMENT INDEX **

ADR 0.4 100% 2.0 100% 3.0 100%

OAR 0.4 100% 2.0 100% 2.0 100%

PROGRAM TOTAL 104.4 100.5 106.5

COMMISSION PERCENT 30% 28% 28%
25

*Office of General Counsel’s Public Financing, Ethics, and Special Projects staff

** Contract for legal document imaging and indexing

Program III: Public Financing (Core Program)

Objectives

Under the Public Financing Program, the Commission seeks to:

• Certify timely the eligibility of Presidential candidates and committees for payments.

• Ensure timely U.S. Treasury payments to certified committees.

• Promote public trust by ensuring that all public monies are accounted for and expended in

compliance with the FECA.

Goals

To reach the objectives described above, the Commission will:

• Complete all public funding audits within two years of the 2000 Presidential general election.

• Successfully resolve all enforcement cases within the statutory time limits.

• Process the certifications quickly and accurately. (The bulk of these were completed during

FY 2000.)

Summary

For FY 2002, the resources needed to implement the public financing program in the 2000

election cycle are summarized in Tables 8A and 8B.

TABLE 8A: PUBLIC FINANCING PROGRAM COSTS

FY 2000-2002

PERSONNEL COSTS NON-PERSONNEL COSTS TOTAL COSTS

OFFICE/DIVISION FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

AUDIT 981,273 $ 1,997,106 $ 1,810,388 $ 110,686 $ 160,656 $ 159,850 $ 1,091,958 $ 2,157,763 $ 1,970,238 $ 

DATA SYSTEMS 68,397 $ 170,570 $ 70,772 $ 144,759 $ 157,300 $ 155,350 $ 213,156 $ 327,870 $ 226,122 $ 

OGC PFESP 970,281 $ 1,204,059 $ 1,268,246 $ 63,927 $ 77,949 $ 88,983 $ 1,034,209 $ 1,282,008 $ 1,357,229 $ 

PROGRAM TOTAL 2,019,951 $ 3,371,735 $ 3,149,405 $ 319,372 $ 395,905 $ 404,183 $ 2,339,323 $ 3,767,641 $ 3,553,588 $ 

COMMISSION PERCENT 8% 12% 10% 3% 3% 2% 6% 9% 7%
26

TABLE 8B: PUBLIC FINANCING PROGRAM FTE

FY 2000-2002

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

OFFICE/DIVISION FTE DIV. % FTE DIV. % FTE DIV. %

AUDIT 13.9 35% 26.5 66% 23.0 58%

DATA SYSTEMS 1.0 3% 2.5 6% 1.0 3%

OGC PFESP 11.5 10% 14.0 12% 14.0 12%

PROGRAM TOTAL 26.4 43.0 38.0

COMMISSION PERCENT 8% 12% 10%

Program IV: Election Administration (Core Program)

Objectives

Through the FEC Office of Election Administration, the agency will:

• Carry out its statutory responsibilities under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) to

help improve the national level of voter registration.

• Carry out its responsibility with respect to the Voting Accessibility Act.

• Help ensure that state and local election officials receive informational and educational

assistance in administering federal elections in an efficient and effective manner.

• Foster public confidence in the fairness and reliability of the polling process in federal

elections.

Goals

To realize the objectives described above the Commission, through the Office of Election

Administration, will:

• Grant and oversee research contracts on issues of concern to election administrators.

• Assist state election officials in implementing the NVRA, collect data on the impact of that

law on election administration, and report to Congress thereon by June 30, 2002.

• Serve as an on-call resource to election officials with immediate needs for technical and legal

information.

• Help state and local election officials adapt to changing technology and legal requirements.

• Complete the Voting Systems Standards (VSS) update, originally issued in 1990; revision

initiated in FY 1999 ($250,000 authorized in FY 2001 for a total multiyear cost of $450,000

for this project).
27

• Develop elections management standards to complement the technical VSS, to assist state and

local elections administrators improve the management and conduct of federal elections in

2002 and future elections.

• Develop a compendium of best practices for elections administrators to assist in managing

elections, and to handle recounts, contested elections, and protests.

• Develop a comprehensive database of existing elections systems to provide an accurate

estimate of the cost to upgrade the quality of elections systems in the United States.

• Provide Congress with the data and information to determine the criteria and cost of a grant

program to assist states in improving elections systems and their management.

Summary

Resources needed to reach these goals in FY 2001 are summarized in Table 9A and 9B.

These tables depict the supplemental appropriation request for the OEA in FY 2001 and the

major initiative for the OEA requested for FY 2002.

TABLE 9A: ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM COSTS

FY 2000 2002 (FY 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL NOT INCLUDED IN TOTALS)

PERSONNEL COSTS NON-PERSONNEL COSTS TOTAL COSTS

OFFICE/DIVISION FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

ELECTIONS ADMIN. 451,475 $ 471,500 $ 495,000 $ 138,653 $ 332,500 $ 221,500 $ 590,128 $ 804,000 $ 716,500 $ 

FY 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL 262,000 $ 2,738,000 $ - $ 3,000,000 $ - $ 

FY 2002 ELEC. ADMIN. ENH. 552,000 $ 1,990,000 $ - $ - $ 2,542,000 $ 

PROGRAM TOTAL 451,475 $ 471,500 $ 1,047,000 $ 138,653 $ 332,500 $ 2,211,500 $ 590,128 $ 804,000 $ 3,258,500 $ 

COMMISSION PERCENT 2% 2% 3% 1% 3% 13% 2% 2% 7%

TABLE 9B: ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM FTE

FY 2000-2002 (FY 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL NOT INCLUDED IN TOTALS)

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

OFFICE/DIVISION FTE DIV. % FTE DIV. % FTE DIV. %

ELECTIONS ADMIN. 4.9 100% 5.0 100% 5.0 45%

FY 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL 3.0

FY 2002 ELEC. ADMIN. ENH. 6.0 55%

PROGRAM TOTAL 4.9 5.0 11.0

COMMISSION PERCENT 1% 1% 3%

Program V: IT and Electronic Filing Projects (Management Program)

The Commission will allocate $5,578,000 of its FY 2002 budget request to fund enhanced

IT initiatives and the electronic filing program. This amount, which is provided for in the FEC’s

IT Strategic Plan,7 represents an increase of $898,817 (19%) from the FY 2001 IT budget of

$4,679,183. This funding will enable the FEC to continue the installation of the new client/server

 

7

 The FEC’s IT Strategic Plan is a running five-year plan, reviewed and updated annually. (See Appendix B.)
28

infrastructure, meet its statutory responsibilities under mandatory electronic filing, and undertake

additional initiatives to further enhance the IT systems at the FEC.

Internal IT Enhancements

Under the FY 2002 Budget Request, the agency will continue to implement and expand

upon the IT enhancements initiated in previous years, including IT initiatives in the following

areas:

• Computer Security

• Document Management

• Client/Server Development and Conversion

Computer Security

Under the FY 2002 budget, the agency will conduct a risk analysis and will further

enhance the security processes protecting the agency’s computer operations, particularly those

operations that are Web-based.

Document Management

 Document management involves several components:

• Migration of approximately 4 million pages of financial reports stored in a legacy imaging

system to a new imaging system

• Organizing and storing documents (i.e., integrating internal electronic documents with images

of other material)

• Reviewing documents and developing search and retrieval methods for all materials

The process involves scanning images of documents into the computer and then

organizing the imaged documents so they can be easily retrieved and reviewed. In conjunction

with the client/server development, the process will benefit both external users and the FEC

internal users.

Client/Server Environment: Development and Data Conversion

For many years, the Commission relied on a terminal-based computer system. Under this

system, one central location served as the site where all data were stored and where all processing

occurred. In 1995, the Commission took its first steps to migrate from a terminal-based system

to a Client/Server environment.

In FY 2002, the Commission will continue the transition from the terminal-based model

to the new Client/Server-based system, with the continued conversion of the disclosure database

to the new environment. The migration of the disclosure database involves the restructuring of
29

several million data records and the conversion of thousands of programs used to store, retrieve

and display information contained in the FEC database.

In addition to creating a more efficient systems environment that conforms to accepted

industry standards, this project will allow the FEC to enhance the disclosure functions on the

Website by improving search capabilities and providing more flexible data retrieval options.

This client/server environment will be the foundation for the portal development project

scheduled to begin in FY 2003.

Also included in FY 2002 is completion of the migration of the finance and accounting

system, with future work on the Human Resources (personnel) systems and other management

systems such as budget, planning, MIS, etc. Other internal documents and systems will be

converted over to the client server environment in FY 2002 and FY 2003 and beyond.

Additional Staff for IT Projects

The FY 2002 Request includes five additional FTE for Data Systems staff for the IT

projects. The original IT Strategic Plan envisioned 8.5 FTE for the three major IT initiatives. In

recent FYs, however, the Data Systems Division has been allocating 12 to 14 FTE annually to

the IT projects, at the expense of other data programs and projects. Without the five additional

FTE, Data Systems will have severe difficulties in meeting the time frames in the IT Strategic

Plan at the FY 2002 Current Services level and will not be able to begin the other projects

envisioned in the full FY 2002 request and in future FYs.

Electronic Filing

Progress to Date

By 1998, the FEC electronic filing system was implemented, and has been optional for

any political committee, other than Senate committees and the national parties’ Senate campaign

committees.8 The mandatory electronic filing provision in the FY 2000 Treasury and General

Government Appropriations bill required the FEC to establish thresholds for mandatory

electronic filing for committees effective for the 2002 election cycle. The rulemaking was

implemented by December 2000. The FEC has the capacity to handle all electronically filed

reports. To initiate the program, the FEC:

• Established the structure of the program.

 

8

 Senate committees and the national parties’ Senate campaign committees are required by law to file their reports

with the Secretary of the Senate. Consequently, these committees are unable to participate at this time in the FEC’s

electronic filing program.
30

• Established the mechanisms by which committees electronically file their reports: by

diskette, by modem and through the Internet.

• Established the infrastructure to both receive and validate the reports filed.

• Implemented a system for automatically placing the electronic data:

∗ In the FEC database and

∗ In an image format resembling an FEC form so that individuals, using a computer, can

read simulated pages of reports.

Future Efforts

During FYs 2000 and 2001, the FEC continued to develop incentives to encourage

committees to voluntarily file their reports electronically, and in the 2000 election cycle more

than 1,000 committees filed their reports electronically. Now that we are in a mandatory

environment, the FEC will continue to review the electronic filing procedures to improve the

process, including:

• Analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the FEC experience to date with the electronic

filing program;

• Evaluating and modifying the software developed and implemented for the program;

• Evaluating and expanding the Commission’s program for training committees in the use of the

software;

• Evaluating and modifying methods for educating the filing community about electronic filing;

and

• Continue to work with private software companies to integrate electronic filing features into

their commercial products.

Development of new processes to improve internal document flow in the mandatory

electronic filing environment will continue into FY 2001 and FY 2002, as well. This will enable

internal FEC users to integrate electronic filings into processes such as reports review, audits, and

enforcement. Spending on this initiative during FY 2002 also includes funds for on-going

operation and maintenance of the electronic filing system during the 2002 election cycle.

Data Input

The FEC will continue to manually input the data taken from reports filed by Senate

committees and committees that do not meet the established threshold and choose not to file

electronically. As an alternative to manual input, the FEC is reviewing other alternatives, such as

Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology and will further investigate the possibility of

instituting this type of technology in FY 2003.

Automated Review/Data Mining

The FY 2002 IT funding includes resources to engage in a business process review of

RAD review procedures to further enhance the ability to automate the review process. Also
31

included is funding to undertake efforts to engage in data mining to establish patterns of behavior

by multiple filers, to enhance the review and compliance programs. A total of $269,000 is

included for the RAD business process review, and $250,000 for the data mining project.

Y2K

The Commission was confident that all FEC processes were Y2K compliant, and there

were no Y2K incidents.

Past IT Initiatives

The Commission has been working on electronic filing and a series of other IT

enhancements since 1995. These initiatives have clearly benefited the American taxpayer by

significantly improving the FEC’s disclosure services while holding to a minimum the need for

additional staff to provide these services. This is in the face of record setting levels of campaign

finance activity on the federal level in every election cycle since 1992.

Response to Growing Demand for Information

Enhanced information technology has enabled the FEC to respond to a growing demand

for information—and to deliver the information faster—without additional staff. Through the

FEC automated fax system and the Internet, the public can instantaneously access FEC forms,

publications and campaign finance data.

Larger Audience Using Data

Additionally, the new technology has broadened the audience for existing services. In the

past, for example, a limited community of campaign finance specialists accessed the FEC

database through the Direct Access Program (DAP), a fee-for-service program.9 The agency has

now made it possible for these same experts—and the public as a whole—to access the data costfree on the Internet. During FY 2001, the agency will continue its conversion from the DAP to

the FEC website.

Point of Entry Completed

The Commission successfully completed its Point-of-Entry initiative in 2000. Under this

program, all political committees (except Senate committees and the national parties’ Senate

campaign committees10) file their reports with the Commission (either on paper or

electronically). The Commission then scans the documents to make images that are available for

review on FEC computers and on the Website. Images of Senate documents are electronically

 

9

 While used primarily by the campaign finance community, the Direct Access Program has always been available

to the public.

10 Senate committees and the national parties’ Senate campaign committees are required by law to file their reports

with the Secretary of the Senate. Consequently, these committees are unable to participate at this time in the FEC’s

electronic filing program.
32

transmitted to the FEC and automatically added to the FEC imaging database. Electronically filed

documents are imaged and retrievable from the Website, in the same format as if filed on paper,

for calendar years 1993 through the present cycle.

Lower Costs

The FEC successfully contracted for some of its IT initiatives at a lower cost than

initially anticipated. The design of the electronic filing system came in under budget. Similarly,

the initial cost of developing a system to provide images of reports available to the public

through the FEC Website was nearly 37 percent lower than the amount Congress appropriated

for the initiative.
33

Summary: Electronic Filing and IT Enhancements

The total request for IT enhancements and electronic filing in FY 2002 is $5,578,000.

Tables 10A and 10B summarize the costs contained in the FY 2002 budget. The IT Strategic

Plan discusses the initiatives planned for FY 2003 and beyond. The major new initiative

scheduled to begin in FY 2003 with completion in FY 2007, is the portal development project

that will integrate the IT systems into a web-based access environment for both external and

internal users.

TABLE 10A: COMPUTERIZATION INITIATIVES COSTS

FY 2000-2002

PERSONNEL COSTS NON-PERSONNEL COSTS TOTAL COSTS

OFFICE/DIVISION FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

ADP ENHANCEMENTS 711,328 $ 389,500 $ 826,000 $ 3,165,359 $ 2,962,683 $ 3,341,000 $ 3,876,687 $ 3,352,183 $ 4,167,000 $ 

ELECTRONIC FILING 143,634 $ 151,500 $ 156,000 $ 1,096,089 $ 1,032,500 $ 1,078,000 $ 1,239,723 $ 1,184,000 $ 1,234,000 $ 

PT. OF ENTRY/INTERNET 75,237 $ 81,500 $ 79,000 $ 179,236 $ 61,500 $ 98,000 $ 254,473 $ 143,000 $ 177,000 $ 

PROGRAM TOTAL 930,198 $ 622,500 $ 1,061,000 $ 4,440,684 $ 4,056,683 $ 4,517,000 $ 5,370,882 $ 4,679,183 $ 5,578,000 $ 

COMMISSION PERCENT 4% 2% 3% 35% 32% 27% 14% 12% 12%

TABLE 10B: COMPUTERIZATION INITIATIVES FTE

FY 2000-2002

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

PROJECT FTE PROJ. % FTE PROJ. % FTE PROJ. %

ADP ENHANCEMENTS 10.4 76% 5.0 59% 10.0 74%

ELECTRONIC FILING 2.1 15% 2.5 29% 2.5 19%

PT. OF ENTRY/INTERNET 1.1 8% 1.0 12% 1.0 7%

PROGRAM TOTAL 13.6 8.5 13.5

COMMISSION PERCENT 4% 2% 4%

Program VI: Commission Policy and Administration (Management Program)

Tables 11A and 11B depict the costs and corresponding FTE for central policy guidance,

management and staff support for all Commission operations that do not otherwise fit under the

previously identified programs. Besides the offices of the six Commissioners and the Secretariat,

this budget category includes all basic administrative overhead, such as rent, phones, postage,

etc., and support functions, such as management, budget, accounting and personnel. Direct

support costs for program-related items, such as travel, training, printing, etc., are allocated to

specific Commission objectives and programs.
34

The only significant requests for additional resources other than to cover inflation in this

program are the four FTE for additional Executive Assistants for the Commissioner offices

beyond the Chairman and the Vice Chairman offices, and $700,000 to acquire additional space at

999 E Street, where the FEC is located. Currently, the OEA is located at 800 North Capitol

Street.

This request would enable the FEC to bring back the OEA and would provide additional

space for the 18 FTE requested in our FY 2002 full request. There is no additional room at 999 E

Street in our present space. Thus, the Commission is requesting the funds to acquire one

additional floor at our present location. The OEA was left at 800 North Capitol Street in the

event that the additional funding requested in our FY 2001 Supplemental and the FY 2002

request for the elections administration programs was approved. There is additional space at 800

North Capitol Street for the OEA to expand its staff.

Additional FTE for Commissioners’ Offices (See p. 7)

It is important to note that, at present, only the Chairman and Vice Chairman are

allocated a second Executive Assistant (EA). Providing each of the other four Commissioners

with an additional EA will enable them to meet the increased demands that have been placed on

their offices.

The second EA would ensure that each Commissioner has a consistent staffing level to

provide legal guidance to the Commissioner relating to ongoing compliance (enforcement,

litigation, and audit) and the referral processes for those compliance activities. The second EA

would assist with the many new administrative tasks the Commission is undertaking. These

include the implementation of the PwC recommendations and other task forces and projects

separate from PwC. For example, the Commissioners’ offices are directly involved with working

groups relating to:

• the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) Program;

• Case Management (a computerized resource management system);

• PC Docs (a computer-based document management system);

• Electronic filing;

• Title 2 “Audit for Cause” Program (streamlining and broadening the audit

process);

• Audit Workflow and Tracking Steering Committee (a computerized resource

management system);

• the Finance Committee;

• the Regulations Committee; and

• the Litigation Committee
35

TABLE 11A: COMMISSION POLICY AND ADMIN. PROGRAM COSTS

FY 2000-2002

PERSONNEL COSTS NON-PERSONNEL COSTS TOTAL COSTS

OFFICE/DIVISION FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

COMMISSIONERS 2,135,328 $ 2,344,500 $ 2,837,500 $ 63,455 $ 28,000 $ 76,000 $ 2,198,783 $ 2,372,500 $ 2,913,500 $ 

STAFF DIRECTOR 1,507,965 $ 1,716,500 $ 1,959,500 $ 139,233 $ 194,500 $ 231,000 $ 1,647,198 $ 1,911,000 $ 2,190,500 $ 

ADMINISTRATIVE 1,366,967 $ 1,545,500 $ 1,713,500 $ 5,304,284 $ 5,107,217 $ 6,054,000 $ 6,671,251 $ 6,652,717 $ 7,767,500 $ 

IG OFFICE 340,245 $ 354,500 $ 375,000 $ 8,528 $ 12,000 $ 15,000 $ 348,773 $ 366,500 $ 390,000 $ 

DATA SYSTEMS 916,519 $ 955,190 $ 990,810 $ 77,947 $ 84,700 $ 83,650 $ 994,466 $ 1,039,890 $ 1,074,460 $ 

OGC GENERAL COUNSEL 995,593 $ 989,049 $ 1,041,773 $ 65,595 $ 64,030 $ 73,093 $ 1,061,188 $ 1,053,078 $ 1,114,867 $ 

CASH AWARDS 260,000 $ 285,000 $ $ 285,000 260,000 $ 

PROGRAM TOTAL 7,262,617 $ 8,165,239 $ 9,203,083 $ 5,659,042 $ 5,490,447 $ 6,532,743 $ 12,921,660 $ 13,655,685 $ 15,735,827 $ 

COMMISSION PERCENT 28% 29% 30% 44% 43% 39% 34% 34% 33%

TABLE 11B: COMMISSION POLICY AND ADMIN. PROGRAM FTE

FY 2000-2002

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

OFFICE/DIVISION FTE DIV. % FTE DIV. % FTE DIV. %

COMMISSIONERS 18.4 100% 20.0 100% 24.0 100%

STAFF DIRECTOR 19.9 100% 21.0 100% 22.0 100%

ADMINISTRATIVE 22.2 100% 22.0 100% 22.0 100%

IG OFFICE 4.0 100% 4.0 100% 4.0 100%

DATA SYSTEMS 13.4 41% 14.0 35% 14.0 33%

OGC GENERAL COUNSEL 11.8 10% 11.5 10% 11.5 10%

CASH AWARDS 0.0 0.0 0.0

PROGRAM TOTAL 89.7 92.5 97.5

COMMISSION PERCENT 26% 26% 26%
APPENDIX A:

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

FY 1999-2000 PERFORMANCE REPORT

PURSUANT TO THE GPRA

March 2001

Submitted to Congress/OMB

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
2

FY 1999-2000 PERFORMANCE REPORT

SUMMARY

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) submits its FY 1999-2000 Performance Report

pursuant to the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA.)

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and the GPRA, this

report has been concurrently submitted to the Congress and the President (OMB.) This

Performance Report documents the performance of the FEC in meeting our mission requirements

and achieving our program objectives during FY 1999 and 2000. The FEC accomplishments are

addressed within the context of our Strategic Plan and our FY 1999 and 2000 Performance Plans,

with a review of performance against the mission statement and the objectives and goals

identified in the FEC Performance Plans.

The FEC highlights the importance of the funding the FEC has received to support our

programs, particularly the annual earmarked funds to carryout the IT initiatives. This funding

has been key to the modernization and enhancement of our IT systems. The funding has allowed

the FEC to accomplish its mission and achieve its program objectives despite record levels of

campaign finance activity in each successive election cycle.

BACKGROUND

The FEC is a personnel intensive regulatory agency, with 70% of our annual

appropriations expended on salaries and benefits. Of the remaining 30%, 10% is allocated to

GSA rent costs; 10% to legislatively earmarked IT projects, 6% to support programs, including

the Office of Election Administration (OEA), audits, compliance, enforcement, disclosure and

informational outreach programs; and 5% for overhead support costs such as phones, postage,

equipment and supplies.

FY 2000 Appropriation

During FY 2000 the Commission expended its appropriation of $38,278,000

($38,152,000 plus $270,000 carried over from FY 1999, less a rescission of $144,000) to support

343.1 FTE and in a manner designed to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of our

programs. A total of $5,370,882 was expended on earmarked IT programs during the FY; this

included $4,440,684 for hardware, software, contracts, supplies and equipment and $930,198 for

13.6 FTE.

FY 1999 Appropriation
3

During FY 1999 the Commission expended its appropriation of $36,791,000

($36,650,000 plus $350,000 carried over from FY 1998, less a rescission of $59,000) to support

of 322.1 FTE and in a manner designed to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of our

programs. A total of $4,360,604 was expended on earmarked IT programs during the FY; this

included $3,615,739 for hardware, software, contracts, supplies and equipment and $744,865 for

12.0 FTE.

In addition, the final $1.12 million of our FY 1999 appropriation was congressionally

earmarked specifically for compliance related initiatives, which were to focus on improving FEC

enforcement and compliance programs without adding additional staff resources.

1998 PriceWaterhouseCoopers Review and FEC Initiatives

During FY 1998, the FEC was the subject of an extensive review by

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), performed under a contract with the GAO as mandated by

Congress. The results of that review were generally very favorable for the Commission’s

operations. Nevertheless, the Commission has made significant progress in implementing many

of the PwC recommendations.

Furthermore, the Commission has begun several additional initiatives. Many of the

projects are IT initiatives described in the IT Strategic Plan that have been funded with earmarked

funds since FY 1996. Others projects are the result of the need to maximize limited resources

and in response to legislative mandates included in our FY 1999 and FY 2000 appropriation

language.

FY 1999-2000 Accomplishments

The FEC initiated several projects that continued into FY 2000 from FY 1999.

Significant successes included:

Operation of the full scale, voluntary electronic filing program that allows filers to file

electronically at the FEC by disk, by modem, or on the Internet, and makes images of

reports filed available on the FEC disclosure system. Over 1,000 filers voluntarily filed

electronically during the 2000 election cycle.

Implementation of the mandatory electronic filing system for the 2002 election cycle was

completed in FY 2001, and the system received the first mandatory electronic filings in

February 2001.

Upgrade and enhancement of the FEC web site by making images of all disclosure

documents filed at the FEC, both electronic and paper, available for viewing over the

Internet and expanding the variety of items available on the FEC web site, including

Advisory Opinions, budget requests, and the FEC Strategic Plan and Performance Plans.
4

The FEC’s website now receives millions of visits each fiscal year. The initial

enhancement and upgrade was accomplished at a cost 37% less than projected by the

GPO.

Implementation of the Case Management system in OGC, after completing an extensive

design and development process. This included extensive training and input of legacy

data into the system. The Case Management system will now provide case tracking, case

management, and time reporting for OGC programs. Data from the Case Management

system will be used to produce MIS and budget and planning data for OGC programs.

Much of the work was accomplished in FY 1999-2000, with full implementation in FY

2001.

Migration of the FEC legacy databases to new, Y2K compliant technology through a

newly procured IT contract for basic IT services, accomplished in FY 1999 and 2000. In

addition, FEC remediation efforts were successful, and no Y2K disruptions were

experienced by FEC systems. A major accomplishment of the Data Systems Division in

FY 1999 and 2000 was the preservation of a multitude of internally developed legacy IT

systems and programs, which had to be prepared for the implementation of the new Y2K

compliant mainframe IT system, and readied for the migration to the client server

environment.

Development of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program to handle

administrative complaints and Title 2 audit referrals to free enforcement and litigation

resources for more complex, significant cases. The goal is to reduce the time and cost to

resolve selected enforcement actions through negotiation and mediation (if necessary)

outside of the complex and time consuming enforcement process. The first cases were

resolved under this program in FY 2001, but the work establishing the program was

accomplished in FY 1999-2000.

Implementation of an administrative fine program to free enforcement resources for more

complex, substantive cases and to enhance disclosure by improving timely filing without

resorting to the time consuming and costly enforcement process. Late and non-filers are

now processed through the administrative fine program that began on July 14, 2000.

Initiation of a state waiver program to allow state election offices to apply for and receive

a waiver for maintaining paper copies of reports at state offices by making the FEC

reports available online. The FEC provided states with surplus computer equipment. To

date, 47 states or similar jurisdictions participate in the program.

Established a contract to review document processing procedures and revise FEC

disclosure reporting forms, to improve the efficiency of document processing for nonelectronic filings. The results of this contract will be used in future efforts to improve
5

processing of those documents from filers not required to file electronically through the

assessment of OCR document scanning.

Continued planning for the migration of FEC IT systems to a client/sever environment.

The strategy for the transition to the client/server system was accomplished in FY 1999-

2000, concluding with the award of a contract to American Management Systems, Inc., to

develop the client/server environment and convert the FEC disclosure system to the new

system. The migration to the client/server in environment will occur in phases over the

next several years.

Transferred in-house payroll processing to the National Finance Center and awarded a

contract to PeopleSoft to implement in FY 2001 a new accounting and finance system

that will operate in the client server environment.

The Audit Division increased the Title 2 Discretionary Audit program from 20-25 audits

per election cycle to 40-45 audits per cycle. The expansion began in the 1998 cycle

(evident in FY 1999 and 2000), and will continue into the 2000 election cycle. The FEC

has implemented a Title 2 Audit program, per a PwC recommendation, which will “stand

alone” and will be fully implemented in presidential election years. Beginning with the

2000 cycle, a combination of limited scope audits and additional part time intern staff will

ensure that the full Title 2 Audit program will be completed as well as the statutory

presidential audits for the 2000 cycle.

As a result of the ADR program, the administrative fine program, the Case Management

System, and the OGC Enforcement Priority System (EPS), the FEC is improving

timeliness of enforcement actions and increasing the percentage of the caseload actively

worked on. Since FY 1995, the Commission has used the EPS to triage cases, dismiss

those with a lower priority and eliminate stale cases. The goal of all the initiatives has

been to focus limited enforcement resources on the more complex, substantive cases, to

increase the percentage of cases activated, and to improve the ratio of cases closed with

substantive action rather than dismissed with no action. As a result of efforts since FY

1995, but particularly since FY 1999 and 2000, there were some significant improvements

in enforcement in FY 2000:

Over 50 percent of cases were activated FY 1998-2000, an improvement over the

average of 35-40% from FY 1995-1997;

The ratio of active to inactive pending cases on average improved to over 50% in

FY 1999;

A dramatic increase in cases closed with substantive action, from roughly 40% in

FY 1999 to approximately 75% in FY 2000.
6

The OGC completed revisions to the FEC regulations in FY 1999-2000 to permit the

institution of both the voluntary and the mandatory electronic filing programs, the

administrative fine program, election cycle reporting, and the state filing waiver program.

Relation of Accomplishments to Mission and Objectives

The mission of the FEC is to assure that the campaign finance process is fully disclosed

and that the rules are effectively and fairly enforced, fostering the electorate's faith in the integrity

of the nation's political process. As a result of the major improvement over the last 25 years in

the reporting and the disclosure of campaign finances, the public has a better understanding of

where and how federal candidates raise and spend their campaign monies.

The FEC accomplishments in FY 1999 and 2000 should improve the timeliness and

increase the substantive action in enforcement cases and focus our limited resources on more

complex, substantive cases. The next section relates the FEC accomplishments to our major

programs and objectives, and the final section quantifies the workloads and results of our

programs in FY 1999 and 2000 for the most recent election cycles.

Relationship of Accomplishments to Program Objectives

Disclosure Objectives

The objectives of disclosure are: to provide campaign finance reports for public view

under the FECA (Title 2); to promote full, accurate, and timely disclosure of campaign finance

activity in federal elections; and to provide information and policy guidance on the FECA to the

public, press, and those required to comply with the FECA.

The desired outcome is that the public can make informed choices in the electoral process

because of full disclosure of the sources of candidates’ funding for campaigns.

The result of the FEC accomplishments is that information was made available to the

public faster and in more flexible formats. In addition, the foundation has been established for

future IT enhancements that will improve automated review of reports.

FEC accomplishments in FY 1999 and 2000 were:

-- Expanded Web site

-- Initiated IT enhancements (development of client/server environment and

 document management)

-- Established voluntary and mandatory electronic filing systems
7

-- Instituted state filing waiver program

-- Updated FEC forms and processed filings of non-electronic filers

-- Completed regulations for the administrative fine and state waiver programs
8

Compliance Objectives

The objectives of compliance are: to enforce the disclosure and limitation provisions of

the FECA (Title 2) and to encourage and obtain voluntary compliance with the FECA through

timely and comprehensive enforcement of the FECA.

The desired outcome is the perception by the regulated community that disclosure

reports must be accurately and timely filed and that enforcement of the FECA is timely and

impartial.

The result of the FEC accomplishments was the establishment of programs to speed up

and streamline enforcement of the filing requirements and to negotiate and settle some

enforcement cases without resorting to the full enforcement process. In addition, the Case

Management System was implemented, more enforcement cases were activated, the ratio of

active to inactive cases was improved, more cases were closed with substantive action, and more

audits were conducted.

FEC accomplishments in FY 1999 and 2000 were:

-- Developed ADR program

-- Implemented administrative fine program

-- Installed case management system

-- Expanded Title 2 Audit program

-- Improved case activation and active to inactive case ratios; improved percentage of

cases substantively closed versus dismissed

Public Financing Objectives

The objective of the public financing program is to administer the public funding

provisions of the FECA under Title 26 U.S.C. for qualified candidates in presidential elections.

The desired outcomes of the public funding program are to process timely and accurately

requests for federal funds to qualified presidential candidates and to ensure impartial and timely

enforcement of the FECA.

FEC accomplishments in FY 1999 and 2000 were:

-- Meet two-year deadline to complete presidential audits
9

-- Maintain a “stand alone” Title 2 audit program

Election Administration Objectives

The objective of the election administration program is to assist state and local election

officials charged with administering federal elections through operation of the Office of Election

Administration (OEA.)

The desired outcomes of the election administration program are that the state and local

election officials charged with administering federal elections are able to hold fair, efficient

elections with public confidence in the integrity of the results and that election administrators

comply with the Voting Accessibility and NVRA statutes.

FEC accomplishments in FY 1999 and 2000 were:

-- Initiated update of the VSS to improve elections officials’ abilities to select

 certified voting equipment that meets the requirements for an accurate electoral

 process

IT and Support Objectives

The objective, and the desired outcome, of the IT and support programs is to support the

FEC staff in the meeting of the core objectives and the FEC mission

FEC accomplishments in FY 1999 and 2000 were:

-- Transferred in-house payroll processing to the National Finance Center

-- Developed strategy for transition to a client/server environment

-- Initiated development of new accounting and finance system to operate in a

 client/server migration

FY 1999-2000 Workloads and Program Outputs

The workloads experienced by the reports processing and review staff at the FEC were

the highest ever experienced by the FEC in FY 1999 and 2000. While completing processing of

the 1998 election cycle work, the staff also had to begin processing the 2000 election cycle work.

The 2000 cycle set a record for total campaign finance activity, which the FEC measures through

the total disbursements made by all candidates and committees in federal elections. We expect
10

that the final total disbursements for the 2000 cycle will exceed $3.5 billion: a more than 1000%

increase since the 1976 election cycle.

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS

BY ELECTION CYCLE (PRESIDENTIAL/CONGRESSIONAL)

ELECTION TOTAL % INCREASE % INCREASE % INCREASE

CYCLE DISBURSEMENTS PRIOR PRIOR SINCE

(4 YEARS) $ MILLIONS PRESID. CONG. 1976

1976 310

1978 386 24.5%

1980 768 147.7% 147.7%

1982 795 106.0% 156.5%

1984 1,259 63.9% 306.1%

1986 1,094 37.6% 252.9%

1988 1,607 27.6% 418.4%

1990 1,115 1.9% 259.7%

1992 2,051 27.6% 561.6%

1994 1,708 53.2% 451.0%

1996 2,738 33.5% 783.2%

1998 2,021 18.3% 551.9%

2000 3,500 27.8% 1029.0%

In terms of workloads, this translated to record numbers of documents filed and itemized

transactions processed into the disclosure databases. Although over 1,000 filers voluntarily filed

electronically, most of the work required FEC Data Systems staff to code and enter the data.

The following tables compare documents filed and transactions processed (the 2000 cycle totals

are projected based upon actual to date totals for most of the cycle) to previous election cycles:

DOCUMENTS AND TRANSACTIONS PROCESSED BY ELECTION CYCLE

AVERAGE NUMBER OF ITEMIZED TRANSACTIONS PER DOCUMENT

ELECTION DOCUMENTS ITEMIZED AVERAGE % INCREASE % INCREASE

CYCLE FILED TRANS. # OF TRANS. SINCE SINCE

(4 YEARS) FORM 3 ENTERED PER DOC. PRIOR CYCLE 1984 CYCLE

1984 70,056 507,461 7.24 

1986 70,110 528,761 7.54 4.1% 4.1%

1988 75,299 694,016 9.22 22.2% 27.2%

1990 73,324 769,474 10.49 13.9% 44.9%

199283,256 1,435,262 17.24 64.3% 138.0%

1994 81,214 1,382,696 17.03 -1.2% 135.0%

1996 85,914 1,976,524 23.01 35.1% 217.6%

1998 80,255 1,697,934 21.16 -8.0% 192.1%

2000 89,046 2,513,263 28.22 33.4% 289.6%
11

ITEMIZED TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO DATABASE

BY ELECTION CYCLE (PRESIDENTIAL/CONGRESSIONAL)

ELECTION ITEMIZED % INCREASE % INCREASE % INCREASE

CYCLE TRANS. PRIOR PRIOR SINCE

(4 YEARS) ENTERED PRESID. CONG. 1984

1984 507,461 

1986 528,761 4.2%

1988 694,016 36.8% 36.8%

1990 769,474 45.5% 51.6%

19921,435,262 106.8% 182.8%

1994 1,382,696 79.7% 172.5%

1996 1,976,524 37.7% 289.5%

1998 1,697,934 22.8% 234.6%

2000 2,513,263 27.2% 395.3%

The workload data show that the number of disclosure documents processed increased by

27% since the 1984 election cycle and that the increase in transactions processed increased by

almost 400%. The result is an almost 300% increase in the amount of work to process an average

document (measured on itemized transactions per document filed.) This affected the staff

processing the documents and information in the Public Disclosure and Data Systems Divisions,

as well as the staff reviewing the reports in Reports Analysis.

The success of the FEC in processing all this work is that it was performed with

relatively static staffing levels: the staff processing and reviewing reports has not significantly

increased since FY 1980. The table below shows that the work performed in FY 1999 and 2000

was the most for any FY for the data processing and review staffs.

ITEMIZED TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO DATABASE

BY FISCAL YEAR

FISCAL ITEMIZED % INCREASE % INCREASE

YEAR TRANS. PRIOR FY SINCE

(ALL EC) ENTERED FY 1990

1990 400,507 

1991 403,165 0.7% 0.7%

1992692,662 71.8% 72.9%

1993 716,448 3.4% 78.9%

1994 732,441 2.2% 82.9%

1995 799,131 9.1% 99.5%

1996 991,451 24.1% 147.5%

1997 978,411 -1.3% 144.3%

1998 865,297 -11.6% 116.1%

1999 996,633 15.2% 148.8%

2000 1,185,630 19.0% 196.0%
12

One result of this workload increase, without a corresponding increase in staff, is that the

Reports Analysis Division (RAD) has experienced a significant increase in the number and

complexity of reports to review over the last several election cycle, and therefore an increase in

the backlog of unreviewed reports, as shown in the tables below. The FEC is enhancing the

electronic review capabilities so that more of the review functions are automated, thus expediting

the review process to reduce the backlog.

TOTAL BACKLOG OF REPORTS UNREVIEWED

(FORM 3 DISCLOSURE REPORTS)

TOTAL DOCUMENTS JANUARY POST-ELEC JULY ELECTION YEAR

REVIEW BACKLOG BACKLOG % REVIEWED BACKLOG % REVIEWED

2000 DBASE 28,415 59.05% 17,964 59.58%

1998 DBASE 13,276 81.01% 7,721 81.73%

1996 DBASE 22,676 68.03% 11,380 74.10%

1994 DBASE 17,173 75.12% 11,762 71.73%

1992 DBASE 24,457 64.78% 15,282 63.92%

1990 DBASE 15,432 75.43% 10,189 73.68%

1988 DBASE 14,129 78.16% 8,851 77.56%

RAD STAFFING FY 1988-2000 PROGRAM FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000

REVIEW REPORTS 21.3 20.4 20.1 19.7 21.6 21.9 22.8 23.6 22.2 22.3 23.3 20.7 23.3 

RFAIS 4.5 4.3 3.1 3.0 3.5 3.2 2.7 3.8 3.8 2.8 3.0 3.0 4.2 

REFERRALS 2.9 4.6 3.2 4.4 2.0 4.3 3.2 3.2 1.1 2.6 1.0 3.3 1.0 

RAD TOTALS 39.7 39.4 36.3 38.5 38.9 40.4 40.9 42.6 40.2 40.1 41.0 40.6 43.2 

The Commission is not requesting additional staff for RAD in FY 2002 to resolve this

backlog. We are requesting full funding of the IT projects to provide for a business process

review of the RAD review program, and for enhancements of the automated review program with

items such as data mining. These items are requested for FY 2002. We also expect to see some

improvements from the IT enhancements in the migration to client server IT environment and

electronic filing. Automated filing is being implemented in FY 2001, but the full enhancements

and the full benefits may not be fully realized until the 2004 election cycle.

Electronic filing also will alleviate the impact of the rising workloads in document

processing. While more data were processed, the size of the workloads did lead to a slight

degradation in timeliness for data input. The FEC measures this in two ways: median days to

process all documents and data, and days from document receipt until final processing for 95% of

all documents filed in an election cycle data base. Both of these measures show significant

improvement from the 1992 cycle until the 1998 cycle. However, despite some decline in

timeliness, the 2000 data were processed within our target of 95% complete within 45 days of

receipt. This was remarkable given the amount of data and the static staffing levels.
13

TIMELINESS OF PROCESSING OF ITEMIZED DATA BY ELECTION CYCLE

(FY 1987-2000)

. MEDIAN DAYS DAYS FROM TOTAL TOTAL 

CYCLE TO PROCESS RECEIPT TO DISBURSEMENTS TRANSACTIONS

(4 YEARS) ALL DATA 95% COMPLETE IN CYCLE IN CYCLE

($MILLIONS)

1988 9 82 1,607 694,016

1990 7 34 1,115 769,474

1992 13 132 2,051 1,435,262

1994 14 69 1,708 1,382,696

1996 10 39 2,738 1,976,524

1998 9 27 2,021 1,697,934

2000 11 44 2 3,500 ,513,263

For the enforcement programs, the Commission experienced some improvements in the

total enforcement caseload that was actively being worked on, or activated. Since FY 1995 OGC

has operated under the Enforcement Priority System, or EPS. Using this and the Central

Enforcement Docket, cases are ranked and prioritized. The goals are to focus limited enforcement

resources on the more substantive and meaningful cases, and to dismiss or drop the de minimis

cases. Cases are dismissed with no formal action to eliminate stale cases that have not been

worked on, and to dismiss cases which will never be activated under the EPS rankings.

OGC has striven to reach a more than 50% active to inactive caseload ratio and achieved

this in FY 1999 and 2000. In addition, the goal has been to activate more cases of those retained

and not dismissed, and to close more of the cases with substantive Commission action. This goal

was met in FY 2000 when more than 70% of cases closed with substantive Commission action;

previously since FY 1995, more than 50% of cases had been dismissed with no action.

ENFORCEMENT SECTION AND PFESP

MONTHLY AVERAGE NUMBER PENDING

FISCAL INACTIVE ACTIVE TOTAL PERCENT

 YEAR CASES CASES CASES ACTIVE

1995 174 145 319 45%

1996 122 125 247 51%

1997 217 102 319 32%

1998 107 93 200 47%

1999 79 117 196 60%

2000 98 102 200 51%
14

ENFORCEMENT SECTION AND PFESP

CASES CASES CASES TOTAL PERCENT PERCENT

FISCAL DISMISSED DISMISSED/ CLOSED CASES CASES CASES

 YEAR UNDER EPS "OTHER" IN FY CLOSED DISMISSED CLOSED

1995 121 3 128 252 49% 51%

1996 131 2 96 229 58% 42%

1997 133 19 92 244 62% 38%

1998 145 - 68 213 68% 32%

1999 78 7 65 150 57% 43%

2000 25 8 107 140 24% 76%

HISTORICAL CASE DISPOSITION FY 1995-2000

FY DISMISS. DISMISS. NO RTB RTB NO PC PC CONCIL. SENT TO FY SENT TO

TOTALS NO FIND. BY EPS CLOSED NO FA CLOSED NO FA CLOSED LITIG. TOTAL ADR

FY 1995 3 121 12 34 1 4 71 6 252 - 

FY 1996 2 131 8 34 - 2 46 6 229 - 

FY 1997 19 133 6 26 - 6 47 7 244 - 

FY 1998 - 145 4 13 - 1 45 5 213 - 

FY 1999 7 78 15 16 1 3 28 2 150 - 

FY 2000 8 25 22 17 1 4 58 5 140 - 

The future goal is to maintain the greater than 50% active ratio, activate 50% of cases

incoming, and close more than 50% of cases with substantive Commission action. The

institution of the ADR and administrative fine programs were designed to free OGC enforcement

resources for the more complex, substantive cases and assist OGC in achieving these goals in the

future.

This look at workloads experienced in FY 1999 and 2000 depicts the accomplishments in

the disclosure and compliance programs at the FEC. It also highlights the importance of the FEC

FY 2002 Budget Request, and the need to fully fund our IT programs at the requested level.

Without the improvements to be realized from the IT enhancements, the Commission will not be

able to cope with increasing workloads due to increasing levels of campaign finance activity,

particularly without increases in staff.
15
APPENDIX B:

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

IT STRATEGIC PLAN FY 2001-2007

IT PERFORMANCE PLANS BY PROJECT FY 2001-2007

Submitted to Congress/OMB
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

IT STRATEGIC PLAN FY 2001-2007

IT Performance Plans By Project FY 2001-2007

In 1995, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) initiated a 5-year program to

reengineer its automated systems infrastructure through a modernization program. Three

major initiatives were launched: information technology (IT) modernization, point of

entry, and electronic filing. These projects were designed to assist the FEC to both

perform its statutory mission and achieve its objectives and goals as defined in the FEC

Strategic Plan. The goals of IT modernization are to enable FEC staff to work more

efficiently by using of more robust, comprehensive methodologies providing access to

data and information. These goals will be achieved through migration to a client/server

system to facilitate information requests, reduce copying and distribution of paper

documents, streamline research, and manage workloads. The new system will permit use

of FEC generated data and information by both FEC internal and external users in a more

intuitive and flexible manner. This project will enable us to realize the benefits achieved

by the Electronic Filing Project.

In FY 2004, the FEC plans to complete this first set of initiatives. To build on

this IT foundation, the FEC will begin the next phase of technology enhancements. This

next phase will be implemented in stages, beginning in FY 2003 with completion in FY

2006 based on the premise the Internet provides the greatest access to FEC data. External

and internal users of FEC information will be able to retrieve data through portal

definition, dynamic retrieval, and user-defined profiles, culminating in the full integration

of all FEC data bases.

This document also includes the breakout of the base IT programs for the Data

Systems Development Division (DSDD) from FY 2001-2007. Although not part of the

earmarked IT initiatives, these programs and activities are part of the IT system. The

funds for these base programs are tracked separately from the earmarked IT initiatives.
2

IT Modernization

FY 2001

Goals/Milestones:

• Begin the implementation of the document flow system for the Audit Division

(TeamMate) (Ongoing)

• Upgrade Office of the General Counsel and Commissioner PCs (April 2001)

• Design and develop the replacement FEC digital imaging system (Spring 2001)

• Develop the Commission-wide Document Management System (Spring 2001)

• Design and build infrastructure for the migration of data and programs for the

Client/Server Disclosure program (June 2001)

• Complete Case Management System 6-month review (July 2001)

• Standardize and develop procedures for the OGC to enter data into the Case

Management System (Sept 2001)

• Design and implement Litigation Notebook in Case Management (Nov 2001)

• Implement recommendations from the FY 2000 Computer Security Review

(September 2001)

• Build infrastructure to support new financial accounting system (September

2001)

• Implement the integration of document management (PCDocs) with the Case

Management System (September 2001)

• Redesign database for Commission Secretariat (September 2001)

• Maintain FEC computer infrastructure, upgrading computer servers and

communications networks where necessary to support growing Commission

needs (Ongoing)

Costs:

Personnel: $ 389,500, 5.0 FTE

Non-Personnel*: $3,132,683

 *Includes software and hardware licensing, maintenance, new equipment, and

maintenance and licensing for equipment purchased in prior fiscal years

FY 2002

Goals/Milestones:

• Continue implementation of Client/Server Disclosure program (Ongoing)

• Complete implementation of Audit Division Document Flow System

(TeamMate) (November 2001)

• Implement Database for Commission Secretariat (February 2002)

• Develop offense profile reports, from the Case Management System (March

2002)

• Complete installation of FEC-wide Document Management system

(September 2002)
3

• Implement Human Resources Module for the new Finance System (September

2002)

• Complete Review of RAD Needs Assessment and Business Process Review

(September 2002)

• Develop data mining program (September 2002)

• Continue to enhance data query enhancements from Web (FY 2002)

• Contract for the development and implementation of a Litigation Notebook in

the Case Management System (November 2001)

• Maintain FEC computer infrastructure, upgrading computer servers and

communications networks where necessary to support growing Commission

needs (Ongoing)

Costs:

Personnel: $ 826,000, 10.0 FTE

Non-Personnel*: $3,341,000

*Includes software and hardware licensing, maintenance, new equipment, and

maintenance and licensing for equipment purchased in prior fiscal years

FY 2003

Note: For FY 2003 through FY 2007, timing for completion of Client/Server

implementation and for initiation of new projects, including the Portal Development

Project, is contingent upon receipt of five additional Data Division FTE included in the

FY 2002 FEC budget request.

Goals/Milestones:

• Complete FEC-wide implementation of Document Management Program

• Complete FEC-wide implementation of Disclosure Client/Server Program

• Convert budget and MIS processes to Client/Server architecture

• Identify and begin conversion of tertiary systems to Client/Server architecture

(Clearinghouse, Information, Administration Divisions and others)

• Develop on-line Commission voting and certifications

• Perform analysis of Agency’s automated procurement system (SACONS)

• Integrate automated procurement system and accounting systems

• Continue conversion of non-disclosure systems to Client/Server architecture

(Clearinghouse, Information, Administration Divisions and others)

• Review and analyze current automated payroll system

• Design and develop system for electronic procurement

• Design and develop system for OCR scanning of non-electronically filed

documents

• Initiate Portal Development Project

• Maintain FEC computer infrastructure, upgrading computer servers and

communications networks where necessary to support growing Commission

needs (Ongoing)
4

Portal Development Project

The FEC plans to complete the current IT initiatives by FY 2004. The

Portal Development Project (PDP) is the next step in which the IT initiatives will

become accessible to all users in a logical, integrated manner. The goal of PDP is

to provide simple but powerful access to the upgraded system(s) providing both

internal and external users with custom browsing techniques for accessing the

system functions. These tools will allow users to efficiently query the FEC’s

databases.

Integrated access to FEC data will occur through the development and

implementation of an Internet Web portal. A portal is a personalized single point

of entry to internal and external applications and information. Portals allow users

to create and save their own customized Web view of FEC databases and

resources. For example, a public user might access the FEC Website on a regular

basis to review specific campaign reports, search contributor databases, or learn

about new regulations. By accessing a customized FEC Web page, the user will be

able to maintain a template containing pre-defined searches that can be readily

executed.

The PDP design also will give internal users Web access to databases and

applications that have been developed through other IT initiatives. Audit

Management, Electronic Campaign Disclosure Filing, Case Management,

Document Management, Accounting/Finance, Human Resource and other systems

will be readily available to employees and others who require access. To

implement the PDP, the following phases will be completed:

Portal Definition

Portal definition is the creation of the blueprint for an integrated access

model. The blueprint will describe database relationships and establish a

method for creating integrated access to FEC data.

Retrieval/Search Enhancement

In this phase, the FEC will develop the data search building blocks to be

used in the final portal product. Search capabilities of FEC databases will

be developed, incorporating techniques such as data warehousing and data

mining to enhance data retrieval.

User Profile Definition

User profile definition includes the assessment of internal and external user

requirements to determine the best way to set up custom portal access. In

the PDP model, there are two general classes of users: internal users (FEC

staff) and external users (e.g., the press, FEC filers, and the public).

Defining how users access the data, setting up templates and providing a

customization method will allow both internal and external users to
5

perform intelligent searches of databases without having to redefine search

parameters.

Full Integration and Implementation

Full integration and implementation involve the completion of a

consolidated Web portal in which all individual component parts are fused

together to form an interactive capability of instantly delivering all FEC

data in accordance with user requirements.

Costs:

Personnel: $ 867,500, 10 FTE

Non-Personnel*: $2,570,500

*Includes software and hardware licensing, maintenance, new equipment, and

maintenance and licensing for equipment purchased in prior fiscal years

FY 2004 -2007

Goals/Milestones:

• Complete conversion of remaining non-disclosure systems to Client/Server

architecture

• Replace and upgrade aging PCs (desktop and laptop computers)

• Upgrade communications equipment to support protocols in a fiber

environment

• Compete and award IT services contract

• Complete implementation of electronic procurement

• Implement OCR scanning for non-electronic filed documents

• Conduct on going needs assessments updates for FEC offices each FY

• Maintain FEC computer infrastructure, upgrading computer servers and

communications networks where necessary to support growing Commission

needs (Ongoing)

Costs:

Personnel Non-Personnel* Total

FY 2004 $ 911,500 $3,045,500 $3,957,000

FY 2005 $ 957,000 $3,152,000 $4,109,000

FY 2006 $1,005,000 $3,216,000 $4,221,000

FY 2007 $1,055,000 $2,337,000 $3,392,000

*Includes software and hardware licensing, maintenance, new equipment, and

maintenance and licensing for equipment purchased in prior fiscal years

Point Of Entry Project

Public Law No. 104-79 (December 28, 1995) requires candidates for the United

States House of Representatives and their authorized committees to file all reports with

the FEC, effective December 31, 1995.
6

In FY 2000, $130,000 was allocated to develop an electronic methodology for

campaign finance reports to be transmitted to the FEC from the US Senate. This program

became fully operational during the 4th quarter of FY 2000. Senate documents are now

included with all other financial documents presented on the Internet.

Actual operation of the system (scanning of documents) will continue to be

performed by current staff, supplemented by overtime and temporary services during

peak filing periods. Contracts covering full maintenance and annual licensing fees for both

hardware and software began in FY 1998.

FY 2001

Goals/Milestones:

• Maintain high-speed scanning capability (Ongoing)

• Continue to provide the U.S. House of Representatives Records and

Registration Office with the capability to retrieve images from FEC digital

imaging system (Ongoing)

• Continue to provide via the Internet the capability to retrieve images of all

reports filed electronically or from the FEC digital imaging system (Ongoing)

• Maintain the high-speed communications interface between the FEC and the

Senate. Continue support of the process that transmits scanned images from

the Senate directly to the FEC internal Disclosure Imaging system. Continue

to support the nightly process to migrate all indexed images stored in the FEC

digital imaging system to the Web for global retrieval. (Ongoing)

Costs:

Personnel: $ 81,500, 1.0 FTE

Non-Personnel*: $101,500

*Includes equipment, maintenance, licensing, and contract services

FY 2002

Goals/Milestones:

• Maintain high-speed scanning capability (Ongoing)

• Continue to provide the U.S. House of Representatives Records and

Registration Office with the capability to retrieve images from FEC digital

imaging system (Ongoing)

• Continue to provide via the Internet the capability to retrieve images of all

reports filed electronically or from the FEC digital imaging system (Ongoing)

• Maintain the high-speed communications interface between the FEC and the

Senate. Continue support of the process that transmits scanned images from

the Senate directly to the FEC internal Disclosure Imaging system. Continue

to support the nightly process to migrate all indexed images stored in the FEC

digital imaging system to the Web for global retrieval (Ongoing)
7

• Purchase and install hardware and software for modernized digital imaging

system (October 2001)

• Migrate legacy images (approximately 4 million pages) to new digital imaging

system (December 2001)

• New Document Management System fully operational (September 2002)

Costs:

Personnel: $79,000, 1.0 FTE

Non-Personnel*: $98,000

*Includes equipment, maintenance, licensing, and contract services

FY 2003-2007

Goals/Milestones: No change from FY 2002.

Costs FY 2003-2007:

Personnel Non-Personnel* Total

FY 2003 $ 88,500 $104,500 $193,000

FY 2004 $ 87,000 $100,500 $187,500

FY 2005 $ 97,000 $107,000 $204,000

FY 2006 $ 95,500 $103,000 $198,500

FY 2007 $107,000 $110,000 $217,000

*Includes software and hardware licensing, maintenance, new equipment, and

maintenance and licensing for equipment purchased in prior fiscal years

Electronic Filing Project

Public Law No. 104-79 (December 28, 1995) required the FEC to permit filers to

voluntarily submit reports electronically and to reduce duplicative filings with State

offices, effective December 31, 1996. The electronic filing program became operational in

January 1997 with full system roll-out in FY 1999. The system was fully operational for

the 2000 election cycle. During the 2000 election cycle, January 1, 1999 to December

2000, over 1,000 committees submitted their financial reports electronically.

The FEC’s appropriation for FY 2000 included provisions for mandatory

electronic filing beginning with activity in calendar year 2001. Preparation for the

mandatory phase of electronic filing was completed during the first quarter of FY 2001.

These preparations included a comprehensive review of the electronic filing format,

coordination of any changes with all software vendors, improvements in the process used

for transmission of filings, Internet-based filing procedures for late contribution notices,

and improvements to exception processing and other internal processes.

In addition, in October 2000 the Commission initiated a major new electronic filing

initiative. Candidates in general elections for the House of Representatives and for

President were provided access to a web-based reporting system for 48 hour notices of

late contributions. Each reporting committee was provided with a Personal Identification
8

Number (PIN) and access to a special secure web connection to the electronic filing

servers through which they could submit late contribution reports. A web interface was

particularly appropriate for this reporting because each submission typically includes

only a few contributions and must be filed quickly -- within 48 hours of receipt.

The current contract for the provision of electronic support services expires at the

end of FY 2001, and therefore, it is difficult to project what the annualized cost will be in

future years. Based on current processing algorithms, the estimated maintenance charges

are expected to range from $1.2 million to $1.3 million per year to operate and enhance

the process, beginning in October FY 2002.

FY 2001

Goals/Milestones:

• Completed renovation processes affecting FECFile in first quarter FY2001

including:

• Modifications to filing format

• Modifications to filing

• Integration with FEC disclosure database and e-review

• Modifications to FECFile software program

• Develop approaches to integrate electronically filed data with other FEC

functions (Ongoing)

• Accommodate all mandated electronic filers meeting the regulatory threshold

• Maintain the electronic filing system (February 2001)

• Develop Statement of Work to procure new electronic filing vendor (May

2001)

• Award contract for new electronic filing contract (September 2001)

Costs:

Personnel: $151,500, 2.5 FTE

Non-Personnel*: $822,500

*Includes software and hardware licensing, maintenance, training, technical

support, processing electronic filings and storage

FY 2002

Goals/Milestones:

• Continued support of the electronic filing program (Ongoing)

• Continued development of integrated desk audit review for electronically filed

data (Ongoing)

• Maintain and enhance electronic filing system (Ongoing)

Costs:

Personnel: $ 156,000, 2.5 FTE

Non-Personnel*: $1,078,000
9

*Includes software and hardware licensing, maintenance, training, technical

support, processing electronic filings and storage

FY 2003-2007

Goals/Milestones:

• Maintain and enhance electronic filing system.

Costs FY 2003-2007:

Personnel Non-Personnel* Total

FY 2003 $164,500 $1,090,000 $1,254,500

FY 2004 $172,500 $1,102,000 $1,274,500

FY 2005 $181,500 $1,114,500 $1,296,000

FY 2006 $190,500 $1,127,500 $1,318,000

FY 2007 $200,500 $1,141,000 $1,341,500

 *Includes software and hardware licensing, maintenance, training, technical

 support, processing electronic filings and storage

Base DSDD IT Budget

The base DSDD budget maintains and supports the IT operations of the FEC.

This entails operation and support for the on-going IT programs covering an extensive

inventory of legacy systems for both Disclosure and Compliance operations at the FEC,

in addition to support for informational and educational outreach efforts. The DSDD

budget also supports the financial and administrative operations of the Commission.

DSDD integrates the on-going operations of legacy systems with the new

developmental projects depicted in the three major initiatives above. Once the

client/server migration is fully implemented, the legacy systems will have been converted

over to the new environment. The base DSDD budget provides for the support of 40

staff, including all travel, training, printing, supplies, and other basic support.

FY 2001-2007

Goals/Milestones (All Ongoing Operations):

• Operate base IT systems, including servers and desktop equipment

• Perform manual data coding and entry for committees below the electronic

filing threshold; support Electronic Filing Program

• Operate IT help desk and perform IT training for FEC staff

• Maintain all legacy IT programs and systems

• Provide IT support for the Disclosure and Compliance Programs

• Provide IT support for the Public Funding Program

• Integrate legacy IT systems with new developmental projects

Costs:

 Personnel Non-Personnel Total
10

FY 2001 $2,695,000 $1,210,000 $3,905,000

FY 2002 $2,795,000 $1,195,000 $3,990,500

FY 2003 $2,938,500 $1,243,000 $4,181,500

FY 2004 $3,088,000 $1,293,000 $4,381,000

FY 2005 $3,245,000 $1,345,000 $4,590,000

FY 2006 $3,409,500 $1,400,000 $4,809,500

FY 2007 $3,582,000 $1,456,000 $5,038,000
APPENDIX C:

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

FY 2002 PERFORMANCE PLAN

PURSUANT TO GPRA AND OMB A-11

March 2001

Submitted to Congress/OMB
2

FY 2002 PERFORMANCE PLAN

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

PERFORMANCE MEASURES, GOALS AND TARGETS

PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND GOALS

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) Strategic Plan identifies performance goals by

election cycle or other multi-year periods. The FY 2002 Performance Plan relates these

objectives, goals, and targets to FY 2002. The FY 2002 budget request presents resource levels

required to achieve the FEC goals and objectives.

The FEC Strategic Plan notes the difficulty in developing measures of performance for the

FEC mission. It is difficult to define and measure public faith in the political and campaign

finance systems and the effect of the FEC on the public’s confidence in the political process.

The FEC, however, has developed a set of performance indicators to measure success in

achieving improved public confidence in the political process.

If we are successful in meeting our performance targets for timely review and processing

of reports, if we meet our targets for resolving enforcement actions in a timely manner, and if we

are successful in informing and educating the public about campaign finance, we believe this will

help ensure the desired outcomes: public confidence in the FEC to fairly and effectively apply

campaign finance rules and to promote disclosure, thereby enabling the electorate to make

informed choices in the electoral process. We seek to promote voluntary compliance with the

FECA.

PERFORMANCE LEVELS AND FUNDING/FTE

The FEC has requested a FY 2002 budget of 375 FTE and $47,671,000. The request

represents a continuation of funding from FY 2001, originally enacted at $40,500,000 and 352

FTE, as adjusted to cover inflation, federal COLAs, and the cost of implementing our

Information Technology (IT) Strategic Plan. We also adjusted the staffing level to accommodate

the administrative fine program that was implemented in FY 2001, but was unfunded in the FY

2001 appropriation. This provides for a continuing resources (Current Services) level of

$42,797,500 for 357 FTE in FY 2002.

In addition to the Current Services level, the FEC has requested additional funding for the

Office of Election Administration (OEA) to assist state and local elections administrators: 6 FTE

and $2.542 million in FY 2002 to continue initiatives in elections administration requested for

funding in our FY 2001 supplemental request for $3 million. These initiatives would complete

and enhance the revised Voting Systems Standards (VSS)—technical standards for voting

machinery. The request would also assist in the development of management and operational

standards for voting systems, as part of a comprehensive program to upgrade the administration

of federal elections by the 2004 presidential election.

Finally, the FEC has requested another 12 additional staff in FY 2002. The additional

staff would be allocated as follows: five FTE for Data Systems for the IT program to support

on-going projects and new IT initiatives; four to the Commissioners to provide for an additional

executive assistant in all Commissioner offices, beyond the Chairman and Vice Chairman offices,

as is currently funded; and three staff for offices currently using contracted temporary assistance

to meet workload demands (Information, Personnel, and the ADR program.)

We have also requested funds to provide space to house the additional staff and the

projected expansion of the mission of the OEA, plus provide for staffing for the programs
3

mandated but unfunded in previous FEC appropriations. The five FTE in Data Systems would

ensure that on-going IT programs are fully supported and the new initiatives requested can be

accomplished.

Therefore, the FEC calculated a “Current Resources Performance” (Current Services) level

of $42.8 million and 357 FTE based on the FY 2001 appropriation, as adjusted. The

programmatic increases requested for FY 2002 at our full request level of $47.7 million for 375

FTE constitute the “Commission Request Performance” level.

Any funding level below the Current Services level, such as the OMB request for the FEC

for FY 2002 at $41.1 million, reflects a “Minimal Performance” level for FY 2002. This level of

FEC resources will not support an alternative dispute resolution program (ADR); implement a

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) recommendation for a stand-alone Title 2 audit program;

support a congressionally mandated administrative fine program; or expand the revision and

improvement of the Voting Systems Standards (VSS.) The OMB level of resources would not

support the aforementioned programs and would require a combination of reductions in other

Commission core programs and staff.

In FY 2002, the Commission determined not to request a final increment for disclosure

and compliance programs: the “Full Performance Request” as submitted in FY 1998 and FY

1999 to properly process the expected future enforcement workload, plus complete on-going

work on the 1996 election cycle major cases. The FY 2002 Request does not include a Full

Performance level.

This submission indicates what the different performance level budgets will "buy" in

terms of outcomes, as measured in workloads, service levels, and timeliness goals. The ability of

the FEC to successfully implement the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended,

(FECA) and meet our mission responsibilities flows from the levels of service we are capable of

providing.

The results or predicted outcomes for each of the major FEC programs are presented

below. The desired outcomes for each program are presented at: the Minimal Performance Level

(the OMB proposed level of funding) that results in staff levels of 352 FTE or less; the Current

Resources Performance Level at 357 FTE; and the FEC Request Performance Level (375 FTE),

for those programs that have performance indicated at higher than the Current Services

Performance level. Only the incremental changes in performance or timeliness are included in the

Current Request Performance Level and the FEC Request Performance Level.
4

FY 2002 PERFORMANCE PLAN

Program I: Disclosure

Objective: Promote Disclosure and Provide Information

The desired outcome is that the public can make informed choices in the electoral process due to

full disclosure of the sources of candidates’ funding for campaigns.

Minimal Performance Level (OMB level of 352 FTE or less)

-- Meet 48 hour deadline for making reports available for public review of 90% of reports

filed at FEC: process (scan, film, file, code and enter summary data) an estimated 65,000

reports and statements in FY 2002 (Public Disclosure/Data Systems)

-- Code and enter itemized data from disclosure reports filed, 95% complete within 60

days from the date the reports are received at the FEC (estimated 40,000 reports and

1,000,000 transactions in FY 2002); reduce backlog of unprocessed 2002 cycle reports to

less than 1500 (and all unprocessed reports to less than 2,000) by the end of FY 2002

(Data Systems)

-- Respond to 75% of requests for assistance from committees in filing reports within 72

hours; 11,000 estimated in FY 2002 (Reports Analysis)

-- Review 50% of all quarterly reports filed within 90 days of receipt at Commission,

complete 100% review of all reports filed, estimated 40,000 in FY 2002; reduce backlog

of unreviewed 2002 cycle reports to less than 20,000, and less than 21,000 for all reports

from all cycles by the end of FY 2002 (Reports Analysis)

-- Review 100% of all statements received, estimated 10,000 in FY 2002 (Reports

Analysis)

-- Prepare RFAI's for 100% of all committees' reports reviewed which require them, 50%

within 90 days of receipt at Commission, estimated 9,500 in FY 2002 (Reports Analysis)

-- Respond to 75% of all requests for documents and data within 72 hours in Public

Records, estimated at 26,000 in FY 2002; provide 30,000 printouts to requesters of

indices (Public Disclosure)

-- Respond to 75% of all press inquiries within 72 hours, and comply with statutory

deadlines for 90% of all FOIA requests received; estimated 14,000 and 50 in FY 2002

(Press Office)

-- Respond to 75% of requests for general information on FEC and FECA within 72

hours, 14 days for written requests, estimated at 55,000 calls and requests in FY 2002

(Information)

-- Respond to 75% of requests for copies of forms, the FECA and Regulations, and

Commission brochures and guidelines within 72 hours, estimated at 24,000 calls and

requests in FY 2002 (Information)

-- Notify all filers of upcoming reporting periods, and provide copies of forms as a

pre-reporting notice; publish monthly FEC Record (Information)
5

-- Publish statutorily required Annual Report and publish the following:

-- FEC Disclosure Forms

-- FECA (the Act)

-- FEC Regulations and updates, 11 CFR

-- Enable Commission to meet statutory deadlines for issuance or conclude action on

Advisory Opinions for 75% of all 60 and 20 day deadlines, estimated 40 in FY 2002, and

meet 45-60 day target for AO reconsiderations, 15 days for deficient request notices

(OGC)

-- Maintain targets for completion of all rule-making petitions filed pursuant to 11 CFR

Part 200, complete revisions to sections of Regulations in FY 2002 (OGC)

-- Respond to all requests for legal assistance from FOIA Officer, and for all FOIA

appeals, 75% within statutory deadlines, estimated 100 requests in FY 2002 (OGC)

Current Resources Performance Level (357 FTE)

-- Same as Minimal Performance Level, except for following improvements:

-- Meet 48 hour deadline for making reports available for public review of 99% of reports

filed at FEC: process (scan, film, file, code and enter summary data) an estimated 65,000

reports and statements in FY 2002 (Public Disclosure/Data Systems)

-- Code and enter itemized data from disclosure reports filed, 95% complete within 45

days from the date the reports are received at the FEC (estimated 40,000 reports and

1,000,000 transactions in FY 2002); reduce backlog of unprocessed 2002 cycle reports to

less than 1500 (and all unprocessed reports to less than 2,000) by the end of FY 2002

(Data Systems)

-- Respond to 100% of requests for assistance from committees in filing reports within 72

hours; 11,000 estimated in FY 2002 (Reports Analysis)

-- Review 60% of all quarterly reports filed within 90 days of receipt at Commission

(75% within 120 days), complete 100% review of all reports filed, estimated 40,000 in

FY 2002; reduce backlog of unreviewed 2002 cycle reports to less than 15,000, and less

than 16,000 for all reports from all cycles by the end of FY 2002 (Reports Analysis)

-- Prepare RFAI's for 100% of all committees' reports reviewed which require them, 60%

within 90 days of receipt at Commission, estimated 10,000 in FY 2002 (Reports

Analysis)

-- Respond to 100% of all requests for documents and data within 72 hours in Public

Records, estimated at 26,000 in FY 2002; provide 30,000 printouts to requesters of

indices (Public Disclosure)

-- Respond to 100% of all press inquiries within 72 hours, and comply with statutory

deadlines for 95% of all FOIA requests received; estimated 14,000 and 50 in FY 2002

(Press Office)
6

-- Respond to 100% of requests for general information on FEC and FECA within 72

hours, 14 days for written requests, estimated at 55,000 calls and requests in FY 2002

(Information)

-- Respond to 100% of requests for copies of forms, the FECA and Regulations, and

Commission brochures and guidelines within 72 hours, estimated at 24,000 calls and

requests in FY 2002 (Information)

-- Notify all filers of upcoming reporting periods, and provide copies of forms as a

pre-reporting notice; publish monthly FEC Record (Information)

-- Publish statutorily required Annual Report and publish the following:

-- FEC Disclosure Forms

-- FECA (the Act)

-- FEC Regulations and updates, 11 CFR

-- Campaign Guides

-- Brochures on Election Processes

-- Videos on Campaign Finance (Information)

-- Enable Commission to meet statutory deadlines for issuance or conclude action on

Advisory Opinions (AO) for 95% of all 60 and 20 day deadlines, estimated 40 in FY

2002, and meet 45-60 day target for AO reconsiderations, 15 days for deficient request

notices (OGC)

-- Respond to all requests for legal assistance from FOIA Officer, and for all FOIA

appeals, 95% within statutory deadlines, estimated 100 requests in FY 2002 (OGC)

FEC Request Performance Level (375 FTE)

-- Same as Current Resources Performance Level

FEC Full Performance Level Not Requested

Program II: Compliance

Objective: Obtain Compliance and Enforcement

The desired outcomes are the perception by the regulated community that disclosure reports

must be accurately and timely filed and the impartial and timely enforcement of the FECA.

Minimal Performance Level (OMB level of 352 FTE or less)

-- Refer a total of 100 committees for potential 438(b) audits from the 2000 election cycle

in FY 2001-2002, 65 in FY 2001 and the last 35 referrals in FY 2002 (RAD)

-- Refer a total of 30 committees for potential enforcement actions in FY 2002; complete

all enforcement referrals within the second FY of the election cycle (all of 2002 cycle by

close of FY 2003) (RAD)

-- Publish committees that fail to file reports (RAD)
7

-- Complete a reduced number of 438(b) audits; initiate an estimated 25 total audits for

the 2000 cycle; initiate all authorized committee audits within six months of the election

(Audit)

-- Maintain a system to identify and assign the more significant enforcement cases, more

rapidly dispose of less significant cases, and manage limited staff resources: the

Enforcement Priority System or EPS (OGC)

-- Performance targets under the EPS include (all estimates assume that significant, major

cases from the 1998 and 2000 cycles remain open and active during the 2002 cycle):

Process and close 225 cases in FY 2002, 40% with substantive Commission action

(This represents cases in which the Commission has reached a substantive finding

on the merits of the matter, other than dismissal, including findings of no RTB)

Assuming a monthly average total caseload of 275 to 290 cases during FY 2002,

maintain a monthly average ratio of 40% active to 60% inactive cases (OGC)

-- Permits OGC to continue to effectively process in timely manner 4-5 major cases from

pre-2002 election cycles

-- Complete review of 438(b) audit reports within 6-8 weeks on average; complete routine

matters in two weeks; perform an estimated 10-15 audit reviews in FY 2002 (OGC)

-- Respond to RAD requests for review of debt settlement plans and administrative

terminations within 10 days, complete review of complex debt settlement plans within 60

days; estimated 25 debt settlements and 500 administrative terminations in FY 2002

(OGC)

-- File all litigation pleadings in district court for offensive litigation within 90 days of

Commission determination to file suit, and meet all other time limits for briefs and other

pleadings imposed by the rule or order of the courts; estimated 10-15 defensive suits

initiated in FY 2002 (OGC)

-- Make at least one attempt to initiate settlement prior to commencement of suit for each

case early enough to permit consideration by Commission of any settlement proposal

prior to target date of initiation of suit; initiate 9 to 10 offensive litigation suits in FY

2002

-- Ensure that all pleadings and briefs represent the Commission's positions persuasively,

by reporting on status of each active litigation case once a month, and by maintaining a

system to obtain satisfaction of all judgments imposing civil penalties (OGC)

Current Resources Performance Level (357 FTE)

-- Same as Minimal Performance Level, except for following improvements:

-- Increase number of Title 2 audits to 40 to 45 audits per election cycle, 20-25

authorized committee audits and 20-25 unauthorized committee audits (Audit)

-- Conduct business process review of RAD procedures and organization by 2004 cycle,

not started until FY 2003 at this level (RAD)
8

-- Refer a total of 100 committees for potential 438(b) audits from the 2000 election cycle

in FY 2001-2002, 75 in FY 2001 and the last 25 referrals in FY 2002 (RAD)

-- Refer a total of 35 committees for potential enforcement actions in FY 2002; complete

all enforcement referrals within the second FY of the election cycle (all of 2002 cycle by

close of FY 2003) (RAD)

-- Permits operation of the administrative fine program to process non-and/or late-filer

cases; frees enforcement staff in OGC to work on more complex, substantive cases for

potential enforcement action (RAD and OAR)

-- Permits operation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process to handle

administrative complaints and Title 2 audit referrals in a more timely, less resourceintensive process than the traditional enforcement process; frees enforcement staff in

OGC to work on more complex, substantive cases for potential enforcement action

(ADR)

-- Improves case activation ratios to 50%, and the active to inactive ratio for pending

caseload to 50% (OGC)

-- Complete 20-25 audit reviews in FY 2002 (OGC)

-- Initiate 12-15 offensive litigation suits in FY 2002 (OGC)

FEC Request Performance Level (375 FTE)

-- Same as Current Resources Performance Level, except for following improvements:

-- Conduct a business process review of RAD procedures and organization, started in FY

2002; productivity and workload impacts not expected until 2004 cycle (RAD)

-- Enhance automated review and data mining capabilities; upgrade RAD staff levels

(RAD and Data)

FEC Full Performance Level Not Requested

Program III: Public Financing

Objective: Administer Public Financing

The desired outcomes of the public funding program are to process timely and accurately

requests for federal funds to qualified presidential candidates and to ensure impartial and timely

enforcement of the FECA.

Minimal Performance Level (OMB level of 352 FTE or less)

-- The 5 temporary FTE in Audit in presidential election cycles will allow timely

processing of matching fund requests for each election from January of prior year to

December of election year; five temporary employees facilitate ability for monthly

processing. (This is similar to temporary assistance utilized in prior election cycles.

Assistance of auditors on loan from GAO was terminated in the 1996 cycle. Not

necessary until FY 2003.) (Audit)
9

-- With goal of completing all Title 26 audits within two years of the general election,

complete 2000 cycle audits of 12 primary candidates, five convention committees (two

per major party), and two general election audits by December of 2002 (Audit)

-- Produce report to Congress on the 2000 matching fund process within 2-1/2 years of

2000 general election (Audit)

-- Complete legal reviews of all 2000 presidential audits within two years of 2000 election

(December 2002) (OGC)

-- Complete all repayment matters for 2000 cycle committees receiving public funds

within three years of general election (by December 2003) (OGC)

-- Complete audit legal review comments within 8 weeks of completion of preliminary

Title 26 audits for 2000 cycle (OGC)

-- Report on enforcement matters arising out of Title 26 audits and presidential campaigns

to Commission every 3-6 months, depending upon complexity of cases; complete routine

legal matters within one week; complete all investigations of 2000 presidential matters

within four year presidential election cycle (by December 2004) (OGC)

Current Resources Performance Level (357 FTE)

-- Same as Minimal Performance Level

FEC Request Performance Level (375 FTE)

-- Same as Minimal Performance Level

FEC Full Performance Level Not requested

Program IV: Office of Election Administration

Objective: Administer Office of Election Administration

The desired outcomes are that the state and local election officials charged with administering

federal elections are able to hold fair, efficient elections with public confidence in the integrity of

the results and that election administrators comply with the Voting Accessibility and NVRA

statutes. The FEC is required by the NVRA to report to Congress on the impact of the law after

each election.

The Office of Election Administration currently is the only federal office directly assisting and

supporting state and local election officials through the development of the updated technical

Voting Systems Standards (VSS) and ongoing outreach efforts. The ability, or inability, to

properly administer elections and tally elections results can affect the outcome of assuring public

faith in the electoral process.

Minimal Performance Level (OMB level of 352 FTE or less)
10

-- Conduct research ($50,000) into elections administration issues, and respond to 100%

of an estimated 7,500 requests for information within one week; research projects include:

updated, enhanced VSS

-- Comply with all statutory responsibilities and deadlines with regard to the Voting

Accessibility and National Voter Registration Acts

Current Resources Performance Level (357 FTE)

-- Same as Minimal Performance Level, except for the following improvements:

-- Fund research at $100,000 level in FY 2002 (comparable to FY 2000 and prior FY’s)

FEC Request Performance Level (375 FTE)

-- Same as Current Performance Level, except for the following improvements:

-- Increase funding of OEA by $2.542 million and 6 FTE to: further enhance updated

VSS; develop management standards for elections; update and expand prior OEA studies

on ballot access, ballot design, recounts, contested and challenged elections; complete

detailed survey of elections administration equipment and resources; and design criteria

for grant program to assist state and local elections officials improve the management and

conduct of federal elections. Projects include:

$500,000 for VSS and management standards research

$500,000 to disseminate and hold educational meetings on standards

$300,000 to update OEA research on elections administration issues

$450,000 to disseminate and hold educational meetings on OEA topics

$610,000 to administer expanded OEA program—6 FTE

-- Hold National Conference of Elections Administration Officials to introduce enhanced,

updated VSS, management standards, and hold workshops on updated OEA research

efforts for state and local elections officials ($140,000)

FEC Full Performance Level Not requested

Information Technology (IT) Projects

IT development and enhancements assist all Divisions and Offices in meeting their objectives and

goals as defined above. The two major on-going initiatives are the IT Enhancements and the

Electronic Filing projects. (See FEC IT Strategic Plan for FY 2001-2007.)

Minimal Performance Level (OMB level of 352 FTE or less)
11

-- Continue to provide point of entry for filing House disclosure documents at the FEC;

scan all documents and transmit images to House Office in usable format for that office;

eliminate duplicate processing at FEC and House office

-- Continuation of multiyear enhancement and upgrade of IT systems for all Commission

Offices and Divisions; continue migration to client/server environment; continue

implementation of document management system; maintain new finance and accounting

system

-- Operation of electronic filing system for disclosure reports required to be filed under

the FECA; interim system initiated on January 1, 1997; implemented a full electronic

filing system on a test basis for 1998 election cycle, completed testing and total system

implementation for voluntary electronic filing in 2000 election cycle; implemented

mandatory, with thresholds, electronic filing for 2002 cycle in FY 2001

-- Assumes $4.453 million and 8.5 FTE for the computerization initiatives in FY 2002, as

provided in the FEC FY 2001-2007 IT Strategic and Performance Plans

Current Resources Performance Level (357 FTE)

-- Same as Minimal Performance Level, except for the following improvements:

-- -- $106,000 to purchase and install IT Human Resources package to supplement the

new IT finance and accounting system installed in FY 2001; full implementation of HR

package delayed until FY 2003 at this level

-- Assumes $4.703 million and 8.5 FTE for the computerization initiatives in FY 2002,

according to the revised FEC FY 2001-2007 IT Strategic and Performance Plans

FEC Request Performance Level (375 FTE)

-- Same as Current Resources Performance Level, except for the following improvements:

-- 5 additional FTE to ensure timely completion of IT initiatives underway, to provide

sufficient support for on-going IT systems, and to support the new initiatives requested

below and in future years

-- $250,000 for analysis, design, and implementation of a Data Mining program to take

full advantage of the enhanced IT systems in the review process and enhance the

automated review process in RAD

-- $200,000 to fully implement the IT Human Resources package to supplement the new

IT finance and accounting system installed in FY 2001

-- Assumes $5,578,000 and 13.5 FTE for IT projects in FY 2002

FEC Full Performance Level Not requested

Commission Management and Administration
12

Represents the Commissioners, their immediate staff, and the staff management of the agency,

including the Staff Director’s Office, the Commission Secretary, and the offices of Planning and

Management, Personnel, and EEO. While operationally under either the Staff Director or the

Deputy Staff Director, the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) office, the Office of

Administrative Review, and the Press Office are included in the Disclosure or Compliance

Objectives discussion above.

Minimal Performance Level (OMB level of 352 FTE or less)

-- Existing Commission and Staff Management staffs necessary to comply with

government-wide laws and regulations for budget, planning, personnel (HR), EEO, and

other issues affecting federal agencies; provide guidance and support to the staff in

meeting the FEC mission and achieving agency objectives and goals

Current Resources Performance Level (357 FTE)

-- Same as Minimal Performance Level

FEC Request Performance Level (375 FTE)

-- Same as Current Resources Performance Level, except for the following improvements:

-- Implement automated HR package to supplement automated finance system installed

in FY 2001, to better serve the HR needs of the FEC (Data and Personnel)

-- Additional four FTE to provide a second Executive Assistant to the four

Commissioners other than the Chairman and Vice Chairman (currently only the Chairman

and Vice Chairman have an additional Executive Assistant), to improve the ability of the

Commissioners to monitor compliance programs and be more fully involved in the

management of the agency

FEC Full Performance Level Not requested
APPENDIX D:

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

STRATEGIC PLAN

FY 2001-2007

PURSUANT TO GPRA AND OMB A-11

March 2001

Submitted to Congress/OMB
2

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

STRATEGIC PLAN FY 2001-2007

As directed by the Congress, OMB, and the GPRA, the Strategic Plan provides the

framework for how the Federal Election Commission (FEC) will use its resources to implement

and enforce the campaign finance laws during the 2000 (FY 2000-2001), 2002 (FY 2002-2003),

2004 (FY 2004-2005 and 2006 (FY 2006-2007) election cycles.

The information in this plan is consistent with all currently available OMB guidance

including OMB Circular A-11, as revised, per Transmittal Memorandums for all OMB A-11

Supplements. The plan will be modified in accordance with any future OMB guidance to

agencies concerning compliance with the provisions of Public Law 103-62, the Government

Performance and Results Act (GPRA.)

MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the FEC is to assure that the campaign finance process is fully

disclosed and that the rules are effectively and fairly enforced, fostering the electorate's

faith in the integrity of the nation's political process.

The sanctity of the political process is key to public faith in the policy decisions made by

the elected and executive branches of government. Desired outcomes from the successful

achievement of this mission include providing the electorate with the capability to make

educated, informed decisions in the political process as to where candidates for federal office

derive their financial support, and the confidence that those who disregard the Federal Election

Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (FECA) restrictions on campaign financing and/or its

requirements for public disclosure will suffer real and evenhanded consequences for noncompliance.

In attaining these outcomes, the FEC strives to foster and maintain an attitude of

voluntary compliance with the rules of the campaign finance process. The FEC realizes that

voluntary compliance and public confidence are necessary because limited budgetary resources

preclude massive efforts to enforce the FECA.

In any election cycle, nearly 8,000 committees file between 80,000 to 85,000 reports,

which contain between 1.5 to over 2 million itemized processed transactions (contributions), as

well as millions of other itemized disbursements, receipts and other payments not entered into

Commission databases. At the same time, the FEC has the resources to audit less than 1% of the

committees filing reports in any given cycle, and only has the capacity to actively pursue

between 1.5 to 2% of total committees through the compliance (enforcement) process (average

monthly total of active cases since FY 1995) at any given time. As a result, voluntary

compliance is the only possible method to ensure widespread compliance with the FECA in the

campaign finance universe as it is configured currently.

Administering and enforcing the FECA includes facilitating public disclosure of campaign

finance activity; providing information and policy guidance to the public, press, political

committees, and elections officials on the law and Commission regulations; encouraging voluntary

compliance with the disclosure and other requirements of the FECA; and enforcing the statute

through audits, investigations, and civil litigation. Administering and enforcing the FECA also

involves implementing the public funding programs for Presidential campaigns and conventions.
3

This includes certification and audits of participating candidates and committees, and

enforcement of public funding legislation.

DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In order to achieve this mission, the FEC has identified four major goals and objectives.

Because it is difficult to quantify and measure faith in a political process, we have tied these four

goals and objectives to four core programs, which themselves are more easily subject to

quantification and measurement:

PROGRAM I. Promoting disclosure of campaign finance reports required to be

filed for public view under the FECA (Title 2): to promote full, accurate, and

timely disclosure of campaign finance activity in federal elections, and to provide

information and policy guidance on the FECA to the public, press, and those

persons and entities required to comply with the FECA.

PROGRAM II. Enforcing the disclosure and limitations provisions of the FECA

(Title 2): to encourage and obtain voluntary compliance with the disclosure and

limitations provisions of the FECA through enforcement of the FECA in a timely,

consistent, and comprehensive manner.

PROGRAM III. Implementing the presidential election public funding provisions

of the FECA (Title 26): to successfully administer the public funding provisions

of the FECA under Title 26 U.S.C. for qualified candidates in presidential

elections.

PROGRAM IV. Enhancing federal election administration: to assist state and

local election officials charged with administering federal elections through

operation of the National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, or Office of

Election Administration (OEA.)

It is assumed that the successful outcomes of these programs will ultimately lead to the

successful achievement of the Commission's mission to assure public confidence in the campaign

finance system.

ACHIEVEMENT OF GENERAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES--EXPECTED OUTCOMES

The desired mission related outcome is that the public has a high level of faith and trust in

the fairness of the campaign finance and political processes. Program related outcomes include:

Program I, Public Disclosure. Outcomes:

-- That sources of campaign funds in federal elections are accurately, fully, and

timely disclosed to the public;

-- That the electorate can make informed decisions as to the sources of campaign

funds for candidates for federal office;

-- That the electorate can readily obtain campaign finance information directly

from the FEC in usable formats;
4

-- That the press and media can use FEC data to more widely disclose campaign

finance information;

-- That the public and the campaign finance community can easily obtain policy

guidance and assistance in understanding and complying with the FECA.

Program II, Compliance. Outcomes:

-- That the public has confidence that the FECA is fairly and swiftly enforced;

-- That the election community has a high level of confidence that the FECA is

fairly enforced, resulting in a high level of voluntary compliance with the FECA;

-- That the election community believes that there are real, timely consequences

for violation of the disclosure and limitation provisions of the FECA;

-- That limited FEC enforcement resources are focused on the most salient and

significant compliance concerns under the FECA.

Program III, Public Financing. Outcomes:

-- That the successful implementation of the public funding provisions of the

FECA continues for each presidential election;

-- That all federal funds disbursed in presidential elections are properly certified

and accounted for by eligible candidates;

-- That all audits and enforcement actions related to public funding are completed

in a fair and timely fashion;

-- That there are real and timely consequences for failure to comply with the

FECA requirements under Title 26.

Program IV, Election Administration. Outcomes:

-- That the FEC complies with all statutory responsibilities under the NVRA

(National Voter Registration Act) and Voting Accessibility Act, to help improve

the national level of voter registration and accessibility of polling places;

-- That state and local elections officials receive informational and educational

assistance in administering federal elections in an efficient and effective manner;

-- That public confidence in the fairness and reliability of the polling process in

federal elections remains high.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERFORMANCE GOALS IN THE ANNUAL

PERFORMANCE PLAN AND GENERAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES IN THE

STRATEGIC PLAN.

Definition of an Election Cycle

The Commission defines its work generally in the context of election cycles. There are,

however, many definitions of an "election cycle." For example, for disclosure database purposes,
5

the FEC thinks in terms of four calendar years, i.e. the 2002 Database begins in January of 2001

and continues through December of 2004. However, the press and academicians define an

election cycle as the preceding and actual election years, i.e., calendar years 2001 and 2002 for the

2002 election cycle.

In the context of this Strategic Plan, the FEC notes that the actual 2002 election occurs in

FY 2003, and that the break in fiscal years (October 1) comes in the middle of the peak

pre-election period when the FEC experiences its heaviest workloads for many programs.

As a result, for budget and planning purposes, the FEC generally considers an election

cycle to include the election year and the following year, i.e., FY 2002 and FY 2003 comprise the

2002 election cycle for the purposes of this Strategic Plan. However, the flow of work for

programs such as audits and enforcement actions is such that action on the referrals for audits and

compliance actions from the 2002 election most likely will not be finalized for three to four years

after the election cycle. This is particularly true for presidential audits and enforcement cases

arising from the public funding provisions of the FECA. Therefore, work undertaken or

completed in any fiscal year will necessarily include work arising from two or more election

cycles.

Strategic Plan and Election Cycles/Performance Plan and FY's

The Strategic Plan discusses performance goals and workloads by election cycle (unless

otherwise noted), while the Performance Plan relates the activities of the specific fiscal year (FY

2002) to work from several election cycles. The Performance Plan also relates the performance

goals for the FY to the levels of funding, relating the impact of reduced funding to the obtainable

level of outcomes possible.

STRATEGIC PLAN FY 2001-2007 PERFORMANCE GOALS

The targets and goals included in this Strategic Plan are based on the assumption that the

Commission receives an appropriation at least sufficient to fund 362 FTE in each FY in a

presidential election cycle (357 FTE in a congressional election cycle, the difference being five

FTE of temporaries to assist in certifying matching funds in the 2004 and 2008 presidential

elections.) This reflects base Commission funding in FY 2001, and provides what we term a

“Current Resources Performance” level of funding. For FY 2001, the Commission supplemented

the authorized FY 2000 staffing with sufficient staff to implement the legislative mandates for

institution of an administrative fine program and mandatory electronic filing, as well as the PwC

recommended alternative dispute resolution program (ADR). PwC refers to the Price

Waterhouse Coopers review of the Commission’s programs by the GAO, and the resulting

recommendations from that review.

Any level of funding less than the Current Resources Performance level, such as the

OMB proposed budget for the Commission in FY 2002, is termed a “Minimal Performance”

level. This reduced level of funding results in a reduced level of performance, and jeopardizes the

achievement of our mission and our major program objectives. The reduced performance is

reflected in several ways. For example, there would be slippage of the time frames for

completion of data collection, reports review, and referrals for audits and/or compliance actions,

as well as for responsiveness to requests for information and data inquiries.

Reduced performance would also be reflected in delays in completing the milestones for

the IT programs set forth in our IT Strategic Plan. In some instances, less would be

accomplished as well as delays experienced. The FY 2002 OMB Budget proposed for the FEC

would jeopardize the operations of the ADR and the administrative fine programs, as well as the
6

PwC recommended stand-alone Title 2 audit program (audits of committees not receiving federal

funds even in presidential election years.)

The FEC has experienced a more than 1000% percent increase in total campaign finance

activity since 1976 (from $300 million in total disbursements in federal elections in 1976 to over

$3.5 billion in the 2000 election.) This increase in total financial activity has led to a 27%

increase in total documents filed in an election cycle since the 1984 cycle, as well as a 400%

increase in itemized transactions entered into the disclosure databases since 1984. The

Commission has met these increases with a relatively static level of staffing though the use of

management initiatives, productivity increases, and the use of technological improvements,

particularly the IT initiatives.

While the Commission will make every effort to use advancements such as the mandatory

electronic filing program, the ADR program, and the administrative fine program rather than staff

increases, the core Commission programs and staff resources must be at least maintained. It is

vital to the successful achievement of our agency mission and major program objectives that the

Current Resources Performance level, at a minimum, is funded. To further enhance our ability to

achieve our mission, the agency FEC Request Performance level of funding is more than justified.

The goals and targets identified below reflect the Current Resources Performance level.

PROGRAM I. DISCLOSURE

In order to meet the outcome goal that the public is capable of being fully informed about

campaign finance sources, during each federal election cycle (primaries and the general elections)

the Commission will accomplish the following:

A. Place between 80,000 to 85,000 reports and 20,000 to 25,000 statements from over

8,000 committees filing reports on the public record each election cycle:

1. Complete coding and entry of summary data from documents and

statements filed each cycle and meet the 48 hour deadline for making

documents public for 99% of those filed;

2. Complete coding and entry of itemized data from reports filed,

including 1.5 to 2.0 million itemized transactions per cycle, completing

95% within 45 days of reports being received at the FEC;

3. Complete the review of all reports filed and refer all potential

enforcement actions and audits each cycle, 60% of reviews within 90 days

of receipt (quarterly filing periods);

4. Issue 17,500 Requests for Additional Information (RFAI’s) per cycle

to correct the public record, 60% within 90 days of receipt of report

(contacting filers within 90 days minimizes repetitious errors which tend

to further burden the disclosure process);

5. Respond to requests for assistance from 21,000 filers per cycle.

B. Produce analytical summaries and releases of campaign finance data in summary form,

and in the aggregate and by individual committees, periodically prior to each election, and

in summary form after each general election:
7

1. Produce analytical releases after each election year quarterly report and

the pre-general election report;

2. Produce Summary statistical analyses after each election cycle in book

form: Reports on Financial Activity;

3. Conduct a database accuracy review monthly for summary and

itemized data entry.

C. Make FEC database and data available to requesters directly through computerized

access:

1. Provide free access to the FEC disclosure database to all state elections

offices wishing to participate and grant waivers for state filings for

participating states: currently 47 states;

2. Provide timely on-line access to the FEC disclosure database to the

public through the services of the Data Systems Division and the

storefront Public Records Office;

3. Make electronic filings available over the Internet upon receipt and

processing at the FEC and make images of non-electronically filed reports

also viewable on the FEC Web site.

D. Respond to over 320,000 requests for data, information, copies of reports or indices,

and other requests for assistance each cycle:

1. 60,000 requests in Public Records;

2. 120,000 inquiries in Information, primarily over the toll-free line;

3. 30,000 requests in the Press Office, and over 200 FOIA requests;

4. 50,000 requesters receive copies of materials and publications;

5. 60,000 computer indices and printouts.

E. Respond to Advisory Opinion requests and operate informational outreach programs:

1. Respond to 100% of 50 to 60 Advisory Opinion requests per cycle

within 60 and 20 day statutory deadlines;

2. Publish an Annual Report each year, the FEC Record monthly, and

provide prior notice of filing dates to filers;

3. Make FEC disclosure forms and copies of FECA and FEC Regulations

available to filers;

4. Produce additional informational and educational publications and

videos such as campaign guides, brochures, and other pamphlets;

5. Conduct five to six campaign finance workshops to educate filers.
8

PROGRAM II. COMPLIANCE

In order to meet the outcome goal that the public is assured of impartial and timely enforcement

of FECA, the Commission will accomplish the following:

A. Make 175-200 referrals from the Reports Analysis Division for potential audit or

enforcement per cycle:

1. Refer 100 committees for potential audits under 2 U.S.C.438(b) per

cycle, with 80 in second year of cycle (e.g. FY 2003 for 2002 cycle) and all

audit referrals of candidate committees within the statutory deadline of six

months from the general election;

2. Refer 75 to 100 committees for potential enforcement actions under

2 U.S.C. 437(g) per cycle.

B. Complete audits of committees referred under 2 U.S.C. 438(b), estimated

45-50 for each cycle:

1. 20-25 unauthorized (non-candidate) committees;

2. 20-25 authorized (candidate) committees;

3. Also complete review of all audits for legal issues.

C. Process enforcement workload arising from complaints and the internal review and

referral system for each cycle:

1. Process 250-300 complaints plus 75-100 internal referrals during the

two-year period;

2. Assuming an average total caseload of 275-300 cases in any given

month, maintain an average active caseload of 45-50% of total caseload.

3. Activate 45-50% of incoming cases on average over the election cycle.

D. Close 375-400 cases in each election cycle, 45-50% with substantive Commission

action. (This 45% represents cases in which the Commission has reached a substantive

finding on the merits of the matter, other than dismissal, including findings of no RTB.)

E. Conserve limited enforcement resources for more complex, substantive cases by

continuing an administrative fine program for late and non-filing committees, removing

non-filer enforcement from the standard complex enforcement process.

F. Conserve additional enforcement resources through the continued operation of the

ADR program, designed to streamline the resolution of administrative complaints and

Title 2 audit referrals without resorting to the more complex, substantive enforcement

procedures. Number of cases to be determined from experience from the 2000 and 2002

election cycles, still to be completed and quantified.

G. Pursue resolution of cases through litigation and defend the FEC and FECA in suits

brought by other parties to fully enforce the FECA:
9

1. Initiate litigation in an estimated 25-30 offensive suits per cycle

(always meeting five-year statute of limitations);

2. Defend the FEC and FECA in 20-30 suits initiated per cycle.

PROGRAM III. PUBLIC FINANCING

In order to meet the outcome goal that the public funding programs under the FECA are fully

implemented and fairly and speedily enforced, the Commission will accomplish the following:

Within two years of each presidential general election:

A. Complete the certification of payments to and audits of publicly funded candidates in

presidential elections:

1. Process monthly certification requests for federal matching funds

(estimated 10-12 candidates in a presidential election with an incumbent,

15-17 candidates in an “open” presidential election);

2. Audit primary candidates receiving federal matching funds (same

criteria for number of candidates);

3. Audit at least four (major) national party convention and host

committees receiving federal funds for nominating conventions, and any

eligible minor party convention committees;

4. Audit general election candidate committees of two major parties (and

any eligible minor parties).

Within three years of each presidential general election:

B. Complete legal review of presidential audits:

1. Review legal issues arising from primary audits, at least four convention

audits, and two or three general election audits;

2. Resolve repayment questions for committees receiving federal funds

(always meeting three year statute of limitations).

C. Initiate enforcement cases involving presidential committees referred through

internal referral process or complaint.

D. Provide Congress with a report on the public funding programs.

Within four years of each presidential general election:

E. Complete initial actions on enforcement cases involving presidential

committees referred through internal process or complaint.
10

PROGRAM IV. OFFICE OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION

In order to meet the outcome goal that the FEC will assist state and local elections officials in

conducting federal elections, the Commission will operate the Office of Election Administration

each election cycle, and accomplish the following:

A. Conduct research projects in elections administration issues and publish results:

1. Fund research projects as appropriate, making results available in

printed form (less in contracts at reduced funding levels);

2. Update and enhance the technical VSS, develop management standards

for elections administration, and provide models and best practices in

elections administration to state and local officials;

3. By 2003, make computerized results available on-line.

B. Provide informational and educational outreach to elections administration officials,

and seek their input by conducting an annual advisory panel meeting:

1. Attend state and national elections officials' conferences and meetings;

2. Respond to 12,000 informational requests per cycle, and publish an

elections administration journal;

3. Conduct an annual advisory panel meeting;

4. Conduct educational workshops to disseminate the result of research

projects to elections officials;

5. Meet with elections officials from other countries to foster the spread

of democratic, fair and well-administered elections.

C. Carry-out the obligations of the Office of Election Administration with regard to

voting accessibility and NVRA ("motor voter") legislation:

1. Review NVRA state regulations and registration forms and report to

Congress on the impact of the NVRA after each election;

2. Coordinate research projects with needs of officials to comply with

NVRA.

COMPUTERIZATION AND ELECTRONIC FILING PROJECTS

In order to successfully meet the goals for the four core programs, the FEC will also undertake

the following projects from FY 2001 through FY 2007:

-- Supplement and enhance existing FEC IT systems, migrating to a client/server

environment; complete fully enhanced installation in FY 2003, complete document

management and imaging systems in FY 2003;
11

-- Implement a full-scale, mandatory electronic filing system during the 2002

election cycle, with all committees able to file electronically;

-- Operate and enhance mandatory electronic filing system for the 2002, 2004 and

2006 cycles;

-- Develop optical scanning and other technological responses to Senate filings

and those other committees not meeting the mandatory thresholds for electronic

filing for 2004 and 2006 cycles;

-- Once client server migration and document management systems are installed,

initiate development of the portals accessibility program of web-based access to

FEC databases and data FY 2003-2007.

The IT Enhancements and Electronic Filing projects are discussed in the Commission’s FY 2001-

2007 IT Strategic and Performance Plans. The timing of the completion of the remaining IT

initiatives is dependent upon the overall level of FEC funding.

KEY FACTORS THAT COULD AFFECT ACHIEVEMENT OF GENERAL GOALS AND

OBJECTIVES

External factors which have the greatest potential to significantly and adversely impact on

our ability to achieve our statutory mission are those that affect the general application of the

FECA itself. Such factors include, but are not limited to:

-- The number of candidates who run for federal office and the amount of money

involved in the political process;

-- Significant and substantive amendment to the FECA itself, which could either

close present “loopholes” in the law and strengthen the FEC’s enforcement and

disclosure operations, or changes loosening the regulations regarding the limits and

restrictions on fundraising and reporting;

-- Definitive Supreme Court judicial review of presently contested elements of

the FECA, e.g. the definition of “express advocacy,” the legal determination of

what activity by a group triggers registration as a committee (and thus reporting

requirements and limitation provisions), and similar controversial elements of the

present regulatory regime;

-- The solvency of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and, as a

consequence, the determination of presidential candidates to either opt in or out of

the public funding programs;

-- Major increases or decreases in the level of funding appropriated to the FEC

and the presence and nature of any restrictions on the use of those funds;

-- Significant increases or decreases in the level of competition in federal election

campaigns, the volume and intensity of fundraising for federal campaigns, and the

general political attitude, interest, and awareness of the public and the electorate,

which can greatly influence the tone and competitiveness of elections.

All of these factors can influence the amount of money to be regulated by the FEC each election

cycle, driving FEC workloads such as the number of reports filed and transactions to be

processed, the volume of requests for information, data, and assistance made to the FEC, and the
12

number of complaints filed with the Commission. Of all these factors, the status of the

presidential fund and the appropriations level for the FEC are perhaps the most salient currently.

Record levels of campaign finance activity in the past five election cycles, coupled with

limited budgetary resources available, have severely strained the Commission’s ability to meet

mission objectives and performance goals. The status of the presidential fund may become an

active factor in the 2004 election, due to declining public support of the check-off and absent any

legislative fix to index income into the fund.

FEC PROGRAM EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

The FEC has a planning and budgeting system which is based on a detailed Management

Information System (MIS), and is driven by program based workloads and activity data, outputs,

and productivity measures. In an on-going evaluation process, the monthly MIS reports and FY

based productivity measures are used to evaluate program efficiency and effectiveness. The FEC

has also married the A-123 and A-127 processes, under the Federal Managers’ Financial

Management and Integrity Act or FMFMIA, to ongoing program management activities, and has

striven to relate the annual A-123 reports to the FEC Budget requests.

The evaluation of program resources, mainly staff resources, and the resulting program

outputs and productivity measures are used in the internal planning and budget formulation

processes. Commission Management Plans and Budget Requests are workload-driven, and

related to resource levels and expected program activity levels.

As a personnel intensive agency, about 70% of the Commission's resources are staff

costs, and the remaining 30% represents mainly rent and other direct support for that staff.

Using the MIS and Summary MIS reports, both produced on a monthly basis, all workloads,

program outputs, productivity, and effectiveness and efficiency are constantly being monitored,

often in great detail. This is reported to the Commission in monthly Management Reports from

the Staff Director. Several other tracking systems monitor the status of reports processing

(filing, filming, data coding and entry, and reports review), enforcement and litigation activities,

Advisory Opinions and regulatory rule making, and audit progress. The Enforcement Priority

System continually adjusts active enforcement caseloads to match available resources.

A major, multiyear effort to institute a Case Management system for OGC to track

enforcement cases has resulted in the system becoming operational in FY 2001. This IT based

system monitors case status and tracks staff time by case for all OGC programs, not just

enforcement. The implementation of the Case Management system provides a significant new

evaluational tool for the FEC to monitor resource usage and case progress.

The Performance Goals contained in this Strategic Plan and the annual FY based

Performance Plans are tied directly to the Commission’s workload and activity measures and the

level of funding requested. The detailed level of on-going program activity monitoring and output

measurement efforts will enable the Commission to determine if our performance goals are being

achieved. This will provide the basis for future evaluations of our efforts.

As noted above, quantifying and measuring faith in a political process is difficult. The

FEC does believe that our performance goals and the related program outputs help indicate

whether we can achieve the desired outcomes of public faith in the campaign finance system and

the political process. Lack of funding precludes establishment of an evaluation staff dedicated

solely to perform formal program reviews and evaluations. However, the detailed MIS

monitoring system, and the FEC OIG audits of Commission financial and related systems,

provide an ongoing evaluation system of some detail.
13

STRATEGIC PLANNING ISSUES FY 2001-2007

Over the next several election cycles, the FEC will be dealing with several major issues as

it evaluates the annual performance of the agency and prepares budget requests. Some of the

most significant issues include:

Public Financing Issues

-- the status and sufficiency of the presidential election campaign fund in the 2004 and 2008

presidential elections;

-- the role of the FEC in a mixed environment of publicly funded and privately funded

presidential campaigns in the next two cycles (scope of audits, etc.);

-- the impact of a severe shortfall of available public funds during a presidential election cycle;

-- the possible “collapse” of public funding due to either the choice of the candidates and/or the

shortfall of the fund.

Filing and Processing Issues

-- full implementation of the mandatory electronic filing system in the 2002 cycle and the

subsequent elections in 2004-2008;

-- the change in Data Systems resources from the current coding and entry processing

environment to the electronic filing environment (with a mix of the electronic filers and the

smaller committees continuing to file under the current system;)

-- the impact of the on-going issue of the Senate filings, which represent a significant segment of

the filing universe which will not be electronically filed;

-- maintaining consistency of data from electronic and non-electronic filers in the disclosure

databases;

-- should the Commission use resources freed up by electronic filing to enhance automation and

disclosure of new data such as expenditures?

Reports Review Issues

-- the resolution of significant reports review backlogs for the 2000 (and possible future) election

cycles: additional resources, and/or further automated review procedures to relieve the workload

pressure in RAD;
14

-- the role of the review of reports in the disclosure and compliance programs of the Commission

(do we need to continue 100% review of all disclosure reports?)

Information and Disclosure Issues

-- possible reduction of staff in response programs due to the reduction of direct inquiries to FEC

staff due to the use of IT and other technology to process demands for information and data;

-- impact of possible FEC reorganization and restructuring of FEC programs in response to

changing demands for information and data;

-- review of efficacy and scope of FEC outreach efforts to educate and inform the public and the

filing community.

Compliance Issues

-- role of administrative fine program: continue beyond 2001; impact on filing and reporting of

disclosure data and on RAD review programs;

-- scope of Title 2, or 438(b), Discretionary Audit program: expand number of audits, continue

limited scope audit program to be tested in 2000 cycle?

Enforcement Issues

-- impact of ADR and administrative fine programs on enforcement workloads; impact of

automated review and RAD thresholds on enforcement workloads;

-- has EPS and Case Management resulted in: faster closing of cases and focusing of enforcement

resources on more significant cases?

-- efficacy of litigation and enforcement—are we setting precedents and building a case record in

significant areas of the FECA and fostering compliance with the FECA?

Regulations and Policy Issues

-- areas of the FECA and/or Regulations which need to be clarified, or revisited for possible

revision.
APPENDIX E:

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS’S

RECOMMENDATIONS/IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

MARCH 2001 STATUS REPORT

Submitted to Congress/OMB
PricewaterhouseCoopers’s Recommendations/Improvement

Opportunities – March 2001 Status Report

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary

PricewaterhouseCoopers Recommendations

i

1. Mandatory Electronic Filing 1

2. Election-Year Basis Reporting 1

3. Transfer Senate Point of Entry to FEC 2

4. Administrative Fine Schedule 2

5. Standard Filing Guidelines & Forms 3

6. Internet Connections in Public Records 4

7. Intra- & Interprogram Planning 4

8. Consolidation of Disclosure 5

9. Assessment of User Groups for Modernization of Disclosure Database 5

10. Transition to Paperless Disclosure/Review Process 6

11. Documentation Supporting EPS Case-Activation Decisions 6

12. Annual Descriptive Offense Profile 6

13. Reduction of Legal Reviews 7

14. Case Management System Completion 7

15. Audit-for-Cause Process 8

16. Permanent Staff Director 9

17. Performance Objectives for Staff Director and General Counsel 9

18. Collaboration Among Work Groups 10

19. New Performance Appraisal Process for Managers 10

20. Alternatives to Federal General Service Classification System 10

21. Customer Satisfaction Surveys 11

Improvement Opportunities

3-7 Open Problem-Solving Environment 11

3-9 DSD Internal Staff Survey 11

3-10 Business Process Reengineering 11

4-1 Redesign of Database 11

4-3 Internet Connections in Public Records 12
4-4 Processing Branch & FEC Imaging 12

4-5 Automated, Paperless RAD Review 12

4-6 Unified Approach to Disclosure 12

4-8 Alternatives to Electronic Filing 12

4-10 Surveying Needs for Electronic Filing 13

4-15 Coordination of RAD Referral Thresholds & OGC Civil Penalty

Guidelines

13

4-16 Data Mining & Contributor-Collaboration Software 13

4-20 Scoring Criteria That Estimate OGC Resource Allocation by Tier of

Case

13

Other Projects

1. Transfer of Payroll and Personnel Systems to National Finance Center 14

2. Year 2000 Verification and Test 14

3. Computer Security Review 14

4. Enhancement of FEC Web Site 15

5. Implementation of Document Management System in OGC (PCDocs) 15

6. Implementation of Document & Tracking System in Audit (TeamMate) 15

7. Expansion of Imaging System 16

8. Feasibility Study of OSR & Bar Codes 16

9. Contract for IT & Data Entry Services 16

10. Renovation of Building 16

11. Expansion of 2 U.S.C. § 437(g) Audits 16

12. Alternative Dispute Resolution Pilot 17

13. Projected Shortage in Presidential Public Funding Program 17

14. Integration of Macintosh Publishing Program Into Commission-Wide

 Server-Based Computer System

17

15. Waiver of State Filing Requirements 17

16. Review Operation of Commission Secretariat 18
PricewaterhouseCoopers’s Recommendations/Improvement

Opportunities

March 2001 Status Report

Recommendations 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13 and 14 and Improvement Opportunity

4-15 have been designated high priority by staff.

PwC Recommendations

1. Authorize mandatory electronic filing for major filers: Electronic filing offers the

most cost-efficient and effective method to capture campaign finance transactions. The

FEC needs legislative authority to require committees, which meet FEC-determined

thresholds of financial activity, to file reports electronically by a date certain. (4.2.6)

PwC Approach: Congressional action required

PwC Timeframe: 2002 election cycle

Lead Office: Data

Participating Offices: Information, OGC Policy, RAD, Commissioners’ Offices,

Audit, Public Disclosure, and Press

Target Completion Date: Recommendation Completed December 2000

FEC Progress: On September 29, 1999, the President signed H.R. 2490, the fiscal

year 2000 Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations Act, which

mandates electronic filing in the 2002 election cycle for all political committees, other than

Senate committees. The provision takes effect for reporting periods beginning after

December 31, 2000. The Commission approved proposed rules, received public

comments, and approved final rules, which were submitted to Congress for 30 legislative

days on June 16, 2000. The new rules became effective for reporting periods beginning

after December 31, 2000.

The first mandatory electronic filings were received for the monthly reports due

on February 20, 2001. Of the 605 reports received for the February 20 filing, 440 reports

were filed electronically. Only one committee that was required to file electronically

submitted a paper report, and the committee was informed that the report had to be

submitted electronically. More than 1,000 committees filed electronically during the 2000

election cycle under the voluntary electronic filing program.

2. Standardize reporting on an election-cycle basis (campaign-to-date

basis), rather than a calendar-year basis: Standardized reporting periods on an

election-cycle basis would simplify candidate committee record-keeping, reduce the

number of filing errors requiring RFAIs, and increase the usefulness of the disclosure

database. (4.2.5)

PwC Approach: Congressional action required

PwC Timeframe: 2002 election cycle
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

2

Lead Office: Public Disclosure

Participating Office: OGC Policy, Audit, Press, RAD, Information, and Data

Target Completion Date: Recommendation completed December 2000

FEC Progress: On September 29, 1999, the President signed H.R. 2490, the fiscal

year 2000 Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations Act, which

included a change to the FECA requiring committees to report on an election-cycle basis.

The new amendment changes the aggregate reporting of information for candidate

campaigns from calendar-year to campaign-cycle reporting, effective for the reporting

period beginning after December 31, 2000. The Commission approved proposed rules,

received public comments, and then approved final rules, which were submitted to

Congress for 30 legislative days on July 5, 2000. The new rules became effective for

reporting periods beginning after December 31, 2000. Corresponding revisions to the

reporting forms were transmitted to Congress during September and also went into effect

at the beginning of this year.

3. Transfer the point-of-entry for Senate candidate committee reports to the FEC:

The FEC must maintain separate and costly filing, imaging, and document retrieval

processes to accommodate Senate filings. Establishing the FEC as the single point-ofentry for filings would reduce FEC costs and increase the timeliness of filing and

compliance notices. (4.2.7)

PwC Approach: Congressional action required

PwC Timeframe: 2000 election cycle

Lead Offices: Public Disclosure and Data

Participating Office: OGC Policy

Target Completion Date: Recommendation completed September 2000

FEC Progress: The Commission worked with the Senate Public Records Office to

implement measures to transmit scanned images of reports filed with the Senate to the FEC. The

Senate contracted with a vendor to enhance the Senate's image scanning process by modifying

images scanned at the Senate to make them conform with FEC images. These modifications

allowed the FEC to integrate Senate images with the FEC's imaging system. The high speed

communication line to enable the Senate to transmit its filings directly to the FEC has been

installed, and the necessary communication components configured. Senate images are being

transmitted and processed so that all images of Senate financial reports are retrievable on the FEC

Web site. (This permits many Senate filers to stop filing a duplicate of their report with their

Secretary of State due to the FEC’s state-filing waiver program.) Paper copies of the electronically

transmitted images are printed and made available for public review and data entry.

The issue of facilitating voluntary electronic filing by Senate committees is still under

consideration by the Rules Committee.

4. Authorize the FEC to establish an administrative fine schedule, subject to

reasonable appeal procedures, for straightforward disclosure violations: Moving these

violations out of the formal enforcement process would allow more efficient and effective use
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

3

of enforcement resources for activating and resolving more significant matters under review.

(4.3.3.5)

PwC Approach: Congressional action required

PwC Timeframe: 2000 election cycle

Lead Offices: OGC and RAD

Participating Offices: Data, Public Disclosure, Congressional Affairs, and Staff

Director’s Office

Target Completion Date: Recommendation completed July 2000

FEC Progress: On September 29, 1999, the President signed H.R. 2490, the fiscal

year 2000 Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations Act, which

included an amendment to the FECA establishing an administrative fine schedule for

straightforward reporting violations occurring between January 1, 2000, and December

31, 2001. Under an expedited review schedule, the Commission conducted a rulemaking,

and approved a new fine schedule, new internal procedures, final regulations, and an

implementation strategy that took effect on July 14, 2000. The program was

implemented with the July Quarterly Reports due on July 15, 2000. As of March 12,

2001, the Commission has made public its final determinations in 48 cases and has

collected civil money penalties totaling $63,230. In addition, the percentage of reports

filed late in the later stages of the 1999-2000 election cycle decreased when compared to

the two previous election cycles. For example, 11% of the 2000 Year-End Reports were

filed late, while 24% were filed late for the 1998 and 22% for the 1996 Year-End reporting

periods. The Commission submitted a priority legislative recommendation to Congress

urging that the pilot program be extended to reporting periods that end on or before

December 31, 2003 to permit additional time to evaluate the impact of the program.

5. Enforce the use of standard filing guidelines and forms for the entire regulated

community during the transition to electronic filing: Standardizing how forms and

amendments to forms are submitted and requiring the submission of all disclosure

information in a typeface format would improve the disclosure and reports review

processes. (4.2.5)

PwC Approach: Requires Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

PwC Timeframe: FY 1999

Lead Office: Public Disclosure

Participating Offices: Audit, Information, OGC Policy, RAD, Administration and

Data

Target Completion Date: Redesign of Forms, Completed September 2000

FEC Progress: This recommendation has two parts: forms redesign and

standardized reporting/processing practices.

Forms Redesign. A contract for the redesign of FEC forms was awarded on

September 14, 1999. The contractor completed their recommended redesign on March 21,

2000. The modifications are intended to improve the speed and clarity of processing and

permit implementation of automated systems for converting paper reports to data in the
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

4

most efficient manner. The redesigned reporting forms, including other changes required

to implement statutory changes in election cycle aggregation and mandatory electronic

filing were transmitted to Congress in September, 2000 and are now in use for reporting

periods beginning on or after January 1, 2001.

Standardized Reporting/Processing Practices. On February 11, 2000, the working

group submitted to the Staff Director a final document putting forth several reporting

practices which, if standardized and enforced, would enhance the disclosure operation

with more timely entry of itemized transactions and more accurate reporting. A draft

document entitled “How to Amend Reports,” prepared by a subgroup of the task force,

is included in the final package of recommendations.

6. Set up Internet connections on several PCs in the Public Records Division so that the

public can access the FEC Web page: This step enhances resources available in Public

Records. (4.2.1)

PwC Approach: Minimal Data Systems support

PwC Timeframe: FY 1999

Lead Office: Public Disclosure

Participating Office: Data

Target Completion Date: Recommendation implemented in 1999

7. Engage in intraprogram and interprogram management-planning activities to

improve resource utilization and to enable process efficiencies: Increased emphasis

on management planning will support improvements in disclosure productivity. (4.2.9)

PwC Approach: Ongoing work with business process maps as a baseline

PwC Timeframe: FY 1999

Lead Offices: Staff Director and General Counsel

Participating Offices: All

Target Completion Date: Recommendation completed

FEC Progress: In response to this recommendation, the Staff Director and

General Counsel have established several working groups tasked with:

• Marketing electronic filing;

• Identifying reporting guidelines and practices which, if standardized, would improve

efficiency and effectiveness of our disclosure operations;

• Identifying ways to reengineer the reports review process to take better advantage of

information technology;

• Establishing Internet connections in Public Records so that the public can access the

FEC Web Page;

• Reducing the number of legal reviews;

• Developing an annual descriptive offense profile of compliance matters;

• Implementing administrative fines—a new statutory provision;

• Implementing election-cycle reporting—new statutory provision;

• Establishing a Title 2 Audit-for-Cause Program.

Previously established working groups have continued to work on:
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

5

• Implementing a Case Management System;

• Implementing a Document Management System;

• Developing a relational disclosure database;

• Enhancing the FEC’s Web site;

• Modifying disclosure forms into a machine readable format;

• Implementing Electronic Filing;

• Expanding IT initiatives;

• Developing an ADR program that will augment existing enforcement efforts; and

• Finance Committee matters.

8. Realign resources in Disclosure and in Data Systems coding and entry into a

single disclosure process with one accountable manager: Consolidating the

disclosure process from two divisions into one with a single manager will increase

accountability and streamline disclosure process functions and resources. (4.2.4)

PwC Approach: Three months developing consolidation plan ($50,000 for

facilitation support)

PwC Timeframe: FY 2000

Lead Office: Public Disclosure

Participating Offices: Data

FEC Progress: In the past, the FEC tried a “unified approach” to disclosure,

review and data coding and entry. The approach was unsuccessful.

The Commission believes that the disclosure program and data entry and coding are

working quite well. In fact, PricewaterhouseCoopers also found that the Commission

completed its disclosure requirements in a timely manner.

9. Work with internal and external user groups to determine modernization

requirements for the existing disclosure database: Beginning to assess internal and

external user requirements will accelerate the move away from DB1032 to a relational

database and thereby strengthen the disclosure and reports analysis processes. (4.2.8)

PwC Approach: Six months to design IT strategy ($500,000 for database

design support and acquisition)

PwC Timeframe: FY 2000

Lead Office: Data

Participating Offices: Audit, Press, Public Disclosure, and RAD

Target Completion Date: Recommendation completed March 2000.

FEC Progress: The transition to a relational database is occurring in the following

stages:

• The FEC issued a task order to AMS against a GSA contract for $112,000 to

complete the second phase of developing a client/server strategy for the disclosure

function. The final client/server strategy report was delivered in March 2000. A

contract to begin implementation was awarded in September 2000.
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

6

• The FEC and AMS consulted with both internal and external users during the

functional requirements phase.

• Functional requirements for the new disclosure database are completed. The next

phase, the design and initial data mapping to allow conversion of data from the

existing database is underway. The design of the new disclosure database permits

greater flexibility to search and retrieve information and to accommodate greater data

capture and analysis capabilities.

• The project is scheduled to be completed by December 2002.

11. Transition to a paperless disclosure and reports review process: During the

transition period to an electronic filing environment, the FEC will need to support

existing and new disclosure and reports review processes. For example, the Reports

Analysis Division requires a business process reengineering (BPR) study to design an

electronic reports review and exception reporting system. (3.3.10 and 4.2.3)

PwC Approach: Design and document requirements ($500,000 for BPR study)

PwC Timeframe: FY 2001, with design/document phase completed in 6

months

Lead Offices: Public Disclosure and RAD

Participating Offices: Audit, Press and Data

Target Completion Date: Recommendation completed

FEC Progress: RAD continues to work with the contractor, NIC, to further

upgrade the electronic review process. The latest version was implemented on February

20, 2001. Although other small upgrades are expected, further major development of this

program awaits the implementation of the Commission’s client server system. Once the

system is available, the electronic review program will be greatly expanded to provide for

the automatic identification of reporting, disclosure and compliance problems. The

electronic review system will also assist in committee notification of possible problems

and in the tracking of committee responses to RAD notifications. Currently, there are

approximately 70 programs that assist RAD with review, non-filer and compliance

tracking to include administrative fines. Some of these programs have been combined into

two major programs, but the individual sub-programs can still be run separately.

11. Prepare and maintain documentation supporting EPS (Enforcement Priority

System) case-activation decisions: This step will increase the transparency and

accountability of OGC case-activation decisions. (3.3.3) (See also: Improvement

Opportunity 4-20.)

PwC Approach: Two months

PwC Timeframe: FY 1999

Lead Office: OGC Enforcement and OGC PFESP

Participating Offices: None

Target Completion Date: Recommendation completed April 1999
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

7

12. Compile an annual descriptive offense profile of compliance matters to better

inform Commissioners, policy makers, and the public about emerging law

enforcement trends: To undertake this project, the FEC will need outside assistance

from other Federal law enforcement statistics agencies and a contractor to design a

database (in conjunction with the case management system) and to code closed cases.

(3.3.4 and 4.3.3.6) (See also: Improvement Opportunities 3-2 and 4-22.)

PwC Approach: Eight months to research, design, automate, and code closed

cases ($250,000)

PwC Timeframe: FY 1999

Lead Office: OGC Enforcement and OGC PFESP

Participating Offices: OGC, Administration, Data, Information

Target Completion Date: FY 2002

FEC Progress: The Commission has contracted with Booz/Allen & Hamilton to

define the requirements for a comprehensive offense profile database. A working group,

composed of representatives from OGC, Data, Planning and Management and

Information, has worked with Booz/Allen on this project. Booz/Allen submitted its

requirements document to the Commission on February 22, 2000, containing alternative

approaches to the compiling of offense profile information. On April 11, 2000, the

Commission approved one alternative with modifications and referred the Booz/Allen

recommendations for implementation. This project will be completed in FY 2002.

13. Convene an internal OGC working group to develop recommendations for

consideration by the Commissioners to reduce the number of legal reviews

embedded in the enforcement process: This effort will speed Commissioner

consideration of enforcement case stages. (4.3.3.2) (See also: Improvement Opportunity

4-18.)

PwC Approach: Four months

PwC Timeframe: FY 2000

Lead Office: OGC Enforcement and OGC PFESP

Participating Offices: None

Target Completion Date: Recommendation completed February 2000.

FEC Progress: The Levels of Review working group submitted a report to the

Commission, which was discussed at the February 15, 2000, executive session meeting.

The Commission accepted the report, directed OGC to report back to the Commission

regarding implementation of the working group’s recommendations, and directed the

working group to outline the specific issues it wants the Commission to consider. OGC

has implemented some of the working group recommendations and it is in the process of

identifying issues for Commission consideration.

14. Complete the case management system and use the workflow and staff

utilization data to establish enforcement workload standards: After the system has

tracked cases throughout FY 1999, a baseline set of metrics should guide the development

of these standards. (4.3.3.6)
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

8

PwC Approach: Twelve months

PwC Timeframe: FY 2000

Lead Office: OGC

Participating Offices: Data, Planning and Management, Staff Director, and

Commissioners’ Offices

Target Completion Date: Phase I--February 2000; Complete—2001

FEC Progress: OGC and the Commission Secretary continue to keep CMS current

with case information and Commission votes. CMS is now in use throughout OGC and

training of new employees is provided on an on-going basis. OGC has established

procedures for regular verification of the data input into CMS and it continues to develop

materials to assist employees in enhancing the accuracy and verification of data. The

Commission also has entered into a contract with Ernst & Young to document and further

develop OGC policies and procedures in the entry and verification of data entry into the

CMS. Ernst & Young also is developing materials to be used in training personnel so that

they will have a more in depth understanding of the system. Management has provided

the NTEU its proposed enhancements to CMS and the NTEU is currently evaluating

them. Labor/Management negotiations will begin once the NTEU has finished its review

of the enhancements. System modifications are expected to begin after the completion of

negotiations.

15. Assign dedicated resources to establish a single Title 2 audit-for-cause process

in the Audit Division independent of Title 26 audit resource requirements:

Conducting a predetermined threshold number of audits for cause is necessary to enhance

visibility in the filing community and to deter noncompliant activities. (4.3.2.4) (See also

Improvement Opportunity 4-15.)

PwC Approach: Additional Audit Division personnel

PwC Timeframe: FY 2001

Lead Offices: Audit, OGC PFESP and Staff Director

Participating Offices: RAD, Public Disclosure, Data

Target Completion Date: Electronic Audit Workflow and Management System,

4th Quarter, 2001

Audit internship program for Title 2 audits, 1st quarter, 2001

FEC Progress: The Audit Division initially identified three approaches that would

allow the agency to focus more resources on the Title 2 audit-for-cause program:

External Contracts for Convention-Related Entities. This option no longer appears

to be a viable solution because of the high costs involved.

Temporary Peak Workload Assistance: Intern/Co-op Program. Recruitment of

participants in an intern or coop program began during the first half of FY 2001. It is

expected that, FTE permitting, one or more interns will be hired during the 1st or 2nd

quarter, 2001. Utilization of interns during this period will be a preamble to carrying out a

comprehensive intern program in the 3rd and 4th quarters, FY2001.

Use of Risk Analysis and Other Resource-Saving Methodologies. With assistance

from the Data Division, the Audit Division has finalized a contract for a Requirements
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

9

Analysis and Cost Benefit Study to identify the requirements of an electronic audit

workflow and management process. The reports should be completed prior to the end of

the fourth quarter, 2001. Implementation, if warranted, would occur during the first

quarter of FY 2002.

Preliminary Conclusion. If all the approaches/modifications (not including

contracting out convention audits) discussed above are implemented, the FEC would

significantly increase the number of Title 2 audits covering the 2000 election cycle.

Preliminary estimates put the number of audits of authorized committees at 24 (roughly

22 House audits and 2 Senate audits)1 and the number of nonauthorized committee audits

at 20-21, for a total of 45 audits for that cycle. In contrast, over the last three election

cycles (1992 through 1996) an average of 9 authorized and 12 nonauthorized committees

have been slated for audit. While we increased the Title 2 audits in the 1998 cycle, the

2000 cycle represents the first time the FEC has a true “stand alone” Title 2 audit

capability that will not lose most of its resources to the statutory Title 26 audits during

presidential election cycles. House and Senate audits would be commenced within 6

months of the general election unless the auditee requested a postponement; in no case

would an authorized committee audit begin later than August of the year after the

election, unless the compulsory process had to be employed. Further, all of the House

and Senate audits would be publicly released within one year of commencement, unless

the compulsory process had to be employed. The 2-year deadline on release of Title 26

audit reports would continue to be met.

The OGC PFESP section reviewed the Title 2 audit process and the Enforcement

Priority System (EPS) II, with special emphasis on processing Title 2 audit referrals. On

May 10, 2000, the Commission approved OGC PFESP recommendations with respect to

draft revisions to EPS II.

In September 1999, the Commission established a task force under the direction of

the Staff Director to focus on the Title 2 audit process. In September, 2000 the

Commission approved a procedure developed by the Task Force to evaluate the scope of

2 U.S.C. §438(b) audits of authorized committees. Commencing with the audits of the

2000 cycle candidate committees, this procedure is intended to limit the amount of time

spent on areas identified as low risk; audit resources would then be focused on areas

where problems are most likely to be present. A similar procedure for 2 U.S.C. §438(b)

audits of non-authorized committees (PAC’s and party committees) will be developed

this year.

16. Select a permanent Staff Director tasked to improve overall organizational

performance: The FEC now has the opportunity to select a permanent Staff Director

who can help renew the organization. FEC Commissioners should consider retaining an

executive-recruiting firm to validate the candidate list for their consideration. (3.3.6)

PwC Approach: Two months to identify candidates ($50,000 for candidate

 

1

 These numbers represent 5 percent of all House and Senate seats up for election in the 2000 election

cycle.
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

10

validation)

PwC Timeframe: FY 1999

FEC Progress:Recommendation implemented April 1999

17. Establish annual performance objectives for the Staff Director and the

General Counsel: To establish and maintain organizational accountability,

Commissioners need to communicate desired organizational achievements to both

statutory officers and delegate authority to execute tasks. (3.3.6)

PwC Approach: Three months to establish performance criteria

PwC Timeframe: FY 1999

Lead Office: Commissioners

Participating Offices: Staff Director, General Counsel and Personnel

Target Completion Date:

FEC Progress: Both the former and the current Chairman initially reviewed the

qualifications of five potential contractors recommended by the FEC’s Personnel

Director. In response to inquiries about the applicants’ legal experience, the Personnel

Director provided additional information. After reviewing this material, the Staff Director

was instructed to reexamine the tasks to be undertaken by a contractor.

18. Encourage more collaboration and communication among existing work

groups: The Staff Director should convene regularly scheduled meetings to increase

cross-divisional communication and collaboration and to review management information

system performance data. (3.3.5)

PwC Approach: Minimal

PwC Timetable: FY 1999

Lead Offices: Staff Director and General Counsel

FEC Progress:Recommendation implemented. For more information, see

Recommendation # 7 and other specific PwC recommendations.

19. Develop a new performance appraisal process for managers: A pilot project

should be initiated, using an upward feedback system, to ensure that FEC managers have

put into practice those behaviors that foster communication and ownership of problems

and reward innovation. (3.3.7)

PwC Approach: Six months to research, develop, and administer pilot

survey ($50,000)

PwC Timetable: FY 1999

Lead Office: Personnel

Participating Offices: All

FEC Progress: Some of the companies that were interviewed with respect to the

SD/GC performance objective project also indicated a willingness and desire to work on

this recommendation.
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

11

20. Explore alternatives to the Federal General Service classification system:

Alternatives to the current use of the Federal GS classification system should be explored

as a means to increase promotional opportunities and provide a more flexible

compensation system. (3.3.11)

PwC Approach: Four months to research and investigate options, with

OPM support

PwC Timetable: FY 1999

Lead Office: Personnel

Participating Offices: All

FEC Progress: The FEC has various pay options currently available to it under

Title 5 compensation laws. Staff have explored alternatives to the status quo such as

broadbanding. For now, it appears that greater utilization of the available pay flexibilities

under Title 5 (e.g., appointment above the minimum step, redesigning positions to

support a higher career ladder grade) has improved our recruitment. In addition, the

Personnel Office has investigated the effectiveness of broadbanding by contacting other

public agencies who have implemented broadbanding. The Department of Defense, CIA

and the State of South Carolina all have implemented some form of a broadbanding pay

system. Each of these organization’s reports that costs of broadbanding significantly

exceeded their expectations. A broadbanding system requires a strong performance

management measuring system in order to determine pay increases fairly. Initially most

employees indicated general satisfaction with the pay banded system. However, as these

three agencies incorporated more financial controls in order to curb costs, employee

satisfaction with the banded system, dropped. If the Commission were to decide to

adopt another method of determining pay for its employees, any changes would require

legislative action.

21. Conduct customer satisfaction surveys after an election cycle to understand

expectations and measure changes in filer satisfaction with the products and

services provided by the FEC: Using the baseline findings provided in this report,

regular surveys will allow FEC to discontinue services that have diminishing value, to

better understand the needs of the filing community, and to better deploy FEC resources.

(3.3.3)

PwC Approach: $75,000 each election cycle

PwC Timetable: FY 2001

Lead Office: Information

Participating Offices: Public Records, RAD, Press, OGC Administration, Data

and Planning & Management

Target Completion Date: 3rd Quarter, 2001

FEC Progress: Project will be undertaken by the Information Division after the

completion of the 2000 election. The Commission is exploring the possibility of

contracting this survey out.

Improvement Opportunities
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

12

Improvement Opportunity 3-7: The FEC should create a more open and proactive

problem-solving environment for doing business.

This and several of the following Improvement Opportunities parallel a number of the

recommendations described above (see, for example, recommendations 7, 9, 16, 18 and 21).

Improvement Opportunity 3-9: The Data Division should routinely conduct an internal

FEC staff survey to assess user satisfaction.

Lead Office: Data

Participating Offices:All

FEC Progress: A user survey is planned to be conducted in FY 2001.

Improvement Opportunity 3-10: FY 2000 is the time for the FEC to begin to lay the

framework for significant business process reengineering efforts. Future and ongoing

ADP initiatives should incorporate a business process reengineering effort led by the

program offices, not DSDD.

Lead Office: Data

Participating Offices:All

FEC Progress: See Recommendation # 10.

Improvement Opportunity 4-1: FEC should redesign a disclosure database that supports

internal staff needs, as well as the public’s needs.

FEC Progress:This is a fundamental element in the design of the client/server disclosure

database. See response to Recommendation #9.

Improvement Opportunity 4-3: FEC should set up Internet connections on several PCs

in the Public Records Division. The Internet could be used to access other campaign

finance databases and Web sites on third-party information providers.

Lead Office: Data

FEC Progress:This effort was completed in July 1999 when DSDD configured all of the

PC’s in Public Records so that the public could access other campaign finance Web sites.

Improvement Opportunity 4-4: The Processing Branch should support all imaging

needs throughout the Commission. Processing staff could work with the Office of the

General Counsel to assist that Office with its imaging needs.

Lead Office: Public Disclosure

Participating Offices: Data

Target Completion Date: FY 2002

FEC Progress:The Commission issued to AMS a contract for the development of a

comprehensive document management system, including replacement of the imaging

system, that will significantly expand the use of imaging technologies throughout the

Commission. The system is scheduled for implementation in FY 2002.
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

13

Improvement Opportunity 4-5: Once the Commission has a certain date for mandatory

electronic filing, RAD should begin to work with Data Systems to develop an automated,

paperless review process to replace the existing manual, paper-intensive reviews.

• Since February 2001, RAD has been using the latest upgrade to the automated review

program. Per RAD requirements, the program conducts all math checks and presents

the data in formats that permit quicker review for missing information. The program

has been expanded to check information between two reports. It will continue to be

upgraded over time. See PwC Recommendation 10.

Improvement Opportunity 4-6: Realign resources in the Disclosure and Data Systems

Divisions to enable a more unified approach to disclosure. FEC should establish a single

office for disclosure...responsible for creating the public record (from start to finish), as

well as FEC compliance with the 48-hour rule.

FEC Progress: See Recommendation # 8.

Improvement Opportunity 4-8: In the event that mandatory electronic filing seems unlikely

in the foreseeable future, the FEC should explore alternate plans to the EFS that would

optimize its existing investment in imaging technology by integrating compatible technologies

such as optical character recognition (OCR), bar codes and workflow software.

FEC Progress: See Recommendations #5 and #10.

Improvement Opportunity 4-10: The FEC should continue to solicit input from both

filers and internal staff regarding necessary enhancements to the electronic filing system.

Lead Office: Data

Participating Offices: None

FEC Progress:Mandatory electronic filing was implemented beginning with the monthly

reports due on February 20, 2001. RAD was integral in the development of the electronic

filing system. The Commission continues to maintain extensive contact with filers and

software vendors. Training programs are conducted for both internal and external users,

testing facilities have been upgraded, and outreach efforts including presentations at

meetings attended by committee officials are ongoing.

Improvement Opportunity 4-15: Continue to calibrate the RAD referral thresholds

with OGC Enforcement Section civil penalty guidelines so that RAD referrals to OGC

result in conciliation agreements with monetary penalties.

Lead Offices: RAD, OGC Enforcement and OGC PFESP

Participating Office: Audit

FEC Progress:See Recommendation #15.

Improvement Opportunity 4-16: To increase the level of detection of patterns of

improper campaign finance practices, RAD should initiate a data-mining and contributorcollaboration software pilot to assess the degree to which “financial” transaction

violations can be identified.
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

14

Lead Office: RAD

Participating Office: Data

FEC Progress: Developments in automating RAD review of reports will have an impact

on data-mining activities. Improved search and analysis capabilities also are being built

into the new disclosure database. Data mining capabilities will be expanded beginning in

FY 2002. See Recommendations # 9 and #10.

Improvement Opportunity 4-20: Development efforts should be initiated by OGC to

define additional scoring criteria that estimate resource allocation by tier of case.

Lead Office: OGC Enforcement and OGC PFESP

Participating Offices: None

FEC Progress: The Office of General Counsel anticipates considering this

proposal once the NTEU and Management have concluded negotiations over

enhancements to the case management system. .See Recommendation #14.
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

15

Other Projects

1. Transfer payroll and personnel systems to the National Finance Center.

Lead Office: Accounting

Participating Offices: Accounting, Personnel, Data

Target Completion Date: Project completed November 1999

FEC Progress: The FEC has completed the process of migrating both its Personnel

and Payroll systems to the USDA's National Finance Center (NFC).

2. Year 2000 Remediation Effort

Lead Office: Data

Participating Offices: All Divisions

Target Completion Date: Project completed December 1999

FEC Progress: A complete end-to-end test of all systems was performed, and

successfully completed on December 17, 1999. On January 1, 2000, the FEC Y2K

Project Work Group and supporting staff, conducted actual data rollover checks and all

systems operated with no problems. The Y2K Day-One After Action Report was

completed on January 13, 2000.

3. Conduct computer security review.

Lead Office: Data

Participating Offices: Data

Target Completion Date: Project completed March 2000

FEC Progress: Utilizing GSA’s MOBIS schedule, the FEC placed a task

order with Booz-Allen to conduct a complete computer security review. The order

involved a review of all facets of computer security, including internal controls, physical

access, unauthorized software, computer viruses, network infrastructure and review of

local area network as required by OMB Circular A-130. The FEC in conjunction with

Booz-Allen developed the following reports: Information Technology Security – Program

Plan, in October 1999; Report of a Risk Assessment of the FEC Network, November

1999; Local Area Network System Security Plan, March 2000; Network Security

Penetration Test Results, February 2000. The Network Security Penetration Test Results

delivered in February 2000 were the result of a penetration test conducted from January

17, 2000 to February 1, 2000. In FY 2001 the FEC will begin to fortify areas that BoozAllen identified during the penetration test in January 2000. The Data Division is

developing a Commission-wide training program that will be implemented in April 2001.

4. Enhance FEC Web site.

Lead Office: Data

Participating Offices: Virtually all

Target Completion Date: Project completed December 1999
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

16

FEC Progress: The redesigned FEC Web site was launched in December, 1999 and

has been widely regarded as a significant improvement in organization and presentation of

material.

On January 31, 2000, the Commission began posting agendas and agenda

documents for open Commission meetings, as well as Advisory Opinion Requests and

correspondence related to pending Advisory Opinions, on the Web site. In addition, the

FEC is also posting rulemaking documents on its website, including proposed rules and

comments thereon, final rules, explanations and justifications for final rules, and petitions

for rulemaking.

5. Implement Document Management System in OGC (PCDocs).

Lead Office: OGC

Participating Offices: Data, Commissioners’ Offices

Target Completion Date: September 2001

FEC Progress: OGC PFESP was selected as the pilot group for implementing this

project. The requirements analysis was completed in March 2000, and the draft design

was submitted in July 2000, with implementation scheduled for completion in September

2001.

6. Implement Document and Tracking System in Audit (TeamMate).

Lead Office: Audit

Participating Offices: Audit and Data

Target Completion Date: August 2001

FEC Progress:PwC was selected to conduct a requirements analysis of the audit work

process. Specifically, the vendor identified a system to optimize the audit workflow

process, provide electronic work papers and track audits. The final report was delivered

to the FEC in March 2000. The report is being evaluated. It is anticipated that a decision

will be finalized by April, 2001; acquisition and implementation of the electronic audit

workflow and management process is slated for FY 2001. Transitional issues and training

of staff would occur in first quarter FY 2002.

7. Expand imaging process to include materials other than campaign finance

reports.

(See Improvement Opportunity 4-4.)

8. Conduct feasibility study of Optical Scanning Recognition and Bar Code

technology.

Lead Office: Data

Target Completion Date: FY 2004

FEC Progress: One element of the Commission-wide document management

system will be to review the feasibility of optical scanning recognition and bar code

technology. The agency will plan to conduct a Cost/Benefit Analysis in FY2003, to
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

17

determine the feasibility of using OCR technologies to address the requirement of

converting non-electronically filed financial reports to an electronic format. Depending on

the outcome of this study, the design and development of OCR technologies is planned

for FY2003 and FY2004.

9. Contract for IT services and data entry support services.

Lead Office: Data

Participating Offices: None

Target Completion Date: Project completed August 1999

FEC Progress: A contract for data entry support services was awarded in FY

1999.

10. Renovate building.

Lead Office: Administration, Planning and Management

Participating Offices: All

Target Completion Date: Project completed in December 2000

11. Expand the 2 U.S.C.§437(g) field audit program.

Lead Office: OGC

Participating Offices: Audit, RAD, Public Disclosure, Staff Director,

Commissioners’ Offices

Target Completion Date:

FEC Progress: On September 14, 1999, the Commission authorized a task force to

focus on the Title 2 audit process and on ways to expand the use of audits in the

Commission’s enforcement process. The task force includes representatives from the

Commissioners’ offices, the Staff Director’s office, Audit Division, OGC, RAD, Public

Disclosure and Data. (See PwC Recommendation #15)

12. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Pilot Program.

Lead Office: OGC

Participating Offices: Staff Director, Commissioners’ Offices

Target Completion Date: October 2000

FEC Progress: In December of 1999, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation

Service (FMCS) presented the Commission with a final ADR design report, including

findings and recommendations. The Commission accepted the report and approved the

concept of an ADR pilot program. In addition to the FMSC report, OGC developed case

selection criteria to assist in defining the scope of the ADR project. As a result of the

December meeting, the Commission directed the Staff Director, in conjunction with OGC,

to draft a proposal to implement the ADR program and to issue a vacancy announcement

for the Director, Office of ADR. In May of 2000, a Director of the Office of ADR was

selected; this individual will report to the Staff Director and be responsible for

developing and implementing the ADR program. During the following months, the ADR

Director, working with OGC, made a formal proposal to the Commission containing the
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

18

details of the ADR pilot program. On July 25, 2000, the Commission approved the

proposal. The project began October 1, 2000. As of March 1, 2001, the ADR Office

concluded eight agreements based on seven complaints filed with the Commission.

Settlements were obtained in an average of 91 days from the time matters were referred to

the ADR office. Civil penalties from the eight agreements totaled approximately $17,800.

13. Determine effect of projected shortage in Presidential public funding

program.

14. Integration of Macintosh Publishing Program Into Commission-Wide

Server-Based Computer System

Lead Office: Data

Participating Offices: Information Division, Administrative Division

Target Completion Date: Project completed February 2000

FEC Progress: A server was installed to exclusively handle all work related to FEC

publications produced on the Macintosh. Implementation increased the efficiency and

productivity of the agency’s publications program.

15. Waiver of State Filing Requirements.

Lead Office: Public Records

Participating Offices: RAD, Data, Information, OGC Policy

Target Completion Date: Project completed.

FEC Progress: In 1995, Congress enacted 2 U.S.C. §439(c), which exempts states

from receiving and maintaining copies of federal campaign finance reports provided that

the state, “as determined by the Commission, has a system that permits electronic access

to, and duplication of, reports and statements that are filed with the Commission.”

In addition to implementing the statutory provisions of 2 U.S.C. §439(c), there are

three complementary goals of a state filing waiver: to relieve state offices of filing and

maintenance burdens, to relieve committees of duplicative state filing, and to maintain or

increase the level of state disclosure.

On October 14, 1999, the Commission formally approved a program to provide

state offices with a method that ensures public Internet access to the Commission’s web

site to view and copy the federal campaign finance disclosure reports. The FEC provides

states with surplus computer equipment.

On March 17, 2000, the Commission transmitted final rules to Congress to

implement this program. Following the required legislative review period, the new rules

took effect on June 7, 2000.

To date 47 states or comparable jurisdictions have responded positively to

participating in the state waiver program and have given the FEC their hardware and

software requirements. Of that total, 47 have been granted a waiver.

16. Review Operation of Commission Secretariat.

Lead Office: Commission Secretary
PwC Report to Congress March 2001

19

Target Completion Date: Project completed March 2000

FEC Progress: A report was submitted by PricewaterhouseCoopers to the Staff

Director in January 2000. The report compared operations of the Commission Secretariat

with operations of the Secretariats of several similar Federal agencies. Since no significant

findings were cited, significant changes in that office do not appear to be warranted.

Nonetheless, since the PwC report, several improvements in this office have been

implemented, such as the computer-based Commissioner Research Database which

provides easier search capability regarding Commission votes.