GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

October 21, 2005 

The Honorable Trent Lott 

Chairman 

Committee on Rules and Administration 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Gordon H. Smith 

United States Senate 

Subject: Official U.S. Representation at Government-Sponsored Public 

Policy Forums 

The U.S. government annually sponsors thousands of conferences, symposiums, 

seminars, and other policy-related forums that involve individuals and organizations 

from outside the U.S. government. These forums present opportunities for U.S. and 

foreign audiences to discuss public policy issues and are designed to advance U.S. 

government interests. For example, some forums are intended to educate 

participants about official U.S. government positions and policies on issues of public 

concern, such as the war in Iraq, development of alternative energy sources, human 

trafficking, and protection of endangered species. Other forums serve as venues for 

soliciting input on policy issues from the public and from selected external experts, 

including academics, scientists, journalists, and representatives of nongovernmental 

organizations. 

You requested information on these forums, noting that official U.S. representation at 

the forums is important for ensuring that they achieve their objectives. This letter 

provides information on forums sponsored by the Departments of State, Defense, 

Energy, and Interior from 2001 through 2004.1

 For the policy-related forums 

sponsored by these four departments, we (1) determined the extent to which U.S. 

government officials participated in the forums, and (2) identified the departmental 

policies and procedures governing participation by U.S. officials at these events. 

To meet these objectives, we distributed questionnaires, tailored to each department, 

requesting specific information about the policy forums they funded or hosted from 

2001 through 2004. We collected information on the title, date, location, and purpose 

of each forum as well as an indication of whether a U.S. official participated in the 

event. We did not implement the questionnaire at the Department of Energy as this 

department routinely collects the information we were seeking in a central database. 

We also interviewed key officials throughout the departments about their policies and 

 

1

Unless otherwise noted, years cited in this report refer to calendar years. 
Page 2 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums

 

informal practices governing policy forums and compared them with actual practices, 

as reported to us through the questionnaires. Because the questionnaires we used 

reflected each department’s unique organizational structure, mission, and operations, 

the data are not comparable across departments. For increased assurance that the 

data the departments reported to us were reliable, we obtained additional 

documentation on selected forums and conducted independent research using 

publicly available data sources. For each department, we determined that the data 

were sufficiently reliable for assessing the overall extent of participation by U.S. 

officials at policy forums. A more detailed description of our scope and methodology 

is included in Enclosure I. We conducted our work between January 2005 and 

September 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

Summary 

The Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and Interior sponsored a wide variety of 

policy forums from 2001 through 2004 as part of their programs and missions within 

the United States and throughout the world. The four departments’ data showed that 

U.S. officials participated in virtually all of these events. For example, of the 

approximately 8,800 policy forums the Department of State (State) reported 

sponsoring during this period, about 97 percent were attended by U.S. government 

officials from State or another federal agency; the remaining forums did not include a 

U.S. government official, primarily due to personnel and resource constraints. 

According to the public affairs officer at the U.S. embassy in France, for instance, the 

increased demand for speakers to discuss U.S. policies on terrorism had been 

particularly heavy, precluding embassy officials from accompanying some guest 

experts before French audiences. In these cases, the public affairs officers 

determined that the objectives of the forum could be met without official U.S. 

government representation. State public diplomacy officials do not believe that the 

relatively small number of events held without official U.S. participation posed an 

undue risk to State’s foreign policy goals. The Departments of Defense, Energy, and 

Interior, which sponsored thousands of forums during this period, each reported 

fewer than five instances in which no U.S. official participated in policy forums they 

sponsored. While official representation at policy forums does not guarantee that 

government policies and positions were presented, each of the four departments 

reported that U.S. officials were nearly always on hand to speak on behalf of the 

government if it was necessary and appropriate. 

None of the four departments had written policies requiring U.S. officials to attend or 

actively promote U.S. policies and positions at government-sponsored forums. 

However, departmental policies and practices were designed to ensure that such 

forums did not undermine the departments’ missions. For example, State has rules 

and operating guidance in place that are intended to prevent department-sponsored 

speakers from misrepresenting U.S. policies and positions, such as requiring many 

guest speakers to be vetted by the department’s International Information Programs 

office. Also, the Department of Defense (DOD) requires its agencies to ensure that all 

forums co-sponsored with nonfederal entities are closely related to DOD’s missions. 
Page 3 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums 

 

Existing policies and procedures at the departments were aimed at limiting the 

costs—particularly travel costs—associated with larger forums rather than ensuring a 

minimum level of U.S. participation at all forums. Specifically, three of the four 

agencies required special high-level management review for events involving the 

travel of 25 to 30 or more attendees. 

Background 

Conferences, symposiums, seminars, and other policy forums are convened and 

funded under the four departments’ many different programs and missions. Their 

management is thus highly diffused across the agencies and offices of the 

departments we reviewed. Of the four departments, only the Department of Energy 

maintains a central database with management information on the forums the 

department sponsors. 

The extent to which the departments sponsor these forums varies. Sometimes 

departments host forums in their entirety, providing the venue and hospitality, setting 

the agenda, inviting the speakers and participants, and even funding participants’ 

travel expenses. Departments also co-sponsor forums with other organizations, 

providing partial funding or in-kind logistical support. In planning a conference, 

federal travel regulations require agencies to establish internal policies to ensure that 

they minimize administrative, travel, and staff time costs. 

In addition, each department in our review sponsors Federal Advisory Committees, 

whose meetings provide a formal and ongoing venue for a selected group of external 

experts to share their views on national policy issues with department officials. By 

law, a designated federal official must convene and chair (or attend) all Federal 

Advisory Committee meetings and approve the agenda.2

 

Department of State Policy Forums 

State sponsored a wide variety of policy forums and federal advisory committee 

meetings, and about 97 percent of the nearly 8,800 forums we identified were 

attended by an official U.S. representative from State or another federal agency. 

Most forums also included a federal official on the agenda of the event. State has no 

written policies requiring U.S. officials to attend or actively promote U.S. policies. 

However, according to agency officials we interviewed, operating guidance, rules, 

and informal practices help mitigate the risk that speakers might misrepresent U.S. 

policies and positions. Also, a specific and higher-level approval process is 

prescribed for forums that require 25 or more people to travel. 

2

5 U.S.C. app. 2 §10. 
Page 4 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums

 

Official U.S. Representation at State Department Forums 

From 2001 through 2004, State reported sponsoring 8,772 conferences, seminars, and 

other forums designed to allow people and organizations from outside the U.S. 

government to exchange views on foreign affairs and other public policy issues. 

Policy forums constitute a major component of State’s public diplomacy and public 

affairs efforts. Embassies and other overseas posts frequently sponsor policy forums 

designed to help meet their objectives for furthering U.S. interests within the host 

country. For example, posts sponsor U.S. government officials, private U.S. citizens 

such as academics and commentators, and others to participate in conferences and 

other forums. Sponsored guests make speeches and share their expertise and 

opinions about current events and policy issues. For example, the U.S. embassy in 

Algeria sponsored a senior judge from the U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit to speak 

on judicial reform; the embassy in Brazil sponsored a U.S. journalist and 

commentator to speak on the U.S. elections in 2004; and the embassy in Guatemala 

hosted an International Conference on Drug Abuse Prevention attended by seven U.S. 

drug experts. The Bureau of Public Affairs also sponsors and arranges forums within 

the United States at which State officials speak to local audiences on U.S. foreign 

policies concerning certain countries or geographic regions of the world, and on 

specific topics such as arms control, counterterrorism, and demining. 

In addition, State sponsors many forums, primarily in Washington, to seek input from 

nongovernmental experts when formulating policies, positions, and approaches. For 

example, State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research frequently convenes experts to 

provide ambassadors, State officials, and other government officials with a variety of 

viewpoints on a certain issue or country situation. Such forums have included a 

conference on organized crime in Latin America, a seminar on the Israeli elections 

and coalition prospects, and a workshop on international oceanographic research. In 

addition, at meetings of State’s 21 Federal Advisory Committees, outside experts 

provide input to the department on a host of foreign policy and foreign affairs 

management issues, such an international economic policy, overseas schools, and 

cultural diplomacy. Also, the Secretary’s Open Forum provides a venue for 

individuals from outside the department or the U.S. government to make 

presentations on foreign policy topics, primarily to State Department staff. The Open 

Forum was established in 1967 during U.S. involvement in the Vietnam conflict to 

strengthen the American foreign policy process by encouraging creative thinking on 

vital policy issues, including presentations of differing visions and viewpoints. Both 

critics and supporters of U.S. policy have made speeches through this forum. 

U.S. government officials participated in virtually all State-sponsored policy forums. 

According to data provided by the State Department, State and other federal officials 

attended about 97 percent of these events and were thus on hand to discuss official 

U.S. policies and positions if necessary and appropriate. Furthermore, State reported 

that a U.S. official was included formally on the agenda as a speaker, participant, or 

chair for about 72 percent of all the policy forums we identified. 
Page 5 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums 

According to the data provided by State, attendance by State officials differed 

somewhat depending on whether the forum was sponsored by a Washington-based 

office or by embassy or other overseas post. For all but two of the 3,028 policy 

forums sponsored by a Washington-based office, at least one State or other U.S. 

government official attended the event. This includes all 420 meetings of State’s 

Federal Advisory Committees. Of the 5,744 forums sponsored by the overseas posts 

and their corresponding geographic bureaus3

 from 2001 through 2004, about 95 

percent were attended by a State official or other U.S. government official with 

authority to speak on behalf of the U.S. government. 

State officials we spoke to at posts overseas cited various reasons for not including 

U.S. official participation in about 5 percent of the forums they sponsored. Public 

affairs officers at several posts told us that their posts did not always have enough 

foreign service officers, travel funds, or other resources necessary to attend the 

events. For example, the public affairs officer in France indicated that in the wake of 

the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the embassy experienced a surge in its 

speaker programs, leaving it shorthanded in trying to attend all of its sponsored 

events. As a result, in some instances the embassy sponsored guest speakers to 

participate in various policy forums throughout the country without a foreign service 

officer in attendance. The press officer in Kazakhstan noted that in many cases 

forums were held in regional cities outside the capital, where travel was difficult and 

usually required 2 to 3 days. Thus, the extended absence of a foreign service officer 

from the embassy would adversely impact a small post’s operations. 

Some State officials emphasized that, depending on a forum’s purpose, official U.S. 

positions and policies may not always be explicitly presented or discussed, even if 

U.S. officials participated. One public affairs officer explained that embassy 

representatives may want to maintain a low profile to avoid the appearance of U.S. 

influence on the discussion. This might be true, for example, if the event’s purpose 

was to highlight the importance of free speech. Similarly, a Bureau of Intelligence 

and Research official indicated that the Bureau’s events are more productive in 

gathering information when participating U.S. officials encourage diverse viewpoints, 

rather than debating or challenging viewpoints if they conflict with official U.S. 

positions. At events attended primarily by State officials, such as the Secretary’s 

Open Forum events, active promotion of U.S. policies is usually unnecessary, 

according to officials responsible for arranging these events. Attendees are assumed 

to be well versed in U.S. foreign policy by virtue of their positions within the 

Department. 

 

Policies and Practices Governing Participation by U.S. Officials in State Department 

Policy Forums

We found no written policies that require State officials to attend or actively promote 

U.S. policy and positions at department-sponsored policy forums. According to 

senior officials throughout State, the forums are key instruments in advancing U.S. 

 

3

This includes the bureaus for African Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, European and Eurasian 

Affairs, Near Eastern Affairs, Western Hemispheric Affairs, and South Asian Affairs. 
Page 6 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums

 

foreign policy, both domestically and overseas. As such, these officials indicated that 

it is important that these events be managed effectively by State officials. Although 

State does not have written policies stating how this management is to be carried out, 

other existing guidance and practices we observed are designed to ensure that the 

events meet the department’s overall mission and objectives. 

State’s written policies governing the sponsorship of policy forums are aimed at 

controlling the cost of conferences and do not require the attendance of a minimum 

number of U.S. officials. As of July 2004, State requires conferences, workshops, and 

meetings that require the travel of 25 or more persons to be specifically approved by 

the Under Secretary of Management. The sponsoring office must justify the event, 

specifying the benefits to the department, anticipated outcomes, cost, timing, and 

security considerations. According to the officials responsible for managing this 

approval process, the Under Secretary for Management would usually not comment 

on the content of the conference, the agenda, or the choice of speakers or official 

attendees, as these decisions are delegated to Assistant Secretaries for the bureaus 

and offices arranging the event. 

While State does not have a written policy mandating the promotion of U.S. policy at 

policy forums, State directives are designed to help ensure that department officials 

do not contradict official U.S. policies and positions at department-sponsored policy 

forums. State’s Foreign Affairs Manual includes procedures requiring employees’ 

public comments and writings to be pre-cleared by appropriate State officials. 

Although extemporaneous remarks made at conferences do not require formal preclearance according to the Manual, department officials are expected not to make 

remarks that are inconsistent with official U.S. policy. One senior State official we 

spoke to indicated that the department selects its representatives for international 

conferences carefully to help ensure that these directives are followed. 

With regard to State-sponsored guest speakers overseas, departmental practices are 

designed to help ensure that these speakers do not misrepresent U.S. policies and 

undermine public diplomacy and public affairs objectives. According to an official 

from the International Information Programs Office, it is common practice for that 

office to research the writings and public statements of speaker candidates to verify 

that they hold views generally “sympathetic” to official U.S. policy. In addition, 

State’s training materials for public affairs officers state that “[w]hen a speaker 

departs from [U.S. government] policy, he or she should, without question, 

acknowledge this divergence to the audience. If such a distinction is not made in the 

course of a speaker’s presentation, the [public affairs officer] should clarify this point 

to the audience.” Senior public diplomacy officers indicated that this practice is 

particularly important when sensitive foreign policy topics are discussed. 

State officials agreed that not sending a foreign service officer to a policy forum may 

increase the risk that U.S. policies will be misrepresented. However, the public 

diplomacy officers at State’s geographic bureaus indicated that this risk was 

acceptable to them, given the infrequency with which this occurs, the limited staffing 
Page 7 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums 

and resources at overseas posts to attend all events, and the confidence they have in 

the speakers they invite. 

Several public affairs officers at overseas posts stated that there are other means at 

their disposal—short of participating in events with guest speakers—for mitigating 

the risk that the speakers will undermine U.S. public diplomacy objectives. Officials 

at some posts indicated that speakers are often selected or recommended by the 

posts based on a proven track record of effective presentations that are well received 

and that support the posts’ objectives. Also, when speakers are scheduled to 

participate in a series of forums, a foreign service officer or other post staff member 

may attend an initial speech to ascertain the nature of the speaker’s future remarks. 

Furthermore, public affairs officers said that the ambassador and other foreign 

service officers may brief the speaker upon arrival in-country on the posts’ objectives, 

priorities, and sensitive subjects. Finally, several public affairs officers we consulted 

indicated that when they could not send a foreign service officer to accompany a 

guest speaker, they would frequently send a locally employed foreign national staff 

member to observe the event and report on it to embassy and departmental 

management. 

Department of Defense Policy Forums 

Almost all of the more than 2,500 DOD-sponsored forums we identified involved the 

direct participation of U.S. government officials. The 57 DOD organizations we 

surveyed reported three forums that did not include a federal official on the agenda. 

DOD has a directive stating that forums co-sponsored with nonfederal entities should 

be relevant to agency missions, as well as additional defense agency directives that 

say agencies should manage events appropriately. However, these directives do not 

require DOD officials to be included on conference agendas or to actively promote 

U.S. policies and positions. 

Official U.S. Representation at DOD Forums

DOD sponsors a range of conferences, symposiums, and other forums designed to 

share ideas with people and organizations outside the U.S. government. A number of 

DOD officials stated that the forums the department sponsors do not usually involve 

a direct debate of U.S. government policy, but are sessions held to discuss the 

implementation of U.S. policies. From calendar year 2001 through 2004, DOD 

reported sponsoring over 2,500 events addressing a range of environmental, 

economic, medical, political, technological, and security-related issues. Some 

forums—such as the Defense Environmental Forum, the Defense Procurement 

Conference, and the Navy Occupational Health and Preventive Medicine 

Conference—addressed specific DOD operational policies and issues. Other 

forums—such as the South Asia Stability Seminar and the International Rivals 

Conference—addressed broader international security issues. DOD also sponsored 

meetings of 71 Federal Advisory Committees to obtain input from external experts on 

a variety of defense-related subjects, such as military compensation and nuclear 

weapons surety. 
Page 8 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums

 

In response to our survey, 57 DOD organizations reported that U.S. government 

officials participated in virtually all of the 1,349 forums that they sponsored from 2001 

through 2004. (See encl. II for a list of the DOD organizations we surveyed.) Three 

forums (less than 0.5 percent) did not include a federal government official on the 

agenda as a chair, moderator, speaker, or panelist. Two of these three forums were 

related to U.S. policy. The first forum was a workshop titled “U.S. Assessments of the 

Soviet and Post-Soviet Russian Economy: Lessons Learned and Not Learned.” The 

second event was a workshop titled “The Middle East Youth Culture Project.” Both 

events were the final presentations of researchers who were under contract with a 

sponsoring DOD organization. According to a DOD official, these workshops were 

designed to generate input for the Secretary of Defense’s long-term planning efforts. 

According to officials we interviewed, DOD officials were not on the agenda when 

these events took place because DOD officials did not conduct the research and 

attended only to hear the results. The only other forum DOD reported that did not 

have a U.S. government representative on the agenda was a retirement training 

seminar for government employees, which did not involve a discussion of U.S. 

government policy. In addition to the forums the DOD organizations we surveyed 

reported to us, the department hosted 1,159 meetings of its Federal Advisory 

Committees in this time period, which by law requires U.S. official participation.4

 

Policies and Practices Governing Participation by U.S. Officials in DOD Forums

None of the DOD organizations we surveyed reported any written requirements for 

including U.S. officials on the agenda of government-sponsored forums or promoting 

U.S. policies and positions at these events. We did, however, identify a DOD 

regulation5

 that requires DOD organizations co-sponsoring a conference with nonfederal entities to ensure that the forum is relevant to the mission of the sponsoring 

DOD organization. Other defense agency directives we identified address such issues 

as how information should be released to the public and an organization’s fiscal 

responsibility for organizing or attending conferences. However, none of these 

directives included requirements for agenda content or prior approval of planned 

presentations. 

In addition to the written directives, several DOD organizations we surveyed 

indicated that they have practices in place whereby high-level management officials 

review and approve conference agendas. For example, one DOD organization 

indicated that agendas are approved by the office’s director when event funding is 

required. Another DOD office reported that its forums are subject to a legal review 

and a review by a six-member committee that oversees conference planning and 

agenda development. An Army organization stated that all event plans and agendas 

are reviewed and approved by a senior official. 

 

4

5 U.S.C. app. 2 §10. 

5

Joint Ethics Regulation, DOD 5500.7-R, §3.206(b). 
Page 9 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums 

Department of Energy Policy Forums 

The Department of Energy (DOE) sponsors an array of forums that addressed many 

scientific, technical, and public policy topics. Of the nearly 1,300 forums we 

identified, three did not include a DOE or other federal official and directly addressed 

policy issues. DOE has written policies and procedures governing its sponsorship of 

conferences, particularly those involving the travel of 30 or more department 

officials. However, none of the directives relating to department-sponsored forums 

require attendance by DOE officials or the promotion of U.S. policies and positions. 

Official U.S. Representation at DOE Policy Forums

Based on data compiled in DOE’s conference management database and other public 

sources, DOE sponsored nearly 1,300 forums (including conferences, symposiums, 

workshops, meetings, and retreats) during fiscal years 2001 through 2004.6

 Many of 

these forums addressed highly scientific and technical issues, such as the High 

Efficiency Thermoelectric Workshop and the Carbon Sequestration Conference. 

Some forums addressed the policy implications of energy technologies. Other forums 

explored international energy issues, such as the conferences on International 

Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy and on U.S.-Norwegian Bilateral Cooperation 

in Carbon Sequestration, Hydrogen, and New Energy Technologies. In addition, DOE 

sponsored 23 Federal Advisory Committees, which held 491 meetings in this period 

on a range of topics, including fusion energy and nonproliferation.

The U.S. government was officially represented at almost all the DOE-sponsored 

forums we identified. According to information we obtained from DOE and other 

public sources, four of the forums we identified were not attended by at least one 

U.S. government official. Three of the four forums were workshops sponsored by the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Center for Global Security Research.7

 

Attendance at all three forums—two “Living with Risk” workshops and an “AgroTerrorism: What Is the Threat?” workshop—was restricted to invited guests. 

Although Lawrence Livermore employees attended the workshops, no DOE or other 

federal agency official was identified on the agenda as a speaker or participant during 

the regular sessions. (A Department of Agriculture official did participate as a dinner 

speaker at the Agro-Terrorism workshop.) The Center sponsored the two “Living 

with Risk” workshops to develop a methodology for evaluating risk; the findings of 

the workshops are expected to be published in early 2006. Center officials stated that 

they plan to hold a conference to present the findings to decision makers, including 

DOE officials, following publication. The remaining forum with no official U.S. 

 

6

DOE’s conference management database collects data on DOE-sponsored conferences on a fiscal year 

basis. 

7

The University of California operates Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract with 

DOE. Laboratory personnel are University of California employees. The Center for Global Security 

Research was formed in 1996 to study ways that technology can improve national security by bringing 

technology and policy experts together. 
Page 10 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums

 

representation was not focused on policy issues; it was a meeting between DOE 

contractor employees and industry representatives to discuss technical issues related 

to the development of advanced vehicle technology. 

Policies and Practices Governing Participation by U.S. Officials in DOE Forums

DOE policies and procedures do not require U.S. officials to be included on the 

agenda or to actively promote U.S. policies and positions at government-sponsored 

forums. However, a DOE order on conference management establishes requirements 

to minimize costs and attendance at conferences sponsored by DOE or its 

contractors. Under this order, each conference must be approved in advance by the 

head or Principal Deputy within the sponsoring organization or by a higher-level 

manager if the forum involves travel by 30 or more DOE or contractor employees. 

The order also requires that DOE units establish points of contact and submit a list of 

all sponsored conferences held in the prior calendar year to the DOE Executive 

Secretariat for inclusion in its conference management database. 

Department of the Interior Policy Forums 

U.S. officials participated in virtually all of the more than 1,200 policy forums we 

identified that were sponsored by the nine bureaus and offices of the Department of 

Interior. Interior reported only four policy forums where it could not document the 

involvement of a federal official. Departmental policies and procedures relating to 

the sponsorship of forums do not address U.S. official representation or the 

promotion of U.S. policies and positions. However, if more than 30 employees are 

expected to travel to attend the forum, departmental policy requires higher-level 

management scrutiny. 

Official U.S. Representation at Interior Policy Forums

Interior’s nine bureaus and offices reported sponsoring more than 1,200 policy 

forums relating to their respective missions. For example, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service sponsored such conferences as the Annual North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference, the Wildlife Society’s Annual Meeting, and the 

Wildlife Habitat Council Annual Symposium. Forums sponsored by the Minerals 

Management Service addressed issues such as the management of offshore oil 

drilling, transport, equipment, and facilities. The Office of Surface Mining sponsored 

technical forums on the use and disposal of coal combustion by-products, bat 

conservation in coal mines, and reclamation and reforestation of mined land. Interior 

also sponsored meetings of 108 Federal Advisory Committees to discuss issues such 

as invasive species control and the protection of Native American graves. 

Interior reported that four of the forums we identified for 2001 through 2004 did not 

involve participation by a U.S. government official. These included a U.S. Geological 

Survey workshop of Gulf Coast state geological surveys. According to the U.S. 

Geological Survey, this was a workshop for officials from different states to develop a 

framework for cooperative studies for subsequent discussion with U.S. Geological 
Page 11 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums 

Survey officials. In addition, the National Park Service cosponsored a conference of 

the Preservation Alliances of West Virginia, but Interior officials did not attend 

because travel funds were not available. The conference discussed economic 

development prospects for restoring downtown commerce in Lewisburg, West 

Virginia. In addition, National Park Service officials had not documented, and thus 

could not verify, whether federal officials had attended two other conferences it 

sponsored. A U.S. official was included formally on the agenda as a speaker, 

participant, or chair for about 94 percent of the policy forums Interior reported to us. 

Participation by an Interior official was required by law for all 1,029 of the Federal 

Advisory Committee meetings the department sponsored from 2001 through 2004. 8

 

In addition to these forums, officials from Interior and its bureaus participated in 

more than a thousand other public meetings, for which we did not gather specific 

information, which were held throughout the United States from 2001 through 2004. 

These public meetings included permit reviews, regulatory proceedings relating to 

the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, and the 

National Park Service’s management planning and partnership meetings. Many of 

these public meetings were held with local residents and other members of the public 

to obtain their views or explain the department’s policies and actions regarding 

public land use. The active involvement of Interior officials is required for official 

public meetings or public hearings held as part of the regulatory or policy actions of 

the department, according to senior Interior officials. 

Policies and Practices Governing Participation by U.S. Officials in Interior Forums

Interior does not have any written policies relating to the attendance by U.S. officials 

or the promotion of U.S. policies and positions at department-sponsored policy 

forums. However, departmental regulations establish a formal approval process for 

funding conferences and other forums and specify that the Program Assistant 

Secretary or the Deputy Assistant Secretary must approve forums to be attended by 

30 or more federal government employees in travel status. 

Some of Interior’s bureaus reported other policies and practices to help ensure that 

the forums they sponsor support the department’s missions. For example, according 

to the National Park Service, informal criteria require that a sponsored forum be 

mission-related, cost effective, and not perceived by the public as inappropriate or 

wasteful. The Bureau of Reclamation’s recently issued directives and standards state 

that the conference’s executive sponsor is responsible for all content and logistics 

and require the Director of the Office of Program and Policy Services to maintain an 

inventory of conferences and prepare a summary of conferences held in the past 

year. 

 

8

5 U.S.C. app. 2 §10. 
Page 12 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums

 

Agency Comments 

We provided a draft of this letter to the Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and 

Interior for their comment. They provided technical corrections, which we 

incorporated into the letter as appropriate, but they had no further comments. 

— — — — 

We are sending copies of this letter to the Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, and 

Interior. In addition, the letter will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact 

Joseph Christoff at (202) 512-8979 or christoffj@gao.gov. Key contributors to this 

report are listed in Enclosure III.

Joseph A. Christoff 

Director, International Affairs and Trade 

Derek B. Stewart 

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management 

Gene Aloise 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment 

Enclosures 
Page 13 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums 

Enclosure I 

Scope and Methodology 

To identify policy-related forums sponsored by these four departments and determine 

the extent to which U.S. government officials participated, we undertook a data 

collection approach specific to each department, given their differences in 

organization, mission, and operations. 

• To obtain data on the Department of State (State), we designed a 

questionnaire to collect information on the policy forums sponsored by the 30 

bureaus and offices involved primarily in foreign policy issues. We consulted 

with State officials familiar with the department’s organizational structure and 

missions, in particular its public diplomacy and public affairs missions. Our 

questionnaire addressed events hosted or funded by the departments that 

involved an open discussion of policy issues with participants from outside the 

U.S. government. We specifically excluded many routine contacts between 

departmental officials and external audiences, such as speeches, public 

hearings, and diplomatic contacts. In February 2005, we pre-tested the 

questionnaire at selected offices and then fully distributed it, with minor 

revisions, throughout the department in March 2005. To obtain information on 

overseas events, the department queried all embassies and overseas posts 

using our questionnaire and reported the information to us. We received 

responses to our questionnaire from 26 bureaus. We relied on the department 

to report specific information about each forum, including the purpose of the 

event, the nature of government sponsorship, and attendance by U.S. officials. 

We determined that, given the large number of policy forums sponsored 

throughout the time period under review and the highly decentralized 

recordkeeping for many of these forums, collection and review of the agendas 

from all of these forums would not be feasible. Instead, we obtained the name 

and contact information for one official associated with each forum. We 

analyzed the questionnaire results to obtain a listing of events at which no U.S. 

official participated and obtained additional information on these events, 

including an agenda when possible, from the designated contact. We also 

interviewed, in oral and in written form, officials knowledgeable with these 

events to obtain further descriptions or clarifications, as needed. 

• To obtain data on the Department of Defense (DOD), we revised the 

questionnaire that had been distributed at State and pre-tested it at selected 

DOD organizations in March and April 2005. Through our pre-testing, we 

determined that DOD officials consistently found our use of the term “policy 

forum” and our instruction to report information about sponsored events that 

“discussed or debated U.S. government policies” as not applicable to their 

operations. They thus provided no information in response to the 

questionnaire. Therefore, we revised our reporting criteria by eliminating the 

“policy forum” and the “policy debate” requirement, thereby widening the 

scope of forums DOD officials could report on the questionnaire. We made 
Page 14 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums

 

those revisions to the questionnaire before distributing it to 57 selected DOD 

organizations in May 2005. Given DOD’s size, we determined that it would not 

be feasible to distribute the questionnaire, particularly with its widened scope, 

to all organizations within the department. Based on our professional 

judgment, we identified a non-probability sample of 57 DOD organizations that 

we believed would be more likely to sponsor events that could be interpreted 

as policy related, and we distributed the questionnaire only to those 

organizations. We also limited distribution of the questionnaire to 

organizations headed by officials at the Assistant Secretary level or above 

because we had determined in pre-testing that operational field units and other 

similarly decentralized DOD organizations were unlikely to sponsor events 

where policy was debated. (See encl. II for a listing of the DOD organizations 

we surveyed for this review.) Additionally, we eliminated routine and 

professional training of U.S. agency and military personnel. National Defense 

University courses were specifically excluded due to this organization’s focus 

on academic freedom and the practice of non-attribution to encourage 

multiple viewpoints and not to discourage controversy. We analyzed the 

information provided on the questionnaires and obtained additional 

information on those events that DOD reported as unattended by a U.S. 

government official. 

• The Department of Energy (DOE) maintains a centralized database of 

conferences and other forums that contained the data we needed to meet our 

objectives. We therefore did not use a questionnaire. In addition to clearly 

policy-related forums, this database contained information on internal 

meetings involving only DOE and DOE contractor personnel, highly technical 

conferences, and events targeted to the DOE laboratories’ client community to 

discuss, for example, small business or technology transfer opportunities. For 

those DOE-sponsored forums that appeared to be policy related and for which 

the database showed that no DOE official attended, we obtained an agenda 

and used a questionnaire to get supplementary information. 

• To obtain data on the Department of the Interior (Interior), we revised the 

questionnaire previously distributed at State and pre-tested it with all nine 

Interior bureaus in March and April 2005. Based on our pre-testing, we 

determined that it would not be feasible to collect specific information on the 

wide range of hearings and public meetings the department sponsors in its 

regulatory capacity because records generally are kept at local offices with no 

centralized reporting. We therefore excluded this category of policy forum 

from our review and distributed our questionnaire to all bureaus in June 2005. 

We analyzed the results of the questionnaire and obtained additional 

information on those events reported as unattended by a U.S. government 

official. 

For all four departments, we also obtained information on Federal Advisory 

Committee meetings from the General Services Administration’s online database 

pertaining to these events, which we determined was reliable for the purposes of our 
Page 15 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums 

 

review. Since participation by federal officials is required by law for these meetings, 

we did not obtain documentation from the departments about U.S. representation at 

each of these events.9

 

For increased assurance that the data the departments reported to us were 

sufficiently reliable, we conducted independent research using Internet resources, 

including the Washington Daybook, published by Federal Information and News 

Dispatch, Inc., which reports publicly available information on governmentsponsored policy forums and other events held in the Washington, D.C., area. We 

requested additional information on those forums we identified that the departments 

had not reported to us. Because of the different methodological approaches we used 

at the four departments, data on policy forums were not necessarily comparable 

among the departments. Furthermore, given the decentralized and sometimes 

informal nature of recordkeeping on policy forums, the completeness of the 

information we obtained from some offices was limited. Agencies reported potential 

gaps in the data and, thus, could not guarantee that all government-sponsored forums 

were captured in the data they reported. In particular, our validation of the DOE 

database suggested that some underreporting may have occurred for this department. 

However, in our analysis of the data we collected we found a very high degree of 

consistency regarding the participation by U.S. officials at the government-sponsored 

forums reported. This analysis suggested that the potential underreporting at DOE 

and the other departments would not materially affect our findings on official 

attendance at the conferences. Therefore, we judged that for the purpose of 

determining the overall extent of participation by U.S. government officials in these 

events, the information we obtained from all four departments was sufficiently 

reliable. 

To identify the departmental policies governing participation by U.S. government 

officials at these events, we interviewed officials throughout the four departments in 

our review. We obtained descriptions, in either written or oral form, from a wide 

variety of officials responsible for organizing policy forums, of the formal policies and 

procedures and the informal practices that they typically employ. We analyzed the 

questionnaire responses to identify those forums that did not comply with 

departmental policies or practices regarding participation by U.S. officials. We found 

this to be the case only with some State-sponsored forums held at overseas posts 

without official attendance by a State official. We then conducted further interviews 

with State officials at the geographic bureaus and posts that sponsored those forums 

to identify and understand variance with stated policy or common practice. We did 

not test departments’ compliance with policies relating to other aspects of managing 

forums, such as requirements for obtaining special approval for forums involving the 

travel of 25 people or more. 

We conducted our work between January 2005 and September 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

9

5 U.S.C. App. 2 §10. 
Page 16 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums

 

Enclosure II 

DOD Offices and Agencies Contacted 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 

• Director, Defense Research and Engineering 

• Director, Acquisition Resource and Analysis 

• Director, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 

• Director, Defense Systems 

• Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy 

• Director, International Cooperation 

• Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (International Technology Security) 

• Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Laboratories and Basic Sciences) 

• Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics Materiel Readiness) 

• Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological 

Defense Programs) 

• Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Advanced Systems and Concepts) 

• Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Industrial Policy) 

• Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) 

• Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science and Technology) 

Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 

• Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 

• Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) 

• Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs) 

• Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness) 

• Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program Integration) 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 

• Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs) 

• Assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense) 

• Assistant Secretary of Defense (Special Operations and Low-Intensity 

Conflict) 

• Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Policy) 

Under Secretary of Defense Intelligence 

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Network and Information Integration) 

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs) 

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) 

Director, Force Transformation 

Director, Net Assessment 
Page 17 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums 

Defense Agencies 

• Defense Security Cooperation Agency 

• Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

• Defense Logistics Agency 

• Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

DOD Field Activities 

• Office of Economic Adjustment 

• TRICARE Management Activity 

Office of the Secretary of the Army 

• Chief of Public Affairs 

• Deputy Under Secretary of the Army 

• Chief of Staff, Army 

• Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management 

• Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment) 

• Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology) 

• Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 

• Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) 

• Chief, Army Reserve 

• Chief, National Guard Bureau 

Secretary of the Air Force 

• Office of Public Affairs 

• Under Secretary of the Air Force 

• Office of the Assistant Secretary (Acquisition) 

• Deputy Under Secretary (International Affairs) 

• Office of the Assistant Secretary (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) 

• Office of the Assistant Secretary (Installations, Environment, and Logistics) 

Office of the Secretary of the Navy 

 

• Under Secretary of the Navy 

• Chief of Naval Operations 

• Chief of Information 

• Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment) 

• Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) 

• Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition) 
Page 18 GAO-06-89R Government-Sponsored Policy Forums

 

Enclosure III 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact Joseph Christoff, (202) 512-8979 

Acknowledgments Key contributors to this correspondence include Rebecca 

Beale, Richard Boudreau, Renee Brown, Lynn Cothern, 

Richard Cheston, Martin De Alteriis, Lynn Johnson, 

Stephen Lord, Grace Lui, James Michels, David Moser, 

Donald Pless, and Clifton Spruill. 

(320321) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER