Page 1 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

November 5, 2001 

The Honorable Joe Knollenberg

Chairman, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia 

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr.

House of Representatives

Subject: District of Columbia Issues: D.C. Workforce Reductions and 

Related Funding Issues

In a January 3, 2001, letter, the Honorable Ernest J. Istook, then Chairman 

of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

requested that we review the use of the $18 million in funding that was to 

be transferred from the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 

Management Assistance Authority (Financial Authority) to the District of 

Columbia government for severance payments made to individuals 

separated from employment during fiscal year 2000 as part of the Mayor’s 

workforce reduction initiative.

On September 26, 2001, we briefed the staff of the House Subcommittee on 

the District of Columbia Appropriations on the results of our review. This 

letter transmits material from that briefing addressing whether the District 

had the authority to use the $18 million in funding as well as information in 

response to other questions posed by the Subcommittee. The briefing 

document is reprinted in enclosure I. We received written comments from 

the District’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and oral comments from the 

Financial Authority on the briefing document. The District’s CFO 

comments are in a letter dated August 29, 2001, that is reprinted in 

enclosure II. 

Results in Brief The District did not meet the conditions set forth in Section 157 of the 

District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-

113). Therefore, the District did not have the authority to use the $18 

million in Section 157 funding for the fiscal year 2000 workforce reduction. 

The District advised us that it believed it had the Financial Authority’s 

approval to use the Section 157 funding and, consequently, incurred $14.3 

million in costs during fiscal year 2000 related to the workforce reduction 

activities. However, the District provided no documentary evidence that 
Page 2 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

the Financial Authority had certified the District’s compliance with the 

requirements of Section 157 to authorize the use of the funds. The 

Financial Authority provided written documentation to the District that it 

did not release or certify the use of the $18 million in funding intended for 

severance payments. 

The Financial Authority disagreed with the District’s position that it had 

received authority to use the $18 million and held to its position that it had 

not approved the use of the funds by the District and had denied the 

District’s request for reimbursement for severance payments in writing. In 

addition, the District did not obtain approval of the plan from the Senate 

Committee on Appropriations as required by Section 157.

The District accounted for its workforce reduction costs during fiscal year 

2000 as if it had access to the Section 157 funding. In particular, the District 

recorded a $14.3 million receivable in fiscal year 2000 in anticipation of 

receiving the Section 157 funding. The District concluded that, had the 

Section 157 funding been unavailable, one agency would have ended fiscal 

year 2000 with an operating deficit and two agencies would have 

experienced increases in their existing operating deficits. As a result, the 

District may have potential Anti-Deficiency Act violations. We are 

recommending that the District conduct the required review of this 

situation and report as necessary any Anti-Deficiency Act violations. 

Background Section 157 of the District of Columbia’s Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations 

Act provided for the transfer of up to $18 million from the Financial 

Authority to the District government to finance severance payments made 

to individuals separated from employment during fiscal year 2000, subject 

to the District meeting certain conditions set forth in the act. The funds 

were to be used only in accordance with a plan agreed to by the City 

Council and the Mayor and approved by the Committees on Appropriations 

of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Financial Authority 

was to release the funds, on a quarterly basis, to reimburse such expenses, 

so long as the Financial Authority certified that, based on the approved 

plan, the severance payment expenses would reduce reoccurring future 

costs at an annual ratio of at least two to one relative to the funds provided, 

and that the program was in accordance with best practices of municipal 

government.
Page 3 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

The Subcommittee originally asked us to determine whether the Mayor 

followed the plan provided to Congress in conducting the workforce 

reduction and whether the objectives of the plan were achieved. 

Additionally, the Subcommittee had requested specific information on 

(1) the number of people involved in the workforce reduction, (2) related 

expenditures, (3) whether individuals were in positions that were 

considered “critical” and whether any individuals holding “critical”

positions were re-hired, (4) the type of positions held by individuals who 

took the buy-outs, and (5) whether costs savings were realized as a result 

of the workforce reduction. This information is in appendix I of the 

briefing document.

The results of our preliminary work indicated that certain conditions 

surrounding the District’s use of the funding for severance payments made 

to individuals separated from employment during fiscal year 2000 may not 

have been met. In June 2001, as agreed with staff of the House 

Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, we expanded 

our review to include determining the source of funding used by the 

District to fund the fiscal year 2000 workforce reduction and whether the 

District had sufficient funding in fiscal year 2000 to implement the 

workforce reduction.

To review and assess the source and use of the funding for the Mayor’s 

workforce reduction, and to provide information on the Subcommittee’s 

specific questions, we (1) interviewed and obtained information from 

officials in various District offices and the Financial Authority and (2) 

reviewed legislation related to the $18 million in funding for the workforce 

reduction and relevant accounting, budget, and program data; personnel 

policies and regulations; memorandums; and cost schedules. We did not 

independently verify or audit the accounting and cost data we obtained 

from District officials. Our work was conducted from January 2001 

through September 2001 in accordance with U.S. generally accepted 

government auditing standards.

Lack of Approval by 

the Financial Authority

According to the Financial Authority, it did not approve the District’s 

request for reimbursement for severance payments primarily because the 

District did not provide the Financial Authority (1) documentation 

confirming approval of the plan by the Senate Committee on 

Appropriations as required by Section 157, and (2) adequate analysis or 

documentation to facilitate the Financial Authority’s certifying that the 
Page 4 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

workforce reduction would achieve the cost savings targets as required by 

Section 157 of the act. The Financial Authority maintained its position as 

stated in its October 20, 2000, letter to the District. The letter provided 

supporting detail why the Financial Authority did not approve the District’s 

reimbursement request for severance payments.

Funding the Plan Although the Mayor’s plan was not approved by the Senate Committee on 

Appropriations and the funds were not released by the Financial Authority 

in fiscal year 2000, District officials told us that they had implemented the 

workforce reduction plan under the assumption that the Section 157 

funding was available. Further, District officials told us that the District 

recorded fiscal year 2000 expenditures against the Section 157 budget 

authority based on the assumption that the plan had been approved and the 

Financial Authority would authorize reimbursement for expenditures. 

However, in the absence of the Financial Authority’s certification, the 

funding identified under Section 157 to cover the costs of the Mayor’s 

workforce reduction activities was not available for the District’s use.

District’s Preliminary 

Analysis of Fiscal 

Impact

The District concluded that without the availability of the Section 157 

funding, one agency, the Office of Property Management, would have ended 

fiscal year 2000 with an estimated $246,000 operating deficit rather than the 

previously reported surplus of $1.3 million. The District also concluded 

that two other agencies would have reported increased operating deficits. 

The Fire and Emergency Medical Services net deficit would have increased 

from $160,000 to $260,000 and the Department of Corrections deficit would 

have increased from $770,000 to $2,576,000. The District reported that the 

Office of Property Management falls under the Governmental Direction and 

Support Appropriation title, which would have ended fiscal year 2000 with 

revenues in excess of expenditures sufficient to cover the charges related 

to the workforce reduction. The Fire and Emergency Services and the 

Department of Corrections fall under the District’s Public Safety and 

Justice appropriation title. The District stated that if the Section 157 

funding was not available, the Public Safety and Justice appropriation title 

would have ended fiscal year 2000 with an operating deficit. 
Page 5 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

As a result, the District may have potential Anti-Deficiency Act violations. 

The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits District government officers and federal 

officials from making (1) obligations or expenditures in excess of amounts 

available in an appropriation or fund or advance unless they are otherwise 

authorized to do so by law and (2) an obligation or expenditure in excess of 

an apportionment. The Anti-Deficiency Act requires the head of any 

agency to report immediately to the President and the Congress any 

violation of the act, including all relevant facts and a statement of actions 

taken. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A-34, Instructions on 

Budget Execution provides additional guidance on information that the 

agency is to include in its report to the President.

Fiscal Year 2001 

Transfer from the 

Financial Authority

During fiscal year 2001, the Financial Authority transferred $18 million to 

the District’s general fund. The Financial Authority stated that the March 

2001 transfer was unrelated to the workforce reduction funding because 

the District had not met the requirements of Section 157. The Financial 

Authority further stated that the transfer was intended to support the 

District’s operations and daily cash position during fiscal year 2001 as part 

of the Financial Authority’s periodic transfers of interest earnings held by 

the Financial Authority on behalf of the District in accordance with Section 

106(d) of P. L. 104-8. The Financial Authority stated the purpose of the 

transfer in documentation provided to the District.

Conclusions The Mayor’s workforce reduction plan was not conducted in conformance 

with the conditions set forth in Section 157. As a result of using the $18 

million for its workforce reduction costs as if Section 157 funding had been 

available, the District obligated and spent funds that were unavailable. As a 

result of the inappropriate use of funds, one District agency showed a 

surplus rather than a deficit in its operating budget and two other agencies 

showed decreased operating deficits. After reversing the prior accounting 

treatment, the District could have reportable Anti-Deficiency Act 

violations.

Recommendations We recommend that the Mayor of the District of Columbia perform the 

required investigation to determine if the operating deficits resulting from 

reversing its inappropriate use of the Section 157 authority would result in 

or contribute to any potential Anti-Deficiency Act violations and report as 

necessary, to disclose any such violations. 
Page 6 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of the enclosed briefing document to officials from the 

Financial Authority and the District’s CFO. The Financial Authority 

provided oral comments on the briefing document and concurred with its 

contents, and we have incorporated its comments as appropriate. The 

District’s CFO provided written comments on the briefing document. The 

District’s CFO comments are reprinted in enclosure II. The District CFO 

disagreed with certain information contained in the briefing. Specifically, 

the District disagreed with our conclusion that it did not have the authority 

to use the Section 157 funding. However, the District was unable to provide 

documentary evidence that the Financial Authority made the required 

certification. We reaffirm our view. The position of the Financial Authority 

on this matter is clear—it did not authorize the District to use the Section 

157 funding, and the Financial Authority continues to maintain its position 

that the District did not meet the requirements for the Section 157 funding. 

The District also commented that the Financial Authority transferred the 

$18 million to the District after the expenditures for the severance fund had 

been incurred. While the Financial Authority did ultimately transfer $18 

million to the District’s general fund, the transfer was not made during 

fiscal year 2000. In addition, the Financial Authority stated that the 

transfer was unrelated to the Section 157 funding and was intended to 

support the District’s fiscal year 2001 operations and cash position in 

accordance with Section 106(d) of P. L. 104-8.

The District also disagreed with several technical matters related to the 

Financial Authority’s reasons for not approving the reimbursement for 

severance payments. We view these matters as disagreements between the 

District and the Financial Authority that do not relate to the specific 

matters discussed in our briefing document. 

The District also commented that it believes that no Anti-Deficiency Act 

violations would have resulted if the Section 157 funding had not been used 

because the lack of such funding would not have caused an operating 

deficit for any appropriation title. However, the District’s letters to GAO 

dated August 8, 2001, and July 20, 2001, stated that if the Section 157 

funding had not been available, the Public Safety and Justice appropriation 

title would have ended fiscal year 2000 with an operating deficit, thereby 

indicating a potential Anti-Deficiency Act violation. Accordingly, reversing 

the Section 157 funding would increase the potential Anti-Deficiency Act 

violation.
Page 7 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Subsequent to our briefing to the Subcommittee staff on September 26, 

2001, the District provided us additional information regarding the 

potential Anti-Deficiency Act violations that may have occurred during 

fiscal year 2000. The District stated that the information was a preliminary 

assessment of the potential violation and the Districted presented an 

alternative basis for evaluating whether Anti-Deficiency Act violations may 

have occurred during fiscal year 2000. This assessment does not provide 

the sufficient level of detail needed to conclude whether any AntiDeficiency Act violations occurred, nor is there any evidence that this 

assessment has been provided to the appropriate reporting officials as 

required by established guidance. We, therefore, reaffirm our 

recommendations that the District conduct the required investigation of 

the situation and report any Anti-Deficiency Act violations as required.

As previously noted, in response to the Subcommittee’s original questions 

relating to whether the objectives of the workforce reduction plan were 

met, cost savings were achieved, and other specific information, we have 

provided answers in appendix I of the briefing document. 

We are sending copies of this letter to the Ranking Minority Member of the 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. We are also sending the report 

to the following District officials: the Mayor, the City Administrator, and 

the Chief Financial Officer. Copies will be made available to others upon 

request. This letter will also be available on GAO’s home page at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-2600, or by e-mail 

at steinhoffj@gao.gov, or Jeanette M. Franzel, Acting Director, at (202) 512-

9471, or by e-mail at franzelj@gao.gov. Key contributors to this letter were 

Richard T. Cambosos, Louis Fernheimer, Gary L. Kepplinger, Meg Mills, 

Christina L. Quattrociocchi, and Keith A. Thompson.

Jeffrey C. Steinhoff

Managing Director

Financial Management and Assurance

Enclosures
Page 8 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues
Page 9 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing for the House Committee 

on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the 

District of Columbia, Sept. 26, 2001

1

Financial Management and Assurance Team

District of Columbia Government: DC Workforce

Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Briefing for the

House Committee on Appropriations

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

September 26, 2001
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 10 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

2

Introduction

The Subcommittee asked us to review the anticipated cost

savings resulting from the Mayor’s fiscal year 2000 

workforce reduction plan, including the use of the $18

million in funding that was to be transferred from the

Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance

Authority (Financial Authority) to the District of Columbia

government for severance payments1 to individuals

separated from employment during fiscal year 2000.

.

 For purposes of this briefing, severance payments include early-out retirements, buy-outs, and reductions in force.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 11 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

3

Background:

Section 157 Requirements

Section 157 of the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2000

Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-113):

• Transferred from the District of Columbia Financial

Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority to

the District of Columbia $18 million derived from interest

earned on accounts held by the Authority on behalf of

the District of Columbia for

• severance payments to individuals separated from

employment during fiscal year 2000 (under such

terms and conditions as the Mayor considers

appropriate),

• expanded contracting authority of the Mayor, and
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 12 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

4

Background:

Section 157 Requirements

• the implementation of a system of managed

competition among public and private providers of

goods and services on behalf of the District of

Columbia.

• Provided that such funds shall be used only in

accordance with a plan agreed to by the City Council

and the Mayor and approved by the Committees on

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the

Senate.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 13 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

5

Background:

Section 157 Requirements

• Provided that the Authority shall release said funds, on a

quarterly basis, to reimburse such expenses, so long as

the Authority certifies

• that the expenses reduce re-occurring future costs at

an annual ratio of at least 2 to 1 relative to the funds

provided and

• that the program is in accordance with the best

practices of municipal government.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 14 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

6

Objectives

The Subcommittee originally asked us to:

• Determine whether the Mayor followed the plan provided

to the Congress in conducting the workforce reductions

and whether the objectives of the plan were achieved.

• Provide specific information on (1) the number of people

involved in the workforce reduction, (2) related

expenditures, (3) whether individuals were in positions

that were considered “critical” and whether any

individuals holding “critical” positions were rehired, (4)

the type of positions held by individuals that took buyouts, and (5) whether cost savings were realized as a

result of the workforce reduction.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 15 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

7

 Objectives

The results of our preliminary work indicated that certain

conditions surrounding the District’s use of a portion of the $18

million for severance payments made to individuals separated

from employment during fiscal year 2000 may not have been

met. Therefore, as agreed with Subcommittee staff, we

expanded our review to include the following objectives:

• Determine the source of funding the District used for the

fiscal year 2000 workforce reductions.

• Determine whether the District had sufficient funding in

fiscal year 2000 to implement the workforce reduction plan.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 16 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

8

Objectives

As agreed with Subcommittee staff, the responses to the

Subcommittee’s original questions are presented in

appendix I. The following sections presents the results of

the expanded objectives.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 17 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

9

Scope and Methodology

To meet the original and expanded objectives, we

• Interviewed and obtained information from officials in the

following District offices:

• Chief Financial Officer (CFO),

• City Administrator,

• Budget and Planning,

• Financial Operations and Systems,

• Personnel, and

• Inspector General.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 18 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

10

Scope and Methodology

• Obtained information from the Financial Authority.

• Reviewed legislation related to the $18 million funding for

the workforce reduction and relevant accounting, budget,

and program data; personnel policies and regulations;

correspondence and memorandums; cost schedules; and

other information.

• We did not independently verify or audit the accounting,

budget, and cost data we obtained from District officials.

• We conducted our work from January 2001 through

September 2001 in accordance with U.S. generally

accepted government auditing standards.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 19 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

11

Results in Brief

• The Financial Authority reported that it provided written

documentation to the District that it would not release the

$18 million in Section 157 funding because the District did

not meet the conditions set forth in Section 157 of the act.

• Therefore, the District did not have authority from the

Financial Authority to use the $18 million in Section 157

funding for the workforce reduction that occurred in fiscal

year 2000.

• The District stated that it believed that it had the authority to

use the Section 157 funding and proceeded to incur $14.3

million in costs related to the workforce reduction activities

after continued discussions with and disclosures of

information to the Financial Authority.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 20 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

12

Results in Brief

• The Financial Authority told us that it had not provided the

District with the authority to use the Section 157 funding.

• The District accounted for its workforce reduction costs

during fiscal year 2000 as if it had access to the Section

157 funding. The District conducted a review to determine

the impact of reversing its previous accounting treatment

that assumed the availability of Section 157 funding for the

workforce reductions in its fiscal year 2000 accounting

records.

• The District has concluded that without the availability of

the Section 157 funding, one agency would have ended

fiscal year 2000 with an operating deficit and two agencies

would have an increase in their existing operating deficits.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 21 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

13

Results in Brief

• As a result, the District may have potential Anti-Deficiency

Act violations. We are recommending that the District

investigate this situation and report as necessary any AntiDeficiency Act violations.

• We provided a draft of this briefing document to officials of

the Financial Authority and the District’s CFO office. While

the Financial Authority generally agreed with the contents

of this briefing, the District’s CFO office disagreed with

certain information contained in the briefing document.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 22 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

14

Results in Brief

• The key point of difference centers on whether the Financial

Authority gave the District approval to use the Section 157

funding. The District believed that it had the authority to use

the Section 157 funding from the Financial Authority.

However, the Financial Authority states that such approval

was not provided to the District.

• We disagree with the District’s position. We reaffirm our

position based on data from the Financial Authority and

reiterate our recommendation that the District investigate

the potential Anti-Deficiency Act violation and report as

necessary.

• Both the Financial Authority’s and the District’s comments

are discussed in the last section of this briefing document.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 23 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

15

Lack of Approved Plan

• According to the Financial Authority’s written notification

that it provided to the District, it did not approve the

District’s request for release of $12.4 million2 for

severance expenditures for the following reasons:

• The District did not provide to the Financial Authority

documentation confirming approval of the plan by the

Senate Committee on Appropriations as required by

Section 157 of the act.

• The District did not provide adequate analysis or

documentation to support the Financial Authority’s

certifying that the workforce reduction would achieve

the cost savings targets as required by Section 157 of

the act.

2 This number increased to $14.3 million to include $1.9 million for reductions in force.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 24 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

16

Lack of Approved Plan

• The District did not segregate the costs for each

employee between lump sum incentive payments and

other separation payments, such as payments for

annual leave balances. The amounts to be applied

against the $18 million on severance payments were

limited to separation payments only and were to

exclude any accrued leave due the affected

employees.

• The District’s documentation identified checks to

employees in amounts exceeding $25,000. The plan

approved by the Mayor limited the retirement incentive

program to $25,000. The Financial Authority

requested that the District recalculate its

reimbursement request in accordance with this

limitation.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 25 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

17

Funding the Plan

Although the Mayor’s plan was not approved by the

Senate Committee on Appropriations and the funds were

not released by the Financial Authority in fiscal year 2000,

the District implemented the workforce reduction plan

under the assumption that the Section 157 funding was

available.

• The District recorded the fiscal year 2000 expenditures

against the Section 157 budget authority based on the

assumption that the plan had been approved and the

Financial Authority would authorize reimbursement for

the expenditures. The District also recorded a $14.3

million receivable for fiscal year 2000 in anticipation of

receiving the Section 157 funding from the Financial

Authority.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 26 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

18

Funding the Plan

• In the absence of the Financial Authority’s certification,

the funding identified under Section 157 to cover the

costs of the Mayor’s workforce reduction activities was

not available for the District’s use.

• Although the District had received written notification

from the Financial Authority that the funding would not

be released, District officials said they believed they had

received approval from the Financial Authority to use the

Section 157 funding after providing additional

information to the Financial Authority. However, the

District was not able to provide any support for its

discussions with the Financial Authority. According to

the Financial Authority, however, it did not give the

District approval to use the Section 157 funding.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 27 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

19

Funding the Plan

• The Financial Authority stated that, during fiscal year

2000, the District did not satisfy explicit conditions set

forth in Section 157. The Financial Authority further

stated that, as a result, the District allowed the Section

157 appropriations to lapse at year-end.

District officials stated that:

• The workforce reduction plan was submitted to the

House Committee on Appropriations in fiscal year 2000

in accordance with Section 157. However, the District

stated that the plan was not submitted to the Senate

Committee on Appropriations until fiscal year 2001 due

to an oversight by the District.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 28 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

20

Funding the Plan

• The District stated that it provided documentation to the

Financial Authority describing how the 2 to 1 savings

requirement was achieved. And, because it did not

receive any contrary correspondence from the Financial

Authority, the District believed that all the requirements

were satisfied for it to receive reimbursement from the

Section 157 funding.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 29 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

21

District’s Analysis/Fiscal Impact

• The District reported that it incurred workforce reduction

costs of $14.3 million during fiscal year 2000, resulting in

$26 million in personnel savings during fiscal year 2000.

The District reported that the workforce reductions will

result in the reduction of future costs at an annual ratio of 2

to 1.

• The District conducted a review to identify the agencies that

would have ended fiscal year 2000 with operating deficits

assuming that the Section 157 funding was not available:

• The Office of Property Management would have ended

fiscal year 2000 with an estimated $246,000 operating

deficit rather than the previously reported surplus of

$1.3 million.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 30 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

22

District’s Analysis/Fiscal Impact

• Two other agencies would have reported increased

operating deficits as follows:

• Fire and Emergency Medical Services (increase

from $160,000 to $260,000)

• Department of Corrections (increase from $770,000

to $2,576,000).

• The District reported that the Office of Property

Management falls under the District’s Governmental

Direction and Support appropriation title, which would have

ended fiscal year 2000 with revenues in excess of

expenditures sufficient to cover the charges related to the

workforce reduction.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 31 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

23

District’s Analysis/Fiscal Impact

• The Fire and Emergency Services and Department of

Corrections fall under the District’s Public Safety and Justice

appropriation title.

• Based on the District’s review of this mater, it concluded

that, if Section 157 funding was not available, the Public

Safety and Justice appropriation title would have ended

fiscal year 2000 with an operating deficit. Consequently, the

reversal of the charges to Section 157 authority presents the

potential for an Anti-Deficiency Act violation.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 32 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

24

Impact of Operating Deficit

• The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits District government

officers and federal officials from making

• obligations or expenditures in excess of amounts

available in an appropriation or fund or advance unless

they are otherwise authorized to do so by law and

• an obligation or expenditure in excess of an

apportionment.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 33 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

25

Impact of Operating Deficit

• The Anti-Deficiency Act requires the head of any agency to

report immediately to the President and the Congress any

violation of the act, including all relevant facts and a

statement of actions taken. Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) Circular A-34, Instructions on Budget

Execution, provides additional guidance on information that

the agency is to include in its report to the President.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 34 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

26

Fiscal Year 2001 Transfer

 from the Financial Authority

• The District had not demonstrated that it was authorized to

use an $18 million transfer under Section 157 for the

workforce reduction in fiscal year 2000. During fiscal year

2001, the Financial Authority transferred $18 million in

March 2001 to the District’s general fund. The Financial

Authority stated, however, that the March 2001 transfer

• was unrelated to the workforce reduction funding

because the District had not met the requirements of

Section 157 and

• was intended to support the District’s operations and

daily cash position during fiscal year 2001 as part of

the Financial Authority’s periodic transfers of interest

earnings held by the Financial Authority on behalf of

the District in accordance with Section 106(d) of P.L.

104-8.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 35 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

27

Conclusions

• The Mayor’s workforce reduction plan was not

conducted in conformance with Section 157

requirements because the Financial Authority did not

certify that the District met the requirements for utilizing

the Section 157 funding. The Financial Authority’s lack

of certification was primarily because:

• The District did not obtain approval of the plan by the

Senate Committee on Appropriations and

• The District did not provide satisfactory evidence to

the Financial Authority that the 2 to 1 target savings

were met.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 36 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

28

Conclusions

• As a result of accounting for its workforce reduction

costs as if the Section 157 funding had been available,

the District obligated and spent funds that were

unavailable. Accounting for the use of the Section 157

funding resulted in one agency showing a surplus rather

than a deficit in its operating budget and two other

agencies showing decreased operating deficits. After

reversing the prior accounting treatment, the District

could have reportable Anti-Deficiency Act violations.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 37 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

29

Recommendation

• We recommend that the Mayor of the District of

Columbia perform the required investigation to determine

if the operating deficits resulting from the reversal and

the inappropriate use of the Section 157 authority would

result in or contribute to any potential Anti-Deficiency Act

violations and to perform the necessary reporting to

disclose any such violations.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 38 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

30

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

District of Columbia CFO

• We provided a draft of this briefing document to officials of

the Financial Authority and the District’s CFO. The

District’s comments are discussed below, and the Financial

Authority’s comments are discussed in a later section.

District comment:

• The District disagreed with the statement that it did not

have the authority to use the Section 157 funding.

Further, the District states that the Financial Authority

did transfer the $18 million to the District after the

expenditures for severance had been incurred.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 39 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

31

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

District of Columbia CFO

GAO evaluation:

• There is no documentary evidence that the District

received approval from the Senate Committee on

Appropriations as required by Section 157.

• The position of the Financial Authority is clear: it did not

authorize the District to use the Section 157 funding.

• Therefore, the District’s fiscal year 2000 accounting

treatment, which assumed the availability of the Section

157 funding and resulted in recording a $14.3 million

receivable from the Financial Authority, is inappropriate.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 40 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

32

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

District of Columbia CFO

GAO evaluation continued:

• During fiscal year 2001, the Financial Authority did

transfer $18 million to the District’s general fund. The

Financial Authority has stated that the transfer was

unrelated to the workforce reduction funding because the

District did not meet the requirements of Section 157.

The Financial Authority further stated that the transfer

was intended to support the District’s fiscal year 2001

operations and cash position.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 41 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

33

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

District of Columbia CFO

District comment:

• The District also disagreed with several technical matters

related to the Financial Authority’s reasons for nonapproval of the reimbursement for the severance

payments.

GAO evaluation:

• The disagreements between the District and the

Financial Authority do not relate to the specific matters

discussed in this briefing document.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 42 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

34

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

District of Columbia CFO

District comment:

• The District commented that it believes that no AntiDeficiency Act violations would have resulted if the

Section 157 funding had not been used because the lack

of such funding would not have caused an operating

deficit for any appropriation title.

GAO evaluation:

• The District’s correspondence provided to us on August

8, 2001, stated that two appropriations would be

impacted by a reversal of the Section 157 funding. The

District stated that one appropriation title was already in

a deficit position, thereby indicating a potential AntiDeficiency Act violation. Accordingly, reversing the

Section 157 funding would increase the potential AntiDeficiency Act violation.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 43 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

35

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

District of Columbia CFO

GAO evaluation (continued):

• The District also stated that reversing the Section 157

funding would not result in a deficit in the other

appropriation.

• Therefore, we reaffirm our recommendation that the

District perform the required analysis to determine if the

operating deficits resulting from the reversal and the

inappropriate use of Section 157 authority would result in

or contribute to any potential Anti-Deficiency Act

violations and perform the necessary reporting to

disclose any such violations.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 44 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

36

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Financial Authority

Financial Authority’s comments:

• In providing oral comments on a draft of this briefing

document, the Financial Authority stated that it

concurred with its contents. In its comments, the

Financial Authority reiterated that it gave the District

written notification with specific reasons as to why it did

not approve the District’s request for reimbursement of

$12.4 million for severance payments.

GAO evaluation:

• We have incorporated the Financial Authority’s

comments into the briefing document as appropriate.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 45 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

37

Appendix I: Answers to the

Subcommittee’s Original Questions

• Did the Mayor follow the plan provided to the Congress in

conducting the workforce reductions and were the

objectives of the plan achieved?

• The Mayor did implement a workforce reduction plan.

However, due to the lack of approval by the Senate

Committee on Appropriations and the non-certification by

the Financial Authority, the Mayor’s plan was not

conducted in conformance with Section 157.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 46 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

38

Appendix I: Answers to the

Subcommittee’s Original Questions

• How many people were involved in the workforce reduction

and what were the related expenditures?

The District reported the following detail related to the plan:

• The reduction involved 579 employees. This included:

464 employees who took early-out retirements and 115

employees who were involved in the reduction in force

(RIF).

• The reduction included expenditures of $14.3 million.

($12.4 million for early-out retirements and $1.9 million

for RIFs).

See table 1 for specific details provided by the District.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 47 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

39

Appendix I: Answers to the

Subcommittee’s Original Questions

Table 1: Summary of the District’s Fiscal Year 2000 Early Out Retirements, Reductions in Force,

and Related Expenditures

Total 

number of 

retirees

Total Number 

of reductions 

in force 

(RIFs)

Grand total 

number of 

retirees and 

RIFs

Total 

expenditures 

paid for retirees

Total 

expenditures 

paid for RIFs

Grand total 

expenditure 

amounts paid

Office of Property Management 44 30 74 $1,053,674 $511,440 $1,565,114

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 39 39 $1,240,800 $1,240,800

Office of Personnel 18 18 $535,871 $535,871

Office on Aging 3 3 $71,520 $71,520

Office of the Corporation Counsel 16 16 $446,729 $446,729

D.C. Public Library 1 1 $29,760 $29,760

Department of Employment Services 38 38 $1,078,176 $1,078,176

Deparment of Consumer/Regulatory Affairs 16 16 $424,861 $424,861

Department of Housing and Community Development 11 11 $366,369 $366,369

Metropolitan Police Department 27 27 $597,187 $597,187

Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department 5 5 $100,334 $100,334

Department of Corrections 13 85 98 $354,640 $1,450,616 $1,805,256

D.C. Public Schools 1 1 $34,011 $34,011

Department of Parks and Recreation 14 14 $358,916 $358,916

Department of Health 51 51 $1,286,418 $1,286,418

Department of Human Services 65 65 $1,745,954 $1,745,954

Department of Public Works 71 71 $1,813,287 $1,813,287

Department of Motor Vehicles 11 11 $273,299 $273,299

Office of Contracting and Procurement 14 14 $422,049 $422,049

Office of the Chief Technology Officer 6 6 $156,444 $156,444

Totals 464 115 579 $12,390,299 $1,962,056 $14,352,355

Source: Unaudited data from the District of Columbia government.

Agency
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 48 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

40

Appendix I: Answers to the

Subcommittee’s Original Questions

• How many people in the workforce reduction were paid buyouts and were holding positions that were considered

“critical?”

• As shown in table 1, the District reported that 464

employees were paid buy-outs through the retirement

incentive program.

• The District reported that, for the retirement incentive

program, specific criteria was used for determining

whether an employee was holding a position that was

considered “critical.” If an employee was holding a

position that was deemed “critical,” they were not

allowed to take the early-out retirement.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 49 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

41

Appendix I: Answers to the

Subcommittee’s Original Questions

• District officials stated that a “critical” position was defined

as one that met any of the following criteria:

• the only position of its kind,

• a sole-supervisory position,

• a court-ordered position, or

• essential to carrying out the mission or functions of an

agency.

• We did not independently verify the District’s application of

the “criteria” for the 464 employees that took the early-out

retirement.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 50 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

42

Appendix I: Answers to the

Subcommittee’s Original Questions

• Were any of the personnel cut as a result of the 

workforce reduction that were holding positions that were

considered “critical” rehired through city contracts or

other means?

• The District reported that none of the 464 employees

who took the buy-outs met the District’s criteria as

“critical” and, therefore, no employees holding “critical”

positions were rehired.

• District officials reported that three senior managers

with expertise in snow removal were brought back on

an “hours worked” contract to assist with the fiscal

year 2000-2001 snow removal season, but stated that

they did not meet the definition of “critical.”
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 51 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

43

Appendix I: Answers to the

Subcommittee’s Original Questions

• The District reported that the Council of the District of

Columbia adopted emergency legislation that allowed

the District to contract for employees who had taken the

early out incentive for the snow season. This was a onetime effort for one snow removal season.

• The District reported that it incurred $32,812 in costs for

the three senior managers who worked a total of 1,057

hours.

• District officials viewed this as a more cost-effective

approach than retaining these employees on the District

payroll on a year-round basis.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 52 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

44

Appendix I: Answers to the

Subcommittee’s Original Questions

• What were the types of positions for individuals that

received buy-outs?

• The types of positions involving employees that took

the early outs were numerous and varied.

• For example, the District reported more than 200

different position types. Of the 200 different position

types, we identified the positions that occurred most

frequently. Examples of these include the following:

• Program Analyst/Specialist/Assistant

• Manpower Development Specialist

• Supervisory Social Service Representative
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 53 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

45

Appendix I: Answers to the

Subcommittee’s Original Questions

• Sanitation/Foreman/Crew Chief

• Contract Representative/Specialist

• Personnel Management Specialist

• Supervisory Police Officer/Assistant

• Secretary/Typing

• Clerical Assistant/Clerk

• Staff Assistant

• Tree Trimmer
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 54 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

46

Appendix I: Answers to the

Subcommittee’s Original Questions

• Have the anticipated cost savings been realized as a result

of the workforce reduction?

• District officials reported that $26.3 million in personnel

savings were achieved, resulting in a reduction of the

District’s fiscal year 2001 baseline budget. As shown in

table 2, almost half of the reported savings was

attributed to cutting funded positions that were vacant.

• The savings involved utilization of approximately 518 fulltime equivalents (FTEs) including: early-out retirements,

reductions in force, transfers among agencies’ budgets,

and elimination of funded vacancies. However, we did

not verify these reported savings. See table 3 for details.
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 55 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

47

Appendix I: Answers to the

Subcommittee’s Original Questions

Elimination

Reduction of funded Total

Agency Retirees in force vacancies savings

Office of the Mayor $114,000 $114,000

Office of City Administrator $139,320 $139,320

Office of Property Management $311,029 $325,057 $120,004 -$17,445 c $738,645

Office of Chief Financial Officer $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Office of the Secretary $71,590 $71,590

Office of Personnel $252,967 $143,357 $246,409 $642,733

Emergency Management Agency $86,608 $28,798 $115,406

Office of Corporation Counsel $712,592 $712,592

Department of Employment Services $213,391 $330,625 $544,016

Department of Consumer/Regulatory Affairs $192,301 $52,495 $164,556 $780,172 $1,189,524

Business Services/Economic Development $745,000 $411,591 $1,156,591

Metropolitan Police Department $1,151,374 $350,721 $308,796 $180,599 $1,991,490

Fire/Emergency Medical Services Department $201,414 $47,429 $913,461 $1,162,304

Department of Corrections $719,867 $1,924,545 $812,023 $3,456,435

Department of Human Services $716,713 $562,181 $743,113 $2,022,007

Department of Health $264,498 $1,292,901 $1,557,399

Department of Parks and Recreation $501,539 $266,038 $979,503 $1,747,080

Department of Public Works $151,705 $236,138 $2,750,450 $1,205,333 $4,343,626

Department of Motor Vehicles $177,662$268,957 $30,869 $477,488

Office of Contracting and Procurement $692,287 $2,173,874 $2,866,161

Office of the Chief Technology Officer $280,543 $861 $281,404

Totals $6,333,356 $1,051,019 $4,599,178 $12,441,517 $1,904,741 $26,329,811

a

Savings from positions that were transferred from local funds to non-local funds.

b

Savings from hiring personnel at lower salaries and reduced overtime in agency budgets.

c

Savings were reduced at agency summary level; however, the District was not able to provide allocation by type of savings.

Source: Unaudited data from the District of Columbia government.

Transfers a Other b

Table 2: Summary of the District’s Fiscal Year 2000 Personnel Savings by Agency and Type
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 56 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

48

Appendix I: Answers to the

Subcommittee’s Original Questions

Elimination

Reductions of funded Total

Agency Retirees in force Transfersa vacancies FTEs

Office of City Administrator 2 2

Office of Property Management 6 9 217

Office of Chief Financial Officer 15 15

Office of Personnel 4 27.5 13.5

Emergency Management Agency 21 3

Office of Corporation Counsel 2121

Department of Employment Services 4 8 12

Department of Consumer/Regulatory Affairs 5 1 213 21

Business Services/Economic Development 7 7

Metropolitan Police Department 27 8 9 44

Fire/Emergency Medical Services Department 5 0.5 23 28.5

Department of Corrections 13 43 56

Department of Human Services 13 15 28

Department of Health 5 29 34

Department of Parks and Recreation 11 4 27 42

Department of Public Works 3 7 69 23 102

Department of Motor Vehicles 4 9 1 14

Office of Contracting and Procurement 1241 53

Office of the Chief Technology Officer 5 5

Totals 123 27 90.5 277.5 518

a

Positions transferred from local funded FTEs to non-local funded FTEs.

Source: Unaudited data from the District of Columbia government.

Table 3: Summary of the District’s Fiscal Year 2000 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Positions Reduced That Were

Counted Toward the Personnel Savings
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 57 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

49

Appendix I: Answers to the

Subcommittee’s Original Questions

• The District’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has

informed us that it is currently performing a verification of

the District CFO’s certification of the District’s total fiscal

year 2001 management reform savings, which includes

personnel and non-personnel savings.

• The OIG’s audit includes a review of the $26.3 million

personnel savings that the District reported as a result of the

Mayor’s workforce reduction.

• The OIG plans to complete its review during the early part of

fiscal year 2002.

(194017)
Enclosure I: Briefing for the House 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, 

Sept. 26, 2001

Page 58 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues
Page 59 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

Enclosure II: Comments from the District of 

Columbia

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in the 

text appear at the end of 

this enclosure.

See comment 1.

Now p. 11 of briefing 

document.
Enclosure II: Comments from the District of 

Columbia

Page 60 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

See comment 1.

Now p. 11 of briefing 

document.

See comment 1.

Now pgs. 15-16 of briefing 

document.

See comment 1.

Now p. 16 of briefing 

document.
Enclosure II: Comments from the District of 

Columbia

Page 61 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

See comment 1.

Now p. 29 of briefing 

document.
Enclosure II: Comments from the District of 

Columbia

Page 62 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues
Enclosure II: Comments from the District of 

Columbia

Page 63 GAO-02-128R DC Workforce Reductions and Related Funding Issues

GAO Comment 1. See Agency Comments and Our Evaluation section of the report.