Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief Operating Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions in Federal Agencies
Published: 2007-12-13T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: As agencies across the federal government embark on large-scale organizational change needed to address 21st century challenges, there is a compelling need for leadership to provide the continuing, focused attention essential to completing these multiyear business-related transformations. At the same time, many agencies are suffering from a range of long-standing management problems that are undermining their ability to accomplish their missions and achieve results. One proposed approach to address these challenges is to have COO/ CMO positions in federal agencies. This statement is mostly drawn from GAO's report released today (GAO-08-34) that discusses criteria that can be used to determine the type of COO/CMO that ought to be established in federal agencies and strategies for implementing these positions. To do this, GAO reviewed four organizations with COO/CMO-type positions and convened a forum. GAO also discusses previous GAO work on DOD and DHS. GAO's report recommends that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), working with the President's Management Council use the identified criteria when assessing the type of COO/CMO positions appropriate for federal agencies and the strategies for implementing these positions. Also, GAO suggests that Congress consider these criteria and strategies as it develops and reviews legislative proposals for these positions.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO has long advocated that the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could benefit from a full-time and senior-level chief operating officer (COO)/chief management officer (CMO) position, with a term appointment of at least 5 to 7 years, and a performance agreement. In fact, every federal agency can benefit from a senior leader acting as a COO/CMO. While the type of COO/CMO may vary depending on the characteristics of the organization, a number of criteria can be used to determine the appropriate type of COO/CMO position in a federal agency. These criteria include the history of organizational performance, degree of organizational change needed, nature and complexity of mission, organizational size and structure, and current leadership talent and focus. For example, the existing deputy position could carry out the integration and business transformation role--this type of COO/CMO might be appropriate in a relatively stable or small organization. Or, a second deputy position could be created to bring strong focus to the integration and business transformation of the agency. This might be the most appropriate type of COO/CMO for a large and complex organization undergoing a significant transformation to reform long-standing management problems. GAO identified six key strategies that agencies can follow in implementing COO/CMO positions in federal agencies. However, the implementation of any one approach should be determined within the context of the agency's specific facts and circumstances.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss one proposed approach to  address systemic federal governance and management challenges: the use  of chief operating officer (COO)/chief management officer (CMO)  positions in federal agencies, particularly in the Department of Defense  (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As agencies across  the federal government embark on large-scale organizational change  needed to address 21st century challenges, there is a compelling need for  leadership to provide the continuing, focused attention essential to  completing these multiyear business-related transformations. At the same  time, many agencies are suffering from a range of long-standing  management problems that are undermining their ability to efficiently,  economically, and effectively accomplish their missions and achieve  results. New leadership models are needed to help elevate, integrate, and  institutionalize these business transformation and management reform  efforts.
As you know, I share your views on the need for a COO/CMO position for  DOD and DHS. However, these are not the only agencies that could benefit  from such a senior leadership position. While the type of COO/CMO may  vary depending on the characteristics of the organization—whether, for  example, it is a large organization undergoing significant transformation or  a small or stable agency—every federal agency can benefit from a senior  leader serving as a COO/CMO. Each agency, of course, faces its own  unique circumstances and challenges in attempting to improve and  transform its business operations. For that reason, at your request, in the  report that is being released today we looked at the experiences of several  organizations with COOs/CMOs and used this and other information to  outline the criteria that can be used to determine the most appropriate  type of COO/CMO for a particular agency as well as the strategies that  agencies can follow in implementing these positions. These strategies  include making sure that the COO/CMO has a sufficiently high level of  authority and continuity in the position. We believe that these criteria and  strategies can be helpful to the Congress, as it considers legislation for  COO/CMO positions, and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  and the President’s Management Council as they consider the leadership  positions necessary to carry out business transformation and management  reforms.
My statement today is primarily drawn from our report released today on  implementing COO/CMO positions in federal agencies and previously  issued GAO work on DOD and DHS, all of which were developed in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. To  develop these criteria and strategies, we (1) gathered information on the  experiences and views of officials at four organizations with COO/CMO- type positions and (2) convened a forum to gather insights from  individuals with experience and expertise in business transformation,  federal and private sector management, and change management. The four  organizations included in our review are three federal agencies and one  nonprofit organization: the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the  Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Department of Justice (Justice), and  the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). To select the  organizations to include in our study, we collected and reviewed literature  on general management integration approaches and organizational  structures of public and private sector organizations, reviewed our prior  work, and consulted with various nonprofit organizations with experience  in the federal government. We sought to identify organizations that had  senior-level officials with responsibility for integrating key management  functions, and who generally did not have direct responsibility for the  mission programs and policies of their organizations. For the four  organizations included in our review, the COOs/CMOs either reported to  the organization head or reported to an individual who reports to the  organization head. Attachment I depicts the reporting relationships of the  four COO/CMO positions. We also hosted a forum on April 24, 2007, to  bring together former and current government executives and officials  from private business and nonprofit organizations to discuss when and  how a COO/CMO might effectively provide the continuing, focused  attention essential for integrating key management functions and  undertaking multiyear organizational business-related transformations.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The concept of the COO/CMO position largely came out of the creation of  performance-based organizations (PBO) in the federal government in the  late 1990s and early in this decade. During that time, the administration  and Congress renewed their focus on the need to restructure federal  agencies and hold them accountable for achieving program results. To this  end, three PBOs were established, which were modeled after the United  Kingdom’s executive agencies. A PBO is a discrete departmental unit that  is intended to transform the delivery of public services by having the  organization commit to achieving specific measurable goals with targets  for improvement in exchange for being allowed to operate without the  constraints of certain rules and regulations to achieve these targets. The  clearly defined performance goals are to be coupled with direct ties  between the achievement of the goals and the pay and tenure of the head  of the PBO, often referred to as the COO. The COO is appointed for a set  term of typically 3 to 5 years, subject to an annual performance agreement,  and is eligible for bonuses for improved organizational performance.
With the backdrop of these PBOs and an ongoing focus on transforming  organizational cultures in the federal government, we convened a  roundtable of government leaders and management experts on September  9, 2002, to discuss the COO concept and how it might apply within  selected federal departments and agencies. The intent of the roundtable  was to generate ideas and to engage in an open dialogue on the possible  application of the COO concept to selected federal departments and  agencies. It was generally agreed at this roundtable discussion that the  implementation of any approach should be determined within the context  of the specific facts and circumstances that relate to each individual  agency. Nonetheless, there was general agreement on the importance of  the following actions for organizational transformation and management  reform:    Elevate attention on management issues and transformational  change. Top leadership attention is essential to overcome organizations’  natural resistance to change, marshal the resources needed to implement  change, and build and maintain the organizationwide commitment to new  ways of doing business.
Integrate various key management and transformation efforts.
There needs to be a single point within agencies with the perspective and  responsibility—as well as authority—to ensure the successful  implementation of functional management and, if appropriate,  transformational change efforts.
Institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues  and leading transformational change. The management weaknesses in  some agencies are deeply entrenched and long-standing, and it can take at  least 5 to 7 years of sustained attention and continuity to fully implement  transformations and change management initiatives.
In the time since the 2002 roundtable, legislative proposals have been  introduced and are still pending in this Congress to establish CMO  positions at DOD and DHS to help address transformation efforts at the  two departments, both of which are responsible for various areas  identified on our biennial update of high-risk programs. These legislative  proposals differ somewhat in content but would essentially create a  senior-level position to serve as a principal advisor to the secretary on  matters related to the management of the department, including  management integration and business transformation. Some of these  legislative proposals also include specific provisions that spell out  qualifications for the position, require a performance contract, and provide  for a term appointment of 5 or 7 years. At the present time, no federal  department has a COO/CMO-type position with all these characteristics. In  August 2007, the proposal for the Undersecretary for Management position  at DHS to become the CMO at an Executive Level II, but without a term  appointment, was enacted into law. DOD issued a directive on September  18, 2007, that assigned CMO responsibilities to the current Deputy  Secretary of Defense in addition to his other responsibilities. However, as I  will discuss later in this statement, we do not believe that these actions go  far enough.
The heads of federal departments and selected agencies designate a COO,  who is usually the deputy or another official with agencywide authority, to  sit on the President’s Management Council. However, deputy secretaries  and the other senior officials designated as COOs do not have all of the  characteristics of a COO/CMO that I just described, including a term  appointment and performance agreement. The council was created by  President Clinton in 1993 in order to advise and assist the President and  Vice President in ensuring that management reforms are implemented  throughout the executive branch. The Deputy Director for Management  of OMB chairs the council, and the council is responsible for  improving overall executive branch management, including  implementation of the President’s Management Agenda (PMA);   coordinating management-related efforts to improve government  throughout the executive branch and, as necessary, resolving specific  interagency management issues;   ensuring the adoption of new management practices in agencies  throughout the executive branch; and  identifying examples of, and providing mechanisms for, interagency  exchange of information about best management practices.
section_title: Specific Criteria Can Help in Assessing the Type of COO/CMO Position Needed in a Federal Agency
paragraphs: Because each agency has its own set of characteristics, challenges, and  opportunities, the type of COO/CMO to be established in a federal agency  should be determined within the context of the specific facts and  circumstances surrounding that agency. Nevertheless, a number of criteria  can be used to determine the type of COO/CMO position for an agency.  These criteria are the agency’s    history of organizational performance, such as the existence of long- standing management weaknesses and the failure rates of major projects  or initiatives;   degree of organizational change needed, such as the status of ongoing  major transformational efforts and the challenge of reorganizing and  integrating disparate organizational units or cultures;   nature and complexity of mission, such as the range, risk, and scope of  the agency’s mission;   organizational size and structure, such as the number of employees,  geographic dispersion of field offices, number of management layers,  types of reporting relationships, and degree of centralization of decision  making; and   current leadership talent and focus, such as the extent of knowledge  and the level of focus of the agency’s managers on management functions  and change initiatives, and the number of political appointees in key  positions.
These five criteria are important for determining the appropriate type of  COO/CMO position, which in turn can inform many other elements of the  position, including roles and responsibilities, job qualifications, reporting  relationships, and decision-making structures and processes. Based on  these criteria, there could be several types of COO/CMO positions,  including the following:    The existing deputy position could carry out the integration and business  transformation role. This type of COO/CMO might be appropriate in a  relatively stable or small organization.
A senior-level executive who reports to the deputy, such as a principal  undersecretary for management, could be designated to integrate key  management functions and lead business transformation efforts in the  agency. This type of COO/CMO might be appropriate for a larger  organization.
A second deputy position could be created to bring strong focus to the  integration and business transformation of the agency, while the other  deputy position would be responsible for leading the operational policy  and mission-related functions of the agency. For a large and complex  organization undergoing a significant transformation to reform long- standing management problems, this might be the most appropriate type  of COO/CMO.
To address long-standing management and business transformation  problems, we have long advocated that DOD and DHS could benefit from a  senior-level COO/CMO position, with a term appointment of at least 5 to 7  years, and a performance agreement. We continue to identify DOD’s  approach to business transformation and implementing and transforming  DHS on GAO’s biennial high-risk list of programs. DOD dominates our list  of agencies with high-risk programs designated as vulnerable to waste,  fraud, and abuse of funds, bearing responsibility, in whole or in part, for 15  of 27 high-risk areas.
While DOD has recently designated the current DOD Deputy Secretary as  the CMO in addition to his other responsibilities, we believe this action  does not go far enough to change the status quo and ensure sustainable  success of the overall business transformation effort within the  department. We recognize the commitment and elevated attention that the  current Deputy Secretary of Defense and other senior leaders have clearly  shown in addressing deficiencies in the department’s business operations.  For example, the Deputy Secretary has overseen the creation of various  business-related entities, such as the Defense Business Systems  Management Committee and the Business Transformation Agency, and  has been closely involved in monthly meetings of both the Defense  Business Systems Management Committee and the Deputy’s Advisory  Working Group, a group that provides departmentwide strategic direction  on various issues. In our view, subsuming the duties within the  responsibilities of the individual currently serving as the Deputy Secretary  largely represents a continuation of the status quo and will not provide  full-time attention or continuity as administrations change. While the  Deputy Secretary may be at the right level, the substantial demands of the  position make it exceedingly difficult for the incumbent to maintain the  focus, oversight, and momentum needed to resolve business operational  weaknesses, including the many high-risk areas within DOD. Furthermore,  the assignment of CMO duties to an individual with a limited term in the  position does not ensure continuity of effort or sustained success within  and across administrations. We continue to believe a CMO position should  be codified in statute as a separate position, at the right level, and with the  appropriate term in office. In fact, consensus exists among GAO’s work  and other studies (e.g. the Defense Business Board and the Institute for  Defense Analysis),that DOD needs a full-time senior management official  with a term appointment to provide focused and sustained leadership over  business transformation efforts.
Additionally, DHS is experiencing particularly significant challenges in  integrating its disparate organizational cultures, and multiple management  processes and systems, which make it an appropriate candidate for a  COO/CMO as a second deputy position or alternatively as a principal  undersecretary for management position. Designating the Undersecretary  for Management at DHS as the CMO at an Executive Level II is a step in  the right direction, but this change does not go far enough. A COO/CMO  for DHS with a limited term that does not transition across administrations  will not help to ensure the continuity of focus and attention needed to  protect the security of our nation. DHS faces significant management and  organizational transformation challenges as it works to protect the nation  from terrorism and simultaneously establish itself. DHS must integrate  approximately 180,000 employees from 22 originating agencies,  consolidate multiple management systems and processes, and transform  into a more effective organization with robust planning, management, and  operations. However, DHS continues to lack not only a comprehensive  management integration strategy with overall goals and a timeline, but  also a dedicated team with the authority and responsibility to help develop  and implement this strategy. A COO/CMO at the appropriate organizational  level at DHS, with a term appointment, would provide the elevated senior  leadership and concerted and long-term attention required to marshal this  effort.
section_title: Strategies for Implementing COO/CMO Positions at Federal Agencies
paragraphs: Once the type of COO/CMO is determined, the following six key strategies  can be useful in implementing COO/CMO positions in federal agencies,  including making sure that the COO/CMO has a sufficiently high level of  authority and continuity in the position:  Define the specific roles and responsibilities of the COO/CMO  position. For carrying out the role of management integration, it should  be clear which of the agency’s key management functions are under the  direct purview of the COO/CMO. Depending on the agency, the COO/CMO  might have responsibility for human capital, financial management,  information resources management, and acquisition management as well  as other management functions in the agency, such as strategic planning,  program evaluation, facilities and installations, or safety and security, as  was the case with the four organizations we reviewed. As the COO/CMO is  a leader of business transformation in the organization, it should likewise  be clear which major change efforts are the direct responsibility of the  COO/CMO. Once clearly defined, these specific roles and responsibilities  should be communicated throughout the organization.
Ensure that the COO/CMO has a high level of authority and clearly  delineated reporting relationships. The COO/CMO concept is  consistent with the governance principle that there needs to be a single  point within agencies with the perspective and responsibility to ensure the  successful implementation of functional management and business  transformation. The organizational level and span of control of the  COO/CMO position is crucial in affecting the incumbent’s authority and  status within the organization. At both IRS and MIT, the COO/CMO reports  to the head of the organization (i.e., second-level reporting position), and  at Justice and Treasury, the COO/CMO reports through the deputy  secretary (i.e., third-level reporting position). Although our interviews and  the forum discussion uncovered differing views about the appropriate  level and reporting relationships for a COO/CMO position, it was broadly  recognized that any COO/CMO should have the high level of authority  needed to ensure the successful implementation of functional  management and business transformation efforts in the agency.
Foster good executive-level working relationships for maximum  effectiveness. Effective working relationships of the COO/CMO with the  agency head and his or her peers can help greatly to ensure that the  people, processes, and technology are well-aligned in support of the  agency’s mission. For example, officials at IRS stressed the importance of  the working relationship between the agency’s two deputy  commissioners—one serving as the COO/CMO—in carrying out their  respective roles and responsibilities in leading the mission and mission  support offices of the agency.
Establish integration and transformation structures and processes  in addition to the COO/CMO position. While the position of COO/CMO  can be a critical means for transforming and integrating business and  management functions, other structures and processes need to be in place  to support the COO/CMO in business transformation and management  integration efforts across the organization. These structures and processes  can include business transformation offices, senior executive committees,  functional councils, and crosscutting teams that are actively involved in  strategic planning, budgeting, performance monitoring, information  sharing, and decision making. To bring focus and direction and help  enforce decisions in the agency, the COO/CMO should be a key player in  actively leading or supporting these integration structures and processes.
Promote individual accountability and performance through  specific job qualifications and effective performance management.  A specific set of job qualification standards could aid in ensuring that the  incumbent has the necessary knowledge and experience. Our interviews at  the four organizations revealed that essential qualifications for a  COO/CMO position include having broad management experience and a  proven track record of making decisions in complex settings as well as  having direct experience in, or solid knowledge of, the respective  department or agency, but there were varying views as to whether  qualifications should be statutory. To further clarify expectations and  reinforce accountability, a clearly defined performance agreement with  measurable organizational and individual goals would be warranted as  well. Such agreements should contain clear expectations as well as  appropriate incentives and rewards for outstanding performance and  consequences for those who do not perform.
Provide for continuity of leadership in the COO/CMO position. The  administration and Congress could also consider options of other possible  mechanisms to help agencies in maintaining leadership continuity for the  COO/CMO position, such as term and career appointments, because  organizational results and transformational efforts can take years to  achieve. I share your concern about leadership continuity particularly for  those DOD and DHS programs that we consider to be high risk as the  administration heads for a presidential transition in early 2009. Foremost,  an agency needs to have an executive succession and transition planning  strategy that ensures a sustained commitment and continuity of leadership  as individual leaders arrive or depart or serve in acting capacities. The  administration and Congress could also consider other possible  mechanisms to help agencies in maintaining leadership continuity for the  position. For example, the benefits of a 5- to 7-year term appointment for  the position, such as instilling a long-term focus, need to be weighed along  with the potential challenges of a term appointment, such as a lack of  rapport between members of a new senior leadership team with any  change in administration. Term appointments for key leadership positions  already exist at a number of agencies. (Attachment II provides a list of  term appointments at a variety of U.S. agencies.) Moreover, as emphasized  in our interviews and in the forum discussion, the appointment of career  civil servants to the COO/CMO position could be considered when  assessing the position’s roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships.  High turnover among politically appointed leaders in federal agencies can  make it difficult to follow through with organizational transformation  because of the length of time often needed to provide meaningful and  sustainable results.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: As Congress considers COO/CMO positions for federal agencies, the  criteria and strategies we identified should help to highlight key issues that  need to be considered, both in design of the positions and in  implementation. While Congress is currently focused on two of the most  challenging agencies—DOD and DHS—the problems they face are, to  varying degrees, shared by the rest of the federal government. Each  agency, therefore, should consider the type of COO/CMO that would be  appropriate for its organization, either by designating an existing position  as the COO/CMO or creating a new position, and adopt the strategies we  outline to implement such a position. Because it is composed of the senior  management officials in each department and agency, we recommend in  the report being released today that the President’s Management Council,  working closely with OMB, play a role in leading such an assessment and  helping to ensure that due consideration is given to how each agency can  improve its leadership structure for management. Moreover, given the  council’s charter to oversee government management reforms, it can help  institutionalize a leadership position that will be essential to overseeing  current and future reform efforts.
Recent legislative proposals have called for certain features of the  COO/CMO position that we have endorsed, including a direct reporting  relationship to the departmental secretary, responsibility for integrating  key management functions and overseeing overall business transformation  efforts, the requirement for a performance agreement, and the designation  of a term appointment. We are suggesting that Congress consider the  criteria and strategies that I have discussed today as it continues to  develop and review legislative proposals for the appropriate type of  COO/CMO positions for all major federal agencies, recognizing that the  implementation of any approach should be determined within the context  of the specific facts and circumstances that relate to each agency.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my  prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that  you or other members of the subcommittee may have at this time.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgements
paragraphs: For further information on this testimony, please contact Bernice  Steinhardt, Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-6806 or  steinhardtb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this  testimony. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include  Sarah Veale, Assistant Director; K. Scott Derrick; and Katherine Wulff.
section_title: Attachment II: Term Appointments at Selected U.S. Agencies
paragraphs: Appointed by the FAA Administrator,  with the approval of the Air Traffic  Services Committee.
There is no statutory provision on  reappointment of the officeholder.
The COO is to serve at the pleasure of  the Administrator, and the Administrator  is to make every effort to ensure stability  and continuity in the leadership of the air  traffic control system.
Appointments to fill a vacancy occurring  before the expiration of term shall be only  for the remainder of that term.
Appointed by the President, following  recommendations from a special  congressional commission, and  confirmed by the Senate.
There are no statutory conditions on the  authority of the President to remove the  officeholder.
No statutory provision.
May be appointed to more than one 10- year term.
Appointed by the President with the  advice and consent of the Senate.
There are no statutory conditions on the  authority of the President to remove the  officeholder.
The officeholder may not be  reappointed.
No statutory provision.
Appointed by the President with the  advice and consent of the Senate.
President may remove members for  cause.
There is no statutory limitation on a  Chairman serving more than one 4-year  term.
An individual appointed to fill a vacancy  among the seven members of the board  shall hold office only for the unexpired  term of his or her predecessor.
Appointed by the Secretary of  Education.
May be reappointed by the Secretary to  subsequent terms of 3 to 5 years as  long as the incumbent’s performance is  satisfactory per required annual  performance agreement.
The COO may be removed by the  President or by the Secretary for  misconduct or failure to meet  performance goals set forth in the  performance agreement. The President  or the Secretary must communicate the  reasons for any such removal to the  appropriate committees of Congress.
No statutory provision.
Appointed by the President, following  recommendations from a special  congressional commission, and  confirmed by the Senate.
The officeholder is limited to a single  15-year term.
The Comptroller General may be  removed by impeachment or by adoption  of a joint resolution of Congress.  Removal by joint resolution can occur  only after notice and an opportunity for a  hearing and only for certain specified  reasons: permanent disability,  inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance,  felony, or conduct involving moral  turpitude.
No statutory provision.
Appointed by the President with the  advice and consent of the Senate.
There are no statutory conditions on the  authority of the President to remove the  officeholder.
May be appointed to more than one 5- year term.
Appointments to fill a vacancy occurring  before the expiration of term shall be only  for the remainder of that term.
Appointed by the President with the  advice and consent of the Senate.
There are no statutory conditions on the  authority of the President to remove the  officeholder.
There is no statutory provision on  reappointment of the officeholder.
No statutory provision.
Appointed by the President with the  advice and consent of the Senate.
May be removed by the President for  reasons to be communicated by him or  her to the Senate.
There is no statutory provision on  reappointment of the officeholder.
No statutory provision.
Appointed by the President with the  advice and consent of the Senate.
There are no statutory conditions on the  authority of the President to remove the  officeholder.
There is no statutory provision on  reappointment of the officeholder.
Appointments to fill a vacancy occurring  before the expiration of a term shall be  appointed only for the remainder of that  term.
Appointed by the President with the  advice and consent of the Senate.
The officeholder may be removed only  pursuant to a finding by the President of  neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.
There is no statutory provision on  reappointment of the officeholder.
Appointments to fill a vacancy occurring  before the expiration of a term shall be  appointed only for the remainder of that  term.
Appointed by the Secretary of  Commerce.
May be reappointed to subsequent  terms by the Secretary as long as the  incumbent’s performance is satisfactory  per required annual performance  agreement.
The Secretary may remove the  Commissioner for misconduct or  unsatisfactory performance under the  required performance agreement. The  Secretary must provide notification of any  such removal to both Houses of  Congress.
No statutory provision.
Appointed by the Secretary of  Commerce.
May be reappointed to subsequent  terms by the Secretary as long as the  incumbent’s performance is satisfactory  per required annual performance  agreement.
The Secretary may remove the  Commissioner for misconduct or  unsatisfactory performance under the  required performance agreement. The  Secretary must provide notification of any  such removal to both Houses of  Congress.
No statutory provision.
Executive Order No. 13180 (Dec. 7, 2000) established the Air Traffic Organization within FAA and  gave responsibility to head the Air Traffic Organization to the Chief Operating Officer for the Air Traffic  Control System of FAA, a position created pursuant to Pub. L. No. 106-181 (Apr. 5, 2000).
Members of the Federal Reserve Board, including the Chairman, serve terms of 14 years from the  expiration of the terms of their predecessors. The Chairman’s term is 4 years.
The 4-year term does not have to coincide with the President’s term in office.
An individual may continue to serve after the expiration of his or her term until a successor is  appointed.
An individual may continue to serve after the expiration of his or her term until a successor enters  office.
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.