In his prepared statement submitted for the record, Mr. Larkin explained the composition of the task forces as follows: The "The balance of the organization of the "Each of the 35 Task Forces has members Co-Chairpersons. Pro has four Co-Chairpersons, a project analyzing areas of study and preparing work Mr. Larkin's statement went on to outline the operations of the task forces: "In addition, the Management Office provides each Task Force with operating guidelines, report format and preparation instructions, and disclosure and conflict of interest guidelines. Mr. Larkin's statement continued: "You have requested that we discuss the nature and purpose of the Task Force work plans. These are merely management tools which are designed to assist the Task Forces in planning their work and in identifying areas they will study. They are used for purposes of setting deadlines and we are examining them as they are submitted. Naturally, the work plans may change and, as a matter of fact, have been changed by the Task Forces as their work has progressed. "Survey activities are monitored by onsite reviews of Task Force operations, weekly desk officer meetings, bi-weekly project manager meetings, frequent discussions with agency officials, draft and final report review processes, and other techniques." III. Even apart from the broad application envisioned for the Advisory Committee Act's phrase "any subcommittee or other subgroup," a functional analysis leads to the conclusion that the Survey's task forces clearly are "subcommittee[s] or other subgroup[s]" of the Executive Committee." The task forces have organized structures and assigned subject matter responsibilities. Each task force is co-chaired by members of the Executive Committee. Moreover, it appears that the task forces are the source of all substantive activity now in progress to carry out the functions of the Executive Committee. The task forces are developing work plans for their assigned subject areas; they are performing in-depth studies in these areas; they discuss their preliminary findings with Federal agency heads and the Management Office; and they will prepare draft and final reports. The Executive Committee itself has not yet held a meeting. (As noted previously, the Committee's charter states the expectation that the Committee "or subcommittees thereof" will meet monthly.) Presumably the task forces, or at least some of them, have met since some work plans have been developed. Likewise, at least some task forces are now obtaining information from Federal agencies. (As noted previously, the Executive Order and the charter provide for Federal agencies to furnish information to the Executive Committee "and its staff units * * *.") In sum, the task forces have all the essential characteristics that one would expect to find in subcommittees or subgroups. We recognize that staffing and funding for the task forces may be provided, at least in part, by the Foundation. However, the source of funding is immaterial so long as the task forces are being used as subcommittees or subgroups of the Executive Committee. Cf., S. Rep. No. 92-1098, discussed previously. STATEMENT OF ROSSLYN KLEEMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL PERSONNEL AND COMPENSATION DIVISION, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY HENRY WRAY, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL; AND THOMAS SHORT, EVALUATOR, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE Ms. KLEEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here today, and I have brought with me my colleague, Mr. Henry Wray, who is with our Office of General Counsel, and Mr. Tom Short, who has been the evaluator working on this project for us. We had submitted a statement for the record at the September 15 hearing. However, today I would like to mention one or two items from that testimony. As our statement said, you asked us to collect the following information: The background and responsibilities of all the survey participants, the organizational structure for conducting the survey; the legal authority for such an effort; the process for doing work through the task forces, especially the personnel and social security task forces; the involvement of the Federal agencies and the White House; the sources of funding and costs to the Government; and the clearance process to protect against conflicts of interest. These were the items you asked us to look into. However, we have not been able to collect all the information that you requested. For example, the management office has not provided a complete list of all participants their backgrounds and their responsibilities in the survey. This information has been provided for only a few participants, primarily executive committee members. We do not have the legal guidance for establishing the organization, the clearance processes, the authority, and the conformance to Federal Advisory Committee provisions. We do not have the task force objectives, work plans, and progress reports. We have asked for but not received a full description of the role and function of all the groups shown in the management office's organization chart. In response to our written request for this and other information, the director of the survey's management office informed us on August 13, 1982, that because of certain legal implications involved with respect to our request, the survey had asked for a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, as to what data the survey should furnish. We have received no further response from the survey. We did, however, call the Justice Department after the September 15 hearings, and they referred us to Mr. Ed Wilson, in the White House counsel's office. Mr. Wilson said he could not give us any information as to the status of our request. We are continuing to collect as much information as we can on the items that you have requested, but we are waiting for the Justice Department opinion on access to the information that we have sought. That is the information in my prepared testimony, and we would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. The CHAIRMAN. Is it accurate to say that the survey is being performed at "no cost to the Government" with some substantial amount of time spent by agency personnel with task force members in the search and reproduction of studies and documents? Did you look at that at all? Ms. KLEEMAN. We are finding these costs are pretty hard to capture. The only specific things that we do know is that Commerce has set a ceiling of $50,000 for advisory committee expenses. This would pay for the salary costs and other advisory committee expenses. We do know that contributions to the foundation are tax deductible; there has been an IRS ruling on that. Executive personnel time for interviews The CHAIRMAN. You mean the $1.8 million that was described to us the other day has been given to a tax-free foundation? Ms. KLEEMAN. A foundation, yes. Executive personnel time in interviews are pretty hard to capture, but we do know that a lot of time has been spent on this, gathering and reproducing information, as you suggested. Agency liaisons have told us that they have no exact idea of the costs. In most cases, the furniture, the office supplies, the typewriters, they have told us are surplus items. In some cases, they are reimbursing the agencies for this. The clerical help and parking and incidental expenses, we have not been able to get an exact figure on it. One agency-I believe it was HHS-said they were making some attempt to keep track of the costs. Other than that, we do know that a lot of personnel time in interviews have gone into assisting the task forces. The CHAIRMAN. We understand that the actual reviews of agency operations are being performed by the task forces, and that has been talked about here today and again last week. In the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the term "advisory committee" is defined as including any committee, panel, task force, or other similar group, or any subgroup thereof, which is established or utilized by the President or by one or more agencies. In view of that definition of the status and functions of the various task forces as they have been delineated to us and to you, are you able to give us an opinion as to whether the members and activities of the task forces are subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act? Ms. KLEEMAN. Yes, sir. We do have a letter for you, which I believe we have submitted for the record. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have the letter? Without objection, that letter will be entered in the record after your prepared statement. Maybe Mr. Wray would like to comment on that. Mr. WRAY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We conclude, in our opinion, that the task forces are subcommittees or other subgroups of the parent Executive Committee. I can briefly summarize our position, if you wish. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I would like you to do that. Mr. WRAY. As you pointed out, the law itself, the Advisory Committee Act, defines the term "advisory committee" to include any subcommittee or any subgroup thereof. This itself suggests a very broad application, which is confirmed by the legislative history and also the Commerce Department guidance that is provided for its own advisory committees. Of course, the Executive committee of the President's Private Sector Survey is recognized to be an advisory committee and has been chartered. Essentially, from the information available to us, it seems that the task forces are functioning in the ordinary sense as subcommittees. |