Specifically, as previously discussed, FACA requires that the membership  of committees be fairly balanced in terms of points of view and functions to  be performed. Advisory Committees Play an Important Role in the Development of Federal Policies

Generally composed of individuals from outside of the federal government,  federal advisory committees play an important role in the development of  public policy and government regulations by providing advice to  policymakers on a wide array of issues. Their advice—on issues such as stem cell research, space  exploration, trade policy, drinking water standards, and drug approvals— can enhance the quality and credibility of federal decision making. Advisory committees may be established to provide a peer review function. First, with respect to independence, OGE guidance on  whether to appoint members to advisory committees as special  government employees or representatives—a decision that determines  whether an agency conducts a conflict-of-interest review—has limitations  that we believe are a factor in three agencies’ continuing their long- standing practice of essentially appointing all members as representatives. Because such members  are not providing stakeholder advice, they would be more appropriately  appointed as special government employees, subject to reviews for  conflicts of interest. Information That Can Help Agencies Ensure Committees Are Balanced Is Not Systematically Gathered and Evaluated

Many agencies do not identify and systematically collect and evaluate  information that can help them determine the points of view of their  potential committee members regarding the subject matters the  committees will consider and thus better ensure that committees are, and  are perceived as being, balanced. However, GSA guidance does not  address what types of information could be helpful to agencies in assessing  the points of view of potential committee members, nor do agency  procedures identify what information should be collected about potential  members to make decisions about committee balance. Although these practices for obtaining and reviewing  pertinent information to assess for conflicts of interest and impartiality are  broadly applicable, some of the practices, such as seeking public comment  on proposed committees, are most particularly relevant to those  committees addressing sensitive or controversial topics. In explaining the need for obtaining  background information about prospective members, the National  Academies emphasize that the work of their committees must be, and must  be perceived as being, free of any significant conflict of interest and  uncompromised by bias. To better ensure that the committee members, agency and congressional  officials, and the public understand the nature of the advice provided by  federal advisory committees, we recommend that GSA issue guidance that  agencies should  identify the committee formation process used for each committee,  particularly how members are identified and screened and how  committees are assessed for overall balance;  state in the appointment letters to committee members whether they are  appointed as special government employees or representatives; in cases  where appointments are as representatives, the letters should further  identify the entity or group that they are to represent;  identify each member’s appointment category on the GSA FACA  database; for representative members, the entity or group represented  should also be identified; and  state in the committee products the nature of the advice provided—that  is, whether the product is based on independent advice or consensus  among the various identified interests or stakeholders. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report (1) describes the role of federal advisory committees in the  development of national policies; (2) examines the extent to which  governmentwide and agency-specific policies and procedures for  evaluating committee members for conflicts of interest and points of view  ensure independent and balanced federal advisory committees; and (3)  identifies practices that could better ensure that committees are, and are  perceived as being, independent and balanced.
Why GAO Did This Study

Because advisory committees are established to advise federal decision makers on significant national issues, it is essential that their membership be, and be perceived as being, free from conflicts of interest and balanced as a whole. GAO was asked to (1) describe the role of federal advisory committees in the development of national policies, (2) examine the extent to which existing guidance and policies and procedures for evaluating committee members for conflicts of interest and points of view ensure independent members and balanced committees, and (3) identify practices and measures that could help ensure independence and balance.

What GAO Found

Federal advisory committees play an important role in shaping public policy by providing advice on a wide array of issues, such as stem cell research, drinking water standards, space exploration, drug approvals, and federal land management. About 950 advisory committees perform peer reviews of scientific research; offer advice on policy issues; identify long-range issues; and evaluate grant proposals, among other functions. Additional governmentwide guidance could help agencies better ensure the independence of members--that is, that they are free from significant conflicts of interest--and balance of federal advisory committees. For example, current limitations in the Office of Government Ethics' (OGE) guidance are a factor in at least three agencies' continuing a long-standing practice of appointing most or all members as "representatives"--expected to reflect the views of the entity or group they are representing and not subject to conflict-of-interest reviews--even when the agencies call upon the members to provide advice on behalf of the government. Such members would be more appropriately appointed as "special government employees," who are reviewed for conflicts of interest. OGE officials agreed with GAO that these agencies' appointments of some members as representatives of their fields of expertise are not appropriate, and this practice avoids using the special government employee category that was created to help the government hire experts in various fields for such purposes. OGE guidance that representatives may speak for, among others, any recognizable group of persons should be clarified to state that they generally are not to represent an expertise. Also, to be effective, advisory committees must be, and be perceived as being, fairly balanced in terms of points of view and functions to be performed. However, the General Services Administration's (GSA) guidance on advisory committee management does not address what types of information could be helpful to agencies in assessing the points of view of potential committee members, nor do agency procedures identify what information should be collected about potential members to make decisions about committee balance. Consequently, many agencies do not identify and systematically collect and evaluate information pertinent to determining the points of view of potential committee members, such as previous public positions or statements on matters being reviewed. GAO identified promising practices and measures that can better ensure independence and balance and promote transparency in the federal advisory committee system, such as obtaining nominations from the public and making public information about how members are identified and screened. Wider use of these practices--particularly for committees addressing sensitive or controversial topics--could reduce the likelihood that committees are, or are perceived as being, biased or imbalanced.