	Background

NGISC was established pursuant to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission Act (NGISC Act). GSA also concluded that FACA applies to NGISC. Applicability of and Compliance With FACA

Is NGISC subject to FACA and, if so, did it follow FACA with respect to three specific meetings? 2. NGISC did not publish a 15-day advance notice of the meeting in the Federal Register, as required by FACA’s implementing regulations. Two days before the teleconference, NGISC faxed a notice of the teleconference to approximately 730 people from the media and general public that expressed interest in NGISC activities. We note that while NGISC did provide in its Federal Register notice the dates and location of the February retreat more than 15 days in advance of the meeting, information about the retreat agenda was posted to the website and sent by fax less than 15 days in advance of the meeting. Award of Major Contracts

What contracting procedures were used in NGISC’s award of major contracts? With respect to our review of the three contracts, we found that (1) NGISC’s Chair described an award process in which competition was sought, but NGISC’s Chair did not document the selection process when contracting for legal services; (2) NGISC entered into a sole-source contract for research consulting services, and we found no basis for questioning its determination that the person selected was uniquely qualified; and (3) documentation maintained by NGISC showed that it made a reasonable effort to obtain competition when it contracted for the national survey on American gambling behavior and the creation of a database. NGISC Contracted for Legal Counsel

Why did the NGISC contract for legal counsel instead of using government legal support? NGISC Contractor Interference

Did NGISC attempt to interfere in an inappropriate way with the work of one of its contractors? Through review of NGISC documents provided to us and interviews with NGISC’s Chair and selected NGISC and Regent University staff, we identified six persons, other than the Chair, who were affiliated with Regent University and had some involvement in NGISC’s activities. The three other individuals were part-time NGISC employees for some period of time. Two Regent University employees, who reported to the Chair in her capacity as Dean of the Robertson School of Government, have had involvement in NGISC. In addition, two individuals who were Regent University graduate students and one Regent University graduate volunteered their services to NGISC for 2 days in August 1997 to assist with meeting preparations. Another Regent University graduate was employed by NGISC for approximately a week and a half in June 1997 to assist in its establishment. Relocation Costs

Has NGISC paid for relocating any staff? Alternate Work Location

Were NGISC employees allowed to work at a location other than the NGISC office? NGISC’s Administrative Officer said that he did not have written work schedules with supervisory approval for any of its employees. Further, NGISC’s time and attendance process did not require its supervisor to approve employees’ official time sheets. We found no evidence that the two NGISC employees who were authorized to work at locations other than NGISC’s office did not work the hours scheduled or did not accomplish the work they were expected to complete. 2, section 3(2). At GSA’s request, on June 15, 1997, the Commission filed a charter with GSA stating that: “The Commission is subject to the standards and requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA, as amended), with respect to meetings, hearings, and the availability of Commission records, and other matters.” On October 31, 1997, the Commission unanimously adopted operating rules, that included the statement that NGISC “is an independent legislative commission which will, in general, conduct its activities in accordance with the standards and requirements of the FACA, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (GISA) .
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed selected operational practices of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC), focusing on: (1) whether NGISC is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and, if so, whether NGISC followed FACA with respect to three specific meetings; (2) what contracting procedures were used in NGISC's award of three major contracts; (3) why NGISC contracted for legal counsel instead of using government legal support; (4) whether NGISC attempted to interfere with the work of one of its contractors; (5) how Regent University employees were involved in NGISC activities; (6) whether NGISC has paid for relocating any staff; and (7) whether NGISC employees are allowed to work at a location other than the NGISC office.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) FACA applies to NGISC; (2) for one of the three meetings, NGISC did not provide the 15-day advance notice in the "Federal Register" that is required under FACA and its implementing regulations; (3) a 2-day notice faxed to about 730 people from the media and general public allowed them to participate; (4) for another meeting, NGISC published notice of the meeting in the "Federal Register" more than 15 days in advance, but did not publish a summary of the agenda in the time required by FACA's implementing regulations; (5) information obtained from procurement records and NGISC indicated that NGISC sought competition in the award of two of the three major contracts that GAO reviewed and awarded the third on a sole-source basis after determining that one source was uniquely qualified; (6) however, NGISC did not document its efforts to seek competition for one of the three contracts, which left no record to assess NGISC's efforts; (7) NGISC contracted for legal counsel instead of using government legal support because the federal agencies from which NGISC sought legal assistance either could not or would not provide it, and NGISC determined that it would not be feasible to hire in-house counsel with the variety of expertise desired; (8) a National Research Council official involved in the administration of the NGISC's contract said that NGISC did not attempt to interfere in the Academy's contract work; (9) GAO identified six persons affiliated with Regent University, in addition to NGISC's Chair, who had some involvement in NGISC's work; (10) two of these persons were Regent University graduate students and a third was a graduate, all of whom volunteered their services for 2 days in August 1997 to assist in meeting preparations; (11) a fourth person, another Regent University graduate, worked part-time for NGISC for approximately 2 weeks in June 1997 to assist in NGISC's establishment; (12) the fifth and sixth individuals were Regent University employees who worked for NGISC's Chair in her capacity as Dean of Regent University's Robertson School of Government; (13) NGISC records did not indicate that it had paid for the relocation costs for any employee; (14) according to NGISC, two employees worked at locations other than NGISC's office for part of their regular work schedule for some period of time; (15) GAO found some confusion among NGISC staff concerning the details of one of the three employees, thus GAO believes that NGISC's internal controls over time and attendance were insufficient to prevent misunderstandings; and (16) NGISC improved these controls in early 1999.