DEAR U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., February 24, 1969. : As the new Chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Senate Committee on the Judicary, I look forward to working closely with agency members, staff, and practitioners towards our common goal of promoting agency practices which are efficient, effective, responsive, and fair. I am hopeful that our Subcommittee can provide a constructive resource and Stimulus for joint efforts at administrative reform. Several general directions for the Subcommittee's work appear promising, but before proceeding, I would like to have the benefit of your thinking in some of these areas. I know how difficult it is for you to fit additional projects into your schedule, but I am confident that it will be worthwhile to you and to us if you can personally devote the necessary time to your responses to the enclosed questionnaire. What we would like to have is your own subjective views on the questions asked, as completely, but concisely as possible. Feel free to rephrase any question to adapt its thrust to the context of the agency in which or before which you work, and feel free as well to supplement your answers with further comments elaborating on your answers or projecting your thoughts beyond the scope of the questions. I certainly appreciate your willingness to cooperate in this effort, and I look forward to sharing the results with you. Sincerely, [Please number answers to correspond with questions. Reasponses should be submitted within 2 weeks of receipt of the questionnaire.] I. Citizen Involvement in the Administrative Process. A. To what extent, if any, and in what manner is there an input these groups become involved in any way in the policy-making or decision-making process? What attempts are made to solicit views of affected groups that otherwise might not become involved in the administrative process on their own initiative? C. What procedures are used to take account of the views and consider the needs of the poor as they might be affected by the agency's decision-making? What procedures could be used? D. How does the agency respond to individual citizen complaints about persons, entities, or activities subject to its regulation? Describe what happens to an individual complaint from the time it is received until there is final agency action on it. What is the role of the complaining party during the agency's deliberation on his complaint? Are these adequate sanctions available to deter future activities of a type which has led to past valid complaints? Explain. How frequently are they invoked? E. Do those who are affected by the agency's activities know enough about it? How is citizen and industry awareness of the agency's functions, processes and decisions promoted? How can the outward flow of information be improved? To what extent are agency records, proceedings, meetings, or opinions withheld from public view? What are the reasons for such withholding? F. What efforts are made to make information about the agency, and access to the agency's information and complaint services, available outside Washington, D.C.? Assuming adequate funding, what procedures could be used? II. Procedures for promoting more responsive agency decisionmaking. A. Do you believe that the agency's decision-making procedures operate with reasonable speed, considering the interests and issues involved? Assuming that faster processing and decision-making are desirable, how could they be achieved? B. What specialized human and mechanical resources such as systems analysts, computers and computer operators, testing facilities, etc., are available within the agency? Has the agency developed means of securing such resources from other government agencies or outside sources? Does the superior availability of such resources to the regulated enterprises result in agency procedures which rely on facts and information provided by them? C. What procedures or mechanisms does the agency have for consulting and coordinating with other government agencies with overlapping, interrelated or conflicting responsibilities? D. What procedures does the agency have for assessing the quality and efficiency of its own performance? How often and in what manner does the agency review the continuing relevance of its mission, goals, priorities, procedures, and structure? In what ways could such review be stimulated? Would modern techniques of cost-benefit analysis and "P.P.B.S." be helpful? If so, how could they be applied? If not, why not? Are there gaps in the agency's statutory authority? What procedures are used to develop legislative recommendations within the agency for filling such gaps? E. Answer only where applicable: Do you feel that agency staff has too much, not enough, or about the right amount of impact on agency decision-making processes? Explain. How could this level of impact be changed? Is agency staff adequately responsive to the needs of individual agency members? Would agency members perform better if they had larger personal staffs? Would the quality of agency staff work be improved or reduced if empoyees were given incentives to rotate periodically to other government agencies? Is staff quality adequate to handle the complex and sophisticated issues presented to the agency? If not, how could staff capability be enhanced? To what extent have employees of regulated or affected industries been selected as agency staff or members, and to what extent have staff and members subsequently become employed in such industries? Do you feel such selections and hiring contribute to or detract from the agency's work? What limits, if any, should be placed on such selections and hiring? III. This Questionnaire. How long did it take you to complete Sections I and II? Do you think the questions raised useful and relevant issues about the agency's practices, procedures, and problems? What questions would you have left out? What additional areas should have been covered? Would you have been able to answer more freely if the responses were anonymous? I. EXECUTIVE OFFICES Response of the Office of Emergency Preparedness OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed are responses to the questionnaire you sent on February 24, 1969. The responses are numbered to correspond with the questions. As you know, our mission and function do not lend themselves to many of the concerns and questions reflected in your letter and questionnaire. Sincerely, G. A. LINCOLN, Director. OEP RESPONSES TO THE FEBRUARY 24, 1969 QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE I. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OEP, as basically a staff arm of the President, is not directly involved with the public or with citizen groups as such. Therefore item 1 is answered in terms of "outside" assistance especially designed for the agency rather than in terms of our clientele or public. A. In addition to our citizen and industry advisory groups (see 1.B below), many people from the private sector, particularly consultants from the academic and business world, assist OEP in the improvement of readiness at the Federal, State, and local levels to cope with national emergencies. To the degree relevant, OEP has encouraged participation of the private sector, and will continue to make use of such consultants and advisory groups. B. OEP has the following citizen and industry advisory groups. Function To advise the Director of Office of Emergency Preparedness on policies affecting the Nation's civil defense. To advise the Director of Office of Emergency Preparedness on broad policies and programs for nonmilitary defense. To advise the Director of Telecommunications To advise the Director of Office of Emergency To advise the Director of Telecommunications To provide expertise and advice on current business practices and make recommendations for the development of economic preparedness. (339) |