the temporary Williamsburg Summit consultants, who do not have USIA work descriptions in the normal sense (see items 2 and 3 below). The only descriptions of work we have for the FY-80 and 81 consultants of the previous Administration are listed on the right-hand section at (Tab 17 d).

1.

Regular consultants, listed at (Tab 17 a), generally provide

expert advice to Agency management, including those individuals awaiting Schedule C or other noncareer appointments. A total of 46 consultants or experts have been appointed in FY-82 and 83; 17 remain consultants at this time, of whom four are unpaid advisers; thus only 13 are paid regular consultants at present.

2.

Members of boards and commissions established by law are listed at (Tab 17 b). These include the Board of Foreign Service Scholarships (12 members at present), the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (seven Presidential appointees), and the Foreign Service Selection Boards (not in session; appointments will be made this fall). These board and commission members do not have job descriptions in the normal sense. They serve in an advisory capacity, and are paid as indicated at (Tab 17 b).

3.

Members of the temporary Williamsburg Summit Task Force are listed at (Tab 17 c). Acting at the request of the White House, the Agency, with the approval of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, reprogrammed $2 million to support foreign press operations at the Williamsburg Economic Summit. In this connection, USIA has appointed a number of special consultants. These are experts selected by the White House for duty with the Summit Task Force. Their work descriptions are determined by the Task Force. Their appointments expire on or before June 10, 1983.

Q: Page 2, line 19; "I would like to know the total spent on consultants and experts in FY 83 and FY 82, as contrasted to FY 80."

A:

The total spent on all categories of Agency "consultants and experts" in each of those years follows:

Q: Page 2, line 20; "Can you give me your assurance that the 62 non-career personnel identified in Mr. Robinson's letter combined with the number of consultants represents the sum total of all noncareer personnel paid by the USIA budget or filling a USIA slot?"

ww

A: No. In your letter of April 15, 1983, page 2, line 11, you asked for ...the aggregate number of noncareer appointments made to USIA jobs in this Administration" (emphasis added). Mr. Robinson's response of April 19, 1983 enclosed a list of the 62 noncareer employees who were appointed by this Administration. While this number fluctuates as personnel come and go, it has been ranging between 60 and 65, and at present is 62.

In addition to these 62 noncareer personnel appointed by this Administration, there are 13 paid regular consultants as described on page 9. While most of these consultants do not work full time, combining them with the 62 noncareer personnel identified in Mr. Robinson's letter results in a total of 75.

In addition to the 75 referred to immediately above, there are nearly 500 noncareer employees in all categories employed by USIA. This total includes 222 foreign language broadcasters on temporary appointments to meet the unique native language broadcasting needs of the Voice of America; 103 career candidates for the Foreign Service, who are considered "noncareer employees" until granted career tenure, normally after four to five years of service; 59 candidates for Foreign Service Specialist appointments; 43 competitively selected student interns; 40 summer clerical hires; 8 participants in the stay-in-school program for disadvantaged youth; and 15 vocational office trainees.

Q: Page 2, line 24: "Another matter of concern is the lack of completeness

in USIA's answers to questions submitted by the Committee following the February 28 hearing. For example, the answers to the questions on the Mid-America Committee grant are evasive."

A: I agree with your comment about the lack of completeness in USIA's answers on the Mid-America grant. On the following pages are specific responses to the specific Committee questions you have reiterated.

For your information, before receiving your letters, and immediately upon becoming aware of a newspaper report, on March 4, 1983, I informed the Comptroller General of the alleged irregularities in USIA's Office of Private Sector Programs, including the Mid-America grant, and requested a GAO review, now underway. At the same time, I directed an internal review of the operations of that office by our inspection and audit staffs. Subsequently, rigorous new guidelines for grant review have been initiated and approved by me in consultation with the staffs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the International Operations Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I sent a copy of the guidelines to your Committee on May 4. A copy is enclosed at (Tab 19).

Q: Page 2, line 27; "The question was asked, 'Does USIA consider it appropriate for a grant recipient to be simultaneously under a contract to a foreign government at the same time he is dealing with that government under a USIA contract in the same area as the foreign government contract?'"

A: No. However, in the past USIA has not had a process to ensure that we are aware when a potential grantee has a contract with a foreign entity or, as in the Mid-America case, plans to utilize a consultant who has a contract with a foreign entity. Your letter has alerted us to the value of a formal approach. I am instituting a requirement whereby all individual or organizational grant applicants must disclose whether they, their employees or proposed consultants, are registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended. Depending on the nature of the grant activity, the Agency will then determine if there would be any "conflict of interest" or impropriety should the award be issued. A copy of General Counsel Jonathan W. Sloat's memo to me on this subject is enclosed at (Tab 20).

Q: Page 2, line 31; "I am also disturbed that USIA did not choose to answer the question of whether Mr. MacKenzie's activities constituted a conflict of interest, if not legally then on ethical grounds."

A: I am told that Mr. MacKenzie's activities did not legally constitute a conflict of interest. Apparently, the conflict of interest laws and regulations apply only to government employees and therefore are not applicable to Mr. MacKenzie in his capacity as a consultant to an Agency grantee. Nevertheless, I believe that Mr. MacKenzie's activities under the Mid-America grant constituted an ethical conflict of interest. Mr. MacKenzie provided the following information in a telephone conversation with USIA's General Counsel on May 19:

Mr. MacKenzie stated that he had a one-year contract with Haiti
to provide consulting services in the area of media relations.
The contract period expired November 30, 1982. He performed
four months' work under the contract from December, 1981,
through March, 1982, but was paid for only one month. Haiti
abrogated the contract in March 1982. Mr. MacKenzie reported
the amount of the one-month payment in his six-month report to
the Justice Department for the period ending April 5, 1982. In
his subsequent six-month report for the period ending October
5, 1982, Mr. MacKenzie continued to list himself as an agent
for Haiti on an "inactive" basis (1.e., no remuneration
received), since he still hoped to receive some remuneration
for the three months for which he had not been paid, and he did
not want to jeopardize his claim by unilaterally renouncing his
status as a registered agent. Mr. MacKenzie advises that in
fact he never did receive any further payment from Haiti and

Q:

that in his next report to the Justice Department for the

period ending April 5, 1983, Mr. MacKenzie reported that he was
no longer an agent for Haiti.

Prior to our May 19 telephone conversation with Mr. MacKenzie, the USIA General Counsel had sent him a letter, May 18, regarding our inquiry, a copy of which is attached at (Tab 21 a). Subsequently he responded to our inquiry in writing in a letter dated May 24, 1983, enclosed at (Tab 21 b).

The Mid-America grant commenced on November 29, 1982. Mr. MacKenzie's contract with Haiti ran until November 30, 1982 (a day later). Mr. MacKenzie has informed us that it was clear as of March 1982 that he would be performing no more work under the Haitian contract.

However, as Mr. MacKenzie "continued to list himself as an agent for Haiti" during September 1982 when the grant proposal was being prepared and discussed with the Agency, in my opinion a conflict of interest on ethical grounds was present.

Page 2, line 33; "I would like to know whether USIA has now found out from Mr. MacKenzie why he omitted Haiti from his list of clients..."

Q:

A: In response to our inquiry Mr. MacKenzie provided the following information: Shortly before Mid-America submitted the grant application to USIA (1isting Mr. MacKenzie as a consultant), they asked him to provide some credentials to include in the application. Among the materials provided by him was a page containing, according to Mr. MacKenzie, a list of "representative" clients, which he had used on past occasions. A copy of the "page" is attached at (Tab 21 c). His purpose in submitting the materials was to show that Mr. MacKenzie was qualified to carry out his duties under the Mid-America grant application. According to Mr. MacKenzie, no effort was made to list all of his clients. He states that there was no intentional omission by him of Haiti.

Page 2, line 35; "...and I also request an answer to the Committee question as to whether USIA has used a registered foreign agent in connection with any other private sector grant."

A: I frankly do not know. As I stated earlier, it has not been the past policy of the Agency to require prospective grantees to disclose whether they or any of their employees or proposed consultants are registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended. We therefore are unable to answer the question. However, we know of no previous instance where the Agency used a registered foreign agent in connection with a private sector grant. As indicated above, the Agency

will now require advance disclosure of such information by all grant applicants.

I trust the answers to the next preceding five questions satisfy your concerns about Mr. Robinson's earlier responses to the questions the Committee raised on this subject. If not, I will try to provide any further information you request.

Q: Page 2, line 38; "...I am. alarmed at the story reported in the April 30, 1983 Atlanta Constitution on Caspar Weinberger receiving a $4,800 merit raise without the knowledge of his supervisor, Phyllis Kaminsky...I would like to know the justifications in selecting Mr. Weinberger as one of five USIA employees to receive the maximum 10.33% merit raise,"

A: There was no justification in my opinion. I was not aware of any rating for Mr. Weinberger, Jr., made on October 12, 1982, until it came to my attention through the press in the first week of May, 1983.

Mr. Robinson's justification is as follows: The merit raise
was triggered automatically, under the Agency's merit pay plan
for employees in Mr. Weinberger, Jr.'s grade, when Mr. Robinson
submitted an "outstanding" performance rating on him, attached
at (Tab 22) A member of my staff last week asked Mr. Robinson
why he had made a determination of "outstanding" in the
rating. His explanation is that he did not know the
"outstanding" rating would produce the merit raise. He says he
only learned this recently, after the merit raise became a
public issue. He also says that he signed each of the six
pages of the rating hurriedly, without reviewing it in detail
or consulting with anyone else, as at the time he was
preoccupied with several other pressing matters. He states
that he does not know who drafted the rating for him.
recalls that it came to him in a folder of urgent documents to
sign which was several inches thick. He assumed that
everything in the folder had gone through proper clearances, as
was always the case with signature folders of this sort put in
front of him. He states that had it been brought to his
attention that his signature would produce a merit raise of
that size, he feels sure he would have pulled the document out
for discussion with the Director; as it was, presented in the
large pile of papers, it appeared routine.

He

None of the individuals who were on Mr. Robinson's personal staff during that period recalls having seen, or heard of, the Weinberger, Jr. rating.

Q: Page 3, line 3; "I would also like to know why the increase was given without reference to Mr. Weinberger's supervisor. I understand that it was Mr. Robinson who approved the merit raise."

ww.ww