USIS Venezuela was inspected by the Agency's Office of Inspections early in 1983. This audit and the inspection provide a comprehensive review of the Post's operations.

The major area of concern in this report is with the administration of gency resources (cash grants, property, etc.) supporting the Binational Center at laracibo. Heretofore, the Counselor for Public Affairs has not required the Executive Officer to visit the BNC to review the Center's financial operations. The Counselor should ensure Agency resources are properly administered by including in the Executive Officer's official duties periodic trips to the Binational Center to perform administrative reviews.

Routine administrative deficiencies are listed in the "Memorandum Of Administrative Findings" attached to this report as Exhibit A.

1. USIS take the following actions to correct deficiencies found with the Binational Center in Maracaibo:

a. Execute grants for stipends to English Teaching Fellows soon after their arrival at the BNC. The annual grants should provide for quarterly payments (MOA EX-B 167 and Exhibit 160A, Article I-A).

b. Obtain annual Agency approval to execute an annual BNC grant in excess of $25,000 to be disbursed in quarterly payments for salaries of BNC personnel.

C. Have the annual audit report of the BNC

translated into English.

d. Review the Agency's nonexpendable property located at the BNC and for those items not required by the BPAO's office, issue a grant transferring the items to the BNC (MOA IX-B Exhibit 160B).

Recommended
Action
Assigned to:

2.

Incule in the Executive Officer's official Juties, periodle visits to the BNC to ensure that USIS resources supporting the BNC are properly administered. (Findings IV A, Page 3)

2. US13 review the use of the eight loom Victor Projectors on Long term loan to two binational centers, 2.2 2.3. Cablesy, and a cultural institution, and obtain Agency approval to dispose of those determined excess to the Post's program requirements (MOA IV 958.5). (Finding IV C, Page 6)

3. The Agency's Office of Systems Technology (M/AT) ensure that Property Record Cards (IA-274) are prepared and submitted to the mold Oquipment and Supply Branch (MACHI for all computer equipment supplied to the Post 10A IV 723.5 : 355.5). (Finding IV D, Page 7)

PAO

PAO

VAT

B. It is requested that the Chief Auditor be notified in writing, with a copy to the Associate Director for Management, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this report of the action taken by the organizational component The identified with the responsibility for initiating corrective action. response should provide the action taken regarding each Major Recommendation and items listed in the Memorandum of Administrative Findings. A second response is required after an additional 30 days for actions that have not been completed when the initial response is submitted.

(Note: It is recognized that most of the details of administration are handled for USIS by the Administrative Staff of the Embassy on the basis of reimbursement for administrative support services. It is the responsibility of the Public Affairs Officer to bring the recommendations in this report to the attention of the Embassy Staff, so that appropriate adjustments may be made to enable the Public Affairs Officer to comply with the recommendations. If the Embassy Administrative Officer is unable to make the necessary adjustments, or has objections, this should be stated in the Public Affairs Officer's report on the action taken, together with a clear statement of the Embassy's comments.)

III PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF AUDIT

The audit was made to verify the accuracy and propriety of financial and management operations of USIS Venezuela. It included a review of internal controls and administrative records maintained by the Post and an examination of services rendered and records maintained for USIS Venezuela by the Administrative Section of the Embassy. The Auditor examined records at the Post to the extent he considered necessary. A detailed examination was not made of all transactions.

The Post is staffed with 9 American and 27 Foreign Service National employees. In addition, the Post has procured the services of several

USIA'S RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HELMS

Question 1. Your grants program has been receiving a lot of scrutiny over the issue of "balance." I am somewhat concerned over the Interpretation of the word "balance." I certainly think we should present the truth about the United States, not only because the truth is our strongest suit, but because it is the right thing to do. I do not think, though, that if a truth is told about the United States that demonstrates this fundamental goodness of our country, it is necessary for the sake of a specious balance to have someone attacking that truth. In fact, I think the guise of "balance" is sometimes deliberately used to disguise attacks on the United States. It is a false notion of fairness that says if something nice is said about us, something bad must be said as well. The overwhelming evidence, I believe, is that this is a very good country. I wonder if you agree with this interpretation?

Answer. Yes. In no sense was it envisioned that the operational implementation of the grant guidelines for the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs would require that negative views of the United States must "balance" the positive.

The guidelines provide that specific procedures would be developed for each Bureau Office. Hence, for the Office of Academic Programs, the notion of balance would provide that grant consideration recognize the variety of academic approaches often associated with the various disciplines in which grants are awarded. In the case of the Office of International Visitor Programs, we strive to ensure that programming conveys a sense of the vitality of freedom of thought within the United States. For the Office of Private Sector Programs, we interpret the guidelines to mean that programs funded by the Bureau should be bipartisan and not exclusively representative of the policies of an individual Administration. The guidelines also provide that, on those few occasions in which organizations "with clearly political purposes" are awarded grants because of the organizations' "specialized knowledge and resources. .. [s]uch organizations should not . . . receive grants for projects or programs that are intended to promote their own political purposes. Overall, but not in each case, ECA grants to such organizations must be balanced in terms of orientation of participants, numbers and dollars."

Question 2. USIA has almost no domestic constituency. Thus, it seems particularly important for your congressional liaison to overcome your handicap with Congress. During the first 2 years of this administration certain members of this committee and their staffs were never contacted by your congressional liaison office.

(a) What remedies have you taken to address that problem?

(b) Do you consider it the task of congressional liaison to advocate USIA programs, or to mollify the opposition?

(c) We do not feel we are getting adequate information on the good things you are doing. Would you consider permitting your bureau and office directors to come to the Hill directly to inform us of your programs and needs?

Answer. (a) For the last 22 years, USIA has had one senior Congressional Liaison Officer, who has been in contact with the office of every member of the Committee on numerous occasions. Beginning in 1981 with the organization of a Republican Senate, calls were made within the first 2 months on the staffs of every committee member. As appointees were nominated to fill top positions in the Agency, "courtesy" appointments were sought with each member of the Committee. Most members indicated little interest in meeting USIA appointees, and calls generally were limited to short sessions with Chairman Percy and Senator Pell.

In early April 1983, a second senior Congressional Liaison Officer was added to the staff, to expand the Agency's regular contact with a broader range of members and staffs. Two junior professionals also were added to the Agency's congressional relations staff in August 1982 and March 1983.

Contacts with Members' offices have not been limited to the Congressional Liaison Staff. The office of Public Liaison sends a regular newsletter to all Members of the Agency's authorization and appropriations committees providing an update on Agency activities. The Director and his principal associates meet or talk by phone on a regular basis with a number of key Senators and Congress

men.

(b) The task of USIA Congressional Liaison encompasses both the objective of advocating USIA programs and the corollary role of explaining such programs to all interested parties. This Agency does not consider any Member of Congress to be "in the opposition" to its broad mandate in the national interest. Neither should the Agency's efforts be characterized as "mollifying." USIA attempts in every instance to present the case for the Agency's program objectives to individuals who may have reservations concerning those programs. The objective is to win supporters for Agency goals.

(c) This Agency is constantly attempting to improve the quality and quantity of information flow between the Agency and the Hill. The Agency has in the past arranged for bureau heads and office directors to meet with Members and key congressional staff upon request, and will be glad to continue to do so. Question 3. What comes to mind particularly is a Washington Post article of January 18, 1983 reporting on a conference of the African-American Institute. I do not know if USIA or AID funded this particular gathering which seems to have been quite anti-American, but the article raises some disturbing questions about this group's orientation.

Have you undertaken any reconsideration of your relationship with the African-American Institute?

Answer. The Agency has recently examined the Institute's financial records in depth and has concluded that the conference mentioned in the Washington Post article was not supported by U.S. Government funds. A copy of the report prepared as a result of the examination is attached.

The Agency's relationship with the African-American Institute has been under intensive review for almost two years. Staff in our Office of International Visitor Prorgams have monitored AAI's performance closely during that period, and it is their view that AAI's performance, while deficient in some respects in the past, is now comparable to that of other organizations providing similar services for the International Visitor Program. The Agency's Office of Inspections also looked into USIA's relationship with AAI as part of its review of the Office of International Visitor Programs. The inspection team reached the same conclusions about AAI as are held by staff of the Office of International Visitor Programs.

A special Review Panel of outside experts was also convened during the period October 13-15 to examine AAI's programming of International Visitors from Africa. Panel members, chosen to represent a range of professional perspectives, reviewed past studies of the AAI and its relations with the Agency and interviewed invited witnesses representing various points of view. The study concluded that USIA should regularize its relationship with AAI and should strengthen communication in a number of areas. The Agency is in the process of responding to the report, a copy of which is attached for your information. Question 4. What is the extent of that relationship?

Answer. Since fiscal year 1962, AAI has been arranging under grant agreement U.S. programs for African International Visitors sponsored, first, by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the Department of State and. since 1978, by the United States Information Agency. In addition, since the mid-1960's the Agency's Student Support Services Division has provided small grants to AAI to enable its Washington office to provide advisory services to meet the special needs of African students, numbering some 4,000 in the Washington Metropolitan area.

Question 5. What kind of evaluation and recommendations has your Office of International Visitors provided concerning AAI?

Answer. As indicated above, the Office of International Visitor Programs has been monitoring AAI's performance closely. It is the view of staff of this Office that AAI's performance is now comparable to other agencies providing similar services and that its relationship with AAI should continue in fiscal year 1984 with close monitoring.

Question 6. What are your future plans with AAI?

Answer. The Institute has been informed that the Agency anticipates it will be asked to arrange (1) two regional projects-"The United States: A Pluralistic Society" and "State and Local Government Administration" are the planned topics-involving approximately 18 International Visitors and (2) individual programs for approximately 132 African visitors in fiscal year 1984. In order to accommodate the approximately 150 International Visitors we are projecting