Question. On January 18, 1995, I understand an awards ceremony or graduation ceremony relating to the quality management training cited in your testimony took place. The following questions refer to that event:

How many people were in attendance?

Based on the length of the ceremony, how many person hours were expended during that time?

What was the total cost of the event, not counting staff salaries? Please include the individual cost for photography services, (include how many photographs were taken and how many copies were produced), recording studio services (how many video copies were produced and specify they were distributed to), the certificates given out, the books distributed, and the satellite feed. Was the guest who spoke via satellite fee paid for his appearance? If so, how much?

I understand some of the Total Quality management classes were videotaped, some with yourself as presenter. What was the purpose in videotaping the classes? How many classes were taped at what total length? What was the cost of videotaping these classes? How many copies were distributed and to whom?

I understand that awards, such as crystal bowls, as given to honor employees of the month. Please specify the recipients of these awards from January 3, 1995 to date and any anticipated awardees. Detail the cost of the awards.

Are there any other mementos given as awards-describe the mementos and the total cost for 1995 and anticipated for 1996?

Under what authority were expenditures made for the awards ceremony and for the employee of the month awards? To what account are these expenses attributed? Response. There were 409 CAO employees honored at the graduation ceremony who had successfully completed the course "Building a Quality Culture." The ceremony took two hours. The majority of the time was for each graduate to walk to the stage and receive a diploma and a congratulatory letter from the Speaker. For many this was their first official recognition during their tenure with the House. Over 98 percent of those receiving diplomas had begun their employment with the House prior to the 104th Congress. Approximately 830 staff hours were encumbered during the ceremony with all graduates and trainers present. The costs incurred for the ceremony are as follows:

Satellite Link

Videotaping

Printing (for the diplomas printed directly from computer files)
Photography (including a print for each graduate)

Total

$800

337

25

435

1,597

The Philip Crosby book "Quality Without Tears" was purchased as part of the training materials provided to each CAO employee. The books were distributed at the ceremony to make the link to Mr. Crosby's remarks. The cost of the books was $5,040.

30 copies were produced: 12 went to Leadership; 14 went to Members; 1 went to Mr. Crosby; and 3 are still in the CAO inventory for training purposes.

The ceremony was both a recognition and a learning experience. Mr. Philip Crosby, upon whose works some of the training materials were based, spoke to the employees. Mr. Crosby spoke for free as he did not need to travel from his home. Representative Steny Hoyer had also planned to address the graduates, but had to cancel.

The original day and a half version of "Building a Quality Culture" was presented to 65 CAO managers during the summer of 1995. Majority staff of the Committee on House Oversight and from the Inspector General's Office were also in attendance. (Minority staff were invited, but did not attend). The CAO, who designed the course, taught all three summer sessions.

The second of the three sessions of "Building a Quality Culture" was videotaped for use in other training sessions. It is considered important, by successful world class companies, to have top leadership display their own commitment to a quality culture. Having the CAO directly teaching material he developed on tape, and showing portions of the presentation to emphasize key points during other training sessions is an important part of this commitment. The only copy of this session is kept at the Organization and Employee Development Center.

The videotaping of "Building a Quality Culture" was the first time studio employees worked outside of the studio environment. As it was anticipated that remote filming would be part of Channel 25 programming, each studio employee was used to videotape a portion of the training session as a training exercise. Therefore, no cost were charged.

COMPLIANCE VIDEOTAPING

The only other training that has been videotaped are all the Compliance training sessions. These are currently being shown as part of the programming on Channel Videotaping Compliance training sessions. Costs include editing and post produc

25.

If viewed in the scope of preventative measure, the information on these tapes may educate a Member or staffer so that litigation may be avoided in the future.

RECOGNITION AWARDS

There was no formal recognition system in place anywhere in the CAO when the 104th Congress began. Recognition for excellence, both for individuals and teams, is an important part of building a world class service organization. Recognition builds self-esteem and fosters a sense of common community and team spirit which is vital in any service organization. There is now both a formal and an informal recognition system in place throughout the CAO. Informal recognition is designed to be spontaneous and driven by employee input.

The formal recognition system has included certificates of commendation and outstanding service to thank employees involved in successfully implementing major reforms. There have been ceremonies for the Auction, the transfer of the Postal Window operations, the outsourcing of mail delivery, the Shoeshine outsourcing, and the Salons outsourcing. Last June 1995 there was the first annual CAO Award, which is the highest award given within the CAO for sustained excellence and being a role model for other employees. It is a "peer" generated and "peer" selected award. This means that the employees themselves nominate and select who deserves this award, within the criteria (similar to the way the Academy Awards work).

At this point, the only "employee of the month" program in operation is at HIR. The recognition is simply a certificate and the use of Associate Administrator Ken Miller's parking space for a short period of time. It is designed to showcase key employees during HIR's "town meeting."

For the year 1995 two CAO awards were presented. One went to Tom Anfinson in the Management Category, the other to Scott Granieri, in the General Employee Category. Both received engraved crystal bowls. The bowls were paid for out of the CAO "sunshine fund," a pool of money built from employee and management voluntary contributions and held at the Credit Union. This fund pays fund is a more efficient, accountable and equitable way of taking care of the ongoing needs of a large organization instead of ad hoc "collections" every time flowers or cakes are required.

The recognition system within the CAO is designed to provide a sense of worth and purpose for all employees. It is also designed to run with nominal expenditures. All certificates are printed on the computer so the only cost since January 1995 has been the use of bond paper (under $50). In order to recognize team leaders and key employees some of these certificates are placed in the $10 "sleeve plaques" sold at

the House stationary store (a total of 20 of these have been used for a total expenditure of $200). These expenditures came out of Immediate Office of the CAO funds.

At times during the reform implementation the CAO has personally handed out mementos to mark key successes. These tend to be lighthearted items which focus attention on jobs well done and provide a spirit of comarderie for a group of employees who have sometimes worked 70 to 100 hours a week to make sure things are accomplished. Caps, pins and wood puzzles have been the main items given out. All have had a value of under ten dollars and have been provided by the CAO from his own funds and reimbursement has not been requested.

Question. Has the Committee on House Oversight policy on disposition of equipment been enforced? Has it been used? If so, when were sales held. Give a summary of the types of items sold and those pending disposal. What is the CAO's view of the policy? How is the policy carried out?

Response. The CHO policy on disposition of used or surplus furniture and equipment is to comply with the requirements of 2 USC Section 117E without exception. The CAO agrees with this policy. It has been enforced and used since the beginning of the 104th Congress.

The statute provides for disposition of used equipment of the House of Representatives, by trade-in or sale, directly or through the General Services Administration. Following this, Office Systems Management disposes of equipment through GSA, Surplus Sales, trade-ins, transfers to other Government Agencies, sales through a bidding process to used equipment vendors and (in district offices) donations to charitable organizations. Surplus Sales in district offices was done as a pilot project. A majority of equipment is disposed through GSA both in Washington and district offices. To be eligible for disposition, equipment must meet one of the following criteria: The commitment period has expired; repair is not economically feasible; or it is obsolete.

OSM maintains a list of equipment meeting this criteria. OSM works with GSA to schedule a shipment. A GSA SF 126 form is prepared by OSM and is used as a receiving document by GSA at the time of shipment. For district office disposals an SF120 form is prepared for all disposals unless the office has requested a trade-in or wishes to make a charitable donation. GSA personnel in the district arrange to remove the items. If a district office chooses to make a charitable donation in the district a donation form must be filled out.

Some equipment that was deemed surplus after the closing of LSO's and Postal Operations was sold through a bidding process.

Not all equipment which is surplus in one office is appropriate for disposition. In Washington, equipment that is in demand for reissue, for example, 486 level computers and plain paper faxes are kept in House Inventory. Upon receipt of a user request, House Inventory equipment is reissued and added to the new user's inventory.

In previous years, equipment that was determined to be available for disposition was made available to House staff for personal purchase. This surplus sales program was halted in 1995. While surplus sales brought in revenues, the program was perceived as providing an inappropriate "insiders advantage" to House employees. In 1995 $10,747.00 was deposited into the U.S. Treasury from the sale of surplus equipment. A breakdown of broad categories of equipment types that were sold follows:

Pending deposits to be made in 1996 total approximately $5,767.00. There are approximately 400 additional items that were at one time deemed eligible to be submitted for approval for Surplus Sales. Much of this equipment however is of a lower level of technology and will probably now be excessed to GSA. Approximately 300 items are available for sale, but again have reached a level of obsolescence and should now be excessed to GSA. OSM does not have a readily available breakdown of categories of this equipment.

In some cases, e.g., the House furniture auction and the disposition of equipment from the folding room, it is possible that a direct disposition by the House is appropriate. The CAO is exploring the possibility of contracting with liquidators for this

purpose. In most cases, however, it will be more appropriate to dispose of surplus equipment through GSA. This is an efficient method which does not require much time of OSM staff and allows them to perform their primary function of providing service to Members.

Under the new Procurement Guidelines for purchasing Equipment, Software and Related Services vendors may but are not required to offer trade-ins. It is too soon to know if this policy will reduce the amount of trade-ins that the House can take.

PHOTOGRAPHY OFFICE

Question. Your office was very apologetic about a recent snafu where a scheduled photographer did not make an appointment set by my office. What is the policy for making refunds to offices when reimbursable services are not rendered as promised? Is this policy uniform across CAO services which Member offices reimburse? By what authority is the CAO permitted to absorb these costs?

Response: The CAO does not have a policy of making refunds to offices when reimbursable services are not rendered as promised. The Member has to sign a form to be billed for the appointment; if they refuse to sign or if the appointment is canceled, no bill is generated.

In addition to the Office of Photography, the CAO offices that charge a fee for service are: Furniture Resource Center for framing; HIR for graphics; Communications Media for recording services; and Retail for office supplies and gift shop purchases. Each operation has its own means of assuring customer satisfaction.

Furniture Resource Center meets with the customer for the selection and measuring of items to be framed. To date, no customer has requested a refund for framing. HIR's Graphics Department has the customer review the final proof prior to sending the material to the blotter for print, a practice that has served to avoid rework on the part of both parties. In Communications Media, the Associate Administrator or someone higher makes the decision as to whether someone get a discount or is not charged. Generally if a Member is dissatisfied, Communications Media will take back the tapes and the customer is either not charged or gets a credit depending upon the point in the process the complaint occurs. Retail will exchange merchandise if it is damaged through manufacturer error or delivery, and will accept returns with a receipt for up to 90 days.

The CAO has direction from the Committee on House Oversight to charge Members for goods delivered and services rendered. Inherent in the direction to charge for goods and services is the reverse: not charging if the goods are defective or the services are not delivered.

Question. Provide usage statistics for the House Recording Studio for the last five years. What has been the effect of the changes in operation and services made last year by the Committee on House Oversight? What are the "long-range" budget implications?

Response. The statistics (based on a legislative year) below indicate the total number of users for the various functions provided by the House Recording Studio.

Five changes have been made to the operation and services offered: reduced staffing; reduced hours of operation; reduced capacity; closure when the House is not in session; and the prohibition against use of the facility 60 days prior to a primary or general election. The effect of the changes was not uniform.

REDUCED STAFF

The effect of reduced staffing has been a reduced capacity for responding to spontaneous demands for studio services. Members are required to plan in advance or use an outside facility.

REDUCED HOURS

Meant to support the smaller employee base and reflect actual usage patterns, the effect of reduced hours has been similar to that of reduced staffing.

The new hours were structured to reflect a more business-oriented schedule. Services are thus unavailable to Members after 6:00 pm. Members who desire service when the studio is closed outside firms instead, generally at a higher cost since the industry practice is to charge premium rates after 6:00 PM.

The reduced hours have no effect on overtime. Every overtime hour accrued so far by Studio personnel has been due to Floor coverage of Special orders after normal business hours has finished.

Most complaints from Members and staff have concerned reduced availability of the facility.

Further automation of studio functions and redeployment of staff may alleviate the problem somewhat, although it is possible that enough Members will decline to do repeat business with the Studio that revenue will be negatively affected.

REDUCED CAPACITY

One of two TV studios (studio B), was closed, which reduced the amount of studio time available to Members. However, studio B is used for video conferencing and the control room for this facility is also used for channel 25 productions. With proper use of robotic cameras and free lance staff, studio B could be diverted to member use during peak periods of peak demand.

CLOSURE OF THE STUDIO WHEN THE HOUSE IS NOT IN SESSION

This change has had several positive effects. It allows the engineering staff to catch up on normal, preventative and corrective maintenance. Also, employees have the opportunity to participate in cross-training. Employees may also be granted time off which will decrease the overtime paid out. The downside is that the facilities are not available to Members who remain in town, which can result in the loss of both revenue and goodwill.

PROHIBITION ON STUDIO USE BEFORE ELECTIONS

The effect of the prohibition is mixed. Obviously, revenues will suffer during election years, although not all Members have primaries, so the impact is not as severe as it could be. Also there is a discrepancy between the prohibition language used by the June 14, 1995 resolution and that used by the Congressional Handbook, which has not gone unnoticed by Members affected by the primary election prohibition.

The prohibition on use prior to the general election will effectively close the studio for that sixty day period. Thus, while the intent of the prohibition to reduce the use of the studio as a tool of incumbency is served, the goal of generating revenues that cover the cost of operations is not.

On the positive side, it provides time for re-allocation of staff resources: training for staff, annual leave, compensatory time, equipment demonstrations, maintenance, installation, and employee cross-training.

Long range budget implications are difficult to forecast at this point. Since this is an election year, and one in which new regulations for use of the facilities are in place as noted above, budgetary impacts are an open question. This issue will be revisited later in the year when statistics are available on usage in the months and days immediately preceding the 60 day general election "shutdown".

Question. Provide a chart listing the month by month activities by the CAO's OneCall.Office from January 3, 1995 to date. What are the total resources devoted to this service?

Response. The establishment of One.Call was approved by the Committee on House Oversight on June 14, 1995. The unit was not operational until August 3.