Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. BOWSHER. The last closing effort involved three big offices in this past year, but we have gone from 40 offices to 16 over the last

10 years.

Ms. DODARO. Since you came in. And also we have closed all of our overseas operations. We are no longer in Europe. Our Far East office, located in Hawaii, is now closed.

Mr. PACKARD. How has that changed your workload?

Mr. BOWSHER. Before the Berlin Wall came down, our country had 350,000 American military and 500,000 civilians in Europe. I often say that one of our reports showed that the ninth largest school district in America was in Germany. Now the American military presence in Europe is down to less than 100,000, and so I think it made sense for GAO to come home.

The only thing that surprised me is that the United States went into Bosnia, and then we were requested to work on that issue. We have got some people back over there, but they are on temporary duty travel.

EARLY-OUT PROGRAM

Mr. PACKARD. Let me get into our early-out program. You addressed it, but I would be interested in knowing if that-if your program that you implemented met your expectations and if it accomplished what you needed.

Mr. BOWSHER. Yes, it did. It sure did. Joan ran it, and it was excellent.

Ms. DODARO. We estimated that approximately 300 staff would leave us, not counting the offices we were closing. Actually 418 staff took advantage of it. It was a big leg up on our downsizing. Had we not been able to use that voluntarily, it would have made much more painful the involuntary cuts.

Mr. PACKARD. Let me insert a question for answer in the record and then proceed.

[The question and response follow:]

Question. At your request, we authorized an early out program last year. Did that program meet your expectation? Outline the program and the number of employees who took advantage of it.

Response. A total of 418 staff retired or resigned under our separation incentive program which ended September 30, 1995. This program was of great value in our efforts to effectively manage our downsizing without causing a major disruption in our work for the Congress. We believe the program to be both successful and costeffective since a forced reduction-in-force (RIF) would have been more costly than the buy-out program and more disruptive to the performance of our mission.

However, even with the success of the buy-out program, GAO has to involuntarily separate about 400 people in order to meet the downsizing targets established by the Congress. In November 1995, 3 regional offices were closed resulting in the separation of over 200 staff. Also, an estimated 200 staff will receive RIF notices in April 1996.

SIZE OF RIF

Mr. PACKARD. How much was the involuntary RIF?

Ms. DODARO. We lost over 200 people in the 3 regional offices in November, over half through involuntary RIF and next month we will be sending about 200 RIF notices, in Washington primarily.

Mr. PACKARD. Is there a way-and it brings me back to this whole concept of balancing out your staff, the expertise of your

staff. Is there a way that that RIFing process that is yet to be done could also be done in light of how to better balance your staff?

Ms. DODARO. We certainly considered that. Certainly in the RIFing that we are doing, we are RIFing positions that we think have the least impact on our ability to perform our critical missions. We are certainly not RIFing positions that we feel are critical to us.

Mr. BOWSHER. We are working hard to maintain the staffing balance needed.

TOP LEVEL MANAGEMENT

Mr. PACKARD. I assumed you would. That is part of the purpose of the hearing.

Occasionally we hear that GAO has too many top-level managers, and you have already addressed the fact that you have been reducing that level.

Mr. BOWSHER. We did a benchmarking study that shows that we really had fewer than our counterparts, both in the government and in the private sector, and maybe it would be good if this were put in the record. I think that would give you an illustration of where we stand.

Also, Mr. Chairman, we now testify at practically 250 hearings every year. That is more than any other agency except maybe the Defense Department. And so we need the SESers to handle such a high volume of hearings. When I first came to GAO in 1981, I was really surprised at what kind of a workload we had.

I will always remember having Dr. Deming over for a Saturday session one time, and we met with some partners from McKenzie & Company, who were dumfounded as to our ratio of top-level managers to staff. We have got it in pretty good shape, and now our SES staff is down about 14 percent with the early-outs. We went out and benchmarked the ratio just to make sure that we were more than in line, you might say, on this.

Mr. PACKARD. One of the concerns I think that I heard was that with the heavy management-heavier than perhaps appropriate management level, that this slowed some reports down because they would have to go through a greater number of management levels.

Mr. BOWSHER. There is always the concern for the review process. But we do need a thorough review process because if we were to issue reports that were factually wrong or couldn't be supported, you would be embarrassed and then we would be embarrassed. So now what we are doing, and this started from Dr. Deming's visit, is trying to streamline our process.

We have a big effort going on. It is my last effort, really, to change the management at GAO; to try to standardize and reduce the number of reviews. And that is supposed to be fully implemented at the end of June.

Now, a year or two years are always needed to work out the bugs on such a major change. This is really a big effort we are working

on.

Mr. PACKARD. Let me ask you to expand on this for the record. [The information follows:]

Question. We have heard that GAO has too many top level managers and that this delays the completion of reports because of the layers of management reviews. Your budget material states you are identifying opportunities for "reducing the management workforce".

Will you outline your goals in this review? This sounds like it could produce significant improvements in productivity and cost savings.

Response. Our goal was to conduct a study, as requested by the Senate in the legislative branch appropriations act for fiscal year 1996, and submit a report on the number of SES and Band III staff (GS-15 equivalent) we need to manage our work at the reduced level of staffing authorized for GAO.

The report, provided for the record, points out that as a result of our overall downsizing initiatives, GAO has lost about 14% of its SES staff and over 12% of its Band III staff. We have not replaced these staff.

Congressional committees rely heavily on GAO for dependable expertise in many areas. For example since the 1970's the number of times that we have been asked to testify in congressional hearings and deliver Congressional briefings each year has grown over four-fold. Last year we provided testimony and briefings over 400 times. Experienced, senior people are critical to properly provide this service. Also, many of our employees who are at the Band III (GS-15 equivalent) and above level provide technical expertise and are not functioning in management or supervisory roles. They provide valuable expertise which we are not able to obtain at lower grade levels. Overall, we do not believe that the number of employees in GAO at the Band III and above level is too large given the scope, complexity and demands that are placed upon our staff by the Congress.

Also, when compared to executive branch agencies and to major public accounting and consulting firms who have similar roles, GAO's ratio of senior level people to its total population is modest. For example, GAO's SES workforce comprises about 3% of our total population. The ratio of senior level people to the total population in comparable major accounting firms range from about 5% to 9% of total staffing. GAO's ratio of senior level people compared to some other government agencies is favorable: the Office of Management and Budget has 18%, the Congressional Research Service 10%, the National Labor Relations Board 7%, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7%, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 5%.

[blocks in formation]

Subject: Report on GAO's SES and Band III Management Needs

As you know, the Senate Report on the legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 1996 asked us to conduct a study and submit a report on the number of SES and Band III staff we need to manage our work at the reduced level of staffing authorized for GAO. We have completed that study and submitted our report to the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch. A copy of that report is attached for your information.

The report points out that, as a result of our overall downsizing initiatives, the number of SES and Band IIIs at GAO has already been reduced by more than 10

percent. We plan to continue to consult with our appropriating and authorizing committees about our management needs in the future.

Attachment

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The Senate Report on the legislative branch appropriation for fiscal year 1996 asked us to conduct a study and submit a report on the number of managerial (Band III) and executive (Senior Executive Service or SES) personnel needed to manage our work at the reduced level of staffing that GAO has been directed to achieve. In asking for this study, the Senate Report asked us to provide alternatives to achieve reductions of at least 10 percent in staff at these levels. This letter responds to that request.

BACKGROUND

GAO operates under an independent personnel authority established by the GAO
Personnel Act of 1980, P.L. 96-191. Under that authority, we have established, for our
general evaluator and attorney positions, a broad-banded personnel system under which
positions are classified into three broad pay bands (I, II, and III) spanning the pay rates
covered by the executive branch's General Schedule (GS) grades 7 through 15. Band
III, our managerial level, is established to be equivalent to the GS-15 pay range. GAO is
also authorized to establish up to 145 permanent positions in the SES; as of January 6,
1996, 125 of those positions were occupied.

RECENT SEPARATIONS HAVE

REDUCED GAO'S SENIOR EXECUTIVE

AND BAND III WORKFORCE

In the past year, through attrition stimulated by a short term buyout authority and the closure of several regional locauons, GAO has lost more than 600 employees. As of

'The two most senior positions in GAO are the Comptroller General and the
Deputy Comptroller General, which are established at Executive Level II and
III respectively. The position of Deputy Comptroller General is currently

vacant.

'GAO was authorized to offer a paration incentive of up to $25,000 to
employees who retired or resigned during 'he period July 31, 1995, through
September 30, 1995.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »