|
feature
GSA Conferences Scandal Affecting Participation of Federal Scientists and Engineers in Society Conferences
By Chris
Brantley
Revelations that the federal
General Services Administration (GSA) spent over
$823K on a Western Region Conference held in
Las Vegas in 2010 prompted a congressional
investigation, introduction of legislation and
issuance of an Executive Branch directive on
agency conference spending that is significantly
impacting the participation of federal
scientists and engineers in society conferences.
GSA is the federal agency
responsible for federal acquisition policies and
managing federal properties. In investigating
the Western Regions Conference, Congress
identified a pattern of lavish spending by GSA
on conferences dating back several
administrations. Currently, 77 different GSA
conferences are under review.
As soon as the scandal broke,
Republican leaders in the House and Senate moved
to attach conference provisions to current
legislation moving in each body. In the House,
Congressman Darryl Issa offered a conferences
amendment to his Digital Accountability and
Transparency Act of 2011 (H.R. 2146) or
DATA Act that would require the a 20
percent cut in federal spending on conferences
and restrict federal agencies to sending
personnel to only one non-agency-sponsored
conference per year. Similar language was
appended by Senator Tom Coburn to the 21st
Century Postal Services Act (S. 1789) in the
Senate. Both bills were approved in their
respective bodies on 25 April but have not seen
action in the opposite chambers since referral.
The Issa and Coburn amendments
prompted a response by the association
community, warning that their provisions would
have “a chilling effect on government employees’
participation in non-governmental meetings and
conferences.” IEEE joined several hundred other
associations in a joint letter to Congress
organized by the American Society of Association
Executives (ASAE) that called on Congress to
limit the restrictions to federally sponsored
conferences only, and to remove the restriction
limiting support to one conference per agency
per year.
At this juncture, IEEE-USA also
joined the fray, communicating its concerns to
the Senate. In a 9 May letter to Senator Joseph
Lieberman, sponsor of the Postal Services Act,
IEEE-USA President Jim Howard cautioned that
“limiting federal participation in scientific
and technical conferences would not only
adversely impact the ability of those federal
agencies to advance their critical missions in
such S&T dependent fields as health information,
cybersecurity, defense and energy, but would
also undermine the overall federal effort to
promote innovation, economic growth and
continued U.S. technological competitiveness."
Fueled by election year
politics, the GSA scandal continued to drive
high levels of Congressional interest, even as
support for passage of the Data and the
Postal Services Acts waned. Rep. Joe
Walsh introduced new legislation, specifically
targeted at the conferences issue. The GSA
Act of 2012 (H.R. 4631) proposed a 30
percent cut in federal reimbursements for travel
through 2017; outlined $100K and $500K approval
thresholds for federal expenditures on specific
conferences (with requirements of high-level
reviews and waivers); and imposed a public
access requirement on all materials delivered by
federal attendees at conferences (e.g. papers,
video, etc.). The spending cap in the GSA
Act would extend through 2017.
The Walsh bill was reported out
of committee on 27 June and House Majority
Leader Eric Cantor indicated plans to bring it
to the House floor under a suspension of the
rules prior to Congress’s August break.
However, the press of other legislation delayed
the House vote on the GSA Act until
September, when it passed by voice vote on 11
Sept. The bill was referred to the Senate,
which quickly adjourned for the elections, but
remains live legislation (along with the DATA
and Postal Act bills) if the Senate
decides to take up the conferences issue in its
post-election lame-duck session.
In an attempt to head off
legislation and show that it was managing the
issue effectively, the White House issued a
management directive through the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on 11 May.
Entitled “Promoting Efficient Spending to
Support Agency Operations,” the OMB Directive
called on agencies to reduce spending on
conference-related reimbursements by 30 percent,
and established spending caps with an agency
waiver process for federal conference
participation costs totaling $100K, and an
“Exceptional Circumstances” waiver for
conferences with federal costs of $500K or
more. OMB defined conferences to include any
“meeting, retreat, seminar, symposium or event
that involves attendee travel.” Covered
expenses include “all direct and indirect
conference costs paid by the government, whether
paid directly by agencies or reimbursed by
agencies to travelers or others associated with
the conference, but do not include funds paid
under Federal grants to grantees.”
As federal agencies began to
implement the OMB directive, impacts on various
science and engineering society technical
conferences began to manifest, from withdrawal
of federal exhibitors, to resignation of federal
employees serving in conference leadership
positions, to reductions in conference
attendance. Some association conferences, such
as the annual meeting of the American
Astronautical Society, were so severely impacted
that they were canceled. IEEE conferences, both
large and small, have been affected in various
ways, from Supercomputing and MilCom to the IEEE
Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging
Conference.
Within already cash-strapped
federal agencies, the directive allowed managers
to restrict conference participation in various
ways, often resulting in significant
inconsistencies in practice between agencies.
Some managers restricted participation to 10
persons or less. Some agencies required
participation levels be kept below the $100K
threshold (which effectively limits
participation to 40-50 persons) or limited
participation to conferences deemed by
management to be “mission-critical.” Other
agencies established internal review processes
requiring 90 days, and, in some instances, as
much as one year advance notice of requests to
attend professional technical conferences.
Another emerging problem is the
scope of the restriction. In addition to
professional technical conferences, some
agencies and departments are restricting travel
to participate in federal advisory committee
meetings, National Academy/National Research
Council meetings, standard-setting meetings, and
official international engagements.
Agencies are also addressing the
accounting of expenses differently. Some are
counting conference grants against the spending
limits; others are not. And some agencies are
apparently counting salary and benefits provided
to employees during the time spent at
conferences as part of their conference-related
expense.
IEEE-USA and other affected
science and engineering societies began
collaborating on the issue in July, sharing
concerns with OMB and with Congress, and working
to educate legislators on the value that the
federal government and federal scientists and
engineers derive from participation in technical
conferences.
In August, IEEE-USA joined with
the Association of Computing Machinery, the
Computing Research Association and the Society
for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (all
co-sponsors of Supercomputing 2012) in a
communication to the President's S&T Advisor
John Holdren and to Congress urging that
recognized scientific, technical and educational
meetings and meetings of national and
international standards bodies be exempted from
the federal restrictions. The letter was
highlighted in a New York Times piece (23
Oct. 2013), in which ACM President Vint Cerf
noted “the inability of government researchers
and program managers to participate in these
conferences is actually very damaging.”
In anticipation that Congress
might take up conferences-related legislation in
its post-election “lame-duck” session, IEEE-USA
joined with other science and engineering
societies in endorsing a 5 Oct. letter by the
Materials Research Society to Congressional
leaders cautioning against onerous restrictions
on travel to professional meetings. According
to MRS:
“Unlike many professions,
the nature of scientists' work requires them
to share research findings with their peers
and colleagues at scientific conferences and
meetings. This peer collaboration process is
fundamental to scientific advances and is
unlikely to be achieved without this
personal interaction. The impact is seen in
national security, energy, health sciences,
and many other fields of endeavor from which
our country has benefited over many years.”
More recently, the IEEE-USA
released a position statement on “Participation
in Professional Conferences By Government
Scientists and Engineers.” The statement
reminds federal recipients of existing White
House directives, reinforcing the importance of
professional development of federal scientists
and engineers through participation in
professional conferences.
The position highlights the
value of conference participation as an
efficient way to advance innovation and support
agency missions, as well as a valuable resource
for the professional development of the
participating federal scientists
In its statement, IEEE-USA
recommends that OMB clarify its definition of
meetings so that it does not cover meetings
involving Federal Advisory Committees, National
Academies meetings, standards-setting bodies,
and official international engagements. It also
urges the Administration to exempt professional
science and engineering conferences from its
travel and conference restrictions.
While IEEE-USA and other society
recommendations have fallen on largely
sympathetic ears, the political potency of the
GSA Scandal makes it difficult, if not
impossible for either party in Congress or for
the Administration to back off its current
restrictions. After the election, there is some
hope that OMB will tweak its directive to
clarify definitions and improve consistency of
application among the affected federal
agencies.
However, the underlying driver
of the OMB policy is the need of the federal
government to reduce overall expenditures, and
that is not likely to change in the foreseeable
future. Unfortunately, the GSA Scandal gave
agencies a tool and a rationale to justify
cutting back their participation in science and
engineering conferences as a way to reduce
spending, which is likely to have continuing
impacts on federal science and engineering
professionals and the science and engineering
societies for years to come.
For Additional Reading
Postal Reform Act (S.
1789) (Sec. 501a4)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.01789:
DATA Act (H.R. 2146)
(Sec. 308)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.02146:
GSA Act (H.R. 4631)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.04631:
OMB Directive M-12-12 (May 11)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-12.pdf
IEEE-USA Position Statement on
Participation of Federal Scientists and
Engineers in Professional Conferences
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/profconferences1012.pdf
Other Referenced EEE-USA Policy
Communications
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/policy/index.html
Chris Brantley is IEEE-USA's
managing director in Washington, D.C.
Comments may be submitted to
todaysengineer@ieee.org.
home
|
