The FEC Strategic Plan identifies performance goals by election cycle or other multi-year time frames. This FY 2000 Performance Plan relates these objectives, goals, and targets to FY 2000. the FY 2000 budget request is couched in terms of resource levels and tied to the four Commission general goals and objectives.

Our Strategic Plan noted the difficulty in developing true measures of performance for the FEC’s mission. It is difficult to define and measure public faith in the political and campaign finance systems. It is also difficult to measure the impact of the FEC on the public’s confidence in the political process. However, the Commission has developed a set of performance indicators which we believe will measure whether we are successful in achieving improved public confidence in the political process.

If we are successful in meeting our performance targets for timely review and processing of reports, if we meet our targets for resolving enforcement actions in a timely manner, and if we are successful in informing and educating the public about campaign finance, we believe this will help ensure the outcomes desired: public confidence in the Commission’s ability to fairly and effectively apply campaign finance rules and to promote disclosure, thereby enabling the electorate to make informed choices in the electoral process.

PERFORMANCE LEVELS AND FUNDING/FTE

We have requested a FY 2000 budget of 356.5 FTE and $38,516,000. This represents an agreement with OMB and is included in the President’s FY 2000 Budget Request. The request represents a continuation of funding from FY 1999, enacted at $36,500,000 and 347 FTE, as adjusted to cover inflation, federal COLAs, and the cost of implementing our Information Technology (IT), or ADP, Strategic Plan. To this "base" or continuing resources level, calculated to be $37.5 million for 347.5 FTE in FY 2000, we have added a request for 9 additional staff in FY 2000. The additional staff would be allocated to the public Financing and compliance programs for audit, enforcement, litigation, and audit review activities in the Commission’s Audit Division and Office of General Counsel (OGC).

The Commission calculated the cost of the President’s FY 2000 mark (from the FY 1999 budget request outyears tables at $37 million), adjusted for increased COLAs in FY 1999 and 2000, as funding 347.5 FTE at a cost of $37.5 million. This reflected a "Minimal performance Level" base budget for FY 2000 of 330.5 FTE, as supplemented by an additional 17 FTE to: process the public funding aspects of the 2000 presidential election (3 FTE), support existing IT programs (4 FTE), provide administrative support (1 FTE), and provide for an increase (9 FTE) to the compliance program. Originally based on a projected appropriation in FY 1999 of $33.7 million for 330.5 FTE, then a projected $35.4 million for 347.5 FTE in FY 1999, we adjusted this to $37.5 million for 347.5 FTE in FY 2000. This is labeled our "Current Resources Performance Level."

Finally, the Commission determined to request a final 9 FTE increment for a FY 2000 budget request of $38.5 million and 356.5 FTE: our FY 2000 requested level. This request is itself 9 FTE short of the "full performance requests" submitted in FY 1998 and FY 1999 to properly process the expected future enforcement workload, plus complete on-going work on the 1996 election cycle major cases. We believe that this FY 2000 request for $38.5 million is a most reasonable funding request.

This submission indicates what the different performance level budgets will "buy" in terms of outcomes, as measured in workloads, service levels, and timeliness goals. In the final analysis, the ability of the Commission to successfully implement the FECA and meet our mission responsibilities flows from the levels of service we are capable of providing. This ultimately impacts on the ability of the Commission to assure the public that the campaign finance system is fairly enforced and fully disclosed.

Displayed below first for each objective and program are the results or predicted outcomes of the Minimal Performance Level of 330.5 FTE. For most programs, this is the only level requested. This is followed by the improvement possible with a Current Resources Performance Level at 347.5 FTE. Only the incremental changes in performance or timeliness are included in the Current Request Performance Level description; if unchanged from the Minimal Performance Level, the section is not reiterated. Next, the performance possible at the FEC Request Performance Level (356.5 FTE) is noted. The only programs which have performance indicated at the levels higher than minimal level are the Public financing program (audits and certification of matching funds), the compliance program (audits, enforcement, litigation, audit review), and the IT support programs.

Finally, the performance level possible at the Full Performance level of 365.5 FTE are identified. We did not request this level of funding, but the performance plan indicates what level of compliance would have been possible at this Full performance level.

The final increment contained in the FY 2000 request represents a total of 9 FTE: 6 for enforcement and litigation activities and 3 for audit (public financing) activities.

Failure to receive the requested incremental increase of 6 FTE for the compliance program will adversely impact the enforcement process. Actions to resolve the significant cases remaining from 1996 and 1998, for example, could essentially absorb the majority of existing enforcement resources without the increment. This could reduce the average active caseload for other matters from the 1998 and 2000 cycles to below 30% of pending cases and result in too few cases resolved with substantive action and too many cases which otherwise merit Commission attention and action dismissed with no action whatsoever. Accurate and timely disclosure is diminished without the real expectation that laws and regulations will be enforced and that non-compliance with the FECA has real consequences.

The three FTE requested for Audit staff will enable the Commission to assure that all the 2000 cycle public funding audits are completed within two years of the 2000 general election, and still maintain a credible Title 2 audit program for non-presidential committees. The five temporaries in the base assure the timely processing of matching fund requests. This is a priority, as it is assumed that the open presidential primaries in both parties in the 2000 cycle will create the most expensive and competitive presidential elections since implementation of the public funding programs. Rapid turn around of certification requests will be crucial in the 2000 primaries, particularly if a shortfall in the public funds available limits the federal funds available for the 2000 primary elections.

A shortfall in the public funds available will most likely result in increased demands on the Commission’s policy and legal review programs, as candidates seek to maximize limited federal funds in the highly competitive 2000 cycle. The FEC also anticipates increased compliance activity generated by the first presidential election since 1976 for which the public funding is not sufficient to cover the eligible costs of the presidential primary candidates (The 1996 cycle saw a limited shortfall in federal funds which was subsequently made whole; the projected 2000 shortfall will most likely not be made up).

In short, in certain crucial areas the performance targets and timeliness goals for both the 1998 and 2000 election cycles will be improved at the FEC Request Performance Level in FY 2000. The Minimal Performance Level would provide but a minimally acceptable level of Commission operations in what is likely to be a contentious presidential election cycle. Therefore, funding the Commission’s full request of 356.5 FTE and $38,580,000 for FY 2000 is vital. We note that it is about $1 million and 9 FTE less than a Full performance Request for FY 2000 would have cost.

Objective: Promote Disclosure and Provide Information

To meet the desired outcome that the public can make informed choices in the electoral process due to full disclosure of the sources of candidates’ funding for campaigns.

-- Meet 48 hour deadline for making reports available for public review of 99% of reports filed at FEC: process (scan, film, file, code and enter summary data) an estimated 70,000 reports and statements in FY 2000 (Public Disclosure/Data Systems)

-- Code and enter itemized data from disclosure reports filed, 95% complete within 45 days from the date the reports are received at the FEC (estimated 40,000 reports and 1,000,000 transactions in FY 2000); reduce backlog of unprocessed 2000 cycle reports to less than 8,000 by the end of FY 2000 (Data Systems)

-- Respond to 100% of requests for assistance from committees in filing reports within 72 hours; 11,500 estimated in FY 2000 (Reports Analysis)

-- Review 60% of all quarterly reports filed within 90 days of receipt at Commission (75% within 120 days), complete 100% review of all reports

filed, estimated 40,000 in FY 2000; reduce backlog of unreviewed 2000 cycle reports to less than 17,000, and less than 19,000 for all reports from all cycles by the end of FY 2000 (Reports Analysis)

-- Review 100% of all statements received, estimated 12,000 in FY 2000 (Reports Analysis)

-- Prepare RFAI's for 100% of all committees' reports reviewed which require them, 60% within 90 days of receipt at Commission, estimated 10,000 in FY 2000 (Reports Analysis)

-- Respond to 100% of all requests for documents and data within 72 hours in Public Records, estimated at 45,000 in FY 2000; provide 50,000 printouts to requesters of indices (Public Disclosure)

-- Respond to 100% of all press inquiries within 72 hours, and comply with statutory deadlines for 90% of all FOIA requests received; estimated 22,000 and 350 in FY 2000 (Press Office)

-- Respond to 100% of requests for general information on FEC and FECA within 72 hours, 14 days for written requests, estimated at 70,000 calls and requests in FY 2000 (Information)

-- Respond to 100% of requests for copies of forms, the FECA and Regulations, and Commission brochures and guidelines within 72 hours, estimated at 24,000 calls and requests in FY 2000 (Information)

-- Notify all filers of upcoming reporting periods, and provide copies of forms as a pre-reporting notice; publish monthly FEC Record (Information)

-- Publish statutorily required Annual Report in similar fashion to current comprehensive efforts, and publish the following:

-- FEC Disclosure Forms

-- FECA (the Act)

-- FEC Regulations and updates, 11 CFR

-- Campaign Guides

-- Brochures on Election Processes

-- Videos on Campaign Finance (Information)

-- Enable Commission to meet statutory deadlines for issuance or conclude action on Advisory Opinions for 95% of all 60 and 20 day deadlines, estimated 50 in FY 2000, and meet 45-60 day target for AO reconsiderations, 15 days for deficient request notices (OGC)

-- Maintain targets for completion of all rule-making petitions filed pursuant to 11 CFR Part 200, complete revisions to sections of Regulations in FY 2000 (OGC)

-- Respond to all requests for legal assistance from FOIA Officer, and for all FOIA appeals, 95% within statutory deadlines, estimated 350 requests in FY 2000 (OGC)

-- Same as Minimal Performance Level

-- Same as Minimal Performance Level

 

 

-- Same as Minimal Performance Level

Objective: Obtain Compliance and Enforcement

Outcomes desired are the perception by the regulated community that disclosure reports must be accurately and timely filed; that there are real consequences for non-compliance with the FECA; and that the FEC will impartially and speedily enforce the FECA.

-- Refer a total of 200 committees for potential 438(b) audits from the 2000 election cycle in FY 1999-2000, 180 in FY 1999 and the last 20 referrals in FY 2000 (RAD)

-- Refer a total of 35 committees for potential enforcement actions in FY 2000; complete all enforcement referrals within the second FY of the election cycle (all of 2000 cycle by close of FY 2001) (RAD)

-- Publish all committees who fail to file reports, referring the most egregious non-and/or late-filers for potential enforcement action, estimated 15-20 in FY 2000 (RAD)

-- Complete a reduced number of 438(b) audits; initiate an estimated 25 total audits for the 2000 cycle; initiate all authorized committee audits within six months of the election (Audit)

-- maintain a system to identify and assign the more significant enforcement cases, more rapidly dispose of less significant cases, and manage limited staff resources: the Enforcement Priority System or EPS (OGC)

-- Performance targets under the EPS include (all estimates assume that significant, major cases from the 1996 and 1998 cycles remain open and active during the 2000 cycle):

Process and close 225 cases in FY 2000, 30% with substantive Commission action (This represents cases in which the Commission has reached a substantive finding on the merits of the matter (other than dismissal), including findings of no RTB)

Assuming a monthly average total caseload of 275 to 290 cases during FY 2000, maintain a monthly average ratio of 30% active to 70% inactive cases (OGC)

-- complete review of 438(b) audit reports within 6-8 weeks on average; complete routine matters in two weeks; perform an estimated 10-15 audit reviews in FY 2000 (OGC)

-- Respond to RAD requests for review of debt settlement plans and administrative terminations within 10 days, complete review of complex debt settlement plans within 60 days; estimated 40 debt settlements and 500 administrative terminations in FY 2000 (OGC)

-- File all litigation pleadings in district court for offensive litigation within 90 days of Commission determination to file suit, and meet all other time limits for briefs and other pleadings imposed by the rule or order of the courts; estimated 10-15 defensive suits initiated in FY 2000 (OGC)

-- Make at least one attempt to initiate settlement prior to commencement of suit for each case early enough to permit consideration by Commission of any settlement proposal prior to target date of initiation of suit; initiate 5 to 8 offensive litigation suits in FY 2000

-- Ensure that all pleadings and briefs represent the Commission's positions persuasively, by reporting on status of each active litigation case once a month, and by maintaining a system to obtain satisfaction of all judgments imposing civil penalties (OGC)

 

-- Same as Minimal Performance Level, except for following improvements:

-- Permits OGC to improve its monthly average active case ratio to 35%, and to improve to a rate of 40% of the cases closed with substantive action

-- Permits OGC to continue to effectively process in timely manner 4-5 major cases from pre-2000 election cycles

-- Increases to 10 the number of offensive suits that can be initiated (OGC)

-- Same as Current Resources Performance Level, except for following improvements:

-- Permits OGC to maintain a monthly average active case ratio of 37%, and to increase cases closed with substantive action to a rate of 42.5% of the cases closed

-- Increases to 12-15 the number of offensive suits that can be initiated (OGC)

-- Same as FEC Request Performance Level, except for following improvements:

-- Permits OGC to improve its monthly average active case ratio to 45%, and to increase cases closed with substantive action to a rate of 48% of the cases closed

-- Increases to 15 the number of offensive suits that can be initiated (OGC)

 

Desired outcomes are that the public funding program is implemented so that the availability of federal funds does not become an issue in the campaign; so that qualified presidential candidates receive entitled funds expeditiously; so that public monies are correctly spent on qualified campaign expenditures and are fully accounted for; and so that the public is assured that the FECA has been impartially enforced in a timely manner.

-- With 5 temporary FTE in Audit, allows timely processing of matching fund requests for the 2000 election from January 1999 to December of 2000; five temporary employees facilitate ability for monthly processing. (This is similar to temporary assistance utilized in prior election cycles. Assistance of auditors on loan from GAO was terminated in the 1996 cycle.) (Audit)

-- With goal of completing all Title 26 audits within two years of the general election, initiate 2000 cycle audits of 15-17 primary candidates, at least four convention committees (two per major party), and three general election audits (Audit)

-- Produce report to Congress on the 2000 matching fund process within 2-1/2 years of 2000 general election (Audit)

-- Complete legal reviews of all 2000 presidential audits within two years of 2000 election (December 2002) (OGC)

-- Complete all repayment matters for 2000 cycle committees receiving public funds within three years of general election (by December 2003) (OGC)

-- Complete audit legal review comments within 8 weeks of completion of preliminary Title 26 audits for 2000 cycle (OGC)

-- Report on enforcement matters arising out of Title 26 audits and presidential campaigns to Commission every 3-6 months, depending upon complexity of cases; complete routine legal matters within one week; complete all investigations of 2000 presidential matters within four year presidential election cycle (by December 2004) (OGC)

 

 

 

-- With three more FTE in Audit, would allow more timely completion of presidential audits in the 2000 cycle. (This is similar to temporary GAO assistance utilized in prior election cycles. Assistance of auditors on loan from GAO was terminated in the 1996 cycle.) (Audit)

-- With one more FTE in Public Financing (OGC), would allow faster completion of OGC tasks in this area.

 

-- Final 3 additional FTE in Audit assure completion of all presidential audits in 2000 cycle by two years from the 2000 general election, without adverse impact on title 2 audit program under 2 U.S.C. 438(b). (Audit)

-- Addition of one FTE in PFESP in OGC assures timely review of all 2000 cycle audits of presidential candidates. (OGC)

-- Same as FEC Request Performance Level

Desired outcomes are that the state and local election officials charged with administering federal elections are able to hold fair elections efficiently with public confidence in the integrity of the results; to enable elections administrators to comply with the Voting Accessibility and NVRA statutes. The FEC is required by the NVRA to report to congress on the impact of the law after each election.

-- Conduct research ($100,000) into elections administration issues, and respond to 100% of an estimated 7,500 requests for information within one week. Research projects include:

Updated Voting systems Standards

Innovations in Elections: administrative model to assist local elections administrators in organizing their offices.

-- Comply with all statutory responsibilities and deadlines with regard to the Voting Accessibility and National Voter registration Acts

-- Same as Minimal Performance Level

-- Same as Minimal Performance Level

-- Same as Minimal Performance Level

The Office of Election Administration represents virtually the only direct federal assistance to the multitude of state and local elections officials charged with administering federal elections. The ability, or inability, to properly administer elections and tally elections results can affect the outcome of assuring public faith in the electoral process.

A cross-cutting set of projects for computer development and enhancements, which will assist all Divisions and Offices in meeting their objectives and goals as defined above. The two major initiatives are the IT Enhancements and the Electronic Filing projects.

-- continue to provide point of entry for filing House disclosure documents at the FEC; scan all documents and transmit images to House Office in usable format for that office; eliminate duplicate processing at FEC and House office.

-- Continuation of multi-year enhancement and upgrade of IT systems for all Commission Offices and Divisions; replaced FEC mainframe based word-processing and E-mail systems with networked, PC based system; retained access to FEC developed disclosure database and other FEC developed systems, including the disclosure imaging system.

-- Development and implementation of an electronic filing system for disclosure reports required to be filed under the FECA; interim system initiated on January 1, 1997; implemented a full electronic filing system on a limited test basis for 1998 election cycle, complete testing and total system implementation in 2000 election cycle.

-- Assumes $4.886 million and 8.5 FTE for the computerization initiatives in FY 2000, according to the revised FEC FY 1998-2003 IT (ADP) Strategic and Performance Plans.

-- Additional 4 FTE in Data Systems for basic computer support of on-going operations; no impact on developmental phase of IT projects. Increases support and assistance for electronic filing, case management, and operations in disclosure and compliance.

-- Same as Current Resources Performance Level

-- Same as Current Resources Performance Level