191 



- 7 - 



But if the Seattle Times and The Anchorage Daily News are 

 right, haven't these protections failed us? Or is there really 

 no problem after all and we are simply victims of journalistic 

 excess? 



One reason the protections of FACA have been illusory is 

 that they were deleted from the Act in 1982 in response to the 

 complaints of some councils that the requirements were too 

 c umb ersome when applied to the council's advisory panels and 

 scientific and statistical committees. Sweeping broadly Congress 

 responded by exempting everybody, including the councils 

 themselves, even though they were apparently never asked to do 

 so. The exemption from FACA was not unprecedented, although it 

 was pretty unusual, for of the more than 1,000 federal advisory 

 committees, only about 20 are fully exempt from FACA and those 

 are primarily exempt on national security grounds. 



The NOAA interpretations of the conflict of interest issues 

 have highlighted some of the problems. In the early years after 

 the Act was passed NOAA's general counsel concluded that council 

 members, advisors and employees were precluded from participating 

 in council decisions in which they might benefit personally, 

 unless they fit within certain narrow exemptions in the conflict 

 of interest laws. 7 Several years later, however, the NOAA 

 general counsel rejected the earlier line of reasoning finding 



NOAA Legal Opinion No. 70 (Oct. 3, 1978) 



