dent publicly, thereby risking the appearance of dis- 
cord within the Administration.?> Third, the relative 
success of the Marine Science Council, which has 
been used as a model for proposed new organiza- 
tions, must be reexamined carefully to determine its 
functional effectiveness. Edward Wenk’s Politics oj 
the Ocean remains the only analysis of the perform- 
ance of the Council. Notwithstanding this scholarly 
analysis, the Council and its counterpart, the Stratton 
Commission, were riding the crest of a wave during 
a period of faith in science; thus, the cause and effect 
of what transpired in Government during that period 
is difficult to assess objectively. The frailty of the 
Council as an institution, however, is well docu- 
mented by Dr. Wenk, who shows that it was wholly 
dependent upon the initiative of the Vice President 
and the receptivity of the President to ocean pro- 
grams.”° 
Trends in the Carter Administration are contrary 
to the concept of centralizing power in the Executive 
Office of the President. Noting that the tendency in 
the past has been to put programs that cut across 
many departmental lines in the Executive Office on 
the theory that “the closeness of the President is 
supposed to add stature to their influence and... 
permit them to deal with several departments simul- 
taneously,” President Carter has moved to reduce 
policy council and special coordinative units in an 
effort to “strengthen Cabinet government.” *” Presi- 
dent Carter has, therefore, opted for a collegial 
Cabinet approach to guiding and managing national 
policy. In moving to abolish all Cabinet-level policy 
councils save the National Security Council (NSC), 
proposals for a White House policy council to over- 
see ocean affairs or maritime policy are not in keep- 
ing with present reorganizational trends. 
Advisory Committees 
Federal advisory committees have proliferated 
during recent years. In the quest for public par- 
ticipation in the governmental decision process, 
departments and agencies have created many gen- 
eral and specialized advisory groups to counsel 
administrators on the execution of government pro- 
grams. At the end of calendar year 1976, there 
were 1,159 committees in existence, involving 27,000 
persons and costing $59.7 million.2* Of these ad- 
visory committees, councils, and commissions, 75 
dealt with ocean-related matters (table 9-1). Advisory 
committees are widely used within the executive 
branch at all levels of administration. To some extent 
they have become a symbol of participatory democ- 
racy, and have been skillfully used by some public 
administrators to dull the edge of criticism of “closed 
decision-making.” There are, unfortunately, no ob- 
jective measures of the effectiveness of advisory 
committees since the policy agenda is formed from 
diverse participants over an indefinite time span. 
Some advisory committees, however, serve a higher 
order of purpose and play a significant role in pro- 
viding insights and policy options for highly complex 
and technical areas of policy to the President and the 
Congress. 
National Advisory Committee on 
Oceans and Atmosphere 
One such committee is the National Advisory 
Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA), 
™% Steven Hess. Organizing the Presidency. Washington: Brook- 
ings Institute, 1976, p. 186. 
*Edward Wenk, Jr., op. cit. note 12, p. 163. 
7U.S., President, “Remarks to Reports on Transmitting a 
Reorganization Plan to the Congress.” 18 July, 1977. Presidential 
Documents 13: 1007. 
U.S. General Services Administration. Federal Advisory 
Committees—Fifth Annual Report to the President. March 17, 
1977, pp. 1-2. 
created by the Congress in 1971 to provide advice 
to the President and the Congress on national marine 
and atmospheric affairs.?® The original NACOA Act, 
which was adopted in response to recommendations 
by the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, 
and Resources (Stratton Commission), in 1969,°° was 
repealed by the 95th Congress and reconstituted with 
18 members instead of the original 25.** 
Members of the Committee are appointed by the 
President, and under the new authorizing legislation 
must be qualified by knowledge and expertise in 
marine or atmospheric affairs. NACOA, therefore, is 
more accurately characterized as a “blue-ribbon” 
committee than as a citizen advisory committee as 
used in common parlance. 
NACOA serves as a comprehensive oversight 
committee for all Federal ocean and atmospheric 
programs. While the enabling legislation explicitly 
requires NACOA to serve as an advisory body to 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 
tion within the Department of Commerce, its broader 
legislative mandate makes it advisory to both the 
legislative and executive branches. The Committee 
is housed within the Department of Commerce, al- 
though it operates entirely independently with its 
own staff and budget authorization. Under the Act, 
NACOA’s responsibilities are to: 
e@ Undertake a continuing review of national ocean 
policy, coastal zone management, and the status 
” 33 U.S.C. 857-6 to 857-12; amended in the 94th Congress, 
Public Law 94-69, 89 Stat. 384. 
* Report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, 
and Resources to the President of the United States and the 
U.S. Congress, by Julius A. Stratton, Chairman. Our Nation and 
The Sea—A Plan for National Action, Washington, D.C., 
Government Printing Office, 1969. p. 245. 
* National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere 
Act of 1977, Public Law 95-63, 91 Stat. 265. 
IX-12 
