The Representativeness of National Advisory Boards: The Case of HEW
Abstract
The Representativeness of National Advisory Boards: The Case of HEW SAGE Publications, Inc.1980DOI: 10.1177/027507408001400302 Cassia Spohn University of Nebraska at Omaha In 1940 Norman Gill reported that he was able to "locate" 82 permanent federal advisory boards.1 After describing the operation of the advisory board system in 1939, Gill concluded by stating that "a good case can be presented for much more use than is now made of the device of advisory committees."2 By the mid-1970s Gill's suggestion had become reality and the practice of creating commissions to advise officials of the federal government had developed into an institutionalized instrument of policy making. In 35 years the number of permanent and ad hoc advisory boards, commissions, and committees serving the various agencies of the federal government had mushroomed to 1,341; with a total membership of over 22,000 persons, the system operated at an annual cost of $42.2 million.3 The rapid proliferation of federal advisory boards - panels composed of private citizens and government officials appointed to assist and advise the president, Congress, and nearly every federal agency - has engendered a closer scrutiny of and subsequent controversy over the role, function, and utility of these potentially powerful but