Senator questions OMB's efforts to shutter federal websites

A senator dissatisfied with the Obama administration’s metrics on its progress to shutter federal websites as part of a wider anti-waste campaign is getting an explanation as to why the numbers don’t always tell the whole picture.

In a June 7 letter to the Congressional Research Service, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asked for a review of the White House’s progress on the Campaign to Cut Waste initiative. The effort expands on an executive order that calls on the administration to slash government waste, including reducing the number of federal websites with 50 percent within a year

A year following the campaign kickoff, that goal is far from being accomplished, Coburn said in his letter. The White House’s own numbers at the time of the campaign launch indicated there were 1,758 websites within the dot-gov domain. Twelve months later, CRS’ status update showed a decrease of roughly 300 websites, “at least 579 short of reaching their goal of cutting the number of websites in half,” Coburn said.

In a response to Coburn, the CRS summarized the Office of Management and Budget's accomplishments with the anti-waste campaign but said the analysis was based on publicly available information on the Internet and therefore does not necessarily contain all the information and events that had occurred.

For example, the executive order directs the vice president to convene regularly with the OMB head to discuss improvements made under the anti-waste campaign. However, a website that lists those meetings may not always include all instances they occurred, CRS explained.

CRS also noted many documents once available to the general public are now password protected by OMB’s “MAX” system, which only executive branch employees can access. 

Additionally, tracking the adoption of administrative efforts may prove difficult if there are no statutory requirements for certain types of transparency or reporting, CRS added. The anti-waste effort itself isn’t a statue, CRS said, but “rather, it could be characterized as an administrative effort that follows from more general duties and responsibilities under law and the use of available discretion by the president, [OMB] and agencies.”

About the Author

Camille Tuutti is a former FCW staff writer who covered federal oversight and the workforce.

FCW in Print

In the latest issue: Looking back on three decades of big stories in federal IT.


  • Shutterstock image: looking for code.

    How DOD embraced bug bounties -- and how your agency can, too

    Hack the Pentagon proved to Defense Department officials that outside hackers can be assets, not adversaries.

  • Shutterstock image: cyber defense.

    Why PPD-41 is evolutionary, not revolutionary

    Government cybersecurity officials say the presidential policy directive codifies cyber incident response protocols but doesn't radically change what's been in practice in recent years.

  • Anne Rung -- Commerce Department Photo

    Exit interview with Anne Rung

    The government's departing top acquisition official said she leaves behind a solid foundation on which to build more effective and efficient federal IT.

  • Charles Phalen

    Administration appoints first head of NBIB

    The National Background Investigations Bureau announced the appointment of its first director as the agency prepares to take over processing government background checks.

  • Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

    Senator: Rigid hiring process pushes millennials from federal work

    Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said agencies are missing out on younger workers because of the government's rigidity, particularly its protracted hiring process.

  • FCW @ 30 GPS

    FCW @ 30

    Since 1987, FCW has covered it all -- the major contracts, the disruptive technologies, the picayune scandals and the many, many people who make federal IT function. Here's a look back at six of the most significant stories.

Reader comments

Thu, Jul 5, 2012 Disgusted Taxpayer Any Town, USA

The worst part are the government websites (and TV ads!!!) which are intended to "sell" taxpayers on expensive, unnecessary, over-reaching, and highly unpopular government policies and programs. The very last thing we should be funding is a brainwashing campaign by the government to try to convince us that a specific program is actually beneficial to us when we already know otherwise (e.g., Obamacare) or to spread masters-of-the-obvious messages (e.g., let's move).

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group