With just one board member and unable to replace staff, the independent agency tasked with upholding privacy and civil liberties seemed headed for hibernation. But administration officials say that’s not likely to happen, with nominations expected soon.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has been on crutches since last year, when Chairman David Medine resigned and took with him the board's ability to hire staff. In January, it fell below the three-member quorum to approve reports and begin probes.

Since February, Republican Elisebeth Collins, a former Justice Department official, has been the only member of the board, which has four vacancies.

Although more than six months have passed under President Donald Trump, officials say nominations are coming, which if accepted by the Senate would allow for new investigations of surveillance practices and more advocacy on safeguards.

“We are actively reviewing candidates,” a White House official says. A senior administration official says they are aware of outside interest groups being consulted and that they expect nominations soon.

The board assumed a prominent role reviewing surveillance programs after whistleblower Edward Snowden’s 2013 leaks, contributing to the legislated end of the bulk collection of domestic call records and informing ongoing debate about internet collection efforts.

James Dempsey, a former board member who left office in January, says he has heard for several months that "the process was moving along" with regard to nominations, though he declined to elaborate.

“I’m pleasantly surprised that they are doing it relatively early in the administration," says Dempsey, a Democrat. "The Obama administration did nothing for a long time."

The board as it is currently structured was created by 2007 legislation but was not functional until after the Senate confirmed Medine in May 2013, after confirming four other members in 2012.

It’s unclear what would happen if Collins were to resign, leaving the board with no members and likely causing additional staff to jump ship. With new members on the horizon, the question may not need answering.

“Reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated,” says Collins, whose term expires in January 2020.

“I believe in the mission of the board and I am committed to ensuring that the board continues to function," Collins says.

Though the board attracts much attention for its review of civil liberties issues, the White House official touched on a potential business consideration, explaining “we are very supportive of the Privacy Shield and are seeking to ensure that these positions are filled as quickly as possible."

The Privacy Shield is a 2016 agreement between the U.S. and the European Union that governs the handling of personal data by U.S. companies. The agreement identifies the board as a designated review body for complaints referred by a Privacy Shield ombudsman. Privacy critics, particularly in Europe, where a court ruling killed an earlier agreement, question the adequacy of safeguards.

“I think the business interests and the civil liberties interests have become almost inextricably intertwined," says Dempsey, who is now executive director of the University of California at Berkeley Center for Law and Technology.

"The Privacy Shield is a very complicated set of agreements," he says, "but one of the assurances was that there was a robust oversight system in the U.S. for government access to data, including data on Europeans. One critical element of that oversight process cited repeatedly by the government was the PCLOB."

The two vacancies on the board reserved for Democrats are expected to be filled in consultation with the office of the Senate’s Democratic minority leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York.

A Senate Democratic leadership aide was not immediately able to say if names of potential members had been submitted to the White House but said the delay in appointments may be attributable to a general sluggishness with executive branch nominations and that they would expect Democratic recommendations to be accepted and all four nominees to be considered as a package.

The board isn’t unique in its sub-quorum status. The Export-Import Bank and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are in similar circumstances.

Meanwhile, the privacy board continues with limited function.

Collins, the last remaining board member, still shows up to work and last month testified at the Capitol about Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a legal authority set to expire this year that underpins large internet-surveillance programs described in a 2014 board report.

Staff also were allowed to finalize two “deep dives” of surveillance programs operated under Executive Order 12333, which governs record-collection outside the U.S., though the reports cannot be approved before new members arrive.

A third EO 12333 “deep dive” on a CIA program and a review of Presidential Policy Directive 28 (PPD 28), which required spy agencies to develop plans to protect personal information, were approved by the board before it lost quorum, according to internal emails reported by The Intercept in March.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a privacy advocate, demanded presidential nominations to the board in a June statement, also calling for declassification of the PPD 28 report.

“We have never needed the PCLOB more," Wyden said. "The administration can’t have it both ways – citing the PCLOB’s public reports as evidence of effective oversight while burying this [PPD 28] report," he said.

There are many investigative avenues a revived board could purse.

Dempsey sees possibilities including a look at various FBI surveillance issues or the bureau's exchange of information with local agencies. He also sees a need to review the policy approved in the final days of the Obama administration that allowed the NSA to share with other agencies raw EO 12333 intercepts.

Still, Neema Singh Guliani of the American Civil Liberties Union says whether the board continues as a diligent watchdog will depend upon the actual nominees.