the administrative office of the united states courts

2 0 0 4 A N N U A L R E P O R T O F T H E D I R E C T O R

Annual Reportof the Director

Activities of theAdministrative Officeof the U.S. Courts

Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director

This report was prepared bythe Administrative Office of the U.S. CourtsOffice of Public AffairsWashington, D.C. 20544(202) 502-2600

www.uscourts.gov

T H E A D M I N I S T R A T I V E O F F I C E O F T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T S

i


Contents

Director’s Message ................................................................................................................................................... 1

The Year in Review .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Funding the Federal Judiciary ...................................................................................................................... 4Comprehensive Cost-Containment Strategy for 2005 and Beyond ....................................................... 4AO Cost-Containment Initiatives ......................................................................................................... 5FY 2004 Supplemental Appropriations ................................................................................................ 6FY 2005 Appropriations ...................................................................................................................... 6Long-Range Planning Activities ............................................................................................................ 8Judiciary Voluntary Separation Incentive and Early Retirement Programs ............................................ 8

Congressional Relations ................................................................................................................................ 9Courthouse Construction ................................................................................................................... 9Judicial Operations ........................................................................................................................... 10Judicial Pay ....................................................................................................................................... 10Judicial Resources ............................................................................................................................. 10Ninth Circuit Split ............................................................................................................................ 11Victims’ Rights and DNA ................................................................................................................... 11E-Government Act ............................................................................................................................ 12Dental and Vision Benefits ................................................................................................................ 12Other Legislation .............................................................................................................................. 12

Judges and Judgeships ................................................................................................................................ 14Article III Judgeships ......................................................................................................................... 14Bankruptcy Judgeships ..................................................................................................................... 14Magistrate Judge Positions ................................................................................................................ 15Inter- and Intra-Circuit Assignments ................................................................................................. 15Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure ............................................................................................ 15Status of Proposed Rules Amendments ............................................................................................. 16Judges’ Orientations and Benefits Programs ...................................................................................... 16Chief Judges’ Budget Training ........................................................................................................... 17Financial Disclosure .......................................................................................................................... 17International Judicial Relations ......................................................................................................... 17Federal Law Clerk Information System ............................................................................................. 18Publications for Judges ...................................................................................................................... 18

Support to the Federal Courts ............................................................................................................................... 19

Recognizing Achievement and Leadership: Director’s Awards ..................................................................... 20Space and Facilities Management ................................................................................................................ 23

Court Security ................................................................................................................................... 23Emergency Preparedness ................................................................................................................... 24Space and Facilities Cost-Control Initiatives ...................................................................................... 24

ii


Financial Management in the Courts .......................................................................................................... 26Assessment of Budget Decentralization Program ............................................................................... 26Financial Accounting System for Tomorrow ...................................................................................... 27Civil/Criminal Accounting Module ..................................................................................................... 27Certifying Officers ............................................................................................................................. 27Court Budget Management Web-based Training ................................................................................ 27Automated AO Financial Planning and Tracking System .................................................................... 27

Audits, Reviews, and Internal Controls ....................................................................................................... 28Audits and Program Reviews ............................................................................................................. 28Internal Controls Handbook ............................................................................................................. 29GAO Studies ..................................................................................................................................... 29

Program Management and Technology ....................................................................................................... 30Juror Utilization ................................................................................................................................ 30Study of Alternatives for Providing Administrative Services ............................................................... 31Court Interpreting ............................................................................................................................. 31Interpreter Certification .................................................................................................................... 31National Court Interpreter Database ................................................................................................. 32Telephone Interpreting ...................................................................................................................... 32Slip Opinion Printing Contracts ........................................................................................................ 32Statistical Data Gathering and Reporting ........................................................................................... 32Case Management/Electronic Case Files System ................................................................................ 33Electronic Public Access Program ..................................................................................................... 34New Policy and Guidelines for Allowing Electronic Access ................................................................ 35Pilot Project Allowing Electronic Access to Court Transcripts ............................................................ 36

Advances in Automation ............................................................................................................................. 37Evaluating Alternative Models for IT Service Delivery ....................................................................... 37IT Work Center Description and Practices ......................................................................................... 38Remote Access .................................................................................................................................. 38Automation of National Judiciary-Wide Forms .................................................................................. 38Records Management ........................................................................................................................ 38Computer-Assisted Legal Research .................................................................................................... 38Congressional Update Collection Project ........................................................................................... 39InfoWeb Buyout/Severance Pay and Impact ...................................................................................... 39Central Violations Bureau ................................................................................................................. 39ILS Hardware and Replacement ........................................................................................................ 39ILS FAS

4T Interface ........................................................................................................................... 40

Bankruptcy Noticing Center .............................................................................................................. 40Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing ........................................................................................................ 40

Workforce Management and Development ................................................................................................. 41Judiciary Benefits .............................................................................................................................. 41Flexible Benefit Program Offers Savings ............................................................................................ 41

iii


Outsourcing Benefits Administration ................................................................................................. 42Human Resources Management Information System (HRMIS) ........................................................... 42Staffing and Work Processes ............................................................................................................. 42Telework in the Judiciary ................................................................................................................... 43Fair Employment Practices ................................................................................................................ 43Bankruptcy Administrator Program .................................................................................................. 43Law Clerk Assistance Program .......................................................................................................... 44Workforce Development Emphasizes Cost-effective Training ............................................................ 44Redesign of IT Training Program for Judges ....................................................................................... 44Contracting Officers Certification Program Training .......................................................................... 45

Defender Services ....................................................................................................................................... 46

Probation and Pretrial Services ................................................................................................................... 48Cost-Containment Measures ............................................................................................................. 48Study of the Probation and Pretrial Services System .......................................................................... 48Probation and Pretrial Services Technology ....................................................................................... 49Officer Safety and Integrity ................................................................................................................ 49Substance Abuse Testing and Treatment ............................................................................................ 50

Communication ......................................................................................................................................... 51News and Information are Provided in Many Forms .......................................................................... 51Obtaining Feedback from the Courts ................................................................................................ 52

In Profile ............................................................................................................................................................... 54

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts .............................................................................................. 55Statutory Authority ........................................................................................................................... 55Supervision ....................................................................................................................................... 55Responsibilities .................................................................................................................................. 55

Organization ............................................................................................................................................... 56

iv


1


Director’s Message

Three concerns topped theAdministrative Office’s agenda in2004. They were: securing ad-equate resources for the courts toconduct business, coordinatingjudicial branch cost-containmentefforts, and providing essentialsupport services to the JudicialConference and the courts. It isdifficult to assign a higher priorityto any one of these endeavors,since all are inextricably linked.The following is a brief summaryof AO activities in these areas.

At the request of the AO,judges dedicated their time, energy,and enthusiasm to meet with, call,and write their local members ofCongress and drive home the an-ticipated impact of inadequatefunding on court operations. They were well pre-pared, armed with data and talking points providedby the Administrative Office. Some AO staff workedclosely with bar associations and the news media toeducate them about court funding needs. Otherswere involved in developing staffing and funding sce-narios based on anticipated lower appropriation lev-els, so courts could operate with as little disruption aspossible. Court advisory groups provided importantinput from the courts. In the end, we achieved morethan originally anticipated. The hard freeze that onceseemed likely was replaced by a small funding in-crease of 4.3 percent, which, although insufficient tocover court workload growth and built-in cost in-creases, was greater than the increases received bymost executive branch agencies. The efforts of judgesand AO and court staff clearly paid off: Congress ap-peared to recognize the importance of adequatelyfunding the Third Branch of government.

Nevertheless, the budgetary climate is likely to beaustere for several years and the cumulative impactof lower-than-needed funding on Judiciary programsover the past three years is significant. The courtswere forced to slash six percent of their workforce infiscal year 2004. The Administrative Office held 10percent of all its jobs vacant. Like the courts, the AO

has been controlling its own costsfor several years and will continue todo so. In fact, over the past decadeAO staffing has remained essentiallyunchanged while court staff levelshave grown by 18 percent. In 2004,the AO cut out all non-essentialtravel and training, and implementedother cost-saving reductions. Evenso, it is clear that the Judiciary’sworkload keeps increasing whileavailable resources continue to de-cline. As the Judicial Conference hasconcluded, the Third Branch needsto better understand and rethinkhow it conducts business. The Ad-ministrative Office is a fully engagedpartner in this mission.

This past year, with the approvalof the Chief Justice and under the

leadership of the Executive Committee of the JudicialConference chaired by Chief Judge Carolyn King (5th

Circuit), the Judiciary launched an unprecedentedsystem-wide cost-containment effort. As with ourcampaign to obtain funding, judges and court staffthroughout the country stepped forward to proposecost-saving innovations and efficiencies. Conferencecommittees are actively involved in this effort. Doz-ens of short- and long-term cost-saving measureshave been reviewed and analyzed and this processcontinues. I am pleased that in its fiscal year 2005funding bill Congress specifically recognized theleadership of the Administrative Office for cost-con-tainment efforts.

In September 2004, the Judicial Conferenceunanimously approved a sweeping cost-containmentplan proposed by the Security and Facilities Com-mittee, which includes a two-year moratorium oncourthouse construction. During this time, the Judi-ciary will conduct a comprehensive review of itsspace and facilities program. We need to address thegrowth in the rent the Judiciary pays the General Ser-vices Administration—currently 22 cents out of ev-ery dollar Congress appropriates for running thecourts. This figure rises at least 6 percent each year, arate of growth significantly greater than our annual

Leonidas Ralph MechamDirector

2


appropriations increase. Late this fall, meetings wereheld with both GSA and the Office of Managementand Budget top leaders, seeking to reduce theJudiciary’s rent, and this will remain a very high pri-ority in the coming year. Perhaps the greatest chal-lenge is how to control growth in courthouses andpersonnel at a time when caseloads and security de-mands are projected to increase.

While some initiatives are prompted by concernsover costs, others simply represent good governmentpractice. Increased workforce efficiency, more effec-tive use of technology, review of compensation prac-tices, and other avenues will be fully explored. Thequality of justice cannot be sacrificed, yet a premiumneeds to be placed on new ways of doing court busi-ness that are less costly.

At the direction of the Judicial Conference, theAdministrative Office continued to pursue an activelegislative agenda. While we made some progress,judgeship legislation was not enacted during thisCongress, largely because the House majority leader-ship has said that no new positions will be createduntil the Ninth Circuit is split. New judges at all lev-els, and in particular in the courts of appeals andbankruptcy courts, are essential to the effective op-erations of these courts.

For the sixth consecutive year, Congress ap-proved a cost-of-living adjustment, which providedjudges and members of Congress with a 2.5 percentincrease in compensation. The Administrative Officestands ready to go to work on improving judicial payin the coming year, should the Judicial Conferencedecide to do so in this challenging economic and fis-cal climate. The enactment of multiple federal courtsimprovement bills will be a high priority in 2005.Rather than just a single bill as in the past, the billswould contain several provisions that would assistwith court operations and would also give the Direc-tor the authority to establish a supplemental medicalbenefits program.

The Administrative Office and the courts havejoined together to help more than 130 bankruptcyand district courts move to the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, and we are ontrack to move the courts of appeals to CM/ECF. Theability to file documents over the Internet has be-

come extremely popular with the courts and the bar,and over 16 million cases now are stored on the CM/ECF system.

This year we finished implementation of a newhuman resources information management system,which means that for the first time, the entire Judi-ciary will use the same personnel and payroll system,and eventually will eliminate all paper transactions.The Financial Accounting System for Tomorrow,known as FAS

4T, is now operating in every circuit

and district court. It interfaces with a number of sys-tems that already provide financial data and will im-prove court financial management practices. All dis-trict courts also are using the Probation and PretrialServices Automated System. This case-managementand case-tracking tool also has been linked with per-sonal digital assistants so that probation officers canaccess critical case information when they are in thefield.

We continue to explore new models for conduct-ing court business more efficiently and at the lowestpossible cost, with particular emphasis on informa-tion technology services that can help the Judiciaryrealize economies of scale. An important study of al-ternatives for providing administrative court servicesalso is in progress.

Significant progress has been achieved in emer-gency preparedness, and the majority of federalcourts now have worked with the Administrative Of-fice to develop a continuity of operations plan. TheAO’s off-site Court Operations Support Center willbecome fully operational in the coming year, assuringthat key administrative, technical, payroll, and finan-cial services will continue uninterrupted in the eventof any manmade or natural disaster.

This year marked the 65th anniversary of the cre-ation of the Administrative Office. In past annualmessages I have pledged that the AO stands ready todeal with unexpected issues sure to arise in the com-ing year. While I renew this vow for 2005, it is twofamiliar challenges that are likely to consume themost energy: securing adequate congressional fund-ing and continuing the cost-containment campaign.These two goals stand side by side. The AO is focusedand dedicated to their pursuit. ■

3


The Year in Review

“Without the funding increases needed to address [the courts’]growing workload, I believe the judicial system, and those whodepend on it to resolve disputes, will begin to suffer.”

—Judge John Heyburn II, chairman, Judicial Conference Budget Committee

4


Funding the Federal Judiciary

Underlying the focus on cost-containment options was the Judiciary’s commitment to itscore missions, values, and responsibilities to the public to render justice fairly andexpeditiously.

Comprehensive Cost-ContainmentStrategy for 2005 and Beyond

In March 2004, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquistcharged the Executive Committee, chaired by ChiefJudge Carolyn Dineen King (5th Circuit), with con-ducting a comprehensive review of the policies andpractices, operating procedures, and customs thathave the greatest impact on the Judiciary’s costs, andwith developing an integrated strategy for controllingthese costs.

Unprecedented funding challenges face the Ju-diciary in FY 2004 and over the next several years dueto overall budget constraints. For the past two years,the Judiciary has received funding that was inadequateto meet its needs, and estimates of probable futurefunding when compared to estimated needs show agrowing gap approaching $848 million by FY 2009.

It was clear that fiscal year 2004 budget short-falls could worsen in FY 2005. During FY 2004, AOstaff coordinated the review of 271 supplemental re-quests from courts seeking additional financial re-sources in the amount of $22 million. Due to budgetlimitations, only $5.5 million in supplemental fund-ing was distributed. Supplemental funds were pro-vided for courts to downsize their staffs via buyoutsand involuntary separations; for salary funding forcourts where salary allotments fell below 96 percentof payroll requirements; and for critical non-salaryoperational requirements.

Planning for FY 2005 and beyond, the ExecutiveCommittee enlisted the assistance of chief judges,court staff, advisory groups, Conference committees,and the AO staff led by Associate Director Pete Lee,to scrutinize all spending categories, with the focuson whether expenditures—even though needed or

5


desired—are affordable in the current budget cli-mate. The Executive Committee and other JudicialConference committees generated and reviewed hun-dreds of ideas. Individual teleconferences includedthe 10 committee chairs with funding responsibilities.Judge King asked the committee chairs to identify“quick hitting” action items that could be imple-mented immediately to reduce costs in 2004 and2005, as well as long-term cost-containment ideas for2005 and beyond. Committees proposed initiativesfor the Executive Committee to consider incorporat-ing in its overall cost-containment strategy. Underly-ing the focus on cost-containment options was theJudiciary’s commitment to its core missions, values,and responsibilities to the public to render justicefairly and expeditiously.

This massive effort was completed in fivemonths with the Executive Committee’s strong lead-ership, with active involvement of Conference com-mittees, and with extraordinary staff support fromthe Administrative Office. Thousands of staff hourswere dedicated to this effort; virtually all AO unitsplayed a part.

At its September 2004 session, the Judicial Con-ference approved the long-term cost-containmentstrategy for the Judiciary presented by the ExecutiveCommittee. The strategy incorporates suggestionsfrom all 10 Conference program committees, andincludes these major components:

• impose tighter restraints on future space andfacilities costs;

• trim future staffing needs through re-engi-neering work processes and reorganizingfunctions to increase efficiency, and by em-ploying different staffing techniques;

• explore fair and reasonable opportunities tolimit future compensation costs;

• invest wisely in technologies to enhance pro-ductivity and service, while controlling op-erating costs by revamping the service-deliv-ery model for national information-technol-ogy systems;

• study and implement cost-effective modifica-tions to defender services, court security,law enforcement and other programs; and

• ensure that fees are examined regularly andadjusted as necessary to reflect economicchanges.

Administrative Office staff will continue to sup-port Judicial Conference committees in developingand implementing these and other long-term cost-containment initiatives, which will be a major focusover the coming years and will assist the ExecutiveCommittee in its monitoring and coordination role.

AO Cost-Containment InitiativesThe AO began a review of programs it manages

for the courts, such as information technology, train-ing, etc., to parallel the strategic review of the Judi-ciary budget initiated by the Executive Committee inMarch 2004. Anticipating future budget reductionsand the possibility of a hard freeze on appropriationsfor FY 2005, broad spending restrictions were imple-mented. These measures made it possible to maxi-mize balances that could be carried forward from FY2004 to FY 2005 and to operate within the con-straints of the continuing resolution. Under the re-strictions, AO offices proceeded only with essentialactivities required to support the Judicial Conferenceand its committees and ensure continuity of courtoperations.

Because 93 percent of the AO budget is requiredto cover compensation and benefits costs, specificattention was focused on containing personnel costs.Since 1995, total AO staffing declined slightly, whilethe court staffing grew 18 percent. Funding increaseshave not been sufficient for many years to keep allAO positions filled, and the AO has continuouslymaintained a substantial number of vacancies. During2004, nearly all AO positions that became vacantwere not filled, increasing the vacancy rate from 66to over 100, or from 5 percent to nearly 10 percentof authorized positions by the end of the year.

As a consequence, AO staffing declined to apoint below the 1991 level. Each directorate devel-oped workforce restructuring plans to be prepared tooperate, if required, at 10 percent below current lev-els in FY 2005. To assist in the restructuring effort,approval was sought from and granted by the Officeof Personnel Management for early-out retirement for

6


The Judicial ConferenceExecutive Committee met inWashington, D.C. in July toreview the proposedpreliminary fiscal year 2005financial plan for the federalcourts. The plan incorporatedmany cost-containment ideasrecommended by JudicialConference committees.

AO employees. Other personnel cost-cutting stepstaken included reducing the salary progression factorincorporated in the budget, acquiring temporary helpthrough local sources at little or no cost, and whenpositions are filled, hiring at entry or lower pay levels.

Travel was restricted to mandatory requirementsin support of Judicial Conference committees, con-tinuing court operations, and implementing ap-proved information technology projects. The use ofteleconferencing and videoconferencing was empha-sized. Training was deferred unless required to con-tinue essential functions. Orders for contracts, ser-vices, supplies, and equipment were restricted tothose absolutely essential to the continuation of AOand court support functions. IT project funding wascut. The AO’s computer equipment replacementcycle, already a year longer than the courts’ cycle, wasextended even further for lack of funds. Many otherinitiatives are underway to contain and reduce futurecosts, such as reducing office-automation equipmentreplacement costs by categorizing personal computerusers based on the level of use; transitioning appro-priate publications from hard copy to electronic for-mat and distribution; and reviewing, eliminating, andconsolidating library materials and online services.

FY 2004 SupplementalAppropriations

The Judiciary submitted a FY 2004 supplementalrequest to Congress totaling $55.7 million. The re-quest included $39.2 million for the Courts Salariesand Expenses account to prevent reductions in courtstaffing, and to pay for critical information technol-ogy and infrastructure expenses; and $16.4 millionfor the Defender Services account to cover the pro-jected shortfall in panel attorney payments. Over thecourse of the year, the anticipated shortfall in De-fender Services grew to $26 million.

No additional funds were appropriated for theSalaries and Expenses account shortfall, and thecourts lost over 1,350 jobs due to hiring freezes, in-voluntary separations, buyouts, and early retirements.However, panel attorney payments were spared fromsuspension in August, when a supplemental of $26million for Defender Services was included in P. L.No. 108-287, the Department of Defense Appropria-tions Act, 2005.

FY 2005Appropriations

The House of Represen-tatives passed the fiscal year2005 Commerce, Justice,State and the Judiciary (CJSJ)appropriation bill, H.R. 4754,on July 8, 2004. The Housebill provided the Judiciarywith an overall 8.4 percentincrease, and a lesser totalincrease for the courts’ Sala-ries and Expenses account of 5.6 percent. Under thisfunding level, current services could continue butwithout allowances for workload growth. The Housebill would have funded almost all other Judiciaryaccounts at or very near a current-services level.

On September 15, 2004, the full Senate Appro-priations Committee cleared its version of the fiscalyear 2005 CJSJ appropriations bill (S. 2809). The billprovided a 4.8 percent increase for the Judiciaryoverall. The increase to the courts’ Salaries and Ex-penses account was the equivalent of only 3 percent,after adjusting for the transfer of Federal Protective

7


Services security charges tothe Court SecurityAccount. Under the bill,courts stood to lose an ad-ditional 570 employeesfrom end-of-2004 staffinglevels—which represented aloss of nearly 1,350 employ-ees from end-of-2003 staff-ing levels. Nearly all Judi-ciary accounts were fundedsignificantly below current

services in the Senate bill, which never came beforethe full Senate for a vote. Congress recessed in lateOctober with nine appropriations bills pending, in-cluding the Judiciary’s.

Fiscal year 2005 began under a series of continu-ing resolutions (CRs). To avoid interruption to courtoperations under the CRs, the Executive Committeeof the Judicial Conference approved an interim finan-cial plan. When temporary allotments reflecting a 4percent increase were issued on October 1, 2004, allcourts were advised to refrain from hiring and frompurchasing non-essential goods and services, pend-ing a final financial plan.

The fiscal year 2005 CJSJ appropriation was ulti-mately included in an omnibus bill (H.R. 4818) witheight other spending bills passed by the House andSenate on November 20, 2004, during their lameduck session. After a delay for necessary amendmentsunrelated to the Judiciary, the President received andsigned the bill, P. L. 108-447, on December 8, 2004.

The overall bill was fiscally lean, providing afreeze, or zero growth, in discretionary spending gov-ernment-wide. The Judiciary fortunately fared better,with a final funding level of $5.426 billion, a 6.1 per-cent increase overall. However, the final Salaries andExpenses appropriation for the courts was $4.125billion, a lesser 4.3 percent increase over FY 2004,and slightly above the amount assumed in the in-terim financial plan approved by the Executive Com-mittee. This amount will prevent further loss of staffand the courts may be able to fill some vacant posi-tions.

The Defender Services account received a 2005budget of $667.3 million, an 11.6 percent increaseover 2004. The final bill also provides for a $160 in-crease in the hourly rate paid for capital case repre-sentation, and allows for an increase in the statutorycase maximums.

The Fees of Jurors account is nearly fully fundedat $60.7 million. However, the Court Security ac-count did not fare as well and is funded below FY2004 levels. Although the final funding level of$327.5 million represents an increase of $57.2 mil-lion, once the cost of transfer of Federal ProtectiveService charges from the Salaries and Expenses ac-count is accounted for, the account is approximately$4.2 million, or 1.5 percent below last year’s CourtSecurity level.

With a funding level of $67.3 million, the Ad-ministrative Office is funded at 3.0 percent over fiscalyear 2004, as usual, well below the courts’ increase.While this funding level will allow the AO to main-tain on-board staffing levels, unlike the courts, theAO will be unable to fill any of the vacancies it expe-rienced in FY 2004.

The Executive Committee met in mid-Decemberand approved a final fiscal year 2005 financial planbased on the funding provided in the omnibus ap-propriations act.

Administrative Office DirectorLeonidas Ralph Mecham andJudicial Conference BudgetCommittee Chairman ChiefJudge John Heyburn II urgedthe House AppropriationsSubcommittee on Commerce,Justice, State, the Judiciaryand Related Agencies tosupport the Judiciary’s FY2005 budget request.

8


Long-Range Planning ActivitiesThe Administrative Office supported long-range

planning meetings of Judicial Conference committeechairs in March and September 2004. The meetingswere led by the Executive Committee’s planning co-ordinator, Chief Judge Michael Boudin (1st Circuit).Committee chairs focused on broad trends and issuesaffecting the work, resources, and operation of thecourts. The overarching planning issue for the pasttwo years has been to address budget challenges byconsidering long-term changes that may reduce theneed for future resource growth.

The planning discussions contributed to thedevelopment of a comprehensive cost-containmentstrategy for the future.

Judiciary Voluntary SeparationIncentive and Early RetirementPrograms

The Judiciary’s technological advances are re-shaping its workforce, at the same time shortfalls inCongressional funding require downsizing and re-structuring of many court offices.

In fiscal year 2004, the Judiciary conducted twovoluntary buyout and early-retirement program peri-ods, with the second extending into FY 2005. Theseprograms have proven to be valuable managementtools, as they afford employees the opportunity tovoluntarily separate. As of September 19, 2004, 243buyouts and 90 early retirements were processed.

In September 2004, the Judicial Conference ex-tended the buyout program through fiscal year 2005.Under the provisions of P. L. 107-296, the Director ofthe Administrative Office has the authority to ap-prove buyout plans for court units. In August 2004,the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approvedthe Judiciary’s request to offer early retirement tonon-chambers employees of courts and federal publicdefender organizations throughout fiscal year 2005.Having this expanded authority from OPM permitsmore efficient and timely approval of courts’ requests.

Continued use of the voluntary separation andretirement programs will help court offices that mustrestructure, delay, and realign positions and person-nel in order to fulfill their mission. ■

Budget Cuts Leave SixPercent of Federal CourtJobs Vacant

As the federal Judiciary awaited its fiscal year

2005 appropriation from Congress, courts

already caught in a money crunch slashed 1,350

jobs in the preceding months.

The Judiciary is believed to be the only federal

entity that was forced to downsize to this degree,

a cut that represents six percent of the employees

who worked for clerks of court or probation and

pretrial services offices.

The cuts hit both large and small court staffs

throughout the country. The Western District of

Tennessee lost the highest percentage of its

employees from October 5, 2003 to October 17,

2004—30 out of 192, for a 15.6 percent cut. A

close second is Alaska, which lost 11 of its 72

employees—a 15.3 percent cut. The Central

District of California, based in Los Angeles, lost the

largest number—80 of its 957 employees.

“These cuts come at a time when homeland

security, criminal, and bankruptcy filings are

spiraling upward, and when the fiscal year 2005

budget remains in question,” said Leonidas Ralph

Mecham, Director of the Administrative Office of

the U.S. Courts.

The Judiciary’s budget is less than two-tenths

of one percent of the entire federal budget. ■

9


Congressional Relations

Communicating and working with Congress remains one of the AO’s highest priorities as it supportsthe Judicial Conference and its committees.

During its second session, the 108th Congress considered several bills of interest to the Judiciary.Judicial Conference representatives testified at hearings in support of legislative proposals of theJudicial Conference and in response to other issues that could affect the Judiciary.

CourthouseConstruction

Faced with a limited availability of funds fromCongress and continued shortages in the Judiciary’soperating budget, the Judicial Conference took twoactions this year to slow down and reduce costs ofthe courthouse construction program. At its Marchmeeting, the Conference determined that its FY 2005funding request for courthouse construction wouldinclude only the four space-emergency courthouseprojects—Los Angeles, CA; El Paso, TX; San Diego,CA; and Las Cruces, NM—rather than all 19 projectsoriginally scheduled on the five-year plan. At its Sep-tember meeting, the Conference voted to place a two-year moratorium on all courthouse constructionprojects except those already under design or con-struction, and on all courthouse repair and alterationprojects except system upgrades.

After the March 2004 Conference decision, theDirector submitted to Congress the Judiciary’s FY2005 request for the four space-emergency court-house construction projects that totaled $735 mil-lion. When the President’s FY 2005 budget was de-veloped without adequate funding for these projects,the Judiciary responded.

The combined efforts of Judge Jane R. Roth (3rd

Circuit), chair of the Conference Committee on Secu-rity and Facilities, other judges, Director Mecham,and Administrative Office staff who worked through-out the year with the appropriate congressional del-egations and committees to obtain courthouse fund-ing, were successful. The final omnibus appropria-tions bill for FY 2005 included funding for all four ofthe space emergency courthouse construction projectsat a total funding level of $442 million, and the 10repair and alteration projects totaling $216 million.

10


Following the Conference decision in Sep-tember to place a moratorium on courthouseconstruction and repair and alteration projects,Administrative Office staff briefed the appro-priate congressional committees about the rea-sons for and the impact of the moratorium.Congress has expressed concern about furtherdelays in the completion of courthouse con-struction projects. However, congressionalcommittees also understand that unless theconstruction program is slowed down andspace is reduced, and unless the Judiciary’s op-erating budget is sufficiently increased, the Ju-diciary will not be able to meet its rental obli-gations on the new facilities without substan-tial staff reductions nationwide. The Commit-tee on Security and Facilities and Administra-tive Office staff are reviewing all pendingcourthouse construction and repair and alter-ation projects, the U.S. Courts Design Guide,and space-planning assumptions and projec-tions to determine where reductions might be made.

Judicial OperationsIn the First Session of the 108th Congress, the

Director, on behalf of the Judicial Conference, trans-mitted to Congress a proposed Federal Courts Im-provement Act. The legislation included several pro-visions that address administrative, financial, person-nel, and benefits needs of the Judiciary, including anauthorization for the Judiciary to provide its employ-ees with a supplemental benefits package that wouldbe competitive with those already offered throughoutthe private sector and by state and local govern-ments. The Judicial Resources Committee has pro-posed deferring any new benefits in 2005 and 2006,should such legislation be passed. Another provisionwould create a new federal crime punishing any per-son who files a false lien against the property of a fed-eral judge.

This legislation was introduced in both theHouse and Senate and received some bipartisan sup-port but was not passed in either house. While thefull omnibus bill was not passed, a few of its provi-sions (including several new places of holding court)were enacted as part of S. 2873, P. L. No. 108-455.

Judicial PayFederal judges received

a 2.5 percent EmploymentCost Index adjustment,along with members of Con-gress and Executive Sched-ule employees, effectiveJanuary 1, 2005. Judgeshave received cost-of-livingincreases in seven of thepast eight years, keepingpace with inflation over thisperiod. But these increaseshave still not made up forpreviously denied pay ad-justments in the 1990s. Theoverall compensation of federal judges continues tolag seriously behind the growth of salaries and ben-efits received by comparable legal positions in privatefirms and academia.

Judicial ResourcesIn the First Session of the 108th Congress, the

Senate approved a bill that would create 12 new per-manent district court judgeships, and two new tem-

Courthouse construction:“Recognizing the budgetaryconstraints facing theCongress and the Judiciaryin FY 2005 and beyond, theJudicial Conference voted toseek full funding for onlythe four projects it haddesignated as judicial spaceemergencies in September2003,” said Judge Jane Roth(3rd Circuit), testifying beforeCongress in July 2004.(July 2003 photo.)

11


porary judgeships, and convert temporary judgeshipsin nine states into permanent judgeships. The Houselater amended that bill to largely reflect the entireJudicial Conference judgeship request submitted byAO Director Mecham to Congress in March 2003—nine permanent and two temporary judgeships to thecourts of appeals, 29 permanent and 17 temporaryjudgeships to the district courts, and conversion offive existing temporary judgeships to permanent po-sitions. It would also confer Article III status on thejudgeships authorized for the Northern Mariana Is-lands and the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, a provi-sion added to the bill in the House to split the NinthCircuit Court of Appeals into three separate circuitsran into stiff opposition in the Senate. The Congres-sional session ended without action on this legisla-tion. House majority leaders said there would be nonew judgeships unless the Ninth Circuit is split intoat least three circuits.

By the end of the 108th Congress, 103 nomineeswere confirmed—18 court of appeals judges and 85district court judges. At the close of the 108th Con-gress, there were a total of 33 judicial vacancies—14in the U.S. courts of appeals and 19 in the U.S. dis-trict courts. The vacancy rate for district courts hasfallen to 2.8 percent but the rate for appellate courtshas risen to 7.8 percent. Nine circuit nominees wereblocked on the Senate floor by minority senators.

Ninth Circuit SplitThe Administrative Oversight and the Courts

Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committeeheld a hearing on the several proposals to split theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals into either two or

three new circuits and to create newjudgeships for the reconfigured circuits.Several judges from the Ninth Circuittestified at the hearing, including ChiefJudge Mary Schroeder and Senior JudgeJ. Clifford Wallace, who argued againstthe proposal. They noted the costs andadministrative hassles that would result,cited recent statistics, and described theimplementation of new internal proce-dures to generate significant improve-ments in the workload and operations of

the court. Judges Diarmuid O’Scannlain and RichardTallman presented numerous sets of statistics con-cerning the geographic and workload burdens associ-ated with the current composition of the circuit andargued that the plans for the Nakamura courthousein Seattle could be modified to house a circuit head-quarters at minimal cost increases over expected ex-penditures.

Late in the session, the House approved anamendment to the pending judgeship bill to create athree-way circuit split. The Senate failed, however, totake up the bill before adjournment.

Victims’ Rights and DNAOn October 30, 2004, the President signed into

law the Justice for All Act of 2004. The law includesprovisions pertaining to victims’ rights and DNA test-ing. The victims’ rights provisions require the Depart-ment of Justice to notify victims of federal crimes ofthe various rights afforded them, including the rightto be reasonably protected from the accused; theright to notice of any public court or parole proceed-ing involving the crime, or of any release or escape ofthe accused; the right not to be excluded from anysuch public court proceeding; the right to be reason-ably heard at any public proceeding in district courtinvolving release, plea, or sentencing, or at any paroleproceeding; the right to confer with the attorney forthe government; the right to full and timely restitu-tion as provided by law; the right to proceedings freefrom unreasonable delay; and, the right to be treatedwith fairness and respect for dignity and privacy.

The law further provides that if there is an allega-tion that any of these rights has been denied by the

To help reduce the future rate of

growth in rental costs, the Judicial

Conference in September approved

a courthouse construction

moratorium for 24 months on the

planning, authorizing, and

budgeting for new projects.

12


district court, the victim or government may petitionthe court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. The Ad-ministrative Office must submit annual reports toCongress stating, for each federal court, the numberof times that relief is denied upon assertion of avictim’s right, the reason for such denial, as well asthe number of times a mandamus action is brought,and the result reached.

The DNA provisions address the large backlog ofDNA evidence that awaits analysis, authorize fundingto promote use of DNA evidence, and establish rulesfor post-conviction DNA testing of federal prison in-mates and for the preservation of biological evidencein federal criminal cases.

E-Government ActOn August 2, 2004, the President signed into

law amendments to the E-Government Act of 2002to implement Judicial Conference policies on privacyand public access to electronic case files. In requiringSupreme Court rules to protect privacy and securityconcerns related to electronic filings and public avail-ability of electronic documents, the new law allowsfor a rule that would protect personal data identifiers,including social security account numbers, frompublic disclosure.

Dental and Vision BenefitsOn December 23, 2004, the President signed

P. L. 108-496 authorizing the Office of PersonnelManagement to establish supplemental group dentaland vision benefits coverage programs by 2006 for allfederal employees—including judges—their depen-dents, and retirees. Coverage would be available re-gardless of whether an individual was enrolled in thefederal health benefits program. The program wouldbe voluntary and enrollees would pay the entire costof the premiums.

Other LegislationThe Judiciary also was interested in several bills

that could have affected its operations but were notenacted. Judges, Director Mecham, and Administra-tive Office staff worked to raise congressional aware-

ness of relevant Judicial Conference positions as thelegislation, summarized as follows, was considered.

Bankruptcy Reform Legislation

Early in the 2004 session, the House took up abill passed by the Senate in 2003 to extend Chapter12 of the bankruptcy code (family farmers), but sub-stituted the language of bankruptcy reform legisla-tion that had previously passed the House.

The reform legislation included several provi-sions of concern to the Judiciary, including a bank-ruptcy judgeship provision superseded by the Judi-cial Conference recommendation of September 2002,and creating a duty on the part of the bankruptcyclerks to maintain and control access to federal taxreturns filed by debtors. It also specified a duty onthe part of the bankruptcy clerks and the Adminis-trative Office to collect and report financial data ofdebtors, revision of filing fees and re-allocation ofderived revenues to the Executive Office for UnitedStates Trustees, and direct appeal of bankruptcycases. The Senate took no action on the House-passed bill before adjournment.

Drug Crimes

The House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee ap-proved drug crime legislation with various provisionsopposed by the Judicial Conference. These includedmandatory minimum sentences, direct amendmentof the sentencing guidelines, and narrowing of the“safety valve” provision enacted in 1994 to amelioratesome of the harshest results of mandatory minimumsentences with respect to first-time non-violent drugoffenders.

Social SecurityAccount Numbers

The House Ways and Means Committee re-ported out legislation to prevent misuse of Social Se-curity account numbers. The bill would prohibit thepublic disclosure of redacted Social Security accountnumbers by a “judicial agency” effective six years af-ter the promulgation of implementing regulations bythe Attorney General, unless those regulations pro-vide for an exemption. It would subject access andcontrol of Social Security account numbers by Judi-

13


claims to have been administered by the Departmentof Labor. The legislation would generally have appliedto pending asbestos cases in federal and state courts.

During consideration of asbestos legislation inthe 108th Congress, the Judicial Conference reiteratedits support for a national solution, which it firsturged Congress to support in 1991. It also com-mented on provisions in the asbestos legislationaffecting the administration of the federal courts. ■

The Judicial Conference reiterated

its support for a national solution

to help resolve asbestos personal

injury claims.

ciary employees to regulation by the Commissioner ofSocial Security.

Congressional Oversight of GovernmentTelecommunications Program

AO staff testified before the House Committeeon Government Reform regarding the collaborationof the Judiciary with the General Services Adminis-tration to provide the federal courts with a compre-hensive set of integrated, cost-effective and highlyreliable voice and data services.

Class Action Fairness ActClass action legislation passed the House in the

first session and was considered by the Senate late inthe second session, but the 108th Congress endedwithout class action reform. The bill would generallyhave provided for original federal jurisdiction overclass actions involving minimal diversity betweenadverse parties where the amount in controversy ex-ceeds $5 million in aggregated damages. The legisla-tion would also have provided special rules for theremoval of class actions from state to federal court.

The Judicial Conference adopted a position inMarch 2003 recognizing that the use of minimal di-versity of citizenship may be appropriate to the main-tenance of significant multi-state class action litiga-tion in the federal courts. The Conference continuedto oppose class action legislation with jurisdictionalprovisions that are similar to those in the bills intro-duced in the 106th and 107th Congresses.

The Fairness in Asbestos InjuryResolution Act of 2004

During the first session, the Senate JudiciaryCommittee favorably reported asbestos legislation bya slim margin. Revised asbestos legislation introducedand debated in the Senate during the 108th Congresswas not passed. The legislation would have estab-lished a non-adversarial administrative processingsystem for the resolution of asbestos personal injury

14


Judges and Judgeships

Overall compensation of federal judges continues to lag seriously behind the growth of salariesand benefits received by those in comparable legal positions in private firms and academia.

Article IIIJudgeships

At the request of the Subcommittee on JudicialStatistics, AO staff worked with the Federal JudicialCenter to develop new case weights for the districtcourts, based on input from judges nationwide, whichthe Committee on Judicial Resources approved in2004. The Subcommittee also reviewed the materialsand standards to be used in the 2005 Biennial Judge-ship Survey of Judgeship Needs and developed pre-liminary recommendations for additional judgeshipsin the courts of appeals and district courts. In addi-tion, the Subcommittee responded to cost-contain-ment proposals from the Executive Committee, ad-dressed improved statistical data collection and re-porting within the Judiciary, and discussed the Con-ference policy regarding release of judge-specific data.

BankruptcyJudgeships

There are currently 324 authorized bankruptcyjudgeships. The Judicial Conference has a statutoryduty to report to Congress every two years on theneed for additional judgeships. To assist the Confer-ence in fulfilling this duty, the Committee on the Ad-ministration of the Bankruptcy System conducts anational “additional needs” survey of all judicial dis-tricts. Administrative Office staff prepare statistics forreview by the districts and circuit councils, conducton-site surveys of requesting districts, and producedetailed reports and recommendations. During the2004 survey, additional judgeships were requested by31 districts. The Bankruptcy Committee will make itsrecommendations to the Judicial Conference at theMarch 2005 session.

15


The Senate approved 28 bankruptcy judge-ships—the first since 1992. The House insisted onlinking judgeships to bankruptcy reform legislation,which failed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Magistrate Judge PositionsIn fiscal year 2004, there were 487 full-time and

50 part-time magistrate judge positions, and threecombination clerk-magistrate judge positions. Forfiscal year 2005, another eight new full-time posi-tions were authorized by the Judicial Conference,two of which represent conversions of existing part-time positions to full-time status. The increase is dueto district courts’ caseload growth and their ex-panded use of magistrate judges.

Inter- and Intra-Circuit AssignmentsThe Conference Committee on Intercircuit As-

signments reported that between January 1 and June30, 2004, the Chief Justice approved a total of 56intercircuit assignments for 44 Article III judges. Tohelp evaluate the costs and benefits of the program,the Committee recommended that the AdministrativeOffice collect additional data on inter-circuit assign-ments. The Committee also requested the Committeeon Judicial Resources to consider collecting data onintra-circuit assignments to ensure that data are col-lected on all visiting judge assignments. After deter-mining that there should be more flexibility given tocourts for requesting intercircuit assignments, theCommittee recommended to the Chief Justice achange to the guideline related to the lender-bor-rower rule. The Committee also proposed to theChief Justice a new guideline related to long-term

assignments. Both guidelines were ap-proved by the Chief Justice in July 2004.The Chief Justice approved both guide-lines in July 2004.

Since additional bankruptcy judge-ships were last authorized in 1992, thecombination of inadequate numbers ofauthorized judgeships and a record-breaking national bankruptcy caseloadhas caused a judicial crisis in many bank-

ruptcy courts. Over the past year, 10 bankruptcycourts awaiting authorization of additional bank-ruptcy judgeships utilized intra-circuit and inter-cir-cuit assignments to address their overwhelmingcaseloads. Intra-circuit assignments also help single-judge districts when a conflict of interest arises forthe resident judge.

For the 12-month period ended June 30, 2004,bankruptcy judges reported 8,954 hours voluntarilyassisting other districts. Bankruptcy judges reportedexpending 3,677 hours on intra-circuit trial-and-case-related work. Inter-circuit assignments accounted for2,577 hours of extra-district service during the sametime period. Administrative Office staff monitoredand reported extra-district assignments, and assistedin identifying bankruptcy judges available and willingto serve on inter-circuit assignments. Nine retiredbankruptcy judges were voluntarily recalled to par-ticipate in extra-district assignments. An average of35 bankruptcy judges were recalled to service inFY 2004.

Federal Rules of Practiceand Procedure

The Judicial Conference Committee on Rules ofPractice and Procedure and its five advisory rulescommittees propose amendments to the rules thatgovern all federal court proceedings and affect theentire legal system.

AO staff supported the rules committees’ workduring 2004 and also advised them on some 39 sepa-rate pieces of legislation introduced in, or passed by,the Congress during FY 2004 that could affect federalrules of practice, procedure, and evidence. Staff nowuse an electronic document management system to

AO staff supported the rules

committees’ work during 2004, and

also advised them on some 39

separate pieces of legislation

introduced in, or passed by, Congress

that could affect the federal rules of

practice, procedure, and evidence.

16


The Judges InformationSeries of publicationsadded a title during 2004covering travel regulationsfor judges. Staff work withcommittees to developconcise referencepublications for judges, inresponse to frequentrequests for information.

file, review, edit, search, index, and trackrulemaking documents.

Public comment now is accepted onproposed amendments to the federal rulesof practice and procedure via the Judiciary’simproved and expanded Federal RulemakingInternet web site, at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/. Users can review Rules Committeeminutes and research the legislative historyof rules amendments considered during thepast decade.

Status of Proposed RulesAmendments

On April 26, 2004, the Supreme Courtapproved amendments to the Federal Rulesof Bankruptcy and Criminal Procedure. Theamendments to the Criminal Rules includecomprehensive style and substantiveamendments to several rules, which tookeffect on December 1, 2004.

The Judicial Conference approved ad-ditional amendments to the Federal Rules of Appel-late, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Procedure at itsSeptember 2004 session for submission to the Su-preme Court. The proposed amendments to the Ap-pellate Rules included a new rule establishing com-prehensive procedures governing cross-appeals. Pro-posed amendments to Criminal Rules 29 (judgmentof acquittal), 33 (new trial), 34 (arresting judgment),and 45 (computing and extending time) permit acourt to extend the time for filing post-trial motionsunder these rules in certain conditions. Proposednew Criminal Rule 59 (magistrate judges) deals withthe handling of dispositive and non-dispositive mat-ters by a magistrate judge.

Judges’ Orientationand Benefits Programs

Last year, staff conducted orientations for ArticleIII and Article I judgeship nominees on topics suchas judicial governance, court personnel and procure-ment management, chambers staffing, judicial ethics,benefits, and personal security. Chief judge orienta-

tions address informationtargeted to their manage-ment and oversight respon-sibilities. A program of per-sonalized follow-up sessionsfor relatively new chiefjudges who have identifiedspecific needs for informa-tion has been temporarilydiscontinued due to budgetconstraints. In addition, inresponse to magistratejudges’ requests, the Admin-istrative Office offered apresentation on the history and progress of the mag-istrate judges system.

Information on benefit choices and retirementoptions also was presented to judges at various stagesin their careers. Particular efforts were dedicated toproviding information to judges and their spousesrelated to the Federal Employees Group Life Insur-ance (FEGLI) open season. Several programs werepresented as part of the Federal Judicial Center's live

17


and video orientation pro-grams for new Article IIIjudges, bankruptcy judges,and magistrate judges, in-cluding programs related toretirement planning.

Chief Judges’Budget Training

Throughout FY 2004,the AO staff provided in-struction and training to

more than one dozen chief judges participating in theChief Judge Orientation sessions sponsored by theAO. These briefings highlighted the chief judge’s rolesand responsibilities with regard to financial manage-ment, stewardship issues, and a general overview ofthe Judiciary’s budget process. Additionally, staff re-viewed current budget and staffing data with thejudges pertaining to their respective court units.

Staff also participated in the Federal JudicialCenter’s annual seminars for bankruptcy and districtcourt chief judges. At these sessions, chief judgeswere briefed on the potential budget shortfalls facing

the Judiciary in FY 2005 and beyond. They werealso encouraged to contact and educate theirlocal congressional delegations about the Judi-ciary budget.

FinancialDisclosure

The Judicial Conference Committee on Fi-nancial Disclosure and the Administrative Officeinformed new judges on financial disclosurefiling requirements and procedures, with liveand video orientations sponsored by the FederalJudicial Center. Training programs for judges’secretaries and judicial assistants included infor-mation to help them assist judges preparingtheir financial disclosure reports.

This year, at the direction of the Committeeon Financial Disclosure, the Administrative Of-fice began a review of the Judicial Conferenceregulations governing the release of financialdisclosure reports. Established internal operat-

ing procedures were reviewed to identify ways ofmaking the release and redaction process more effi-cient while minimizing the security risks andworkload burdens for the Judiciary’s filers. Initial staffefforts have reduced the time to process public re-quests for copies of judges’ financial disclosure re-ports by about 50 percent.

InternationalJudicial Relations

Maintaining an international dialogue about therule of law continued to be an important task for theJudicial Conference Committee on International Ju-dicial Relations and the Administrative Office thispast year. Requests for information and assistancecame from the judiciaries of other countries, interna-tional organizations, and U.S. Government agenciesinvolved in judicial reform and rule-of-law activities.In 2004, The AO hosted approximately 200 Russianjudges as part of the Open World Program sponsoredby the Library of Congress, which also took thejudges to state and federal courts around the country.Briefings were also conducted for 65 international

Judge Fern Smith(California-Northern)greeted a delegation fromChina, one of manyinternational judicial visitorsto the Administrative Officeduring last year. JudgeSmith chairs the Committeeon International JudicialRelations.

18


delegations, including over 445 judges, court admin-istrators and other officials from more than fourdozen countries. U.S. judges and court administra-tors participated in many of these briefings viavideoconference.

Administrative Office staff also initiated a projectto record the experience and insights of U.S. judgesand court administrators who have been involved ininternational judicial reform and rule-of-law activi-ties. Staff interviewed over 25 judges and clerks inperson or by telephone.

Briefings on bankruptcy court operations wereheld at the AO for visiting Russian judges of theArbitrazh Courts, which handle commercial disputes.Staff also conducted briefings on the bankruptcycourt system for a judge and court administratorfrom Japan, and contributed to a monograph by theInternational Association of Insolvency Regulatorswith an article discussing the problem of abuse of thereorganization process.

Federal Law ClerkInformation System

The Federal Law Clerk Information System(FLCIS) lists law clerk employment opportunitieswithin the federal courts on the Judiciary's publicweb site, www.uscourts.gov. In 2004, 60 percent ofall judges participated in the program. The databaseproved to be a useful resource for potential law clerkapplicants, supporting more than 4,600 search in-quiries per day by year’s end. A sudden increase ininquiries in July and August indicated that potentialapplicants used the system to search for clerkshipopportunities earlier than in years past. Efforts areongoing to provide assistance and advice to judgeson the benefits of the system.

Publications for JudgesThe Administrative Office is in the final stage of

revising the Judges Information Series handbook,Getting Started as a Federal Judge. The second editionof this booklet, scheduled for publication in the com-ing year, includes significant revisions to reflect ad-ministrative, legal, legislative, and policy changes

since the original publication of Getting Started in1997. The revised publication includes a new chapteron judges’ stewardship responsibilities, substantiveupdates of pay and benefit information, and signifi-cantly updated sections relating to information tech-nology programs for judges, statistics, emergencypreparedness, and security.

In addition, work was completed this year on ABrief Guide to Judges’ Travel and a companion “quickreference” brochure, made available on the Judiciary’sintranet. This resource, the ninth title in the JudgesInformation Series, offers a concise description of thetravel regulations and policies applicable to U.S.judges.

Various memoranda have been sent to the courtssummarizing significant recent cases that address theauthority of magistrate judges. In addition, newlyupdated bulletins and supporting material on theeffective use of magistrate judges have been distrib-uted to courts seeking advice on this topic. ■

19


Support to the Federal Courts

“Three concerns topped the Administrative Office’s agenda in2004. They were: securing adequate resources for the courts toconduct business, coordinating judicial branch cost-containmentefforts, and providing essential support services to the JudicialConference and the courts.”

—Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative Office U.S. Courts

20


Recognizing Achievement and Leadership

Director’s AwardsEach year, the Director solicits nominations of federal court employees who have made outstanding

contributions to the Judiciary. The Director’s Award for Outstanding Leadership recognizes managerialemployees who have contributed on a national level, through their leadership skills, to improvementsin the administration of the federal Judiciary. The Director’s Award for Excellence in Court Operationsrecognizes employees for achievements in improving the operations of the federal courts within fourcategories: Excellence in Court Administration, Excellence in Court Technology, Excellence in CourtSupport, and Excellence in Mission Requirements. The Director’s Award for Extraordinary Actionsrecognizes Judiciary employees for ensuring that the mission of the Judiciary is met during adversesituations by displaying creativity, bravery, and resourcefulness.

Twenty-two Judiciary employees were selected for recognition in 2004.

The recipients of the Director’s Award for Outstanding Leadership were:

Douglas Burris, Chief Probation OfficerUnited States District Court,Eastern District of Missouri

Major accomplishments: Developed progressiveinitiatives to improve the quality of life and futureoptions for persons under supervision.

James J. Waldron, ClerkUnited States Bankruptcy Court,District of New Jersey

Major accomplishments: Contributed to majorimprovements in court business processes andcommunity outreach.

Lawrence K. Baerman, ClerkUnited States District Court,Northern District of New York

Major accomplishments: Demonstratedoutstanding effort at improving court service tothe public through sound budget managementand use of technology applications.

21


The recipients of the Director’s Award for Excellence in Court Operations were:

Court Administration

Brenda W. Steutermann, Financial ManagerUnited States District Court,Western District of Kentucky

Major accomplishments: Served as a visionaryleader and mentor in the nationwideimplementation of the Judiciary’s newautomated financial management system.

Court Technology

Douglas C. Palmer, Systems ManagerUnited States District Court,Eastern District of New York

Major accomplishments: Helped create user-friendly technology applications to streamlineand improve court service to the public.

Mission Requirements

Ellen J. Krause, Chief Probation OfficerUnited States District Court,District of Delaware

Major accomplishments: Was instrumental inadvancing the Probation and Pretrial ServicesAutomated Case Tracking-Electronic CaseManagement System and in articulatingprofessional standards for officers.

22


PSI Shell Team of Ten, United States DistrictCourt, Southern District of Florida

• Virginia S. Cataldo,Supervising Probation Officer

• Edward L. Cooley,Probation Officer Specialist

• Helen Davis, Office Manager

• Gregory R. Jenkins,Probation Officer Specialist

• Katherine T. Koonce,Deputy Chief Probation Officer

• Barbara L. Lavin,Divisional Systems Specialist

• Mark D. Mussatto, Systems Manager

• Slavica Nikolic, Programmer

• Michael J. Thompson,Supervising Probation Officer

• Oscar Valdivia, Web Developer

Major accomplishments: Developed an efficientelectronic database to standardize the writing ofessential pre-sentence investigation reports.

The recipients of the Director's Awardfor Extraordinary Actions were:

Group Award - United States District Court,Western District of Tennessee

• Ron Dowling,Systems Technology Division Manager

• Jessee Gan,Senior Systems Engineer

• Ike Mussleman,Court Technology Engineer

• Sonya Kay Pettigrew,Deputy-In-Charge

• Marion A. Stevens,Automation Specialist

• Laura G. Vanzandt,Procurement Administrator

Major accomplishments: With tremendousdedication, team spirit, and tireless effort,successfully relocated and resumed courtbusiness just a few days after a major tornadodestroyed their courthouse workspace. ■

23


Space and Facilities Management

Nearly all courts nationwide reported having plans in various stages of development formaintaining or quickly resuming court services following natural or manmade emergencies.

Court Security

Management Study and Surveyby the U.S. Marshals Service

The Administrative Office and the Judicial Con-ference Committee on Security and Facilities workedclosely with the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) ontwo initiatives mandated by Congress in the FY 2003Omnibus Appropriations Act, P. L. No.108-7. ThatAct required the USMS to conduct an independentstudy of the protection provided the federal Judiciary,including the Court Security Officer Program. It alsorequired the USMS to survey each federal courthouseand location where federal court is held, includingleased facilities. The final report, Management of theProtection Afforded the Federal Judiciary was completedin July 2004, and the USMS has formally submitted itto Congress. The National Survey of Judicial Space is

under review by the Department of Justice. Results ofthe management study and survey will be used by theCommittee on Security and Facilities as it strives toensure effective and efficient use of the Judiciary'ssecurity resources.

Cost-Control Initiative: Cost Reductionfor Federal Protective Service Guards

A review of costs for Federal Protective Service(FPS) guards provided to the courts by the Depart-ment of Homeland Security began in 2004. This wasnecessary due to a $17 million shortfall in funding inFY 2005, and projected shortfalls in the FY 2006budget. Beginning with the FY 2005 budget, theseFPS costs will become part of the Court Security ac-count. The Administrative Office will work with thecourts, FPS, the USMS, and the General Services Ad-ministration to prevent FPS security coverage over-

24


lapping with USMS security coverage andto avoid duplication and unnecessarycharges.

Emergency PreparednessFeedback from chief judges and court

unit executives on the state of emergencypreparedness in the courts nationwideshowed that nearly all the courts either have devel-oped or are developing continuity of operationsplans (COOPs). To further this process, the AO pub-lished on the J-Net a Guide for Developing and Con-ducting COOP Exercises. A result of extensive experi-ence in testing simulated emergency exercises withjudges and unit executives, this guide will helpcourts validate their COOPs. Court emergency pre-paredness coordinators were also offered a train-the-trainer program, as funding was available, to guidethem in developing simulated exercises.

An emergency preparedness CD-ROM nearingcompletion will help courts respond to natural andmanmade disasters. The CD-ROM will summarize theJudiciary's emergency preparedness policies, describethe key elements of occupant emergency plans andCOOPs, profile the Judiciary’s emergency responseteam and its services, and highlight contingency plan-ning best practices in the courts.

The Administrative Office and two courts par-ticipated in an emergency preparedness and responseexercise known as “Exercise Forward Challenge,”with 45 executive branch agencies on May 12-13, 2004.During the exercise, the Administrative Office teamrelocated to an alternate site and tested AO emer-gency plans and interactive communications.

Space and FacilitiesCost-Control InitiativesMoratoriums on Space Requests

The AO continued certain Judicial Conference-approved initiatives begun in 2003 to control the fu-ture cost of rent, which has increased at an averageannual rate of 6.4 percent since 1999, and from 15percent of the total Judiciary budget in 1985 tonearly 22 percent this year:

• A moratorium for one year on all new non-pro-spectus space requests costing less than $2.29million in construction costs, except those re-quests for courtrooms, chambers, lease renew-als, official parking, and natural disasters or ter-rorist attacks, endorsed by the Judicial Confer-ence in March 2004. The moratorium primarilyaffects space requests for offices, trainingrooms, conference rooms, and storage space andcould save approximately $4-5 million in annualrental costs.

• A moratorium of 24 months on the planning,authorizing, and budgeting for new courthouseconstruction projects and prospectus-levelrepair and alteration projects (except for thoserequests intended solely for upgrading buildingsystems), endorsed by the Judicial Conferencein September 2004. This moratorium applies to35 courthouse construction projects not yet indesign, and seven projects with congressionalappropriations and authorizations ready to startdesign on the Five-Year Courthouse Project Planfor FY 2005-2009. During the moratorium, theAO will re-examine the long-range facilitiesplanning process.

Budget Check ProcessAs an interim measure to cap space growth, the

Judicial Conference in September 2004 approved abudget check on all pending space requests. This willhelp ensure that circuit judicial councils, with the Ad-ministrative Office, consider alternative space, futurerent implications, and affordability of any space re-quest. Staff will propose to the Conference Commit-tee on Security and Facilities national limits to controlthe rental costs of non-prospectus new courthouses,

The AO continued Judicial

Conference-approved initiatives

begun in 2003 to control the future

costs of rent, which has increased at

an average annual rate of 6.4 percent

since 1999.

25


The AO and courtsparticipated with 45 branchagencies in ExerciseForward Challenge in May2004. Staffs at individuallocations simultaneouslytested emergency plans.

and major renovations and an-nual square footage allocationcaps for the amount of spaceeach circuit judicial council canapprove in any fiscal year.

U.S. Courts DesignGuide Review

As another cost-control mea-sure, a comprehensive review of

the 1997 edition of the U.S. Courts Design Guide isunderway. This review will emphasize controllingcosts, and examining existing space standards forcourt functional space needs, as well as sharing ar-rangements.

The U.S. Courts Renovation and Alteration ProjectManual is being completed. It will supplement theU.S. Courts Design Guide by addressing space issuesfor renovating older, existing buildings. Its comple-tion is planned to coincide with the revised DesignGuide during FY 2005. A chapter on courtrooms wascompleted and endorsed by the Judicial Conferencein March 2004. ■

26


Financial Management in the Courts

The Judiciary’s successful budget decentralization program promotes significant costefficiencies – a savings of $1.3 billion in the Judiciary’s Salaries and Expenses appropriationaccount between 1994- 2002. Advances in automation also are helping courts achievesound financial management of public funds.

Assessment of BudgetDecentralization Program

Budget decentralization—the process that del-egates resource-use decisions to local court offices—continues to operate effectively in the Judiciary.

The consulting firm KPMG, engaged by the AOin November 2002 to review the program and reporton its strengths and areas for improvement, hailedthe program as a major success. KPMG interviewed90 judges, court unit executives, and AO staff andreviewed all documentation associated with the pro-gram. KPMG’s year-long study:

• endorsed the Judiciary’s implementation ofbudget decentralization for the courts andstated that other federal agencies could ben-efit from similar programs;

• reported that courts and the AO viewed bud-

get decentralization as an overwhelming suc-cess;

• noted that $1.3 billion in savings had accruedto the Judiciary’s Salaries and Expenses appro-priation account between FY 1994-2002;

• reported that courts had voluntarily returnedover $300 million in unspent funds;

• praised fair and equitable funding allotmentsto all court units;

• remarked that courts have a high regard forthe quality of AO support provided; and saidthat, with decentralization,

• courts and the AO actively seek to prevent theoccurrence of waste, fraud, and abuse.

KPMG also found that all of the original objec-tives for implementing budget decentralization were

27


achieved, including giving courts the ability to priori-tize expenditures; providing a means to respond tounique local court needs; offering incentives for goodfinancial management in the courts; and improvingcourts’ long-term planning.

Financial Accounting Systemfor Tomorrow

The Financial Accounting System for Tomorrow(FAS

4T) has been fully implemented in 12 circuits

and in 94 districts, thanks to the leadership of nu-merous court and AO staff. For the first time, courtsare operating a single integrated core financial sys-tem. More than an accounting system, FAS

4T has be-

come the financial core for national systems that re-quire financial data, such as the Integrated LibrarySystem and the Jury Management System. Plans areunderway to interface other national systems thatrequire financial data with FAS

4T, such as CM/ECF

and PACTS-ECM.

Civil/Criminal Accounting ModuleThe Civil/Criminal Accounting Module (CCAM), a

component of FAS4T that supports civil and criminal

accounting and cash receipting, is now operational intwo alpha courts in the District of Arizona and theDistrict of South Carolina. From the alpha courts'implementations, lessons learned were applied torefine the CCAM for the next wave of beta courts inthe District of Maine, the Northern District of NewYork, the Western District of Kentucky, the WesternDistrict of Virginia, the District of Utah, the Districtof Oregon, and the District of Maryland. The firstimplementation for the beta courts occurred inSeptember 2004, in the District of Maine and theNorthern District of New York. The remaining betacourts will be phased in through early 2005. Bestpractices will be compiled from the beta courts'experience and applied to implementation for theremaining districts by late 2006.

Certifying Officers Many district courts that have implemented cer-

tifying officer legislation have reported significant

savings in staff time previously devoted to disbursingactivities. The implementation of certifying officerauthority allows other court unit executives in addi-tion to district clerks to be appointed as certifying offic-ers who certify the appropriateness of payments onbehalf of their own programs. As a result, account-ability for payments has been suitably fixed; andredundant efforts and duplicate paper have beeneliminated. At the close of fiscal year 2004, a total of83 districts and 10 circuits had received training forthe implementation of certifying officer authority intheir courts.

Court Budget ManagementWeb-Based Training

The Administrative Office offered registration toall court staff interested in the new web-based train-ing program, “Managing the Local Court Budget.”The program is a comprehensive, knowledge-basedself-assessment tool that takes approximately 10hours to complete. A 65 percent completion rate wasachieved by court staff on this voluntary training pro-gram, a significant indication that the program meetsprimary financial management training needs in thecourts.

Automated AO Financial Planningand Tracking System

In FY 2004, the AO completed a review of alter-native methods of developing and tracking theJudiciary’s annual financial plans. The new auto-mated system, which replaces an outdated databasesystem and offers access through InfoWeb, assistswith plan development and quarterly tracking of ob-ligation activity. Financial liaison officers may nowdownload spreadsheet files with spending plan andobligation data for both the current year and prioryear. Reporting capability has expanded, allowing fi-nancial liaisons to run reports by program committee,directorate, or budget organization code. Emphasiz-ing more information rather than just more data, thissystem will also help ongoing cost-containment initia-tives. ■

28


Audits, Reviews, and Internal Controls

Each year, on-site reviews of various kinds are conducted in the courts for virtuallyall major areas of business operations.

Audits and Program ReviewsThe Administrative Office conducts financial au-

dits, program audits, reviews, assessments, andevaluations to promote effectiveness, efficiency, andeconomy in both AO and court operations. A com-prehensive program of financial audits covering allcourt units is conducted on a four-year cycle for mostcourts, and on a two-and-one-half year cycle forlarger courts. In 2004, the Administrative Office per-formed or contracted for 56 cyclical financial auditsof the courts and 58 other financial audits, includingChapter 7 trustees, Criminal Justice Act grantees, andspecial audits such as follow-ups to prior reviews,when there is a change of clerk, or when an audit ofparticular financial activities is requested by a court.

The Administrative Office continues to imple-ment an analytical software program for its audit pro-

gram for procurement, accountable property, travel,and payroll certification. Using the software stream-lines the audit process, as it helps auditors performsignificant work before visiting the courts.

Each year, on-site reviews of various kinds areconducted in the courts. Some offices have a compre-hensive cyclical program of reviews. In other cases,reviews are done primarily at the request of indi-vidual court managers or chief judges for areas in-cluding jury administration; court reporting; clerk'soffice operations and management; human resourcesmanagement; property management; procurement;and information technology operations, managementand security. During fiscal year 2004, reviews wereconducted in five district courts, two bankruptcycourts, 13 federal public defender organizations, andtwo probation offices.

29


Internal ControlsHandbook

Following an extensivecollaborative effort by Admin-istrative Office staff and courtmanagers, a final Internal Con-trols Handbook for the FederalCourts was published andposted on the J-Net in March2004. This handbook assistsmanagers in developing inter-

nal control procedures consistent with applicablepolicies and regulations. It also is a tool for managersto conduct required annual reviews of those proce-dures. Each section of the handbook contains simplechecklists of basic internal-control requirements for

segregating duties, controlling and protect-ing assets, maintaining necessary records,performing verification and review activi-ties, and restricting access to sensitive infor-mation or assets. Business areas addressedinclude financial management, procure-ment, property management, human re-sources, information systems and security,budget management, postage meters, andjury management. The handbook referencespolicies pertinent to each business area, andpractical suggestions are scattered through-out.

Government AccountabilityOffice Studies

The Administrative Office serves as aliaison to the Government AccountabilityOffice (GAO)—formerly the General Ac-counting Office—on studies pertaining tothe Judiciary. The AO coordinates the provi-sion of information and responses to GAO'swritten reports and testimony before Con-gressional committees. In fiscal year 2004,GAO commenced or completed 11 studiesinvolving the federal Judiciary to some ex-tent. The most significant reviews addressedfinancial disclosure redaction authority, the

history and cost of the courthouse construction pro-gram, the proposed Los Angeles courthouse-con-struction project, criminal-debt collection, and theimplementation status of the E-Government Actof 2002. ■

The Internal ControlsHandbook for the FederalCourts, published onlinein March 2004, containssimple checklists of basicinternal controlrequirements for majorareas of court business.

30


Program Management and Technology

After the Supreme Court ruling in Blakely v. U.S., the Sentencing Commission conductedhearings and a special Judiciary task force was developed to monitor the decision’s potentialimpact.

Juror UtilizationNationally, the federal courts saw a positive change

in the rate of jurors reporting for jury service but notselected, serving or challenged (NSSC). After peakingat 40 percent for fiscal year 2003, the percentage ofjurors NSSC declined to 37.7 percent for the 12months ended June 30, 2004. The courts' efforts toimprove juror utilization have resulted in savings ofapproximately $740,000 and more than 10,250 poten-tial jurors not being brought into the courthouseunnecessarily. Continued efforts are underway in theJudiciary toward more efficient juror use.

Based on statistical trends for recent years, theJudiciary took several steps in FY 2004 to address theNSSC rate. At its December 2003 meeting, the JudicialConference Committee on Court Administration andCase Management requested the AdministrativeOffice to analyze how its juror-usage rates in district

courts have changed over the preceding 10 years.The Committee, through its chair, Chief Judge JohnLungstrum (Kansas) provided this information toeach chief district judge and clerk of court, alongwith more general information regarding techniquesto assist courts in improving their NSSC rates. TheCommittee also provided the chief circuit judgeswith the analyses of the districts within their respec-tive circuits. As a result, a number of courts andcircuits are looking at identifying and implementingbetter management techniques to improve jurorutilization.

The Judicial Conference and the AdministrativeOffice consider efficient juror utilization to be a highpriority and will continue the efforts to communicateits importance, encourage courts to review their jurormanagement practices, and identify steps they cantake to make better use of jurors.

31


Study of Alternatives for ProvidingAdministrative Services

At the request of the Judicial Conference com-mittees on the Budget and Judicial Resources, the Ad-ministrative Office in September 2003 selected an expe-rienced federal contractor to independently and com-prehensively study current approaches and possiblealternatives for providing administrative services to thecourts. The study is reviewing financial and budget op-erations, personnel administration, procurement, infor-mation technology services, training, property manage-ment, and space and facilities management.

Goals include improving the quality of adminis-trative services, increasing operational efficiency andlowering costs, enhancing internal controls, and en-suring that key decision-making control remains atthe local court level.

The contractor is reviewing how executivebranch agencies, private organizations, and statecourt systems are structured and staffed to provideadministrative support services, and comparing howservices are delivered to the federal courts. They aregathering data through on-site visits, and interviewswith judges, court staff, and senior AdministrativeOffice staff. A final report with findings and recom-mendations is expected to be completed during 2005.

Interpreter CertificationIn fiscal year 2004, much was achieved in the

Spanish/English Federal Court Interpreter Certifica-tion Examination project. A contractor developed,validated, and administered two new versions of thewritten examinations. There were 1,055 examineeswho took the examination in August 2004.

32


A concurrent research study wasconducted comparing the results of theoral examination portion of the Spanish/English Federal Court Interpreter Certifi-cation Examination with the results ofsimilar state court interpreter examina-tions. The results of the study clearlysupport the validity of the Spanish/En-glish Federal Court Interpreter Certifica-tion Examination.

National Court InterpreterDatabase

The Court Interpreters Act requires the Adminis-trative Office to maintain a current master list of allcourt interpreters. The National Court InterpreterDatabase (NCID) was made available on the J-Net inJuly 1999 to assist courts in locating court interpret-ers in a multitude of languages. The AdministrativeOffice enters and updates all information on certifiedinterpreters, and the courts enter and update data for“otherwise qualified” interpreters used in their courts.NCID contains information regarding the qualifica-tion criteria, language, state, and contact informationfor each of the listed interpreters. At the end of fiscalyear 2004, the database contained the names of 883active certified interpreters and 1,563 otherwisequalified interpreters in close to 100 languages.

Telephone InterpretingThe Telephone Interpreting Program (TIP) pro-

vides remote interpretation in short proceedingswhere certified or otherwise qualified court interpret-ers are not locally available. In fiscal year 2004, TIPservices were used in over 3,200 events in 46 lan-guages. Spanish was used for 90 percent of the tele-phone interpreting events. There were 33 user courtsin fiscal year 2004, including services within districtsto outlying court locations. The four courts that pro-vide these services are the Central District of Califor-nia, District of New Mexico, Southern District ofFlorida, and District of Columbia. Staff interpretershandled 67 percent of the telephone interpretingproceedings, and 33 percent of the proceedings were

handled by contract interpreters. The total savings asa result of telephone interpreting in fiscal year 2004are estimated in excess of $975,000.

Slip Opinion Printing ContractsIn the face of reduced funding for the Judiciary,

staff renegotiated the prices for the production of slipopinions in several circuits. During FY 2004, boththe Third and Eighth Circuits completely discontin-ued the printing of all opinions and instead now dis-tribute opinions electronically. In light of projectedfunding constraints, other circuits are consideringdoing so.

Statistical Data Gatheringand ReportingNew Streamline Timely Access to Statistics(NewSTATS)

The New Streamline Timely Access to Statistics(NewSTATS) project will provide the Judiciary with amodern, flexible relational database that will allowthe Administrative Office and other authorized Judi-ciary users to access and use caseload statistics toproduce reports, analysis, and research required tomeet customer needs. NewSTATS will have the abilityto capture judicial activity data; interact with otherJudiciary systems, e.g. Defenders Services, FinancialAccounting System, and Human Resources; and sat-isfy existing customer requirements while adapting tofuture needs.

The most significant impact of Blakely

on federal court caseload is on 28

U.S.C. §2255, motions to vacate

sentence filed in the district courts.

The number of motions filed between

June 24 and September 30, 2004 was

90 percent higher than those filed in

the same period in 2003.

33


in criminal case procedures, in the event that the cur-rent sentencing guidelines are held invalid in wholeor in part.

In an effort to assess the impact of this decisionon federal court caseloads, Administrative Officestaff have monitored monthly filings and dispositionsin the appeals and district courts. The most signifi-cant impact of Blakely on federal court caseload is on28 U.S.C. §2255, motions to vacate sentence filed inthe district courts. The number of motions filed be-tween June 24 and September 30, 2004 was 90 per-cent higher than those filed in the same period in2003. The second significant impact is a 30 percentincrease in filings of original proceedings in the courtsof appeals, primarily caused by a 66 percent increasein the number of motions to file second or successiveappeals with respect to habeas corpus petitions.

The impact of Blakely on terminated criminalcases in the district courts is less clear. A comparisonbetween the three-month period ending September30, 2003, and the same period in 2004 shows thatterminations declined by 1,093 defendants, from22,703 to 21,610. However, because defendants aresentenced on average about three months after con-viction, the Administrative Office had not receiveddata on all defendants convicted between June 24and September 30, 2004, at the time this publicationwas prepared.

Case Management System/ElectronicCase Files System (CM/ECF)

The federal courts continued their leadership inelectronic filing for the legal community with majorprogress in the nationwide rollout of the Case Man-agement / Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system. Infiscal year 2004, an additional 39 courts beganimplementation, bringing to 187 the number ofcourts using or preparing to use the system. Thatnumber includes all bankruptcy courts and all exceptthree district courts. The appellate courts are sched-uled to begin implementation early in fiscal year 2005.

The past year was also a period of great growthin live CM/ECF usage, as 41 more courts began liveoperation. The system is now in live use in 129courts, including 76 bankruptcy, 51 district, the

The project has completed an alternatives analy-sis and is entering the design phase. NewSTATS'modern infrastructure will include an integrated en-terprise database containing data currently residingin 12 legacy databases. It will include historicallegacy data currently on tape, as well as magistratecaseload data.

In addition to providing more timely and user-friendly solutions to current reporting, analytic andresearch requirements, NewSTATS will employ busi-ness intelligence tools that will allow authorized us-ers to fully utilize the collected data for strategicplanning purposes.

District Court Statistical NeedsRecommendation 73 of the Long Range Plan for

the Federal Courts called for a comprehensive reviewof the statistical data and information needs of theJudiciary. The first two phases of the review, whichaddressed appellate and bankruptcy data needs, werecompleted in recent years. The third phase, involvingdistrict court activity, is nearing completion. Underthe guidance of the Judicial Resources Committee’sSubcommittee on Judicial Statistics, AdministrativeOffice staff are working to revise the Case Manage-ment/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system asneeded to collect the required district court data.New procedures for docketing court events havebeen developed for incorporation in CM/ECF in anupcoming release. Similarly, a number of data itemsthat are currently recorded by the courts but not for-warded for inclusion in the national databases havebeen identified for addition in an upcoming release.

Tracking Case TrendsThe Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. U.S.

cast doubt on the constitutionality of the federal Sen-tencing Guidelines. A special task force of Adminis-trative Office, Federal Judicial Center, and U.S. Sen-tencing Commission staff was established to monitorthe decision's potential impact on sentencing prac-tices in the federal courts, and the related effect onjudicial administration and resources. AO staff arealso providing support to the Judicial Conference'sCriminal Law and Rules Committees as they assesspossible sentencing policy alternatives and changes

34


Court of International Trade, and theCourt of Federal Claims. By the end of theyear, more than 100,000 attorneys hadmade electronic filings over the Internet,and attorneys were providing more than40 percent of the CM/ECF data entry.Monthly volumes had reached more than130,000 case openings and 3.6 milliondocket entries. Similar growth is expecteduntil the national rollout is completed in2005.

For each of those 41 courts that com-pleted implementation in 2004, the pro-cess was a joint effort with the AO thattook about 10 months. The AO’s multi-disciplinary team assisted the judges, clerks, and staffwith implementation by providing training and byoffering guidance in the analysis of technology, busi-ness, legal and policy issues related to CM/ECF. TheAO also provided continuing operational support forthe courts using the system, and developed tools toaid in both implementation and operations.

Efforts in 2004 included a continued focus onjudges’ needs, with publication of an updated CM/ECF Chambers Handbook. Guides were also publishedto help district court chambers with their statisticalreporting requirements: the Guide to the CM/ECFMonthly Trials and Other Activity Report and the Guideto MJSTAR. And documents were produced relatingto the use of CM/ECF in the appellate courts, includ-ing discussion of CM/ECF Appellate Model Rules.Also, at national meetings, all bankruptcy judges weregiven the opportunity to see demonstrationsof several court-developed systems that work withCM/ECF to perform calendar and order-processingfunctions.

In addition to the progress in implementation,there were significant gains made in CM/ECF technol-ogy development during the past year. New versionsof both the bankruptcy and district products weredeveloped to provide enhanced capabilities such asthe new statistical reports, fee payment by credit card,and enhanced privacy options. Also, modificationswere completed to enable transition to the judiciary’snew Linux operating system. There was extensivecontinued development of the appellate system, andthat product entered the final testing phase.

Enhancements to CM/ECF will be a continuingprocess to ensure that the system keeps pace withadvancing technology and provides the functionalitythat the courts need. Courts are already identifyingnew features and functions that can further extendthe benefits of the system.

Electronic Public Access ProgramThe Electronic Public Access (EPA) Program fa-

cilitates and improves electronic public access tocourt information, in accordance with legislative andJudiciary policies, security requirements, and userdemands. The EPA Program, as mandated by Con-gress, is funded entirely through user fees, set at areasonable rate to cover expenses. The program gen-erated approximately $37.4 million for the Judiciaryin FY 2004. A significant portion of this revenue hasfunded the development and implementation of theCase Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF)systems. Congress recently authorized the Judiciaryto use EPA fee revenue to fund CM/ECF operationsand maintenance costs as well.

The Internet-based PACER system has becomethe predominant method for the Judiciary to providepublic access to court information. The AO’s PACERService Center provides the public and the Judiciarywith registration, centralized billing, and technicalsupport services. A recent review of the PACER Ser-vice Center conducted by SAI Corporation, an inde-pendent third-party contractor, rated the PACER Ser-

The Internet-based PACER system has

become the predominant method for

the Judiciary to provide public access

to court information. The AO’s PACER

Service Center provides the public

and the Judiciary with registration,

centralized billing, and technical

support services.

35


vice Center operation aboveboth industry and govern-ment standards for overallcall-center performance. Asurvey of PACER usersshowed 94 percent of all re-spondents rated the PACERService Center operation fa-vorably.

Significant EPA ProgramActivities in FY 2004:

•Instant Registration ProjectPACER Service Center staff implemented aninstant registration process. Users may registerwith a credit card online for nearly immediateregistration and access. The system also includesautomatic quarterly billing to credit cards. Anyregistered user may elect to participate in theautomatic credit card billing program.

• Increased User DemandThe PACER Service Center established over100,000 new PACER accounts and there arenow nearly 400,000 registered PACER users.Approximately 70 percent of these new regis-trations were made using the enhanced instantregistration process.

• SecurityThe EPA Program Office conducted two secu-rity posture assessments of the PACER-Net.These assessments assist the AO and thecourts by maintaining the security of theJudiciary's public access systems.

• Interagency AgreementWith the Department of JusticeThe Administrative Office renewed an inter-agency agreement with the Department ofJustice (DOJ). Per the agreement, the AO billsthe DOJ an annual subscription amount basedupon its actual PACER usage for the 12-monthperiod from July 1 through June 30 of thepreceding fiscal year.

• Fee IncreaseUser fees had remained unchanged since1998. In order to meet increasing costs, theJudicial Conference approved a one-centincrease—from 7 cents per page to 8 centsper page—to the PACER Internet access fee,effective on January 1, 2005.

New Policy and Guidelinesfor Allowing Electronic Access

In September 2001, the Judicial Conferenceadopted a policy that generally permits remote publicaccess to electronic case files in civil and bankruptcycases, with the requirement that certain personal iden-tifiers be redacted by the filer of a document. Thispolicy stated that there would be no such access incriminal cases for a period of two years, while issuesunique to criminal cases were studied in greater detail.

Following a pilot project and study, the JudicialConference at its September 2003 session amendedits earlier policy to allow remote public access to elec-

The AO’s multi-disciplinaryteam assisted the judges,clerks, and staff withimplementation byproviding training and byoffering guidance in theanalysis of technology,business, legal, and policyissues related to CM/ECF.

36


tronic criminal case file documents, on the sameterms as public access to these documents at thecourthouse. The Conference further determined thatthe personal data identifiers must be redacted by thefiler of the document, whether the document is filedelectronically or on paper for later conversion toelectronic format, as follows: Social Security numbersto the last four digits; financial account numbers tothe last four digits; names of minor children to theinitials; dates of birth to the year; and home ad-dresses to the city and state.

The Conference had delayed the effective dateof this policy change until specific guidance on theimplementation and operation of the new policy wasdeveloped.

The guidance and a model local rule addressingprivacy and access to electronic criminal case fileswere developed by the Committee on Court Adminis-tration and Case Management, with support from AOstaff, and approved by the Conference in March2004. Required software changes to CM/ECF weremade to accommodate the new policy and wereprovided the courts in September 2004 for testing.Electronic public access to criminal case files wasmade available November 1, 2004.

Pilot Project Allowing ElectronicAccess to Court Transcripts

In September 2003, the Judicial Conferenceadopted a policy for future implementation thatrequires those courts making documents electroni-cally available to the public also to make availableelectronic transcripts of court proceedings, if suchtranscripts are otherwise prepared. The policy in-cludes a process for redacting personal identifyinginformation from transcripts in order to protectindividual privacy, and requires it to be consistentwith the Judicial Conference policy on privacy andpublic access to electronic case files. The Conference,however, decided to defer the effective date of thepolicy until it could consider a report from the Com-mittee on Judicial Resources on the impact of thepolicy on court reporter compensation.

The Conference approved a pilot project to helpassess the effect of the electronic transcripts policyin courts in the Southern District of Alabama, the

District of Kansas, the District of Maine, the EasternDistrict of Missouri, and the District of Nebraska.These courts are reporting to the AO on each of theircourt reporters that details the number of transcriptsordered, the number of pages ordered, whether theorder was an original or a copy, and the fee chargedper transcript. Comparisons are being made withsimilar information for fiscal years 2000, 2001,and 2002.

Following Conference approval of the implemen-tation guidelines on remote public electronic accessto criminal case files in March 2004, it is possible forthe pilot courts to make electronic transcripts ofcriminal proceedings available to the public. The pilotproject was continued through September 2005, toinclude criminal transcripts over a longer period oftime. To date, the Administrative Office has receiveddata on 534 transcripts, including 292 transcripts incriminal cases. ■

37


Evaluating Alternative Modelsfor IT Service Delivery

After the Judicial Conference Executive Commit-tee identified information technology as a principalbusiness area for cost-containment, the Committeeon Information Technology endorsed a vigorous ef-fort to identify and implement more cost-effective ITservice delivery models. Alternatives to be examinedinclude consolidating system servers in fewer loca-tions, with one court servicing several others; con-solidating servers in one or more service centers op-erated by contractor personnel; and outsourcing sys-tem operations, as well as servers, to a commercialservice provider.

Moving to a different model will require mostnational applications to be modified, higher-capacityservers to be acquired, and data communications and

public access networks to be reconfigured. Thismeans that myriad system architecture, technical,procurement, and management complexities must befactored into the process.

Nevertheless, long-term cost savings associatedwith a reduced number of servers will outweigh theone-time investment in software modification, hard-ware acquisition, and network changes. The AO isworking with the courts to identify costs and developa transition plan and schedule.

Anticipating a different service deliverymodel, the Committee on Information Technologydetermined to discontinue normal cyclical replace-ment of individual court-based servers supportingnational applications. Some funds will be reservedto repair or replace servers as they fail, or to upgradeservers to meet critical capacity demands on a case-by-case basis.

Advances in Automation

After the Judicial Conference Executive Committee identified information technology as aprincipal business area for cost-containment, the Committee on Information Technologyrecommended discontinuing normal cyclical replacement of court-based servers supportingnational applications.

38


IT Work CenterDescription and Practices

A working group comprised ofcourt unit representatives has devel-oped an IT work center description,which is a comprehensive summaryof all tasks performed by IT staff incircuit executive offices, appellate,district, and bankruptcy courts, andprobation and pretrial services offices.Court managers can use this sum-mary as an aid in local workforceplanning. The group also developed alist of IT practices that courts maywish to explore and incorporate intotheir operations to enhance efficiencyand service levels. The list of IT prac-tices is a resource court managersmay consult to improve operations; however, it is notintended to be prescriptive. Both the work centerdescription and the list of practices have been postedon the J-Net and will be updated as the Judiciary ex-plores alternate IT and administrative service deliverymodels.

Remote AccessThe Administrative Office has worked closely

with the assistant circuit executives for automationand others in the courts to develop a secure, broad-band-capable virtual private network (VPN) systemto provide remote access to the Judiciary network forusers with laptops and personal digital assistants con-nected to the Internet from their homes, hotel rooms,and other locations. AO staff are also working onmeasures that will maintain the Judiciary's IT securityposture in this remote-access environment.

Automation of NationalJudiciary-Wide Forms

The AO continued work on automating morethan 300 national forms for Judiciary-wide use. Manyforms are now available on the J-Net in a choice ofWordPerfect and PDF formats. In addition, morethan 90 forms have also been placed on the

Judiciary's Internet site,www.uscourts.gov, making themavailable to attorneys and otherusers who previously had to ob-tain them from their local districtcourts.

Records ManagementAO staff negotiated an agree-

ment with the National Archivesand Records Administration (NARA) regarding thedisposition of court filings that are filed in paper, butsubsequently converted to electronic format and en-tered into the Case Management/Electronic Case Files(CM/ECF) system. The agreement formally designatesthe electronic version of the filing as the courtrecord. This will contribute to a tremendous reduc-tion of paper court records.

Computer-Assisted Legal ResearchServices Contracts

The Administrative Office awarded new con-tracts to West and LexisNexis for computer-assistedlegal research (CALR) services. These contracts be-came effective in FY 2005 and may be renewed annu-ally at the Judiciary's option for up to 10 years,through FY 2014.

The Judiciary waschallenged duringFY 2004 to continueproviding advancesin automation whilecoping with limitedfunding.

39


The new contracts provide unlimited access forall federal Judiciary users to a full range of legal,news/journals/business, and public records data-bases. Judges and other researchers may choose theproduct that best serves their individual researchneeds. The contracts guarantee uninterrupted avail-ability of essential research services and significantlybenefit the Judiciary by ensuring access to exclusivecontent on both Westlaw and LexisNexis.

The new contracts also further important finan-cial objectives for the Judiciary. The 10-year contractterm allows the Judiciary to predict future costs forlong-term financial planning. In addition, the dualcontract award supports the Judiciary's ongoing ef-fort to reduce lawbook spending.

During the past four years, cancellations of Westpublications alone have resulted in an estimated costsavings of $5.8 million to the Judiciary in lawbookexpenditures. The Judiciary can continue to seek fur-ther voluntary reductions in print subscriptions byensuring the long-term online availability of essentialresources.

Administrative Office staff were assisted in theprocurement by judges, court librarians, judicial lawclerks, and staff attorneys. The contracts were negoti-ated to offer the same content and services to severalother Judiciary organizations as riders to the con-tracts, including the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates, the Federal Judicial Center, and the UnitedStates Sentencing Commission.

Congressional UpdateCollection Project

The new Congressional Update Collection forthe Office of Legislative Affairs (CUPOLA) was imple-mented in early FY 2004. The CUPOLA applies theonline legal information environment to the laboriouseffort required to maintain a searchable data store ofcongressional activity that affects the courts.

InfoWeb Buyout/SeverancePay and Impact

A tool made available to all those involved incourt personnel planning/management allowed themto calculate the costs of reducing staffing as a result

of tight budget constraints. Also, InfoWeb now allowsfor the online collection of information about theimpact of proposed or planned staffing reductionsin the courts for the current and subsequent fiscalyears.

Central Violations BureauThe Central Violations Bureau (CVB) provides

participating U.S. district courts and federal law en-forcement agencies with an efficient processing systemfor handling petty offenses and some misdemeanorcases initiated by a violation notice. During fiscal year2004, the CVB processed 415,000 citations, an in-crease of more than 20,000 from 2003. A number ofoperational improvements resulted in enhancedservice to the courts and allowed the CVB to collect$20 million in fines and forfeitures. The CVB fieldedmore than 250,000 telephone calls and e-mails fromthe public, courts, and law enforcement agencies.

The CVB made several technological improve-ments to operations during fiscal year 2004. On theJ-Net, court staff can now access and fill out formsthat have fields automatically completed with datadrawn from the CVB database. An e-mail-basedsearch tool was implemented to allow law enforce-ment agencies to automate the checking of casestatus. In an effort to cut costs and ease production,the CVB has moved from an impact to laser printerfor the production of the Notice to Appear andWarrant forms. Additionally, numerous qualityreports were generated to help ensure data integritythroughout the life cycle of a violation notice.

ILS Hardware and ReplacementStaff from several AO offices worked with the

Integrated Library System (ILS) vendor, Sirsi, tosuccessfully complete the cyclical replacement of allIntel/Solaris ILS servers with new SPARC/Solarisservers. Due to the fact that Sirsi does not provide aLinux/Intel version of its software, the standardplatform for the Judiciary, an alternative replacementplatform was sought and the SPARC/Solaris was cho-sen. Approximately 30 percent of Sirsi's customerbase uses SPARC/Solaris, and Sirsi uses this platformfor development and testing.

40


Successful completion of this project is the resultof a two-year effort to determine the best scenariofor cyclical replacement of the ILS Intel/Solaris hard-ware. Alternatives were identified and analyzed,project requirements were outlined, and hardwarespecifications were developed. A file-system layoutand implementation and data-migration plan werekey to the seamless replacement. AO staff now pro-vide support for both the operating system and appli-cation software.

ILS/FAS4T Interface ImplementationIn 2004, staff completed the implementation of

an interface between the Integrated Library System(ILS) and FAS

4T in five circuit headquarters libraries,

thus completing a project initiated in FY 2000.All circuit library staff now use ILS for lawbook

ordering and FAS4T to generate lawbook payments,

exchanging data between the two systems. Successfulcompletion of this project has resulted in increasedefficiency and timeliness of lawbook payments andthe tracking of lawbook expenditures.

Bankruptcy Noticing CenterIn fiscal year 2004, the Bankruptcy Noticing

Center (BNC) produced and mailed approximately135 million bankruptcy notices, representing an in-crease of nearly 13 percent over FY2003. Operatedunder a contract managed by the Administrative Of-fice, the BNC electronically retrieves data from par-ticipating courts' case management systems and auto-mates the printing, addressing, batching, and mailingprocesses. Using automation, the BNC is able to gen-erate notices at a fraction of the time and cost thatwould be required if produced by local courts. Sincethe program's inception in 1993, it has saved the Ju-diciary approximately $34 million and has providedbetter service.

Since the inception of the BNC in

1993, it has saved the Judiciary

approximately $34 million and has

provided better service.

Electronic Bankruptcy NoticingThe Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing (EBN) pro-

gram provides an innovative approach to bankruptcynoticing, eliminating the production and mailing oftraditional paper notices, and associated postagecosts, while speeding public service. Available op-tions include Internet e-mail and fax services, andelectronic data interchange for large-volume noticerecipients. In fiscal year 2004, overall program usagecontinued to increase over the previous fiscal years.Approximately 10 million notices were sent electroni-cally, compared to 7 million transmitted in fiscal year2003. The increase is due in part to the launch of theNational Creditor Registration Service, an enhance-ment to the EBN program that eliminated the needfor clerk's office personnel to administer program-related paperwork, and simplified the sign-up processfor electronic notice recipients. By the end of the fis-cal year, approximately 10 percent of all notices sentthrough the Bankruptcy Noticing Center each daywere being sent electronically. Participation in theelectronic noticing program by creditors or other re-cipients is voluntary. Additional program growth isexpected in the future through administrative andrules-based initiatives. ■

41


Judiciary BenefitsThe Judiciary recognizes that competitive em-

ployee benefits help attract and retain a talentedworkforce. A strong commitment to offering benefitssimilar to, or better than, the private sector enhancesthe Judiciary's appeal as a progressive employer. TheJudiciary took the lead in establishing these benefitsprograms for federal employees, including long-termcare insurance in the fall of 1999, followed by theflexible benefits program in January 2000. Enroll-ment in both programs has exceeded insurance in-dustry norms.

In an area as dynamic as employee benefits, con-tinuous reassessment is in order. So, the Administra-tive Office is conducting a thorough update of a 1998benefits study that helped identify the need for thecurrent programs. This updated study, which is near-ing completion, will help in maintaining a competi-

tive benefits package for judges and Judiciary em-ployees.

Flexible Benefit ProgramOffers Savings

The Flexible Benefits Program allows employeesto set aside salary on a pre-tax basis in special ac-counts that can be used to fund health care, includ-ing medical, dental, and vision, and dependent care,including childcare expenses. Since the flexible ben-efits program was introduced more than four yearsago, judges and court employees have saved over$126 million. In FY 2004, there were 10,187 enroll-ments—about 30 percent of the workforce—in thereimbursement accounts, nearly a 10 percent increaseover 2003. Including tax savings from participationin the health benefits premium plan, judges and Judi-

Workforce Management and Development

A commitment to progressive employee benefits and quality workforce training has helped theJudiciary attract and retain a talented workforce.

42


ciary employees increased their take-homepay by nearly $31 million (tax savings) in2004. On average, judges increased theirtake-home pay by $2,900 and Judiciaryemployees increased theirs by $2,239.

Outsourcing BenefitsAdministration

In 2004, the federal Judiciary took amajor step forward in employee benefitsself-service by outsourcing to SHPS the ad-ministration of three employee benefit pro-grams, the Federal Employees Health Ben-efit Program, the Federal Employee GroupLife Insurance Program, and the Thrift Savings Plan.As a result, biweekly employees participating in theseprograms now have the same one-stop shopping theyhave enjoyed for years with the Flexible BenefitProgram.

Outsourcing also introduces electronic enroll-ment for these programs, which offers several advan-tages. Benefit participation decisions are personal, sobeing able to enroll from any personal computer withInternet access allows participants to gather all theirpersonal information, discuss participation with fam-ily members, and enroll when convenient. Enrollingonline allows the participant to view and print out aconfirmation statement immediately. Participants areencouraged to provide an e-mail address to SHPS sothey can receive e-mail confirmation of enrollmentchoices, as well as notices of time-critical informa-tion.

This outsourcing initiative was inaugurated inSeptember 2004, in time to assist biweekly employ-ees with the first open season in five years for theFederal Employee Group Life Insurance Program.

Human Resources ManagementInformation System (HRMIS)

AO staff implemented Phase III of the PersonnelSystems Modernization Project-Human ResourcesManagement Information System (PSMP-HRMIS)—covering the biweekly court employee population—beginning with the first full pay period in 2004. This

implementation concludes the transition of person-nel and payroll data, transaction processing, report-ing, and other functionality from the legacy system tothe new PeopleSoft7-based HRMIS.

Now that the entire Judiciary is fully operationalusing HRMIS, the AO will be able to develop andoffer significant additional functional capability overthe next several years, subject to funding availability.The new capability may eventually eliminate paperpersonnel and payroll transactions and includeonline employee self-service transactions. The deliv-ery of additional features will be through targetedimplementation projects over a period of approxi-mately two to three years. Accordingly, some of theseenhancements are expected to be implemented dur-ing FY 2005 and beyond.

Staffing and Work ProcessesUnder the leadership of the Judicial Conference's

Committee on Judicial Resources, the AdministrativeOffice developed new staffing formulas for districtclerks' offices, bankruptcy clerks' offices, and proba-tion and pretrial services offices. Compared to theprevious formulas, the new staffing formulas resultedin reductions in the staffing requirements for eachtype of court unit: 4.6 percent reduction in districtclerks' offices, 14.1 percent reduction in bankruptcyclerks' offices, and 2.3 percent reduction in probationand pretrial services offices. At its September 2004session, the Judicial Conference approved the new

The federal Judiciary began

outsourcing the administration of

three employee benefit programs,

the Federal Employees Health

Benefit Program, the Federal

Employee Group Life Insurance

Program, and the Thrift Savings

Plan.

43


staffing formulas, and they were used as the basis ofthe staffing allocations for FY 2005 and for the bud-get request for FY 2006.

At the direction of the Committee on JudicialResources, the AO has developed and implementedthe Process Redesign Program for the Judiciary.Teams of AO and court staff will examine court workprocesses to achieve immediate local efficiencies,while incorporating individual court quality/ perfor-mance criteria into the redesigned processes. Afterbeing presented to other courts for adoption/adapta-tion, these new processes will be measured to ensurethat their effectiveness and efficiencies are incorpo-rated into the development of future staffing formulas.

Telework in the JudiciaryIn July 2004, a report, “The Status of Judiciary

Telework Implementation,” was submitted to theCongressional appropriations committees. This re-port was prepared using information from a surveydeveloped and tested by court and AdministrativeOffice representatives. In addition, “ImplementingTelework in the Judiciary: Successful Strategic Tech-niques and Tools,” was broadcast on the Federal Ju-dicial Television Network. This broadcast, designedfor judges, unit executives, and Judiciary employees,described the numerous benefits of telework formanagers and employees, and stressed telework as animportant tool for managers to aid in recruitmentand retention of staff, improve morale, and increaseemployee productivity.

Fair Employment PracticesThe Administrative Office trained Employment

Dispute Resolution (EDR) coordinators from fivecircuits in a program titled, “EDR Claims: LessonsLearned.” The training program uses role-playingexercises to examine the responsibilities of EDR coor-dinators and helps participants update their EDRplans. Those trained began training other EDR coor-dinators in their circuits. Participants were enthusias-tic and recommended that the training also be offeredto court managers. Judge participants highly recom-mended that a program for judges be crafted, focus-

ing on the types of issues apt to arise with EDR claimsand on possible changes to EDR plans. AdministrativeOffice staff also participated in stewardship trainingfor unit executives.

In FY 2004, the Administrative Office providedthe courts with a new version of the Fair Employ-ment Practices System (FEPS) to report workforcedemographic data and EDR claim information to theAO. FEPS is now a part of InfoWeb, a system thatallows courts to obtain financial and other reports bycourt unit. The new version allowed court users toreview and enter data throughout the year, thus sub-stantially reducing the amount of time required ofcourt personnel at the end of the year. Using FEPS,the AO produces The Judiciary Fair Employment Prac-tices Annual Report.

A Draft Policy on Reasonable Accommodations forDisabilities was posted on the J-Net, and commentsfrom court personnel were requested.

The AO updated and supplemented its heritagecelebration materials for the courts. These heritageprograms continued a series begun in 2001, andcelebrate those backgrounds identified in the U.S.Census and celebrated in the Executive Branch, in-cluding African American, Women's History, Asianand Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Native American.

Bankruptcy Administrator ProgramThe Bankruptcy Administrator (B.A.) Program

supports the bankruptcy system in the judicial dis-tricts of North Carolina and Alabama by monitoringthe integrity of the bankruptcy system, supportingthe bankruptcy courts, and helping deserving debtorssecure a fresh start. During the past year B.A.s saw81,036 new cases, and collected fees that supplementedthe Judiciary's general operating fund by $2,238,444.

Using criminal and civil enforcement actions, theJudiciary's B.A. litigation teams challenge those whowould abuse this system. Last year, the program inthe Middle District of North Carolina saved creditors$3,056,000 by preventing discharges to undeservinglitigants. B.A.s in the Middle Districts of Alabama andNorth Carolina initiated aggressive debtor identifica-tion protocols and began referring identity theft casesfor criminal prosecution.

44


The Northern District of Alabama’s B.A. pilot me-diation program begun in October 2002, now settles94 percent of the cases assigned to it. The B.A. in theSouthern District of Alabama initiated a program re-ducing the time Chapter 7 cases remain on the court'sdocket. Now, no more than 10 percent of that district'sChapter 7 cases remain open longer than two years.Each year the B.A.s in the Northern and Middle Dis-tricts of Alabama sponsor educational programs fornew bankruptcy lawyers and bankruptcy trustees.These programs are well received, contributing sig-nificantly to the quality of the bankruptcy bars inthose districts.

To help deserving debtors with their fresh start,B.A.s in the Eastern and Middle Districts of NorthCarolina and in the Northern District of Alabama areexperimenting with debtor education programs. Theseprograms seem to be raising the success rate of Chap-ter 13 repayment plans significantly.

Law Clerk Assistance ProgramIn April 2004 the Administrative Office launched

the Law Clerk Assistance Program (LCAP) for bank-ruptcy judges who need additional law clerk assis-tance with specific bankruptcy case-related issues.Bankruptcy judges in need of additional law clerkassistance contact staff in the Administrative Officewith general information about the request. Then,Administrative Office staff update the LCAP web siteon the J-Net. Law clerks interested in providing assis-tance review the LCAP web site and contact therequesting judge directly. Law clerks participating inthe program perform all work from their official dutystations with prior approval from their judge.

Workforce Development EmphasizesCost-Effective Training

Administrative and operational training pro-grams for the Judiciary support and extend theagency's mission to enhance the development of thecore judicial branch competencies identified in theSeptember 2000 National Training Needs AssessmentStudy. The AO's programs are geared to continuouslyintroduce and upgrade training aimed at improving

the administrative and operational knowledge of Judi-ciary employees, their performance effectiveness, andsystems management capabilities.

AO program offices develop and conduct cost-effective training programs through traditionalinstructor-led training, including blended-solutiontraining programs and distance-learning trainingprograms. These programs provide onsite classroomtraining, customized television training, web-basedmodules, and video training films.

A major component of the AO's distance-learn-ing initiative is the Federal Judicial Television Network(FJTN), an extremely flexible and powerful trainingmechanism for AO program offices that produces livesatellite broadcasts weekly. Since FJTN's inception in1998, the AO has produced and delivered more than257 new programs. These programs strengthen theAO's ability to meet the large and continuous trainingneeds of the Judiciary. In FY 2004, training programson the FJTN continued to be the sole training mediumfor the majority of court employees.

An innovative component of the distance learn-ing program is the Virtual University pilot. This web-based program provides synchronous, real-timecommunication through the use of live virtual class-rooms and training forums and makes more than2,100 courses available to users.

Redesign of IT Training Programfor Judges

Since 1992, many judges have participated invarious office automation training classes at theTraining and Support Center in San Antonio, Texas.In the intervening years, many new judicial appoin-tees have come to the bench with considerableexperience in using information technology.

Working with the Committee on InformationTechnology, the curriculum is being refined to focuson judicial functions to emphasize work done in thecourtroom and chambers. Five potential functionalareas have been identified as the basis for a new cur-riculum: case management, writing and trackingopinions, working outside chambers, maintaining acalendar, and trial practices. Although these specificareas may change as work progresses, the underpin-

45


ning will remain the same—utilizing technologybetter to enable judges to manage their work moreeffectively.

Contracting Officers CertificationProgram Training

During Fiscal Year 2004, the AO held 16 sessionsof the Judiciary Basic Procurement Seminar. Throughthis instructor-led classroom training, 477 Judiciaryemployees received part of the procurement trainingrequired under the Contracting Officers CertificationProgram (COCP).

The AO also initiated the development of the firstportion of a blended-learning procurement coursethat will substitute for the instructor-led classroomformat currently required in the COCP. This blended-learning procurement course will offer several mod-ules available through desktop access. Each modulewill have knowledge checks to reinforce lessonslearned. Once the modules are completed, each par-ticipant will be eligible to attend a two-day hands-onworkshop led by staff. It will allow the participant toimplement the procurement policies and procedurescovered by the distance-learning modules. ■

Cost-ContainmentStrategy for the FederalJudiciary

The federal Judiciary faces unprecedented

funding challenges in the coming years

because Congress is not likely to appropriate full

funding to meet the courts’ needs.

Budget needsBudget needs will be driven primarily by the

number of judges and staff working in the courts,the amount they are paid, and the cost of thespace they occupy, as well as by changes inworkload.

• Between 2004 and 2009, workload is projectedto increase, with criminal filings rising 8percent, the number of persons undersupervision growing 12 percent, and thenumber of pretrial services cases activatedincreasing by 15 percent.

• Without adequate funding from Congress, andbased on current Judiciary practices andpolicies, budget shortfalls in the Salaries andExpenses account could exceed $600 millionby FY 2009. Mandatory and must-paycomponents of the budget such as judges’ pay,chambers staff, and space rental costs, willincrease from the current 59 percent of thetotal courts’ Salaries and Expenses account to72 percent of the account by FY 2009.

• The Judiciary’s space rent bill was nearly $900million in FY 2004 and could reach $1.2 billionby 2009. Space rental payments constituted 16percent of the Salaries and Expenses account in1984, consume 22 percent now, and willconsume 25 percent by FY 2009, based oncurrent projections.

• Information technology costs are projected torise about 6 percent annually to $365 millionby 2009.

46


In March 2004, the Judicial Conference officiallyrecognized the 40th anniversary of the Criminal Jus-tice Act of 1964, which created a nationally heraldedprogram, administered by the Judiciary, for the ap-pointment and compensation of counsel to representindividuals charged with a federal crime who cannotpay for their defense. Federal defender organizations,authorized by a 1970 amendment to the CriminalJustice Act, now serve 83 of the 94 federal judicialdistricts. The federal Judiciary has been a proud stew-ard of the Criminal Justice Act program, which hasbecome a fundamental and critical component of theAmerican criminal justice system.

AO Director Mecham established a separate Of-fice of Defender Services on July 1, 2004, in recogni-tion of the importance of the defender services pro-gram and its mission—ensuring that the right tocounsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, the

Criminal Justice Act, and other congressional man-dates, is enforced on behalf of those who cannot af-ford to retain counsel and other necessary defenseservices.

In FY 2004, the Office of Defender Services pro-vided staff support to the Conference Committee onDefender Services as it developed and implementednumerous cost-containment initiatives. One initiativerequired each federal defender organization, beforehiring legal staff, to obtain advance approval from theOffice of Defender Services. Approval was grantedonly where the organization demonstrated that theposition was necessary to meet a critical need andjustified any proposed salary to be offered above theentry level for the position. Other cost-containmentinitiatives will focus on improving the methods usedto allocate federal defender organization resources.

In the technology area, the Office of Defender

Defender Services

AO Director Mecham established a separate Office of Defender Services on July 1, 2004, inrecognition of the importance of the defender services program and its mission—ensuring theright to counsel guaranteed to all citizens is enforced.

47


Services is converting the federal defender organiza-tion e-mail application from cc:Mail to Lotus Notes.The system design supports all federal defenderorganization e-mail needs through servers situated at

Resolution in Recognition of the FortiethAnniversary of the Criminal Justice Act

The Judicial Conference of the United States recognizes the fortieth anniversary of the

Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, which has created a nationally heralded

program, administered by the Judiciary, for the appointment and compensation of counsel to

represent individuals who have been charged with a federal crime and cannot pay for their

defense. The statute ensures that all defendants in federal court receive the effective assistance of

counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

The Criminal Justice Act program has adapted to dramatic changes in the criminal justice

system over the past 40 years. Today, due to the ever-burgeoning federal criminal caseload, federal

defender organizations and private “CJA panel” attorneys furnish over 140,000 representations

per year to financially eligible persons. The complexity of federal criminal practice has increased

substantially since 1964, as have the time commitment and skill level required of defense counsel.

Federal defender organizations, authorized by a 1970 amendment to the Criminal Justice Act,

now serve 83 of the 94 federal judicial districts. The commitment of Congress to fund the

Criminal Justice Act program, and of the Judiciary to support it, together with the dedication of

thousands of federal defender personnel and CJA panel attorneys, have produced an assigned

counsel program that delivers professional, cost-effective representation.

By ensuring the fair treatment and effective representation of all persons accused of federal

crimes, the Criminal Justice Act protects the rights and liberties of all citizens. The statute, and

the defender program that it created, have become models for nations seeking to adopt the rule

of law, including the right to the effective assistance of counsel, as part of their criminal justice

systems.

The federal Judiciary has been a proud steward over the Criminal Justice Act program, which

has become a fundamental and critical component of the American criminal justice system.

two data service centers. The migration of the newe-mail software is expected to be completed in early2005. ■

48


Cost-Containment MeasuresThe Administrative Office, under the direction of

the Judicial Conference Committee on Criminal Law,worked with chief probation and pretrial services of-ficers to develop a targeted approach to containingcosts that ensures core responsibilities are adequatelysupported. The challenge is to provide high qualityinvestigative and supervision services to the Judiciarydespite projected increases in workload and the like-lihood that the workforce will not grow to keep up.

The challenge will be met by prioritizingworkload and targeting resources accordingly. Someexamples of targeting include new policies to elimi-nate or reduce staffing credit for work related to casesinvolving infractions and certain misdemeanors; newmodels for streamlined pretrial services and presen-tence reports; and continued review of caseloads toidentify offenders for early termination who have met

the terms of supervision set by the court, successfullyreintegrated into the community, and do not pose aforeseeable risk to public safety or to a particularthird party.

The AO will continue to identify and developmobile technologies that enhance productivity andenable probation and pretrial services officers to ac-cess case-specific and law-enforcement related infor-mation while out in the community, thereby reducingtravel costs and lessening the need for costly officespace.

Study of the Probationand Pretrial Services System

The final report of a multi-year study of the pro-bation and pretrial services system, led by an inde-pendent consultant, was issued in 2004. The study

Probation and Pretrial Services

The challenge is to provide high quality investigative and supervision services to theJudiciary despite projected increases in workload and the likelihood that the workforce willnot grow to keep up.

49


focused on all aspects of the system's operations—organizational, administrative, managerial, and pro-grammatic—and considered a wealth of informationgathered through interviews with key stakeholders inall three branches of government; focus groups;analyses of population, staffing and expenditure data;reviews of policy and statutory directives; and sur-veys of district judges, magistrate judges, and chiefprobation and chief pretrial services officers.

The central, overarching recommendation con-tained in the report is that the probation and pretrialservices system must become results-driven and em-ploy a comprehensive outcome measurement system.At its June 2004 meeting, the Judicial ConferenceCommittee on Criminal Law endorsed this centralrecommendation, and unanimously agreed that thesystem should be organized, staffed, and funded inways that promote mission-critical outcomes. TheCommittee also determined that the AdministrativeOffice must improve its capacity to empirically mea-sure results of programs and initiatives.

Probation and Pretrial ServicesTechnology

The Probation and Pretrial Services AutomatedCase Tracking System–Electronic Case Management(PACTS- ECM) continued to evolve as a valuable casetracking and case management tool for officers. Bythe end of fiscal year 2004, the AO completed theprocess of delivering PACTS- ECM to all 94 districts.Enhancements in 2004 include a supervision plan-ning module to help officers with the supervisionand planning processes.

The Administrative Office completeda project to provide officers with an inter-face between PACTS-ECM and personaldigital assistants (PDAs), expanding theuse of PDAs to all districts. PDAs allowofficers access to critical case informationwhile they are in the field, have eliminatedthe need to carry a cumbersome fieldbook, enabled officers to add chronologi-cal entries while they are out working inthe community, and have given officersquick access to helpful information such

as phone numbers for emergency contacts and treat-ment providers.

The Administrative Office also conducted a pilotproject in 26 probation and pretrial services officesthat revealed great potential for officers to use mobileand wireless technology to conduct business while inthe field.

Officer Safety and IntegrityThe safety of probation and pretrial services of-

ficers in the community continued to be a high prior-ity in 2004. The AO conducted certification pro-grams for 22 new officer safety instructors and 32new firearms instructors, and a recertification pro-gram for 32 other firearms instructors. The AO de-veloped and distributed two new training videos foruse by district safety and firearms instructors whenteaching officers defensive tactics and firearms safety.The Director approved revised firearms regulationsconcerning the reporting of missing or stolen fire-arms, carrying a firearm on an aircraft, using ballisticvests, and inventorying firearms.

The AO requested and was granted partner sta-tus by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center(FLETC), which will enable probation and pretrialservices officers to receive critical safety and firearmstraining at FLETC. In preparation for future use ofFLETC, the AO's safety and firearms program admin-istrator participated in advanced training at FLETCand was certified as a law-enforcement instructor,firearms instructor, and reactive shooting instructor.

The AO issued the Officer Integrity Handbook toconsolidate policies and procedures regarding pre-

The AO requested and was granted

“partner” status by the Federal Law

Enforcement Training Center

(FLETC), which will enable probation

and pretrial services officers to receive

critical safety and firearms training.

50


employment background investigations, rein-vestigations, and workplace drug testing. TheAO also issued revised medical standards usedto determine physical ability to perform essen-tial job functions.

Substance Abuse Testingand Treatment

The Administrative Office divided proba-tion and pretrial services offices into threeregions for purposes of drug testing andawarded contracts to one laboratory in eachregion. This arrangement shortens the turn-around time for mailing samples and receivingtest results, which is critical when confirmingpresumptive positive tests administered locally.Having three laboratories under contract alsoprovides redundancy in the event one labora-tory is unable to provide services.

The AO conducted a successful pilot in whichofficers used a cost-free, substance abuse screeningquestionnaire developed by Texas Christian Univer-sity. It is expected that routine use of the free screen-ing device will reduce the need for professionalsubstance abuse assessments by about 15 percent.Other cost-containment initiatives include identifica-tion of less expensive drug-testing methods and drugtreatment strategies. ■

Federal probation andpretrial services officerswere issued personaldigital assistants (PDAs)last year to accessemergency contactinformation out in the field,locate client information ontheir way to field visits, andenter new case informationbefore returning to theoffice.

51


News and Information are Providedin Many Forms

Through its public affairs efforts, the Administra-tive Office communicated a clear and consistent mes-sage during FY 2004 about the federal Judiciary’s keyissues and initiatives.

Reporters covering the federal courts regularlycontacted the AO for reliable facts and informationabout the courts, as well as for explanations of issues,the implications of legislation, the meaning of na-tional trends affecting the legal community, and posi-tions of the Judicial Conference.

During FY 2004, the AO captured key events onvideo, ranging from devastation to Florida court-houses by hurricanes to hearings on federal sentenc-ing guidelines by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.Increasingly, the AO posted video news clips on itspublic web site, www.uscourts.gov, to help illustrate

major events for the public and court personnel. Thepublic web site continued to be the Judiciary's pri-mary and most efficient resource for the public, offer-ing statistical reports, federal rules of practice andprocedure, basic educational materials, and newsfrom the Judiciary updated weekly.

Redesign of the J-Net intranet site was completedafter a two-year effort that included interviews andtesting with court employees, the target audience forthe J-Net. The intranet site is an indispensable re-source for court users, and is gaining greater impor-tance as the Judiciary steps up its efforts to publishmore information electronically, rather than in a tra-ditional print format. Users can find information onthe J-Net more quickly now, because of the cleanerdesign, consistent navigation, an improved searchengine, and the organization of information intobroad topical areas identified by court staff.

Communication

The Administrative Office regularly communicated news and events of the federal courts duringFY 2004 through the Judiciary’s public web site, www.uscourts.gov.

52


The AO communicated the Judi-ciary's key issues and accomplishmentsto various audiences through The ThirdBranch, the agency's monthly newsletterof record directed to judges and legisla-tors, and through the Federal CourtManagement Report, the monthly newslet-ter published for court managers andemployees.

National events and the TeachersInstitute are highlights of the federalcourts' outreach program. AO staff de-velop resources to support court out-reach efforts. A hallmark of the programis the annual Open Doors to FederalCourts student event that in 2004 car-ried the theme, The Role of Courts in Bal-ancing Liberties and Safety. More than 40courthouses hosted more than 8,000high school students for Open Doorsprograms.

The outreach program increased itsimpact by partnering with the CloseUpFoundation, which brings 32,000 high school stu-dents and their teachers to Washington, D.C. everyschool year. CloseUp has adopted three original pro-grams offered by the federal courts. Other outreachprogram resources developed included a courthousetour guide kit with tour scripts, activities, mock trials,jury simulations, and handouts. Educational materialsprovided on the Internet, J-Net, and a forthcomingCD-ROM center on lesson plans, activities, and basicinformation about the federal courts for use byteachers, judges, court staff, and attorneys acrossthe country.

Obtaining Feedback from the CourtsThe AO reviewed how its managers solicit feed-

back from the courts. The review showed an exten-sive system for communicating with, and obtainingadvice and input from, judges, court unit executives,and court staff, including:

• Judicial Conference Committee DialogueThe Director of the Administrative Officeserves as Secretary to the Judicial Confer-

ence, and selected seniorAO professional staffserve as committee chairs'primary points of contactwith regard to committeecharges and related busi-ness.

• AO Advisory Group SystemThe Administrative Office’sadvisory system allows AO managers toobtain input from the courts. AO managersmeet semi-annually with members of thethree advisory councils comprised of judgesand Judiciary executives. The AO also relieson peer advisory groups and workinggroups of customers and users for advicewhen programs, products, or systems areunder development.

• Exposure Draft ProcessThe J-Net is used to post proposed programand policy guidance for comment by anyjudge or court staff member. Publication of

More than 40 courthouseshosted more than 8,000high school students forOpen Doors to FederalCourts outreach programs,using resources developedand provided by AO staff.

53


these exposure drafts allows judges andcourt officials across the Judiciary to suggestmodifications to improve the final guidance.

• Web Sites and Electronic Bulletin BoardsA variety of web sites provide program infor-mation and are used to solicit court feed-back. For example, J-Net web sites exist forbenefits, training, finance and budget, infor-mation technology, court administration,probation and pretrial services, court secu-rity, and federal rules of practice and proce-dure. In addition, a number of electronicbulletin boards support a regular exchangeof information with court staff, especiallyabout information technology systems.

• Newsletters and Regular E-mail Reportsand BroadcastsThe AO publishes several periodical publi-cations to keep judges and court employeesinformed, including The Federal Court Man-agement Report, The Third Branch, and Newsand Views. Regular e-mail reports andbroadcasts are used to notify judges andcourt managers about budget, policy orprogram matters, including the Director'sOffice Broadcast System and various courtadministration e-mail bulletins.

• Routine Telephone Contact and Help DesksAO staff have daily telephone contacts on avariety of issues with judges, court unit ex-ecutives, and court managers. In addition,help desk support is available to provideadvice and assistance for users of nationallysupported applications.

• FJTN BroadcastsThe AO uses the Federal Judiciary TelevisionNetwork to offer training and critical infor-mation to court employees about adminis-trative and operational topics, includinginformation technology, security, procure-ment, benefits, etc. During live broadcasts,individuals in the courts can use a push-to-talk capability to ask questions or offer

feedback to the instructors or presenters.They can also submit questions and com-ments by fax to be addressed on the air.Programs are recorded and rebroadcast atdifferent times during the day to accommo-date viewers in different time zones.

• Meetings, Conferences and Training SessionsWhen limited funds permit, AO representa-tives attend conferences of judges, unitexecutives, and others. These venues helpthe AO hear essential perspectives on courtneeds and use of services.

• On-site Court VisitsVisits by AO staff to implement technicalsystems, perform financial audits, orprovide other program and technical assis-tance result in valuable feedback onAO services. ■

54


In Profile

The Director of the Administrative Office carries out statutoryresponsibilities and other duties under the supervision anddirection of the principal policy-making body of the Judiciary,the Judicial Conference of the United States, whose presidingofficer is the Chief Justice of the United States.

55


The Administrative Officeof the U.S. Courts

Statutory Authority28 U.S.C. § 601-612. Congress established the

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in 1939 toprovide administrative support to federal courts.

SupervisionThe Director of the Administrative Office carries

out statutory responsibilities and other duties underthe supervision and direction of the principal policy-making body of the Judiciary, the Judicial Conferenceof the United States, whose presiding officer is theChief Justice of the United States.

ResponsibilitiesAll responsibility for the Administrative Office

of the U.S. Courts is vested in the Director, who is thechief administrative officer for the federal courts.Under his direction, the agency carries out the fol-lowing functions:

• Implements the policies of the Judicial Confer-ence of the United States and supports its net-work of 24 committees (including advisoryand special committees) by providing staff toplan meetings, develop agendas, prepare re-ports, and provide substantive analytical sup-port to the development of issues, projects,and recommendations.

• Supports about 2,000 judicial officers, includ-ing active and senior appellate and districtcourt judges, bankruptcy judges, and magis-trate judges.

• Advises court administrators regarding proce-dural and administrative matters.

• Provides program leadership and support forcircuit executives, clerks of court, staff attor-neys, probation and pretrial services officers,federal defenders, circuit librarians, confer-ence attorneys/circuit mediators, bankruptcyadministrators, and other court employees.

• Provides centralized core administrative func-tions such as payroll, personnel, and account-ing services.

• Administers the Judiciary’s unique personnelsystems and monitors its fair employmentpractices program.

• Develops and executes the budget and pro-vides guidance to courts for local budget ex-ecution.

• Defines resource requirements through fore-casts of caseloads, work-measurement analy-ses, assessment of program changes, and re-views of individual court requirements.

• Provides legislative counsel and services to theJudiciary; acts as liaison with the legislativeand executive branches.

• Prepares a variety of publications.

• Collects and analyzes detailed statistics on theworkload of the courts.

• Monitors and reviews the performance ofprograms and use of resources.

• Conducts education and training programs onadministrative responsibilities.

• Audits the courts’ financial operations andprovides guidance on management oversightand stewardship issues.

• Handles public affairs for the Judiciary, re-sponding to numerous inquiries from Con-gress, the media, and the public.

• Develops new ways for handling court busi-ness, and provides assistance to court employ-ees to help them implement programs andimprove operations.

• Develops and supports automated systemsand technologies used throughout the courts.

• Coordinates with the General Services Admin-istration the construction and management ofthe Judiciary's space and facilities.

• Monitors the U.S. Marshals Service's implemen-tation of the Judicial Facilities Security Pro-gram, including court security officers, andexecutes security policy for the Judiciary.

56


DirectorLeonidas Ralph Mecham

Serves as the chief executive of the Administra-tive Office, Secretary to the Judicial Conference andmember of the Executive Committee of the JudicialConference, and member of the Board ofDirectors of the Federal Judicial Center.

Associate Director, Managementand OperationsClarence A. Lee, Jr.

Chief advisor to the Director on management,strategic, tactical planning and operational matters,and long-range planning coordination; ensures thatactivities of all agency elements are functioning insupport of the Director's goals; oversees audit andreview activities.

Associate Director and General CounselWilliam R. Burchill, Jr.

Provides legal counsel and services to the Direc-tor and staff of the Administrative Office and to theJudicial Conference; responds to legal inquiries fromjudges and other court officials regarding court op-erations; represents agency in bid protests and otheradministrative litigation.

Judicial Conference Executive SecretariatKaren K. Siegel, Assistant Director

Coordinates the agency's performance of the stafffunctions required by the Judicial Conference and itscommittees; maintains the official records of the Judi-cial Conference; and responds to judges and othercourt personnel regarding Conference activities; andcoordinates the advisory group process.

Organization

Congress established the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in 1939 to provideadministrative support to federal courts.

57


Legislative AffairsMichael W. Blommer, Assistant Director

Provides legislative counsel and services to theJudiciary; maintains liaison with the legislativebranch; manages the coordination of matters affect-ing the Judiciary with the states, legal entities, andother organizations; develops and produces judicialimpact statements.

Public AffairsDavid A. Sellers, Assistant Director

Carries out public information, community out-reach, and communications programs for the federalJudiciary; manages publishing efforts for the Admin-istrative Office.

Court AdministrationNoel J. Augustyn, Assistant Director

Provides support to the courts for clerks ofcourt, circuit executives, court librarians, staff attor-neys, conference attorneys, court reporters, and in-terpreters, including the development of budgets,allocation of resources, and management of nationalprograms.

Defender ServicesTheodore J. Lidz, Assistant Director

Provides policy guidance and administrative,analytical, training, and evaluative services relating tothe Criminal Justice Act, and support to federal pub-lic and community defender organizations.

Facilities and SecurityRoss Eisenman, Assistant Director

Manages services provided to the courts in theareas of court security and space and facilities, andserves as the primary contact on real property admin-istration matters with the General Services Adminis-tration and on court security matters with the U.S.Marshals Service.

Finance and BudgetGeorge H. Schafer, Assistant Director

Manages the budget, accounting, and financialsystems of the Judiciary; prepares financial analyses

on Judiciary programs; manages relocation and travelservices for the courts; and serves as the Judiciary'spoint of contact for Congress on budget matters.

Human ResourcesCharlotte G. Peddicord, Assistant Director

Manages services provided to the courts in theareas of personnel, payroll, health and retirementbenefits, workforce development, and employee dis-pute resolution.

Information TechnologyMelvin J. Bryson, Assistant Director

Administers the information resources manage-ment program of the Judiciary; oversees the develop-ment, delivery/deployment, security, and manage-ment of all national IT systems.

Internal ServicesLaura C. Minor, Assistant Director

Manages the Judiciary's procurement function;provides administrative support and services to theAdministrative Office in areas such as budget, facilities,personnel, information technology and informationmanagement; and administers the AdministrativeOffice's Equal Employment Opportunity programs.

Judges ProgramsPeter G. McCabe, Assistant Director

Provides support and services for judges in pro-gram management and policy development, and as-sists judges and their chambers staffs in obtainingsupport and services from other components of theAdministrative Office; gathers, analyzes, and reportsstatistical data.

Probation and Pretrial ServicesJohn M. Hughes, Assistant Director

Determines the resource and program require-ments of the probation and pretrial services system,and provides policy guidance, program evaluationservices, management and technical assistance, andtraining to probation and pretrial services officers. ■

the administrative office of the united states courts

Documents