2007-02 Feb

Leaving So Soon Will Pay Issues Mean Only the Wealthy Can Afford to Serve?

“Federal judges are over-worked, underpaid and under-appreciated,” says Judge Hector M. Laffitte, and so he’s leaving the District of Puerto Rico. After 23 years of service to the federal Judi-ciary, in one of the busiest districts in the First Circuit, he’s returning to private practice. And pay—the lack of it—is a major factor in his decision. “Our last pay increase was in 1989. Salary erosion is hurting judges, and I can’t see an increase in our future,” Laffitte says. “I’ve lost all hope.”

He didn’t join the Judiciary to make money. “My first year’s salary as a federal judge in 1983 was essentially my expense account in private practice,” he says. “But life had been good to me and I decided to give something back. I wanted to serve. I could survive because of the reserve I’d built up.” Now, however, the financial cushion he’d established before joining the federal bench has been depleted. He warns that other federal judges may be in the same situation.

“People don’t understand,” he says. “They think that government service is a revolving door. Judges aren’t meant to be like that. The more experience we have, the better and faster we work. But as long as judges are denied pay increases, eventually we’ll wind up with only the wealthy who can afford to serve.”

Similarly, the Chief Justice, in his 2006 Year-End Report on the Judiciary warned that a Judiciary restricted to “persons so wealthy that they can afford to be indifferent to the level of

THIRDNewsletter

of the

Federal

Courts

Vol. 39

Number 2

February 2007BRANCH

INSIDE

THE

Attorney General on the Role of Judges ...................................pg. 3Prisoner Transfers Speeded by eDesignate .............................pg. 5New Committee Chairs for 110th Congress ........................ pg. 6-7

See Judges’ Pay on page 2

See FY07 Funding on page 4

Congress OK’s Judiciary’s Fiscal Year 2007 Funding

It was called a continuing resolu-tion, but in effect House Joint Reso-lution 20 was the long-awaited $464 billion appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. Just hours before the continuing resolution, PL 109-383, was due to expire on February 15, Congress approved appropriations for most of the government through September 30, 2007. The funding came over four months into the fiscal year. For the remaining months of FY 2007, the Judiciary will receive $5.980 billion in enacted appropriations, a 4.9 percent increase over 2006.

Only two fiscal year 2007 spending bills were approved before the 109th Congress ended in December 2006. The FY 2007 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, the Judi-ciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropria-tion bill was one of nine uncom-pleted appropriations bills waiting for the 110th Congress when it began in January 2007. Under PL 109-383, agencies and programs had been operating at fiscal year 2006 funding levels. The new funding bill gives the Judiciary an increase over FY 2006 levels and is expected to be signed by the President.

The Third Branch n February 2007

2

Judges’ Pay continued from page 1judicial compensation, or people for whom the judicial salary represents a pay increase. . .would not be the sort of Judiciary on which we have historically depended to protect the rule of law in this country.”

“Judges are being put in a beggar’s position,” says Laffitte, “in asking for a pay raise. We’re just not on Congress’ radar.”

In the past six years, 38 judges have left the federal bench, including 17 in the last two years. As the Chief Justice said in his year-end report, “Judges who willingly make substantial sacri-fices in support of public service are being asked to bear unreasonable burdens. In the face of decades of congressional inaction, many judges who must attend to their families and futures have no realistic choice except to retire from judicial service and return to private practice.”

Across the country, Chief Judge David Levi is boxing up his cham-bers files after a long judicial career. He’s leaving the Eastern District of California, where he has been a U.S. district judge since 1990, to become dean of Duke Law School. At age 55 and with nearly 17 years on the bench, he is moving on. He speaks with some frustration of a retirement system where, until a judge reaches 65 and 15 years of service, there is absolutely no vesting.

“It’s quite an unfair financial arrangement,” says Levi. “It looks very good to people that if you

reach 65 and you’ve had 15 years of service, you can retire on a full salary until the day you die. In fact, it means there’s nothing for your spouse, except for whatever life insurance you have, if you were to die the day before you turned 65 or even the day after. You get absolutely nothing.”

Levi believes pay issues, along with an all-or-nothing retirement compensation system, take a heavy toll. “People become judges because they want to serve. That’s the overall motivation,” he says. “And judges are quite prepared to make financial sacrifices. But at some point you get to a tipping point where judges say, ‘Look, there are just too many other opportunities out there—also with a service component, that are inter-esting and important, that permit a significant contribution to our legal institutions—where the pay is much greater, where there aren’t the same pension problems, and where I can take better care of my spouse and children.’”

In his experience, says Levi, judges are not, “in it to feel good about themselves; they are in it to do something for the nation.” His district has over 800 weighted case filings per judge, well over the national average of 489. To help the district, two senior judges—who could have reduced their caseloads to a quarter of an active judge’s— instead carry full caseloads. “If you combine a crushing caseload with the lagging pay,” says Levi, “I think it puts burdens on our judges that are neither fair nor reasonable. And not everybody will want, or be able, to accept these burdens. So over time, it will affect who is willing to join the federal bench.”

Both Levi and Laffitte leave with an appreciation for their time on the bench. Both call it a great job and an opportunity for service that they’ve enjoyed. Both, however, also call it a difficult and at times stressful job. And like the Chief Justice, both are uneasy for the future of the Judiciary.

Eyes on AccessibilityMembers of the Courthouse Access Advisory Committee of the U.S. Access Board were recently invited to tour a courtroom mockup built by the AO and the General Services Administration. The mockup has the same dimensions as a standard U.S. district courtroom, which allows the committee members to try out sightlines, test accessibility, and make sug-gestions for changes. Chief Judge Joseph Bataillon (D. Neb.), chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Space and Facilities, accompanied the committee on its tour. “The courts are for everyone, regardless of any access issue,” Bataillon said. “It is important for us to have courtrooms that the public can use—and I mean all of the public.” The Courthouse Access Advisory Committee includes among its members legal professionals, architects, disability advocates, and accessibility experts.

Chief Judge David Levi

Judge Hector M. Laffitte


“[T]here should be some meaningful effort to increase salaries to allow the Judiciary to attract and retain the best legal minds.”

Attorney General Opines on the Proper Role of Judges

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales condemned threats against judges for their decisions, supported a judicial pay raise, and opposed an Inspector General for the Judiciary, in a speech to the American Enter-prise Institute (AEI) in January. He also urged judges not to substitute their views for the will of legislatures.

Gonzales told the AEI audience that three essentials will preserve the Judiciary’s place in our constitutional democracy: that the Judiciary remain independent, that judges understand and perform their proper role in our society, and that people who believe in the rule of law fill these important judgeships.

“It has been said many times that the greatness of the American system of government—what has allowed it to thrive—is its simple foundation in the rule of law,” Gonzales said. “And that continues to be true today because of the protection afforded to the rule of law by our great Judiciary.”

Gonzales, who served as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court before joining the Bush Administration, said he has gained an even deeper and more robust appreciation for the Third Branch since being appointed Attorney General nearly two years ago.

Although he cited judicial inde-pendence as “necessary for our republic to remain strong, for our democracy to survive, and for the rule of law to flourish,” he was quick

to define what judicial indepen-dence is not. “Judicial independence does not mean complete freedom from scrutiny or criticism,” Gonzales said. “Judges’ decisions may be criticized, and the nature of the job virtually guarantees it. . . . Judges

must resist the temptation to craft their opinions to avoid criticism or to seek approval, whether from the press, the public, the academy, or Congress.”

Judges can help shield themselves from public opinion, according to Gonzales, by deciding cases on neutral principles, “not by consid-ering factors, such as policy or the public mood, that are appropri-ately considered by the politically accountable branches.”

And while criticism comes with the judicial territory, “I firmly believe,” Gonzales said, “that judges should not be subjected to retaliation for their judicial decisions, by budget cuts or through misguided efforts like the recent Jail for Judges initia-

3

tive in South Dakota.” He called threats to the safety of judges or their families, “reprehensible.”

According to Gonzales, judicial independence would be strength-ened if judges were paid more. “. . . [T]here should be some meaningful effort to increase salaries to allow the Judiciary to attract and retain the best legal minds—lawyers who could find far more lucrative ways to ply their trade,” he said. In his expe-rience, many potential judicial nomi-nees have declined consideration for the federal bench because they could not afford to serve. “I hope the Congress will consider a meaningful pay raise for judges,” the Attorney General told the AEI, “so that future candidates for judicial office will not be faced with that choice, and so that judicial independence will be strengthened.”

Gonzales also opposes the creation of an Inspector General for the Third Branch, saying that if the Judiciary polices itself, the other two branches should not intervene. He noted that the Judiciary is making “commendable efforts” to ensure its integrity.

However, he also voiced concern that some judges have lost sight of the role of the Judicial Branch as the Framers intended it to be.

“A judge with life tenure who gives his own views on political and policy matters greater weight than the considered viewpoint of the elected representatives of the people, or who believes he alone knows what is the best policy, can make great mischief. . . . Respecting the prerogatives of the Executive and the Legislature, yet strong and inde-pendent, the courts have a vital role in protecting our democracy and the rule of law.”

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales


4

FY07 Funding continued from page 1The Judiciary’s original FY

2007 request had been for $6.26 billion. However, operating under a continuing resolution for several months has meant freezes in hiring, training and purchasing for the Judiciary, “essentially reducing our requirements to the bare minimum,” said Administrative Office Director Jim Duff. “The 4.9 percent increase should be sufficient for the federal courts to maintain current services and take on some increases in work-load for what remains of the fiscal year,” he said. “We are very grateful that Congress has funded the Judi-ciary at this level for the remainder of FY 2007 during a period of a general hard freeze for much of government.”

White House Budget for Fiscal Year 2008This year, hewing to the traditional

budgetary cycle meant the White House sent Congress its Fiscal Year 2008 budget request before Fiscal Year 2007 funding had been resolved for most agencies. As a result, the Judiciary based its FY 2008 appro-

priation request of $6.51 billion on an assumed FY 2007 appropriation.

“At the time of our FY 2008 budget submission to the Office of Manage-ment and Budget,” said Duff, “our request was based upon assumed appropriation levels in House and Senate bills—action taken by the 109th Congress. The fiscal year 2008 request will be updated now that FY 2007 appropriations have been enacted by the 110th Congress.”

The Judiciary’s FY 2008 request is an 8.1 percent increase over FY 2007. The request is based upon known workload in the courts and standard government-wide increases in pay, benefits and inflation. Increases are requested to provide for, among other items, inflationary pay and benefit

The Judiciary Requested

$6.51 billion for FY 2008



The Judiciary Received

Request pending with Congress



rate increases, a change in the number of active and senior Article III judges, uncontrollable workload changes in Defender Services and unfunded FY 2007 panel attorney payments, security–related adjust-ments, and additional staff to address FY 2008 workload increases.

The first of the Judiciary’s appro-priations hearing are scheduled for mid-March in the House. Judge Julia S. Gibbons (6th Cir.), chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Budget, and Administrative Office Director Jim Duff, will testify on behalf of the Judicial Conference.

ABA Endorses Pay Increase for Federal JudgesActing at its mid-year meeting, the American Bar Association House of Delegates passed the following resolution;

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association endorses recent statements by the Chief Justice of the United States that the failure to raise judicial pay is now a “crisis that threatens to undermine the strength and independence of the federal Judiciary.”

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the American Bar Association urges Congress to take immediate action to enact a substantial pay increase for the federal Judiciary, consistent with the recent analysis by Paul Volcker, former chair of the National Commission on the Public Service, which recognized the inadequacy of federal judicial salaries and that increases in federal judicial salaries have not even kept pace with increases in average American worker wages.

For the full report on the ABA recommendation 10D visit www.abavideonews.org/ABA404/


5See Grants on page 9

Prisoner Transfers Speeded by eDesignate System

Delays in transferring custody of criminal defendants to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) once they are sentenced to prison has been a longtime problem for many federal courts, especially courts along the nation’s Southwest border.

The delays in “designating” a prisoner into BOP custody resulted in chronic jail-space crises for courts. But a relatively new technology—the eDesignate system—is helping speed up prisoner transfers.

The eDesignate is a secure, elec-tronic, web-based system that allows a probation office and the U.S. Marshals Service to electroni-cally transmit documents to the BOP after a defendant is sentenced to custody. That is proving to be a welcome alternative to collecting and mailing paper documents to the BOP, a process that is more labor-intensive and expensive.

Developed by the Information Technology Division of the Depart-ment of Justice’s Office of the Federal Detention Trustee, eDesignate enables agencies to quickly exchange data, which allows for more effective scheduling of prisoners’ ground and air transportation.

“The system has dramatically reduced the time between sentencing and prison designation, which has saved millions of dollars and allowed for the more efficient utili-zation of detention space,” reports Deputy Probation Chief David Jones in the District of Arizona, where a pilot project using a predecessor to eDesignate began in January 2005.

From January 2005 to January 2006, the sentence-to-designation processing time in Arizona was cut from 42 to 22 days, resulting in a savings of more than $6.2 million in the federal detention account.

Dan King, systems manager for the probation office in the Eastern District of Washington, said the April 2006 start-up of the eDesig-nate system by his office’s support staff was eased by the shared expe-riences of the first two districts to pilot test e-Designate in late 2005, the Southern District of Texas and the District of Maryland.

“The net results have been that we have fewer issues reconciling document transfers (to the Office of Federal Detention Trustee), and we probably are working more closely with the Marshals Service,” King said.

In all, 42 district courts were using e-Designate as of mid-January 2007, and that number was expected to climb to 52 by February. The Office of the Federal Detention Trustee hopes to have met with representa-tives of all 94 district courts by the end of fiscal year 2007.

More than 14,000 designations have been made using the eDesig-nate system.

In Maryland, sending information via eDesignate has resulted in a 32 percent reduction in processing time. The district’s sentence-to-designation time has been reduced by an average of eight days, down from 25 days.

Chief Probation Officer Bill Henry said eDesignate “allows the Marshals Service and the BOP to instantaneously return files directly to the probation office when docu-mentation is missing and/or is incor-rect. We are then able to correct the file contents and expedite the infor-mation directly to the BOP,” he said.

More about eDesignate can be learned at the Office of Federal Deten-tion Trustee’s web site, www.usdoj.gov/ofdt/technology/htm.

Grants Encourage Sharing of Locally Developed Applications

Five information technology proposals will be developed—and shared—within the federal courts in fiscal year 2007, thanks to grants from the Edwin L. Nelson Local Initiatives Program.

The Local Initiatives Program encourages and promotes the devel-opment of local court IT systems that can be shared with other court units. For FY 2007, there was a specific interest in grant proposals to support chambers’ business processes. Among other criteria, successful proposals must provide functional capability not currently available through a national IT project; support a common or shared process in more than one court; and be developed and supported in collaboration with two or more court units, representing a minimum of two districts. Successful projects also must be made available on Ed’s Place for use by other courts.

Ed’s Place is a Judiciary-accessible website named for the late Judge Edwin L. Nelson, former chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Information Technology. Nelson actively promoted an awareness and the sharing among courts of automa-tion designed for court unit business processes. The website hosts locally developed applications and encour-ages awareness, collaboration, and partnership in the support of new application development efforts among the courts.

FY 2007 IT GrantsThe Integra Imaging 3.0 Project will produce imaging and document management software that can be used directly with the Case Manage-


New Chairs and Committees for 110th Congress With the shift to a Democrat-led 110th Congress, the chairs and ranking minority members on committees and

subcommittees also have changed. Some reorganization also occurred. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees each have created a new

Financial Services and General Government subcommittee that has jurisdiction over, among other things, funding for the federal Judiciary and the General Services Administration, which builds the Judiciary’s courthouses. The structure of the committees authorizing courthouse projects, a necessary step before appropriations may be obligated by the GSA, remain unchanged in the House and Senate.

6

Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts

Senate

Senate Committee on Appropriations

Chair: Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)

Ranking Minority Member: Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS)

Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government

Chair: Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)

Ranking Minority Member: Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Chair: Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Ranking Minority Member: Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)

Chair: Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)

Ranking Minority Member: Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Senate Committee on Environment & Public WorksThis committee, among other responsibilities, authorizes public buildings.

Chair: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Ranking Minority Member: Senator James M. Inhofe (R-OK)

Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Chair: Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)

Ranking Minority Member: Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA)


7

House Committee on Transportation & InfrastructureThis committee, among other responsibilities, authorizes public buildings.

Chair: Rep. David R. Obey (D-WI)

Ranking Minority Member: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)

Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government

Chair: Rep. Jose E. Serrano (D-NY)

Ranking Minority Member: Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH)

House Committee on the Judiciary

Chair: Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI)

Ranking Minority Member: Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-TX)

Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property

Chair: Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-CA)

Ranking Minority Member: Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC)

Chair: Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN)

Ranking Minority Member: Rep. John Mica (R-FL)

Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management

House

House Committee on Appropriations

Chair: Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)

Ranking Minority Member: Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO)


For additional February milestones, visit The Third Branch on-line at www.uscourts.gov

8

THE

THIRD BRANCH

Published monthly by theAdministrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Office of Public AffairsOne Columbus Circle, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20544(202) 502-2600

Visit our Internet site at http://www.uscourts.gov

DIRECTORJames C. Duff

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFDavid A. Sellers

MANAGING EDITORKaren E. Redmond

CONTRIBUTORDick Carelli

PRODUCTIONLinda Stanton

Please direct all inquiries and address changes to The Third Branch at the above address or to [email protected].

JUDICIAL BOXSCORE

J U D I C I A L M I L E S T O N E S

As of February 1, 2007

Courts of Appeals Vacancies 16

Nominees 5

District Courts Vacancies 41

Nominees 22

Courts with “Judicial Emergencies” 26

For more information on vacancies in the federal Judiciary, visit our website at www.uscourts.gov under Newsroom.

Appointed: Kent A. Jordan, as U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, December 15.

Appointed: Magistrate Judge Wallace Capel, Jr., as U.S. Magis-trate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, December 13. Judge Capel previ-ously served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Michigan.

Appointed: Beth M. Deere, as U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, January 4.

Appointed: Marcos E. Lopez-Gonzalez, as U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, January 24.

Appointed: James R. Marschewski, as U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, January 3.

Appointed: Bruce J. McGiverin, as U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, January 19.

Appointed: Terry Fitzgerald Moorer, as U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, January 3.

Appointed: Jane E. Magnus-Stinson, as U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, January 29.

Appointed: Keith Strong, as U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, January 6.

Elevated: U.S. District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., to Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, succeeding U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple, January 22.

Elevated: U.S. District Judge Roger L. Hunt, to Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, succeeding U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro, January 17.

Elevated: U.S. District Judge Mary M. Lisi, to Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, succeeding U.S. District Judge Ernest C. Torres, December 1.

Elevated: U.S. District Judge Linda R. Reade, to Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, succeeding U.S. District Judge Mark W. Bennett, December 30.

Elevated: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Henry Jack Boroff, to Chief Bank-ruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, succeeding U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Joan N. Feeney, December 10.

Elevated: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Carl L. Bucki, to Chief Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York, succeeding U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John C. Nimfo, III, January 1.

Elevated: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Frank L. Kurtz, to Chief Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington, succeeding U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Patricia C. Williams, January 1.

Elevated: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Howard Tallman, to Chief Bank-ruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado, succeeding U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sidney B. Brooks, January 5.

Elevated: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Vincent P. Zurzolo, to Chief Bank-ruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, succeeding U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Barry Russell, January 2.


Outside Earned Income Ceiling for FY 2007

Even though at the end of

January federal judges were

still waiting for a cost-of-living

increase in 2007, the ceiling

on outside earned income went

up. That’s because the outside

earned income ceiling is linked

to a salary level in the execu-

tive branch. With the January 1,

2007, increase in basic pay for

Executive Schedule employees,

the ceiling on outside earned

income for federal judges

increased from $24,780 to

$25,200. The ceiling applies

only to outside earnings and not

to investment income, royalties,

pensions, and similar income

sources that are specifically

excluded by regulation.

The Ethics Reform Act

prohibits high-ranking govern-

ment officials from having

outside earned income exceeding

“15 percent of the annual rate

of basic pay for Level II of the

Executive Schedule.” Effec-

tive January 1, 2007, the basic

pay for Level II increased to

$168,000.

9

Grants continued from page 5

ment/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system. Current applications to do this are excessively compli-cated and do not offer the necessary performance and reliability. Integra Suite 3.0 will interact directly with CM/ECF, supplying all the necessary tools to process and manage docu-ments faster and in a more integrated and secure environment. It will allow users to scan files, manipulate PDFs, extract CM/ECF images, import large PDF files into CM/ECF, and expose scanned images to docketing. The project is sponsored by the Districts of Nevada and Arkansas, and the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The Law Clerk/Chambers Staff Automa-tion Training Project recognizes that even the most computer-savvy law clerks are unfamiliar with court systems such as CM/ECF, PACER/CHASER, and the advanced tools used to work with PDF documents in CM/ECF. The project will design and develop desktop tutorial and simulation modules to train cham-bers staff in CM/ECF, WordPerfect, Lotus Notes, Westlaw and Adobe Acrobat Standard. The project’s advanced training can transform case-processing workflow into an entirely electronic environment, leading to increased productivity and reduced costs. This project is sponsored by the Districts of Utah and Nebraska.

The Electronic Scheduling Program (ESP) will migrate the ESP 6.0 CM/ECF calendaring application to a web-based interface for its users. ESP 6.0 provides a seamless web inter-face through CM/ECF for setting, resetting, continuing, and editing hearings, but does not provide the same interface for viewing calen-dars, adding case and hearing notes, appointments, reporting, etc. Providing a single interface acces-sible on the web improves the ability of judicial officers and their staff to

access their calendar management from any court location, remote sites, or travel destinations. The program is sponsored by the Bankruptcy Courts for the Southern District of Florida, Northern District of Texas, the Eastern District of Kentucky, and the District of Oregon.

The Satellite Drug Detection and Super-vision Reporting Project addresses geographic barriers that inhibit supervision services in Probation and Pretrial Services in the Districts of Hawaii, Guam and Montana. It merges multiple technologies into a single application to enable offi-cers to conduct non-invasive drug testing and to fully participate in reporting sessions with defendants and offenders without having to be physically on-site with them. This project is sponsored by the Proba-tion and Pretrial Services Offices in the Districts of Hawaii, Montana and Guam.

The Vehicle Reservation System will replace an existing paper log system to reserve official vehicles for probation and pretrial services officers with a web-based applica-tion. Currently, officers must visit the office and select and reserve a vehicle for immediate or future use by signing their names in a log, before taking vehicle keys. A web-based program lets officers reserve official vehicles from their desks, and eliminates re-typing the paper log. This project is sponsored by the Probation and Pretrial Services Offices in the District of Puerto Rico and the Southern District of Florida.


10

I N T E R V I E W

The Changing Face of Federal Courthouse Construction

Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska in 1997. He was named chair of the Judicial Confer-ence Committee on Space and Facilities in 2006.

Q:A new edition of the U.S. Courts Design Guide was

recently completed. Why the major overhaul?

A:It’s been almost 10 years since we’ve done a comprehen-

sive review of the U.S. Courts Design Guide. We needed to be sure that our space requirements reflected changes in the way we do business.

Also, architects and engineers have indicated that the Design Guide, as it was formulated and amended over the years, is difficult to use. You’d have to read the core document and then all the amend-ments to figure out the changes. GSA was having trouble with that and there was considerable disagreement

as to what constituted deviations from the guidelines’ space standards. If GSA reported what appeared to be deviations from the Guide, then of course Congress would think that we were asking for more space than was appropriate, when in fact it was in exact accordance with the amended Design Guide. To solve those problems and to make the document easier to use and under-stand, we decided that it needed to be revamped.

Q:What are some of the aspects of courthouse construction and

renovation that will be affected by the Guide changes?

A:We reduced space in judges’ chambers, particularly with

regard to conference rooms. We also looked to the private

sector, primarily the legal business, to see how they handle staff needs for space. Because of computeriza-tion and some innovations in office furniture, we were able to reduce staff space.

We changed the amount of shelving for books in chambers and reduced the sizes of libraries in build-ings. Because of computerization and the preference for electronic research, library and bookshelf demands have been reduced. In courts implementing CM/ECF, the storage requirements have been reduced. So we reduced storage space and shelving there too.

None of this came without a great deal of work by our Design Guide working group, our committee and staff who researched these issues and documented them for the Conference and for our committee.

Q:Does this mean we’re going to see substantially smaller court-

houses being built?

A:We’ll see smaller courthouses being built because our space

requirements for staff and chambers are somewhat reduced. But when we re-did the Design Guide, we looked at courthouses to figure out what is the appropriate ratio between public and office space. Some of the courthouses we’ve built in the past have had more public space than office space. We need dignified and impressive buildings. But we’re paying rent to GSA for this public space, and it may be more expen-sive than we can afford. During the redraft of the Design Guide, we decided to create a ratio of public to private space based on what we think is best practice. As a result, the architects and judges involved in the design process will have a real-istic understanding about how much building space is acceptable and how much public space comes with it.

Q:How are the courts involved in courthouse planning and

construction?

A:When the design archi-tect team is selected, the

court has one of five votes that select the design architect. In some cases the court’s views have not been adequately addressed. We’ve worked a long time with GSA to make sure our voice is heard. Now the judge who is part of the design selection team may have the assis-tance of the local court’s building expert, and the circuit architect, as well as input from experts at the Administrative Office Space and Facilities Division.

We emphasize that courthouses need to be designed primarily from the inside out. In other words: determine the function of a court-house and the functions that need to be preserved, and after that let’s talk about architectural achieve-ments. Our committee’s commit-ment is to be sure that courthouses are functional and operational for


11See Interview on page 12

the courts—and then architecturally significant.

Q:What is the Judiciary doing to control rent costs?

A:Congress has indicated to us, in no uncertain terms, that we

have to be much more mindful of the costs that are involved in main-taining, improving and increasing the size of our real property.

We’re doing it on a number of fronts. First of all, the Conference has set budget caps for the coming years. We’re trying to control rent to no more than an average annual 4.9 percent increase.

Then the question is, how do we implement that fiscal control? The circuit judicial councils have the statutory responsibility to deter-mine the need for space. We’re trying to implement a process whereby circuit councils are given more fiscal responsibility for the rent in their circuits. Each circuit would be given a shadow allotment for rent. The local court, in cooperation with GSA, or on their own, would decide their space needs. They would bring that request to the circuit judicial council. The circuit council would have to decide whether the space is needed and affordable. Under the new budget caps, the fiscal role of the circuit judicial councils increases substantially.

It will be incumbent upon the circuit councils to make sure that they spend their dollars as wisely as possible. I think this is a sea change from how we’ve done business in the past. Effectively, we will be de-centralizing our real estate budget to the circuit councils. The circuit councils and their respective space and facilities committees will have much more responsibility with respect to their real property inven-tory, prioritizing within their circuits what needs to be built, what can be delayed or deferred or culled, and deciding between new construc-

tion and renovation. Frankly, those decisions can be better made at the circuit level than any place else. We’re confident the circuit councils will be able to fulfill this new role.

Q:The moratorium on court-house construction, which

began in 2004, ended in 2006. What did the moratorium accomplish? And what happens now?

A:The moratorium accom-plished a number of things. It

kept our rent bill in check for those two years and it made it possible for us to keep staff that we may not have otherwise been able to keep under a tight budget.

Just as importantly, it gave us an opportunity to re-evaluate our rent bill with GSA. When we did that, we started to check comparable rents around the country and found that in some GSA regions there was substantial variance between what was considered fair market value and what GSA was charging us. We also found there were some discrep-ancies as far as space measurement is concerned. GSA has been very coop-erative in correcting those discrepan-cies. The courts in New York deserve a lot of credit for getting the ball rolling in this regard. Through their extraordinary efforts we came to realize the magnitude of those rental discrepancies.

We also talked to GSA about their return on investment pricing policy and have renegotiated downward that return on investment interest rate, further reducing our rent obli-gations.

We also discussed with GSA what our needs are when deciding whether to build a new building or to engage in a repair and altera-tion (R&A) project. They had their own assessment tool, but it was not completely in-tune with what we needed. We’re now working very hard with GSA to be on the same page in assessing our need to acquire

new property or to enhance current property for those buildings that have not yet received any funding.

Q:The General Services Admin-istration builds our court-

houses; we’re their major tenant. How are we getting along with our landlord?

A:From a national standpoint I have to say that GSA has

made a great commitment to the courts to resolve our issues and concerns. We’ve met with GSA’s Administrator, its Public Build-ings Commissioner, and its upper management. We are sharing more information and institutionalizing processes that will make both of us more effective space managers.

GSA has been very good about attempting to work out these prob-lems. It benefits all of us when we work together cooperatively. GSA also has taken steps to bring more uniformity to the way it manages its property nationally. With the rent cap initiative, we’re doing the same thing. It seems to me we have the infrastructure in place to make our road with GSA in the future much smoother.

Q:You mentioned rent validation efforts. Is that something the

Judiciary is pursuing?

A:We initiated and GSA has cooperated with rent valida-

tion. We call it Phase I and Phase II of our rent validation process. In Phase I we’re looking at our rent and whether GSA is charging us appro-priately. Is our rent reflecting the amount of square feet that we actu-ally occupy? In Phase II, we deter-mine whether we’re paying fair market rent for the property that we have. Ultimately, we will institute an ongoing process which incorporates both phases.

FIRST CLASS MAILPOSTAGE & FEES

PAIDU.S. COURTS

PERMIT NO. G-18

FIRST CLASS

THE THIRD BRANCHAdministrative Office of the U.S. CourtsOffice of Public AffairsOne Columbus Circle, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20544

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

U.S. Government Printing Office 2005-310-982-00036

Also, if there’s a problem between GSA and us concerning fair market rent, we need to have a process that allows us to reasonably nego-tiate any differences. GSA has been committed to resolving all these issues and has streamlined the appeals process to make it easier to work out our differences.

Q:What is the status of the FY 07 funding for courthouse

construction?

A:Our committee has submitted a Five-Year Courthouse

Construction Plan to the Judicial Conference for approval in March 2007. That Five-Year Plan includes the 19 courthouses that have already received some funding from Congress. Our goal is to complete

construction of these projects.We’ve tried to reduce our expec-

tations as far as the annual budget allocation for courthouse construc-tion, from $500 million per year to approximately $350-400 million per year. With that understanding, we should be able to get all 19 projects completed.

There are an additional 33 proposed courthouse projects which were on the old Five-Year Plan, but not yet funded. These projects will have to be re-evaluated under a modified planning process to deter-mine whether we need new court-houses, repairs or alterations, or some other improvements. We can then begin to put some of these new courthouse projects in the queue for future congressional funding.

Q:What does the future of court-house construction look like?

Will there be fewer courthouses?

A:I don’t think so. We won’t be able to build as many

courthouses as we may want, but that has always been a budgetary function of Congress. They decide whether we get new courthouses. In the past, we asked Congress to fund courthouses at the rate of $500 million a year, and they didn’t fund us at that rate. That’s why the Five-Year Plan backed up as badly as it did. Now we’re establishing an annual budgeting level that, hope-fully, is more palatable to Congress and more in keeping with its recent historic funding—$350 million to $400 million a year.

Documents

2007-02 Feb