Page images
PDF
EPUB

Hopefully the committee also recalls that we have had a problem by reason of the existence of that ceiling. It was set at $250,000 when the Conference was first authorized in 1964. By the time the Conference actually began to function in 1968, it was already clear that $250,000 would not permit it to do what was contemplated back in 1964, so in 1969 the ceiling was raised to $450,000. We bumped that ceiling last year and had to go back to the Congress to seek an elimination of the ceiling. We were unsuccessful in getting it eliminated, but we were successful in getting it raised, not just to one fixed level, but to a graduated level over the next five years. Beginning with fiscal 1974, our authorized ceiling is $760,000. It will go up in stages to $950,000 in the following four years and will remain there

This is, therefore, the first time, for the past few years in any case, that a Chairman of the Conference has been able to come before you with any leeway, or with any considerable leeway, to seek funds for major projects which we have wanted to undertake. In the past, we have, not only not had the appropriated funds, but have had no authority to receive them.

I am addressing myself now to standard form 304 that is attached to the back of the justification. I believe you will see that the principal increase in funds that we are seeking falls within two categories.

PERSONNEL REQUEST

First, item 11.1, "Personnel compensation, permanent positions." We are asking an increase from our 1973 estimate of $248,000 to a new estimate of $302,000. About half of that represents statutory pay raises. The other half is for the hiring of two new permanent staff members. I would anticipate these would be a GS-13 and a GS-9one professional and one staff support. The reason we need this new personnel support is largely because of the development of the vital informal activities of the Conference which, as I indicated earlier, have been increasing rapidly in recent years, and I would like to see increase even more rapidly. They are not the most visible of our activities, but I really believe they are no less important than our formal recommendations.

If I might digress just for a moment to point out another fact about these informal recommendations, these informal advice-giving functions. Our formal recommendations usually come about only after an initial agency program has been established, and our research indicates there is something wrong with the program. Well, as anybody knows, it is hard to get something that is already underway changed. Our informal advice-giving function on the other hand comes at an earlier stage, when the agency is gearing up, or when a new program is being adopted. It is at that point I think we can have the greatest impact, and it is largely for that reason I need these two additional personnel. Also, our formal recommendation activities have increased in recent years. The function of seeking implementation of our recommendations is more time consuming than it once was, simply because we have a larger number of recommendations to follow up.

[blocks in formation]

CONTEMPLATED NEW RESEARCH PROJECTS

The other item which accounts for the vast bulk of our requested increase is contained in item 25.0, "Other services." We are requesting an increase from our 1973 estimate of $68,000 to $210,000. Some of this represents simply cost increases. We are going to have to pay the General Services Administration more for keeping our books than we have in the past. Our fees for a court reporter to keep a transcript of our general sessions have gone up; so also have charges for repairing machines, and so forth. The bulk of the increase, however, is attributable to our desire to undertake several major new projects of a scope beyond the ordinary type of research project that we have conducted in the past.

STATISTICS ON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITY

The first of these is one envisioned at the time the conference was set up; it is an attempt to develop a statistical system that will keep track of administrative activity. Right now there is no agency that tries to do that for the entire Government. Various agencies have their own statistical records of greater or lesser utility, but they are to no extent that I am aware of comparable one to another.

As an example of what in our wildest imagination we hope to achieve by our statistical study, I would like to show the members of the committee the type of management statistics that are kept by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. I have with me a publication entitled "Management Statistics" issued by that office. If you will just take a quick look at it, you will see that in the back there is a flyleaf which can be opened up that contains the average for all 94 district courts of filings, terminated cases, median time needed for disposition of cases, number of old cases still on the docket, and so forth. The flyleaf gives you the average. You can then turn to any district, hold it up against the flyleaf, and see how a particular district court compares with the nationwide average. It is a tremendously useful tool to know where the litigation is, where the backlogs are, where the jams are; where we need more personnel, where maybe we need less.

It is our hope to develop something that at least approximates this statistical tool for those formal proceedings that are held within the administrative structure. It will be a much harder job, I think, than doing it for courts, because formal administrative proceedings are much more different in nature than court proceedings. One court case is pretty much like another, but one administrative proceeding is not.

We are preparing to undertake the beginnings of this project, and we are approaching it cautiously because it has enormous difficulties. There is no doubt that it is something Congress has wanted us to try from the time the agency was founded; our statute specifically mentions that we should keep these statistics. We are approaching it cautiously at first and in order to do that, to make at least a feasibility study, we estimate that $50,000 will be needed, which is much more than we have ever spent on a single study. I will break down, if you wish, how we arrive at that $50,000 figure, but I won't go into it right now.

AGENCY PROCEDURES IN INFORMAL ADJUDICATION

The other project that is included within this increase from $68,000 to $210,000 is a coordinated study of informal actions. The Conference has found in recent years that more and more of the requests that we have received to investigate particular agency activity have been directed, not to formal agency action by which I mean structured proceedings where you have an administrative law judge and a record and so forth-but rather to informal proceedings, in which an agency makes a determination off the record and not on the basis of any formal structure. It is impossible ever to get around to every type of informal proceeding within the Government if you do them one by one. It is our hope that some general principles can be developed which will improve the fairness of the informal process overall without the need of taking on the various proceedings one at a time.

I may add that many scholars in the field of administrative law think that it might even be desirable to try to frame an informal administrative procedure act. I am personally not sure about the feasibility of that, but I do think that the attempt at least to develop some guidelines for informal action is worth while.

CITIZEN COMPLAINTS

The last major new project we seek to undertake is in the field of citizen complaints. We commissioned this past year, and there is near completion, an overall study of the manner in which agencies handle citizen complaints. We would like to follow that up, if possible, with studies of particular agencies, particular manners of handling those complaints.

I won't go into the other increases in the budget in detail at this point. Most of them are relatively small in amount. The two line items I have just addressed myself to are the principal ones.

PUBLICATION OF CONFERENCE STUDIES

The next major one, I suppose, is publication. We have a real need for getting our information out to the agencies and to the public where it can do some good. We are not an agency that has any compulsory power. The only manner in which we get any of our program across is by persuasion and information. Right now our publications are minimal. We put out a newsletter about our current activity. It is a publication of a quality-not an intellectual quality, but a physical quality-below any publication that I am aware of by bar association committees, for example. It just comes on mimeographed paper. It does not have the permanence and authoritativeness that it ought to have. We would like to be able to at least have a publication that has the permanence and attractiveness of comparable publications of private groups.

I think those are the only specific items I care to address myself to, but I would be pleased to answer any more detailed questions you may have.

Mr. STEED. I believe you call this the Assembly of the Conference? Mr. SCALIA. Yes.

Mr. STEED. Would it be possible for you to provide the names of the different sections of your membership for the record?

Mr. SCALIA. Yes, sir. We have it with us and it is broken down in two ways, a general alphabetical listing of the entire membershipincidentally, it is about 50 Government members and 40 non-Government members-and we also have it broken down by committees. The assembly is divided into nine working committees. I will be glad to submit both of those for the record.

[The information follows:]

MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL

(April 1973)

Antonin Scalia, Chairman, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. Edward L. Morgan, Vice Chairman, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury, Washington, D.C.

Charles D. Ablard, Associate Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Ralph E. Erickson, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Walter Gellhorn, Columbia University Law School, 435 West 116th Street, New York, N. Y.

Dale W. Hardin, Commissioner, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D.C.

Marion Edwyn Harrison, Reeves & Harrison, 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, D.C.

Harold L. Russell, Gambrell, Russell, Killorin, Wade, & Forges, 4000 First National Bank Building, Atlanta, Ga.

Richard B. Smith, Davis, Polk & Wardwell, 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, N. Y.

Richard C. Van Dusen, Dickinson, Wright, McKean & Cudlip, 800 First National Building, Detroit, Mich.

MEMBERS OF THE CONFERENCE

Charles E. Allen, General Counsel, Federal Home Loan Bank Board, 101 Indiana Avenue NW., Washington, D.C.

William H. Allen, Covington & Burling, 888 16th Street NW., Washington, D.C. Carl A. Auerbach, acting dean, University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Minn.

John W. Barnum, General Counsel, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

St. John Barrett, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C.

Frank A. Bartimo, Assistant General Counsel (M. & R.A.), Department of Defense, The Pentagon, Room 3E963, Washington, D.C.

Charles F. Bingman, Chief, Government Organization Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C.

James A. Bistline, assistant vice president-general counsel, Southern Railway System, Post Office Box 1808, Washington, D.C.

Warren E. Blair, Chief Administrative Law Judge, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C.

Charles N. Brower, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State, Washington, D.C.

William H. Brown III, Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C.

Jack K. Busby, president, Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 901 Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pa.

Donald A. Campbell, Judicial Officer, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

William E. Casselman II, General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, D.C.

John J. Corcoran, General Counsel, Veterans' Administration, Washington, D.C.

Louis A. Cox, General Counsel, United States Postal Service, Washington, D.C. Eldon H. Crowell, Reavis, Pogue, Neal & Rose, 1100 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C.

Kenneth Culp Davis, professor, University of Chicago Law School, 5801 S. Ellis, Chicago, Ill.

David S. Dennison, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. John H. Fanning, member, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. Ben C. Fisher, Fisher, Wayland, Southmayd & Cooper, 1100 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C.

Warner W. Gardner, Shea & Gardner, 734 15th Street NW., Washington, D.C. William T. Gennetti, Acting General Counsel, Small Business Administration, Washington, D.C.

Whitney Gilliland, Vice Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D.C. Robert C. Gresham, Commissioner, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D.C.

Richard L. Griffith, Cades, Shutte, Fleming & Wright, First Hawaiian Bank Building, Honolulu, Hawaii

Thomas E. Harris, general counsel, AFL-CIO, 815 16th Street NW., Washington, D.C.

Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., professor, Yale Law School, New Haven, Conn.

George H. Hearn, Commissioner, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.Č.

Ragen A. Henry, 1632 Bankers Securities Building, 1315 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa.

Arthur E. Hess, Deputy Commissioner, Social Security Administration, 900 Administration Building, Baltimore, Md.

(Mrs.) Carla Hills, Munger, Tolles, Hills & Rickershauser, 1100 Western Federal Building, 606 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, Calif.

S. Neil Hosenball, Deputy General Counsel, National Aeronautics & Space Administration, Washington, D.C.

Richard H. Keatinge, Keatinge, Libott, Bates & Loo, 458 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, Calif.

Cornelius B. Kennedy, Kennedy & Leighton, 888 17th Street NW., Washington, D.C.

Earl W. Kintner, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, 1100 Federal Bar Building, 1815 H Street NW., Washington, D.C.

Alan G. Kirk, Deputy General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C.

John A. Knebel, General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Victor H. Kramer, professor, Georgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, D.C.

Arthur Leff, Chief Administrative Law Judge, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.

Sol Lindenbaum, Executive Assistant to the Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

(Mrs.) Charlotte Tuttle Lloyd, Assistant General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, Washington, D.Č.

Lee Loevinger, Hogan & Hartson, 815 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. Philip A. Loomis, Jr., Commissioner, Securities & Exchange Commission, 500 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C.

Robert L. McCarty, McCarty & Noone, Suite 202, 1225 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, D.C.

Malcolm Mason, Associate General Counsel, Office of Economic Opportunity, Washington, D.C.

Mitchell Melich, Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Anthony L. Mondello, General Counsel, U.S. Civil Service Commission, Washington, D.C.

John N. Nassikas, Chairman, Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C.
C. Roger Nelson, Purcell & Nelson, 888 17th Street NW., Washington, D.C.
L. Clair Nelson, U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc., 777 Third Avenue, New
York, N. Y.

William A. Nelson, National Airlines, Inc., Post Office Box 2055, AMF Branch,
Miami, Fla.

Leonard Niederlehner, Acting General Counsel, Department of Defense, the Pentagon, room 3E980, Washington, D.C.

« PreviousContinue »