court systems to comply with LEAA directives emphasizing measures to control crime lead to strained and unnecessary improvisations which are not cost effective.

The basic theoretical difficulties which we have experienced in obtaining Federal support through the LEAA will be resolved by the State Justice Institute Act of 1979. On the State level, judicial systems are separated from executive branch agencies as they should be. On the Federal level, the implementation of congressional policy is based in a governmental entity not a part of the Department of Justice. Whatever Federal resources are available for assistance in improving State judicial systems will be determined by the Congress itself. These significant changes will make it possible to achieve better results with the same funds without weakening of State judicial systems which could come from disregard of conventional principles of authority allocation.

Senator HEFLIN. While we are on this, let me make a comment. and then ask a question. In regards to this, there was some interesting testimony in the debate of the LEAA authorization bill this year. Some of the opponents of LEAA are supporters of a substantial cut of the LEAA appropriations. They used the argument that LEAA was not really providing much of anything to the States and they used the figure of the total overall cost of law enforcement and the judicial systems. What the State paid and LEAA's contribution was only 3 percent of the total figure of all of that.

My reply on the debate on the floor was that if, and I was very much in support of LEAA, if only 3 percent Federal money was involved in the total system-and that had been a great catalyst for improvement-really, in my judgment, I challenged anyone to point to any other program that could show that by use of just 3 percent of the total money involved that it had brought about the improvement that the LEAA program had brought about. You go into issues like health education and the Federal part of the total amount that is spent there far exceeds any 3 percent. I wanted to mention that in relationship to this bill and the State judicial system and the function of that and the cost and overall figures. I don't think that what you are speaking about here is any large sum of money and would supplant any Federal operation of the judicial system or the total cost but this is sort of seed money for innovative programs and for improvement, sort of a little bit of the needed icing on the cake. Now, I believe Mr. Velde asked some questions about the reluctance of some judicial systems over the period of time to accept Federal money. What is the experience, Chief Justice Sheran, if you know, as to this. Aren't all the systems now accepting and involved in the LEAA program?

Maybe Mr. Adkins or someone might care to address this.

Mr. ADKINS. Mr. Chairman, I just conferred with Mr. Kleps who is much wiser about these things and we believe that there is only one State now that is not accepting LEAA money and that is Idaho.

Senator HEFLIN. State of Idaho? Other than that, you think that all the others are accepting it. I think it could be a fear of the Federal Government; there was a speech made one time that a Federal eagle might be screaming over the clouds and that, therefore, was the great reluctance.

Now, this brings up and is related to what our testimony is here and I think, perhaps, it might be appropriate that it be in this part of the record and I will ask this to Professor Remington. There has been some mention by Chief Justice Sheran or Mr. Velde, one or the other, about

the Legal Service Corporation. It is my understanding that the rationale for the mechanism that the Legal Service Corporation now operates on and which Congress decreed, was based on a somewhat similar fear that we are faced with here a desire to have a separate body; a desire to prevent the Department of Justice from controlling that; a desire to prevent certain State executive branch functions from controlling the Legal Service Corporation; and a mechanism was set up by which it would be the corporation; the directors would be Presidential appointments confirmed by the Senate.

Professor Remington, I am sure you studied this. Would you tell us a little bit about the history of the Legal Service Corporation and why it was organized in such a manner as it was to give it independence and the relationship of this proposed act to the mechanism of the Legal Service Corporation.

Judge REMINGTON. Senator, I'm not sure I'm the expert on that and others may want to qualify what I have to say, but it is my understanding that the two proposals are very comparable. One could have asked of the Congress at the time the National Legal Service Corporation was set up the same question that was asked here this morning. Why should that not be part of LEAA? I take it the answer that would have been given then would be the same as given this morning and that is twofold.

One, there is a need, if there is to be adequate representation, for counsel and programs furnishing counsel to have a certain measure of independence in order to adequately serve the needs of the client and, certainly, the legal profession has recognized that for a long time.

Second, the fact that LEAA is, as has been pointed out, committed to the very important objective of improving the criminal justice system, doesn't leave a lot of room for programs that are designed to assist the poor and the elderly in understanding their rights under Social Security. Conceptually, the two things do not fit together. I think the same point has been made here and I think that is granting the importance of improving the criminal justice system and the courts playing a constructive role in that.

It is a gross oversimplification of the work of courts just as it is a gross oversimplification of the legal assistance needs of the Nation. To equate those with the criminal law, they are broader. It is important for the judges to be effective in the criminal justice system but judges, as you know, Senator, from your own experience, do things that have nothing to do with the criminal justice system. I think it is the view of this group that if State judicial systems are to serve effectively the needs of those who want to resort to the courts to get justice, they are going to have to have the opportunity to do it, not only in the criminal law segment, also in, perhaps in many ways more importantly, in what we, as lawyers, have called the civil law aspects of the system.

I will try to be brief-one illustration. One of the major parts of the work of Federal courts today, the so-called 1983 cases, one judge in the middle district of Pennsylvania, Judge Malcolm Muir kept a time sheet and found that he was spending 47 percent of his time on 1983 cases many of those involving out-of-state institutions located in his district. One would say, and that ought to be an appropriate concern of LEAA, both the Federal system and the States, and the

objective ought to be, as it is presently, to have State courts assume greater responsibility for disputes arising in State institutions. I think that is an appropriate objective.

The problem is that 1983 litigation is in theory civil and it is only part of a broader problem of people who come into court without lawyers, the so-called pro se litigation. I think that those who have looked at that issue are satisfied that a solution to it, an overall solution, cannot be made within the criminal justice system.

One ought to look at it across the board. We have other situations where people come in who are unrepresented and that if procedures are to be developed to make States more effective in handling this category of cases, it really can't be done as part of LEAA.

I think it is no criticism of LEAA to say that the affording of counsel through the National Legal Service Corporation or the affording of more effective judicial services through a national justice institute can better be done if they are done separately because they deal with issues that are not involved in the criminal justice system and, therefore, have not been the traditional concern of LEAA.

Senator HEFLIN. Mr. Remington, do you have a question that you would like to ask Chief Justice Sheran on this subject?

Mr. MICHAEL REMINGTON. I have one question concerning the board of directors which is to have input in directing funds to the States. Have you thought about making the composition of that board of directors not so heavily weighted in favor of State court representatives?

Mr. SHERAN. My recollection of the bill as it is currently formulated is that it provides a board of directors of 11, of whom one is to be a State court administrator; 4 are to be selected from the public generally; and 6 are to be judges, named by the President of the United States from a group of nominees proposed by the Congress of Chief Justices. I don't think that modifications of this allocation of directors as between these three groups should ever be permitted to become an impediment to the progress of the bill, but it does seem to me that what has been proposed here is certainly a reasonable beginning. The important thing, it seems to me, is that the policies to be followed by your State Justice Institute should be reflective of the experiences and needs in a significant way of the people in the State who are responsible for the administration of the State court system. In general, to a significant degree at least, that would be the chief justices or the supreme courts.

But to say this is not to say that the policies should be exclusively those that are generated by the chief justices or the supreme court, because as we all know, the trial judges in several States are in the frontlines of the business of delivering justice to the people. Their judgment, their advice, is sought by chief justices and court administrators in every State and it would be anticipated that their abilities and resources would be tapped in bringing together the board of 11 or whatever it is going to be who are going to be appointed by the President to fix policy from the Federal end of things.

I would be very hopeful that understandings would be reached. as between the appellate courts and the chief justices and the State court trial judges that would give all of them assurance and con

fidence that their views would be solicited and relied upon in developing this entity.

Mr. MICHAEL REMINGTON. Would you have any problem with having ex officio, nonvoting, members on the board such as the president of the Legal Services Corporation, the head of LEAA, or the dean of the National Judicial College-people with expertise in this general

area?

Mr. SHERAN. I hadn't directed my thinking to that specifically, but I have a general feeling that it is always useful to have people serving on boards in the ex officio capacity who would bring to any judgment points of view and perspectives that are relevant to the problems or decisions. The identity of who that should be or the segments of the total system that should be specifically favored if that is a proper word by being made ex officio members, I think that should be left for discussion and deliberation. I would certainly accede to the principle that it is advisable to bring as many points of view and minds together in your policymaking board or entity that can be done consistent with the necessity of getting beyond discussion and debate to decision.

Mr. MICHAEL REMINGTON. Senator, I thank you for the opportunity to be here. Since my father is not under oath, I don't think I will ask him any questions!

Senator HEFLIN. OK.

Chief Justice I'Anson, do you want to go head with the other witnesses?

Mr. I'ANSON. All right, sir.

Senator HEFLIN. Who do you want to testify next?

Mr. I'ANSON. Mr. Adkins.

Senator HEFLIN. All right, sir.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. ADKINS, II, CHAIRMAN-ELECT, CONFERENCE OF STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS

Mr. ADKINS. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to be here this morning as chairman-elect of the Conference of State Court Administrators

Senator HEFLIN. Please continue. I have to step out one moment but I will be right back. Go ahead.

Mr. ADKINS [continuing]. And to voice COSCA's support of the State Justice Institute Act of 1979.

In my prepared statement, I covered to some extent the ground that has already been covered by Mr. Kleps and Chief Justice Sheran. In the interest of brevity, let me try to avoid repetition and highlight a few particular points that seem particularly important from the point of view of a State court administrator.

Just by way of summary, I think that there are two problems that have troubled us about LEAA over the past. I join with what others have said about the benefits that have been unquestionably derived from LEAA. But LEAA, from the very beginning, has focused on law enforcement. It has been executive branch-dominated because of that law enforcement orientation and this has clearly produced a number of problems for the court system so far as funding and so far as the major programs that LEAA has worked on.

The State planning agencies, obviously, have reflected the executive branch domination. In Maryland, in fact, it wasn't until 1973 that the chief judge of our court of appeals or his designee was even authorized to sit on our State planning agency.

The other difficulty that has occurred with LEAA has been the lack of recognition that court systems are not criminal justice agencies they have to do with civil as well as criminal matters. It is quite understandable that being a Federal agency it is coming basically from the direction of law enforcement. We would emphasize that side of courts. But courts do not lend themselves to that sort of splitting up of their functions. The civil and criminal aspects of courts are part of an inseparable whole.

In Maryland, all of our courts except a few in Baltimore City exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction. The judges, administrators, clerks, and other supporting staff simply cannot be divided into criminal and civil divisions nor can the workload of the courts since what affects the smooth functioning and administration of the criminal side also bears upon the functioning of the civil side and vice versa. Some years ago, Mr. Chairman, we were involved in a lengthy controversy with LEAA over funding certain training for clerks of courts and their staffs because the clerks exercise civil as well as criminal functions and because the proposed training program recognized this. Other States have had similar difficulties and problems derived from the civil/criminal dichotomy, which is so easy to apply in law enforcement, but so impossible to apply to courts. Let me digress, Mr. Chairman, just a second from the matter at hand to point out with respect to the LEAA current reauthorization legislation. The Senate bill, S. 241, which takes, very wisely and properly, takes account of the fact that you cannot separate the civil and criminal functions of courts; it therefore recognizes that there should be some funding of courts even though there may be civil elements involved. Mr. Chairman, the House bill, H.R. 261, takes the opposite view it deliberately eliminates the civil funding from the court system. If that bill passed in that form, should that bill be enacted, it strikes me that that might mean the elimination of courts from LEAA all together.

Certainly the language in the House bill dealing with the National Institute of Justice is very strong and I think would prevent the National Institute of Justice from having anything to do with civil matters whatsoever. I think there would be a similar problem with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, as conceived in the House bill. On behalf of COSCA, I would state our very strong hope that when the two bills go to conference, the Senate version will prevail because I think most serious consequences will ensue if the House version prevailed in that regard.

Back to the situation at hand, Mr. Chairman, I think this illustrates that despite the improvement made in the LEAA program, particularly by the 1976 reauthorization legislation with which you had so much to do with in your former capacity, this kind of difficulty is still with us. There still is the civil/criminal dichotomy and there still exist the battles and the concerns and the difficulties in obtaining funding for court programs which look to the administration of justice as opposed to the administration only of a criminal justice system.