Explanation

One-time equipment purchase for new position approved in FY 1980.

J-90497

D.C. Court of Appeals

! FY

181

Agency
Budget Phase

District of Columbia Courts
Congressional Submission

Explanation

District of Columbia Court of Appeals (1 pos., 1 emp., $186.1:
Annualization (0 pos., 0 emp., $5.1): Nine months funding has
been approved in the FY 1980 budget for the position of Admin-
istrative Assistant to the Chief Judge at the GS-11 level.
amount of $5,100 was identified in that budget as the addition-
al amount needed to fund that position in the budget base for a
full year.
Therefore, this annualization figure is requested

in FY 1981.

The

Within-grade Advancements pos., 0 emp., $11.7): Partial
funding for within-grade advancements is requested in FY 1981.
The Court has made an effort in this funding cycle to partici-
pate to the extent possible in the Mayor's austerity program.
Accordingly, approximately one-third of the amount needed in
FY 1981 to off-set the cost of anticipated within-grades will
be absorbed by the Court. This will require maintaining one
vacancy for a partial year. The Court, however, cannot absorb
the total funding need.

Statutory (0 pos. O emp., $17.3):

Reallocations, $5.3: Funding for the position of Library
Clerk at the CS-8 level was approved in the FY 1979 budget.
Experience has shown that this level of funding is inadequate
to attract and retain the type of professional librarian
needed to organize and catalog the collection; to set-up and
maintain an inter-library loan program; and, to assist in the
planning of an acquisition program. Comparable positions in
the federal court system are compensated at the GS-11 level or
higher. Hence, additional funds to upgrade the GS-8 library
clerk position to a GS-11 librarian position are requested.

Terminal Leave, $12.0: All Court personnel who accrue
annual leave are entitled to lump-sum payments for this leave
upon separation from employment. Terminal leave funds were
requested in the FY 1980 budget in order to fund a previously

Control Center Name

Fund

General

Explanation

11

OPERATING
BUDGET

unfunded category of expenditure. That request was disapproved,
notwithstanding an actual obligation of over $13,700 in FY 1978.
In FY 1981, the Court again requests terminal leave payments in
the amount of $12,000. Although FY 1979 and FY 1980 projections
amount to approximately $16,000, the Court's request has been
held to a minimum amount in order to participate in the Mayor's
attempt to conserve vital funding resources. Therefore, only
$12,000 has been requested.

Workload (1 pos., 1 emp.

$40.0):

Deputy Clerk, $31.1: In 1974, the Court obtained grant
funds to hire an attorney-advisor to implement a systematic
program of calendar management. This program was funded for
three years through grant funds. During this period, and as a
result of the activities of the attorney-advisor and the Clerk
of Court, a differential calendaring system was implemented.
Our calendar is thus divided into two segments--a Summary Cal-
endar, which consists of relatively simple, routine, and non-
precedential cases where presumptively the cases will be
decided without oral argument (although argument is routinely
granted on request by counsel), and a Regular Calendar, which
constitutes the remainder of our caseload. The attorney-advisor
screened all cases once they were ready for argument and recom-
mended to the Court which were suitable for the Summary Calendar.
The attorney-advisor also made recommendations to the Court on
other matters of calendar management, such as the consolidation
of cases for argument and decision; the assignment of related
cases (those which present similar issues but which are not
suitable for formal consolidation) to the same division for
decision and other such functions. This worked excellently.
Since the expiration of the grant funds, the Clerk and Chief
Deputy Clerk have assumed the screening responsibility. With
the caseload increase (from 1,074 in FY 1974 to 1,323 in FY
1978) and the accompanying increase in the workload of the
Clerk's Office, existing staff can no longer perform this
function. In addition to the new calendaring system, in May

PAGE

FC/FM/FN-27

63-088 0 80 - 83

D.C. Court
of Appeals

J-90497

FY 81

Agency

Budget Phase

District of Columbia Courts
Congressional Submission

Explanation

of 1978, a Pre-argument Settlement procedure was implemented
by rule of Court. This procedure requires the parties to
file a civil appeals statement 15 days after the Notice of
Appeal is filed in the trial court. The statements are
screened to determine whether pre-argument conference will be
fruitful. If it is determined that the case may be susceptible
to settlement, the matter is scheduled for a settlement confer-
ence. The briefing process is then held in abeyance. The
attorney-advisor will also assume the responsibility for
screening these statements. Similar staff assistance has been
authorized for the U.S. courts of appeals since FY 1975. The
success experienced by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit confirms our view that this Court will be able, in a
similar manner, to reduce its backlog significantly.

Supplies, $5.9: With the increase in workload, particu-
larly in the Office of Bar Admissions; the establishment of
new procedures for Court operation; the installation of an
automated data processing system, and the pending purchase
(through grant funds) of a word processing capability, the
Court's supply needs have escalated. In FY 1978, the average
monthly expenditure was approximately $1,100 for a yearly
total of $13,500. In FY 1979, the average monthly expenditure
for supplies amounted to $1,700 for a yearly total of $20,400.
Only $14,500 presently exists in the Court's budget for sup-
plies. Therefore, an additional $5,900 is requested in the FY
1981 budget to avoid deficit spending.

Travel and Conference Fees, $3.0: A total of $1,800 is
available in the Court's budget for out-of-city travel to con-
ferences and meetings. These insufficient resources have
severely curtailed travel by the nine judges and virtually pre-
cluded travel and training for Court employees. If the Court
is to keep abreast of new developments in the law and changes
in the administration of justice, its employees must be
awarded training opportunities. An additional $3,000 will
permit approximately two judges and two Court employees to

Control Center Name

Fund

General

Explanation

11

OPERATING
BUDGET

attend training seminars in other jurisdictions. If the fed-
eral government's rule of thumb for agency training is used for
the Court, 1% of the total personnel budget should be available
in a training budget. This would amount to approximately
$16,000 or more than three times the total budget requested here.

Improved (0 pos. 0 emp $88.0):

Bar Compensation and Expenses, $6.0: In 1978, the Court
tightened the admission requirements for attorneys from other
jurisdictions seeking admission to the local bar without taking
an examination. Predictably, this resulted in greater numbers
of applicants taking the bar examinations administered twice a
year in February and July. Illustratively, 1,925 filed to take
the examinations in 1978 as compared to 2,619 filing in 1979.
As a result, the increase in workload has placed an additional
burden on the Office of Bar Admissions as well as the Bar Ex-
aminers--a committee of six attorneys who prepare and grade the
bar examinations and who are compensated at $20/hour. In anti-
cipation of this increased workload, the Court requested a
$12,000 increase in FY 1980 for compensation to the Bar Examin-
ers. Now, projections for FY 1979 show that this figure was too
low. Substantially more examinations are administered than ever
projected. Accordingly, an additional $6,000 will be needed in
FY 1981 in order to insure that the examiners are compensated
and that qualified attorneys remain willing to serve. It should
be noted that the revenues derived from bar admissions fees
have resulted in over $1,000,000 to the City.

Law Books, $60.0: A library study of the Courts conducted
six years ago observed that "Present management and maintenance
of courts library resources simply are not comparable to any
such resource elsewhere, principally because adequate funds in
the hands of professional library management have never been
made available by or even requested of the District of Columbia
government. The study team recommended that at least $200,000
be appropriated to improve resources. The Court of Appeals has

Law Books Enhancement, $22.0: Enhancement recommended by the Mayor (see above).

Inflation (0 pos.

0 emp., $3.0);

Other (0 pos.,

0 emp., $21.0):