The enactment of the court reorganization legislation in 1970 gave the Superior Court of the District of Columbia an opportunity to become a truly model trial court. This legislation, which created for the District what at that time was, and apparently still is, the only fully unified trial court system in any major urban area, provided to the Court the resources necessary to dispose expeditiously of the Court's caseload as it existed at that time. The new Court fully met that responsibility. Moreover, the Superior Court has been a leader in innovation, and it has taken many steps calculated to improve the administration of justice not only through the more expeditious processing of cases, but also through providing new alternatives for the handling of cases and through programs designed to make justice more fair and more equal to rich and poor alike. Thus, the Superior Court has brought to this City a system of justice second to none, and its members can justly be proud of the Court's record. However, this system of justice can only be further improved or even maintained if the Court is provided with the resources necessary to effectively process the cases coming before it.

In May 1978, the Superior Court moved into a new building which has enabled it to overcome many of the problems of inconvenience, inefficiency, and lack of decorum which had been caused, over the past several years, by the necessity to operate out of six or seven buildings located many blocks apart. The new structure has been designed to utilize new technologies to the maximum extent possible and to enable the Court, insofar as architecture can do so, to improve the efficiency of the judicial process. While one could easily go overboard in assuming that improving the efficiency of the judicial process through architectural improvements is equivalent to improving the level of justice, it is quite clear that without an adequate number of judges, non-judicial employees, and other resources, many new programs designed to provide better justice are doomed to failure. A Court like any other organization, public or private which is constantly on the verge of being overwhelmed by its work load for lack of adequate manpower and materials will have

It would be unfortunate indeed if the resources available to the District's justice system continued to be maintained at an inadequate level precisely at the time when the completion of the new court building places the Court in a position where it could achieve the goal of court reorganization the establishment in the Nation's Capital of a court system that is a model for the Nation. We are convinced that, given those resources, the goal is within our grasp.

-

Without the requested level of funding, it will not be possible to successfully attain the goals set by the passage of the District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act of 1970 or even function in fiscal year 1981 as that Act envisioned..

This budget request was developed keeping in mind the Court's well defined areas of responsibility and still attempting to strive to optimize cost efficiency.

costs.

The Court requires $25, 677,000 for fiscal year 1981 in order to operate in the manner expected of it. This amounts to $762, 300 more than was proposed in the Mayor's recommendation of $24,914,700.

The nature of the Court's business, however, does not permit it to rank budget priorities, since none of its areas of jurisdiction can be delegated or "postponed."

Public Law 91-358, District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedures Act of 1970, authorizes an Executive Office and an Exe cutive Officer who functions as the chief administrator of the Courts of the District of Columbia. The major functions of the Executive Office, other than administration of the D. C. Courts, are management of the court reporting operation and financial oversight of Criminal Justice Act funds.

The Executive Office has authorized positions for only five (5) professional employees (the Executive Officer, a Deputy Executive Officer, two Management Analysts and a Court Planner). The two Management Analyst positions would have to remain vacant if the Mayor's proposed level of funding were adopted. This would deny the organization the management analysis staff which is required to do research necessary for the extensive administrative improvement job required. In essence, there could be no innovative programs, for staff would be solely engaged in daily operations. ($74,000)

Also, in order to accommodate the additional shortfall of $49,800, it would be necessary to reduce the Court Reporter staff by approximately three positions. At the present time, there are only 39 Court Reporters servicing a court of 44 active judges plus six active senior judges. We would then be asking 36 Court Reporters to cover the same judicial staff. National Reports suggest that there should be 1.1 Court Reporters for every judge in order to provide for emergency factors (such as sickness), vacations and freeing a reporter to prepare overnight copy (i.e., where Court Reporter is required to immediately transcribe the previous day's trial). If the Court were to attempt to operate with 36 Court Reporters, it would be working at a ratio of .72 reporters per judge as compared to the recommended level of 1.1. The Court already is operating at a level of approximately .78 and the preparation of transcripts now suffers from that poor ratio. Further reductions can only lead to the closing of courtrooms.

Finally, it is necessary that the 1% Court System base reduction ($47, 200) which was taken from the Criminal Justice Act program in fiscal year 1980 be restored to provide funding to liquidate obligations incurred under the "District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act" Public Law 93-412.