INSIDE THIS ISSUE Congress Pays Attention to Courthouse Issues Judicial Conference Condemns OMB Courtroom Sharing Proposal Judiciary Asks for Modest Increase in Fiscal Year 2001 Budget to Cope with Growing Needs Federal Court Caseload Climbed Slightly in 1999 AJS Honors Two Who Serve the Judiciary Security and Facilities Dual Responsibilities for Judge Roth Judicial Milestones Judicial Boxscore Judicial Conference of the United States, March 14, 2000

Click here to go to the Federal Judiciary homepage.

Congress Pays Attention to Courhouse Issues

In what may stand as a record for a Judicial Conference representative, over a two week span last month, Judge Jane R. Roth (3^rd Cir.) appeared before Congress three times, testifying before House and Senate authorizing subcommittees and a House appropriations subcommittee in her capacity as chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Security and Facilities. All three times she spoke of the burgeoning caseload in the federal courts and the need for adequate facilities.

Judge Jane Roth (3^rd Cir.) testified at congressional hearing last month on courthouse issues.

"The lack of sufficient space can cause great waste and inefficiency in court operations," Roth told the House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Transportation in a hearing at which both federal judges and legislators testified. "In addition, security risks are a grave concern in all public buildings, including federal courthouses." At this House subcommittee hearing, five federal judges and nine congressmen added their voices to hers. Making their views heard were Chief Judge John E. Conway (D. N.M.), Chief Judge Edward B. Davis (S.D. Fla.), Chief Judge Harry T. Edwards (D.C. Cir.), Chief Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. (C.D. Calif.), Judge William M. Skretny (W.D. N.Y.), Representatives Bob Clement (D-TN), Phil English (R-PA), John J. LaFalce (D-NY), Richard Neal (D-MA), Jack Quinn (R-NY), George Radanovich (R-CA), Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Robert Scott (D-VA), and Gene Taylor (D-MS). The judges and members of Congress urged the subcommittee to authorize 19 courthouse projects on the Judiciary's 5-year construction plan that will be ready in FY 2001 for design, site acquisition, or construction. Roth also testified, with Chief Judges Davis, Edwards, and Hatter, before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, concerning the General Services Administration's (GSA) fiscal year 2001 Capital Investment and Leasing Program, including courthouse construction. Opening statements at that hearing were given by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Bob Peck, Commissioner, Public Building Service, GSA.

Roth's final hearing in March was before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. Subcommittee chair Representative Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) heard testimony on GSA's FY2001 appropriations, which includes courthouse construction.

Chief Judges John E. Conway, Harry T. Edwards, Terry J. Hatter Jr., and Edward B. Davis (left to right) testified at congressional hearings. Judges Jane Roth, seated behind the panel, and Judge William M. Skretny also testified on courhouse issues.

FY 2001 is the first budget in four years that the Administration has requested funding for federal courthouse construction, but the President's budget included funds for just seven of the 19 projects on the Judiciary's 5-year plan. While Congress did appropriate funds for courthouses in FY 1999, a backlog of projects has resulted and many courts continue to operate in substandard conditions. These delays are costly in more ways than one. GSA estimates that construction costs are increasing 3-4 percent for each year of delay, with significantly higher escalation in some cases.

The courthouse projects awaiting authorization in FY 2001 are generally in areas of the country where there is dynamic population growth, combined with increased law enforcement activities. While the criminal caseload in these areas has increased, the civil jurisdiction of the federal courts has broadened, and the number of bankruptcy filings also has risen substantially.

Older courthouses cannot accommodate modern courtroom technology features and often have problems with deteriorating heating and cooling systems as well as other building infrastructure problems. Further, judges and court staff are conducting court business in unsafe, overcrowded facilities. Security for jurors, witnesses, court employees, judges, and the public is compromised as they pass through the same hallways as individuals charged with serious crimes.

Roth and other Judiciary representatives also expressed concern over the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) arbitrary decision to impose courtroom sharing on judges, nullifying the Judicial Conference policy of one courtroom per active judge and an adequate number of courtrooms to accommodate senior and visiting judges in each court. This decision resulted in the deletion of as many as half of the planned courtrooms in some of our nation's busiest courts. "[T]he doctrine of separation of powers creates serious constitutional concerns if the executive branch should attempt to establish judicial process and policy," Roth said.

Presently there is no research to support the concept of courtroom sharing, and none of the 50 state court systems has adopted courtroom sharing policies. Courtrooms are essential tools in the delivery of justice, allowing the timely dispensation of cases pending before the court and eliminating last minute delays. Minimal monetary gain would result from deleting a courtroom, but the cost to efficient court operations would be significant.