Chair Sees Challenges, Excellence in Courts' Future

Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King has served as a member of the Judicial Conference since 1999, and as a member of the Conference Executive Committee since 2000. She served on the Conference Committee on Judicial Ethics from 1984 until 1991. She was appointed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1979.

_Q:How do you view the role of the Executive Committee within the Judicial Conference structure? What role should it play in making policy?

_A:The Executive Committee was reconstituted and strengthened in 1987 as part of an overhaul of the Judicial Conference committee structure. The new Executive Committee was described as "the senior executive arm of the Conference (subject at all times, however, to the authority of the Chief Justice and the Conference itself)." The Executive Committee is not authorized to, and does not, make policy except in certain specifically designated areas and except in an emergency when it is "authorized and directed to act on behalf of the Conference." There are several areas, delineated in 1987, over which the Committee does have jurisdiction to act. Important in the current budget environment is the Committee’s authority, working with the Director of the Administrative Office, to fashion spending plans for the Judiciary’s congressionally approved appropriations. The Committee also structures the Conference agenda, consisting of a consent and discussion calendar. The Committee reviews the jurisdiction of each committee and resolves jurisdictional disputes among committees. The Committee coordinates legislative liaison on behalf of the Conference. Finally, the Committee may make recommendations with respect to needs of the Judiciary that should be addressed or planned for. The Committee I chair is much the same as the one envisioned in 1987.

_Q:The Committees of the Judicial Conference funnel issues and recommendations to the Conference. How does this work? Is there a process for judges, court staff, and the public to submit topics for Conference consideration?

_A:There are 24 Judicial Conference committees (including the rules advisory committees). These committees review issues within their established jurisdictions and make policy recommendations to the Conference. The committee chair determines the agendas for the committee’s meetings and may consent to or deny the inclusion of items on those agendas, although matters referred by the Chief Justice, the Conference, or the Executive Committee must be considered by the committee. Where a judge has requested an item be placed on a committee agenda, it is generally the practice of the committee chairs to do so. The best procedure for such a request is to contact Administrative Office Director Ralph Mecham, who is the Judicial Conference Secretary, so that he can refer the item to the appropriate committee. Committee jurisdictional lines are not always clear cut, and Ralph has been delegated the authority to make such referrals. Court staff wishing to have an issue considered by a committee would do best to contact the appropriate AO program office. A member of the public wishing to have a topic considered should submit his or her request to Ralph Mecham.

_Q:Judicial Compensation has been in the news recently especially the recommendations of the Volcker Commission. What is Judicial Conference policy on pay increases for judges? How will the Conference move to implement those policies?

_A:The Second National Commission on the Public Service, called the "Volcker Commission" after its chair, former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker, has recommended that Congress grant an immediate and significant increase in judicial, executive and legislative salaries to "ensure a reasonable relationship with other professional opportunities." The Commission concluded that "judicial salaries are the most egregious example of the failure of federal compensation policies," and it recommended that an immediate and substantial increase in judicial salaries should be Congress’s "first priority." The Commission report bolsters an existing Judicial Conference position that compensation of judges is woefully inadequate and (to quote the Chief Justice’s submission to the Commission) "seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure." The Judicial Branch Committee of the Judicial Conference, under the chairmanship of Chief Judge Deanell R. Tacha, has been taking the lead in pursuing a remedy for the critical compensation needs of judges.

_Q:The Judiciary’s FY 2003 funding was nearly 5 months late and the outlook for fiscal year 2004 is guarded. How does the uncertain funding situation affect the Judiciary now—and in the future?

_A:The Judiciary recently received its fiscal year 2003 appropriation. While funding for many other agencies was, in fact, cut, appropriations for the Judiciary as a whole increased 5.1 percent over last year, thanks to the leadership of Chairman John Heyburn and the Budget Committee and the tireless efforts of Ralph Mecham and his budget staff. Once advised of our appropriation levels, the Executive Committee began the tough business of determining how the money is to be spent. The Committee believes that the budget environment in coming years is likely to be considerably more difficult than it has been in the last few years. The Committee has recommended that Conference committees and the courts need to adjust budget requests and spending plans to reflect the probable budget environment. The good news is that we have talented, professional court managers who are up to the challenge presented to them by reduced resources. The Executive Committee will continue to do all it can to provide these managers with the tools they need to provide the high level of service that the judges and public expect.

_Q:You were key to the Fifth Circuit being among the first circuits to discuss continuity of operations plans. Why did you feel this was important?

_A:In the Fifth Circuit, we live with the recurring threat of hurricanes and tropical storms. Houston experienced Tropical Storm Allison nearly two years ago, which produced flooding that inundated our State criminal and family courts. The Harris County Court Administrator has shared the experiences of his courts in dealing with that crisis and has brought home the need for continuity of operations plans to deal with natural and man-made disasters. At the direction of the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council, we now have an experienced person in our Circuit Executive’s Office who is charged with working with my court and with our district and bankruptcy courts to develop continuity of operations plans. The Council’s objective is to have adequate and functioning plans in place for all courts by the Spring of 2004.

_Q: Planning has been high on the Judicial Conference agenda in recent years. Are there major issues you think the federal courts will confront in the next few years? And what is the Conference doing to address them?

_A:The answer to this question is very much tied in to the one for a previous question. I think the number one issue for the Judiciary in the next few years will be how to deal with budgets that, best case, will not grow as our budgets have grown in recent years and, worst case, may actually shrink (at least after providing for inflation-adjusted salary increases and rent increases on our buildings). Congress has consistently provided modest levels of increased appropriations for the Third Branch, but it appears that it will have fewer and fewer dollars to work with in the future. As a result, the court family will have to be creative in developing policies and procedures that enable us to do more with less. But I am a great fan of and believer in the excellence of our court managers. I think they are more than up to the challenge.

_Q:The Judicial Conference has had limited success in its requests to Congress for additional judgeships to handle increasing caseloads in appellate, district and bankruptcy courts. How has this affected the Judiciary? Are prospects for relief improving?

_A:The Judiciary has not had an omnibus judgeship bill approved by Congress in over a decade. We recently had some relief when the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, enacted in November 2002, created 15 additional judgeships (including some for the border districts). But the recent recommendation of the Judicial Resources Committee being considered by the Judicial Conference this March is for the creation of 57 additional (permanent and temporary) Article III judgeships. The impact on the courts of this high level of judgeship needs is profound, and I think, obvious. For example, the national average appellate caseload per three-judge panel has reached 1,034, the highest level ever. And there are nine district courts with caseloads in excess of 600 per judgeship, a significant amount above the Judicial Conference standard. In the 108th Congress, we are hopeful that the Senate will take the lead in pursuing our judgeship requests. When Congress does not address our judgeship requests, that does not amount to the simple failure to make a decision; it is a form of decision, a decision to accept the particular kind of justice that can result from overloaded judges. That does not equate to injustice, but it may involve, for example, more reliance on staff than is desirable or opinions that are unavoidably brief.

_Q:What do you consider the best part about being a federal judge?

_A:I love lawyering, careful, thorough lawyering. The opportunity to do that is the best part of being a federal judge. The worst part about being a federal judge is being compelled by the huge caseload (as I often am) to make decisions without being able to be a careful, thorough lawyer. I have discovered in the last four years that I also enjoy court administration. I thrive on working with other judges—we have wonderfully able judges—and with equally wonderful staff of the Administrative Office and our courts to address the management challenges of what is a very big business. I consider myself richly blessed.

_Q:What is your pet peeve?

_A:Judges with ambitions for higher office.