There appear to be three types of dimensions underlying case processing. The first is a dimension whose presence or absence is independent of case length. In table 3, these are dimensions 3, 5, 8, and 10, respectively, having to do with whether (1) written testimony was filed in advance, (2) the judge's preparation of an opinion was delayed by having to hear or terminate another case, (3) travel was required incident to the case, and (4) major portions of the facts were stipulated by the parties. As an example of what this type of dimension indicates, dimension 8 shows that if a judge reported having to travel for a short case, he or she reported having to travel for a typical and a long case as well. The second type of dimension has to do with characteristics uniquely associated with cases of a certain length. Again in table 3, these are dimensions 4, 6, 7, and perhaps 1. Dimension 4 was discussed previously. Dimension 6 also describes a short case and indicates that the processing time increases as the number of transcript pages and witnesses increase. Dimension 7 is similar to 6, except that it is concerned with the long case, and processing time is replaced by number of hearing days as the characteristic associated with the number of witnesses and pages. Dimension 1 appears to be principally concerned with the nature of the discovery proceedings. The third type of dimension which describes case processing characteristics is a mixed factor containing both cases of a certain length and processes of a certain type. In table 3, these are dimensions 2, 9, 11, and 12. For the last of these mixed dimensions, number 12, the statistical analysis indicated that the typical case processing time and much less closely related to the nature of discovery used for that length of case. Notes 1/CSC. Report of the Committee on the Study of the Utilization of Administrative Law Judges. July 30, 1974. 2/William Fauver. "The role and functions of federal administrative law judges in the United States of America". Statement of the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference to the 1975 World Conference on World Peace Through Law. Washington, D. C., October 12-17, 1975. 3/Norbert A. Holloran. Federal Agency Hearings: A Proposed Caseload Accounting System. Washington, D.C.: Administrative Conference of the United States, January 1974. 4/Paul N. Pfeiffer. "Hearing cases before several agenciesOdyssey of an Administrative Law Judge." Administrative Law Review, 1974. 5/Merritt Ruhlen. Manual for Administrative Law Judges. Washington, D.C.: Administrative Conference of the United States, 1974. 6/Joseph Zwerdling. "Reflections on the Role of an Administrative Law Judge". Administrative Law Review, 1974. 7/OSHRC, NLRB, Department of Labor, and ICC. 8/Judge Naham Litt, FPC and Chairman of the Federal Administrative Law Judge's Conference; Judge William Fauver, Department of the Interior and former Chairman of the Federal Administrative Law Judge's Conference; Judge Ernst Liebman, FPC. 9/Judge Fredrick Dolan, Interstate Commerce Commission; 10/The cutoff of at least four respondents is typically used in organizational research to insure anonymity. 11/We performed a factor analysis using the principal factoring method and rotated 20 factors, accounting for 73 percent of the variance in the original responses, to a var imax criterion for improved stability. The 12 factors discussed in table 3 account for 85 percent of the variance in the rotated factor matrix. POSSIBLE INNOVATIONS Some 7. Over the years there have been many suggestions about how to improve the administrative process. of these are listed below. Please indicate the extent to which you believe each one would contribute to improvement. Little or no extent Don't know (7-1) Establishment of an independent corps of ALJs, separately housed and administered, and rotated with due regard to their expertise among circuits concerned with Transportation, Licensing and Rate Regulation, Consumer Protection, Labor Problems, and so on. N-736 (7-2) Attaching greater finality to ALJ decisions. N-740 (7-3) Delegating authority to issue complaints, to [5] [4] [3] [2] [2] [1] [9] 55.3% 17.9% 5.8% 5.6% 12.4% 3.0% [5] [4] [3] [2] [1] [9] 51.1% 23.3% 11.2% 4.3% 8.1% 2.0% investigate, and to initiate settlement in (7-4) Establishment of an administrative court system. N-737 [5] [4] [3] [2] [1] See Attachment I 48.6% [9] 7.3% [9] 25.6% 8. The U.S. Tax Court uses a small case procedure for cases which involve tax violations of $1500 or less. The violator can elect this procedure with an informal hearing before a special trial judge rather than a formal hearing before a tax court judge. One of the duties of the special trial judge is to assist the violator, if unrepresented, in presenting all of his/her evidence. The decision rendered by this procedure is final and not appealable. 9. (8-1) Do you believe such a procedure could be used by all agencies which use ALJs? N-740 13.1 [2] Yes 56.3% [1] No 30.1%[9] Don't Know (8-2) Could such a procedure be used by some agencies which use ALJs? N-680 28.8% [2] Yes Please specify which ones: See Attachment II 9.3%[1] No 61.9%[9] Don't know The Veterans Administration through its Board of Veterans Appeals informally adjudicates disability cases without a hearing unless it is requested by the individual seeking the disability benefits. After the case has been processed and decided at the regional office level, it can be appealed to the Board. At the Board the case is adjudicated by three member panels, generally made up of two attorneys and a doctor. Each panel has seven attorneys who assist them. The decision of the Board is final and not appealable to the U.S. Federal Courts. Do you believe this type of informal system could be used to help you adjudicate the following types of cases? (Check only if Yes.) N-422 10. What is your reaction to the idea of having the work of ALJs periodically reviewed by an independent panel of attorneys and Civil Service Commission personnel who would have the authority to recommend adverse action if deemed appropriate? N-740 |