Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
18558959
label
Interagency Team Survey Report (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
18558959
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Interagency Team Survey Report (2)
citationUrl
collections
Charles E. Goodell Papers
Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Presidential Clemency Board. 9/16/1974-9/15/1975
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
18558959
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-06-30
month
6
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-05-01
month
5
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
9223ee79242e5cd8
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 7, folder "Interagency Team Survey Report (2)"
of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 7 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
May 16, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO
: Charles R. Work
Chairman, OMB Working Team
CERALO R. FORD
FROM
:
Lawrence M. Baskir
LMBarken
General Counsel
BA
SUBJECT: Draft Report to Paul O'Neill
This memo contains our general response to the major proposals
you have made in the draft you presented to me this morning. We
will have for you on Monday a response to other, more detailed
points in your report.
First, let me express my appreciation and that of the PCB staff and
the Chairman for the time, energy and spirit with which you approached
your review of our operations. Even where we do not agree with your
recommendations, we have found your questions and your suggestions very
stimulating and helpful in our efforts to improve our operations and
to ensure our meeting of the President's goal.
I wish to address seven points in this memo:
I. Policy Questions
II. Board and Staff Morale
III. Additional Staffing
IV. Senior General Manager
V. Quality Control
VI. Budget
VII. Immediate issues which must be addressed by Paul O'Neill
I. Policy Questions
The Chairman has serious doubts as to the appropriateness of your
making recommendations concerning the two policy issues. The issue
of pardon for those with undesirable discharges is one to be raised by
the Chairman with the President's Counsel, and with the President. Your
report mistates the issue because the President has already approved the
Board's position. At issue is an effort to reverse this decision.
page 2
The Chairman also believes that your observations with respect to
alternative service do not bear upon Clemency Board production and are
not properly a matter for OMB consideration.
II. Board Staff Morale
The Chairman and the Board staff very strongly agree with your
recommendation with respect to improving staff morale by means of visits
by the President and the Vice-President with the Clemency Board Staff.
We believe the morale of Board members is also an important issue and
that Board members should have more visible signs of the Presidential
priority that attaches to their functions. We believe the President
should meet the new Board members as he did with the original nine and
that other signs of the Presidential priority be made evident to them.
Our comments on the budget discuss one important element of this.
III. Additional Staffing
(a) Interns
We disagree most strongly with your recommendation that a
total of 100 interns be the full measure of additional professional
assistance to the Board. We believe that the staff must be increased
by' another 100 interns for the following reasons:
- We believe that your production estimates are optimistic.
While we will make every effort to meet these goals, if in the
future, your assumptions prove incorrect, or our efforts
unsuccessful, we will be less able to secure additional professional
help we need at that later point. The availability of law students
effectively ends when they leave law school in the coming days for
the summer recess.
- Should your estimates prove accurate, the addtional 100 interns
will provide a pool which we can use to return full-time permanent
government attorneys to their home agencies. The result will be a
cost saving to the government of the difference between the salary
of a GS-7 for three months, compared with that of a GS-12 or
better for the same period. There is an additional saving of
federal employee benefits which summer law interns are not
entitled to receive.
- The additional 100 interns will provide a pool of talent which will
enable us to replace low productivity full-time government attorneys.
- Finally, the Defense Department has not been able to produce on
schedule their complement of 100 interns. Should a substantial
number of them not appear, or should they report at delayed
intervals over the next 30 days, the full effectiveness of their
100 interns will be lost. We have identified fully 300 law students
within the Washington area who are available on a few days notice.
page 3
Because of the open commitment of the Department to their
group, the Board needs authority to make commitments to
an additional 100 to meet this difficulty.
(b) Clerical Support
We agree with your recommendation that an additional 50
clerical personnel must report immediately. We have already identified a
clerical shortage that these fifty will remedy. Of course, we will need
an additional clerical support to provide assistance for the interns, what-
ever their number may be.
IV. Senior General Manager
We understand your proposal to be that we designate an individual
in our existing staff who will be responsible for legal production--
that is, from the receipt of a file by an attorney through presentation
of the case to the Board. We have designated the Deputy General Counsel
(Robert A. Knisely) to assume this function as his exclusive responsibility,
beginning Thursday, May 15.
We disagree with your recommendation that a GS-16 Administrator
be appointed from outside the present staff to supervise budget, personnel,
office services and administrative production. Of these functions, the
only one bearing on production is the last--administrative production. Our
present Administrator, Ms. Handwerger, will continue to supervise all these
functions, with special emphasis on administrative production. The other
functions of budget, Executive Secretary, office services, and personnel
are being handled by capable people reporting to Ms. Handwerger or to
the Executive Secretary.
We agree that steps should be taken to locate an individual to be
in charge of legal production should that become necessary in three weeks.
However, we must note that an individual reporting after the first week
in June will require a period of time to familiarize himself with his functions
before he becomes effective. We have serious doubts whether any individual
at that point will have time enough left until August 1 to perform his function
successfully. We have similar feelings about the selection of a new GS-16
Administrator for that side of their production process.
V. Quality Control
We agree that we will begin to phase down the resources we are now
devoting to quality control as our action attorneys become more experienced
and as our new interns are trained.
We have serious doubts about the efficacy of your proposal to
reorganize quality control, placing it in the line function responsible to
team leaders. We hope to discuss with your team in the next few days the reason
for the suggestion, and why you believe it will have a direct bearing on produc-
tion.
page 4
VI. Budget
You recommend that we submit revised budget figures to OMB. We
believe that an adjustment should be made to the budget estimates we
submitted at least a month ago. However, we are very strongly of the
opinion that OMB must approve the budget immediately. We are in especial
agreement with you that the Board be granted authority to commit money
directly for special emergency needs without seeking OMB approval for
these details.
In addition to your recommendation for improving staff morale,
we believe attention should be paid to Board morale. We urge that
OMB approve items in the budget which we proposed for improving Board and
staff working facilities. We proposed $25,000 for Class "A" accommodations
for Board meeting rooms and offices and $20,000 for higher quality office
partitions to improve staff working conditions. OMB has disapproved
these proposals because it deems them frivolous. We believe them important
to Board and staff morale. They will, of course, become available for other
government uses on September 16.
VII. Issues for Immediate OMB Action
1. As discussed above, we need immediate authority to hire 200 interns
because of their imminent unavailability.
2. The clerical tap should go out not later than Monday because we
are presently experiencing typing and xeroxing and other support
backlogs which interfere with present production levels.
3. Despite many weeks of effort by the Clemency Board and the attention
given to this problem by OMB staff, a position has not yet been
found for Gretcehn Handwerger. Your interim report stressed this
point but no action has been taken on it. Ms. Handwerger's
temporary employment terminates c.o.b. May 16, 1975. She
has already suffered the inconvenience and hardship of being
unemployed in her first weeks with the Board. She is qualified
under Civil Service Regulation for a GS-16/3.
4. Your recommendation to freeze details, provide parking expenses,
compensatory time, overtime, leave protection, and temporary
promotions during the detail should be implemented as quickly
as possible to assist the Board in maintaining staff morale as
we increase our demands on their productivity.
5. An amount should be authorized to meet emergency expenses that occur
in the immediate future.
LAW ASSISTANCE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20530
May 16, 1975
FORD
MEMORANDUM
TO
: Paul H. O'Neill
Deputy Director
Office of Management' and Budget
FROM: Charles R. Work Cur
Chairman
Interagency Team to Survey
the Presidential Clemency Board
The Interagency Team to Survey the Presidential Clemency
Board was commissioned to examine the overall operation
of the Board and to make recommendations for remedial
action. The general finding of the Survey Team is that
the many institutional problems which confront the Board
are severe. It is the judgment of the Survey Team that
without major policy, organizational and procedural
alterations, the satisfactory performance of the Board
is doubtful. Speed, force and competence in implement-
ing the thrust of the Survey Team's recommendations,
(outlined below and developed in detail in the attached
report) are paramount.
The recommendations of the Survey Team fall into six
broad areas of consideration:
A. Major Policy Issues
B. General Management within the Presidential
Clemency Board
C. The Role of the Clemency Board
D. Case Processing
E. The Role of the Action Attorney
F. Quality Control
2
In the area of Major Policy Issues, the Survey Team
has only "red-flagged" for your attention the following
issues which we believe merit your immediate consideration:
1. The issue of Presidential Pardons for former
members of the Armed Services with undesirable
discharges.
2. The fact that even if the Clemency Board
completes disposition of its present case-
load by September 15, 1975, there will be a
limited workload carry-over beyond that date.
In each of the other areas outlined above, the Survey
Team has made specific recommendations designed to
improve the overall operation of the Board. The major
recommendations of the report are as follows:
1. The current Deputy General Counsel of the
Board should develop by May 23, 1975, a plan
for implementing the thrust of the recommen-
dations of the Survey Team.
2. The OMB should extend the life of the Survey
Team until June 6, 1975, in order to monitor
and report on the progress of the Deputy
General Counsel in directing the implemen-
tation plan.
3. The OMB should assign an experienced senior
federal manager at the GS-16 level to act as
head of the administrative side of the
organization.
4. As to personnel needed to get the job done by
September 15, 1975, OMB should (a) initiate
immediately an additional tap for 50 clerical
personnel; (b) provide for 100 summer legal
interns*; and (c) establish a retention policy
to continue all personnel currently assigned
to the OMB.
5. The CB should integrate its Quality Control
function with the Action Attorney team function.
To the maximum extent possible, present Quality
Control attorneys should be Action Attorneys.
*
The Staff of the Clemency Board believes that an
additional 100 legal interns over and above our
recommendation should be authorized. The Survey
Team disagrees with that proposal at this time.
GERALD FORD
3
6. In order to emphasize the clemency program
as a Presidential program of high national
priority, at an early occasion, the
President or Vice President should meet with
the entire CB staff.
The foregoing recommendations along with those contained
in the body of the report are basically a collection of
measures to alleviate a serious problem with respect
to the production caseload of the CB. The important
point is the necessity of forging a commitment to
implement the essence of these measures quickly and
comprehensively.
In conclusion, the Survey Team believes that it is
necessary to emphasize that many of the problems being
experienced by the Clemency Board are not unique to
that organization but are similar to problems experienced
by many new, high priority federal agencies. By separate
memorandum to you, the members of the Survey Team will
address what they believe the Federal Government under
OMB's leadership should do to avoid the mistakes that
are frequently made in organizing new, high priority
federal agencies. The record of extremely critical
start-up (as well as phase-down) problems as evidenced
in this survey can be avoided with some advanced planning,
capitalizing on the recent experiences of the Economic
Stabilization Program, the Federal Energy Administration
and the Clemency Board.
We would be happy to discuss with you our findings
and recommendations at your convenience.
REPORT OF THE
INTERAGENCY TEAM TO
SURVEY THE
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
FO
&
GERALD
May 16, 1975
I.
INTRODUCTION
On May 9, 1975, an Interagency Team (see
Appendix A) was established by OMB at the request
of the President to survey the Presidential
Clemency Board (CB). The Team was asked to
review organization, management, staffing and
case processing procedures with the specific
objective of identifying changes that could be
implemented rapidly in order to aid the CB in
meeting the President's deadline for Board
resolution of the existing case workload by
September 15, 1975. Interim recommendations
were provided by the Team to the Deputy Director
of OMB on May 13 (see Appendix B).
The Team accepted the following as basic
working assumptions:
*
There was an approximate workload of
20,000 cases.
*
September 15 was the deadline to complete
all case processing work.
*
Given the present case workload, time
constraints, and organization of the
CB any recommendations of the Team
would have to address the realities
of the present CB situation.
*
Team recommendations or modifications
for improving staff productivity and
processing procedures should not result
in a decrease of the stringent quality
control instituted by the CB.
Since January 1975, the CB has witnessed a
dramatic increase in the number of applications
for clemency which it must review and process.
Applications have increased from an initial work-
load of approximately 850 cases in January to
19,500. This increase has been due in large
part to the very active role which the CB has
played in soliciting applications to the program
as well as to the extension of the application
submission deadline first to March 1, 1975 and
then later to March 31, 1975. The Board of the
CB has disposed of 840 individual cases, as of
the date of this report.
2
It should be noted that the CB has gone
from an initial staff of eight to its present
complement of slightly over 400 in a very
short period of time. This large infusion
of staff into CB operations has contributed
significantly to many of the present adminis-
trative problems facing the CB staff.
During the last seven days, the Survey
Team has examined the CB organization, manage-
ment, staffing and case processing procedures.
In particular, the Team focused on the following
areas for this review:
*
Major Policy Issues
General Management
The Role and Function of the Board
Case Processing
The Role of the Action Attorney
*
The Role of Quality Control
From the outset, the OMB and CB staffs were
most cooperative in providing briefings and
requested information to the Team as well as
candid observations on existing operational
difficulties. The Team was able to complete
its review in a brief period because of the
valuable assistance provided by OMB and CB staff.
In summary, the organizational, policy and
process changes recommended by the Survey Team
represent a balanced package. the thrust of which
must be implemented in a very timely fashion, in
order to be effective in resolving the problems
which now confront the Presidential Clemency Board.
The following report specifies actions which
either the CB management should take or the OMB
should take in support of the Board, in some
cases suggesting the timing for individual actions.
Many of the actions involved fundamental realign-
ments and alterations (in organization, policy or
procedure) of the current situation and by their
nature require very strong management to bring
3
to fruition. In consequence of this situation
the Survey Team has recommended that OMB extend
the existence of the Team through July 6, 1975
to both assist the CB in initiating the steps
to effect the recommended changes and to assure,
through oversight, that the steps are carried
out promptly and with the intended effect.
Study Approach
The approach to the study was as follows:
*
Orientation briefing by OMB and CB
staff.
*
Review existing documentation prepared
by OMB and CB.
*
Interview key OMB and CB personnel and
pertinent members of their staffs to
gather information on:
existing case processing procedures;
--
general management issues;
--
case presentation procedures to
the Board;
--
unresolved policy issues;
--
CB quality control procedures.
Arrangement of the Report
Following this introductory section, the report
has been arranged into six additional sections:
II
Major Policy Issues
III General Management Within the Presidential
Clemency Board
IV
The Role of the Clemency Board
V
Case Processing
VI
The Role of the Action Attorney
VII
Quality Control
4
The following appendices to the report have
been included:
A)
Interagency Team Composition
B)
Memorandum from Charles Work, Chairman,
to Paul O'Neill, Deputy Director, Office
of Management and Budget re: Interim
Recommendations on the Presidential
Clemency Board
C)
Suggested Organization Charts (3)
D)
Panel Decision Time Analysis
E)
Workload Calculations
F)
Suggested Team Organization
5
II. MAJOR POLICY ISSUES
A.
Pardons For Those With Undesirable Discharges
This is a major policy issue which we
believe has the potential for seriously ham-
pering the clemency program if it is not
resolved at the earliest possible date.
Serious disagreement has apparently arisen
between the CB on the one hand and the DOD
and the DOJ on the other over the CB position
that it can recommend Presidential pardons
for certain former members of the armed ser-
vices who have not been convicted by court
martial but were separated from the service
administratively with an undesirable discharge.
As of this date, a recommendation to the
President on this matter from Mr. Philip W.
Buchen, Counsel to the President, is still
pending and as a result further executive
clemency actions are being delayed -- over
three hundred cases await White House decision.
We are "red flagging" this policy issue
because we believe that a decision on this
matter must be made as soon as possible in
order to clarify the issue for the CB and,
more importantly to eliminate this serious
impediment to the final disposition of the
great majority of executive clemency actions.
It also has a value to the CB staff in that
they need to see public evidence that their
work is being handled with dispatch at the
White House if they are to believe in the
importance of the September 15, 1975, date
for getting this job done.
Recommendation
The issue of Presidential Pardons for
former members of the Armed Services with
undesirable discharges should be resolved
by May 23, 1975.
6
B. September 15 Carry-Over Workload
We believe the CB can get its job done by
September 15, 1975, if it adopts our Survey
Team recommendations. Even so, there will be
some carry-over workload, namely:
1. Section 101.11 of their regulations provides
applicants a 30-day period after Board
notice in which to request reconsideration.
There is insufficient experience to date
with only 65 Presidential actions to esti-
mate the number of reconsiderations although
we would expect them to run no more than a
few hundred at most. In view of the fact
that Board and Presidential decisions will
probably continue to September 15, recon-
sideration under the present regulations
will be permitted until October 15, 1975.
2. There undoubtedly will be several hundred
or more "lost cases" in which the search
for a service file or the reconstruction
of a file which has been inadvertently
destroyed prevents the CB staff from com-
pleting its work by September 15.
Recommendation
CB in consultation with OMB should prepare
plans for the carry-over workload so that a deci-
sion how this will be handled can be made by
the White House by June 30, 1975. One of the
options to be considered is the delegation of
the staff work for civilian cases to the Pardon
Attorney at DOJ and the military cases to the
appropriate Judge Advocate General at DOD with
case disposition continuing under the CB as long
as it exists.
C. Alternative Service
Based on case decision experience through
May 10, 1975, a substantial percentage of the
applicants will be required to perform a period
of alternative service with this period being
7
either three of six months in most cases.
CB staff expressed a concern that given general
conditions, the Selective Service will have
difficulty locating public service jobs for
those individuals who registered for alternative
service. They also believe the Clemency Board
has a responsibility to monitor the alternative
service requirement. This view is not shared
by the Director of Selective Service and Execu-
tive Order 11804 clearly supports his view.
Regarding availability of public service
jobs, Selective Service is reasonably confident
that they can locate satisfactory alternative
service jobs for those individuals who are
willing to meet their obligation. They point
to their success in the early seventies of
having 10,000 to 12,000 conscientious objectors
at work at any one time and their recent record
of placing over 1,200 of the 4,500 military
desertees who have enrolled with Selective
Service.
Recommendation
1. The Director of Selective Service should
be requested by OMB to provide a special
report by August 15 of their experience
in locating alternative service positions
for those individuals who have reported
to their offices.
2. CB should institute regular reports to
Selective Service regarding Panel/Board
case disposition so that the Service can
plan for the number of alternative service
positions they must provide.
8
III. MANAGEMENT
A.
Senior Manager
The Survey Team believes the Clemency
Board needs to have a production oriented manager
who can recognize and take action on all bottle-
necks in the process without impairing but in
fact enhancing the quality of the action attor-
neys work. We have considered two options:
1. Immediately place a senior General Manager
into their structure who reports to the
General Counsel but who is the chief oper-
ating official leaving the chief policy
role to the General Counsel.
2. Divide the current organization so that
the current Deputy General Counsel in effect
becomes the Deputy General Counsel for
Operations with responsibility for case
summary preparation by the teams, training,
quality control, production control and
policy and precedent analysis. Leaving all
other managerial functions--budget, person-
nel, space and equipment, records, corres-
pondence, etc. -- to report to a new admin-
istrative head or a GS-16. In this case we
would be freeing the Deputy General Counsel's
time to become the core, key production
manager for the organization.
The debate on these options must necessarily
take into account the current set of relation-
ships and personal confidences that the senior
staff of the CB have developed with each other
over the last seven months. The organization is
at a critical point and a major interruption in
relationships could prove counter-productive.
Recommendations
1. Effective no later than May 23, OMB should
assign an experienced senior federal manager
at the GS-16 level to CB to act as head of
their administration consistent with option
number two above. (See Appendix C)
9
2.
Effective immediately, the current Deputy
General Counsel should become the chief
operating official for production with
immediate responsibility to develop by
May 23, 1975, a plan for implementing the
recommendations of the Survey Team and
such other organizational and operational
changes as required to assure maximum
operational efficiency.
3. The OMB should extend the life of the Survey
Team until June 6, 1975, in order to review
and report on the progress of the Deputy
General Counsel in directing the implementa-
tion plan. Specifically, by June 6, the
Survey Team should evaluate and report, with
remedial suggestions, to the CB Chairman
and Deputy Director, OMB, on the progress
of the CB in implementing corrective actions.
B. Morale
Essential to the achievement of the workload
objective is maintaining and building a strong
sense of teamwork and high morale. Various
factors appear to be working in that direction:
*
Presidential program of high national
visibility
Well known and respected Chairman who
is a personal friend of the President
Backbone of staff are professional
attorneys who have interest and pride
in quality of their analysis
*
General condition of high spirit and
optimism generated by senior staff in
their leadership roles.
However, assimilating detailees, many of
whom did not "volunteer" for this assignment,
from various federal agencies with likely
interruptions to family vacation plans is a
severe test to any set of managers. In view
of this, the Survey Team believes the following
set of recommendations are important to the
success of this effort.
& VORD
10
Recommendation
1. The Chairman must take time to become
known to the staff at all levels.
2. The Board members should individually
praise the staff as evidence of quality
work and outstanding production by Teams
become known to them.
3. At an early occasion, the President or
Vice-President should meet with the
entire CJ staff.
4. OMB should impose upon all contributing
agencies a liberal set of rules for all
CB employees regarding reimbursement for
parking, overtime payment and/or compen-
satory leave, extention of lost leave into
FY 76 and any other personnel inconven-
iences that are likely to become matters
of irritation as the summer progresses.
A clear measure of liberality on the part
of agencies is imperative. Simply developing
a standard set of policies which represent
the lowest common denominator of partici-
pating agency policies will be inadequate.
5. The CB staff should be immediately advised
that personal vacation plans will not be
considered until after August 1, 1975.
C.
Team Leaders/Assistant Team Leaders
The front-line supervision of the action
attorneys is critical in terms of both quality
and quantity of work. There is no time to
develop and train Team Leaders or Assistant
Team Leaders. They will either prove they
can perform in a week or two or have to be
replaced. There is considerable evidence
within the existing Teams as to what this means
with one Team already producing 12 cases per
week per attorney.
11
Recommendation
The Deputy General Counsel should adopt a
philosophy of replacing promptly Team Leaders
or Assistant Team Leaders if production goals
and quality standards are not met. By the
same token, this type of action should not be
reflected in the permanent records of these
employees because the CB workload environment
is in no way a fair judgement over the longer
term of an individual's supervisory capacity.
It is just that this job does not permit CB
management any time for "developing" super-
visory skills.
D. Fund Availability and Authority for Minor
Expenditures
There are several uncertainties regarding
the allocation from the President's Unantici-
pated Personnel Needs Fund. The FY 1975 alloca-
tion is $185,000 with a request for an additional
$55,000 pending in OMB. Discussions regarding
FY 1976 fund availability through September 15,
1975, have not led to a firm planning figure
although OMB indicated a possible allocation of
$300,000. In addition it appears that CB does
not have the authority for obligating funds for
emergency services or supplies.
Recommendation
CB should present revised FY 1975 and FY 1976
expense estimates to OMB by May 23, 1975, so that
OMB can respond the following week with a firm
allocation for FY 1975 and a planned availability
for FY 1976. In addition, OMB should resolve
questions regarding CB's obligation authority
for emergency or minor services and supplies by
May 23, 1975.
12
IV. THE CLEMENCY BOARD
It is evident that Chairman Goodell has done
a commendable job in leading the Board through a
number of critical phases in its existence. The
public education campaign undertaken by the original
members of the Board was successful in increasing
the number of applicants from 850 in January to
19,500 by the end of March. This was an out-
standing contribution in keeping with the intent
of the President in creating the clemency program.
The Board feels that individual case decision
by panels of Board members is basic to the dis-
charge of their responsibilities and they are
prepared to devote the necessary time to do this.
The Chairman's plan is to operate with an
18 member Board (the original nine members with
one replacement and nine relatively new members).
If the decision workload clusters in such a way
that he needs additional Board Panels of three
members each, he is prepared to quickly appoint
additional members.
Of the present Board members, three are
clearly part-time but one of those has asked to
be replaced. Once that is done the Chairman has
a total of 16 members who are prepared to work
full-time beginning June 1st on deciding cases.
With that availability, he should have no trouble
manning four 3 member decision panels every work
day and going to five if need be. The Survey
Team's analysis, based in part on the Chairman's
judgment, which is included as Appendix B, shows
that Panel decision workload should not be a
barrier.
For the Panels to do their job, we are
making a number of assumptions and a number of
recommendations. The assumptions are:
1.
Referrals to the full Board will be
relatively few. On May 8 and 9, with
new members participating for the
first time, there were 24 referrals
out of 363 cases reviewed. However,
14 of the 25 were on one issue from
one panel and that issue in terms of
13
general policy was resolved by the
full Board the following day. As
the Board spells out policy during
the remainder of May and early in
June, the necessity for referrals to
the full Board should reduce to a
trickle during the summer. This is
the view of the Chairman.
Note: In Part VII, Quality Control,
we recommend the addition of a policy/
precedent function under the Deputy
General Counsel for Operations. This
function will not only assist the staff
by giving them prompt feedback of Panel
and Board policy and "style" develop-
ments, but should assist the Chairman
in determining when referrals of a
certain type need a general policy
resolution. The emphasis at the full
Board has to be on generating policy
guidance for its members as they
function on decision panels and for
the staff and not on individual case
review.
2.
Reconsideration workload will not be a
significant workload factor. There may
be a tendency for the Board to want to
hear all reconsiderations as an 18 mem-
ber body and that should be avoided.
If time permits, a better investment
of their time in the Survey Team's judg-
ment would be to elevate all Panel "no
clemency" decisions to the full Board
for review.
Our recommendations are discussed in the fol-
lowing subsections of this Part.
A.
Post Audit of Panel Decisions
With a workload of this magnitude and as
DERALD
many as ten relatively new members, the Panels
are bound to make individual case decisions
occasionally which are inconsistent with the
vast majority of decisions they have made on
similar cases. Already, the Chairman and
General Counsel receive staff analyses and the
mitigating and aggravating factors as to those
14
decisions which appear to be outside the
normal distribution. Thus far, the Chair-
man has individually re-reviewed those
cases and already has taken 25 back for
Board re-review.
Recommendation
1.
A policy/precedent function should
be established to perfect and per-
form this post audit of panel
decisions.
2.
The Chairman should obtain Board
approval by the end of May for
instituting this system with under-
standing that a small percentage
of cases will be returned to Panels
for re-review.
Note: The recommendations for
adding an entry on the case summary
for "Board Precedent for Disposition"
under Part VI, ACTION ATTORNEYS,
should also help assure consistency
of decisions by the four or five
panels.
B.
Docketing of Cases before Panels
The critical factor in meeting the
September 15 deadline is the time of the
Action Attorneys and their immediate super-
visors. Although some time for new staff can
be justified for training and orientation
purposes, the number of action attorneys
"cooling their heels" waiting for the Panel
to hear their cases must approximate zero if
this job is to get done. That is currently
not the case and the Board members have not
been sensitized to this.
The major burden, however, lies with the
CB staff in scheduling and controlling this
activity although they will need the full
cooperation of Panel Chairmen every step of
the way. For example, once the schedule of
cases batched by Action Attorney is posted
for each Panel then it is critical that each
Panel meet for scheduled time periods. One
15
or more Panels deciding to meet at hours
"more convenient to their individual members"
will invalidate every time factor we have
put into this report and would make it
impossible for the CB General Counsel to
even figure out how many people he would
need to meet such an unpredictable workload.
Recommendation
1.
CB staff develop system for docketing
cases before individual panels that
permits each Action Attorney to
present all of his or her cases
that are ready for disposition that
week (or that can be handled by the
Panel that week) during: (a) one
continuous time period on one day
and (b) before one Panel only. This
should permit an Action Attorney to
plan his or her work effectively so
that once they have refreshed their
memory about an individual case
they do not have to repeat that
process a week or two later.
2.
Chairman should instill in Board
members generally and Panel Chair-
men specifically the importance of
protecting Action Attorney time.
Both Chairman and General Counsels
of Panels will need to be continuously
alert and phone Assistant Team
Leaders when delays are developing
on Panel dockets.
C.
General Counsel's Role At Panel
The role of General Counsel at Panel
Hearings is currently being performed by Team
Leaders or Assistant Team Leaders. This is
the wrong application of these key supervisors
time given the workload. Our recommendation
for production per attorney plus holding pro-
fessional attorneys accountable - once trained -
for the accuracy/quality of their work require
that the Team Leaders at all levels devote
their time to being supervisors. It does
appear that the impartial, technical expertise
16
of a more experienced attorney is needed
as Panels deliberate. Come June 1st when
four panels will be meeting continuously,
this General Counsel function essentially
becomes a full-time job for four (occa-
sionally five) experienced attorneys.
Recommendation
Effective June 1st, Team Leaders and
Assistant Team Leaders should no longer
serve as General Counsels at Panels. Four
experienced attorneys, under the Deputy
General Counsel, should be designated to
serve in this important role so that the
Team Leaders can devote their time to
supervision. Four experienced attorneys
advising the panels on a continuous basis
should also facilitate the objective of
consistent decisions on the part of the
Panels.
D.
Recording Panel Decisions
It appears that the recording of Panel
dispositions is currently being done by the
Chairman of the Panel, the General Counsel
and by two executive secretariat staff
members.
Recommendation
Effective June 1st, the responsibility
for recording Panel dispositions should be
placed primarily on the General Counsel with
the secondary verification done by the
Chairman who will undoubtedly want to do
this anyway for his personal assurance.
CB staff should incorporate in the policy/
precedent function the responsibility to
take the General Counsel's disposition
sheets at the close of each day and run
a 100% verification against the Chairman's
records on the day following a Panel meeting
SO that any discrepancies can be resolved
by the Chairman and the General Counsel of
that Panel within 24 hours.
17
V.
PROCESSING
A.
Staffing Requirements
Included under processing are the
activities beginning with the receipt of
an application and ending with final case
disposition and action by the President.
The principal activities are logging,
securing case records from various locations,
case preparation, quality control, board
action and file disposition. Without
question, the critical path leading to
final case disposition is case preparation
by the action attorney. The key issue is
the rate at which action attorneys can
prepare cases for action by the Board.
Although the preparation of cases has barely
begun at the CB, the amount of time it takes
to process a case is known today and sub-
stantial improvement is evident as the
action attorney gains experience. The
projected size of the staff of the CB are
extremely sensitive to the production rates
achieved by the action attorneys since they
comprise the largest component of the staff
and all other staffing requirements are
derivatives of this component.
The case load is bounded in the lower
limit by the number of bonafide applications
logged in and in the upper limit by the
applications logged plus the number of
written and verbal applications which have
not matured to a point where they may be
considered as bonafide applications. These
values are 15,484 and 21, 175, respectively.
On the basis of experienced maturing rates
for imcomplete applications, a case load of
19,500 is set as the most probable case load
and it is this value which CB planning and
estimates for staffing are based. With
approximately 840 cases completed by the
Board at this point, 18,660 remain to be
processed between the week of May 12 and
the week ending August 1. The current CB
estimate for staffing indicates that 528
professional and 264 supporting personnel,
totaling 792, are required to get the job
done. This estimate is based on a learning
18
period for each action attorney of four
weeks at which point a maximum production
rate of eight cases per week is achieved
on the average. This maximum rate is
reduced to five per week during the first
week of June when daily panel meetings
begin, on the assumption that a significant
portion of the action attorney's time will
be spent in presenting cases to the panels.
Based on the Team's discussions with
Team Leaders, Assistant Team Leaders,
quality control people and numerous action
attorneys, it is felt that the CB estimates
are extremely conservative and that
significantly higher production rates are
possible. Based on the assessment of the
situation, it is estimated that an average
production rate of ten cases per week can
be achieved and that during the periods of
intense panel activity a rate of eight cases
per week can be maintained. With these
production rates, the requirements for pro-
fessional staff would be 322, with clerical
support of 161 for a total CB staff of 483.
The table below summarizes the CB estimates
and the Survey Team's workload analysis.
Survey Team's
Workload
CB Estimate
Analysis
Action Attorney
305
195
235
Quality Control
122
40
Supervision
61
47
Central Staff
40
40
Total
528
322
Support
264
161
Total CB Staffing
792
483
19
In terms of total numbers, the assumed
staffing commitment to CB appears more than
adequate but there is some skill imbalance
between professional and clerical support.
The CB is at present experiencing a very
serious clerical personnel deficit. This
deficit could become quite critical if the
case processing recommendations included in
this report were to be implemented. The
present professional to clerical ratio for
the CB was developed on a ratio of 3 to 1.
Case typing backlogs are already beginning
to develop. This situation will become
even more critical as case preparation is
accelerated by the development of improved
case processing procedures, the stabilization
of existing detailed personnel and the con-
commitment increase in case attorney pro-
ductivity through increased experience on
the job. See Appendix E for overall work-
force calculation.
The Survey Team's proposed staffing
recommendation for the CB is developed on
the following table:
Proposed Staffing
On board May 1
408
Plus: Legal Interns
+ 100
Clerical
+ 50
Total Staffing For CB
558
Survey Team's Workload
Analysis
483
Contingency Factor
75
Given the priority attached to this effort
and the fact that workload will peak at times,
this 75 person overage appears reasonable.
Recommendation
1)
OMB should direct a program for
obtaining 100 summer legal interns
for case processing with such
20
staff in place by May 30. This
amends our May 13, 1975 interim
recommendation which called for
100 interns in addition to the
100 DeD is providing as replace-
ments for the 50 DoD attorneys
currently assigned to the CB.
(The CB has indicated that they
disagree with this recommendation
of the Survey Team. The CB
estimates that they will need at
least 200 summer interns rather
than the 100 interns which the
Survey Team recommends.)
2)
OMB should tap Federal agencies
for an additional 50 clerical
persons of whom at least 10 should
be in the GS-6 through 8 range
by May 30.
3)
OMB should issue, by May 23, a
retention policy applying to all
Federal employees presently
detailed to CB which holds these
employees in place until the
August 1, 1975 case summary work-
load is met. Any exception to this
policy should be of an urgent nature
and replacements provided by con-
tributing agencies two weeks before
departures of an experienced staff
member.
4)
CB should provide detailed weekly
personnel reports to OMB showing:
personnel authorized, accessions,
and returns that week, a comparison
of the professional and clerical
staff totals to the preceding weeks'
totals, by contributing agencies.
B.
Production Control
FORD & GERALO LIBRARY
The Survey Team is impressed with the
attempts by the CB staff to identify each
step of production. Also, a surprising amount
of work has been done on productivity and
this has put the CB in a strong position now
21
to measure very closely the performance
of each team and each action attorney.
This information has proven invaluable
not only in translating current and
projected workload into staffing require-
ments but also in increasing productivity.
The Team does have a concern, however,
that an integrated production control
system is not on line. There is not
today a clear understanding of the pipe-
line inventory at each major stop in the
process. This is essential if workload
is to be expedited through backlog manage-
ment and timeline controls. For example,
it is obvious that the concentration of
effort of the teams is in preparing cases
to the point of submission to quality
control--at which time a case is considered
a unit produced--and attention turns back
to getting other cases "produced." The
result is that a backlog of cases in the
final preparation stage exists and is growing.
Although this results in higher production,
this backlog must be managed and it is our
feeling that additional clerical support
is needed to take cases to final without
turning attention away from case preparation.
Although several organizational configurations
are workable, it seems important to have a
small but separate unit reporting to the
Deputy General Counsel whose principal
function would be production control on a
is
FORD
day-to-day basis.
GERALD
Recommendation
The Deputy General Counsel should place
heavy reliance on his production control
function for collecting status data and
monitoring production on a day-to-day basis.
C.
Front End Processing
There are several real and potential
major problems in front end processing
(logging applications, completing information
on applications, and records). Already 15,484
applications have been logged. An additional
2,300 telephone applications have not been
22
followed up by the applicant in writing
and approximately 3,000 incomplete written
inquiries represent other possible eligibles.
It is not expected that all of the latter
two categories will be eligible, and some
discount based on experience has been applied
to arrive at the working case load of 19,500.
It is our understanding that after con-
siderable delay follow-up letters will be
sent this week to those who have not submitted
complete applications with a deadline of
June 1st for receipt of properly prepared
forms. While no further action is indicated,
at this time, some thinking must be done soon
about the disposition of cases in which a
response is not received by June lst. This
has been identified as a possible carry-over
workload.
Of the 15,484 applications logged in,
14,545 , have been sent to the records section
to secure personnel files and other needed
records. At this point, 12,170 records have
been ordered. The balance, 2,375, represents
mainly applications which do not contain
sufficient information to order records. We
understand that follow-up letters on these
cases will also be sent out this week in
an attempt to complete these applications.
These cases also represent potential carry-
over, possibly raising that workload to
above 7,000 cases. Of the total files
requested, approximately 10,000 have been
.
received, with approximately 6,000 assigned
to attorneys and approximately 3,200 will
be assigned to action attorneys as records
GERALD
of trial are received.
There are serious problems with respect
to cases involving military trial records.
CB estimates that approximately 40% of the
military cases involve BCD's or DD's,
necessitating the review of a trial record.
Personnel records are ordered from St. Louis
and are received within 10 to 14 days. For
cases involving BCD's and DD's, requests
cannot be made for the record of trial until
receipt of the personnel file from St. Louis.
23
We understand that this is necessary since
sufficient identifying information is not
available on the application and must be
extracted from the personnel file. Another
10 to 14 days are consumed awaiting records
of trials which means that in these kinds
of cases, it takes approximately four weeks
to complete the case file. Although all
trial records are kept in Suitland, Maryland,
they must be requested from the Navy Yard
for Navy and Marine applicants, from the
Forrestal Building for Air Force applicants,
and from the NASSIF Building for Army
applicants.
In each center, the CB request is
handled only as a "routine request" for
military personnel and trial records. Given
the priority of the President's Clemency
Program such delays caused by the routine
handling of requests is simply unacceptable.
Recommendation
The OMB in concert with the CB should
direct the DoD and the GSA to give a "high
priority" status including the assignment
of additional personnel to all requests for
military personnel files and court martial
trial records originating from the CB.
D.
Final File Disposition
CERALD
A plan must be prepared to provide for
an orderly and timely return of the case
files to the originating agencies and the
disposal by destruction or archival storage
of the Presidential Clemency Board internal
records. The problem with regard to the
return of the case files stems from a lack
of guidance to the action attorneys and the
record section concerning the necessary final
processing of the files.
The staff of the Presidential Clemency
Board must act quickly to prepare a final
file disposition plan. They must advise all
action attorneys that once a file has been
24
reviewed by the panel or Board and no
appeal is likely the attorney must strip
the file of all extraneous material. A
decision must be made and the action
attorneys informed about which material
will remain in the file so that no repro-
cessing of files is necessary to satisfy
records disposition requirements. Additionally,
a decision must be made by the CB after
discussions with the file originating
agencies as to what if any indication
there will be in the individual's return
file that that person's case was reviewed
by the Presidential Clemency Board.
After the above decisions are made,
files can be processed by the action attorneys,
retained by the records section for the
requisite thirty days after a decision by
the Board for an appeal to be made and
then returned to the agencies. A proper
system must exist containing file and court
record numbers plus their location for the
retrieval of these files if at any time a
question is raised on the case.
Recommendation
A plan should be prepared for the orderly
disposal of the internal records of the
Presidential Clemency Board. A working
agreement should be reached with National
Archives to guide the Presidential Clemency
Board in the determination of which records
must be kept and which can be destroyed.
GERALD
25
VI. ACTION ATTORNEYS
A. Organization and Completeness of Case Files
Case files assigned to action attorneys by
the Records Unit often are incomplete and/or in
a state of disarray. This causes the action
attorney assigned to the case to lose valuable
processing time in organizing materials in the
files and, where necessary, in attempting to
augment that material sufficiently to permit
completion of a case summary.
Recommendation
CB policy should be announced that a case
file will not be turned over by the Records Unit
to an action attorney until it is properly
organized and is as complete as possible.
Further, action attorneys should be instructed
to prepare case summaries on the basis of the
files submitted to them and to limit their
efforts to obtain additional case material to
telephone calls or letters to clarify essential
matters.
B. Use of Standard Forms
Action attorneys all use a standard form
for recording aggravating and mitigating circum-
stances, but use a variety of forms for prepara-
tion of the case summary proper. Several
proposals to standardize the case summary forms
have been studied by CB staff, but no decision
has been made. Use of a standard form should
shorten learning time and save time in prepara-
tion of summaries.
Recommendation
CB should implement use of a standard form
for case summaries by May 23.
C. Citing Board Precedents
Writing of case summaries day after day is
a dull and frustrating experience, particularly
for attorneys who are accustomed to more dynamic
activity. Much of the work does not require an
GERALD
26
attorney's expertise. Morale building incen-
tives are considered vital to maintain the
production efficiency of the AA's. The action
attorney should be permitted to participate in
the disposition of each case by making a recom-
mendation as to the clemency to be granted, if
any. The Board is, however, known to be opposed
to receiving disposition recommendations from
the action attorney. An alternate incentive
for the AA would be to add a final line to the
case summary in which the AA would enter a
"Board Precedent for Disposition". This would
serve to inform the Board of how it has acted
on similar cases previously presented and should
be of material assistance to the Board in
arriving at its decisions. Where the AA believes
there is no applicable precedent for disposition
of a particular case he should so indicate by
a statement such as "No Applicable Precedent
Found". The effectiveness of this new procedure
will depend upon the adequacy of records of past
Board actions on cases. The need for improvement
in recording Board precedents is discussed
elsewhere.
Recommendation
CB should add a final line to case summary:
"Board Precedent for Disposition".
D. Certifying Action Attorneys
It is standard policy at present for the
case summaries of all action attorneys to be
reviewed by Quality Control attorneys for changes
and corrections which they consider required.
Experience establishes that some action attorneys
are so competent that their work needs little or
no review by Quality Control. It would save
processing time and would boost morale of action
attorneys for a policy to be established under
which action attorneys would be certified by
Team Leaders as qualified to complete case
summaries without review by Quality Control.
An acceptable alternative would be to have
Quality Control merely spot-check the work of
certified AA's.
27
Recommendation
CB should consider implementing a policy
of certifying action attorneys.
E. Integration of Quality Control with AA Teams
There are 50 attorneys in Quality Control
occupied with reviewing case summaries prepared
by AA's. The type of review accomplished by
Quality Control duplicates to a considerable
extent the review of case summaries accomplished
by AA team leaders and assistant team leaders.
Integration of the Quality Control function with
the AA team function would permit AA team leaders
to gain total control of processing of cases to
completion and make a more realistic production
unit possible. (Refer to Section VII, Quality
Control for further discussion and recommendations.)
F. No-Jurisdiction Cases
Each team is identifying cases in which it
seems clear that the Board has no jurisdiction
to act on the particular application for clemency.
Because no policy has been established as to
disposition of these cases, they are accumulating
within the teams and there are approximately
200 such cases at present. It is believed that
these cases should be disposed of by Board action
so that it is clear that the applicants concerned
have received due process. Special sessions of
the Board, possibly acting in panels to dispose
of these cases would seem advisable.
Recommendation
The General Counsel should ensure that no-
jurisdiction cases are periodically disposed of
by the Board.
G. Summer Legal Interns
A total of 100 legal interns is being
recruited for summer work with the Board; 12
have already reported. Some are being assigned
to non-legal duties. Legal interns could be
used initially to go through a case file and
BERALD
28
record personal data, circumstances of the
offense (where applicable), applicant's back-
ground and similar data. The particularly com-
pleted case summary could then be turned over
to an action attorney who would, in exercising
his judgment as an attorney, complete the
summary by adding additional materials, possibly
including information obtained from the appli-
cant by telephone. Interns can also be phased
into writing complete summaries, subject to
review by an action attorney. Interviews with
action attorneys indicate that an action attor-
ney's output could be increased substantially
if legal interns were employed as indicated to
supplement the action attorneys.
Recommendation
Summer legal interns should be assigned
to teams to supplement the action attorney work
force.
H. Reorganization of AA Teams
The AA teams should be organized to
reflect organizational and functional changes
recommended throughout this report. A chart
reflecting these recommended changes is
included in Appendix F.
Recommendation
The AA teams should be reorganized as soon
as possible in accordance with the chart
included in Appendix F.
29
VII. QUALITY CONTROL
The development of individual cases and the
case-by-case decision making by the CB panels/
board in simplest form is a quasi-judicial process
within which very critical decisions are made by
the members. These decisions literally can have a
permanent impact on the welfare, reputation, employ-
ability and social standing of the individual who has
petitioned for clemency. In recognition of the
enormous imperative for quality and equity in
carrying out this analysis and decision process,
the CB, in its formative period, established an
extraordinary case development process. This was
done to provide maximum assurance that individual
cases were thoroughly developed, free of errors,
and therefore susceptible to the most informed
and equitable decision on the part of the panels/
board.
The particular approach referred to above
involves the development of individual cases by
an Action Attorney within the General Counsel
operational organization, which in turn is referred
to a separate "Quality Control" group that vir-
tually re-processes by checking essentially every
detail of the "Case Summary" (the vehicle for pre-
senting a case to the panel/board). This was
appropriate in the initial period of the Board's
existence and can be credited with materially
upgrading the quality of the cases presented to
the panel/board for decision.
The Quality Control Unit consists of
approximately 50 attorneys in contrast with an
estimated 175 Action Attorneys who initially prepare
the cases for review by Quality Control. There
is, therefore, a ratio of slightly less than one
Quality Control review professional to three
Action Attorneys who originially prepare case
summaries.
The organization, systems, and processes of
the CB have matured and expanded rapidly in the
past one-month period to the extent that there is
a demonstrable increase in productivity and quality
of case work. The organization and staffing are
beginning to stabilize and the panel/board has
30
demonstrated an ability to make reasonably
uniform decisions. The current process for
assuring a high quality of case work can be
characterized by the following observations:
Generally the Teams with the highest
production also have the lowest quality
control rejection rate.
The Teams that achieve high productivity
and quality are exercising internal
quality control through Assistant Team
Leaders.
A substantial amount of the defects found
by the Quality Control Unit are of a
cosmetic (i.e., format, numerical, consis-
tency boiler plate nature) character and
take an inordinate amount of time to
reconcile between the Action Attorney and
Quality Control analysts. This is the
result of a combination of having two
different organizational units, a tendency
of these two individuals to debate over
minor points, a natural antipathy between
developer and reviewer (where frequently
the reviewer has no more experience or
absolute knowledge than the developer),
and some lack of overall agreement within
the organization as to the mandatory format
and content requirements of a case summary.
There is no systematic, uniform method of
feedback, visibility and understanding of
the policy and precedent implications of
decisions made by the panels/board. The
panel/board is in effect evolving "case
law" which over time strongly impacts the
approach to developing cases.
The Teams with the lowest productivity/
quality appear to be in that state from
a combination of inadequate internal
Quality Control at the Assistant Team
Leader level and an indeterminant combin-
ation of low motivation and weak super-
vision.
31
The implicit and explicit success measure
for General Counsel Teams is the rate at
which they produce cases for forwarding
to the Quality Control Unit. This in
subtle and direct ways places a much
higher value on simply "pushing out"
cases rather than the usual, traditional,
balanced values of case production and
assuring quality (because the line managers
are fully accountable for that quality).
The situation described above from a
management processing efficiency and morale point
of view is obviously undesirable. The notion of
a group that literally checks the work, in detail,
of another group actually performing the work on
a case-by-case basis is unorthodox and has no
credence or standing in analogous professional
situations.
Recommendations
There can be no compromise with respect
to assuring that the work product (Case
Summary) which goes to the panel/board for
decision is an accurate representation of
the petitioner's circumstances. This requires
that the CB have an organizational and
functional means to assure the quality of
each case. It is strongly believed that
case productive capacity can be materially
increased without any loss of quality if
the following are implemented:
1. Policy and Precedent Analysis
CB should establish a policy/precedent
analysis capability reporting directly
to the Office of the Deputy General
Counsel. Its primary function would
be to observe all proceedings of the
panels and the full Board, and to
distribute at the immediate conclu-
sion of such proceedings appropriate
synopses of policy directions and
evolving precedents emanating from
the panel.
it
FORD
GERALD
32
An additional function would involve
analysis of any tendency on the part
of Panels or the Board to render
decisions that are significantly
inconsistent with prior policies and
precedents. Such instances would
be analyzed, documented, and presented
to the Chairman and if necessary, the
full Board for resolution.
A third function would involve a
highly selective post-audit of major
case decisions, with the basis for
audit selectivity subject to the
approval of the Deputy General Counsel.
This capability should be staffed
from the current Action Attorney
Teams and the current Quality Control
Unit and should include highly
competent individuals, given the
nature of the functions.
2. Staff Redeployment
The professional staff currently
constituting the Quality Control
Unit should be redeployed into the
Action Attorney Teams. It is
expected that the majority of the
current QC staff should be assigned
to these Teams.
3. Line Organization Accountability
The Team Leaders and Assistant Team
Leaders should have it clearly
communicated to them that they are
fully accountable for substantive
review and resultant quality of
all cases and that they must adapt
internal organization and functional
activity to assure the quality of
work products. It is considered
desirable to maintain at least one
individual within each team whose
primary function is quality control
33
in response to guidance provided
by the Team Leaders or Assistant
Team Leaders of that team. He/she
would also provide a secondary but
very important function of liaison
to the policy and precedent analysis
function to assure that the Team's
case development was in consonance
with the evolving precedence con-
tained in the Panel/Board's decision
and otherwise to seek interpretation
of anomolous issues from the policy
and precedence analysis unit.
APPENDIX "A"
Interagency Team Members
The Interagency Team was composed of the following ten
individuals representing five different Federal agencies:
Charles R. Work (Team Leader)
LEAA
Bert M. Concklin
DOL
Robert F. Diegelman
LEAA
William J. Doyle
LEAA
Chris Griner
DOD
Bert Lewis
DOL
Joseph F. Malaga
NASA
Dave Smith
DOD
Bland West
DOD
Donald I. Wortman
HEW
CERALD
APPENDIX "B"
May 13, 1975
EMORANDUM FOR: Paul O'Neill, Deputy Director, Office of
Management and Budget
FROM
: Charles R. Work, Chairman
and
Interagency Team on the Presidential Clemency Board
SUBJECT
: Interim Recommendations on the Presidential Clemency
Board
Since our meeting with you on Friday, May 9, the team has been involved
in two days of staff discussion with the staff of the Presidential
Clemency Board (PCB) and the OMB. Based upon our initial discussions,
we believe that there are several interim recommendations that should
be brought to your attention immediately. These recommendations, we
believe, can and should be acted upon immediately and would, if accepted,
help to relieve the present intense workload and severe administrative
problems being experienced by the PCB.
The Interagency Team would therefore make the following interim
endations:
1) The PCB should be authorized to initiate mediately a
Summer Legal Intern Program. This program would be
designed to bring on board approximately 100 law school
students as summer interns and would be Launched immediately,
before the law schools go into summer recess. These interns
would be used to augment the existing staff of approximately
175 action attorneys and would be used primarily for case
preparation. The DOD has already arranged for a summer
intern program in support of the PCB and has already agreed
to supply approximately 100 law student interns to the PCB
as a 2 for 1 replacement of 50 of the DOD lawyers presently
working for the PCB. The estimated cost for the DOD intern
program is approximately $300,000. The program which we
are recommending would be in addition to the DOD program,
i. e. an additional 100 law student interns over and above
the 100 interns presently being promised by DOD. The DOD
has already indicated that they would be villing to re-
cruit an additional 100 interns through their program but
that money would be the problem. The estimated cost for
additional 100 interns would therefore be about $300,000
and it is our recommendation that this sim be equitably
allocated among the several agencies which are presently
supporting the PCB program.
2
2) The OMB should develop and issue immediately to all agencies
presently contributing details to the PCB a clear and de-
finitive personnel policy statement that outlines for all
agencies the policy which shall govern for all personnel
detailed to the PCB program. In particular, this policy
statement must cover the following specific topics:
(A) Overtime compensation for detailed personnel
(B) Annual leave for detailed personnel
(c) Compensatory time for detailed personnel
(D) Reimbursement for parking expenses for detailed
personnel
The emphasis of such a policy statement should definitely be on standardi-
zation of personnel policy for the detailees of the participating agencies
and on liberalization of overtime, compensatory time and reimbursement
policies in support of this high priority effort.
3) The OMB should inform all participating agencies presently
detailing staff to the PCB that due to the tremendous work-
load faced by the PCB, low productivity employees who have
been detailed to the PCB will be returned to their home
agencies and that home agencies will be expected to supply
replacement details. As of May 9, 1975, the PCB has
already developed rather sophisticated workload analysis
techniques and has already produced some excellent individual
performance analysis. As of May 16, 1975, the PCB should
be in a position to have clearly identified those particular
detailed staff members whose productivity while on detail
has been excessively low. The PCB should be authorized
to return such individual details to their home agencies
and to request replacement details for the details returned.
Such a replacement program should obviously be phased so
that no low productivity employee is returned before his
replacement is on board.
4) OMB should resolve immediately the status of Ms. Gretchen Handwerger
on the PCB staff. Ms. Handwerger has from all accounts been
playing a critical role as the administrative officer of the
PCB. Apparently, however, some confusion exist over Ms. Handwerger's
status with the PCB. Her detail from DOT as an expert consultant
is at an end as of this date and the GS-16 slot which was promised
by 0M3 to the PCB and against which Ms. Handwerger was to be hired
has apperently not been forthcoming. The loss of Ms. Handwerger's
services at this point in time could only add to the administra-
tive problems presently plaguing the PCB.
FORD
3
In conclusion, we must emphasize that the recommendations outlined
above are only interim. They represent our collective opinion as to
immediate actions which should be taken in order to relieve a few of
the cost obvious and pressing problems presently facing the PCB. In
the next few days we shall be exploring the more substantive issues
and we shall make more developed recommendations on those issues in
our final report to be delivered to you on Friday, May 16.
cc
V. Puritano, OMB
L. Baskir, PCB
APPENDIX "C". - 1
SUGGESTED ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION SIDE
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
Sec'y
ASSOC. GEN. COUNSEL
ASSOC. GEN. COUNSEL
ASSOC. GEN. COUNSEL
FOR OPERATION
FOR PLANNING/ANALYSIS
FOR PRODUCTION
-TEAM #1
-Production
-Training
Planning
- " #2
-Production
-Production
Control
- " #3
Analysis
-Quality
- " #4
-Policy/Precedent
Control
- " #5
-Post Audit
- " #6
- " #7
- " #8
APPENDIX "C"_ 2
SUGGESTED ORGANIZATION FOR MANAGEMENT SIDE
ASSISTANT FOR MANAGEMENT
EXECUTIVE
PERSONNEL
OFFICE SERVICES
BUDGET
SECRETARY
ADMINISTRATOR
-Records
-Correspondence
-Distribution
-Mailing
-File
-Scribes
-Docket
APPENDIX "C"- - 3
SUGGESTED FRONT OFFICE ORGANIZATION
BOARD * * * * CHAIRMAN ***** SPECIAL COUNSEL
Sec'y
GENERAL COUNSEL *** SPECIAL ASSISTANT
Sec'y
ASSISTANT for MANAGEMENT
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
&
FOR
SERALD
APPENDIX "D"
PANEL DECISION TIME ANALYSIS
Assumptions:*
a) 6 hours of decision time/day
b) 5 days a week, not necessarily Monday thru Friday
c) 5 minutes/decision or 12 decisions/hour
d) 15 weeks between week beginning June 1 and including
weeking beginning Sept. 7
Therefore -
Four Panels with 120 hours of decision time per week for
15 weeks can handle 21,600 cases:
Five Panels with 150 hours of decision time per week for
15 weeks can handle 27,00 cases
Workload Analysis:
a) Total Cases to be decided
19,500
b) Decided by May 9
- 840
subtotal
18,660
c) 5% recall based on further staff
work or outside decision boundaries + 925
Total Panel Decisions
19,425
Points:
1) Chairman Goodel feels strongly that Panels will not be
a barrier and he is prepared to add Board members if
that is necessary.
2) Chairman feels time per case will definitely improve
since panels are in early part of their learning curve
* Lee Beck's May 12, 1975 analysis shows:
May 8&9
Cases/hr.
8.2
Net Cases excluding
7.5
referrals
2
3) Since Action Attorneys time is key factor in
this operation, Panels must adhere to firm schedule
and chairman of panels must keep Team Leaders
and Assistant Team Leaders advised of docket
status SO that Action Attorneys are not cooling
their heels awaiting on the Panel.
4) CB Management should "bunch" cases by Action
Attorney SO that Attorney is scheduled to
hear all his or her cases during one time
segment a week.
APPENDIX "E"
WORKFORCE CALCULATIONS
Weekly Production At Rates For
Total
Weeks of
No. of
Total
Att
Exo.
Att.
Max
Reg.
3rd Week
2nd Week
1st Wk
WKS
WKS
4
70
3
9
-
-
-
12
840
3
35
2
9
1
-
-
12
420
2
55
1
9
1
1
-
12
660
1
15
-
9
1
1
1
12
180
175
6
36
3
2
1
48
Att. Weeks
X 12
-
-
-
-
-
-
2100
335
1575
105
70
15
2100
Rate/Wk
10
8
7
4
2
Cases Produced (12 May -
1 Aug)
3350
12,600
735
280
30
16,995
Cases Completed
Aug from Q.C.
20
-
10
-
I
-
840
Att Wks
200
17,835
Rate/Wk
8
1,600
Add. Prod.
1600
19,435
Total Action Att. 195
APPENDIX "F"
SUGGESTED TEAM ORGANIZATION
TEAM LEADER
-Lead Typist
-Production Control Clerk
TEAM #1
TEAM #2
TEAM #3
ASSISTANT TEAM LEADER
ACTION ATTORNEYS
QUALITY CONTROL
TYPISTS
SUMMER INTERNS
RECAP
TOTAL
PROF.
NON-PROF.
Team Leader + Typist
2
1
1
Asst. Team Leaders
3
3
|
Action Attorneys
24
24
I
Summer Interns
12
12
I
Quality Control
3
3
I
Production Control
1
-
1
Typists
12
I
12
TOTAL/TEAM
57
43
14
Eight Teams
456
344
112
Less Interns
-96
-96
--
TOTAL
360
248
112
Tuesday, May 20
75
Charles E. Goodell
Presidential Clemency Board:
9:30 a.m.:
Bert Concklin
Chris Griner
Joseph Malaga
x David Smith DOD SOB
Don Wortman
Charles Work
Robert Diegelman
William Doyle
Marilyn Meinking
E.O.B.
360
2135
360
May 20, 1975
LAW ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRA A
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
*
*
are
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20530
June 11, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO
: Honorable Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
Presidential Clemency Board
FROM: Charles R. Work
Cuw
Chairman
Interagency Team to Survey the
Presidential Clemency Board
Attached is the supplemental report of the Interagency
Team to Survey the Presidential Clemency Board, sub-
mitted to Paul O'Neill, Deputy Director, OMB on
June 11, 1975.
STATEMENT LAW ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
*
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20530
June 11, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO
: Paul H. O'Neill
Deputy Director
Office of Management and Budget
FROM
:
Charles R. Work
Chairman
cw
Interagency Team to Survey the
Presidential Clemency Board
SUBJECT: Supplemental Report of the Interagency Survey Team
Since the submission of the Survey Team's Report on the
Presidential Clemency Board (CB) on May 16, 1975, the
Team has, as recommended, been monitoring the progress
of the CB in implementing the Team's recommendations and
in processing its present caseload. On May 28, 1975, the
CB submitted its Implementation Plan to the Survey Team
in response to the Team's recommendations. The Team
reviewed the CB Implementation Plan, discussed its comments
on the Plan at length with the CB General Counsel and
further communicated its findings on the Plan to the CB
General Counsel by memorandum on June 5, 1975. In addition,
members of the Team have held several working sessions with
the CB staff to review weekly case production figures. In
the paragraphs below are presented our final comments to
you on the CB's progress in implementing the Team's
recommendations and several additional final recommendations
which we believe merit your close attention since the
submission of this report formally concludes the existence
of the Survey Team.
In general, it is our observation that the rate of CB
staff case summary production for Board presentation and
the rate of Board disposition of cases have both increased
sufficiently to assure that the September 15, 1975 target
date for final disposition of cases can be met. Last
2
week alone (week ending June 6) approximately 1,200 case
summaries were produced and the Board disposed of an
equal number of cases. As of June 6, 1975, approximately
2,900 cases have been decided by the Board. In addition,
approximately 1,500 case summaries already stand prepared
and docketed for Board consideration for the week of
June 9, 1975. Major typing backlogs and Quality Control
slowdown have been eliminated. In addition, the CB has
revised downward its estimate of the total number of
cases which must be processed by the Board by September 15
from approximately 19,000 to approximately 17,000. This
downward revision is due generally to the identification
of approximately 1,000 "No Jurisdiction" cases which the
Board cannot process and the passage of the deadline
(June 1) by which applicants were required to "perfect"
their applications for clemency by providing needed
additional information. It is the opinion of the Team,
therefore, that if the present rates of case production
and Board case disposition are maintained, the September 15
deadline remains an achievable target for final disposition
of cases given the present commitment of resources to the
program.
The key factor in the achievement of this deadline remains,
however, the maintenance by CB top management of a high
level of morale and dedication to the completion of the
CB mission by September 15. We indicated this in our
May 16 report and recommended an early Presidential or
Vice Presidential visit in order to demonstrate clearly
the importance of the CB mission as a Presidential program.
It is the opinion of the Team that such a visit is still
needed, even though the responsibility for morale must rest
ultimately with CB management. We believe it is necessary,
therefore, to reiterate for your consideration our earlier
recommendation:
Recommendation: OMB should initiate action to
obtain if at all possible, an early visit of the
President or Vice President to the entire CB staff.
In addition, it must be emphasized that although the
Team believes that the September 15 deadline can be met
there will still be, as we indicated in our May 16 report,
some carry-over workload. This carry-over workload may
be as high as 2,000 - 3,000 cases and would obviously
include the 1,000 "No Jurisdiction" cases presently
identified as well as perhaps another 1,000 - 2,000 cases
which did not meet the June 1 deadline as well as
additional cases in which reconsideration has been requested.
ALD
3
Therefore, at this point, we must also repeat another
recommendation included in our May 16 report:
Recommendation: CB in consultation with OMB
should prepare plans for the carry-over workload
so that a decision as to how this will be handled
can be made by the White House by June 30, 1975.
In addition to the two recommendations indicated above,
there are in the opinion of the Team several other
recommendations which were contained in our May 16 report
which have yet to be fully implemented and which we
believe merit your careful attention. These are indicated
below with our comments and further recommendations
for implementation:
1. Report Recommendation: Effective no later than
May 23, OMB should assign an experienced senior
federal manager at the GS-16 level to CB to
act as head of their administration.
Comment: After three weeks of observation of
the CB, it is the opinion of the Team that the
need of the CB for a senior administrative officer
still remains critical. Many of the personnel
and administrative problems being experienced
by the CB are, in our opinion, attributable to
the absence of anyone with overall administrative
responsibility for the CB. At your request, we
have over the last several weeks attempted
informally to find just such a person but
unfortunately without any success. The CB has
indicated a willingness to interview such a
person if identified.
Final Recommendation: Effective as soon as
possible, OMB should assign an experienced
senior administrative officer at the GS-16 level
to the CB.
2. Report Recommendation: OMB should tap the
Federal agencies for an additional 50 clerical
persons of whom at least 10 should be in the
GS-6 through 8 range by May 30.
Comment: Due to the slowness of this clerical
tap, the CB experienced over the past several
weeks serious typing backlogs. On May 31, the
CB had a typing backlog of almost 1,200 case
4
summaries. They were able to reduce this
backlog only by hiring private temporary secre-
taries (approximately 30) using funds out of
their own budget. As of this date, the typing
backlog has been eliminated but our recommended
tap of an additional 50 clerical persons has
not been completed (CB and OMB numbers differ
on the size of the deficit, but both agree
that the full tap is not on board).
Final Recommendation: OMB must take action to
ensure that all 50 clericals requested by the
Survey Team are on board by June 16, 1975, if
major typing backlogs are to be avoided.
3.
Report Recommendation: CB staff should develop
a system for docketing cases before individual
panels that permits each Action Attorney to
present all of his or her cases that are ready
for disposition that week during: (a) one
continuous time period on one day and (b) before
one panel only.
Comment: The Survey Team believes that this
recommendation is critical to the efficient use
of the Action Attorney's and Assistant Team
Leader's time as well as to efficient and timely
Board disposition of cases. As of this date,
the CB staff has developed a case docketing
system which while it is not completely responsive
to the details of the Survey Team's recommendation,
is surely a completely acceptable variant,
responsive to the thrust of the Team's recommen-
dation. The problem is, however, the docketing
system has not been implemented.
Final Recommendation: The case docketing system
developed by the CB staff should be fully
implemented no later than June 20, 1975.
4. Report Recommendation: The CB staff should be
immediately advised that personal vacation plans
will not be considered until after August 1,
1975.
Comment: Although the Team is not adamant about
a "no vacations until August 1" policy, it does
believe strongly that a limited "case-by-case"
GERALE R. FORD
5
vacations policy must be instituted by the CB
to ensure that a majority of critical professional
staff are not absent on vacation during the
major case production months ahead. CB admits
that it has no "definitive vacations policy"
at present.
Final Recommendation: CB must implement by
June 16, 1975, a limited "case-by-case" vacations
policy through August 1 to ensure the presence
of critical professional staff throughout the
major production months ahead.
5. Report Recommendations: CB should establish a
a policy/precedent analysis capability reporting
directly to the Office of the Deputy General
Counsel. In addition, CB should add a final
line to the case summary: "Board Precedent
for Disposition."
Comment: As of this date, the policy/precedent
analysis function established by CB is only
"fledgling." The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, in response to a Survey Team
request is presently providing computer support
to the CB in order to aid them in the rapid
analysis of Board dispositions. Action Attorneys
however, are still strongly cautioned against
in any way indicating to the Board how they
disposed of similar cases in the past. In
order to ensure consistency in Board decisions
and in order to aid in the rapid disposition of
a heavy caseload, the Survey Team strongly
believes that the role of the Action Attorney
in indicating to the Board its precedent for
disposition of similar cases must be greatly
increased.
Final Recommendation: The CB should implement
by June 20, 1975, a system whereby Action Attorneys
can clearly indicate to the Board their own
precedent for handling similar cases in the
past. The CB must additionally strengthen the
role of its policy/precedent analysis function
to ensure that this system can be implemented.
FOR
6
Finally, the Survey Team proposes for your consideration
two supplemental recommendations which we believe should
be implemented immediately. Our first recommendation
is designed to ensure a continuing monitoring and close
management of the CB program by OMB now that the Team
is no longer in existence. Our second recommendation is
designed to ensure closer coordination between the CB and
the Selective Service in monitoring the ability of the
Selective Service to locate public service jobs for those
individuals granted clemency on the condition of alternative
service:
Recommendation: The CB should provide to the OMB
starting Monday, June 16, 1975, a written "pipeline
analysis" report showing the status of the entire
CB caseload by the various stages of production from
applications logged, through case summaries produced,
Board dispositions and eventual Presidential signa-
ture. This managment analysis technique was
developed by CB staff in cooperation with the
Survey Team and has proved particularly effective
in spotting backlogs and management problems. These
written reports with appropriate CB analysis and
comments should be supplied to OMB every three weeks
starting Monday, June 16, 1975, and continuing
through August 31, 1975.
Recommendation: The CB should designate by June 16,
1975, a senior staff member to serve as permanent
liaison with the Selective Service for the alternative
service aspect of the CB program. The Selective
Service has already initiated such a request to OMB
and has already designated a member of their staff
to serve as permanent liaison to the CB.
In conclusion, we would reiterate that after several
weeks of intensive analysis and close observation of
CB operations, it is the general opinion of the Survey
Team that the President's deadline for Board resolution
of existing case workload by September 15, 1975, is a
reasonable target which can be accomplished with the
resources presently available to the CB given the completion
of the clerical tap as indicated above and the recognition
that there will be a modest workload carry-over for
which the OMB must plan now. The critical factor in the
equation is still, in our opinion, the key role which
must be played by CB top management in generating and
maintaining a high level of morale and dedication to
7
the completion of the CB mission by September 15. The
focus of the energy and leadership for CB top management
must in the days ahead be only the completion of the
task at hand by September 15, 1975.
Sen Goodill
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 27, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHARLES R. WORK, CHAIRMAN
INTER-AGENCY TEAM
FROM:
LAWRENCE M. BASKIR 7MB
SUBJECT:
CONCLUDING REPORT OF THE INTER-AGENCY TEAM
First of all, it has been a pleasure for my staff and myself to work
with you and your colleagues on the Inter-Agency Team. We found your
Team to be composed of dedicated professionals whose purpose -- and
whose accomplishment, in our opinion -- was the enhancement of the
PCB's ability to complete its work with quality and on time. I
sincerely hope that the Team members found the cooperative enterprise
to be as enjoyable and worthwhile as we did.
We agree that September 15 remains an achievable target for the final
disposition of all but the most intractable of our cases. Our best
estimate of the number of cases we must process has dropped still
further, and we now project a total caseload of about 16,000 cases.
Through Friday, June 20, our action attorneys have drafted case
summaries for 10,600 applicants (9,000 of which have gone to Quality
Control), an increase of 9,700 in the past eight weeks. At our current
pace, we expect to meet our August 1 deadline for draft summary com-
pletion. The Board should have no difficulty meeting its August 15
deadline for hearing all cases in panels.
However, a few nagging problems remain. The last 3,000 files are
proving to be rather difficult to obtain. It is likely that a few
hundred (perhaps several hundred) may not be recovered in time for
the Board to review those cases before our deadline. Some may not be
obtainable at all, giving us the choice between reviewing cases with
no official record or reconstructing entire files. For this reason,
the Board may not be able to review more than 15,000 - 15,500 cases
before the September 15 deadline.
FORD
- 2 -
Very soon, we shall have an oversupply of professional staff. When
we are reasonably certain of this, we shall begin returning detailed
civil servants to their agencies. (Our remaining staff, mostly summer
interns, will present to the Board cases prepared by departed Action
Attorneys). We shall carry out our summer job commitments to the 135
interns on our staff and will shift them to administrative or clerical
tasks as necessary. Gearing down our organization may be as difficult
as gearing up has been, and we would appreciate any suggestions which
your Team might offer.
In the discussion below (with appendices following), I would like to
respond to the recommendations in your concluding report. I under-
stand that Bill Strauss, in a meeting with Bob Diegelman and Dave
Smith, helped resolve some of the questions in your earlier report
which did not appear in your subsequent draft. Therefore, I see no
reason to cover those same points again here.
1. Recommendation: OMB should initiate action to obtain,
if at all possible, an early visit of the President or
Vice President to the entire PCB staff.
Action: We understand that The White House has approved
a meeting between the President and the Board. Some
administrative problems on The White House end may pre-
vent his meeting with our staff, however.
2. Recommendation: PCB, in consultation with OMB, should
prepare plans for the carry-over workload so that a
decision as to how this will be handled can be made by
The White House by June 30, 1975.
Action: We are now trying to ascertain what the carry-over
workload will be. This workload will depend upon (1) the
number of cases for which files cannot be obtained by August
1; (2) the rate of applicant appeal requests; (3) the Board's
final policy on monitoring the alternative service of its
applicants; and (4) our progress in completing the Board's
final report. We could have further thoughts to OMB by 30
June, 1975, but we suggest July 31, 1975, as a date by which
we can report to the OMB in considerably greater detail on
this subject.
3. Recommendation: Effective as soon as possible, OMB should
assign an experienced senior administrative officer at GS-16
level to the the PCB.
GERALD
- 3 -
Action: We have expressed our willingness to interview any
candidates identified by OMB as suitable for this assign-
ment. However, no candidate has been referred to us. The
start-up time required by such a new Administrator now out-
weighs the advantages of bringing on a new person with the
characteristics desired by the Inter-Agency Team and our-
selves.
4. Recommendation: OMB must take action to ensure that all
50 clericals requested by the Survey Team are on board by
June 16, 1975, if major typing backlogs are to be avoided.
Action: The clerical tap is being filled, but slowly -- and
with administrative personnel who are not all typists.
Through June 24, we have received all but 7 of our last
clerical tap, approximately half of whom have typing skills.
To solve our typing backlogs, we are experimenting with
having Action Attorneys prepare clean summary drafts which
would not require retyping before going to quality control.
If this experiment is successful, we shall implement this
procedure within the next few days. We may also have to
continue relying on contract typists.
5. Recommendation: The case docketing system developed by the
PCB staff should be fully implemented no later than June 20,
1975.
Action: Our case docketing system has been revised in a
manner quite similar to that described earlier to the Inter-
Agency Team. Implementation of the revised system began
during the week of June 16, and it is now fully in place.
Except for backlogs caused by a shortage of support personnel
(typists), our docketing procedures are working well. They
are described at length in Appendix A.
6. Recommendation: PCB must implement by June 16, 1975, a limited
"case-by-case" vacations policy through August 1, to ensure the
presence of critical professional staff throughout the major
production months ahead.
Action: We did circulate such a memo on June 16, a copy of
which is attached as Appendix B. We expect to be generous
in allowing annual leave, given our expected gearing-down of
activities during the upcoming months.
7. Recommendation: The PCB should provide to the OMB starting
Monday, June 16, 1975, a written "pipeline analysis" report
showing the status of the entire PCB caseload by the various
stages of production from applications logged, through case
summaries produced, Board dispositions, and eventual Presidential
- 4 -
signature. This management analysis technique was
developed by PCB staff in cooperation with the Survey
Team and has proved particularly effective in spotting
backlogs and management problems. These written re-
ports with appropriate PCB analysis and comments should
be supplied to OMB every three weeks starting Monday,
June 16, 1975, and continuing through August 31, 1975.
Action: We have taken pipeline "snapshots" three times
so far -- May 30, June 12, and June 24. We plan to re-
peat this procedure once every 7 - 9 days during the
next several weeks. We have just completed our analysis
of the most recent pipeline snapshot, which we are
including (with our first two snapshots) in Appendix C.
8. Recommendation: The PCB should designate by June 16, 1975,
a senior staff member to serve as permanent liaison with
the Selective Service for the alternative service aspect
of the PCB program. The Selective Service has already
designated a member of their staff to serve as permanent
liaison to the PCB.
Action: We have designated Charles S. Craig, Deputy
Associate General Counsel for Planning, Management, and
Evaluation, as our liaison with the Selective Service
System. The PM&E staff has identified a number of issues
which we may shortly need to discuss with Selective Service.
Attachments
Appendix
A
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
Washington, D.C. 20500
June 18, 1975
Standard Operating Procedures for Docketing
A. Advance Planning of the Docket Schedule
1. Senator Goodell will assign panel members to
docket blocks (i.e., 90 minute time segments, four of
which will be the typical day's workload). He must
do this no later than COB Friday, a full week before
the beginning of the docket week in question. He will
do this by filling out the appropriate parts of the
weekly docket form (D-1), then sending it to Jim Poole of
the Board Interface Unit. Jim will assist him at his
request in making these schedules.
2. The same panel members will work together as a
designated panel (A,B,C,D, or E) for an entire week.
Panel rearranging will be done only on a weekly basis.
Senator Goodell will assign panel chairpersons as he
makes panel assignments.
3. There will be four docket blocks. The first and
third docket blocks will begin at 9 AM and 2 PM, re-
spectively, without fail. The second and fourth docket
blocks are "flexible" and will be scheduled to begin
at 11 AM and 4. PM, respectively, but they are not re-
quired to do SO. These flexible docket blocks may:
(a) Begin early, at panel request and with adequate
notice to panel counsels
(b) Be canceled, for cause, with consent of the Board Chair-
man; or
(c) Begin on time.
Under no circumstances may any panel begin more than
five minutes later than scheduled.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
2
B. Team Leaders Submissions to Docketing
Team Leaders will be responsible for ensuring that the
following procedures are carried out:
1. On the case summary, the section in the upper left
hand corner entitled "P.C.B. Attorney:" will be com-
pleted as follows:
Case Attorne," Name/if reassigned, new case
attorney's name--Asst. Team Leader/Team Leader
2. Case Attorneys are responsible for submitting a
packet (Case Summary, A and M Sheet, B-A form, and 3
or 4 prepared address labels (to be discussed below))
to a team secretary for final typing of the summary.
Note that the A and M sheet, B-A form and 3 or 4 labels
remain attached. The secretary returns the packet to the
case attorney for final review. Thereafter, the case
attorney returns the packet to the secretary who is
responsible for xeroxing the packet in the following
number of copies:
a) The final summary
15 copies
b) The A and M Sheet
12 copies
c) The B-A Form
3 copies
d) Labels.
0 copies
C. Distribution of Packet and Xerox Copies
The completed packet and attached forms and labels are distri-
buted as follows:
a) Original and 3 copies of the case summary and A and M
sheet to the case attorney; Original and 1 copy of each
to the file proper, 1 copy of each for the case attorney's
use in his presentation to the board/panel, and one copy
of the summary and A and M sheet to the Assistant Team
Leader. The balance of the packet and attached forms and
labels is submitted to the Summary Distribution Section
(Jay Pacini) for distribution as described below:
&
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
3
b) One copy of the summary is mailed via certified
mail to the applicant's address as indicated on the
B-A Form (Note: If the labels, which contained in all
files numbered 8000 and above, contain the current best
address, they should be used on the envelope to mail
the summary to the applicant. In this regard it is in-
cumbent upon case attorneys to check these labels care-
fully against the most recent correspondence from appli-
cant and, if labels are correct, USE THEM! Of course,
if the applicant has moved since the labels were prepared
so that they are no longer correct, discard them. )
c) One copy of the case summary is sent to the applicant's
attorney, if any, at the address listed on the B and A
form.
d) One copy of the summary is submitted to the administra-
tive staff (Gretchen Handwerger.) This copy will have the.
certified mail slip attached, indicating the date mailed.
e) One copy of the case summary will be filed in
Docketing Section Master File.
f) One summary copy is an extra to avoid unnecessary
re-xeroxing.
g) Seven copies of the summary are used in the prepara-
tion of the "Docket Packets" ( 3 or 4 to panel members,
1 to panel counsel, 1 copy is for Senator Goodell, and 1
or 2 are extras which always seem to be used).
h) One copy of the A and M sheet will be filed along
with the case summary in the Docketing Section Master
File.
i) One copy of the A and M Sheet is an extra to avoid
unnecessary re-xeroxing.
j) Seven copies of the A and M sheet are used in the
preparation of the "Docket Packets"
k) One copy of the B-A form is used by Summary Distribution.
1) One copy of the B-A form is forwarded to Gretchen
Handwerger along with the 2 or 3 remaining labels, if correct.
GERALD FORD LIBRA
4
All teams when submitting the packets (case summary,
A and M sheet, B-A forms and labels) to Distribution
Section should submit them without mixing them with those
of another team. This will eliminate unnecessary sorting
in the Distribution Section.
Once "Docket Packets" are prepared and a Packet List
(Docket) is prepared one copy of both will be returned to
the panel counsel for his use.
D. Case Docketing
1. The Distribution Section will compile cases by team
using one bin per team as is current practice.
2. When thirty cases have accumulated in a team bin,
the packet will be matched to the next available Board Panel
docket block. The Weekly docket form (D-1), as prepared by
Senator Goodell, will be posted prominently in the Distri-
bution Section and used for making docketing assignments.
The only exceptions to the "next available" rule (provided
that enough cases are otherwise available to meet the Board
docket schedule) will be when the Assistant General Counsel
notes, in a memo to accompany his cases, that certain dates
or times will be impossible for him, his assistant team
leaders or his action attorneys.
3. In the packets, the cases will be arranged sequentially,
by case number--even if this mixes the batches of separate
Assistant Team Leaders.
4. A packet list (Form D-2), listing cases in numerical
order, will be prepared for each AGC with cases in each packet.
5. The seven packets for each panel block will each have
a cover sheet prepared (Form D-3), noting some identifying
information and stapled to the top of each packet. The packet
lists (Form D-2) will be the second page of the packets sent
back to AGC.
6. The seven packets will be distributed as follows:
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
5
a. One to the Assistant Team Leader
b. One retained in the Docketing Section
C. One to the Administrator's staff.
d. Three or four to the Board panel members, with
the extra copy (if any 3 panel members) retained by
the Docketing Section if necessary.
E. Sequencing Cases
1. With cases docketed and packets returned to the
AGC's not later than three days before the scheduled
docket block, the AGC's will prepare a Presentation
List for each packet not later than COB, two days before
the scheduled panel appearance. He will group the cases
by AssistantTeam Leader, and to the extent possible, by
individual action attorneys.
2. After confirming the schedule with his attorneys,
he will have three copies made of his filled-out Pre-
sentation List (Form D-4): Not later than 4 PM of the
day before the scheduled docket block, he will distri-
bute the three copies to Central Docket Control on the
ground floor of 2033 M Street, which will, relay a copy
to the scribes and panel chairpersons (retaining the
third). The ATLs will keep the original Presentation
List.
3. Assistant Team Leaders should note approximate times
for attorneys presentations on their Presentation Lists
as well as approximate times for their own initial
appearance in the overall Team Docket block. It is only
necessary to note the time of the first case for each
attorney, is rounded to the nearest 5 (or even 10)
minutes. If an ATL has the second half of a docket
block, he should anticipate beginning his presentations
at 9:45, 11:45, 2:45 or 4:45 ( as appropriate). As a rule
of thumb, figure 3 minutes per case--but 5-6 minutes
for cases involving possible veterans benefits, no
clemency, or special fact circumstances.
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
6
F. Panel Presentations
1. The Assistant Team Leader will serve as Panel
Counsel for all cases presented by his action attorneys.
At the start and later, as appropriate, AGCs will
assist them in this role. In this role, the DAGC is
responsible for having reviewed or familiarized him-
self/herself with all cases to be presented before a
given panel. Under extraordinary circumstances, a sub-
stitute may be appointed by the Assistant General Counsel:
The substitute will in turn be responsible for having
familiarized himself with all cases prior to presen-
tation.
2. The ATL will call off cases from his Presentation
List, remembering that Board members will have the cases
in numerically sequenced packets.
3. The ATL should arrive with two attorneys, one with
cases to present right away. The other action attorney
should study his cases in the Central Docket Control
waiting area; he will be "on deck." When the first
attorney finishes, he should leave the panel meeting room
and be replaced by the next "on deck" attorney.
4. If the schedule is being followed (plus or minus a
few minutes), the next "on deck" attorney should arrive
ten minutes early without being summoned. If the panel
is running early or late, the departing attorney should
immediately call a team secretary to alert other attorneys
of the revised schedule.
5. Board panels will spend a maximum of two hours
(120 minutes) on a single packet. All leftover cases
must be redocketed.
6. If a Board panel is running late, it will have its
9 AM docket block run until 11 AM, when it will start.
its 11 AM docket block (unless the 11 AM block is started
early, as previously noted). The panel is guaranteed a
minimum of one hour's mid-day break for lunch. If it
also runs late in the afternoon, its sessions could run
straight through from 2 PM to 6 PM. If it runs through
its docket blocks on schedule, it will have mid-morning
and mid-afternoon breaks.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
7
G. Redocketed Cases
1. If docket blocks must be cancelled because of any
change in Board members' schedules, entire packets
may have to be redocketed. If so, the packets circu-
lated to the Board members will be returned to the
Docketing Section for reassignment to the next available
docket block. Revised cover sheets (Form D-3) will be
sent to the appropriate AGCs to the Administrator's
staff, and to the Board members on the next panel.
2. If the Board panel does not hear all its cases on
a given docket block, the AGC will alert Cențral Docket
Control before he leaves. Central Docket Control will
keep a simple numerical log of cases individually re-
docketed (to assure that none are inadvertently forgotten).
The AGC and DAGC will retrieve original copies of the
case summaries upon return to the case files.
H. Administrative Oversight
1. It will be the responsibility of Senator Goodell,
Jim Poole, and the Assistánt General Counsels to assure
that these procedures are being followed and that
special unforseen problems are solved.
2. A weekly statistical progress report will be imple-
mented shortly.
Attachments
PCB Form D-1
WEEKLY DOCKET
For the Week of
to
DATE:
/
/
/
/
/
M
T
W
Th
F
Panel Chairperson:
9
A PANEL:
11
2
4
Panel Chairperson:
9
B PANEL:
11
2
4
Panel Chairperson:
9
C PANEL:
11
2
4
Panel Chairperson:
9
D PANEL:
11
2
4
Panel Chairperson:
9
E PANEL:
11
2
4
9
FULL
BOARD
11
2
4.
FORD & DERALO LIBRARY
Form D-2
PACKET LIST
DATE:
PANEL:
DOCKET BLOCK:
MO/DA
Day of Week
(starting time)
Case #
Attorney
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Panel Counsel 9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
AGC Team 14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Panel Counsel30.
LLBRARY GERALD R. FORD
Form D-3
'DOCKET COVER SHEET
Distribution to:
Board Member
Panel Counsel
Administrator
Docketing
Docket Date:
MO/DA
Day of Week
Panel:
Docket Block:
(starting time)
Panel Counsel:
(ATL)
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
Form D-4
PRESENTATION LIST
Date:
Panel:
Docket Block:
MO/DA
Day of Week
Time
Case #
Attorney
Comments
1.1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Panel Counsel:
AGC Team:
Appendes
E
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 16, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD STAFF
FROM:
LAWRENCE M. BASKIR 2M12
SUBJECT:
LEAVE POLICY
As you all know and have heard many times, the PCB has the
unusual and difficult responsibility of completing its assigned
goal not later than September 15. This obligation presents us with
personal burdens that ordinary government agency work doesn't have.
In addition to the inconveniences and discomforts all of you must
bear as detailees, I must impose, yet another. The September 15
deadline means, quite obviously, that the normal leave practices and
plans must defer to our work schedules. We simply can't finish if
the staff disappears on leave during June, July and August. There-
fore: all leave plans must be approved by your team-leader or PCB
supervisor. I have asked the PCB supervisors to ensure that staff
leave schedules not jeopardize our production, and they will not
approve leave unless work will not suffer.
Attached to this memo is an order which OMB has sent to each agency
detailing personnel to the Board. It ensures that no person will
suffer any loss of leave or any other inconvenience because of being
detailed here. This means at a minimum that if any of you are in
the "use or lose" category of leave, you will not lose leave you
cannot take.
If you have any difficulty with your home agency on the matter of
leave, the appropriate provision of the FPM is Chapter 630, sub-chapter
3-4b, which states: "Annual leave provided by law is a benefit and
accrues automatically. However, supervisors have the responsibility
to decide when the leave may be taken. This decision will generally
be made in the light of the needs of the service rather than solely
on the desires of the employee."
You should quote this to your agency, as well as the OMB order. If
you have any difficulties, please contact Charlie Mott or Rich Hunt
in our Personnel Office for help (254-9787).
- 2 -
There are a few bright spots, to balance the strict leave limitations:
(1) The PCB has been authorized a generous overtime policy for
employees. We will continue to require overtime, and there
should be no difficulty in getting your home agencies to
approve it. If you have a problem, let Charlie Mott or
Rick Hunt: know promptly. Obviously, you must have it
authorized by your PCB Supervisor.
(2) Since you are now traveling to work outside your normal
routes, you can be reimbursed for parking expenses while
you are at the Board. See the OMB memo and our personnel
office if you have any questions.
(3) I personally want to make certain that nobody here is
penalized in any way for working at the PCB. If you get
any information that you may be jeopardized for a promotion
or work assignement or any other job benefit because you are
detailed here, please let us know, and we will take every
necessary step we can to prevent it.
I want to thank all of you again for the fine job you are doing under
these difficult circumstances. I hope you will. let us know if there
are problems we can solve, or things we can do to make working here
more enjoyable.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
MAY 2 3 1075
MEMORANDUM TO AGENCY CONTACTS
Subject: Presidential Clemency Board: Personnel Policy
As you are aware, the detailees from your agency to the
Presidential Clemency Board are participating in an intense
effort to process clemency applications. The President
personally places a high priority on this program and has
asked the PCB to complete its work by September 15.
Currently, a high level interagency team led by the Deputy
Administrator of the Law Enforcement Administration is
reviewing PCB operations with a view to making recommenda-
tions to the President on alleviating the workload, adminis-
trative and resource problems faced by the PCB.
As a result of interim discussions with the interagency
team prior to their final report, I ask your cooperation
regarding certain personnel policy questions. Inasmuch as
this priority program is only temporary in nature and is
staffed by detailees of some 23 agencies, it is important
as a matter of equity and prođuctivity that all personnel
detailed to the PCB be treated in as nearly a standard a
manner as agency policies and regulations permit.
There are three specific personnel topics which I would call
to your attention:
1. Overtime compensation and compensatory time
for detailed personnel.
2. Annual leave. for detailed personnel.
3. Reimbursement for parking expenses.
1. Overtime Compensation and Compensatory Time.
Because of the heavy workload which the PCB staff must com-
plete within the time frame established by the President,
there will continue to be requirements for overtime work on
the part of many personnel.
We request that the agencies detailing personnel provide
overtime pay within available resources and in accordance
with the provisions of Federal Personnel Manual Chapter 550
-2-
and agency regulations. In cases where agency policy requires
the use of compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay for
employees at levels above GS-10, We ask that agencies con-
sider adjustments to the time limits within which compensatory
time off is to be requested or taken. As indicated in FPM
550, the exigency of service at the PCB is a factor which
agencies should consider in this regard.
2. Annual Leave.
Because of the intense workload of the PCB, some detailed
employees may have to alter their scheduled annual leave
plans. It is possible, of course, that some affected detailees
may be able to rearrange their leave plans during the balance
of the 1975 leave year once they have returned to their parent
agencies, depending on the workload situation, discussions
between the employee and the agency and other factors.
The provisions of Federal Personnel Manual Chapter 630 govern
annual leave. Particular atțention is drawn to FPM Letter
630-22 of January 11, 1974, providing guidance on the provi-
sions of PL 93-181 which, among other things, provides for
the suspension of leave forfeiture requirements under certain
circumstances. Your agency has also developed policy to
implement these provisions. In general, the law permits sus-
pension of forfeiture under these conditions:
a. To correct an administrative error.
b. When annual leave was scheduled in advance but
its use denied because of the exigencies of the
public business.
C. When the annual leave was scheduled in advance
but its use was precluded because of illness or
injury.
We request that you give detailees from your agency to the
PCB every consideration in this regard should the exigencies
of the PCB workload cause the alteration or cancellation of
scheduled leave plans.
3. Reimbursement for Parking Expenses.
In some cases, detailees assigned to the PCB have faced dis-
ruptions in their normal means of traveling to and from their
regular office locations. In certain instances, the parent
agency of a detailee has paid for parking expenses. We would
request that all agencies providing detailees to the PCB
-3-
consider those cases in which a burden has been placed on
an employee in this regard and provide for appropriate
reimbursement in accordance with agency practice. In making
such determinations, you may also wish to refer to two
decisions of the Comptroller General, 32 Comp. Gen. 235 and
36 Comp. Cen. 795 which are applicable to this situation and
indicate that such reimbursements are allowable under certain
circumstances.
The PCB staff will continue to maintain information concern-
ing attendance, overtime, etc.; however, the parent agency
should maintain the official records concerning each detailee
to the Clemency Board. In following up on these recommenda-
tions, please contact Ms. Sally Wells 254-9787 at the PCB to
arrange whatever procedures are required by your agency.
Paul H. O'Neill Oheir
Deputy Director
Approding
C
(Est. 3280)
(2037)
(1290)
(1650)
(1100 est.)
1
Projected
Applications
Initial File
DD or BCD
Records Received
Applicants
Logged, File
Request Out
File Request
Files Not Completed
2
Not Requested
Out
(29)
(593)
(78)
(1542)
2
Files Available
Files Enroute/
Files Rcd. by
Cases Assigned,
For Distribution
Distributed to
AA Teams, Not Yet
No Significant
3
AA Teams
Assigned to AA's
Action
(388)
(724)
Miscellaneous
Jurisdictional
Cases in AA
Question or
Pipeline
Correspondance
(327)
(650)
(699)
(639)
(1172)
3
Draft Case Partially
Draft Hand-
Draft
Written, or in Pro-
Written
Typed
Cases TO/IN
Cases Awaiting
4
cess of Rewrite
Quality Control
Final Typing
(194)
(700)
(1206)
(247)
4
Cases Typed in Final
Docketed
Decided By
Cases Awaiting
and Xeroxed
Board Panel
Xeroxing
(83)
(228)
(145)
Cases to be
Cases Sent to
SIGNED
Heard By
President,
BY
Board
Awaiting Signature
PRESIDENT
CASES IN PCB PIPELINE AS OF 12 June 75 : CURRENT # IN PARENTHESIS
**
***
(596) 17,500
(1492) 16,904*
(2058) 15,412
(45) 13,354
(115) 13,309
Projected
Applications
Initial File
DD or BCD
Records Received
and
Applicants
Logged, File
Request Out
File Request
Files Not Completed
2
Not Requested
Out
(150) 13, 194
(543) 13,044
(83) 12461
(1234) 11,803
2
Files Available
Files Enroute/
Files Red. by
Cases Assigned,
For Distribution
Distributed to
AA Teams, Not Yet
No Significant
3
AA Teams
Assigned to AA's
Action
(575) 12, 378
(898) 10,569
Miscellaneous
Jurisdictional
Cases in AA
Question or
Pipeline
Correspondance
(411) 9671
(677) 9261
(919) 8583
(849) 7664
(647) 6815
3
Draft Case Partially
Draft Hand-
Draft
Written, or in Pro-
Written
Typed
Cases TO/IN
Cases Awaiting
4
cess of Rewrite
Quality Control
Final Typing
13714229
100
(559) 6027
(1239) 5468
(3510) 4092
Tabled/
(141)
6168.
Awaiting Info
4
Cases Typed in 'inal
Docketed
Decided By.
Cases Awaiting
and Xeroxed
Board Panel
Xeroxing
(191) 582
(228) 373
(145) 145
Cases to be
Cases Sent to
SIGNED
Heard By
President,
BY
Board
Awaiting Signature
PRESIDENT
(18) 391
Cases Heard
By Full Board
*16, 904=16974-55-15
*431 on loan
*45 not available
CASES IN PCB PIPELINE AS OF 24 JUNE 1975
---
(30 MAY IN PARENTHESIS)
411 (596)
416 (1492)
2549 (2058)
113 (45)
131 (115)
Projected
Applications
Initial File
DD or BCD
Records Received
Applicants
Logged, File
Request Out
File Request
Files Not Completed
2
Not Requested
Out
17,385
15 (150)
749 (543)
15 (83)
208 (1234)
2
Files Available
Files Enroute/
Files Red. by
12,916
Cases Assigned,
For Distribution
Distributed to
AA Teams, Not Yet
No Significant
3
AA Teams
Assigned to AA's
Action
13,160
13,695
13,680
94(575)
1390 (898)
Miscellaneous
Jurisdictional
Cases in AA
Question or
Pipeline
Correspondance
527 (411)
686 (677)
733 (919)
*Includes Ineligibles
564 (849)
1413 (647)
3
Draft Case Partially
Draft Hand-
Draft
Written, or in Pro-
Written
Typed
Cases TO/IN
Cases Awaiting
4
cess of Rewrite
10,697
Quality Control
Final Typing
10,011
8714
928 (559)
732 (1239)
4312 (3510)
412 (141)
4
Cases Typed in "inal
Docketed
Decided By
Cases Awaiting
and Xeroxed
Board Panel
5961
5129
Xeroxing
6889
79 (137)
328 (191)
1 (228)
372 (145)
Tabled/
Awaiting Info
Cases to be
Cases Sent to
SIGNED
Heard By
President,
BY
(est 100
Board
Awaiting Signature
PRESIDENT
estant)
373
372
116 (18)
Cases Heard
By Full Board
489