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
1506002
label
Interagency Team Survey Report (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1506002
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Interagency Team Survey Report (1)
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
1506002
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
39586062b42650b7
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 7, folder "Interagency Team Survey Report (1)"
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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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
1
63
Summaries - standard form
50% of Qual Control sh be action
P2
soliciting applicas -
A/S - "charade" w/o Sel. Serv jobs- not w/in their purirew,
U.D,'s - already decided
C.B. submit revised expenses,
Ord inquiries of possibly ebgible
1825
3026
Dpy GC
chief Operating ofel for Production
Head of Adminis
Clevate N.C. to F.B.
4or 5 GC is to zanels fall time'
FORDO & LIBRARY GERALD
Prod. rates extremely conservative
W/draw additional 100 interns request
40% BeD's D's or DD's.
Final file disposition glan.
Bd Precedent for Disposition / a lupury we can ** offord,
Certify ally
2
No jurisd - A.C. & Chm.
Pay & Precedent Analysis
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Honorable Charles E. Goodell
Presidential Clemency Board
2033 M Street, N. W.
Washington, DC
DRAFT
DRAFT 5/14/75
MEMORANDUM
TO
:
Paul J. O'Neill, Deputy Director
Office of Management and Budget
FROM :
Charles R. Work, Chairman
Interagency Team to Survey the
Presidential Clemency Board
Attached please find the report of the Interagency Team to Survey
the Presidential Clemency Board. The recommendations contained
in the report fall into six broad areas of consideration:
(A) Major Policy Issues
(B) General Management within the Presidential
Clemency Board
(C) The Role of theClemency Board
(D) Case Processing
FORD & GESALD LIBRARY
(E) The Role of the Action Attorney, and
(F) Quality Control.
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) Present difficulties being experienced by the Selective
Service in locating alternative service positions;
(2) The issue of Presidential Pardons for former members
of the Armed Services with undesirable discharges; and
(3) The fact that even if the Clemency Board completes
DRAFT 5/14/75
Page 2
disposition of its present caseload by September 15,
1975, there will be a limited workload carry-over
beyond that date.
The major recommendations in each of the other areas
outlined above are as follows:
GENERAL MANAGEMENT
-- The Clemency Board (CB) in conjunction with the OMB
should begin looking for an experienced senior federal manager
at the GS-16 level to act as head of their administration.
- Effectively immediately, the current Deputy General
Counsel should develop by May 23, 1975, a plan for implementing
the thrust of the recommendations of the Survey Team.
- The OMB should extend the life of the Survey Team
until July 6, 1975 in order to monitor and report on the program
of the Deputy General Counsel in directing the implementation
plan.
- In order to emphasize
the clemency program as a
Presidential program of high national visibility, at an early
occasion, the President or Vice-President should meet with the
entire CB staff.
-- OMB should standardize upon all contributing agencies a
liberal set of rules for all CB employees regarding reimburse-
ment for parking, overtime payment and/or compensating leave.
DRAFT 5/14/75
Page 3
CASE PROCESSING
-- OMB should issue to each of the agencies supplying
details to CB an announcement of a general freeze until August
1, 1975. Also OMB should initiate now an additional 50 cleri-
cal position tap upon the Federal agencies contributing details
to the CB.
- The OMB in concert with the CB should direct the
DOD and the GSA to give a "high priority" status to all re-
quests for military personnel files and court martial trial
records originating from the CB.
THE ROLE OF THE ACTION ATTORNEY
-- The CB should implement use of a standard form
for case summaries.
-- CB should integrate its Quality Control function with
I
the Action Attorney team function, assigning three Quality
Control Attorneys to each Action Attorney team. Approximately
50% of the present Quality Control attorneys should become
Action attorneys.
QUALITY CONTROL
-- CB should consider creating a small unit of six to
nine individuals reporting directly tothe Office of the General
Counsel with responsibility for policy and precedent analysis.
The recommendations outlined above represent only a
small portion of the total number of recommendations con-
tained in the report. Each of the report recommendations is
DRAFT 5/14/75
Page 4
in addition supported by considerable discussion and analysis.
We wish to emphasize that this report is not an indepth
analysis, nor does it contain a detailed description of the
present activities of the CB. It is also important to note
that the data contained in the report is soft. We also wish
to stress that reasonable men could differ on the details of
these recommendations. We believe, however, that the
staff of the CB understand and agree with the thrust of the
recommendations and will make a good faith effort to imple-
ment them. The key is the implementation plan to be
developed by the CB.
The Interagency Team was composed of the following
ten individuals representing six different Federal agencies:
Charles Work (Team Leader)
LEAA
Bert Concklin
FEA/DOL
William Doyle
LEAA
Chris Griner
DOD
Bert Lewis
DOL
Joseph Malaga
NASA
Dave Smith
DOD
Bland West
DOD
Donald Wortman
HEW
We would be happy to discuss with you our findings and
recommendations at your convenience.
DRAFT
DRAFT
REPORT OF THE
INTERAGENCY TEAM TO
SURVEY THE
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
GERALD
DRAFT 5/14/75
I. INTRODUCTION
On May 9, 1975, an Interagency Team was established by OMB
at the request of the President to survey the Presidential Clemency
Board (CB). The team was asked to review organization structure,
management, staffing and case processing procedures with the spe-
cific 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 of September 15, 1975.
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 structure of the CB any recommen-
dations 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 in-
stituted 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 workload of
Page 2
approximately 850 cases in January to well over 19,000 presently.
This increase has been due in large part to the very active role which the CB
has played in program as to the extension
nottlying applicants to the of their eligibility well as for
of the application submission deadline first to March 1, 1975 and then later
to March 31, 1975. Although the submission deadline has now passed and
although the CB has been staffed to a complement of approximately 175
action attorneys and 50 quality control attorneys, the Board of the CB
has actually disposed of only approximately 1, 100 individual's cases.
It should be noted that the CB has gone from an initial staff of eight
to its present complement of 403 in a very short period of time. This
large infusion of staff into CB operations has contributed significantly to
many of the present administrative problems facing the CB staff.
During the last seven days, the Survey Team has examined the CB
organization, management, staffing and case processing procedures.
In particular, the Team focused on the following areas for this review:
*
Major Policy Issues
*
General Management Considerations
*
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
DRAFT 5/14/75
Page 3
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 recom-
the thrust of
mended by the Survey Team represent a balanced package which must
be implemented
in a very timely fashion, to
be effective in ameliorating the problems which now confront the
Presidential Clemency Board.
The following report specifies actions which either the CB manage-
ment 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 involve fundamental realignments and alterations (in organization,
policy or procedure) of the current situation and by their nature require
very strong management and bureaucratic sophistication to bring to
fruition. In consequence of this situation the Survey Team recommends
an interim mechanism 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;
DRAFT 5/14/75
Page 4
--
general management issues;
--
case presentation procedures to the Board;
I
unresolved policy issues;
-- CB quality control procedures.
SPALD
DRAFT 5/14/70
II. Policy Issues
A. 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
either 3 or 6 months in most cases. Although there is limited
actual experience, the survey team is concerned that the Selective
Service System will not be able to identify satisfactory public
service positions given
a)
general economic conditions and
b)
inherent problems for an organization
effectively utilizing a new employee for
such a short time period.
In terms of fairness to the applicant, the system is set
up 50 that the "clock time" for his alternative service begins 30
days after he has registered for such service with his Selective
Service Board regardless of whether an alternative service job
has been found. However, the inability to locate alternative
service positions may be considered by some members of the pub-
lic as a "charade" in which this clemency program is really viewed
as a form of universal amnesty.
Recommendation
This summer, when four to five hundred clemency cases
requiring alternative service have registered with Selective
PAGE 2
DRAFT 5/14/70
Service, a critical review should be conducted to determine the
actual experience in locating alternative service positions.
B. PARDONS FOR THOSE WITH UNDESIRABLE DISCHARGES
This is a major policy issue which we believe has the poten-
tial for seriously hampering the clemency program if it is not re-
solved 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 has the authority
to recommend Presidential pardons to certain former members of
the armed services who have not been convicted by court martial
but were separated from the service administratively with an un-
desirable discharge. As of this date, a recommendation to the
President on this matter from Mr. Phillip N. 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.
Page 3
DRAFT 5/14, 5
Recommendation
The issue of Presidential Pardons for former members
of the Armed Services with undesirable discharges should be
resolved by May 23, 1975.
C. 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 todate with only 65
Presidential actions to estimate 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, reconsideration under the present regulations
will be permitted until October 15, 1975.
2) The CB has the responsibility for monitoring the
Selective Service System's performance in provid-
ing alternative service. For any person who re-
ceives a 24-month alternative service disposition
Page 4
DRAFT 5/14/75
on September 15, 1975, and does not request recon-
sideration, the Board would, under current policy,
be required to continue in existence until October
15, 1977, to fulfill its monitoring obligation.
(Clemency Board ceases to exist on December 31,
1976 under its Presidential Order). During that
two-year time period, there will be occasional
situations developing about the propriety of certain
forms of alternative service which the Board or some
other agent of the President will have to resolve.
3) 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 inad-
vertently 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 decision 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 Judge Advocate General at DOD with case disposition
continuing under the CB as long as it exists.
Page 5
DRAFT 5/14/75
D. FUND AVAILABILITY FROM JULY 1, 1975 to
SEPTEMBER 15, 1975
Currently, the CB has an allocation of $185,000 with
an additional $55,000 pending for FY 1975 from the President's
Unanticipated Personnel Needs fund. Discussions regarding
FY 1976 fund availability from July 1, 1975 to September 15,
1975, have not led to. a firm estimate although OMB indicated
a possible allocation of $300,000.
Allocations for both fiscal years 1975 and 1976 need to
be determined by May 23 if CB is to get its job done. Reason-
able estimates of Board members expense given the summer
decision load and other incidental expenses can be made now.
Recommendation
CB present to OMB by May 21 its revised FY 75 and
its FY 76 expenses through September 15, 1975, so that OMB
can respond by May 23, 1975, and thus remove any further
uncer tainty about these funds and how they will be used.
* * *
Our preceeding recommendations have addressed policy
matters involving the White House or OMB. The following
policy issues appear to be internal to the CB and will continue
to "hang-over" and cloud their workload if not resolved soon.
Page 6
DRAFT 5, 1/75
E. LATE REQUESTS/SOFT INQUIRIES
There were
requests received after the March
31, 1975, deadline. Whether to honor these requests has yet
to be resolved by the Board. In addition, their May 7, 1975,
status report shows 1,825 telephone inquiries received prior to.
March 31, 1975, and 3,026 "possibly Eligible" written inquiries.
All of these add up to an uncertain category of
inquiries
for which analysis and policy to accept or reject needs to be
made. Until this is done, the entire process of triggering service
records cannot be initiated.
Recommendation
This uncertain category of inquiries whether it be late
requests or ineligible inquiries should be analyzed and disposed
of by the CB staff including Board decisions on applicable
policy by May 30.
DRAFT 5/14/
III. MANAGEMENT
A. Senior Manager
One of the two most important recommendations
contained in this report has to do with this point. The Survey
Team believes the Clemency Board needs to have a production
oriented manager who can relate and take action on all bottlenecks
in the process without impairing but in fact enhancing the quality
of the action attorneys work. We have considered two options:
a) Immediately place a senior General Manager
into their structure who reports to the General
Counsel but who is the chief operating official
leaving the chief policy role to the General
Counsel.
b) 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 con-
trol, production control and the policy and pre-
cedent unit discussed in Part VII, Quality
Control. Leaving all other managerial functions-
budget, personnel, space and equipment, records,
corre&pondence, official disposition recordation,
etc. - to report to a new administrative head
DRAFT 5/14/75
of a GS-16 or 17 level. In this case we would
be freeing 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 relationships 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 by no later than May 23, OMB should
assign a senior, experienced federal manager
at the GS-16 level to CB to act as head of their
administration consistent with option number
two above. (See Appendix A.)
2) Effective immediately, the current Deputy General
Counsel should become the chief operating official
for production with immediate responsibility to de-
velop 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.
Page 3
DRAFT 5/14/10
3) The OMB should extend the life of the Survey
Team until July 6, 1975 in order to monitor
and report on the progress of the Deputy
General Counsel in directing the implementa-
tion plan. Through July 6, the Survey Team
should perform the following functions:
*
Review and provide advice to CB
management with respect to their
plans for implementing the Survey
Team's recommendations.
*
Review the CB's progress in imple-
menting the recommendations, pro-
viding advice and guidance as appro-
priate.
*
Evaluate and report, with remedial sug-
gestions, to the CB Chairman and Deputy
Director, OMB, on the progress of the
CB in implementing corrective actions.
*
Assess key production forecasts and atten-
dant staffing requirements.
It is proposed that the Survey Team would conduct
reviews in accordance with the following schedule:
Page 4
DRAFT 5/14,
*
May 23, 1975 -- Review CB's implementation
plans
-- Report evaluation and recom-
mendations to CB and OMB
*
May 30, 1975 - Conduct progress review #1
-- Report evaluation and recom-
mendations to CB and OMB
*
June 6, 1975 -- Conduct progress review #2
-- Report evaluation and recom-
mendations to OMB.
B. Morale
Essential to the achievement of the workload objective
is maintaining and building a strong sense of teamwork. 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
TO
*
General high spirits and optimism generated by
senior staff in their leadership roles.
Page 5
DRAFT 5/1 75
However, assimilating detailees, many of whom did
not "volunteer" for this assignment, from various federal agencies
along with a 100 or SO summer legal interns, with likely interrup-
tions 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 recom-
mendations are important to the success of this effort.
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 CB staff
4) OMB should standardize upon all contributing
agencies a liberal set of rules for all CB em-
ployees regarding reimbursement for parking,
overtime payment and/or compensatory leave,
extention of lost leave into FY 76 and any other
personnel inconveniences that are likely to be-
come matters of irritation as the summer progresses.
Page 6
DRAFT 5/1 5
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
wi thin the existing Teams as to what this means with one Team
already producing 12 cases per week per attorney.
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 per-
manent records of these employees because the CB workload en-
vironment is in no way a fair judgment 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" supervisory
skills.
D. AUTHORITY FOR MINOR EXPENDITURES
It appears that CB does not have any authority for
obligating funds for emergency services or supplies. Assuming
that funds beyond those needed for Board member reimbursement
are available within their allocation from the President's Unanti-
cipated Needs fund, authority to move expeditiously on purchase
Page 7
DRAFT 5/14/75
of critical services or supplies would greatly assist them.
Recommendation
OMB should resolve this authority question by May
23, 1975; by either granting that authority or instructing GSA
to handle this responsibility at the direction of the CB General
Counsel.
DRAFT
5-14-75
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 outstanding 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 discharge 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 bunches up 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,
2
he should have no trouble manning four 3 member decision
panels every work day and going to five if need be
The Review 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 very few
possibly 1%. 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
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 creation of a Policy/Precedent
unit under the Deputy General Counsel for
Operations. This unit 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
3
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 member body and that
should be avoided. If time permits, a better
investment of their time in the Review Team's
judgment would be to elevate all Panel "no
clemency" decisions to the full Board for
review.
Our recommendations are discussed in the following
subsections of this Part.
A. POST AUDIT OF PANEL DECISIONS
With a workload of this magnitude and as 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've made on similar cases. The
Chairman and the CB staff are aware of this
although the Board does not appear to be sensitive
to this concern as yet. Already, the Chairman
4
and General Counsel receive staff analyses on the
mitigating and aggravating factors as to those
decisions which appear to be outside the normal
distribution. Thus far, the Chairman has indi-
vidually re-reviewed those cases and already has
taken 25 back for Board re-review.
Recommendation
1) The Policy/Precedent unit be assigned
responsibility to perfect and perform
this post audit of panel decisions.
2) The Chairman obtain Board approval by
end of May for instituting this system
with understanding that 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" (see recommen-
dation No.
under Part IV, ACTION
ATTORNEYS) should also help assure
consistency of decisions by the four or
FORD
five panels.
B. DOCKETING OF CASES BEFORE PANELS
The key commodity in meeting the September 15
deadline is the time of the Action Attorneys and
their immediate supervisors. Although some time
5
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 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
6
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.
It will also permit the law of averages to
work benefitting Action Attorney time in
that the probabilities of decision time
averaging five minutes per case are
much greater with 10 cases up for dispo-
sition than one or two.
2) Chairman should instill in Board members
generally and Panel Chairman 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.
7
B. GENERAL COUNSEL ROLE AT PANELS
This responsibility is curently 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 professional
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 of a more exper-
ienced attorney is needed as Panels deliberate.
Come June first when four panels will be meeting
continuously, this General Counsel function
essentially becomes a full time job for four
(occasionally five) experienced attorneys.
Recommendation
Effective June 1st, Team Leaders and Assistant
Team Leaders will no longer serve as General
Counsels at Panels. Four experienced attorneys
will 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.
CRALD
8
D. RECORDING PANEL DECISIONS
It appears that the recording of Panel
disposition's 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 to have in
place by that time an executive secretariat
function which takes the General Counsel's
disposition sheets at the close of each day and
runs 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.
&
FOR
GERALD
DRAFT 5/14/75
V. PROCESSING
A. Staffing Requirements
Under Processing we include 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 substantial learning is evident as the action
attorney gains experience. The projected size of the staff
at CB is 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
GTVG
DRAFT 5/14
5
2
values are 15,484 and 21,175 respectively. On the basis of
experienced maturing rates for incomplete applications, a
case load of 19,200 is set as the most probable case load
and it is this value upon which CB planning and estimates
for staffing are based. With approximately 1,200 cases completed
at this point, 18,000 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 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, we are persuaded
that the CB estimates are extremely conservative and that
significantly higher production rates are possible. Based
on our assessment of the situation, we believe 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 professional staff would be 322, with
DRAFT 5/14/75
3
clerical support of 161 for a total CB staff of 483. The
table below summarizes the CB estimates, the Team recommendations,
and an alternative which, in our view, reflects the upper--and
perhaps doubtful--limit of production.
PR
Professional Staff
Alternatives
CB
Max. Prod.
Probable Prod.
Action Attorney
305
131
195
Quality Control
122
52
40
Supervision
61
26
47
Central Staff
40
40
40
Total
Add Support
264
125
161
Total CB Staffing
792
374
483
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 Survey
Team's proposed staffing commitment to CB is developed on the
following table:
Current Staffing
On board 1 May
408
Plus: DOD Interns
+100
Clericals
+ 50
Total Commitment to CB
558
Most Probable Requirement
483
Overage
75
DRAFT 5/14/75
4
In our memorandum of May 13, 1975 we recommended as an
interim measure that 100 more interns over and above the
100 DOD interns be authorized for the CB. We now withdraw that
recommendation and instead recommend that all personnel presently
on board be frozen until August 1. Under such a freeze no person
presently detailed to CB would be allowed to return to their
agencies until August 1, 1975 without an individual waiver
requesting such a return before the fact. This recommendation
must take into account and be coordinated with the low productivity
detail return policy recommended in our memorandum of May 13, 1975.
In each case, whenever a detailee is replaced, his replacement
should be on board two weeks before the detailee's scheduled
departure.
In addition, the CB is at present experiencing a very serious
clerical personnel deficit. This deficit could become quite
critical if the case processing recommendations presently envisioned
for inclusion in our final report were to be implemented. The
present professional to clerical ratio for the CB is 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 commitment
increase in case attorney productivity through increased experience
on the job. See Appendix D for overall workforce calculation.
DRAFT 5/14/75
5
Recommendation:
OMB should issue to each of the agencies supplying details
to CB an announcement of a general freeze until August 1, 1975.
Also OMB should initiate now an additional 50 clerical
position tap upon the Federal agencies contributing details
to CB.
B. Production Control
As a general comment concerning processing acitivities at
CB, the Survey Team is impressed with the attempts by the CB
staff to understand and make visible each step of the process,
especially productivity. A surprising amount of work has been
done on productivity and this has put the CB in a strong position
now 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
requirements 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 pipeline inventory at each major stop in the process.
DRAFT 5/14/75
6
This is essential if workload is to be expedited through backlog
management and timeline controls. For example, it is obvious
that the concentration of effort in each 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 GC whose principal function would be production control
on a day-to-day basis.
Recommendation:
CB should continue to gather production control data. A
small production control unit should be established in the
Office of the Deputy General Counsel to monitor production
on a day-to-day basis.
DRAFT 5/14/75
7
C. Front End Processing
There are several real and potential major problems in front
end processing (logging applications, completing information
on applications, and records). 15,484 applications have
been logged. An additional 2,281 telephone applications have
not been 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 19,200.
It is our understanding that after considerable delay follow-up
letters will be sent this week to those who have not submitted
complete applications with a deadline of June 1 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 1. 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.
DRAFT 5/14/75
8
These cases also represent potential carry-over, possibly
raising that workload to above 7,000 cases. Of the total files
requested, approximately 6,400 have been received, with
approximately 5,000 assigned to attorneys and approximately
1,200 sent to docketing.
There are serious problems with respect to cases involving
military trial records. 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. 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.
DRAFT 5/14/75
9
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 concert with the CB should direct the DOD and the
GSA to give a "high priority" status to all requests for
military personnel files and court martial trial records
originating from the CB.
DRAFT 5/14/75
10
D. Final File Disposition
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 of 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 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 reprocessing 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
DRAFT 5/14/75
11
location for the retrieval of these files if at any
time a question is raised on the case.
Recommendation:
A plan must 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 R.TOXO
DRAFT 5/14/75
VI. ACTION ATTORNEYS
A. Organization and Completeness of Case Files
Case files assigned to action attorneys often are incomplete
and/or in a state of disarray. This causes the action attorney as-
signed to the case to lose valuable processing time in organiz ing
materials in the files and, where necessary, in attempting to aug-
ment 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 to an action attorney until it is properly organized and
is as complete as possible. Further, action attorneys should be in-
structed 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 ag-
gi avaiing and mitigating circumstances, but use a variety of forms
for preparation 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 preparation of summaries.
Page 2
DRAFT 5/14/75
Recommendation
CB should implement use of a standard form for case
summaries.
C. Action Attorney Incentives
a. 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
attorney's expertise. Morale building incentives are considered vital
to maintain the production efficiency of the AAs. One such incentive
would be to permit the attorney to participate in the disposition of
each case by making a recommendation 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 state-
ment 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
Page 3
DRAFT 5/14/75
Board precedents is discussed elsewhere.
Recommendation
CB should add a final line to case summary: "Board Pre-
cedent for Disposition
"
.
b) Another production incentive would be to promise action
attorneys a week's leave or some other award upon his production
of 100 case summaries. Elsewhere in this paper it is proposed
that Quality Control be integrated into action attorney activity and
that completion of a final draft of the case summary become the
AA production unit. In either case, the 100 case goal should be a
challenging and stimulating incentive to the action attorney.
Recommendation
CB should implement immediately some sort of production
incentive system.
C. 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
ocessing time and would boost morale of action attorneys for a
policy to be established under which action attorneys would be certi-
fied by Team Leaders as qualified to complete case summaries without
Page 4
DRAFT 5/14/75
review by Quality Control. An acceptable alternative would be to
have Quality Control merely spot-check the work of certified AAs.
Recommendation
CB should consider implementing a policy of certifying
action attorneys.
D. Integration of Quality Control with AA Teams
There are 52 attorneys in Quality Control occupied with
reviewing case summaries prepared by AAs. 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. Quality Control receives case summaries
for review upon completion of the initial draft. At this point the
AA team leader loses control over the time spent in processing a
case to completion. Experience has shown that backlogs accumulate
in Quality Control and that return of cases to AA teams is erratic
and unpredictable. Working relationships between AA teams and
Quality Control attorneys vary fromformal, arms-lengths dealings
to close, friendly working relationships with Quality Control attorneys
stationed with AA teams. Integration of the Quality Control function
with the AA team function is discussed elsewhere. Accomplishment
of this change would permit AA team leaders to gain control of pro-
cessing of cases to completion and make a more realistic production
unit possible. It also would free enough Quality Control attorneys to
Page 5
DRAFT 5/1.
5
permit formation of an additional AA team, which in turn would
increase production of case summaries.
Recommendation
CB should integrate Quality Control function with AA team
function, assigning three Quality Control attorneys to each AA
team.
E. Establish an Additional AA Team
There are seven AA teams at present, as indicated above.
If the Quality Control function should be integrated with the AA
team function by assigning three Quality Control attorneys to each
AA team, this would leave enough Quality Control attorneys to
make up an 8th AA team, which would in turn increase production.
Recommencation
Establish an 8th AA team using Quality Control attorneys.
FOAD
F. No-Jurisdiction Cases
GERALD
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 dispo-
sition 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.
Page 6
DRAFT 5/ 75
Recommendation
Periodically dispose of accumulated no-jurisdiction
cases by special sessions of the Board.
G. Reorganization of AA Teams
The AA teams should be reorganized to reflect organiza-
tional and functional changes recommended throughout this report.
Attached is a chart which reflects these recommended changes.
Recommendation
Reorganize the AA teams as soon as possible in accordance
with attached charts. (See Appendix "X".)
DRAFT 5/14/75
VII. CB 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
panel/board members. These decisions literally can have a permanent
impact on the welfare reputation, employability and social standing
generally) 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
for providing the 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 virtually 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.
DRAFT 5/14/75
2
The Quality Control Unit consists of approximately 52 case
analysts in contrast with an estimated 174 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
originally 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 demonstrated an ability to
make reasonably uniform decisions whil at the same time deciding cases
at a rate consistent with the overall backlog, if the decision rate is
perpetuated. The major deficiency in the overall CB production
capability is an inadequate number of Action Attorneys (or their
equivalent) to perform the individual case analysis and development
at a rate that will discharge the current case backlog. The practice
of 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, which substantially obviates the need for
DRAFT 5/14/75
3
additional review by the independent QC Unit. This provides
an opportunity to speed up the case flow and release QC staff
to either concentrate on the Teams with low productivity/quality
or, in fact, become an integral part of the production operation --
that is, Action Attorneys developing case summaries.
*
A substantial amount of the defects found by the Quality Control
Unit are of a cosmetic (i.e., format, numerical, consistency
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.
DRAFT 5/14/74
4
*
The Teams with the lowest productivity/quality appear to
be in that state from a combination of negligible or inadequate
internal Quality Control at the Assistant Team Leader level
and an indeterminant combination of low motivation and relatively
lower professional staff competence.
*
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). This is considered an unhealthy situation whose
negative impact is proportionately greater in the less motivated,
less competent teams.
The situation described above from a management processing
efficiency, and commitment/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.
DRAFT 5/14/75
5
In the professional fields of law, consulting and systems
analysis, work products (be they repetitive eases or unique, highly
tailored analyses) are typically perfected through developing the
case at the professional individual contributor level and subjecting it
to one or two levels of supervisory, line organization, review
frequently supplemented with random before or after-the-fact review
by an independent group that is either responsible for policy
consistency or technical quality assurance or both.
Even in the world of hardware production, (including the defense
and aerospace sector with its attendant high reliability requirements)
physical quality control is typically done on a random or selective
basis. The random and after-the-fact nature of quality control in
most organizational situations exists because: (1) It is almost
uniformly not necessary to check all aspects of professional products
or hardware twice, given the professional commitment and production
discipline that exist in well-running operations; and (2) given scarce
resources, organizations necessarily assign as many people as possible
to producing and are very selective and creative in using the minimum
resources for independent verification of product quality.
The operation of the CB, while unique with respect to its
philosophy and mission, is not considered to be particularly
distinguished from traditional professional environments (law,
consulting, systems analysis) with respect to what is required
in a case production process to assure a high quality work
DRAFT 5/14/75
6
product. In fact, individual cases, for the most part, represent
straightforward extraction and summarization of historical factors
with respect to an individual's behavior in connection with induction
or performance within the military. The factors that constitute
an adequate case summary are precisely defined including prohibitions
against the inclusion of factors that could prejudice a decision.
There is no requirement for building opinion or advocacy into the
case summary -- in fact this is expressly prohibited since the panel/board
insists on a neutral, objective, exposition of the facts and reserves
unto itself the function of making the decision regarding clemency.
As previously noted, production teams with the highest output
also achieve the highest quality -- that is, the lowest rejection rate
from the Quality Control Unit. This once again is considered to be
primarily the result of such high performing teams having substantive
quality review as an integral part of the case flow within that team.
Teams with low production and quality control seem to suffer from a
lack of adequate internal, substantive, review and excessive time
consumption in debating with the Quality Control Unit the merits
of corrections proposed by the QC Unit.
The logical solution to this situation is strenghtening the low
performing units by insisting upon and holding their managers accountable
for internal substantive review and in some cases replacing either the
Team Leader and/or the Assistant Leaders if they cannot make the adjustment.
Draft
5-14-75
7
Recommendation -- 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 consider creating a small
unit of six to nine individuals reporting directly to the Office of
the General Counsel with responsibility for policy and precedent
analysis. The primary functions of this office would be to observe
all proceedings of the panels and the full Board, and to distribute
at the immediate conclusion of such proceedings appropriate synopses
of policy directions and evolving precedents emanating from the panel.
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 to be determined by this group,
subject to the approval of the General Counsel. The staff for this
group should be derived from the current Action Attorney Teams and
the current Quality Control Unit and should include highly competent
individuals, given the nature of the function.
Draft
5-14-75
8
2. Staff Redeployment -- The professional staff currently constituting
the Quality Control Unit should be redeployed into the Action
Attorney Teams that are responsible for case development with some
of the former QC staff becoming Action Attorneys and others assuming
Assistant Team Leader or Team Leader supervisory positions. At
least 50% of the current QC unit must be assigned to Action Attorney
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 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 Unit to assure that
the Team's case development was in consonance with the evolving
precedence contained in the Panel/Board's decision and otherwise to
seek interpretation of anomolous issues from the policy and precedence
analysis unit.
The Assistant Team Leader (ATL) is the first line of supervision and the
basic production unit in the CB staff organization. Present staffing
consists of the ATL, 6 to 8 Action Attorneys, in some instances and
Administrative Assistant, plus clerical support.
Draft
5-14-75
9
With realignment and decentralization of the Quality Control function,
the basic organizational unit would be structured approximately as follows:
Team Leader
GC
ATL
Admin.
QC
Policy &
Asst.
Precedent
Analysis
AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA
4. A formal, full time, high quality orientation and training operation
should be set up for all incoming Action Attorneys and General Counsel
management staff. It is estimated that training of this scope and
vision might take one to two days and should include both mission
and orientation with respect to the philosophy, background and
operational climate within which the Board functions as well as the
technical practitioner training prerequisite to developing cases.
The individuals conducting the training should be engaged full time
(as long as new staff are arriving) in that capacity rather than
have it a collateral function of individuals who are normally
performing line management or individual contributor functions
within the General Counsel
APPENDIX "A"
SUGGESTED FRONT OFFICE ORGANIZATION
BOARD ***** CHAIRMAN *** SPECIAL COUNSEL
Sec'y
GENERAL COUNSEL *** SPECIAL ASST
Sec'y
ASST for MANAGEMENT
DEPUTY GEN. COUNSEL
APPENDIX "A"
SUGGESTED ORGANIZATION FOR MANAGEMENT SIDE (1)
ASSISTANT FOR MANAGEMENT
Sec'y
EXECUTIVE
PERSONNEL
OFFICE SERVICES
BUDGET
SECRETARY
ADMINISTRATION
- Records
- Correspondence
- -Distribution
-Mailing
-File
-Scribes
-Docket
APPENDIX "A"
SUGGESTED ORGANIZATION FOR MANAGEMENT SIDE (2)
ASSISTANT FOR MANAGEMENT
Sec'y
EXECUTIVE
PERSONNEL
OFFICE SERVICES
BUDGET
SECRETARY
PLANNING & ANALYSIS
ADMINISTRATION
-Production
-Records
Planning
-Correspondence
-Production
Analysis
-Distribution
- -Policy/Precedent
-Mailing
-Post Audit
-File
-Scribes
-Docket
APPENDIX B
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
a) 15 weeks between week beginning June 1 and including
week 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 27,000 cases
Workload Analysis:
a) Total Cases to be decided
19,500
b) Decided by June 2
- 1,000
sub-total
18,500
c) 5% recall based on further staff
work or outside decision boundaries + 925
Total Panel Decisions
19,425
Points:
1) Chairman Goodell 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
referrals
7.5
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 Asst.
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
WORKFORCE CALCULATION
Weekly Production At Ro
-
Weeks of
No. of
Exp.
Att.
Max
Reg.
3rd Wk
2nd Wk
1st T.
It
70
3
9
-
-
-
3
35
2
9
1
-
-
2
55
1
9
1
1
-
I
15
-
9
1
1
1
175
6
36
3
2
1
.
-
Att. Weeks
X
12
-
-
and
I
-
2100
335.
j
1575
105
70
15
Rate/Wk
10
8
7
4
2
Cases Produced (12 May
-
1 Aug)
3350
12,600
735
280
30
Cases Completed
.
.
.
Aug from Q. C.
20
-
10
-
-
-
Att Wks
200
Rate/Wk
8
Add. Prod.
1600
APPENDIX
MEMORANDUM FOR: Paul O'Neill, Deputy Director, Office of
Management and Budget
FROM
: Charles R. Work, Chairman
can
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
recommendations:
1) The PCB should be authorized to initiate immediately 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,
1. 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 willing 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 sum be equitably
allocated among the several agencies which are presently
supporting the PCB program.
is
FORD
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 OMB to the PCB and against which Ms. Handwerger was to be hired
has apparently 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.
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 most 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 "X"
SUGGESTED ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION SIDE (2)
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
Sec'y
A
ASSOC. GEN. COUNSEL
ASSOC. GEN. COUNSEL
ASSOC. GEN.
FOR OPERATION
FOR PLANNING/ANALYSIS
COUNSEL FOR
PRODUCTION
- -TEAM #1
Production
Training
Planning
" #2
Production
-
Production
Control
"
-
#3
Analysis
Quality
- " #4
Policy/Precedent
Control
- " #5
Post Audit
-
- " #6
- " #7
" #8