BUDGET REQUEST OF COURT OF APPEALS (SEE PP. 2004-2014) Mr. DIXON. The House District of Columbia Subcommittee on Appropriations will come to order. We take up this afternoon the budget request for the District of Columbia Courts and we have with us Judge William C. Pryor, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, Judge Fred B. Ugast, the new Chief Judge of the Superior Court, and Larry Polansky, the Executive Officer of the Courts. The Court of Appeals is requesting $4,036,000 and 81 positions for fiscal year 1988, a net increase of $278,000 and two positions above the appropriation level for fiscal year 1987. As I understand it, this is the request that was sent up from the courts and the City Council and the Mayor have made no changes. PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE PRYOR Judge Pryor, if you have a statement we will be glad to receive it for the record. [The statement referred to follows:] STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. PRYOR CHIEF JUDGE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MAY 12, 1987 Mr. Chairman and members of the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, it is my privilege to speak to you today regarding the budget of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals is requesting an appropriated budget of $4,036,000 for fiscal year 1988, representing an increase of $278,000 and two positions over the fiscal year 1987 budget of $3,758,000. Although the Court has been able to dispose of over 1,500 cases each year for the past five years, case filings have exceeded dispositions by several hundred each year, resulting in very substantial increases in the pending caseload. Since 1980, pending cases have doubled, having reached over 2,500. Unless dispositions can be increased, the inevitable result will continue to be longer times on appeal. The Court is introducing methods used successfully in other state and federal appellate courts in an attempt to increase and expedite dispositions. Among these are early, pre-briefing screening for cases which can be placed on an expedited calendar or scheduled for settlement conferencing. We are requesting $178,000 for mandatory salary related increases; $49,000 for two positions essential to our case management programs; $33,000 to provide funding for maintenance of new equipment, contractual services (Westlaw), and for moving and renovations; and $38,000 for additional equipment required for automated systems and filing. We have offset $20,000 for non-recurring items in the 1987 budget. Taking into account the fiscal constraints of the District of Columbia, we have not requested a general increase for inflation in our budget request. We have asked for only those funds and positions which are absolutely necessary to cope with the present rate of appeals, and to make some progress on an ever increasing pending caseload. On behalf of the Court of Appeals, I request that this Committee give favorable consideration to this modest and realistic request for fiscal year 1988. Adjusted balance to correct past years' errors in counting of pending cases picked up through computer management reports. b Adjusted balance to include reinstated cases. All cases are *Only those cases which reach a particular stage of appeal are used to calculate the average time in that stage. included in the overall time on appeal Therefore, the sum of the intermediate stages will not equal the overall time. Dispositions by order are not included in these statistics |