Page 87 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 87

 resources in the FY2018 request for enhanced cybersecurity requirements and for the necessary infrastructure related to new courthouse construction.”154
At the same time, the Budget Committee did not recommend funding defender staff positions that the Judicial Resources Committee’s work measurement study
and resulting staffing formula found to be necessary and appropriate. Fully fund-
ing defender offices is not recommended because “the Budget Committee does
not believe that the additional $8.l million for 44 additional staff can be adequately justified to Congress at this time.”155 Such an increase cannot be adequately justified in part because, “Adjustments to the request were necessary to address Defender Services and judiciary-wide cybersecurity and information technology enhancements while moderating the increase in appropriated funds in this account for FY 2018.”156
This funding conflict was explored by the JCUS more than 10 years ago. In 2004, it tasked the DSC to determine whether, from a financial standpoint, the judiciary would be better served by removing the CJA program from its manage- ment: “In April 2004, as part of a comprehensive cost-containment effort for the entire judiciary, the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States suggested that the Committee on Defender Services consider whether Defender Services should be a separate program outside the judiciary.”157 After studying these concerns, the DSC issued their report: “Should the Structure of the Defender Services Program be Changed? Report to the Committee on Defender Services of the Judicial Conference of the United States” (hereafter the “2005 Subcommittee Report”).158 The Executive Committee had expressed concerns over the budget conflict described above, between the adequate funding of a national federal defense program and the effect that it could have on the appropriations
to the courts. Then Executive Committee Chair Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King stated that the growth in the defender program in response to increased prosecu- tion and defense costs “could result in Congress having to appropriate funds for the Defender Services account at the expense of other judiciary accounts, particu- larly the Salaries and Expenses account . . . .”159 The Executive Committee admitted that defenders and judges were pitted against each other in the budget, and had concerns about the “perceived potential adverse impact of the [defense] program’s
154 AdministrativeOfficeofU.S.Courts,July2016BudgetCommitteeRecommendations/Action1. 155 Id.at3.
156 Id.AnotherreasongivenwasthattheBudgetCommitteedidnotthinkthatdefenderscouldhire fast enough to fill all the FTE received in FY 17, especially since the full-year appropriation came late thus delaying the start of the hiring.
157 Letter,JCUSCommitteeonDefenderServicestoJudgeThomasF.Hogan,“Re:Explorationof Whether the Defender Services Program Should be Placed Outside the Judiciary,” January 5, 2006.
158 SeegenerallySubcommitteeonLongRangePlanningandBudgeting,Shouldthe Structure of the Defender Services Program be Changed? (2005) (prepared for the Committee on Defender Services).
159 Id.at1.
No recommendation presented herein represents
the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United 2 0 1 7 R E P O R T O F T H E A D H O C C O M M I T T E E T O R E V I E W T H E C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E A C T 43
 States unless approved by the Conference itself.

   85   86   87   88   89