 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Annual Program Performance Report March 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS A Message from Chairman Thomasina V. Rogers MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN I am pleased to present the Review Commission's first Annual Program Performance Report required by the Government Performance Results Act for fiscal year (FY) 1999. When I became Chairman of the Review Commission in June of 1999, I was impressed by the ambitious goals and objectives we had adopted for the Review Commission as a whole, at both the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ or trial) level, and the Commission (appellate) level. This report provides a detailed description of the Review Commission's performance in FY 1999 in meeting its five (5) goals in the areas of public service, external communications, information technology, human resources, and quality improvement. The Review Commission is committed to providing superior service to our customers, stakeholders, and employees. In that regard, the Review Commission strives to ensure that all parties who come before us - employers, employees and employee representatives, and Federal agencies - receive fair and timely resolutions to safety and health disputes in American work places. We continue to seek ways to improve our service to the public by reducing the cycle time for decisions, providing greater access to Review Commission processes, and enhancing our communication with, and understanding of, the public we serve. In FY 1999, the Review Commission failed to meet articulated performance goals related to cycle time at both the ALJ level and the Commission level. Our FY 1999 performance has not kept pace with the progressive cycle time goals established in our FY 1997 five year strategy. We view our deficiencies in projected performance to be a very serious matter. To that end, we have instituted and will continue to institute aggressive corrective action. We have completed a review of work processes at the Commission level and have begun to implement changes in case processing. Likewise, at the ALJ level, we are instituting measures that, we are confident, will yield substantial process improvements. While our primary response to our deficient performance has been the development and implementation of targeted corrective action, we are also reassessing the achievability of FY 1999 goals, as established in FY 1997. At the Commission level, one of the biggest obstacles to achieving the cycle time goals is the profile of cases in our inventory. Currently, more than 50 cases are older than two years. A large percentage of these cases are more than four years old. As we resolve these old cases that have been on our docket for several years, our average cycle time will inevitably increase since the cycle time for cases is not calculated until a case has been resolved and closed. This creates a dilemma, possibly creating an incentive to resolve last-in cases first, in order to meet the cycle time goal. When I became Chairman, I recognized our responsibility to resolve all our cases, including our oldest cases, as expeditiously as possible, without regard for the impact that resolving older cases would have on achieving of our cycle time goals. Undoubtedly, over time, as we retire more and more of the older cases, this dilemma will be resolved. But in the meantime, our aggressive retirement of old cases will result in cycle times that far exceed our goals, unless we revise the performance plan to put the older cases on a separate time frame. We have begun discussions with the Office of Management and Budget about realigning the cycle time goals just for this category of cases. At this time, however, our focus is on eliminating those deficiencies in performance over which the Review Commission has control. In FY 1999, the Review Commission accomplished many achievements. The agency received a Hammer Award for its E-Z Trial program in FY 1999. Thirty-one percent of cases were assigned to the program in FY 1999. We piloted a new initiative to resolve high penalty cases more quickly and economically with mandatory settlement talks under the supervision of a judge. This "Settlement Part" to our procedural rules requires formal settlement efforts before a trial is scheduled for cases where the proposed penalty is $200,000 or more, or if the Chief Judge decides that the case is appropriate. We substantially exceeded our goal of Settlement Part referrals in FY 1999, and the pilot has yielded excellent results. (We will complete our evaluation of the effectiveness of both the Settlement Part pilot and E-Z Trial programs by the end of FY 2000 and March 31, 2001, respectively.) As noted, at the Commission level, we began the process of reducing the inventory of pending older cases. The results of this process should be evident in FY 2000, albeit at a significant cost in our cycle time goal. During FY 1999, when the Commission had a quorum for approximately a nine-month period, there were 43 dispositions, as compared to only 13 dispositions in FY 1998. Eighteen of the 43 dispositions (42%) occurred during the last three months of the fiscal year. In FY 1999, we also continued the development of the Review Commission's website, adding ALJ and Commission decisions from earlier years. For the first time, we published decisions on CD-ROM for use by litigants and depository libraries. We published and widely distributed two user-friendly guides to Review Commission procedures, and a draft procedural guide for labor unions and employees. We also implemented visual standards for all nonlegal Commission documents, upgraded all printing and reproduction processes and equipment, and made legal writing training available to most judges and attorneys. We will continue to improve our services to the public, our stakeholders and customers, and most importantly, our employees. My goals of improved communications, collegiality, and openness will be supported by continuous improvements to our internal and external communications, active open dialogues within the safety and health communities, and enhanced website capabilities. As this report makes clear, we have committed more resources to redesigning our procedures and processes to speed case resolution, improve the quality of our decisions and motivate our workforce. While a few objectives were not realized in the projected time frames, the mechanisms designed to achieve the goals remain in place and are providing improvements, albeit more slowly than hoped. Undoubtedly, our Commission level cycle time goal will suffer in the short term as a result of our effort to resolve long-pending cases. However, any meaningful commitment to public service must have at its core the disposition of old cases, especially since the abatement of cited work place hazards is not required during the pendency of cases at the Review Commission. This performance report will serve as a catalyst to action, pushing the Commission to both retire our older pending cases and, in time, achieve our cycle time goals. We remain steadfast in our intent to maintain an impeccable reputation for objectivity, evenhandedness, promptness, and professionalism. We are committed to fully realizing the benefits of the "information age" and the technology that allow us to provide the best quality service to the American public as we fulfill our mission of providing fair and timely adjudication of workplace safety and health disputes. In doing this, the Review Commission will continue to play a vital role in encouraging safe and healthy workplaces for American workers. Thomasina V. Rogers Report Overview The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 requires that a program performance report be submitted to the President and Congress not later than March 31, 2000 for FY 1999 and no later than March 31 of each year thereafter. This report is submitted in compliance with this requirement. Highly effective organizations constantly reassess the environment within which they operate, including their customers, their legal mandates, available technology and economic factors. They use this information to identify areas needing improvements and then set goals and specific strategies to reach these goals. The Review Commission's leadership has been engaged in this process since 1994 and has involved stakeholders, managers, and employees in discussions of its current environment and its strategy for the future. Since that time, it has made significant progress against its original strategic goals which were set in 1994. In September 1997, new goals were set by the Review Commission which built upon earlier progress made since 1994. The agency's updated strategic plan, issued in September 1997, provided details on specific objectives for fiscal years 1997 through 2002. This document isolates and expands on the objectives included in that plan for FY 1999. This FY 1999 Annual Program Performance Report was prepared in accordance with guidance contained in OMB Circular No. A-11, which explains the requirements of the GPRA. The performance indicators and the specific objectives for FY 1999 were developed to enable the Review Commission to improve how it performs its mission and the level of its service to the public. During FY 1999, the Review Commission was able to meet 68 percent of the FY 1999 goals set forth in the Review Commission's FY 1999 Annual Performance Plan. This report includes the annual goals for FY 1999 excerpted from the Review Commission's Strategic Plan. Greater details on actual performance for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 are also included in the applicable sections, provided such data were available for reporting. Some performance indicators found in the FY 1999 Annual Performance Plan have performance goals for FY 1998 only. We addressed them in the FY 1999 report because they were completed in FY 1999 (P10, P13). For the complete copy of the Review Commission's Strategic Plan, see our website at www.oshrc.gov. *Figure 1, below, summarizes the Review Commission's achievement in fulfilling its FY 1999 performance goals. * The percentages shown in the pie chart represent the combination of goals achieved and not achieved, with each performance indicator for FY 1999 performance having a value of one. Background on the Review Commission The Review Commission is an independent, adjudicatory agency created by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act). Its sole statutory mandate is to serve as a court providing just and expeditious resolution of disputes between the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), employers charged with violations of federal safety and health standards, and employees or their union representatives. The Review Commission was designed by Congress as an agency completely independent of the Department of Labor to provide a check on OSHA's enforcement powers and to assure that employers could appeal and receive relief from any arbitrariness in the exercise of that power. In fact it was the provision that established the Review Commission (the "Javits Compromise") that ended the stalemate in Congress and led to the Act's passage. Resolution for employers, and the abatement of alleged occupational hazards, do not occur until the Review Commission issues its final decisions and orders. For this reason, the agency's ability to provide speedy adjudication is of the utmost importance in both providing prompt justice and assuring worker safety. The Review Commission has three members, appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation, who serve six year terms. Employers contesting citations are entitled to a hearing before the Review Commission's administrative law judges. The agency's principal office is located in Washington, D.C. There are also regional offices -- currently Atlanta and Denver--where some of the Review Commission's administrative law judges and staff are assigned. The Review Commission's Rules of Procedure provide two levels of adjudication. The first is a trial before an administrative law judge. The second level is a discretionary appellate review of the judge's decision by the agency's Commissioners. In the hearing phase, a Review Commission judge hears the evidence and issues a written decision based on findings of fact and conclusions of law. As part of the judge's decision, the citation(s) will be either affirmed, modified, or vacated. The decision becomes final unless one of the parties requests review, and one of the three Commissioners directs that the case be reviewed. The Commissioners review the evidence, briefs, and the judge's decision and renders a decision affirming or reversing the Administrative Law Judge. Mission Statement The mission of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission is to provide fair and timely adjudication of workplace safety and health disputes between the Department of Labor and employers. In doing this, the Review Commission plays a vital role in encouraging safe and healthy workplaces for American workers. Vision Statement The Review Commission should be a world class judicial Commission -- one with an impeccable reputation for objectivity, evenhandedness, promptness, and professionalism. It should be a model federal agency with highly effective processes, a highly motivated and diverse workforce and modern information management, communications, and financial management systems. Finally, the Review Commission should be an agency that values and develops its people and constantly strives to improve its performance, and its value and service to the American people. Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Goals The Review Commission has established goals to effectively accomplish its mission -- to provide fair and timely adjudication of work place safety and health disputes between the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and employers charged with violations of federal safety and health standards; some cases also involve employees or their union representatives. We have defined two broad external goals to improve the agency's service to and its communication with its customers and the public and three operational goals critical to the overall mission performance of the agency. Public Service Goal To assure the ready availability of fair, user friendly and timely adjudication of all disputes brought before the Commission and its judges and achieve a high level of readability and quality in Commission legal decisions. External Communications Goal To significantly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of communications between the Commission and the public, its customers and other stakeholders. Information Technology Goal To capitalize on recent investments in modern computer hardware and software to increase organizational effectiveness, operate more efficiently and better serve internal and external customers. Human Resource Management Goal To build a highly motivated diverse workplace by developing a first class human resource management system, including highly effective affirmative action, recruitment, training, award, and performance management processes. Quality Improvement Goal To develop and institutionalize a process for continuous quality improvement. Performance Indicators For each strategic goal and its related objectives, the Review Commission has formulated performance measures and annual targets, numerical whenever possible. A few measures are necessarily qualitative in nature. We have noted the specific objectives and targets, definitions, and actual performance results for FY 1999 for each performance measure in this report. Cycle time data is kept in the case management/tracking system. In order to assure the quality of the data we review the information in the case management/tracking system periodically. We conduct test runs of the data to ensure that information is input and updated on a timely basis. The appropriate management official analyzes the data and ensures the accuracy of test runs and the reports produced. The Review Commission cycle times, the numbers of cases assigned to and processed though the E-Z Trial procedures, the number of settlement judges assigned to large dollar cases, and number of settlements exceeding one year are all tracked by our case management/tracking system. Program Evaluation In FY 1999, the Review Commission contracted for professional consultants to assess the
effectiveness of the current appeals case processing procedures at the Commission level and provide information upon which to base improvements in the procedures. While the study revealed the
existence of competent, experienced and professional staff, and up-to-date automation, it also identified certain barriers within the Commission, which hampered effective and efficient performance.
These barriers include: lack of clarity of purpose or sense of direction; tumultuous professional working relationships; limited case management and use of automation; low job satisfaction; and
conflicting projections of future caseloads. Based on their findings, the consultants recommended clarification of the agency's goals and objectives and an in-depth analysis of work flow, automation
enhancements, and bench marking studies. Finally, the report identified the need for effective management of initiatives. Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report Public Service Goal To assure the ready availability of fair, user friendly and timely adjudication of all disputes brought before the Commission and its judges and achieve a high level of readability and quality in Commission legal decisions. P1. Public Service Indicator #1: Average cycle time for conventionally tried cases Definition: We plan to reduce the cycle time for conventionally heard ALJ cases to less than a year, measured as the number of days from assignment to a judge to the date a decision is filed with the Executive Secretary. Because some very complex cases will necessarily take more than one year, the goal is for 90 percent of heard cases closed each year.
Report: We did not meet our target. Although we did not meet our goal of 90 percent of the cases, 67 percent of the cases were closed within 350 days from assignment to a judge. More importantly, the number of cases that have met the cycle time goal has increased, despite the fact that the cycle time goal continues to decrease. Moreover, average case processing time has been reduced from 393 days in 1998 to 357 days in FY 1999.
P2. Public Service Indicator #2: Cycle time for conventional case settlements Definition: We plan to maintain the average cycle time for conventional ALJ cases disposed of without a hearing to less than 180 days. Cycle time is the number of days from the date of docketing to the date the decision is filed with the Executive Secretary for cases closed during the fiscal year.
Report: We exceeded our goal. The actual average cycle time for conventional ALJ case settlements was 155 days from docketing to closure, well below the goal.
P3. Public Service Indicator #3: Percent of settlements exceeding one year cycle time Definition: We plan to virtually eliminate cases that take more than one year to settle. Cycle time is measured from the date of notice of docketing to the date the decision is filed. We will track the percentage of cases closed without a hearing for which cycle time exceeds one year.
Report: We met our goal. Only three percent of these cases were open longer than a year. The performance trend for this indicator continues to be positive.
P4. Public Service Indicator #4: Commission review cycle time. Definition: The Commission plans to reduce the cycle time to less than a year for most cases reviewed at the Commission level, measured as the number of days from direction for review by a Commissioner to the date a decision is issued. Because a few cases involve extremely complex issues and staff effort beyond what is reasonable to expect in a one year period, the goals are set for 95 percent of all cases closed in each fiscal year.
Report: We did not meet our target. Forty-seven percent of decisions were issued within 350 days of a case being directed for review. However, the number - 43 - represents more than a 200 percent increase over FY 1998 dispositions, despite the three-month absence of a quorum. Although we made significant progress in FY1999, the lack of a quorum for several months in FY1999 and during part of FY 1998 has had a negative effect on our cycle time since cases can not be decided without a quorum.
P5. Public Service Indicator #5: Cycle time for E-Z Trial cases. Definition: The Commission wants to maintain the recently improved cycle times for less complex cases processed under the E-Z Trial program. Cycle time is measured as the average time elapsed from the date of docketing of the case to the date the decision is filed with the Executive Secretary, for all heard E-Z Trial cases closed during the fiscal year.
Report: We did not meet our target. It is noteworthy that the FY 1999 average time of 166 days was achieved at a time when we experienced the highest number of E-Z Trial hearings since the beginning of the program. The agency's commitment to make E-Z Trial cases simpler, quicker, and less costly for employers continues to be one of our highest priorities.
P6. Public Service Indicator #6: Percent of total cases received which are designated E-Z Trial. Definition: The Review Commission hopes to continue to expand the use of the E-Z Trial process to a higher proportion of the Review Commission's cases. It has changed its rules to make more cases eligible, completed a successful pilot program, and the Chief Judge will begin gradually increasing the percentage designated to the program so that any transition problems can be avoided.
Report: We met our goal. The Review Commission designated 31 percent of all cases docketed in FY 1999 to the E-Z Trial program.
P7. Public Service Indicator #7: Number of significant cases where settlement judges are appointed and the percentage where settlement conferences are held. We revised the target for this objective in March of 1999. Definition: The agency will draft procedural changes in FY 1998 to require our Chief Judge to appoint settlement judges for cases involving more than $200,000 in proposed penalties and in other cases where he deems it appropriate, under the "Settlement Part" pilot. The measure is defined as the number of cases during the year for which a settlement judge was appointed.
Report: We met and substantially exceeded our goal. There were 32 cases in which a settlement judge was assigned a settlement conference under the "Settlement Part" pilot in FY 1999.
P8. Number of major changes implemented in structure and format standards for decisions and other legal documents. Definition: Three major sets of documents are to be redesigned throughout a three-year period: (1) Commission decisions, (2) judges' decisions and (3) legal documents, such as notices, orders and other legal documents. The redesign of one set of documents is planned for each fiscal year to improve quality and enhance operational efficiency.
Report: We met our goal. In FY 1999, the Commission's decisions were redesigned to reflect changes made in the Commission Style Manual for Commission decisions. This manual is used as a reference for drafting Commission decisions. The Review Commission also explored the feasibility of allowing contesting parties to file legal documents electronically. We have assessed our ability to file legal documents electronically and have scheduled pretesting to commence in FY 2000.
Discussion of Unmet Performance Targets ALJ Disposition There are a variety of factors that affected our ability to meet our goal at the administrative law judge level. These include: (1) the magnitude, and nature of the cases received, (2) the success of the settlement process initiatives (E-Z Trial and Settlement Part pilot) in reducing the number of hearings needed, and (3) number, location, length and complexity of trials held. Although these factors are not wholly within the Review Commission's control, the Strategic Plan and the Annual Performance Plan acknowledge that the Review Commission is committed to working within such constraints to improve its service to the public. The disposition rate of cases before the administrative law judges was set at an approximate level based on previous estimates and certain assumptions about the complexity of the cases that come to the Review Commission. The annual plan identified that 10 percent of cases would be "complex." In fact, the Review Commission realized a 23 percent increase in large or complex cases between FY 1998 and 1999. This increase in large and complex cases affected our ability to meet our goal. The complexity of these cases results from the existence of one or a combination of the following factors:
We expect the number of large and complex cases to continue to increase. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) emphasis during recent years on more serious workplace hazards, and the consequent increase in proposed penalties, has translated into more complicated cases, more costly trials, and, from the employer's perspective, harder fought cases with higher economic stakes. This is illustrated by the fact that the number and proportion of large (those with proposed penalties more than $50,000) or complex cases have steadily increased in recent years. Based on anticipated OSHA activity, OSHRC estimates that the number of complex cases could increase by nine percent over the FY 1999 estimate level in FY 2000. Additional external factors that affect our disposition time include: unsuccessful settlement negotiations; the existence of prior orders staying the Review Commission proceedings because of ongoing federal criminal proceedings, and the receipt of cases from remote locations. Cases that are stayed can remain in that status until the United States Attorney has completed his criminal prosecution, which can take a year or more. Due to the complexity of issues and the number of cases received, the Review Commission will often consolidate trials involving the same employer and similar issues, and group cases from distant locations. For example, the Review Commission cases that are heard in Guam, Saipan MP, Mariana Islands, Alaska, and American Samoa increase the time in which the Commission adjudicates cases. In FY 1999 those cases made up more than 5 percent (or 119 cases) of the Review Commission's caseload, as compared to an average of 4 percent in FY 1998 and 1997. Because of the location of those cases, the Commission usually holds and groups these cases until there are a sufficient number of the cases to assign a judge to avoid multiple costly trips and extensive staff time to travel to such remote locations. Corrective Action We will take corrective action towards improving the cycle times for ALJ conventional and E-Z Trial cases that go to hearing so that they are completed within the time frames established in the annual performance plans. ALJ Disposition For FY 2000 and FY 2001, our goal is to have 95% of all cases completed within 325 days from the time a case is assigned to a judge, down from 350 days in FY 1999. The Chief Judge has instituted a two-part strategy to ensure that this goal is met -- case process improvement, including close monitoring of case performance with established criteria for grouping more complex or large cases, and improved management information systems. The Chief Judge will employ additional judicial management techniques to improve case processing. These include early judicial controls of cases, strong management and monitoring of the progress of cases by both the judges and the Chief Judge, early review and screening of the potentially difficult cases and their expedited assignment, adherence to scheduling orders with time goals that are appropriate to the complexity of each case, and monitoring so that cases are promptly put on the trial calendar. The Chief Judge will shorten the date of assignment to a judge, provide guidance and training to judges, develop a team of judges to handle complex cases on a rotational basis, report results periodically to the Executive Director, and benchmark other federal judicial processes to assist in streamlining processes and case management. Finally, we will hire additional temporary personnel to assist in processing decisions. For example, in December 1999 the Chief Judge sent a memorandum to all judges establishing procedures for processing cases to assist in improving performance. In the memorandum judges were informed of the need to engage in aggressive case management. Specifically, they were informed to: establish and adhere to deadlines on pleadings, motion discovery; maintain a strict continuance policy; establish a comprehensive pre-hearing order and conference call schedule to identify and simplify issues, and set firm discovery dates; continue a hands-on approach to settlement discussion; schedule trial dates no more than three months after assignment, and in unusual cases, six months; establish calendar calls for cases to conserve travel expenses and judicial travel time; and monitor and track settlement agreements so that cases are timely closed, and if settlement is not forthcoming, issue an order to show cause. In addition, the Review Commission will continue to work on automating its case processing to develop and generate timely reports. The Review Commission will develop improved management information systems to track large or complex cases, and stayed cases, and judicial performance on all cases. We will develop specific reports that can be used to anticipate possible variances of performance and expected performance throughout the year. A "tickler" approach, to alert users of pending action, will be part of the new operating procedures. We will also separately track cases that require extended travel -- Guam, Mariana Islands, Saipan MP, American Samoa -- since these cases tend to increase processing times beyond those contemplated during the development of the goals. Finally, case management statistical information for all judges will be shared among the judges to assist in maintaining a community of interest/knowledge with respect to average ALJ case processing performance. Below is a chart that summarizes the enhanced judicial management efforts that are being or will be used to assist us in reaching our goals established for conventional and E-Z Trial cases which go to hearing.
Discussion of Unmet Performance Target Commission Disposition Commission-level disposition objectives for new and pending cases were not achieved in FY 1999. Overwhelmingly, this was due to vacancies among the three Presidentially-appointed Commissioners in FY 1998 and FY 1999. During the FY 1996-1999 period, all three Commissioners were on board for only about 12 months out of the 36-month period. For over 10 months in FY 1998, only one Commissioner was on board. The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires a quorum of two Commissioners and a vote of two Commissioners to take official action. With only two Commissioners, it is more difficult to reach agreement sufficient to dispose of a case. A larger and more difficult case has a greater likelihood of an impasse. With only one Commissioner, cases cannot be decided. As a result, not only were very few cases issued in FY 1998, in addition to the significantly fewer issued in FY 1998, but also, all other pending cases aged beyond our targeted cycle times. Simultaneously, new cases continued to be docketed on review throughout the period. Decisions by Administrative Law Judges can be directed for review by any single Commissioner. Traditionally, Commissioners have always directed for review cases that each deemed to merit full Commission review. In addition, cases are remanded from the courts of appeals with no action on the part of the Commission. Despite the quorum difficulties, the Commission received 47 and 36 new cases in FY 1998 and FY 1999, respectively. Cycle time is not adjusted when the Commission is undermanned or without a quorum. Because cycle time is measured from the date the case is placed on the docket for review, agency efforts on case productivity and cycle times have been overwhelmed since FY 1997. When a quorum is finally achieved, the retirement of cases older than one year is always a priority, even though these cases impact negatively on Commission cycle time goals. Nevertheless, the body of older cases cannot be ignored to achieve goals on newer cases. At the Commission level, one of the biggest obstacles to achieving the cycle time goals specified in the performance plan is the profile of cases in our inventory. Currently, more than 50 cases are older than two years. A large percentage of these cases are older than four years. As we resolve these old cases that have been on our docket for several years, our average cycle time will inevitably increase since the cycle time for cases is not calculated until a case has been resolved and closed. This creates a dilemma, possibly creating an incentive to resolve last in cases first in order to meet the cycle time. Another challenge that the Commission faces in the review docket is the resolution and issuance of decisions in very large and complex cases. The Commission now has 21 cases pending in this category. Most of the large and complex older cases could not be resolved with fewer than three Commissioners. Preparation of each of these cases consumes a huge amount of Commissioner and attorney time. In turn, work patterns in the General Counsel's office and Commissioners' staffs are distorted and other case work is slowed. These cases present a serious impediment to the consideration of new cases, which also compete for precious work time at the entire review level. Corrective Action We will take corrective action toward improving the cycle time for cases directed for Commission review so that they are completed within the time frames established in the annual performance plans. Commission Disposition With a quorum assured for the remainder of FY 2000, the Commission has developed a plan to focus on the disposition of a balance of older and newer cases. At the same time, with a full complement of Commissioners the resolution of larger, more significant and more complex cases has been identified as a priority. In addition, the Review Commission has budgeted for a temporary increase in personnel to assist in working to dispose of new and older cases. During fiscal years 2000 and 2001 a series of details and temporary hires will be used to expedite the processing of old and complex cases. We have also developed an internal operating plan to assist in the retirement of old and complex cases, while balancing the need to review newer cases. This plan includes maintaining a rigorous schedule of Commission meetings, making all steps in the decisional process more effective and efficient, including greater efficiency in the conduct of Commission meetings, and improved case processing within the Office of the General Counsel. Our plan requires a rigorous schedule of meetings to be used to tentatively decide cases. About 40% of the FY 1999 case production occurred as a result of these efforts. We intend to continue this aggressive schedule. We have scheduled meetings and developed an agenda for each scheduled meeting through the Spring of 2000. All other stages of the process and the associated documents are also under examination as well. For example, cases with similar issues are grouped for consideration where possible, when putting cases on the meeting agenda. This not only aids resolution, but allows for more thorough examination of the issues presented. In addition to a rigorous schedule of meetings, greater efficiency is being sought in the conduct of the meetings. The presentation of larger cases is structured by issue and item to simplify the consideration of issues by the Commissioners and to speed the meetings. The attorneys and chief counsels have engaged in strategic, coordinated efforts to identify non- problematic issues before meetings so as to remove them from the agenda for the meetings. Progress is being made with these very large complex and older cases. Four of the 21 large and complex cases are in draft decision stage and nine more have been prepared for consideration. The Commission also is working to make efficient and effective all steps that are a part of the decisional process despite the fact that, in large part, the manner of operation is idiosyncratic to each group of Commissioners. We have therefore, developed a goal to optimize each contributor and segment in the case management process. A three-day training workshop is being held in May 2000 for Review Commission employees. During that time, the Commissioners and the Office of the General Counsel staff will meet and discuss specific initiatives to improve case processing and goal setting. For example, the Commissioners will work with the Office of the General Counsel to establish response time for draft decisions, and expediting the processing and issuing of Commission-level decisions. Finally, the Office of the General Counsel has created teams to assist in developing certain cases. For example, some large cases are prepared by teams in the General Counsel's office to expedite the presentation. Attorneys have also tried to shorten the length of decisions, however, we have found that the use of short decisions in select cases has been less successful. The General Counsel's office continues to strive to develop methods to shorten case preparation documents so as to be able to concentrate staff effort toward decision writing. Greater use of staff level meetings has also proven to be effective in the processing of cases and has been useful in knowledge management of issues and decisions. We have already seen some increase in productivity. As noted, at the Commission level, we began the process of reducing the inventory of pending older cases. The results of this process should be evident in FY 2000, albeit at a significant cost in our cycle time goal. During FY 1999, when the Commission had a quorum for approximately a nine-month period, there were 43 dispositions as compared to only 13 dispositions in FY 1998. Eighteen of the 43 dispositions (42%) occurred during the last three months of the fiscal year. The size and difficulty of cases, however, suggest that this progress will not be linear. Each case presents individual challenges to optimize its processing. Undoubtedly, over time, as we retire more and more of the older cases, this dilemma of balancing the disposition of older and newer cases will be resolved. But in the meantime, our aggressive retirement of old cases will result in cycle times that far exceed our goals, unless we revise the performance plan to put the older cases on a separate time frame. We have begun discussions with the Office of Management and Budget about realigning the cycle time goals just for this category of cases. At this time, however, our focus is on addressing identified deficiencies in performance. The Commission is also contemplating revising the cycle time for this indicator to reflect the need to ensure that older cases are retired. The current cycle time definition engenders a disincentive to work on cases that are more than one year old, because it will negatively affect the average time for cases decided in a fiscal year. External Communications Goal To significantly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of communications between the Commission and the public, its customers and other stakeholders. P9. External Communications Indicator #1: The extent to which Commission decisions and other publications and case information are made available electronically through the agency's world wide website. Definition: This effort involves three distinct phases in which: (1)the website is established and recent and new decisions and procedural guides and publications are made available (50%); (2) a more complete listing and copies of earlier decisions are added (20%); and (3) docket information on open cases is made available (30%). We intend to eliminate #3 because of a lack of interest by our customers.
Report: We met our goal. We completed our initial website development in FY 1998 and all current decisions are placed on the website within days of receipt and cases date back to 1993. The remaining 30 percent of the goal was to be dedicated to the development of a docket sheet/case status listing which has been eliminated due to a lack of customer/stakeholder interest. However, we will continue to enhance our website, including improvement in search capabilities.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fiscal
Year 1999