Skip to main content

Federal Judiciary: Assessing and Formally Documenting Financial Disclosure Procedures Could Help Ensure Balance between Judges' Safety and Timely Public Access

GAO-04-696NI Published: Jun 30, 2004. Publicly Released: Jul 30, 2004.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

The Ethics in Government Act requires judges and other federal officials to file financial disclosure reports as a check on conflicts of interest. However, given potential security risks to federal judges, Congress authorized redactions of information that could endanger them. This redaction authority is set to expire at the end of 2005. To assist in deliberations about whether to extend the authority, this report discusses (1) the number of redaction requests filed and the proportion granted, (2) the basis for the decisions regarding redactions requested during 1999 through 2002, (3) the judiciary's procedures for safeguarding information without unduly compromising public access, and (4) the release of reports for selected legislative and executive branch officials.

Recommendations

Recommendations for Executive Action

Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Judicial Conference of the United States So that the Judicial Conference can provide reasonable assurance that it is implementing its redaction authority in a manner that provides the safety measures intended without unduly compromising timely public access, it should determine, fully document, and follow formal procedures for processing public requests for reports and redaction requests, including establishing target times for each step in the process.
Closed – Implemented
The Judicial Conference Committee of the United States has now set a response time of 10 (rather than 14) days for judges to respond to notifications of requests for release of their reports, and it is now providing those notifications by fax or e-mail except with respect to "omnibus" requests (e.g., those seeking copies of all judges' reports for a given year or years). It has also established expedited review procedures to reduce the time needed to respond to release and redaction requests. In addition, the U.S. Marshalls Service (USMS) changed its policy for responding to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) requests for information regarding the security of Federal Judges prior to publication of the report. As of April 2004, the USMS no longer made specific recommendations on the redaction of the information contained in judicial financial disclosure reports and updated its form letters used for this process to reflect this change. Under the updated process, the USMS provided information on security environments, but the AOUSC, exclusively, determined whether a judicial financial disclosure report should be released and made any and all necessary redactions from the report.
Judicial Conference of the United States So that the Judicial Conference can provide reasonable assurance that it is implementing its redaction authority in a manner that provides the safety measures intended without unduly compromising timely public access, it should assess the current practices and procedures for processing redaction requests and public requests for disclosure reports with the goal of managing requester expectations and providing requested reports as expeditiously as possible.
Closed – Implemented
The Judicial Conference Committee of the United States has now set a response time of 10 (rather than 14) days for judges to respond to notifications of requests for release of their reports, and it is now providing those notifications by fax or e-mail except with respect to "omnibus" requests (e.g., those seeking copies of all judges' reports for a given year or years). It has also established expedited review procedures to reduce the time needed to respond to release and redaction requests. In addition, the U.S. Marshalls Service (USMS) changed its policy for responding to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) requests for information regarding the security of Federal Judges prior to publication of the report. As of April 2004, the USMS no longer made specific recommendations on the redaction of the information contained in judicial financial disclosure reports and updated its form letters used for this process to reflect this change. Under the updated process, the USMS provided information on security environments, but the AOUSC, exclusively, determined whether a judicial financial disclosure report should be released and made any and all necessary redactions from the report.
United States Marshals Service The Unites States Marshals Service should develop and implement procedures to ensure that it complies with the requirements of the Ethics in Government Act by responding to all consultation requests from the Judicial Conference.
Closed – Implemented
In May 2004, the U.S. Marshalls Service (USMS) implemented several new procedures intended to ensure that the Marshall Service responds to all security consultation requests within the prescribed period.

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Conflict of interestsFinancial disclosureFinancial recordsSecurity threatsInformation disclosureInternal controlsJudgesReporting requirementsPersonal informationPolicies and procedures