Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
ACUS committee reviews draft recommendations on organization and management of agency adjudication offices
Loading...
Summary
The Administrative Conference of the United States’ Committee on Adjudication reviewed draft recommendations aimed at improving the structure, resourcing, transparency, and data collection for agency adjudication offices; members requested clearer metrics for timeliness and quality and asked staff to circulate a revised draft ahead of the next meeting.
The Administrative Conference of the United States’ Committee on Adjudication met to review and refine a draft recommendation on the organization, management, and operation of agency adjudication offices. Leah Robbins, staff counsel for the project, opened the meeting and introduced Research Director Jeremy Grabois and project consultant Professor Jennifer Ko of Pepperdine Caruso School of Law.
Professor Ko summarized the report’s scope, saying, “This report studies the organization, management, and operation of agency adjudication offices,” and noting the draft draws on public sources and interviews: nine agencies representing about 15 adjudication offices and 17 interviews with current and former officials and stakeholders. The report narrows its focus to hearing-like adjudications handled by ALJs or administrative judges and appellate review of those hearings.
Committee members probed the draft’s scope and language. Members raised a series of stylistic and substantive edits to the preamble and footnotes, and debated how to cite overlapping authorities. One member urged avoiding mislabeling historical provisions and recommended using statutory citation (for example, 5 U.S.C. §552) rather than attributing provisions inconsistently to the Administrative Procedure Act or the Freedom of Information Act.
On structure and management, members discussed where adjudication offices should sit in agency hierarchies and to whom office heads should report. Charles Iorti of the Department of Education noted agency practice varies: some offices report to the secretary’s office while others are placed under finance or operations and report to a senior career official. Committee members emphasized that reporting relationships can raise concerns about the appearance of independence and that language should reflect statutory or regulatory constraints.
Members also agreed the draft should make transparency recommendations clearer. Professor Ko said some agencies publish detailed handbooks and position explanations while others do not; members urged adding language calling for up-to-date, publicly available descriptions of office functions, position responsibilities, and key processes.
The committee did not take formal votes. Instead, members asked staff and the Committee on Style to incorporate edits, reorder sections so an overarching metric for case completion sits above subcomponents, and cross-reference prior ACUS recommendations on timeliness and quality. Leah Robbins said staff would circulate a revised draft and committee-on-style edits ahead of the next meeting in two weeks. The chair closed the meeting and thanked participants.
