Background Purpose and Structure of  the Judicial Conference  and AOUSC The Judicial Conference of the United States is the national policy-making  body of the federal courts. The Chief Justice of the United States is the  presiding officer of the Judicial Conference. The Conference operates  through a network of 20 committees, including the Committee on  Financial Disclosure. The Judicial Conference delegated authority to  redact information from a financial disclosure report to the Committee on  Financial Disclosure. Upon request from a judicial official, the committee,  in consultation with the USMS, redacts the information when it decides  that revealing such personal or sensitive information could endanger the  judicial official or a member of his or her family. Responsibilities of the  Committee on Financial Disclosure include reviewing reports filed,  adjudicating requests for redactions of information from the report,  approving and modifying reporting forms and instructions, and monitoring  the release of reports to ensure compliance with statute and the  committee’s guidance. The Judicial Conference of the United States is  responsible for implementing the judiciary’s redaction authority in a  manner that provides judicial officials with the intended security measures  without compromising timely public access to judicial officials’ financial  disclosure reports. AOUSC is the agency within the judicial branch that provides a broad  range of legislative, legal, financial, technology, management,  administrative, and program support services to federal courts. It is  responsible for carrying out Judicial Conference policies, and one of its  primary responsibilities is to provide staff support and counsel to the  Judicial Conference and its committees, including the Committee on  Financial Disclosure. The Director of AOUSC serves as the Secretary to  the Judicial Conference and is an ex officio member of the Executive  Committee. Legislative Basis for Filing  Financial Disclosure  Reports The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, requires specified  judicial, legislative, and executive branch officials to file annual financial  disclosure reports in the spring of each year. These reports include  financial information for the previous calendar year. Financial disclosure  reports are made up of nine parts—positions, agreements, non- investment income, reimbursements, gifts, liabilities, investments and  trusts, explanatory comments, and certification and signature. (See  appendix I for a copy of a blank annual financial disclosure report). In addition to filing an annual report, covered judicial officials are required  to file financial disclosure reports when nominated (nomination report);  within 30 days of taking office (initial report); and within 30 days of leaving  their position (final report)—see table 1. Federal law also requires that copies of judicial officials’ financial  disclosure reports be made available, upon written request, to members  of the public. Judicial officials may request that certain information be  redacted before their financial disclosure reports are sent to the  requesting individuals. Legislative Basis for  Judicial Redaction  Authority The judiciary’s authority to redact information from financial disclosure  reports was established in 1998 and was initially authorized for a 3-year  period. That legislation also instituted an annual congressional reporting  requirement for the judiciary on the operation of the redaction authority.  Over the past 20 years, the judiciary’s redaction authority and reporting  requirement have been successively reauthorized for various periods of  time, but have lapsed on occasion. The authority was most recently  reauthorized on March 23, 2018 through the end of 2027. According to AOUSC officials, while the redaction authority lapsed, the  Committee on Financial Disclosure did not grant any new redaction  requests, but it did grant requests to continue redactions that were  approved prior to December 31, 2017. The Judiciary’s Process  for Adjudicating Redaction  Requests and Responding  to Requests for Copies of  Financial Disclosure  Reports The Judicial Conference, through its Committee on Financial Disclosure,  has developed a multistep process for reviewing federal judges’ requests  for redactions of information from their financial disclosure reports and  requests for copies of these reports, as shown in figure 1. While the  committee encourages judicial officials to request redactions at the time  they file their financial disclosure reports, AOUSC officials stated that  most redaction requests were made after judicial officials were notified  that copies of their reports had been requested. A judicial official may request a redaction of information when his or her  financial disclosure report is filed or after receiving a notification of a  request for a copy of his or her financial disclosure report. When  requesting a redaction, the judicial official must state specifically what  information is sought to be redacted and the justification for the redaction.  The Committee on Financial Disclosure will determine, in consultation  with the USMS, if the information could endanger the judicial official or an  immediate family member. For redaction requests involving information  pertaining to the unsecured location of (1) a spouse’s employer, (2) a  child’s school, or (3) a primary or secondary residence, a separate  security consultation is not required based on an agreement AOUSC  reached with the USMS memorialized in a 2004 letter that, in essence,  serves as a security consultation. For all other types of information  requested to be redacted, a further USMS security consultation is  required. Taking into account the information provided by the judicial officials, as  well as results from the USMS security consultations, members of the  Subcommittee on Public Access and Security, a subcommittee under the  Committee on Financial Disclosure, decide—by majority vote—to either  grant (in whole or in part) or deny each redaction request. Such  redactions are good until the end of the calendar year in which they are  granted. The Committee on Financial Disclosure notifies the judicial  official if the information requested to be redacted has been granted,  granted in part, or denied. Judicial officials can appeal a redaction  decision; however, according to AOUSC officials, there were no appeals  from 2012 through 2016, the time period covered by our review. The Judicial  Conference Has  Developed  Procedures to Ensure  Judicial Officials File  Financial Disclosure  Reports, and More  Than 4,000 Reports  Are Filed Annually The Judicial Conference’s Committee on Financial Disclosure has  developed an electronic report filing system, written guidance, and a  compliance process to help ensure judicial officials file their financial  disclosure reports. Specifically, in 2011, AOUSC switched from having  judicial officials file financial disclosure reports in hard copy to electronic  filing through an online electronic depository, Financial Disclosure Online  Filing System (FiDO). AOUSC also uses a separate internal electronic  database (LEGO) to track compliance with financial disclosure report  filings. LEGO contains the entire database of judicial filers, including  what reports should be filed, the dates financial disclosure reports are  due, and which are in process. The Committee on Financial Disclosure  stated in September 2014 that FiDO had been upgraded, but committee  members continued to experience limitations with the system. For  example, according to AOUSC officials, FiDO does not keep track of  which reports are in process or when they are due. Accordingly, the  committee members authorized an assessment to look for an alternative  system that would meet their needs and, by 2016, had selected software  currently being used by the government to be customized for the  judiciary. According to AOUSC officials, the plan is for the Judiciary  Electronic Filing System (JEFS) to replace both FiDO and LEGO and be  used for filing financial disclosure reports and tracking compliance with  filing requirements beginning in 2019. The Committee on Financial Disclosure also provides guidance to judicial  officials to ensure that financial disclosure reports are filed correctly. The  types of guidance provided include the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Filing  Instructions for Judicial Officers and Employees, and a Step by Step  Guide for the Preparation and Electronic Filing of Financial Disclosure  Reports. Additionally, members of the Committee on Financial Disclosure  are to review each filed financial disclosure report to confirm that required  items have been sufficiently reported and that the filer is in compliance  with applicable laws and regulations. In addition, for some sections,  members of the committee will compare information provided in a filed  report with what was reported in a prior year’s report to ensure the  information reported is accurate and consistent. The Committee on Financial Disclosure also provides guidance on the  process to be followed if a judicial official fails to file a required financial  disclosure report. Specifically, the Guide to Judiciary Policy states that a  late filing fee of $200 will be assessed if a report is filed more than 30  days after the report is due. Further, the Chairman of the Committee on  Financial Disclosure is to write a letter to any noncompliant filer. In addition to the guidance described above, in 2013, the Committee on  Financial Disclosure reported that it would establish specific procedures  for securing filer compliance with all reporting requirements and the late  filing assessments. In 2014, the Committee reported on the successful  implementation of these new policies. Part of this effort included  developing templates for three successive communications that are to be  provided to a noncompliant filer. The communications reflect a  progressively increasing level of urgency in language and content,  culminating in explicit warnings that if a noncompliant filer does not  comply, the matter can be referred to the Attorney General. From calendar years 2012 through 2016, more than 4,000 financial  disclosure reports were required to be filed each year by judicial officials,  as shown in table 2. Most of the reports filed were annual reports. According to AOUSC officials, as of March 2018, all annual financial  disclosure reports required to be filed from calendar years 2012 through  2016 were filed, except for one for calendar year 2015. Additionally, all  nominee and initial financial disclosure reports required to be filed during  this time period were filed, and all but one final financial disclosure report,  for calendar year 2016, were filed. The AOUSC officials stated that the  remaining final report is still pending and the compliance process is being  followed to ensure the report will be filed. The Judiciary is  Complying with  Procedures for  Responding to  Requests for  Financial Disclosure  Reports and the  Number of Reports  Released Has Varied  from 2012 through  2016 The judiciary is complying with the Judicial Conference’s Guide to  Judiciary Policy (Volume 2, Part D, Chapters 3-4), which sets forth the  process for releasing financial disclosure reports. First, members of the  public may request financial disclosure reports by submitting Form AO  10A (see appendix II for a blank copy of the Form AO 10A). The  Committee on Financial Disclosure notifies the judicial official that a Form  AO 10A has been received and provides the official with a copy. At that  time, the judicial official has up to 10 days to decide whether or not to  request that information from the financial disclosure report be redacted.  Once the members of the Subcommittee on Public Access and Security  have reviewed any redaction requests and any accompanying USMS  security consultation results, the members vote on whether or not to grant  redactions and then forward the results to AOUSC staff for final  processing. In March 2017, the Judicial Conference approved the release  of financial disclosure reports by electronic storage device free of charge  in order to expedite the release of requested reports. As a result, once  AOUSC staff receive the redaction decisions from the Subcommittee,  AOUSC staff are to ensure that approved redactions are made to the  financial disclosure reports, and then download the reports to electronic  storage devices to mail to the requesting parties. The AOUSC received, on average, about 70 requests for copies of  judicial officials’ financial disclosure reports each year from calendar  years 2012 through 2016 using the AO 10A request form. The form can  include a request for the financial disclosure report of one judicial official,  or for multiple judicial officials. Additionally, the form could include a  request for multiple years of financial disclosure reports. Based on the AO  Form 10As received from calendar years 2012 through 2016, AOUSC  released approximately 16,000 financial disclosure reports. The number  of financial disclosure reports released each year varied during this time  period, as shown in table 3. According to AOUSC officials, the number of financial disclosure reports  released each year varies based on the number of requests received and  the time of year the requests are submitted. For example, a requester  might submit a Form AO 10A late in the calendar year and the requested  reports could be released the following calendar year based on how long  it takes to process the request. AOUSC officials noted that there are two  organizations that have requested copies of the financial disclosure  reports for all federal judges every year. In 2016 AOUSC received the  requests late in the year and, therefore, were not able to release the  reports until 2017. Few Judicial Officials  Requested  Redactions and They  Pertained Mostly to  the Unsecured  Location of Family  Members, but the  Judiciary Has Not  Reported Redaction  Results to Congress  in a Timely Manner On Average, 3.2 Percent  of Judicial Officials  Requested Redactions  from 2012 through 2016 The number of judicial officials who requested redactions represents a  small percentage of the total number of financial disclosure reports filed in  recent years. As shown in table 4, the number of redaction requests  ranged from a low of 112 in 2014 to a high of 162 in 2012 and 2015. For calendar years 2012 through 2016, there were a total of 716 requests  for redaction of information from judicial officials’ financial disclosure  reports—711 from judges and 5 from judicial employees—with a yearly  average of about 143 redaction requests. In particular, for calendar years  2012 through 2016, judicial officials’ redaction requests accounted for, on  average, 3.2 percent of the total financial disclosure reports filed during  this time period, as shown in table 5. When we segregated the results by  judges and judicial employees, we found that, on average, 5.8 percent of  judges requested redactions compared to 0.1 percent of judicial  employees over the 5 year time period. Of the 3.2 percent of financial disclosure reports that included redaction  requests made from 2012 through 2016, on average, about 85 percent  were granted, 3 percent were partially granted, and 12 percent were  denied, as seen in figure 2. Most Redaction Requests  Pertained to the  Unsecured Location of a  Judicial Official or  Immediate Family Member We analyzed AOUSC data on redaction requests made from calendar  years 2012 through 2016 by type of information requested to be redacted  and found that the majority (about 76 percent) of the requested redactions  pertained to information related to the unsecured location of a judicial  official or an immediate family member. The next biggest category of  information requested to be redacted was the “other” category, with 10.4  percent. Three categories—asset value, gifts, and reimbursement—each accounted for less than 1 percent of the redaction requests, as  shown in Figure 3. AOUSC Has Not  Submitted Required  Annual Redaction Reports  to Congress in a Timely  Manner We requested copies of the annual redaction reports submitted to  Congress for calendar years 2012 through 2016 and determined that  AOUSC had not submitted the annual redaction reports to congressional  committees of jurisdiction in a timely manner. Specifically, we found that  AOUSC submitted the annual report covering 2012 in May 2014 and  submitted four annual reports (for calendar years 2013 through 2016) in  February and August of 2017, as shown in table 6. For the 2013 and  2014 annual reports, AOUSC prepared and submitted them to the  congressional committees of jurisdiction after we asked for them. AOUSC officials told us that they could not find evidence that they had  submitted the annual reports for calendar years 2013 and 2014 to the  committees of jurisdiction in a timely manner. However, AOUSC staff sent  a 5-year report to congressional committees of jurisdiction in March 2017  that included information on redaction requests and results for calendar  years 2012 through 2016. Thus, the congressional committees of  jurisdiction had received no reports from AOUSC on redaction requests  and results from May 2014 to February 2017. While the Ethics in  Government Act of 1978, as amended, does not set a specific submission  date, it requires that AOUSC submit an annual report (i.e., occurring once  every year) to congressional committees of jurisdiction on the operation of  the judiciary’s redaction authority. As shown in table 8 above, AOUSC did  not submit an annual report every year, and there was an interval of  almost three years (from May 2014 to February 2017) in which there is no  record of AOUSC providing any annual redaction reports to Congress. AOUSC officials stated that although there are no reporting time frames  specified in legislation for preparing and submitting the reports to the  congressional committees of jurisdiction (other than annual submission),  beginning in 2016, AOUSC staff began to work on preparing the redaction  report for the previous year by February of the following year. The  AOUSC officials acknowledged, though, that they have not implemented  a formal process, with designated steps and time frames, to ensure they  consistently produce the annual redaction reports in a timely manner. The  AOUSC officials also stated that since 2013, the Financial Disclosure  Office—the office responsible for preparing the reports—had experienced  a series of changes in management, as well as staff turnover in key  positions, which contributed to the inconsistent process for developing  and completing the annual redaction reports in a timely manner. Given  that AOUSC experienced staff turnover in the past, and could experience  it in the future, it is important that AOUSC has the necessary controls in  place to overcome staffing issues and ensure that it consistently prepares  and submits the annual redaction reports to the committees in a timely  manner. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  management should implement control activities by documenting  responsibilities through policies for each unit. With guidance from  management, each unit determines the policies necessary to achieve the  desired objectives. Management should also define objectives in specific  terms so they are understood at all levels. This involves clearly defining  what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and  the time frames for achievement. AOUSC officials stated that the annual  reports cannot be compiled until after the close of the previous calendar  year and after all data have been reviewed. While this is true, without a  formal process for ensuring that staff complete the reports in a timely  manner, there are no assurances that the process will consistently occur  on a regular schedule, or at all. Implementing a more formal process, with  specified steps and time frames, would ensure staff are fully informed of  their responsibilities and allow AOUSC to be better positioned to provide  the congressional committees of jurisdiction with timely redaction reports  that can be used to conduct oversight of the federal judiciary’s use of its  redaction authority. Conclusions The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, serves the public  interest by providing access to selected information from financial  disclosure reports filed by judicial officials that could represent conflicts of  interest for these officials. At the same time, the law accounts for the  security threats faced by judicial officials and grants the judiciary authority  to redact personal and sensitive information from their financial disclosure  reports if a finding is made that the release of the information could  endanger these officials or members of their families. Thus, the Judicial  Conference has a responsibility to balance the goals of safeguarding  judicial officials’ information and providing timely public access. The  Judicial Conference developed a compliance process to ensure judicial  officials were filing financial disclosure reports that adhere to applicable  laws and regulations, and also had procedures in place to ensure the  public had access to copies of judicial officials’ financial disclosure reports  when requested. While the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as  amended, provides the Judicial Conference with authority to redact  information that could pose a security threat to judicial officials, this  authority has been used sparingly. From 2012 through 2016, about 3.2  percent of financial disclosure reports included a redaction request and  about 85 percent of those were approved. Nevertheless, the law requires  AOUSC to submit an annual report to congressional committees of  jurisdiction on the operation of the judiciary’s redaction authority, including  information on the total number of reports with redactions and the types of  information redacted. Our review of available guidance and  documentation shows that AOUSC has not implemented a formal process  for producing annual redaction reports and has not submitted these  reports to Congress in a timely manner. Implementing a more formal  process, with specified steps and timeframes, would allow AOUSC to be  better positioned to provide congressional committees of jurisdiction with  the required annual redaction reports that can be used to conduct  oversight of the federal judiciary’s use of its redaction authority. This is  particularly important given that Congress recently passed an extension  to the judiciary’s redaction authority through the end of 2027. Recommendation for  Executive Action The Director of AOUSC should develop and implement a formal process,  with specified steps and associated time frames, to better ensure that  required annual redaction reports are completed and submitted to  Congress within the following year. Agency Comments  and Our Evaluation In April 2018, we requested comments on a draft of this report from DOJ,  USMS, and AOUSC. Neither DOJ nor USMS had any comments.   AOUSC provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into  the report, as appropriate. In particular, based on AOUSC comments, we  amended the report title to provide greater clarity into the subject matter  of the report and added additional text to the conclusions section to better  address all aspects of the report’s findings. In addition to its technical  comments, AOUSC provided an official letter for inclusion in the report,  which can be seen in appendix III. In its letter, AOUSC stated it concurred  with the recommendation and will determine how best to implement a  more formalized process to better ensure it can submit annual redaction  reports to Congress in a timely manner. We are sending copies of this report to the Administrative Office of the  U.S. Courts, the Attorney General, the United States Marshals Service,  selected congressional committees, and other interested parties. In  addition, this report is also available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. Key contributions to this reported are listed  in appendix III. Appendix I: Administrative Office of the U.S.  Courts Form AO 10: Blank Financial  Disclosure Report for Calendar Year 2016 Appendix II: Administrative Office of the U.S.  Courts Form AO 10A Used for Requesting  Copies of Judicial Officials’ Financial Appendix III: Comments from the  Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff  Acknowledgements GAO Contact Staff  Acknowledgements In addition to the contact named above, Christopher Conrad (Assistant  Director) and Valerie Kasindi (Analyst-in-Charge) managed this  assignment. Kristiana Moore, Dominick Dale, Melissa Hargy, Eric  Hauswirth, Amanda Miller, Jerry Sandau, and Janet Temko-Blinder made  key contributions to this report.
Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, federal judges and certain judicial employees must file financial disclosure reports that can be made available to the public. Federal law accounts for the potential security risks of the judiciary and authorizes the redaction of information from judicial officials' reports if the Judicial Conference, in consultation with the United States Marshals Service (USMS), finds that revealing certain information could endanger judicial officials or members of their families. This report addresses the following for calendar years 2012 through 2016, the most recent years for which full data were available: (1) Actions taken by the Judicial Conference to ensure judicial officials file financial disclosure reports, and the number of reports filed; (2) The judiciary's compliance with procedures for responding to requests for financial disclosure reports and the number of reports released; and (3) The number of redaction requests made, the types of information requested to be redacted, and the judiciary's consistency in reporting results to Congress in a timely manner. GAO interviewed AOUSC and USMS officials, reviewed relevant laws and guidance, and analyzed data on redaction requests. The Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's principle policy-making body, developed an electronic filing system, guidance, and a compliance process to help ensure judicial officials file financial disclosure reports that adhere to applicable laws and regulations, and data provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) show that more than 4,000 reports were required to be filed annually from 2012 through 2016. According to AOUSC officials, as of March 2018, all financial disclosure reports required to be filed from 2012 through 2016 were filed, except for one in 2015 and one in 2016. AOUSC officials are working with the filers to ensure these reports will be filed. The Judicial Conference established procedures for responding to requests for copies of financial disclosure reports, and the number of reports released has varied. From 2012 through 2016, AOUSC annually received, on average, about 70 requests for copies of judicial officials' reports and released approximately 16,000 reports during this time. Each request can vary—from a request for a single judicial official's report to a request for multiple judicial officials' reports. From 2012 through 2016, a small percentage of judicial officials requested redactions from their financial disclosure reports. On average, 3.2 percent of financial disclosure reports filed included a redaction request and about 85 percent of those requests were granted. Of the information requested to be redacted, about 76 percent was related to the unsecured location of a judicial official's spouse, child, or residence. AOUSC is required by federal law to submit annual reports to Congress on use of the judicial redaction authority, such as the number of reports with redactions and types of information redacted, but AOUSC has not consistently submitted the reports on an annual basis in recent years. GAO found that AOUSC does not have a formal process for preparing and submitting the reports to Congress. Implementing a more formal process, with specified steps and timeframes, would better position AOUSC to provide Congress with more timely reports.