« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Please accept these comments as being constructively made. We look forward to working with you and Commissioners Edward Ray and Mario Aguero during the 99th Congress. In advance, thank you for your time and cooperation.
ROBERT W. KASTENMELER, Chairman
and the Administration of Justice
CARLOS MOORHEAD, Ranking Minority Member
and the Administration of Justice
51-527 0 - 85 - 5
The Honorable Robert W. Kastenmeier
and the Administration of Justice U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Kastenmeier: On behalf of the Tribunal, I would like to thank you for your time and interest as displayed in your joint letter with Congressman Moorhead of December 18, 1984. You will be pleased to know that we are actively in the process of hiring a General Counsel, which selection should be completed shortly. Unfortunately, there is not enough money in the budget to hire a full time economist, however, we hope to have some funds available for economic studies, as needed this year. If a bill such as H.R. 6164 is passed we presume additional funds will be allocated to cover a full time economist. We shall be glad to offer comments on any legislation which impacts on the Copyright Royalty Tribunal. We await your solicitations, Lastly, Commissioners Ray, Aguero and myself are very dedicated to serving the copyright owners, the industry users and the general public whose collective rights and claims have been entrusted to us. With the continued support of your committee and other federal agencies who have helped us during our transition, we hope to deliver a more than satisfactory work product. We thank you again for your time, concern and interest. Sincerely,
Trauanne Thele Holz
Marianne Mele Hall
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
This memo has been generated to provide information on the operations of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal (Tribunal). It does not address the substantative aspects of our hearings or determinations. It discusses the following administrative concerns:
1) Master Case Files
The Copyright Royalty Tribunal commenced operations in November 1977 with five carter appointees: Thomas Brennan, Douglas Coulter, Mary Lou Burg, člarence James, Frances Garcia.
Thomas Brennan and Douglas Coulter served their full seven year terms until September 26, 1984. Mary Lou Burg served until her death in May 1983. Francés Garcia served her full five year term until September 1982. Clarence James resigned in May of 1981. The Chairmanship rotated by seniority. The senior-most commissioner (Thomas Brennan) served whenever there was a default in the chairmanship.
The present Tribunal consists of three Reagan appointees; Edward Ray, February 1982, Mario Aguero, May 1984 and Marianne Mele Hall, July 1984. Edward Ray and Marianne Mele Hall will serve until September 1989. Mario Aguero will serve until September 1991.
The Chairmanship history is as follows:
Dec. 79 - Dec. 80
Dec. 80 May 81 Brennan (D) May
Dec. 81 Garcia(D) Dec. 81 - Dec. 82 Ray(R)
Dec. 82 Dec. 83 Brennan(D) Dec. 83
Sep. 84 Ray(R)
Sep. 84 Dec. 84 Hall(R)
Upon arriving at the Tribunal in July, 1984. I was immediately impressed with the lack of organization and the paucity of administrative, reference and archive materials. The following represents some of that which I have discovered and some of the actions I have taken.
1) MASTER CASE FILES.
Since 1977, the Tribunal has determined the distribution of over 130 million dollars representing years 1978 - 1982. There will be approximately 150 million dollars to be distributed for years 1983 and 1984 and the amount will continue to grow accordingly. It has also conducted several major rate proceedings, which impact on the record and cable industries, representing 450 million dollars and 80-100 million dollars yearly, respectively.
These hearings are contained in approximately 22 file drawers. These case files are the only official archives on this agency's proceedings. They should contain all correspondence, pleadings, motions, orders, transcripts, copies of evidence, determinations etc. There are numerous documents missing from these 22 drawers.
A cursory review of one file drawer representing the 1982 cable distribution (compiled under Chairman Thomas Brennan in 1984) revealed that the following documents were missing.
1) Exhibits 8-24 for Devotional claimants, Phase
proceeding. I have approached counsel and the other commissioners and have located and replaced all of these missing documents.
Further examination of this file, in preparation for the appeal now taken in the D.C. Circuit Court reveals that the dispositions of motions before the Tribunal have not been effectively recorded and filed. (See the charts below). CRT 83-1 1982 Cable Royalty Distribution - Motions
9/19/83 CRT Order for NAB Petition
Denied 11/4/83 NAB Motion for Stay
Denied 11/14/83 Petition for Review 11/18/83 Reply comments Re: NAB Motion for Stay 11/18/83 CRT Order for NAB Motion for Stay Denied 11/23/83 NAB Moves To Withdraw Petition
to Review Partial Distribution 5/22/84 Devotionals Request for Extension Granted of Time (verbal)
until 6/11/84 6/13/84 Settling Parties Request Extension
of time 7/30/84 Devotional Motion To Strike 7/31/84 Opposition to Motion To Strike
7/16/84 Motion For Phase II Allocation to
NAB of 0.8 Percent of Syndicated
Program Royalties 7/17/84 CRT Order of NAB 7/16 Motion
Granted 7/17/84 Motion to Dismiss sports claim
of SIN 7/20/84 Response of Program Suppliers
to Motion to Dismiss 7/20/84 Opposition of SIN to Joint Sports
Claimants Motion to Dismiss 8/31/84 Turner Broadcasting/Motion For
Granted Leave to Intervene 9/6/84 CRT Order Turner Motion 9/7/84 Multimedia/Motion to Strike 9/14/84 Opposition to Motion to Strike/ Program Suppliers
? For those motions with a question mark, there appears to be no written order of disposition. It is possible that the disposition was relayed orally in the hearing or over the telephone to interested counsel. Verification of that can possibly be obtained by rereading the transcripts, which should be done. A record of all orders to all motions should be generated, for reference during the appeal and to preserve the precedent.
It should be noted that I was able to easily spot the above deficiencies in this file drawer because I sat in on these hearings. Review of the other 21 drawers of case files will be more difficult since all deficiencies must be deduced by reading the transcripts and through legal reasoning.
In daily operations I have noticed other file deficiencies. For example, in conjunction with an inquiry I discovered that all the original Pre-hearing Statements for the 1980 cable rate determination were missing. I have made copies of the copies in the public information file, as the originals appear lost.