I have just completed collecting all the chronological files of the chairman and placing same in a central research corner. They appear complete.

The central correspondence files for the Tribunal including correspondence with the legislative bodies, other agencies, interested parties and counsel, public inquiries and general office business correspondence are extremely sketchy after 1980. There appears to be no way to determine what is missing. My concern now is to try and collect all that is available and place it in one central file for the use and history of the Tribunal.

Our library contains very limited reference materials. Upon arriving ordered the 1984 pocketpart for Title 17, USC, the Copyright Act, as our only copy had a 1979 pocketpart.

I ordered the current 37 CFR which contains our rules of procedure. The version inhouse and being distributed to the public had been superceded.

I ordered Title 47, USC, the Communications Act and the current pocketpart as the only copy inhouse is the 1970 USCA, (superceded). It has not arrived.

There was one law review article on the Tribunal, inhouse. I have determined that over thirty have been written and I will strive to purchase these.

I have purchased the last two volumes (1977 & 1978) of Copyright decisions printed by the Copyright Office, to update our series. I have compiled our determinations into one notebook for the General Counsel's staff of the Copyright Office so they may include our determinations in their series.

We read approximately 15 trade journals on a periodic basis. Files used to be kept of the articles of interest to the Tribunal in these periodicals. I have discovered that this collection became rather sketchy after about 1982. I had the files repaired and organized and have re-instituted the practice of clipping and preserving relevant articles for use, research and archival purposes.

I have researched our legislative history and collected several copies each of the House Report 94-1476, Senate Report 94-473 and Conference Report 94-1733 for the Commissioners and for our archives.

use

I have reviewed the miscellaneous materials in the library and filed it into categorical files, two of which were abstracted by a volunteer law student. He reviewed the Australian and British Copyright Royalty Tribunal materials but found that our files contained information only as current as 1980. There are several more such files which need to be abstracted and updated for basic information.

There is enough library work to employ a voluntary legal extern on a permanent basis. I strongly recommend this.

5) LEGAL COUNSEL

We have retained outside counsel to do a review of our internal policies and of our hearing procedures. We expect this report in January. Meanwhile we have solicited comments on our procedure from interested parties and we shall analyze those comments along with our commissioned report to possibly restructure our rules of procedure and our internal policy practices.

I have discovered in my visits with legislators that both House and Senate Judiciary Committees have strongly advised that the Tribunal hire counsel and have appropriated funds for the FY 84 and FY 85 specifically for that purpose. Apparently the earlier Commissioners felt that a General Counsel was not necessary.

I became chairman on December 1 and on December 2 we began advertising to hire a General Counsel. We closed receipt of resumes on December 14. Needless to say we were deluged with approximately fifty extremely impressive resumes. I had hoped

to start interviews on December 17 so that we might have counsel inhouse by January, however, the other commissioners felt that we should not begin interviews until January 3. Interviews have been set up in accordance with their wishes. I am hopeful that we will make our choice by January 11.

6) OFFICE STAFF

In 1977 the Tribunal determined that each commissioner shall have one confidential aide. We are presently staffed with three confidential aides. I hired my aide in August 1984. The other two aides were hired in 1977 and 1980 and have been rehired when their respective original commissioners retired. In 1977 the Tribunal also determined that each aide shall report only to their respective Commissioner despite the legislative mandate and history that states the aides shall work for the Tribunal. This segmentation of staff probably contributed to the incomplete central files. Each aide kept files for their respective Commissioner and it is apparent that much of these

files were taken with each commissioner as he and his aide departed. No one in particular was charged with maintaining a central file for the Tribunal. Therefore, it was done haphazardly if at all.

The Chairman's aide was charged with maintaining the central case files however that person changed each year. Apparently none had any paralegal training, therefore the case files for each year are organized differently. This makes retrieval of information for precedent-following purposes extremely difficult.

The budget function has remained with one aide for several years, however she reports only to her Commissioner, so requests for budget information must go through that Commissioner. Nothing is automatically circulated.

An incoming Commissioner who brings his own aide, as I did, is greatly disadvantaged by the state of the central files and the segmentation of staff. If material is not obvious in the central file, the new Commissioner must ask a more senior Commissioner to ask his aide to retrieve the information. The new Commissioner must then generate his own file. I have been working since Sept 26 (when Commissioner Coulter and Brennan left) on generating central files. The two senior aides have been resistant. My aide has been more successful in locating missing documents (such as testimony, etc.) by going to outside sources such as outside counsel, legislators staffs, agency staffs, etc. The process is slow and solely dependent on the time and graciousness of outside sources. There is still a great deal of work to be done to reconstruct seven years of agency practice, policy and record-keeping.

My efforts to organize the central files and the staff into areas of expertise to maximize efficiency and communication have been resisted by two of the three aides. However, I feel that such a small agency must be organized around central files and clear delegation of work per staff member, to maximize the use of personnel and minimize recordkeeping and storage. I shall continue working towards these goals despite the inertia.

7) PUBLIC IMAGE

Lastly I have discovered that this Tribunal has had a poor image within the Congress, within Federal agencies, before the industry, the copyright owners and the public. Part of the problem has been an isolationist attitude. I have made courtesy calls to the following offices for the purpose of introducing myself, explaining our functions, and eliciting support, particularly of legislators and federal agencies.

1) Counsel Staff to the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,

2) Counsel Staff to the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives,

3) Several Congressmen who oversee our Tribunal,

4) I am awaiting return calls from several Senators who oversee our Tribunal,

5)

Chairman, FCC,

6) OTA Project Director of Intellectual Property Rights study ($620,000 study commissioned by Congress),

7) Gilbert Gude, Director of Congressional Research Service, 8) General Counsel, Copyright Office and other Copyright Office Counsel,

9)

Library of Congress, administrative officers (who handle our administrative functions),

10) Counsel, Justice Department (who represent us),

11) Many distinguished Copyright and Communications Counsel, (when not involved in hearings).

I am overwhelmed by the positive and supportive responses I have received from all whom I have visited. This encourages me to believe we can make the changes that are necessary to make this Tribunal more effective and successful.

In further response to your joint letter with Congressman Moorhead of December 28, 1984, enclosed find draft language for Title I of H.R. 6164. Some of the language reflects the consensus of the Tribunal. Other examples are the individual views of the Chairman. Further individual views may be forthcoming from the other Commissioners. We hope this documentation will serve as guidance for future legislative proposals regarding the Copyright Royalty Tribunal.

Thank you for your time and interest in the CRT. If there is anything more that you need, please call on us. As always, it is a pleasure to deal with you and your very competent staff.