Skip to content

RECAP’s Steve Schultze at the Gov 2.0 Expo

2009 September 8
by recapthelaw

RECAP co-author Steve Schultze is having a busy month. Last week, he released a new paper called “Electronic Public Access Fees and the United States Federal Courts’ Budget: An Overview.” It provides a comprehensive overview of PACER’s budget. It explains how the courts decide how much to charge for PACER and how the money is spent. It’s an invaluable roadmap for anyone interested in understanding the debate over PACER’s future.

Today, Steve is at the Gov 2.0 Expo giving a talk about RECAP. If you’re at the expo as well, we hope you’re planning to go to the talk, which starts at 10:50. If not, you can see a pre-recorded version of his talk here:

Finally, next week Steve will start his new job as associate director of the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton, which is the home of RECAP and its other co-authors. The rest of the RECAP team is excited that we’ll soon have Steve as a colleague as well as a co-author.

2 Responses leave one →
  1. September 9, 2009

    Steve Schultze’s preliminary paper of Electronic Public Access Fees and the United States Federal Courts’ Budget was enlightening and disturbing.

    As a non-attorney and average man who has been significantly impeded by PACER’s fees, I was disturbed by the fact that such fees go well beyond support and funding of public access to public records. I had assumed that PACER, also, funded the ECF system, which in my view it should not do, but, in addition, funded many other of the federal court’s IT needs.

    PACER fee waivers do not serve the need. Members of the general public are excluded from such waivers.

    Consistent with Judicial Conference policy, courts may, upon a showing of cause, exempt indigents, bankruptcy case trustees, individual researchers associated with educational institutions, courts, section 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organizations, court appointed pro bono attorneys, and pro bono ADR neutrals from payment of these fees.

    One item that appears to be rather strange within the Judiciary Information Technology Fund Annual Report of 2006 is the line item funding source of Deposits from Salaries and Expenses Account in the amount of Two Hundred Sixty Million Dollars ($260,000,000.00). Perhaps the Judicial Conference and Administrative Offices need to take the JITF mainstream and not treat IT requirements as a bastard child. Ask Congress for direct funding. Keep two things in mind. Public records belong to the public. “Equal access” and “equal justice” are trump cards.

  2. Anonymous permalink
    September 10, 2009

    Improve PACER!
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/improve-PACER

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS