Performance Evaluation of Federal Administrative Law Judges: Challenge for Public Administration?

American Review of Public Administration

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 390-401

  Musolf, Lloyd ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346243583     PISSN: 02750740     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/027507409802800404     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS). (1992). Administrative Conference of the United States: Recommendations and reports, 1992 (2 vols.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Offite.
2. Administrative Procedure Act: Legislative history, 79th Congress, 1944-1946. (1946). S. 248, 79th Cong., 2d. sess.
3. Felter, E. L., Jr. (1997, Winter). Maintaining the balance between judicial independence and account-ability in administrative law. Judges' Journal, 36, 22-23, 54.
4. Gardner, W. W. (1972). The Administrative Conference of the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 400, 36-45.
5. Gellhorn, W. (1996, Spring). Birth pangs of the Administrative Procedure Act. Administrative Law Journal of the American University, 10, 51-54.
6. General Accounting Office. (1989). Social Security: Many administrative law judges oppose productivity initiatives (Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives; GAO Publication No. HRD-90-15). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
7. General Accounting Office. (1992). Administrative law judges: Allegations of interference by the De-partment of the Interior (Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate; GAO Report No. GGD-93-6). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
8. General Accounting Office. (1995). Social Security Disability: Management action and program design needed to address long-standing problems (Testimony of Jane L. Ross, Director, Income Security Issues, before the Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives; GAO Publication No. T-HEHS-95-233). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
9. Gifford, D. J. (1997, Winter). Federal administrative law judges: The relevance of past choices to future directions. Administrative Law Review, 49, 1-60.
10. Gladstone, A. A. (1979, Spring). The adjudicative process in administrative law. Administrative Law Review, 31, 237-245.
11. Hoffman, R., & Cihlar, F. P. (1995). Judicial independence: Can it be without Article III? Mercer Law Review, 46, 863-882.
12. Koch, C. H., Jr. (1994, Summer). Administrative presiding officials today. Administrative Law Review, 46, 271-295.
13. Lubbers, J. S. (1993). The federal administrative judiciary: Establishing an appropriate system of performance evaluation for ALJs. Administrative Law Journal, 7, 589-612.
14. Lubbers, J. S. (1996, Spring). APA-Adjudication: Is the quest for uniformity faltering? Administrative Law Journal of the American University, 10, 65-80.
15. Lubbers, J. S. (1997, Winter). The administrative law agenda for the next decade. Administrative Law Review, 159-169.
16. Mashaw, J. L. (1978). Social Security hearings and appeals: A study of the Social Security Administration hearing system. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
17. Moore, C. M. (1994, Summer). SSA disability adjudication in crisis! Judges' Journal, 33, 2-4, 6, 8-9, 39-46.
18. Musolf, L. D. (1953). Federal examiners and the conflict of law and administration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
19. National Conference of Administrative Law Judges (NCALJ). (1992, Spring). Administrative. Judges' Journal, 34, 18, 43-45.
20. National Conference of Administrative Law Judges (NCALJ). (1994, Fall). Administrative. Judges' Journal, 33, 24, 33-34.
21. National Conference of Administrative Law Judges (NCALJ). (1995a, Winter). Administrative. Judges' Journal, 34, 26, 35.
22. National Conference of Administrative Law Judges (NCALJ). (1996, Summer). Administrative. Judges' Journal, 35, 30, 38.
23. O'Brien, D. M., & Wise, C. (1985, November). A symposium: Law and administration, symposium editors' foreword [Special issue]. Public Administration Review, 45, 641.
24. O'Keeffe, L. H. (1986, May). Administrative law judges, performance evaluation, and production standards: Judicial performance versus employee accountability. George Washington Law Review, 54, 591-627.
25. A proposal to restructure the Social Security Administration's disability determination process: Hearing before the Subcommittee of the committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1994).
26. Ramspeck v. Federal Trial Examiners Conference, 345 U.S. 128, 132 (1953).
27. Rippey, C. P. (1993, Spring). Undermining the Administrative Procedure Act: How ACUS threatens the independence of federal administrative law judges. Judges' Journal, 12-15, 45-47.
28. Scalia, A. (1979, Fall). The ALJ fiasco - A reprise. University of Chicago Law Review, 47, 57-80.
29. Steers, R. M., & Black, J. S. (1994). Organizational behavior (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
30. Timony, J. P. (1993). Performance evaluation of federal judges. Administrative Law Journal, 7, 629-657.
31. U.S. Statutes at Large, 1905-1907 (vol. 34). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
32. Yoder, R. A. (1993, Fall). Disability in disarray: SSA problems go beyond judge-agency conflicts. Judges' Journal, 36-37.