Page 16: of Marine News Magazine (June 2017)

15 17

INSIGHTS

General, provides counsel to the Of? ce of Investigations within the Of? ce of Investigations and Analysis or the Of- and Analysis in all legal matters including S&R proceed- ? ce of the Judge Advocate General for further inquiry. In ings. As such, there are no prohibitions on communications the event an ex parte communication involving the merits between these entities. However, there must be no discus- of a pending case occurs, the presiding ALJ will place it in sion on the merits of pending S&R cases by these entities the record in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 557(d)(1)(C).

with other personnel in the Of? ce of the Judge Advocate

What about Guidelines for the Of? ce of the Chief Ad-

General assigned to prepare proposed decisions on appeal or ministrative Law Judge?

review. Those preparing proposed decisions may, however,

As the advisor and special assistant to the Commandant seek general assistance or guidance from the Of? ce of Mari- time and International Law, the Of? ce of Investigations and on S&R matters and as adviser to the Judge Advocate Gener-

Analysis, or other CG entities regarding current laws, recent al in the preparation of the ? nal action of S&R proceedings, decisions, Coast Guard policies, or marine safety practices to advisory communications are permitted under 46 C.F.R. § aid them in preparing appeal decisions as long as the merits 1.01-20(c) and may include discussions of the law or case administration but not facts relevant to the merits of a pend- of any pending S&R case are not discussed.

Communication guidelines for individuals reporting or ing case. In handling inquiries and requests to examine and investigating an incident of alleged ALJ misconduct must copy records, ALJ Docketing Center personnel are guided by procedures in 33 C.F.R. § 20.903 and 46 C.F.R. Part 5 follow procedures established at: and are not to discuss the merits of any pending case or reveal www.uscg.mil/alj/docs/ALJIPP_5830.1_ALJ_Program_ pre-decisional information. When coordinating responses to

Investigations_and_Complaints_Against_ALJs.pdf.

The directive does not prohibit communications among Freedom of Information Act requests with CG-094, person- nel in the Of? ce of the Chief Administrative Law Judge are the above referenced entities concerning data bases or rel- evant systems and procedures necessary for the ef? cient not to discuss the merits of pending S&R cases or reveal pre- administration of the S&R program such as the Marine decisional information. Personnel in the Of? ce of the Chief

Administrative Law Judge are not to discuss the merits of

Information System for Law Enforcement (MISLE).

pending S&R cases with other members of the Coast Guard during congressional inquiries and regulatory meetings.

Are there guidelines prepared to guide Administra- tive Law Judges in how they conduct themselves and handle individual cases? What is the S&R Proceedings Working Group and what do they do?

Coast Guard ALJs are permitted to consult with ALJ

To ensure the integrity and ef? cient administration of

Program attorneys on all matters including the merits of pending cases. ALJ Program attorneys are responsible for the S&R process, the Vice Commandant established an advising and assisting Coast Guard ALJs in carrying out S&R Working Group consisting of personnel from the Of- ? ce of Investigations and Analysis, to include the S&R Na- their responsibilities. ALJ Program attorneys are also per- mitted to consult with other ALJ Program attorneys but are tional Center of Expertise, the Of? ce of the Chief Admin- expected to avoid ex parte discussions with an ALJ Program istrative Law Judge, and the Of? ce of the Judge Advocate attorney that previously assisted an ALJ disquali? ed from General. It will meet semi-annually to discuss regulatory hearing that case and with decision makers responsible for issues or concerns, congressional inquiries, MISLE issues preparing proposed decisions on appeal. Coast Guard ALJs or concerns, procedural issues or concerns, training, action are also permitted to consult with one another on pending items, and new business. S&R Working Group meetings matters but are expected to avoid ex parte discussions with are not to discuss the merits of any pending S&R case.

an ALJ previously disquali? ed from hearing that case and

Sum up for us the core values of your group of Coast with decision makers responsible for preparing proposed

Guard professionals.

decisions on appeal or review. Taking action to address

Coast Guard ALJ’s carry out duties in an environment known misconduct is the ALJ’s obligation under the Model

Code of Judicial Conduct. To avoid communications with that re? ects the Coast Guard’s core values of honor, re- investigators, prosecutors, or appellate review personnel, spect, and devotion to duty. ALJ’s are dedicated to per-

ALJs shall report incidents of misconduct by a Coast Guard forming their duties fairly, impartially, and in a manner

Representative to the Director of Judicial Administration that secures the trust and con? dence of the regulated com- who will report the incident to the appropriate authority munity, the Coast Guard, and the general public.

June 2017

MN 16