Category Archives: PACER

On PACER – New Letter from Senator Lieberman

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Lieberman recently sent his annual letter to Senate Appropriators detailing the funding needed for government management, which includes material on PACER.
(The full letter appears below.)

With regard to PACER, Senator Lieberman states: “As a result, funds collected by the $.08-per-page charge have been used for initiatives that are unrelated to providing public access via PACER and against the requirement of the E-Government Act. The Appropriations Committee should review the Judiciary Information Technology Fund Report provided each year to ensure the funds generated from PACER are only going to pay for the direct costs of disseminating documents via PACER, and not for additional items which I believe should be funded through direct appropriations.”

We will see what happens next….

For more commentary on this topic, see Steve Schultze’s Managing Miracles.

March 25, 2010

The Honorable Richard Durbin

Chairman

Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government

Committee on Appropriations

184 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Susan Collins

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government

Committee on Appropriations

125 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Collins:

Thank you for affording me the opportunity to provide my views.  I hope the following recommendations and comments will assist you as your subcommittee deliberates on the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2011.

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

I remain deeply concerned that the Administration has not yet nominated anyone for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, and reconstituted by the 2007 Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act.  The 9/11 Commission recognized that without adequate oversight the vital work of combating terrorism could tread dangerously close to intruding on core rights and liberties, and urged creation of this Board to help advise on and review the nation’s policies against terrorism with an eye toward safeguarding key freedoms. While we applaud the hard work of the original Board, in 2007 Congress concluded that the panel needed more independence and reconstituted it as an independent agency outside the Executive Office of the President. Unfortunately, the effort to create a stronger Board has, thus far, resulted in no board at all. I once again urge the President to put forward nominees for the Board without delay, and I urge the Appropriations Committee to fund it at a robust level. The authorizing legislation originally recommended funding of $10 million by FY 2011. While it is questionable that a new Board could effectively spend that much in its first year, I recommend that the Board receive funding to begin as strongly as feasible, certainly well above the President’s request of $1.68 million.

Office of Electronic Government and the Electronic Government Fund

This year the Administration requested $35 million in the General Services Administration (GSA) budget for the E-Government Fund for the establishment of pilots relating to cloud computing, collaborative platforms, and transparency and participation. In FY 2009 the Administration rolled out a number of ambitious initiatives, including data.gov, the IT Dashboard, and apps.gov, which have increased transparency and have begun to illustrate the potential for reducing costs and increasing transparency across the government by using information technology. The additional funds requested for FY 2010 will be used to further modernize government systems and pave the way for greater savings. For that reason, I fully support the Administration’s request for $35 million for this effort.

In addition, the Administration has requested $50 million for the Integrated, Efficient and Effective Uses of Information Technology fund in the budget for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These funds would both further implement pilots originally developed under the E-Government Fund and assist with project management and guidance for information technology projects. While I believe this is an important goal and support the amounts requested, this funding should be included with the $35 million for the statutorily-created E-Government fund – which is required to report to Congress on its expenditures. Funding these initiatives, along with the additional project management tools, will lower costs and allow departments and agencies to provide additional services in less time. As a result, we are likely to see more results from our information technology expenditures and greater savings in future fiscal years.

Given the important role of the E-Government Office in managing these funds and its additional responsibilities, I also believe that the Congress should increase the appropriation for OMB to allow for additional staff for this office.  Currently, the E-Government Office has approximately 13 FTEs with the statutory responsibility to manage the information technology budget across the entire Federal government – which will add up to over $79 billion in the FY 2011 budget request. In addition, the E-Government Office has responsibilities – shared with the Department of Homeland Security – over the security of Federal information systems, but has limited staff to assist in this key priority. Given the office’s role, I recommend that the budget for OMB be increased by $3 million to allow for the hiring of additional staff in the E-Government Office.

Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)

I have concerns about how the Administrative Office of the Courts is interpreting a key provision of the E-Government Act relating to public access to Court records. Given the transparency efforts that have been made a priority across the Federal Government – as well as the recent call in the FCC’s Broadband plan for increased online access to court records – I believe more attention needs to be paid to make these records free and easily accessible.

As you know, Court documents are electronically disseminated through the PACER system, which charges $.08-a-page for access. While charging for access was previously required, Section 205(e) of the E-Government Act changed a provision of the Judicial Appropriation Act of 2002 (28 U.S.C. 1913 note) so that courts “may, only to the extent necessary” (instead of “shall”) charge fees “for access to information available through automatic data processing equipment.” The Committee report stated: “[t]he Committee intends to encourage the Judicial Conference to move from a fee structure in which electronic docketing systems are  supported primarily by user fees to a fee structure in which this information is freely available to the greatest extent possible… Pursuant to existing law, users of PACER are charged fees that are higher than the marginal cost of disseminating the information.”

Since the passage of the E-Government Act, the vision of having information “freely available to the greatest extent possible” is far from being met, despite the technological innovations that should have led to reduced costs in the past eight years. In fact, cost for these documents has gone up, from $.07 to $.08-per-page. The Judiciary has attempted to mitigate the shortcomings of the current fee approach in a variety of ways, including limiting charges to $2.40-per-document and the recent announcement that any charges less than $10-per-quarter will be waived. While these efforts should be commended, I continue to have concerns that these steps will not dramatically increase public access as long as the pay-per-access model continues.

To move closer to the mandate of the E-Government Act, the Administrative Office of the Courts should reevaluate the current PACER pay-per-access model. Even to retrieve free materials such as opinions, PACER currently requires the individual to establish a PACER account. One goal of this review should be to create a payment system that is used only to recover the direct cost of distributing documents via PACER. That review should also examine how a payment system could allow for free bulk access to raw data that would allow increased analytical and oversight capability by third parties.

Additionally, in 2007, the Judiciary asked for and received written consent from the Appropriations Committees to “expand use of Electronic Public Access (EPA) receipts to support courtroom technology allotments for installation, cyclical replacement of equipment, and infrastructure maintenance.” As a result, funds collected by the $.08-per-page charge have been used for initiatives that are unrelated to providing public access via PACER and against the requirement of the E-Government Act. The Appropriations Committee should review the Judiciary Information Technology Fund Report provided each year to ensure the funds generated from PACER are only going to pay for the direct costs of disseminating documents via PACER, and not for additional items which I believe should be funded through direct appropriations.

Modernization of Acquisition Systems

I support the President’s request for an additional $20.5 million for the General Services Administration for the purpose of modernizing the Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE), which consists of eight major data systems, including the Federal Procurement Data System, Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps.gov), the Excluded Parties List, and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System.  These systems support over 40,000 federal procurement professionals, 600,000 vendors, over $523 billion in annual procurement spending, and over eight million transactions per year.  Unfortunately, despite depending on the same underlying data, these systems were developed over the years in a stove-piped manner and therefore are disjointed and difficult to use.  Modernization of IAE will help the federal acquisition workforce make smarter contracting decisions and ensure that contracts are not awarded to irresponsible parties or to companies that have been debarred or suspended.  In addition, providing easier access to information about federal procurement opportunities would enhance competition by attracting a larger pool of potential bidders.  Finally, a modernized IAE would provide greater transparency to the American public and the Congress on federal contract spending.  I am convinced that this investment in IAE will pay for itself over time.

Acquisition Workforce

The President’s budget requests $24.9 million for the General Services Administration for government-wide efforts to strengthen the acquisition workforce through better training, certification, and workforce management.  The number of acquisition professionals in the federal government simply has not kept pace with the explosive growth in federal contracting over the last decade.  Moreover, more than half of the acquisition workforce will be eligible to retire over the next eight years. We therefore are fast approaching a crisis unless we recruit and train a skilled workforce that can promote competition, get the best value for the government, and guard against waste, fraud and abuse in federal contracting.  I understand that there may be some unobligated balances in the Acquisition Workforce Training Fund that may be available to help fund the President’s proposed initiative. While taking those funds into account, I urge the Committee to provide a sufficient amount to fund the proposed initiative.

Office of Federal Procurement Policy

I am extremely concerned that the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) within the Office of Management and Budget lacks adequate personnel to carry out its mission of providing overall government-wide direction for procurement policies, regulations, and procedures.  While total federal spending on goods and services has risen dramatically over the last decade, from $189 billion in 1999 to over $523 billion in 2009, the staffing level at OFPP has remained stagnant at roughly a dozen FTE’s, including administrative support.  Both under legislative mandate and at President Obama’s direction, OFPP is responsible for reducing waste and abuse in contracting by promoting competition, preventing misuse of cost-plus contracts, bringing rationale to the interagency contracting process, mitigating conflicts of interest, and ensuring that inherently-governmental work is performed by federal employees.  Each of these areas is highly complex and requires strong government-wide leadership from OFPP to bring greater efficiency and integrity to federal contracting.  I therefore recommend that, at a minimum, the appropriation for OFPP be doubled, from $3 million to $6 million.

United States Postal Service

The United States Postal Service (USPS or Postal Service) continues to experience accelerated declines in mail volume and revenue, primarily due to the current economic crisis and the electronic diversion of mail.  In fiscal year 2009, the Postal Service recorded a loss of $3.8 billion and USPS ended the first quarter of this fiscal year (October 1 to December 31, 2009) with a net loss of $297 million.  The Postmaster General recently indicated that, without substantial changes, losses will be even more substantial going forward.

Therefore, as Congress works with the Postal Service on long-term solutions, I recommend that we consider providing the Postal Service with additional financial relief in FY 2011.  One option, recommended by the Postal Service, is to allow USPS to restructure its required payments into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund.  Currently, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (P.L. 109-435) requires the Postal Service to pre-pay its retiree health benefits obligations for future retirees into the Fund, while it makes payments for current retirees.  Thus, restructuring the Postal Service’s payments into the Fund would provide USPS with financial relief during this economic downturn.

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

I support the $460 million in the President’s budget request for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The role of the National Archives in protecting and preserving our national heritage continues to be critical – particularly as the number of records it preserves and protects increases exponentially. Furthermore, in recent years, NARA has received many additional responsibilities, including the establishment of the National Declassification Center last year and the creation of the Office of Government Information Services to oversee Freedom of Information Act activities government-wide. In 2008, NARA was designated as the lead agency for the implementation of the Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) framework, which is intended to streamline the use of sensitive, unclassified information within the federal government.

I also believe that the appropriation for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) should be increased from $10 million to $13 million. The NHPRC supports the efforts of NARA to preserve and publish any material relating to the history of the United States. In the last Congress, this Committee passed the Presidential Historical Records Preservation Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-404), which gave additional responsibilities to the NHPRC to make grants to preserve records of former Presidents, provide online access to the documents of the founding fathers, and create a database for records of servitude, emancipation, and post-Civil War reconstruction. I believe these important missions require additional funding for the Commission to allow it to also continue its traditional role in protecting the records that define this country.

* * * * *

I appreciate this opportunity to comment on issues of concern to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Sincerely,

Joseph I. Lieberman
Chairman

PACER pace picks up

Posted on by
Reply

PACER Service Center Maintains Busy Pace
 
The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) System has attracted 65,000 new accounts since fiscal year 2010 began October 1, 2009, keeping the PACER Service Center busy.

At the halfway point of the fiscal year, the PACER Service Center responded to 70,000 telephone calls and 17,000 emails.
 
http://www.uscourts.gov/newsroom/2010/PACERsBusyPace.cfm

Judiciary Approves PACER Innovations To Enhance Public Access

Posted on by
1

http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/2010/JudicialConferenceMar2010.cfm

NEWS RELEASE

Judiciary Approves PACER Innovations To Enhance Public Access

 
Contact:
 David Sellers, 202-502-2600

 
March 16, 2010 –  The Judicial Conference of the United States today approved key steps to improve public access to federal courts by increasing the availability of court opinions and expanding the services and reducing the costs for many users of the Public Access to Electronic Court Records (PACER) system. At its biannual meeting in Washington, D.C., the Conference voted to:

 
 
� Allow courts, at the discretion of the presiding judge, to make digital audio recordings of court hearings available online to the public through PACER, for $2.40 per audio file.

� Adjust the Electronic Public Access fee schedule so that users are not billed unless they accrue charges of more than $10 of PACER usage in a quarterly billing cycle, in effect quadrupling the amount of data available without charge. Currently, users are not billed until their accounts total at least $10 in a one-year period.

� Approve a pilot in up to 12 courts to publish federal district and bankruptcy court opinions via the Government Printing Office’s Federal Digital System (FDsys) so members of the public can more easily search across opinions and across courts.

The Conference approved the plan to make digital audio recordings available on PACER after a two-year pilot project showed significant public interest in accessing these files. Prior to the pilot, such access was possible only by obtaining a CD recording from a court clerk�s office for $26. During the pilot, Internet access to the same content cost eight cents, but the $2.40 fee approved today was deemed by the Conference to be reasonable and come closest to recouping, but not exceeding, costs. Digital audio recording is used in most bankruptcy and district courts (where magistrate judges account for most of the usage).

For printed court documents, the $10 fee waiver affects tens of thousands of PACER users. In fiscal year 2009, about 153,000 PACER account holders�nearly half of all active accounts� did not receive a bill. For that 12-month period, a quarterly waiver would have affected an additional 85,000 accounts� resulting in 75 percent of all active accounts not receiving bills. Analysis of fiscal year 2008 billing data showed a similar impact.

As mandated by Congress, electronic access to court information is funded through reasonable user fees, and not through taxes paid by the general public. Last year, PACER received more than 360 million requests for electronic access to information from the over 33 million federal cases that have documents online. The Electronic Public Access fee revenue is used exclusively to fund program expenses and enhancements that increase public access to the courts. As a result, PACER is a very economical service: the charge for accessing filings, other than opinions, is just eight cents per page, with a maximum charge of $2.40 regardless of the length of a document. At federal courthouses, public access terminals provide free PACER access to view filings in that court, as well as economical printouts (priced at ten cents per page). The charge for copies from the paper case file in the clerk’s office was–and remains–50 cents a page.

All court opinions are available through PACER free of charge, and that will not change. The pilot project to make bankruptcy and district court opinions also available through the Government Printing Office’s system will enhance public access to those opinions.

The Judiciary is conducting a comprehensive assessment of its Electronic Public Access Program services to identify potential enhancements to existing services and new public access services that can be provided to litigants, the bar, and the public. All active PACER users were welcomed to participate in at least one of the assessment surveys, focus groups, or interviews. The results of that assessment will be available by July 2010.

The US Party/Case Index is a tool that enables users to locate a case across the federal courts. The application has been running in its current format since September 1999, and currently receives over 200,000 searches daily. A new version of the search tool, which includes additional search capabilities and result formats, has been developed and will be deployed under the new name PACER Case Locator this month.

PACER Survey for Everyone

Posted on by
Reply

Recently, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts  launched a PACER Online Satisfaction Survey. [PACER=Public Access to Court Electronic Records]

As the A.O. is trying to get feedback from PACER users, only individuals with a PACER account may take this survey.  (Question #2 on the survey asks for your PACER account information.  You are not able to skip past Question #2)

This made me wonder: 

  • Are there folks that might want to take this survey that aren’t holders of a PACER account?
    For example, our students in Advanced Legal Research get to see what PACER looks like, but don’t have an account.  Many folks who used PACER during the pilot program might also have comments but may not have an account.  Etc. 
  • Are there individuals with PACER accounts that would prefer not to provide their account information in the survey? 
    [You are unable to skip past Question 2 which asks for the account information.]  Although the survey claims to be completely confidential, there might be folks who would prefer to answer the survey anonymously.
  • What about organizations that share a single PACER account? 
    The survey is geared to a single response from each account holder.  There might be others, such as librarians in a firm or at a school, that want to each provide unique feedback.
  • There is another category of people who might want to take the survey — students who we log on.  Sometimes they are very heavy users (e.g., $ 500) and might have some very valuable feedback.

So, after thinking about those questions, we decided to copy the core questions from the PACER survey on the A.O. site and create a second, more-open survey.

This “PACER Survey for Everyone” does not ask you to provide a PACER account number (and it doesn’t ask you for your name, as is the case in optional Question #3 on the A.O. survey).    However, all of the other questions remain the same.

This survey allows anyone, users and non-users alike, to provide the simple feedback on PACER that the A.O. wants right now.

We plan to share the results of this survey with the A.O. so they can compare and analyze this other layer of feedback.  We hope that it is useful for all.  We also plan to post the results online here, too.

RECAP: cracking open US courtrooms

Posted on by
Reply

Any mention of PACER or RECAP will get our attention.   Just this week, RECAP made the news across the pond.  “RECAP: cracking open US courtrooms:  Access to US legal files is being transformed by a Napster-like sharing system called RECAP” by Bobbie Johnson appeared in the Guardian (11/11/2009).
The article starts off: “The legal system is often accused of lagging behind the technological curve – indeed, it is only a couple of years since a high court judge made headlines by saying: “I don’t really understand what a website is.” He later said that the remarks were taken out of context.”  [For more on *that* judge, see here and here.]

Quickly, Johnson moves on to discuss the development of PACER, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court’s site for Public Access to Court Electronic Records.  (And, blogged about a lot on this site, here, here and here….)

The article continues:

“Their RECAP tool, as the name suggests, aims to turn PACER on its head: by making legal documents more easily available, and dramatically reducing the cost.

“All of the stuff in Pacer is, essentially, part of the law of the land,” says Harlan Yu, a Princeton PhD student and one of the trio behind Recap. “Our nation is governed by laws, and we feel like the law should be accessible to all. And being accessible, in this day and age, means that the law should be online where it’s most accessible to citizens in a way that is free.”"

As the article closes, it brings up some of the privacy concerns confronting RECAP and PACER right now.

 

“For advocates, the bigger question is whether PACER objects: opening access to legal documents is an important part of expanding free data and free information. After all, it was Thomas Jefferson – who made his living practicing the law, among other things – who said that “information is the currency of democracy”.”

For now, the A.O. is in the midst of a survey and evaluation of PACER and the pilot program might re-launch sometime soon. . .In the meantime, go ahead and install RECAP on your library machines.



PACER User Survey from the A.O.

Posted on by
1

Want to give the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts feedback on PACER?  Now is your chance.

See this new announcement on the PACER Service Center website:

The Federal Judiciary has undertaken a year-long, comprehensive program assessment. The goal of the assessment is to identify potential enhancements to existing services and new public access services that could be provided. We are gathering information through focus groups, interviews, and surveys. Please be aware you may be solicited about your views about PACER and our services with an eye towards what you, the customer, would like to see in the future.

To assist with this effort, users of PACER may participate in a short survey regarding their satisfaction with current services and any suggestions for potential enhancements. This survey will remain available to users for approximately 30 days. Please click on the following link to take this survey, and we thank you in advance for helping to improve public access to federal court documents and information:


If you have any questions about this assessment, please contact the PACER Service Center at pacer@psc.uscourts.gov.

Judicial Information Management in an Electronic Age: Old Standards, New Challenges

Posted on by
1

“Judicial Information Management in an Electronic Age: Old Standards, New Challenges”

Federal Courts Law Review, Forthcoming

PETER A. WINN, University of Washington School of Law

Under well established law, information in court records is open to the public, but it may be sealed upon a fact-based showing either that the information is not a matter of legitimate public concern or is sufficiently sensitive to need such protection. Under the former paper-based court record system, however, routine violations of these publcity standards were widely tolerated. At the same time, the practical obscurity of paper provided a default privacy benefit for negligently unsealed sensitive information. With the introduction of electonic filing, old improper sealing practices are now increasingly being exposed and criticised; while the dealth of practical obscurity has caused individuals with sensitive information in court files, to be increasingly exposed to harm. This article argues that restoring an appropriate homeostasis to the judicial information eco-system, where legitimate privacy and publicity interests are both protected, does not require replacing established common law standards; but it will require the adoption of new legal procedures, better use of information technologies, and more careful training of judges and lawyers. Ultimately, to properly achieve this goal, the existing common law adversarial system of information mangement will need to be supplemented by a new administrative model.

Source:  LSN Information Privacy Law Vol. 2 No. 34,  10/07/2009

Electronic Public Access Program/PACER Assessment Begun

Posted on by
Reply

From the September issue of the Third Branch:

“The Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program is looking for user input. The program, which recently celebrated its one-millionth Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) subscriber, has launched a year-long, comprehensive assessment to identify potential enhancements to existing and new public access services.

Focus groups, interviews, and surveys are being used to gather information on what PACER users would like to see in the program. The assessment initiative was endorsed by the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access working group in 2008, begun in early 2009, and is slated to conclude in 2010.

“This is a comprehensive effort to listen to our users and hear what they have to say,” said Michel Ishakian, chief of the Administrative Office’s Public Access and Records Management Division. “Their input will help define the next generation of PACER and how we expand public access services.”

PACER enables users to obtain federal court case and docket information for all 94 district courts, 90 bankruptcy courts, and 13 courts of appeals on the Internet. PACER currently provides access to 500 million case documents, which are available immediately after they have been electronically filed.

The diverse user population includes lawyers, litigants who represent themselves, government agencies, trustees, researchers, educational institutions, commercial enterprises, financial institutions, the media, and the general public. The Congressionally authorized Electronic Public Access fee revenue is used exclusively to fund program expenses and enhancements that increase public access to the courts, including court websites, electronic bankruptcy noticing, on-line juror services, Violent Crime Control Act victim notification, the Case Management/Electronic Case Files system, and a digital audio project offering recordings of court proceedings. The fee is set by the Judicial Conference at $0.08 per page; there is a $2.40 maximum charge for any single document, no matter its length; the fee does not apply to opinions– which are available through PACER free of charge; and the fee is waived for usage amounting to less than $10.00 per year. In fiscal year 2008,

50 percent of PACER users did not pay fees as a result of fee waivers and exemptions.

Additional information on the assessment, including how to participate, can be found at www.pacer.gov or www.uscourts.gov.”

As the Court’s assessment will be ongoing until 2010, I should remind you that we are also close to our original goal of 1000 signatures on the Improve PACER petition.  Please sign and comment.  We will send an updated list of signatures to the A.O. in the coming weeks.

PACER – “Lessons Learned” October 2009

Posted on by
Reply
This just in…”In October 2009, the GPO and the Administrative Office will be holding a “Lessons Learned” focus group session with the librarians who participated in the pilot to pin point what worked and what could be improved.”

Improve PACER Petition Delivered

Posted on by
2
On Friday, September 11, Terry Martin (Texas/Harvard), Kumar Jayasuriya (Georgetown) and Erika Wayne (Stanford) delivered the Improve PACER petition  to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and presented the petition to others in government.

 

The petition, signed at that point by 939  law librarians, legal scholars, government depository librarians and others, asks for improved accessibility, usability and authentication for PACER.  In particular, the petition asks for free access to PACER in Federal Depository libraries, enhanced search capabilities, and authentication of filings with digital signatures.

 

Law school library directors from over one third of American law schools signed the petition. Almost every academic law library in the nation was represented in the petition, and academic law librarians represented the largest percentage of signatories.  Some of the top names in the legal academy and leaders in technology are among the signers of the petition.

 

Many of the signers provided specific suggestions for improving PACER.

 

During the day, we briefed representatives from the GPO, LLOC and congressional staffers on the petition.  We received lots of useful feedback.

 

In the early afternoon, we formally delivered the petition to senior officials at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.  The folks at the A.O. were very gracious; we spent an hour there, talking about the petition and about PACER in general.  Officials from the A.O. explained that they are in the process of evaluating PACER, so the timing of the petition could not have been better.

 

On Friday, we advocated in D.C. for all law librarians and legal researchers, and it was fun change of pace.  But, to have the most impact, the campaign for improving PACER has to start with each and every one of us.  If you feel strongly about this, send an e-mail to your representatives in Congress or write a letter to the A.O.  Blog and tweet about it.

 

The petition is still open.  Please sign it if you haven’t already.  We are close to our original goal of 1000 signatures, and more signatures show strong interest.  When you do sign please provide specific recommendations.

 

We librarians are terrific at training and educating.  Take a few minutes to talk to friends, fellow librarians (especially outside of law libraries), lawyers and professors, students and patrons and tell them all about PACER (and CM/ECF).  Most importantly, tell them *why* PACER is important and vital and useful.   Let them know why you signed the petition (or why you didn’t — it all matters).

 

Education, outreach and feedback from the law library community can and will make a difference in this arena.  It just might not happen overnight.  And, it won’t happen without sustained interest in improving PACER.

 

[Special posting, jointly authored by Terry Martin, Kumar Jayasuriya and Erika Wayne.]