Although the Board has done a good job in standardizing litigation practices throughout the nation among the regional offices, the practices, attitudes, and civility of judges varies considerably, not to mention their competence. Other than reviewing decisions of administrative judges through the petition for review process, I cannot recall the Board having conducted surveys of participants in Board proceedings to determine their comments with respect to individual judges.

It would probably be of considerable benefit to regional directors as well as to Board members and executives within the Board to know the comments by frequent practitioners concerning individual judges, region by region, with those comments structured in a manner to secure objective commentary rather than very generalized characterization of traits of those judges.

If the Board is to become a more attractive institution with respect to those who litigate before it, and if the Board is to avoid legislative efforts to exclude it from adjudicatory processes, the Board is going to have to take measure of itself and make some changes. Those changes cannot effectively be made without the participation of those who frequently appear before the Board. In short, the Board cannot continue to exist in a vacuum and expect to receive the support as an institution of those who appear before it not by choice but by statutory direction.

I suggest that the Board establish an advisory group of practitioners and academicians in this field to suggest means by which the Board can better assess its operations and through which proposals for reform can be made.