September 10, 2012 Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye: Over the years, I have made a number of requests for

information from the AOC and/or Judicial Council. All have been handled by email without that mode of communication causing any difculty for either party. Recently, things have changed rather drastically. Suddenly, information requests that the AOC believes do not fall within Rule 10.500 are immediately sent to Justice Harry Hull for his handling. This includes even the most mundane, non-controversial requests. Also, Justice Hull apparently sits as a de facto appellate arbiter of requests under Rule 10.500 that have been denied in whole or in part by the AOC, and those that the AOC simply does not care to deal with. Justice Hull, having been somehow insinuated into the process, has instituted his own rules. He requires that any request thus forwarded to him by the AOC be resent to him--only via US mail--by the requester, and that all further correspondence be between him and the requester, and likewise be by U.S. mail. This is supposedly to insure an accurate record of the communications. We all know, or should by now, that email provides an everlasting and wholly accurate record for both sender and recipient. U.S. mail is slow, and provides no veriable record at all. Justice Hulls only stated reason for insisting on U.S. mail is not grounded in this reality, and his practice is apparently due to something else altogether. Oddly, this situation seems to exist only with judges identied with the Alliance of California Judges. I, for example, am a former director of that organization. I have spoken to the current directors of the Alliance about this, and they have also suddenly, and for the rst time, had their information requests referred to Justice Hull. We know of no other judge or justice who has the burden of going through this process. Last week I sent a three line email to Chad Finke of the AOC that simply sought to determine whether the AOC would reimburse appellate justices and/or trial court judges for attending the upcoming CJA conference, and if so, who had authorized this. Rather than simply answering the question (though his ofce will reportedly handle the reimbursements) Mr. Finke refused, referring the matter to Justice Hull. My dealings with Mr. Finke have always been cordial. I do not imagine that Mr. Finke has taken it upon himself to unilaterally change AOC policy--or his own formerly well-documented and normally cooperative practices--toward only certain judges. I imagine Mr. Finke is simply following orders. I mention this instance only to show you how petty and ridiculous the situation has become. My request to Mr. Finke was obviously an appropriate one, but even that simple request has been shunted to Justice Hull, who will, if things dont change, insist on a plodding course of U.S. mail exchange obviously designed to make it more difcult for certain judges to obtain needed information in a timely fashion.

Mr. Finke has also lately refused to turn over employee personnel information of the sort routinely revealed in the past, and clearly nonexempt under Rule 10.500. For example, the AOC has already revealed that 5 individuals were promoted at the AOC in the past few months, including one from the OGC. Mr. Finke refuses to divulge their names, claiming that this is personal, private information. (Under that rationale, the public would presumably have no right to even know that Ms. Patel and Mr. Child were recently promoted, I suppose.) In contrast to his denial of my request, recently the AOC obligingly released a list of roughly 100 AOC telecommuting employees to the press--all employees identied by name. Even more disturbingly, the clear policy of disadvantaging certain requesters seems to be tacitly endorsed and followed by the Council. On 9/2/12 I sent an email note to Justice Miller asking about the meaning of a particular motion re: the SEC report made at the 8/31/12 Council meeting. I sent my request for clarication of the motion to Justice Miller because he is the chair of the Executive and Planning Committee, which is responsible for the SEC report and implementation process. Justice Miller did not respond, and instead I received a letter from Justice Hull of the Rules Committee by U.S. mail informing me that Justice Miller had referred the question to him. Justice Hull asked that I mail him the question again, with my signature, and he would consider it. This instance is but one of the latest examples that I, and others, have been singled out for special treatment and retaliation. Justice Hull has no known authority or duty to deal with information requests, and no particularized knowledge making him a logical choice to handle all such matters, and certainly not the matters I have inquired about. Further, the Judicial Council website states clearly that information requests can be led by fax, U.S. mail, or email. Furthermore, the AOC, Council, and Court of Appeal all provide a llable form for those who wish to use email, though its use is not required. This information can be viewed at http://www.courts.ca.gov/publicrecords.htm. It is obvious that Justice Hull has been personally assigned to me, and to the current directors of the Alliance of California Judges, regardless of the nature of the request, and regardless of who might actually have the information to answer it. It appears to me and others that a high-level decision has been made to make life difcult for anyone afliated with the Alliance of California Judges when it comes to these requests. This suggests a personal embroilment quite incompatible with fairness, and is quite unprecedented. For example, when Justice Huffman--certainly no fan of the ACJ-headed the Executive and Planning Committee, we were always able to communicate by email, and to his credit, Justice Huffman always answered questions on his own when he had the information. The recent conduct of Justice Hull, Justice Miller and the AOC represents a step backward. Chief Justice, I ask that this unfair policy immediately be revoked, regardless of who originated it. I have already asked Justice Hull to cease his unreasonable practice of requiring U.S. mail correspondence only--please see my email sent to him this date which is set forth in full at the end of this email. The practice he has instituted violates the spirit of Rule 10.500, which, among other things, specically requires that information be provided in electronic form when it exists in that form. It further violates

that rules express policy that no unnecessary action be taken to delay requests, and the provision requiring that the rule be construed broadly to provide maximum access. Most of all, it violates the often repeated promise of AOC and Council transparency and openness. I further ask you to remind the Ofce of General Counsel that Rule 10.500 is mandatory rather than directory, and carries the force of law. Please also ask that OGC and others consider that Rule 10.500 constitutes a oor, not a ceiling--the Rule itself provides that the AOC is free to provide even greater access that that mandated by the rule. This is equally true of requests made to, or handled by, the Judicial Council. Information requests in the past have revealed numerous questionable AOC practices-faux hiring freezes; the larding on of temporary employees to disguise hiring during supposed freezes and to deate publicly released employee numbers; violations of existing personnel policies; unusual hiring practices relating to the OGC; inaccurate reporting of data to the public and to the legislature re: the CCMS project; the failure to accurately report work force numbers to the public; and a host of others. Many of these matters found their way into the SEC report, as did the very great difculty encountered by the SEC committee itself when trying to obtain information from the AOC during its 55 week investigation. Certainly the revelation of certain information has been embarrassing to the AOC and to some Council members, but this is no excuse to stonewall information requests. The solution to bad publicity is not the hiding of information. On August 31, 2012, Justice Corrigan pointed out quite eloquently and correctly the need for transparency, openness, communication and cooperation. She asked us all to resolve to work together as partners rather than ght as adversaries. Today, Council member Judge David Rosenberg publicly asked that all judges with complaints about governance issues bring them directly the Council. Additionally, the Council recently unanimously passed policies making it clear that the Council is under a duty to oversee the actions of the AOC. I ask that you, as Chair of the Council, take steps to see that the AOC and all members of the Council immediately and positively cooperate with judges making legitimate and good faith requests for information rather than setting up apparent discriminatory stumbling blocks. In the short term, I ask that Justice Hull either forego handling information requests, or that he handle only those appropriately within his purview, and without imposing arbitrary and unnecessary new rules of his own. In the long term, I suggest training for AOC employees as to Rule 10.500, and the case law interpreting its sister statutes, the California Public Records Act and the Legislative Open Records Act, both of which are referred to in the Rule as benchmarks for its interpretation. I do not speak for the Alliance of California judges, but I am fairly condent that any difculties that exist vis a vis information requests can be worked out if good judgment prevails over emotion. I would be more than happy to talk to Justice Miller, Justice Hull,

or anyone else you suggest about such a resolution. However, the current situation is simply not tolerable. Thank you. Charles Horan Judge, Ret.

Cc:! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Hon. Douglas P. Miller Hon. Harry Hull Ms. Jody Patel Mr. Chad Finke Hon. Steven Jahr, Ret. Mary Roberts Justice Carol Corrigan Directors, Alliance of California Judges

_____________________________________________ _____________________________________________

September 10, 2012 Dear Justice Hull: I have received your letter of 9/4/12. I repeat it verbatim here, in case you don't have a copy handy. ___________________ September 4, 2012 Dear Judge Horan: It is my understanding that you have made a further informal request to Chad Finke for information relating to AOC promotions in the last fiscal year. It is also my understanding that on Sunday, September 2 you made an informal request for information to Justice Doug Miller relating to the actions the Judicial Council took last week in approving and implementing the recommendations of the Executive and Planning Committee which dealt with the reorganization of the AOC. Those requests have been referred to me.

So that I have an exact record of the details of your requests, would you be good enough to send me a letter over your signature setting forth the information you are asking for? I can then consider a response to your inquiries. In the meantime, the report of the Judicial Council's action last week relating to restructuring of the AOC can be found at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/a8841.htm And the powerpoint presentation used at the Judicial Council meeting as it relates to a restructuring of the organizational chart of the Administrative Office of the Courts can be found at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/council proposedAOCOrg.pdf I might also note that, to the extent you are interested in requesting documents relating to these subjects, the procedure for doing so may be found at the following website: http://www.courts.ca.gov/publicrecords.htm Thank you. Harry E. Hull, Jr. ____________________ Justice Hull, I have already made my requests for this information via emails to Mr. Finke and to Justice Miller. The Judicial Council website specifically and unequivocally allows all information requests to be made by FAX, Email, or U.S. mail. In fact, it doesnt even foreclose telephonic requests, and simply notes that requests in formats other than the three listed may cause delay. That information can be found at http:// www.courts.ca.gov/publicrecords.htm. It is unreasonable for you to require that I make the requests again to you, via U.S. mail, simply because it has been decided (by someone) that you will handle my requests and, apparently, those of all individuals you perceive are affiliated with the Alliance of California Judges. Further, you obviously already have the requests you now insist that I mail to you, as your letter above fairly accurately summarizes their contents. Of course, if you have misplaced or deleted the emails forwarded to you by Justice Miller and Mr. Finke, I would be more than happy to resend those emails to you immediately. I do not intend to type them out again and mail them to you when no rule or policy requires it, save yours. I have never met you, Justice Hull. I have never made an unreasonable or burdensome request for information from the AOC or Council, and I don't believe anyone will claim otherwise. Your continued insistence, which began some weeks ago, of requiring U.S. mail correspondence between us as to all information requests you have taken it upon yourself to handle, so that you "may have an accurate record" of that correspondence, is frankly insulting. If I have done something to cause you to believe I am not to be trusted, please say so. Otherwise, I ask to be treated with the respect you would show to any other colleague.

If you are truly concerned with an "accurate record" of the correspondence, I point out again to you that electronic mail is quick, accurate, and leaves an absolutely unquestioned record of the correspondence, for both sender and receiver, while U.S. mail does not. Your practice seems more designed to ensure delay and to make it unreasonably difficult for judges and others to obtain simple information, and to disseminate it to others. This will certainly do little to ease tensions and foster future cooperation and, respectfully, is not a wise use of your authority. I ask again that you reconsider your practice. On another point: On 9/5/12 I sent an email to Mr. Finke. Here it is in its entirety: I have been told that the AOC will reimburse for up to $300 for appellate justices to attend the next CJA conference. Is that true? Is AOC also reimbursing for judges? Was this a decision of the Chief Justice, AOC, or...? CH I immediately received this response from Mr. Finke: Judge Horan, In that your request is not seeking judicial administrative records, I am referring it to Justice Hull for consideration. Thanks, Chad If you follow your now-established policy of writing me a letter requiring me to restate my question via U.S. mail to you, and then send your eventual response via U.S. mail, a three week or more process will have been undertaken, all quite needlessly. The information sought could and should have been quickly imparted via email to me by Mr. Finke in the rst instance, and would have been, had the request been made by anyone not publicly identied with the Alliance. You and I both know that. The question was properly directed to Mr. Finke, whose ofce will handle the reimbursement requests for the CJA meeting. Additionally, Mr. Finke handles most, if not all, information requests for the AOC. There can be no question but that the request was a proper one. The AOCs refusal to answer such a simple question appears to me to be stonewalling, plain and simple. You should not enable or assist the AOC in this sort of obfuscation by allowing them to forward such requests to you for your special form of handling. Again, I object to the unwieldy and unfair process that has been instituted for me and apparently also for others afliated with the Alliance of California Judges. This smacks of retaliation for speaking out, and sharing information--often obtained through the very process under discussion--with our fellow judges and others. Thank you. Charles Horan

Judge, Ret. Cc: Ms. Jody Patel Mr. Chad Finke Hon. Douglas P. Miller