Case Title: In re Honolulu Community-Media Council, Society of Professional Journalists, Hawaii Chapter

Citation: 121 Haw. 179

Docket Number: 30046

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawaii Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

 

.000-

 

 

In the Matter of the

HONOLULU COMMUNITY-MEDIA COUNCIL, SOCIETY OF
PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS, HAWAI‘T CHAPTER,

 

Petitioner.
no. 30046 qg 8
y 2
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING te -
(Motion for Waiver of Copying Fees) - ~
z
SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 -

 

MOON, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, DUFFY, AND RECKTENWALD, JU:

Per Curian. By means of an August 28, 2009 letter to
the Chief Justice, the Honolulu Community-Media Council and the
Society of Professional Journalists (Hetitioners) seek waiver of
fees for copying judicial financial disclosure statements. we
accept the letter as a ‘motion for waiver of copying fees’ in an
original proceeding and deny the motion.

‘he Petitioners made similar requests in February and
March 2003. The requests were denied by order of this court on
March 13, 2009. ‘The March 13, 2009 order concluded that

Petitioners had failed to state good cause for waiver of the

 

copying fees. In support of the current request for waiver of

copying fees, Petitioners assert they have obtained an opinion

 

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

from the Office of Information Practices (OIP) that concludes
judicial financial disclosure documents are subject to the
uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA), chapter 92F of the
Hawai'i Revised Statutes. Petitioners argue it is in the public
interest, as defined by Hawai‘i administrative Rules (HAR)

§ 2-71-32(b) to waive the copying costs. As

 

cussed below, we
conclude that the OrP’s guly 8, 2009 menorandun opinion is wrong.
‘The records of Judicial Financial Disclosure statements
are not mere "administrative records concerning the management of
personnel subject to disclosure under the UIPA.* The oIP
concludes that Judicial Financial Disclosure statements are
records related to the supreme court's executive or
administrative functions. However, Judicial Financial Disclosure
Statenents are judicial records, created and governed by Rule 15
of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH),
promulgated by this court pursuant to its inherent and
constitutional judicial authority to regulate judges. The
records created by RSCH Rule 15 form an evidentiary basis for
motions to disqualify judges and justices and may also provide
evidence that can be used to discipline judges and justices. The
authority to promulgate rules and keep records with regard to
judicial qualification and discipline matters (1) fall within the
scope of the court's power to adjudicate, and (2) is inherently
intertwined with such adjudicative power. Therefore, the rules
and records are not subject to HRS chapter 92F nor OIP review.
cf. Ince Kading, 235 N.W.2d 409, 412 (Wis. 1975) (adoption of
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

judicial code and financial disclosure rule were actions
performed by the supreme court under its inherent power to
function as the supreme and superintending court)

We have previously noted that the separation of powers
doctrine ‘is intended to preclude a commingling of
essentially different powers of government in the same hands and
thereby prevent a situation where one department would be
controlled by, or subjected, directly or indirectly to the
coercive influence of either of the other departments." See,
g.g., Pray v. Judicial Selection Comm'n, 75 Haw. 333, 353, 861
P.2d 723, 732 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted); cf. Bester v. Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar
Admissions, 779 So. 24 715, 721 (La. 2001) (*the inherent powers
doctrine exists as a protective mechanism to ensure our
independence as the head of a separate branch of state
government"; declining to apply public records law to bar
admission records) .

In our tripartite system of government, judicial
functions, such as promulgating rules and keeping records with
regard to judicial qualification and discipline matters, are not
subject to interference by an executive administrative agency.
Qudicial Financial Disclosure statements are subject to
disclosure under RSCH Rule 15(g), not the UIPA. Thus, HAR
§ 2-71-32(b) is not applicable. Accordingly, with regard to
records created through the exercise of our inherent and

constitutional judicial authority to regulate judges, we cannot

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

permit the OIP to “control . . . or subject [thie court],
directly or indirectlyl,] to [its] coercive influence." Bray, 75
Haw, at 353, 961 P.2d at 732 (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted)

‘The supreme court is currently seeking comments
regarding revisions to RSCH Rule 15 and the financial disclosure
statement form, anticipated to be adopted effective January 1,
2010, The recent and anticipated amendments to the form are
designed to make necessary disclosures while protecting the
safety and security of judges and their families. Judges will be
required to make their financial disclosures on the revised form,
‘The disclosures are due on or before April 30, 2010, These
disclosure statements will be posted on the judiciary’s website
thereafter.

With regard to Petitioner’s motion, this court may
waive copying fees upon a showing of good cause under Rule 45(e)
of the Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure. In determining
whether good cause exists, this court requires applicants to make
a credible showing of indigency. Petitioners have failed to
establish indigency, and accordingly, the motion for waiver of

the copying fees is denied.