Before the Presiding Judges of the
Administrative Judicial Regions
Per Curiam Rule 12
Decision
APPEAL NO.:
02-001
RESPONDENT: Administrative District Judge Jerry
Calhoon
DATE:
June 7, 2002
SPECIAL COMMITTEE: Judge John Ovard,
Judge B. B. Schraub, Judge Olen Underwood, Judge Darrell Hester, Judge Jeff
Walker
The applicant requested records from the constitutional
county judge and from the county auditor related to an investigation and
consultation billed to the county and paid for with county funds. The request was denied by the county
judge, and the auditor stated that she had no such records. The applicant then requested the same
information from Judge Jerry Calhoon, who was both district judge of the
349th judicial district and also the administrative district judge,
Aindividually, and as supervisor of the County Auditor,
and County Judge.@ The
applicant also acknowledged that Judge Calhoon did not have the records, but
stated that his Aemployees in the auditor=s office@ did have such records.
Judge Calhoon replied that he had no such records, and
that he was not required to answer questions propounded in the request. The applicant has filed a petition for
review. In his response to the
petition, Judge Calhoon correctly states that the employees in the county
auditor=s office and the county judge are not his employees and
are not under his supervision or control.
Judge Calhoon does not have the records in his
possession or under his control, and has not denied access to those
records. Pursuant to Rule 12.6(f),
he should have attempted to ascertain who the custodian of the records was, referred the request to that person, and
notified the requestor in writing of such referral. If he could not ascertain who had
custody of the records, he should have notified the requestor in writing that he
was not the custodian of the record and could not ascertain who the custodian
was.